From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What should the wiki call the underground boss-monsters? Are there any other ideas besides "underground boss-monsters"? I tried searching for an "official" name and couldn't find anything. The best I can think of is to call the two classes of Boss-Monsters as "Mini-Quest" and "Underground." Since I can't find anything official, I'm pretty flexible with whatever you guys suggest. Let me know if ya'll agree or disagree and I'll go forward with changing the navbox. Here is a draft:

Mini-Quest Ancient DemonDrowned CaptainKu Klux ClownLevel BossMad ClownVegan CannibalWherewolf
Underground Alpha MoleGiga ByterMolesaurusSquirmisherTerracotta Worrier

--BlueStapler 20:31, 23 October 2012 (BST)

aha! looking good! Was hoping you'd get around to that. I called them underground boss-monsters because there's no official name for them, you find them underground and it sounds better than 'boss-monsters-found-by-digging'. I suppose that if we categorize the others as 'mini-quest' boss-monsters, the template should probably then say 'digging' boss-monsters or something similar to make it more consistent. I think the wiki has needed a separate page on digging anyway for a while, since people have produced varying guides on the forum and there's a lot of info on it as a result. --Spode 21:50, 23 October 2012 (BST)

Definitely liking the navbox, and it works well for mobile-screen navigation as arranged. Perfect spacing. As far as the name... Hmm. I believe Google was translating the Russian equivalent as "Titans," so we could go with something artsy/pretentious like "Subterranean Titans" or "Earth-Bound Bosses" if you wanted. Something like "Earthshakers" would have my vote. End of two cents. SourceRunner 18:06, 23 October 2012 (EST)

Hi guys, here's version 2. I think Spode is right about naming the underground boss-monsters "digging". SourceRunner, I like your names, but they're a little bit long and too flashy. I think the wiki should be more about documenting the game instead of putting interesting names. I also went and changed the template. If changing it is bad, just revert it.

Mini-Quest Ancient DemonDrowned CaptainKu Klux ClownLevel BossMad ClownVegan CannibalWherewolf
Digging AlpacalypseAlpha MoleGiga ByterHeromnivoreMolesaurusSquirmisherTerracotta Worrier

--BlueStapler 01:10, 30 October 2012 (GMT)

I activated an ACME monster trap and fought an Archnemesis. --BlueStapler 18:08, 30 December 2012 (GMT)

Then you'll need a new category in the navbox no? How about 'Mystery Box' or 'Activatable Artifact'. I prefer the former myself because it's shorter [,a bit more catchier] and more technically correct. Go with what you think is best and most consistent with the other two categories though. --Spode 22:45, 5 January 2013 (GMT)

I changed Tubercolossus Hulking to 184%. Five heroes' max hp totaled 1776, Tubercolossus was 3264. --Asddgghkl 20:17, 16 November 2013‎ (GMT)

With an aura of hunting, my hero encountered a Broadbandit (483 hp), a Cholestroll (hulking with 791 hp), and I think an Archnemesis, but I could be mistaken on that third name. My hero currently has 416 hp. --BlueStapler (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (GMT)

Note that ACME monster trap bosses have more HP compared to the hero than random encounter aboveground bosses.


New starting entry!

00:02 When I stuck my shovel in the ground, a jet of steam shot out. A crevice is widening and my shovel is glowing blue.


okay, this is silly

My edit was reverted, but do we REALLY need the list of "starting to dig" entries anymore? They all seem very obvious to me and there are tons of them - it's just taking up space on the page. Once you've seen what a boss dig looks like you can spot it from a mile away. Instead of reverting edits that make the page more easy to read perhaps people should look into adding the names of all the new boss monsters we have now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzuna (talkcontribs) 02:08, 1 December 2017‎

Response: Enzuna, as an effort to compromise, I put the "starting to dig" entries into a collapsed table. I believe that with the implementation of dungeons and other stuff, the starting to dig entries aren't as useful to most players. However, there are still many new players, particularly those without a temple, that would greatly benefit from the "starting to dig" entry information. So, again as a compromise, I put the information into a collapseable table that doesn't take up much space, but retains the information. Perhaps, in the future, someone could create an entire page devoted to digging boss-monsters and then move all the relevant information there (note that Spode more or less proposed this back in 2012). Until then, I say let's not entirely delete the entries. Everyone else, feel free to chime in if you have another other ideas. BlueStapler (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Since most of the information in the preamble of the Underground Boss Monsters section was actually about digging, I went ahead and moved it over there (along with a much needed rewrite of that page). So the information's still here in the Godwiki, but it's where it's most relevant, and this page can be dedicated to information about the actual boss-monsters. Hope that suits everybody :) -- Djonni (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't really care which article it's in, but think it should still be in a collapsed table, because I still agree that it's silly to exhaustively collect every possible game string. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, agreed. I only kept it at all to respect the opinion above. I've created a topic at Talk:Digging#Deleting the list of starting entries to discuss over there. -- Djonni (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

dungeon boss classes should change

Did a little spading on my own because I was afraid the dungeon boss monster list is well past its prime. Went through 131 dungeon logs and tallied the number of skills per boss.


1 skill (class A) Bagstabber Bluffalo Boozerker Catastroflea Cementalist Dungeon Sweeper Escargolem Flowsnake Hypnogriff Keyborg Minotourist Nachomancer Optimystic Plundertaker Quasidodo Salsamander Scaretaker Shyborg Sighborg Telepony Turmerisk

2 skill (class B) Aftermoth Appetitan Archetypo Blamethrower Buzzkiller Detrimentalist Exoskeletor Flashmobster Gastronaut Glitch Doctor Grimelord Hazmatador Hellevangelist Killdebeest Magnum Octopus Omnipoet Tombcat Underminer Uranium Slug Warmongrel

3 skill (class C) Afterlifeguard Bosstradamus Difficultist Ducktator Dungeon Keeper Flawyer Godbuster Hangoverlord Hyperbully Megahurtz Obscentinel Oxydjinn Satyrant Shamaniac Thug-of-War Tinkerhell Tubercolossus

Conclusion: a number of bosses in the dungeon boss grid are marked in the wrong class. Anyone willing to revise?

