![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- giggles uncontrollably. - Why are there so many redirects? I was looking at the Brom section, and it has redirections to 'hill', 'sandstone', 'tomb', 'time', etc. I mean, what's the actual point?
keep making internal links to the same thing over and over and over again, and keeps saying what Tronjheim is, etc. I cleaned up a bit, but I'm not bothering with the rest.
Okay, I'd like to propose a standard for this page.
I would like to have any questions about this policy, and see if it should give some guidance to help make the character organization more clear. Tuvas 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made alot of changes to the article, I hope now it's alot more organized, and easier to find the person, and read about similar people. The next step is to continue summarizing the major characters. There probably should be more added to the two that I've already done, but, well, I can only do so much at a time... I think we should recreate all of the major characters pages, and simply have a summary on the main page. These would include: Durza, Roran, Nasuada, Murtagh, The Ra'Zac, possibly Oromis, and Saphira for sure. The summaries should be a bit longer than the ones that I did, I was just in too much of a hurry to do a really decent job.
Still needing to be added to the page are Eragon and Galbatorix, under the major characters section. Tuvas 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of characters are missing from this article. I can't even find Elva. Could someone fix this? Shrewpelt 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) who is the lady-smith in Du Weldinvarden that made the swords for the Dragon Riders? Jestt 01:25 8 Oct. 2007
Her name is Rhunön. I think she should at the very least be mentioned in here, although it might not hurt to wait and see if we get more background on her in the next book. Could somebody please do that? Doin'Huh3.5 ( talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
this article is terrible. There is no clear distinction as to if there are any other articles on the characters. Quite honestly, this needs a bulldozer. Does anyone think so too? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Here, I've got a suggestion for everyone. It's simple. The same thing they have on Bleach. It's called, a character page, that gives a quick description of each character in the book. Then, links to their pages. I know...scary thought indeed. But you know. You still haven't given a valid argument why they should have been deleted in the first place. It makes no sense, and I'm studying calculus...seriously, that makes more sense that the decision to nuke the character pages. Geez, whose bright idea what that? Whoever it was, get a checkup, your missing a few components. Seriously, THE INFORMATION IS USEFUL. I'VE WRITTEN PAPERS IN HIGH SCHOOL THAT I USED TONS OF THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM THE CHARACTER PAGES FOR...seriously...talk about forgetting your brain on the bedstand... Dragoon91786 ( talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My opinion has nothing to do with civility, it comes down to a rational understanding of the value of a piece of information. While the information is still accessible, it is not for the average user. Not many people use the histories to look back and check for previous edits. I thought the idea here was the furtherance of a collective knowledge through an open source medium? Or has the original goal of wikipedia changed since I first started using it back in 2001? If so it's a sad thing.
As for information being uncited I can understand that point, however I still thoroughly disagree with the current position of the terms. I can't believe this site has changed so much since I started using it my Freshman year in high school. As for my opinion of whoever is the final say in this section of wiki, I have the right to cite my opinion. Perhaps you might think my language was a bit harsh, but I did not threaten, nor verbally abuse the person. I admit, my temper got a little heated after reading some of the comments by others. But that is understandable. I am a learned individual who feels passionately about this subject. I doubt I am the only person to voice his or her opinion in a way that is heated...I'm not going to apologize for those views. Perhaps I am looking at too small a picture and wikipedia has in fact detracted from the original goals I understood when I started using this site, if that truly is the case I really feel we've lost something. Yes, as you pointed out articles having real world implications are nice, but wikipedia was originally a collection of information on a variety of topics that were accessible by the masses, not just someone's opinion of what is currently affecting the world. If I want to read opinions I'll watch FOX, CNN, or the BBC. This was intended, originally, from what I signed, and understood to be, as a site dedicated to allowing people access to information on a variety of topic, user created, edited by the masses, and open source (available to everyone for free). If one of the committee's changed that view at some point it really is a shocking and disheartening fact. This site had some great intentions at the beginning, but it seems that those values and intentions have lead to hell as they all inevitably do...
