Talk:Paladine/Archive 1

Image
I'm still not good at uploading images and doing all the file history and whatnot, but I like this picture, it is of the Platinum Dragon I believe and would like to use on Paladine's page. If someone could do the uploading and whatnot, it would be much appreciated. DoomsDay349 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If uploaded, it must be reduced in size, as is it is too big to qualify for Fair use. -- ReyBrujo 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...And would you be able to reduce its size? DoomsDay349 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Class Listings for Gods of Good
This site has listings for the classes of the gods of good. However, I do not know whether or not this is considered a reliable source. Tell me what you think, as it could be helpful. DoomsDay349 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A Thought...
Something just struck me, should Paladine still be counted as a deity, considering his godhood was stripped? Should he not be counted as an elf? DoomsDay349 03:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would go with the "less shocking" information. The same way I believe Mina's infobox would have to state she is a human and not something else. In truth, the article should focus more in why he was created and given that name than if he is right now elf or god. -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review
RelentlessRouge conducted a peer review, which can be seen at my talk page, and said the article was good. Just posting here for the record. DoomsDay349 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, it wasn't a real peer review. Guess I added that a bit hastily.  Dooms  Day34  9  21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Paladine (Dragonlance) (done)
Hi there, a lot of people seem to be identifying with this article, so i'd like to announce what i want to suggest. Paladine is a different spelling from Paladin and etymologically they are perfectly identical. That also means that someone might be looking for the hero of Charlemagne or the Hungarian Secretary when they type "paladine" - i am suggesting this article should be moved to Paladine (Dragonlance), and the redirect would go to Paladin (disambiguation), where this page is already listed. Any comments? --FlammingoParliament 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you google for Paladine, of the top 10 entries, only one means Paladin. D  dc  c  21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The "e" was not my point. The "t" of palatine is interchangeable with "d",the "e" optional.And google... well... "top ten" - that doesnt say much about the dominance of different meanings of the term, does it?--FlammingoParliament 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be against it. A disambiguation notice above this article is enough. Remember, we don't need to disambiguate unless there are multiple topics with this same title. That one word is a misspelling does not warrant a disambiguation page if a simple disambiguation link is enough. -- ReyBrujo 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Rey. The notice at the top is plenty, and if they add an "e" it's easy enough to click on the article and go to the proper article.   Dooms  Day34  9  22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if there is only one article, absolutly yes. But on Paladin (disambiguation) there are quite a few articles about a Paladin, including other games, and originally a paladine was a real title, before Dragonlance, given by a king like Charlemagne. There are many meanings derived from that time, even other fictitious usages. My suggestion was about putting the one from the Middle Ages on the main article name Paladine=redirect to=>Paladin and the one on Dragonlance on the disambig. Any arguments against that? --FlammingoParliament 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I would agree having Paladine, Palatine and Palatinus point to Paladin (disambiguation), as you say, there are many different meanings. That is what is usually done. Unluckily, a Google search may be misleading. We need to ask "If a user types Paladine, what he is looking for?". With some terms, it may be easy to define, but with others it becomes tricky. Personally, after checking the disambiguation page, I am neutral on this matter. -- ReyBrujo 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a tough situation. Flammingo, have you had any personal experience with looking for Paladins and typing Paladine?   Dooms  Day34  9  00:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we both have biased analysis, as he wants those redirects to point to Paladin because he studies history, and we want it to point to this character because we read these novels. By the way, Flammingo, there is no need to change the information of your user page to hide that fact, I caught a glimpse of it before you changed it ;-) It is my belief that "real" subjects like places or events have more importance than fictional ones. However, I highly doubt anyone typing Paladine would be searching for Paladin instead of Paladine, based on the conception that Paladine is much less used as a term than Paladin to refer to these knights. However, another solution is to point Paladine to Paladin, and have a double disambiguation page there, with text similar to Paladine redirects here. For the Dragonlance fictional deity, see "Paladine (Dragonlance)". For other uses, see "Paladin (disambiguation)." -- ReyBrujo 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, my history studies are still there ;-) And yes, i found that the terms are mixed in many books i read and internet pages - you know, back in the middle ages that difference really didnt interest much. And i totally agree with However, another solution is to point Paladine to Paladin, and have a double disambiguation page there, with text similar to Paladine redirects here. For the Dragonlance fictional deity, see "Paladine (Dragonlance)". For other uses, see "Paladin (disambiguation)."'' Good night! --FlammingoParliament 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Rey's proposal sounds good. I'll perform it, if you don't mind.   Dooms  Day34  9  01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to disambiguate all the links in Dragonlance articles that are pointing to Paladine right now. -- ReyBrujo 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. I'll get to fixing the disambig links now.  Dooms Day34  9  01:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just incase, there's still lots on Special:Whatlinkshere/Paladine, and don't forget templates! D dc  c  03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All Whatlinkshere has been changed thanks to Doomsday. So great that all this worked! --FlammingoParliament 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finishing that up, Flamingo.  Dooms  Day34  9  00:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding notability...
I assert that the Dragonlance series of books are very notable, the books having made the New York Times Best-Seller List (see article on TSR, Inc. ). Rather than taking my word on this, just click this link, and read the main article for yourself. As for whether or not Paladine is notable enough to deserve his own page: while there is a List of Dragonlance deities, Paladine in particular had a very prominent role in the published novels, both as a concept and motivation for the protagonists; as well as having had direct, meaningful, interaction with the main characters while acting as his avatar, Fizban. Therefore, I feel that Paladine probably deserves to keep his own page; although I do intend to add a "Main Article" link to here in the list of deities page referenced above.

I therefore intend to remove the notability notice, replacing it with a notice that encourages cleanup, since I think that the notability of Paladine is well established and not questionable, but I do agree that the article needs polishing in order to be up to standards. Dalamori (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I believe that the notices already present are sufficent. Also, it occurred to me that maybe there was a template to assert the notability of something postitively and direct users to this talk page, but if there is, I couldn't find it. Dalamori (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence of notability has to be provided by reliable secondary sources. Your opinion is not sufficient - see WP:RS if in doubt. I am restoring the notability cleanup template until such time secondary sources can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, Gavin, that the introduction was rewritten to specifically include language which supports this article's notability. I will resummarise the factual basis for my assertion of notability here:  1: The series of books known as the Dragonlance Chronicles is notable, by dint of being a widely read work of fiction, as supported by its references on it's main page. 2: This page covers a major character which is a central figure within the Dragonlance Campaign Setting and the aforementioned novels; both of which have established notability.
