Template talk:Creaturefooter
Types
List on things to do
Anyway ill just put here a list of things to do here:
- add all missing creatures
Anyway this are just a few ideas of what could be here--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:49, December 5, 2009 (UTC) (i put this in first place to be more clear)
- Organized the critter section, using scientific terms :O --Ashbear160 (talk) 14:22, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
Break
I call on a break!
We need to stick to a plan:
- Following the game categorization for in-game creature (wowhead as reference)
- Following the lore categorization for non-in-game creature
We should stop mixing one with another. Revenant is the biggest exemple, elemental in-game but undead elemental in lore.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:28, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
PS: Give another idea or comment this one.
- MEH okay, can do, i just haven't touched the humanoid section yet
- -and im looking for a official quote that revenants are undead elementals(i asked in scrolls of lore for a official quotation)
- -and i believe obsidian destroyers should stay in the same place as anubisath
- we should deal with these from problems in each appropriate type article discussio, and talk the general problems here
- --Ashbear160 (talk) 12:49, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Since Obsidian Destroyer is categorized as elemental, it should go to that category, considering we follow the plan written earlier.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:54, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- actually I checked wowhead and they're classified as uncategorised
- and the general belief in scrolls of lore is that in their warcraft 3 they were undead but in the RPG and WOW they were retconned into elementals also i checked wowhead and they are all elementals(i think wowwiki classifies them as elementals cause "they're made of rock therefore they are elementals")
- --Ashbear160 (talk) 14:26, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Obsidian Destroyer is said as Elemental on wowhead, and the 3 other mobs are Uncategorized.
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 14:29, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- but the other 3 are also obsidian destroyers just with different names so i think we should go with the law of the biggest number
also in the elemental area i don't think we need to put every revenant kind and every conglomerate type just put it all in elemental because it's best if they're altogether than separated into little things that are little variants of the elemental type.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:33, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- it should be like this Elemental(element)(rank)--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:34, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Ok for the Destroyer.
- For the Elemental, since we make a full list, it's properly sorted that way IMO.
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 14:36, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- i dont think we should list every conglomerate elemental since it just unnecessary space and they're also the rare elementals that can be used for other things and isn't mana surge a variant of elemental conglomerate--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:41, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
Sprite problem
We have a problem with sprites there are for types of sprite which two of those are grell demon and nature version then there the elemental type which should be properly linked, and then theres the fairie dragon which should be added to dragonkin type but outside dragon sub category —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashbear160 (talk · contr).
icons
Like Template:Races, icons do not fit well imo.
This is supposed to be a small two/three lines template, that turn to be way too big and overcharged with icons.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:57, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- actually i just added all the icons to mechanical template and it didn't go to the line below, so it's not that big--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- the undead category became one line bigger but that's because i added a lot of new races that the icons revealed to me.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- ok since coobra is removing the images that i worked all my afternoon on i'm going to stop, but don't just undo it because i added more than images and a significant amount of races, so plz remove each image individually--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:23, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I left a message on your talk page. And the work would have been avoided, if you listened to the majority. Someone else can go through your edits, otherwise I'll just do another rollback on them later tonight.
(Sssss/Slithered) 21:25, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- wasn't the majority specifying that it was the large templates that would look cluttered?well anyway i removed almost everything except for the protodrake and drakonid images because i rather have images than unlinked white words, if you still want to get rid of then do it--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:49, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Double species
What do you do when, like the core hound, who is both a beast and an elemental, a species is on two different tabs of this? Which one do you add as navigation to the bottom of the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ijffdrie (talk · contr). 02:42, 15 January 201
- Haven't these always been beasts, even before they started changing many creature type to beasts for hunter taming mechanics? Only the RPGs classified them as elemental creatures I believe. (Sssss/Slithered) 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- We're going solely by the WoW classification? Ijffdrie (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would say put it in both... blizzard has been known to mix it up a lot when it comes to creatures.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since these types of templates allow both it works.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Clean page/New page?
The beast/critter/dragonkin/etc. pages are obviously meant to resemble the world of warcraft in-game mechanisms (which is why critters get their seperate page), however, several non-world of warcraft creatures are listed in the lists (though not all). I propose we clean up all these pages, removing all non-world of warcraft creatures. Then, we make a new page (List of species in the warcraft universe, or something like that), where we list all the canonical creatures. In addition, we still need to clean up a lot of RPG information, probably best to put it in a seperate section (not the main description as it is in many articles) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ijffdrie (talk · contr).
It would have to be done entry by entry rather than a complete overhaul--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll start cleaning up the RPG information from the beasts section Ijffdrie (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be watching.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Massive cleanup/reduction
Creaturefooter is entirely too large. It could better be severed by categories rather than a screenful of unrelated races. --Kaydeethree (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed — Surafbrov T / C 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- How about reworking it like Template:Animations with showing open just the group it belongs in? The Beast version is the specific one that's the problem and not so much the others. Mrforesttroll (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is the way it appears on gromit accepted as the way to do it? Just asking so I can go ahead and change the way the template is entered on other Beast pages. Mrforesttroll (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think I'd much rather do something like with the battle pet template (see
[Lil' Phylactery] as an example). I'm also not sure there's really a NEED for a navigation footer linking to literally every type of creature in the entire game, but that's another matter. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that large navfooter templates don't work on mobile. We get around that by just not displaying navfooter templates at all in the mobile skin. Considering we're already not displaying it on an increasing proportion of our pageviews, why have it? Category:Beasts, or some proper subcategorization tree seems like a better way to navigate. --Kaydeethree (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Although the new look for the Beasts portion is at least better IMO, I have to agree on focusing on categories rather than navboxes for stuff like this (especially if it's only going to increase in the future and the problem will raise once more). Categories are easy to navigate with mobile and of course desktop. My suggestion would be to axe the child navboxes in favor of using the categories for navigation. — Surafbrov T / C 05:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that large navfooter templates don't work on mobile. We get around that by just not displaying navfooter templates at all in the mobile skin. Considering we're already not displaying it on an increasing proportion of our pageviews, why have it? Category:Beasts, or some proper subcategorization tree seems like a better way to navigate. --Kaydeethree (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think I'd much rather do something like with the battle pet template (see
- Is the way it appears on gromit accepted as the way to do it? Just asking so I can go ahead and change the way the template is entered on other Beast pages. Mrforesttroll (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- How about reworking it like Template:Animations with showing open just the group it belongs in? The Beast version is the specific one that's the problem and not so much the others. Mrforesttroll (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)