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!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Bulette was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 May 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Marshall, C. W. (2019). "Classical Reception and the Half-Elf Cleric". In Rogers, Brett M.; Stevens, Benjamin Eldon (eds.). Once and Future Antiquities in Science Fiction and Fantasy. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 149–171. ISBN978-1-3500-6894-0., has similar analysis.
Hergenrader, Trent (2019). "Catalogs of Fictional Worlds". Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN978-1-3500-1667-5. has quite a bit, from the role and problems of the wandering monster in "Building Fictional Worlds for RPG Adventures" to the "Case Study: The Kobold"
Baird, Scott (12 December 2019). "Some Of Dungeons & Dragons' Weirdest First Edition Monsters Are Coming Back". The Gamer. Assassin Bug, Blindheim, Crab Folk, Dire Corby, Eye of Fear and Flame, Forlarren, Fog Giant, Jermlaine, Khargra, Killmoulis, Mite, Needlefolk, Needle Lord, Norker, Screaming Devilkin, Ygorl, and a Xill
It looks like somebody just dumped lists from the (now deleted) lists of monsters in 1st edition D&D into this article. I am going to go through an weed out the cruft and condense it down to a single list. Is there a good way to format the tables so they can have just the monsters' names and descriptions? The template currently in use throws all sorts of errors because it is formatted to work as a table of contents for D&D books. Rockphed (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These lists were not at all dumped into here, but merged. They are trimmed down to those monsters which have their own article or have secondary sources. What errors are you referring to? You raise a valid point to be discussed, though: What would be better, listing the monsters according to the books, as it is now, or according to the creatures? If the format should be changed, in what way should the sources be presented? Daranios (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was simply easiest to merge them from the existing list, but if you have a preferred method of presentation, be my guest. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the original creator of this page, the intention of this page was to provide historical/cultural/academic context for D&D monsters in a holistic way, rather than providing yet another page that lists a bunch of them. Such pages already exist, and indeed the D&D template at the bottom of the page includes a "notable" row of monsters. I would reconsider whether large lists are appropriate and serve this article's purpose. This article originally referred readers to the Monster Manual page for contents, publication history, etc. I am aware that I don't "own" this page nor control how it's edited, but this background might help inform future edits. Geethree (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My plan was to have a list of notable monsters as a section of this article. If it got large enough that it was interfering with the article, then it would be split off into List of monsters in Dungeons & Dragons (which is currently a redirect to a section of this article). What I wanted to start with was only showing the monster names (which will be blue if notable enough for an article, black if there is only one significant, independent reference) and a brief description. Rockphed (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To aid in restoring material about notable monsters
In particular, I hope this will aid in determining which monsters are relevant enough to be listed here, as well as providing information about various publications over the years that may be absent from other Wikipedia articles. JEB215 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the current deletion/merge proposals is that the article should be merged, and Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons seems like a reasonable target. In addition to the two secondary sources present in the article, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters presents the creative origin. There is no benefit in removing the information from Wikipedia altogether by deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely support retaining material from independent WP:RS, and whenever the community feels that we do not have enough of that to maintain a separate article, I agree that it would make much more sense to merge here than delete what we do have. BOZ (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I searched there were many articles about various D&D monsters. It was excellent to show people not familiar with the game more about them. Now, there is one giant, almost unnavigable list that they all re-direct to, with sparse information. Was there some effort to remove all those (mostly well maintained)pages? Did someone who didn't like D&D work to try and remove them? I don't get why there was a change from something that was very well done, where people put a lot of their time and energy, into something as unhelpful as these long lists. It is a paperless medium after all. Could someone please explain this to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:74E5:9600:3075:2FF0:6BBC:650D (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for inclusiveness. I am saddened how so many editors' hard work and devotion has been treated. If it is any consolation, the pages were magnificent and very, very useful. I appreciated them all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:74E5:9600:5C2E:4067:F35F:B866 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, there is also no wikipage for Orcus? This is ridiculous! Sorry all...
