Category talk:Magical beasts

Edition-Specific Categories?
I'm wondering if we should have edition specific categories for creature types like this one. "Magical beast" means something different in 3e than it does in 4e, for example. Should this page be titled "Magical beasts (3e)"? That's what it was meant for, yet many of the monsters here are only magical beasts by the 4e definition. ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:48, July 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, so make these like the class categories... interesting idea... - Darkwynters (talk) 15:08, July 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * I sorta like that idea, but it would be a huge undertaking to recategorize all 633 (as of now) critter pages. This could also solve the reptile question if we decide to go that far, buuuut I'm thinking we should strictly limit the categories to the terms found in the monster manuals and remove any extra real-world terms. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:39, July 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind taking that on as another project, if there is no rush.
 * I fully agree about removing extra real-world terms. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:03, August 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * I really liked ho we fixed the class categories... I agree with Lhyn... looking up pteranodon and seeing "Beasts (5e)" and "Animals (3e)"... Might be cool - Darkwynters (talk) 22:14, August 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I went ahead and made Creature auto-generated categories for 3e types. I'll do the same for the others later, after I go through and clean up bad categories and such. If you think this is a bad idea, you can revert, but I've tested it in my sandbox and it does not change the appearance of the infoboxes at all, so I thought it would be ok to do. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:08, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem will be in getting people to use the correct types and not generate strange categories. There comes a point where auto-categories are more trouble than they are worth. This might test that hypothesis. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:13, August 25, 2015 (UTC)