The bulk update request #2357 has been rejected.

create implication kobold (26669) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)

• NOTE: I’ve moved the kobold -> scalie implication to another thread so that the DnD implication can be discussed separately without preventing that one from being approved.

Reason: I’m surprised this hasn’t been done yet. I could only find a suggestion that kobold should imply dragon from several years ago, which was shot down in favor of implying scalie instead, but nobody ever made the implication.

Kobolds are reptilian creatures from dungeons and dragons. Therefore, scalie.

Note that our tag is used for the DnD reptilian creatures, not the goblin-creature of Germanic folklore (mostly unrelated beyond being a partial inspiration), nor the dog-like Japanese kobold which already has a separate tag.
Even Wikipedia attributes the reptilian kobold to DnD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)?wprov=sfti1

EDIT: The bulk update request #2357 (forum #333064) has been rejected by @scaliespe.

EDIT 2: I’ve created a new BUR below to remove the other DnD implications that happen to have the same issue as kobold.

Kobolds are also in Pathfinder/Paizo, so it shouldn't imply D&D/WotC/Hasbro.

There's at least one problem with this: there are more types of kobolds than the ones from D&D. The ones from Warcraft are definitely not scalie, and are obsessed with candles instead of dragons...

I suggest that we use multiple tags, changing the D&D one to kobold_(D&D) (or something similar) and creating kobold_(warcraft) for the vermin of WoW. There are probably other franchises or etc. that spin their own version of kobold, too, so maybe making a disambiguation page would be a good idea.

Kobolds are mythological creatures. There is no real canon about them.
This part in the wiki: " originating from the pen and paper role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons. " Is rather meh, in my opinion. They are originating from German mythology, what is said in a sentence later. Then it continues as if this information isn't relevant.

I think kobold should be implied by, kobold_(D&D), kobold_(warcraft), kobold_(other_franchises). And the wiki should be reworked.

There are also the japanese portrayals of kobolds as more dog-like, prior D&D versions that vary between dog-like (source of the JP ones, bit like Japanese Pig-Orcs) and goblin-like, and the mythological version which is little different from a brownie or other gnome-like faerie.

watsit said:
Kobolds are also in Pathfinder/Paizo, so it shouldn't imply D&D/WotC/Hasbro.

If they’re not the standard DnD kobold, shouldn’t they get their own separate tag?

EDIT: I just looked up what Pathfinder is, and as far as I can tell, it appears to be a clone of DnD. It has many other of the same species already, such as owlbear, drider, and vanara, all of which already imply dungeons_and_dragons. They all look roughly the same, too, so I don’t see the point in maintaining any distinction between them. Not only would all those other tags have to have the DnD implication removed, but it’s already a precedent to have them imply DnD regardless of their existence in Pathfinder. DnD is the original, anyway, and much more widely known.

siral_exan said:
There's at least one problem with this: there are more types of kobolds than the ones from D&D. The ones from Warcraft are definitely not scalie, and are obsessed with candles instead of dragons...

I suggest that we use multiple tags, changing the D&D one to kobold_(D&D) (or something similar) and creating kobold_(warcraft) for the vermin of WoW. There are probably other franchises or etc. that spin their own version of kobold, too, so maybe making a disambiguation page would be a good idea.

kobold_(Warcraft) already exists, and it has a whopping 16 results. Meanwhile, kobold is apparently all DnD-based kobolds, or at least 99% of them are (I check this tag pretty regularly, and I have yet to see any results that aren’t apparently based on the DnD variety). I don’t think there’s going to be much confusion between the extremely popular DnD species and the extremely obscure Warcraft species. Disambiguating such a common tag for what’s probably fewer than 1% of results is a bit absurd, IMO.

dubsthefox said:
Kobolds are mythological creatures. There is no real canon about them.
This part in the wiki: " originating from the pen and paper role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons. " Is rather meh, in my opinion. They are originating from German mythology, what is said in a sentence later. Then it continues as if this information isn't relevant.

I think kobold should be implied by, kobold_(D&D), kobold_(warcraft), kobold_(other_franchises). And the wiki should be reworked.

Did you read the Wikipedia page I linked? Even Wikipedia attributes the kobold to DnD. They definitely do not originate from Germanic folklore. That’s an entirely different creature. They share a name, yes, and probably inspired the DnD kobold to some degree, but they’re otherwise not related.

