Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There are two independent arguments for deletion: WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:COPYVIO. There is clearly no consensus about the first argument. But Moonriddengirl has laid out a prima facie persuasive case for the second argument (even though I myself am not sure that I agree with it), and in this respect, almost all "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. On the basis of the present discussion, the copyright concerns must take precedence, but it may well be that a more thorough discussion of this aspect of the case at deletion review might come to a different conclusion.  Sandstein  05:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters[edit]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is so much primary material reproduced here that I'm worried it has fallen into WP:COPYVIO territory. It certainly doesn't fall under fair use because it's likely that this much text would impact the copyright holder's ability to sell the work. There's also not a single reference supporting the topic of the list's notability. Why are the monsters of D&D so notable that there's a list of all of them? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While this deletion request may have merit - many would argue that Wikipedia is amongst it many facets an encyclopedia of Roleplaying games and therefore such materials should be assessed under such a lens at least for judging its extrinsic value.
However the argument that the list comprises a WP:COPYVIO is unconvincing. Unless it is claimed that the list contains texts copied verbatim -- pending a statement from a qualified opinion by WMF legal team, a DMCA take down request or a respected community member who might make a more convincing case we should avoid WP:COPYVIO as speculative. (Lack of Fair use might be demonstrable - but requires that a copyright violation already exist. Its use here to demonstrate WP:COPYVIO is a post hoc fallacy and has no bearing on this case. The article also omits technical data required for use in this type of role-playing game).
As to the point of notability - this material should be judged as an entry in a RPG encyclopedia. Since Ad&d has been deemed notable this list which is an extension of that article inherits the notability from its parent article and they should be judged together.
I could sanction removing this and similar lists on the grounds that it is a shameless promotion of a commercial product - however this fault may well be offset by the value it provides Wikipedia's users. Anyhow this is not the current discussion. BO; talk 14:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your second point. Where does it say that notability is WP:INHERITED? AD&D is 100% notable. I can't argue with that. Some individual monsters might be notable. But are the monsters as a set notable? Also, are they notable to the extent that they are represented now, or is this list giving them WP:UNDUE weight? As for your third point, what exactly is the value to Wikipedia users and how does it offset its commercial promotion? I point again to WP:UNDUE as reference. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to agree with the above poster regarding any sort of copywrite violation. As to notability, it appears to have sufficient independent sourcing to me. BOZ (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we reading the same article? I count five sources for this 175+ kb list and most of the things they're citing are physical descriptions of the monsters or game guide-like details about monster stats. How does that establish notability? Do you have anything to say at all about allegations of game guide material? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the line "The article also omits technical data required for use in this type of role-playing game" demonstrated my thoughts on whether the level of "game guide material" in this article is inappropriate. Could a person running a D&D game consult only this article and still make use of monsters in this game? Only with a hefty dose of imagination and reinventing the actual game statistics, so I'd have to say no, your allegations hold no merit whatsoever. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you skillfully avoided answering the question about notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your sarcasm is greatly appreciated. As you say, there are five sources. I have seen a great many articles kept at AFD with far poorer sorucing, so I am not sure what more you are looking for. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Two independent RS are generally considered sufficient for WP:GNG; this article currently has 3, and considering how many web pages I have seen with listings of creatures, I'm sure it would be trivial to find more. WP:GNG does not, however, prohibit one from using primary sources to expand an article. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I understand it, White Dwarf is not an independent source as it published original material for D&D games. Notability for lists means that the sources establish notability for the list entries as a group. Trivial mentions for 5 or so entries among more than a hundred, and partly (or entirely) from affiliated sources (at least Dragon from TSR, and White Dwarf which participated in D&D advertisment and development), certainly does not satisfyingly answer to notability concerns.
