Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No consensus. Editors should seek to improve this article based on the comments made in this discussion to avoid a future renomination. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EverQuest timeline[edit]
- EverQuest timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Contested prod. A compilation of material from primary sources and unreliable secondary sources (see the "source" column in the tables and draw your own conclusions), and more importantly WP:NOT for plot summaries Fram 07:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Time line of a fictional setting is quite meaningful, and while I can see some room for improvement on the page, I don't see a need to delete. Plot summaries as an objection doesn't hold water since this is a subset of a larger article, that of Everquest itself. Oddly, there isn't a history/story section on that page. Probably needs to be fixed. That said, I can imagine the name itself might be worth changing, since timeline could refer to the history of EQ development. Everquest storyline would be my choice. FrozenPurpleCube 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it is the kind of plot summary that doesn't help you when you don't already know the story (which is after all the intention of including a short plot summary: to give those unfamiliar with a subject some background as to what's it all about). Perhaps entries like "14:33:28 EST, 11 March 2005", "Most recent date for birth of the Combine Empire", or "High Elven beachhead thwarted by Venril Sathir's froglok army." are meaningful for those that are already familiar with the series (i.e. those people that will also understand what the two / three different years mean: "After Nameless"?), but that is not the intended audience of a plot summary as a subset of the Everquest article (i.e. as an explanation of "what is Everquest" for those of us who only have the faintest idea what it is all about). Now, a timeline of the development of the game (and other media) may perhaps be a better use, but that is a completely different article: an in-universe timeline serves no purpose, is contrary to WP:NOT, and if needed a text recounting briefly the events in Everquest would be much much better as background to the Everquest articles than these tables.Fram 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many articles like that on Wikipedia, which provide insufficient context to understand them, the solution is to improve them, not delete them. Conceptually though, I have no objection to it, as the history of a world is important to understanding the setting, and the setting of Everquest is reasonably important. FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it is the kind of plot summary that doesn't help you when you don't already know the story (which is after all the intention of including a short plot summary: to give those unfamiliar with a subject some background as to what's it all about). Perhaps entries like "14:33:28 EST, 11 March 2005", "Most recent date for birth of the Combine Empire", or "High Elven beachhead thwarted by Venril Sathir's froglok army." are meaningful for those that are already familiar with the series (i.e. those people that will also understand what the two / three different years mean: "After Nameless"?), but that is not the intended audience of a plot summary as a subset of the Everquest article (i.e. as an explanation of "what is Everquest" for those of us who only have the faintest idea what it is all about). Now, a timeline of the development of the game (and other media) may perhaps be a better use, but that is a completely different article: an in-universe timeline serves no purpose, is contrary to WP:NOT, and if needed a text recounting briefly the events in Everquest would be much much better as background to the Everquest articles than these tables.Fram 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Timelines of fictional universes are fairly common around here, and while generally I loathe the use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keeping an article, I believe this to be a case where sufficient precedent exists that fictional timelines are not a violation of policy or guidelines. Granted, this article needs a lot of cleanup, especially some out of universe context per WP:WAF to help readers unfamiliar with the subject make some sense out of it. But again, this is an example where perhaps tagging it as {{in-universe}} or perhaps simply {{cleanup}} would have been the better route to go. I also agree with FrozenPurpleCube in that a rename to something like Everquest Storyline or Everquest story timeline may make more sense than the current title. Arkyan • (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You want recent precedents? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Faerûn: Present. There may be counterexamples, but I don't know them. And I don't see how you can rewrite this in a out-of-universe way. Anyway, if you propose that it needs to be completely rewritten and that it needs a new title, then why not just delete it and start a new, independently sourced, out-of-universe article with the correct title? Fram 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is NOT a plot summary, nor is it a storyline. It is a timeline of major in-game events that gives a sense of the continuity of the EverQuest universe. As such I see it as a very important part of the EverQuest, EverQuest II and EverQuest Live articles. I DO think that this timeline might fit better at EverQuest/Timeline as a subpage of the primary EverQuest article. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainspace articles should not have subpages, please take a look at WP:SUBPAGES. Arkyan • (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it that one keeper wants to rename it to Everquest storyline, and the next keeper claims that it is no storyline at all. I don't see how this is a "very important part of the Everquest articles", as it is completely incomprehensible for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. A timeline is a plot summary in chronological order, it is a retelling of the story events. To claim otherwise is, well, bizarre. Fram 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as much as you disagree with that poster's contention, that in no way changes the value of relating the story of Everquest. Try to focus on that subject, not one editor's conceptions. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDelete: Where do the games fit in here? Where's the WAF? Nifboy 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep or Merge - per WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE #7. Unless reliable source analysis can be provided and article be reworked out of its universe. The current references are either broken or unacceptable. MURGH disc. 00:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update & Merge or Delete. While I appreciate the work that went into this, my problems are two-fold - many of the source links no longer work (violating WP:ATT) and it also seems rather crufty. Perhaps a cut down version could be put into the page describing the EQ fictional universe? Dr Aaron 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Pure plot summary. Written in an entirely in-universe style that asserts no real-world notability. Could easily be cut down. Also recommend merging into the main EQ article if salvagable. hbdragon88 08:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete unless an article complying with WP:WAF called "World of EverQuest" is created that discusses the setting. — Deckiller 07:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.