Talk:The Wheel of Time/Archive 3

Regarding The Premise:
I felt that The Premise, as written prior to my major edit on the 17th of February, was in need of major revision for the following reasons:


 * The two paragraphs were so large that they impeded reader comprehension.
 * 'In the beginning, there was' was an unnecessary reference to Christianity.
 * The characters can't name the Dark One. We can, and should, in the interests of clarity.
 * There was too much extraneous information for a bare explanation of the premise. Some details, such as the Red Ajah and gentling, delved too far into plot territory.
 * Shai'tan was never actually freed. He was simply given some leeway in effecting events.

The narrowest definition of the premise would be: the struggle of one incarnation of the Dragon against Shai'tan. This, of course, would be too narrow to include in the article, since it assumes background knowledge that a viewer unfamiliar with the series would not have, and fails to link the series title to the premise. Thus, it's necessary to provide the background, including definitions of the Wheel itself and the One Power, in the article as well.

I'm not entirely satisfied with my revision, however, for the following reasons:


 * I think that the information I retained regarding the Age of Legends and the taint *might* still go a bit too far beyond a dry definition of the premise.
 * That the Creator sealed Shai'tan at the moment of creation has never been definitively proven. Indeed, its inclusion in the mantra which also claims that the Forsaken were sealed as well renders it suspect.
 * The sentence which immediately follows that is a amalgamation of old and new, and it seems fragmented, even though I believe it to be grammatically correct. It also includes 'machinations of well-meaning people,' but I believe that the cyclical nature of the Wheel of Time would not necessarily have provided for motive in each relevant cycle.

Given the complexity of the plot, I believe that details beyond those required to define the premise should be included in the entries for the individual books.


 * If any of you read one of the earlier books with Herid Fel it will tell you quite a bit it also seams to ruin the hole wheel of time after all how can there be a creator that would mean a begining like it says in every book I dont quite get it.


 * I just have an objection to " That the Creator sealed Shai'tan at the moment of creation has never been definitively proven. Indeed, its inclusion in the mantra which also claims that the Forsaken were sealed as well renders it suspect. " --- it is said many times that the Creator had sealed the Dark One away, in his prison, at the very beginning of the world, but that mankind bored into Shai'tan's prison and released him (or at least gave him much more power than before). After this point, Aes Sedai and other channelers had resealed the Dark One away, which also caused the taint on Saidin; this is when the Forsaken were sealed.  And yes, although there ought not be a Creator if the wheel of time is infinite and going on forever, but I think the Creator in this sense is one that created the wheel itself.  After all, a wheel may go around in circles forever, but someone had to put it there in the first place. However, I don't know what warrants changes or what doesn't.  I just thought I'd point out that this point, at least, makes perfect sense. -JC 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We should mention the dark one was let out by Lanfear and ??? it says but I only reconised her name and what they were trying to do though they may have known. Also the philospher Herid Fel kept mentioning things which made no sense to me like how there would have had to be a patch since the begining and on and on and does anyone know how come he says "there are neither beginings nor endings to the wheel of time but it was a beginning" That does not work.


 * '...and does anyone know how come he says "there are neither beginings nor endings to the wheel of time but it was a beginning" That does not work.'
 * The important thing to note in the quote you're questioning is the "a". So the wheel is infinite and things happen over and over again, but within that infiniteness or repetition or whatever you want to call it there are many singular (though infinitely repeated) beginnings of events. Does that clear it up for you? 198.103.96.11 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
This article has failed GAC. The main problem was that it had no sources whatsoever, except for a link in the lead
 * The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and is supposed to recap and summarise what goes down below. At the moment about half of the lead is not in the main body. There should be a seection in the main body on the author and the lead should recap this in a condesed way.
 * "#1" is not an appropriate wording per MOS
 * Per MOS, only use the surname on second third fourth usage of a person's name.
 * Needs to be a critical reception section
 * Needs a section about sales, contracts and royalties type issues.

 Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Hi. If nobody minds, I will try to archive this talk page. It is getting really long. Blackcat52 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * please only archive those sections where the discussion is dead, ie no recent posts within them--Mongreilf (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject_WheelOfTime
Would any of you you be interested in joining in a WikiProject_WheelOfTime if such a beast were to arise? nae'blis (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My request for http://wot.wikicities.com was approved today. I am a little scared by e.g. List of Middle-earth articles.  It is much more comprehensive than the lotr wikicity . OTOH, the dune wikicity seems to be progressing nicely considering how long it has been around, and I can see it exceeding Category:Dune in comprehensiveness relatively soon. And of course there is Star Trek's Memory Alpha.  But how can we draw a clear line defining what is appropriate WoT content for Wikipedia?  Is there a general policy somewhere that we should try to follow? --Gherald 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm curious why you went this route - the Encyclopedia of the Wheel of Time is already nearly-comprehensive, unless you're hoping to get them to transfer it over to Wikicities. Where is the discussion on this sort of proposal even held? I never saw it... anyway.
 * Fiction has some good guidelines on this sort of thing: Major characters from major series deserve their own article only if it makes the main article(s) too long. Looking at the breadth of Category:The Wheel of Time, we'd need to come up with some standards for "major". I'd recommend that they be in more than one book to get their own article, AND advance the story significantly by their presence/absence. Wikipedia seems to be fairly lenient when the articles are well written and organized (see Star Wars, Dune, LOTR), but I found Mashadar as uncategorized the other day, and I had to think thrice before I could figure out who Toveine Gazal was. We need some organization, whether it happens here in a WikiProject or on Wikicities or whatever... I've created an account over there though, just in case.
 * Also Guide_to_writing_better_articles will probably be useful on both sites. nae'blis (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I went this route because I think we need something dynamic to complement the static EWoT, and that a significant number of the articles here are inappropriate, particularly the ones about individual characters.. I think we would do well to limit Wikipedia's coverage to:
 * links from Template:Wotnav
 * articles about _MAJOR_ characters... _MAJOR_ being flexibly defined as those who's narative POV appears in the regular chapters of at least two books, or who's name transcends most of the series (e.g. Dark One and Lews Therin).
 * I think we could start by moving all `inappropriate' character articles to the Minor characters page (thus reviving it, since it's in a pretty sad state ATM), and cutting them down to size if necessary (at most a 5-7 sentence paragraph should be sufficient). Roughly the same should work for Concepts and Events...  Then we can use interwiki links to transparently link to a more comprehensive wikicities entry... for example:
 * Main Page    gives:   Main Page
 * I thought you were the one who mentioned that EWoT was looking to move to a Wiki-based format once they got their XML format worked out. You're talking about recreating 3000 or so articles just to get to the level of comprehensiveness they already have; without copyright infringement, and without vandalism. EWoT is established and credible; I'm not (personally) interested in fragmenting the WOT community any more than it is. There's already 17 gazillion websites out there trying to explain everything... and I'm not at all convinced of the usefulness of the Wikicities format. Having multiple watchlists just on wikicities.com, for example, is already making me crazy.
 * I do support the straightening out of the articles that already exist, and merging a lot of the smaller ones into bigger articles (I don't know that the current sub-cats are properly designed; there's a lot of articles thrown into Category:The Wheel of Time as a "catch-all" right now). But if this is where you want to put your energy, I wish you well. Caba'drin misane iro. "We are free men." nae'blis (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You raised this question well yourself, Nae'blis: "How far does this mini-Wiki go, or need to go? Is there an existing WoT-based Wiki out there that we would be better off spending our time working on, rather than bulging one section of Wikipedia unnecessarily?". I had actually thought you'd be the first to appreciate the Wikicity...
 * I tried to cooperate. The owner of EWoT is writing his own Wiki software that uses XML markup.  I have little faith in such an endeavor, do not know how long it is going to take for it to be usable, and have not received any replies to my requests that MediaWiki be given a test drive while we wait, so I decided to start one myself.  My original wish was that we work the licensing out to be able to copy-paste freely between EWoT and the wikicity.  Yes there are 17 gazillion sites, but no wikis.  That's the problem.  Am I fragmenting the community?  Hardly.  It's not a community when only one person can update a site, and they don't answer email.
 * The basic reason that I want to cut down rather than strengthen the existing articles on Wikipedia is that I will find it far easier to strengthen them if I am able to be able to make some basic assumptions about how familiar the reader is with WoT. It's impossible to do that with a general encyclopedia.  Writing something about WoT for a WoT fan's perusal is much simpler than writing something with the caveat that the average Wikipedian clicking "Random Page" not freak out (to say nothing of stylistic requirements, NPOV, stoicness, etc).  But enough rambling on my part.  I am going to sit back and wait for a consensus... perhaps others, like you, would rather wait for EWoT to get its act together. --Gherald 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I hope this goes to more than just a two-person conversation. You're right that there's no established wikis out there, I was probably just daunted by the blank-pageness of Wikicities right now...even the help files don't exist. However, if you want to talk technical details, I can probably help with those (work is too busy to do a lot of article writing right now, and I haven't read KOD yet). Do you have IM or something similar available to you? Drop me an email and I'll keep an eye out: I can sometimes be found on Trillian between 10pm and 1am, Central US time. nae'blis (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with Gherald regarding EWoT and other non-wiki WoT sites. I have periodically wanted to put together some sort of database-type system regarding the series, but it's something that works very well in a wiki format. I'm not sure that wikicities is the best place for it (seems a lot more informal), but count me in. Mhoskins 14:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinions?
If somebody wants to start an exclusively WOT-related Wiki, I'm in on it. The Confessor 21:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? 206.172.0.196 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
the literary concepts section seems full of original research. lots of interpretation of the books without any citations to show this is the reporting of documented interpretation.--Mongreilf (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OR

I Agree     I love the series, and I've read all of them and I agree with the summary, but it really looks like OR. I'm striking it out of the article for now. KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken Footnotes/References?
Critical Reception currently ends with "As of 18 September 2007 the series has sold over 30 million copies worldwide.[1]" However [1] links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wheel_of_Time#_note-0 which doesn't exist.