              As I see it, out of the 3 sources currently used, 1 is potentially affiliated, 1 is affiliated, and the last one, while apparently independent and reliable in itself, does notseem to provide more than 2 trivial mentions. Sangrolu, the GNG doesn't set a precise number of reliable sources, only enough so as to write a good article. Clearly, when only a handful of entries are sourced (and only to non-independent material), it's not enough.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree with your assessment there. You say only "a handful" are sourced. GNG says "multiple independent sources". I may be going for the simplest interpretation here, but multiple is two or more; "handful" generally means even more than that. Further, White Dwarf is owned by Games Workshop and has never been owned by TSR or WotC; I think that clearly qualifies as independent.
                And again, I know there have been articles in online and offline publications which have explored lists of AD&D creatures. If the concern was that more references would be helpful, the nom would have been well advised to follow the admonishments of WP:BEFORE and try putting a notability tag and maybe even digging up some more references before pulling the AfD trigger. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then it is only your personal view on the matter and not a "general consideration", contrary to what you claimed before. As for White Dwarf, I read in its article that "The magazine was hugely influential in the 1980s when it helped to popularise role-playing games in the UK. This included material for the 'big three' role playing games of the time: (Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, RuneQuest and Traveller". Unless I'm mistaken, "material for" means an original contribution to the game itself (ie new scenarios, etc, and not mere journalistic coverage), potentially directly licensed from TSR for the UK market, as I understand the sentence. If the magazine published authorized supplementary material for the game itself, I can't see how it could be seen as an independent publication...And actually providing sources is always more helpful than just claiming they exist.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They are independent because they are an independent publisher. Now, if I looked at the particular articles and they are, in fact, content that appeared in the fiend folio, then in fact your supposition is correct and we should not be counting that. Now if it's an article about the game but not content for it, then I would hold that treating them as independent applies. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a copyvio. List includes multiple notable monsters with their own articles that have been previously kept at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the template, I count 4 individual monsters and 13 monster types as articles that still exist. And regardless of the individual monsters' notability, that notability isn't inherited up to the group as a whole, especially when that group consists of 100+ entries, meaning that only a small fraction of those monsters are notable, by your definition. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep (Restored vote; this is getting silly): The article as a whole is not a WP:COPYVIO; if there is an individual passage that you have identified as a WP:COPYVIO, you need to edit it and/or address/investigate it on the talk page. As for claims of WP:GAMEGUIDE, this is (sadly) yet another misapplication of that guideline, which we are seeing way too much lately. Nothing about this article provides tips or advice about playing the game. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GAMEGUIDE states: "An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE."
      Can you explain to me why the AfD nom would be a "misapplication" of WP:GAMEGUIDE ? It seems spot-on to me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my understanding of gameguide was more along the lines of bullet point #1 under the same section, i.e., instruction manuals. As your very quote indicates, that particular point is talking about video games. That being said, I do agree that there should be some commonality in the way that they are handled; I don't think lists complete with statistics are appropriate in an RPG article any more than they would be in a VG articles (lists of enemies complete with attributes are a common characteristic of VG gameguides). Nonetheless, RPG creatures typically have much more literary content attached to them and should be treated more like elements of literature than videogames. WP:VGSCOPE is by WikiProject Video Games and you should not be referring to it to govern RPG articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games is the governing project for RPGs. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you implying that video games should not be treated with the same weight as literature ? Even if that distinction was valid (and I don't agree with it, as I will develop in an answer to your comment at the RPG WikiProject), literary monsters do not escape notability requirements, so I can't really see your point here...Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am saying 1) you should not be using one wikiproject's standards for something covered by another wikiproject and 2) that video games and tabletop games are different in their treatment of their elements, and it is fair to treat them differently. The published product for a video game is usually the video game itself; a monster might be a set of pixels and certain combat characteristics. In tabletop games, there are published books all about monsters and each of those monsters can receive extensive writing on its habitat, biology, behavior, etc. Monsters in tabletop games have a more literature-like nature to them. If there was an article like this about "creatures of Final Fantasy VI", I'd be right there with you with the delete vote, because that's the sort of thing that the VG Scope article was talking about. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1) We're not talking about a Wikiproject but about a Wikipedia policy, whether it's a video game or not doesn't change the fact that this article reads as an "instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" 2) what matters on WP is not the nature or length of primary content, but the availability of secondary content on a subject. Video game monsters can be more notable than classic RPG monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • But you're not talking about policy. The section of policy you are trying to apply here says video games. 2) I'm not referring to there RS, which we discuss above, but to the wikiproject VG guidelines you are attempting to assert applies here. They are sensible for the topic they were written for, but that topic is not tabletop RPGs. - Sangrolu (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The policy is named "WP is not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" (doesn't mention video games), that's exactly what I'm talking about and exactly what is this list. Monsters are part of the game mecanics, and extensive description and listing of these, when no particular notability has been established, reads like a guidebook to the game, period. That is the main issue, not tabletop RPG vs video game (and your arguments about it are not convincing at all anyways...Video games enemies, "just pixels" ? What about text that extensively describes habitat, biology, behavior, stats, both in-game and in supplementary sources like booklets and databooks ? In a wide range of gamestyles, from RPG to beat'em all. You're trying to arbitrarily make up differences just for the sake of excluding tabletop RPGs from this policy, but they don't exist, tabletop RPGs play exactly the same, monsters are still part of the game's mecanics, something you have to know to win the game, which is why this article is written as an instruction manual. It doesn't need to be about video games to violate the basic principle that article are not guides to complete a task. But if it works for video games, it works for tabletop RPG, I can't see any difference, it's still about "the main actions the player does to win the game", and if this was deemed inappropriate for video games, then it's inappropriate for tabletop RGPs. Otherwise, if tabletop RPGs are exempted from this policy, then I can't see any reason why video games would not be exempted either...In the end, it's about guides to games, and whatever the form, it's still about actions that a player needs to do to win. If you can prove me that tabletop RPGs do not involve, in any case, the concepts of "actions", "player", "do", and "win", then you'll have convinced me. Otherwise, you're wasting your time).Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am not arbitrarily making up differences. I don't have to; the text says video games in the section that invokes lists of monsters. On the other hand, you are arbitrarily altering the scope of the wording of the policy in question. Though the letter of the policy supports me, I want to emphasize again that it's sensible that the current policy does not conflate the two, because RPGs include a body of notable works just about monsters, something that is not true in general for video games. There is nothing in this article which tells you how to play/win the game. Now if this were instructions on how to complete the Tomb of Horrors complete with a list of traps and adversaries, that would be a gameguide. As for convincing you, you've made it pretty clear that's not happening; fortunately all that matters is the consensus and the closing admin. - Sangrolu (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not "altering the scope" of anything, the policy is called "WP is not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook", in which video games are only an example. Video games aren't mentionned because they're video games, but because they are games. You're the only one altering the scope of this policy. And tabletop RPG monsters are no more notable than video game monsters. WP:GAMEGUIDE says: "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate." This is a list of concept (enemies in D&D games) and of type of ennemies, you can't make it more of a game guide than that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game guide, pure and simple. One can also argue that because this is a list of monsters creatively selected by TSR for their game, it is copyrightable information, and wholesale inclusion is unwarranted and considered a copyvio. A page that lists notable D&D monsters (regardless of printing) for navigation purposes is fine, but this is not. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those believing this isn't a copyright violation, should see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I believe copyvio can happen. What I don't believe is that it has happened. If you believe it has happened, you need to identify where you suppose it has happened. Indeed, if you think the mere assemblage of monster names used by TSR is copyrighted, you need to read the wikilink you have provided, with regard to selection criteria for inclusion in a list. This list is very much akin to the example of "a table of 2011 Toyota vehicles including model and base manufacturer's recommended retail price." Surely Toyota's vehicles (and the marketing behind their names) were the subject of considerable "creativity", but that does not remove the list from being a matter of discovery; this is not a list of "best" AD&D monsters or anything like that. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The list of Toyota cars is not copyrightable - that's factual data. Names are not copyrightable, but trademarkable. The list of monsters selected by TSR to be included within the monster manuals is a creative list, as it helps to describe the type of world that the game is set in. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • TSR didn't make a list, however; they made complete books of detailed monster profiles, many of which derived from folk legends and myths. They selected which ones to include, but that's it, and then they alphabetized it (i.e., non-creative arrangement). So this list just copies the bare fact of selection of entries in these books—the table of contents, in other words, not any substantive creative content of the books themselves. Are we troubled that listing the characters in a novel copies the author's "selection" of the characters featured in that novel? We summarize plots, for god's sake; bare lists of elements of fiction "selected" by the author for portrayal in that fiction are surely less substantive copying than narrative. Only here this list goes even one step further towards the functional, because AD&D was a game system, not merely a creative work, and this list is of some of the game "pieces" used in play. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • We list some of the characters in a novel, because it is necessary to mention these characters in discussion of the work. But consider that the overall work is the creative elements, just the characters themselves are a small portion of it, and thus it is not wholesale copying of a list (eg it falls under fair use/non-free use). Here, we are wholly copying the table of contents of the monster manual, just to list them without comment. That's not appropriate under fair use law to start with, much less WP's non-free system.
            • But now I will point out that you just demonstrated why this is a game guide- you call them pieces. We don't list every single component of a game system (table top or video game, or otherwise) per GAMEGUIDE/IINFO. Again, I see no reason why we can't have a master "List of notable D&D monsters" where articles for said monsters exist and have been shown notable, but to duplicate the tables - however minimal information we use - from the books is a problem that GAMEGUIDE warns against and that poises potential copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • None of the monsters' game stats are given, which are exactly what you need to play the game, and the lack of which alone makes this list completely unable to harm or supplant the commercial value of the original. Which rebuts both the GAMEGUIDE and COPYVIO complaints. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It doesn't matter what exactly is said about the monsters. Including them all, which only benefit those that play the game, is an example of WP:IINFO, the core of GAMEGUIDE arguments. (The Copyvio aspect is a separate matter altogether but must be considered, see below). --MASEM (t) 05:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly. TSR didn't make a list. That's an example of fair use. At any rate, I consider this whole COPYVIO line of reasoning specious and won't be entertaining it any longer. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think we can completely discount the possible copyvio. I've asked the en.wiki expert on the matter, Moonriddengirl, for input. If they claim there's no copyvio issue, then there's no copyvio issue to discuss further, but the GAMEGUIDE aspect is still there. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright comment. Hi. :) I was asked to comment on the copyright aspects of this. I'm not formulating this as a "keep" or "delete", because I was asked to comment.

    Sangrolu mentions "fair use", and I think he's exactly right. We can only detail the contents of creative works under claim of fair use. This is true of discussion for any books and is one of the problems with articles that are only plot summary. :) So, for it to be fair use, it has to meet the factors of fair use. (1) Purpose and character: is our use transformative or simply derivative? Are we critically analyzing the book, for example, or abridging it into a compact form, like a Cliff's Notes version? 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. (2) The nature of the copyrighted work. While noncreative works aren't absent protection, creative works are more protected - a fictional monster manual is highly creative. Some of the creatures are legendary, but many are not. Even many of the legendary creatures are given backstories and details which may be original to TSR and their authors. I think the book itself is creative. (3) The amount and substantiality. The more we use, the more we risk - whether that's more in "word count" or more in importance to the work. (See substantial similarity). I'm afraid that substantiality seems high - it seems as if literally every monster is included, page by page. The list of monsters is, arguably, the "heart" of the work and its reason for existence. It doesn't include the list of monster stats (which are important to game play), but in considering substantial similarity, differences do no bar a finding of infringement. I think the use is substantial, myself. (4) Effect upon work's value. In this, the courts don't just evaluate whether this specific work can or has impacted the ability of TSR to market the 1st Edition MM (or, if it is out of print, to rerelease it), but whether or not if such lists were in wide use TSR's ability to market the work would be impacted. Not only must you consider the direct market value, but also the impact on officially approved derivatives that do or may exist.

