Talk:Brisingr

Crystal Ball

I would say that this article differs from the Harry Potter articles for a number of reasons. This is filled with suggestions and ideas from fans, not with actual known facts about the next novel (see Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.) However, I believe that this style of writing provides some valid ideas about the next book. The article requires editing for consistency and style, and I am prepared to continue doing this, but it requires a lot of work. I have added a clean-up template to bring in outside help. However, there is one section that I do not believe adds to the speculation: comparisons between Inheritance and Star Wars and LotR. I feel we should delete this. Others? Ck lostsword|^queta! 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It does not improve the article in any way (that I can see). I say delete it. (11987 07:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Delete it and I will copy and paste it again and again until you are tired of deleting it.

Why do you want it up anyway? Whats so good about it that you feel inclined to do anyting to keep it up? (11987 08:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

It sometimes helps me on my speculation.

I wouldn't have come up with half of my ideas without it.

Yes, but we could find comparisons for almost every book, but we don't always have to note them. (11987 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Speculation Page

I just came up with a possible solution for all the speculation. Would it be possible to create a independent page for all the speculation/theories/original research/similarities and on this page just have all of the facts and statements made by the author. i would be happy to create a page and move all of the speculation to that page. Does anyone else agree/disagree with this plan? (11987 10:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

We could create a sub-page of the article. However, a simple page move might be more effective. The only problem is, there would be very little left on this page. If we include a Known Facts section at the top of this page, perhaps including interviews with Paolini and other related text, whilst keeping the speculation at the bottom, I think it is fine as it is. The current article is conspicuously lacking in actual, citable fact. Another problem that I have seen is the lack of order and structure to the article: "Unconfirmed Rumours" and "Speculation" are in essence the same section. I therefore propose:

1. A new section called Known Facts, which would include definite, citable information
2. A replacement of the old sections with Speculation, preferably with all new additions at least mentioned on this talk page first
3. A major revamp of the speculation section's content (I have already tried to start this), removing sections that repeat themselves, cleaning up, using subheadings, &c.

I am fully prepared to make most of these changes, and I'm sure that 11987 will be equally happy to help. Any comments? Ck lostsword|^queta! 17:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea and would be happy to help with whatever I can. I can definetley start the Known Facts secion soon and then help the Speculation ssection. (11987 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Adding a edit block for Book III

Who here thinks that the administrators should block anonymous users and newly registered members from editing Book III due to the persistent adding of speculation?Arlika1507 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. Also uses of protection. Whilst it could be useful, it is very unlikely that this would happen. Sorry! Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at least it can be said that this is the most standardized place of information for Book III on the net, thats a good thing.Arlika1507 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

An anonymous user stated under the speculation heading that, "In order to kill Galbatorix, Eragon may need to kill himself." Due to a lack of any sort of reasoning for this statement, I've removed it. I don't quite understand where this concept came from and so I'm offering the decision to be open made. For the time being, I've removed it. Aznph8playa2 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

can we keep anything that doesnt have anything to do with the book out of here please. THAT INCLUDES THIS PAGE AND THE ONE AFTER AND BEFORE IT. thanks(64.252.114.56 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Deletion of speculation

I've deleted all speculation that is not related to anything confirmed by Paolini or verifiable sources. If I deleted anything that is legitimate in that fashion, please restore it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some discussion board where opinions are stated loosely. Speculation belongs on the discussion board, and please keep it there. The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.198.239.81.