I also disagree that kobold should be used as an umbrella tag for completely unrelated creatures who happen to share a name. The Warcraft kobolds have absolutely nothing in common with them except that they also probably took some inspiration from the Germanic myths. This would be akin to having all characters that share a name imply the same character tag. We might as well have judy_hopps and judy_(animal_crossing) both imply judy because they share a name and nothing more.

votp said:
There are also the japanese portrayals of kobolds as more dog-like, prior D&D versions that vary between dog-like (source of the JP ones, bit like Japanese Pig-Orcs) and goblin-like, and the mythological version which is little different from a brownie or other gnome-like faerie.

As I pointed out in the original post, Japanese kobold already has its own separate tag that does not imply kobold. They’re largely unrelated and should be kept separate. Same goes for the mythological kobold, which we may not even have a tag for since I doubt there’s much art of them. What this tag is being used for is the lizard-like DnD creature.

scaliespe said:
If they’re not the standard DnD kobold, shouldn’t they get their own separate tag?

I'm not sure if there's enough distinction to easily separate them. These creatures have changed over time on both sides, but they're both similarly described as "a small, craven, draconic race that dwells in places hidden from the sun, particularly subterranean caverns". You might be able to distinguish them if you look at official depictions, but in fanart it becomes a lot more difficult to tell it's D&D-specific. It might be worth having separate kobold_(d&d) and kobold_(pathfinder) tags, but kobold itself seems to be treated more as generic small-ish anthro wingless draconids, so something they both could imply.

scaliespe said:
Did you read the Wikipedia page I linked? Even Wikipedia attributes the kobold to DnD. They definitely do not originate from Germanic folklore. That’s an entirely different creature. They share a name, yes, and probably inspired the DnD kobold to some degree, but they’re otherwise not related.

That they share a name but are unrelated is a good reason to have a disambiguation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold
Although usually invisible, a kobold can materialize in the form of a non-human animal, a fire, a human, and a candle. The most common depictions of kobolds show them as humanlike figures the size of small children. Kobolds who live in human homes wear the clothing of peasants; those who live in mines are hunched and ugly

Also worth pointing on the detail about kobolds appearing as a candle, given Warcraft's kobolds being fixated on candles (may be a coincidence, but an interesting one nonetheless). Being an earlier instance of a creature with the same name, and modern depictions possibly taking some inspiration from it, does make it "originate from Germanic folklore", in much the same way that modern werewolves originate from older folklore even though modern depictions are largely based on ideas from the last century.

watsit said:
I'm not sure if there's enough distinction to easily separate them. These creatures have changed over time on both sides, but they're both similarly described as "a small, craven, draconic race that dwells in places hidden from the sun, particularly subterranean caverns". You might be able to distinguish them if you look at official depictions, but in fanart it becomes a lot more difficult to tell it's D&D-specific. It might be worth having separate kobold_(d&d) and kobold_(pathfinder) tags, but kobold itself seems to be treated more as generic small-ish anthro wingless draconids, so something they both could imply.

Sorry, I edited my previous post as you were replying. But essentially, what you’re saying would imply removing the dungeons_and_dragons tag from virtually everything:

scaliespe said:
EDIT: I just looked up what Pathfinder is, and as far as I can tell, it appears to be a clone of DnD. It has many other of the same species already, such as owlbear, drider, and vanara, all of which already imply dungeons_and_dragons. They all look roughly the same, too, so I don’t see the point in maintaining any distinction between them. Not only would all those other tags have to have the DnD implication removed, but it’s already a precedent to have them imply DnD regardless of their existence in Pathfinder. DnD is the original, anyway, and much more widely known.

That they share a name but are unrelated is a good reason to have a disambiguation.

As the vast, vast majority of them seem to be referring to the draconic creatures from DnD, I don’t think that would be a good idea. I’m certain that kobold_(disambiguation) will be filled entirely with the DnD kind, and it’ll fill up quickly being as popular as it is. It’s like mario. The existence of mario dalmatian (mario toledo) with a whole 4 posts should not require mario with over 2000 posts to be disambiguated. Pretty much everyone knows what the tag is referring to already, and we really don’t need to be creating more tagging work where it isn’t necessary.

Also worth pointing on the detail about kobolds appearing as a candle, given Warcraft's kobolds being fixated on candles (may be a coincidence, but an interesting one nonetheless). Being an earlier instance of a creature with the same name, and modern depictions possibly taking some inspiration from it, does make it "originate from Germanic folklore", in much the same way that modern werewolves originate from older folklore even though modern depictions are largely based on ideas from the last century.

