Talk:Conan chronologies

Major issues

Should we add a section covering the major issues in the stories, why some see one story should go before another, etc? (fully cited of course.) Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be interesting for the Howard only stories. The others are completely unmanagable. You'd end up writing a whole book! ;-) Marek and Ripke give reasons, but I'm not sure how in depth they are. Why not give it a shot?Tim (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree pretty much. I'm sure I could do a little work on it, and the detail could be added later my other editors. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of the Chronologies

The Joe Marek Chronology was actually created before the Dale Rippke Chronology, as a criticism of the classic Miller/Clark, de Camp chronologies. Dale Rippke agreed with some of Marek's conclusions, but felt he didn't go far enough with them and thus created his own chronology. Therefore, Wikipedia's chronology of these chronologies is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten so that Marek comes before Rippke. 68.145.128.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

Discussion at original research noticeboard

I started a thread at the original research noticeboard: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Conan chronologies

Feel free to offer your two cents about the level of original research in this article at the OR noticeboard. Please keep the discussion centralized over there until it concludes, and we have something to follow up on. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said at the NOR noticeboard... I don't see any OR here... the article is nothing but a description of the various chronologies (which are reliable primary sources for themselves)... the problem is that this is all there is to the article. There is nothing to tell the reader what makes the chronologies (individually or as a group) notable. What is needed is some discussion of what secondary sources say about the chronologies... secondary sources that that have commented upon the chronologies, that have analyzed or compared them, etc. Blueboar (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the discussion on the NOR noticeboard has been archived, though it does not appear to have been resolved. That being the case, I am copying the text of the discussion from there to here, so that any additional comments can be made. BPK (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now restored most of the material taken out on grounds of OR, personal opinion, etc., addressing the concerns raised by rewording and referencing all statements made. This despite Shooterwalker's miguided efforts to undo the correction in midstream. Please note that the controverted material actually comes from the chronologies referenced themselves, not any particular wikipedia editor. Also note that the websites referenced and linked to are not the original sources, but in most instances material previously published in print that the websites reproduce. They are linked to for ease of reference, not as original authority, so the fact that they are self-published websites is irrelevant. Removing the links would simply make it more difficult for a user to find the material referenced, as he or she would then have to hunt it up in print -- which would be silly. Any interested user can still hunt down the print material for verification if desired, but it makes no sense to eliminate access to material for ready reference more readily available. Lighten up, dude... BPK (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm on my soapbox, this is probably a good time to address the questions Shooterwalker asked on the original research noticeboard (that discussion is reproduced in the subsection following).

Is the "barbarian's keep" website a reliable source?

Irrelevant. It provides a convenient place to actually look at material that has appeared elsewhere, in reliable sources. The original sources can still be hunted up and checked by those interested, but why deny the interested access to a site to find the material more readily? The actual sources remain the originals; the link merely provides ready-reference.

Is the so-called "fan William Galen Gray's attempt" to create a chronology a reliable source? Does that constitute original research?

To the first question, absolutely. He has read the material, arrived at conclusions, and published the result. We can dispute his conclusions, but anyone who troubles to read some of the same material he did can see how he arrived at them. That makes him as demonstrably reliable as pretty much any other source ever referenced on wikipedia. What is sourcing, anyway, other than referencing someone else's stated opinion as to fact? As to the second question, no. It is not original research to reference someone else's research. Obviously Gray did his own original research, but his research is then available for any wikipedia editor to reference; it is not original research in wikipedia.

Does a discussion of each chronology's strengths and weaknesses constitute original research? (There when the article was initially created, and expanded without any real reference to sources.)

As originally expressed in the article without referencing, it certainly would have appeared to be the opinion of the editor rather than of the editor's sources. This (actually erroneous) appearance has now been addressed by appropriate rewording, attribution and citing of references.

When the lead tries to evaluate the correctness of the chronologies, is that considered original research?

Not really sure it ever did that; rather, it looks to me like it stated the problem of there being no achievable "correct" timeline, why that is the case, and then going on to demonstrate it using examples. This has now been put more clearly, with appropriate referencing.

