Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 10

10 May 2012

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This list article was brought to AFD on May 2 by Axem Titanium over concerns that it violated WP:GAMEGUIDE, may have violated WP:COPYVIO, and had no references to support its notability. Independent sources were added during the course of the discussion, which rendered WP:NOTE a non-issue, and shifted the discussion to the two other concerns. Sandstein, who closed the discussion, noted that "There is clearly no consensus" about the GAMEGUIDE argument. As these two concerns were not motivating factors in the close, this DRV is not an attempt to address either one.

OrenBochman (BO) replied first with a Keep, contending that the nominator's argument for copyvio was "unconvincing" and giving an explanation; the nominator did not contest those points. I responded next with another Keep, noting my agreement with this copyvio argument, and as Polisher of Cobwebs and Robbstrd both also indicated Keep per me, I will assume that they therefore also agreed with OrenBochman's arguments. Jclemens next replied with a Keep, asserting again that the list is not a copyvio. Sangrolu also replied with a Keep, and also contended that the article is not a copyvio. All of these responses are to the original nominator's argument regarding possible copyvio.

Masem added the first Delete response, and was also the first to begin any detailed discussion about why he felt this was a copyright violation, and discussed this with Sangrolu and Postdlf. Masem approached Moonriddengirl on her talk page for input, which she provided, with addition discussion on the subject. Orangemike and Shooterwalker both argued to Delete the article based on WP:GAMEGUIDE; neither one addressed the potential copyvio issue. Postdlf, however, was ultimately convinced by Moonriddengirl's argument and responded to Delete.

After her input, David Shepheard (Big Mac) and Daranios both argued to Keep based on disagreement with the nominator's other arguments for deletion, but after discussion both also noted that they did not feel the list is a copyright violation. Hobit and Webwarlock both also argued to Keep based on the list not being a copyright problem. Marikafragen also contributed to the discussion about copyright violation, and although the repsonse is inline, also argued to Keep. There is a fair amount of discussion of the issue after Moonriddengirl's initial posting, and I have only summarized the nature of the respondents here.

Sandstein's rationale for the close mentioned Moonriddengirl's "prima facie persuasive case" for copyvio argument, although he admits that "I myself am not sure that I agree with it". He also contended that because almost all of the "keep" opinions "do not address her analysis but at best only assert that the list is not a copyright violation, without giving reasons why. These arguments are not persuasive and must therefore be discounted." It is not clear from this description which Keep opinions were counted or discounted or why they were or were not persuasive. I did not respond to Moonriddengirl's analysis because I had already made my feelings on the issue of copyvio clear and did not feel the need to repeat myself; I can only wonder if anyone else did the same thing. If I had known it was necessary to counter all arguments, I would have done so.

All eleven users responding with Keep did address the copyvio issue in some form (two by deferring their responses to me) as I believe I have demonstrated, most disagreeing with the rationale or calling it into question, and several of them offered their own persective on the issue. Of the five people indicating Delete, only three offered their thoughts on the copyvio issue. Is this a consensus to delete based on copyright violation? That is the only issue that needs to be determined here; not whether you agree with one rational or another, just whether this AFD had come to the consesus that the closer posited.

It could be argued to Relist the AFD, but I am concerned that this discussion Masem started could taint the results. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article should be Overturned to at the very least a No consensus to allow it to be rexamined again in the future. BOZ (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Closing admin's comment: I closed this as a "delete" because Moonriddengirl (supported by others) made a good case that the list amounted to a copyright violation. Almost all "keep" opinions that addressed this issue simply asserted that there was no copyright violation, without bothering to explain why. Copyright is a serious and rather complicated issue; it depends not on editorial judgment (as with most AfD issues) but on legal arguments that apply the relevant specialized policy as well as U.S. statutory and case law to the content at issue. The "keep" opinions failed to do so, perhaps with the exception of Marikafragen or one or two other people. So, to summarize, among contributors who appeared to have given thought to the problems surrounding copyright in lists, there was sufficient concern about this being a copyvio that I had to delete it. Now, I suppose the copyvio discussion could well come to a different conclusion, if it were to occur in more depth, which is why I suggested in my closure that DRV could be the place for that. (Or perhaps here?)  Sandstein  17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I rethought my question above about consensus, and I feel that an even better question to ask would be "Was there a consensus that there even was a copyright violation?" BOZ (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If there's a perceived copyright violation, no amount of consensus can overturn that. We are proactive to remove these once discovered. It's fair to argue (again, I was expecting this DRV and thus started the noted discussion) so that there may be a reason to readd it, but until we know that it is clearly not a copyvio, we have to remove it. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • not so. If there is an obvious unmistakable copyright violation, sure. But if there's only a possible copyright violation, the community decides by consensus whether it is a sufficiently clear copyvio for deletion. Calling "Copyvio!" by itself is not enough. Quite the opposite, until we decide it is a copyvio we do not remove it. If there is no consensus that it is in fact a copyvio, we do not remove it. that would be copyright paranoia. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Who else is going to decide for us? (unless it's an office action, which this was not). there is no presumption that an ambiguous case is copyvio. If the admin closed on that basis, it must be overturned as contrary to policy --and contrary to reason also. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I point to Sandstein's call above that based on the copyvio arguments (whether it was or not) that the arguments weren't convincing that it wasn't a copyvio. Ergo the reason to delete is appropriate, until such time that the copyvio issue is resolved. That's why I started that new discussion because I recognized the straw-men arguments that could result and that we're going to need better clarity. (I do note that our NFC policy is also similarly proactive in removing content that may be against fair-use though can be restored later if that was determined to be at fault). --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In short, no. Here's the thing: the article was closed on the premise that Moonriddengirl made the case that there was a WP:COPYVIO. In fact, Moonriddengirl agreed with my assessment that the article was fair use, but qualifying that at wikipedia, we need to be more conservative that US fair use guidelines. That being the case, what decides what is "conservative enoough" other than consensus? Given that the commenter that the closing admin says demonstrated WP:COPYVIO in fact agreed that it was fair use, I don't see how the closing admin is justified in deleting without consensus. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I agreed with you that "fair use" was the only avenue we had to make use of the material. :/ I actually evaluated the fair use criteria and myself felt, as I said, that "While only a court could determine definitively, I think that this list is likely a substantial copyright problem." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse As the closing admin says, a rational case was put for regarding this as a copyright infringement, whereas no rational case was put for not regarding it as such. The earliest "keep" arguments simply asserted that it is not a copyright infringement without elaboration (e.g. "Not a copyvio" from Jclemens, "The article as a whole is not a WP:COPYVIO" from Sangrolu). Later, attempts were made to go further, but they did not actually provide any reason. For example, we have "The list of Toyota cars is not copyrightable - that's factual data. Names are not copyrightable, but trademarkable" from MASEM: however, the issue is whether the list is copyright, not whether the names on the list are copyright. Then there is "I don't think the list is subject to copyright any more than a list of characters or list of actors for a show would be" from Hobit, but "I don't think the list is subject to copyright" does not give any a reason for believing it isn't. I don't know what I would have said had I been closing the discussion, but there is absolutely no basis for regarding the actual decision as being outside the range of discretion that an administrator is expected to exercise. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hobit's argument is a perfectly good one and should not have been discounted. Whether a list like this is copyright is a matter of judgement, and his is as good as yours. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As good as mine? I have no idea whether the list is copyright. What is at issue is not whether it is, but whether the closing admin correctly assessed consensus in the discussion. According to Wikipedia's concept of consensus, what matters is not just how many people express an opinion, but the strength of the arguments advanced. "I don't think the list is subject to copyright" without any reason advanced for holding that opinion is about as weak an argument as it is possible to come up with. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Arguably, in Hobit's defense, he asked "what makes this different from a list of characters?" (all completely fair devils advocate questions). I'm not saying that's necessary a strong argument either way, but he expressed more than just a "I like it/I hate it"-type opinion that is generally ignored. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse we can't take chances on copyvio material, and the encyclopedic value of a list of monsters appearing in one edition of one game hovers right around zero anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I rarely disagree with Moonriddengirl about copyright, but in this case I'm not seeing a consensus to delete in that discussion, and I find the argument that this is a copyvio totally unconvincing. We're merely producing a list of the work's contents in alphabetical order, and that's all. If we were reproducing game statistics then sure, this would be a copyvio, but a simple contents list? I don't believe a word of it.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In MRG's first comment, she writes, "I see no critical commentary here; it is a page by page index with explication which incorporates by explicit link many detailed descriptions of the TSR versions of legendary creatures and their original ones." She later clarifies that she is concerned by the system of articles: the list and the individual monster articles. If the articles are considered together, they are awfully similar to the Monster Manual. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That is my concern, yes. The last time I checked with legal, there was no known precedent for whether or not articles should be judged in isolation in terms of "substantial similarity" or whether spreading the contents of one book over multiple articles was a factor. I note that when we received a complaint from the publishers of the DSM-IV a couple of years ago, we were called on to judge in aggregate rather than isolation, but other factors may have influenced that (including complaint from the copyright holder and the fact that many of the articles would probably have infringed copyright on their own). I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this situation if there was more critical analysis or other transformative content to support our use of the material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Good points, well argued, from both of you; but I'm afraid I remain strongly of the view that this should be overturned. The argument is that if the articles are considered together then they resemble the Monster Manual to too great a degree. In fact as far as I can see the Monster Manual is an eclectic cobbling-together of (1) material to which nobody can claim copyright (giants, dragons, vampires, zombies etc.) and (2) undisguised or thinly-disguised ripoffs of material originally generated by others (notably JRR Tolkein, Fritz Leiber and RE Howard). At the time of publication the new and original aspect of the Monster Manual was the way it converted fictional creatures which were almost without exception not original to the author, into what I understand as game pieces. Wikipedia makes no mention of the game statistics so can be no violation of TSR's copyright.