It depends what you mean by “originate.” Directly inspired by, sure, but they’re clearly different creatures. There was no mention in the original Germanic myths of a kobold appearing like a bipedal draconic creature. As far as tagging is concerned, they’re different enough that I don’t think they should share a tag. They’re far more different (visually, anyway, which is all that matters for tagging) than they are similar.

post #3245085
Kobolds can be furred_kobolds. Furred Kobold implies Kobold. Kobolds cannot imply Scalie.

furrin_gok said:
post #3245085
Kobolds can be furred_kobolds. Furred Kobold implies Kobold. Kobolds cannot imply Scalie.

furred_snake implies snake which implies scalie, so that isn’t really a valid argument. scalie and scales are not synonymous tags. Many scalies don’t have scales. Even some species of turtle completely lack scales, so if you want to insist that scalies have scales, you’ll have to remove the reptile -> scalie implication. Scalies just have to have reptilian features, which even furred kobolds do.

scaliespe said:
Sorry, I edited my previous post as you were replying. But essentially, what you’re saying would imply removing the dungeons_and_dragons tag from virtually everything

I wouldn't be opposed to that. If they're not unique to D&D and other franchises have similar depictions using the same name, just calling something "an owlbear", for example, that doesn't have particular details tying it to D&D, it shouldn't imply it. Having specific tags for the D&D version when there's particular details that are unique to D&D would be fine, but something with no D&D-exclusive traits isn't inherently associated with D&D, so shouldn't imply it.

As it is, Pathfinder essentially lifts their kobolds from D&D:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#

Gygax's Monster Manual (1977) for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D), which describes them as aggressive, tribal creatures living in dark forests or subterranean settings.[5]
[...]
Later editions of the game emphasized more draconic aspects

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Kobold
Kobolds are a small, craven, draconic race that dwells in places hidden from the sun, particularly subterranean caverns or densely wooded areas.

Considering Pathfinder was intended to be as close to D&D as legally possible without actually being D&D, it makes sense that many things from D&D appear in Pathfinder in a similar form, just different enough to keep the lawyers at bay. kobold ~pathfinder ~description:pathfinder even has a few results, and these are undoubtedly not the only Pathfinder-based kobold depictions. I also highly doubt most people think of kobolds in terms of D&D, but rather based on what other people have called kobolds while throwing them into completely random/non-D&D settings. And indeed, what I'm seeing under kobold doesn't appear anything like this D&D depiction. So if D&D depictions can vary this wildly, and Pathfinder keeps close to D&D, you'd need some clear details pointing to D&D rather than being more generic.

scaliespe said:
It depends what you mean by “originate.” Directly inspired by, sure, but they’re clearly different creatures. There was no mention in the original Germanic myths of a kobold appearing like a bipedal draconic creature.

Incidentally, they didn't appear as bipedal draconic creatures in the first edition D&D, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#
Kobolds appeared as monsters alongside goblins, orcs, and trolls in the 1971 wargame Chainmail, as part of Gary Gygax's "fantasy supplement" inspired by The Hobbit and other fantasy novels.[3] This supplement inspired the first editions of Dungeons & Dragons (1974), where kobolds appear again.[4] In these early appearances, they are only described as creatures similar to goblins.

and about Germanic kobolds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold
A kobold (occasionally cobold) is a sprite. Having spread into Europe with various spellings including "goblin" and "hobgoblin"

In both First Edition D&D and Germanic folklore, they're essentially a variation of goblins.

The draconic aspects didn't appear until later, and only solidifying those traits in Third Edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#
Kobolds were first depicted as hairless humanoids with small horns in Gygax's Monster Manual (1977) for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D), which describes them as aggressive, tribal creatures living in dark forests or subterranean settings.[5]
[...]
Later editions of the game emphasized more draconic aspects, and suggest that kobolds are biologically related to dragons, and view them as an object of worship and servitude.[8] The AD&D 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual (1993) introduced Urds, a race similar to kobolds with batlike wings.[9] In the 3rd edition, the original kobolds were replaced henceforth by the new draconic ones.

watsit said:
I wouldn't be opposed to that. If they're not unique to D&D and other franchises have similar depictions using the same name, just calling something "an owlbear", for example, that doesn't have particular details tying it to D&D, it shouldn't imply it. Having specific tags for the D&D version when there's particular details that are unique to D&D would be fine, but something with no D&D-exclusive traits isn't inherently associated with D&D, so shouldn't imply it.

