Talk:Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)

Notability

On the notability side we have a Dragon Magazine article, the influence on Final Fantasy, and 32,000 ghits for Bahamut and Tiamat together (the only orgins of that would be D&D). Hobit (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not significant coverage in a reliable third-party source; See WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:V — re-tagging and I expect you to address these issues earnestly before you consider removing this clean-up tag again. Dragon most certainly does not count as an independent source; just a bunch of PR guff. Regards,Jack Merridew 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. Have you ever read Dragon? It certainly isn't "PR stuff", certainly not under Paizo. Can you explain why the article in question is "PR stuff"? If not, I expect you to leave the tag off. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No I have never read it. It is not an independent source, so they have an interest in promotion — hence it is "PR guff" (and when you quote someone, it is better to do so accurately). Again, do not repeatedly remove the tag with out addressing this issue. --Jack Merridew 06:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an independent source. Can you please explain what interest they have in promotion? Hobit (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It cannot be classed as independent, as it is simply a regurgitation of the primary material.

• Have you read it? If not, how can you make this claim? If so, I'll be happy to discuss the article with you and why it isn't a "regurgitation of primary material" Hobit (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have probably read WP:RS aleady, but for the source to be classed as independent and non-trivial, the source should have been peer-reviewed in some way (this excludes self-published sources, such as fansites) and the source should be backing up any claim of notability with substantial arguments, analysis and or critisism.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples, while not binding makes a good argument that something like a magazine would be acceptable. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A passing mention of the subject matter is not classed as relaible secondary source, particulary if the source is related to another subject matter. Please don't take this personally, but your or my opinion on its own is not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you continue to believe that Dragon Magainze isn't a reliable source in this context, I'd propose we bring it to the WS:noticeboard. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have already said that Dungeon magazine can be classed as a reliable seconary source, even though though it is published by TSR who are also owners of the D&D franchise. However, the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy Mordenkainen now! Its a really great game!", then it cannot be classed as reliable; also, if the source is simply regurgitation of the original game guide, then it must be treated as a primary source, and not as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• So then, what is your exact issue here? Can you explain what is wrong with this Dragon magazine article? Hobit (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• As someone who has actually read the article in question I can tell you it is not "a mere passing mention" nor is it PR. Web Warlock (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, since Bahamut is now a god in the Core Rules of Dungeons and Dragons (as of the latest edition), shouldnt we reconsider this in a new light? Basically Bahamut is now the deity of justice and honor, not only of good-aligned dragons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.240.253.118 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes that have happened to Bahamut should be placed in historical perspective - that is, we should see what he was like in OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, 3E D&D, and now 4E D&D. No single edition should be favored over another, even if it is the most recent, or the most popular version. BOZ (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

break for time jump

• Back to notability. I (again) removed tags as this appears to meet all WP:N requirements. Discussion above seemed to end with that conclusion. Please discuss before re-adding. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template (and other cleanup templates) from this article without reasonable cause, as the secondary sources cited in this article fail WP:RS. The sources quoted are as follows:

[1] An interview with the author in which there is not mention of the character;

• erb? The reference is there. It doesn't do much toward notability, but at least read the article. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[2] A self-published article which cites Wikipedia as one of its sources, nor has footnotes;

• A very nice article that doesn't appear to be self-published. Part of a class project possibly, but not self-published. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[3] A review of a card game published by Wizards of the Coast;

[4] A picture of a toy manufactured by TSR, Inc..

All of these source would be classed as "unreliable" in the sense that they are not independent of the primary source, and are effectively self-referencing. I ask you to restore the notability template after having given reasons for my concerns. I am confident that if this article is put forward for RFC, these concerns will be raised by other editors.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Issues well-addressed by Gavin; I'll restore the tags now. --Jack Merridew 08:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Filed for a third opinion. User:Dorftrottel 08:17, February 3, 2008
    • thanks Dorftrottel. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Also posted a request for comments in the D&D project page. Hobit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Let's cover a few things. Firstly, the cites you list are only the in-text citations. Others also exist in the article. As noted above, you mis-characterize the first two, though only the second is an independent third-party source. That it lacks footnotes is a novel argument for being unreliable, and last I checked, citing wikipedia didn't disqualify anyone either. Next, you mis-characterize primary sources as "unreliable". They don't meet the requirements of WP:N, but they are certainly reliable. Most of the above is unimportant in the WP:N discussion, but I wanted to correct those things.

