Template talk:Attributes

Would anybody object if I added attributes from SLASH'EM here? Or should I just create another template and add them there? -Ion frigate 15:58, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to add SLASH'EM attributes to this template. Please make sure you add a separate table of attributes in the template description (that's in the "noinclude" part) and say that those attributes are specific to SLASH'EM. Thanks! —Shijun 20:36, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did so... I wasn't sure if the MR_DEATH and MR_DRAIN flags belonged here... they are resistances, not attributes, but they also don't see to be present in Vanilla, so I put them here... feel free to undo; the "is capable of treachery" refers to monsters that as pets can spontaneously rebel, don't know if I should make that clear somewhere. -Ion frigate 20:47, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, some of those SLASH'EM-specific attributes have been added to Vanilla monsters (for example, you need a +3 weapon to hit an arch-lich); any thoughts on how best to handle that? For now, I'll add SLASH'EM attributes to SLASH'EM monsters only. -Ion frigate 20:51, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Old comment, but how about a box "Other attributes" and a separate box "SLASH'EM specific" for such monsters? Tjr 14:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

"Does not eat" attribute for odd monsters

Thank you for making non-eating monsters explicit. Perhaps we could have a "but see exceptions" tag below the "does not eat / eats corpses /..." because it currently says ghouls do not eat at all. (Gelatinous cubes, umber hulks should have the same problem.).

While we're at it, is it a lot of work to make "does not eat" text link to inediate, carnivorous to itself etc? Tjr 14:33, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

The 'vore flag texts now link to the proper articles, but "does not eat (but see exceptions)" sounds a bit weird to me. --paxed 15:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

I added a helpful notification when hovering mouse on a "(*)" that's after the "does not eat" --paxed 15:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

"is nasty"

Should we add a separate "can be summoned by summon nasties" attribute? It's technically not part of the monster definition, but it would probably help with the current confusion. (There could also be a "can not be summoned by summon nasties" reminder shown when a monster is M2_NASTY, but not a summonable.)

I dislike the idea of just using "is M2_NASTY", but if that's necessary (see Talk:M2_NASTY), that would be another possibility, I guess. —bcode ^{talk | mail} 18:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have any good answers. I'm just saying that I would likely still be confused if I hadn't been reading the current thread. I should also point out that just because some readers might be confused doesn't necessarily mean that we need to make a change. "can not be summoned" isn't terribly accurate after genocides have occurred, so it might be good to avoid that. and if we're not going to write "can not be summoned", there's probably not much point to having a "can be summoned" attribute. I don't know. Are there any other suggestions? Derekt75 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

SLITHY

Currently, the slithy trait is written as "has a serpent body". While indeed, most slithy monsters also have serpent bodies, other monsters, such as jellyfish, do not. I am not sure if going through the talk page is really necessary, but here we go; I propope that the wording is changed to "has a slithy body".__Train (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)