Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Start-class, Low-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
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

4th Edition[edit]

This edition's Lamia shares no characteristics with the others. Thus, currently the description section is wrong - it's historic, not current. What to do? Perhaps discuss this on the D&D project page? CapnZapp (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I say, present both descriptions and state from what sources they apply. We don't want recentism. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

Since this article was kept by lack of consensus, I'd like to hear ways we can prevent future nominations, especially through improved aritlce structure, and the kind of references we should find. i kan reed (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be "prevented", but I would rather see more discussion. I want to see QUALITY D&D articles, and that means not having an article for every single monster, especially those entries that are only a bibliography of publication and/or are more or less "game entries without the stats". I simply don't think we should have an entry on Wikipedia for every single monster in D&D JRT (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the D&D WP about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Consolidation_Proposal — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talkcontribs) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Following 2nd AfD[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As the second AfD closed on "no consensus", for a second time, I think it is clear that no overwhelming encyclopedic quality has been found for the article. The above discussion, dating from the 1st AfD, as well as the consensus at the D&D project, are only more proof of that. Even if the main point of disagreement of the recent AfD was on whether Pathfinder was a secondary/independent enough source, consensus found that whatever Pathfinder's status, sourcing was largely insufficient for a stand-alone article. I will thus proceed to merge the article to spare us a pointless 3rd AfD which in all probability (since 2 AfDs a year appart couldn't bring more than the Pathfinder source) would only result in another "no consensus", or "delete/merge".

The only issue would be the merge target, as both List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters and Lamia_(mythology)#In_popular_culture have been proposed in the AfD debate. I will go with the mythological Lamia article, the "List of...", being a table, only allows concise sentences and would not be convenient to cover Pathfinder, for example. Feel free to change that if you find a more appropriate target, I think, however, that any attempt to revert the merge would only be disruptive as the last AfD has been pretty clear about the lack of notability and the necessity to merge, and "no consensus" is not "keep".Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"No consensus" is indeed not "keep"; nor is it "delete", "merge", or "redirect", or anything other than what it is called. The big problem with an article having two "no consensus" AFDs is exactly that - no consensus has been found as of now. To suggest that a lack of consensus indicates that "it is clear that no overwhelming encyclopedic quality has been found for the article" is presumptuous and disingenuous. The discussion above, which led to the consolidation proposal on the WikiProject talk page (and many other discussions over the years), only point to the fact that some people do believe that some articles should be merged into a list, and that some should not. The talk page discussion did not address this article at all, so no consensus for this article was reached at that time either. Whether or not there would be a third AFD is irrelevant to whether this article should be merged at this time, as the results of future discussions are nothing but speculation.
As for a consensus to merge on the most recent AFD, while merging or redirecting was briefly discussed, since most respondents focused solely on whether to keep or delete, no consensus was reached in terms of merging or redirecting. Yes, the two merge targets were brought up, but even those had no agreement on which was more appropriate. For what it is worth, I do like what Folken did in terms of merging some parts into the mythology article, so I see no reason not to leave that as-is. If a merge were to be decided upon in this discussion, I personally feel that some parts from this article should be merged into the list of D&D monsters instead, and redirected there. However, I still stand by my arguments at the AFD, that this article can stand on its own, as the Pathfinder source is at least a start of independent sourcing. However, if consensus is achieved here that leads to a merge, I will not object. I also completely disagree with Folken's statement that "the last AfD has been pretty clear about the lack of notability and the necessity to merge" (again, it was "no consensus"), and as such I have restored the article for the purpose of discussion. This action cannot be seen as disruptive, as it is part of the WP:BRD cycle; Folken boldly merged, I reverted, and now we discuss to reach a compromise with hopefully some new form of consensus. A reversion to a redirect without further discussion, or without or against any consensus reached on this page is rather what could be seen as disruption. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge as the rationale above mischaracterizes the discussion and the import of a "no consensus" close. The above discussion focuses too much on the technical aspects of notability, and not enough on the reasons why a number of good-faith editors felt it appropriate to be kept: It's a fictional element that has lasted through 30+ years of the world's flagship swords and sorcery role playing game. While the concept clearly existed before D&D, it is not substantially possible to ascertain which references post-D&D use the concept "Lamia" based on the mythological origins, or as mediated through the Monster Manual. Creative re-use of fantasy elements does not generally announce its lineage, and that sort of explicit announcement seems to be what those arguing against notability are seeking. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    For example, looking through Lamia (the disambiguation page), 4 of 6 literary references, 2 of 4 musical references, and the World of Darkness gaming reference all post-date the publication of the AD&D 1st edition Monster Manual. The influence of Dungeons and Dragons on creative professionals now in their 40's and 50's should not be dismissed as unproven. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
What's being asked for is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's a very minor creature, an element of a game that has hundreds (if not a few thousand) of such elements. The game and these elements have existed for a good period of time, that's not contested. Does that make each and every element therein notable? No. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Articles need third-party sources, if its "not substantially possible to ascertain" something, then it doesn't belong on an article, no matter how true we believe it to be. The burden of evidence is on you to substantiate your claims that there is influence there, especially enough influence to warrant an entirely separate article. Unless you can prove it, it absolutely should be "dismissed as unproven", that's the entire point of verifiability. - SudoGhost 05:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
... and yet, despite your protestations, the article was kept at AfD, with no consensus to delete nor to force a merger. Twice. Unlike Ankheg, it's not a new creature introduced by D&D's creators, instead being a mythological creature appropriated for the game, but it still has plenty of the same characteristics as Ankheg: been around since AD&D first edition, appeared in game supplements and additional editions of the game in which it first appeared, been seen since in other fictional works, and so on. To include being used as licensed content in an independent game. I understand that you don't think that meets the bar for notability. I do, and have articulated such views several years ago at User:Jclemens/FICT. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The article was not "kept" at AfD, and it falls both ways, I could say that "despite your protestations, the article was not kept at AfD, with no consensus to keep the article. Twice.", but that's irrelevant. You're still arguing for the article using the entirety of the game system's notability, that's not how Wikipedia articles are done. As for this discussion, you stated a reasoning above to oppose a merge, and I pointed out why your comment ran counter to multiple policies. That's not a "protestation" any more than your comment was. Now if you'd like to explain how a licensed derivative work is somehow an independent source, that would help your position, but just saying it's an "independent game" doesn't make it one, especially when both Paizo's Bestiary and Paizo's website both state otherwise. - SudoGhost 05:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Opposition is groundless. A "no consensus" means that participants did not agree to keep the article, and that it was not kept twice is a good indication of the non-notability of the subject. When looking at the AfD discussion, it is clear that the majority supports at least a merge, and even those not having a clear opinion onPathfinder at least say that it is not enough anyway to make the topic notable. I have notified all the AfD participants of this discussion so that they will restate their opinion, so we're gonna have an AfD n°2. If BOZ didn't accept the AfD discussion to which this discussion will be similar, I really wonder how he'll acknowledge the consensus here, so I remind everyone that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.
Jclemens's claim is that the D&D creature is soooooooooo important that it (and not the mythology!) influenced everything bearing the name "lamia" in pop culture, but of course he doesn't provide any source to back up his claim, so we have to trust him blindly and to forget that Wikipedia requires verifiable evidence, just like keeping this article requires a violation of WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic or its creator.
As for Pathfinder, it's a primary source, and WP:GNG requires "secondary sources", meaning that they provide "analytic or evaluative claims on a primary source". I'm still waiting to see these analytic or evaluative claims.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A "no consensus" means that participants failed to reach a consensus, and nothing more. If that indicates anything about the subject's notability, it is that there is disagreement about whether the subject is or could be notable. I also notified all the participants of the first AFD, for the sake of completeness (with the exception of those who are banned or clearly retired some time ago). If any consensus is actually achieved here - unlike the two AFDs - I will acknowledge and accept that. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose merge Just not seeing any need for a merge, there is enough material here and this level of detail in each creature would be too much in a merged article. Arguments about the AfD are not convincing. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I already transfered all the revelant content here (as merging doesn't require the conservation of the entire content) and it seems to work well, as BOZ already noted. Besides that, as it has been pointed out many times, the topic does not contain any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject or its creator" and as such does not qualify for a stand alone article. If you argue that a merge cannot involve just partial content transfer, then you can argue for a redirect instead.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"Enough material" isn't how articles are determined, the article has zero independent sources, that's the very definition of when a separate article is inappropriate. - SudoGhost 13:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse Merge - As argued in the AFDs on the subject, there just are not enough reliable third party sources to support an independant article. The arguments that the monster is notable because of how long it has existed in D&D publications, or that there is "enough material" in the current article are completely irrelevent without the independent sources to create the backbone of the article. Articles are required to have multiple reliable sources, and this article does not have that. There is one (extremely arguable) independent source, and that is it. And since nobody, including those who are adamant about keeping the article, has been able to find a single other source, I honestly doubt there will be any more forthcoming. The current adding of information that Folken de Fanel has already done at the Lamia_(mythology) article is pretty much perfect. Its concise, pretty much tells you everything that is actually notable about the creature, and doesn't include the copious amounts of needless information that the current article has that is referenced only by official D&D gamebooks. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse Merge: Wikipedia abhors a vacuum. If there's an issue where there's "no consensus", the issue will keep coming up until a consensus is found. When it returns to AFD somewhere down the line, there's a "risk" that this gets kept against peoples' criticisms of the article, but there's a perhaps more serious "risk" that the article gets deleted against its limited merit. I've always maintained that the point of our dispute resolution processes is to resolve disputes. That means finding a consensus. A merge is the best way to bring the information in this article more clearly in line with policy, so that it may be kept. I might return to discuss the actual merits of the article (including the problems with the sources), but a spirit of pragmatic compromise is really my overriding concern. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge- I agree entirely with Rorshacma and Shooterwalker. I think it's clear that D&D articles get kept because of the number of fanboys and not the number or quality of sources, as at least one oppose !vote already admits. I just don't see the required sourcing, despite two AfDs. Reyk YO! 22:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: I do like the improvements that Folken has made to the (mythological) lamia article. I think that it is essential (from an educational point of view) that articles about mythological and legendary creatures show how later culture has reused those creatures in a variety of ways (anything from heraldic charges to games, movies or even a name of a band). So I do think that was an improvement (and think that editors should be looking for anything else that might be relevant to improve the lamia article). However, I'm opposed to the merge, as there were calls in the AfD discussion for WikiProject:D&D (and other interested editors) to be invited to improve the article. An instant call for merger is disruptive to the improvement process, as it focuses on the existence of the article instead of focusing on the improvement of it. In my opinion, the long-term interest of Wikipedia would be servide if this article had better sources, and more detail on how the lamia is used in D&D and if the mythology article and the list of D&D creatures article both pointed to a good quality article. Big Mac (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this isn't exactly an "instant" call for merger. This is already the second time that a "No Consensus" AFD has happened, the first being over a year ago. The call to WikiProject:D&D may have just happened, but honestly, if anyone cared enough to improve the article (and actually could find the sources to do that) they really have had more than enough time to accomplish this. If a merger is agreed upon here, and at any point in the future some actual reliable sources are found, there would be no prejudice to restore the article with these new sources. As it sits now, though, it is just a mess of first party sources that don't establish independent notability. It would be less productive to just have a poor article sitting around, hoping (quite possibly in vain) someone adds sources to it some day, than to actually merge the information to a good article until that moment should occur. Rorshacma (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge for all the reasons other editors have already given. I find it incredible this is even under discussion. Leave the article alone. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge - Lack of notability means this article should not be a separate article per WP:N, which is something the "oppose" comments fail to address. This article was first brought to AfD a year ago, and despite a lengthy discussion not a single improvement has been made to the references as a result. If there are sources, provide them. Short of that, opposing a merge without giving a policy based reason or actually addressing the reason for the merge is a hollow comment. The article has no independent sources. Even if we assume that the Paizo source is truly independent in every way, there are still critical issues with it. For one, it is a single, very questionable source. An article requires multiple reliable sources. it would still be a WP:PRIMARY source that discusses the subject from an in-universe perspective as all of the other sources do. None of these sources give any real-world perspective or analysis, which makes for a very poor article.
