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)

Category:Bosses now empty
what gives? isnt working. what does this #lc supposed to do? --yoko5000 19:51, May 10, 2011 (EDT)
 * #lc: just transforms the input into Lower Case. Should make no other difference..  I will look into why bosses is empty, I would like to also revamp that a little so that it divides it up into orange, red, and purple name bosses..  ShoeMaker 22:04, May 10, 2011 (EDT)
 * looked into it and it hit me, should have been just lc: not #lc: -- ShoeMaker 22:47, May 10, 2011 (EDT)

Not all purple named bosses are raid bosses
Looks like you set it up so we can only have certain things in the "boss" section now.. Which is ok I guess.. But you set it up so all purple named are called raid bosses - but they are not.

Many are just powerful/challenging bosses found in quests requiring some form of flagging. Like the tor bosses, or the dreaming dark guy.

Was gona edit it myself but id prolly mess something up.. Suggest it work like this:
 * Purple - just say Purple Named Boss. Or Purple Named - Powerful Boss
 * Raid - Raid Boss
 * Red - Boss
 * Orange - Miniboss

Also see you put rare in there.. imo that doesn't belong as thats a different thing entirely.

If a boss is a rare spawn or not should be a seperate section, if present at all. As rare named can be orange or red, or even just regular (Green) Could just be rare=yes/no if you want it in there.

PS: I made a new category for purple named too.. So we auto-cat into that would be cool too. (purples go in purple, raid bosses go in purples and raid bosses) --Shade 22:38, July 26, 2011 (EDT)

Some more details on update
Ok edit complete.. Now supports named monsters that aren't bosses. And all "named" aren't put into a boss category since most of them aren't bosses. Put them into named monsters category instead which makes more sense.

Took out the purple = raid boss. Since really almost every single one of our raid boss pages are too complex to use this simple template, so they dont use it.. And the rest of purple named that may use it are not raid bosses.

One minor issue I see with having both the color= and/or boss= is it kinda leaves a hole I dunno how to fix if neither are filled. Not a huge problem since one or the other should always be filled, but some generalized racial templates dont use it. Tho maybe they should use a new/different template anyways. --Shade 15:58, August 2, 2011 (EDT)

Hitpoints?
Just killed the Mother-of-Thousands, and since I have monster manual favour, it showed she had 23,055 hitpoints (heroic elite). Do we care? :) Not sure anybody's interested in that but me.


 * Problem with hit points is that they vary by difficulty and dungeon scaling. You can mention it in the description if you feel it's interesting, but consider adding some reference points (for example, ~23000 hp at Heroic Elite, solo with hireling).--Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 03:52, July 15, 2014 (EDT)


 * Oh right, scaling. Urgh.  So it's not 4-8 variations or so, it's that times party count differences.  Yeah, no thanks.