Wheel of Time Miniseries ends with "...has purchased an option to do a miniseries of "The Eye of the World." [2]" However [2] links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wheel_of_Time#_note-1 which doesn't exist. 198.103.96.11 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been fixed. The second ref you note didn't have a closing tag, so the everything after it was being considered part of the reference. Thanks for pointing this out. sdgjake (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks sdgjake. I guess I should have had a look at the article before just reporting the issue. For some reason when I was looking at it yesterday it just didn't occur to me that it might be something I could fix ... oh well. 198.103.96.11 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The link to the "Official site" is presently broken. I'm reluctant to delete the link but unless it is re-established it will need to be removed Kate Phizackerley (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Kate Phizackerley, 26 July 2008


 * Tor.com was reorganized and most content moved to tor-forge.com aka us.macmillan.com. I've updated the link there. Unfortunately some content does seem to've disappeared, like the free online version of A Strike at Shayol Ghul. I suppose someone should ask Tor about it? jhawkinson (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon reviews
Regarding recent critiques added from amazon customer reviews of book 10. I do not oppose the adding of critical commentary, and actually thought it was a missing component on this page. I reduced it to one citation just because they are not professional reviews and they are only discussing one book, not the series as a whole, which is what this page is about. The poster has added one line back and I will not revert for now, but I would prefer if someone could eventually replace it with some professional reviews of the series, critical or not. Nowimnthing (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazon reviews are not considered verifiable sources for Wikipedia articles, and neither are most blog/fansite-style reviews found online. However, the series has been widely reviewed in professional publications such as Locus, SFX Magazine and so forth. It may be difficult to find copies of these online, particularly for the earlier books in the series.--Werthead (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Eagle is making the new movie?
Doesn't it say on the blog something to the effect that RJ was real mad at them and that he couldn't forgive them, and all contracts that they had with his name on them were about to expire? Jamhaw (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)jamhaw
 * Correct. RJ's last blog was basically to say that Red Eagle's attitude was that they had the rights and were going to do what they liked without consulting him, but were then expecting him to approve their efforts regardless. He was quite adamant that was not going to happen. According to Brandan Sanderson's blog, after he asked Harriet about it, Red Eagle sold the movie rights literally right at the eleventh hour, just before the rights expired, otherwise they wouldn't have been involved. Luckily, Red Eagle are likely not to have much to do with the creative side of the movie, so it may still turn out okay.--Werthead (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative numbers?
Shouldn't the prequel be numbered 0 rather than -1, as it comes one book before Book One? I have on my shelf the two prequels to The Order of the Stick, with "0" and "-1" clearly printed on their spines. 91.105.5.167 (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. It doesn't have an "official" number as far as I know and we shouldn't try to make one up. The order of the table is enough to establish chronology. Dcoetzee 07:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject
I'm thinking of trying to start a Wikiproject for Wheel of Time. Anyone interested? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please comment here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure if it's worth attempting this, as Wikipedia seems to be coming down hard on fiction-based article groupings. In particular, establishing notability for concepts beyond entries for the books, the main setting and perhaps a single list of characters would be very difficult. The WoT-dedicated Wiki here would probably be a more constructive and rewarding project to put your time and effort into.--Werthead (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WoT01 TheEyeOfTheWorld.jpg
The image Image:WoT01 TheEyeOfTheWorld.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationale Added. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we have a different picture? I feel that rather than the cover of one of the books we should either have a picture of the Wheel of Time or maybe a collection of all the Wheel of Time books? Jamhaw (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)jsmhaw


 * Certainly. Add it at your convenience.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New Wheel of Time Author Chosen
Check it out: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/10/1752244

I wasn't sure if it was best placed here or on the actual author page. 207.35.115.198 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's already been noted in all of the relevant articles. sdgjake (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow I completely missed the additions and the fact that the news is actually a few days old. 207.35.115.198 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no one really noticed till yesterday but then it spread like wildfire. And thanks for catching the other headlines towards the bottom of the article. sdgjake (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

- Guys: The article reads : "A Memory of Light (working title, est. 700,000+ words[5]) due Fall 2009". "Fall" falls at different months around the world. Perhaps it may be more democratic or pluralistic to use dates to discribe time, instead of US seasons. Saludos. Alessio Aguirre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.163.52 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, if we had an exact date, we'd use it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about an "aproximate" date people outside of the US would find meaningful? like "around the third quarter of 2009"?

Alessio Aguirre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.163.52 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that should work I guess. Go ahead and change it to that.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghostwritten
Books 4-6 were ghostwritten. Any reliable sources on this would be appreciated.


 * You won't find any, because it is not true. I really wish people would stop perpetuating that stupid rumor.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Preach it, brother :) Mirithing (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen! Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone provide a link to that rumour? I have to admit I have never heard of that particular rumour. Jamhaw (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)jamhaw
 * Noo idea, Jamhaw. Would be interested in seeing it, too :) Mirithing (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits
Some streamlining of the text to remove some clunky wording, although it is correct I should have included Thom Merrilin's presence in the story in the summary section. I also removed the story summaries for both the RPG and the computer game, as neither are considered canon and both are covered at adequate length under their own entries. It's also worth pointing out that confirmation is expected in the next two months or so that A Memory of Light will be split in two volumes for publication, which will entail some rewording of the article.--Werthead (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Death of the Author
Edit relevant details to include the death of the author....'Cause hes dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellionzod (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A capital idea! 146.151.57.200 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Although more than a few of us are guilty (and feeling guilty) of wondering about the series' conclusion, remember it is pointless to discuss while people are grieving. Rest easy: it is worth noting that Robert joked (or relayed the joke of...) his grave being desecrated if he died before he concluded the series. As he knew he was in imperfect health, it stands to reason he kept readable notes. Be patient.

The important thing is I am sure we are all sorry for the Jordan family's loss at such a young age (he was only 58). He will be missed. Scottprive 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry too much. This is what's on the WOT Mania site.

I talked with Jason about this. He said that Jordan has been dictating outlines and plot lines and everything else related to the final book. He used the phrase "army of writers" to talk about the people that were converting those tapes into written form.

