From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Should we go alphabetical (thats how it is in source - not sure if that is one of the things we have to keep the same) or break down into tables by type? (Example pages are A - 1/3ish of D, so barely scratching surface of SRD3e Monsters)   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:28, 20 June 2011 (MDT)

Personally, I like the notion of a sortable table. We could make it so we could sort by CR, Name, Type, and whatever else we chose to include in the table. It would require adding to the template that we will include on every monster, but it would be totally worth it. I can't say with certainty, but I think we already have the extensions for sortable lists. Check out this for what I have in mind, roughly.--Badger 21:35, 20 June 2011 (MDT)
Wow. That would be nice. My thought is that maybe just for now we create a basic table or list and actually create each monster article, then when we have all the articles - we update the table. That way we focus first on getting everything over and online and wikified, then on getting is navigatable.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:52, 20 June 2011 (MDT)
If we take care when writing and filling out the template we use for 3e Creatures, the table I'd like to use would literally fill itself out. If you check out my table (linked above) I would only have to change about 3 lines of code to make the table work perfectly for 3e material (or any other edition). We may need to create one or two extra categories, but that's also a mere 30 seconds of work. Granted, these tables would only sort existing pages, with content on them to sort, so they'd be useless with blank pages. --Badger 23:01, 20 June 2011 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors