Talk:Monster Manuel (Entries)

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Wouldn't it be better if we added it to the monster template? Spread it out, because, DANG, this page is going to be HUGE. --Johnny Treehugger 02:27, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

  • Certainly this page will need to be split into several pages (although that is an established strategy for large pages). I wasn't sure if adding a new section to each monster would be better than this, but decided this centralized the editing. Perhaps a discussion is required? Another question to consider is whether we should modify attack/defense/hp in the Data pages to match the manuel entries... --Fig bucket 02:33, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
    • I edited one monster data to match the Manuel entry. Should I not have done that? --Poit Narf 02:49, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
      • Not a big problem. I'm likely being a bit over-cautious---it's not clear how accurate the data is, and it would be nice to have confirmation that everyone gets the same values, or to figure out what variance the manuel data has. --Fig bucket 03:00, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
      • I've been editing the monster data on a bunch of monsters over the last couple of days so the wiki manuel automatically matches the kol version. I was just about to go through the manuel entries and remove the attack/defense/hp from there and correct them on the monster's data page. Should I be doing this or leaving that data alone and make the modifications on the maneul? --IceColdFever 20:21, 28 September 2012 (CEST)
        • I fully support what you're doing, because if the entry doesn't match the in-game stats, it should reflect that; it seems odd to have incorrect data on the monster page and just mask it on the entry page. ~Erich t/c 22:13, 28 September 2012 (CEST)
    • The existing Monster Compendium can likely be deprecated by this. --Flargen 03:47, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
      • We could merge the two.--Toffile 04:48, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
        • I propose we get rid of the compendium and have it redirect to the Manuel (entries) page, then have a separate page for extinct monsters that will never get researched (pre-fax regulars and pre-manuel uncopyables). How you want to handle Monster Data is up to you, since some, but not all, of that info is either on Manuel or will be in the future (element/phylum). ~Erich t/c 22:19, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

How are scaling monster handled?--Shademaster00 04:04, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

  • Baa'baa'bu'ran shows up as a 0/0/0 monster for me. I haven't fought any others.--Toffile 04:48, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
    • Black-and-White-Ops Penguin shows up as 0/0/0 for me, having fought it once. --Turing 05:26, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
      • Hipster combats, black crayon monsters and a few others are also showing the same results. I suppose 0/0/0 simply means that they scale? --Volc 06:50, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

So I think we should add a link to the monsters on the pictures, because having large blue bolded text everywhere would look kinda ugly. --JohnAnon 08:19, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

1 win gives "casually researched" and the stats, 2 wins gives thoroughly researched, and 3-5? wins exhaustively researched --Christog 12:54, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Naming issues

What should we do when the monster name isn't the same as in the Manuel? (example: "THE Guy Made Of Bees" is under G as "Guy Made Of Bees")
Is it possible to add an extra option in the template for a different name? (example: the link [[place|text]] goes to "place" but the link says "text") --Christog 14:32, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

  • Done and fixed (there is now a "|name=XXX" option in the template to change the name displayed). --Fig bucket 14:40, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
  • This is the result of articles (the, a, etc.) generally not being a part of the "proper" name, I think, even when they are capitalized or otherwise distinctive. --Flargen 19:37, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Monsters without entries

I'm not sure if this is the right page for this, but should monsters that don't give entries be included here? I had no success getting 'snakefire in the grassfire' to give any entries (I stopped after 5 tries), but I didn't want to add this until someone else could confirm. --QVamp 04:14, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

  • first entry is guaranteed, so if you don't get the first one you can stop there. and the list is on the end of the page now. --Evilkolbot 13:38, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

mobs with no entry currently

  • surely somebody must have tried Mother Slime? she's pretty easy to get, and the similarly encountered Hodgman, The Hoboverlord has them. --Evilkolbot 13:38, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Sorted --Serin 14:35, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Last I checked, all of the monsters from Canadia and the Thundergdome were missing also. --Johnny Treehugger 15:35, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Also, Sleaze and Spooky Hoboes. --Johnny Treehugger 16:30, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Cola wars.--ArgghFW 21:15, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
    • Got the cola war monsters. Anything left except the sign-specific zones? Oh, and the Muertos Borrachos monsters, which won't show up for a few weeks. —Yendor 16:00, 4 November 2012 (CET)
  • i've been cross-referencing, and can't find these.
    • axe handle
    • breakdancing raver
    • cloud of disembodied whiskers
    • decent lumberjack
    • forest spirit
    • gnarly gnome
    • gnasty gnome
    • gnefarious gnome
    • Gnollish Crossdresser
    • Gnollish Flyslayer
    • Gnollish Gearhead
    • Gnollish Piebaker
    • Gnollish Plungermaster
    • Gnollish Tirejuggler
    • Gnollish War Chef
    • Gnomester Blomester
    • gnu jack gnome
    • Guard Bugbear
    • lumberjack supervisor
    • lumberjill
    • lumberjuan
    • Ninja Snowman
    • one-eyed Gnoll
    • poutine ooze
    • psychedelic fur
    • running man
    • vicious gnauga
  • it may just be my list is out of date. i guess GN was removed by mistake.
  • also, there are five ancient protector spirits, can we add them back in, please? --Evilkolbot 22:20, 4 November 2012 (CET)

K, I went through your list and added a bunch. As of now, it's down to:

    • breakdancing raver
    • psychedelic fur
    • running man

I didn't add the spirits back in, but that can be done later. Also, something should be done about all the entries that have an override for the stats, as in the ones whose Manuel entry doesn't match the wiki entry. The monsters themselves should be changed to reflect that, not the Manuel entry. ~Erich t/c 16:41, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Linking the monster names

Would it be possible to link the monster names to their corresponding wiki article? Or is that something that is not possible/not worth it. I think it'd be a nice convenience.

Thank you. --Khamul 21:59, 27 November 2012 (CET)

  • click on the pictures, they have the links you seek. i think it was felt to be too cluttered and busy to have the names as large as they are and blue underline too. i must say i agreee. --Evilkolbot 22:13, 27 November 2012 (CET)
    • You can get rid of the underline:
      fluffy bunny
    • But I don't know how to change the link color. So I think it can be done, but until it looks like there's no markup, I'll echo 'bot's sentiment. ~Erich t/c 04:19, 28 November 2012 (CET)
      • If you move the <span> inside the link, you can get:
        fluffy bunny
      • which seems like something worthwhile. --timrem 07:27, 28 November 2012 (CET)
        • i don't understand this enthusiasm for links that don't advertise their linkiness. if there already is a link why add to the compplexity of the template to no purpose? --Evilkolbot 08:22, 28 November 2012 (CET)
          • images do not advertise their linkiness. The first thing I tried to click on was the black name, I didn't even know the images were linking places till I read this. Better to just link the names as well for usability than worry over a minor increase in template complexity. Discordance 20:42, 30 November 2012 (CET)
          • Khamul expressed interest in having the monster names be links, and I think that's a good idea. Since you didn't want the names to be "too cluttered and busy", we worked on keeping the names looking as they currently do, but adding 'linkiness'. When I click a picture, I usually expect to be taken into the File: namespace, so I usually don't click them. Names, however, seem a perfectly logical place to link to a monster's encounter page. --timrem 23:25, 13 December 2012 (CET)
            • since we're adding something without changing the look of it, i can't really object. my resistance to links that don't look like links is purely from design dogma: in good design, things should advertise what they do. but that's just me. --Evilkolbot 23:35, 13 December 2012 (CET)
              • I agree stuff should advertise, but I don't see how the images advertise either. Neither is ideal and both lack advertisement so the best we can do is link both and hope for the best. Unless we are willing to start modifying the look. Discordance 23:38, 13 December 2012 (CET)

split up the entry pages

the pages eg. a-e are pretty obscenely large. Shouldn't we just break them down to individual letters? Would better match in-game as well. Discordance 16:49, 30 November 2012 (CET)

  • i agree this is a good idea. and it makes this header page more like the one in-game. would it be possible to have a nav template with just the capital letters on in one row like the in-game pages do? --Evilkolbot 23:55, 13 December 2012 (CET)
    • I have started the new nav template, the style is slightly off but the basic workings are there. Discordance 15:13, 14 December 2012 (CET)

entry data location

While it might take some work, would it not make more sense to fold the manuel entries into the monster data, and then display the entries both on monster info boxes and here? Discordance 16:55, 14 December 2012 (CET)

