Template talk:Monster

From GodWiki
Revision as of 13:56, 24 November 2019 by Djonni (talk | contribs) (Ineligible monsters marked as strong: Done)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

I think the lack of commentary on this question is evidence that nobody is against it. I agree with FeRDNYC that there's not much need to have these fields as required.
Unless anybody disagrees (now's the time) I'm happy to make this change as part of the strong monster subtype changes being discussed below. -- Djonni (talk) 10:57, 30 September 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)

I think that's a great point, Hankvi Guidza. With the side jobs update, there's a renewed interest in strong monsters. We don't currently track this property in the List of Monsters, and it seems like it's worth adding a template parameter and creating Category:Strong monsters to go with it. Nobody's ever been interested enough to keep track of this until recently (ref. the distinct lack of results for Special:Search/"strong monster" for evidence...). The question of what monsters are strong monsters is also of interest to guild leaders choosing a totem (as strong monsters are ineligible).
It's an interesting point about all pets being strong monsters. Thinking about it, I am confident that many pets have "meeting a strong monster" diary entries, but I'm not completely confident about all. I'm inclined to agree that they probably are, especially thinking about the guild totems — no guilds have a pet as a totem, unless I'm very mistaken, yet pets aren't themselves ruled out as totem animals unless all pets are already strong monsters, right? 🤔
I'm certainly happy for us to go ahead with a new subtype parameter |strong=yes, but exactly how this should appear in the infobox should be considered, especially if all pets are strong.
  • We currently set {{Infobox|title=subtype of Godville}}. For non-pet strong monsters, should this become |title=[[:Category:Strong monsters|Strong Monsters]] of Godville (we have historically avoided category links in infoboxes after much discussion), or simply |title=Strong [[List of Monsters|Monsters]] of Godville, or perhaps |title=[[List of Monsters#Strong Monsters|Strong Monsters]] of Godville, and we create a new § Strong Monsters on the List of Monsters page?
  • Should there be any change made to how the infobox for a pet is displayed? Or is this simply a matter of stating "All pets are strong monsters" on Pets, and autocategorising |pet=yes into Category:Strong monsters?
The work to make the changes to the template isn't too hard, once we've agreed on those things, and decided if we're confident about (pets ⊂ strong monsters). -- Djonni (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just double-checked, and there isn't a single example (now that I've checked accuracy) on List of Monsters of a pet being a guild mascot. As far as I'm concerned, that's evidence enough for me that all pets are strong monsters. 👍 -- Djonni (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
If a strong monster sub-category is added, "Strong monster" should be also defined either in the Monster article or in its own sub-article (which could be the destination of the link in the title). I originally thought that all monsters could be "strong monster" (which was decided at random when fight popped), looks like i was wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --WardPhoenix (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Just driving by to add a note from the ever sharp eyed GodS624  who PM'd me with this evidence he spotted of a Ballpoint Penguin not having a strong monster message!
So, seems that (pets ⊂ strong monsters) = false, but some pets are strong monsters. So the debate about how to decorate strong monster infoboxes opens wider.
Perhaps a subheader cell above the picture but below the monster name with simply [[Strong Monster]], or whatever the link destination we eventually settle on...? When I'm not on my phone I'll mock up an example of what I mean. -- Djonni (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I've put 4 examples (really just two, each with or without a 💪 emoji) at User:Djonni/Sandbox#Strong monster template. So far I only used the Firefox as an example, as it's a strong monster + pet (apparently, according to the |class= field, but it's just a useful example really either way). We should never see |strong=yes for boss-monsters or beasties, so no need to look at examples, I think. -- Djonni (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work as always! Does the starting fight against strong monster is the only way to spot one? To be sure if I understand well, in the pic User:S624 sent, the penguin would not be a strong monster while the shark should be one? (It would have been too easy if all pets were strong monster eh...). To be honest, I do have a preference by default for proposition 4, but I can't help but being annoyed by the fact that this parameter isn't formatted as the alikes one (even though with the pet issue I understand why it can't be). --WardPhoenix (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This definitely picked up traction about pets more so than strong monsters... whops? Picking up from S624's screenshot, I guess there's always exceptions somewhere (that or a bug, depending if the Ninja Tortoise could be a regular one too.) should've noticed that somewhere on my backlogs...
Anyways, way it looks to me is that I suggest in the header of '____ of Godville', the 'Pets' portion could be removed (or melded in somehow so it becomes 'Strong monsters and pets of Godville' though unlikely without parser functions,) but have the pet sub-table stats remain (the taming levels and feature.)
Looking back on the "badge part", I initially thought it would add another sub-table like the boss-monsters' but without extra defining parameters - so it'd be just the header. Alternatively, I've looked into your examples there, Djonni, and IMO #3 could be used instead (unless emojis aren't in fashion or some other bizarre reason, then #4.)
I'm in favor of the section to be [Monster#Strong monster] and linking there accordingly,
@WardPhoenix, another way to find out about strong monsters is the GV Times' Crossword, aside from these specific diary entries as suspected from the Ideabox's "meeting a strong monster" criteria. Hankvi Guidza (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
So, we've had some time for feedback from folks here, and it sounds like between the three of us we have some general agreement:
  • We'd like the strong monster to change the 'Monsters of Godville' top text in some way that doesn't interfere with 'Pets of Godville'
  • We like options 3 and 4 of the examples.
So, here's my proposal, and I'll go ahead with it unless there are objections:
  • Pets will always be 'Pets of Godville', and strong monsters who aren't pets with be 'Strong Monsters of Godville', linking to Monsters#Strong Monsters
  • Since we aren't using any other emoji on the monster template, I'm going to make an executive decision for example 4, which we can revisit any time if we want to decorate the infobox with emoji later.
  • I'll create Category:Strong monsters as a subcategory of monsters.
Again, I'll wait a bit to allow a chance for feedback, and I'll go ahead with the change soon. -- Djonni (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree on these. -- S624 (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yellowtick.png Partly done I have implemented and documented the |strong=yes parameter, which will mark the monster as strong. The infobox title will point to Monsters#Strong Monsters, which has not yet been created, and the monster will be categorised into Category:Strong Monsters, which has not yet been created. Feel free to do either of those, I'll get back to this probably no the weekend at some point to complete those last two steps. -- Djonni (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Strong Monsters article is created and so is the category. But now that I added the template to the Godville Administrator I have a feeling the a slight coloring of the strong monster label could be useful (similarly to what is done to pets/bossmonsters/beasties/etc). Thoughts? --WardPhoenix (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, great improvement with the template, Djonni, although I felt skeptical at first about the pet header superceding the strong one, I could say it works out quite well!
@WardPhoenix, slight yellow (or orange if that wasn't already taken) would be my vote. Hankvi Guidza (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A late addition to this thread, but I just wanted to thank everyone's great work at using this parameter! Category:Strong Monsters is going strong!

