Talk:Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: :New Idea. On the Kobold Page, people thought that the folklore and gaming stuff should be seperate, at least. I see how the folklore stuff could be seperate (although it's still pretty short). Could we combine the two gamer pages, at least? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Kobolds in gaming and Kobolds in Dungeons and Dragons can definately be merged in my opinion. If more information can be added to this page would help a lot, it would also cut down by one article that really doesn't need to be seperate. DeMyztikX 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternate proposal: Since D&D what the first game (AFAIK) to use kobolds, since the D&D article is so comprehensive, & since the information covering kobolds in other games is so short, my solution would be to add that information in a separate section of this article, such as "Kobolds in other games and media" (see the Gnoll article for something similar). This would prevent this article from becoming overly long should someone want to expand on, say the kobolds in Final Fantasy or WoW.--Robbstrd 01:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (again) Why? These are distinct concepts. The D&D Kobolds are lizardlike and have nothing in common with the kobolds of German folklore except their name. Kobolds in gaming is, similiarly, about the use of the name Kobold in fantasy games. They are about different subjects, they just happen to share the same name. I don't think the kobolds of folklore are used enough in games to justify a seperate article, but an article listing the various uses of the name is perfectly fine.--SB | T 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't D&D a fantasy game? Aren't they all (loosely) based on the same Kobolds from folklore? I can't imagine that the Nethack folks or Warhammer or Magic: The Gathering (or whomever) didn't either take the name from D&D, who took it from folklore. Even if they said, "oh, our Kobolds will be lizard-like instead of doglike," that's still coming out of the previous incarnation. I think the main question, as raised by Robstrd above, is whether Kobolds in gaming is the main page, with D&D as the most prominent game, or this D&D page becomes the main page, with a brief mention of the others. In either case, there should also be a disambiguation page. If they are kept seperate, then the D&D link should be at the very top of the gaming page, so that someone who thinks that the D&D is gaming would know where to find it. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Inspiration" has nothing to do with it. They are distinct concepts that share little in common aside from their name, and both articles have plenty of unique content, so there's (still) no reason to merge them.--SB | T 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with T. Kolbolds in D&D have developed away from their origins in folklore to the point that they are distinct from it. In my line of thinking the Kobold article is subtopic of the game Dungeons and Dragons not subtopic about folklore. The two should be kept separate if Kolbolds as a D&D race are to be included with a link to the folklore section in the see also or some such. If anything they should be merged into the Draconic Creature (tho I'm not in favor of this b/c this page itself really isn't notable). There is a similar discussion about Dragonborn on the Draconic Creature page. I argued there that the notability of D&D races in general is in question given that the few pages I've surveyed almost exclusively rely on primary sources. There are larger questions at play here, mainly, are D&D races notable enough to be included at all? If so, by what test do we use to determine their notability if they fail the standard test? I think these notability tags stem more from lack of clarity of vision as to the general notability of D&D races rather than problems posed by a few of the lesser known races.Sugarcoma (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New Idea for Merger

message: I have proposed that 3 pages about Kobold be merged into the main page. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This article is clearly about a distinct concept.--SB | T 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This would be a daft idea. A head-note to the alternate meanings might be an idea, but merging the articles would be a distinct error. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind. See new proposal. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Merger Proposal

message: What is this?  Goblinoid or Reptilian. - Peregrine Fisher 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reptilian, according to the Monster Manual 3E, but knowing nothing of the original game, I'll be bold and note that it was originally Goblinoid. -Jeske (v^_^v) 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reptilian doesn't seem to be one of the Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons). - Peregrine Fisher 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goblinoid isn't a type, either, but a subtype.  Reading the Monster Manual, it says a Kobold is a "Small Humanoid (Reptilian)" (direct quote). -Jeske (v^_^v) 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Goblinoid]] vs. [[Reptilian]] 

message: Where did D&D get the idea of changing the dwarf-like kobolds of German fairy tales, into the reptile-dog with horns? My theory is that they got the idea from a 1555 German woodcut from Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus, by Olaus Magnus. In it, a mining 'gnome' (mabey 'kobold' in German) looks like a black demon with horns, which resembles the D&D kobolds.  76.81.194.199 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research. Give us proof that they deliberately based it off that woodcut and not off a fairy tale with kobolds in it.  Until then, all we have is speculation. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: :Image:Kobold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kobold.jpg

message: I have removed the section on "Tucker's Kobolds" because a user has claimed that including it here constitutes a copyright violation.  Please do not restore this material until the issue is resolved.  Nandesuka (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus on WP:AN/I is to leave this material in, with the redirect and history restored.  Done. Nandesuka (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of copyright violation 

message: Would it be possible to do a section on this information as it pertains to the older editions of the game as well.  3e Kobolds and AD&D Kobolds differ in a number of ways.  Emry (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kobold Ecology, History, Etc 

message: Why is it that Pun-Pun merits his own position? He is not cited in any legitimate media, and despite his strength, does not deserve mention. Far more important things do, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica.Ch ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.5.52 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I see little relation between dnd kobolds and kobolds173.190.168.218 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological Origins 

message: In the cartoon "Unforgotten Realms" & the MMO "Rift: Planes of Telara," Kobolds are canines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kobolds in other media.