As for my opinions, they remain unchanged...and you still haven't changed my opinion. I will however apologize if my language offended you. It was unintentional. I was simply voicing a strong opinion that I adamantly oppose the current decision making process of wiki in this area. I have freedom of speech in this country, or did that also change while I've been in school? And no...just because this is a website does not change that, delete my comments, erase my account, I still have the right to speak my mind. If people think otherwise check Article I of the Bill of Rights, you might find it interesting. Dragoon91786 ( talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks like it was just a copy-and-paste job. I removed the original research (the real-world and similarities sections), and cleaned up the headings, but it still needs to be condensed to a more manageable size. Una Laguna Talk 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There looks like there is enough info for her own article —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Geoqueen (
talk •
contribs)
19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The article for Murtagh is made now, but is very poor. Fans of the Inheritance books should add more if they want to. (Anon.)
I am swedish and many of the words are from the swedish language Stenr comes from the swedish word Sten that means stone. Vindr comes from Vind that means air. The word Vakna is from the swedish to. Its called Vakna and means Wake up. Also Fram is from the swedish language and in swedish it is Fram as well. It means up ahead. Still a good book :3. P.S i wrote in this section because they are talking about translation - Dragon rider Dahmani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.187.12 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The poor guy used to have his own article, right? I REMEMBER THIS KINDA STUFF!!!!!!
I copied the whole thing into Word on my computer. And...and... now it's gone!! *sobbing wildly*
I WANT HIS ARTICLE BACK!
-- Éowyn Alestrii 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree thoroughly. The reason behind wikipedia is an encyclopedia, is it not? Then why include information relating to the characters at all. Information gleamed from books is often all we have about characters. The articles about characters is about who they are. Information regarding them that can be useful to people. For instance, if I was writing a college paper about the book, instead of having to browse through all of the book to find specific sections relating to who, say Eragon is, I could look it up on Wiki. I could also find outside information that people have posted. If you followed that hard fast rule, 90% of HP, LOTRs, and Star Wars would be deleted, but it's here because we consider it "valuable information", regardless of whether it comes from the book or not. If this was the case, why else would we have characters, other information, etc.? If all of this is inworld info, why have wiki articles at all about fandom? It isn't useful accept to fans. Shouldn't we then just delete all of it?
I'm a fan, but certainly not an obsessed one. I wrote a paper in high school about Eragon and used the information present in one of the old Wiki articles about Murtagh, you know, ERAGON'S BROTHER...Come on people, that's going to have big implications in both book three and four...so, basic information is important. This isn't Shannara where you have a book comprising every single character, major place, battle, event, etc. That's what wiki's for. We use this as an encyclopedia of fandom. Not as a place for annoyed admins to run amuck. Just because it's inworld doesn't disprove the information's value. It's useful information. If you are going to start deleting articles because it's purely inworld, take that deleting finger and move it to some of the articles where you'll get deleted, like LOTRS or HP...or Star Trek/Star Wars and see what happens...you'll get so much backlash you wouldn't imagine. Most of the characters in wiki are those that you see once, in one small passage, etc. They are of vague reference. And only super and mega fans care enough about to post. Don't go telling me that a major character is being deleted just because the information about him is placed purly in inworld. That's a load of horse manure. Plus, with only two books in the series out, how can you expect more info...Paolini has been on several book tours. He doesn't talk a lot about the series because HE IS A MEGA FAN...Do you honestly think he doesn't know what happens when he starts talking? He releases information via his publisher. His recent video announcement was poised directly at super and mega fans. Fans who like myself actually read the emails we are sent by the publisher about what's happening in the universe, people who read the articles he writes monthly.
As for the character of Murtagh, I have not seen a single bit of solitary evidence disproving the importance of giving him his own page. His character continues to become more important with each book released. Paolini recently hinted at his importance, along with Eragon's cousin. I mean they had a fricking Star Wars, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, "I am your father..." moment...last time I check that usually signified a great deal of importance in a storyline. Secondly, the main reason to give him his own info, was to give writers/reader a chance to have more specific information on the character without mucking up the main wiki articles on the series. If the problem is that people only wrote enough info to make Murtagh a stub, I might understand. Fans get your books out and research, but just because it's inworld is no reason to delete it. I think wiki is making a big mistake. Actually, scratch that, a herculean mistake. So wizen up. Don't go around deleting things without thinking if it has value. Ingame/inworld has just as much value as outside info. If you don't believe me, why don't you check out every single article on every single character in every single book out there on wiki...99% are chalk full of inworld info about the characters, taken directly from the book...because last I checked...that's where the info COMES FROM!!! IT'S CALLED FICTION...WHERE ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO GET INFORMATION? Dragoon91786 ( talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And my comments in response to your comments also apply here as well... Dragoon91786 ( talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Sorry I swore, it was unintentional.
