Talk:Brandon Sanderson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Note

Entsuropi: (24/may/05) Modified SE's original template, added overview of Elantris.

I think it would be best to keep things in the article to publicly available facts.

Peter Ahlstrom

Peter, I edited some of your changes. They were all in the Elantris summary section. Your editing made the passage incorrect :) -Entsuropi

It was still technically correct, but then someone else changed punctuation and deleted a couple words in a "fmt" edit, making it incorrect... —Peter

No synopses for the books? Why not?

Please explain exactly why the books should not each have a synopsis here, Painbearer. They add to the usefulness of the article, which is a stub without those synopses. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See further discussion on this topic over here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Regarding External Links

People keep adding and removing links to fantasyliterature.net's page on Brandon Sanderson. The same is being done on other author's pages on wikipedia including Robert Jordan. This needs to be discussed here on the talk page instead of just a back and forth add, remove, add, remove, ad nauseum.

Why should that page be linked? Why shouldn't it? I'm personally of the opinion that once you include one link to a page with reviews (which is the only thing of substance not found on the wikipedia page) opens the floodgates to all other sites which may have reviews. I have not nor will I add or remove the link in question, but some consensus should be reached here.Caidh (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to keep removing perfectly legitimate links, JzG and WLU, how about providing something as an alternative? The reviews on that page are perfectly good reviews, and there are THREE of them.
As for the "floodgates" argument, I don't see any merit to it. Each site should be judged on its own, not allowed just because another site was added. If a better one comes along, replace the link. Until then, linking to SOMETHING is better than linking to NOTHING. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes but who is todo the judging and decided when something better comes along? The reason for the external link guideline, is to avoid POV edit wars and or linkfarms. For example this edit re added links to outdated Interview(some which don't even work), whose material is already covered in the aticle. 79.180.191.148 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


So, can we replace it? I'd like to mention that we have book synopses, also. Kahooper (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

If you have book synoses, you could use them to expand the brief summary of the books' contents, but citing them wouldn't be appropriate as the actual book is its own source.
I have looked at the site and I still see no merit in adding it, though we could take this further to a RFC if desired. To me, the page is still the opinions of individuals not noted for their insight or professional qualifications in reviewing fantasy literature. Who says they are good reviews, legitemate reviews or that we need reviews at all? We don't link to amazon pages of reviews, despite there being potentially thousands. Further, a lack of external links reviewing the books is not a reason to add more. WLU (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to consolidate this discussion (which seems to be in several places and is making me dizzy), so let's continue here.

Kahooper (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

Suggesting Link to FantasyLiterature.net

At my website we have synopses, book cover art, and reviews of Brandon Sanderson's work. I'm suggesting a link: http://www.fantasyliterature.net/sandersonbrandon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahooper (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


red links removal

I removed the red links from the Elantris section. since this is a stand-alone novel I don't think these characters will (or should) get a page of their own —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafu25 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DOB

Any source for the day he was born in Dec 1975? That way we can use the template that automatically calculates age instead of updating it manually . - Merzbow (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I could call and ask him (I know him decently well), but we can't use me as a source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I have started a proposal to create Wikiproject: Wheel of Time (or at least a Task Force). Please comment here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Books

Why do we list Book V of Alcatraz if it is not under contract from Scholastic? Jamhaw (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

Suggestion of link

Hi guys, I'd like to suggest a link to www.adonalsium.net as they are currently the biggest and most active fansite for Brandon Sanderson and all his works.

94.210.189.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

Additional sources

He just had a few articles published about him:

Feel free to add more here as they pop up. There may be quite a few with the publicity he's been getting lately. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he recently auctioned off for charity the naming rights to a secondary character in the next Stormlight Archives book: [1]. The bidding ended at $1825. Pretty impressive. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Brandon's Blog

Brandon Sanderson recently posted a blog entry detailing some plans for future novels. Would it be a good idea to put all those planned books (White Sand trilogy, Liar of Partinel duology, future Mistborn trilogy, etc.) in a section somewhere on this page? Or would it be better to wait until there are definitive plans for such books before adding them? 139.147.40.26 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think its a bit premature. He lists a LOT of stuff there. Perhaps on the pages for Mistborn, Elantris, or Warbreaker the plans for eventual sequels/continuations could be mentioned but for new books, I think we should wait for a little more substantial info. That's my opinion at least.Caidh (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistborn Novel

Is it reasonable to add the new Mistborn novel, recently titled Mistborn: The Alloy of Law (see Mr. Sanderson's post on http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/BrandonSandrson an hour before this post) to the Bibliography? Mr. Sanderson has written that the the first draft is 85k words long (Facebook post on Nov. 15th), and also posted that Tor was interested in the novel (http://www.brandonsanderson.com/blog/934/Tweets-November-5-11-part-2, 2nd from last Nov. 9 tweet), which also says, "And so it is official. New Mistborn novel in stores next year." He might have been joking about it being quite official, and there is presumably some way to go from a first draft and a book being published, but should the book be added to the Wikipedia article anyway (or perhaps to Mistborn series)? Layona1 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrofit

Does anyone else think this article could use a retrofit? I don't want to sound rude or anything, but the article feels like it was written when Brandon first came out and everything else has just slowly been added to the main paragraph, turning it into am amalgamate.

