Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Monster"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Un-require class and habitat args?: new section)
(Strong monster: new section)
(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
Line 46: Line 46:
  
 
But as long as Description's filled out, I don't personally see the need to ''require'' that the other two parameters also must be set in '''every''' monster article. ...Thoughts? -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 13:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 
But as long as Description's filled out, I don't personally see the need to ''require'' that the other two parameters also must be set in '''every''' monster article. ...Thoughts? -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 13:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Strong monster ==
 +
 +
Seeing as there are monsters defined as strong when the hero (or heroine as it seems to be the norm for writing articles here is?) writes about them just before the fight starts, I strongly feel there should be an additional parameter that states as such, like a "badge" of sorts that shows up for boss-monsters. Fairly certain all potential pets fall under this category as well. [[User:Hankvi Guidza|Hankvi Guidza]] ([[User talk:Hankvi Guidza|talk]]) 06:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:25, 30 September 2019

Expanded to handle Pet infoboxes

Per one aspect of this discussion, I've expanded the template so that it can handle the duties of {{Pet}} as well, given additional parameters.

The idea here is to (eventually) sunset {{Pet}}, and have {{Monster}} handle all monster articles (Pets and Boss-monsters included), rather than having multiple templates that drift out of sync with each other in terms of features and formatting. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Latin name parameter

I think there are enough entries with clever and funny latin names to justify the addition of |latin=. Something simple like:

{{#if: {{{latin|}}} |
! Latin name:
{{!}} ''{{{latin}}}''
{{!}}- 
}}

Or alternatively perhaps as a caption under the image where an image is supplied, as it appears on wikipedia pages (e.g., wolf).

Opinions? -- Djonni (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Tick.png Done FTR, this was implemented on 17 December 2018 with the rollout of the new {{Infobox}}-based template. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Associated artifact

Artifacts are often called ’trophies' in game in the context of winning them from defeated monsters. Perhaps that's a good word to use instead of Artifact/Associated Artifact? -- Djonni (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. My only quibble with that would be that it doesn't really become a trophy until the heroine kills the monster and takes it as their trophy. It's not a trophy when the monster's carrying it around. You could say that's kind of minor / pedantic, and I suppose it is. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Un-require class and habitat args?

So, I'm thinking we should drop the requirement that every {{monster}} transclusion have |class= and |habitat= parameters set.

I'm sure they were initially set as required (with default "Unknown" values) to avoid the problem of too-tiny infoboxes with basically no rows in them. And, there was a certain amount of sense to that, at the time. An old-school Monster infobox with only rows for the category, name, and description would've looked pretty comical.

But today we have an advantage those early Monster infoboxes didn't have. Actually, two advantages: Extra structure, and the fallback image. Any {{Monster}} transclusion today will be formatted with, at a minimum:

  1. The link to List of Monsters above the box
  2. The article name
  3. The image or fallback
  4. The Description row
  5. The Class row
  6. The Habitat row
  7. The navbar at the bottom of the box

(And that's assuming none of the several other optional parameters are populated, which would add even more rows to the box.)

Given that list, I feel like we can afford to sacrifice Class and Habitat without the boxes becoming too sparsely-populated to be effective. Description would still be required, mostly because I feel there should still be an understanding that when an infobox template is transcluded, it's implied that it's also going to be filled out — populated with at least some bare minimum of relevant data. Inserting a completely "blank" (all-default) transclusion into an article still wouldn't be a "good enough" use of the template.

But as long as Description's filled out, I don't personally see the need to require that the other two parameters also must be set in every monster article. ...Thoughts? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Strong monster

Seeing as there are monsters defined as strong when the hero (or heroine as it seems to be the norm for writing articles here is?) writes about them just before the fight starts, I strongly feel there should be an additional parameter that states as such, like a "badge" of sorts that shows up for boss-monsters. Fairly certain all potential pets fall under this category as well. Hankvi Guidza (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)