        I see this as related to the much bigger question of to what extent Wikipedia can consist of abridgements of copyrighted works, and whether it's possible for Wikipedia to be anything but a series of abridgements of copyrighted works given how closely we enforce WP:V. I think that if we decide Wikipedia articles cannot be abridgements of copyrighted works, then there's a lot more urgent things to delete than this list!—S Marshall T/C 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

        • Most of the monsters in the monster manuals are likely derivative works of tropes and the like that have long-entered the public domain or equivalent realm. That's a fair assessment. The problem is that because these are not (necessarily) slavish reproductions of the public domain work and include new creative elements, they have a brand new copyright assigned to TSR/Wizards. That it: TSR does not have a copyright on the idea of a zombie, but they do have a copyright on the D&D version of a zombie. So this is still a copyrighted work regardless of the basis. And because TSR published this list in its entirity in one place, it is defining the creative nature of the monsters and NPCs that inhabit its world, and ergo a creative collection itself. The reason other lists of characters/etc. aren't a problem is because it is very rare for the creative work to publish this directly themselves, and the compilation is a new work that is separate from the original fiction and thus not in the same boat. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not "likely" that giants and dragons and vampires and werewolves are "in the public domain or equivalent realm". It's fact: copyright in these things belongs to no-one. It's certainly true that TSR's successor company Wizards of the Coast have a copyright on the "D&D version of a zombie", but the "D&D version of a zombie" is inextricable from its in-game attributes that we do not reproduce on Wikipedia. Essentially the D&D version of a zombie is not an original work of fiction. It's a gaming piece, described in a table format and (if I understand this correctly) represented by a small lead miniature figure. Our article on D&D zombies does not and cannot possibly infringe, either as an individual article or as a part of our corpus on dungeons and dragons, because there is no way to get from the content of Zombie (Dungeons & Dragons) to a usable gaming piece, and there is no way that TSR's successor company can claim copyright in Zombies except in the specific context of their game. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
            • TSR has created a creative setting which those game pieces are used. You are most likely right that game rules and concepts can't be copyrighted, but the creative world around it can be. Calling the D&D Zombie a "gaming piece" is drastically understating the creative aspects used by TSR to take the public domain aspect of a zombie and make it work in their creative fiction, even without considering any of their specific gameplay elements or statistics. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Let me go back one step further. The reason the copyvio appears to be the case is exactly why we removed the Time 100 lists. Time doesn't own the copyright on the people on said list (obviously) but they own the creativity needed to assemble that list and place the people on it in that order. Thus, our recreation of that list, in whole, without transformation, is a copyvio. The same applies to this monster list here, it is a direct comparison. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
              • I’ve seen this example brought up a few times, but I don’t think it’s a very accurate example in terms of similarity. If a company had published a list called “Our top 50 favorite D&D monsters”, and if someone reposted that list in its entirety on Wikipedia, then that would be more like reposting the Time 100 list. Posting the entire content list of a book of monsters would be more like posting the entire cast list of a movie instead of just the main characters, which is something IMDb does all the time. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
                • The problem is that the starting list, the list of monsters in 1st edition D&D, is also creatively selected. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Masem, you said, You are most likely right that game rules and concepts can't be copyrighted. That may be true in US law, but it's probably less useful to us than it sounds at first sight. My view is that the way the rules are presented can be copyrightable and indeed copyrighted. I'll explain this in terms of computer games because that's easier to envisage.

    In a computer game, a zombie would have certain attributes. It would have a movement rate and an attack speed and a certain number of hit points. It would have a certain probability of hitting its target, and so on. These underlying "attributes" can't be copyrighted. But in the game it would be represented by models and sound effects which certainly are copyrighted.

    Now, in TSR monster books, zombies are, I believe, detailed in a similar way, having a movement rate and hit points and an attack speed and all the rest of it. These attributes are not copyright. But they're presented in a table format which is copyrightable, and supplemented by copyrighted artwork and text.

