Category talk:Dungeons & Dragons monsters

message: In answer to the question "Why did I remove this category from the supercategory "Legendary creatures", it's because D&D creates are not (necessarily) legendary. Some (e.g. dragons) are, but many (Gelatinous cube, black pudding, anything specific to D&D) are not. If there was a "Fictional creatures" they could be a subcategory of that. My apologies for not explaining this. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary

message: This sounds great -- how do we do it?  I am a neophyte so I apologize if my questions are trivial.
I clicked on the link but it appears to go to a completely blank page.  What are the guidelines for what should be in such a WikiBook, and what is the procedure for actually editing it?  Can someone explain here and/or put the answer on the link?
I'm deleteing the "help make the monster manual into a wikibook", but i'll leave this for reference. The Monster Manual is copyrighted work, if you put any part of it (not covered by fair use) up you will violating Wizard's of the Coast's, et al's copyright. Ask them for permission first. Personally I don't feel the Monster Manual needs to be here, sure it's a piece of reference material but mistakes and/or vandalism can ruin that. Secondly, if we put up the Monster Manual we'll need to put MM2, MM3, MM4, the Miniture's Handbook, and so fourth, esentially ending with every DnD book wikified. Pandemic 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the D&D articles themselves have gone rampant and well above what is needed let alone for just monsters. There is too much in depth content about the specifics of the game and as you said I think some of it infringes on copyright. Is there really a need for any monster to be on Wikipedia? If it is mentioned in an article then shouldn't the references for it to the actual book be enough. I have mentioned this in several other places where it seems the entire SRD looks like it is migrating onto Wikipedia as indepent articles as well as too specific information on the specific rules of the game. Maybe the creatures should have little to no details, but just a list of those specific to the various forms of D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 12:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''D&D Monster Manual as a WikiBook??''' 

message: I understand there has recently been a lot of debate on how to include what creatures on which pages. Here is what I think would be best: We preserve the articles on the monsters themselves, but delete the dungeons and dragons creatures category and then make a few new pages. There should be a standard D&D creature category/page, for the creatures in the Monster Manual. A supplemental monster page, which has creatures from Monster Manual II, Monster Manual IV, Fiend Folio, Stormwrack, older D&D creatures, adventure specific creatures, ETC... The Campaign Setting creature pages should only have creatures unique to the setting. Finally, a compendium page, an enormous page with all monsters listed. Dungeons and Dragons creatures should bring you to a page with links to each of these pages in a short list. Also, at the top of each of these pages, it should briefly explain what a Standard D&D creature is, or what a Supplemental Monster is, ETC... Other pages which we might have, but I think would be less nesscessary would be an Extraplanar Creature page, Fiend page, Real-life D&D creature page (horses, humans, ETC...), and a mythological D&D creature page (Griffons, Centaurs, Giants, ETC...). Possibly others if anyone can think of them. Obviously, some of the creature articles would overlap pages (Griffon would be in both Standard D&D creatures and Mythlogical D&D creatures), but I believe we could keep it neat if we did it the right way. If a creature is a standard D&D creature but it signifigantly features in a particular campaign setting (Beholders and Aarakocra are standard, but feature prominently in the Forgotten Realms, for example), then the campaign setting creature pages could be divided into two sections: Creatures unique to the setting, and standard creatures which prominently feature, the later of which would have the standard creatures which feature prominently listed, as well as a link to Standard D&D creatures. The same thing could be done for supplemental creatures which feature prominently in a setting. As for creature types, each creature article should state what type of creature it is, with the name of the type of creature being a link. That link would bring you to a page where it tells you what creature types are, and a brief description of each. The creature type page should not be included on the page with links to each of the category pages (Standard D&D creatures, Supplemental... mentioned earlier), or on the Compendium page; creature types are not D&D creatures themselves. For creatures with sub-species (Demon; Balor, Succubus), in the lists in the category pages, it would have the super-creature at the top, and then beneath it the various sub-species. I think their articles could be all on the one page, but each one should have their own link, which would take you to their paragraph in the article.  Another thing I think we might do but I'm wondering whether it would be too copyright infringing of the Monster Manual is try to make the creature articles themselves a bit more structured. They should all have basic information (Name, diet, lifespan, creature type) at the top on one side, and then a picture of them on the other side. Below would be an overview paragraph, and then paragraphs on society, combat, physical description, ETC... Some, but not all, would have paragraphs on history, famous charachters, or whatever, if needed. If they feature prominently in a setting, they'd also have a paragraph on how they feature in that setting. I'm afraid that this might infringe copyright, however, and maybe we should just write the creature articles the relatively unstructured way we currently do. Write below or send me a message if you agree with any of this. -- Fastzander -- 9:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I think should be included on what pages and how we should structure the categories and articles