Talk:List of unrands

There remain missing 8 images for unrandarts which are new in 0.11. Those were not available in the old crawlwiki from where I imported the others. I don't know the way how to fetch the new ones. Anyone out there who can describe the import way of those? -- Bwijn 12:16, 10 January 2013 (CET)

List them here and I can snag them from the tiles directory. --MoogleDan 13:58, 10 January 2013 (CET)

Actually, nevermind, I can just browse the page and grab whatever's missing. --MoogleDan 13:59, 10 January 2013 (CET)

Done! And just so you know, you can find pretty much any tile image browsing around in here. --MoogleDan 15:41, 10 January 2013 (CET)

Splitting up this page

Does anyone else think this page is kind of inhibiting? Firstly, it discourages writing detailed strategy or history sections, since the page is already ridiculously overlong. While some randarts (like the Ring of Shaolin, or the Cloak of Flash) won't make very interesting articles, others (like Cekugob or the Obsidian Axe) may very well. Also, the article just looks bad, at least in my opinion: it's difficult to navigate, and just looks cluttered. So here's what I propose:

• Give each artefact its own article. For now, just copy-paste what's already here. Those that deserve to be fleshed out will be, the others will just remain as relatively short articles (which is okay on a wiki: no one ever expects mace or rock troll to be amazing articles, because their subjects are just boring).
• Leave this page, but make it more like the various "List of <monster type>" articles. For each entry, give the image, and then the artefact name as it would appear in inventory, e.g. like so:

the amulet of the Four Winds {Clar rN+ MR}

That would make this page an easy-to navigate reference, while giving more detailed articles to the unrands that deserve it, and harmless stubs to those that don't. Anyway, what do people think? -Ion frigate 08:46, 16 February 2013 (CET)

Also adding: the unrand redirects to this page rarely seem to actually hit the section they're supposed to, since the section names have been changed several times. -Ion frigate 08:58, 16 February 2013 (CET)

Good idea. I think we should drop the enchantment from the name of the artifact: the name of the article should be Dragonskin cloak not +4 Dragonskin cloak. --CommanderC 13:57, 16 February 2013 (CET)

Sounds like a good idea. I also think that removing the enchantment in the article name is a good idea. --Flun 23:22, 16 February 2013 (CET)

Sounds fine to me. --spudwalt 23:48, 16 February 2013 (CET)