Talk:Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infinitely Large[edit]

People seem to misread the description. The great wheel that comprises the outlands is infinite, the spire is not. The spire merely rises up above the clouds to an "unreachable height." It is true that the spire is always able to be seen, but it is not of infinite height. Because of this, I have modified the article to coincide with the material provided. -Emhilradim 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] disagrees. Also, the second edition guides say basically the same thing, though less clearly:
"Sigil stands at the very heart of the plane, balanced on a spire that disappears into nothingness above." — Sigil and Beyond
Sigil residing atop the (supposedly) infinite Spire is one of those little things of Planescape where some people believe it one way and some other other. The original wording reflects this, the new does not. Also, the Lady of Pain does not live in The Lady's Ward.
"It's always The Lady's Ward, not the Lady's Ward, because they're talking about the Lady of Pain here. Not that she's got a house there, or that she appears there more than anywhere else; the ward's named so because the greatest instruments of her might are found there." — Sigil and Beyond
I'm reverting your changes. —shoecream 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People, people. We are talking about a fantasy setting, and a particular part too that is known for its mystique and shrouding facts. The idea that it is infinitely tall yet can still be seen is just one of those many contradictions that surround the surreal nature of the planescape setting. I would think people like you would get this, seeing as your show enough interest to write on it. Have you ever played a session or read a book where the characters are say walking on and on yet what they are walking toward never seems to get closer? It sort of like that. Again, the setting itself is surreal and everything is subject to change at a whim of some being or another so do not be surprised if reality in planescape does not work on set distances or rules of physics. If you could fly up the spire you may just find yourself "moving" but never getting closer. Is this concept lost on you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.178.142 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Gavin.collins?[edit]

