Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

RfC on Notability of D&D Standard Creatures

Do the creature types listed in Category:Dungeons_&_Dragons_standard_creatures meet the WP:GNG's notability guidelines? Specifically does this meet the policy request for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,"? After creating the following AfD discussions, I observed that the same concerns expressed there appear to apply to all members of this category. See also wp:Articles_for_deletion/Giant_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), wp:Articles_for_deletion/Ghoul_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), wp:Articles_for_deletion/Ghost_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), wp:Articles_for_deletion/Genie_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), wp:Articles_for_deletion/Giant_eagle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), wp:Articles_for_deletion/Angel_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). This RfC is created to centralize and broaden discussion instead of creating further independent and reiterative AfD discussions. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's hard to make any sweeping arguments about them other than to say some are notable and some probably aren't. For example, illithids, mimics, and beholders are notable as they have received significant coverage in independent reliable ources. Giant eagle? Probably not so much. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with Odie5533. Many could probably be redirected to a list which a bare bones description. However, we don't want to indiscriminately throw out the ones that are notable with the ones that aren't. Sizeofint (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• There are certainly some D&D creatures that are undoubtedly notable and influential, such as Mindflayers, Beholders, and such. However, Wikipedia currently has dozens of articles about many minor D&D creatures that have never been referenced or used outside of the game, that definitely should not have independent articles. Unfortunately, while having a AFD discussion on every single one is tedious and time consuming, its really the only option. Like the two users above said, there's no way to just indiscriminately make any sort of blanket determination. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't necessarily have to have an AfD for each article. Anyone could boldly redirect the article to the appropriate list if the outcome seems obvious. An AfD would only come into play if another editor dispute the redirect. Sizeofint (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

While that's true, I've noticed that usually not going over too well when done, and it usually winds up at AFD anyway. But, yeah, you're correct, I worded what I meant to say poorly. What I meant was that as far as forming a consensus goes, any creature with questionable notability would probably have to be settled with an individual AFD for that creature, rather than having a blanket "All of these monsters are unnotable" kind of decision. Not that every creature on that list should be automatically sent to AFD. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:MULTIAFD. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I guess you got me there. But, I think you know what I'm getting at. I'm basically just agreeing with your initial post, that some are and some aren't, and you can't make a sweeping argument for the entire category. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I did consider a MultiAFD, but a category of 194 members seemed unwieldy for such a nom. Thank you for the suggestion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Because some of the articles have been deservedly kept, and others have been borderline enough to at least be questionable, we can't make a sweeping indictment on the whole of them. So I concur with the other users above. BOZ (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• The issue is not solely with notability. Each of these creatures could be merged into the "generic" base name article as an "in popular culture" content section. Perversely, any WotC/TSR take on e.g. 'Ghoul' is independent and hence reliable, until you restrict the scope of article to only the D&D aspects of a Ghoul, wherein the game materials, Dragon magazines, etc. have a financial interest. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that no one has addressed this feedback substantively. Which I suspect is because it defies the conventional wisdom. There are essentially three types of D&D creatures:
    • The original and sufficiently unique that they make an impression on popular culture, meet notability, and can be clearly traced from the D&D origin: Gelatinous cube, Beholder, and the like. These get separate articles.
    • The elements incorporated into D&D derived from myth: elves, orcs, and the like, of which the D&D implementation is merely one instantiation. D&D and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic both contribute to Unicorns and Pegasi in popular culture. These should be dealt with in a unified article that encompasses fictional and mythical aspects from each literary work, game, film, TV show, etc. with appropriate weight. These are what In Popular Culture spinout articles are for.
    • (and the third category is the things that are neither derivative or notable, like the Flumph would be if there weren't so many RS's deriding it as pointless. These should be merged into lists, which should ALSO have pointers to the articles of the independently notable monsters, and the sections regarding D&D instantiations in the IPC articles on common myth monsters like Elves.)

