264:- I do not know much about Dungeons and Dragons, but I looked at other articles existing in the D&D WikiProject for comparison. My issue is the nature of this game probably limits the number of robust and reliable secondary sources that would be produced. If we strictly apply the above notability guidelines, then we could go through and obliterate all the pages on the D&D Deities list. Doing so I feel would provide Knowledge (XXG) incomplete coverage of this topic and is definitely not an improvement. Otherwise, the use of primary sources here seems correct in regards to attaining factual information. Citation within the article also needs to be improved.
726:
as monsters or gods that have no significance in the world at large (contrary to D&D itself) is excessive, and will only matter to a very selective group of enthusiasts, and that coverage of that kind can only damage WP's reputation as a serious encyclopedia and make it look no better that any fansite out there. I also don't think you can argue IAR and at the same time argue the topic would be "notable" as
Knowledge (XXG) defines it. Notability on Knowledge (XXG) means "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", and I think this is a good criteria to distinguish between content worthy of an
945:, your opinions clearly don't enjoy community consensus. Also, the summary of your RfC reminded you to "keep discussions, especially AFD discussions, civil and courteous", yet it doesn't seem particularly civil of you to say that users who express their disagreement with you are "badgering", so I hope for you that you'll try a different approach in your future AfD contributions.
363:
above reasoning for a delete stands, then many other articles in D&D area could be deleted, thus reducing
Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of this topic. The article proposed for deletion is not a short article with no sources. It also is not an essay or presenting a bunch of speculation or interpretation about the topic. Yes, it does need work for better citation and writting.
1479:, there doesn't seem to be any problem with discussing a merge here. In the end, AfD is a place for discussion as any other, "merge" comments have become standard practice, and I personally view it as a way to ensure broader visibility and participation than a merge discussion (besides, with 100% of the article being primary/summary, full deletion could be argued). As for "
1221:, then. You do not offer any valid argument to ignore our inclusion policies and guidelines. And you should have learned by now that AfDs are not vote, but are decided on strength of argument. I agree about the bit you quoted from guideline headers, but "common sense" doesn't mean "head count". And I'll say the same thing I said to Warden, per
1250:, to be considered notable on wikipedia, an article requires there be multiple non-primary (i.e., not by the publisher) references talking about the topic. If you are aware of such references in sources with editorial oversight (not just forum posts, blogs) that discuss Obad-Hai, add them to the article and I will gladly change my vote. -
1170:. What matters is not how a small portion of Wikipedians see the subject as important, but how the world at large sees it as important. Removing content that is only "interesting" to a small portion of the community and doesn't fit core policies (see WP:IINFO) is not "destroying" it. Fan wikis are better suited for this kind of content.
1265:
834:
And where have you seen that this list of examples would be restrictive ? It's not, and clearly those sources are not independent "of the creator", since they are the creator's own works. Besides, WP:GNG also requires "secondary sources", and none of the sources are secondary because they all provide
725:
I can't see what search engines have to do with improving
Knowledge (XXG). I agree D&D in general is an important topic deserves to be covered by Knowledge (XXG), and I think it is, in a satisfactory manner. However, I consider that dedicating a stand-alone article to each fictional elements such
706:
How does deleting it improve
Knowledge (XXG)? It's not a short, two sentence article with no sources that is being removed. It is a high ranking page on search engines for that topic. D&D in general is a well known and large topic that Knowledge (XXG) should cover as best and factually as it can.
381:
Well, if I nominate the article for deletion, then yes, good guess, that does indeed mean I believe it doesn't fit our policies and guidelines and should go away. And yes, numerous and sometimes longer articles about D&D creatures have been deleted or merged in the past, such kind of coverage has
362:
The success rate of IAR is of no concern to me if that's what would need to apply. I stated my argument above and in other comments here. If it's not good enough, then I am not going to be upset by a delete. You seem to be highly biased toward the delete based on your nominations and comments. If the
1456:
be. And AfD isn't the place to discuss merges. My only other comment is that D&D for dummies is an independent source as far as I can tell. That subject matter experts were hired to do the job isn't too shocking--the publisher is still independent. That said, it may be that WotC was involved
1184:
Invalid argument there. I'm pointing out that in many AFDs consensus has been to keep things even when they don't meet the suggested guidelines. The guideline pages say at the top of them "This page documents an
English Knowledge (XXG) notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that
325:
Since there are no hard and fast rules on
Knowledge (XXG), then where else would you discuss how to apply a guideline to an article? They are just guidelines and exceptions can be made. Like I made in another comment, does deleting this article improve Knowledge (XXG)? BTW, thank you for researching
815:
The list of examples, is "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases". It's clear we're not dealing with this sort of material. Presumably the originator of the idea was Gary Gygax (referencing
Tolkien?) but many
493:
I should have clarified better as by "organization and useability" I was thinking about merging many smaller articles into some large mass, which would exceed the size requirement. I also fail to see why wikipedia would not consider useability and organization for splitting a topic. Perhaps that is
432:
per the rationale of
Jclemens below; while this deity was just another god of the Greyhawk setting for almost 20 years, he took on a much more prominent role after inclusion as one of the primary deities for the D&D game in the third edition Player's Handbook, and remained that way for several
459:
In reference to merge, I think in this situation it is better to keep a page just for organization and useability. If we delete Obad-Hai, then I can find 10 other articles in a minute on the D&D deities list that could qualify for deletion. If we try to merge all of them into a single deities
400:
At this point I don't feel the discussion between us will advance this topic anymore than it already has. I will let other users comment and the final reviewer make their decision to delete or keep. Also, if someone mentions IAR or the "no hard and fast rules", it doesn't mean they believe in no
1329:
Your comparison with maths doesn't work, of course. You have your opinion, but it's not the general consensus on
Knowledge (XXG), which is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator Works produced by the subject, or those with a
1527:", and lists "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" as valid recommendations. AfD has indeed become "article for discussion" per a practice which has now made its way into guidelines. I understand your views about AfDs, but I think it would be more productive for you to directly challenge
1330:
strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability". What matters in this case is that the book is authored by D&D writers. Well it doesn't really matter since "Obad Hai" is only mentioned once as an entry in a table and isn't usable in any way.
1267:
to see just how common this is in the books, it in 139 of them, that not counting the role playing pen and paper games and the video games. The only thing I notice straight away that is independent is a brief mention in a book called
Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies.
613:
Plenty of sources, and regardless of whether you call Wizards or TSR "first party", the fact is that the sources span decades and apply to multiple versions of this fictional element, available in multiple separate games that happen to share the same basic naming stem.
1501:
There have been quite a few attempts to turn Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion. AfD is really only if there is a reasonable case for deletion. There isn't one here as there is a clear merge target. That discussion belongs on the talk page...
478:
notability issues, and plot summary is the kind of content that can (and should) be reduced to a minimum when several articles are merged. BTW, BOZ, you do not provide any policy-based argument to your comment, especially if you include "keep" as one of your
1310:
That's like saying that a book about mathematics is not admissable because it's written by a mathematician. Obviously, works of reference are written by specialists in the field. What matters in this case is that the book is published by
1358:
As a blue redirect link and some content merged elsewhere, why not, but our inclusion policies and guidelines are pretty clear this cannot be a stand alone article without significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary
963:
You don't represent the community - you're just a tiresome fanatic who has been banned from other Knowledge (XXG) communities and so have come to annoy us here. I utterly reject your badgering and your position. My !vote stands.
816:
of the later works were written by someone else. The coverage is good enough to establish that the topic is sufficiently substantial that people care about it and that we have reliable sources and this is the point of notability.
382:
been reduced and I don't see any problem in that. Also, if you argue IAR, then I don't see what being unsourced or speculation would change, since you strongly advocate that there are "no hard and fast rules on Knowledge (XXG)".
401:
rules. Like you, I just believe in making Knowledge (XXG) better. You feel deleting this page advances that goal. I feel keeping it does a better job at improving Knowledge (XXG). We will probably never agree on that point.
797:. The sources being the works in which the creators created the subject, they don't meet our notability criteria, nor WP:IINFO. We do not ask for "authoritative" content, but for proof of "attention by the world at large".
1575:
We AGF that the deletion nominator was not aware of a good merge target before nominating for deletion, if one comes up during AFD. In other words, suggesting a merge now is not out of scope of the AFD process.
161:
289:
merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources
282:
I see your account was created 2 days ago, and as such you may not be familiar yet with the way we deal with articles, and how AfDs work. My advice would be to spend more time reading and understanding
644:. Your recommendation is not supported by any policy or guideline that I can see. The article needs to show that the subject was analysed and studied by independent third parties, and is not merely
853:
The point of notability is to ensure that the subject received attention from "the world at large", which isn't limited to "those people who created something in the first place and no one else".