In this the excessive editting of the page makes it all but unreadable. As I belive his edits are disruptive to the quality of this article, and not based on a true desire to improve this article, I think I am/have reverting/reverted his edits. For those wondering w hy I am not assuming good faith on his part see:Request for Mediation ANd: Request for Arbitration I am NOT attempting to attack or insult him. And this article could use some improvement. But excessive notices at the top of the article won't help. Instead, I've replaced them with a request for an expert in the field.Kairos (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the cleanup tags as there has been no attempt to effect any form of cleanup other than the addtition of two more cleanup tags (this must be a record for a D&D article). I think a more constructive proposal is to merge this article into Lady of Pain as I would imagine it will be impossible to provide evidence of this fictional location.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your cleen up tags for the reasons propvided above. Though I could agree to merging lady of pain inot THIS article. Kairos (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure why you are doing this, as the article does not cite any sources at all. I could understand the removal of the notability template from a topic of marginal notability, but this article has no reliable secondary sources ate all. From the edit history, it appears you never edited this article until now, so I must question your removal of cleanup templates - is this something you feel you must do because of the arbitration case? Or is it because you don't want any improvement to be made to this article? --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than questioning the motives of other editors or using weasal words like "marginal" to describe an article which I haven't contributed to, I'll be adding sources to the article over the next week as work allows. I've got to demonstrate some surgical procedures over the next few days in the lab, but as I can handle it, I'll work on putting in sources (and if you're patient, some in-line citations as I feel them to be needed). I'm reasonably capable of handling that 'request for an expert' tag on the article. There are tons of sources to add, including probably some secondary ones (this article and the one on the Lady of Pain are in and of themselves the two major spin-off articles from the article on the demonstrably notable (award winning) Planescape setting. In the meantime, let's be patient and avoid the ultimatums please. They don't help anyone.Shemeska (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shemeska. I apreciate your efforts to actually improve this article.Kairos (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Shemeska. I also apreciate your efforts to actually improve this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pgp 007 01.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Pgp 007 01.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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I have restored the notability template, as this ficitonal location has no notabilty per se, as it is just one location within a category of locations (the Outer Plane) which is not notable. I would like to see evidence of notability presented here before the template is removed as I could find none.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... why are both {{importance}} and {{notability}} on the same page? It seems kind of redundant. As for sources, I'll look into finding some over the weekend, if you insist on having others to do the hard work. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was this part of the talk page no longer valid since it deals with the exact same issue 8 months ago, and the talk could have continued there, or was it just overlooked? shadzar-talk 03:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the notability template once again. Unless you can provide evidence of notability, please do not remove it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redundant tag has been removed as the issue of notability is already included in the {{importance}} cleanup tag. shadzar-talk 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no proof of notabilty has been offered, the notability cleanup template is appropriate. Unless you are actually going to add reliable secondary sources, please refrain from removing it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article. Read it read good at the existing tags on it. Note the one with not only the word, but wikilink to notability. The concern is already addressed by another tag. Please refrain from overuse of cleanup tags regarding the same issue. shadzar-talk 10:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns are not addressed. There is no evidence that this topic is notable at all. This is not an important topic waiting by any means. I will resotore the notability temoplate at a future date. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then before that I would suggest you click and read {{importance}} and notice the templates output, and you may realize something new in that it states This article lacks information on the notability of the subject matter. and that your concerns of notability are addressed by that tag. shadzar-talk 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have added lots of sources, I will commend you for that. However, I don't think you have established the notability of Sigil per se. Notability needs to be established through non-trivial real-world sources which are ideally independent of the publisher, Wizards of the Coast. My reason for taking the view that notability has not been established is that the sources do not provide real-world non-trivial content relating directly to the subject of the article itself:
  1. Sources 1-18 are derived from Wizards of the Coast, and are primary sources with in universe perspective;
  2. Sources 19-21 are self-published sources, are therefore not reliable, and in any case they rely on an in universe perspective;
  3. Sources 22-23 provide evidence of notability for the game Planescape Torment, but not Sigil itself, which is mentioned only in passing;
  4. Source 24 is a self-published source that relies on an in universe perspective;
  5. Source 25 could be reliable, but the citation relies on in universe, not real-world perspective;
  6. Source 26 is a self-published source that relies on an in universe perspective;
  7. Sources 27-29 establish notability for the Planescape Torment, but not Sigil itself, which is mentioned only in passing
If we focus on what these sources are saying about Sigil itslelf, these excellent sources only contain trivial mentions, and don't tell you anything substantial or noteworthy about the location at all. Standing back from the article, you can see this problem more clearly: there is little real-world information about the ficitonal location itself. For instance, we don't know who first created it, when and why - it just seems to have "appeared" in the publications of Wizards of the Coast (and a computer game, admittedly a notable one). Being in game in two formats does not in itself provide evidence of notability, since notability cannot be inhertited from an overarching subject.
In conclusion, you have established notability for the game Planescape Torment, and I would highly recomend you add sources 22-23 and 27-29 to that article, to which they will be welcome. For this achievement alone, your efforts should be recognised as worthy of a strong commendation. However, I would recomend the restoration of the notability template until addtional substantive sources are found. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will add said sources to the Planescape: Torment article. However, I would like to point out that source #1 is not derived from WOTC, although it is about the game rather than Sigil itself. I will locate more references over the next few days. I think that regardless of whether or not I establish notability on this article, however, the {{notability}} template wouldn't be accurate to add back. I think that {{refimprove}} would be appropriate, because someone could probably find applicable sources even if I can't. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commend you for your confidence in establishing notability at some point in the future, but personally I have my doubts. I don't mean to be discouraging, but you may have to accept that this topic is not notable after all. The reason I say this is two fold: there is little content in this article that is written from a real-world perspective; and secondly, what little real-world coverage there is merely identifies Sigil as a location within the Planescape campaign setting or the Planescape Torment computer game, rather than discussing the fictional location itself in sufficient depth to write an encyclopedic article. For instance, it is not possible to identify who created the setting in the first place, and no commentator has provided any real-world description or speculation about it in the way that, say, commentators have discussed the origins, significance or symbolism of Middle-earth. Although I am not an expert in this matter, it may be necessary to reconsider your approach to this article - Sigil may not be a fictional location of note or interest; rather it is a "fictional locator" used to anchor the more notable game of which it is only a minor component.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-removed indent-Sigil is a fairly important topic in the Planescape setting, since it is the setting's main location. However, I doubt that it will be possible to find real-world commentary in the same way as Middle-earth has which specifically focuses on Sigil. I can probably find plenty that focus on Planescape with a paragraph or two about Sigil. Would that work? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC) {just to mention it, the Middle-earth article has an awful lot of in-universe and uncited content, too). -Drilnoth (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe a paragraph or two will be enough to establish notability. But whether Sigil is a fairly important topic not is not indicated by the article or the source cited by it. We know hardly any real-world facts about it all, not even who created it in the first place. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation[edit]

The article quotes one of the creators saying Sigil's factions were created in response to Vampire: The Masquerade being a popular game and having clans. But Sigil was first published in 1989 and V:tM wasn't published until 1991. Not only is it unlikely that they heard much about V:tM pre-publishing, but it's impossible for it to have been a popular game, isn't it? This may be how the creator remembers it, but it isn't true and should be removed (or at least mentioned that it's not accurate). I'll remove or change it in a few days unless someone does it first or gives me a compelling reason not to. - 67.187.245.98 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigil and Planescape were first published in 1994. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sigil_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)&oldid=1212479530"