That could work. Which reminds me, there should probably be an entry in the monster data for the special item drops. —Yendor 18:01, 14 December 2012 (CET)

revert war

  • enough with the reverts. i'm pretty certain that 992 is correct. i counted them twice. erich, a safe pair of hands, counted them. moreover, turing, who is awesome, counted them. we got 989. then there were elves. so 992. there are more in our lists here that don't count so you must have discounted them. are you just adding the totals at the top of the pages? did you check them? or do you have a spreadsheet? can we see it? --Evilkolbot 19:50, 15 December 2012 (CET)
    • It was only one revert, I am sure about the number, I had no intention of continuing to change it if someone disagreed, but at that point as far as I knew I had counted whats on the wiki and erich was restoring an older vague count. Yes its just from counting the entries on each page, 2-3 times, then totalling everything across them. I will go through and count everything again now in case I missed anything. If you have an external count however I suspect that there are 989 on the wiki and you have 3 on your spreadsheet that aren't here. The only entries I have discounted are the 6 unobtainable entries as for the purposes of a manuel score they are irrelevant. Discordance 20:24, 15 December 2012 (CET)
      • Actually forget manual counting, I have some old bot code, I'll write a small counter to do it. Discordance 20:29, 15 December 2012 (CET)
        • i remember now. it's that the protector spectre counts in the wiki as one (why?) but in your manuel as four. it's 992. --Evilkolbot 20:58, 15 December 2012 (CET)
          • Nope, I fixed that, and theres 5 protectors on the wiki again. I completed my counting bot and he agrees, there are 995 entries on the wiki. Subtract the 6 unobtainables and theres 989 for people to collect. Again though I stress on the wiki you may well have 3 entries that haven't been added. Discordance 21:04, 15 December 2012 (CET)

I have the counts from each letter, although they match whats at the top of each wiki page anyway. If you could compare the counts under each letter in your spreadsheet maybe we can pin down whats missing. Discordance 21:15, 15 December 2012 (CET)

A,44 B,126 C,65 D,40 E,30 F,44 G,68 H,29 I,10 J,7 K,27 L,34 M,58 N,23 O,22 P,40 Q,4 R,32 S,120 T,57 U,12 V,16 W,63 X,5 Y,3 Z,10 Other,6 total:995 total-6:989

  • good thinking. give me three hours. --Evilkolbot 21:28, 15 December 2012 (CET)
    • spectral pickle factory hasn't been back so there're no factoids. the monsters still count, though. no? --Evilkolbot 23:21, 15 December 2012 (CET)
      • I think you could look at that either way, technically you can't get them right now until april 1st rolls around, so 989 is the max you could get today. But yeah they are obtainable and almost certainly in-game so 992 is the max once they've shown up. But i'd lean towards 989 as 995 is the theoretical max if you wait for drunksgiving to get added... Discordance 23:34, 15 December 2012 (CET)

I added a note on the page, that 989 does not include the spectral pickle monsters, and when we expect them to return. Discordance 23:50, 15 December 2012 (CET)

entry counting bot

heres my little counting bot in java. He's a little rough and ready and isn't handling exceptions (hes returning 0 for execptions but I have no 0s in the output so eh), but my manual count agrees that its 989. Discordance 21:08, 15 December 2012 (CET)

import; import; import; import; import; import; import; import java.nio.charset.Charset; import java.nio.charset.CharsetDecoder; import java.util.regex.Matcher; import java.util.regex.Pattern;

