Talk:Creep

How about something like [[Template:Titans]] ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyMindWontQuiet (talk · contr).

So you'd have a "Demon" line with the Sayaadi, Felguard, Eredar families like now, another "Draenei" line with all the draenei with no smaller family inside? Xporc (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

i did it this way because a lot of these boxes have some very small groups (like two or three mobs of one type) and having them take up an entire line felt like it'd stretch the box for little reason, but if this is too hard to read i could def. go back through and do the regular grouping style -- Eithris (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Or just the vertical layout we had before you changed it but with header titles for each 'category'. As for the lack of members it's very common for some lines to have only 2 or 3 elements, it's okay as long as the others are more fleshed out otherwise it'd be a bit useless.

@Xporc : no, a Draenei line with all the Draenei creeps, an Eredar one with the Eredar creeps, etc. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah, a single ligne for each single creep family would make the template unbearably long. At least if you do a "demon" line you can regroup 3 or 4 families while making it easy to read. Xporc (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Like that

or like it was previously before being changed but with headers (did it just for the first 3 to get an idea).

or same thing we have now but one line each

The last one would be nice if they were not vertically centered. And yes there's no reason for say Sayaadi and Felguard to not be part of Demons. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's another proposition. Only made two lines. Xporc (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

-

so like this for the full thing? went with an "other" category 'cause i'd rather not make separate sections for groups with less than 6 creeps. which is totally an arbitrary number but i think it feels right as a border between "too small" and "not too small" :p

i'd also like to {{nowrap}} each sub-group so every line will start with a group name for SUPER-ULTRA-MAXIMUM readability if we're gonna do it this way... but nowrap doesn't seem to be working for me. it just keeps replacing the text inside it with "{{{1}}}" :o -- Eithris (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Maybe "Others" instead of "Other"? Xporc (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It relies on two levels of arbitrary names. We do that on Beast for some reason, but the official names are there on the battle.net pages.--SWM2448 00:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

which categories do you think need reworked? we used the official categories as a guideline on the second-level groups with some exceptions (felhounds vs the vague official "fel demons"), and the first-level groups are mostly there for readability. i'd be glad to take another look at any that don't seem helpful tho

actually heck, now that you mention arbitrariness, even if i like scalehide as a classification i guess it's not really serving a purpose here that "lightning lizard" wouldn't. i'll have to switch that one at some point -- Eithris (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How are they arbitrary names? Also we're just trying to make the templates nicer to the eyes while giving more information than previously. Xporc (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at here for example. It should be "Fel Demons" (probably piped to Felhound, which is what the game manual called them), followed by Fel Beast, Fel Stalker, and Fel Ravager. That set is probably right, but we need that same standard across all of the sections. Anything else is arbitrary. Eithris just admitted to calling thunder/lighting lizards "scalehides".--SWM2448 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

so "Felhounds" / "[[Fel demon|Felhound]]s"? that would be pretty cool, make sort of a disambig page for each category. though then we run into the issue with the official categories being really inconsistent, e.g. having a "dragons" page AND a "blue dragonspawn" page, or a "demons" page with only a single doomguard on it

... or do you mean "Fel demons" / "[[Felhound|Fel Demon]]s"? i'm not sure that would be entirely helpful to a wiki reader. "fel demons" is.. vague at a glance, and at-a-glance readability is kinda what we've been shooting for. substituting more modern names in for the vague ones and merging a few categories (bandits and brigands for example) for clarity makes sense, i think. the fact that scalehide doesn't work doesn't mean none of 'em work :p

i guess what i'm trying to say is... what's our goal here? a 100% accurate replication might not be as usable, which i think is a problem. best option may be a balance between accurate and useful to readers, even if that means introducing some seemingly arbitrary changes -- Eithris (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm not sure it's really worth it to keep vague categories like "Fel Demon". On the other hand, when overhauling the older RTS pages last year, I tried to keep as much as possible the flavor of the old games, intentionally keeping mentions of the Kingdom of Azeroth in Black Rock Spire (WC1 Human) for example. Interesting dilemma... Who's the target for these creep pages? Someone interested in Warcraft III, I guess. I mean, if he wants to read about the lore of Felhounds, he'll read the Felhound page, not the Fel Stalker (Warcraft III) page, so I guess it doesn't hurt to mention "Fel Demon" in the main creep template since after all that's Warcraft III called them? Xporc (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

hmm. preserving the original flavor is good--but we can always do that within the articles themselves, rather than the navigation templates. someone who doesn't know much about wc3 could also wind up on these pages (the old i went to look up a specific thing but then i got distracted for two hours following links) and "fel demon" won't really tell them anything about what's in that category, unless they mouseover or click on it and go "ohhh, felhounds." a minor but still somewhat needless step

that'd be less common of course, but if we can make navigation easy for more than just those already invested, i say we should go for it :0 -- Eithris (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the name "Kingdom of Azeroth is still used a lot in the Warcraft I pages for flavor, forcing users to mouse over it to get the current name. I don't really know what to do... Do other people have anything to say? Xporc (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI: Whatever happens with these templates, I'll probably remove the code to make the family names white. It doesn't make it any easier to travel between family, creeps, etc. Xporc (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to have doubts about the way most templates are currently organized. Some categories don't make much sense, like how we separate "Humans" from "Humanoids", and a lot of beast-like creatures like Yeti or Makrura are actually humanoids as well, making most categorization attempts a bit silly since A LOT of units are Humanoids. Maybe the old way was actually clearer? Xporc (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing Creeps?

Where are the sasquatches? Are there other creeps missing beyond those too? Abelhawk (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sasquatch#Warcraft III. Mrforesttroll (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)