Talk:Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Hey. Leave the tags; this article does need some help in terms of notability, and it does need a rewrite. On top of that, the sources given are... questionable. In terms of the use of primary sources, take a look at WP:PSTS. Here's my thoughts on the references listed.
*The first link, to the GG interview, should not be included; it only says that Bahamut is part of the FF series, but makes no claims about the character's benevolence as the Wiki article would lead one to believe.
*The second link is to a self-published source that should not be included. Pages thrown together for a class count as personal essays and should not be included. Also, take a look at the end of the page for the sources given: Wiki and a bunch of fansites.
*The review of the game isn't a very good source, but since the link is only there to show that Bahamut is included in the game, I think we can let it slide.
*The link to the miniature bothers me, if only because it technically qualifies as linkspam.
If there's anything else I can do to help out, please let me know. I'll be watching this page for a few days. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave the tags since you took the time to actually explain your actions and your point of view. I will look for more sources. Web Warlock (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for the comments.  Could you also look at this: http://www.book-of-thoth.com/sections-viewarticle-603.html Hobit (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that page is also a self-published source, and shouldn't be used. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't true.  It's a widely trusted (and distributed) FAQ.  If it's self-published, a lot of people have self-published.  Try a google search on it.Hobit (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you gauge widely trusted? It hasn't been published in any reputable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, etc), as far as I can tell. Distribution means nothing either. I could write an FAQ about some topic and upload it to a hundred different websites, but that doesn't mean that it's trustworthy. I'm curious as to why it's even on the reference list - for what purpose/sentences is it being referenced? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I just stumbled upon this article in a Google search and from reading the talk page, I'm a bit confused (note: I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so maybe I just don't get what's meant by notability).  It sounds to me like it's being argued that Bahamut isn't notable because there are few non-Wizards of the Coast sources that reference him.  I guess my question is, why would they?  Bahamut, the D&D deity, "belongs" to Wizards of the Coast.  He isn't part of the OGL or included in the SRD.  As far as I understand it, publishing his statistics, background, or any other detailed information that isn't made freely available by WotC would be akin to buying a DVD and playing it for a large audience without permission from the studio.  So doesn't it make sense that there isn't more than just a passing mention of Bahamut in any publication that isn't owned or subsidized by Wizards of the Coast?  Not only that, but since Bahamut is a fictional D&D character, non-D&D websites or publications don't really have any reason to make reference to him.  He's no more notable outside the D&D community than knitting needles outside of the knitting community.  Just my two cents...  
Skiguy330 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone will correct me, but the issue is that Wikipedia is being aimed at a general audience, so some believe that content which is only notable within a particular community don't belong here, and would be better placed on a Wiki or other publication aimed at that group. The best place to catch up on the issue is probably the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia article. In general, the notability template refers to "real world notability", which would typically mean (in this case) discussion of Bahamut in non-D&D publications, but this doesn't mean that they need to cover stats or other detailed information - just discuss Bahamut in some non-trivial way. - Bilby (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Thoughts 

message: While possibly useful to the article, the recently added Dogma section is almost word-for-word a copy/paste from the Wizards of the Coast book, Races of the Dragon.  It's only slightly modified from the original ("He accepts no excuses" instead of "He brooks no excuses."  "Foul deeds" instead of "Evil acts."  "Boundless empathy" instead of "Limitless empathy."  etc...).  I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now, unless other people think that it's changed enough from the original to be included.  While an attempt was made to paraphrase, I just don't think it's good enough.  Skiguy330 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogma 

message: The article is still demonstrably lacking in having its content based upon the coverage of the subject in third party reliable sources. WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the twenty-three sources are enough.  What are your specific issues with the wording of the article? Scr★pIronIV 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 19 of the 23 are primary sources, and of the non primary are a youtub video, geocities and tripod completely non reliable sources. The one reliable third party source RPGnet is just about a spin off game and not the actual subject of this article the character of the dragon.  - so yes there is a demonstrable lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TSR may publish the rulebooks for D & D, but they also publish other works.  Not all of the TSR publications are thus primary sources. While Dragon Magazine covers FRPG's, it is not solely dedicated to Dungeons & Dragons.  Same with Adams Media - there is impact within the world of gaming.  I appreciate your tenacity, but we are not dealing with a significant cultural issue here; I am not one of the enemies you have to battle every day.  Scr★pIronIV 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, TRPOD is right still - what sources there are that reflect the tabletop/RPG gaming field do not go into significant coverage in a secondary source manner to support this article. I checked what I can see of the Adams Media book on Google Books, and what little there is is just primary source, re-iterating the mythos of the D&D world. As a fictional character, we're looking for commentary on it's creation and its reception, and that simply doesn't exist here, and just relying on primary sources for this much information violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Its great stuff for a wikia or the like, but not WP. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - so what does that do for the rest of the D & D project? Bahamut is one of the better known characters, and Wikipedia is full of every demi-god and monster type, some which have never been seen outside of the game.  We are talking thousands of Wikipedia articles which would need to be either tagged or deleted.  Why is this particular one being singled out for special treatment?  From what you are saying, the project itself needs to be gutted.  I'm not arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but rather want to know what is to be done to achieve some consistency. Scr★pIronIV 12:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been a major issue that has long been brought up and long been not addressed. Most of the project's content, particularly the content about the individual critters and characters, needs to go as patently failing WP:GNG. WP:POKEMON. Why this particular article now? Clean up has to start somewhere sometime. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability is still an issue 

message: Of the body of the article EVERYTHING but the publication history and one sentence about a spin off game is in-universe game cruft, with nothing about real world commentary, analysis, impact etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: in universe issues

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308031559/http://ridureyu.tripod.com/ggygax.html to http://ridureyu.tripod.com/ggygax.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified