Talk:Axe of the Dwarvish Lords

Proposal to remove in-text citation and in-universe tags
I propose removing the above tags, having addressed them both. Further work needs to be done on the history section but the majority of the article is now from a non-fictional perspective, so the relevent tag should probably be deleted. Please register any valid objections to removal of these tags before 2/11/08. Thanks. --Smcmillan (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Good job. BusterD (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disputed. This article is comprised of about 850 words of at least 700 are dedicated to in universe descriptions of this fictional artifact as if it was real. This article also contains weasel words and peacock terms. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I addressed the peacock terms in the opening. I really have to wonder how you can say the article is written primarily in-universe. I admitted that the history section needed a tweak but your characterization prior to my editing that section is way off the mark. If you want to make valid objection please take the time to read the article and compare it to exemplary articles listed in wp:waf, and then present your case with examples. Thanks. --Smcmillan (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Module Template
I agree with Jack on this issue, although I don't want to remove the template until we've discussed it. The focus of the article is on the item and not on the module, so I think the use of the module template is inappropriate. I haven't read all of the documentation on the project page though so if I'm wrong about the project standards let me know. If anyone thinks it would be better to make the article about the module (reasons: Following the trend in the project, D&D articles, or other gaming, articles, etc...) I'm sure we could easily rewrite it to have that focus, and still include the item info that is in the current article. Thanks. --Smcmillan (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my take on things. Now, please, no one just go an split this off to a module page without finding nice reliable sources that unambiguously establish notability for said article. I'll take another stab at removing the inappropriate template since my prior edit elicited the above unsolicited support. Any further discussion should focus on making a case for inclusion. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)