Talk:Draconic creature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as requiring comments on its talk page.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing its references improved. Please rewrite according to the citation guidelines. The references department may be able to help.

Info about text-merges[edit]

  • Article merged: See old talk-page for dragonne here. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Article merged: See old talk-page for faerie dragon here. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Article merged: See old talk-page for half-dragon here. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Article merged: See old talk-page for pseudodragon here. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Article merged: See old talk-page for spawn of Tiamat here. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Going to move this to Draconic creature singular, without the disambig. If we need it in future, we'll use it then. ♠PMC(talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Draconic creaturesDraconic creature (Dungeons & Dragons)User: 06:27, 25 November 2011‎ (UTC)

What is the reason for the disambiguation? (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I could see moving it to the singular Draconic creature, but yeah no good reason for disambiguation. Torchiest talkedits 21:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Why? (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
wikt:draconic wikt:creature. (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't actually explain what you mean. (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It explains perfectly. "draconic" is an adjective, meaning dragon or dragon like. The article on dragon also contains information on dragon like creatures. I don't see why this much exposition is necessary from deriving meaning from a simple line of diction. (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Because this article is about a particular group of creatures from a particular game, not just anything ever described as "dragon like". But since there is no other such group with an article on Wikipedia, there's no need for disambiguation. Torchiest talkedits 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The phrase draconic creatures does appear to be used outside of D&D [1], and quite popularly so [2] [3], but it's the only usage on Wikipedia as yet. Disambiguation is unnecessary and likely to remain so. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge dragonborn[edit]

The Prod was contested and replaced with suggestion to Merge Dragonborn (Dungeons & Dragons) to this article.

