Talk:Druids (Shannara)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
The link that says "main article" links back to this page. Is there a main Ahren article?
The article says that the Druids, for unknown reasons, reformed into the Second Druid Council, which contained Athabasca, Bremen, and basically everyone killed when Brona attacked in First King of Shannara. I was wondering where in the books it mentions that? I've been trying to find some mention of the Second Druid Council for some time but don't remember ever seeing anything... Einmonim 17:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shannara Druids → Druids (Shannara) — In the Shannara novels, the Druids are referred to as just that--the Druids. The term "Shannara Druids" is never used. —the_ed17 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.I have reverted a recent large addition of unsourced statements to the article.
On 4 November 2013, User:The ed17 added over 12,000 characters of data to the article, with no sources to support the addition, and nothing that indicates notability for any of these fictional character druids that he added.
So, per WP:BRD, let’s discuss it here.
User:The ed17's edit comment on the edit summary was: "2013-11-04T17:51:50 The ed17 (talk | contribs) . . (14,571 bytes) (+12,766) . . (rv removal of content, we've been over this)", implying that this was a simple revert of some sort. It was not. The article had been unchanged at a character count of approx. 2,000 bytes for nearly five months, since June, and had been less than 5,000 characters from roughly Dec 2012 through May 2013.
The only recent change to the article, in the previous four months, was that I had tagged a deadlink source on 4 Nov 2013. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing on the spot, or tag it as necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts."
I don't have any idea whatsover how to fix the serious deficiencies in this article. The policy you quoted says to "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Apparently, other editors have not chosen to fix them either, or perhaps they cannot, because those sources don't exist. I'm not saying the sources don't exist; but if noone has found sources for years, and no one has added sources for many months while many claims were specifically challenged, then perhaps we might infer that the reliable sources are not to be found. The problems with lack of sources in this article were flaged a long time ago, and only after many months, some of those non-sourced statements were removed, per standard policy, a policy that I will note here is directly a part of the WP:V core policy. Then, and only after five more months, even more of the flagged material that had remained unsourced for all that time, was removed. That is what then became the long-term stable position of this article, which remained in place for five additional months before I tagged a deadlink (removing nothing), and then you came along and added back all of that unsourced material (approx. 12,000 bytes worth), without adding a single source citation that would demonstrate verifiability outside of original research within the Shannara fictional genre.
The very policy paragraph you link to says that material "should be retained if [the material] meets the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." The material you added does not meet two of the three requirements listed:
The final sentence in the WP:PRESERVE policy you link to says: "The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts." I have done my level best to do exactly what one does when one tries, through a succession of editor efforts, to improve the encyclopedia. I looked to see if I could fix the deficiencies; I could not. Because WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, I flaged the shortcomings so other editors, who might know more about where to find such sources than I do, might fix the article. I left the article in that state for many months. Only then, after months of being flagged with no sources found, did I remove the unsourced original research. If the sources don't exist, and noone has found them after months, it is precisely by removing such unverified statements that we improve the encyclopedia, and we do so at a very slow and measured pace, so that other editors might add the sources if they do exist. N2e (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have a content dispute between two editors, and are currently making no progress toward article improvement. So I have opened up an WP:RfC on the topic, so we might get some other editors to weigh in. Please see the content discussion over the past week in the above Talk-page section, and provide opinions, with rationale, below. Thanks. N2e (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]