221:
344:
In that case you're certainly aware that arguing IAR at AfD has rarely worked...Reasoning should be particularly solid for IAR to prevail, and I just don't think you've been that convincing.
915:
No, my viewpoint seems to be the dominant one here, not yours. The badgering by the nominator does not represent the general consensus as he has been banned from other Wikipedias for this.
1027:
One day, you'll have to understand that disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Calling someone a "badgering fanatic" is. I didn't refer to your RfC for nothing. So please drop it.
519:
or trans wiki- no third party content to support stand alone article. Only "in-universe", primary source content leaves the target merge article no better off than this stand alone. --
1344:"Enough is as good as a feast". The reputable source demonstrates the merit of having this distinctive name as a blue link in a reference work. Q.E.D., as mathematicians say.
200:
in that the subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is entirely sourced to primary and affiliated sources (
1429:
549:
114:
771:
There are plenty of sources and they are independent of the subject because that entity is invented, I suppose. Such sources are authoritative and therefore reliable.
494:
the web designer in me. But, based on the D&D Deities list, the "Intermediate deities" may need to be merged together. So, yes, I now see merge as a viable option.
1315:— a highly respectable academic publisher. The book is in its fourth edition and this demonstrates a lasting interest in the topic - it's not some fannish ephemera.
938:
879:
are quite adequate to establish that the title should not be a red-link. If you still don't care for the sources then we must agree to disagree. My !vote stands.
847:
defines "primary sources about the fictional universe" as "the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction". All of the sources are part of the same
241:
155:
1457:
in the publication rather see than this being a side project of the authors. If that's the case, I'd say not independent. But I don't believe that's the case...
1189:." Far more people in this AFD have said KEEP than DELETE. You arguing with every single person who disagrees with you isn't really going to convince anyone.
707:
It makes Knowledge (XXG) more complete. Given the character's history, place in the game, and appearance over a long frame of time in D&D make it notable.
299:
articles from these policies, nor from the notability guideline (which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). Note that
326:
my account, but just because I finally started an account does not mean I have not been involved Knowledge (XXG) or am unfamiliar with its policies.
1139:
Articles have been kept if the subject is seen as important, even without that. The guidelines exist to help Knowledge (XXG), not to destroy it.
942:
1487:
so clearly no independence can be argued here. In the end it doesn't really matter since it only contains a single trivial mention in a table...
121:
1089:
Been a significant fictional character in multiple notable works for quite some time now. This helps people understand those series better.
1068:
any meaningful content to whatever target seems appropriate. There may be "plenty of sources", but all of them are primary, so we don't meet
438:
17:
287:, as well as other policies and guidelines, before you start commenting in AfDs. Two of our core, non-negotiable policies are that
301:
AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s article guidelines and policies
1619:
1484:
1442:
1218:
1167:
87:
82:
1731:
1072:
to support an independent article. If sufficient secondary sources could be found, would be willing to support keep. -
304:
176:
40:
91:
143:
1662:
1635:
1544:
1492:
1364:
1335:
1301:
1230:
1175:
1126:
1032:
991:
950:
898:
858:
802:
747:
693:
653:
597:
579:
545:
520:
484:
387:
349:
312:
249:
229:
209:
74:
1539:
the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own", which hasn't been decided yet, hence the AfD.
1697:
1658:
1609:
1349:
1320:
1014:
969:
920:
884:
821:
776:
537:
293:
articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources
592:, which requires sources to be secondary and independent. Appearance in other media is insignificant trivia.
1516:
1472:
1407:
557:, plenty of sources, spanning some 30 years. Also, deity's priesthood has even appeared in a major film.--
137:
1222:
571:
475:
300:
52:. Consensus seems to be split between keeping and merging. Clearly no consensus for delete here though.
1727:
734:
is a good article that can stand on its own and doesn't need overly detailed plot regurgitation to work.
36:
1425:
844:
735:
731:
666:
Eventually, you just have to ask yourself, how does deleting this article make Knowledge (XXG) better?