I mean retrofit in the sense of breaking said paragraph up, working out some more information so you've got a section for Early Life, Career, Wheel of Time, etc. I'd be more than willing to do it, but I'm curious if anyone else agrees. Coltonlg (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


I agree, everything seems kind of mashed together, I think there is plenty of information available on him to section it up that way.Mclarenf1905 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong citation for Shadows of Self

I was just reading this page, and noted the new Mistborn novel Shadows of Self that I had not heard of, so I clicked the reference and it lead to an outdated webpage that hasn't been updated in years, and surely can't be the source for a yet to be published book. Anyone got the proper sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.215 (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It has now been fixed. Spidey104 12:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

External links removed

I removed the following external links as they don't belong in that section. They could possibly be used as references for content.

Please do not add them back into the EL section. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Reorganized bibliography

I have reorganized the bibliography section in order to help people better find the information on each series. I did this because Sanderson announced a bunch of new information the other day, and it made sense to organize it in this fashion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, J.A.R. Huygebaert. Apparently you aren't paying attention very well. Please stop reverting the edits I've made to the page. They were made for clarity, and you are undoing them without a valid reason. You are also removing a bunch of new and sourced material. Please discuss this here now. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at both versions and find Nihonjoe's version more clear and with more information (publishers, ISBNs, as well as more info on books such as White Sand). I've reverted it and unless there is a clear explanation for why Nihonjoe's changes were reverted in the first place, I see no reason not to let them stand. Caidh (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I remove a bunch of new and sourced material? There is nothing known about those books, titles like The Dark One etc are only mentioned in the State of the Sanderson, and don't need to be added to the bio. Those belong on Coppermind.net, like I said in my message to you personally. When titles are getting more interesting, they can be added. If we had to add everything Mr. Sanderson ever wrote...--J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether a title is interesting to you or not is irrelevant. If the information is sourced with a reliable source (and what's more reliable than the author, himself, for what is planned in the future?), then it should not be removed without a very valid reason. Also, Caidh is not me. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, did I delete ISBN's? Don't know for certain, but those are intersting enough to stay, I guess. I wrote or helped writing a lot of Sanderson articles, I know good enough how this works. Not everything is good enough to share with the world. I can, of course, add all his newsletters and blogposts to this wiki... --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did, and apparently you didn't bother to see what you were doing other than reverting my edits because you didn't like some of the information. And no one is saying you should add everything including blog posts and newsletters. However, some of the information within them can be used as I used them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Lets do a quick edit and see what you think of it, shall we? --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I did some edits and included the titles in a seperate ===, so it is clear those are future projects of which nothing more is known. You can add as many ISBN numbers as you want of course, but I don't see the point of making seperate === for each Unknown Series. At least they are mentioned now, and I also added your idea of the Elantris series and the Infinity Blade series. Let me know if you still want something else differently --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are exhibiting ownership of this article, and you do not own it. You can not force your preferred version on everyone just because you consider yourself the ultimate Sanderson expert or something. You have still, even with including some of the information I included, left out a ton of information I had added, all of which was sourced. The wording you added as explanation is somewhat clunky, as well. We've already had one other editor chime in that what I added was good, so your refusal to accept anything other than what you want is not conducive to coming to a consensus. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I admit that I was rather fast to delete your added information, again, because I was a little too protective of the article. However, Wikipedia is meant to be informative about things that exist, and are interesting enough to add to a encyclopedia, right? I'm sorry if I deleted stuff that was really usefull, and will look at the old version. I don't think I own the article, so don't mention that again. Most of the things you added are in the current version, and I will have a look on the rest to see if what I deleted wrongly. And I apology for my English; --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you were very fast, and offered no valid reason for removing the information. You still haven't offered a valid reason. About half of what I added is back in the article, albeit in a disorganized form. I spent a lot of time making sure the order of the information made sense and the flow of the information was intuitive. The current format of the bibliography has no rhyme or reason for its order. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding your comments here, that you don't know there is a difference between a novelette and a novella is part of the problem. A novelette is between about 7500 words and 17,500 words, or about 20-50 pages in a book. A novella is between about 17,500 and 40,000 words, or about 50 to 100 pages in a book. A short story is generally less than about 7500 words or so (about 20 pages or less in a book). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I already told you the "reason": to fast without thinking and too protective of the article, spending too much time editing it and not wanting to change it. I think I restored most of your information by now, and no, there is no ryhme or nice flow of information. Does it really have to be alfabetical? I see I am the wrong one here, but don't hink I want to be annoying. I spent a lot of time myself writing or editing articles on Sanderson, including the Words of Radiance article, and I'm sorry if you lost time with my tiresome intereferences.--J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Its natural to become protective of articles you've spent a lot of time on. I've had to restrain such urges myself - I've gotten a little quick with the revert button in the past. Its just something you have to resist, especially for edits/editors with obviously constructive intent in their edits. That being said, I think listing Sanderson's series alphabetically is the best way of handling the organization. Many authors you can just list series chronologically, but Sanderson jumps back and forth between series in a way few (if any) other authors do. I do agree that the "Future Works" section should be on its own for completely unstarted series. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that's the only major difference between Nihonjoe's version and the J.A.R. Huygebaert version (current as of this comment). Caidh (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That, and some formatting, some series information he removed, ISBNs and publisher information, and misinformation he included (changing the type of short work to incorrect ones in a couple cases). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head: you reverted "without thinking". Now, let's starting thinking before we edit and get this sorted out. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Your right about the protectiveness, Caidth, and yes, I also think the only difference is the Future Works section. I still don't like the alphabetically order for no particular reason except it looks nicer this way, however, I will not change it if you do. I don't think people mind if it isn't alphabetically. And Nihonjoe, the Future Section handles his next stuff, the series information on 'Dark One' and so are not relevant for this moment (they are referenced to the State of the Sanderson for that). And I don't know what you mean with the "type of short work" I removed? You can change it back if I really did that. --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I put it into alphabetical order because there are getting to be so many different series it makes sense to put them in that order not only for aesthetics but also so the average reader can actually find the information more easily. Having a section for an announced series is perfectly fine, especially since we have some plot information for each of them. As more details are announced, the sections can be more fleshed-out. Regarding the type of short work being removed or changed to be incorrect, I'm talking about your non-understanding of the difference between short stories, novelettes, and novellas. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I certainly do know the difference between short stories, novelettes and novella's, but I'm not English, and the words for those are in my language quite simillar, so I always thought they were the same. Regarding the plot information about each new series, I don't see why those are usefull in a bibliography. We can always refer to seperate Wiki-pages, like we do now with the Mistborn or Stormlight series. That makes it more organised. I'll let you change it,--J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Bibliographies on Wikipedia aren't necessarily just a list. For entries which may not have enough information to have a separate article, it's perfectly acceptable to include basic plot information (usually just a few sentences, at most) since there isn't anywhere else to put it. Once there is enough information on the series, we can definitely separate it out onto that page. So now, it appears the only real conflict is the order in which to put the bibliography. I still maintain that alphabetical order by series is the most logical order, and Caidh seems to agree with me. The argument you are giving (according to my understanding of your comments) is that you don't like it in that order and you wonder why it should be put in that order. Please clarify if I'm misreading your position on this as I want to make sure we are each understanding each other. I've also asked on various related Wikiprojects for other people to come offer opinions, so hopefully we can get some sort of reasonable consensus on this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the only objection I have against the alfabetically order is my dislike of the layout, which of course doesn't count if we want to make the article reader-friendly. My only objection against the basic plot information for the future projects is that the only information available for the moment is mentioned in the State of the Sanderson 2014, which the article refers to several times. However, I'm not going to complain if you do change it.--J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed it back to the alphabetical listing. It doesn't matter that the only information available right now is from the newsletter. We can use it as a source for the material (which it is how it is used). It is perfectly fine to use one reference multiple times. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Stormlight Archive - Book 3 working title

Could someone please find a reliable source for the recent title change by Sanderson? Much appreciated, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've found nothing that I'm absolutely comfortable with. The best I can find is [2] where Sanderson (who is verified as the Reddit user Mistborn) says "I don't want to commit to a title until I've got more written. I'd say I'm 90%, but it could still change." in response to the question as to whether Oathbringer is the official title or the working title. That is probably sufficient to change it to the working title (certainly better than random amazon/goodreads links). There's also Sanderson on Twitter [3] stating "I've had a lot of working titles for this book, but "Oathbringer" is the most appealing to me right now, for multiple reasons.". It's the best I can find. Caidh (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
If the accounts are verified as belonging to Sanderson, then they can be used as sources. Yes, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are not generally reliable sources, but if the account has been verified, they can be used. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sanderson's influence on other authors

