Talk:Icingdeath

Dragon
Icingdeath refers to the dragon, after whom Drizzt's sword is named. The article should therefore redirect to the dragon, or exist as it's own.

Jabencarsey 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

page
Do we really need this page? There's hardly any text, so you could just put it under Drizzt. Same with Twinkle's page. Mwsilvabreen 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, put it under Drizzt Do'Urden in a weapons article there, then make icingdeath about the dragon.

that junk page of Drizt's is a lumbering ass alrady, with idiots like you.

There's not enough info for a page about the dragon, and we should merge icingdeath and twinkle, anyway. Mwsilvabreen 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversions
Who ever keeps undoing the merge suggestion, stop! That's what it is. a suggestion, so lets talk about it. Mwsilvabreen 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge
OK, I think we should merge the two pages because, 1)They don't have enough information to stand alone (come to think of it we should put a D and D stub tag on the pages) 2) they both belong to Drizzt, so most of the information we have about them has been talked about with them together 3) Other related characters Have pages together like Ivan and Pikel Bouldershoulders' page. Mwsilvabreen 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree.--Ryan ♣ 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I happen to disagree, and until someone can give me a good reason, will remain so. --Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

--Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW I am not here to war. But I usually TALK before act, unless someone acted first, subectively and crudely.


 * I'm not here to war either but the pages should be merged. Alone they're both barely enough to be a standalone article but merged the length is pretty decent. Plus there doesn't really need to be two pages for the scimitars. That's just my opinion though.--Ryan ♣ 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also the reasons Mwsilvabreen gave for merging are good and I have yet to see you justify why you think they shouldn't be merged. If you can't do that then I see no reason why they shouldn't be.--Ryan ♣ 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Look if no one objects to merging the two articles by Tuesday EST, I'm going to merge them.--Ryan ♣ 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Going hard then. --Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is that supposed to mean?--Ryan ♣ 11:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewing all three talk pages, there has been one "no" vote, while the rest of us concur that the pages should be merged. My idea is to have a page entitled Drizzt Do'Urden's weapons. Any objection to this? Turlo Lomon 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well look at here now, so energetic when arguing eh ?

Before merging, why don't you guys spend more time update these two page themselves first? I can't hardly bear to read them, much less than seeing some stupid crude work of the merging of two piece of garbage. Weapon of drizzt? bad idea. All we gonna see is He used this dagger which he hide in this boot against this who in this book in this manner x 1000, feh! --Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 07:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already started working on a merged, cleaned up article for everyones consideration before setting up redirects, etc. Don't like the name? I can respect that. Do you have any suggestions on what would be a better name? Click on the link above.  That is the article currently under revision. It can always be moved, deleted, renamed, whatever. Turlo Lomon 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your proposal.--Ryan ♣ 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)