Talk:Empire of Iuz

Context tag

Three users think this tag is inappropriate here. One thinks it is appropriate. It shouldn't be re-added without discussion, and re-adding it multiple times without discussing is edit-warring. Rray (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this article reads (at the time of writing) as follows:

"In the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game, the Empire of Iuz is an empire ruled by the demigod Iuz".

As it stands, this sentence fails WP:WAF, which states:

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info".'

Secondly the first sentence "should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context". That context should be a real-world context, not a fantasy one. It is too easy to copy the in house style used by Wizards of the Coast in their publications and promotional material (such as their website) that applies a heavy in universe perspective as if it were fact. I must request that the context cleanup template be restored until these issues are addressed. Reverting my edits does not address these issues. This article is bad enough without trying to stop other editors from attempting to improve it. The attempt to uphold the illusion that this article not about a fictional empire ruled by a fictional character must stop. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since multiple users disagree that the template is appropriate, re-adding it wouldn't be helpful. I've seen no evidence that anyone is trying to stop someone from improving this article. And I've seen no one make any assertions about this empire being anything other than fictional. Wikipedia works by discussing and agreeing upon changes. Your combative approach here isn't at all helpful toward collaborating on improving the article. (Didn't I see an edit summary where you called another editor "dummy"?) If your actual goal is to improve the article, you'll stop edit warring and name calling, you'll stop asserting ownership of the article by insisting that a tag you added must not be removed, and you'll actually edit the article to improve it. Rray (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research

All of the in universe content of this article should be removed. However, there is a problem: all of this article as it is currently written is from an in universe perspective. Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. This is why footnotes are so important when presenting fictional content: they assist the reader to distinguish what is primary source material from synthesis. If footnotes cannot be found, I propose this article be merged or deleted, as its content makes no assertion of real-world notability, nor does its in universe perspective provide any real-world context, content, analysis or critisism of the subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)