The contents of the Annis page were merged into Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) on 12 October 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Sea hag page were merged into Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) on 12 October 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
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
This article has been marked as requiring comments on its talk page.
This article has been marked as needing its references improved. Please rewrite according to the citation guidelines. The references department may be able to help.
Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion
Going from the AfD, Night Hag should probably be merged. I've included the other subtypes seeing as they shouldn't fare any better. Any overall objections? TTN (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Merge to Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) as one of the types of Hags (plenty examples). Give me a couple of days so I can include the 3rd party sources I have as well. I am unavailable for editing for the next 72 hours. Plus we should give time to allow a proper discussion on what should go where. Web Warlock (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Also. I DO support the merger (and redirects from) Annis, Greenhag and Sea hag to this Hag article even though I do have plenty of 3rd party, non-TSR, non-WotC, significant coverage articles for those articles to remain as stand alone articles. BUT, the editing needs to be done with care to make sure no information is lost. Web Warlock (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
AND of course NOW I find the source I was looking for that could keep the Night Hag article independent. BUT in the spirit of good faith and compromise I suggest we merge the articles into Hag (Dungeons & Dragons). Again, I won't be able to edit anything for 72 hours. Web Warlock (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
support the merge of all D&D hags together to one article. as (or if) reliable third party sources emerge that provide significant content about any particular sub-hag, they can be spun out in a manner where it is clear they meet WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keep night hag separate, as that has always been treated separately from the other hags within the game, and there was no mandate from the AFD to force a merge. No objection to a merge the rest. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here is the exact close rationale of the Night Hag AfD: "no consensus for deletion. Merger seems to have a consensus, but no target has been decided upon; further discussion should take place". Note that rejecting a merge without providing adequate independent secondary sourcing will decrease the strength of the argument.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Given that there are no third party sources yet in the main Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) to establish its notability, talk of enough content to justify a spin out article seems premature. Any sourcing that might be specifically about the Night Hag would be needed to justify the presence of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom00:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I object as well. There's no deadline for any such merges, so allowing BOZ and Webwarlock more time costs nothing. I will note my objection as withdrawn once it is. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
there is also no reason to leave improperly sourced cruft while they extend their search that so far and for many years has been unsuccessful in producing the appropriate content. If we merge and then if they then find enough significant content by reliable third parties to justify a spin out article, the only additional hindrance will be one click to undo a #REDIRECT edit.
if you think the admin was blackmailed or coerced rather than reconsidering after looking at the situation again, feel free to take it to the review board and see what the consensus actually is. As it stands, the close was "merge - target to be determined" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Badgered is more like it, but that's splitting hairs, and I don't see any point in taking this to DRV. Anyway, what I see there is "The result was no consensus for deletion." with a note stating that further discussion should take place regarding a merge, which is what I thought we were doing here. Given that, I can hardly see how anyone here is gaming the system to avoid implementing a consensus that was never determined. If the closer thought the consensus was to merge, then I think he would have said that instead of "no consensus". But I suppose you are reading that differently than what it seems to plainly say, as the closer did not use the verbiage you requested him to use. BOZ (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Selectively quoting out of context to try to change its overall meaning doesn't change the actual overall meaning: "Merger seems to have a consensus, but no target has been decided upon; further discussion should take place." And if you think the closer erred in his final analysis or was "badgered" to a wildly inaccurate reading of the consensus you need to take it to the review board, not pretend like the close did not say "Merger seems to have a consensus" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom18:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
You can read it however you like, I suppose. I don't want to diminish the experience for you by insisting that it is possible to interpret what was said differently than the way you choose. BOZ (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Do you want a note from my doctor? No need to be uncivil about this. Honestly if you spent as much time looking for source or editing to improve as you did complaining about the work of others this would be a better encyclopedia. Web Warlock (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hope you are feeling better! But I am sure that even in your weakened condition, if you found enough significant coverage to warrant a stand alone article you could click the undue button to convert a #REDIRECT back to the full current article if you felt that was appropriate to start your additions rather than from a blank slate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment, for the sake of compromise, users wanting to look for sources should be allowed to do so, but within a reasonable limit since Night Hag at least has been in discussion since August 29th. One more week is enough for that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Those who wanted it have had 2 weeks (and 5 since the proposal started) to find sources, none that could save an article has surfaced, no opposition to the proposed target, enforcing the AfD consensus to merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
And we're not on yours. You've been given quite a reasonable amount of time since the AfD, and then the proposal, without any significant result. We already have a consensus for a merge from the AfD, and no apparent opposition for the merge target, so no, this is not going to enter indefinite status-quo until you decide you've "worked" enough on it, which might never happen. If you believe you have content to add, you can do it at Hag (Dungeons & Dragons), and if you think the new content brings notability to Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons), then we can gather the AfD participants to see if the consensus has changed. But you can't just game the system to avoid enforcing a consensus decision that you don't like. The least you should do, after reverting, is to show what kind of work you intend to do, but you fail even to accomplish this small curtesy, so no, I see no reason not to proceed. Keep your personal attacks to yourself (merging non-notable content is productive), and stop further disruption here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dozens and dozens of pages are being merged. I've done over a thousand edits to fix content, templates, compiling the content and other work in the past week. I do not see why content needs to be removed on your time table when the greater organization and work is still incomplete and will result in a reorganization and reformatting of the pages. If you are going to edit war to redirect the pages, put a list on the D&D page or here. The only thing such edits do is make it extremely difficult and time consuming to do. I've stated that I need those articles to be held while the work is being carried out. It doesn't need to be done right NOW, but the work is being done at a good pace. I wish the two of you would allow me to actually go about these fixes without removing the very architecture and links to the pages I need to carry out a good merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The AfD and merge proposal were initiated way before you started working on D&D. Cleaning up D&D isn't your sole prerogative, I appreciate the efforts you provide on mergers (I really do), but as you say we're not working on your timetable either. I can't see any problem related to your "organization", especially when you obviously didn't take the time to get fully acquainted with the situation before getting involved. You have no choice but to trust other users to also be able to carry out good merges. Do you think I just clicked on "redirect" and that was it ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