The article mentions Sanderson's Laws, and then claims that they influenced other authors including John Brown and Patricia Wrede. But in the John Brown post cited, Brown doesn't do more than comment on one of the laws. The Patricia Wrede article, while containing similar ideas to Sanderson's Laws, never mention his name, nor can I find Wrede naming Sanderson as an influence. Is there any support for this part of the article, other than what's already there? gatesPS (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it highly, highly unlikely that Brandon's laws influenced Patricia Wrede, who has been a pro writer since before Brandon went to kindergarten. However, I have no direct evidence one way or the other. I find it more likely John Brown was influenced by Brandon, since they have met multiple times and run in the same literary circles, and Brown's first epic fantasy novel came five years after Brandon's first. However, Brown is older and has been writing short stories longer. —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brandon Sanderson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished works

I heard that Sanderson wrote 12 novels before getting one published. This seems like it should be in the article. Does anyone have a good source for this information? I have found this youtube interview, but I believe a text source would be better. [1] Ashmoo (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This contains the info, but is a primary source, so not ideal. [2] Ashmoo (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6j3uQ-77J0
  2. ^ https://brandonsanderson.com/euology-my-history-as-a-writer/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brandon Sanderson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanderson's Laws

I've been seeing various video essays using Sanderson's laws to analyse magic systems so I thought I'd look up Sanderson's laws on wikipedia. They redirect to his bio page and then the bio page never mentions them. Here I see that there used to be separate pages for each law but then they were merged, which apparently just means stricken from existence. What gives?Shadebug (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Skyward Series title

This page says that the Skyward series containing Skyward and Starsight is called Defiant. Is there a source for this? because I have never seen this anywhere else. TGRFAN (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's 100% made up. Changing it.--Jofwu (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hard and soft magic systems

The following is the talk page from the Hard and soft magic system page which has now been merged with this talk page. -NorsemanII (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Superheroes?

If Hard Magic is defined by how consistently and rigorously the magic is applied, why are superheroes listed as hard magic? Only source is this wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.125.0 (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Move

This article's title should move from Hard and Soft Magic Systems to Hard and soft magic systems, since Wikipedia article titles use sentence case.

Also, there seems to be a problem of over-reliance on one source. This seems like a useful conceptual distinction; is nobody using it but Brandon Sanderson? Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Editorializing

Apart from the fact that a lot of the writing seems to be really basic, there are too many uses of terms like "interesting" making it seem far from neutral. Also not sure about the sources. 2409:4042:2496:3AEB:4953:EF96:4CAF:C0 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fan page?

This reads like a fan page for an idea of Brandon Sanderson. Page should be cut down and merged to Brandon Sanderson. Otherwise it fails to meet any standard for inclusion----Cailil talk 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability

All of this is based on one writer's personal opinions on things that don't actually exist. The fact that some people like that one author's idea does not make this worthy of a Wikipedia article. There are all sorts of unproven and uncited assertions in this article. It should be nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.248.71.105 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Avatar? Hard Magic?

There is no real explanation of "bending" in Avatar other than some spirits gave people the power to "bend elements", and they have to dance sometimes or just wave their hands other times. The rules of this mysterious magic aren't ever explained. The only connection between bending and the hard magic definition given is that they get tired when bending. I'm proposing moving it to soft magic and adding KingKiller chronicles in its place. A magic system that is literally explained in an attempt to make it feel like a science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.133.4 (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Spectrum and Hybrid Magic Systems

This paragraph describes 'hard and soft' as a spectrum, but no definition of that spectrum is found in this article nor is there any citation for supporting documentation. There are two types of magic defined: 'hard' and 'soft' — no ‘spectrum’ is laid out with supporting sources. This paragraph should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.119.27.199 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RWBY and Magic

Semblances from RWBY may seem like magic, but magic in RWBY is a completely different concept that seems to be limitless. The magic in RWBY is not governed by rules except for the fact that humans and faunus can't mess with life and death. However, the brother gods in the show use magic to return people to life, make someone unable to die, and the god of darkness pretty much wiped out almost every person in the world except for one most likely with magic since it was apparently a gift from the gods. So is RWBY an example of both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.120.14 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings combining multiple magic systems

In his most recent lecture series, Sanderson actually explained how Lord of the Rings, unlike what this article is claiming, is one of the archetypal forms of the hybrid magic systems. It uses both extreme soft magic in Gandalf and relatively hard magic in the One Ring. The latter being explained in giving at least two powers to normal people: it gives you a longer life and it makes you invisible, and two detriments: Sauron sees you and you become corrupted over time. KarstenO (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletionist?

4 votes to merge and 7 to keep. And the result is to merge. With no evidence for the merges and deletions, and all the references in keep. They don't even pretend the discussion is relevant anymore.Carewolf (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the same person that came to that conclusion also decided 10 keeps and 1 delete meant the following was a delete consensus, but was then later forced to undo the whole dumb thing.. Lovely https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eastern_Rail_Services&diff=prev&oldid=963373352 Carewolf (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brandon_Sanderson/Archive_1&oldid=1136300655"