Also, per WP:RS, articles should be based on third-party sources, although it can still use primary sources. Even if the Paizo source were completely independent and a great source, it's being used in a small "Other games" section, comprised of two sentences. The rest of the article is based completely on primary sources. Thus it fails WP:RS. This is a very poor article that runs afoul of WP:N and WP:RS, even if the Paizo source was independent, which it is not. When policy and guidelines both say this subject shouldn't have a separate article, "not seeing any need for a merge" isn't going to cut it. - SudoGhost 06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm actually happy to endorse merge as long as done properly and new content is not reduced to one line stub. Am happy to do this if this is the consensus here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse with reservationsOppose - This feels like the AfD all over again, which in a way it sort of is, considering that historically most RPG element AfDs that don't end in no consensus or keep tend to end up merge of redirect. I wonder if I was in a wikilawyering mood and searched the AfD procedure I'd find out that this is a no-no. But in absence of that context, while I believe that in general Paizo can be a valid source for RPG creatures, simple PFSRD citations are not. Even if I were to grant that, there are insufficient reliable sources for WP:GNG. The article really needs more independent references to stand alone, and while I don't think it is unencyclopedic as the Afanc article, the content of the article could use shoring up as well if it is to stand alone. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Revised vote to oppose merge. The existence of this discussion in the face of the failed AfD troubled me, despite the fact I feel this article does not meet WP:GNG. I did a little looking around and there is no real policy I can see against doing this. However, I did find this little snippet in the If you disagree with the consensus section of WP:GTD: "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion." So I'm going to recommend that Folken de Fanel do just that: wait to see if the editors can find sufficient WP:RS for the articles.
    • Admonition to editors: In light of the above, if you really think this page deserves to stand alone, then go find more reliable sources for it, if you believe they exist. -Sangrolu (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • How much longer would we be expected to wait before something is done? There have already been two AFDs, a year apart from one another, and in both cases, none of the people who insisted on keeping the article have been able to find any sources for it. This discussion may have come close on the heels of the second AFD, but there has been more than enough time since the first one for something to have been done. Continuing to wait even longer for possible improvements seems a bit silly when none have been forthcoming in the amount of time people have really had to improve it once it was clear that the article had some major problems. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
        • A year went by, a new AfD was submitted, and there was still no consensus to delete. Now is too soon, in my estimation, to be rehashing it. Hopefully, the scope of these discussions will bring it to enough editors attention to do something. One editor has already tried since this discussion started. I don't think the Kalamar reference is independent, but nonetheless, that should stand as a demonstration that expecting more progress there is "silly". - Sangrolu (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah, the Kalamar reference is taken from a time when that setting was an official D&D setting. So, this is just yet another "source" that is just an official, first party D&D product, and thus falls into the same problem as the rest of the sources. I don't want to sound mean, since at least the editor was trying, but if the best that can be done to improve the article is just adding more things that don't actually help it at all, I personally don't have much hope for the article's future. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Sangrolu, as you said, your change of opinion is primarily based on Wikilawyering, but your analysis is incorrect. My stance is not that the article was "wrongly kept" (because it wasn't kept), but that the article is problematic enough that the delete side voided the conservation side (which is ackowledged by the closure rationale: "There is legitimate disagreement here on whether sources published by Paizo are sufficiently independent"). I'm merely proposing a merge "in an effort to mediate and/or compromise", and to try to solve an issue that should have been long ago. As per the closing admin, "Redirect and merge discussions may be initiated in the wake of an AFD, especially if that option has been hinted at"[1]. A consensus in favor of the merge is now building up. The only thing your change of mind could do is to delay the current effort at finally resolving the issue that has lasted long enough. If you think this discussion implies the AfD closure was incorrect, then you should try a DRV instead of just thwarting an attempt to settle the notability issue.
