Talk:Yuan-ti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
I've expanded on the main yuan-ti breeds from the Monster Manual and added other breeds from various other sources. At some point, hopefully in the near future, I'll add sections on the religion of the yuan-ti and their roles in the Forgotten Realms and Eberron.--Filby 17:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Histachii / Broodguards feature twice
The histachii are featured twice on this page: once under the "Yuan-ti Breeds" section as broodguards and again under the "Related Creatures" heading as Histachii.
- Well, it isn't going to fix itself.--Robbstrd 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs work
Could someone more familiar with D&D work to give some context, real world impact, and inline citations to this article? Ursasapien (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've only got common knowledge of the Yuan-Ti (due to their Monster Manual presence), so, while I am familiar with D&D, I wouldn't be able to help. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page Locked?
I notice, with disappointment, that the page was edited THEN locked. Could those who have added the tags AGAIN please provide evidence for the necessity, rather than just their subjectivity. Otherwise, I will revert when the protection has expired. (I'm VERY disappointed, as well, by the personal attack in the Edit Summary. Please refrain from such activity in the future, or I will contact the admins.) CSHunt68 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- There are no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Please refer to RS and WP:N for details of why these cleanup templates apply. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I edited it, THEN asked for protection here. Don't accuse anyone here of malfeasance; the tools have not been abused.
- By the way, if you want something done, do it yourself and stop asking others to do it for you. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- 89000 Gooogle hits for Yuan Ti. Several third-party sources. Notability has been established. ... I will be removing these tags when the edit protection is lifted, unless you can counter these arguments. ... You have done nothing to refute my charges of personal attack.CSHunt68 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- Ghits are not the same as reliable secondary sources. However, if you add such sources, remove the template with my blessing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- They are a piece of evidence, indeed. And there are two secondary sources, as noted. I don't need your blessing, and will be removing the tag. (Oh, and YES, Jeske, you did EXACTLY what I accused you of - editing it to YOUR tastes, THEN asking for Edit Protection. Nice. AFTER making a personal attack. Refrain from such activity in the future. I won't ask again.)CSHunt68 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- WP:GHITS. Google hits may be evidence, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if all those hits are legitimate and not links to bestiality sites (as is possible with incorrectly-phrased or done searches). And, again, there is no malfeasance here, CSHunt, and I did not intend that phrase as a personal attack, only as a legitimate, if incivilly-worded, query. Stop attributing to malice what can be attributed to policies. There'd be a problem here with the protection only if I protected after reverting to my favored version; please read on the wrong version and cease with the cries of misuse of tools. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've checked the first few hundred of the Google hits, and they're fine. I maintain my statements, that you used the system to your own ends, and attacked me personally - not "incivilly", but personally and illegitimately. For someone who _claims_ to be against anything of the sort, you sure show your hypocrisy. And, considering that, when I took up the case with you, you practically immediately agreed to make one of the requested changes, your query "have you even read the article" seems laughable, and nothing more than a random, typical, idiotic, Internet insult. Anything else? CSHunt68 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- I made the change because I'd initially overlooked the Mongoose one. However, w/o inline cites there's almost no way to prove notability, and GHits can't prove notability in and of themselves. And, for the last time, I made no personal attack against you, and everyone else on Wikipedia would agree with me. The statement may have been incivil; but a personal attack it was not.
- And, again, I did not manipulate the system any more than most involved editors do when asking for a full-prot on that article. The only complaints you have against me are the incivility and the contradiction, but any uninvolved editor will tell you that's not enough to be yelling "fire" at a Hamlet performance. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 03:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- In any case, you made the changes without properly reviewing the article, then requested it be protected from those who disagreed with you. The rest of the statement is merely your opinion, not mine. Again, I will not warn you of personal attacks twice. When the article is unprotected, unless you can give me better evidence than you have, the notability will be removed. There's really no need for further discussion. CSHunt68 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- I've checked the first few hundred of the Google hits, and they're fine. I maintain my statements, that you used the system to your own ends, and attacked me personally - not "incivilly", but personally and illegitimately. For someone who _claims_ to be against anything of the sort, you sure show your hypocrisy. And, considering that, when I took up the case with you, you practically immediately agreed to make one of the requested changes, your query "have you even read the article" seems laughable, and nothing more than a random, typical, idiotic, Internet insult. Anything else? CSHunt68 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- WP:GHITS. Google hits may be evidence, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if all those hits are legitimate and not links to bestiality sites (as is possible with incorrectly-phrased or done searches). And, again, there is no malfeasance here, CSHunt, and I did not intend that phrase as a personal attack, only as a legitimate, if incivilly-worded, query. Stop attributing to malice what can be attributed to policies. There'd be a problem here with the protection only if I protected after reverting to my favored version; please read on the wrong version and cease with the cries of misuse of tools. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- 89000 Gooogle hits for Yuan Ti. Several third-party sources. Notability has been established. ... I will be removing these tags when the edit protection is lifted, unless you can counter these arguments. ... You have done nothing to refute my charges of personal attack.CSHunt68 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- (reset) Sure there is. And by removing the tag without discussion, then you are engaging in edit warring. And I really see no "personal attack" -- please provide a specific DIFF. seicer | talk | contribs 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, CSHunt68, you are being extremely uncivil yourself and flirting with a personal attack on Jéské. Please, refrain from incivility, dial back your emotions, and continue to discuss in a civil and rational manner. Can't whoever put the references in use those references to cite the specific information in the article? Even if they are primary sources, this would serve the purpose of verification of the information. Ursasapien (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Verifiability is not the issue, Ursa; notability is. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Verifiability will take care of Gavin's frequent original research refrain. If the article has inline citations (even to primary sources) it is a start. Certainly more will have to be done to assure notability, but at present the article is not in good shape. Ursasapien (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have not been incivil, nor flirting with a personal attack. I have not escalated the affair, I have continued to reiterate my concerns with JC, who maintains that asking someone "have you even read x" is acceptable behaviour. Period. CSHunt68 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- I consider terms like laughable, random, typical, idiotic to be fairly inflammatory and your accusation that there was something untoward regarding requesting page protection for an article that is being actively edit-warred over could be consider a personal attack. Nevertheless, I do not expect that you will be able to understand this point of view, as you seem extremely entrenched in you idiosyncratic perspective. I notice that, as you promised, you have continued to edit war over the article. It would be SO much more helpful if you would take the references that are already provided or some of your much discussed Ghits and turn them into inline citations. This would immediately diffuse the situation. Please consider doing so. Ursasapien (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Those terms were used to describe his statement, not him. 2. The page WAS in fact, edited, THEN put up for protection. MANY editors do not do this. 3. My perspective is idiosyncratic, how? Because you say so? 4. I have edited the article in the manner that I believe is most accurate, doing EXACTLY what I said I was going to do. 5. Notability and in-line citations are different things. Third-party notability and Ghits have been established - they need not be tied into the article in terms of citations to prove notability. I have no desire to edit the article otherwise. Please feel free to do so yourself. If no more DIFFERENT arguments are forthcoming in the next few days, I will again remove the notability tag. If you think the article doesn't meet WP:NOT, please nominate it for deletion. Have you even READ the discussion? ... CSHunt68 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- "Have you even READ the discussion?"
- So now, by your very definition, you have personally attacked me. I would ask for the same apology that you demanded from Jéské.
- 1. You used those terms to describe his behavior and he questioned your edit based on your behavior. Tomato/tomato. 2. The article was the subject of an edit-war. Jéské asked that the page be protected until this was worked out. MOST editors follow this practice, as it is the most common way to deal with edit-warring. 3. Your perspective is idiosyncratic based on the fact that you are currently the only editor that holds said view. 4. Yes, you have continued to edit-war over a clean-up tag in violation of current consensus. The fact that you did what you said you were going to do is not necessarily something noble. 5. "A topic is assumed to be notable, if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You have not established this to my knowledge. 6. You have made it clear that you have no interest in editing the article aside from removing clean up requests. This is as disturbing to me as those editors that have no interest in editing articles aside from inserting clean up request. If you have no OTHER interest in improving this article, I will bring you to the attention of administrators for disruptive editing. 7. I am loathe to nominate any article for deletion that has a reasonable chance of being valuable. The article is relatively sound, it just needs to have some of the information verified by citing reliable sources and it needs to have notability established by discussing real-world impact (development or critical analysis for example) per WP:FICT. Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ursasapien, CSHunt pointed out that I had edited the article before asking for the prot, which is what he's complaining about. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 09:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, this is not out of the norm. As you pointed out, the page always gets protected on the wrong version. He is also complaining that his argument that this article demonstrates the subjects notability has not been refuted and that you were incivil while he was not. I am attempting to show him the other side of these arguments. Ursasapien (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ursasapien, CSHunt pointed out that I had edited the article before asking for the prot, which is what he's complaining about. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 09:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Those terms were used to describe his statement, not him. 2. The page WAS in fact, edited, THEN put up for protection. MANY editors do not do this. 3. My perspective is idiosyncratic, how? Because you say so? 4. I have edited the article in the manner that I believe is most accurate, doing EXACTLY what I said I was going to do. 5. Notability and in-line citations are different things. Third-party notability and Ghits have been established - they need not be tied into the article in terms of citations to prove notability. I have no desire to edit the article otherwise. Please feel free to do so yourself. If no more DIFFERENT arguments are forthcoming in the next few days, I will again remove the notability tag. If you think the article doesn't meet WP:NOT, please nominate it for deletion. Have you even READ the discussion? ... CSHunt68 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- I consider terms like laughable, random, typical, idiotic to be fairly inflammatory and your accusation that there was something untoward regarding requesting page protection for an article that is being actively edit-warred over could be consider a personal attack. Nevertheless, I do not expect that you will be able to understand this point of view, as you seem extremely entrenched in you idiosyncratic perspective. I notice that, as you promised, you have continued to edit war over the article. It would be SO much more helpful if you would take the references that are already provided or some of your much discussed Ghits and turn them into inline citations. This would immediately diffuse the situation. Please consider doing so. Ursasapien (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have not been incivil, nor flirting with a personal attack. I have not escalated the affair, I have continued to reiterate my concerns with JC, who maintains that asking someone "have you even read x" is acceptable behaviour. Period. CSHunt68 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
- Verifiability will take care of Gavin's frequent original research refrain. If the article has inline citations (even to primary sources) it is a start. Certainly more will have to be done to assure notability, but at present the article is not in good shape. Ursasapien (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is the diff in controversy. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Verifiability is not the issue, Ursa; notability is. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
