Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters

The list

Which monsters do you think should/should not be included, and why do you feel this way? Please, we don't want a million word list page for this article, we want a concise, informative article on the most important and notable monsters.Piuro 03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Any list must have criteria for inclusion; we need to define that before getting into individual monsters. --Pak21 07:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats the reason for asking why. I can't safely think of any criteria, though if other would agree, I would think of ones with instant name familiarity to those who roleplay only casually. Here is the place to discuss the criteria, and people saying why they think something should stay on the list would give us a good sense of what people are thinking for criteria. Personally, I don't think there should even be a list, most D&D monsters are so far beyond WP:Notability it's not even funny. On that note, I'd say we stick with the iconics; Drow, Dragons, Mind Flayers, etc. This should be an article, not a list, and sticking with Iconic Monsters gives us more material beyond just a list to turn this into a useful contribution to the Wiki. Piuro 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the characters are recognisable to non-roleplayers, then I'd say there's almost certainly enough material on them to make a separate article. WP:FICT is definitely relevant here, and actually sets the threshold for separate articles relatively low — one example given is Noonien Soong, which contains no real out of universe references. I'd say that dragons, mind flayers, beholders, drow and whatever else would qualify as "major characters", and can have more written about them than Soong. Let's not sell ourselves short here for those things which we do have a decent amount of data for. Where I see the problem occurring is what are "minor characters" and what are just silly. Cheers --Pak21 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone recognizes a dragon, and many people recognize dark elves, but D&D is just a "me too!" on top of these.Piuro 10:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also probably clarify that when I say "The List" I am by no means implying this article should be a list. Quite the opposite in fact. Piuro 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My idea- mention all monsters in notable books, have seperate articles on any that definately meet notability?

I think the best way to do this would be as I have mentioned above. Every book we can deem to be notable (multiple, independent, reliable, significant, published sources) we will also have a list of monsters from, either in the same article, or, sometimes, in the case of books such as the four Monster Manuals, the Fiend Folio, Monsters of Faerun and so on, another article. After this, any monster which definately meets our fiction guidelines, we will have a seperate article on. It seems a shame that we could have a very nice article (and, should I have access to sources, an article I would be very happy to write) but we don't. A central list, called something like List of Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons, would be arranged by book, list the notable monsters, and then link off to the main article (Main article: List of monsters in Fiend Folio) for the bulk of non notable monsters in the book. After this, we would be able to keep very easy tabs on monster articles being created, and then judge them for notability or redirect them as appropriate. Any thoughts on this idea? J Milburn 11:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot. My only worry is that (say) "List of monsters in Monster Manual IV" (or "Monster Manual XXIX" when that's released) isn't actually going to be adding much to the encyclopedia, but we're not paper, so... Cheers --Pak21 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is we specifically do not want lists, and there aren't enough notable monsters from every source to warrant a separate article. Look at the Monster Manual IV; not one monster from that book would come close to notable. A centralized article of perhaps the five or six most notable monsters in D&D could also include what book they were first published in. There is absolutely no reason for massive lists that include stuff like the Ankheg. The only monsters we can possibly justify are the iconics (Dragons, Beholders, Mind Flayers, Drow, etc.). If we just break it down into lists, we haven't really changed anything at all, we've just spread our mess around a little. Lists of D&D monsters are absolutely worthless to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Piuro 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think lists of the monsters included are key to the articles about the books, and that is why I suggest only making these lists for the notable books. I am not suggesting that a list of non notable things suddenly becomes notable, I am suggesting that this is an important topic about a notable book. As for any monsters we can prove to be notable, why lug them all together into one article? If a monster is independently notable, then we have an article on it- otherwise we are arbitarilly deciding which monsters get to go in our list of notable monsters, which constitutes original research. J Milburn 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, deciding the iconics would not be an arbitrary process, as there have already been articles published by WotC, as well as a clear general consensus as to what monsters fall in the category of "Iconics". Piuro 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you propose we rely on primary sources to determine notability? That doesn't sound a particuarly good idea to me. J Milburn 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as discussion seemed to have slowed to a halt, but there was some support for my idea, I have started to draw up this to see what it would look like. I also remember reading an article on inspiration for the monsters, I think that could be very useful information, so I will try and dig that up and add the information to the list. J Milburn 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're being a bit 3rd ed. centric with that list. --Starwed 06:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how 3-3.5 is the current edition, I don't see that as a problem.--Robbstrd 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one if it's policies is to avoid WP:Recentism. While this mostly applies to current events, it also applies to giving undue emphasis to a subject's recent history. --Starwed 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not policy. --Pak21 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was careless with my words. Certainly the page I linked to was not an official policy or guideline, but I thought it provided a clear explanation. However, favoring more recent publications over older ones is a form of bias, and avoiding bias is a wikipedia policy. --Starwed 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Equally, WP:UNDUE is policy, and the vast majority of players these days play 3e. This isn't as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. --Pak21 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am being 3.0/3.5 centric- I don't own books for the older versions. Perhaps someone else could add the info? I'll drop a line when I have finished it, I have been away for the last couple of weeks. Of course, as Pak21 rightly points out, 3.5 is the important issue, due to that being the most played. J Milburn 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An analogy to my idea