              I also agree with Rorshacma that it's only reasonable to say that, by now, if reliable sources existed for this article, someone would already have found them. 2 AfDs gave editors enough incentive to look for RSs and nothing was found, going through that again is only a waste of time. The recent Kalamar edit doesn't give any reasonable indication that reliable secondary sources could be found; the Pathfinder mention was added after the 1st AfD started and wasn't followed by any RS, there is no reason to expect more after the Kalamar one. Now is not too soon, that no consensus was found to delete only means that no consensus was found to delete. This is not an AfD but a merge proposal.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Actually, I'm explicitly not wikilawyering; as stated, there is nothing in the policy that keeps you from doing this. However, as discussed at WP:Wikilawyering, I'm weighing in with what I believe the intent of the rule to be. But hey, as I have said, I don't think this article meets WP:GNG, so I'm not going to fight it if the merge motion carries. I just think it sets a bad precedent.-Sangrolu (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge: The real problem here is a faulty discussion close. Admins are supposed to weigh the arguments, and, since WP:V tells us that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" any vote for keeping the article as a standalone piece should have been disregarded, as there are no third-party reliable sources for the content. No AFD discussion can come to a conclusion that contradicts fundamental policy.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Despite me endorsing the merge, I'm going to disagree with the stance. At the heart of the AfD (and this) discussion is whether the cited sources are WP:RS. If there is not a consensus that the sources are not reliable, then an admin should not be supervoting against the consensus. Now if the keep votes were wholly ungrounded in policy, that would be another matter. See WP:Supervote for a discussion of the distinction. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The only source that is even possibly third-party is responsible for an insignificant component of the article. Even if we just stipulated that the Pathfinder source was a third-party source, there's no way to say this article is based on third-party sources.—Kww(talk) 13:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge: I believe that the lack of significant coverage in independent of the subject secondary sources that give some kind of analytic or evaluative claims about the Lamia of Dungeons & Dragons is reason enough to presume that it should not have a stand-alone article and that it is best merged with another article. I also favor a merge to Lamia_(mythology)#In_popular_culture. Jfgslo (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per JClemens. The AfD produced no consensus about there being insufficient secondary coverage to justify an article, which defaults to keep. If the article was on a political or other controversial subject, not being able to support all claims with independent sources might be a serious drawback. But for an article on a fictional creature, primary materials are in fact the definitive and best sources for much of what we'd like to say. Too much interesting and useful information would be lost in a merge. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - No Consensus does not default to "Keep". No Consensus means exactly what it says. It doesn't matter what the topic is about, all articles need sufficient secondary sources that are independent of the topic, per the WP:GNG. That's the very first line of the GNG, in fact. And I'm probably not alone in saying that I don't think that a list of "This monster appeared in this book! It also appeared in this book!" is either interesting nor useful, so that argument doesn't really hold much ground. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - I hope certain people realize that opposing the merge by pretending that the General Notability Guideline or Writing about fiction don't apply to articles about fiction, won't lead anywhere. The GNG and WAF do apply to D&D monsters, and this little discussion on a single article won't have any effect on policies and guideline unless a much broader community consensus is reached. It's actually ridiculous to oppose the merge on the grounds that the AfD closed on "no consensus", since the merge was proposed precisely as a compromise to this absence of consensus on conservation or deletion. And "no consensus" does not mean "keep", there wasn't any consensus about there being sufficient secondary source either, in fact the comment from the RSN has now confirmed there is no secondary source. As for being "interesting and useful", it may be to you but not to others (me included), which is why you need secondary sources to establish its interest and usefulness to Wikipedia. As the article is quite short, none of the relevant content can be lost in the merge, since even those opposing the merge were satisfied with the result.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Article has plenty of references and can easily stand alone. Statements that "no consensus equals no encyclopedic notabiility" and "it was not kept twice" are absurd. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The only absurdity I can see here is your claim that the article stands on its own, which is wrong because the article only has primary references, in violation of WP:GNG. And no, the article was not kept in AfD. And yes, the fact that it was not kept twice is a good indication that the article doesn't stand on its own and that there is a problem that has to be solved, through a merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't understand people who pop in to say things like "article has plenty of references", when even a cursory glance over this discussion, or the AFD, shows that its pretty much universarly agreed that all but one of the references are most definitely first party sources, and thus can not be used to establish notability, and even the one that may possibly not be is heavily contested. I mean, this isn't even debatable: 12 of the 13 references cited in the article are from official TSR/Wizards of the Coast published, D&D books. Whether or not you want to support or oppose the merge, using that as a reason is just flat out wrong.