  So... does anyone dispute that? Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Per most of the above, I'm against any wholesale deletion/merging of AD&D monster articles. The spectrum of notability is simply far too vast for any sweeping judgements. Some monster are ephemeral, while others are touchstones of geek culture. The existence of potentially non-notable entries is not harming the encyclopedia, and there's plenty of time to examine articles on a case-by-case basis. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• I have happy memories of this game, but in terms of encyclopaedic content these articles are, with very few exceptions, fancruft that could be merged to a single article on (or even list of) "D&D Monsters". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Such lists already exist, usually one for each edition of the game. I agree that many of the less notable ones could be redirected to the lists. And for that matter the lists could probably be merged with notation to indicate which editions feature the monsters, such as at the list of character races. Certainly these lists should contain no game stats, as Wikipedia is not a game guide. That said, there are some creatures that likely pass the notability threshold as being particularly commented on, such as Beholders and Mindflayers, as they're unique creations that are significantly iconic and have permeated wider pop culture. Those should remain standalone articles, but that must be assessed individually and not as part of a group nomination, whether for deletion or merging. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• There are a huge number of articles about minor elements in the D&D universe(s); monsters, deities, locations, organisations, NPCs. A lot of these will have to go in the long term, but we already have notability guidelines to handle these. What is this RfC supposed to achieve? Josh Milburn (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is supposed to achieve consensus on the best process to clean up those minor non-notable items. To put it another way, it is supposed to achieve the eliciting of comments like yours. Thank you for your guidance and input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how the articles on any of the monsters from D&D/AD&D can warrant their own articles without it just being a way to use WP as a gaming manual (which would then be a derivative work, which then opens up the problem of trademark and product identity). Has there been any independent (i.e. not TSR/WotC/Hasbro) discussion of any of them, outside of licensed products relating their in-game characteristics and mechanics? What else is left to write about them? It'd be like writing a separate, dedicated article on the candlestick in Clue, or the little racecar in Monopoly, or the letter Z in Scrabble. Or even an article on Mila Kunis' feet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Beholder, at least, has made outside appearances as a pop culture reference. See that article. oknazevad (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

According to that article, the beholder appears in an episode of Futurama, a cartoon, and otherwise a bunch of D&D products (which don't count as "popular culture" since D&D is the origin of the beholder in the first place). Unfortunately the mention of the Futurama appearance doesn't even refer to any WP:RS describing its impact on culture, as required for a good-faith IPC; it's just a cruft reference that fails WP:IPC.

