Template talk:Creature

Challenge Ratings
If we have levels for characters in the Forgotten Realms, would it also be reasonable to have challenge ratings for monsters, as a comparison? Fw190a8 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More Detail
While I agree with the crunchy policy, I would like to see the following added to creatures. I don't know how to do it and would like some agreement first anyway. Hurtzbad 07:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Size [How big are these things]
 * Speed [How fast are these things]


 * We generally include size within the text, where the info. is available. For example: "A black pudding is an ooze that resembles a bubbling, heaping pile of thick, black goo, roughly 15' (4.57m) across and 2' (71cm) thick." I dont really have an opinion on speed, one way or another. Johnnyriot999 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I entirely agree with including the size within the text where possible, perhaps in a section on physical appearance. I am not sure why speed is important unless it is abnormal for the size or type of the creature, and even so, this can be included in the text. Fw190a8 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
I added an optional source and page number tag, since all the data for the creature infobox tends to come from the same source (as opposed to the person infobox). If anyone has a problem with this approach, I'd like to hear your opinion. We can always remove it later. --Ebakunin 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good implementation as the prestige class box has one also. Johnnyriot999 07:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's a good way of doing things. I like it. Fw190a8 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Errors
The recent changes to this template have caused parameters such as Location, Challenge, First, and Based to no longer appear in articles. ➳ Quin 20:08, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Different sections for 3.5 and 4th Editions
Currently many articles on creatures combine the different alignments and creature types of the third (and 3.5, which is basically just an expansion of third) and fourth editions. For example, in the article "Aboleth," it is listed in the template as an "aberrant magical beast." I fear this current system the wiki follows will only get more confusing once the fifth edition is released. As such, I propose that this template be split into different sections for alignment and creature type. For example, on the aboleth article, the creature type would be described something like "3.5 Ed. Alignment: Large Aberration, 4th Ed. Alignment: Magical Beast (4th Ed.), 5th Ed. Alignment: Weird Slimy Alien from Space (or whatever it will be classified as)." ➳ Quin 23:24, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I see there is already something similar with Template:Person. ➳ Quin 01:37, January 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * This prediction has come true, it is more confusing now that 5e is out. So which stats should be given the "1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e" treatment and put in a tabbed box? So far it looks like:


 * Creature type
 * Alignment
 * Origin
 * Are there any others? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:03, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Challenge rating (as it is not applicable to earlier editions)? Maybe references like in Template:Deity? Daranios (talk) 19:54, February 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added this to my projects list. &mdash; Moviesign (talk) 22:30, February 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * First pass at putting a tabber into the Creature template is done. Please take a look at this test page and provide feedback. I made a few other modifications to the template to bring it more in line with our other infoboxes, but it's mostly the same. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 23:11, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * It works fine for me, in both Monobook and Wikia/Oasis skins, though 1e and 2e are at a different left alignment to 3e, 4e, and 5e, probably for the lack of a Challenge Rating line pushing them back. However, it doesn't work at all in the Mobile skin; instead, everything's just stacked one after the other (I guess tabs don't work in Mobile). — BadCatMan (talk) 07:26, April 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool! Natural1, Natural2 what are these? I also get the 1e,2e Alignment boxes versions are differently aligned compaired to the rest. Also no the tabs don't work on mobile in any way, it gets weird with the tabbed images. But I guess we have to talk to the wikia people to get that to work :S? Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated  09:51, April 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * I added 1, 2, etc. to the data just so you could tell that it was presenting different info in each tab. The change in alignment is caused by the way tabber works. It actually swaps rows of the table when you click a new tab. Your browser detects something has changed and re-renders the page. The width of column one is based on the maximum length of no-wrap data found in that column, and only rows that are being displayed are considered for that calculation. Tabbers have never worked in Mobile and I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to be supported.
 * Is everyone okay with the History section that replaced "Game Information" and the order of the data? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:09, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Terrain and Climate?
Should I add terrain and climate parameters to this template? See the Forum:Categorization system for creatures discussion and the Creatures by climate and terrain template. Should this template automatically generate the categories based on user input? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:00, April 8, 2015 (UTC)


 * Movie, great idea! So instead of "Location" (or maybe keep this for such things as Abyss... have "Terrain"and "climate" and then it will auto create... sounds really cool... feel free to have a go cleaning up the template P.S. check out black pudding as an example of all edition info :) - Darkwynters (talk) 22:04, April 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * Great idea, Movie. Please keep the Location field though. I think that should be designated for specific Realms locations, as opposed to general terrains and climates. For example, Pterafolk should have, but should have   and  . ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:10, April 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * *bump* ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:44, September 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding the parameters is easy, but the auto-generation of categories presents some challenges, not the least of which is getting users to input the right values, spelled correctly. Would a comma-separated list be acceptable when specifying multiple terrains or climates? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 19:13, September 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * A comma-separated list would be great.


 * If we are clear about what terms are allowed in the template doc, I think we should avoid most issues with auto-generation. One of us who cares will quickly notice spelling errors and fix them.


