Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 44

Ilustrations

i have been looking for a subject to take now that i come back to ilustrating for commons. are you acepting illustrations? if so do you have a list of articles in more dire need? and i would also need a place where to talk with others to work and improve the ilustrations before posting.. let me know if you are interested -LadyofHats (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Yes, there are several monsters that have been merged to lists--as such, they cannot have non-free images. Some, like Unicorn (Dungeons & Dragons) already have free replacement for the 'official' images, but anything you can replace a non-free image with a free one would be very much appreciated. I'm not sure which are most in need... Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This would be fantastic! Sizeofint (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

good then i will get to work :) -LadyofHats (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC) dunno if it is here where i should publish this, but i made the blackand white version of the basilisk..(had to start somewhere) here is it, if there are no changed sugested i will move foward to color it:

That looks stunningly good. You don't need to color them, as most of the images are black and white. I'll add it to Basilisk (fantasy role play) as is, feel free to replace it if you do a different version... Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

That is fantastic, thank you! It is up to you if you want to color it, as I agree with Jclemens that it looks good as-is. Although it would be nice to see what it looks like in color if you want to do that. BOZ (talk)

Wow, looks great! Sizeofint (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

That is fantastic.

But...

Should we really be using fan art to illustrate articles (even if it is of such great quality)? I don't know if that's necessarily a good idea. It's not an official piece, and it's just one fan's interpretation of a fantasy creature. Just a thought. oknazevad (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point and is something you need to decide as a group, but i would argue that a lot of the monsters in DnD are actual mitological creatures, or creatures described in other stories. and under that light even the "official" illustrations are fan art. also interpretation is something you will always have no matter who ilustrates something. just google dragon and tell me whichone is "more" dragon. or harry poter and from all the "official" illustrations wichone is the actual one.

On the same line your articles only mention a very thin description, no statts nor game mechanics, nor any other form of "in depth" information about the creature itself. so from the point of view of that sort of article, a picture of the book cover where you found it would be sufficient. i will ilustrate things if you need, i did ask in what way i can help. so please check if this is what you want or not-LadyofHats (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue with our monster articles, most of which re-use artwork from AD&D under fair use terms, is that per WP:NFCCP, we should be replacing those fair-use images, published by TSR/Wizards, with free equivalents whenever possible. A truly strict reading of that policy would have us delete those fair use images because free replacements could be created. Note that even if these weren't needed for our articles, she is donating them to commons, so, for instance, novice game designers would be able to use her creations as part of their work. This is really an awesome gift that LadyofHats is giving us and the gaming community in general. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

But would they be truly equivalent, being one is an official depiction of a D&D creature. Conceivably, we should remove the fair use image in the infobox of Superman and Spider-Man because user-created images could be made, but there would be issues with the copyrights on the character. Then again, as Lady noted, many classic D&D monsters are taken from mythology and folklore, and not strictly copyright without their stats and description (and the OGL opened a lot of that up too), so it's not perfectly equivalent. Just things to keep in mind.

Good point about the donation to Commons, though, as they are valuable for use in homebrew and self-published stuff. And that really is a fantastic image, m'Lady. You really are talented. oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

i think it is not equivalent. nor it has to be. the point comes down to the focus of your article. is the article about the basilisk mytological creature of the midle ages later adapted to the original dnd and later reused and reinvented in movied comic and rockband names. then sure an ilustration on how it definition and look has been chaged tru the ages is a good idea. if you want to focus your article only and simply in the wizard OtC then you need to use this one: Fat blue guy which is the latest official version. On the other hand i would make an argument that we are talking about historical images adapted as game pieces here and less about well flesh out characters in novels. so much so that even between oficial text you will find tons of diferent graphical interpretations. comparing this images to superman is too far fetch, more apropiate would be to compare them to tarot cards, or chess pieces. they do have a visual element but their function within the game is what gives them meaning -LadyofHats (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

so i waited for some more infor here. i will fix the image and post any new ones here-LadyofHats (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as donating your work to Wiki Commons, I say go with your heart on that! If you want to also use it here on any article, I certainly don't object, and if anyone wants to challenge it we will have to see what the outcome is. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Concur, I don't think there will be objections on most articles, especially ones that currently lack artwork. Sizeofint (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Gallery

• 
  Basilisk
• 
  Black Pudding
• 
  Centaur
• 
  Chimera
• 
  Cockatrice
• 
  Djin
• 
  Dragon
• 
  Dryad
• 
  Dwarf
• 
  Efreeti
• 
  Elf
• 
  Elemental
• 
  Gargoyle
• 
  Ghoul
• 
  Giant
• 
  Gnoll
• 
  Gnome
• 
  Goblin
• 
  Gorgon
• 
  Grey Ooze
• 
  Green Slime
• 
  Griffon
• 
  Hippogriff
• 
  Hobgoblin
• 
  Hydra
• 
  Stalker
• 
  Kobold
• 
  Lycantrop
• 
  Maticore
• 
  Mummy
• 
  Minotaur
• 
  Nixie
• 
  Ochre Jelly

