Talk:Minor Wheel of Time characters

Untitled

At what point should some characters, groups, concepts and places be broken out into their own articles? - Eisnel 16:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that there should be a new article for a character or place depending on how much information can be provided for it and/or how much importance it means to the plot. For example, Emond's Field should have its own article, but other villages in the area should not, simply because Emond's Field is the starting point for everything, but the other villages are only sidesteps along the original journey, and only mentioned here and there throughout the rest. verilon 16:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, don't break out an item into a separate article on volume alone until it covers at least a page-worth of text. Obviously this will depend somewhat on your browser settings, but until you have that much text, there's no point in breaking it out: the resulting article will look stupid and puny. If, on the other hand, the item is likely to be referred to in several places, making a separate article is good to avoid duplication. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 10:59, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good rule of thumb. I now think that it's a good thing that we combine a lot of characters, places, etc. to a small number of articles, because it avoids the FanCruft label. There are lots of fans out there that will make an article for the tiniest Pokemon character and it gets annoying. - Eisnel 15:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Over the past week I've moved all the info from the separate "minor" Aes Sedai articles into this list (in fact I nominated them for deletion and the resultant vote was for a redirect). As a result the article is for the moment a bit out of kilter, with Verin having a separate section and the rest of the Aes Sedai lumped together. There needs to be some consensus as to the structure of this article. 3 questions:

1. How minor is minor?
2. When does a character move from here to being a major character?
3. At what point do "supporting" characters deserve their own page? IMO Slayer, Logain, Verin and Shaidar Haran deserve their own articles (which 3 of them currently have). However, what about e.g. Adeleas and Vandene? I deliberately did NOT nominate them along with the others because they seemed fairly plot central in at least some of the books.

Where should the line be drawn? To concur with Eisnel, we should be careful to avoid fancruft. Zunaid 12:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I can appreciate that the list of characters was getting too big for one page, but why the Light and the Dark? This raises the whole tedious question of who is and who is not a Darkfriend or Black Ajah, for no good reason.

Offhand I can't think of a good breakdown. Maybe Channeller of the One Power and everyone else; though I suppose even that is debatable (e.g. can Moridin channel saidin?).

Damn, I remember way too much about those books for someone who hasn't read them in ages and has lost most of my respect for Jordan. Saforrest 17:18, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Morgase and Faile

I do not consider either of these two characters to be "minor" in the sense that Birgitte or Logain are. Considering that both of these are major players in entire sections of Jordan's books, I think it fair that they have their own articles. I am not reverting the merge of Morgase Trakand into this article yet. I will wait to see if there is any discussion here before making a decision on recreating it as a standalone. Denni☯ 04:24, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Tags

I just removed the Wikify tag on this article, since I think it's made good enough progress the tag's no longer justified. However, I added the Fiction tag. In addition to a repeat of the ancient comment up above by Zoe, I'd say it's important to address which book an event takes place in, or information is revealed. I.E., in the case of Slayer, specify during which book he attempts to kill Padan Fain. That sort of thing. The Literate Engineer 06:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• That may well be, but wrong tag. The header states quite clearly this article is about fictional characters. I'm not quite sure what tag best belongs here; the closest seems to me to be {{Context|date=November 2009}}, so I've stuck it in. Denni☯ 00:25, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldn't the article be renamed to "List of minor characters in The Wheel of Time" or some such, in keeping with the naming convention for lists on Wikipedia? Zunaid 12:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is a 'list' however, in the WP sense. A list would be List of Cairhienin characters in the Wheel of Time series, or some such, with links from the plain names to the biographical articles/sections elsewhere. nae'blis _(talk) 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Shaidar Haran - Should he really be considered a minor character? It's obvious by now that Jordan has elevated him at least to Moridin's level, if not higher.

Logain

I've removed the entry on Logain Ablar as there is already a separate (and more detailed) article for this character elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logain_Ablar Markeer 14:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This artice needs to be added onto. A lot. Characters like Briggite, various Wise Ones, Windfinders, Kin, random generals, ect. A lot of them don't have articles, or were deleted for being stubs. IF we could make this comprehensive it would be really good. Breaking it up could happen after it grows to large.

