Talk:Dragon Keeper

Dragon Keeper (Hobb novel)
Badly written article. Needs some structure and factual correction. Have made my best possible improvements. Only managed to reach up to chapter four however, since it's 2AM. Will continue with editing and reply here as soon as I think the article is complete. Today's date is the 5/07/2009. Also, I've left in the trivia since they interest me, but I believe Wikipedia now has a policy of removing them? Can anyone confirm this?


 * Yes, Trivia lists are discouraged. I've tagged the section (and others for cleanup) - the tag has a link to the appropriate guide.  Astronaut (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, given the entire article was a first draft of new content (and the first time I put together an article that length from scratch or indeed edited an article on a book) I thought it was a fair effort to get the ball rolling. Comments like "Badly written article" tend to attack the author (discouraging contributions) rather than encouraging improvement... just a thought. You are of course both right that the article needs work and other people's input. I would however point out that I based it on the style etc used for one of the authors other books so we might like to check consistency across the set. As the book is new, more information (besides the plot) should become available in due course, so while the plot section may be too long, lets not over reduce it just yet (in case the article grows). I do think the summary gives the key aspects of each chapter in relatively small space (given the size of the book itself), it's a choice between that and more glossed over summary - which may be more to style. Anyway thanks for spending time on this. Oboler (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To the first commenter... before sayign it was a badly written article that you had corrected, you made two one word changes. You are were right in your one correction (of who stole the items) my bad in writing the wrong characters name in that spot. You were wrong in saying it is from a third person point of view. The narrator changes, but different parts are clearly told in first person perspective by different key actors. I suggest someone check this and change it back or change it to say it uses both first person and third person. The first person perspective is part of this authors style across their work. Oboler (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

confusing issue
Doesn't Tintaglia know where the city is? She has been there in previous books, right?

Yes, Tintaglia does know where Kelsingra is. However, she hasn't been seen for some years at the time of the novel. Presumably, she is off mating with IceFyre and can't be bothered with the stunted dragonlings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.85.60 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Even more confusing is the fact that it says 'Dragon_Keeper_(Robin_Hobb_novel)' and the author appears as Carole Wilkinson, while the last wrote a book called Dragonkeeper which is similar to Dragon Keeper, it is a very confusing thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.118.73 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move Dpmuk (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Keeper (Hobb novel) → Dragon Keeper — This book is called "Dragon Keeper". That page currently redirects to a book called "Dragonkeeper". It seems most sensible to me that both pages occupy the page that they're named after, perhaps with a suitable hatnote on each. In my opinion, this option is least confusing using the fewest number of pages - the current solution using three pages and a redirect isn't optimal and leads to confusion. --82.33.115.56 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment with so many uses, there should be a disambiguation page somewhere... like DragonKeeper or dragon-keeper or something. 64.229.101.239 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the original request; also agree that there could be a disambiguation page (but not in primary position, so that doesn't affect the question of the requested moe).--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. Marcus Qwertyus   09:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.