Love, Brihtnoth edit: yours truly didn't get an Adminotaur, and got an Appetitan right after finishing up

Boss "Class" vs. "Level"

So, at various places in the wiki (including this article, and the List of Monsters) boss monsters are divided into three classes: A, B, and C. But {{Navboxbosses}} divides them into three levels: 1, 2, and 3.

Are these the same thing? Is it Level 1 == Class A; Level 2 == Class B; Level 3 == Class C? If so, can we decide on one terminology and use it everywhere? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this annoys me too. Level 1 == Class A etc, yeah. I've been meaning to change the classes around to levels. The levels system makes much more sense, since it corresponds to the number of abilities on the boss. It doesn't need explanation like the classes do.
There's also a shorthand often used by some players that is worth describing, perhaps even using: 1*, 2*, and TB (Treasure Boss, 3 abilities). --Djonni (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The only potential issue I can think of with using the "Level" terminology would be if the dungeons themselves have, or ever might have, levels. (Which do tend to be a fairly common feature in RPG/adventure/exploration type dungeons.) Talking about "The Level 3 Minotourist on level 2" isn't impenetrably confusing or anything, but it wouldn't be ideal.
Of course, there's nothing to say we can't split the difference and go with "Class 1", Class 2", etc. It sounds like the letter designations are both completely arbitrary and not generally used in practice, whereas the numbers are already in use. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
🤔 It had truly never occurred to me that dungeons might expand. If it's worth worrying about as a hypothetical, I'm not so sure.
That said, the practical difference between using Level and Class is pretty negligible, and is as simple as changing A/B/C to 1/2/3. I don't see why "Class 1" isn't as equivalently good as "Level 1". --Djonni (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
So it's confusing because level 3 here is considered class A on the List of Monsters. Frankly I've always used 1*, 2*, and TB (non-migration dungeons of course) or the 1ab, 2ab, 3ab designation some people give. Maybe 1ab, 2ab, 3ab etc would be the most obvious? -- Enzuna (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. The simple and literal description "1 Ability", "2 Ability" etc is pretty much as effective in my mind as "Level 1" etc, just a touch longer. And God Enzuna makes another good point about the TB label not being accurate in all dungeon types.
I'm pretty torn between Level N vs N Ability as a naming convention. For either, the notation in table columns can simply be the number (1, 2 or 3) and it's just about which way we prefer to see it in text and in infoboxes. --Djonni (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, Enzuna's quite correct, I had it backwards — it's Level 1 == Class C, and so on. (Which also means that it's only sheer luck that my addition of Archetypo to List of Monsters didn't mis-class it, because it happened to be Class B.)
Well, yeah, that makes it even more confusing. I get why "Level 3" would be considered "Class A" (and why "Class A" would be the highest, not lowest, class), but damn if it isn't still unintuitive and guaranteed to screw people up as long as we mix both terms. I'd really like to settle on and implement a plan for this, to stave off future confusion.
My two goals on this would be:
  1. To have a single, consistent way of referring to the different subgroups of bosses, both long- and short-form. While it's somewhat true that we can just use a number (or letter) in table columns (making the shortest "short-form" designation simply that number or letter), there's still the question of what the header for that column should be (consistently, everywhere).

    Do we want to label it "Level", "Class", or "Abilities"? Or something else entirely? (And do we then abbreviate that, for e.g. {{Navboxbosses}}? "Lv."? "Cl."? "Abil.? "Type"?)

    I think that's as important as how we discuss the groupings in long-form prose, where we might write out "1-ability boss" or whatever.

  2. To save people typing. The reason designations like 1*, 2*, TB, 1ab, 2ab, 3ab come about is that it's tedious to write something like "1-ability boss" repeatedly. Writing (or even pasting!) "Dungeon Boss, Class A" over and over again in List of Monsters is tedious enough to contemplate, writing out a term like that repeatedly in prose would be even worse.

    But this is an area where templates can help us, by doing what they're designed to do! What I would propose is this:

  1. We have templates {{1ab}}, {{2ab}}, and {{3ab}} that expand to whatever text we decide the terminology should be, long-form, just the way it would be inserted into prose. (The templates even give us the option to revisit that choice later, or to tweak it, and have the fixes appear everywhere at once.)
  2. We encourage anyone writing about dungeon bosses to use those shortcuts in their text, instead of spelling out the term. Just drop it right in there the way you'd naturally say something more wordy, e.g.

    "The Afterlifeguard is a {{1ab}} known for wearing a really hot red swimsuit and holding a red rescue can."

    ...which might expand to...

    "The Afterlifeguard is a 1-Ability Dungeon Boss-Monster known for wearing a really hot red swimsuit and holding a red rescue can."

    Maybe some of those terms are linked, maybe they aren't. Maybe the text changes. They shouldn't worry about it too much.

  3. All of the "Dungeon Boss, Class A" entries in List of Monsters get search-and-replaced with {{3ab}}, Class B => {{2ab}} and Class C => {{1ab}}.
  4. We migrate to just using the corresponding number, in table columns, and come up with a standard header label to use with those columns of numbers.
  5. We completely banish the letter designations from the Wiki, replacing them with either numbers-in-a-column table entries or instances of {{1ab}} and friends.
(I would've proposed also supplying {{1*}} and etc. templates, but even if it somehow doesn't blow up horribly I think trying to use an asterisk in a template name would be asking for trouble. So, that shorthand form sabotaged itself by using special characters best avoided in code.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the creation of a set of templates is an excellent idea, with reservations.

I've been thinking a little more about the designation of "1-ability" etc. And I have to admit, I am pretty ignorant about underground boss-monsters and aboveground boss-monsters.

