Talk:Stone imp


Edit-paste.svgThe content associated with this talk page was considered for deletion, and either was deleted, or was kept after a period of discussion. This page has been retained for historical reference regarding the deletion process, or in case of future restoration of any deleted content.

I'm proposing that we should merge this and rapid fire trooper with KDiZD. They don't need separate articles. Fraggle 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Gez 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be what we normally do.  I know KDiZD was a very big deal, but unless it was as big a deal as a commercial release, no subsidiary pages.   :>     Ryan W 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge. Indeed, it was never a commercial release, so they shouldn't have separate articles. The Green Herring 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem pending[edit]

Stone imp is now a possible canonical enemy name for The Ancient Gods, Part Two. This redirect, which is an unlikely term for searches IMHO, is going to be in the way and I don't feel the new article should have to be named "Stone imp (Doom Eternal)" since it has priority as a core subject. Thoughts? --Quasar (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2021 (CST)

The redirect isn't used anywhere and the term isn't used in the article redirected to. Perhaps that was meant to go to KDiZD as originally proposed (and the trooper redirect too)? Anyway, I think it's fine to use "Stone imp" for something (a lot) more relevant if and when the time comes. --Xymph (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2021 (CST)
Stone imp is definitely a Realm 667 monster so I understand why the redirect exists at a basic level. It just seems kind of unnecessary, as we don't have redirects for every possible Realm 667 monster name. --Quasar (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2021 (CST)
EDIT: Additional rumination - there's a precedent that allows custom monsters to be documented if they've been used in numerous mods and are very well-known as a result. But even if that precedent eventually justified the Realm 667 stone imp to exist as an article, it'd need to be under a parenthetically qualified name and not this one. --Quasar (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2021 (CST)

This was one of the articles created long ago back when policy was not to allow articles for custom content, so it got turned into a redirect; it was either that or outright deletion. I don't see a problem with repurposing it as an article on some TAGPT critter if it turns out that "stone imp" is actually a canonical name there. Though I wouldn't jump the gun right now, remember the blood angel and the nightmare summoner? --Gez (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2021 (CST)

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the name change. --Quasar (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2021 (CST)