Is the history of the development of each timeline considered original research?

No. Those facts are out there. Putting them together isn't original research. It's making an article.

Are the parts of the article that compare each timeline to an older timeline considered original research / synthesis?

As originally expressed in the article without referencing, it might have appeared so. The comparisons were in the sources, however, and have now been appropriately referenced.

Is the compared order table at the end of the article considered original research / synthesis?

Is this for real? The table merely reproduces in tabular form the information provided in each section, side by side for easy comparison. Not OR; reproduced research. Not synthesis; comparison. Never did see the justification for removing that item...

BPK (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I second all said by BPK2 above and also would like to note that Shooterwalker has once again removed the content without justifying it here first and is defending this action with a discussion found here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_133#Need_feedback_on_.22REHUPA.22. The problems with this is twofold: 1) the discussion in question was archived before any consensus was met. And 2) Shooterwalker, and thus the entire discussion, have confused the REHupa website with the (as far as I know) unrelated physically published magazine. Is there somewhere we can report this sort of reckless behavior and have him stop? --Painocus (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Also: If anyone know exactly where and when William Galen Gray's and Joe Marek's articles were fist physically published it would be great if they could add it to the sources once the related contents are reintegrated (I would put it back in myself but I fear that if I did so right now Shooterwalker or one of his comrades would just instantly remove it again. And I prefer not to add unnecessarily to a potential edit war). --Painocus (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What hogwash. Of anyone who cared to make a comment on the reliability of the sources, not one stated that there was anything BUT concern and that the sites did not meet the criteria. THAT is consensus. What is of concern is there there are people attempting to confirm reliable source status by local fiat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hogwash yourself. There was one negative reply and the two others where asking for more information that they never got. And, as I have stated in the above comment, whatever they had to say abut that website is irrelevant as that website is not the source in question. --Painocus (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Copied discussion from original research noticeboard on Conan chronologies

Hi, I'd like to get a third (or even fourth or fifth) opinion about the Conan chronologies article.

Personally, I think the article is riddled with original research, but thought I would start by removing the most obvious offender (a self published website), in hopes of avoiding any dispute. So it turns out, the principle (only?) author of the article disagrees with removing the section sourced to the website. So if there's going to be a controversy that requires further discussion, I thought we may as well discuss all the original research, not just the most obvious offenders.

Questions:

• Is the "barbarian's keep" website a reliable source? (The main subject of this dispute)
• Is the so-called "fan William Galen Gray's attempt" to create a chronology a reliable source? Does that constitute original research?
• Does a discussion of each chronology's strengths and weaknesses constitute original research? (There when the article was initially created, and expanded without any real reference to sources.)
• When the lead tries to evaluate the correctness of the chronologies, is that considered original research?
• Is the history of the development of each timeline considered original research?
• Are the parts of the article that compare each timeline to an older timeline considered original research / synthesis?
• Is the compared order table at the end of the article considered original research / synthesis?

I think the answer to most of these would be obvious original research. A few of these might require further discussion, but I think in every case the answer would be yes.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Before we discuss OR, I think we have to answer a more basic question (probably not one for this noticeboard, but I will mention it as long as we are discussing the article)... Is the topic of "Conan chronologies" really notable enough for a stand alone article? What I am seeing are a lot of citations to the various chronologies themselves (primary sources in this context). These are fine for verification of what each chronology says... but not for notability purposes. What we need are some citations to reliable secondary sources that discuss the various chronologies being talked about, sources which analyze and compare them. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think you're asking the right question, but not necessarily in the right order. The quality of the sources is central to answering this question. If none of this is OR, and we're talking about a topic with substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, then that leads to one answer. But if this is an article that takes a few primary sources, fleshes it out with self published sources, and completes with with tons of original interpretation and observations, that leads to a different answer. Trust me that just dealing with the OR has been contentious, which is why I raised it at the noticeboard. But if we could get a consensus on that, we could move this debate forward. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am missing something, but... the entire article seems to be a series of basic descriptive statements about what the various chronologies say (each cited to the chronology that says it). That isn't OR... it is an appropriate use of primary sources. The problem is that this is all there is to the article. There is no indication of notability.