 * I have no intention of entering into a revert-war with you, I suggest that if you feel better or higher-quality references are needed for this article to meet Wikipedia Standards, you should add templates which highlight the specific pieces of the article you feel are under-supported so that others can help source them. However, I strongly believe your use of the notability template is disingenuous and misleading. Please do not reapply it.  If you sincerely believe that this article probably would not, once adequately sourced, meet the notability standards for inclusion in wikipedia, please request a 3rd party opinion instead of and/or before reinstating the notability template.  Thank you. Dalamori (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template from Paladine (Dragonlance), an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the template which was put there to address this problem; the reasons you have given are your opinion and are not supported by evidence. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:FICT and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the template immediately.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue you are attempting to address is one of lacking sources, not non-notability. I am currently attempting to figure out how to ISBN reference, but I'm relatively noobish on that score.  Please feel free to add templates that highlight the sections of the article you feel are under-supported. Dalamori (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, regarding the need for third-party sources, this article is part of a series of articles on Dragonlance, and it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the justification for the notability of an article on a major character in a work of fiction is inherited from and dependant upon the notability of the work of fiction it is a part of. Dalamori (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

3O It seems the issue here is notability. Well, as mentioned they have made the New York Times Best Seller List (several times for several years). Therefore they have been noted - Notability. I see no reason to use the notability box. If you feel the burning desire to tag this article with or  or  or even  but the notability should not be an issue. Padillah (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show any evidence of this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, KENDER, GULLY DWARVES, AND GNOMES - 27 Sep 1987, KENDER, GULLY DWARVES, AND GNOMES - 13 Sep 1987, THE MAGIC OF KRYNN - 17 May 1987, DRAGONLANCE LEGENDS: Volume Three, Test of the Twins - 5 Oct 1986... I can keep going If you want me to. Or you could look at the results of a simple search for "Dragonlance" at NYTimes.com. The books have been on the list several times for several weeks. They are notable. The principle good deity is also notable for his various roles in said best-selling books. Anything else? Padillah (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, Padillah, you make me wish I'd thought of that. Apparently I still have much to learn.  Thank you for stepping in and helping out.  Dalamori (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See notability is inherited; it is not. See reliable sources; they're required. The books may well be notable; that does not mean characters therein are. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See demonstrating notability for fictional topics. "For longer works or for those in episodic or serial format, it may be necessary to provide additional 'fictional' information on individual characters, the setting, or unique items and concepts. Generally, these fictional elements are described in the plot summary of the main article and do not need to demonstrate independent notability." As a primary character - indeed, as one of the linchpins of an NYT bestselling episodic series - Paladine qualifies. Snuppy 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, if you were covering this character in Dragonlance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I intended to direct you to this talk page to support my edits for Bahamut, but I see you were one step ahead of me. Please allow me to disagree with you.
 * WP:INHERITED does not apply, since the assertion being made is that Paladine is a notable entity within the notable subject of Dragonlance. WP:INHERITED is meant to stave off arguments that an un-notable subject within a notable subject (such as minute trivia) is notable merely because it has some relation to the notable suject.
 * Also, Dragonlance is already a fairly lenghty article. This is primarily because Dragonlance is a very broad subject, and is very complex.  Therefore, it is necessary to break it up into a series of related articles.  Since you seem to accept the argument that Paladine is a notable section of a notable subject, and therefore deserving of inclusion; please also consider my assertion that condensing all the notable information regarding Dragonlance into a single article is untenable, and therefore, seperate articles such as this one are needed.
 * Lastly, although I encourage you to continue participating in this discussion, as well as any others you wish to add your input to, the consensus of this talk page seems decidedly in favor of not including the notability template on the main page, so please allow that template to remain removed. Thank you.  Dalamori (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument that this character gets a free-ride on the notability of Dragonlance is untenable. The vote count on this page is also insufficient to support you claim; consensus is global, not local. Please provide some solid sourcing before you remove the notability tag again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, your inference that I accept the notability of Paladine (Dragonlance) in any context is not supported by anything I've said. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, The basis under which you are applying the notability template is lack of sufficient sources, and you have re-added that template despite the majority of opinions on this talk page which are strongly supportive of the notability of this article. I feel that your persistant re-application of the notability template is inappropriate, especially since your justification for doing so is merely a technicality. I intend to re-remove the notability template one final time, and I sincerely hope that you will obtain other editors' opinions in this talk page which support your interpretation of WP:N before you attempt to reinstate it. I have no intention of turning this into an edit-war, but I'm very certain that the notability template does not belong in this article at this time. Dalamori (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I write this, you've not yet removed the tag again; I hope you don't. As I said on the other talk page, consensus is global, not local. It does not matter if a local group expresses an opinion that is untenable. You are not adding sources, not even primary ones. Removing the clean-up tags is little more than vandalism, even when you advance some line of argument on a talk page. I will maintain the notability clean-up tag until the issue is addressed or the article is redirected or deleted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On this topic, my understanding of WP:FICT permits articles on non-notable fictional characters where that information would be overly long in the original article about the notable work. In which case I'm inclined to argue for accepting this article, given that I need to defer to other's expertise in the importance of the character, as the information in this article seems reasonably succinct yet too long to warrant returning to the parent article. (If the character isn't essential to the series, though, then I would question the value of the article). It is probably worth noting that while the policy doesn't require that the summary article be notable, it is required that reliable and verifiable sources be used - although primary sources are acceptable. - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I request that some other editor use their judgment on whether or not the notability tag is warranted, since Jack has already stated that he will not permit me to remove it. Dalamori (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also requested that the Notability cleanup template not to be removed, but you removed it despite the fact that no reliable secondary sources were added. Please understand that these are Wikipedia guidelines, not just my opinion. Until such time as you can find secondary sources that provide evidence of notability that meet the critereia in WP:RS and WP:FICT, please desist from removing the template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily desisted from removing the template to avoid an edit war. However, I have requested additional opinions, with the hope that the addition of other editors who agree with my interpretation of WP:N and WP:FICT will convince you to revisit your own interpretation, or at least allow this particular page to remain without the inappropriate notability template.  