Also, at this point, its been well over two weeks since this debate began. I want to call out all the "Oppose" votes that stated their reasoning as things like an instant call for a merger would be a bad idea because given time, people would be able to find viable, non-first party sources to add. At the time, I said that I found that to be highly unlikely, and since nothing has been found in the two-plus weeks since, it looks like I was probably right. In this light, would anyone be willing to change their opinions so we can put an end to this discussion? Rorshacma (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

    • If you think that the lack of additional references is the main reason why people are opposing a merger, you're misunderstanding the opinion of those opposed to the merger of what independent sources mean in the context of RPGs. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
and that's kind of the point, they're opposing a merge against Wikipedia policy. These are not independent sources no matter what context you look at them in, the only one even remotely independent is Paizo, and that is exteremely contentious itself. I'm also not seeing a single oppose comment that says anything close to what you just said. This article has zero independent sources, short of some larger consensus that primary sources are somehow independent third-party sources when dealing with D&D, that argument falls far short of WP:SOURCES and WP:CONLIMITED. - SudoGhost 05:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There were several people that specifically stated what I said as a reason for opposing the merge. I was obviously speaking to them. Not to the people who are opposing a merge for no reason that actually falls in line with Wikipedia policy. Rorshacma (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No one has opposed a merge for a reason not based in policy. There are plenty here who disagree about the sufficiency of sourcing--specifically, what constitutes independence--but calling those opinions not based in policy is pointlessly inflammatory and fails to assume good faith. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
You're making the logical fallacy that if a comment is not based on a policy, that it must be a bad-faith comment, and that's not what "good faith" and "bad faith" mean. See WP:AAGF; good-faith has nothing to do with the fact that most, if not all, of the oppose comments are not based on any policy. The majority of the oppose arguments are variations of "no consensus at AfD " and "don't see a reason to merge". What policies are those based on? Where is this discussion (let alone consensus) that D&D sourcebooks are somehow independent of D&D? The only discussion was concerning the Paizo reference, and there's no standing or consensus that this is an independent source in any way, however that doesn't even matter; the Paizo reference isn't even being used to support the article's subject and isn't about the article's subject; it's used as an aside in a "things that are like this topic" section and that doesn't even begin to give any credit towards satisfying WP:SOURCES.
If there's a policy based reason to oppose the merge, then by all means present it, but "there's a disagreement over what constitutes independent sources" isn't it. Wikipedia policy is that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Nobody has even tried to claim that this article is based on third-party sources; the closest claim to that is that there is a single third-party source, one that isn't even about this subject and is used in a couple of sentences describing a related topic. Even if there were a consensus to keep the article, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, there's not even a consensus to keep this article; if a local consensus doesn't override Wikipedia policy, lack of consensus to keep an article doesn't override policies and guidelines either. - SudoGhost 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What I see are two different viewpoints from two different schools of thought, regarding the Paizo and Kenzer sources. Some people take a looser approach to defining them as independent sources, and some people take a stricter approach. Those who take the stricter approach seem to want to invalidate those taking a looser approach, claiming that not following a policy as strictly as they do means that a person is not following a policy at all. I have to continue to disagree with that approach, and don't see a point in trying to convince people that they are wrong simply because they don't agree with one interpretation. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
BOZ, let's not forget that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has already deemed the Pathfinder reference as non-independent ,and primary [2]. All the users who previously "disagreed" about the non-independence of this source (as well as the Kenzer one) mysteriously disappeared from this discussion right after the comment from RSN was posted. Let's be clear, this a discussion, not a vote, people can't just "disagree", then run away and expect their opinion to still matter even against the RSN. Usually, discussion demands more than a mere recommandation but also a strong policy-based argumentation, and I should say that opposing the RSN demands particularly exceptional arguments. But I have seen none of that. There have been several of us who also argued (or rather proved) that Pathfinder wasn't independent, and all the "oppose" side has to offer is a "disagreement" for the sake of it, without any justification. I can't see how such a position, based on obstination and not on arguments, could survive. The "oppose" side is clearly going against established policies and consensus as to what reliable sources in notability are.
Which leads us to a point in WP:CON that Sudoghost invoked, and I completely agree with him. Jclemens mentions the "opinion of those opposed to the merger of what independent sources mean in the context of RPGs" and users "who disagree about the sufficiency of sourcing", meaning that RPGs would have different requirements in terms of sourcing and notability than all the other articles ? Jclemens shouldn't forget that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS tells us that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". This discussion on a single article talk page involving a very narrow scope of users certainly isn't the place to argue that WP:GNG doesn't apply to D&D articles. Jclemens, you are free to open a broader community talk (for example directly at Wikipedia talk:Notability), but blatantly going against policies to prevent the article to be merged isn't going to work.