We have had this discussion repeatedly before, and I believe that the time has come to resolve it finally. We cannot have single users deleting and reverting the section. I feel that a straw poll of user opinions is necessary to provide an overall view of opinions on removing the speculations on this page. In the mean time, I have reinstated the speculation on the page; please do not remove until his discussion has been concluded (2 July 2006?). Ck lostsword|^queta! 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

July 2nd sounds good for me. (11987 01:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

---

Support deletion

1. I have to support the deletion of speculation. There is way too much of it, and people keep adding more. The speculation does not improve the article, and it is all original research and SPECULATION. I believe it should be deleted. (11987 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
2. Delete all speculation as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Or at the most, keep all speculation on this page.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Please delete most or all of it! For heaven's sake, it seems like every single possibility has been covered. I think the stuff that Paolini has confirmed should stay, but not much else. BTW, is there an Inheritance wiki? We could transfer the speculation there if people really want to keep it all someplace. — 75.4.98.151 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion

1. See above (Crystal Ball. I believe that much of this fan information provides valid ideas about what might happen in the next book. However, the information that is included must be carefully vetted for style and repetitions, and it would be preferable if most of the speculation were kept on this page, with only some very likely 'facts' on the main article. Ck lostsword|^queta! 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Final result

Support Deletion - 3; Oppose Deletion - 1. I have deleted the speculation section. Thanks everyone - not a bad numbre of responses! Ck lostsword|^queta! 12:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we just get along?

Come on! Just keep the speculation there! It's not doing any harm. Here's an idea. Make a page called Inheritance 3rd Book Speculation! There's nothing wrong with that.

We've already discussed this. If you have a problem with it, you should blame yourself and everyone else who didn't vote for not voting. (11987 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I talked to people and they want the speculation to stay. 5 people to be exact on my neopets guild.

And 4 people voted. That's not a large enough sample.

I'm really sorry, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and thus, speculation is not allowed. If you want to have speculation, you should do so on speculation forums, or at the most, on this page (the talk page). --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

THEN MAKE A PAGE CALLED SPECULATION FOR INHERITANCE BOOK 3! I have nothing to do without the speculation there! I'm bored to death!

NO article on Wikipedia can contain speculation, so we can't create a separate page for speculation. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the before Harry Potter book 6 page (something like that)?! That's an artical without facts!

I didn't know about that and if i did i would try to delete it. But the fact is we voted, and the vote caused the speculation to be deleted. 5 people on neopets won't help you now. Besides, that harry potter page should be deleted. No speculation! (11987 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

The page was Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and was nominated for AfD thrice, but not deleted. I'll nominate it for deletion.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there for a while though...

Its been nominated, and so far it seems like its going to be deleted.

Why did I mention it?!

Deal

Ok. We'll copy and paste the speculation onto here, and people can add stuff.

Onto the Talk Page? (11987 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Yes.

I think that can be allowed. Just not on the article page. (11987 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

That seems perfectly fair to everyone. Thanks 11987! Ck lostsword|^queta! 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. :-)

Look...

-Roran could succed Orrin as King of Surda

DR7 >.< Why wouldn't he just succed Galbatorix?

We graciously allowed speculation to be allowed on the talk page, but if people keep adding speculaton to the main article, im gonna request it be protected. Which means people cant edit it. (11987 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

But that would mean all of the people that don't keep putting it onto the mail artical wouldn't be able to add things.

Yup, but we'll unprotect it to add REAL info. We made a deal, so people like you should keep it. (11987 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

So is it going to be protected or not? I vote for not.

I've got to say that protceting seems a bit excessive. However, there seems to be some case for semi-protecting, banning non-users from editing. I would agree to this, but not to full protection. Ck lostsword|^queta! 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not fair.

Im not saying were gonna ban it; this is a warning. speculation doesn't belong on the articles page. Please dont overreact. I mean, its not fair that people like you r going back on our deal, is it?(11987 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

I never agreed to anything and since this page is open to so many people, you should not protect it or do anything that would not allow people to make additions or changes.

Look, dont spaz out. all i ask is that speculation be kept on this page like we voted on, but not the article page becuz speculation is not technically allowed on Wiki. Please, dont get worked up over nothing. Just a simple request. (11987 02:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Just keep it unprotected people!

There will not be any protection of the article, please see WP:PPOL#Uses for reasons. If a highly visible and vandalized article like 2006 FIFA World Cup was not protected except once or twice, why should this comparatively _{insignificant} article be protected. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont really care, the problem hasn't persisted. Dont add speculation to the main article. That WAS the deal' dont even try to deny it. Kepp speculaton here. (11987 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

who put this as top-importance?

