Talk:Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


My question was, should templates count as separate entries, and should templated monters count as their own listing, or just a mention in the description of the template? The only reason it would matter is if one template has more than one example monster, such as some of the Lycanthrope templates, the Skeleton template, the Swarm template, the Zombie template, and the biggest offender, the Anthropomorphic Animal template from Savage Species, which has about 50 examples in list format. Any recommendation for what do with these ones? --Ig8887 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say templates certainly count. Sample creatures should just be noted on the Description line, since they usually don't really merit their own entry. I'd say it shouldn't matter how many sample creatures there are if we keep this in mind. Since the examples for tht Anthro template are in list form, it should be enough to state that there is a list included in the book and not worry about naming them all. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
So, in looking at BOZ's work on the first edition stuff below, I really liked the way he did the subtypes of devils and dragons and such. I think we should try to make that a standard format for subtypes of the same monster. Baron (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
See how I handled this on the 3.5 MM page and tell me what you think. BOZ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Easiest way[edit]

You seem to be going to town, and I wouldn't want to dicsourage it in any way, but I think the easiest way would be to do the first five or ten monsters in each list and then make the page live. That should draw people in. That's if we're going to have 20 of these lists. I'm not totally clear on how many there will be. If it's only a few, then you may as well create stub entry for all that you have the time for. Of course this is all volunteer, so do whatever feels good to you. I guess I would just like to know how many of these lists we'll get. Also, if you would go live with one of them, I'll start a bit of work on it. Just tell me which one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't presume to speak for BOZ, but I imagine the purpose of doing them here is that there's a bit of a purge (rightly so or not) on D&D monster articles, and a stubbish list would stand a higher chance of getting AfD'd immediately. I also imagine there will only be the 6 lists indicated, one per edition (with a 7th added in June when 4th Edition comes out). Each list will cover every book published for that edition (and maybe, in a perfect world, every Dragon Magazine monster article for that edition). --Ig8887 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You are partly correct. If we toss some really small lists out there, someone might just nominate them in a heartbeat. It's my goal to have at least two books detailed per page before we post them so that people don't jump all over them in a negative way. That still leaves way plenty of stuff for other people to get to. For example, I'm done with User:BOZ/OD&D Monsters‎ though I'm pretty sure there are at least a few more books to get to. My second goal is to list as many sources as possible which contain monsters, so that others need only look to those sources to get going. I'm a bit of a completionist, so leaving too much hanging doesn't sit right with me. ;) But no, we don't have to do every damn thing first, and I don't even want us to do 1/2 or necessarily even 1/4 of everything before we put it up for the public. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best if we got the skeleton (names and page numbers) of everything in the core monster book for each edition before putting the central page in the article space. The others, a couple of books worth of tables would be great. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick Point of Reference[edit]

In looking back, it seems like there was some discussion of having a link in the name column (or somewhere) to the OGL stats and an image. Are those still in? If so, I can go back and add them to the list I already posted and I will add them in the future. Baron (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just add the fields as specified at Template:D&D creature list. Just add the URLs and they will be automatically formatted. If they aren't, the template can use some more work. We have come up with what we think is a good way of including the info, but please comment if you have suggestions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Helpful index[edit]

There is an index of basically every D&D monster ever printed to be found at ENWorld. There is a direct link to the zip file for anyone without an ENWorld account -- or not wishing to have an account -- but I don't know if I can post such a link or not. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

probably not as those silly forum attachments always require registration. at least you have it to double check to make sure all mosnters appear in our lists that should. shadzar-talk 04:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's try it anyway; here's hoping I don't get blocked! :) It's not the most current version, but it's got most everything. BOZ (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If Boz removes his link above, or it is made more private, I'll email it to anyone who wants it. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll make sure that link remains publicly accessible (that's my server ;). I've also just updated the zip file to be the latest version (April 2008) of the index. Ant Brooks (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I figured that might be you.  ;) Welcome again to Wikipedia, and thanks for all your help thoughout the years - you're much more diligent than I am.  :) BOZ (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the above zip file with an HTML page. You'll now find the latest version of the index here. Ant Brooks (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. :) BOZ (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1st & 2nd Edition[edit]

OK, I've done all that I wanted to do with the first edition monsters. As you can see, it's rather massive. We could leave it as one page, or I could feasably see splitting it into List of Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (1977-1982) (Monster Manual, Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio) and List of Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (1983-1988) (Monster Manual II, Oriental Adventures, Dragonlance Adventures, Manual of the Planes, and Greyhawk Adventures).