• • As am I. But that's OK, because Godwiki itself isn't, and unless I'm very much mistaken there's enough information here to codify our (collective) understanding of reality, which (for reasons I'll expand on shortly) is all we really need to concern ourselves with.

I'm going to start digging and activating monster items more to figure a few things out (I did so today and encountered an aboveground boss not on this page at all, so I think it's worthwhile). Someone who frequently digs and activates relevant items could probably answer this:

  • Are dungeon bosses the only ones where the boss name predicts the number of abilities? Today for example I encountered a Megaphony with 2 abilities. I had only expected one ability on an aboveground boss.

You can probably see where I'm going with that question, though: do the other Boss categories also merit ability-related data?

Now, if it proves that under- and above-ground bosses also fall into predictable ability groups, I think that simply {{1ab}} etc suddenly becomes inadequate in identifying the specific boss type, right? It might need to be something like {{dungeon1}}, {{above1}}, etc.

Perhaps. But if that's the case, the entirety of {{Navboxbosses}} is completely wrong, and I find that difficult to imagine:
Boss Monsters
Aboveground Archnemesis • Arrestocrat • Awkwarg • Broadbandit • Centourist • Cholestroll • Megaphony • Terminator T-34
Dungeon Lvl 3 Adminotaur • Afterlifeguard • Ark Enemy • Bosstradamus • Difficultist • Ducktator • Dungeon Keeper • Flawyer • Godbuster • Hangoverlord • Hyperbully • Megahurtz • Obscentinel • Oxydjinn • Satyrant • Shamaniac • Spelun King • Stalactitan • Thug-of-war • Tinkerhell • Tubercolossus
Lvl 2 Aftermoth • Appetitan • Archetypo • Blamethrower • Buzzkiller • Detrimentalist • Exoskeletor • Flashmobster • Gastronaut • Glitch Doctor • Grimelord • Hazmatador • Hellevangelist • Killdebeest • Magnum Octopus • Omnipoet • Tombcat • Underminer • Uranium Slug • Warmongrel
Lvl 1 Bagstabber • Bluffalo • Boozerker • Catastroflea • Cementalist • Dungeon Sweeper • Escargolem • Flowsnake • Hypnogriff • Keyborg • Minotourist • Nachomancer • Optimystic • Plundertaker • Quasidodo • Salsamander • Scaretaker • Shyborg • Sighborg • Telepony • Turmerisk
Mini-Quest Ancient Demon • Drowned Captain • Ku Klux Clown • Level Boss • Mad Clown • Pundemonium • Vegan Cannibal • Wherewolf
Underground Alpacalypse • Alpha Mole • Bossferatu • Dragonandon • Giga Byter • Heromnivore • Jack Lantern • Moleosaurus • Mount Dracula • Oreoboros • Overtaker • Pumpkinhead • Rootbear • Squirmisher • Terracotta Worrier • Vertigoat
Everything there is coded with an implicit understanding that Aboveground bosses are separate from Mini-Quest bosses are separate from Underground bosses are separate from Dungeon bosses, and Dungeon bosses (only) are further separated into three Levels / Classes / what-have-you. Given that it's been such an ingrained, implicit understanding for so long, and has driven so much content in the wiki, I'd be surprised if it turned out to be wrong. But more importantly, it would be no problem if it did, because we'd simply have to adjust our understanding, and that's easy.
Certainly, even if I could guarantee that the above assumptions are correct today, I can't ever possibly guarantee they'll be correct forever. If you think about it, your scenario is no different from the Godville devs making a blog post that says, "New feature! Mini-Quest bosses now come in three tasty flavors, just like Dungeon bosses!" which absolutely could happen. But if it were to happen, because we know that all of our existing content was written with the understanding that {{1ab}} referred to 1-ability dungeon bosses, all we'd have to do is move Template:1ab to Template:1ab dungeon, create a new Template:1ab quest, and say that the {{1ab}} form is now deprecated. We wouldn't even have to go change all of the old {{1ab}} calls, they'd continue to expand to "1-Ability Dungeon Boss-Monster" same as always, and same as (now) {{1ab dungeon}} when it's used in new content.
As long as the wiki is developed from a common and well-defined understanding, that understanding can easily evolve and adapt. Our goal shouldn't be absolute correctness even into the future (impossible!), but rather to document a shifting or uncertain reality to the best of our abilities at any given moment.