The article for Murtagh is made now, but is very poor. Fans of the Inheritance books should add more if they want to. (Anon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.78.143 ( talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
@ immediately above, I think everyone that's a major player in Inheritance ought to have their own article, provided it's got enough external sources.-- Gp75motorsports 10:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And who said it was unnecessary? Last I checked people use this for either research or to find more about the series. In depth fandom info is VERY Useful...just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I constantly want to have summaries of characters, it makes understanding the books/movies/anime/tv shows/etc. a LOT EASIER! Honestly. Is all everyone thinks about around her, outworld info? Geez...that sort of information is what theonering.com and the-leaky-cauldron.org are for. Honestly, I don't need wikipedia to find out that sort of information. I do however use this for learning about characters who aren't always mentioned, small events, characters you don't normally hear about. Can't remember from the first three read through's. Geez guys, this information is useful. Why, are you all freaked out over the server usage? Geez. If that's the case, I feel for this site. It's going downhill, fast. Last I check, more information was better, so long as it was cohesive, intelligible, and not redundant. If this pattern keeps up, we might as well reset the whole site and start from scratch. And guess what. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Dragoon91786 ( talk) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is a mess, I am laughing at how much is wrong. First the characters are listed poorly, they should be put as importance to the story, not by alphabetical order. Second, there is vandalism in a few sections, and three, it looks like someone copied a whole section and repasted. Not that there is anything wrong, as long as it was a former page. The thing that is wrong is that when it was pasted, they forgot to delete all the little [edit] links. Also, there are characters listed twice, such as Eragon in two sections. Plus, the page is way to long. This whole page is totally in need of a cleanup. Anyone who would like to help cleanup this page would greatly be appreciated. Bd8494 ( talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I found a link within the article 'Brom' Quoted below
"Near the end of Eragon he is killed by the Ra'zac"
In the link 'Ra'zac' it redirects to Algaesia. I am not well-knowledged with the lore of Inheritance but the article describes the Ra'zac as a character, yet it redirects to a location. Could someone amend this, or inform me if I am very much mistaken 84.45.134.188 ( talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The grammar in the Islanzadi section (the second part, mostly) is completely messed up. I'd fix it except I have no idea what it's trying to say. Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any links or references to this: "After his first dragon died, he forced Shruikan to bond with him using dark forms of magic, after killing his original rider" because it conflicts with the larger Galbatorix page.
The image Image:BRISINGR.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The content on these pages is choppy. Especially the sections on Brom, and Galbatorix. This seems like rushed work that noone cares about. We should do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.234.79 ( talk) 08:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is its excessive length. It goes into far too much detail. I will try and cut back all the unnecessary details (for example, do we really need to know that Vanir's hair is black?), aiming for no more than a couple of medium-sized paragraphs for non-major characters.
Any comments are welcome. Una Laguna Talk 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an alert at the beginning, like 'the following article has spoilers'? or is there nothing like that here? JainaSkylar ( talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting a set of edits, not because they're bad, but because they're making small, unnecessary additions to the article. This may look like a case of WP:OWN; however, let me explain my actions.
