Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creatures"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
--illori 12:13, 28 December 2007 (EST) | --illori 12:13, 28 December 2007 (EST) | ||
:OK, thanks. I still think a category would be useful, even if not used for finding the articles. Later on one might want to use a bot to do simple work on the different articles, then we should have categories, for the bot to find his targets. They do not make it more complicated. The huge amount of data that tends to be collected in a wiki is more easy to overlook and manage with them. --[[User:Daevaorn|Daevaorn]] 12:21, 28 December 2007 (EST) | :OK, thanks. I still think a category would be useful, even if not used for finding the articles. Later on one might want to use a bot to do simple work on the different articles, then we should have categories, for the bot to find his targets. They do not make it more complicated. The huge amount of data that tends to be collected in a wiki is more easy to overlook and manage with them. In my opinion every article should at least be categorized once. That's why the MW devs implemented [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]] ;-) --[[User:Daevaorn|Daevaorn]] 12:21, 28 December 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 19:23, 28 December 2007
Format
Take a look at the layout of "Rats" - maybe editors of this section should use this format as a template?
Some pictures would be a nice addon.
--Fellice 12:05, 24 September 2006 (EDT)
- Done.
Value/Trade
Some areas do not fit into the 3 sub-headings we have right now, others could do with another heading, maybe "Value" or "Trade" for things that can be obtained from each creature (hides, etc)? --jonmack 06:34, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
- I don't think such categories should be allowed since it would be considered as spoilers. Josellis 05:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Splitting it up
Brand new to the community so hope I'm not stepping on toes. This article seems wayyyyyyy long. Might it not be better to split it up into individual creatures and use categories or something to organize it? --Lacitpo 02:34, 6 December 2007 (EST)
- I completely agree. But I would also like to get an official ok, before I start working on such a thing. --Daevaorn 13:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)
- I propose that we use a template like Template:Creature to get all the articles of one kind in a similar form and layout. That has the unbeatable advantage of making it possible to edit the layout of all creature articles at once and ex post, making also later categorization easy to handle. I set up the article about the Clacker as an example. --Daevaorn 15:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Daevaorn you have my word to go ahead on this as long as you make all links to this page and others about the creatures, Please do not leave any dead/broken links along the way. I dont think we need a catagory for the creatures as long as all the pages are easy to find [dont want to make it too complicated] --illori 12:13, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- OK, thanks. I still think a category would be useful, even if not used for finding the articles. Later on one might want to use a bot to do simple work on the different articles, then we should have categories, for the bot to find his targets. They do not make it more complicated. The huge amount of data that tends to be collected in a wiki is more easy to overlook and manage with them. In my opinion every article should at least be categorized once. That's why the MW devs implemented Special:Uncategorizedpages ;-) --Daevaorn 12:21, 28 December 2007 (EST)