    Thus irrespective of whether game rules are copyrightable or not, we can't produce the in-game statistics. Neither can we reproduce the text that TSR's authors used, nor a close paraphrase of it. If we did those things, then we would be in breach of copyright, no argument at all. But my point is different. It's that TSR never owned anything to do with Zombies except for specific kinds of Zombies used as playing pieces in their game. Therefore we can't possibly be breaching TSR's copyright if we don't reproduce the data needed to use the creature in their game.

    The argument that we're breaching copyright by reproducing the table of contents will not survive scrutiny and can be dismissed out of hand. The more subtle argument that originates with Moonriddengirl, i.e. that our table of contents together with our articles somehow combine to breach copyright, is more defensible but I still don't buy it, I think it's overcautious. If there's a breach of copyright then those taking the "delete" position need to point to a specific article or passage that does breach copyright. A vague wave at a whole topic area saying "that's too detailed, copyright breach!" seems like a most dangerous thing to allow.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm not talking about hit points or the like. It has been a long while since I had to crack open my D&D manuals, but even my vague memory tells me that for many of these creatures (generally, the more mythological ones), there are backstories and "flavor text" that enhance the world setting. That is a creative element, even if they directly pull the monster from Greek myth, for example, and do nothing to its backstory. The combination of all that fills their world with color and flavor, and hence is one core of the creative setting TSR had made. A full list of the monsters, therefore, is outlining their creative world. So immediately one needs to recognize that this is an issue of fair use to start, period; from that, we apply all the tests and at that point, we recognize that we're using the whole list (even if absent of stats and other details), and we have no transformation of the work, both points against the list.
    • Again, I bring up the Time 100 list verses the List of Time Person of the Year. The former is a creatively-constructed list, so inclusion in full is, to WMF's eyes, a copyvio. The List of Time Persons of the Year, on the other hand, is not a creative-constructed list though a list of creatively-selected people over time. It is still factual, and thus not protected by copyright, ergo inclusion in full is not a problem. The same analogy here: The list of monsters in the specific book is a creatively-constructed list; a list of notable monsters from all of D&D is not. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think I understand you here. You seem to be saying that this list of monsters breaches copyright in Dungeons & Dragons' implied setting. But that can't possibly be right because even though you use the singular, there isn't one particular fictional setting for Dungeons & Dragons. If I understand this correctly the situation is that each game master comes up with his own dungeon that's set in a fictional world of his own devising. There isn't a "creative world" associated with Dungeons & Dragons. It's a toolkit for end-users to make their own "creative worlds".—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, but they provide a toolkit via the monsters that given one type of fantasy setting. This setting is far different the fantasy setting of other works like Lord of the Rings, A Game of Thrones, or Diskworld, even if there are common elements in terms of monsters shared between them. When players create their own adventures, they are creating a derivative work of the D&D world. Add to the fact that TSR has published numerous official "modules" that build on the core rulebooks to create an interactive fiction. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • When I was younger, I played the computer games Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment. Each was ostensibly based on published Dungeons and Dragons materials, but the settings were very different indeed. I also played Morrowind, which was set in a world based on the game author's D&D campaign. From these experiences I think the argument that all D&D worlds are essentially one world based on their monster lists is rather a stretch.—S Marshall T/C 08:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
            • The AD&D campaign includes multiple settings, and there are many creative variants. As my billions of Planescape reference works (loved the computer game as well) attest, they are all pretty exhaustively documented. In terms of this particular situation, though, I think it's important to remember that what we are actually doing is discussing the book. :) Explicitly, by title. This is an article about a single, specific book which may have "weak" copyright protection in many elements (those incorporating public domain material) but nevertheless does have its own creative spin and its compilation protection (because, of course, even if all elements are public domain, a mural formed of them is copyrighted). I believe that there is room for a discussion of this specific book and certainly for a discussion of monsters in AD&D (specific campaign worlds or varied) - although it would be great to see some actual critical commentary - but I think if we are going to discuss the book, it is essential that we bring something new to the table rather than a distillation of its contents. And I believe the more of their creative content we use, the more we need to balance that with something new. I don't think that a descriptive list of the contents of this book is the best way to go about this. A comprehensive article about monsters in AD&D could avoid the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? You say: the book.  :) Explicitly, by title. This is an article about a single, specific book and this tells me we're talking at complete cross-purposes. What I am talking about is a list that gives a sort of table of contents from six separate creative works, called List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. I agree that a comprehensive article about monsters in the game would be desirable but I do not understand how this precludes a list. I'm also of the view that reproducing the table of contents is fair use.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You're still reproducing without transformation, hence making the conflict with fair use even worse since you now have 6 books you're borrowing from. Remember, we are stricter than fair use law to avoid potential conflicts and to assure that our text is CC-BY. Again, the problem here is that while the table of contents could be considered factually, it is still based on the same creatively-selected lists that appear in the books, and thus is still a creatively-selective list itself. Without transformation, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You're right; it's not a single work, but a collection of several from one edition. We are summarizing not one but several books (sorry; late night, early morning.) Reproducing a table of contents is generally perfectly fine, as tables of contents usually just lists titles and titles are not copyrightable ([1]). (This is why we can get away with tracklists in album articles.) This isn't a table of contents, though, and doesn't stop at listing the monsters. I myself think that a simple list would be okay, but - again - I personally am concerned about the web of details and images interlinked (I do not believe legal precedent has been established there yet, as I've said). I don't think we would create a list without the links to the various monster articles, and I think the best way to support such a list would be to add critical commentary and other transformative material to support the fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
          • A small amount of critical commentary for several monsters, taken from reviews on the books themselves, had been added to the article during the AFD - that was a start, at least. BOZ (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
            • That's good. And I don't actually argue with the existence of the article (although I think the list format is risky). I just think it needs to be very carefully balanced to support the fair use factor. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Though I would argue the critical commentary has to be about the list itself. If it's about the individual monsters without considering the whole of the rest of the list in terms of defining the game world, that's better support for trimmed version of "notable monsters from D&D" and the separate article on the monster itself. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
              • As this list was never published by the publisher in the form of a list, I think that finding critical commentary on such a list would be impossible. At least, I've never heard of anyone doing a book review on the book's table of contents. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Let me ask a question. If this had been a single aggregate list of monsters appearing throughout the first edition books, instead of a segmented breakdown of the contents of each book individually, would there still have been a copyright concern? BOZ (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
                • Possibly, yes, more likely depending on how much critical commentary/transformative nature there is of the lists. A counter example (that I specifically asked about at NFC) is the List of Pokémon (1–51) and its numerous index (up to 650 now?). To borrow from what Jheald stated there: In the case of the Pokemons, TV characters and TV episodes, I would say: no, because in those cases the lists are derived from the original fictions, rather than being the essential nature of the original fictions themselves. Presenting such a list is therefore transformative in a way the AD&D list is not. It is also only a comparatively small taking from those original creations; and not likely to impact at all on their original market roles. The J.K. Rowling case is perhaps useful: it was ruled that it was acceptable in general to produce an Encylopedia of Harry Potter; but what was not acceptable was to substantially reproduce what essentially was itself an annotated fictional listing, viz the content of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, nor to closely reproduce actual prose from the original novels. That was the material that had to be heavily re-written before the book was re-issued. Applying the argument to the full list of 1st Ed D&D monsters, the more we can add to the list to transform it, if possible, the better we get away from the copyvio. (At this point, then there becomes the GAMEGUIDE issue which, if this is relisted, is going to be focused on). --MASEM (t) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
                  • Fair enough, if you can agree that it may have been possible to fix, then it should not have been deleted based on the copyright concern. BOZ (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
                    • The Time 100 was a possible list to fix, but we were asked to delete it. We are proactive on copyright. I don't argue that there's a potential version of this list - maybe not in the same form - that would minimize the copyright issue, but we can't let sit the known problematic list until that one comes around. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your input. With your help I've finally arrived at the kind of position I can sum up with a word in bold for the closer's benefit.  :)