Here is the thread with the information. sdgjake 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen a number of threads/blog entries etc since Robert Jordan's death which seem to indicate that enough information has been passed along to complete book 12. What I haven't seen is anything on the prequel trilogy, has anyone out there heard anything or read anything on that subject? 198.103.96.11 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There will not be a prequel trilogy, to my recollection. I think that his people said that he didn't leave enough material to make prequels beyond "New Spring" Occamsrazorwit (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A Memory of Light
Now that it's confirmed that AMOL will be split into three volumes, how do we show this in the table? Are they all considered separate books? Do they each get their own row? Their own book number? Or would they be 12.1, 12.2 & 12.3? Personally I think we need to show seperate page counts etc. for each book. They will all have their own titles. Yet they will all be part of the larger work A Memory of Light--sdgjake (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just wait until they come out. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ten Nations
A deletion discussion for The Ten Nations has been opened here. Thought some of you guys may want to participate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

References on other articles
This doesn't directly relate to this page, but as there is no Wheel of Time Taskforce or anything, this is the best place. The problem is that all of the other articles relating to the Wheel of Time have absolutely NO references of citation. I'll try and do some myself by adding what references I can, but I hope that other people can leaf through their Wheel of Time books to find page numbers and such that can be used for in line citations of all the claims made on character's pages. It shouldn't be that hard. Some of the unreferenced pages are Nynaeve and Rand al'Thor. --Pstanton (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By page would be almost impossible to do consistently, as there are so many editions with so many variances. Chapter should be enough, plus with outside sourcing. This site would be very helpful to people as a cheat sheet, plus also this one, with these sample pages of Perrin. They've been compiling this info by chapter especially on the first site for years. GoneAwayNowAndRetired ( C )( T ) 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * True, I don't think exhaustive citations for every little fact is needed. But if we could have an inline citation pointing to a reference with Book and Chapter etc. in certain places would be very helpful. I think at the minimum, in Nynaeve, when we claim that Nynaeve frequently pulls her braid in frustration, there should be a reference with book and chapter backing that up. Some things, like the fact that Rand al'Thor can channel, or is the strongest male channeler alive now, are probably commonly known enough that citation isn't neccessary, but certain character habits, most notably Nynaeve and her braid, could use a single citation, preferably the first instance available. --Pstanton (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, "strongest male channeler known" should have a citation. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation provided
Deleted a 'citation needed' sign which appears to have been placed erroneously, since the citation was provided exactly one sentence later.--Werthead (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A Memory of Light featured article?
Okay, been thinking that I would like to take the aMoL article to featured article status. Partly because it should be quite easy to reliably source, and it could be considered that it is RJ's legacy, and it'd be a good way to make a tribute to him with a well represented article. Will likely take a lot of work, and will probably be impossible until the books have all been released. Who's with me? Rehevkor ✉  23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much help I am, but I'm with you! :) Mirithing (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It will probably be a lot easier to do this for the main Wheel of Time article rather that AMoL, but I agree it's a fantastic idea to try to get this on the main page on or near the release date as a tribute to RJ. He was one of the most popular authors of the entire genre and sold as many books as someone like Dan Brown--is he close to Rowling numbers? I'm short on time, but if this actually goes ahead let me know on my talk and I'll try to help as I can, though aside from bursts I'm really short on time for dedicated stuff. I can scrounge up tons of sources, one of my strengths, that people can lay into. GoneAwayNowAndRetired ( C )( T ) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, did we ever get that wikiproject? Didn't find the question until it was too late, but perhaps it could be a good idea to start one so we can coordinate our efforts? Maybe... What do you guys think? Mirithing (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was practically no support, so I removed the entry from the Wikiproject Council. Most of the feedback I got suggested that we actually create a Task Force under Wikiproject Novels, similiar to the Chronicles of Narnia Task Force and, if we got enough participation, we could always transition to a full Wikiproject later.  Regardless of whether we start a Project or a Task Force or nothing at all, I agree with GoneAwayNowAndRetired that we should focus on getting The Wheel of Time article to FA first.  It will be considerably easier to get the article for the whole series up rather than one for the books that haven't come out yet.  I suggest that, as a logical first step, we invite someone from Peer review to help us identify areas that we need to focus on improving (we do have the GA Review information from above, but that is from over a year and a half ago).  Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've about hit the limit of what can be written in the AMoL article, so would support moving focus to the series article. However bringing this to FA status wouldn't be as easy as some think, vast sections are unsourced, most of which will need to be re-written due to an in-universe perspective, quite a lot of original research too. Rehevkor ✉  14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never said it would be easy, but now is the best time to do it, since interest is running high (for a change). Does anybody object to my requesting a peer review to identify some areas for us to focus on?  Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea, which release date are we aiming for however? The Gathering Storm or the final book in the trilogy? Jamhaw (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)jamhaw
 * To be honest, the odds of getting two from the same topic area like WoT on the main page are probably non-existent. I'd say an order of
 * The main The Wheel of Time article to FA
 * Build it, expand it, keep it FA
 * Incorporate what will be more material with each of the remaining three books
 * Aim for Main Page for The Wheel of Time when the grand finale of book #14, Tarmon Gai'don, is released.
 * Just my idea. Involves obviously a bit of waiting--it wouldn't be Main Paged until 2011--but short of the birthday of Jordan nothing else would be a good date to shoot for. GoneAwayNowAndRetired ( C )( T ) 05:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see getting it on the main page being all that difficult, though frankly I could care less whether it ends up on the main page or not. I'm more interested in getting it up to FA Status.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, if no one objects, I am going to put in a request for a peer review to give us some idea of what we need to do to get this article up, where we should start and what the main focuses of our efforts should be. I'll wait a day or two to see if anyone has a problem with that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaaaaargh sorry, just had to let that out after hearing the final book is morphing into three books. A receding horizon. Peer Review is a good place to start yes. Why not compare it with another Featured Article covering a similar scope? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unneccessary changes to the table
Out of curiosity, why was the table changed from the most-commonly available editions (the mass-market paperbacks, which appear to have consistent page counts in the UK and US editions) to the hardcovers? This seems an altogether pointless change, especially when it was only done for the first six books. I'll wait to hear a justification before reverting to the mmpb page counts (apart from the latest book, of course, until it comes out in mmpb).--Werthead (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No explanation, so reverted.--Werthead (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Gathering Storm page count
The article says that the book is only available in hardcover. I bought a paperback version on the 28th of October, with 783 pages. Is the paperback version only available in the UK/Australia? YuanchosaanSalutations! 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The edition you have appears to be a trade paperback export edition, created by Orbit UK for the express purpose of shipping to Commonwealth countries such as India, Australia and South Africa. It also sometimes appears in airports and, very occasionally, in normal bookshops. The tradeback weighs substantially less than the hardcover, making it cheaper to ship overseas in bulk. It is otherwise the same sizem, shape and length as the hardcover.--Werthead (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Work in progress..
Some will know that I heavily developed the A Memory of Light article before the tGS was released. After the split and the first book release that article is rather inconsistent, as it was primarily written considering it would either be one book or a "trilogy". I have since branched off from that and re-written is as a separate article detailing the series after RJ's death. It's currently a work in progress. As in the foreword to tGS Sanderson stated that the last 3 books could be considered a "trilogy" of sorts and there is enough material to write a detailed, well sourced and flesh out article in it's own right, I am writing it as such. Although I am considering merging it into a re-written version of the tWoT main article, but I shall see. It can be found at User:Rehevkor/Draft, any input is welcome, with major issues here or it's talk page (edit conflicts are annoying). I understand having a separate article in this respect is rather unconventional (and as such I'm not even sure how to title it) but please bear with me. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉  01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but the title 'A Memory of Light' now refers to the 14th and final book in the series, and should be used to refer to that. A note on how the final book expanded into the final three in the article is appropriate, but whilst Sanderson said you could view the final three books as a single entity if you liked, they are nonetheless being officially marketed and sold as three separate novels. In fact, the cover mock-ups for The Gathering Storm show at one time they were considering calling it 'Book One of A Memory of Light', but chose not to as that would be too confusing. There is a also some redundancy in having this information in its own article, as it is also covered in the main Wheel of Time article and, much more briefly on Robert Jordan's page and on The Gathering Storm's page already.--Werthead (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since writing the above, I decided to re-write the article into a Gathering Storm article, which is mostly live, rather than a "trilogy" article. Rehevkor ✉  03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WoT articles
For those who haven't noticed I have been tagging the multitude of Wheel of Time articles found on the wiki. There are some major issues with nearly all of them, I have only been tagging the unreferenced ones so far but there remains major issues of notability, original research, in-universe style, fan cruft, curiously external link issues, and those that are sourced are sourced entirely from the books themselves. There are some stupidly long articles on even minor aspects of the series. While I appreciate the effort that might have gone into these, they're best at home on Wikia or something rather than here. Something needs to be done, I propose they be merged into a handful of "list" articles (although even then some could become too long), Randland is a start. Rehevkor ✉  16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing part about "MUD"
I'm confused by the 6.1 part of the article. What is MUD? Who are Zun, Mournblade, Ingtar, Kilvarnan et al? What does "Being an initial branch off Circle, it now operates under its own unique code base" mean? What's "off circle" and what "code base" are they refering too?

83.254.79.71 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A MUD is a Multi-User Dungeon (loosely, a multiplayer online chat/text based role-playing game). Circle is a MUD game engine. They are saying the current game engine started as a fork of the Circle source code (i.e. it is based off of the Circle game engine). Argel1200 (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Task Force
Given the amount of interest that currently exists, I am trying to get support to open up a Wheel of Time Task Force under Wikiproject Novels (similiar to the Chronicles of Narnia or Sword of Truth ones). Would any of you guys be interested in joining such a project? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in helping as I can. Jamhaw (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)jamhaw
 * So is the Task force idea going anywhere? Jamhaw (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)jamahw
 * Patience, Grasshopper. I'm waiting to get a little more support (if we can) so I can convince the Novels project people to let us create the thing.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! I just need to fix my broken computer... Mirithing (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes for task force. --Pstanton (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am still interested if anyone else is. Paulish (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Page counts
Doesn't seem to say whether these include the name glossaries at end. Quite a difference in some. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I think the page count is wrong for "The Gathering Storm". Looks like the paperback count, and the others are all hardcover.  Totals should be fixed as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.107.133 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

New Spring - Novel or Novella
"There is also a prequel novella, New Spring in the Legends anthology edited by Robert Silverberg."

According to the (linked to) page of the novella, a novella is defined as "having a word count between 17,500 and 40,000. Other definitions start as low as 10,000 words and run as high as 70,000 words."

New Spring is 121,815 words, and therefore I pose it should be referred to as a novel.

