Template talk:Monster

S vs. Z
That is actually the correct spelling (with a z), but for now this hack will catch both - I can fix PeerBot later (haven't used him since 1.4 so I don't know if he'll work) and run him to find/replace 'orginisation' with 'orginization' on all monster pages. But it'll be a while before I find time to debug him. Till then this'll catch both kinds. ` Elliott Cable -  ?+¿  -  ‹·›  03:44, June 19, 2006 (EDT)

Auto-categories
Why are the categories inside includeonly tags? It would really help if these were auto-generated. Corebreach 04:08, November 26, 2009 (EST)
 * The categories are between includeonly tags because, otherwise, this page would show up in Category:Bestiary when it really shouldn't (since it's a template, not an article). What do you mean about auto-generation? --Borror0 03:43, November 27, 2009 (EST)
 * Sometimes an entry shows up automatically in a category based on monster type. Sometimes it doesn't and the category needs to be added manually. Check out Worg versus Zombie. Corebreach 04:04, November 27, 2009 (EST)
 * Okay. I see what is going on here. The monsters are listed by race, which are classified by creature. For example, worgs are listed as wolves (race) which is, itself, categories as an animal race. However, worgs are magical beasts, not animal, so they end up not getting the magical beast category. There are many ways to solve the problem, but that really depends on how we want to display the information to the user. The most obvious way would be to give worgs race "worg" which would be classified as an magical beast race. Is that fine with you, or would you prefer something else? --Borror0 11:49, November 27, 2009 (EST)
 * I'd say don't base the creature type category off race at all. Why make an assumption of what the type is based on race when the type is available directly? Corebreach 05:23, November 29, 2009 (EST)