To explain where my personal opinion comes from: I feel the rules about notability, original research, and sourcing ideally should be met for every article here on Wikipedia. I know these rules are usually all thrown out the window when it comes to any fandom subjects: for example, we have literally tens of thousands of TV series episode articles on here that would fail the general notability guidelines, and there was even a push years ago to argue that WP:MUSIC supersedes WP:N in order to protect a few hundred thousand indie band articles. So I accept that Wikipedia's real rules are whatever the community decides they are, and I don't get too worked up about notability - it's not like I'm a hardcore deletionist. I just wanted to post here to advocate my personal preference for limiting crufty articles. And D&D monster articles are crufty. To me, the ideal place for an article on every D&D creature would be on a D&D wiki: just like the ideal place for an article on every Firefly character would be a Firefly wiki, or the ideal place for an article on Mila Kunis' feet would be on some foot fetish wiki. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't usually consider pop culture references as supporting notability. Outside of pop culture, however, are hundreds of references to Beholders from third-parties unaffiliated with WotC. I agree that nearly all articles on Wikipedia should meet WP:N, and maybe only a handful of D&D creatures should have articles, the rest relegated to a List of. WP:N is a pretty low bar in my book, so any article failing to meet it should need a rather extraordinary reason for existence. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To me, a "List of" article or section is still a cruft magnet, and is also a simple reprinting of trademarked gaming material. As for beholders, could you add to that article a list of some of these third-party references you're referring to?AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of deleting articles on notable subjects just because they are crappy. It would only add an additional barrier to entry for when someone comes along who is interested in improving the article on that subject. As long as sources establishing notability exist - whether or not they are in the article - I am satisfied. Sizeofint (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The original question was: "Do the creature types ...meet the ...notability guidelines?" You obviously believe they are notable and that sources exist to justify notability. It would be helpful in answering that question if you could provide some evidence of those sources. I don't think any editor has proposed deleting the articles on crappiness grounds. As I read the discussion so far, it appears that consensus is emerging that a large number, but certainly not all, of these do need to go on notability grounds Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, who - because of his emphasis on sourcing - I believed was proposing deleting all the crappily sourced articles. This doesn't seem to be the case so we can end this tangent. I do not necessarily believe any are actually notable. Rather, some are possibly notable and that status should be determined before deleting. Sizeofint (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe in deleting articles on crappiness grounds either: a crappy article on a notable subject is just a work in progress. And yup, in most cases you can establish notability for all sorts of subjects. But I don't see where you'll find third-party independent sources that can support an article for any D&D monster without violating WP:NOR or paraphrasing trademarked gaming material. And Dragon mag, TSR novels, or any other cross-promotion activities don't count as third-party independent sources. And mere mention is not support of notability: the independent source needs to make an assertion or claim that you can use as content for the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) is an example of a D&D creature notable enough to be a good article; there are certainly a few others. Many are just notable enough to stay separate, and many others aren't. As I said, it's not possible to make a clear blanket ruling. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup, the lede and the first paragraph of "History" in that article have good sources an establish independent notability through them. From that point on, though, the article becomes more crufty. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying a bit further, my own gold standard for notability is this: do you expect you will ever find one reviewed article in a scholarly journal, trade paper, or mass-market serious magazine that makes an assertion or claim about the subject? If not, then the subject is not notable. (The "assertion or claim" bit is necessary because an ideal WP article is supposed to be composed mainly of assertions and claims made in other sources - that's the point of WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc.: in fact, read the first paragraph of WP:RS, especially the last sentence, for one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia content creation.) And actually, know what? Maybe there is a third-party, independent article in a journal, or trade paper, or mass-market magazine somewhere that talks about WotC's replacement of "devils & demons" with "yugoloth" and whatever the other stuff was in reaction to the anti-D&D hype of the late 80s. Now that would totally justify a creature-specific article to me! But to me, "if you watch Futurama you'll see a beholder" does not in any way support notability, nor does "Drizzt fights a beholder in a Salvatore book". The first is trivial, the second is a derivative work and not independent. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but any description is an assertion or claim, albeit a really tame one. Please don't try to make notability more restrictive than it actually is. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Albeit a really tame one" belies the fact that a Wikipedia article can't be built in good faith on a "description" (really, an appearance in other media). Wikipedia's core principles listed above insist that every article here should be sourced from reliable third parties with no synthesis or original work on the part of the article editor: that's not restrictive, that's just an encyclopedia. What content can be added to a beholder article that's sourced from the Futurama episode? None. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

By extension, is a Futurama episode containing a Beholder considered a description (a visual/personality description), and therefore supporting of notability? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Futurama is independent of TSR or WotC, and is itself the subject of commentary. When a notable fiction "A" references any other fiction "B", it is evidence that B is notable, to the extent that it influenced the later fiction. Thus, Rocky Horror Picture Show contributes to the notability of American Gothic, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You're committing synthesis. An editor who wants to assert the notability of the Beholder based on a Futurama episode is required to find an independent source that asserts the notability. Them's the rules. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galaeron_Nihmedu - it seems I was involved in a discussion just like this in 2007. See esp WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, as well as the comments "this in universe article does not cite reliable sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside the books in which he is featured" and "Unreferenced, in-universe style, fails WP:N. To have a Wikipedia article, a fictional character should have been discussed in independent and reliable sources beyond the work of fiction itself." AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Interim Summary

I believe that the above conversation has reached some level consensus, which I will attempt summarize as follows:

1. Category-level deletion of Dungeons & Dragons Standard Creatures is not appropriate
2. Some subset of creatures have clear independent notability
3. Some subset of creatures have assertions of independent notability that need to be tested in individual AfD discussions
4. Some subset of creatures have no independent notability and should be redirected to a list
5. There is a difference of opinion about proper redirect target. Options include:

• List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)
• Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
• List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

The sum total of this is that the original question: "Do the creature types listed in Category:Dungeons_&_Dragons_standard_creatures meet the WP:GNG's notability guidelines?" cannot be answered as phrased. Consideration must be given to the creatures on a more-selective basis.