541:
1679:
1540:
1488:
1360:
1331:
1312:
1297:
1226:
1171:
1028:
987:
946:
854:
798:
743:
689:
649:
632:
This doesn't make up for the fact that the sources are all primary, and as such the article violates
593:
575:
480:
383:
345:
308:
245:
225:
205:
133:
1558:
871:
The guideline is, by definition, loose and so examples are provided to give us a general feel. Per
1712:
1688:
1643:
1623:
1588:
1570:
1548:
1511:
1496:
1466:
1446:
1411:
1368:
1353:
1345:
1339:
1324:
1316:
1305:
1291:
1259:
1234:
1212:
1179:
1162:
1134:
1112:
1081:
1036:
1018:
1010:
995:
973:
965:
954:
924:
916:
906:
888:
880:
862:
825:
817:
806:
780:
772:
751:
716:
697:
679:
657:
623:
601:
583:
566:
528:
503:
488:
469:
450:
410:
391:
372:
353:
335:
316:
273:
253:
233:
213:
169:
56:
1561:. This wasn't a deletion candidate as there is a clear merge/redirect target that could be used.
1532:
1392:
1255:
1077:
619:
562:
1476:
637:
288:
183:
1634:
probably half of those hits are mine as I keep forgetting to add this page to my watchlist. --
1438:
1403:
712:
675:
499:
465:
406:
368:
331:
269:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1726:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
934:
872:
840:
836:
641:
292:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1269:
1190:
1140:
1090:
303:, not whether guidelines and policies should be applied. When consensus in AfD is assessed,
1666:
1528:
1122:
1069:
983:
794:
789:""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject
667:
645:
633:
589:
284:
197:
1708:
1670:
1584:
1566:
1507:
1462:
1485:"produced in partnership with Wizards of the Coast, written by D & D game designers"
1614:
1296:
And D&D for Dummies isn't even independent since it is authored by D&D writers.
53:
875:, we do not operate in a mechanical, rule-based way. I consider that sources such as
149:
1251:
1073:
615:
558:
446:
78:
1525:
whether an article is able to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s article guidelines and policies
897:
you have a significantly different definition of "significant" than most people. --
1433:
708:
671:
495:
461:
402:
364:
327:
265:
108:
1187:
though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
937:
and are based on strength of arguments instead, then, because as we can see at
1701:
1577:
1562:
1503:
1458:
1395:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1225:, AfDs are places for debate, you must be ready to see your views challenged.
1005:
1612:. This is a possible search term that is getting dozens of hits per day. —
739:
442:
70:
62:
588:
In answer to your additions, this still doesn't make the article pass
943:
WT:Notability/Archive_48#Independent_sources_for_fictional_characters
1452:
Wrong venue. Deletion isn't a reasonable outcome, though merging
1665:, along with the other deities with separate articles; none meet
1477:
Knowledge (XXG):Merge#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion
1720:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
742:
hasn't. The rest lies in the hands of those who'll speak here.
574:. Is there any policy based reasoning behind your comment ?
305:
arguments that contradict policy are frequently discounted
1483:", I note on the publisher's webpage for it that it was
222:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
104:
100:
96:
1430:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 15
168:
460:
article, then it would become overwhelmingly large.
1424:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
1402:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
939:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Colonel Warden
182:
204:game books and officially licensed publications).
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1734:). No further edits should be made to this page.
986:, and to keep discussions civil and courteous.
8:
688:And how does it improve wikipedia, exactly ?
240:Note: This debate has been included in the
220:Note: This debate has been included in the
1696:, lacks notability but can be mentioned in
1519:states that "AfDs are a place for rational
851:fictional franchise, by the same publisher.
1559:Knowledge (XXG):Merging#Proposing_a_merger
984:comment on content, not on the contributor
738:has been mentioned outside D&D games,
242:list of Games-related deletion discussions
239:
219:
1557:a merge is to be done as described at
439:List of Dungeons & Dragons deities
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1185:editors should attempt to follow,
877:Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies
295:. I see no valid reason to exempt
24:
1535:only tells to "consider" merge "
835:original fictional development.
670:I'm not sure deleting it does.
