GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Bestiary

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Boss Maps Thievery[edit source]

Ok, we have had this request posted into Gravewit's talk page:

Hi :-)

I'm Xennon, the guy who made the listing. I was contacted a while ago about the use of my information on this site. I said the information itself may be used, however the maps were not to be used.

It was brought to my attention that the editor Ollj has been adding my maps under boss information without my permission (in fact, expressly against my wishes) so I was wondering if someone could get these removed :-)

e-mail me at if you wish to talk about this.

Cheers Xen

Retrieved from ""

Can we please rollback those image uploads altogether? --Karlos 05:23, 29 Jul 2005 (EST)

This has now been done. I recommend that any maps we use in the future be drawn by members of the GuildWiki. I also recommend we take the screenshots directly from the game and label them ourselves, since this reduces the chance of MOOMANiBE or whoever else's map we rip off from complaining. Just as a hint if you do this: The main map (M) has clouds travelling across it, which in some cases reduces the detail of certain areas. Rather than mess about trying to correct this in photoshop or something, I've found that it's easier to just take the screenshot using the mini-map (U). This also has the advantage or removing the city icons. The reason this is advantageous is that occasionally (especially with mission icons) they partially obscure certain areas of the map. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 02:26, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

Species[edit source]

Please have a look at what I've done with Devourer.

I plan to go through all the species articles and restructure them accordingly, using the same structure:

  1. Appearance and Behaviour
  2. Strenghtes and Weaknesses
  3. Professions
  4. Items dropped
  5. Known Sub-Types

"Behaviour" kinda blends in with "Strenghtes and Weaknesses", so these might be merged. "Professions" is kinda redundant with "Known Sub-Types", so we might dump that paragraph. I know "Known Sub-Types" is somewhat redundant with the category, but since this is more than just an alphabetic list I think it is good to have list by region, including collector items.

I'm open for suggestions. Please comment. --Tetris L 08:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to the page thinking.. "What is up with him and Devoureres?" :) This looks great! I like it very much. I have one suggestion:
Combine Professions with Known Sub-types and call it: "Types and Habitats" Then in the table, you have the region, and in each region you have the subspecies and next to each subspecies the profession icon. I think that's a more solid layout. Great idea! --Karlos 17:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get rid of the "Professions" paragraph, since it is already covered by the other praragraphes. I'll stick with the old "Known Sub-Types" heading though. That the table is sorted by region and also lists the drops doesn't have to be mentioned in the heading IMHO. We may decide to add even more info to the table later, and the heading could get quite lengthy.
One last thing: I think we might use modules for the "Kown Sub-Types". This would allow us to use them in a bestiary overview list article which would be far better than the bestiary category. --Tetris L 09:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh* A category and a listing are not mutually exclusive. Even if you made an "uber-list" of monsters that was quite useful and readable, it will still not replace categories, nor will categories replace it.
I am against this module. We do not make modules simply because it is cool or because we like to modularize everything. We make modules when the data redundancy is needed. Right now, I cannot think of one page that uses this "known subtypes" list other than the species page. I am not even sure how useful a super large article with all species in the game is going to be. It even goes against the wiki's guidelines. On the flip side, it does make editing the page more complex. It's not without cost. --Karlos 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
For testing purpose I created the module and added it to Creatures so that we can see what it might look like.
I still think having a large overview list of all mobs could be useful, especially since this list would be an overview of all Collector Items at the same time. The discussion in Category talk:Collector Items showed that there is a demand for such a list, and as you agreed yourself in that discussion, categories are a bad solution when it comes to searching and quick referencing. --Tetris L 10:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
And a list of all species in the game with all sub-types per-region is NOT a good collector items list. Take Charr, for example. All Charr drop Hides and Carvings. End of story. All Devourers in Ascalon drop Fetid Carapaces. Simple. Replace that with two pages of scrollable text just to say the same thing and it doesn't sound too intuitive, does it? --Karlos 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Tetris, I like it, good work :) Two comments which IMO would make the page easier to read:
  • I am not sure it is necessary to list the type of item - I think "Carapaces (see below), Shells, Half-Eaten Mass" would be enough.
  • I am also not sure it is necessary to mention that Devourers are alive, poisonable, knockable and so on, as most creatures are. I would only mention such features in two cases:
    • For creatures that do not behave like the general case (example: undead cannot be poisoned, giants cannot be knocked down).
    • When you would expect another behaviour (example: Executers usually appear with undead, but they are not undead themselves and can therefore be poisoned, can bleed etc). --SDC 18:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Side note. Executioners are undead. They take double damage from Holy attacks. The exception with executioners is that they are undead AND "fleshy." --Karlos 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Items Dropped"[edit source]

I have made the mistake before, and I see other new comer make the same mistake, and it's easy to see how, if nothing is done about the issue, more people will make the same mistake in the future.