I did, and it obviously is; it's a book in the series the project is all about, for Christ's sake! An it receives a lot of speculation which needs to be cleared up, and replaced with proper verified info.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we decided to keep the speculation here, so people can put all of their crazy ideas without people taking them off...like my one theory about the piece of a green dragon egg that eragon stepped on.

Can We Call the Article "Empire?"

Hey I'm curious whether the title of the article can be changed to Empire. This seems to be the confirmed title of the book and the cover of the book says "Empire" (if that picture is legitimate). Just curious. Thanks, Demosthenes 1 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It used be called "Empire" (see Requested move above), but was changed because that's not official, its just fan speculation. That cover is just some fan's drawing, so I don't know why its on there. I'll remove it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I felt like there was something fishy about that cover. Does anyone know when the author will announce the title? Because "Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)" bugs the heck out of me. Demosthenes 1 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be up to Random House, Christopher said last December that he had a title but that they didn’t want him to release it at that time. My guess is that we will get it early 2008.Mixed5000 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Status

Because of the regular problems with speculation being inserted to this article, I’ve done some work with the citations. I’ve improved and confirmed the ones I could, and marked other information as lacking a citation. Citations for the notes so marked should be provided, or they will be removed from the article.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For those that don't seem to understand how this works, two things: first, don't just add random things and think you can get away with it with a cite needed tag. Secondly, don't remove the {{fact}} tag unless you actually add a citation.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

release date

Does anyone out there have any clue when the book is scheduled to be released?

No. Christopher Paolini hasn't announced anything yet. When he does announce it, however, I'm going to speculate that it'll be on this page within half a second of him saying it. Demosthenes 1 01:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear sometime this year (2007)

I believe the release date could be pretty spontaneous. I believe it could come out August 21, 2007. Why? Eragon came out on Tuesday, August 26, 2003. Eldest came out on Tuesday, August 23, 2005. The books were two years apart. The closest Tuesday to these books? August 21, 2007.... two years after Eldest.

I'd love that (sooner the better, far as I'm concerned) but I can't say I see it as likely, given the fairly low amount of released info we have as of now. Regardless, nothing should be placed in the article without an official announcement.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt

There's an official excerpt of Book III in Eldest, D.E. Could somebody add that to the page? It would be really cool!

I Agree all of us who haven't got Eldest D.E. are kept in the dark about Book III chapter one59.100.208.174 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i think it was chapter three not one, and its a real cliffhanger.

what is Eldest D.E.???

its like delux edition or something like that. it has an excerpt of the third book in it, and a picture, but thats the only difference.

We can't include a copy of the excert on any of these pages. That material is copyrighted and protected by law. We cannot reproduce it without explicit permission from the author and I highly doubt any of us could get that. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The official website for the Inheritance Triology (www.alagaesia.com) now offers registered users a chance to read an excerpt from Book III.

Knopf has changed the title of Book 3 from Empire to an another title relating to the content of the book against Christopher Paolini wishes.

Is this a true fact or is this more BS?

No "BS" I know someone who works at Knopf and there was talk of an argument that Paolini didn't want the title changed from Empire but Knopf said the title doesn't relate to the book, But then again thats what he says.

Sorry. "I know someone" isn't a reliable source.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a JOKE!! 59.100.174.24 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The sequal to eldest... when will this be coming out and what shall it be called?

EMPIRE!!!

Someone's giving a name for Book 3 without any sources... again

Ericaya

I removed it once agin this morning.

It first appeared yesterday in the Inheritance template instead of "Book III", so I reverted it. It happened again, only this time someone had copied the contents of Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy) and stuck it in its own article. I reverted the edits on the template, but Ericaya is sitting there. Fortunately nothing links there now. UnaLaguna 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected that page to this one and nominated it for speedy deletion. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Stupid Picture

(Unrelated note: I'm not going to read this book, I just came across it while looking for interesting articles to hone my editing skills with) Okay. That picture, which looks like some cheap piece of clipart lameness, doesn't look...professional, for lack of a better word. Since there is no cover at the moment, no cover image is needed in the article...I think. I'm new, so if anyone has a problem with it, then just revert my edit; I won't mind. However, at least make sure that you have a good reason to keep it there. If you think that that picture helps inform the readers of this article, then go ahead and keep it there. Dread Pirate Felix 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible ideas as to the future of this article

You guys might take a look at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for ideas as to how to organize this page, and what kinds of information to include. It's another major upcoming book, and highly anticipated, it might help you know where to go from here. Tuvas 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • ive noticed that like half the stuff on this page has absolutely nothing to do with the book, and ive also noticed that a lot of the stuff that had to do with the book got deleted. i was wondering if someone would like to delete all those sections that are of no relation to the books, or ill do it. i just wanted to put this idea out there. but i wont touch anything if someones gonna get really pissed, but all of that stuff about like support deletion and all that other crap is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.113.58 (talk • contribs)

i agree. i was looking through it and the first like seven sections have nothing to do with the book and are a complete waste in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.113.58 (talk • contribs)

Please do not agree with your own message through two different edits in an attempt to make it look like you are gaining consensus. Or don't ask your friend to do it for you (read: canvassing). This is rather sneaky and it undermines the system.

As for your actual message. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Clearly this page is about the third book in the Inheritance Trilogy and it contains information only about this book. If you could clarify exactly where you believe the information is going off on a tangent, please point them out to me. The only stuff that gets deleted are edits that are included without being cited (IE: original research and speculation). --pIrish ^Arr! 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

kay i wrote the first thing and i didnt agree with myself cuz im not some idiot that has conversations with myself and i didnt ask anyone to do it for me, so dont try and get all smart with me and pretend that you know everything cuz you dont.

the book is supposed to be called empire and that does fit by beign six letters and starting with an e but he could possibly change it sometime in the future also i think that the third rider will be female and almost certainly if not definantly related to eragon and murtgauh( i did not spell that right)66.25.134.251 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All those points you mentioned are speculation. Until you can find sources which confirm them none of those points can go into the article. UnaLaguna 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Glaedr(Inheritance Trilogy)

Apart from the incorrect formatting of the title (there's meant to be a space), no sources were provided. So, I reverted it all back, which took at least twenty minutes of blood and sweat. This is at least the second time something like this has happened (previously with "Fricaya") and it annoys me to hell that I have to spend time reverting this rather than furthering Wikipedia in more useful ways. UnaLaguna 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Release Date?

Hi, I was wondering if anyone has an approximate date on when Book III will be available. Thank you. ~Megan R.

No date has yet been announced as far as I know. MelicansMatkin 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No release date, heck the title has not even been released. Random House said it would be out sometime in 2008. So I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it next summer maybe in July or August.Mixed5000 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Book 3's Cover

I'm probably wrong who knows but I don't think that the Thrid Book's cover is going to have a green dragon. My friend Becky showed me a picture of the next cover and it had Oromis' dragon (forget it's name XD) on the cover. She could have gotten wrong information but is it possible Paloini changed his mind on the cover? --KibaxHinata13 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to the article? We're still not going to put up a cover until we can see the official one, rather than some fan's attempt. UnaLaguna 05:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The "cover" with Oromis' dragon (Glaedr) isn't an actual cover at all: its just a bonus thing from the deluxe edition of Eldest.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it for the one foreign edition that needed 2 volumes? 24.229.191.54 11:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there even a speculation section on the talk page?