There's a further question related to all this as to whether bosses deserve their own infobox template, or whether {{monster}} should be expanded a little? Perhaps to have a |boss-type= which might auto-categorise it, and change the header from Monsters of Godville to Boss-Monsters of Godville, and invoke the aforementioned templates within a Boss Type: row in the infobox. --Djonni (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Because every boss is a monster, and the things that separate boss monsters from regular monsters are far fewer than the things that they have in common, it'd be a hard sell to convince me that we need a completely separate Template:Boss-monster or whatever. I'd almost certainly support creating such a template, but if it were me doing it I'd implement it as a call to {{Monster}} with a couple of parameters pre-set, the same way {{1st}}, {{2nd}}, and {{3rd}} are nothing but calls to {{Ordinal}} with a hardcoded parameter of 1, 2, or 3. That's how I'd have implemented {{Pet}}, too, and honestly the subtle differences between it and {{Monster}} (things that aren't Pet-exclusive, like Habitat vs. Natural Habitat) still make my eye twitch.
But I absolutely think {{Monster}} can/should be expanded to accomodate whatever boss-monster attributes we're able to codify in an standardized form.
So dungeon monsters for certain always have a certain amount of abilities and can be classified as that. I admit it's been so long since I've fought any mini-quest/personal bosses or dig bosses that I can't confirm, but I THINK those are randomized... or maybe those also have those own divisions and I never noticed. (All I know is a 3ab above-ground monster only counts as having the same power as a 2ab for lab monsters.) Sorry for kinda barging in here with my random thoughts by the way. -- Enzuna (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
"Barging in?" It's a post on the communal discussion page, I was basically begging for input! Please, think away, more information and additional perspectives are both invaluable when discussing this sort of thing, I'd love it if we had 20 users here fleshing this stuff out. It would certainly make it far more likely we hit on the right approach to all this, the first time. (Well... I guess technically this is already either the second or third, depending how you count. All the more reason to get it right this time!) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I've responded to God Djonni's points above with inline insertions, at the same level as this comment. So, starting from the double-bullet (• •) above, everything that lines up with this comment is part of it. (God Enzuna happened to indent their reply by two levels, which left me space to do it, and I'm not one to look a happy accidental gift horse of a different color in the mouth.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, God FeRDNYC makes excellent points that we can go ahead with improving the situation without worrying about non-Dungeon abilities 👍 I'm going to start keeping some records to investigate it as a separate issue, because I feel it will take a long time collecting data to have anything worthwhile. I might make it a Google doc and put a link here in case anyone else wants to populate data from boss encounters :)
Also re: {{Pet}}, you're quite right, let's fix it :) let's make it a call to {{Monster}} with |pet=true/any non-null. So long as we handle for the inevitable case of someone setting |pet=true and |boss=true in the same template call. Means any improvements to {{monster}} improve {{pet}}s as well. :)
That simpliclity (sharing fixes/enhancements, and not having to make the same changes in multiple places to keep things in sync) is precisely the advantage of avoiding redundant templates, yeah. Though... I should back off a bit on the "templates calling templates" thing, because unfortunately that's not so straightforward, and may be a bad idea. It's fine for things like {{1st}} calling {{Ordinal}}, because 1st doesn't take any parameters. But when a template does take parameters, each one that's intended for a subsequent template call needs to be explicitly passed in or it won't be available to the inner template.
So, A version of {{Pet}} that calls {{Monster}} could end up looking like this:
And on and on for quite a bit longer (for every parameter in {{Monster}} except for |pet=, basically), which would be... tedious. And it would mean that any new parameters added to {{Monster}} would then also have to be added to the code in {{Pet}} to be supported. They'd share common formatting (since the formatting would all be done in {{Monster}}), and that is a win in and of itself), but it kind of falls short of truly eliminating redundant development.
Wikipedia handles this in one of two ways.
  1. They make their infoboxes modular in the calling page (so, the article might contain three, four, five separate, possibly-nested transclusions that expand into the proper structure. This tends to be horribly fragile and confusing, since the formatting and structure has to be exactly right or things break. They have tracking categories filled with HUNDREDS of articles where templates have detected screw-ups in their subcomponent parameters (bad nested transclusions).
  2. They expand existing templates and make them flexible enough to handle all necessary cases, instead of creating new ones. Which is why some infoboxes there have like 30 parameters, but in practice and with sensible defaults that's not really a problem because you can get away with specifying just the half-dozen necessary ones and leave the rest out.
And AFAIK there's no way to have a template operate conditionally based on its name (e.g. making {{Pet}} a redirect to {{Monster}} and having the output depend on which one was used), so the decision on how the template should operate can't be made implicit based on the name, which is a bummer. So I would definitely argue even more strongly for {{Monster}} being enhanced to handle boss-monster iformation and changing its formatting conditionally to suit, rather than creating a separate Boss-monster template.
But as for bringing {{Pet}} back into the fold... well, {{Monster}} should be able to create Pet infoboxes when instructed to do so via the appropriate parameter, I do still think that. But after that, we'd probably have to go walk the existing {{Pet}} transclusions and edit them to include that parameter, one by one, so that we could then redirect Template:Pet to Template:Monster and have them still work. (We'd also have to document the need to specify that additional parameter when creating Pet infoboxes, for those who are used to the old {{Pet}} syntax without it.)
The saving grace is that {{Pet}} is only transcluded in a couple dozen articles right now, so fixing them all up by hand really wouldn't be that terrible. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I've expanded {{Monster}} with Pet-infobox support, discuss at Template talk:Monster#Expanded to handle Pet infoboxes. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we have consensus on {{1ab}} etc. Do we also create {{mqb}}, {{agb}} and {{ugb}} for mini-quest, aboveground and underground bosses? Such that we can use them like |boss={{mqb}}, for example? --Djonni (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. Do we talk about "mqb"s and "agb"s? I've never heard/seen those abbreviations used anywhere. The idea behind the 1ab/2ab/3ab convenience templates was that we do already use those shorthands, so they're a natural fit. The intention is to leverage existing shorthands already "in the wild", not to create new ones and force them on people. Unless they're already writing about mini-quest bosses frequently, they probably have no need of a shorthand. When it comes to parameter arguments to a {{Monster|boss-type}} call, I'd be more inclined to use the shorthand notations, and have the template format them in whatever way's appropriate, rather than passing in the long-form prose expansion of the shorthand templates and locking it into that expansion.
So, {{Monster|boss-type=1ab}} could be the boss-monster infobox call for a 1-ability dungeon boss-monster, perhaps. But in that scenario, {{Monster|boss-type=above}} or {{Monster|boss-type=ag}} strikes me as more natural. As well as being more convenient to parse, since the template code will need to look at that variable and key off it for more than just the expanded form of the label. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, underground bosses are called "dig bosses" (since that's how you get to them). AGB and MQB don't have any designations since they're so rarely fought so I'm not sure it matters really what you call them. Today I fought a 1ab Alpha Mole and a 1ab Gladigator (needs to be added I think) as dig bosses. Don't think they are limited by ability though. That boss template up above looks very spiffy, I just am not that big into editing monster/artifact/what-have-you pages so I'll leave that up to you guys. -- Enzuna (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I just finished adding boss-monster features (an enablement switch |boss=yes, and the |boss-type= classification) to Template:Monster. So, it can now create Monster, Pet, and Boss-Monster infoboxes, depending how it's called. See what you think.