I just finished reading Bilby's comment, and I feel that he has advanced a very credible theory which fully satisfies the notability requirements of WP:FICT.  From the beginning, I have repeatedly stated that the notability template is inappropriate for this article.  It may mislead a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter to believe that Paladine is not a major and significant part of Dragonlance.  There are other templates which address the concerns you and Mr. Merridew seem to have which do not include this drawback.  Lastly, I remind you that the wikipedia guidelines are merely guidelines; WP:Ignore directs us to disregard them when they fail to help improve Wikipedia.  In this case, I believe your interpretation of these guidelines is overly strict, and that the justification for the notability template is a technicality, as I believe common sense would indicate that any concerns that this article is genuinely not notable are specious, especially given the amount of support for Paladine's notability on this talk page.  I would appreciate if you could respond to the argument that your concerns about sources could be better addressed by another template.  I would also appreciate your thoughtful response to Bilby's argument that this article fully satisfies WP:FICT because it is a spinout article.  Thank you.  Dalamori (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it seems you are not willing to listen to what others are telling you about notability guidelines, specifically the not-inherited part, I'll reiterate. Dragonlance is notable, nobody here is disputing that. However, what is being disputed is whether or not this individual character is notable. Being an aspect of something notable does not make it notable. As a separate article, it must be notable in its own right. WP:FICT is either disputed or proposed depending on your persuasion, but it is not authoritative. The notability guideline, however, is. If you'd like, we can just AfD the article, and we can avoid the whole debate. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seresin, thank you for joining this discussion. I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with my interpretation of the notability guidelines.  I'm doing my best to listen, and respectfully disagree with the views put forth by Jack, Gavin and yourself.  To this end, I was concerned that you seem to have misunderstood my argument, so please allow me to clarify it for you.  I am not asserting the Paladine is notable merely because Dragonlance is notable.  I am asserting that Paladine is a demonstrably notable portion of Dragonlance.  Which is to say that in order to provide thorough coverage of the Dragonlance topic, which we all agree is notable, it is necessary to cover Paladine, an important subtopic of dragonlance all onto himself.  The reason that Paladine has his own page is because Dragonlance is an extensive topic, composed of several notable subtopics.  If we were to merge Paladine, along with all the other notable subtopics within Dragonlance, into the main Dragonlance article, the article would become unreasonably long.  Therefore, it is necessary to host these topics under a separate, but related, series of pages, and this is what user:Bilby was pointing to in his opinion.  I assert that we should treat this article as a part of the Dragonlance article, which is in line with what WP:FICT suggests.  I have also stated that the "refimprove" template should replace the "notability" template since the core issue here is one of insufficient sourcing; and not any assertion that Paladine is not an important concept within Dragonlance.  I don't believe any of the people who have disagreed with me have attempted to respond to that point.  Dalamori (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also would like to point out that I have contributed to this article materially, and I am continuing in my attempts to improve it, in particular dealing with issues raised in the "DD-in-universe" and "context" tags. I have also added a link to the Dragonlance Nexus, which I'm hoping is a good first step towards providing the better references which we all agree this article would benefit from.  Therefore, your offer to list the article for deletion is unnecessary; especially in light of the fact that deletion requires discussion and consensus, which is what I'm attempting to establish by way of this talk page.  So, we're going to have to hash this out one way or another, and I'm not sure listing this article for deletion will help.  Thank you for your time.  Dalamori (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You assert that Paladine is a demonstrably notable portion of Dragonlance — just where is that demonstrated? Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at Notability requires objective evidence and Notability and undue weight for guidance. My understanding is that this article falls short of the requirements of WP:FICT and WP:RS, and so the notability template should remain, at least until reliable secondary sources can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack, I feel like we're making some progress here. In the main article, there is a link to the Dragonance Campaign setting which stresses the importance of paladine.  A more specific list which includes page numbers can be seen at the Dragonance Nexus site.  Also, I've managed to dig up a (on spamlist: www.associatedcontent.com/article/302716/book_review_dragonlance.html book review) on the Dragonlance Chronicles which I hope will help convince you that a discussion of Dragonlance necessitates at least a brief discussion of Paladine.  The point being here, that I don't believe I have to prove that the Paladine is notable independently of Dragonlance, I am attempting to demonstrate that Paladine is an important (note the change in nomenclature, please) subtopic within Dragonlance, and that without the discussion of Paladine, our coverage of Dragonlance would be incomplete.  I am again referring to WP:FICT as my justification for using primary sources.  Thank you.  Dalamori (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- I had to de-link the book review above as the site is now on the spam list. Jack Merridew 08:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Third opinion project is designed to address disputes between two editors. Five or more are involved here, so I have removed it from the project listings. — Athaenara ✉  07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding notability...(cont.)
I believe I now understand the arguments against Paladine's notability. What I don't understand is the criteria for establishing his notability. I also don't accept the interpretation of WP:INHERITED that includes books but not the characters in the books? Paladine is important and I can cite passages that will prove that. You will have to forgive my memory and grant some leeway on the timing of my citations (I have to find the books, it's been 20 years). Padillah (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to establish notability of a particular character, you must provide evidence that comes from reliable sources that are independent of the source material and provide significant real-world coverage about the subject matter itself. You say that you can provide "passages" as evidence of notability, in which case I presume you mean you can quote excerpts from the primary source books. However, you must realise that these are works of fiction, and do not carry the same weight or significe as real-world coverage. For this reason, the Notability cleanup template should remain, so that other editors are alerted to the fact that this article needs additonal sources. The tags are there to encourge other editors to participate, and evidence shows that the more editors get involved, the better an article will become. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, WP:FICT seems to indicate that primary sources are sufficient for establishing notability in this case, because it's a spinout article. Have you read the section of WP:FICT I'm referring to yet, and if so, could you please explain to me why you don't feel that it's applicable so that I can better address your concerns?  Dalamori (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A possible end to this debate...
