Talk:Secrets of the Alchemist Dar

To Do list for this article

1. Include list of the full page illustrations with possible puzzles present
2. Include description of the chapters and story line.

Questions for the Treasure Hunt

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALCHEMIST DAR ? WEBSITE SHUT DOWN ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.167.194 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• What does the poem mean?
• Is "look inside yourself" a riddle?
• How do we translate the HCB?
• What do the constellations mean?
• What do the coordinates mean?
• How does any of this lead to finding a ring?
• What impact does the "not sharing solutions" rule have?
• There are 100 rings. Are there 100 puzzles?

Is this article Wiki-worthy

• Notable - Is the book notable? Yes, see the New York Times Listing.
• Neutral point of view - is this article NPOV? Partially, the content is netural, but slanted towards information on the treasure hunt, which may be the most notable aspect of the book.
• Verifiability - is this article verifiable? Yes, most references are provided to the official hunt site, or to the book itself.
• No original research - is the article orginal research? We may have some problems here. Until the rings are found, this article may include speculation on the meaning and imporance of clues. Need to be careful here, to only include hints that anyone can open the book and see with their own eyes.

Letting the wiki get hairy?

People seem to want to add in their favourite theory (see Apples and Berries amendment) without there being any strong evidence or even support on the forums. It's tiring to edit these out - should we just let them amend?

Perhaps have a section called DESCRIPTION and a section called THEORIES for each puzzle. Also the same for each page where people seem to think there is a puzzle but there probably isn't (eg pages 62/63). I'm aware that a couple of the wiki rules come into play, but i'm not really that bothered about maintaining wiki's integrity, more in making this page as useful as possible for trovers, who can then contribute something themselves to the puzzle. reading oddball theories even if wrong can sometimes spark something right. what do you think? i'll post this to the forums too?

WikiOAF, please log in and sign your comments. Also, please see my reponse at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiOAF#Changes_to_the_Wiki_Page. --AnotherDoth 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

changed the article back to how it was

AnotherDoth, I like the idea of the sperate sections so things don't get "spoiled", however it didn't work, the links were broken, and many trovers on the forums were confused and sad, thinking the article has been deleted. For now, I've changed it back to how it was. -CornFest (on the forums)

Forum

Please remember that as per WP:TALK and WP:NOT (with the possibility of citing WP:SOAP as the most relevant entry) we cannot discuss the book and its solutions here. I have seen one comment like that already. If you wish to discuss the book itself, please direct discussion to the forums. Auroranorth (!) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)