Commence discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.68.71 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. Its somewhat short for a fantasy novel these days, but its still far longer in word count than many novels.  I'll make the change.Caidh (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, New Spring was originally released in a shorter format in the Legends anthology but was later beefed up for a stand-alone printing. I believe it probably is better described in its fuller format as a novel. - Snow, Nov. 7, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.129.176 (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thr final volume split
"According to both Robert Jordan and the author finishing the final volume, Brandon Sanderson, the Last Battle will be depicted in a three volume series that was originally conceived as a final novel." from the articles plot summary section. I may be wrong, but I thought that the 3-way split was not conceived until after RJ's death. 84.69.226.254 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is very poor. RJ had to know that if he turned in a 2000 page manuscript it would have to be split up. But any discussion of actually splitting it up did not occur until Brandon Sanderson started work on the project (after RJ passed away). I think the intent is to convey that RJ knew it would likely have to be split up and that the split did occur later on. Argel1200 (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's notable that RJ went on record multiple times insisting that there would be but one more book. Also notable is that his chief editor and his widow both say they knew that the situation was unlikely to work out as such. - Snow, Nov. 7, 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.129.176 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Characters
Articles, some fairly extensive, have been created for a great many minor characters (see ] ) --some exceedingly minor, such as [[Tarna Feir. It was listed for Proposed Deletion, but I removed the tag, suggesting a merge into the list Minor Wheel of Time Characters, for she does not seem to be even listed there. Most of these are not in the template; nor are they linked in that list. Some of these characters probably merit individual articles, but most probably only merit sections on a combination article, but with contents more extensive than the sentence or two on the present list. I would not be surprised if minor character articles were attacked more generally, and it would be better to fix them ourselves in advance.  I suggest the various groups in the list of minor characters be made into such articles, and then the individual articles on them merged with a redirect. DGG (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, I usually like having characters have their own articles, but if we don't merge Tarna Feir into a list, her article is going to be deleted eventually. That said, I think some, like Elaida and Rand probably deserve their own articles. --Pstanton (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Tarna Feir definitely doesn't need to have her own article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added her to the Minor Wheel of Time characters page; if everyone's OK with that entry, I propose changing Tarna Feir to a redirect at this time. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * done. DGG (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A link to this page - http://encyclopaedia-wot.org/characters/index.html - may prove useful to some readers, since this project's studious attention to detail has generated an overview of pretty much every character in the series, great and small, that would be entirely too large and cumbersome for a single Wikipedia page. - Snow, Nov. 7, 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.129.176 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Beginning (of the article), I'd like a little clarifacation...
Although it seemed to me that when the bore was made it was made inadvertently, when I reread the series again it seemed to me that Meilin, or Lanfear, (ithink it was Meilin or some-such)was one of the people who bored the hole into the dark one's prison when she touched the true source...it seems to say it, or kind of hint at this, when rand has the flahsback through ancestor eyes. Was she one of them, and if so, was it purposely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.136.61 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Meirin (Lanfear) was one of those in charge of the Aes Sedai project which released the DO. I believe she was one of two notable Age of Legends figures chiefly responsible for the act, but I can't remember where I read that (the TSR scene you reference does observe the incident, but from the perspective of an ancient Aiel who is not exactly "in the know" about the finer details).  I do know that both the "Wheel of Time Guide" and "The Strike at Shayoul Ghul" treat the subject.   In any event, no, there is no evidence that they intended to release the Dark One or even knew of his existence; the entire project was undertaken to try to tap some new power that was distinct from, and more seemingly more powerful than, the One Power -- presumably the True Power, though how they even knew of it's existence or how the intended to harness it is uncertain.  The process seems to have centered around the massive spherical structure -- a sort of ter'angreal? -- that is described hovering in the air in the afore-mentioned TSR scene, which somehow "pierced" the pattern, creating the Bore and releasing the Dark One to influence the world.  All of that being said, Meirin doesn't seem to have taken long to have signed up with dark side, in fact, I believe it's said somewhere in the narrative that she was the very first Chosen.  She may have been a bit of a sociopath to begin with -- by all accounts she was certainly ambitious and obsessed with Lews Therin ever since he threw her over for Ilyena -- or who knows, she may have been warped by her connection to the act which released the DO, though this was never hinted at by Jordan that I know of.  Still, you have to figure it's a possibility, she may have had close physical proximity to the Bore in it's moment of creation and may have been linked to the act by the One Power, a connection through which we know the Dark One can wield considerable influence (i.e. the Taint).  Plus it seems a little coincidental that the woman most responsible for freeing the DO would also prove so amenable to serving him (as opposed to being horrified at her mistake, no matter how power hungry she was). It's even possible she was influenced before the creation of the Bore - even in the Age of Legends she was supposedly one of the most powerful and talented Channelers known and given her power-hungry and covetous nature the DO probably could not have found a better puppet with which to orchestrate his release, if in fact he was able to influence the world/pattern to any degree before the Bore was drilled.  Of course, any complicity before that act is complete conjecture and in no way hinted by the authors either in the text or in interviews. -Snow, Nov. 7, 2010
 * Actually, Robert Jordan, has explicitly stated that Mierin didn't turn evil from opening the bore and that she was the only major person involved that turned to the darkside. Beidomon, for example, was also one of the chief architects of the experiment and he commited suicide after becoming reviled by the people. source: http://13depository.blogspot.com/2009/03/tor-questions-of-week.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.174.234 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

