Talk:Banderhobb (5e)

Article Naming

I don't think it's a good thing to use homebrew article naming conventions (the 5e Monster suffix) for published work. I know these are not part of the 5th edition SRD, but perhaps another prefix or suffix is needed for consistency's sake. Something denoting that this is published work, along with perhaps a transclusion onto the publication's page? --Sulacu (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2016 (MST)

Agreed. I was trying to think of a good naming convention. I did not want to use the Canon prefix, and the SRD prefix is not appropriate. How about (5e Canon Monster)? --Rlyehable (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2016 (MST)

Is there a simple name for third party publications? I would steer clear from the word Canon since that line gets very blurry in tabletop gaming. Perhaps (5e Published Monster) or simply (5e Publication) could work? --Sulacu (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2016 (MST)

Canon is more for scholarly-ish works about how it has evolved over editions, and doesn't seem appropriate. But I also don't know why we would want this showing up in a table with other monsters that have actual stat blocks you can read or use. Why not a disambig page without parenthetical identifier like we already use for published work that points to a publication page for the book where the monster is detailed? And keep any monster summary on the pub page? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 08:09, 27 December 2016 (MST)