As it is, Pathfinder essentially lifts their kobolds from D&D:
Considering Pathfinder was intended to be as close to D&D as legally possible without actually being D&D, it makes sense that many things from D&D appear in Pathfinder in a similar form, just different enough to keep the lawyers at bay. kobold ~pathfinder ~description:pathfinder even has a few results, and these are undoubtedly not the only Pathfinder-based kobold depictions. I also highly doubt most people think of kobolds in terms of D&D, but rather based on what other people have called kobolds while throwing them into completely random/non-D&D settings. And indeed, what I'm seeing under kobold doesn't appear anything like this D&D depiction. So if D&D depictions can vary this wildly, and Pathfinder keeps close to D&D, you'd need some clear details pointing to D&D rather than being more generic.

I haven’t played either game (and didn’t even know what Pathfinder was until now), so if that’s the best way to go about it, I’ll have to leave that up to others to decide. For now I’ll split the scalie implication off into a separate request so that can at least be approved, and the DnD request (along with what that implies for all the other DnD tags) can be debated separately.

My main concern with doing that, however, is that it’ll leave no reliable way to search for DnD content without the implications. I’m sure fans of DnD would like to be able to search for species from the game whether it’s a kobold or a drider or an owlbear or anything else, and probably don’t care that much if it’s actually a Pathfinder owlbear as they’re essentially the same thing. Vice versa for Pathfinder fans. If all these species can’t imply dungeons_and_dragons, can they imply anything? I feel like having everything imply dungeons_and_dragons (even having Pathfinder itself imply it, as it’s essentially a clone anyway), if not technically accurate, would be more pragmatic. Or at the very least, I feel like these should all imply something that can cover both DnD and Pathfinder if they must be kept separate.

Incidentally, they didn't appear as bipedal draconic creatures in the first edition D&D, either.
and about Germanic kobolds:
In both First Edition D&D and Germanic folklore, they're essentially a variation of goblins.

The draconic aspects didn't appear until later, and only solidifying those traits in Third Edition.

Point taken. If we actually have any art of those, though, they should probably also get their own unrelated tag. Maybe even just use the goblin tag for those instead, since they don’t seem to be noticeably different either.

scaliespe said:
I’m sure fans of DnD would like to be able to search for species from the game whether it’s a kobold or a drider or an owlbear

~kobold ~drider ~owlbear ~tiefling ~elf

I'd be in favor of implicating tagging of creatures that have genuine, specific origins in DnD with the DnD tag. Kobolds, and most depictions thereof, don't really. Bulette's do. Pathfinder style goblins should be tagged with pathfinder like in post #2371142 .

As it stands, searching with the dungeons_and_dragons tag isn't a great way to find content from the game
post #3254622 post #3288374 post #3271863 post #3024757 post #3213924 post #3232558 post #3287571
You get some characters that are used as someone's DnD character, you get non DnD characters playing DnD, and anthro cats that could possibly be from DnD (or could just be any cat furry tagged as a tabaxi)

It is somewhat similar to the distinction between the video_games tag and all of its variations
game_mechanics
playing_video_games
game_console
I would think that ideally we narrow the scope of the dungeons_and_dragons tag, to as little IP related species, and material that is strictly related to DnD

sulmarobar said:
~kobold ~drider ~owlbear ~tiefling ~elf

Yeah, a long string of individual species isn’t very convenient, plus there are WAY more DnD species than just those five.

I'd be in favor of implicating tagging of creatures that have genuine, specific origins in DnD with the DnD tag. Kobolds, and most depictions thereof, don't really.

Wikipedia seems to think otherwise.

scaliespe said:
Wikipedia seems to think otherwise.

Doesn't think what? You linked to an entire page, of a database that can be edited by anyone.

furrin_gok said:
Doesn't think what? You linked to an entire page, of a database that can be edited by anyone.

Wikipedia generally seems to clean up vandalism pretty quickly from my experience, and that page was last edited 8 months ago, so I’m assuming what’s written there isn’t some blatantly wrong information deposited by a troll if that’s what you’re implying. The “depictions” section describes the kobolds moving from goblin-like creatures to their current draconic form in the third edition, which is what I’m referring to here. That is, the current scalie incarnation of kobolds originated there and apparently not from anywhere else, meaning that the kobold as it’s currently known originated from DnD. And as far as I could tell from a bit of googling, the article seems to be correct in that regard.

The prior debate was actually about whether or not kobolds can imply DnD since other franchises (at least Pathfinder; I don’t know of any others) have the same creature. But the fact that the common reptilian kobold originated from DnD doesn’t really seem disputable as far as I can tell.