It would appear that while I wasn't looking, Bilby has made a significant contribution to the article. He cites a book by Ash DeKirk which discusses Dragons and Dragon Mythology (See, Looking it up on google books, I can see that on page 116, he mentions both Paladine and Takhisis in the process of discussing the mythologies which surround dragons in gaming. Since this is a second party source, and an apparently scholarly book, published by Career Press, I believe that this definitively establishes notability, short-circuiting our debate over spinout articles and the applicability of WP:FICT's provisions regarding them.  Dalamori (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also another reference to paladine on page 118, which is much more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalamori (talk • contribs) 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this fully establishes notability - I was just looking around and found that ref, but other sources would help. I guess the question is how much is required. If a core character (and I'm only assuming that he is, as it has been a very long time since I read the one or two Dragonlance books that I looked at) of a notable series is mentioned in a third party source because of the character (rather than an incidental mention as part of a plot summary), does that count as sufficient? I'm not sure either way. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * DeKirk states that Paladine "calls himself "Fizban" and represents himself to be a clumsy and absent-minded wizard". Note that this is fictional content, not realworld content. WP:FICT states that "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Basically that boils down to real-world notability must be evidenced by real-world references. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gavin. DeKirk has an odd approach to writing, but the book is an overview of "dragonlore" - discussion the incidence of dragons in various settings. As such, while the section is written in-universe, the context is in regard to the way dragons are depicted in fiction. Or so I gather. Still, I don't think it is sufficient to establish notability on its own, even if you accept my understanding of the context. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The DeKirk ref seems to be a factual detail one, not a notability establishing one. The wording of the spinout issue is one currently being debated at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) and will likely end up tweaked. In any event, it is not intended to give a free-pass to non-notable character articles. If Paladine is going to remain a separate article, some solid sources will need to be cited in the article. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction between the two can be a bit arbitrary. The value is that a non-trivial mention of the character was made in a third-party source, which was interested in the character in its own right. Personally (and only personally), I think this provides a degree of notability, as it means that the character was of interest beyond the strict confines of the novel. Nevertheless, as mentioned, I don't think it is sufficient on its own. In terms of the spinout, it will probably end up tweaked, as you say, judging by the current state of the discussion. Still, I think the debate Dalamori has been making has really been about spinout, so it is worth having a name for the argument here. My worry with things like spinout is that they are needed for some cases, (and it would be a great guideline for usability) but run the risk of being diluted with overuse. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, this article is a classic example of when spinout is not warranted. Most of this article's content is a regurgitation of the primary sources, i.e. plot summary, and it seems to me that Dalamori and other contributors have been adding more material from the books are restated it here in order to pad out the article, which has little real-world content as a result. I think this needs to be merged into the novel(s) from which Paladine was drawn; there is little or nothing of note said about in the real-world. A symptom of this problem is that this article fails WP:WAF very badly, and the in universe content which makes up most of this article should be removed anyway. I propose merge. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another way out of this is - Do we have a "Pantheon of Dragonlance" article? I must admit, the "real-world" impact of most fictional characters is going to quite limited (very few fake people are of any significance whatsoever). There is too much information to include all these characters in the Dragonlance article but what about an article describing the entire pantheon? There should be some level of notability for the entire pantheon to be supported as a generic article in support of the entire book series. Padillah (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A list of Dragonlance characters might be acceptable, but I can't see any secondary sources that could be used for an article, they don't appear to have sufficient coverage outside of the books. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a little heavy-handed with the need for secondary sources. An article that encompassed all the deities of the pantheon would decidedly fit in to the WP:FICT definition regarding spin-offs and not require 24 separate articles. I think there is sufficient information that it would unduly bloat any given novels article and thus would require a spin-off article. I also believe that they entire theology of the novel's universe is sufficiently noteworthy to support a single article of it's own. I appreciate your zealous approach to the guidelines but there are very few fictional characters that have any real-world impact and, as such, it would be very difficult to create articles about the characters in books if held too strictly to this requirement. These articles are more about support for other, notable, articles rather than standalone articles themselves. We could make several enormous articles about each of the books and repeat the information in each one of the book articles but that wouldn't help anyone. Unfortunately, without support articles like this, or the "full pantheon" article that I am suggesting, we are left with bloating the central articles beyond rationality. Padillah (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, there are plenty of lists; this and a few others should be merged to List of Dragonlance deities; this is what WP:SPINOUT is really about. Such a list really is an extension of Dragonlance.