When I say I "rewrote" the article (see above), what I problem should have said was "condensed". I made the article shorter by removing any unnecessary details. Some of it was removing paragraphs which went way overboard with detail, but a lot of it was simply taking out the odd sentence. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, and in the interest of keeping this article as short and reader-friendly as possible (remember, articles are meant to be written with the non-expert in mind - fans looking for detailed analysis should go elsewhere), I'll remove any unnecessary additions to prevent a snowball effect. If every couple of days someone added a few sentences here and there, after a few months the article will have grown substantially, and unnecessarily, in size. Una Laguna Talk 06:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Who was the guy who gaurded Ellesmara he is not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.145.63 ( talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I merged the content from the page Garrow into the Garrow section, as directed by the merge discussion, and replaced the Garrow page with a redirect to the appropriate section here. Agathman ( talk) 14:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
When thinking of major characters, I would definitely think of Oromis, Glaedr and Orik. There are already some exceptions to the classification solely by geography and race: Nasuada and Galbatorix are both listed under major characters. Anybody agree/disagree? Star Garnet ( talk) 00:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that if Maud the Werecat gets a place that Solembum should get a place too. please make a place for Him! Knapper1176 ( talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I too agree with knapper.(volderanger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volderanger ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC) and so do I ( Boekholt gregori ( talk) 22:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
how is thorn a major character? He does not belong in the major charachter space. Please change! ( Boekholt gregori ( talk) 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
I think Birgit should get at least a mention in the Carvahall characters? I mean, she is the second most important person in the Carvahall rebellion, and also speaks for Katrina at her wedding. She could also be playing an important role in the last book, as she wants revenge over Roran. A slight mention, at least? And Gertrude is a very important character as well, she heals Garrow and Eragon, and later Roran too. Vraelisfrail ( talk) 13:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Should character descriptions be written in past tense if they are no longer living by the time the storyline ends? According to this Manual of Style supplement, works of fiction should be written in the present tense, but I am not sure if that is referring to only plot summaries. It seems to me like the article would be more consistent if it were all written in one tense in regards to character descriptions, but I do not want to just revert edits that are changing the tense from present to past. -- Jonadin93 ( talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The new article Brom (character) is similar to Brom (Inheritance), which was merged here five years ago following consensus from discussion at Talk:Eragon. Any objections to redirecting the new Brom article as well? Thanks, Altered Walter ( talk) 11:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Um, it says
In Eragon, Angela later appears in Tronjheim, where she has taken up residence
but as I understand, wasn't she in hiding at first? So, not having taken up legal residence? Jhasn Sapientia ( talk) 02:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Their should be a page for each IMPORTANT charecter, for instance Brom and Roran. People who only apear once or twice should not have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitMat ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Inheritance Cycle characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this article is in poor shape right now, it's a pretty easy fix. I ask that editors hold off on deleting it for at least a month, during which I hop to do the following:
Much obliged for your patience. -- 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 04:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
104.139.101.101 has elected to revert a reversion I made, which restored content deleted in error. This particular content concerns the titular characters foreskin, which was the subject of a somewhat humourous discussion on a reddit forum. Normally, this would have no bearance on a wikipedia article - however, in this case, the author himself confirmed some details on this topic. Since the information is thus canon, it may be added to the article regardless of whether or not another user deems it appropriate.
Wikipedia and its maintainers/editors are not here to decide what information is appropriate, and what information is not appropriate. We are simply here to publish as much confirmed accurate information as we possibly can.
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- giggles uncontrollably. - Why are there so many redirects? I was looking at the Brom section, and it has redirections to 'hill', 'sandstone', 'tomb', 'time', etc. I mean, what's the actual point?
keep making internal links to the same thing over and over and over again, and keeps saying what Tronjheim is, etc. I cleaned up a bit, but I'm not bothering with the rest.
Okay, I'd like to propose a standard for this page.
I would like to have any questions about this policy, and see if it should give some guidance to help make the character organization more clear. Tuvas 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made alot of changes to the article, I hope now it's alot more organized, and easier to find the person, and read about similar people. The next step is to continue summarizing the major characters. There probably should be more added to the two that I've already done, but, well, I can only do so much at a time... I think we should recreate all of the major characters pages, and simply have a summary on the main page. These would include: Durza, Roran, Nasuada, Murtagh, The Ra'Zac, possibly Oromis, and Saphira for sure. The summaries should be a bit longer than the ones that I did, I was just in too much of a hurry to do a really decent job.
Still needing to be added to the page are Eragon and Galbatorix, under the major characters section. Tuvas 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of characters are missing from this article. I can't even find Elva. Could someone fix this? Shrewpelt 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) who is the lady-smith in Du Weldinvarden that made the swords for the Dragon Riders? Jestt 01:25 8 Oct. 2007
Her name is Rhunön. I think she should at the very least be mentioned in here, although it might not hurt to wait and see if we get more background on her in the next book. Could somebody please do that? Doin'Huh3.5 ( talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
this article is terrible. There is no clear distinction as to if there are any other articles on the characters. Quite honestly, this needs a bulldozer. Does anyone think so too? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Here, I've got a suggestion for everyone. It's simple. The same thing they have on Bleach. It's called, a character page, that gives a quick description of each character in the book. Then, links to their pages. I know...scary thought indeed. But you know. You still haven't given a valid argument why they should have been deleted in the first place. It makes no sense, and I'm studying calculus...seriously, that makes more sense that the decision to nuke the character pages. Geez, whose bright idea what that? Whoever it was, get a checkup, your missing a few components. Seriously, THE INFORMATION IS USEFUL. I'VE WRITTEN PAPERS IN HIGH SCHOOL THAT I USED TONS OF THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM THE CHARACTER PAGES FOR...seriously...talk about forgetting your brain on the bedstand... Dragoon91786 ( talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My opinion has nothing to do with civility, it comes down to a rational understanding of the value of a piece of information. While the information is still accessible, it is not for the average user. Not many people use the histories to look back and check for previous edits. I thought the idea here was the furtherance of a collective knowledge through an open source medium? Or has the original goal of wikipedia changed since I first started using it back in 2001? If so it's a sad thing.
