Talk:Icingdeath

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dungeons & Dragons This redirect is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles D&D to-do: edit history watch purge view Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 24 April 2023. The result of the discussion was retarget.

Icingdeath refers to the dragon, after whom Drizzt's sword is named. The article should therefore redirect to the dragon, or exist as it's own.

Jabencarsey 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this page? There's hardly any text, so you could just put it under Drizzt. Same with Twinkle's page. Mwsilvabreen 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, put it under Drizzt Do'Urden in a weapons article there, then make icingdeath about the dragon.

that junk page of Drizt's is a lumbering ass alrady, with idiots like you.

There's not enough info for a page about the dragon, and we should merge icingdeath and twinkle, anyway. Mwsilvabreen 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever keeps undoing the merge suggestion, stop! That's what it is. a suggestion, so lets talk about it. Mwsilvabreen 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we should merge the two pages because, 1)They don't have enough information to stand alone (come to think of it we should put a D and D stub tag on the pages) 2) they both belong to Drizzt, so most of the information we have about them has been talked about with them together 3) Other related characters Have pages together like

• I agree.--Ryan ♣ 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I happen to disagree, and until someone can give me a good reason, will remain so. --Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • BTW I am not here to war. But I usually TALK before act, unless someone acted first, subectively and crudely.

--Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm not here to war either but the pages should be merged. Alone they're both barely enough to be a standalone article but merged the length is pretty decent. Plus there doesn't really need to be two pages for the scimitars. That's just my opinion though.--Ryan ♣ 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the reasons Mwsilvabreen gave for merging are good and I have yet to see you justify why you think they shouldn't be merged. If you can't do that then I see no reason why they shouldn't be.--Ryan ♣ 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look if no one objects to merging the two articles by Tuesday

Going hard then. --Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is that supposed to mean?--Ryan ♣ 11:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing all three talk pages, there has been one "no" vote, while the rest of us concur that the pages should be merged. My idea is to have a page entitled Drizzt Do'Urden's weapons. Any objection to this? Turlo Lomon 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at here now, so energetic when arguing eh ?

Before merging, why don't you guys spend more time update these two page themselves first? I can't hardly bear to read them, much less than seeing some stupid crude work of the merging of two piece of garbage. Weapon of drizzt? bad idea. All we gonna see is He used this dagger which he hide in this boot against this who in this book in this manner x 1000, feh! --Crouchingtigerhiddendragon 07:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already started working on a merged, cleaned up article for everyones consideration before setting up redirects, etc. Don't like the name? I can respect that. Do you have any suggestions on what would be a better name? Click on the link above. That is the article currently under revision. It can always be moved, deleted, renamed, whatever. Turlo Lomon 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your proposal.--Ryan ♣ 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]