  • support although there being no third party content to merge, there is precious little that such action will accomplish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose Dragonborn have been one of the core character races in the D&D game for two editions (4th Edition and the current 5th Edition), as well as appearing in the D&D MMORPG Neverwinter. As such, they seem to be notable enough (from the standpoint of an individual researching Dungeons & Dragons character archetypes) that they deserve a full article. I am also concerned that merging the Dragonborn article into Draconic creature could seriously impede future expansion on the topic. JEB215 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability is based upon whether third parties have covered the subject in depth. Do you have any evidence of such coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • opposeIf we're going solely by notability standards then neither the elf nor the [[dwarf articles pass this test as the sources cited for these article are all primary sources. There's about as much written about D&D elves or dwarves as there are dragonborn at this point. A brief survey of online reviews ([[4]], [[5]], [[6]], and [[7]]) demonstrates the the dragonborn are in almost every case considered with equal measure as the other races. Notable enough to be mentioned in the review whereas the other draconic creatures aren't. Keeping that in mind I don't think anyone would argue the notability of elves or dwarves to D&D (or is that what we're arguing). Just because their relatively new doesn't make them any less notable at this point. Tieflings have a notability flag which begs the question as to why elves and dwarves are notable enough for inclusion but tieflings and dragoborn are not? Both Dragonborn and Tiefling was given its own source book in 4e (whereas the other races were not) making them a prominent part of the game. If Wizards does more race books for 5e they very well may be included. Further more the Dragonborn have a development history that at this point approaches being on par with the other core races which sets them apart from other draconic creatures or even the draconians. Development history [[8]]and[[9]]. So given that what is the difference in notability of elves and dwarves and tieflings and dragonborn? I'd only be in favor of merging if the other 5e races were also being considered for merger into larger, more generic articles OR if the dragonborn were no longer a playable race in 5e. The question in my mind isn't whether or not dragonborn need to be merged but are D&D races in general notable enough for inclusion? The problem may lie with how the race articles are organized rather than with this single article. If the playable D&D races in general are deemed not notable enough for inclusion then I'd support this.Sugarcoma (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The Dwarf article should definitely include more than primary sources, especially after Torchiest was done with it. There are a few on Dragonborn as well, but I bet there are a few more out there. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, dwarf is plenty notable and covered in third party sources, and in fact is a good article. It's always difficult to make the distinction between popularity/notabilitty inside RPG circles and official Wikipedia notability, but dwarf has both, while dragonborn seems borderline at best so far. —Torchiest talkedits 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless we count Dragon Magazine or a Dragonlance novel the dwarf cites 4 non-primary sources out of 42 citations. (Guerra, Bob (1990). Schick, Lawrence (1991). Mitchell-Smith, Ilan (May 2009). Tresca, Michael J) The rest of the citations are from TSR/Wizards or TSR/Wizards related projects (e.g. Dragonlance novels/Dragon Magazine). In short, it still doesn't pass the notability test, yet I think most would agree that they are notable. The Elf page has 31 citations and only one is not a primary source: Schick, Lawrence (1991). It also doesn't pass the notability test. So if Dragonborn aren't notable how are the other D&D races notable? It seems to me that elves and dwarves are notable because they've endured in the material not because a lot has been written about them. Dragonborn at this point have a development history and prominence within the primary sources, which seems to be the test by which D&D races are included (at least selectively the Kobolds article presents a similar problem) here given the citations, makes them worthy of their own article. Certainly Dragonborn's development history makes them more notable than the Ambush Drake or the Dracotaur? In fact, how is this Draconic Creature article even notable? Personally I think a core race for at least two editions ranks beyond minor monsters from the monster manual. Perhaps role-playing game races aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion (not a lot is written about them beyond the primary sources) or perhaps their notability requires a different test? My vote is that we leave it as is until the broader issue of consistency in how D&D races should be included in Wikipedia is addressed. Otherwise we are simply creating a confusing mess.Sugarcoma (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:GNG says a topic is presumed notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Dwarf passes that with those references, as well as these others: Bowman, Sarah Lynne (2010); Slavicsek, Bill; Baker, Richard (2008); Guiley, Rosemary (2006); and Dekirk, Ash (2006). Once notability is established, it's acceptable to use primary sources for more details. YThe problem is the dragonborn article currently doesn't meet GNG in the first place, which is the standard we're discussing. We can't just make up our own standards as we go. The elf article has serious problems, and this article is borderline too. But what's more productive is to go and look for sources, and I did below, rather than imagine new standards. I've looked for sources on elves before, but as you might guess, it's just about impossible since it's such a common fantasy term. Some of the creatures on this list are more distinct namewise and would be easier to search for, just like dragonborn was. —Torchiest talkedits 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Baker and Slavicsek's contributions are questionable given that both of them worked for TSR/Wizards at one point or an other and are usually commenting directly on their work for them. On the other hand a lot of times the only reliable information on a given D&D topic comes directly from interviews or press releases made by the designers themselves. It's an odd circumstance. In any case, I agree that creating a new standard isn't the way to go. I also agree that finding sources is good. My suggestion would be to maybe give the articles some time to get properly sourced before considering a merger. I'd hate to see something as important as Dragonborn be folded into an article as trivial as Draconic Creature article is. Dragonborn and Dracotaur just aren't comparable. If I had to choose between the two I'd keep the Dragonborn since it is a player character race as opposed to the Draconic Creature list. Wikipedia isn't D&Dwiki. I question why we have exhaustive lists of minor D&D monsters listed here. That's what the Monster Manuals are for.As a side note if Dragonborn needs to be merged then why isn't half-elf being merged into the elf page? Seriously, the organization of the D&D races needs a broader consideration.Sugarcoma (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No argument on your last point. There are absolutely truckloads of D&D articles in need of reconsideration, but it's just a daunting task. I've pecked away at individual articles, like dwarf, here and there, but in general, it's just this giant, impenetrable, amorphous blob of content. I'm personally in no hurry to merge anything, but I favor it in the current conditions if it comes to that. And to be clear, we can leave the dragonborn article as a redirect and point it directly to its own section, so the information isn't impossible to find. —Torchiest talkedits 19:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support until and unless sufficient sources can be found to split it off again. I've so far found three passing mentions in third party sources (AV Club: "The new Dungeons & Dragons is more streamlined but no less of a challenge", TOR: "Dungeons & Dragons’ 5th Edition is Built on the Lessons Learned from Past Editions", and Escapist: "5th Edition D&D Player's Handbook Review - A Greatest Hits Collection") that could be summarized here as something like "reviewers of 5th Edition D&D view the dragonborn race as outside of the mainstream and non-standard, based on its portrayal in the Player's Handbook." This could be in addition to a basic description based on a primary source. —Torchiest talkedits 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Adding to my oppose vote from last month, the following third party books discuss dragonborn: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies, The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction by Gabrielle Lissauer, and most substantively, The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games by Michael J. Tresca. This is on top of the mentions in the articles cited by Torchiest above, plus a specific mention in a Wired article on the 4th edition release. All of these are cited in the current Dragonborn article. And this is in addition to dragonborn being a deliberate attempt to shift the core race paradigm in 4th edition, and being perceived as significant enough to retain in the core for 5th edition, and being integrated into the major D&D worlds (Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, and so forth), and appearing in D&D novels and the D&D MMO Neverwinter. I think this all makes it more notable than the other draconic creatures, and they deserves as much of an independent article as the other core Dungeons & Dragons races. (And this is coming from someone who was very skeptical about making them a core race for the game in the first place, I should add.) JEB215 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability tag[edit]

Drilnoth, are you able to help establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)