  Overturn and relist because the closer said he took Moonriddengirl's arguments as a prima facie reason to delete the list. It's emerged from the discussion above that Moonriddengirl's position is that the list is fixable. Therefore, while Sandstein's close is very understandable in the context of the discussion, it's also clearly mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Relist - It doesn't seem to me that many people in the discussion agreed with Moonriddengirl's analysis that the article was a copyright violation. It also doesn't seem clear to me that Moonriddengirl's analysis presents a reason to delete the article entirely as opposed to possibly trimming the content to remove excessive detail. At lot of the discussion was focused on WP:GAMEGUIDE, and I think further specifically on the copyright questions would be useful. I don't think there was a consensus to delete the article on copyright concerns, so I would favor a relist of the article with a comment making it clear that the relist is to come to a consensus on whether the article should or should not be deleted on copyright grounds. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse, but allow userfication and re-creation of a substantialy restructured page. I agree with the comments of Moonriddengirl, specifically that the page is a derivative work, with insufficient transformation of the primary source material taken directly from the copyrighted guides. Derivative works of fictional materials, if not a copyright infringement, is also really bad article writing. There has to be some transformation, using sources that discuss the monstors from a perspective outside of the game. A lot of care is required, and in the end it may be impossible, because transformation without enough sources falls foul of WP:NOR#WP:SYNTH. The best advice on how to proceed is found at WP:WAF, which the deleted article didn't follow at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Something completely different In a case where a Wikipedia page has a problem that's FIXABLE, deletion is probably not the best option, especially when everything else in Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters and its WP:SS components has the exact same problem. Rather, what's probably needed is a detailed rewrite of ALL of these pages, to remedy the copyright objections. Which, for the record, I disagree with Moonriddengirl's analysis, especially of clause 3, the amount of "copying" permissible under fair use. BUT, seeing as how a reasonable challenge has been identified, let's fix it. This decision eviscerates our coverage of D&D monsters, and really can't be allowed to the final word on the matter. Some of the "endorse"rs above may have lost sight of the fact that we're an encyclopedia, and need to cover things--if our current presentation is problematic, we need to fix it, not amputate large swaths of good content. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The list wasn't fixable even with serious trimming - even if it was turned into a bare list of just the monsters as listed, it hit the copyvio problem. As I've said, the option of a list of notable D&D monsters in connection with their articles that include transformative use is appropriate, but not a straight-up list from the books. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it was fixable... but not necessarily via trimming, but by adding commentary as you describe below. BUT, I disagree that even without that it's a copyvio, since it omits not only the game stats (as MRG noted), but the descriptions as well. Furthermore, there's no clear decision--just an argument--that the amount reproduced constitutes copyright infringement. Per this, I would argue that by omitting the pictorial and literary material (pictures and notes), what is left mostly constitutes uncopyrightable game rules and ideas. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • What commentary could be added on the list to make it transformative? I agree some monsters themselves may have notable aspects to make the inclusion of their creative aspects appropriate in WP, but the full list of monsters from one rulebook? And there is still the fact that I mention above that the collection of the monsters and the like - even if just names - creates the backdrop and setting of the D&D world for them. What if TSR used ponies and bunnies and birds instead of zombies, ghouls, and dragons? You claim their game pieces, but clearly there's creativity in winding down what available creatures (mythological or real-world or otherwise) to create their setting. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn per BOZ. Basically it's a flawed close as just claiming copyright isn't enough, there needs to be an accepted case that there is a copyright problem. If instead any reasonable (but almost certainly wrong and generally rejected argument) is enough, there is easily a similar claim for Dr. Who or any other major series. And I assume that's where we'd be going (as the arguments are a LOT stronger there). Are we really talking about walking that route? Dr. Who has way way way more detailed and complete information about plot, characters etc. and certainly is more likely to interfere with commercial opportunities (the plot summaries allow people to catch up without paying to watch while this list doesn't have any of the material one would expect to want to know, nor (AFAIK) it the product still on the market. It would make me sad to walk that way, but I'm not seeing how we could do anything else and be consistent with this decision. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The reason that this specific list is a copyvio is two-fold. One is the lack of transformative information: there's nothing to discuss the significance of this list to the reader beyond "it came from the 1st edition book". Most of our other lists (lists of characters, episodes, etc.) are used in conjunction with development and reception to transform that information into something new. But the second factor is best explained by Jheald's response to the same devil's advocate questions I poised at WT:NFC. Specifically, this list is fundamentally and wholly part of the original creative work (it's straight out of the book without omission). In the case of episode lists or character lists, these are generally built up by multiple parts of the fiction (numerous episodes, etc.) and thus the list itself as made for WP is not a fundamental part of the creative work, even if the elements of the list are copyrighted. If the monster list was an assembly of all editions of D&D and only those that were notable (read: transformative information about said monsters on their respective pages) it wouldn't be a problem. But the whole recreation of the list of monsters from a single book without comment is copyvio. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. I see nothing wrong with this close. AfDs are decided on strength of argument not vote counting or similar hence I think it's more than reasonable to weight Moonriddengirl's opinion heavily - she's one of (if not the) acknowledged text copyright person here and is also the person to discuss the issue with the WMF attorney. If everyone else was arguing that the article wasn't a copyvio then I might agree that the close was bad but there was support for her views. There is consensus that we err very much on the side of caution when it comes to copyvios and so deletion is reasonable even if there is less of a consensus than would normally be necessary for a delete. Dpmuk (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

ever hear about WP:OWN ? all editors are equal, and are judged in each discussion on the basis of what they say there. If we're going by reputation instead, I consider MRG to have a reputation for excessively strict interpretation of WP:Copyright, and the difficulty in counteracting her established Ownership is why I rarely work in that area. In a doubtful case, I would not see any reason to follow her, though I would certainly listen to what she said. Suppose I had closed, and given that as my argument--I hope it would have been reversed here. Copyright does not have privileged status for deletion, unless it's undoubted copyvio--in which case I've deleted a few thousand articles: I strongly agree with basic copyright policy. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The WMF asked us to remove the Time 100 lists, despite the fact that if you or I did it on our personal websites, no one would blink. Just like with NFC, we take a stronger , proactive stance on copyright per the WMF direction. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of WP:OWN (by weird coincidence I've already referenced once today on something completely different). I don't see this as an ownership issue at all but rather accepting that someone has shown, thorough their on-wiki actions, what is generally considered a good understanding of the subject. I have not said we should follow her view regardless rather that we acknowledge expertise and take that into account. I take your point about "what they say there" but if we applied that strictly across the board are you also arguing we shouldn't label comments from people with "few or no other contributions outside this subject" which we regularly see at AfD. If you're arguing that we should only take into account what a person says in a discussion then surely these should go to.