I've done a little thing that might help us in future when we're trying to research strong monsters. We know the Godville Times is useful for this, so I've set up a script which will trigger the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to archive the Godville Times once a day. A few years ago Benjamaster1 used to have a script running on an old Raspberry Pi in a shoebox in his bedroom that did this every day, but I noticed recently that there hadn't been (m)any snapshots taken in the last year, so I guess that broke somehow. :)

In case mine stops some day, or anyone's interested, on my linux server I just created /etc/cron.daily/wget-godville with:


wget --spider -O /dev/null -o /dev/null https://web.archive.org/save/https://godvillegame.com/news
wget --spider -O /dev/null -o /dev/null https://web.archive.org/save/https://godville.net/news

(yeah, I threw in GV-ru's news page there too, 'cause, y'know, why not?)

If you're replicating this yourself in future, and you aren't familiar with *nix systems, after you create the file don't forget to chmod +x wget-godville so that the file has execution permission. (Note, you may need root/sudo access to do all this, depending on your system, or need to create the file in a different location under ~, but this should work for 90% of modern linux installs. And if you need to do those things you probably know your way around *nix well enough that you don't need this advice anyway.) If this stops working and I'm still around, it's probably just because I wiped/replaced/shut down that server and forgot about setting this up again, so you can just give me a nudge and I'll restart it. -- Djonni (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ineligible monsters marked as strong

Recent repeated edits adding |strong=yes to the totem monster of a guild have made me realise that perhaps it would be useful to have the template report when the strong parameter is used on a totem, boss, or beastie monster. If I insert:

{{#if:{{{totem|}}}{{yesno|{{{boss|}}}|no=}}{{{boss-type|}}}{{yesno|{{{sea|{{{beastie|}}}}}}|no=}}{{{sea-names|}}}{{{names|}}}|[[Category:Ineligible monsters marked as strong]]}}

inside the {{#if:{{yesno|{{{strong|}}}|no=}}|...}}, the any monster that has both |strong=yes and any of the boss-monster or beastie parameters, and or guild totems, set will be added to a reporting category [[Category:Ineligible monsters marked as strong]]. This will allow any that slip throug hthe cracks over time to be found easily in one place in future for cleanup.

Any objections? -- Djonni (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

None here. -- S624 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Not better there. --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Would it perhaps be more useful if it detected any invalid combination of parameters, and added it to a more general category, say, [[Category: Monsters with invalid parameter combinations]]? And then if somebody sets both |totem=yes and |boss=yes, or |beastie=yes and |pet=yes, etc, they'll all be in one place, and an editor who knows monsters should easily see what's wrong with it. I'll probably get that done tomorrow, if it seems like a good idea. -- Djonni (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Background checks are always welcome. Reminds me of debugging error messages in scripts I made I mean no problem here. Hankvi Guidza (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, I was going to bring that up eventually, it would be nice if the templates automatically categorized the page when errors are detected.

I was actually thinking we could do this check for Template:Stub as well to auto-categorize pages that call it without the second parameter. Then we could see which stub pages are missing that parameter (I’m 100% sure I missed at least one)

No objections from me. Anything that makes our jobs easier as editors is a win in my books~!

Emptysora (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tick.png Done Template now checks all invalid combinations and categorises the monster into Category:Monsters with conflicting type parameters. I've put a fairly detailed explanation on the category, including a table that shows all valid combinations. (There's only one valid combination, until someone shows me a real example of a guild totem which is also a pet; I'm convinced that this in not possible, or we'd see a lot of pet totems, as they're such popular monsters.)
There were already two monsters in the category when I created it, heh. Both of them were incorrect |totem= settings. I guess this was a good idea. -- Djonni (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)