Talk:Panzuriel

Original research

This article contains opinions and views not supported by citations, such as:

Panzuriel's shamans and priests are, for the most part, mere rabble raised from a variety of different races.

I have therefore added a cleaup template to address this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Add a citation tag. OR is not applicable. Revert this and I will take it as a unwarrented edit-waring. Do some research first then come back here, that is what I am doing. Web Warlock (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please feel free to disagree. Would you like to obtain a third opinion to settle this difference of opinion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Commenting due to request at WT:NOR... I tend to agree with Webwarlock. Since we are talking about specific statements and not entire lines of reasoning, I think {{fact}} taging is more appropriate than a blanket OR tag. The article is sourced, and so the assumption is that these statements are backed by at least one of the provided sources. What is needed is inline citations, to tell us which of the sources (and where in those sources) support which specific statements. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I will pull my copy tonight and have a look. I will also make sure that no violations of COPYVIO have been made, that is a pet peeve of mine and I try to remove them when I can. Thank you. Web Warlock (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow that is walk down memory lane, pulling down a 2nd Ed book I have not touched in years. There are no COPYVIOs and no OR. NOW I could go through and properly cite everything here so there is no question about anything. Pull up multiple sources from the few hundred D&D books I own, but what's the point? Honestly this needs to be condensed on to anotehr page, a project that I have already mentioned here[1]. I am asking though for some time (that is no AFDs on these articles) to figure out what I need to do, how to do it, and then actually do it. Not something I am going to get done in a week. BUT if allowed to do it will reduce the multitude of these D&D Deities to a couple of pages. That should be a solution that everyone likes. Web Warlock (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst I agree the lack of inline citation is the primary issue, I am still sticking with my view that this article contains multiple unsupstantiated claims about this ficitonal character.
  The source of this problem is the over reliance on an in universe perspective; although statements like "Panzuriel's shamans and priests are, for the most part, mere rabble raised from a variety of different races" make sense from a fictional standpoint, it does not in anyway reflect reality. Even if you can find a citation that identifies the source of this statement, it still represents a (fictional) statement of fact which is not true in reality. I think only a complete rewrite of this article, eliminating the in universe perpective, will release this article from the grips of WP:NOR. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did find the citations, quite a few in fact, it's just that even given that I'd rather rewrite the article whole cloth. Something that will take time. So here are my choices. Quickly cite a sub-par article to a point where it will survive any review process OR take the time needed to rewrite or merge this with others so that it is a much better entry (and maybe even fewer entries). So do you want it done now or done right? Web Warlock (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• If we are going to discuss this article honestly, then my view is that even if you rewrite, it will be difficult to find reliable secondary sources that will provide evidence notability, but also it will be difficult to find sufficient non-trivial real-world content to write a decent encyclopedic article. I would recomend merger, and save your good efforts for topics which are the subject of a wide range of sources which are independent of primary sourc material. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am sitting in my office now looking over book cases of about 1,500 books on mythology, occultism and various topics and none of those would be primary source material for this article. Nothing develops in a vacuum, especially not RPGS. Just because YOU can't find anything doesn't mean I can't. HOWEVER. I am in favor of many, multiple mergers of a lot of these topics. It will take me time. Web Warlock (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you at least reference the "mere rabble" comment, as that seems to have struck a nerve with Gavin. There might be a few other statements that need citations. This isn't a case of either cite this article OR re-write a new article... do both. Blueboar (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)