Talk:Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)
|WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Shouldn´t it be called "Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)"? I mean, just "Creature type" is a bit vague and could refer to a lot of other games. Besides, do we really need this article at all? It´s just seems to be a game guide. It´s quite uninformative if you have no information about D&D terminology.--Referos (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why were so many of the pages listed in the D&D template redirected here? This page, no offense to the editors, isn't well done - it's inconsistent about what information is made availalbe and it's just awkward to follow.
- As long as you can provide reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject matter, that is fine. However, many of the articles redirected have been the subject of deletions or proposed deletions because of these concerns. Undoing the redirect will expose those articles to deletion in the future unless reliable secondary sources can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't make much difference what you do, as there are a bunch of anti-D&D people who are making proposals to change Wikipedia policies so that they have an excuse to run around tagging a ton of D&D articles for deletion. Whatever you do, these guys are going to change the goalposts again and find another reason to claim that X part of D&D is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. It is far faster for these people to tag the articles, than it is for people who want to improve them to finish adding citations to D&D articles. I believe the deletionists will not stop until each work of fiction has no more than one article. Big Mac (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the tag [vague] needs to be in the definition. This article is talking about types of creatures in a game, the definition listed is copied from that game verbatim. If the definition was made less vague, if that is even possible, it would no longer be the correct definition. I did not think this was worth discussing as I thought it was obvious, but seeing as my change was undone, it may not be as clear to some people.EvlDragonMonkey (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you can put in the form of a quote, that would be different. As-is, it's not clear that this is a quote from the book. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Lupin directs here, but there is no information about lupins
The Lupin article now redirects to this article. However this article does not even contain the word lupin. I'm guessing that "Lupin" was nominated for deletion and then moved here. I'm also guessing that someone deleted any references to lupin in this article. Can someone please add back the lupin information or remove the redirect. Big Mac (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can undo the redirect, but it may wind up deleted just like Kopru and many others. BOZ (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO the fr link to the French article for D&D giants and the it link to the Italian article for D&D undead are misleading due to the target articles' narrower scopes, and should be removed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was put in by a bot; you can remove it, but the bot might just put it back anyway. BOZ (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge Giant, Giant-kin
Much of the content of Giant (Dungeons & Dragons) and Giant-kin is already covered here, those two articles are relatively short, and they do not have secondary sources to show evidence of notability on their own. I believe the best solution would be to merge them here. Pagrashtak 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this idea, since I'm incredibly confident that the Giant (Dungeons & Dragons) article is going to be expanded. Recently, publication histories have been added to these articles - sections showing how they've been portrayed over the course of the game's history. Not only are these wonderful for context, but they also show where to find information, so they make it a lot easier to come back with the book in hand and write in information from each edition. :) One thing I might agree with is merging Giant-kin into Giant (Dungeons & Dragons), but not into this creature type article. --Muna (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're referring to primary or non-independent sources. If you haven't already found out, Wikipedia is getting stricter on requiring secondary sources in articles about fictional content, and many fiction articles have been deleted recently for a lack of notability. If you know of any independent sources, you should add them to the article now. If there aren't any, I hope you'll give the merge another thought. If someone were to nominate an article like that at AFD, it would stand a pretty good chance of being deleted. If you'd like to merge Giant-kin into Giant, I'd agree with that. Pagrashtak 13:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
While I can see merging Giant-kin into Giant (Dungeons & Dragons) , it doesn't seem very logical to me to merge Giant (Dungeons & Dragons) into this article. Giants have been too integeral to several of the fantasy books and campaigns (like Drgons )to just be relegated to such a minor roll when one is discussing the D & D universe. Sardonicone (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, add Giant-Kin to Giant, but keep them separate from this article. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In universe tag
I have no idea how anyone could have deemed my contribution as "original research".
Let's break it down. Please leave out the negative comments about other contributors.
"This origin corresponds strongly to the Aberration type of earlier editions, but it is not exact." Who makes the comparison, stating that it "corresponds strongly" to the creature type from 3E? Does a book say that it corresponds strongly, or is this merely an observation?
"Whereas 3.5 Aberrations encompassed most of the truly bizarre non-constructs and non-undead that didn't fit other types," Is there a measurement somewhere that states "most" of the "truly bizarre non-constructs and non-undead" were part of the aberration type? Did you use a source to determine this?
"4e Aberrant creatures have some tie to the Far Realm -- and while many 3.5 Aberrations did as well (especially most of the iconic aberrations, such as mind flayers), it wasn't a requirement." How do we know that "many" creatures with the aberration type had ties to the Far Realm? Where does this idea come from? I'm sure it was not a requirement that they had some sort of connection to the Far Realm, as I would imagine only a minority do - again, where is the sourcing?
How did you come to these conclusions? An educated guess is still original research. The fact that there is an abundance of such unsourced original research all over Wikipedia is not an excuse to introduce more of it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Purpose of this article?
Colour me crazy, but I don't see the point of this article's existence on Wikipedia. Speaking as a D&D fan, please tell me what's notable about creature type in D&D. I don't see it. In my opinion, this article should be either moved to a D&D-specific wikia project elsewhere, or briefly summarized as part of a page about monsters in D&D.
Wikipedia is not meant to have every detail about everything ever. Rather, like an encyclopedia, it's meant to give the world a concise overview of the important details of a topic. This does not qualify as "important details" to me.~~---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have the technical limitations of a paper encyclopedia. Dungeons & Dragons has been extremely influential on RPGs and pop culture in general. Many video game franchizes including Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Pokémon have some sort of "monster family" system similar to the one pioneered by Dungeons & Dragons\. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not the concept of "creature type" is notable for Wikipedia's purposes, certain specific monsters and classes of monsters, as interpreted by D&D, will be notable. How they are sorted and related to each other will need to be dealt with. There are three options: First, invent a brand new mythological monster classification system for Wikipedia. This would likely transcend D&D and even role-playing games, and attempt to classify all kinds of imaginary creatures. Second, find an existing monster classification scheme created by some scholar somewhere, and adopt it, sorting any possible D&D monster articles (or sections of broader articles on a topic like Dragons) according to that scheme. Third, use the D&D system of classification for articles specifically dealing with the D&D incarnations of mythological monsters, while using other classification systems where these monsters appear in other areas of the Wiki. Spaceboots1 (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)