I also disagree that copyright does not have privileged status. It's one of the few areas that could get us into real legal trouble and I think it would be incredibly dumb of us not to err on the side of caution in all areas that could cause us legal troubles, be it WP:BLP, copyright problems or something else.

As a slight aside I actually disagree with Moonriddengirl's assessment that this is a copyvio and think it's probably not. I do however think that it could be a copyvio so think erring on the side of caution and deleting makes sense. This is, of course, a moot point for a DRV as I should have mentioned it at the AfD not here.

As a final aside I don't think Moonriddengirl acts like she owns copyright - I've always found her open to discussion when we disagree. However there are very few editors that work copyright problems so she does inevitably end up dealing with a lot of it and I can see how this appears as ownership. Only having a few editors dealing with the area is obviously a bad thing as it hardly allows consensus. So instead of just moaning about it why don't you try helping out and if you still think there are problems try to improve things? Dpmuk (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DGG, this is the second time that you've more or less pointed WP:OWN at me in a forum recently, but you've yet to talk to me about it directly. :/ I was pretty shocked the first time; I don't ever recall having rebuffed conversation with you...certainly I never would have intended to. I've never attempted or even wanted to own copyright work on Wikipedia; I just do my best to fill a need. Honestly, it's a bit of a headache. :) I ask for second opinions and assistance all the time and have repeatedly advertised for more people to work in the area. That said, I want to be clear here that my opinion in this AFD was only ever offered as my opinion...complete with "I think" and "I don't believe" and "my concern." If I thought it was a clear-cut, blatant copyright problem, I would have blanked the content with {{copyvio}}. I do that at AFD when I see clear need. My interpretation here is conservative, based on feedback I'd received in compiling Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and on the policies at WP:C and WP:NFC, which strongly encourage us not to push boundaries with copyright. I might have come down on the other side of the question in this article with my own opinion if there were just a more transformative material here. I don't think this is unsalvageable. And I could be wrong in either direction - as I said at the AFD, only a court can determine definitively. And given the number of appeals we see, only a high court, at that. If these matters were easy, there wouldn't be so many lawyers working on them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