I have not intentionally mis-represented the above discussion, but I invite all to express their opinion about whether I have mis-interpreted anything.

If I have not, I suppose this discussion then requires some level of agreement on how those three subsets should be limned and the proper redirect target(s). Thank you to all for their guidance and opinions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I can accept 1-4 as a good-faith middle-ground, and disagree with 5. A list of monsters is a reproduction of gaming material, and is not proper content for Wikipedia: any topic without independent notability that is unable to pass an AfD should simply be deleted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Many of titles don't offer useful redirect pages. As to whether a List of Monsters is notable, that's up to a consensus on each individual list, and/or AfD. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A list article AfD's participants will first ask "why is it notable that there are monsters in D&D and you can list them?". The second thing they'll ask is "why do you want a list article instead of just using the category?" AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

While each individual monster may not be notable, I think a case can be made that the monsters are collectively notable and hence justify the existence of the list. For instance, [1] and [2] discuss the history and influence of DnD's compilation of monsters. Sizeofint (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I accept the above as a reasonable summary. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your assistance requested with a new article

Hi there, I'm a new page patroller and I've come across this article: God Endymion. The editor has appeared to copy it from Lolth and made changes to it. I was wondering if someone here who plays D&D could assess its suitability for inclusion - I can't find anything on the net about it and I'm sorry to say I don't play. I feel like it could be some sort of user-generated content (a username? ) but I'm not sure and I'm WP:AGF'ing at this point. Thanks all, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 18:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt this is notable. However, I could imagine Dungeons and Dragons pantheon or List of gods in Dungeons and Dragons being notable. If we find this is the case, a redirect may be in order. Otherwise AfD or perhaps redirect it to Dungeons and Dragons. Sizeofint (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no such god in the game. The name Endymion comes from old Greek myth. The article is a hoax and must be speedied. Tagging it now. oknazevad (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 04:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's Fakey McFake. BOZ (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report is back!

Hi all, the Community Tech team has been working hard to bring back the Popular pages report. The report for this project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Popular pages. I've made a redirect from the older link Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article hits to make the link consistent across projects. If you're not happy with this change and want to stick with the older link (not recommended), please ping me and I will take care of it. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fremlin retargeting

Just a head's up that I've moved Fremlin to Fremlin (character) as Fremlin is a British surname, and the origin of Fremlin's Brewery and Fremlin Walk. The old Fremlin article is now a disambiguation page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Dungeons & Dragons character stubs

Category:Dungeons & Dragons character stubs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Dawynn (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Tales From the Yawning Portal

with such a reprint should those adventures that are part of its inline adventure path be considered to e linked in the individual artticles section? Thigns like Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury are already linked as originally written, but this anthology that reworks the adventures, links those in a new way to other adventures. i know NOTHING about those sections with the linked modules to be able to do it without breaking things. or should the be left as the anthology page to jsut tell which ones and what order they should be in? shadzar-talk 11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure hat you're asking. I have Tales, and I will tell you that the adventures are not really linked into one story at all. It really is a loose collection of separate adventures, not an adventure path, so other than using 5e rules and tweaks to character levels as part of that, there's nothing really more to say than to list which adventures are included in Tales at the article on that collection (which they already are, listed in the order they appear in the book) and, conversely, mentioning that the module is one included in the anthology at the individual module's article (which they are). oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon (magazine) and Dragon (magazine) cleanup

Please see WT:JCW#Invalid cleanup. This concerns the usage of |journal= in |cite journal=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Jabberjawjapan has been working on these. BOZ (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello... was rather surprised to see myself "mentioned in dispatches" so to speak. Anyhow, if by "these" you mean these 2 magazine's pages, then that's true... I have spent quite a few edits over the last few days copyediting and tweaking the generic content. Then again, if "these" means journal citations, I haven't edited (or tried to improve) them at all (unless you mean that my edits have somehow unintentionally affected these references on these pages). Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)