Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons)
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 merge to Hippogriff. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]
- Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)
This creature does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976)
Magical beast (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally, I favor a redirect or merge to Magical Beast, which seems more likely to be what people are searching for, but there are a few other applicable targets, such as List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go along with what BOZ suggests. Deletion would also be acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an iconic monster of the game since the beginning and was featured in Pathfinder, or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976). BOZ (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pathfinder is a separate gaming system from D&D and so primary source appearances in there do nothing to establish the WP:GNG threshold of third party sources discussing the subject of the article (the D&D hippogriff) in a significant manner. If you think the subject of the article should be hippogriff (Dungeons and Dragons and clone games, then the Pathfinder is still just a primary source with no value towards the WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- transwiki to some fanboy site that loves trivia. My search found no third party reliable sources discussing the topic in a significant manner, although google books was being kind of wonky and not letting me get beyond page 6 of the results. It seems possible that this creature /might/ be the subject of such coverage and so if one appears in the course of the AfD, I am more than willing to change my position to keep, but until then failure of WP:GNG means delete or merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there seems to be a lack of sources that would ever add the required real world context to this article. Merging totally ignores this issue and just creates masses of large messy unencyclopedic articles, brushing things under the rug for eternity is not dealing with the problems of non-notable fictional content that has no hope of ever displaying real world context. We have been merging things for going on a decade and now we just have larger merged articles that need to be dealt with. Ridernyc (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to Hippogriff, which is the same eagle/horse/lion thing anyway. A robust article which talks of the critter from antiquity to modern depictions would be fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Hippogriff, as I have been unable to find more than just passing mentions. I totally agree with Casliber; we should look to targeting the original folklore/historical articles when we can't find enough to keep the D&D creature separate, and use the D&D books to expand such articles. I did a small proof of concept article at Sha'ir a few months ago. —Torchiest talkedits 12:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is still primary sources. All the publication in the D&D books can provide is a "Looky, looky, I seen it here!" - no context or analysis which is what encyclopedic coverage is supposed to be.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily - our sourcing guidelines are just that - guidelines. If we are talking about a section on a page, or using primary sources to flesh out some noncontroversial details, then that is not a huge problem. Do we need out of universe discussion? Absolutely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying we should move the entire D&D publication history into the main Hippogriff article. And using the D&D sourcebooks would not be primary for that article, because the point would be to describe modern culture appropriations of the idea, and mention some of the similarities and differences with the historic/folklore traditions. Look at the Sha'ir article to see what I mean. I didn't mention every little rule and detail, but described a few key distinctions. I think that is a quite legitimate way to go about writing things where D&D has adapted creatures for its own purposes. —Torchiest talkedits 03:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- using the D&D books to talk about the D&D monster is indeed using them as "primary" sources. "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident;" and "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ...Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. " so in all practical and rational interpretations what we would be doing: using the books published by D&D to show that the hippogriff has appeared in books published by D&D. the content from here can provide to the mythological hippogriff article is "The hippogriff appeared in 6 editions of Dungeons and Dragons (D&D sourcebook 1) (D&D sourcebook 2)(D&D Sourcebook 3-6)". ... so? as far as any "encylopedic content" when looking at the subject of the article the mythological hippogriff goes, there is no there there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not primary sources if the subject of the article is not the D&D creature. The subject of the main Hippogriff article is the creature from folklore. It would be quite straightforward and perfectly acceptable to add a new section titled Modern interpretations or something similar, with text as follows:
- The fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons includes a version of the creature, which is described as having a horse's "ears, neck, mane, torso, and hind legs" and an eagle's "wings, forelegs, and face". According to the game's rules, the creatures are closely related to griffons and pegasi. –Monstrous Manual, p. 190, TSR, 1993
- I don't see that as either a primary source or original research. How could it be? It is giving a particular rules-based interpretation of a creature from folklore. And such a section could be expanded with info from other games or especially Buckbeak from the Harry Potter books. —Torchiest talkedits 13:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- when a source talks about itself, it is a primary source. when a D&D sourcebook is used to describe the D&D monster, it is a primary source, no matter what article it appears in. And while there is no glaring issues wrong with your suggested wording (there is a potential of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE in that the inclusion itself is implying some type of importance of the appearance in D&D), there is also no actual improvement to be gained from such a statement in the hippogriff (mythological creature) article - the critter was one of thousands of critters used in a game -so what. Thats just trivia. If there was a source talking about how the appearance of hippogriff in D&D caused a spur of use in all the other fantasy games that came after or describing how the mythological aspects of the D&D version had been modified to meet particular roles and functions in the game or even that the appearance in D&D meant that generations of game geeks now knew what a hippogriff was, then sure. But if we had those sources, then there would be no reason to merge the hippogriff (D&D critter) article in the first place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I'm trying to make this clearer. The distinction between the "D&D monster" and the mythological/folkloric creature is an entirely artificial one. D&D adaptations are essentially modern folklore. What I wrote was just a basic example, and hardly the entirety of what could be written. Again, the creature has been used in other games, and it would be possible to write something to that effect. I think there is an important difference between D&D using a creature that is hundreds or thousands of years old and D&D writers making up a completely new creature. In the latter case, I think what you're saying would apply more accurately. And if the hippogriff article were to be expanded to say, good article status, a complete history would necessarily include modern interpretations. —Torchiest talkedits 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While yes, a good article on hippogriff (mythological creature) would include content on modern interpretations and placing it in the modern contex, they would need to be third party sources placing it in the modern context and not just "Looky looky!! I seen it here!!!!". I am hard pressed to see any possibilities of expansion beyond what is in your your initial sample that could be written based on the primary sources present and not be analysis, synthesis or personal commentary. Yes it exists, but no encyclopedic context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I'm trying to make this clearer. The distinction between the "D&D monster" and the mythological/folkloric creature is an entirely artificial one. D&D adaptations are essentially modern folklore. What I wrote was just a basic example, and hardly the entirety of what could be written. Again, the creature has been used in other games, and it would be possible to write something to that effect. I think there is an important difference between D&D using a creature that is hundreds or thousands of years old and D&D writers making up a completely new creature. In the latter case, I think what you're saying would apply more accurately. And if the hippogriff article were to be expanded to say, good article status, a complete history would necessarily include modern interpretations. —Torchiest talkedits 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- when a source talks about itself, it is a primary source. when a D&D sourcebook is used to describe the D&D monster, it is a primary source, no matter what article it appears in. And while there is no glaring issues wrong with your suggested wording (there is a potential of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE in that the inclusion itself is implying some type of importance of the appearance in D&D), there is also no actual improvement to be gained from such a statement in the hippogriff (mythological creature) article - the critter was one of thousands of critters used in a game -so what. Thats just trivia. If there was a source talking about how the appearance of hippogriff in D&D caused a spur of use in all the other fantasy games that came after or describing how the mythological aspects of the D&D version had been modified to meet particular roles and functions in the game or even that the appearance in D&D meant that generations of game geeks now knew what a hippogriff was, then sure. But if we had those sources, then there would be no reason to merge the hippogriff (D&D critter) article in the first place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the beginning of the Characteristics and habits section is pretty precisely the kind of content I'm talking about: "Unlike the proud and majestic hippogriffs of myth, hippogriffs in Dungeons & Dragons are fairly bestial, being far less intelligent than griffons." —Torchiest talkedits 13:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not primary sources if the subject of the article is not the D&D creature. The subject of the main Hippogriff article is the creature from folklore. It would be quite straightforward and perfectly acceptable to add a new section titled Modern interpretations or something similar, with text as follows:
- using the D&D books to talk about the D&D monster is indeed using them as "primary" sources. "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident;" and "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ...Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. " so in all practical and rational interpretations what we would be doing: using the books published by D&D to show that the hippogriff has appeared in books published by D&D. the content from here can provide to the mythological hippogriff article is "The hippogriff appeared in 6 editions of Dungeons and Dragons (D&D sourcebook 1) (D&D sourcebook 2)(D&D Sourcebook 3-6)". ... so? as far as any "encylopedic content" when looking at the subject of the article the mythological hippogriff goes, there is no there there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to go with the idea, but beware of original research, I already see a potential issue at Sha'ir.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is still primary sources. All the publication in the D&D books can provide is a "Looky, looky, I seen it here!" - no context or analysis which is what encyclopedic coverage is supposed to be.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hippogriff. Gary Gygax "once received a letter asking how many eggs a hippogriff lays". Gary Alan Fine, Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds (2002), p. 33. bd2412 T 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hippogriff, per the reasoning of Torchiest and Cas Liber. The D&D books have adaptations of the historical concept of the Hippogriff and are fine as references showing examples of a modern view of the beasts. --Mark viking (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per the above, with the caveat that as an AfD outcome, that the removal of D&D-related content from the general article would be at least as much editing against consensus as re-breaking out the article without improving the sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- an AfD with a dozen participants cannot mandate that content be maintained forever in a merge target article if the editors of the target article determine that the sourcing / content is not appropriate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The best defense against editors with a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a merged topic is to watchlist the target page and contest any removal of reasonable, well-sourced material. --Mark viking (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a caveat would blatantly contradict the consensus I see here, and our editing policies. Editors with a bad case of WP:ILIKEIT, trying to game the system by resurrecting a non-notable article through a notable one, would be reported right away at WP:ANI. WP:MERGE does not specify that all content is to be merged, and WP:PSTS clearly advises against basing "large passages" on primary sources. As Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons) is based entirely on primary sources and is already quite lenghty, it will need to be shortened to a mention.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hippogriff (or List of D&D monsters) since the article fails WP:GNG, and shorten the content to a mention/example per WP:PSTS.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2013 (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.