The point I'm making is that you come to wikipedia to see facts that have been confirmed by the author or other realable sources. If you want to discuss what could happen in the next book, go to a forum of that book to talk about it. For example, if you want to talk about what might happen in the new Harry Potter book (which seems pointless at this stage as it is only 11 days away), you go to the mugglenet forums or something similar. A talk page is ment to be for discussing how to improve an artical, not for this sort of thing.Wild ste 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true - I've removed it per Wikipedia is not a forum. ck lostsword•T•C 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, didn't think anyone would actually listen to me.Wild ste 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone added "He has sex with angleica". I've removed it.

book 3's cover

Ormis's dragon is named glaedr. I think it might be a green dragon on the front. it might even be saphira's mother!(wild gues) or it could be the other dragon egg!! it also might be an other dragon. brom's dragon definitely died right? eargon21

Yes, unfortunately. Brom is dead, so his dragon can no longer live. Even if she had survived the Fall, she would be gone now that Brom is. A dragon cannot survive without its rider.

Sophiakorichi 03:21, 4 August 2007

wow...

So there's no way we can block the stupid vandalism that constantly shows up on this page? ~ User: Sophiakorichi

There's not really enough real vandalism to warrantprotection or anything. Most of the bad edits seem to be from people who just don't understand sourcing requierments and so forth, and its easy enough to revert.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, true enough. Its just so annoying! Sophiakorichi 03:21, 4 August 2007

So... it IS called Empire and the release date IS 28th March 2008?

I reverted an edit which changed the title from Book 3 to Empire... and judging by content I didn't read, it looks like we may have to make these changes.

I have no idea how reliable http://www.awesomefantasybooks.com/ is, but if what they're saying is true then we've got a lot of find-and-replacing to do. Before I commit myself, can someone confirm the reliability of the source? UnaLaguna 09:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait for some other confirmation...I can't find this anywhere else, and that includes official sites. It may be true, but it doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be enough to go with by itself.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there isn't any other record of the letter that I can find. If Paolini revealed it in a personal letter, you would think that it would also be in the alagaesia.com newsletter, which I do not believe it is. I think we should wait to rename the article and post a date until it is varafied on the official site. Or at least on eragon.com. Sophiakorichi 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

You mean alagaesia.com, right? --Essence 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m sure a lot of fans write to Christopher asking about the title and release date. If this is true why did the site not just post a scan of this letter? Why wouldn’t CP just post this in one of his newsletter, he’d have to think that if he gave this information to someone in a letter that it would find its way online.Mixed5000 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

im fine w/ waiting for the 3rd book, but it would be nice if Paolini gave a release date to his fans as a courtesy and to let us know he working on it 9-5-07

Menoa Tree weapon

It says in the article that Eragon has yet to get the weapon under the Menoa Tree. But was the weapon that transformation he went through?--74.230.88.184 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Read the interview the section is sourced to and you'll see the author has said that he is yet to receive it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a book seller for a large company and am asked alot as to when the 3rd book will be released and of course its title most authors ive dealt with usually have there follow on titles decided by this stage which seems strange to me that theres no release date or name for this so-called book has it even been started yet.

lucy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.166.177 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Book 3 to Book III?

Perhaps we should move the article from

Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)

To

Book III (Inheritance trilogy)

who would argee?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why we should? We may just be creating more work for ourselves by fixing all the redirects and such. Una Laguna^Talk 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's any need for a move until such time the actual title is confirmed. Book III (Inheritance trilogy) already redirects here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi - Protected? Why?

There hardly seems to have been enough vandalism to this article in the past few months to be valid justification for semi-protected status. Can anyone provide justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.61 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I beleive it is already semi-protected.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct - it is semi-protected - but has no history of vandalism to justify such 'protection'.207.69.137.36 04:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anomynous IPs had a habit of changing the name from "untitled" to "Empire", "Glaedr", "Fricaya", or something else without providing a reliable source. Sometimes they even moved the entire page without prior discussion. Reverting these changes just got irritating. Una Laguna^Talk 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It takes 3 reverts in a single day to be considered 'out of line' per Wikipedia policy. Even a dozen inaccurate posts within a months time does justify semi-protecting the article in violation of the spirit of wikipedia's open editing policy.207.69.137.28 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No Source for "Brom may be Eragon's father"

Sure there is - havent you seen Star Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)