Talk:Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: *The mergers were tagged on the articles by Cryogenesis; I'm just putting the other end on here. My personal view would be that Gray ooze and Ochre Jelly should probably go in here, as I don't think they're really significant enough to warrant their own page. Pudding (Dungeons & Dragons) I'm less sure about, as that's made its way into other media (eg Nethack). Cheers --Pak21 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would not support the Dreadmire monsters being merged here. This is just another attempt to save non-notable Dreadmire cruft.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. I deliberately didn't add the  tags for those. Cheers --Pak21 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have at least corrected all the faulty merge tags Cryogenesis added. Most of them didn't even point to this article. I've also changed them to mergeto tags to keep all the discussion here.--Rosicrucian 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Exactly. They're not canon, and shouldn't be merged into a D&D canon article.--Rosicrucian 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have no problem merging Gray ooze & Ochre jelly into this article (or leaving them as is, for that matter). Pudding (Dungeons & Dragons), however, should have its own article, being that many regard the black pudding as a "classic" monster. I'm also opposed to merging any Dreadmire cruft.--Robbstrd 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *As for merging Stunjelly into Ooze, I'm indifferent.--Robbstrd 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the one who proposed the merger. As you can see above, there is significant consensus against including the Dreadmire articles.--Rosicrucian 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: * I have merged in Gray ooze and Ochre Jelly (all comments in favour).
* Pudding (Dungeons & Dragons) there was some opposition to merging, so I have left it as it is.
* Gelatinous cube wasn't included in the original discussion, but had a merge tag on it. As an iconic D&D monster, I think it should stay as it is. I have removed the merge tag, but feel free to re-open the discussion if you feel strongly.
* Stunjelly has been deleted via .
* The Dreadmire monsters have been deleted via AfD. --Pak21 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actions 

message: Does this section belong in an article about D&D oozes?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadzar (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 October 2006.
:In this case it refers to D&D oozes from books other than the first Monster Manual. It does not, as some have assumed, refer to oozes from d20 products.--Rosicrucian 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK wanted to make sure that is what it was since there are several proposed merges possibly including non-D&D oozes. Thanks for signing for me, I must remember to not rush and forget. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oozes from other sources 

message: Seems this article now resembles more of an advertisement for a single or split edition of the game, than a representation of this articles subject within the overall history of the game. shadzar-talk 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of these creature-type like articles need some work, but I wouldn't say that it is a neutrality dispute. I'm replacing the neutrality tag with a recentism tag, which I think is more appropriate to the situation. I'll look into putting in some 1st edition refs within a few days (once my current backlog clears up a little bit). -Drilnoth (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually just found the time to clean it up; what do you think? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a lot more neutral and less biased towards 3rd edition now, as it did prior to only having a 3rd edition section. Still some things to work on, but it no longer looks like an advertisement. Sadly you are right, there are MANY articles biased towards 3rd edition only that span editions and recitism just don't cover it, because the articles were written form the POV of 3rd only, and that was needing cleanup for a long time if you chekc the project archives. Looks much better now that there is room to work and doesn't misrepresent itself to those who use wikipedia and know nothing of the subject matter themselves. Still needs the 2nd edition and little work later, but should stand well enough now. shadzar-talk 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I only referenced the books that I owned, so that's where this isn't any second edition stuff. I hope that the WikiProject really starts work on fixing recentism soon... there's just so many different things that need to be done to cleanup all the articles, and that's definitely on the list. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a reference for Aballin ocurring before 3e in the Fiend Folio, so I added it along with the reference. C-Blade (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: LOL - thanks for catching that! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: I think this article should be rename from D&D theme which has dubious notability to a more generic and notable Oooze (fantasy creature). Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and focus