 * List of major Dragonlance characters
 * List of minor Dragonlance characters
 * List of Dragonlance creatures
 * List of Dragonlance locations
 * List of Dragonlance novels
 * List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks
 * List of Dragonlance artifacts
 * List of Dragonlance deities
 * List of Dragonlance lists
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, now what about the articles I was asking about? These are great lists, but they are lists, they are not meant to have, nor should they be burdened with, content. Is there someplace we can put the content? Padillah (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for a non-notable character, the coverage extant at List of Dragonlance deities is plenty; absent better sources, a redirect without any merge of the content here would be warranted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I must apologize. When you said "a list" I thought it was a simple list like this one. What you have linked to is absolutely reasonable and should be used. I don't know that I agree with the without any merge criteria, but I think we can work with that list. There are several things that need to be clarified in the list article is the only reason I don't want to restrict the move. What say yee Dalamori? Padillah (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will find at least half a dozen reliable secondary sources to end the debate. Web Warlock (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To make sure you are not wasting your time, they apparently need to be articles on how Paladine has impacted the real world. Some mention of his impact on real people or how real life has changed since the character was introduced. Not simple book reviews but substantial articles about the characters influence on real world situations. Without that it apparently doesn't stand up to WP:FICT so if you need any help reviewing them let us know. Padillah (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have been doing this for a while. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very confused and frustrated by the lack of progress in this talk thread. We now have a reliable secondary source, but maybe its a factual source instead of a notability source, and maybe it's not good enough, but we're not sure what bar we're trying to meet? I'd like us to please try and excise the "Je ne ses quoa" from this discussion and get back to conducting this debate in more concrete terms. Please, if you're not in favor of notability, could you please make a short, concise and complete list of the criterion for notability which you feel have not yet been met, so that we can collectively go through, point-by-point, and determine whether the article needs improvement to qualify, if the the listed criteria are incorrect, or if the article in its current state meets each criterion, and should be considered notable. Thank you in advance for your efforts in making this discussion more managable. Dalamori (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new template, "Disputed notability", which is basically a copy of "notability", but includes a link to this talk page, and may help direct additional editors to this discussion. Dalamori (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Forking the notability template is not a good idea; if your intent is to add a link to the talk page or otherwise tweak the wording, the place to propose such changes is Template talk:Notability. I'm going to remove the two extant usages and expect the forked template to be deleted. Feel free to go start a section on this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * according to its documentation, The "Notability" template is supposed to be used only when an article is not likely to be notable. There are other templates, which I have been urging for us to use, which are for cases where the article is likely notable, but I have enoounterd significant resistance in attempting to apply those already-existing templates instead of "Notability".  Since we disagree so vastly on the likely outcome of this article's notability, I thought it would be best to use a template which did not assert the likely notability either way.  I will reapply the template.  If you feel strongly that the article absolutely must include the "notability" template, I suggest you apply it in addition to the "Disputed Notability" template, although I warn you in advance, it would probably be semi-redundant.  This is my attempt to meet you half-way, and I point out that it took me nearly an hour of researching how templates work in order to make that template work correctly.  Please understand that I'm attempting to address the issues I see with the current setup without stepping on your toes unduly; and if I'm not entirely successful, try to stick to offering constructive criticism.  Since it fulfills a separate need from the "notability" template, I don't imagine that there would be any reason to merge it with the "notability" template, and since I can't find any other template to fill that need, I don't intend to delete it.  I have the Template talk:Disputed Notability on my watch list, so please feel free to comment on that template there.  Dalamori (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are really out of order. This is one of the worst cases of POV pushing I witnessed by an RPG editor so far (with the exception of vandalism by sockpuppets). Having been asked to leave the Notability cleanup template on this article, you have disregarded this request, removed the template and replaced it with one of your own creation which attempts to circumvent WP guidelines. The cleanup template was put there to address a specific problem: lack of reliable secondary sources. Please desist from POV pushing the view that this article provides evidence of notability, when in reality it does not.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put forth a considerable amount of effort attempting to conduct this discussion in terms of good faith, including figuring out how to make the template which apparently did very little towards making a viable compromise. I will leave this debate for a little bit, mostly to ease my own feelings of frustration with this discussion.  I would very much appreciate it if you could please respond to my above request for a concise, and specific list of which criteria you feel have not been met and why, so that when I can come back and try to continue this debate civilly, we can go through that list point-by-point.  Thank you for your time.  Dalamori (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What you mean by compromise is as long as you are right, then everyone else should fall in line. Well, I don't accept your POV, as there are WP guidelines which apply to you and me both, an that is notability is evident only if the article cites reliable secondary sources; failing that the notability cleanup template should remain until this issue has been addressed. If you boil down your position, it can be stated as "Paladine is notable...because I say so". I don't accept this and a change of template is not a compromise, its just a weasel's way or removing the cleanup template. Please add reliable secondary sources and then we can discuss whether it appopriate to remove the template afterwards.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. That is pot calling the kettle black. Web Warlock (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After having read the section on spinout articles it seems clear to me that the deity articles qualify for spinoff status under the umbrella of the Dragonlance universe. My main points for believing this are:


 * If this information was included in each main article it would become redundant. There are over 30 books and this seems a significant waste.
 * The amount of information on Paladine is sufficient that any article he is included in would either be necessarily incomplete or his section would add considerable bulk and distract from the article.
 * Those are my arguments. But I must agree, this is a difficult subject for me. Knowing the Dragonlance world I understand the import of characters like Paladine. On the other hand, I admit I'd be hard pressed to explain that import to people that don't care about the Dragonlance world. I agree with Dalamori that we need concrete guidelines (or maybe an example or two) of what you guys are looking for. I do not agree with Dalamori co-opting WP templates to try and establish different criteria for DL articles then any other article. If they are questioning the notability then let's address that, not make templates that "feel better" to us. By the same token I am seeing a very good case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Gavin. You may not like the Dragonlance books or you may have your reasons for disliking the topic, but "I don't accept you assertion of notability" is not good enough. What don't you accept? Why don't you accept it? What would you accept? Can we get some meaningful dialog rather than "Did so!", "Did not!" please? Padillah (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not where I am coming from, nor am I disputing the fact that the character features in a lot of books that are well liked. What I am disputing is (a) the majority of this article has a strong in universe perspective (i.e. it takes fictional content of Dragonlance and presents it as fact), and (b) this is symptom of the lack of real world content that needs to be supported by secondary sources. The sources quoted so far do not provide no evidence notability, for reasons I have discussed above in each instance. I have tagged this article to address these problems, and I object to Dalamori attempt to remove the template without providing reliable secondary sources. If he can provide them, then the cleanup templates can go, but trivial references to the character will not surfice. Please forgive me if I seem strident in my views, but I have encountered many attempts to remove the cleanup templates for spurious or misleading reasons based on POV pushing which ignore WP guidelines.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not accepting an assertion of notability (or import) is entirely appropriate. What is needed is demonstrable notability; and from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This would be the case for more than a mention in some parent article, so if you want to invoke a spinout argument, you need sources establishing notability irregardless of where you use it to support the content. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not accepting an assertion is not appropriate. It causes the dissenter to retain control of the "consensus" and stalls progress on the article. If you can just say "well, I don't accept the New York Times as a reliable secondary source" then what am I left with? I was asked for secondary sources so I provided listings in the New York Times Best Seller List. These were dismissed with a casual "That doesn't mean the characters are notable". So I try to argue basis for a spinoff article and I'm told the main article has to be notable for the spinoff to retain notability. Now do you understand where I get the image that this is a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT? No matter what argument I refute you choose the other argument and keep pressing. I'll play by your rules but you musty choose one set of rules, you can't keep changing them. I have posted links demonstrating the main books to be notable, I have posted reasons for this article to be spun off (redundancy, complexity, and completeness), please give us sufficient time to improve the article and it's supporting articles or provide a reason why these arguments are insufficient.
 * Gavin, I appreciate that the article needs improvement, but that hardly means it's not notable nor does it warrant this kind of obsession with WP:RS. I've posted the New York Times Best Sellers List for several books in the series, that should address the notability of the main articles. Please allow me and the other editors here time to improve the article before you summarily write it off as lost. You argue that because it's written strongly in-universe that a symptom of lacking notability. I argue it's a symptom of us not being professional copy editors. Rather than condemn the article let's see if we can't find some helpful copyeditors or get some sample GA's or FA's to guide us in what is expected. Admittedly Dalamori had overstepped with the removal and redefinition of the "Notability" template, but I think we can get past that and start improving this article. Padillah (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant an assertion by an editor here, not some source being cited. You are also missing the point that notability has to be established for the character Paladine, not for Dragonlance, not whatever books the character has appeared in, &c. It's as simple as that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are going to have to read the section of WP:FICT that deals with spinoff articles. Most appropriately the statement "A spinout article on a single non-notable character or element may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article..." Thus my assertion of the character history being too complex and his number of mentions across 30+ books redundant enough to spin this character off to it's own. I don't understand your obstinate refusal to admit this character is of note. Well, in any case we don't need everyone to agree in order to form a consensus. If you wish to dissent you are more than welcome. Like I said, just because you say "I don't want to accept the New York Times as WP:RS" doesn't make it true. Padillah (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If the NYT has commented in non-trivial depth about Paladine — say anywhere near the depth they've commented on Palestine, then you've established notability for the character. --Jack Merridew 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am getting the impression that you are not reading the text or links that I provide. Either that or you are being blatantly obtuse on purpose. I have referred to the section in WP:FICT and even gone so far as to blockquote it for you. If you still can't get it then I'm at a loss for what to try next. Spinoff articles don't need the same level of notability as do main articles. I can think of no other way to state the argument any clearer. I can only be left with the impression that very little is going to establish notability in your point of view. Thanks for the input. Padillah (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you see above where I linked toWikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)? The bit you're quoting is currently being debated and will likey end up tweaked. This whole thread seems like an effort to field-test this unintended loophole. See Camel's nose for clarity of the concern. Web Warlock stated that he intends to add sources. I suggest everyone give this a rest and see what unfolds in the next few days. (Oh, just noticed that Bilby says he's added something…) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I said that I was going to leave this discussion for a while, and I seriously meant that when I said it; but I feel like I have to respond to the charges of "co-opting WP templates to try and establish different criteria for DL articles then any other article." The only things my template said while it was on this article were that the notability was being disputed, which is factually true and correct; and that improving the article, by rewriting the page to better establish notability and providing high-quality references, would help resolve the debate, which is also factually true and correct.  As for co-opting a WP template, I am sorry if that was a problem; but I haven't figured out how to write templates from scratch, the best I could do was figure out how to modify an existing one.  I chose the one I thought Jack and Gavin liked the best as my starting point, in hopes that the result would be acceptable to them.  Call it clumsy or unsophisticated if you want, but please don't call it sinister.  Dalamori (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please accept my apologies. I have seen established admins simply decide an established WP process didn't suit their criteria so they started to change it to suit their idea of what the process meant to them. If what you say is correct then I jumped the gun. I don't believe we need a different notability template, the current template already says "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability." This should be enough. The mentions of merging and deletion are there to warn editors of the risks of not establishing notability. They are not a suggestion that they article be deleted, rather a note reminding editors that if they don't get with it this article could fall by the wayside. I say we get on with improving the article so we can get past this. Padillah (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, see my latest edit. Dalamori (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference from Franco's "Introduzione a Tolkien". It's in Italian, but it is rather interesting, especially as it draws a comparison between Gandalf and Fizban/Paladine. I'd like to see anything Web Warlock can add, as he seems good at this sort of thing, but that's multiple, non-trivial mentions in acceptable third-party sources. Nevertheless, I'm holding off removing the notability tag, if only because I'd feel better if there was more. One thing that would be nice, btw, is any interview about the origins of the character. I've got a couple, but nothing great yet. It won't really help on notability, but would greatly improve the article. - Bilby (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like too. I do not have as many books about Dragonlance as other topics (never was a HUGE DL fan), but I have some. Web Warlock (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought
While researching Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I stumbled across the following part of WP:V (Shortcut: WP:SELFPUB) which seems as though it may be relevant to this discussion (emphasis added):

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

" I hope this helps. Jack, Gavin, I'm still hoping to see your lists of specific criteria for notability this article fails.  Please let me know if you need some time to put those arguments together.  Dalamori (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I haven't noticed any movement of this talk page for a while now, since neither Jack nor Gavin has supplied any argument to the contrary, does this mean we finally have a consensus that Paladine is notable, and that we should therefore remove the tag? I certainly believe this to be the case. Dalamori (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think that this is a safe assumption. :) Seriously, however, I think it is almost established well enough to meet Wikipedia's requirements. We've got one very good reference and another ok one. I'd be happier with two very good references, but we will probably need to turn to print for it, given that the books were published pre-web. The article is generally looking healthier too, although more editing would never hurt - I've still got some problem paragraphs, and there are a couple of comments that could do with sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is where I fall painfully short - real world references. I know there are interviews in Dragon magazine and some other Sci-Fi/Fantasy mags but that's all, just that I know it was there. I have no idea on how to get it or where to look for it. Heck I just moved to this area, I don't even know where the library is. (I'm so ashamed.) How do we cite real-world sources? Do we have to provide some kind of accecss to those sources (a scanned copy or something)? These are some of the questions I have about this. Padillah (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You cite them as per any normal citation - the works need to be "accessible" so the data can be verified, but that doesn't mean that you need to provide copies. :) It just means that someone who is sufficiently motivated should be able to track down a copy if they really wanted to. Dragon probably won't help establish notability, unfortunately, but the SF mags would be ideal. If I can dig mine out of storage I'll check too. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, not a reasonable assumption. Bilby has added one reasonable ref that would seem to indicate little more than that this character is nothing more than a knock-off of Gandalf — no surprise as that could be, and I'm sure has been, said about the entirety of D&D re Middle Earth et al. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that's a little harsh, isn't it? I don't get that at all from the article. That the two characters share similarities is one thing. To say Paladine "is nothing more than a knock-off of Gandalf" shows quite a bit more hostility than the writer of the article intended. I don't mean to cast aspersions but I have to ask: Jack, are you sure there's no conflict of interest or POV pushing in your background? I'm noticing a distinctly hostile turn in your arguments against this article, so I thought I should ask.Padillah (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest? — no idea what that might be; as to my point of view, I take an encyclopaedic view and a lot of what people type into this site is just plain unencyclopaedic. The core idea behind notability is that somebody took note; not a mere regurgitation of the primary material or promotion of it for commercial purposes, but critical commentary. D&D and various high-profile aspects of it are notable; articles on every character, dragon, deity, spell and fictional isle is mere cruft. That's the harsh truth.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that what Padillah means is that you seem to have a serious contempt issue with the material itself (not merely the minor "crufty" aspects of it, but the entirety of the fictional material) which often leads to what seems to be disdain for the users who defend it, something I’ve witnessed from you many times. Certainly, it’s pervasive enough that a person newly dealing with you like Padillah can see it clearly. I’ve often wondered that myself – what is it that you dislike about RPGs and their fans? Did they beat you up in high school?  Did you beat them up?  Did they pee in your corn flakes, or just look at you funny?  Maybe they just wouldn’t let you play D&D with them?  I don’t know, but it seems to me more like you dislike the content itself, and use the "unencylopedic" claims as a red herring while you do your best to remove and discredit the material. Forgive me for being frank, but that's how I see it. BOZ (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This really has little to do with D&D; I never played it much. I am equally critical of other forms of (what I see as being) unencyclopaedic content such as TV show episodes and characters, and endless video game stuff. I see such mass commercial product as inappropriate for in-depth coverage here. The minutia is not notable, only the higher-level articles are appropriate. I do try and direct any caustic comments towards poor arguments and not the editors making them. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you say, but it can sometimes be difficult to separate attacks on the argument from attacks on the person making the argument. Note that Civility states that even a judgemental tone in edit summaries towards either a person or content is disallowed. BOZ (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, I don't mean to throw stones, that's why I'm asking and trying to get a handle on where people are comming from. I hope you understand that turning statements like "Paladine (in his Fizban aspect) has drawn comparisons with the character of Gandalf..." into "the character is nothing more than a knock-off of Gandalf" is quite a jump and a rather hostile one at that. The concept of "wise old man leads youngsters" wasn't invented with LOTR and DL is not trying to "rip it off". It's rather common for artists in various forms to draw inspiration from other works. Asimov has done it, Stephen King has done it, heck, Shakespeare and Mozart did it. How this instance turned into a case of "nothing more than a knock-off" made me question. If you have no problem with the subject matter then why is it so difficult for you to treat it with a modicum of respect? If it's not notable enough for it's own article, finelet's find someplace to put it, but please, a little respect for the material if not for those that enjoy it. Padillah (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I've not said that I view all this with contempt, asking that I respect it is asking a bit much; it is a game. If the material is not notable, then it it is not a question of finding someplace to put it, it's a matter of an appropriate level of coverage, which exists at List of Dragonlance deities; add the Gandlaf and we're done. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see definition 1b: . BOZ (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BOZ, I don't see it as binary as that; there is a gradient in between.
 * re Gandalf and company; The game's stew of swords, sorcery, and mythological beasts was mostly appropriated from pulp writers and fantasy greats like H.P. Lovecraft and J.R.R. Tolkien. from here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry to hear that respect for people and their views is beneath you. Anyway it looks like you have your mind pretty firmly made up so at least we know there is no amount of evidence to the contrary that will get past you. With this in mind I think we should concentrate on editors that are actually willing to improve Wikipedia not just push their POV. Padillah (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, I didn't say that and it is not implied by anything I have said. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's actually more like Fizban (Paladine's alter-identity) is a Gandalf knock-off. Fizban is really a puppet for the god, Paladine. At least, that's how I understand it. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, that what Bilby's source is citing and what the section it's in is talking about. See Image:D&d original.jpg, which I remember; that's an obvious knock-off of Smaug under the Lonely Mountain with a dash of Merlin and King Arthur thrown in. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Exactly how much of the Dragonlance material have you read or watched or played Jack? Let's see Gandalf is a nearly immortal wizard with a staff, beard and hat. Paladine is an gigantic platinum dragon god.  Wow why didn't I see they were identical before!! Web Warlock (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None at all, why? You have ownership issues? You may have missed BOZ's comment, above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I must say, I had rather hoped for a more civil discussion on notability and the likelihood thereof. Please allow me to try and nudge this discussion in that direction:
 * I feel that if we haven't yet definitively shown notability, we've certainly shown that the establishment of notability is likely, and possibly imminent. The  template states in it's documentation that it should be used "when an article subject is mostly likely non-notable. Use  instead when the subject probably is notable enough, but the article fails to establish notability."  I refer you above, to where Seresin has already offered to AfD this article once, despite (and probably because of) our discussion here.  I feel this is a fairly important issue, since I see the improper use of  as giving other editors who deal with it on a daily basis a bias against this article's notability.  I suggest that we replace  with, is this acceptable?  Dalamori (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, your goal here seems to be merely the removal of the tag rather than actually addressing the issue. I'll look again, but I've yet to see any solid notability establishing citation for Paladine or his Gandalf-derived wizardly avatar. (i.e. leave the tag.) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed my point, Jack, when I said that I was hoping for a more civil discussion. I notice that despite your involvement on this talk page, you don't seem to have made any substantive contributions to the effort to improve this article, other than providing a large quantity of dubiously constructive criticism about our attempts.  But, I'm going to assume that you have your own methods; and that whether I feel they are the ideal way to channel your efforts or not, Wikipedia as a whole benefits from your contributions (I noticed you were particularly helpful in your efforts to deal with a notorious sock-puppeteer).  I sure would appreciate it if you could extend the same courtesy to us.  It's hard enough to decipher your arguments as it is, given that you apparently refuse to elucidate them, having to deal with comments which could easily be interpreted as ridicule would make it even that much more difficult to forge an amicable consensus.  So, yes, I am trying to get the tag changed, I said as much above, and I said why.  And no, I have every intention of making further substantive additions to the article itself in my attempts to improve it.  Thank you for your time.  Dalamori (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree notability is likely, I'd recommend leaving the tag in place. It makes life easier. The notability tag won't do any harm at this point, it will serve to let people know that more work would be nice, and it avoids the problems that will eventuate if it is removed. - Bilby (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate tag
I think Dalamori is noting that the tag has inspired on person to suggest AfD, that would be harmful. If there is a more appropriate tag then by all means let's use it and not mislead editors about the state of the article. But we should use it because it's the appropriate tag, not simply because it replaces the one there.