possible error
This sentence makes it sound as if the Dragon was spun out after the bore had been drilled, which as far as I know, is wrong. I'm pretty sure that the Dragon was at least 100-200 years old at that point. Of course time is not linear in WoT so it may be technically correct. "In response to this threat, the Wheel spun out the Dragon as the champion of the Light. The Dragon was a male Aes Sedai named Lews Therin Telamon, who eventually rose to command all the Aes Sedai and their allies in the struggle against the Dark One's forces" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.174.234 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lewis Therin Telamon did live before the bore happened. However, he was not The Dragon then. The Wheel weaving The Dragon could mean that it simply changed how his thread was to make him The Dragon. This could involve giving him more access to the One Power and/or making him a strong Ta'veren that people where impulsed to follow him. Until the bore, the Wheel would have no need for a Dragon, but after the bore, the Wheel would not be able to wait for a new existance to mature enough to be able to fight Shai'tan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.217.37.5 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about the cover art caption
The caption of the cover art says: "The original cover of the first book in the series"

IS there another version of the Eye of the World cover art? I've never seen any edition of the Eye of the World, asides from those smaller, two part editions, that didn't include that specific image.

Can I propose rephrasing it to "The cover art for The Eye of the World, the first book in the series"

--Pstanton (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's referring to other editions, such as the UK ones which didn't use the silly fantasy paintings. It is indeed the "original" cover, but either way, I personally have no opposition to rephrasing as long as it's accurate. Rehevkor ✉  01:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be kept the way it is. I have seen another version of the cover, without the picture, in some of the paperbacks of later editions.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in England and have a paperback edition (given to me, so I don't know where it came from) with the same artwork as currently shown in the article. (Large man on large black horse, smaller woman on small white horse, man in brown on brown horse in background).  Amazon UK has hardback and (mass?) paperback editions listed with similar artwork, as well as a paperback listing with different artwork.
 * What do people think of having a section on the various artworks for this series? Dannman (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Should we even use the cover for the first book? Most simialer franchises seem to use either the logo, or all of the as yet released books put together. Jamhaw (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)jamahw

Request
Hey there, I haven't seen a request page, so I decided to create one.

Just curious, how many map-scans are there for the world in WOT? Also, between the different books, are there contradictions or changes to cities (such as some of them being destroyed, expanded, or whatever).

Thanks to anyone who can contribute these scans! If I don't see any in a few months, I'll contribute myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.229.66 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you asking for exactly? Maps for the article? Maps for yourself? If it's for yourself this isn't really the place to get such a thing, and if it's for the article you should keep in mind they're likely copyrighted and would have to be permitted per the fair use guidelines. Rehevkor ✉  18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In any event, I believe I've only ever seen one broad-scale map for the series, detailing the continent we might call Randland proper (where virtually all the narrative takes place), though it is sometimes printed black and white and sometimes in color in the inside cover of the paperback editions. There are a number of street maps for disparate cities, of course.

- Snow, Nov. 7, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.129.176 (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that no one stated any where that it is Matriarch in nature rather then Patriarchy it should have been so stated with Tar Valon as a major point of power and any male even thinking of using the one power was a target of the white tower. Also very few regions were ruled by just males tend to give a bad rap to male rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.102.4 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding Content on Themes?
I found an interesting link on themes of the WoT and noticed that the present article doesn't have a section for this kind of content. Would thematic information on the series be notable and important enough to add to the article?

The way I see it, information on themes is largely the perception of people (reviewers/critics) who read the books - and since the information is, ultimately, an opinion, I didn't want to add it without asking first. Trevor coelho (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source (the publisher's fan blogs unfortunately don't count as far as Wikipedia is concerned) then I think it would be worth adding.Caidh (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
I consider changing infobox image to the logo. What do you think? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No opposition here in theory, the image has more of a claim to it than the first book cover. But I have some concerns over the licencing of the image, I'm not really an expert on how to deal with it, so I have raised it here.  Я ehevkor ✉  00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My intention was to tag it as fair use. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Magic, One Power drawn on
Could we say that the One Power is some sort of force (or reservoir) that is drawn on to perform magic. Also make it clear that the 'weaves' are made of it. What people can do depends on how much of the One Power they can draw. If they use too much then may die or 'burn out' (stop being able to use the power). Also, tools can be made that use the One Power. Dannman (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pen Name vs Real Name
So my revert comment got cut short, so elaborating here. I brought back the recent change from Rigney to Jordan that was initially made yesterday. I made this decision after looking at articles on books by other famous authors who used pen names. With authors where the pen name is more well known (such as Mark Twain, George Orwell, Lewis Caroll, or even a contemporary of Jordan/Rigney such as Anne Rice, the articles about their works exclusively use the pen name (beyond a short entry where the fact that it is a pen name is listed). I believe it is more consistent to do the same with Jordan. Note: The article about the individual themselves (as opposed to their works) is a different story.Caidh (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Magic?
So I see that the One Power is under a section called magic? Why? The books never refer to it as magic...like at all! MisterShiney   ✉    22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited Special Powers Intro (bias)
I've edited the intro to the Special Powers section. I believe the positive-bias in the original text was rather obvious:

"The magic system in the Wheel of Time series is widely considered one of the most well-developed and logical in all of high fantasy."

One single opinion article is not enough to claim "widely considered," "most well-developed," and "all of high fantasy."