Imagine we had an article on a TV series... each episode showed the same events as seen through the eyes of different characters. Now imagine that the only information in that article was a series of plot summaries of each episode. The episodes themselves would be reliable primary sources for those plot summary, and nothing in the article would be OR. So far so good... However, there is still a problem with that article... it gives no indication of what makes the TV series (as a whole) notable. We would need need reliable secondary sources for that. Blueboar (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Take a paragraph like this: "The strongest point in favor of this chronology is the affirmation by Howard. The weaknesses are that it misses a few chronological points in the stories that point to a slightly different arrangement, and it does not cover all Conan stories by Howard, having been compiled before the entire corpus was published. It naturally omits all post-Howard writings. All of these weaknesses were subsequently rectified, as the Miller/Clark chronology was revised on numerous occasions over the years to take into account newly discovered and newly written material." Again, that doesn't strike me as a statement of fact cited to a reliable third party source. It strikes me as an original observation by an editor who read a few different chronologies, and decided to insert his/her own thoughts about that chronology's strengths, weaknesses, omissions, and position compared to future chronologies. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with OR policy. But what do you make of that? Shooterwalker (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. I agree with both Shooterwalker and Blueboar. At least some parts of the article do appear to be OR, and I wonder whether the rest is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I am a Conan fan and have all the books, but it seems to me that the paragraph on chronologies in the main article is sufficient. Maybe the solution would be for whoever did the work on the "Conan chronologies" article to post that as a personal blog, and a reference to that could be added at the bottom of the main article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gautier lebon, I've come here because this HAS been a contentious issue. A lot of it looks plainly like OR to me, but trying to remove it has never really stuck. If I can't get a consensus on that, then there's certainly no consensus to get rid of the article. You'd be a huge help if you could flag a few statements that are OR. (Or, if you disagree, at least help create a consensus that I'm wrong, so the issue won't be revisited in the future.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections that are unsourced / badly sourced

William Galen Gray and Joe Marek don't meet the standards in reliable sources, and there is a consensus that this policy applies, and that their publication in REHUPA does not change the fact that they're not reliable enough for Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, as I have already stated elsewhere on this talk-page, that the discussion on WP:RS was on the REHUPA website and not the magazine it took it's name from, and so any consensus there is irrelevant. Additionally W. G. Gray and J. Marek meets the criteria for Wikipedia:SELFPUB and thus can be used even if they are questionable. Also it is worth noting that Dale Rippke, who is include in this article, refers to Marek's chronology repetitively and underlines his authority and notability by calling him a "Howard Scholar". --Painocus (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You keep asserting that they meet selfpub, but not providing any actual evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well, let us take a look at the criteria:

"1: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim"

Neither Gray nor Marek says anything particularity exceptional, nor are their statements of personal benefit.

"2: it does not involve claims about third parties"

They only presents their own opinions on how these stories best fit together. Anything they do claim abut others can be backed up by other safer sources and none of these claims have made it into this article anyways.

"3: it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source"

As with #2 no instances of this are used in this article and, should we eventually make use of them, all of those claims can be backed up by other sources.

"4: there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"

There aren't.

"5: the article is not based primarily on such sources."

If this referrers to the Wikipedia article: The Miller/Clark/de Camp and Robert Jordan sections are based on sources officially published by Conan's copyright holders.

If this referrers to the article used as source: Both are based directly on the Conan stories themselves, chronologies previously published officially by Conan's copyright holders and, in Marek's case at least, letters written by R. E. Howard himself.

As I have shown Gray and Marek are qualified on all accounts. --Painocus (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding the point of the SELFPUB policy. It might be clearer if you read the pre-amble, or the alternate shortcut "WP:ABOUTSELF". We're not using Marek to source an article about Marek, and we're not using Gray to source an article about Gray. This isn't a situation where WP:SELFPUB applies. It's a run of the mill situation where you're adding "facts" cited to unreliable sources.

