Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Mango juice talk 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragonlance Timeline

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was prodded by Fram and unprodded  by David Shepheard. Three points were made in the prod which I'll elaborate on.


 * Unsourced. Speaks for itself.  An article of this sort clearly demands inlines, or at least a comprehensive source list at the bottom.  Not a single reference, let alone inline, exists on the page.
 * I'm strongly against deletion for the following reasons:


 * Unsourced - a lack of sources is reason for an article to be cleaned up - not deleted. The Wikiproject Dragonlance have already scheduled this article for clean up work. The article should be tagged with an more appropriate tag and they should be given time to add citations.


 * The lack of citations is glaring. To source everything in this would require extensive novel citing.  You're more the welcome to try, but it's not gonna be a small undertaking.  Dooms  Day349  04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the citations need fixing. However, I'm not sure why citation can only be done via novels instead of the role playing books. The role playing books present information about Dragonlance in encyclopdic fashion, meaning that you could probably cite this entire article to the latest editon of the RPG. However, if you want information from novels (perhaps to show that multiple sources have been consulted) I think that the Dragonlance Lexicon on the highly respected Dragonlance Nexus website can help. This partially complete encyclopedia of Dragonlance is a work in progress and features many of the events from the Dragonlance timeline (it also gives accurate citations of the novels where information comes from).Big Mac 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Violation of plot summary. From WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.  Plot summaries are appropriate when discussing the work in which it appears; this article is a plot summary that exists for no other reason than a plot summary.  I think that sums it up.
 * Violation of plot summary. The last sentence mentioned by DoomsDay349 says: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. and I believe the history of Krynn to be appropriate to the representation of Dragonlance on Wikipedia. However, I don't think that it warrants its own article. I think that this article should be proposed for merger with the Dragonlance article. That article just has a small section on the 4th Age which fails to explain the fictional history of the world of Krynn. It may need some additional pruning after the merger, but I'd rather see content repaired than thrown out.


 * The plot summary on the main Dragonlance article is still in the works; one man (and well, let's face facts on that) can only do so much. I'd like to see a better plot summary, of course, but a lot of this is very minor, borderline crufty information.  Even to place this into the Dragonlance article is an unnecessarily long plot summary.  The ideal overview of the Dragonlance plot summary would be the core novels only.   Dooms  Day349  04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Events before the novels form part of the fictional mythology of Krynn and some of these events form the back story for races and organisations in the novels and role playing game. (For example: "Magic Defending Itself" forms the back story of the Wizards of High Sorcery and the "Greygem" forms the back story of many of the altered races of Krynn. Dragonance is a role playing game as well as a series of novels and dismissing events that are not in the novels may stop readers getting an accurate picture of the game. I think that each of Krynn's 5 "Ages" needs some coverage, although they do not all necessarily need to be in the present form or include all of the events currently in the article.
 * As to your "one man" comments, I'll see if I can recruit some Dragonlance experts from the Dragonlance Forums.com. Some of the original authors and RPG designers hang out there and even if they can't edit articles they might be able to suggest sources to check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Shepheard (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm just as active on the forums as you are, I'm sure. I've gotten help from them before but most of them work on the Lexicon, if at all.  I ask them questions but that's as far as it's likely to go.  Most of the experts there are working on either the Nexus, sourcebooks, or their own things (like the new podcast.)  I doubt it'll happen.   Dooms  Day349  18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In-Universe. This is, if anything, what truly does this article in.  The very nature of the article requires in universe dating systems, (i.e., PC, AC, SC) which clearly violates the policy of out of universe writing when dealing with fiction.  Dooms  Day349  03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In-Universe. While I certainly would agree that the article should be cleaned up and/or merged, I fail to see how explaining the concept of a fictional dating system is a violation of policy. A good case could be made for reducing the amount of information in the timeline (as well as for citation and merger) but some of this information is vital to anyone trying to understand what Dragonlance is about.


 * We're hardly explaining it by listing every in universe date at the time something happened. To do so gives the reader the impression that there was really a time called 100 AC (or whatever) and that something happened then.  It doesn't work like that.  What it should look like is, "In such and such a novel, this happened."  Which hardly works for a timeline.  Dooms  Day349  04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dragonlance isn't just about the stories in the novels - it is also a role-playing game - both were equally important to the development of the campaign setting and the stories set within it. The timeline in this article is almost certainly based on the timeline given in every edition of the campaign setting. Even though the article is badly written and overly long, it does already say that it is a fictional timeline, so I doubt that people will think there actually was a year called 100 AC. However, if we cut the article down and merge it into the Dragonlance artical, we might not need to keep all the year references. People need to know what important events happened and in what order but might not need to know exact dates for all of these events. Summaries that say things like: "The Time of Knights lasted from 2000 PC to 960 PC" may suffice.Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In-universe....'nuff said. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a maintained article - not an abandoned one, so I think that the person who originally proposed the deletion over-reacted. People should work out where this article is failing and then ask the Wikiproject Dragonlance to take reasonable steps to correct its faults. If they fail to do that in a reasonalbe time period (without explanation) then deletion should be considered. But while there are people prepared to fix things they should be helped.Big Mac 04:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To explain the history of Krynn in a timeline format is unreasonable. It's clearly in universe and can never hope to be anything but.  Sourcing could be fixed but even then it would be irrelevant.  It will always, always be an over extensive plot summary.  That cannot be ignored and must be dealt with accordingly.  Dooms  Day349  04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is an unreasonable format, then please propose a reasonable one. This article contains some important content. It would be nice to have a chance to fix things. The deletion process allows for alternatives to deletion and the original person who proposed this for deletion didn't try that. The article could be cut down (to remove events in the timeline that are of little importance to the Dragonlance saga), properly cited (mostly to the Dragonlance RPG books which give detailed information on Dragonlance history) and then merged into the main Dragonlance article. That article already has a small summary of the events of the 4th Age but lacks information about important events before and after that age. All five ages of Krynn's history need to be explained to some extent, for the reader to understand the setting.Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Note) I replied paragraph by paragraph. I hope this doesn't make things hard to read.  I've signed after each.  Dooms  Day349  04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replied paragraph by paragraph too. I think that as there are 3 different topics we might need to create 3 headings for them and argue each case separately. My personal feeling is that the first two arguments can be invalidated by work on the article and that only the third one is a valid reason for considering deletion. Splitting this discussion up might help us understand if other people agree or disagree with part of the reason for this deletion proposal. By the way, as I'm making a counter-proposal that the article is tidied up and merged, I've added some appropriate tags to it. (Thanks for setting up this deletion discusson page - its what the other guy should have done in the first place.)Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll reorganize. I don't believe much in the prod system; if an article clearly ought be deleted, speedy it; if it's at all questionable, discuss it.   Dooms  Day349  05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "This is a maintained article - not an abandoned one" This article is more than 2 and a half years old, and the most basic problems (like sourcing) still had to be adressed at the time of the prod. I don't see why proposing a prod is then "overreacting"... Fram 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - per WP:SS, WP:NOT. - Peregrine Fisher 15:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my prod nom. It is sourced (primary sources only, no secondary ones), but it still is a purely in-universe plot summary. Fram 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - just needs sourcing, which I have begun and will try to continue to do. Having reviewed other articles that were sent to WP:AFD that are in Category:Fictional timelines, this seems to be the one thing that is a true problem with fictional timelines. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Just needs sourcing?  What about the, ya know, in universe and excessive plot summary problems?  That just kinda gets brushed under the rug, eh?  Dooms  Day349  18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the merge option is not a good one because an appropriate place to merge to has not been suggested, the main Dragonlance article would be too large if this was merged in. Adressing the threee concerns raised:
 * Unsourced, this is clearly being adressed. Also this is not a reason to delete whole article, delete any cotroversal or damaging info and tag any likely true but unsourced with Template:fact if there are concerns.
 * Violation of plot summary - A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. - There are numerous DL articles about stories (Books, games, etc), characters and locations, and a timeline article is appropriate to fit these into a context of the overall story. This is very broad, the whole time of Chronicles trilogy is in 6 lines, I don't think anyone could argue that this is going into an inappropripriate level of fancruft.
 * In-Universe - Linked with above point. There is a need for much more work here, I would suggest putting place where major plots of books/games fit directly into the timeline not just as footnotes.
 * Three valid concerns have been raised about this article, but they are all things that can or are being addressed (though much work is needed) and with users actively editing I can see no reason why they should not be able to use the information available to create a better article rather than having to start from scratch. My one concern is that the title of the article may be of better use for a future listing of Dragonlance materials published in chronological order. A more appropriate name for this article might be Timeline of Krynn as it is a history of this fictional world on which Dragonlance is set rather than of the Dragonlance concept itself - Waza 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Possibility