all careful debaters use such apparently tentative wording as a rhetorical device, to the extent that it can be difficult to tell when someone is truly unsure. And if I am going to challenge someone's opinion on something I'll do it where the matter arises, not on their talk p.; I'm not challenging them. . I try to not use individual's names in AfD discussions except when needed for clarity, but here I was challenging the use of your name by someone else. Anyway, I do not mean to challenge it as your opinion only, for I think we should delete as copyvio only that which is very probably copyvio. Otherwise, calling something copyvio is a license to remove anything. Saying something is legally too risky is the prerogative of the WMF office. I only challenge someone's views if it's something I would come across in my usual course: if I participated more at Copyright problems I would be too often coming into conflict, especially as I would usually be in a minority. I try not to be too persistent about it, but I will state my view once in a while nonetheless, if only to show there is an alternative position. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. By following all the conversation here the best thing would have been to delete the "Description" column. Once that is gone then it becomes a list of monsters with publication notes. Still useful. Honestly this is why we should be editing articles and not deleting them. Web Warlock (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, the core problem is that the list of monsters - irregardless what other aspects were added on - is what the copyvio is, not the descriptions or anything else. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it's what you are claiming is a copyvio, not what is a violation. You really need to adjust your language to acknowledge that (unless your a certain in which case I'd really like to know how you can make such a claim). It is per S Marshall, very very unlikely a court would ever find the material to be a copyright volition. Further, given the utter lack of a "potential market" in this context, the non-profit nature of the use, the fact that this doesn't have any of "new" part added by TSR (substantiality of the original) it would easily be fair use. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • True, it is being supposed as a copyright violation which can only be determine via court of law. But again, given that the WMF has asked us to proactivity consider things like full-scale inclusion of the Time 100 lists as "copyvios" (a term of art used on WP to indicate potentially infringing material) and that are to be removed, then we have to follow the WMF, which like with NFC, can set a stronger standard for inclusion than U.S. Fair Use law. And my argument is that this case is directly comparable to the Time 100, so the same standard and approach need apply. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:Copyright violations (usually shortened to "copyvio", violations of WP:Copyrights policy) is not the same as copyright infringement. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I think it would be impossible for TSR's successors to claim copyright infringement because (1) they've released the names and in-game statistics of almost all these creatures under their Open Game License and (2) under that licence they're widely-reproduced on gaming-related websites such as this one, giving rise to an excellent defence. This whole debate needs to be focused on the question of whether the article complies with Wikipedia policy. Which is a good job, considering we're trying to decide without legal advice.  ;)—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
          • We do have legal advice, pertaining specifically to the Time 100 lists, which WMF counsel had said would be problematic in terms of copyright. We're apply the same logic that was discussed then to here. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, we have legal advice pertaining specifically to something different. It's pertinent that the Time 100 lists weren't released under an open licence by their copyright holder...—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Neither were the 1st edition TSR books, regardless of what the license on D&D property is today - it is a fundamentally different piece of work. So it is exactly the same scenario. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
                • Well, no, with all due respect, it clearly isn't a fundamentally different piece of work. If I'd invented Monopoly and then released Park Lane under an Open Game Licence in 2000, but then I stood up in a Court of Law and tried to tell the judge that my version of Park Lane in Monopoly from 1977 was still under copyright because it was a different edition of the game, then the judge would peer at me over his glasses and ask if I was trying to be funny. If Wizards of the Coast were going to claim that their 2000 edition of the game was a "fundamentally different piece of work" then they shouldn't have called it Dungeons and Dragons. Thus, with all due respect, it clearly isn't exactly the same scenario as a Time 100 list.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
                  • Except that it is. There's a reason that people clarify what versions of games they are running by the D&D version because there are fundamental differences between each. They aren't just reprintings of previous work, it is a new work. Now, Wizards or TSR *could* retroactively re-release the older works in an freer license, but there's no evidence of that, so those works are under normal US copyright laws. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse as a reasonable interpretation of consensus when you look at the policy based arguments. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Moonriddengirl's copyvio argument looks reasonable to me and it was not addressed during the discussion. Many keep !voters simply stated that the list was not a copyvio, but that's not an argument. There were comments along the lines of "it's hard to claim copyright om lists", but that view is overly simplistic. It is hard to claim copyright on lists which contain purely factual information and no creativity is involved in creating the list (which covers the vast majority of the lists on Wikipedia that can be found in an external source), but this list was fundamentally different in that it was a duplication of a central part of a creative work. Copyright is not an area where taking risks is a good idea. Hut 8.5 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse as original nominator and per Moonriddengirl's comments. I noticed the copyright concern, which is why I nominated the list, but I'm not terribly familiar with the specifics of copyright. Moonriddengirl put it best, that this list is not transformative. I am not opposed to Masem's suggestion of a "List of notable D&D monsters" of some sort but creating that would not require the overturning of this decision. Jheald also had some eloquent things to say about the topic at WT:NFC, which is relevant to this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete. There was no consensus on the specific issue of copyright violation as it was addressed by multiple experienced editors who !voted Keep and even the closer said that he didn't agree with the copyvio argument. The claim that the list significantly impacts the commercial sale of that edition is ridiculous because that edition is now out of print and has been made obsolete by multiple later editions. This level of copyright paranoia is dangerous to the project and should not be accepted without a stronger consensus than we saw here. For example, consider the current FA: Limbo (video game). This contains considerable detail of the play of a game which was intended to "keep you guessing". This includes the ending of the game and that's a complete spoiler which eliminated all desire on my part to purchase and play the game, which had initially seemed intriguing. Shall we delete that article too? Warden (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference, as has been pointed out, is the amount of transformative use we have done with the list or the game. In the case of the game (since I was the primary editor on that) we're describing the game in the presence of critical commentary, discussion, and other aspects of it. As such, discussing the plot (and spoilers) or gameplay elements even at the depth and length relative to the game easily fall within fair use within an encyclopedia. In this list, all that was presented was the list of monsters with some more primary information, but no critical discussion of the monster list or the like. At that point, since the list is creative to start with, we are doing no transform on it and thus makes it a likely copyvio - one that we have WMF's advice to act on. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you asserting that Moonriddengirl is posting in her capacity as a WMF employee and making a specific pronouncement? If so, that's different, but I do not see that. I see a particular, risk-adverse interpretation coming from one person who doesn't claim to be the foundation's counsel or giving legal advice on the matter. I'm certainly not posting as an ArbCom member--just as another editor in good standing with an interest in the problem an a familiarity with the principles involved. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, the advice from WMF counsel came during the discussion of the Time 100 list. Because this is nearly the similar case (a wholly-inclusive list created with creative elements, with little to no transformative work), we can apply the same WMF advice to this. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • No, it's not a nearly identical case. This is more like the table of contents of a book, rather than an ordered list of elements where the list order is part of the creative element. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Strip the ordering, it would still be a creatively selected list and still not included in whole on WP without transformation. So it is the same case. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Strip the ordering from the Time 100 list, and WMF counsel would never have encouraged us to remove it in the first place, because the ordering of importance is a key element of that article's copyright issue. Please stop trying to pretend they're sufficiently the same that a precedent applies. It doesn't, multiple people have explained why, and your protestations are starting to enter WP:IDHT territory. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Actually, I just checked [2] There is no ordering on the Time list. So, yes, it still is the same. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