You linked wiki kobold DnD and not wiki kobold. Thats like linking wiki Zentorno (V) instead of linking wiki Lamborghini Sesto. And then you say:"Look the car appears in GTA V it comes from GTA V. Every image with this car should be tagged with GTA V". Thats not a perfect metaphor, but I think understand what I mean, by that.
I'm sorry, but kobolds were definitely there before DnD, no matter how much you don't want it.

scaliespe said:
Yeah, a long string of individual species isn’t very convenient, plus there are WAY more DnD species than just those five.

Yeah, that's kind of irrelevant though. We have lots of species that COULD be DnD species, but also not(goblins, orcs, dwarves, hobbit, black_dragons, tabaxi). Warcraft specific depictions of orcs get tagged with warcraft, others don't. It doesn't matter whether the features of the orcs in that art have origins in warcraft(or warhammer_(franchise), or anything else), unless the specific art in question can specifically be identified as warcraft orcs, the warcraft tag doesn't fit. Not every depiction of a green orc is tagged warhammer_(franchise). If a depiction of a kobold could be very specifically drawn to DnD, then sure, it should be tagged on a case by case basis, but to do so as a broad implication would be incorrect.

I'm not really sure what the use case for the DnD tag as just "all DnD creatures" is supposed to be. If you want character art, you'd be searching for a species. If you want something to nut to, I'm not sure why DnD as a catch all tag would be useful for that. Who exactly is searching for art, that has to be SOME DnD related species, without any particular concern for which species it is? DnD_fanart could work as a tag for that interest, but that seems better suited to deviantart.

I can't think of any reason people would particularly want to blacklist the DnD tag, considering how broad and nonspecific it is.

People have had similar discussions about the video_games tag(when it should be tagged, what kind of content do people want to find, what do people want to blacklist).

I don't see the merit in implicating kobold to dungeons_and_dragons. More broadly, I don't know that the dungeons_and_dragons tag should be tagged for anything that cannot be immediately tied to DnD, including depictions of the game.

dubsthefox said:
You linked wiki kobold DnD and not wiki kobold. Thats like linking wiki Zentorno (V) instead of linking wiki Lamborghini Sesto. And then you say:"Look the car appears in GTA V it comes from GTA V. Every image with this car should be tagged with GTA V". Thats not a perfect metaphor, but I think understand what I mean, by that.
I'm sorry, but kobolds were definitely there before DnD, no matter how much you don't want it.

You’re still completely missing the point. Just because they share a name does not mean that they are the same creature. The goblins from Germanic mythology were not little bipedal dragon creatures. That is an invention of DnD. Even Wikipedia considers them different enough to separate them into two distinct articles. I suppose you’d also like to alias judy_hopps and judy_(animal_crossing) to judy because they share a name, wouldn’t you? Because if two obviously different things have the same name, they should be considered the same thing, shouldn’t they? That’s what you’re arguing for here.

sulmarobar said:
Yeah, that's kind of irrelevant though. We have lots of species that COULD be DnD species, but also not(goblins, orcs, dwarves, hobbit, black_dragons, tabaxi). Warcraft specific depictions of orcs get tagged with warcraft, others don't. It doesn't matter whether the features of the orcs in that art have origins in warcraft(or warhammer_(franchise), or anything else), unless the specific art in question can specifically be identified as warcraft orcs, the warcraft tag doesn't fit. Not every depiction of a green orc is tagged warhammer_(franchise). If a depiction of a kobold could be very specifically drawn to DnD, then sure, it should be tagged on a case by case basis, but to do so as a broad implication would be incorrect.

The problem with your analogy is that things like elves and orcs go back way further than DnD. There are several things, however, like the kobold (the reptilian kind, NOT the goblin creature, since everyone seems to be failing to understand the distinction) that apparently does originate from DnD. Now, the question is whether or not to attribute the species to DnD as the originator of the species, or whether it should be kept generic due to knockoff versions. Which makes all these species difficult to do anything with just because Pathfinder has apparently copied every DnD species about as closely as they can legally manage. With that in mind, I thought it might be more pragmatic to treat Pathfinder just as an offshoot of DnD so that anything belonging solely to both (like the scalie kobold, drider, owlbear, etc.) can just imply DnD. But I know little about either franchise, so I don’t know if that would be ideal or not. I was hoping for more DnD/Pathfinder fans to weigh in on that.

I'm not really sure what the use case for the DnD tag as just "all DnD creatures" is supposed to be. If you want character art, you'd be searching for a species. If you want something to nut to, I'm not sure why DnD as a catch all tag would be useful for that. Who exactly is searching for art, that has to be SOME DnD related species, without any particular concern for which species it is? DnD_fanart could work as a tag for that interest, but that seems better suited to deviantart.