 * Related: As I've noted before, I would like to get rid of origin for all but 4e. Origin is a specific thing for 4e only. As Darkwynters and I noted above, one can use the location field to note a creature's homeland/plane of origin.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:27, September 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, new parameters climate and terrain have been added. I'll write the documentation tomorrow. I've made the category generation about as foolproof as I could: it accepts commas, three variants of &lt;br /&gt;, and a few extra values that folks might type in (like "Seas" instead of the full "Seas and Oceans").


 * Also, I removed all but origin (the non-edition specific parameter) and origin4e from the template. Again, documentation tomorrow when I'm more awake. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 04:15, September 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * You are a good man. ~ Lhynard (talk) 11:23, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

3 vs 3.5
Was the addition of a 3.5 edition to the infobox really necessary? Do you know of a creature whose stats changed between 3rd edition and 3.5? We've been treating 3.5 as just an extension of 3rd edition where possible, since so much of it is the same. If you know of a case where the type, subtype, alignment, or challenge rating of a creature actually changed between 3rd and 3.5, then this change is probably ok, but if not, then I feel it just adds an unnecessary distinction that confuses people. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 12:43, May 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * There are actually a ton of instances where it changes. is the major source that takes care of this.


 * That being said, 3.5 is supposed to be an update to 3.0, such that 3.5 corrects 3.0. My opinion is that if there is 3.5 information, it goes in the 3.5 tab and overrides any 3.0 information. This does not violate our wiki's policy of accepting all additions, because this only has to do with crunch; the lore of the game has not changed at all.


 * In other words, I'm against having separate tabs for 3.5, but yes, the info changes a lot.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 12:48, May 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Following up on this. Can we go ahead and remove the 3.5 tab? Is there an easy way to see if anyone ever used it, so that I can correct them? ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:28, August 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you want to remove the 3e tab and keep 35? I like the symmetry of 1e, 2e, 3e, etc., but if 3.5 supersedes 3.0...I can go either way.&mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:38, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the symmetry. I vote for keeping 3e. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:42, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I just made the change. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:08, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Origin3e?
Why is there an origin3e field? Do any 3e or v.3.5 ever use it? I've never seen it. (For that matter, is origin ever given in 2e or 1e sources?) Can we remove this(ese) fields from the template? ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:28, August 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * Origin is sometimes given in the description of the creature, like night hags are from Hades, but there is no item in the monster manual for origin like there is for, say, alignment. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:38, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, here is a list of creature origins A-M, and the rest is generated by User:Moviesign/CreatureOriginsN-Z. It only looks for editions 1–3 and "no edition". I'm not sure why there are so many blank lines, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that redirects are being called, like Fey. If you find other pages that should have been in the list, let me know. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:06, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Awesome! That was quick.


 * It looks like I suspected; for 3e, folk are using it like . The only exceptions are ones where I tried to figure out what origin would be if it were 4e. I think we should move that info to   and wipe origin for anything but 4e. ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:12, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Size?
Can we add a size3e field? ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:28, August 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding is easy, removing takes a little care. Let me work on the "is the &lt;insert field name here&gt; used anywhere?" questions. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:38, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Caption
Captions no longer seem to appear if the tabber is used. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:51, November 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a "feature" :-/ &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 06:04, November 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we unmake it as a feature? ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:30, September 19, 2016 (UTC)


 * We are at the mercy of Wikia on this one. I can add an alternative caption header that will show up below the image and above the title, but I'm not sure I can get it formatted the same way as the real caption without affecting all the other headers in the infobox. I'll look into it. NOTE: This is one caption for all tabs, not one caption per tab in a tabber. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:55, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Land
Can you make it so that "land" entered in the  field will auto-populate all land categories? Sometimes you get environments listed as "any land". ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:32, September 19, 2016 (UTC)


 * Special cases make the code messy, but it should be possible. However, what should be included in "any land"? Islands? Volcanic terrain? dungeons and ruins? underground? glaciers? urban? Are marshes or swamps considered land since you can usually walk through them? If there is an official definition of this, I'd like to know, otherwise we'll just be putting our own interpretation on what constitutes land.
 * The alternative is to add a terrain type of "any land", but this will not overlap or encompass all the other terrain types and is still open to interpretation (unless there is an official definition). Can of worms, anyone? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 22:12, September 19, 2016 (UTC)


 * "Any land" seems way too general to worry about. It's basically "not sea". :) — BadCatMan (talk) 08:21, September 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * It just happens to be very common in the various monstrous manuals across multiple editions. It's not just "not sea"; it's also "not lakes", "not marshes", "not rivers", "not swamps".


 * To answer Moviesign's question, "Any Land" in 3.5 books specifically refers to forest, marsh, hills, mountains, deserts, and plains. These are the specific climates one is pointed to in Chapter 3 of the DMG by p.7 of the MM. This is confirmed again in the section on the horizon walker prestige class. In the MM, some entries say "Any land and underground" making it clear that the latter is not included in the former.