Signed, 98.23.136.194 (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does the word balefire automatically direct to this page?
Why does the word balefire automatically direct to this page? I can't see any reason as to why it would, there isn't any reason that I can see as to why it would take you directly to this page? Amanda138a (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See One Power. Until recently there was a separate article on balefire but it has since been "deleted". I have made it clearer by turning the page in to a disambiguation page. The novel series may be the primary topic there but that would be a discussion for another venue.  Я ehevkor ✉  10:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I was searching for something totally unconnected to either article! Thanks again Amanda138a (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Flame of Tar Valon - Dragon's Fang = "Ying & Yang"??
Mention is given in the main article concerning how many of the phrases used in "the old tongue" are closely related to real phrases. EG "Tarmon Gai'don" from "Har-Magedon." I find it odd that no one connects/mentions the "flame of Tar Valon" and the "Dragon's Fang" are actually the the two halves of "Ying and Yang," used (IMHO) to indicate that "once upon a time" the two halves of the one power worked in harmony as two halves of one whole. Is it just me who noticed, or is it considered so obvious that it is not deemed worth mentioning? Bat Flattery (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What happended to the logain ablar article??? it redirects in a circle between the ashaman page and list of minor characters, currently there is no info on him.. seems kinda sad to go from having his own article to nothing.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.181.1 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on The Wheel of Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626045302/http://www.dragonmount.com:80/News/?p=1329 to http://www.dragonmount.com/News/?p=1329
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071225233430/http://www.dragonmount.com:80/RobertJordan/?p=29 to http://www.dragonmount.com/RobertJordan/?p=29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116042356/http://www.dragonmount.com:80/RobertJordan/?p=38 to http://www.dragonmount.com/RobertJordan/?p=38
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071212191439/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6511045.html? to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6511045.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Wheel of Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dragonmount.com/News/?p=641
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.dragonmount.com/index.php/topic%2C48089.0.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://brandonsanderson.com/thegreathunt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028040103/http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/sep/17/robert_jordan_dies_at_age16247/ to http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/sep/17/robert_jordan_dies_at_age16247/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6511045.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dragonmount.com/News/?cat=15
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dabelbrothers.com/index.php?categoryid=16&p2_articleid=44
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dragoncon.org/fan_tracks.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some general reworking of the article
The article was becoming a victim of edit creep, where new information was being added and old information was not being removed, possibly leading to confusion as well as repetition. I was loathe to rewrite the entire article, so I reworded the introduction and updated some of the information which is now out of date. For example, the Variety article linked gives us a much more accurate sales figure than anything previously seen. This sales figure means that The Wheel of Time is now the biggest-selling epic fantasy series since The Lord of the Rings, which would be worth noting although I cannot find an outside source which has also pointed this out, so that's out for original research purposes. I also added a few tidbits from RJ's SFX interview, inluding the comparison to War and Peace and his admitting it was an influence, which I haven't seen elsewhere. There is also a substantial amount of excellent information from Tor's old 'Question of the Week' site which includes material on how he started planning the series in the late 1970s and started writing the first book in 1984, with the story going through numerous tough rewrites and major changes in character and plot to where it was first published. Unfortunately, Tor seem to have junked the old Robert Jordan website and I can't find if the questions have been archived elsewhere, as it would be an excellent source for a 'writing of the series' section (such as that enjoyed by the Lord of the Rings article, which as a Featured Article isn't a bad entry to be emulating to improve this entry's status). We also really need a good, fair-use image we can use on this page as it's bit bland at the moment.--Werthead (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that "The Wheel of Time is now the biggest-selling epic fantasy series since The Lord of the Rings" is not actually found in the sourced link, even though it was demonstrably true at the time of posting. Now I have found it in some other places on the internet, but they all seem to be parrots of the Wiki article itself. So they are circular sources. What should we do about this? Rand Al&#39;Thorro (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

comparision to Dune and Lord of the Rings
I always thought a parts of WoT derived from dune; aes sadai = bene gesserit; aiel = freeman; and the whole idea of the age of legends/current time seem similar to how the LotR history is constructed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.134.245 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that those elements are specifically patterned (no pun intended) after those stories so much as they borrow from the same general archetypes, but certainly a lot of people share your sentiment concerning the similarities. The messianic parallels to Dune are certainly note-worthy. - Snow, Nov. 7, 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.129.176 (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Another source RJ ripped off is Michael Moorcock's Queen of Swords (2nd book of the Swords of Corum trilogy). This is where, for example, the fight-in-the-sky at th end of Book 2 comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:373c:3080:5523:7c6:8948:49d (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Old, over ten year old "cite needed" Crossroads of Twilight.
"...tenth volume, Crossroads of Twilight (where he showed a major scene from the prior book, Winter's Heart, from the perspective of the main characters that were not involved in the scene), had not worked out as he had planned." Face it, it's not unusual to find decade's old cite needed in Wikipedia, in my opinion that markup strategy needs overhauling, but I'm less concerned with the cite and more interested in an explanation of what is meant by main characters "not involved in the scene". Main characters from the previous, original books? By "perspective" is meant perspective of hearing news from others? written news? Or did they witness the events from afar? And perhaps it would be best to get rid of the parenthesis. I'm hoping interest in the TV series will spur improvements in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.166.197 (talk • contribs) 05:01, November 20, 2021 (UTC)

Please Lock Page
This page is being continuous attacked by an anonymous user, recommending page lock. Pl2356 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)