    Per WP:C, we are exhorted to "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others" as "This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia."; WP:NFCC requires that we approach fair use conservatively ("To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law."). While only a court could determine definitively, I think that this list is likely a substantial copyright problem. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chiming in. I still consider it very unlikely that any court would not call such a list fair use, the sticky thing about copyright is that you don't know what a court is going to rule until they get there. In absence of further weight of opinion of someone on the copyright team, I'm going to withdraw my keep vote on the suggestion that we be conservative on our rulings here. I'm going to stop short of suggesting a delete vote, because I still don't consider a COPYVIO case here to be too credible. My stance regarding applying the video game clause of WP:GAMEGUIDE to tabletop RPGs still applies with respect to other items that may come forth. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some further thought on the topic, I have reverted my vote to keep. I think that a list of creatures in a book is no more the essence of what the book is about than any of dozens of fair plot summaries for novels and movies that appear throughout Wikipedia. In fact, this probably conveys much less in terms of copyrightable IP. I can see the point in being conservative, but if I applied this principle elsewhere, wikipedia would be unable to operate. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this analysis at all, in part because I don't think the bare list is in any way the "heart" of the original work. How did you analyze the content of the original works? Do you have copies, did you get it from the library, did you find scans of pages online, etc.? postdlf (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a peculiar question (as I don't see what difference it makes how I accessed the original works), but as it happens, I own a couple of copies...as well as several of the first print Deities & Demigods with the withdrawn Cthulu and Melnibonean mythos. Score for me. Pays to be an early adopter. (Expanding the substance, now that I've finished my sandwich, I don't believe we can judge the fair use of this material in isolation; many of the creatures incorporate by link pages such as this one. As I indicated in my (1), this is part of my concern.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing this perspective Moonriddengirl. I think we can all agree that there are problems with the list as it stands now. I personally fall into the camp that it is an example of both game guide and potential copyvio and should be deleted, but other people may have other opinions. However, it is wrong to simply brush aside those concerns and reject them outright because this IS Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia. This is our job as editors to address. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think it is much better to create a large master list of notable (read: monsters with stand-alone articles) monsters, in which we can indicate which books they were introduced/included in, and brief summary. This would be treated as a navigational list, and while it is a compilation of the monsters from the game, it is a selected list to support critical commentary on the individual articles, reducing the copyright concerns that Moonriddengirl brings up. It avoids being a game guide since we (most likely) don't exhaust the list. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as non-encyclopedic content, violative of WP:GAMEGUIDE. I wrote for TSR in the day; my lawyer is in that book (literally); my copy was autographed by Gygax on the first day of issue; and even I am forced to agree that this is not encyclopedic content for a non-gamer wiki. I'd say you could make a case for a Category:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters; but not for a list article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE which states "Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate". Wikipedia doesn't cover complete lists of every enemy in a game, any more than having complete lists of every student at a school, or every scheduled event in a Presidential campaign. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think Moonriddengirl finally convinced me that such an exhaustive list is excessive. I don't think a valid list would necessarily have to be limited to monsters that merited their own standalone articles, but as the original form of the work is a collection of summary description of the monsters (really a kind of monster encyclopedia for the game), us doing the same without any kind of secondary source commentary or explanation or real world context is not transformative enough given the amount we copy even though we leave out the game stats and illustrations. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Comparison of the real and legendary creatures used by AD&D shows how much the game has taken from history and mythology and how the game has folded existing culture into itself. Also comparison with the creatures used in other games and entertainment media will allow future historians to see how AD&D has influenced post-D&D culture. I don't see how there is enough information here to qualify as a gameguide. You certainly couldn't play a game of D&D from this page. It is more about showing how many sources reused specific monsters. Big Mac (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that it should be kept, it would be nice if the article was expanded to include additional information, like the specific inspiration for each monster (if known). Something like that (showing how it fits into culture) would make the list a lot more valuable. Big Mac (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are your arguments for keeping the article, besides the fact that you like it ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty clear; he (also) disagrees with the assertion that this is a gameguide as asserted per nom. That being said, I think your bare accusations of WP:ILIKEIT are uncalled for, and would remind you to assume good faith. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith. It's perfectly factual that Big Mac doesn't mention a single policy in his too lyrical, convoluted and over-the-top defense of the article. "Future historians" and "culture folded into itself" ? Please...These kind of comments are unhelpful, because AfDs are not there for enthusiasts to praise their hobbies or favorite games/TV shows...but to see whether the articles are policy-compliant or not. Big Mac is the only one besides you to disagree with the gameguide issue, good for him, but the issue of notability and insufficient sourcing was raised, and it is with perfect good faith that I say that Big Mac's flight of lyricism completely avoids the problem. Good for him if, as a D&D fan, he considers the topic of the utmost importance, but AfDs are not there for participants to just laud the TV shows/games/comics they like.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit baffled by your response Folken. There are two stated reasons for this AfD. Gameguide is one of them and I clearly disagreed with that. (I also think that this is not a copyright violation.) You claim that I have 'not mentioned a single policy', but then say that I 'disagree with the gameguide issue'. If you know that I disagree with the gameguide issue, which is half the arguement of the AfD what are you actually talking about? Are you saying that I need to provide a hyperlink to one of the two policies stated in the text at the top of this AfD? Or do you require people that want the article kept to type gameguide in capital letters? Big Mac (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added an introduction with a secondary source, where monsters are listed as one of the basic elements of AD&D. Though it is only one source, in my opinion, this establishes notability for the subject "monsters in AD&D". Please reconsider the article in its slightly changed form. Daranios (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability's not the issue. The issues are the possible copyright violations that this list may pose, and the fact that listing every monster in the book is a violation of being a game guide. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad to hear that there is no notablity issue. I do not think that the list is a copyright violation, as of the statement by Sangrolu from 12:52, 4 May 2012. Or reasons in my words: No stats are provided. The backbone of the list is comparable to an index of the respective book. As far as description summaries are present at all, half a sentence is provided for material of about one page. The list cannot replace the use of any of the books in the game. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • While one can argue that, in considering US Fair Use as Moonriddengirl has done, that we aren't impacting the commercial use (heck, it's an old edition) and are using minimal information, there's very little transformation of the information here. Again, I counter that if we had a similarly formatted list containing only the monsters with their own articles, that list would be part of the transformational nature of the work, being a navigation aid between the various notable creatures outlined by the books. But an all-inclusive list that does little else does not possess that quality and thus a potential problem. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or let me add another approach to the copyvio side: we have recently had to deal with the various Time 100 lists that people recreated directly here. In print, these lists include the person, what they're known for, and between a paragraph to a half-page of text about their accomplishments and why they are listed. The lists on WP consists of only their names. Yet, that's considered too much inclusion, because we're recreating the whole core aspect of a creatively-selected list, and there's no transformation otherwise. Though we can talk about achieving the Time 100 on the individual person's page, as that's now a transformational use of a short snippet of the list. Here, the same applies: yes, we're not including stats or other game-level details, but we're still including the whole list of monsters in the manual without transformation of that information. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Eh. I don't think the analogy works when moving into fiction/games. There the list itself has value (and no, I don't think a court would call replicating that list a copyright problem in any case). But couldn't I use that same argument to claim that a list of characters in "Lord of the Rings" or "House" would be an NFCC problem? I'm not seeing the difference... Hobit (talk)
