Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)

Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes

As far as I know, this is the only pre-1E book that I did not cover already. If you want to add the template to this book and move it to the main list, feel free!  :)

TSR 2006 - Dungeons & Dragons Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (1976)

Numerous monsters scattered throughout, such as Minions of Set, Sphinx, Fire snake, Winged serpent, Phonex (Phoenix), Cyclopes, Satyrs, Einheriar, Kraken, and Spirits of the air

BOZ (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bloodkith (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I love the table format of this list. much more sharper and reader friendly then a long string of bullets. kudos.

Hey, thanks. :) Hope you find it useful! BOZ (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing monsters

Okay, so lets see what monsters aren't on this list and try to complete it:

1. Some "mundane" creatures from the white box (mentioned above).
2. Creatures from Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes and Swords & Spells, if any.
3. Any creatures from early issues of The Strategic Review and/or Dragon.

-Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible move

Should this be moved to List of Original Dungeons & Dragons monsters? Having two of the lists be year-based is kind of strange when the rest are by edition. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I only called it by years because I wasn't sure what the "official" name of the edition was. BOZ (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an "official" name, although I usually hear it referred to as "Original Dungeons & Dragons". I was also thinking that the 1977-1999 list could be renamed "Basic". -Drilnoth (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those are the commonly used names. I thought about using them but decided against it. I have no reason to oppose a move though, unless someone else does. :) BOZ (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "original edition" D&D monsters instead? As-is is misleading. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be better. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image use policy

The image use on this page does not comply with WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:IUP. This is basically an attempt to just re-create the book in summary form by nabbing content from it. Few of these entries are independently notable (as D&D monsters, per se) and we don't have a firm fair use position in illustrating all of them by copying images from the book. To the extent that we want the article illustrated, it would be a much more sensible thing to illustrate those that are not D&D-exclusive and for which we have free images (centaurs, etc.). However, it's not clear there's any encyclopedic purpose in doing so; those things have their own illustrated articles, and links from this page to them exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: Already cleaned up in this regard: Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters; List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99); Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (though that article has to stop forcibly auto-collapsing its content per MOS:DONTHIDE, MOS:ACCESS, WP:REUSE); List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters; List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters; List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters; and List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters. However, most of these pages have mangled tables, with empty cells dangling off the right side and no corresponding header; these need to be removed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Actually read the copyright pages of those images. They have been created specifically for this article by LadyofHats and are freely licensed by her. The entire series of images was proposed and discussed at the project talk page. They are not copies of the images from the books, not do any of them depict monsters that are not free to use per the terms of the Open Gaming License, meaning that they are free use content, not fair use, in every way. They are not in any sense copyright violations, and there is no reason to remove them for copyright reasons. You're just plain wrong. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• According to the image description pages these are original works by a Wikipedia editor. If they were created by copying images in official D&D material then they're copyrighted, but I think you need to show some evidence if that's the case. Same goes if you're relying on some more obscure point of copyright law. Hut 8.5 19:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

they are not copies of any image. they are based the known description of the creatures. i made them from scratch based on a bunch of text. they are as independently created as they can be. and to be fair showing evidence this are not copies sounds to me the kind of "prove" that iimpossiblele to create. should i present to you all images made of goblins since 1960? - LadyofHats (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted?

Why was this page deleted? 2a04:b2c2:181c:1100:744a:183e:4753:c49 (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Because some people are here to build an encyclopedia, and some people are only good at knocking things down. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)