As for information being uncited I can understand that point, however I still thoroughly disagree with the current position of the terms. I can't believe this site has changed so much since I started using it my Freshman year in high school. As for my opinion of whoever is the final say in this section of wiki, I have the right to cite my opinion. Perhaps you might think my language was a bit harsh, but I did not threaten, nor verbally abuse the person. I admit, my temper got a little heated after reading some of the comments by others. But that is understandable. I am a learned individual who feels passionately about this subject. I doubt I am the only person to voice his or her opinion in a way that is heated...I'm not going to apologize for those views. Perhaps I am looking at too small a picture and wikipedia has in fact detracted from the original goals I understood when I started using this site, if that truly is the case I really feel we've lost something. Yes, as you pointed out articles having real world implications are nice, but wikipedia was originally a collection of information on a variety of topics that were accessible by the masses, not just someone's opinion of what is currently affecting the world. If I want to read opinions I'll watch FOX, CNN, or the BBC. This was intended, originally, from what I signed, and understood to be, as a site dedicated to allowing people access to information on a variety of topic, user created, edited by the masses, and open source (available to everyone for free). If one of the committee's changed that view at some point it really is a shocking and disheartening fact. This site had some great intentions at the beginning, but it seems that those values and intentions have lead to hell as they all inevitably do...
As for my opinions, they remain unchanged...and you still haven't changed my opinion. I will however apologize if my language offended you. It was unintentional. I was simply voicing a strong opinion that I adamantly oppose the current decision making process of wiki in this area. I have freedom of speech in this country, or did that also change while I've been in school? And no...just because this is a website does not change that, delete my comments, erase my account, I still have the right to speak my mind. If people think otherwise check Article I of the Bill of Rights, you might find it interesting. Dragoon91786 ( talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks like it was just a copy-and-paste job. I removed the original research (the real-world and similarities sections), and cleaned up the headings, but it still needs to be condensed to a more manageable size. Una Laguna Talk 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There looks like there is enough info for her own article —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Geoqueen (
talk •
contribs)
19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The article for Murtagh is made now, but is very poor. Fans of the Inheritance books should add more if they want to. (Anon.)
I am swedish and many of the words are from the swedish language Stenr comes from the swedish word Sten that means stone. Vindr comes from Vind that means air. The word Vakna is from the swedish to. Its called Vakna and means Wake up. Also Fram is from the swedish language and in swedish it is Fram as well. It means up ahead. Still a good book :3. P.S i wrote in this section because they are talking about translation - Dragon rider Dahmani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.187.12 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The poor guy used to have his own article, right? I REMEMBER THIS KINDA STUFF!!!!!!
I copied the whole thing into Word on my computer. And...and... now it's gone!! *sobbing wildly*
I WANT HIS ARTICLE BACK!
-- Éowyn Alestrii 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree thoroughly. The reason behind wikipedia is an encyclopedia, is it not? Then why include information relating to the characters at all. Information gleamed from books is often all we have about characters. The articles about characters is about who they are. Information regarding them that can be useful to people. For instance, if I was writing a college paper about the book, instead of having to browse through all of the book to find specific sections relating to who, say Eragon is, I could look it up on Wiki. I could also find outside information that people have posted. If you followed that hard fast rule, 90% of HP, LOTRs, and Star Wars would be deleted, but it's here because we consider it "valuable information", regardless of whether it comes from the book or not. If this was the case, why else would we have characters, other information, etc.? If all of this is inworld info, why have wiki articles at all about fandom? It isn't useful accept to fans. Shouldn't we then just delete all of it?
