Talk:Sahagin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Considering the overlap between these two articles, I think it would make sense to make the D&D section a subsection of Sahagin, like "Sahagins in D&D" or something. The appearance, intelligence, and behavior of Sahagins/Sahuagins varies widely among the settings that use it, like many other mythical/legendary creatures. I think it likely that these two articles reference not separate creatures, but variations of the same creature. -- Rablari Dash 05:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. I think "The appearance, intelligence, and behavior of Sahagins/Sahuagins varies widely among the settings that use it, like many other mythical/legendary creatures" is a good argument for keeping them the way they are, rather than merging. Sahuagin is a longer artcile than Sahagin anyway. BOZ
- I stand with BOZ on this one. Just because creatures have similar names does not mean they are the same creature.-- Robbstrd 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- My point was that neither spelling singularly identifies a creature. Sahuagin do not only appear in D&D, nor are Sahagin restricted to Final Fantasy. I think it likely that anyone wishing to research such a creature would not consider them separate creatures, merely different representations of the same mythical creature. Much like vampires, werewolves, or any other commonly used mythical creature: pictures, descriptions, and traits vary wildly, though they all supposedly describe the same creature. Essentially, my contention is that there is no one-to-one correlation between the spellings and the descriptions, or even a general dividing line. The description and imagery ascribed to sahuagin in many settings overlap with those of sahagin in other settings. In any case, one of the two spellings is a derivative of the other, as well as the concepts associated with them. Although the various variants may have drifted from each other substantially, I would think it would be most useful and accessible to place the information on one page, expound on the mythological origins of the creature, and how the concepts have diverged into what is known and used in popular media. As it is, both of the articles are very small, and would seem more complete if they were merged. I suggested that Sahuagin be merged into Sahagin because of the more specific content on Sahuagin, and because it's easier to pin down. Sahuagin are pretty well-defined within the D&D context, so they are a specific instance of a broader topic. It would take some checking into the origins and development of the word to be sure which spelling should actually be used for the article. I think a merge is a good idea at this time, because of the small size of the articles. However, were the articles larger, I can see how a separate article for a broad topic (Sahagin/Sahuagin) and a specific topic (Sahagin/Sahuagin in fiction) would make sense. Compare Werewolf, Werewolves in fiction, Vampire, and Vampire fiction -- Rablari Dash 08:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't see how there was any discussion to begin with, though I tried to start some. Would either of you care to clarify your positions, or address any of my points? Poking around a bit, I can see that you're both here in relation to the RPG WikiProject, and maybe that explains your stance a little. A glance through some of the articles in Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures shows a mixture of ways of dealing with legendary creatures that are used in D&D, and in some cases it's worth having a separate article, particularly when the articles are large. However, there is a pattern there. Typically, if an article is about a creature originally designed for D&D, or used in few other contexts, the name of the article is simply the name of the creature (cf. Illithid, Otyugh). In others, where the creature is in common use other than D&D, the article named after the creature is about the general case, and the D&D specific article is under creature (Dungeons & Dragons). Doppelgänger and Doppelgänger (Dungeons & Dragons) provide a good example where both articles are of decent size, and merit separate articles. Also cf. Dragon and Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). For some creatures, however, the D&D specifics are in one section of a larger article, such as in Naga (fantasy) and Rakshasa (fiction).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Because of the multiple spellings, these articles currently exist without specific naming conflicts. However, I think that someone looking for either the general or the D&D specific representation may enter either spelling in the search box, and be surprised if the one they're not looking for is the one to come up. So, at this point, I am suggesting that either Sahuagin be moved to Sahuagin (Dungeons & Dragons), or that the two articles be merged. I do understand that Sahagin is rather undeveloped, and I understand that it would not be reasonable to expect the RPG WikiProject to take any interest in it. But I think that there's an organizational issue here, and that the articles need to assume that anyone might read them, not just D&D players. -- Rablari Dash 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Its late, but I'll cast my vote for a merge. This article is little more than a stub, and its describing what is essentially the same thing as the D&D villain with a few stylistic differences. I suggest a heading titled "in other media" or something. That could also include the Warcraft Murlocs and the like. Also note that the "Sea Hag", an antagonist from the old Popeye strip was based on this mythical concept of a creature, though she predates the more modern incarnations as she looks human.75.109.148.221 (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Turk
-
-
-
[edit] Sah(u)agins in Warcraft (?)
Dunno for sure, since they are not called sahagins or sahuagins or the like, perhaps I'm just completely wrong, but I always though that those warcraftian Murlocs [[1]] looks liek their interpretation of the same mythical creature... Dunno... Any comments? 189.5.90.50 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