So to sum it up, opposition to this merge is only based on "disagreement" that Pathfinder wouldn't be independent, thus ignoring all valid arguments proving the contrary (including the comment from the RSN), also ignoring that the WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources anyway. Opposers of the merge have been repeatedly asked (even by other opposers!) to provide sufficient sourcing to prove beyond doubt that a merge wouldn't be necessary here, but said opposers simply refused to provide any source and instead argued, in complete violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that the WP:GNG wouldn't apply to D&D articles. I agree with Rorshacma that if sufficient sourcing could be found, it would have already be done, and that is it now time for opposers to become reasonable and either change their opinion or bring independent secondary source on the table once and for all.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
That's humptydumptyism, BOZ. "Independent" is a word that has a meaning, and those that take the "looser" approach are simply ignoring its meaning in order to achieve a goal.—Kww(talk) 11:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
You act as if the issue of independence is unambiguous, but it's really not. WP:IS says "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective". Okay, so who is to judge what is significant? The consensus of editors! So let's not go off here acting like BOZ is engaging in some doublespeak, because he really isn't.
I do concur with Folken de Fanel that the case that WP:GNG not being met is not ambiguous, but differ with him and Rorshacma that this is not a surmountable problem. -Sangrolu (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If you really believe independent secondary sources could be found one day, then I see no problem in merging the article now and restoring it when/if these sources come up.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
While the significance of a connection can be questioned, the fact is that when a publisher that makes a product for a game, they cannot be said to be disinterested in that game, that is common sense. If this were not a D&D subject the fact that this article has no independent sources wouldn't even be in any serious dispute. But instead we have individuals with conflicts of interest arguing that sourcebooks written for a game are independent of that game, when that would never be true for any non-D&D subject. - SudoGhost 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Membership on a website does not indicate a conflict of interest. Being paid by WotC, Pazio or Kentzer might, but merely being a fan? I don't think so. Personally, I would not make such accusations unless you have some very, very good reason to suppose that it effects someones judgement. Web Warlock (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Being "disinterested" in a game is not a reasonable criteria, and thankfully, not WP policy. Think for a second about what you are asking here. I would wager that most individuals in the press covering hobbies do so because they are interested it it; holding up such a policy would not be a reasonable measure to measure independence. WP policy cites editorial independence as the root of WP:IS; that is a reasonable measure and there are good reasons for that policy. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm suffering from textual hallucinations, WP:IS does refer to "disinterested perspective" and "no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." The only policy that deals with the notion of independence states that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" and "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations".Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
When an editor's stated purpose is to push D&D creature articles on Wikipedia, then yes they have a conflict of interest when they repeatedly "loosely interepret" policy to further that goal. If someone "loosely interprests" the rules to further their goals instead of abiding by the rules to improve Wikipedia, that is a conflict of interest. Where you got this idea that someone should be "disinterested" in a game is beyond me, but that sounds like a red herring argument. - SudoGhost 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So...people should only edit articles they are not interested in?? Ok. Also conflict of interest has not been established here and this sounds like an ad-hominem attack to me. Web Warlock (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
More red herring arguments? Read WP:COI. Actually read it, because your comments suggest that you haven't. You're assuming things that weren't said, weren't even alluded to, so this line of discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. Starting a catalog of D&D creatures and then "loosely interpreting" policy to push related articles on Wikipedia is a conflict of interest, especially when some of these articles use sources based on the content he worked on (Tome of Horrors). Is it a strong conflict of interest? No. Does it mean he "shouldn't edit the article" (where you got that from I'll never know)? No. What it does mean is that he is not exactly unbiased concerning articles about D&D creatures, and that this needs to be taken into consideration. - SudoGhost 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pathfinder reference[edit]


Kenzer reference[edit]


Monsters! Monsters![edit]

If anyone out there besides me who has this book, please compare the stats of the M!M! Lamia to the ones in the D&D Monster Manual, also compare the art with the Lamia Noble. These are the same creatures. Web Warlock (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A user has attempted to flag the "Other Games" section with a coatrack claim. Regarding the appearance in Pathfinder Bestiary, the licensing material refers to the Lamia from D&D, so that claim cannot be fairly applied to the whole sections.