OK, I've thought this over, and here's what I'm thinking. We definitely need citations. Obviously. We need to go out of universe, so for instance, "In this novel, this happens. This novel references what happened." And so on and so forth. Possibly something like "In this novel, in the fictional year of 1000 PC (example date), this happens." That solves the out of universe. And then we need to cut down on a lot of the minor details, which we can weed out. So who feels that a merge is a possibility?  Dooms Day349  18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless analysis by reliable, published secondary sources can be found, in which case the article has hope. M URGH   disc.  00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article can definitely be sourced (a timeline exists in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book.) Dragonlance is a major series of fantasy books with 100+ titles, and this article is good coverage of the setting. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle. Also, it looks like the article is about 50% sourced at this point. Everyking 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The main deletion argument is that it is a plot summary (and logically an in-universe article): the sourcing doesn't change anything, except that we can easily verify if it is a correct plot summary (and I don't think anyone claimed otherwise). All sources are primary sources, but what Wikipedia needs is out-of-universe articles based on secondary sources. The violation of WP:NOT plus some guidelines like WP:WAF remains even it is completely sourced instead of not or half sourced. Fram 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While secondary sources are always preferred, primary sources are fine for something like this. The only time that secondary sources are essential is for establishing notability.Chunky Rice 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete in-universe Dragonballs -- no, Dragonquest, no, Dragonlancecruft. -- Hoary 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The only valid reason for deletion that's been brought up is the lack of sourcing, but it certainly can be sourced.  So it's not original research.  The in-universe crticism is valid, but is not grounds for deletion.  Similarly the plot summary argument I think fails because this article serves as the back-drop for not just one book, but dozens, as well as the RPG and other associated projects.  With that in mind, the length is not excessive.  Finally, calling something "cruft" is not an argument at all.Chunky Rice 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FICTION tells us that Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- Hoary 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Fiction also tells us, "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Well, here's the larger topic:Dragonlance Chunky Rice 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Is this sourceable? Yes.  Ultimately, any entry on this list, whatever its form, should be attributable to Dragonlance material.  Plot summary?  Non-issue to me, since this is an aspect of a notable subject.  Besides, this could be easily converted to page covering what DL material covers what era in the timeline.  Honestly though, given how many timelines come up for deletion here, I think something in the way of actual discussion needs to go on.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are each discussed thoroughly on the AfD debates, and all recent ones have been deleted, and most current ones seem to go the same way. If Wikipedia was ruled by precedent, this one would be deleted as well :-) As for your other arguments, we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of the "plot summary as part of a larger topic" to keep such things as independent plot summary pages without any secondary source, and which, like in this case, don't help at all for someone who known little or nothing about Dragonlance and wants to learn what it is all about. Fram 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, they're not discussed as a whole, but rather individual articles coming up, with no discussion of the subject behind it. Some have been deleted, but others have not.  Thus Category:Fictional timelines remains in existence.   Given those other discussions, I think it's therefore quite important to discuss the subject overall, not in bits and pieces.  It's not a thorough discussion, it's a closer to bickering in some cases.  Thus I feel it would be of great benefit to establish some consensus on how to develop these pages.  Otherwise, we're just going to get the ugly results we're getting now.
 * And believe it or not, adding references is not a problem, and I think it would be just as easy to list what books/other material covers what part of history. And that would be a great benefit to anybody who wanted to know about Dragonlance.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the delete arguments; also, check out this AfD discussion. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about it? There is not even a reasoning provided by the closing admin for the deletion, let alone a direct connection between the two series.  The only connection I can see is that they're both fictional timelines, but as the subject of that is not under review at this time, the connection is tenuous at best.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Tell me how this could help out anyone who isn't a fan of the series. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this is basically just a article over the plot of the series, somethingWP:NOT doesn't allow. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NOT, A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Dragonlance has over 100+ novels, a couple dozen RPG supplements, a couple video games, an animated movie based on it, ect. As for it being a "larger topic" on Wikipedia, Category:Dragonlance just skims the surface. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I indicated above, my suggestion is to reference the books and the history together, as that would contribute greatly to the benefit of this timeline for the hypothetical reader.  Now it's possible it wouldn't help somebody who didn't care about the books or the setting, but um, yeah, how do you help somebody who doesn't care about a subject?  Not exactly a good criteria for deletion.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I actually think that something like this- which is a compilation of information across many books, settings, and so on - is probably more notable than articles on many of the "lesser" individual books of Dragonlance (which could probably be merged into a big "other books in the Dragonlance line" article).  It's a useful appendix to the larger Dragonlance article and would be perfectly reasonable fit there if it weren't for summary style.  Also, "not useful to people not interested" is a deletion argument I will never understand.  The World War II article isn't very useful to someone not interested in finding information on World War II; so what?  (As a matter of style, articles should be accessible to people lacking background, for sure, but that's not a deletion issue, that's a cleanup issue.) SnowFire 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Daniel Bryant  04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: The arguments of the delete !voters are desperately unpersuasive. First off, the article is strongly referenced, and I'm unsure what disqualifies RPG books (which like any other have authors, editors, publishers, publication dates and ISBNs) as reliable sources.  That readers might be fooled into thinking that these dates are real are covered by (a) the liberal use of the words "fictional timeline" and "fictional events" through the article, and (b) the premise that Wikipedia isn't used by too many complete morons.  That the article is of little to no interest to those disinterested in the subject would apply to each and every article on Wikipedia.  Finally, the notion that in-universe content invalidates an article flies in the face of overwhelming consensus to the contrary; there are tens of thousands of articles written about highly notable fictional constructs that refer heavily to the fictional milieu.  Anyone going to file AfDs on Gondor, Barsoom, Land of Oz, Ruritania, Cabot Cove or Sunnydale any time soon?    Ravenswing  14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In-universe problems are a reason for cleanup and improvement and not deletion - WP:WAF is a style guideline and not a deletion argument.  Excessive plot summarization falls under the same category and is fixed by selective editing and not wholesale deletion.  Finally, sourcing in this case is also relatively simple to cure.  While I would agree that the encyclopedic value of these timeline articles is weak, they do contribute to the understanding of the parent topic well, and when written correctly help the reader to get a better grasp on what's going on - and clearly don't fit inside the parent article.  Ar ky an  • (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't think it should be merged with the main Dragonlance novel. It seems too big of a topic, and deserves it's own page. But cleanup of it will probably be required. Hlwarrior 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article gives over emphasis to presenting an in-universe perspective. It is just plot summary with no room for real world context. Jay32183 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.