982:Colonel Warden is reminded to
1:
1428:). I have transcluded it to
839:defines "primary sources" as
1121:sources? Knowledge (XXG) is
730:and fan excess. In the end,
474:Organization and useability
285:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1751:
1713:17:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
1689:14:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
1644:12:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
1624:14:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
1589:17:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
1571:03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
1549:13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
1512:12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
1497:20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
1467:19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
1447:21:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
1412:16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
1369:10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1354:09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1340:08:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1325:08:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1306:08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1292:00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1260:17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
1235:10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1213:08:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1180:08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1163:00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1135:11:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
1113:01:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
1082:19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
1037:08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
1019:08:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
996:15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
974:23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
955:23:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
925:22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
540:as a better merge target.
441:is better than deletion.
1723:Please do not modify it.
1698:List of Greyhawk deities
1659:List of Greyhawk deities
1610:List of Greyhawk deities
907:23:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
889:13:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
863:12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
826:12:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
807:12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
781:11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
752:20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
717:20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
698:19:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
680:19:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
658:18:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
624:15:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
602:18:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
584:14:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
567:13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
550:01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
538:List of Greyhawk deities
529:23:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
504:22:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
489:21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
470:21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
451:21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
411:21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
392:20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
373:20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
354:19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
336:19:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
317:21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
274:20:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
254:20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
234:20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
214:20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
57:12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1639:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1130:aka The Red Pen of Doom
902:aka The Red Pen of Doom
524:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1264:See above. Also, see
1117:where exactly are the
736:Dungeons & Dragons
732:Dungeons & Dragons
194:Dungeons & Dragons
1313:John Wiley & Sons
849:Dungeon & Dragons
433:years. That said, a
198:notability guideline
1219:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1168:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1694:Merge and redirect
1655:Merge and redirect
1422:Automated comment:
572:AfDs are not votes
196:article fails our
48:The result was
1640:
1449:
1414:
1131:
1125:a game guide. --
935:AfD are not votes
903:
841:"fictional works"
525:
256:
236:
1742:
1725:
1705:
1684:
1675:
1663:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
1641:
1638:
1608:and redirect to
1581:
1436:
1420:
1401:
1397:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1132:
1129:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1094:
904:
901:
526:
523:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1732:deletion review
1721:
1703:
1682:
1673:
1636:
1622:
1579:
1541:Folken de Fanel
1489:Folken de Fanel
1434:
1390:
1361:Folken de Fanel
1332:Folken de Fanel
1298:Folken de Fanel
1286:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1227:Folken de Fanel
1207:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1172:Folken de Fanel
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1127:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1029:Folken de Fanel
988:Folken de Fanel
947:Folken de Fanel
899:
855:Folken de Fanel
799:Folken de Fanel
744:Folken de Fanel
690:Folken de Fanel
650:Folken de Fanel
594:Folken de Fanel
576:Folken de Fanel
521:
481:Folken de Fanel
476:don't supercede
384:Folken de Fanel
346:Folken de Fanel
309:Folken de Fanel
246:Folken de Fanel
226:Folken de Fanel
206:Folken de Fanel
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1748:
1746:
1737:
1736:
1716:
1715:
1691:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1627:
1626:
1618:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1481:...For dummies
1450:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1399:
1398:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1084:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1022:
1021:
999:
998:
977:
976:
958:
957:
928:
927:
910:
909:
892:
891:
866:
865:
852:
829:
828:
810:
809:
791:or its creator
784:
783:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
720:
719:
701:
700:
683:
682:
661:
660:
627:
626:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
552:
542:Vulcan's Forge
531:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
454:
453:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
395:
394:
376:
375:
357:
356:
339:
338:
320:
319:
277:
276:
258:
257:
237:
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1747:
1735:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1699:
1695:
1692:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1645:
1642:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1611:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1517:WP:DISCUSSAFD
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:WP:DISCUSSAFD
1470:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1394:
1389:
1388:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
980:
979:
978:
975:
971:
967:
962:
961:
960:
959:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
911:
908:
905:
896:
895:
894:
893:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
867:
864:
860:
856:
850:
846:
842:
838:
833:
832:
831:
830:
827:
823:
819:
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
770:
767:
766:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
702:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
530:
527:
518:
515:
514:
505:
501:
497:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
456:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
428:
427:
412:
408:
404:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
340:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1722:
1719:
1693:
1681:
1680:
1672:
1671:
1654:
1613:
1605:
1554:
1536:
1531:. Note that
1524:
1520:
1480:
1453:
1421:
1404:SarahStierch
1391:
1270:
1247:
1223:WP:AFDFORMAT
1191:
1186:
1141:
1118:
1091:
1086:
1065:
1004:
876:
848:
790:
768:
728:encyclopedia
727:
610:
554:
533:
516:
434:
429:
296:
261:
201:
193:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1248:Dream Focus
845:WP:BOOKPLOT
291:, and that
156:free images
1521:discussion
1728:talk page
1615:Torchiest
1555:proposing
1553:Yes, but
1533:WP:BEFORE
1006:Tu quoque
933:I'm glad
54:Lankiveil
37:talk page
1730:or in a
1393:Relisted
1359:sources.