                • The list is bulleted instead of numbered, but it has no obvious order. I skimmed the blurbs for Jeremy Lin (first) and Stephen Colbert (last) and found no indication that either was #1. The three-member "Rogues" section is not presented relative to the other 97. Moonriddengirl rejects merely alphabetizing the list at WP:Articles for deletion/2012 Time 100. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair use is quite debatable when you reach the level of an FA because it is the nature of an FA to be comprehensive - to tell you everything worth knowing about a topic. For another example, take today's FA, Fanny Imlay. The subject is obscure and so the FA explains that there is only one biography of her. The FA is necessarily compelled to loot this extensively and so it might be argued that this is now a derivative work which, by its deliberately comprehensive nature, has a significant commercial impact upon the principal source. So, an FA goes beyond fair use by trying to do it all and so, while a fair use review would hold back on spoilers because of their commercial and ethical effect, the FA deliberately spoils the work by revealing the ending. The beef against this list seems to have been that it was comprehensive in a similar way. That argument seems comparatively flawed because the list was a summary which did not include the key information required when playing the game - the game statistics. The information was not originally presented as a list and so the formatting as a list does not seem significant; unlike the tables of wandering monsters, say, in which the list-like structure and ordering is significant. Anyway, the main point here is that the copyvio argument was quite fanciful and was applied in a draconian way which is not applied to other articles. And when the closer himself said that he didn't accept the copyvio argument, I really can't see any logical basis for the close. Warden (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Spoilers and endings have absolutely nothing to do with fair use; its the amount of the work, not where from the work the fair use was taken. The FA you point certainly does not do this (there's two books repeated cited, each with 250+ pages going by citations, so no way is this an extensive republication of the work in whole, plus there is obvious transformative use). It doesn't matter that this list lacked statistics or anything else: the list was a creative element generated by the game designers to flesh out their world, and as such is a list generated from creative elements and thus does have copyright protection (as opposed to databases of factual information). That means that it wholesale inclusion in WP must be strongly backed by transformative use, otherwise, to the WMF, it reflects a potential copyvio they don't want on their servers. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • There's also a definite difference between citing a biography for facts and citing a creative work in this case. For Fanny Imlay, it is a fact that she was born in Le Havre on 14 May 1794 and named after Fanny Blood, her mother's closest friend. These are facts which use the biography as a WP:RS to verify those facts. Biographies of course always have historical interpretation (creative) but the Wkipedia article, as a NPOV entity, necessarily avoids those sections. This is analogous to the example from Wikipedia:Copyright in lists where "estimates which are based on a repeatable calculation, such as trend analysis or interpolation" are acceptable, but "ordered rankings based on judgement, such as the top 50 most influential Muslims" are not. The former is based on facts; the latter is based on creative selection. Citing a Fanny Imlay biography supports facts; data mining a D&D book for monster names infringes on the creativity of the author. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • There's nothing creative about saying that the beholder, say, was an original monster in D&D - that's just a plain fact. Nor is it at all creative to provide a list of such monsters. And what's absurd is that we will continue to do both these things in the beholder article and navigational structures such as category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures. This AFD seems to have been quite arbitrary and, as there was no consensus for the deletion, the content should be restored. Warden (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
          • It is factual that a beholder is a creature used in D&D. It is creative to assemble a grouping real and mythological creatures from several genres to create a fictional setting; again, as I've posed, if they used ponies and bunnies and butterflies as their creature set, it is an entirely different setting, and even moreso when you contrast the D&D setting to other fantasy settings that use a comparable set of creatures. Again, look to the Time 100: it is not a random list of 100 people or a factually selected list of 100 people, it is a creative list that critically praises specific people, and as such the grouping of that people is creative. Same thing here.
          • Now, as has been pointed out, if this was a partial list of D&D monsters, those with their own pages and perhaps throughout the entire 4 editions, then there's something of transformative use in play (this also justifies the category). That is, this list now serves as a navigational aid to specific monster articles that discuss the creatures in- and out of game context (well, arguably, there's a few creature articles that would fail PLOT, but let's work that that's not the issue here for right now). Or, alternatively, I can see critical discussion of the D&D game system that discusses their choices for monster inclusion not necessarily focusing on a single one but calling out highlights of specific systems. I don't see that happening specifically for the 1st edition D&D books, making the ability to transform the list difficult to imagine. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn: The discussion here has pointed to ways of fixing problems with the list. As already stated by others, I think the comparison with the Times 100 list is not fitting, because the Time 100 list itself, the placement of the individuals relative to each other and to the rest of the world, is the important content, while the information about these individuals can be gotten by other sources, too. In the monster list, we basically have tables of contents, with no more internal information than the tivial "this monster appeared in that book". The descriptions on the other hand, can be gotten exactly from the book and sometimes nowhere else. Representing tables of contents is fine, however, as was stated by Moonriddengirl. So would we solve the copyright problem by restricting ourselves to tables of contents, i.e. removing the descriptions? My idea would then be to organize the list alphabetically, (keeping the "Variants" column and) changing the "Other appearances" to "Appearances". This kind of sorting and indexing would be, in my opinion, at least a minimum of transformative nature. If something like that should be the solution, we would then need to decide if we had other problems like conflict with gameguide policy. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In any case I also feel there has been enough debate on the issue here to assume that the article can be fixed and a deletion was the wrong choice. As far as descriptions go, most of these creatures do not differ very much from there mythological antecedents. Web Warlock (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse, the closer correctly discounted the keeps relying on unsupported assertions. Sangrolu gave Moonriddengirl's argument due consideration, and Hobit attempted to engage on the merits, but their arguments boil down to invalid WP:Other stuff exists comparisons to plot summaries and lists of characters. I think that it will be possible to restore the list in some form, but the broad implementation – e.g., removing all non-notable (no separate article) monsters, removing the description column, combining the lists across editions – should be determined before undeletion. On the other hand, this AfD, if upheld, shouldn't be taken as precedent for open season on similar list articles. I'm not sure how fixing the list will work, as copyvio is disallowed from all namespaces, including hidden in the page history. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, there is no particular reason why "I don't agree with your logic" is any less policy based than a speculative set of legal arguments by a non-lawyer. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Could you point out specific comments (diffs would be helpful) that you found compelling? Sangrolu's second-to-last comment compares the list to plot summaries. One of Hobit's later comments makes comparisons to "directory-like information" and character lists. These are rebutted by 1) the format of the original works like Monster Manual that lack an overarching narrative and 2) the creative selection of the members. In addition, both view the list in isolation without considering the linked articles on individual monsters. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
      • My "second-to-last" statement that you seem to be tarring with "Other stuff exists" is based on the notion of being "more conservative than fair use". Just how conservative is this? The standard being presented here is such that we could not have plot summaries or character lists were we to apply it to novel. Hence it's a non-functional standard and we should not be operating by it. As for actual WP:COPYVIO, this notion that a list of creatures somehow represents the "creative heart" or is something that I am not aware of in any settled copyright case law. If anyone is aware of any cases that show this principle in use, I would invite you to share it with me. As it stands, this seems like jumping at copyright boogeymen to me. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
        • We are taking this action not based on any established copyright case law, but on the request of the WMF based on a near-similar situation that they have stated is, to their eyes, a copyright violation. As long as they are the ones paying for the server space and the like, we need to play by their rules even if it sees like paranoia; eg WP:NFCC is purposely stronger than US Fair Law law for this reason, to protect themselves from crossing the fair use line in the first place. If we never had any input from WMF on this, I would agree it would be a case of copyright paranoia, but in this situation it is not that. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, you've said many times that you find that situation "similar" or "near-similar". One hopes the closer will see the difference between an assertion that's been accepted, and one that's merely been repeated.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I think that I have sufficiently explained the difference between this list and a character list. Wikipedia has ample guidance for plot summaries: WP:NOTPLOT (policy), WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries (guideline), and WP:Plot-only description of fictional works (essay). A summary is roughly the same form as a novel, text organized as prose. Considering that each two-page monster description is condensed into half a sentence (ignoring the separate articles), I think a fair comparison would be a plot summary with one paragraph per chapter. Any plot summary affected by this precedent would be excessively long and already covered by the existing guidance. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes. While I don't fully agree that this leads to a copyright breach, I agree that your position is a very arguable objection to the list as currently written. But isn't it the essence of the "keep" argument that the problems are fixable? A list with this title would not need the half-sentence description.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
            • I think that the copyvio issue makes this a special case. If the list is restored, we can't leave it unchanged indefinitely – WP:There is no deadline doesn't apply – and another AfD is inevitable if the list is not fixed. Regarding the specific change of removing the descriptions, the obvious next step seems to be removing non-notable monsters entirely, as their names aren't very useful to a reader who doesn't know what they are. I think that severe cutting is necessary, and thus I expect that the discussion will be drawn out. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• overturn per S Marshall. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Relist for complete discussion of the copyright issue. If noone appears to have discussed or considered MRG's arguments, we cannot pretend it was accepted by the pedia. A "cast list" or "character list" is usually not subject to copyright, so further discussion would appear in order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, Sangrolu and Hobit discussed Moonriddengirl's comments, and other keeps came after her original comment. BOZ wrote in his DRV nomination that he chose not to respond. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • 1) The close said there was a prima facie case made on Copyright. 2)Prima facie means "on its face." Thus there was no in depth discussion of the issue. The closer also did not agree with the prima facie case and suggested there be more in depth discussion on the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note The copyright arguments are severely undermined by the presence of the SRD (System Reference Document), listing the vast majority of these monsters as Open Game Licensed properties. The only monsters reserved as "Product Identity" under the legal document at that page are "beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti." I'm not even sure all of those are reflected in AD&D 1st edition, but even if they are, this list represents a small fraction of the total content of the list. No pro-copyright argument yet has taken this legal use permission into account, and thus all should be disregarded if they haven't specifically addressed this permission grant by the copyright holder. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Arguably I'm not sure if the SRD is 100% compatibly with GFDL/SS-BY (it would seem to favor compatibility, but there seems to be some uses more restrictive than ours, but not sure on those). That said: this applies to the d20 systems of D&D (as indicated by the header) which to the best I can tell is v3.5 and after (I know my time with earlier D&D was 3d6 stat roles). So no, the SRD does not retroactively apply the contents of the books in the 1st edition. And to that end, while the monsters in the 3.5 and 4th editions may be under an open license, their counterparts, or the listing of their counterparts in the earlier editions still falls under standard US copyright laws which do not give the same permissions for reuse. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The SRD and the OGL cover D&D 3.0 and 3.5. D&D 4.0/Essentials is covered by the GSL. The exact same list of monsters (minus Beholder and Mind Flayer) are considered to be 100% open and have been reprinted by such products as the Castles & Crusades Monsters & Treasures book, the Pathfinder Bestiary fro Paizo and the Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games/Frog God Games. There are more, but these are the big three. None of these companies is TSR/WoTC. Web Warlock (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • But again, we're talking the 1st edition, which as best as I can read, the SRD does not cover - though the current copyright holder, Wizards?, is completely free to transform that license if they wanted to - they just seemingly haven't. Arguably we could include the list of 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 monsters as long as we credit the SRD (as I read it), and the issue becomes a GAMEGUIDE problem, but for this list that's not the case. And to be clear as an example, were I to make up my personal top list of public domain books or other works, that list is still copyright to me regardless if the entries on the list can't be copyrighted. So the argument that "all these monsters are SRD-free" still doesn't clear the list of the copyright problem. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with Masem: this is a reasonable argument for list(s) covering the compatibly-licensed editions, but I see no reason to assume that the free licenses cover 1st edition. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I feel that what we should be discussing is the list's compliance or otherwise with Wikipedia's policy on copyright. I do think that in the real world WOTC would not have a claim against Wikipedia for publishing this list, and not just because of what JClemens says—but Wikipedia's copyright policy sets the bar rather higher. It seems to me that if we're over the bar for Wikipedia's policy then we'll very likely be safe in a real-world copyright action, and if we're not over the bar for Wikipedia's policy then it was right to delete the list in the first place. Therefore I think the Open Game Licence is a red herring; it's not CC-BY-SA or GFDL so it doesn't help us keep the list.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • If the later editions have the same characters then the first edition, than they either fall under the license or they fall outside of copyright altogether, because a non-copyright holder cannot license and a copyright holder that later licensed the same characters has licensed the characters. But even were this list copyrightable, which character lists generally are not, it would still be subject to the educational or transformational purposes of fair use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. As according to the close, this was deleted solely on the arguments on copyright, and as this discussion has gone into detail of copyright issues, and it is pushing the scope of a DRV discussion, I think maybe we should undelete and run an RFC on the copyright issues on the article talk page. The discussion may lead to a demonstration of a solution. The discussion also may well be precedent-forming for many similar pages. I don't think there is any suggestion that the alleged copyright problem is immediately egregious, but if any stakeholder, such as the copyright owner, feels there is a real problem, I'm sure they will be listened to in such a talk page RFC. I am quite sure that the page didn't qualify for WP:CSD#G12. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I replied to S Marshall above, I expect the discussion to be long, too long to leave a copyvio problem lying around, especially if it sputters out without a solution. A RfC is a good idea, but I think it should go in WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons space. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, but we need an editable page, WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, is fine, because it is through editing that a solution, if possible, can be demonstrated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Additional Comment we keep throwing around the Time Top 100 lest, but that is not applicable here either. The creative value of such a list is how the elements in the list are ordered. This is a list of monsters in alphabetical order. This is closer in terms to a table of contents than a top 10 list. I think there is has been enough discussion here to show that there is no consensus. In that case the default position should be to Keep. I still feel the original AfD took two unrelated issues and closed despite there being no consensus there either. Web Warlock (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds right. The individual entries on the Time 100 list were not copyrightable (absent unique expression in words of those things, and that could be answered by expressing them differently, in any event), what is protected is thier ranking of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Time 100 list was not ordered (I thought I was even, but I double checked [3]). It was just a collection of 100 names, and yet that was still a problem from the WMF counsel to include on WP in full, because, as noted, they creatively selected those names. Even if we re-ordered the Time 100 in alpha order, we'd still be duplicating it in full. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "ordered" I said ranked. They ranked them above other things and that was unique enough, in full (although not in summary) for the WMF, probably because that ranking above other things (in full) is why one would be interested in buying the magazine (or clicking on thier website). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note that we still have multiple articles for the Times lists including Time 100 and Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. This demonstrates that, whatever one makes of the copyright issue, deletion is not the established precedent. All that seems to happen in such cases, if anything, is some summarisation. To do this in this case, instead of listing the creatures from Greek mythology, we might just give some examples such as minotaur and medusa and refer to the list of Greek mythological creatures for the rest. Warden (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a very misleading comment. Time 100 describes the yearly articles and repeat appearances and, as far as I can tell, has never had copyvio issues by including a full list. Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century survived WP:Articles for deletion/Lists of Time 100 (November 2007, two other articles were deleted) only after the full list was removed. The related/duplicate article List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century was deleted in February 2006 for copyright problems. All of the existing year lists are blanked pending processing at WP:Copyright problems, which will probably delete them. Deferring to another list is a good idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I voted to relist above, and I don't really think this is the right place to discuss the copyright status of the article (other than discussing what was already brought up in the AFD). However, since it seems a lot of new discussion on the copyright issue is taking place here, I thought I should express my opinion now. I disagree with Masem's opinion that directions from the WMF related to the Time 100 list are applicable to this list. For the Time 100 list, the main point of the list is just which people are selected for it. If we duplicate the whole list, then there is no real reason for anyone to buy Time's version of it when they can just read ours. For the D&D monster manuals, however, the main point is as a tool for playing Dungeons and Dragons. Since our list did not include all the stats and rules for each monster, it can't be used as a substitute for the actual product that TSR/Wizards of the Coast sells. If you want to play 1st edition D&D, you still need to buy their product. I think that is a major difference between the two cases, and means that we can't assume instructions related to the Time 100 list apply in this case. That doesn't necessarily mean that the D&D list doesn't have copyright problems, but just that, in my opinion, the situation isn't very comparable to the Time 100 list. Also, I want to echo S Marshall's comment that just because Masem has repeated his opinion many times doesn't mean that it is accepted by everyone else. Calathan (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn own closure to no consensus, and work on a usable policy about copyright in lists. Thanks, all, for the insightful comments. As I outlined, I closed the AfD as "delete" because a good prima facie case was made, and not satisfactorily addressed in the AfD, that this list is a copyright violation. As the DRV discussion has shown, there are good arguments for either opinion, and we have no clear consensus about the circumstances under which we deem a list of elements from a work of fiction to be insufficiently transformative and therefore a copyright-violating derivative work. Personally, knowing too little about the applicable law, I have not been able to form a clear opinion about that. But it appears likely to me that there is no clear-cut answer under U.S. copyright law as it currently stands. Under these circumstances, I believe that we should work on developing a policy about these issues, perhaps based on the essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, but guided by advice from Foundation counsel whose responsibility (and not ours) it is to decide what level of legal risk the project should take. Until we have agreed on such a policy, I believe that, when in doubt as here, we should err on the side of our interest as a project to supply encyclopedic information to our readers, and delete lists as copyright violations only when they are clearly non-transformative derivations of a creative work and impair that work's commercial prospects, as in the case of the TIME 100 list, but probably not in this case (if only because the 1st edition of the game is long off the market and the list is no substitute for the published materials for the purpose of playing the game.) If restored, the list could be edited to remove its most derivative aspects, as several people have argued above, but a broader application of this to other similar lists should wait until we have agreed on a policy.  Sandstein  06:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)