Dalamori, I wouldn't worry about Jack. He has no intention of helping with this article, and no intention of showing us and our views the respect due another person. He has said so above and his actions have shown this to be true. I recommend simply ignoring him unless and until his effort amounts to a real contribution. At this point I view his as a troll baiting an argument. Padillah (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are so out of order, Padillah. Its like the whole discussion about notability has not happened, and we are back at square one: you think you can ignore Wikipedia policy and ettiquete because your opinion supercedes everyone else's. You recomend ignoring other editors, but it seems you have learnt nothing: it cleanup template that has brought everyone here in the first place, and it should remain until this work is done.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way about me. I have made no mention of the notability template and have no intention of removing it. When I suggested ignoring Jack it was until his efforts amounted to a real contribution, in other words - take Jack at face-value, someone that has shown no respect for us or the subject matter and his opinion be separated from the fact of WP policy. There is no use in trying to get him to provide any useful information nor help in any way, he has sufficiently demonstrated that he has no intention of doing so, so don't work yourself up. None of which has any bearing on WP policy or any notability discussion that has gone on. I did not even offer my opinion but since you ask, yes, I believe that all people should be given a measure of respect. I myself am trying to find references but, as I mentioned, I have recently moved and am still trying to find the library (and get my new state license, etc.). I have already conceded that the article should be moved to the List but would like to see if anyone can improve the notability. That does not mean sitting here for weeks arguing with Jack simply because he doesn't like the subject matter. Now if you are done telling me what I have and have not learned... Padillah (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources were actually being added then I would agree that arguing would be pointless, but there not, and you will have to accept that faux citations and bogus claims of notability will be challenged. I believe you owe Jack an appolgy: sweeping generalisations made without evidence such as "someone who has shown no respect for us" is little more than flaming, and just drags down the tone of this discussion. If you have nothing positive to add, I suggest you refrain from personal attacks, because it is important to involve as many editors as possible in this article (including you). Remember, you will always encounter people with opinions that differ from your own, so there is no point in making let alone repeating impolite comments. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this will sound bizarre but I'm not trying to be impolite or to attack Jack. But I think it's important that we understand his point of view. If you check the history the only things Jack has done to this article since 24 Feb is maintain the tag. That coupled with his demeaning comments (it's a book series by the way, not a game; and until you have written not one, but four, NYT bestsellers I think that asking for a little respect is not out of line) and rewording ("old wizened wizard", elves, faeries, fighters, and the lot have been a staple of fantasy long before even the venerated Tolkein) made on this talk page only leaves me with the impression that he is pushing his POV, that this article will never be notable to him regardless of the facts. With that impression in mind I can only see it for what it is, accept it, and move on to the next person that will listen. If it offends Jack that I think this subject is notable and it's fans and writers deserve respect then I guess I'm sorry he feels that way. But to apologize for taking his postings at face value, I don't think I need to. As for my contributions to the article, you are right and I am trying. I have a few RL things to deal with and then I should be able to get to a library this weekend. Having said that, both Dalamori and I are missing what to look for. Would an article in Dragon magazine be sloughed off as a "non-notable fan source"? Do listings in other TSR media count (modules, player manuals)? I need a little more to go on than "second party sources". Padillah (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles in Dragon are fine for notability, but only if they aren't about a TSR (or WotC) property. In this case they are, so they - and anything else published by TSR - won't establish notability, as they don't qualify as third-party. This isn't to say that they can't be used to verify claims, but that's not the issue at hand. What you're looking for are reviews in other publications, such as Locus, SFX, or any magazine that reviews fantasy novels, which provide some non-trivial discussion of the character. Also the fantasy encyclopedias can be good, but Clute's won't help much (it is big, but personally I didn't think it was very good, and it won't cover Paladine anyway). In particular there are a few good "illustrated" encyclopedias in which you might be lucky. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add - while Dragon is out, White Dwarf and any other RPG magazines may be in, although they're less likely to cover it. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Way out of line; see WP:TALK;
 * Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.
 * and, obviously, no personal attacks, and assume good faith

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, appologies. I have changed the section title. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually thought it was Padillah who titled it (had not looked; his comment was first in section). No offense taken by the title; his comments, on the other hand, are entirely inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, what you need to look for in a source is either a review, interview, opinion piece, or whatnot, which was not produced by or even loosely connected with TSR/Wotc, which is either about Paladine himself (instant win!) or contains a section which discusses him specifically and his relation to the book series, setting, and/or game. "Paladine is really cool in this book" is not good enough, because that's a trivial mention, but if you've got say, at least a few paragraphs which are all or mostly about him, that should work as a third-party source. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

C