public class Main {

   static String endpoint = "";
   static String format = "format=xml";
   static String action = "action=query";
   static String queries = "prop=revisions&rvprop=content&redirects";
   static String titlePrefix = "titles=";
   public static void main(String[] args) {
       int count = 0;
       for (char alphabet = 'A'; alphabet <= 'Z'; alphabet++) {
           count += countLetter(String.valueOf(alphabet));
       count += countLetter("Other");
       System.out.println("total:" + count);
       System.out.println("total-6:" + (count - 6));
   public static int countLetter(final String letter) {
       String page = "Monster Manuel (" + letter + ")";
       Charset charset = Charset.forName("UTF-8");
       CharsetDecoder decoder = charset.newDecoder();
       String title = page.replace(" ", "%20").replace("&", "%26");
       String urlString = endpoint + "?" + format + "&" + action
               + "&" + titlePrefix + title + "&" + queries;
       URL url;
       InputStream input;
       BufferedReader reader;
       try {
           url = new URL(urlString);
           URLConnection connection = url.openConnection();
           input = connection.getInputStream();
       } catch (MalformedURLException e) {
           return 0;
       } catch (IOException e) {
           return 0;
       reader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(input, decoder));
       String line;
       Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile("\\{\\{ManuelEntry\\|");
       Matcher matcher;
       boolean match;
       int count = 0;
       try {
           while ((line = reader.readLine()) != null) {
               matcher = pattern.matcher(line);
               match = matcher.find();
               if (match) {
       } catch (Exception e) {
           return 0;
       System.out.println(letter + "," + count);
       return count;


No longer accessible monsters

It seems we may have our first inaccessible manuel entries. The ancient protector spirit got changed in the revamp. The 4 holding spheres got new unique entries, but the one with the dagger has the old entries, which no longer make sense as he wouldn't have a sphere but the dagger if he was still in game. I suspect this means hes out but needs more spading to confirm this. Discordance (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Up-to-date totals

The figure of 1118 didn't include anything from Dreadsylvania onwards, so I've changed it to include the new monsters. I hope my figure is correct but I may have missed something. I counted 66 67 new monsters as follows:

  • Dreadsylvania: 30 normal + 6 bosses.
  • KOLHS: 20 new monsters, including the principal.
  • Hidden city revamp: 9 10 new monsters. (forgot about the dense liana)
  • Knoll revamp: gnollish bodybuilder.

--Campboy (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You could just run my counter program. Theres only 1182 on the wiki at present, not 1185. We were previously discounting any unobtainble monsters also, of which there are 6 unkillable, and likely one retired protector spectre. The 3 missing may simply not be on pages yet, if you can figure out which ones add them blank to the pages so people know to add the missing entries. Discordance (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I take it back theres a bunch of missing boss entries (from dread). Your counts give an idea how many are missing. But i've already counted more than 3 bosses missing from the wiki, and i'm not sure but the hard mode bosses might have their own entries as well. Will probably have to go back through all the recent updates to properly check, perhaps you need to include the little canadia bog as well. Discordance (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hard bosses use the same entry, as they are the same monster ID. — Cool12309 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be totally surprised if they were the same, but I thought we couldn't know the monster ID? Discordance (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It was a sneaky update about a week or two ago, it shows the monster ID in manuel. Cannon had every monster in his so he put up a huge spreadsheet of it and I made all the Monsters by Number pages. — Cool12309 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh cool! Discordance (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We only have falls from sky and drunkula here atm. So 4 missing entries for dread bosses. I agree with all your counts on a cursory pass, maybe 1118 was out of step. But I provisionally put the new total at 1186. (and we should should probably stick with subtracting unobtainbles or give both totals (total/total obtainable). Discordance (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it if 1118 had the -6 unobtainables on it you can't use it as a base anyway the totals just go screwy. Will need to manually check all the new mobs and do a new count. (Wish the manuel entries were in the monster data). Note that the text itself states that the 6 unobtainables are not included in the count. Discordance (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just edited in some missing high schools: Whilst skimming through, noticed that the top-of-page totals are way out of date (and could do with automating?). I've not got any dread facts myself yet, but as well as the bosses, spooky skeleton seems to be absent.--ArgghFW (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


I just checked over the dread entries and fixed the spooky vampires (someone deleted the old one). I checked the gnoll and hidden city stuff when it came out. My counter reports the following. Bear in mind the page totals usually give the number of unobtainables on the page separately, and the overall total probably should not include the 6 that players can never get (and thats what the page text currently says).


Discordance (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Which actually gives us 1185 (after losing the 6 that are dev only). So campboy was correct, its just hard working with this numbers. (I really should get my bot up and running properly, but no time right now). Discordance (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I only get 1184, which is what is on the forums. I'll check later. --Evilkolbot (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
i was missing principal mooney. 1185 it is. --Evilkolbot (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)