So now let's look at the other sources. [5] is a reliable secondary source that exists in over 100 places on the web. And the Dragon Magazine article cite is an in-depth look at the topic. That provides three independent secondary references in the article. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This source is self-published. I can see you are trying hard to source this article, but from where I stand, either you do understand WP Guidelines, or you are deliberately ignoring them to push a POV. You need to stand back, and look at the sourcing issue from an independent disinterested viewpoint. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

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)

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)

• 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)

Sorry, but that page is also a self-published source, and shouldn't be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Weighing in on the use of Dungeons & Dragons Source Materials as references

Given that we are talking about a fictional character, in this case a major deity, which exists as a part of Dungeons & Dragons, it is natural to refer to the authoritative source for that character, which is the work of fiction he is a part of. In this case, I refer to the very proper sourcing of the first edition Monster Manual, as written by E. Gary Gygax in 1977. It is important here for me to stress, that Dungeons & Dragons, including the character of Bahamut in this article, is owned by TSR, later acquired by Wizards of the Coast, and therefore WotC is the authoritative source in regards to Bahamut's qualities; purely by dint of being the author of the fictive work in which this particular Bahamut resides.

While I agree that a few of the references in this article are less than stellar, Dragon Magazine is an official publication of The Wizards of the Coast (and TSR, before them) and therefore contains authoritative material. This is further supported by the fact that Skip Williams is a TSR/WotC game designer, and therefore in a position to release authoritative material. Likewise, the Manual of the Planes, the Complete Divine, the Draconomicon, and Deities and Demigods are all officially sanctioned publications of TSR and/or WotC, and therefore authoritative sources.

This article has several excellent resources, and seems throughly and properly sourced, by which I mean that a visitor to the article could verify its veracity with the references provided. I hope this effectively puts to bed any concerns about veracity and lack of sourcing. Dalamori (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are relying on primary sources; please find reliable sources that are independent of the subject that comment in a non-trivial fashion about this particular draconic deity. The concern is primarily one of the notability of the subject, not of the veracity of specific factual details. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:N as it relates to articles which are part of a series. My apologies in advance for the length of my reply, I've managed to find several articles which I feel are incorrectly tagged with notability guidelines, and therefore some of these arguments are being carried forward from my other discussions on this topic. Thank you for your patience reading this.

This article is not a stand-alone article, but rather one in a series on Dungeons & Dragons. There are several secondary sources in the main article supporting the notability of Dungeons & Dragons, and you can visit the main article to confirm this for yourself. However, the article on Dungeons & Dragons is already fairly long, and the subject of Dungeons & Dragons is so broad that it is necessary to split it up into seperate articles which cover different aspects of the main topic in detail.

Therefore, I assert that it is not necessary to determine if this article, taken out of context, is notable enough to stand on it's own; but rather to determine if this particular facet of Dungeons & Dragons is notable enough within the subject of Dungeons and Dragons to merit its own page. I propose that The TSR/WotC publications are sufficient for this, as they are the authoritative source for this subject matter.

For support of my interpretation of WP:N, I would direct you to the article on Winston Smith, which is part of a series of articles on the novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. I believe you are probably familiar with this book, and would accept my assertion that "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was notable at face value. Likewise, I point out that a detailed understanding of Winston Smith, the main protagonist in that novel, is integral to an understanding of the novel itself. However, I would also like you to note that there are no references in that article whatsoever. There isn't even a stub section for references. However, rather than disputing the article's noteworthiness on the technical grounds that the article does not provide secondary sources, the editors of that article have, very appropriately in my opinion, added a header which requests better annotation and references. If feel that this approach is more likely to produce better wikipedia articles, and much less likely to mislead a uninformed visitor to believe that the article is unimportant. Therefore I believe that this approach is best, under WP:Ignore.

In regards to this article, there is probably also a good case for notability under "Significant coverage" from WP:N, due to the amount of coverage this character is given within Dungeons & Dragons.

Lastly, I encourage you to visit Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance) and read the notability discussion there, which I believe to be strikingly similar to this discussion. In that case, I had a discussion with another user about whether that article should be flagged as non-notable or under-supported by references, and I feel the outcome of that discussion supports my position here.

To summarize, Dungeons & Dragons is notable, as evinced by it's own page at Dungeons & Dragons. The source materials for Dungeons and Dragons assert positively that Bahamut, a major draconic deity, is notable figure within D&D, and those wishing to verify this have the necessary references with which to do so. Therefore, this article is notable enough within the series of articles on Dungeons & Dragons to merit it's own page. I believe that the "refimprove" template is a better fit for the problems you are attempting to address than the "notability" template. Dalamori (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already replied over on the Paladine page; This idea you're running with is not exactly novel. Yes, I'm familiar with Winston; more than you know. He is, obviously, a highly notable fictional character. The WP article on him should have better sourcing, and if I were editing such articles, I would seek them. Basically you're arguing that primary sources can establish notability. Please don't hold your breath. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I can clarify my point quickly, in anticipation of having several people coming to refute my argument: I'm arguing primary sources can be used to establish the notability of subjects within a topic which has pre-established notability via secondary sources, especially allowing for common sense. I'm also arguing that adding the "Refimprove" template to articles which have are probably notable, but insufficiently sourced, is more appropriate than adding the "Notability" template. Dalamori (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are sufficient to use. Some source is better than no source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be more amenable to the sole use of primary sources to demonstrate this as being notable if they talked about the development of the deity and/or its influence within the D&D community or outside it. (The use of "Bahamut" in other media like FF7 doesn't necessarily confirm the term came from D&D, since it could have easily used the same mythos that D&D used). As this article stands and similar articles, I would recommend as a compromise merging them to a series of short lists articles. --MASEM 15:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This one is pretty clearly notable, and the FF7 references are darn clear about taking from D&D (Tiamat/Bahamut pairings are original to D&D). Hobit (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If the notability was clear, it wouldn't be at AfD.

My suggestion is this: if all these D&D dieties were combined into a single list, keeping exactly the information present in these articles, redirects as appropriate, I would find that list much more compelling to retain than giving a separate article to a single topic who's notability is in question by one or more editors. The list can then be treated as a spinout as part of the overall D&D universe, and likely, the "whole" of the D&D diety set can be found to have better notability than any single example. (In other words, this would be a merge, not deletion). --MASEM 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(And my mistake, this is not at AfD yet.) --MASEM 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, notability and its clarity isn't necessarily a factor in going to AfD when you've got one or two editors fixated on deletions.Shemeska (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the fate of many others articles with weak notability such as this when taken to AfD is generally the same - they'll end up deleted or merged, and unless more third-party sourcing can be found, this will likely be at the same fate if/when someone gets around to it. I'm suggesting that merging these now would be a pre-emptive avoidance of any AfD of these. The information is all usable, but taking it to a spinout list makes it much much less a viable target for those that are hard-set on deleting it. --MASEM 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying, this doesn't have "weak notability" Sourcing is hard, but Bahamut is very well known... Hobit (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside of D&D? That's not evidented yet. --MASEM 03:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Outside of the field of football, is a random NFL player notable? Hobit (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

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)

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)

The Final Fantasy video-game series has a dragon-god called Bahamut as well. If the dragon-god Bahamut "belongs" to Wizards of the Coast, then why haven't Square Enix and Wizards of the Coast sued each other for copyright violations or something if he's not part of the D&D OGL or SRD? Heck, the first Final Fantasy game itself resembles a D&D game, with the character class selection and huge variety of weapons, not to mention the archetypical spells. 75.157.92.36 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dogma

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)

notability is still an issue

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)

Certainly the twenty-three sources are enough. What are your specific issues with the wording of the article? Scr★pIron^IV 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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★pIron^IV 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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★pIron^IV 12:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

in universe issues

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)