For the record, these monster articles can still be accessed and added to in D&D specific Wikis, where they were already better fleshed out than they were on Wikipedia. For example, here is the article on Orcus at the Forgotten Realms wiki. They were simply deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia proper, which requires more strict notability standards. Just because they were removed from Wikipedia does not mean all the work put into them was squandered, since they already existed in more detail elsewhere.ZXCVBNM (TALK)07:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've created over 100 notable articles, so I'm anything but an opponent of inclusiveness on Wikipedia. If the pages were notable, I'd gladly want them to stay. But they aren't... you rarely see almost any work of media or game on Wikipedia with detailed articles on every minor monster or character in their lore. That is more like the Wikipedia of a decade ago.ZXCVBNM (TALK)21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have my doubts that you will convince anyone here that you are a proponent of inclusiveness, given your enthusiastic track record at AFD. It is a shame that people have turned against inclusiveness on Wikipedia in general and lack the tolerance of detailed articles on the lore of media; change is not always a good thing, but we are forced to deal with things as they are and not as they should be. 98.32.192.121 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ginormous amount of attention paid to Fiends - Demons, Devils, Yugoloths, oh my! Meanwhile, classic D&D denizens aren't even mentioned: Orcs, Goblins, recent fan-favorite Kobolds and even Dragons themselves don't even merit an entry. You've got some of the usual suspects of course - Displacer Beasts, Mind Flayers, Beholders - but to my eyes there's a totally inappropriate focus on Fiends here.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that most viewers do not come here looking for 'Ebon Aspect' - the focus on fiends seems innappropriate, like it dilutes the content of the article with trivial info, and I'm kind of surprised to find it in this state.
Is there context (aside from this article being a bit of an amalgamation of other previously-deemed unnoteworthy articles) that I'm missing here, that would explain why the "Monsters In Dungeons & Dragons" page is so scatterbrained?
I am going to take initiative and delete the extraneous and overly detailed lists. As an example, there is a huge amount of attention paid to fiends on this page (as noted elsewhere in this talk page), and that focus is clearly unwarranted. There is, for some reason, an entire section devoted to the Spider Eater. If you put the same amount of words towards dragons, abberations, etc, this page would become obviously overstuffed and unwieldy (and I would argue it already is). There are also existing pages dedicated to listing D&D monsters.
In addition to the abundance of cruft on this page, I think deleting the lists serves 2 other purposes:
The topic of this page is D&D monsters *in general,* not discussing specific monsters or lists of them. Specific lists or monsters are outside the bounds of this article.
I think the lists and fancruft create confusion about the purpose of this page and where it sits in relation to other D&D pages. Other editors have clearly taken this page to be a dumping ground for material better suited elsewhere, and some editors have created inaccurate or confusing redirects (ie, the discussion above about svirfneblin).
Perhaps the topic of this page could have been made more clear originally. If consensus cannot be reached on the topic of this page, I would propose deleting it outright and merging material elsewhere - and I am speaking as the original creator of this page, so do not take me as someone trying to blow up other people's work. I think, absent a clear focus, this page only reduces the overall clarity and quality of the D&D pages. Geethree (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geethree: I think trimming down the sections on fiends and the spider eater while preserving secondary sources is a good idea. However, I do think that individual monsters should have their place here in addition to groups/types of monsters and the concept in the game in general. Most individually mentioned monsters come from 1st edition. To allow them here was the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. While I personally would have prefered to keep the original list, I don't think this decision should be overturned without good arguments. Except of course for cases where there exists a "better suited elsewhere", like in the case of the svirfneblin. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that secondary sources should be preserved along with monster types and how the concept of monsters has developed over the course of different editions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geethree: Ah, I only now have seen that you have already acted on your first suggestion. But I think together with excessive details the changes now have removed sourced and worthwhile information on individual monsters (and overturned decisions from previous (deletion) discussions). As long as a better place can be found, I'd be fine with that, but even then, isn't that doing the second step before the first? It currently lets some redirects here dangling, creating new cases of confusion. I think a place should be found first for the worthwile information on individual monsters, which is too little for a stand-alone article. But where should that be? Do you think Monster Manual would be a good place? What about the larger topic of fiends which goes beyond individual books? Lastly, I think the discussion of monster types really is best suited here; here is where I as a Wikipedia user would look for it. Daranios (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with Daranios and Sariel Xilo here about retention of secondary sources, and keeping information about monster types and development through editions, and I feel that constructing a "notable monsters" section (i.e., one in which we have actual independent sources for those listed) is a good idea, although it had perhaps grown too large, and the section on fiends was admittedly quite a bit too large for the rest of the content on this page. BOZ (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and felicitations. There is an extra column on the right end of each of the three tables. Can anyone figure out what the problem is? I'm afraid that I cannot. —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