I have just thought of a rather nice analogy. Let's say that there is a notable music festival, which happened only once. On this one occasion, there were 40 bands, some of which were non notable. We would list the 40 bands that took part in this festival as part of the article on the festival (and should the list become too long, break it off into a new article, as is common practice when articles become too long) and then, each band notable in its own right would have its own article. We wouldn't have an article called 'Notable bands who took part in festival X' and include only the bands that we decided counted as notable, ignoring the other bands and not giving the notable bands an article of their own, would we? J Milburn 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See Woodstock, which appears to just list the bands who participated. Also, there is a vast, vast difference between a major music festival and a D&D book. Hell, most D&D books shouldn't even have their own articles. This is a general encyclopedia, not a general repository of D&D nerd knowledge. Also, could you give some examples of how lists of monster articles would improve book articles? Piuro 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be hostile when I suggest you read this, but you should take a look at this article, as I feel it's very relevant to our current discussion. I feel that a list of D&D monsters, even linked to a book, would not mesh well with

• The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject. For example, when researching Typesetting, the List of type designers and List of typefaces are excellent resources from which to begin exploring the subject.

Either way, theres nothing the two of us should independently do, we should wait for other editors to weigh in on this. Piuro 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would start by disputing your claim that "mosts D&D books shouldn't have their own articles." Frankly, they clearly meet the notability requirement by having multiple independent reviews. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a paper encyclopedia: there is nothing wrong with having a well-sourced review of every D&D book. As for the lists comment, Lists in Wikipedia is an essay, nothing more. To quote {{essay}}: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." --Pak21 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an essay I am familiar with, I admit, but I think a list of monsters is definately a useful starting point for research. And Piuro, you say there is a difference in that the books are less notable- well, there are not degrees of notability- either it is notable, or it is not, and if it is notable, we may as well write a decent article on it. Hell, I prefer writing about less notable topics, and if I do say so myself, I make pretty good articles out of them. (See here, here and here, for instance.) Are you proposing that, because the books are not super notable, we only write rubbish articles about them? A one off festival's article would list bands, and have a seperate article on any band independently notable, and so a book's article should list characters (or, in this case, monsters) and have a seperate page on any notable. That's how I see it- have I missed something key? J Milburn 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The road to Hell

Regarding inclusion criteria, I would argue that any creature WotC has deemed Product Identity (mind flayer, umber hulk, beholder, etc) should have its own article. In addition, I think that "stock" creatures used throughout the game (orcs, goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins, trolls, gnolls, elves, dwarves, etc) should also have their own articles, especially if an entire sourcebook devoted to that creature has been published in the past (offhand, Eye, Tyrant, the Complete series, & the sahuagin book come to mind). Some creatures, like the marilith & osyluth, could be merged into the Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) & Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) articles, while others, like ankheg, dire animal, & fiendworm could be done away with, but I would advise adding a small line of descriptive text next to the creature's name in the corresponding "type" article (Magical beast, Fey (Dungeons & Dragons), etc).

