Jump to content

Talk:Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appearance in other media

[edit]

This section notes B....(Forgot zeh word)'s Gate 2, saying they appear throughout. It does not mention the first one, which, if memory serves, features one as one of the first bosses.. Along with one sitting in the starting tavern. I couldn't say for sure, as I no longer have the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.54.198 (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about another possible appearance. Wasn't there a beholder in Big Trouble In Little China? IRMacGuyver (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something that looks like a beholder, undoubtedly. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MMorpg DDO Eberron Unlimited Features an extensive amount of Beholders. From main boss of a quest, to normal enemies (in quantity) to friendly NPC related to a quest. I would try and add a note myself, but i dont write good enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.251.182.130 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Characteristic appearace

[edit]

The article was saying Keith Parkinson changed it to show plates and arthropod-like stalks, but these are both present in the sketch by Tom Wham (I'm almost certain it's by him, given the little TW signature) in the first edition Monster Manual. Keith Parkinson may have given it its popular or modern look, but those characteristics weren't his invention. I've reworded that part correspondingly. Who is like God? (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgon inspiration?

[edit]

Beholders look a hell of a lot like gorgons, or more specifically Medusa's head. And their abilities are similar. I'd be surprised if they weren't inspired by them. Anyone know of any sources? Tommkin (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Illustration

[edit]

Not sure if the creator of the main illustration is a part of this project. I joined Wikipedia in the hopes of contributing somehow, and I think it would be fun to create some art I can share to illustrate some articles like this one. Let me know if the project behind this article would be interested in me doing some illustrations you would have permission to use. --Ezgoodnight (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'd love to have them! You might want to ask around in the right places about how to make sure your images can be properly licensed for use with Wikipedia. User:Drilnoth used to be associated with WP:DND and knows a lot about image licensing, so if he is available you may want to ask him. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can upload them both to my website and to flickr and put up a disclaimer and a Creative Commons tag on them so there's a permanent record of it. That should protect me in the case of any theft, and I'm pretty sure CC stuff gets put on Wikipedia all the time. I will talk to User:Drilnoth about it beforehand, though. Should I pick the articles I'd like to illustrate, or let the WP:DND community decide? I know for a fact I'd like to do one for the beholder. No offense to the creator of the existing one.--Ezgoodnight (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I kind of like the beholder pic, although I know it is silly.  :) So go ahead and have a go! Also feel free to replace anything with a non-free image, such as that taken from a D&D book. As for which ones, why not a combination of both - pick some of your faves, and then go to the WikiProject talk page and see if anyone has any preferences!
Sounds like you have a decent idea on where you're headed as far as the licensing goes, although talking to Drilnoth and/or someone else first is still a good idea. BOZ (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything against the goofy image used now. I just love the D&D monsters and think this would be a fun way to donate some of my time. I left Drilnoth a message on his talk page. Will have to see what happens from there.--Ezgoodnight (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The beholder sketch ws done by longtime friend of WP:DND, User:RJHall. I don't think he'll mind if you replace it, as I figure he did it for fun anyway. Maybe we'll make him the WikiProject mascot instead.  ;) BOZ (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it ain't done yet, but here's what I've started. Any thoughts to improve the piece appreciated. Are there any other members of the WP DND I should notify? Drilnoth has not responded, sure he's busy. --Ezgoodnight (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's great!  :) Drilnoth is on and off, so he may be around eventually. I would post a thread at the project talk page because I'm sure some people have it on their watch list. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no issue with having the current somewhat whimsical illustration replaced; it was always just intended to replace an even crappier drawing that was there before. You could either move that sketch down into body or remove it entirely. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I'm checking out whether it'll actually be worthwhile to do these illustrations right now. Drilnoth says that any image of a beholder is technically a non-free image since WOTC owns copyright on the character. He also says that a Mindflayer image was taken down because it was considered "original research." If I'm going to do this at all, I'm going to have to make sure I do it right! I appreciate your permission RJ. Don't want to step on any toes around here. --Ezgoodnight (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, that fair use issue is a bit of a knothole. I deliberately did not try to use one of the WotC illustrations as a model, and generally just made it a vague, personal interpretation of the concept. One might even consider it satirical. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a replacement picture from the original Monster Manual. I hope no one minds. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to add, but I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to replace the image we had with a non-free one. Although it may not matter. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Shouldn't this type of page be titled "Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons)", just to be clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWC 3117 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a parenthetical disambiguation. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:Article titles, but the gist of it is that titles should be as simple as possible without being imprecise. Since there are no other articles named simply 'Beholder' the title doesn't really need disambiguation. Actually, there is one other article titled The Beholder, but it seems like it's the more obscure of the two by far. It would be easy to add a Template:About to the top, if you really think it's needed. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrascarred

[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a canon Beholder, but it is featured in the game Dungeons and Dragons: Dragonshard. The description in the article seems to be lifted from the flavour text for it in the game's reference logs. 92.234.58.169 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it's a WP:COPYVIO. Since it's been unsourced since 2010, and flavortext for a single game is not enough to establish due weight, I've removed it. Like many D&D related articles, this one is almost exclusively sourced to TSR/Wizards material, and therefore has WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE problems. Editors' enthusiasm for the game often seems to override editorial restraint, which is understandable, but in this case the content about the Umbrascarred was non-neutral and incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the game. That's not good form for a general-audience encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beholder (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Beholder (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. Gets an average of 350 pageviews daily, many times higher than the next most visited page, the video game. One of the most well known D&D monsters, therefore has some general cultural interest, whereas the other articles are purely niche in nature. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it means we don't have dic entries, it does affect whether the encylopaedic automatic subject for "beholder" is a floating eye from Dungeons and Dragons. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beholder_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)&oldid=1212472973"