Helpful hint: you can use Special:ExpandTemplates to try out template calls without having to edit them in an article. Just paste a valid transclusion (say, one of the examples in the Template:Monster documentation) and hit OK to see the rendered output of that call.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So, there's a little more work to be done as regards to the so-called Classes, and the boss health data. :)
I've charted the min and max health as it appears in the list of dungeon bosses, and I think the data is clear that the health ranges and number of abilities of the bosses are linked, and there's no need to track health ranges by individual bosses (nobody was doing this and updating or populating health information in the graph anyway). I'm also prepared to stipulate that hulking and mini healths use a predictable range of multipliers, and can be similarly simplified.

Dungeon boss health graph.png

Dungeon boss hulking graph.png

Dungeon boss mini graph.png

The standard boss health and mini boss health values are pretty clear from the data (allowing for some minor noise in the data), but the hulking information isn't quite as clear cut — I've started collecting some data on this myself, and am looking specifically for Mutating bosses that cycle into or out of Hulking (in fact I've caught one which started hulking, switched away, and switched back, which was valuable data). Notwithstanding more data needed on hulking bosses, I think this is enough to justify a heavy edit to the dungeon bosses section.
Once that's done, I'm sure the same sort of simplification and clarification can be done to the other categories.
Should anyone have comments or objections before I begin (probably within this coming week), please say so :) -- Djonni (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I've made an edit that removes references to the "classes", and attempts to simplify and condense the information about dungeon boss health.
There are just two obvious exceptions in the table data to the summary I've written:
  • Appetitan: Appetitan's listed as a 2-ability dungeon boss, but has health numbers in the table that correspond to a 3-ability dungeon boss. I can see that it was in fact originally listed as having 3 abilities, and was reclassified based on God Brihtnoth's data above from March this year. So it's possible that the original health data was an error; it's possible that the Appetitan was reclassified from 3 to 2 abilities, and it's possible that it's an exception to the rule and is a 2-ability dungeon boss with the health bracket of a 3-ability dungeon boss. I'm waiting to run into an Appetitan to clarify this.
  • Dungeon Sweeper: This is the only 1-ability dungeon boss whose max health value is above 80% in the table. I'm willing to write that off as noise, either from a miscalculation, a typo, or whatever. I'll keep my eye on Dungeon Keeper health each time I run into one to be sure.
I haven't noted these exceptions in the edit I made, because it's something I should be able to clarify myself soon enough (Great Random smiling upon me).
I included a note from the old text about small dungeoning parties having boss health nerfed, even though it doesn't agree with my own experience of small parties, I've just marked it as requiring further data. I also haven't gutted the health data from the table, since I think the new text and the table data should sit together on the page for at least the medium-term, to give plenty of folks a chance to see and correct the information as they see fit.
If you object to my edit, please undo or improve it. -- Djonni (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Shortcuts for dungeon boss-monster type descriptions

As we discussed in an earlier thread (the incredibly long one right above this one, if it hasn't been archived yet), there are now six convenience templates available for writing the string "N-ability dungeon boss" where n = 1, 2, or 3, in lowercase or Title Caps, simply by writing {{1ab}}, {{3AB}}, etc.

This is purely intended as a typing aid, to save keystrokes and not have to worry about how to format the string. Use it in article text, including lists and table cells (but not headings or article titles, please), wherever you would normally write out that phrase. See documentation (shared among all of the templates) at Template:1ab. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"Above-ground" vs "Mini-quest" bosses

I think that the distinction between these two groups may be artificial, or more accurately, may be there for historical reasons that no longer apply.

In November 2014 (Godville Blog, post 83: (Mini)-Questing for Life), sudden encounters with boss-monsters while questing (the historical above-ground bosses) were taken out of the game, and replaced with a chance to encounter a boss at the end of a mini-quest series (the mini-quest bosses). I believe that since above-ground bosses were still summonable by using an activatable artifact, they still seemed like a valid separate category — especially because (in my experience) boss-summoning activatables occur more often than mini-quest boss encounters.

I've come to this conclusion by investigating why there is no list of mini-quest bosses in this article, just a pointer to the (totally awful) Mini-quests page. I thought it would be straightforward to pop up a quick table, as it seemed silly to me that it was the only kind of boss where there wasn't a proper list anywhere.

The very first quest in the list of quests ending in a boss monster is Act like a responsible adult, and it lists Centourist as the boss — Centourist, of course, currently being listed among the above-ground bosses.

Here is the frequency of above-ground bosses (as per Boss-monsters#Aboveground Boss-Monsters table) appearing in the Mini-quests page:

  • Archnemesis: 1 time
  • Arrestocrat: 3 times
  • Awkwarg: 1 time
  • Broadbandit: 2 times
  • Centourist: 5 times
  • Cholestroll: 5 times
  • Jaguardian: 0 times (but first appearance in GodWiki at all seemsto be November 2017
  • Megaphony: 0 times (first GodWiki appearance possibly January 2018
  • Snowman: 0 times (seasonal boss, summoned only by snowflakes)
  • Terminator T-34: 2 times
  • Wraptor: 0 times (added to Godwiki by God S624 here to List of Monsters as a mini-quest boss, and here to Boss-monsters into Aboveground bosses with a comment that it's a mini-quest boss)

