Talk:Corellon Larethian

Fellowship of the Forgotten Flower
Shouldn't this be on a page by itself, with a link from Corellon? Sure, it'd be a D&D-stub, but it could be expanded on from there when new information arises. --Kkragenbrink 11:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's got the "Notability" crusade against D&D content at Wiki?
Wiki used to have pages on D&D gods, goddesses, fictional characters, but bit by bit, it's all getting marked as lacking "Notability" and deleted. Isn't removing such relevant information rather going against the entire purpose of a free, online encyclopedia that covers every topic humanity can think of? Wiki should make an effort to include every possible sourced fictional character anyone ever enters...as it is, they're greatly lowering the usefulness of this site to me. I find lately I'm looking a lot more at custom specific wikis than I am at the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.43.85 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
I can't reconcile the current structure of the article (basically nothing but a list of citations) with the tag "Needs sources" at the top of the page. As far as I can see every assertion *has* been sourced to authoritative works. They are all primary sources.

However, since all works mentioned happen to be publications of the organization that owns the D&D trademark (Wizards of the Coast) and coordinates all writings that use this trademark, and their word (or their publications) are automatically definitive, so there really seems to be no merit in attempting to find secondary sources.

I really don't see what other "sources" could be meant. I know of no secondary sources on this matter, and if there were any, they would not be "canon" because of the peculiar structure in which Wizards of the Coast defines the canon.

Unless there is good reason to the contrary, the marker "needs sources" should be deleted.

Corellon's status in 4E/Lady Penitent synopsis
Corellon in 4th Edition is actually two separate deities, which really should be clarified. The Core version is a new one with some similarities to the previous version, and the FR version isn't merely similar to the Corellon of previous editions, he is the Corellon of previous editions. Unfortunately the changes to alignment and the existence of two separate Corellons rather muddies and confuses the issue. Separate pages for the two would clutter wikipedia but the two on the same page clutters the page and isn't at all helpful for clarifying the two.

And why is there a synopsis of the entire Lady Penitent trilogy on this page? Corellon is only involved in the last few pages of the third book. It's like someone was editing something else and pasted it in here instead. It really doesn't belong here and doesn't provide any useful knowledge about Corellon that can't be summed up in a couple of sentences noting the change.

I'm not up enough on the preferred formats for D&D articles on wikipedia to try to fix this article myself to clarify things, so hopefully someone who is will because as it stands this desperately needs work. Nai Calus (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds similar to how people have described the Bane of 4th edition. If you're not comfortable working it out on the article page, feel free to use a sandbox or work it out here on the talk page. Generally, the idea is to use citations to your sources whenever possible. A lot of times people fail to do that, but that's no reason to follow that example. :) See the publication history section for how to properly format citations. I don't have any 4E books, but if you like I can help you with what you want to do. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonbinary gender
If we are highlighting this aspect of the fictional god, both as created by Jim Ward in their original 1980 publication and in the 5e era game as it stands, I think this also requires examination of the back-tracking and erasure, and the enforcement of masculinity and heterosexuality within how the god was presented in intervening editions - because it happened, and how and why offers real insight into the development of the material and changing standards in the publication of game supplements. I don't have the time, resources or editorial know-how to document and cite such history, but I do hope that someone who does and can will do so. 2600:2B00:9214:4800:A188:85EA:ABE7:D52E (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)