I'm a fan, but certainly not an obsessed one. I wrote a paper in high school about Eragon and used the information present in one of the old Wiki articles about Murtagh, you know, ERAGON'S BROTHER...Come on people, that's going to have big implications in both book three and four...so, basic information is important. This isn't Shannara where you have a book comprising every single character, major place, battle, event, etc. That's what wiki's for. We use this as an encyclopedia of fandom. Not as a place for annoyed admins to run amuck. Just because it's inworld doesn't disprove the information's value. It's useful information. If you are going to start deleting articles because it's purely inworld, take that deleting finger and move it to some of the articles where you'll get deleted, like LOTRS or HP...or Star Trek/Star Wars and see what happens...you'll get so much backlash you wouldn't imagine. Most of the characters in wiki are those that you see once, in one small passage, etc. They are of vague reference. And only super and mega fans care enough about to post. Don't go telling me that a major character is being deleted just because the information about him is placed purly in inworld. That's a load of horse manure. Plus, with only two books in the series out, how can you expect more info...Paolini has been on several book tours. He doesn't talk a lot about the series because HE IS A MEGA FAN...Do you honestly think he doesn't know what happens when he starts talking? He releases information via his publisher. His recent video announcement was poised directly at super and mega fans. Fans who like myself actually read the emails we are sent by the publisher about what's happening in the universe, people who read the articles he writes monthly.
As for the character of Murtagh, I have not seen a single bit of solitary evidence disproving the importance of giving him his own page. His character continues to become more important with each book released. Paolini recently hinted at his importance, along with Eragon's cousin. I mean they had a fricking Star Wars, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, "I am your father..." moment...last time I check that usually signified a great deal of importance in a storyline. Secondly, the main reason to give him his own info, was to give writers/reader a chance to have more specific information on the character without mucking up the main wiki articles on the series. If the problem is that people only wrote enough info to make Murtagh a stub, I might understand. Fans get your books out and research, but just because it's inworld is no reason to delete it. I think wiki is making a big mistake. Actually, scratch that, a herculean mistake. So wizen up. Don't go around deleting things without thinking if it has value. Ingame/inworld has just as much value as outside info. If you don't believe me, why don't you check out every single article on every single character in every single book out there on wiki...99% are chalk full of inworld info about the characters, taken directly from the book...because last I checked...that's where the info COMES FROM!!! IT'S CALLED FICTION...WHERE ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO GET INFORMATION? Dragoon91786 ( talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And my comments in response to your comments also apply here as well... Dragoon91786 ( talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Sorry I swore, it was unintentional.
The article for Murtagh is made now, but is very poor. Fans of the Inheritance books should add more if they want to. (Anon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.78.143 ( talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
@ immediately above, I think everyone that's a major player in Inheritance ought to have their own article, provided it's got enough external sources.-- Gp75motorsports 10:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And who said it was unnecessary? Last I checked people use this for either research or to find more about the series. In depth fandom info is VERY Useful...just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I constantly want to have summaries of characters, it makes understanding the books/movies/anime/tv shows/etc. a LOT EASIER! Honestly. Is all everyone thinks about around her, outworld info? Geez...that sort of information is what theonering.com and the-leaky-cauldron.org are for. Honestly, I don't need wikipedia to find out that sort of information. I do however use this for learning about characters who aren't always mentioned, small events, characters you don't normally hear about. Can't remember from the first three read through's. Geez guys, this information is useful. Why, are you all freaked out over the server usage? Geez. If that's the case, I feel for this site. It's going downhill, fast. Last I check, more information was better, so long as it was cohesive, intelligible, and not redundant. If this pattern keeps up, we might as well reset the whole site and start from scratch. And guess what. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Dragoon91786 ( talk) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is a mess, I am laughing at how much is wrong. First the characters are listed poorly, they should be put as importance to the story, not by alphabetical order. Second, there is vandalism in a few sections, and three, it looks like someone copied a whole section and repasted. Not that there is anything wrong, as long as it was a former page. The thing that is wrong is that when it was pasted, they forgot to delete all the little [edit] links. Also, there are characters listed twice, such as Eragon in two sections. Plus, the page is way to long. This whole page is totally in need of a cleanup. Anyone who would like to help cleanup this page would greatly be appreciated. Bd8494 ( talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I found a link within the article 'Brom' Quoted below
"Near the end of Eragon he is killed by the Ra'zac"
In the link 'Ra'zac' it redirects to Algaesia. I am not well-knowledged with the lore of Inheritance but the article describes the Ra'zac as a character, yet it redirects to a location. Could someone amend this, or inform me if I am very much mistaken 84.45.134.188 ( talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The grammar in the Islanzadi section (the second part, mostly) is completely messed up. I'd fix it except I have no idea what it's trying to say. Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any links or references to this: "After his first dragon died, he forced Shruikan to bond with him using dark forms of magic, after killing his original rider" because it conflicts with the larger Galbatorix page.