I can't think of any reason people would particularly want to blacklist the DnD tag, considering how broad and nonspecific it is.

People have had similar discussions about the video_games tag(when it should be tagged, what kind of content do people want to find, what do people want to blacklist).

I don't see the merit in implicating kobold to dungeons_and_dragons. More broadly, I don't know that the dungeons_and_dragons tag should be tagged for anything that cannot be immediately tied to DnD, including depictions of the game.

I know little about DnD, so I can’t say I have any use case for the tag, personally. Someone who actually plays it may have an answer. However, it seems like you could just as easily make the same argument against any big franchise tag. the elder scrolls or mario bros or final fantasy seem to be the same thing. What do people use these tags for? Should we just get rid of them because they include often disparate elements? And yes, that includes characters playing the game without any other game-related content. That’s how it’s always been, and for all games, not just DnD.

Here’s a post tagged elden ring featuring a character playing the game itself, even though the visible characters are not at all related to the game. Does this mean we should abolish the elden ring tag?
post #3274153

scaliespe said:
Now, the question is whether or not to attribute the species to DnD as the originator of the species, or whether it should be kept generic due to knockoff versions. Which makes all these species difficult to do anything with just because Pathfinder has apparently copied every DnD species about as closely as they can legally manage. With that in mind, I thought it might be more pragmatic to treat Pathfinder just as an offshoot of DnD so that anything belonging solely to both (like the scalie kobold, drider, owlbear, etc.) can just imply DnD. But I know little about either franchise, so I don’t know if that would be ideal or not. I was hoping for more DnD/Pathfinder fans to weigh in on that.

The problem with that is dungeons_and_dragons implies wizards_of_the_coast, which implies hasbro. Having generic/knock-off versions of kobolds, owlbears, etc imply D&D would mean attributing non-D&D variations to WotC/Hasbro when they're legally distinct from WotC/Hasbro ownership. If the D&D tag was stand-alone, I could see the argument of D&D being the basis for other versions based off them, but since it implies a company/owner, it would be misattributing non-Hasbro-owned property to Hasbro.

scaliespe said:
You’re still completely missing the point. Just because they share a name does not mean that they are the same creature.

The thing is, DnD does not define the look of kobolds, they made their own kind of kobold.

scaliespe said:
I suppose you’d also like to alias judy_hopps and judy_(animal_crossing) to judy because they share a name, wouldn’t you?

Why are you so passive-aggressive? I didn't say I want to alias them? I said:"I think kobold should be implied by, kobold_(D&D), kobold_(warcraft), kobold_(other_franchises). And the wiki should be reworked."

scaliespe said:
The problem with your analogy is that things like elves and orcs go back way further than DnD

...The problem with kobolds is... They go back way, waaay further than any franchise.

scaliespe said:
There are several things, however, like the kobold (the reptilian kind, NOT the goblin creature, since everyone seems to be failing to understand the distinction) that apparently does originate from DnD.

And therefore, we should make a Kobold_dnd Tag, for the kobolds that originate from DnD. And one for each other franchise. Different kinds of kobolds get different tags, and imply kobold.

scaliespe said:
You’re still completely missing the point. Just because they share a name does not mean that they are the same creature.
...
The problem with your analogy is that things like elves and orcs go back way further than DnD.

Orcs do go back further than warcraft and warhammer. We tag warcraft and warhammer_(franchise) depictions as such, on a case by case basis. We don't implicate the tag, not to lord_of_the_rings, unless the individual piece can be tied. If a piece of kobold art is genuinely DnD-centric or based, then on a case by case basis, it gets the dungeons_and_dragons tag.

scaliespe said:
I know little about DnD, so I can’t say I have any use case for the tag, personally. Someone who actually plays it may have an answer. However, it seems like you could just as easily make the same argument against any big franchise tag. the elder scrolls or mario bros or final fantasy seem to be the same thing. What do people use these tags for? Should we just get rid of them because they include often disparate elements? And yes, that includes characters playing the game without any other game-related content. That’s how it’s always been, and for all games, not just DnD.

Here’s a post tagged elden ring featuring a character playing the game itself, even though the visible characters are not at all related to the game. Does this mean we should abolish the elden ring tag?

It's been that way for a long time, but that has been debated against topic #5414 topic #29801 and I don't see how possibly poor prior usage of a tag means future usage cannot be improved
I play Dnd (amongst other games). those are the use cases I see, and I don't see how implicating kobold helps them.

myself
..should be tagged for anything that cannot be immediately tied to DnD, including depictions of the game.

scaliespe said:
Here’s a post tagged elden ring featuring a character playing the game itself, even though the visible characters are not at all related to the game. Does this mean we should abolish the elden ring tag?

My wording was not the best in the original post. ''depictions of the game'' was meant to imply being directly tied. I see why that would be unclear now.

That's a perfectly fine usage of the elden_ring tag. We tag elder scrolls orcs and species on a case by case basis (dark elves are not assumed to be dunmer, cat people are not assumed to be khajiit). We tag depictions of the elder scrolls video games in the art. We tag specific characters from franchises. I don't see a good reason to tag a depiction of scaly kobolds with dungeons_and_dragons 100% of the time(an implication). That depiction even in DnD goes back enough decades (to the '70s) to have drifted to other franchises(which it has). Tagging individual kobolds with kobold(dnd) might be fitting, but that point, simply add kobold and the dungeons_and_dragons tags on their own.

It doesn't matter who invented green orcs, we tag all green orcs case by case on the basis of the piece. We don't tag every green orc with warhammer_(franchise). I don't particularly see why kobold should be different. Tag kobolds the same way tabaxi are tagged: when you know a character of that body type is DnD-centric.

dubsthefox said:
And therefore, we should make a Kobold_dnd Tag, for the kobolds that originate from DnD. And one for each other franchise. Different kinds of kobolds get different tags, and imply kobold.

I'd have no issue with that. People could reasonably want to find such kobolds specifically.

dubsthefox said:
The thing is, DnD does not define the look of kobolds, they made their own kind of kobold.

It’s not really a “kind” of kobold as much as it is a unique species that just uses the name “kobold.” They were created as a sort of replacement for the goblin-like kobolds in the original DnD, and so they have the same name, but they have nothing in common visually. Which, by the way, is really the only thing we’re concerned with tagging - the history of the name is irrelevant here. It only really matters what they look like.

I didn't say I want to alias them? I said:"I think kobold should be implied by, kobold_(D&D), kobold_(warcraft), kobold_(other_franchises). And the wiki should be reworked."

Ok sorry, your suggestion is more like implying judy from judy_hopps and judy_(animal_crossing) because they share a name. The point still stands that these different creatures named “kobold” have nothing in common but the name, so having them all imply some generic kobold tag doesn’t make any sense.

Maybe a better example is that your suggestion is like having Komodo dragon and frilled dragon and bearded dragon imply dragon because they all have the same name. Clearly, they are lizards, not dragons. They all share a name, yes, but that does not mean they are all the same thing. Just in the same way, the rat people from Warcraft have nothing at all to do with the lizard people from DnD except that they share a name, and neither really has anything to do with the original mythological goblin creature.

...The problem with kobolds is... They go back way, waaay further than any franchise.

The word “kobold” goes back a way, yes, but the lizard people that the kobold tag is used for here definitely do not. Those can be traced back to the third edition of dungeons and dragons. We are not concerned with tagging things according to the etymology of their names here; we’re only tagging things according to what they look like.

And therefore, we should make a Kobold_dnd Tag, for the kobolds that originate from DnD. And one for each other franchise.

Now we’re back to the original problem. Can the lizard people that we call kobolds actually get the (dungeons_and_dragons) suffix? They may have originated there, but apparently Pathfinder has the same species. Basically copied from DnD, yes, but we can’t really attribute them solely to DnD, and there may often be no way to say one way or the other that any given kobold is from DnD or Pathfinder. So, the DnD suffix may be invalid.

If we consider that along with the fact that:

1. We don’t need a “kobold” umbrella tag since the different species called kobolds are unrelated
2. The vast, vast majority of kobolds uploaded here are the scalie kind (nearly 13,000 results compared to an astounding 16 results for kobold_(Warcraft)).
3. People are going to continue uploading the scalie kind as just “kobold” regardless of what we do because it’s become such a popular species in the furry fandom, so any attempts to get people to use a DnD-specific tag instead are doomed to fail

… I think it’s clear that reserving the kobold tag for the scalie kind is the only thing that will actually work.

watsit said:
(stuff)

sulmarobar said:
(things)

With that all being said, I don’t believe the DnD implication can practically work. However, as I said before, that also means the other DnD implications also need to be removed as those species are not specific to DnD either, and may be incorrectly implying DnD’s copyright holders if a particular species was actually meant to be representative of the Pathfinder version. So, I’ll go ahead and create a new BUR here (rather than editing this one) in order to clear the votes.

The bulk update request #2357 (forum #333064) has been rejected by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #2412 is pending approval.

remove implication drider (178) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
remove implication owlbear (165) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
remove implication vanara (111) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
remove implication sahuagin (12) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
create implication beholder (153) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
create implication githyanki (96) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
create implication githzerai (0) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
create implication slaad (9) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)
create implication umber_hulk (2) -> dungeons_and_dragons (7956)

Reason: As stated above, the implication from these species to dungeons_and_dragons may cause some posts to be tagged with hasbro as the copyright holder of DnD even in cases where similar franchises (Pathfinder…) share the same species. One such mistag can be found at post #1487549, which is actually official art for Pathfinder that’s incorrectly implying hasbro/wizards_of_the_coast due to the fact that the species implies it.

I combed through the tags that imply DnD, and these seemed to be the only ones that are also included in Pathfinder. However, if I missed any, or if any other franchises share any of these species, please indicate them for me.

EDIT: I’ve also added a few species that are the sole property of Wizards of the Coast and so deserve the implication.

Just try to remember that some D&D species are product identity of WotC and should imply WotC/Hasbro such as Mind Flayers/Illithids, Beholders, Yuan-ti, and so forth.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2776/is-there-a-list-of-non-ogl-monsters

Unfortunately, that's is going to take some digging to find them all.

votp said:
Just try to remember that some D&D species are product identity of WotC and should imply WotC/Hasbro such as Mind Flayers/Illithids, Beholders, Yuan-ti, and so forth.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2776/is-there-a-list-of-non-ogl-monsters

Unfortunately, that's is going to take some digging to find them all.

Yeah, that may complicate things. DnD is also missing some correct implications in that case, then, such as mind_flayer. The ones being removed in this BUR are only things that I could also find on the Pathfinder wiki, indicating that they’re not solely owned by Wizards of the Coast.

So, I’ve added:
imply beholder -> dungeons_and_dragons imply mind_flayer -> dungeons_and_dragons

I’ve left out dragonborn as that’s being handled in topic #32554.

EDIT: I’ve found topic #23869 that’s pending but suggests other species that can imply DnD. Also related: topic #2396

Trying to look up the history on these things...

• Drider was made for D&D.
• Owlbears were made for D&D.
• Vanara originated in Hindu mythology.
• Sahuagin were published as a D&D monster.
• Githyanki existed as far back as 1e
• Githzerai were made as monsters in 1e and playable in Planescape (which itself is a D&D campaign).
• Slaad were created for D&D
• Umber Hulks were made for D&D.

Drider, Owlbears, and Sahuagin should stick around. Vanara should be unimplied.
Everything else seems good.

furrin_gok said:
Drider, Owlbears, and Sahuagin should stick around.

But they're in non-D&D media, too. Tagging them with the WotC/Hasbro copyright (as currently happens with the D&D tag) when there are instances WotC/Hasbro doesn't own would be wrong.

watsit said:
But they're in non-D&D media, too. Tagging them with the WotC/Hasbro copyright (as currently happens with the D&D tag) when there are instances WotC/Hasbro doesn't own would be wrong.

Those instances are still using a D&D copyrighted creature.

We should probably keep it purely to product identity things. If WotC doesn't care to put a copyright on something, we probably shouldn't either.

furrin_gok said:
Those instances are still using a D&D copyrighted creature.

They're actually not, that's the point. D&D doesn't have a copyright on them, since copyright isn't intended to cover ideas, just specific fixed expressions of an idea. D&D has a copyright on the specific images, and the exact text, in the monster manuals these creatures appeared in, but they don't have a copyright on the idea of the creatures. Pathfinder is a legally distinct product from D&D, Pathfinder isn't licensing or copying (in the copyright sense) from D&D, it's their own expression of certain ideas shared with D&D, which is similar but different enough to avoid any copyright/IP infringement.

This just brings us back to the original issue, as kobolds are in the same situation. They were created for DnD, though some non-DnD media uses them. I can understand why they wouldn’t be able to copyright that one, as the name itself is taken from a mythological creature and the idea of a lizard person isn’t terribly unique anyway, though I don’t know why things like drider and sahuagin are apparently free game. From what I could tell, however, certain things like mind flayers not only originated in DnD, but are legal copyright of WotC so things like Pathfinder actually aren’t allowed to copy them, at least not with the same name/design.

Most of this information I’m getting from the discussion at topic #23869 and topic #2396, BTW, as well as the link VotP posted earlier.