Collapsed image discussions

Black pudding i am following List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) and this one is the next in the row.. but i discover too late it has no page :P. so i will leave it here and fly away to the next..-LadyofHats (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Perhaps we can add a column to that list for images. Sizeofint (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Here is how to add an infobox to the page: [1] 2602:304:CE74:9630:BDD3:D25:482F:2A62 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Image was removed, unfortunately: [2] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Centaur next on the list. i know you have enough images but i wanted to do the whole set. -LadyofHats (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC) I modified the list and underlying template so that it accepts images. I'm adding them as they come. Thanks! Good solution. Actually, love the look outright. oknazevad (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC) I was thinking we should revisit this one, based on the discussion about the giant below, namely that it's considered better for the subject to be facing the viewer. I think this is especially needed for the centaur here, because the rump is not exactly a good look. oknazevad (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Chimera still not sure about this one, the dead body looks too similar to the beast. also even when the description uses lioness many seem to prefer a male lion. so i may change that head -LadyofHats (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC) True, it does look good but the arrangement is a bit confusing. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC) uploaded the new chimera. male lion head and a more dead cadaver-LadyofHats (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Cockatrice here is the next, once again not sure about the wings, seems to big, maybe i place another object to improve composition, will think about it-LadyofHats (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Nice! If you happen to be using vector graphics for the images would it be possible for you to upload svg files? Otherwise with raster the png files are fine. Sizeofint (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC) i didnt knew you wanted vector graphics. (those are made in another program :P) are they really necesary? if so i can start doing the new ones as svg it will only take longer to do-LadyofHats (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC) They're just nice to have, not really a necessity. I was just asking on the off chance they'd were convenient for you to generate. The png files are fine :) Sizeofint (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC) The size of the wings seems fine, especially when you compare to the image at Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC) added a snake to improve composition of the image. looks better now so i will move to the next. -LadyofHats (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Djinn Looks pretty badass! I'm replacing the non-free versions in the articles with these as we go. Sizeofint (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Dragon This was a hard one, if at all becouse there are so many images excisting. i hope is good enough for the wiki. -LadyofHats (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC) I like it, thanks! BOZ (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Dryad Rearenged this text so is more clear about them images, and each individual discussion. if anyone could add it to the list would be kind.-LadyofHats (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Nice, I really like this one. Sizeofint (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Dwarves sorry for the delay. here is the next one.. i will try to get the next this week-LadyofHats (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Totally on your schedule. No pressure from us. Looks good, added it to the list and the article! Sizeofint (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Efreeti here it is. ;) -LadyofHats (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Elves and elemental i am aware you have a lot of better ilustrations on the elf page. this is more for sake of having the complete set. elemental came out a bit dark i may lighten it up later to match it to the rest of the images -LadyofHats (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Cool, these look great! Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Gargoyle I wasnt sure if i should make it winged since in the first version of the game they werent. but i suposed it may as well be, becouse the descriptions doesnt mentions it specifically not having wings..even if i think it would never fly-LadyofHats (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) I think it looks cooler with wings. Sizeofint (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Ghoul there is no page for this one, but still.. i am following the list, so i supose it will be there :P -LadyofHats (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Nice! I have always believed that the D&D Ghouls were more like the creatures from zombie movies, while the D&D Zombies were more like the creatures of voodoo lore. BOZ (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Giant here we go-LadyofHats (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC) The illustration itself is good, but my main concern with this image is that the subject is facing away from the viewer. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC) well the only real visual distinction between giants and any humanoid nordic cultured "folk" is the size. if you wish i can make him look back at the observer. but it is in the end a human face-LadyofHats (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC) The problem is that none of the 6 types of giants in D&D have a ordinary human face, each one reflecting their respective type (cloud, fire, frost, hill, stone, or storm). Also they're all different sizes. oknazevad (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC) All giant have a human face if at all with elemental facial hair. i will redraw it anyway. probably into a frost giant since that was one of the first-LadyofHats (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC) here it is-LadyofHats (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Ooh, pretty. Seriously, looking at it now, seeing the face does make for a better image. And it still has the trees for scale. Lovely work as always m'lady. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Gnoll sorry for delay.. here is the next one-LadyofHats (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Cool, for some reason I had the mistaken impression gnolls were fey. Looks good! Sizeofint (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Nope, looks about right to me - perfect! BOZ (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Gnome here we go-LadyofHats (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Nice, probably my favorite race. Sizeofint (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Very cool. Fixed the typo in the header, though PS, smilies require a template with a word, because of indent markup) oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Goblin next up. -LadyofHats (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Gorgon next up. -LadyofHats (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Grey Ooze i strugled a lot with this one, is kind of hard to show a puddle of water being dangerous. it does feel like one of those monsters that are there just to annoy players -LadyofHats (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC) LOL, I like it. It works; anyone who has ever heard of some kind of malevolent goop should get it, but other people might still be puzzled.  ;) BOZ (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Green Slime i do hope this is the last ooze :P -LadyofHats (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC) There's always the infamous gelatinous cube. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Griffon here we go. something bit more interesting :)-LadyofHats (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks! These are a bit more exciting than slimes... Sizeofint (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Hippogriff this one doesnt seem to have a page specifically for dungeons creature but is here anyway :D -LadyofHats (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Added it to the list at least. Sizeofint (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Hobgoblin the evil lawfull goblin :P when orcs arent sofisticated enough ..lol -LadyofHats (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Love it! Added. Sizeofint (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hydra

head after head after head.. :) -LadyofHats (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Invisible Stalker

sometimes you think an image couldnt be that hard.. so.. if you dont see it, is becouse i did my job.. or if you do see it.. is becouse i didi my job?..