They are obviously (see Wraptor above) already considered equivalent by at least some players/editors, but since this is a fairly significant shift to the taxonomy of bosses, we should reach some consensus before anyone makes the changes to collapse these two categories together. Also, if we agree that these two categories should be merged, we should agree on a consistent terminology before any relevant edits are made. Personally I am content to merge them under the term above-ground, since they can also be summoned by artifacts. (And since Mini-quests needs a total slash-and-burn anyway.)--Djonni (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, Wraptor was encountered as an alternative boss to an already existing mini-quest & I added to Aboveground bosses as a best fit (& other bosses encountered from mini-quests were already there). -- S624 (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So, as God S624 pointed out (quite rightly) over on Talk:Mini-quests#Page_Restructure, there is a set of mini-quest only bosses, which belong to specific mini-quest chains. With that in mind, perhaps mini-quest bosses become a sub-section subordinate to Aboveground bosses, since they seem to be a special subset of the Aboveground boss set? -- Djonni (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Or, mini-quest bosses becomes a much smaller category, and contains only those bosses that are exclusive to mini-quest chains.
The way I see it (if I'm interpreting the info here correctly, since TBH I don't pay nearly this much attention to what my hero gets up to in-game), mini-quest bosses are a subcategory of aboveground bosses only if they can also be summoned by artifacts. If any can't, then they're mini-quest-only bosses. And random mini-quest-ending encounter bosses may be pulled from the above-ground, rather than mini-quest-specific/exclusive, pool of possible bosses, which is fine. (We just say that above-ground bosses are "summoned by an artifact or randomly encountered at the end of a mini-quest", whereas the mini-quest bosses are encountered only (and always?) when reaching a specific point in a specific mini-quest.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
There's also the possibility that, due to their nature, mini-quest bosses aren't a separate and mutually-exclusive category of boss-monster.
The reason that boss-monsters fall into categories at all is, when the Great Random is creating an encounter for the hero(es), they need a set of monsters to choose from. So, the list of all possible monsters first gets filtered down to a specific set of potential bosses for that type of encounter. But, if mini-quest-chain bosses aren't chosen by the Great Random, but are specifically named, there's no reason to think that those bosses have to be of a specific boss type, or even of any boss type at all. If it makes sense for the encounter, conceivably the quest could specify that the hero encounters a monster that's normally a different type of boss, or a monster that's not normally/otherwise a boss at all, or even a tameable Pet! They become "mini-quest bosses" only by virtue of appearing in a specific mini-quest, which doesn't really give them a specific (and mutually-exclusive) monster-type status, but rather places them in a category of monsters, all of which could potentially be of different types.
If that's the case, then I would argue that "mini-quest boss" isn't a monster type at all. Rather, it's an attribute of certain specific monsters (boss-, maybe non-boss-, and possibly even pet-type, alike), that they are "encountered as a boss when completing mini-quest Name", specifically. We could add a parameter to {{Monster|mini-boss=Mini-quest name}} (auto-linking to the mini-quest stage article, even though hardly any mini-quests have articles, as [[Mini-quest title which is potentially really long|Mini-quest]]), and stop classifying those monsters as boss-monsters unless they also appear as other types of bosses. And we could remove 90% of the "boss-monster" entries currently listed in Mini-quests, because they're actually just above-ground bosses, randomly encountered, and there's no reason to clutter up Mini-quests tracking instances of those. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
(Let me be more explicit: And we could remove 90% of the "boss-monster" entries currently listed in Mini-quests, because they're actually just above-ground bosses, randomly encountered, and there's no reason to clutter up Mini-quests tracking instances of those. — we can, and should, do that regardless.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Or, mini-quest bosses becomes a much smaller category, and contains only those bosses that are exclusive to mini-quest chains. Yeah, I think this certainly true, and looking at the mini-quest bosses in {{Navboxbosses}} (the only place where a list exists right now) I think it's at least close to this smaller list, though I'd have to do some digging (heh) to be sure.
We could add a parameter to {{Monster|mini-boss=Mini-quest name}} (auto-linking to the mini-quest stage article, even though hardly any mini-quests have articles, as [[Mini-quest title which is potentially really long|Mini-quest]]}} That's not at all a bad idea, if you think it's worth implementing. It would only be used on a small number of {{monster}}s, but it would at least give a standard way of presenting the data.
Although, since mini-quests are a chain, perhaps the way it's done on Wherewolf is a better example; it might be best just to do the edits required to bring the handful of mini-quest boss pages to that standard.
...there's no reason to think that those bosses have to be of a specific boss type, or even of any boss type at all. I think that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the game internally treats mini-quest bosses as a class of bosses; while you're entirely right that it could just throw a hero into combat with a "boss" object whose name is drawn from any monster string table, the bosses that God S624 pointed out over on Talk:Mini-quests exist only as a boss-fight encountered at the end of a specific quest chain, and at no other time. In my mind, that qualifies them as being a special category within the supercategory of bosses. To me, it's I guess just a fairly academic point as to whether this is then a further subcategory of Aboveground bossess, but on reflection I'm satisfied that this is neither an important question nor necessary. :)
And we could remove 90% of the "boss-monster" entries currently listed in Mini-quests, because they're actually just above-ground bosses, randomly encountered, and there's no reason to clutter up Mini-quests tracking instances of those. Absolutely, and I suspect God S624 would agree with that as well (from his comments on Talk:Mini-quests) that this is part of the big cleanup required over there. (I wouldn't wish to speak for him though!) -- Djonni (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've had a quick look at the 10 explicitly mini-quest bosses & the Mini-quests page & have the following observations / agreements:

Or, mini-quest bosses becomes a much smaller category, and contains only those bosses that are exclusive to mini-quest chains. - Agree with this.

3 of the explicitly mini-quest bosses are no longer linked as an end boss to any mini-quest (Ku Klux Clown, Spirit of Halloween & Obituarian), do the first 2 of these even exist in-game any more? Obituarian is in the aboveground boss list but the mini-quest section in the {{Navboxbosses}}.

...perhaps the way it's done on Wherewolf is a better example; it might be best just to do the edits required to bring the handful of mini-quest boss pages to that standard. - This makes sense to me, (mostly because the parameter discussion goes over my head).

