Talk:Monster Manuel (Entries)

Wouldn't it be better if we added it to the monster template? Spread it out, because, DANG, this page is going to be HUGE. --Johnny Treehugger 02:27, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

• Certainly this page will need to be split into several pages (although that is an established strategy for large pages). I wasn't sure if adding a new section to each monster would be better than this, but decided this centralized the editing. Perhaps a discussion is required? Another question to consider is whether we should modify attack/defense/hp in the Data pages to match the manuel entries... --Fig bucket 02:33, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
  • I edited one monster data to match the Manuel entry. Should I not have done that? --Poit Narf 02:49, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
    • Not a big problem. I'm likely being a bit over-cautious---it's not clear how accurate the data is, and it would be nice to have confirmation that everyone gets the same values, or to figure out what variance the manuel data has. --Fig bucket 03:00, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
    • I've been editing the monster data on a bunch of monsters over the last couple of days so the wiki manuel automatically matches the kol version. I was just about to go through the manuel entries and remove the attack/defense/hp from there and correct them on the monster's data page. Should I be doing this or leaving that data alone and make the modifications on the maneul? --IceColdFever 20:21, 28 September 2012 (CEST)
      • I fully support what you're doing, because if the entry doesn't match the in-game stats, it should reflect that; it seems odd to have incorrect data on the monster page and just mask it on the entry page. ~Erich ^t/_c 22:13, 28 September 2012 (CEST)
  • The existing Monster Compendium can likely be deprecated by this. --Flargen 03:47, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
    • We could merge the two.--Toffile 04:48, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
      • I propose we get rid of the compendium and have it redirect to the Manuel (entries) page, then have a separate page for extinct monsters that will never get researched (pre-fax regulars and pre-manuel uncopyables). How you want to handle Monster Data is up to you, since some, but not all, of that info is either on Manuel or will be in the future (element/phylum). ~Erich ^t/_c 22:19, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

How are scaling monster handled?--Shademaster00 04:04, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

• Baa'baa'bu'ran shows up as a 0/0/0 monster for me. I haven't fought any others.--Toffile 04:48, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Black-and-White-Ops Penguin shows up as 0/0/0 for me, having fought it once. --Turing 05:26, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
    • Hipster combats, black crayon monsters and a few others are also showing the same results. I suppose 0/0/0 simply means that they scale? --Volc 06:50, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

So I think we should add a link to the monsters on the pictures, because having large blue bolded text everywhere would look kinda ugly. --JohnAnon 08:19, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

1 win gives "casually researched" and the stats, 2 wins gives thoroughly researched, and 3-5? wins exhaustively researched --Christog 12:54, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Naming issues

What should we do when the monster name isn't the same as in the Manuel? (example: "THE Guy Made Of Bees" is under G as "Guy Made Of Bees")
Is it possible to add an extra option in the template for a different name? (example: the link [[place|text]] goes to "place" but the link says "text") --Christog 14:32, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

• Done and fixed (there is now a "|name=XXX" option in the template to change the name displayed). --Fig bucket 14:40, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
• This is the result of articles (the, a, etc.) generally not being a part of the "proper" name, I think, even when they are capitalized or otherwise distinctive. --Flargen 19:37, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Monsters without entries

I'm not sure if this is the right page for this, but should monsters that don't give entries be included here? I had no success getting 'snakefire in the grassfire' to give any entries (I stopped after 5 tries), but I didn't want to add this until someone else could confirm. --QVamp 04:14, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

• first entry is guaranteed, so if you don't get the first one you can stop there. and the list is on the end of the page now. --Evilkolbot 13:38, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

mobs with no entry currently

• surely somebody must have tried Mother Slime? she's pretty easy to get, and the similarly encountered Hodgman, The Hoboverlord has them. --Evilkolbot 13:38, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Sorted --Serin 14:35, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Last I checked, all of the monsters from Canadia and the Thundergdome were missing also. --Johnny Treehugger 15:35, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Also, Sleaze and Spooky Hoboes. --Johnny Treehugger 16:30, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Cola wars.--ArgghFW 21:15, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
  • Got the cola war monsters. Anything left except the sign-specific zones? Oh, and the Muertos Borrachos monsters, which won't show up for a few weeks. —Yendor 16:00, 4 November 2012 (CET)

