Talk:Red Wizards of Thay

This article needs to be split. The details of the Red Wizards, the organisation, should stay, but there should be another article called Red Wizard with the details of the prestige class. Fw190a8 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Red Wizards of Thay (the group) and Red Wizard of Thay the PrC? Zerak talk 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment, Red Wizards of Thay redirects here. The question is, should it be the other way around, since "Red Wizard of Thay" is the full name, as far as I know? The answer is "yes" for me. As for the article on the prestige class, don't let the organisation's name sway the decision. If the source material refers to the PrC simply as "Red Wizard" then we should go with that. Fw190a8 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This still needs sorting, currently the text block sounds like the page for the organization, while the template on the right is the PrC template.. Zerak talk 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Split the article, both could use a bit more work though. Johnnyriot999 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a real reason to split Red Wizard and Red Wizards of Thay up? For all intents and purposes they're the same thing, just that the "Red Wizard" article focuses solely on crunch (which is, from my understanding, something we want to generally avoid). This becomes even trickier when implementing 4e material since there's no 4e paragon path for Red Wizards (at least not yet) and the famed arcanists no longer control Thay but the Red Wizards still do exist, albeit in a reduced form.
 * Opinions? I never understood why these articles were split in the first place, so feel free to fill me in. The talk page here doesn't seem to have more than a collective "yes" for splitting the articles. Niirfa-sa 01:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One article for the PrC and one for the organizations seems perfectly fine to me, having to crowd that information into one article would be messy. Similarly, we also don't have all the Haper PrCs in the Harper article. Opposed to merge. Zeraktalk 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because there's multiple PRCs for the Harpers. There's only one Red Wizard PRC and it is, canonically, a class that all Red Wizards have ranks in. This is not the case for harper scout/harper agent/harper of legend. Harper scout represents a particular category of Harper. Red Wizard/Red Wizard of Thay means the same, exact thing.
 * The only reason, in my mind, to have a PRC article is, given the no-crunch rule, to demonstrate its existence in-universe. Therefore, having a Red Wizard article and a Red Wizard of Thay article seems redundant. I'll point to Wookieepedia for an example. Jedi Guardians are, originally, a specific class within the SWRPG. However, they have an in-universe existence as well. There are not, however, two separate articles for the Jedi Guardian class and the Jedi Guardian section of the Jedi Order. There is one article.
 * Honestly, I don't see why this is a point of contention given the no crunch rule. A Red Wizard of Thay cannot not be a Red Wizard. Vice versa applies as well. Therefore - only one article is justified. Niirfa-sa 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing which occured to me: we ourselves generally do not separate groups into rules-format and non-rules format. If that were the case than doomguide and monk of the Long Death would be both divided into two articles (as would several other articles). This is not the case. Therefore, why should we divide red wizards, unless, perhaps, we are trying to divide red wizards by allegiance, in which case there would likely be three articles (Szass' wizards, the independent Red Wizards, and the old Red Wizards who ruled Thay before Szass). Niirfa-sa 03:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My experience is that we have split up articles. Look at War Wizard of Cormyr (the prestige class) and the War Wizards (the org).  Or Purple Dragon knight (prestige class) and Purple Dragons (the org).  I am also in favor of splitting them (not merging them).  15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)