And we could remove 90% of the "boss-monster" entries currently listed in Mini-quests, because they're actually just above-ground bosses, randomly encountered, and there's no reason to clutter up Mini-quests tracking instances of those. - Agreed on this. -- S624 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Just an answer to one question, as I'm still waking up... do [Ku Klux Clown and Spirit of Halloween] even exist in-game any more? Yes to Spirit of Halloween, it's a seasonal Halloween boss that's appeared more than once. It's in mini-quest bosses because I encountered it at the end of a mini-quest chain last month and added it as part of trying to document the Halloween event, though after looking into Aboveground bosses and our discussion on mini-quest talk I believe it's miscategorised. As for Just Klux Clown, possibly QC'd years ago, have to search the forum. -- Djonni (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the 10 explicitly mini-quest bosses & the Mini-quests page

Same, yesterday — I just hadn't gotten around to putting any of it into words yet. But I did notice some of the same things...

3 of the explicitly mini-quest bosses are no longer linked as an end boss to any mini-quest (Ku Klux Clown...

KKC is listed as one of the bosses that used to be an epic quest random-encounter boss, before those were done away with. Additionally, working also off the list of mini-quest bosses in the navbox, I noticed that it and Mad Clown are listed as the end bosses for the same mini-quest chain.
Now, there are at least two possible things you could take from that (and the two aren't mutually exclusive, either) — but I'll explain why my belief is that both are incorrect:
  • You could say that this supports the theory that mini-quest bosses are a subcategory of aboveground bosses.
But I don't think it does, because the reports we have are that KKC used to be an aboveground boss. I don't believe we have any reports of KKC encounters since the 2014 end-of-quest-randoms announcement, so even if it was an aboveground boss in the days of the random quest encounter, it probably shouldn't be listed that way anymore.
  • You could say that this is evidence against my theory that mini-quest bosses are explicitly named and entirely non-random, since if both KKC and Mad Clown have come up as bosses for the same mini-quest stage then there has to be at least some element of non-determinism to it.
But I don't think that's right either. What I think happened is, as Djonni suggested above, I think KKC was removed (because, let's face it... the name's kind of not OK) — at least from the mini-quest, if not from Godville entirely — and replaced as the mini-quest boss by Mad Clown. My theory goes (and I suppose that's all it really is, so far), KKC was briefly made the boss for the clown-related mini-quest chain, but then people pretty quickly realized that giving such a a questionable monster that kind of extra prominence was just inviting controversy and complaint, so they swapped in the Mad Clown to replace their ill-advised first boss choice.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear there's any conclusive proof (or disproof) for any of this, even taking into account all available data on the Godwiki. (Unless perhaps Djonni can unearth some info in the forums?) But reconstructing the timelines here does provide some possible clues.
  • Both monsters were added to List of Monsters in the same 2013 mass-addition, long after both monster articles already existed.
  • But all of the substantial work on the KKC article occurred between June 2012 when it was created, and September 2012 at the latest — every edit after that is housekeeping.
  • The Mad Clown article, OTOH, was started on September 20, 2012, literally the same day BlueStapler made the last non-housekeeping edit to KKC.
While I think the fact that it's the same day is a mere coincidence, I do think that the timeline makes it at least conceivable that the Mad Clown replaced the KKC entirely as a game monster, that there hasn't actually been a KKC encountered anywhere in the game since summer of 2012, and that belief in its continued existence has been kept alive mostly just by its presence on our various lists of boss monsters.
...So, that's the KKC. Another supposed mini-boss monster, Obituarian... why do we think that's a mini-quest boss at all, actually?
Djonni, you made the edit that tagged it as such, when (as you explained), you "Found lost boss monster article. Tagged and released." I'd been assuming you marked it as a mini-quest boss because it was already listed that way in the bosses navbox. But now looking at that history for the first time, Obituarian was added to Navboxbosses as a mini-quest boss... also by you, one minute AFTER your edit to the article! 🤔
I'm not in any way trying to call you out or accuse you of anything, please believe me. I'm just trying to chase down what originally led to Obituarian's designation as a mini-quest boss, and to my surprise I've come up completely empty! Is it even a mini-quest boss, or could we just have that wrong? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"I'd been assuming you marked it as a mini-quest boss because it was already listed that way in the bosses navbox. But now looking at that history for the first time, Obituarian was added to Navboxbosses as a mini-quest boss... also by you" Hah! Y'know I did that not long ago and yet somehow completely failed to recall it when Obituarian came up for discussion again here... and when bringing this whole issue up myself in this topic! 😂 That was obviously a lack of detail-orientation on my part; it's quite clearly not a mini-quest boss under any definition, actual or putative. Let's consider that one a mystery solved, and I'll make the edits to the Navbox to fix my error. (Also, "I'm not in any way trying to call you out", don't be silly, of course not, I'm glad you found my error. That's the whole point of collaborative editing, no?)
As for KKC/MC, I think we're correct with the QC theory. Dig through to a deep enough strata on the forums and the history becomes clearer.
Here is the first mention of it I can find, by God TheGourdGod among the very first forum conversations about the exciting new mini-quest feature (if you're reading this TheGourdGod, bless your assiduous archivist's soul; your vast record-keeping over the years in wiki and forums has furnished me with clues or conclusions many times when investigating content histories!). Then here is a mention in passing of, quote, "Mad Clown/Ku Klux Clown would seem to indicate that things do get pulled if they are truly found offensive", when discussing the efficacy of the old Questionable Content system(s). Then in 2015 the KKC was brought up as questionable content again, and it was pointed out that it was known to players at that time that KKC had been QC'd out of the game.
So I think we can scratch Obituatian and KKC from the mini-quest bosses, and Spirit of Halloween should either go into Aboveground with Snowman, or both of them into a "seasonal specials" category (I've been collecting data on seasonal content to try to fill in huge gaps in the GodWiki, going through old records etc, and there may be other seasonal bosses to go in that same bucket. But that's tangential, and for now just deal with the mini-quest bosses will be progress.)
There's one other boss listed in the navbox as mini-quest that I still haven't settled in my mind: Pundemonium. The article's a stub created this year. In the stub, which has had two non-housekeeping editors, it specifies the "Blame the messenger" mini-quest, and is listed as the end boss for that quest over on Mini-quests as well... but then also as the end boss for "Bury the hatchet", which would swing back to Aboveground territory. There is, surprisingly, virtually no mention of it on the forum, making me think it's very recently added, and the only other interesting place where it's mentioned is on the Godwiki page of another of our documentarians, Bobus I, where it's mentioned 4 times in just a few months but without enough context to definitively say what the circumstances of meeting it were. (God Bobus I, if you're reading this and you remember at all, perhaps you could help us here? 😅)
So, if I'm keeping up and understand correctly, I think that so far we have a picture that looks something like this?
Ancient Demon • Drowned Captain • Ku Klux Clown • Level Boss • Mad Clown • Obituarian -> AbovegroundPundemonium?Spirit of Halloween -> With Snowman • Vegan Cannibal • Wherewolf
(If anyone else who's spectating has any input or an opinion to share, please do.)
What do we think should be done with the KKC page? Wiped and marked for deletion? Removed from the boss lists and added to a new category for deleted game content? My personal feeling is that there's some value to preserving that history, with appropriate notes and context, but I've an archivist bent. Meanwhile I'll go fix my Obituarian goof. -- Djonni (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
My take on Pundemonium: The fact that it's come up as an encounter on two different mini-quests marks it as an aboveground boss, randomly encountered. But even more convincing that it's not a mini-quest boss is the fact that its appearance doesn't make any sense.
All of the mini-quest bosses are part of the "story" of their mini-quest chain. You do the "Send in the clowns" chain, you fight a Mad Clown at the end. You "Find a level boss and defeat it", you fight a Level Boss just like it says. Do the quest that takes you from heaven to hell, meet an Ancient Demon. Do the vegan-related mini-quest chain, look it's a Vegan Cannibal. Do the werewolf chain, fight a Wherewolf. There's a pattern so clear you can see it from space.
Neither Blame the messengerPundemonium nor Give 'em something to talk aboutPundemonium even remotely fit into that same story-related pattern. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, completely agree, and that's enough to settle Pundemonium's status as Aboveground for me. So:
Ancient Demon • Drowned Captain • Ku Klux Clown • Level Boss • Mad Clown • ObituarianPundemoniumSpirit of Halloween • Vegan Cannibal • Wherewolf
Unless there are any objections, we'll go ahead and change the navbox and put a table in under Boss-monsters#Mini-Quest Boss-Monsters. (I'll give it a while for anyone with an interest to speak up.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djonni (talkcontribs) 11:24, 21 November 2018‎ (UTC)
Well, in the interest of saving some time I'll explicitly state: Sounds good to me! 👍 -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Tick.png Done Edits made to the boss-monster and navbox pages. If I missed anything feel free to tidy up behind me, heh. :) -- Djonni (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added Headhaunter to the Aboveground bosses on both boss-monsters and {{Navbox bosses}}. Encountered at the end of a mini-quest chain, but I didn't see what mini-quest, so can't say for sure if it belongs in the mini-quest category. -- Djonni (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Godwiki Editors and the Case of the Obliterated Monster With an Offensive Name

