Talk:Monster Classifications

From DQWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Errol made me do it... Realign the table --Gordon 16:13, 22 Oct 2007(NZST)

Hmmm, not sure this is a better trade-off. Prints ugly too. Gordon, check the bottom of Help:Contents#Tables and see if we can make the first column skinny, run the 'Group' text over 2 columns, and left-align the non-group entries. --Errol 16:39, 22 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
After some help from Andrew, I think I will do the indenting by using the 'box' characters. I'll revert to the earlier version for now. If anyone can figure out how the make the rows for the major classifications shaded, please let me know - it seems some general formatting is overwriting what's in the table. --Errol 09:13, 23 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
I've just used double spaces to do the indenting (plus added lines to show the major groupings.) I'll update the links once Mandos has updated the creature and sub-grouping pages. --Errol 00:02, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)

Did you try using <div> ... </div> to add background grey colours? - I'll look into that later. Also, maybe categories 'Light' and 'Dark' could be used if we're going to use individual pages for creatures. Basically the Category page becomes a dynamic index. Another use for individual pages, besides adding pictures, might be links to external pages, such as Wikipedia, for those who want more information about the creature than stat blocks and a brief summary. Probably more useful for the non-fantastical creatures.

But yeah, I'm in favour of separate pages per creature. --Keith 20:28, 23 Oct 2007 (NZDT)

Please do try to sort colours. Mandos plans to do the L/D/None categories. --Errol 00:02, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
Looks like someone already has .... well done whomever that was. --Keith 14:22, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
Do you know how to make it print the background? The hard copy has no shading. If we can force the background colour to print, then we can probably save space by removing the lines I added between the top groupings. --Errol 14:56, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)

(Obsolete elements removed --Errol 16:39, 22 Oct 2007 (NZDT))

At a later stage a Beasts index could be useful, but as I can't think of a way of automating it (without making each Beast it's own page and having a Beasts Category), it's probably wise to wait for things to settle down before drawing it up.

--Errol 10:56, 16 Sep 2006 (NZST)

I suspect once things are tidy it will be worth going through and putting each creature on a page so that people can easily link to them. Mandos 16:42, 16 Sep 2006 (NZST)

If we're going to do that then people may as well convert the current lowest-level Bestiary pages to Categories (i.e sub-categories of Bestiary) as they tidy the formatting, and move each beast to it's own page. The beast pages probably shouldn't be part of the Bestiary category (because the category page would be long, with lots of sub-cats above the listing of individual beasts), just in the Bestiary sub-catagories (e.g.Snakes), and the 'Beasts Index'. Those are my initial thoughts anyway.--Errol 17:42, 16 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Well I for one much prefer a category page rather than one page per creature.

If each creature becomes rather more filled oput than they are, then perhaps, but ...

Struan 18:21, 16 Sep 2006 (NZST)

There are lots of links already in place for individual creatures. I think we can have both. Add the Page with all the creatures as a link to the category so that people can link to the specific creatures and also have a big page for those who want them all together. Mandos 18:34, 16 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Another useful column might be "Hex size" as they are often hidden away in the description, or ambiquious (like "long" riding animals). I'm not sure one beast per page is required, and might just make it slow to browse thru them. Zappyzane

I've updated the Monster Cat table. A few links don't work at this stage - this is deliberate. Only Faeries seem to have their own pages split off - I think it's inconsistent, but if Mandos prefers it for his Faerie stuff, it's not worth changing. Andreww 21:56, 17 Dec 2006 (NZDT)

Any issue with me fixing links to individual creatures? It's just "PageName#AnimalName" in square brackets. Not sure what you mean by 'deliberate.'

--Errol 10:26, 18 Dec 2006 (NZDT)

Some of the Fantasical creatures are going to move, to match the GM Guide - "lost" fantasticals that get moved properly under fantasticals again, mainly. --Andreww 16:22, 18 Dec 2006 (NZDT)
Gotcha. Once that is stabilised I might get enough enthusiasm to do individual creature pages (for ease of linking), which just have a link to CreatureGroup#Creature (note that REDIRECTs to subheadings don't work). --Errol 16:54, 18 Dec 2006 (NZDT)

Crikey, Fantasticals are messy! F.Monsters has 12 creatures directly under that heading, plus the 7 under the F.Avians sub-heading. The F.Avians aren't tagged as B(ird), although 3 or so Air spells affect them. There are F.Avians who might be sentient, but have MA None. Unicorns are MA None here and 0 in GM Guide. Time for a lie-down. --Errol 17:55, 20 Dec 2006 (NZDT)

The Demons and Elementals/Summonables are listed as being stunnable. I wish! This was copied from an old list in the paper GM's folders. If this is no longer correct, can we list Demons and Summonables as being unstunnable? --Andreww 13:11, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)