Cleanup

I'm going to remove the cleanup message if there is no objection? Else can someone please flag what needs to be cleaned up? I am happy to undertake if required. SparrowsWing 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Contains a lot of Original research

Just for a start, I've tagged three things as dubious in Slayer's section that are considered theoretical, and aren't known for certain in the Wheel of Time universe. We actually have no proof that it was Slayer who killed Janduin (albeit nearly certain) we have no proof that it was Slayer who killed the Grey Man in the Tower, and we have no proof that it was he who killed Joiya and Amico. I'll continue tagging and trimming. Also, some of the descriptions is extremely awkward and unencyclopedic: Slayer was described as a "Super Darkfriend".

If anyone wants to, PLEASE add citations to this article. --Pstanton (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at some of it soon - it is quoted quite clearly that Janduin was killed by a man who resembled Tigraine a lot, and that he refused to kill a man with her face, or something like that. There's a good citation for that, at least - it does make it very likely that it was either the Luc in Slayer, or Luc on his own that killed him Mirithing (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely, yes, but unless you have a source that EXPLICITELY states it, making the statement in this article constitutes original research. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, making it say it as a fact would be original research, but pointing out that the book suggests it is different, I figure ^^ Mirithing (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You could cite e.g. the Wheel of Time FAQ http://www.steelypips.org/wotfaq/. Then the research would not be original. Billebrooks (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the WOTFAQ meets WP:RS. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it does either, and saying that the book "suggests" something is original research, too, since you are making your own interpretation. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you is giving any reason for your opinion. Check http://www.steelypips.org/wotfaq/1_dark/1.4_whats-up-dark/1.4.02_slayer.html "On the next page, we learn that Janduin, Rand's biological father, was killed on a venture to the Blasted Lands by a man who looked so like Shaiel (who was really Tigraine, Luc's sister) that Janduin would not raise his spear. This is almost certainly Lord Luc, and is in the third year of the Aiel War, 978 NE." The FAQ is IMO the best resource for WOT speculation, and is extremely well debated by a large number of people from rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan. It is of course not 100% reliable, but that's only because it is speculation. Billebrooks (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Key word- speculation. It is self-published fan speculation, and is not a reliable source for the encyclopedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation needs only to be marked as such and attributed, not be construed as fact, and not be original research. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The following page contains some of the older FAQs: http://www.ece.umd.edu/~dilli/WOT/WOTindex/faqinfo.html The FAQ has been published after each book from The Fires of Heaven to Crossroads of Twilight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billebrooks (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dude! I *LOOOVE* the WOTFAQ! It is awesome and I have spent hours poring over it every time it's been updated. It is truly a great resource. That being said, it does not pass the reliable source test. It's not a formally published, peer-reviewed, reliable source. It's loaded with speculation that's mainly culled from Internet discussion groups. Internet boards are pretty much completely ruled out by Wikipedia as reliable sources. It's great reading, but we cannot use it here. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Henrymrx made my point for me there.  :-) The WOTFAQ is a compilation of the conclusions reached by fans during internet discussion. In other words, it is, as I pointed out, self-published fan speculation. It is extremely useful for fans (I use it all the time), but not at all useful as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This statement is both correct and incorrect. The WOTFAQ was non-anonymous community-published fan 'speculation' and was the definitive such content in the era of USENET, the beginnings of it predating the wide-spread adoption of the WWW itself. Its facts were well scrutinized and often confirmed or denied by the author himself. For example, Demandred as not posing as Mazrim Taim was confirmed by Robert Jordan to myself and others at numerous book signings in 2003; this is documented in the WOTFAQ and ironically not cited in Demandred (Go figure). As a source?, probably no, but as a starting point to find a source?, I say yes. It summarizes information from hundreds of book signings, emails and letters from the author, cites every fact used from the books, and has been parsed from literally hundreds of thousands of posts on RASFWRJ with credits where necessary. I don't know of a more definitive 'speculative' WOT resource in existence. I don't care to argue semantics here but do think about reliable source examples for popular culture and fiction; there is a gray area where the WOTFAQ certainly fits and since the author has now passed away, a lot of items confirmed by the author can no longer be confirmed outside of those original forums of the era (as you know, excluding the blog on Dragonmount, RJ himself did not post content on the internet). As an aside, I am personally passionate about two things that make WOT great: the world created by Robert Jordan itself; and the writing style that allowed comprehensive fan speculation to begin with. Speculation is one of the things that makes WOT so great and always brought a smirk to the Creator's face every time he talked about it. There's nothing wrong with a little speculation as long as it's well researched, well placed, and marked as such. In this case, there's a difference between citing an opinion from a blog or usenet post and citing a section in the WOTFAQ, such as the too-young Sitter issue, should that be considered a worthy subject for this encyclopedia. With respect, I believe this distinction should be noted.--Maethos (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a distinction. The WOTFAQ is a wonderful resource for fans of the series. I have read it myself several times and reccomended it to my friends. It is not suitable for use as a reference for this encyclopedia. However much it has been gone over or meticulously argued on usenet, it remains a self-published source of fan speculation; it is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Speculation about the series may be fun and interesting (and I agree, it is), but Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, nor should such speculation be cited as a source for facts in a Wikipedia article. If you want to speculate, that's great, and more power to you- go to Dragonmount. If you want to write a Wikipedia article, stick to the facts and to reliable sources. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutiketaiel is precisely correct. WOTFAQ is a handy tool and does have many facts that line up properly with the books. However, it also discusses theories and unknown mysteries. The problem with WOT is that there are hundreds of characters that readers do have to keep track of for the series to stay coherent and enjoyable, but at the same time there are still a great deal of unknowns, even at this late point in the series. Stick to the books, the WoT encyclopedia, or information straight from Jordan, Sanderstrom, Jordan's widow, or the publisher. There are quite literaly millions of theories on WoT lore that have been proven wrong or obsolete, including anything outside of what is known is not encyclopedic at all. Musing Sojourner (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergings

For reference, Pstanton, if you were looking for discussion, I support all three of your proposed mergers (Morgase, Elyas and especially Gaidal). Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Olver

In Winter's Heart, in Min's first viewing of Birgitte, she describes two ugly men, one older than her, one younger, which leads me to believe strongly that any comments Robert Jordan made were either misinterpreted, or deliberate misdirection.99.233.29.111 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

However, to include that would be original research, or speculation. Also, Olver would be an ugly boy, and Min saw two ugly men. Spidey104^contribs 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The above two posters are forgetting a very key aspect of things however. Gaidal Cain has appeared in the novels before within Tel'aran'rhiod. Somewhere after book 4 but before Birgitte was ripped out. I can't remember the exact book but as I don't have 1-4 it leans towards that. Now going with that Olver was orphaned by the Shaido invading Cairhein. This was not long after Egwene first started visiting Tel'aran'rhiod and not to mention this took place within that same time span of books. Meaning that Olver was already at least 9-10 years old with Gaidal Cain still not reincarnated. Reading up a bit I'm kinda leaning towards the theory that Jur Grady's son Gadren may be the reincarnated Gaidal Cain. As he was born after Gaidal vanished and is known for being fairly ugly.LancelotLoire (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Slayer

I don't think I'm wrong when I recall Slayer described as looking kin to Lan, complete with hadori. Slayer is not Luc, Slayer didn't kill Janduin.99.233.29.111 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Slayer is a combination of Luc and Isam Mandragoran. There is one point where he chooses which of them to become as he leaves Tel'aran'rhiod. There is also the link of Perrin fighting Slayer in dream, and Luc being wounded from it, although that may be considered a supposition rather than proof. They are both Slayer though.

Saved from Talk:Masema Dagar

(moved as page was merged previously)
Based on the characters already on the Minor character list, Masema seems a logical choice to merge.Tbennert (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mattin Stepaneos den Balgar

"Mattin Stepaneos den Balgar is the King of Illian"

Shouldn't this be "was" the king of Illian. As the current king is Rand al'Thor. Or if you want a more realistic twist.. "Is the exiled King of Illian" LancelotLoire (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A Memory of Light Update

I don't have the time right now to do this -- but it appears that this page is dire need of updating now that the series is completed. Some of the questions of "major" and "minor" should be cleared up (at least a little bit) by all this. ... Not only that, but there is a lot more information about some of these minor characters. Olver, in particular, gets really interesting --- as does Padan Fain, the Dark One, and Demandred. It'll be interesting to see what a little time and a little elbow grease can do to an article like this one! Sir Ian (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)