            • I'm not sure the argument that this is a non-transformed list applies here. If Time Magazine go to the trouble of creating a list of 100 things, that would be the specific 'product' and you could argue that reproduction of the names in that list would be close to the original, but - to the best of my knowledge - TSR have never released a product called 'List of all AD&D Monsters'. I believe this list to be one that has been complied by Wikipedia editors and believe the list to be something that allows a non-D&D fan to have a look, see how many 'monsters' there are and what books they are in. I think that gives a reader a pretty good general idea of what 'monsters' (in the context of D&D) are. And I think that being able to look at an article like this to see if D&D had 10 monsters, 100 monsters or 1000 monsters can show the reader how 'big' D&D was back then. And there are internal-links to articles where the monsters are important enough to warrant their own articles, to allow a reader to surf on and discover more about the subject. Not only do TSR not loose anything by the existence of this list, they also no longer exist. And WotC loose nothing from this list either, as they are not supporting this out of print edition of D&D. So it is a valuable list for Wikipedia readers and has no negative effects on the IP owners. Big Mac (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • And more so, 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. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:LIST and not a copyright problem (it's more of a directory than anything else and those are mighty hard to copyright). Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - so, the list meets the criteria for WP:LISTS, it is not a COPYVIO as the nominator claims and it is backed up with independent resources so notability is not an issue. Why are we here again? This looks like a case of IDONTLIKEIT to me. Web Warlock (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it's not a notability issue. It's indiscriminate information that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and is a possible copyvio as identified above. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is easy then. I can attest as someone that owns all the books listed (and as someone that is familiar with copyright issues due to my day job) I see no COPYVIO issue here. EVEN IF there were, then and AFD is not how the issue is rectified since there is plenty of text and guidelines here on Wikipedia on how to help fix COPYVIO issues. If someone thinks there is, then that section in the text needs to be pointed out. Web Warlock (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WW, I think the claim is that a list, even one with no text other than the list, is a violation. Not seeing it, but I think that's what Masem and others are claiming. (Masem, correct me if I'm wrong.)Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • [EC, reply to Masem]You've basically made two claims here (and elsewhere) but I don't see how either of them hold water.
        • For WP:GAMEGUIDE could you specify which of those 9 bullet points you are referring to? None seem to apply.
        • For the copyright claim, could you explain how this list is different than a list of characters in a TV show or book? Seems nearly identical really and I don't think you are arguing for their deletion. Could you explain how you feel this differs?
Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to bullet point #3, which includes "Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate" (emphasis mine). Most "keep" votes suggest that it's referring specifically to video games and doesn't apply to tabletalk games, but I think that reasoning is spurious. As for copyvio, see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. As a list based on a creative work, Wikipedia is restricted in the amount of creative content that is copied. Per Moonriddengirl's comment above, this list is not transformative in its treatment of the material. It merely reproduces the list of names of monsters (and some page numbers), which is purely derivative. I see many "keep" votes which simply reject that the list is a game guide or copyvio without saying WHY they think that. Clearly, as Moonriddengirl has pointed out, there is a copyright issue here and it needs to be considered. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is possibly a copyright violation here. I'm not worried about the list itself, however - see city of iron monster list 1st ed for another example. The list of monsters and the books in which they can be found - essentially an index - that I am not worried about. There have been several created over the course of the game's existence, and there will likely be created several more. Neither TSR nor WotC have demonstrated much concern over indices to their books, and I'm pretty sure that maintaining a bibliography of where the monsters can be found in the books is not copyvio. I'm more worried about the description column - which, though fairly sanitized of direct quotes, does describe many proprietary monsters fairly well. WP:GAMEGUIDE doesn't worry me that much; this is not detailed coverage (sorry, guys, it's not; there is no mention on this list of the appropriate level for tackling these beasts, how many hit points, et cetera; the descriptions are very general). Notability is not at issue, as the book itself was highly notable, as were many of the monsters, and "notability is not temporary." The fact that someone hasn't gotten all the sources and articles to demonstrate notability for each monster, well, I'm not much concerned about that, either; that's a matter of completeness, and while I'd like to see it, that's not all that necessary. I'm more worried about the column of descriptions. I have to vote for Keep and modify and the modification is either to make sure that none of those descriptions is a direct quote from any of the books, or to flat delete the descriptions column.Marikafragen (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Axem's right, as I'm worried there's no transformative use - the purpose of this list is just to list the creatures with no attempt to provide context or insight. To contrast, a list of notable D&D monsters (read: monsters with their own pages) would not be a copyvio because in the context of discussing the monsters from an out-of-universe perspective, a navigational table like such a list would be appropriate. A list of characters from a book or tv show usually is not fully encompassing, only highlighting the major and minor characters, and generally in an out-of-universe perspective as well, thus further transforming the original work. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm really not seeing an incomplete list somehow being transformative. I think that's a massive stretch of copyright case law. And in all cases, directory-like information generally is very very difficult to even _claim_ copyright on. I understand your arguments, but reject them as being way out of touch with copyright law. As far as a "list of enemies" goes, A) They aren't all enemies, B) it does only apply to video games and C) the same could then be applied (again) to any list of characters from any work of fiction. Guys, you are really grasping at straws and I'm really curious as to _why_. These same arguments apply to almost any major work of fiction (and yes, D&D is a major work at this point). We have character lists all over the place and the only arguments you have is that A) the list is too complete and B) it's about a game and so it's different than all other fiction? Oy Hobit (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be viewing the list in isolation; I'm not seeing it that way. I believe it is not insignificant that the list links to Glabrezu and Invisible stalker and Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) and Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons) and a great number of other articles that combine to form a reference work that seems to me strongly derivative of an existing reference work. We don't seem to be advancing knowledge or progressing the arts through the addition of new material (to paraphrase our own article on fair use), but simply to be creating a condensed reference guide of a reference guide on our own. The question of whether taking is more "substantial" when viewed across multiple articles on a single website has not yet been established, to my knowledge. If for no other reason, because of that I don't regard this as clear cut enough to recommend processing through WP:CP, but I think it's a legitimate concern. There's no critical analysis or anything else that I can see to transform this content into anything other than an abridgment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so now the concern is that we have sourced articles linked to from the list and in doing so are taking too much from the reference work? As the reference work is mostly powers, statistics and artwork and considering we cover almost none of that, I'm more than a bit skeptical. I'd also like it if those claiming copyright issues would settle on one or two issues rather than having the rest of us play "wack-a-mole" as new (and frankly novel to this discussion) objections arise. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've made three comments and have mentioned this concern in every one I've made, I have to wonder if you've read them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I had read your comments earlier and then forgotten about those objections. My fault there certainly. That said, I disagree with your reading of the material. You've claimed that our listing here could/would interfere with the potential market for TSR/WoTC without explaining how that impact could even be conceived of. Further, there are things like "Spark notes" for non-public domain works (Kite Runner for example). The general bar is extensive quoting which this doesn't seem to approach. If you have case law examples in mind I'd love to hear about them. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to remember that the copyright on list issue has been something specifically addressed by the Foundation. This is not a random concern here - instead, while it is not declared as directly as the Foundation's take on non-free media, they have an interest to be more proactive than fair use law to prevent lawsuits. Granted, we only have some counsel advice to work from, and there's still room for consensus, but we need to take a stronger stance on fair use than the US law allows. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So this may or may not be a COPYVIO based on policy that may or may not exist yet? And Exactly what parts are COPYVIO? Based on this criteria I suspect that nearly 80% of all Wikipedia should be up for AFD. Honestly this is a very weak AFD Nom and it seems that people are looking for any reason to vote DELETE on it. If you are so concerned EDIT the article. Web Warlock (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is established guidance that is spelled out in full at Wikipedia:Copyright in lists (yes, an essay, but based on the WMF counsel involvement, and written by Moonriddengirl). And there's a specific reason its being contested in that there's no transformation of the original work to make the reuse of the existing copyrighted material valid under US fair use law. Is it an assured copyright violation? Of course not, but WMF plays it safe as evidenced by the NFC requirements. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Advanced_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_1st_edition_monsters&oldid=1197946000"