Besides, Dale Ripke is another REHUPA guy that we can't rely on. You're basing his reliability on his publication in REHUPA, which itself isn't reliable. Having him vouch for anyone's reliability is like believing a used car salesman when he says you can trust all used car salesmen.

And just to be clear. Are you saying that Miller/Clark/DeCamp and Jordan are both affiliated with the copyright holder? Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gray is used as an source for his own theories on the Conan timeline, Marek is used as an source for his. This is an article for that kind of theories and thus should deal with them. Thus they are used as sources abut themselves on an article abut them. I fail to see how WP:SELFPUB can not be applied here, even if somewhat unconventionally. Concerning Rippke, and I will say this in bold because it appears that you two have an incredible ability to overlook this, any consensus here is irrelevant to this debate as that discussion was on the REHUPA-website and not the older, technically-unrelated REHUPA-magazine. The later is used as a source here, not the former. No consensus have been reached regarding the REHUPA-magazine. Additionally Rippke's authority comes not (only) from being published in REHUPA, but from the fact that all official Conan material published since his article (like the Dark Horse Comic and the Conan: The Ultimate Guide by Roy Thomas) more-or-less follow his timeline. And to your last question: Yes, as the article itself states, DeCamp's final revision of his chronology was published in Conan the Victorious (and if I'm not mistaken DeCamp was one of the copyright holders at the time) and Jordan's chronology was published in Conan the Defiant. Both of which where officially sanctioned publications. --Painocus (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So if I post my theories on my website, can I expect to use myself as a source for my version of the Conan timeline? That's not how the policy on self-published sources works. There's no reason to believe the REHUPA magazine was any more reliable than the REHUPA website, and for that matter, there's no reason to believe they were independent. And if what you're saying about DeCamp and Jordan are both true, then there's no independent and reliable sources for this entire article, which means it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because there is also such a thing as notability. (Do I seriously have to explain that to you when you talk abut it later in your own post?). Furthermore your stuff wasn't published anywhere else. Additionally whether or not the current REHUPA blog is unrelated to the old magazine or not is completely irrelevant. The discussion at Wiki:RS only relate to the webpage and dismisses it purely for being just a fan sites, which is what you presented it as. The discussion plainly don't encompass the magazine and if you intended it to do you presented it under false pretense which is nothing short of lies, manipulation and corruption. In summary if the REHUPA website and the magazine is to be considered as the same the consensus on it is utterly illegitimate as it was based purely on the webpage and judged solely for being "just a webpage". --Painocus (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Help me understand. 1) You keep saying the Website is not related to the mag. If it is not related to the mag, then what makes it anything other than a fansite. 2) And none of the "self published" people that you want to include are notable. So where is the differention between my blogposts and theirs?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

1) I'm saying I'm not entirely sure if they are related or not, but that either way the consensus meet at wiki:RS is inapplicable here. If they aren't related then, as you said, it is just a fan-site. How is a consensus on the fan-site applicable to using the magazine as source? If they are related then the consensus is not applicable to both of them as a whole because that consensus was meet under the pretense of there only being the site and not a magazine. 2) First of: There is a difference in being published on your own blog and being published in someone else's magazine (Marek, Gray & Rippke), or having your book published by someone else's company (Rippke). Second: How are they not notable for the subject of this article? All three are universally well known within the fandom and in studies of the author. Rippke's chronology, as I have stated above, have been used by both the Dark Horse Comic and the Conan: The Ultimate Guide by Roy Thomas and is the standard timeline to be used by modern readers for Howard's Conan tales. Marek is heavily used and referenced by Rippke and is important for understanding the evolution of these chronologies and is historically significant for the role it played in the rise of the Howard-purism that now dominates the Conan fandom. Gray is probably less notable then the other two, but is the go-to chronology used by readers who want one that includes all the non-Howard tales (the two here are incomplete) and represents an culmination of the Miller/Clark-deCamp-Jordan line of chronologies.