However, overall, I think much of what is proposed is a wasted effort. For all Piuro's good intentions, there will certainly be several users in the future who will recreate any deleted articles, creating more work and arguments. I personally would rather spend time creating & improving articles than defending them (or defending their deletion). If someone wants to create an article on, say, the Eye of fear and flame, I say leave them be, & perhaps even help improve the article. There are enough people outside the D&D community on Wikipedia who will call for its deletion. Instead of throwing all our energy making D&D articles "acceptable" for Wikipedia, I think this project should take a page from the FR Wikiproject & work on moving all the Wikipedia D&D content to a D&D wiki.--Robbstrd 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the major problems with the brand-identity monsters as their own articles is we have to be very careful what we put in, as they are not covered by OGL and reproduction of the contents in the books is a copyright violation. I would fully support moving the information to a D&D Wiki, but I can't support full articles for each of the Iconics (even if they have their own books), since although they are notable to us as D&D players, they lack independent notability (and content we can use) to justify a full article. As for the stock-monsters, I could perhaps see a separate article for those, though as a collection, not individually. Yes, people will recreate worthless articles, but we are Wikiproject D&D, it is our problem, and we should not just shrug and say "oh well", we should strive to make the best, most encyclopedic content we can. Piuro 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "iconics." Are you talking Product Identity, the iconics characters (Lidda, etc), or what? If you're talking about the "stock" creatures I mentioned above, then I think you're underestimating the popularity of D&D. I'm sure there are many people who've never played D&D, yet have a general idea what an orc, ogre, or troll is. Of course, there have been no studies done (to my knowledge) gauging the popularity of D&D monsters among non-players, so deciding what is & isn't notable is a bit arbitrary. I'm really not sure why you've decided to undertake this quest in the first place. It's not like there's a concentrated effort on Wikipedia to eliminate all D&D articles. I agree that there are some that seem unnecessary, but I really don't think there's any danger of burning up all the "space" on Wikipedia with D&D articles. Bad or unnessecary articles I'd rather see improved or merged, but you seem interested in doing away with even the most well-written articles entirely if they cover a subject not immediately known to the general public. Why not concentrate on moving all the D&D articles to a D&D wiki & "saving" the content that's already been written, BEFORE looking to make the D&D articles "acceptable" to people who really wouldn't read them in the first place?--Robbstrd 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am failing to understand why you think being covered by the OGL is relevant. We can't use OGL content in Wikipedia as it is incompatible with the GFDL. --Pak21 08:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had forgotten about that. Then we are in a much bigger bind when it comes to monster articles then I originally thought. Piuro 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We aren't. We can use books as sources, just not copy them word for word, the same as with any other article. And it isn't like we were gonna copy out the stats anyway... J Milburn 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Environment, backstory, and all of the "fulff" of the monster is copyrighted, and reproduction in any way is illegal. Word for word isn't the only way to reproduce something. We can use stuff from their website, but all in all it will be very difficult to write about the monsters. Piuro 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to this license? I am almost certain they can't do that. Otherwise, why doesn't every non-fiction book do that, and say 'hey, look, no one is allowed to reveal what happens in this book, or any details about the characters'? J Milburn 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fool's Errand?

The apparent direction of this initiative is concerning to me. Why are we engaged on a massive deletion campaign? If the idea is to *re-organize* the content on monsters, that makes sense to me. I would agree that many D&D monsters don't warrant their own articles. But if the idea is to *delete* all monster-related content, then I am in strong disagreement with the goals of this mini-project.

There are certain monsters that clearly warrant their own articles. The D&D version of the Gnoll, for example, has been adapted by several other game systems (Warcraft, Everquest, etc.), and as such the monster is clearly a notable phenomenon in and of itself. For other monsters, entire books have been published on them, for example Beholders. I could give numerous other examples of monsters notable in their own right. So, at least *some* monsters clearly deserve their own articles.

But what about those that don't deserve their own articles? Should all mentions of them be purged from Wikipedia? That would seem rather drastic and quixotic as well. Thus, my point above that I would rather support an effort to re-organize monster-related articles. The real question that this initiative should be focused on, IMO, is how to *organize* information on monsters not notable by themselves. Perhaps D&D's own classifications of "Abberation", "Outsider", etc. might be a useful starting point? - Fairsing 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, as I explained above, that listing them by book is the best idea. Of course, we would only bother listing them if they were from notable books. Everyone agrees that any monster proven to be notable in its own right (which I think could include about half of the things in the Monster Manual, but we can come to that later, and deal with each individually) should have its own article. J Milburn 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, J Milburn. The classification by book idea is an interesting one, but I think will prove problematic if we tried to implement it. The reason is that, over the 30+ years of D&D's history, there have been dozens and dozens of D&D books that satisfy the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). For example, an article on any book with two or more professionally published reviews of it, or on any book that has won a major award in the field (the Origins Award, for example), would likely pass an AFD. And many monsters have appeared in multiple books over the years, or first appeared in a notable adventure module and then later in a book, and then again in a compilation, etc. To resolve this problem, we *could* say that the listing in the most recent notable book takes precedence, but then what happens when a new D&D book is published? A bunch of monsters get moved from various other articles into the new article? Taking the opposite approach, we could list them by the *first* notable book in which they were mentioned, but that would lead to some very odd sets of lists, as many D&D monsters were originally published in older (but notable) adventure modules, so you would wind up with a lot of articles derived from older modules with just a few monsters in each. So, overall the idea of doing it by book is interesting, but I just don't think it will work out very well if we tried to move forward in that way. Fairsing 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, if there were only a few monsters in said book, it would probably be best to list them in the article on the book. Take a read above, I explain why- it's relevant information about a notable book, and so should be included, BUT, if it becomes too long (as it would with, say, with the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, that crowd) then it should be split off. Other books with fewer monsters (Libris Mortis, Stormwrack etc) would have the monster information in the main article. J Milburn 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)