As for Monsters! Monsters! I cannot speak. Saying the "conversion is implied" smacks of WP:OR and you probably should not be using that language. Whether or not it is fair to include in this article is another matter, but it may be a matter of re-scoping the article. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) T&T is not now and has never been D&D. WP:V clearly requires claims to be specifically supported by a single source and not dependent upon comparing what an artists depecition of what a fictional critter looks. In addition "conversions are implied" is blatant WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it's OR, but the right way to handle that is with an inline OR tag. A sectional Coatrack claim is not the right tool here and casts too wide a net. (Edit - I've added the OR template.) - Sangrolu (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the OR template and citing the page number where it is mentioned once I get back to my home office. Web Warlock (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The page where it is specifically mentioned that "This T&T Lamia is a D&D Lamia"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Shall I also provide scans? Web Warlock (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, sorry for jumping to conclusionS! A brief quote might be helpful in the ref to deflect OR accusations. Thanks for your time! - Sangrolu (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have stacks of stuff, mostly from the 70s and 80s, and it takes a bit to get through. Web Warlock (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Update. I reread the book yesterday and the link between the two is far less than I recall. It only "indicated" compatibility in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink sort of way. Typical for the time, but would not stand today. Web Warlock (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox picture[edit]

I replaced the old Monster Manual image of the Lamia with the current version from the 4th edition Monster Manual, but User:BOZ reverted me, with the comment, "I have a personal preference for the original - feel free to revert, though". As it happens, I prefer the original illustration as well, but I question why personal artistic preferences should have anything to do with it. The 4th edition is the current version of the game, and the article should reflect this fact. Furthermore, the old image does not properly match the current text of the lead ("The lamia was formerly portrayed in the game as a creature with the lower body of a lion, and the upper torso, arms, and head of a human female"). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I know we can't have both in the infobox, but is two NFCC pictures excessive for a creature which has changed markedly throughout versions of the game? Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if they're very different (I didn't even think about that, I don't play 4th edition) then I don't think the "one item can convey equivalent significant information" really applies, maybe the two images in question could be used to show the differing versions; I just don't think all four images are needed is all, given that they're non-free. - SudoGhost 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I added that one back to the article. I kind of share BOZ's preference for the current image in the infobox staying in the infobox, but I don't have any real reason for that other than a personal preference so feel free to arrange them however. - SudoGhost 02:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That really isn't good enough. It just won't do to have a picture of the old version of the lamia in the infobox, right next to text saying that that was how the creature was formerly depicted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Well the wording can be changed, or the images can be swapped, either one will do. - SudoGhost 03:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The wording is accurate the way it is, in my opinion. It's not helpful to readers to pretend that the lamia is still what it was prior to 4th edition. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The lamia prior to 4th edition is still what it is, the previous 31 years aren't nullified simply because a different edition presents it in a different way; those other editions still exist, are still used, and are probably more relevant and notable than the 4th edition version (judging by the sources in the article). - SudoGhost 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Before I changed it, the lead read: "The lamia is usually portrayed in the game as a creature with the lower body of a lion, and the upper torso, arms, and head of a human female." The fact that the Lamia has been changed in the 4th edition of the game simply makes that a false statement. If something is not now officially portrayed in a certain way, it cannot be said that it is "usually" portrayed that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How many sources in the article portray lamia as such? All but one? I think that falls under "usually". - SudoGhost 05:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sudo in this instance (and, although it has no bearing on the here and now, I'm not so secretly hoping that in the next edition we will see a return of the "classic" lamia), in that the lion-bodied lamia is the longest-running version of the creature by far, so belongs more in the infobox than the one we've seen for only four years or so. But, I am fairly impartial to this question, and if we can agree that this article has enough room for two images, as long as both are somewhere on the page, I don't really care where they sit. BOZ (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it makes no sense to say that a game that currently officially portrays a creature as something other than a half-woman/half-lion "usually" portrays it that way. You can't say that something is "usually" portrayed in a certain way because it was formerly often portrayed that way. In the absence of strong objections, I'm going to switch the pictures around. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't care which goes where, but I think "usually" is correct, although "traditionally" might be a better term. D&D 4.0 may be "official", but it's just one of many renditions, and AD&D first edition is still probably the most widely known. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know this? I think "traditionally" would be an extremely misleading term to use - "traditional" can cover present as well as past custom or convention, and just conveys the wrong thing here. Issues like this perhaps simply show the difficulty of writing about marginally notable subjects in an encyclopedic way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How about this? "For the vast majority of the chronological time that a 'Lamia' was printed in a then-current official Dungeons and Dragons product, it was represented as..." Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would really be happy if that wording were not used in the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
... and I wasn't seriously proposing that that verbiage be used. Just trying to spur on the discussion about how to best document that there are two vastly different creatures called "Lamia" instantiated in D&D throughout its various versions. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)