Talk:The Pattern and the Logrus

Exact size
Is the exact size of the Pattern given anywhere? AFAIR, it is an oval of about 20 by 15 metres. --Bakabaka 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The exact size of the Pattern under Kolvir is never given, but the Rebman pattern is described as 100 yards by 150 yards. The relevant text from Nine Princes In Amber follows (I don't know how much to quote for wiki). --Sgorton 19:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "It was an elaborate tracery of bright power, composed mainly of curves, though there were a few straight lines near its middle. It reminded me of a fantastically intricate, life-scale version of one of those maze things you do with a pencil (or ballpoint, as the case may be), to get you in or or out of something. Like, I could almost see the words 'Start Here.' somewhere way to the back. It was perhaps a hundred yards across at its narrow middle, and maybe a hundred and fifty-long."

Notability
I've notied this article on pl wiki, where it has zero references and in a deleiton discussion another editor called it WP:FANCRUFT: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:11:01:Amber (Kroniki Amberu). Now, our article here in English sports quite reliable references, and also provides accompanying quotations for them - all best practices. However, having read said quotations I am concerned they are just plot summaries (WP:PLOT) mentioning this concept, and reception and significance of this concept is very WP:ORish. (99% of this article is plot summary and the remaining 1% seems OR not properly supported by sources...). Before I PROD or AfD this, I'd like to hear more comments by others. Ping possibly interested editors who have rescued sf/lit content I was concerned before on several occasions - can anyone work any magic here? User:BOZ, User:Daranios, User:Jclemens, User:ReaderofthePack (feel free to ping anyone else you think could be interested in this). PS. Trivia: I read the entire Amber series and enjoyed in throughtly when I was a teenager... good old days. PPS. See also The Logrus, which suffers from the same issues and the article we are discussing here. PPPS. An alternative to deletion would be merger to The Chronicles of Amber but due to OR problem I see here I am not sure if anything warrants merging? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You mention the possibility of using PROD. That is appropriate only if you are not expecting any opposition (and it seems you at least think there might be opposition) and that changing to a redirect would not be appropriate. PROD would not have been appropriate here even in the absence of my current objection. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a dead tree book on Amber that I believe to be different than any of those referenced already here, but it's an encyclopedia of fictional elements, and I don't know that it will provide much in the way of what is missing here. I'll look and see what else I can find when I get a chance. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading this article, it would be nonsensical in large part to anyone not already familiar with the Amber books and their associated other fictional elements. It needs more than a reception section, and I'm wondering if it might not be better served in a list of Amber elements of some sort. For example, the Jewel of Judgment appears only here. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens The Polish article is framed as the Amber-universe one. Frankly, I think there is not enough there to do much outside merge and redirect of what Daranios added to the " The Chronicles of Amber". The series is notable and can describe its universe in its own article; I don't think we need subarticles like this. In the end, this is fancruft, with a few passing mentions in RS we have dug up so far failing WP:SIGCOV. We can discuss merge but as I said, the previous content IMHO is ORish, now, User:Daranios added something that is a bit better but arguably still not meeting SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that so many of the articles of a Google Scholar search cannot be accessed. Or can anyone, to have a look if there's something interesting about the Pattern in the first few hits? Or specifically in "The Pervasive Influence of Poetry in the Works of Roger Zelazny"?
 * If there was to be a merge, I'd say that actually all the referenced reception section should be preserved. They are all bits and pieces, and I am not sure I completely understand all those secondary sources. But I would say they all contain analytical information insofar as I would be criticized if I presented such information and claimed it was clear from the primary sources. And if all of that were to be merged I am wondering if wouldn't be too much for The Chronicles of Amber as a target. That said, I am at this point not categorically against a merge, and probably the presentation of The Pattern and the Logrus there is probably clearer to a reader without prior knowledge than what we have here, as Jclemens has remarked. Daranios (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Daranios LibGen is your friend - the "Pervasive influence" is available there (I can't link it as it is blacklisted due to copyright concerns). Second best friend is the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Btw, all of you may want to comment at Talk:Warp drive, where I am mulling on another merge/split/rewrite. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Per comments above, I started the Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Amber merge discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This would definitely need some cleanup if it were to be kept, but to be honest what I'm finding is sort of in passing or mentioned in universe. There's not really any independent coverage for this from what I can see so far. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sure one can discuss about the length or lack thereof in the individual secondary sources used. But why do you think what we have in the reception section is "not really any independent coverage"? Daranios (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)