I would also like to note that Shooterwalker's idea that "if what you're saying about DeCamp and Jordan are both true, then there's no independent and reliable sources for this entire article" is wrong as the Miller/Clark chronology is not the product of the copyright-holders.--Painocus (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

claims of "universally well known" are not sufficient when there are no reliable sources to support the claims. Again, simply your assertions with no evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not taken the time to find any sources because that is not needed yet unless the REHUPA magazine is first deemed unreliable. And even if they are not yet needed I've also actually produced arguments for the notability of Rippke and by extension Marek. Again you have completely ignored the majority of my post and instead tried to attack something that is completely besides the point in other to draw attention away from your failure to counter my relevant arguments. --Painocus (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

whether REHUPA is "reliable" or not, it is certainly not "independent" of the subject and therefore whatever the case may be is insufficient for establishing Notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You know that when Shooterwalker was talking abut the "independence" of the material he was talking abut the material published by Conan's copyright-holders right, e.g. De Camp and Jordan? REHUPA is independent from this material. You clearly don't have any actually arguments left. Why don't you Wikipedia:Let it go or considering you invoked wiki:DEADHORSE, Wikipedia:Just drop it? --Painocus (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't debate club. It's Wikipedia. Policies represent consensus best practice. We went to multiple noticeboards that all say that policies on WP:OR and WP:RS apply. REHUPA is problematic even if it's a print source, because fanzines are NOT reliable sources, even if the self-published material takes the form of print rather than a webpage. REHUPA isn't reliable. The theories of a few fans aren't reliable. And the theories of people who actually helped pen the various Conan materials are not independent. I'm not sure what will make you respect policy and consensus. But you're going to need to find some other sources here that would be considered reliable, such as a news site or newspaper, or books released by major publishers. Otherwise you're failing to meet your WP:BURDEN of proof and you can't keep re-adding the questionable material. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify some of the information that has been discussed here regarding sources. Both Ed Waterman and Joe Marek are recognized experts on Robert E. Howard per WP's definition as they have both published peer-reviewed journal articles on Howard criticism. Therefore their self-published articles (Waterman's essay on the Barbarian Keep website and Marek's chronology essay from REHupa)should still be considered reliable sources. Waterman's essay then is a reliable secondary source on the overall history of and controversy on the chronology of the Conan stories, thus establishing notability of the subject in general. Rippke's chronology was included in his book Hyborian Heresies, which was not not self-published. It was published by Black Cat Books, a popular publisher on pulp-related topics. It was edited by Benjamin Szumskyj, who has also edited several critical anthologies of Howard, Wagner, Leiber, and other pulp and fantasy writers. This should also qualify as a reliable source according to WP's definition. Gray's chronology, however, would not meet the meet the standards of a reliable source as his work was self-published and he is not a recognized scholar in the field. Given all of this I believe the edits removing the various chronologies should be undone, with the exception of Gray's chronology. Theagenes (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

miller / clark / de camp timeline

There are a lot of independent fan theories pushed around about the chronologies, but fan theories and self published fan zines have been removed as unreliable. All that remains are two sources:

• Howard's own thoughts, which are reliable in a sense, but not independent.
• The Miller/Clark/de Camp timeline.

I'm looking into whether this source is reliable and independent. An obvious look would be no: de Camp was just another author of the fiction, and can't be independent. It also appears that the timelines were themselves published in the Conan books, making them an extension of the fiction rather than an independent study like a newspaper or journal. But to be diligent, I want to explore all the angles. If I'm missing anything, let me know, and I'll look into it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Content in articles must be supported by reliably published sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial oversight. The article has long suffered from bloat content that does not meet that criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I wrote above a couple of years ago in response to Shooterwalker as there is a considerable lack of understanding about the nature of the sources being discussed here:

I'd like to clarify some of the information that has been discussed here regarding sources. Both Ed Waterman and Joe Marek are recognized experts on Robert E. Howard per WP's definition as they have both published peer-reviewed journal articles on Howard criticism. Therefore their self-published articles (Waterman's essay on the Barbarian Keep website and Marek's chronology essay from REHupa)should still be considered reliable sources. Waterman's essay then is a reliable secondary source on the overall history of and controversy on the chronology of the Conan stories, thus establishing notability of the subject in general. Rippke's chronology was included in his book Hyborian Heresies, which was not not self-published. It was published by Black Cat Books, a popular publisher on pulp-related topics. It was edited by Benjamin Szumskyj, who has also edited several critical anthologies of Howard, Wagner, Leiber, and other pulp and fantasy writers. This should also qualify as a reliable source according to WP's definition. Gray's chronology, however, would not meet the meet the standards of a reliable source as his work was self-published and he is not a recognized scholar in the field. Given all of this I believe the edits removing the various chronologies should be undone, with the exception of Gray's chronology.

After a considerable period of time I made the changes that I recommended above. As it stands now, I believe that the page, while in need of stylistic housecleaning, it in confornity with WP's standards for reliable sources. Theagenes (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

take it to the WP:RSN -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary. I'm not arguing for restoration of the Gray chronology -- just trying to offer information about the sources in question. I agree that the Gray chronology does not meet WP:RS. The Marek Chronology does however, as Marek is a recognized expert in the field having published peer-reviewed articles on the subject. Therefore his self-published chronology is reliable per WP's standards. That said, it is not as significant as the de Camp/Miller/Clark or Rippke chronologies so I would be fine with leaving it off (though it's considerable influence on Rippke should be noted). Robert Jordan's chronology is actually more dubious than Marek's quite frankly. Theagenes (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This source may be helpful: Scolari, Beteti, and Freeman Transmedia Archaeology Rhoark (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Stumbled upon this myself and went here to add it to the sources if the Gray and Marek sections were still intact, but since this was already brought up and no one objected to it I went ahead and added them back in. If an academic article put out by Palgrave Macmillan is not considered a reliable third-party source I don't know what is. Painocus (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability

How does this page assert notability? That appears to be the heart of the recent edit war. We have, after all, a set of stories here with some popularity but relatively scant scholarship, chiefly written by second and third-tier genre-fiction writers. The popularity of the series merits a page, certainly, but do we need subpages for fan scholarship? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Rewrote the opening paragraph to help establish notability and added an appropriate reliable source. In the case of Conan, interactive fan activity over the years, including the "chronology game" has had a major impact on the development of the popular culture image of the character and even effected the commercial aspects of the franchise; and this fan activity itself has become the subject of academic study. Also I rewrote the second paragraph that had borderline OR (source of one of the original complaints by Shooterwalker) and cited an reliable source. I believe that these edits should help address the issues with this article. Theagenes (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fans write about a lot of stuff, but until a third party notices or a reliable sources published rather than just fans , we at Wikipedia dont care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bertetti article I cited is a reliable third party published by an academic press that discusses the history of the chronology controversy and why is it is significant for the Conan franchise. This establishes notability of the topic in general. That said see below.Theagenes (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard scholars like Theagenes, who are also fans, are the only reliable sources on this subject matter. Third parties can publish articles all they like, but they're not going to be reliable because they have absolutely no knowledge of the scholarship. Just like you, TRPoD. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are both painting with too broad a brush. Dantai, WP has strict guidelines for reliabilty and notabilty. Some fans scholars meet these criteria, some do not. Gray is not a reliable source and his chronology is not notable. I have removed it again. Marek is reliable but his chronology is only notable as to how it influenced Rippke. So that has been removed as well. The comparixon chart is unnecessary once these other chronologies have been removed. I had this article in good shape as of September 9 and had addressed all of the concerns. Please stop trying to add back in material that doesn't meet WP criteria. TRPoD is correct in this case.Theagenes (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw the edit warring template left by an IP (rarely a valid exercise) on redpen's talk page and dropped by. I would tend to think that a section that begins with "Here is what a fan of the series thinks..." is a pretty solid giveaway that it would fail notability tests. They three that remain are regarding either well-established (sections 1 and 2) authors, or one that has subsequently had a series written based on his own chronological works/writings (#3) Tarc (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conan chronologies. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510182300/http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html to http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510182300/http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html to http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328032145/http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=8618 to http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=8618

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) 22:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)