Regarding the sorta-dropped earlier discussion of "What do we do with the Ku Klux Clown?"

My personal thoughts are:

  1. I am absolutely in favor of its removal from all navboxes (which I think has already been done), unless someone can provide definitive evidence that it still exists and still warrants a place on those navboxes.
  2. I would very much like to see its entry removed from its spot on the monster-listing articles, and relocated to (in decreasing order of preference):
    1. Nowhere (fine by me)
    2. A different list article (even if it starts it and is the only entry, for the time being) on ex-Godville features
    3. A separate table at the end of e.g. List of Monsters, for monsters that are "believed" no longer active in the game.
  3. I'm okay with its article staying on the wiki, I guess, though I wouldn't mind some language added to it again noting that it is "believed" to be an ex-Monster of Godville
  4. At the same time, I wouldn't complain if someone decided to just replace its article with a Main Page redirect. I'm not a completionist who feels that everything that ever occurred in Godville is of equal importance and all of it should be documented for posterity. But I know those people exist, and am not looking to pick a fight with any of them over this.
  5. And barring a redirection-delete, I certainly wouldn't complain if the article was at least decategorized so it no longer showed up in Category:Monsters.

So, those are my feelings on it. Thoughts? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Point 5, I realize that would require a |nocat=1 type flag added to the {{Monster}} template (unless we just removed the infobox), and support for that parameter does not currently exist. It can certainly be added if necessary. But since:
  • a bunch of the previous options would invalidate point 5 if we were to take them,
  • we'll be replacing the {{Monster}} template currently used on in the article with a whole new one very soon, and
  • I'm lazy,
I figured I'd hold off on implementation of that |nocat= param until we decide whether it's necessary. If we do, then I'll add it to the new Monster infobox code. (If we don't, I'll probably still add it at some point, since it's bound to become useful eventually.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the general usefulness of a |nocat= is clear, and I agree, it's close to moot for this question.
I don't feel like we need to keep it, nor its image, on the wiki. I think deleting it and either a redirect to the main page, or perhaps a redirect to something like Questionable Content where we needn't catalogue the things that have been deleted, but can explain that there have been processes in place for offensive or unwanted content to be removed from the game. I think that's clear enough by implication, and allows us to remove the content. I don't think we really need to keep a place for it either.
I think we can agree without doubt on at least removing it from navboxes, categories, and lists. Simply deleting the {{monster}} from the page itself will both decategorize it and take off the image. I'm going to make those edits immediately, and if nobody objects to its complete removal and either a {{delete}} or a redirect, we can do that next. -- Djonni (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the image with a 1x1 transparent pixel and marked it for deletion as well, for good measure. No need for that to show up on the front page randomly. -- Djonni (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)