 * I don't really think it is a can of worms. We already have islands as an environment type, yet islands have forests, hills, rivers, etc.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:17, December 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, understood. :) — BadCatMan (talk) 00:56, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "any land" (case insensitive) will now trigger categories for the six land types listed above. "Any land" must be the first terrain type in a list, and lists must be separated by commas or &lt;br /&gt; tags. That is, you must use "Any land, underground" and not "Any land and underground". &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:54, December 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks! ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:59, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

More Field Heading Woes
"Average Lifespan" sometimes gets cut off. See Elf for an example. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:20, April 1, 2017 (UTC)


 * Should be fixed now. Clear your cache to see changes. Let me know if anything else breaks, I did the minimum tweaking. Hopefully, it won't need more in-depth study. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:50, April 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that did it. Thanks!


 * Do you think we should just abbreviate the word "Average" as "Ave." in the headings, though? That might give more room all around.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:36, April 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * That was my first thought, but those fields have been around forever, and abbreviations sometimes confuse non-native English speakers. "Ave." is probably pretty safe though. I'd like to get at least one more admin or regular contributor to agree before changing a template that is used on 1000 pages. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:44, April 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:07, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

More diet varieties?
D&D, being fantasy, has a number of creatures that do not fall into the normal diet scheme already established. Do we want to leave them without diet category, or create special ones? I am thinking of Category:Dietless creatures (or is there a word for that? Meaning undead, constructs and the like), a blanket Category:Creatures with special diet and possibly Category:Lithovore creatures for those eating minerals/inorganic matter of any kind (many elementals). Opinions? Thanks a lot! Daranios (talk) 17:42, January 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * That sounds awesome. When editing the gold dragon page, I was thinking exactly that. Their taste for gems and pearls doesn't really fit in an omnivore diet. I like the Category:Creatures with special diet and Category:Lithovore creatures ideas.


 * As for dietless creatures, I don't think an official name exists, but we could always make up one. Following the Latin etymological scheme, how about Nilivore? Or, from Greek, choristroph? Someone who actually speaks those languages might be of more help here… &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 20:28, January 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that 1e and 2e monster write-ups had diet entries that could well go in an infobox. I'd be reluctant to make up a name however; lithovore, nilivore, and choristroph all sound like obscure monsters. :) A reader might not work them out. Something simple and self-explanatory might be better: plant eaters, rock eaters, etc. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:36, January 8, 2018 (UTC)


 * So my first two suggestions would fit this (though I still wonder if there is a more elegant phrase than "dietless creatures"). An alternative for the third would be Category:Creatures consuming inorganic material, or, as you suggested Category:Rock eaters. But I kind of still prefer the lithovores: Sure, it's a very specialized word, but Wikipedia knows it, it fits the scheme of the categories we already have, and I personally can be enticed to look into such an unfamiliar category. (Like I was with Category:Cathemeral creatures :-).) Daranios (talk) 19:57, January 9, 2018 (UTC)


 * I am OK with this, provided that they are not unique. The point of categorization is to group together monsters that share qualities. If only one or two monsters eat some bizarre thing, there is no point creating a category for it. It is still OK&mdash;and actually desired&mdash; to fill in the  field, however, as the code is smart enough to ignore keywords that it does not recognize. So for Panda we would use , and there would not be a problem.


 * As far as names for the categories go, obviously, since I made the "scientific" ones, I like that kind of terminology. I think it's fun to treat these monsters more like they would be treated in a real world by taxonomists. But I don't want to go so far as making names up.


 * Here is a list of some other real world terms that might apply for us (See also: List of feeding behaviours:


 * Carnivore
 * Insectivore
 * Piscivore
 * Photovore
 * Scavenger
 * Cannibal


 * I'm not sure that we need a category for a dietless creature. If it does not eat or its diet is unknown, I don't think it needs a category.


 * Since these categories are all auto-generated, I would need a list of what terms the sourcebooks use that lack categories. Feel free to list them here, and I can make auto-categories for them. I'll get us started.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:59, January 13, 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you have already encountered "minerals". I have found rock, earth, metals, mineral once each, as well as a number of other things not lithovore, so I think we need not include them into auto-generation. I would stil be a fan of "Special" and "None" getting category, so as to distinguish creatures with these characteristics from those with no information or where we did not get around to adding the info, but as you see fit.
 * Ahm, I have now found one case that may put into question my suggestion and your work on Category:Lithovorous creatures: The crysmal is officially called "Petrivore" in Secrets of the Lamp. Daranios (talk) 18:11, January 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * I have also seen "metalavore". I think metalavore and petrivore are subcategories of lithovore. ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:39, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Diets That Need Diet Categories
Please give the official terms used in the sourcebooks.
 * Gems
 * Pearls
 * Minerals
 * Rock
 * Earth
 * Metals
 * Mineral
 * Metalavore
 * Petrivore