Also, this should give us some kind of idea what to expect from other editions. I could easily see 2E being split into several pages; maybe 1989-1990, 1991-1992, 1993-1995, 1996-1998, or something like that? I'll commence to working on that fairly soon. BOZ (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got MC1 and MC2 done for the second edition. Despite the huge volume of the work, I'm thinking of moving on to the Monstrous Manual next - it's probably the most recognizable monster book of the 2E era, both because of its size and because of the return to a proper book format. After that though, I don't think I want to stick with 2E forever (because I easily could), and the BD&D stuff is in serious need of attention. BOZ (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We are going to need A LOT of subpages, but I think we should try to get all the main books on the same page. I think we should move the main tables onto this page once they are 'ready'. Remember to include a link to the page you've merged from for GDFL purposes; we don't want this deleted on a technicality! J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me try out an idea on this page and see what you think. Trying to include tables on this index page might get excessive, but maybe what I'm about to do would be better? BOZ (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How is that now? Just a link to each of the major books? If you like it, feel free to play around with it; if not just revert. :) BOZ (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

4th Edition[edit]

Should we even mention it yet? It's going to be out soon, and there's not much to say at the moment, and we're going to be done with this before the MM comes out. Just wondering. Obviously when the book comes out that won't even be an issue. BOZ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

i went ahead and added a section for it with some information about what mosnters may be present. we could make the page and list only those mosnters known to exist from the DDM set, and those shown in article to be included in the monster manual form the articles on WotC site. i also added the future tag to the section for 4th edition to tell people that it isn't out yet, and to further explain that all information known is from the sources indicated, such as the WotC website and D&D related game designers. shadzar-talk 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a point in making a new page until the MM has been released. Too much speculating is a no-no on the wiki. BOZ (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
well there are a few comfirmed mosnter to be in the MM for 4th. i was just thinking we could set the page up with those that have been released. including all the DDM set would mean jsut one incorrect mosnter unless we can figure out which (a metallic dragon?) is not included. This way we have some groundwork already in place for adding the rest in June. either way is fine, was just not wanting to dig in boxes for those 2E MMC and annuals to start on them yet as the pages with them would be REALLY long after they are added! shadzar-talk 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to start it now, you can always set up a sandbox page like this one.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
i always get lost making pages in my own userspace (is that what it is called?) cause its so hard to go back and find a page i have created. if i knew a way to find all pages in my own user:shadzar area i would make all kinds of sandbox or other pages. i may know a few bits of the coding, but am largely still just a wiki-newb. :) i will look into it and try to figure something out even if i have to use my own user page or something. LOL shadzar-talk 20:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Put it on your watchlist?  :) That's how I find mine. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrapping it up, getting ready to ship[edit]

Hey all.  :) I've (mostly, see the 3.0 page) finished up my goal of starting a minimum of 3 books per edition. It's time to get going with the finishing touches. Take a look around and see if you can see anything else that should go on before I move these from mainspace to userspace. That is what I should do, right, rather than cutting and pasting to a new page?

Also, I think it was J Milburn who mentioned at one point that there was an "unfinished list" template that we should be adding to these - anyone know where that is? BOZ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

maybe it was one from here ? shadzar-talk 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably the Expand List one.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the incomplete list template goes at the bottom- it works like a stub. That's why {{list-stub}} resolves as the same thing. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Figure I should move it down then? I was trying to attract attention at the top of the page, so is there something else I can put up there instead? BOZ (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


The current name is inaccurate. IMO this article should be moved to monster (Dungeons & Dragons) and include a brief overview of how monsters work in each edition. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You could perhaps more easily create a separate article for that? BOZ (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? This article was never a list of D&D monsters, it is and always has been about D&D monster books and their history, and more details about D&D monsters are completely on-topic for an article about D&D monster books. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
i think BOZ should know what the article is and is not since he painstakingly created it and the actual list pages. :) shadzar-talk 11:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add any appropriate details - I always welcome any sort of improvement. :) BOZ (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I could create a separate article, however this article and the hypothetical future monster (Dungeons & Dragons) article are likely to be merged due to heavy overlap, I would be okay with that as long as no one else takes it personally, but I think it would be simpler to avoid the hassle of a merge and just expand this article. On the other hand, I don't want to drag an existing article off-topic. Anyway, I believe that both expanding the scope of this article and creating a separate article would be potentially controversial, so I do not want to take either action without support. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I've seen a lot of similar-to-identical creatures, in name and appearance to those in D&D, appear in completely unrelated works like the Final Fantasy and Warcraft series. I thought that Wizards of the Coast copyrighted everything, up to and including the monsters, in the games (not including the mythological inspirations for the monsters). (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)