1252:Sangrolu
1074:Sangrolu
740:Obad-Hai
646:fancruft
638:WP:IINFO
616:Jclemens
559:Robbstrd
115:View log
71:Obad-Hai
63:Obad-Hai
39:or in a
1435:Snotbot
1119:outside
873:WP:BURO
837:WP:PSTS
793:", per
709:User226
672:User226
642:WP:PSTS
496:User226
479:choice.
462:User226
403:User226
365:User226
328:User226
297:D&D
266:User226
202:D&D
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
1683:apolis
1667:WP:GNG
1637:TRPoD
1529:WP:AfD
1426:step 3
1346:Warden
1317:Warden
1217:Still
1128:TRPoD
1123:WP:NOT
1070:WP:GNG
1011:Warden
966:Warden
917:Warden
900:TRPoD
881:Warden
843:, and
818:Warden
795:WP:GNG
773:Warden
668:WP:IAR
634:WP:GNG
590:WP:GNG
522:TRPoD
517:delete
134:Google
92:delete
1620:edits
1606:Merge
1563:Hobit
1504:Hobit
1459:Hobit
1454:might
1287:Focus
1208:Focus
1158:Focus
1108:Focus
1066:Merge
534:Merge
437:into
435:merge
192:This
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1704:ASEM
1700:. --
1674:Mini
1661:per
1580:ASEM
1567:talk
1545:talk
1508:talk
1493:talk
1475:and
1471:Per
1463:talk
1408:talk
1365:talk
1350:talk
1336:talk
1321:talk
1302:talk
1256:talk
1231:talk
1176:talk
1087:Keep
1078:talk
1033:talk
1015:talk
992:talk
970:talk
951:talk
941:and
921:talk
885:talk
859:talk
822:talk
803:talk
777:talk
769:Keep
748:talk
713:talk
694:talk
676:talk
654:talk
640:and
620:talk
611:Keep
598:talk
580:talk
563:talk
555:Keep
546:talk
500:talk
485:talk
466:talk
447:talk
430:Keep
407:talk
388:talk
369:talk
350:talk
332:talk
313:talk
270:talk
262:Keep
250:talk
230:talk
210:talk
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1657:to
1523:of
1445:»
1432:.
536:to
443:BOZ
184:TWL
113:– (
1711:)
1669:.
1587:)
1576:--
1569:)
1547:)
1537:if
1510:)
1495:)
1465:)
1441:•
1410:)
1367:)
1352:)
1338:)
1323:)
1304:)
1258:)
1233:)
1178:)
1080:)
1035:)
1017:)
1009:.
994:)
972:)
953:)
923:)
887:)
861:)
824:)
805:)
779:)
750:)
715:)
696:)
678:)
656:)
636:,
622:)
600:)
582:)
565:)
548:)
502:)
487:)
468:)
449:)
409:)
390:)
371:)
352:)
334:)
315:)
272:)
252:)
244:.
232:)
224:.
212:)
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1709:t
1707:(
1702:M
1585:t
1583:(
1578:M
1565:(
1543:(
1506:(
1491:(
1461:(
1443:c
1439:t
1406:(
1363:(
1348:(
1334:(
1319:(
1300:(
1284:m
1281:a
1278:e
1275:r
1272:D
1254:(
1229:(
1205:m
1202:a
1199:e
1196:r
1193:D
1174:(
1155:m
1152:a
1149:e
1146:r
1143:D
1105:m
1102:a
1099:e
1096:r
1093:D
1076:(
1031:(
1013:(
990:(
968:(
949:(
919:(
883:(
857:(
820:(
801:(
775:(
746:(
711:(
692:(
674:(
652:(
648:.
618:(
596:(
578:(
561:(
544:(
498:(
483:(
464:(
445:(
405:(
386:(
367:(
348:(
330:(
311:(
307:.
268:(
248:(
228:(
208:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.