Yes, and I'm also thinking it might be a good idea to split the more complicated multi-creatures into separate creatures.
The Infernites and Pasari-Niml may have three different "types", but they mostly share the same special abilities and stats so at a stretch we could just mention them in the CC name. The three different types of Weresloth are quite different in size and abilities, so we should probably just have them be separate entries.
Infernite (includes Magician and Leader)
Pasari-Niml (Warrior, Noble and Calipha)
Lycanthrope, Weresloth, Giant
Lycanthrope, Weresloth, Ground
Lycanthrope, Weresloth, Tree
I'd agree with this philosophy, just base it on how different they are. The infernites and pasari-niml are sort of like formians, which have just a single main entry in the SRD. It would be reasonable to use potential anchor links for the formian-like subentries.
There is one argument for having separate page with a "sub-monster" which links to a multi-monster page with the actual monster stats - multiple accreditations.
For example, the Gargantua "template" originally appeared in the D&D Companion Rules (1984), with Carrion Crawler, Gargoyle and Troll "sample creatures". However, the AC9 Creature Catalogue has a Gargantua entry which "is a gigantic fish of the carp family".
That's originally a different monster to the Companion Set "template" Gargantua, but we modified it to become a Gargantua Carp, Giant. However, it ought to have separate accreditation.
It'd be as easy or easier to add a note to the Gargantua Template about the Gargantua Carp being a renamed version of the AC9 Gargantua, though.
If darjr gets the anchor links going, I'd support going with the extra credit note and the anchor link.
I've asked Darjr about the "Anchor Link" idea and he said he'll look into it.
He also asked who did the original coding for the CC database. Does anyone here know? I suggested he ask Morrus.
Thanks for asking.
Well, there's a note from someone named Sam about doing something with the database software. Morrus may know who that is, but I'd think Scott Greene (Grazzt with no apostrophe) would know for sure.
I'm not sure I want to ask this much from darjr just right now, but the CC database almost seems like it would be easier to use if it just had fields for name, edition, type, and CR and then just a big field for plain html. That way, we could just copy in the whole statblock at once instead of one field at a time. I guess we'll see how user-friendly the database ends up in practice.