• i've been cross-referencing, and can't find these.
  • axe handle
  • breakdancing raver
  • cloud of disembodied whiskers
  • decent lumberjack
  • forest spirit
  • gnarly gnome
  • gnasty gnome
  • gnefarious gnome
  • Gnollish Crossdresser
  • Gnollish Flyslayer
  • Gnollish Gearhead
  • Gnollish Piebaker
  • Gnollish Plungermaster
  • Gnollish Tirejuggler
  • Gnollish War Chef
  • Gnomester Blomester
  • gnu jack gnome
  • Guard Bugbear
  • lumberjack supervisor
  • lumberjill
  • lumberjuan
  • Ninja Snowman
  • one-eyed Gnoll
  • poutine ooze
  • psychedelic fur
  • running man
  • vicious gnauga
• it may just be my list is out of date. i guess GN was removed by mistake.
• also, there are five ancient protector spirits, can we add them back in, please? --Evilkolbot 22:20, 4 November 2012 (CET)

K, I went through your list and added a bunch. As of now, it's down to:

• • breakdancing raver
  • psychedelic fur
  • running man

I didn't add the spirits back in, but that can be done later. Also, something should be done about all the entries that have an override for the stats, as in the ones whose Manuel entry doesn't match the wiki entry. The monsters themselves should be changed to reflect that, not the Manuel entry. ~Erich ^t/_c 16:41, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Linking the monster names

Would it be possible to link the monster names to their corresponding wiki article? Or is that something that is not possible/not worth it. I think it'd be a nice convenience.

Thank you. --Khamul 21:59, 27 November 2012 (CET)

• click on the pictures, they have the links you seek. i think it was felt to be too cluttered and busy to have the names as large as they are and blue underline too. i must say i agreee. --Evilkolbot 22:13, 27 November 2012 (CET)
  • You can get rid of the underline:

    fluffy bunny

  • But I don't know how to change the link color. So I think it can be done, but until it looks like there's no markup, I'll echo 'bot's sentiment. ~Erich ^t/_c 04:19, 28 November 2012 (CET)
    • If you move the <span> inside the link, you can get:

      fluffy bunny

    • which seems like something worthwhile. --timrem 07:27, 28 November 2012 (CET)
      • i don't understand this enthusiasm for links that don't advertise their linkiness. if there already is a link why add to the compplexity of the template to no purpose? --Evilkolbot 08:22, 28 November 2012 (CET)
        • images do not advertise their linkiness. The first thing I tried to click on was the black name, I didn't even know the images were linking places till I read this. Better to just link the names as well for usability than worry over a minor increase in template complexity. Discordance 20:42, 30 November 2012 (CET)
        • Khamul expressed interest in having the monster names be links, and I think that's a good idea. Since you didn't want the names to be "too cluttered and busy", we worked on keeping the names looking as they currently do, but adding 'linkiness'. When I click a picture, I usually expect to be taken into the File: namespace, so I usually don't click them. Names, however, seem a perfectly logical place to link to a monster's encounter page. --timrem 23:25, 13 December 2012 (CET)
          • since we're adding something without changing the look of it, i can't really object. my resistance to links that don't look like links is purely from design dogma: in good design, things should advertise what they do. but that's just me. --Evilkolbot 23:35, 13 December 2012 (CET)
            • I agree stuff should advertise, but I don't see how the images advertise either. Neither is ideal and both lack advertisement so the best we can do is link both and hope for the best. Unless we are willing to start modifying the look. Discordance 23:38, 13 December 2012 (CET)

split up the entry pages

the pages eg. a-e are pretty obscenely large. Shouldn't we just break them down to individual letters? Would better match in-game as well. Discordance 16:49, 30 November 2012 (CET)

• i agree this is a good idea. and it makes this header page more like the one in-game. would it be possible to have a nav template with just the capital letters on in one row like the in-game pages do? --Evilkolbot 23:55, 13 December 2012 (CET)