Wow, this one is difficult Sizeofint (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of the "illustration" from the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual... just a blank square.  :) 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Kobolds

i am sorry for the dealys this month is going to be very harsh to me i may skip agust alltogether and come back after. in any case i went into the reptilian kobolds of 5e since i find them more apropiate to the description of the race. -LadyofHats (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, totally on your schedule :) Sizeofint (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lycantropes

as usual went for werewolf as in the book. hello again everyone btw :P-LadyofHats (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Manticore

so here i went more for the actual myth of the manticore. who was told to "sometimes" have 3 lines of teeth, a scorpion tail, and a lion body. removed a bit the human head becouse of the bite attack and becouse it would look a lot like a sphinx. -LadyofHats (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Minotaur

one more :)-LadyofHats (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Volo

I noticed a red link for Volo's Guide to Monsters so figured it was about time the 2016 publication had an article. Could do with a cover added and something for reviews / reception. sheridan (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

TFA - head's up!

It's been a while since this project has had a Today's Featured Article, but Dungeons & Dragons (album) has been scheduled for May 19.  :) BOZ (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

And, it's up there! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Assistance requested with Rokugan article

I'm asking for assistance here as the Rokugan article has been removed twice in April without a process such as an AfD request being carried out first. The first time was on April 15th, accompanied. The article was restored by someone on April 20th and the editor who did the original change to a redirect repeated the change, saying that sources should be added before the redirect should be undone.

Before the edits turning the article into a redirect, there were a number of constructive edits being made every year, so I don't consider the article abandoned.

I agree with the request to add more citations to the article, as I think this would be very useful to readers, but I do not believe this article should have been removed from Wikipedia without some sort of discussion and some sort of attempt to seek out editors who could improve the article.

There is also a challenge, on the talk page, against the Rokugan article being part of the Dungeons & Dragons category, that has not been answered. Big Mac (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting clarity on deity pages

Hi, everyone! I'm a bit green to Wikipedia and the DnD project. Recently I created the draft for Kavaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kavaki,_the_Ram-Lord

This led me to find the DnD project and some Talk on merging god pages. I feel like the Goliath pantheon as a whole would wind up being merged. I'm happy to create a page on the Goliath pantheon, or a section in the relevant article, so we can mark the Kavaki article as merged and clean-up, but am not sure on how to start.

Could someone shoot me a line and let me know where to look/how to start?

ArlJJAS (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, they have only appeared in one book, so it might be best to just list them in a small section in the goliath article? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:ECC0:C9E6:CBDE:BDA3 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ads

Does this project have a Wikipedia ad? I took a cursory look at the list and did not see one. If not, I would like to try and make one when I am logged in. (I am User:Rorix the White, and away from my computer right now.) 209.68.120.152 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I was on a different computer and could not remember my password. Rorix the White (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What would that entail? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I imagine they're proposing something like {{Wikipedia ads}}. Instructions appear to be here (for Windows users). Elfabet (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was asking about.Rorix the White (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So then the question is, what would you want to do with that, specifically? 2601:241:4280:161:4D90:33F:CF4F:454E (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be used to promote joining the project. I would put it on my user page, and if others did the same, people would be more likely to notice it, thus stimulating the project. (Basically, it would be used the way Wikipedia Ads are supposed to be used.)Rorix the White (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen one, but I'm in favor. Is there a noticeboard we could recruit a volunteer artist to help with (if no one wants to tackle it themselves, of course) Elfabet (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I for one would like to use that to generate interest in building more quality content; it has been five years since anything new was added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/rightpanel#Featured content ! 2601:241:4280:161:4D90:33F:CF4F:454E (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then, if there is something you have in mind, make it! Rorix the White (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Critical Role actors

It seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but the voice actors from Critical Role have been added to the D&D WikiProject[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and possibly others. Does it seem reasonable to conclude that they would be within the scope of this project? We haven't included the voice actors who have appeared in D&D cartoons or video games, or the actors who have been in live-action D&D movies, so I am not sure what qualifies these folks for inclusion here. 2601:241:4280:161:80D1:86B2:C588:9F8D (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Back ..i think.. medusa

• 
• 

this wasn't easy, i wasn't clear how human the first version of the medusa was. in any case if the image isn't accurate you can simply remove it from the list and i will do a more human version of it -LadyofHats (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC) also...Orcs do you want pig faced original orcs. or more green gorilla modern ones?-LadyofHats (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, and thanks! I think maybe somewhere between those versions of orcs, like an amalgamation of them? BOZ (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

and here is the orc-LadyofHats (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Amazing work as always. Welcome back! oknazevad (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)