The image Image:BRISINGR.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The content on these pages is choppy. Especially the sections on Brom, and Galbatorix. This seems like rushed work that noone cares about. We should do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.234.79 ( talk) 08:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is its excessive length. It goes into far too much detail. I will try and cut back all the unnecessary details (for example, do we really need to know that Vanir's hair is black?), aiming for no more than a couple of medium-sized paragraphs for non-major characters.
Any comments are welcome. Una Laguna Talk 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an alert at the beginning, like 'the following article has spoilers'? or is there nothing like that here? JainaSkylar ( talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting a set of edits, not because they're bad, but because they're making small, unnecessary additions to the article. This may look like a case of WP:OWN; however, let me explain my actions.
When I say I "rewrote" the article (see above), what I problem should have said was "condensed". I made the article shorter by removing any unnecessary details. Some of it was removing paragraphs which went way overboard with detail, but a lot of it was simply taking out the odd sentence. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, and in the interest of keeping this article as short and reader-friendly as possible (remember, articles are meant to be written with the non-expert in mind - fans looking for detailed analysis should go elsewhere), I'll remove any unnecessary additions to prevent a snowball effect. If every couple of days someone added a few sentences here and there, after a few months the article will have grown substantially, and unnecessarily, in size. Una Laguna Talk 06:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Who was the guy who gaurded Ellesmara he is not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.145.63 ( talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I merged the content from the page Garrow into the Garrow section, as directed by the merge discussion, and replaced the Garrow page with a redirect to the appropriate section here. Agathman ( talk) 14:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
When thinking of major characters, I would definitely think of Oromis, Glaedr and Orik. There are already some exceptions to the classification solely by geography and race: Nasuada and Galbatorix are both listed under major characters. Anybody agree/disagree? Star Garnet ( talk) 00:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that if Maud the Werecat gets a place that Solembum should get a place too. please make a place for Him! Knapper1176 ( talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I too agree with knapper.(volderanger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volderanger ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC) and so do I ( Boekholt gregori ( talk) 22:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
how is thorn a major character? He does not belong in the major charachter space. Please change! ( Boekholt gregori ( talk) 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
I think Birgit should get at least a mention in the Carvahall characters? I mean, she is the second most important person in the Carvahall rebellion, and also speaks for Katrina at her wedding. She could also be playing an important role in the last book, as she wants revenge over Roran. A slight mention, at least? And Gertrude is a very important character as well, she heals Garrow and Eragon, and later Roran too. Vraelisfrail ( talk) 13:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Should character descriptions be written in past tense if they are no longer living by the time the storyline ends? According to this Manual of Style supplement, works of fiction should be written in the present tense, but I am not sure if that is referring to only plot summaries. It seems to me like the article would be more consistent if it were all written in one tense in regards to character descriptions, but I do not want to just revert edits that are changing the tense from present to past. -- Jonadin93 ( talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The new article Brom (character) is similar to Brom (Inheritance), which was merged here five years ago following consensus from discussion at Talk:Eragon. Any objections to redirecting the new Brom article as well? Thanks, Altered Walter ( talk) 11:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Um, it says
In Eragon, Angela later appears in Tronjheim, where she has taken up residence
but as I understand, wasn't she in hiding at first? So, not having taken up legal residence? Jhasn Sapientia ( talk) 02:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Their should be a page for each IMPORTANT charecter, for instance Brom and Roran. People who only apear once or twice should not have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitMat ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Inheritance Cycle characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this article is in poor shape right now, it's a pretty easy fix. I ask that editors hold off on deleting it for at least a month, during which I hop to do the following:
Much obliged for your patience. -- 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 04:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
104.139.101.101 has elected to revert a reversion I made, which restored content deleted in error. This particular content concerns the titular characters foreskin, which was the subject of a somewhat humourous discussion on a reddit forum. Normally, this would have no bearance on a wikipedia article - however, in this case, the author himself confirmed some details on this topic. Since the information is thus canon, it may be added to the article regardless of whether or not another user deems it appropriate.
Wikipedia and its maintainers/editors are not here to decide what information is appropriate, and what information is not appropriate. We are simply here to publish as much confirmed accurate information as we possibly can.