I propose to rename the "Items Dropped" section to "Special Items Dropped" or something, as a preventative measure of people making future mistakes. I won't bother with a crusade, will just slowly phase this in as I happen to edit articles. Comments? -PanSola 02:49, 20 February 2006 (CST)

No need to do that, we just correct people as they do it. It has been like this since the beginning and there are not that many issues. --Rainith 09:33, 20 February 2006 (CST)
Well, is there any downside for changing the name of the section? If there's one I'll weigh it, but otherwise I perfer preventative solutions than post-patchings. -PanSola 11:48, 20 February 2006 (CST)
You stated the downside yourself. You don't want to do a crusade (because of the sheer number of articles). Then we end up with battling formats and confusion. Mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc... --Rainith 11:55, 20 February 2006 (CST)
Also I doubt that would solve the problem, even if you took the time to define "Special Items" people would still occasionally post that Fire Imps drop Water Wands (which has always really confused me, as I get a lot from them). --Rainith 11:58, 20 February 2006 (CST)
Speaking of defining special items, I think Sword, Axe, Hammer and Shield need to indicate which weapons and shields are common drops. I'd go with the assumption that common = dropped by X+1 monster species in at least half of the game's regions, with X being the greatest number of species that are confirmed to drop a known 'special item' (probably Obsidian Shard or Glob of Ectoplasm, since each is dropped by about half a dozen species). -- Gordon Ecker 17:11, 23 February 2006 (CST)
Hey, I *WANT* dogs and cats living together. And rabbits and carrots too! -PanSola 01:41, 21 February 2006 (CST)

Location / Icons[edit source]

(Note: This sections has been moved here from Talk:Afflicted Horror) --Tetris L 05:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Rainith, I am tempted to revert your edit. You removed the skill icons and the location Cantha. Mind to explain why? --Tetris L 23:42, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
Cantha because, Duh! That is where Shing Jea Island is. The region is useful info, if you can't figure out what campaign you're in though...
And the icons because GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Bestiary. --Rainith 23:46, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
Hmmm ... the formatting instruction doesn't say that icons shall be used, but it doesn't explicitely forbid them either. I admit the icons are merely eye-candy, and don't add additional information, but they don't hurt either. Make the article look a bit nicer. No reason to remove them when somebody bothered to put them in.
As for removing "Cantha", I don't see why the continent should be removed, but not the region. You might as well remove Shing Jea Island, because, Duh!, that's where Minister Cho's Estate is. And if you can't figure out what campaign you're in, then listing the continent certainly is even more helpful than the region. When we came up with the current structure (listing the region, but not the continent) there was no real reapon to list the continent, because at that time there was only one continent. But now that we already have 3 continents, and one more will be probably be added with each campaign, it does make sense to me. That all the old Prophecies articles are missing the continent info isn't a big deal, and I'd never deem it necessary do a crusade to fix it. But for the future, whenever we create articles with a location info, we should list the continent, IMHO. --Tetris L 06:47, 29 May 2006 (CDT)
I like the new skills with icons thingy that some of the pages have, we should move that to the bestiary template actually. The template is not immortal and unchangeable.
That said, the continent is overkill. And if someone has no clue where Shing Jea Island is, they can click on it and it will say that it's an island in Cantha. But if your rationale is that someone might not know where Cantha is, well, no amount of clicking on Cantha can explain where Cantha is. :) Cantha IS Cantha. --Karlos 10:24, 29 May 2006 (CDT)
Again, I don't see the difference: If somebody has no clue where Minister Cho's Estate is they can click the Minister Cho's Estate link to find it out, just like they can click on Shing Jea Island. I say either we list the whole tree (including the root level, i.e. the continent) or just the last level. Anything else would be inconsistent. --Tetris L 10:40, 29 May 2006 (CDT)
I prefer *some* tree. As more campaigns get released I think Continent will become necessary. As for right now I can't really decide. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 10:52, 29 May 2006 (CDT)
Difference is common sense. Munich, where is that? Oh, that's in Germany. The odds of somone not knowing what Germany is are the same as someone not knowing what Europe is. So, qualifying Germany with Germany, Europe or even, more elaborately, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way... All that does not really ADD more info. It's not as black and white as you make it sound. Put a full tree or no tree. I don't think so. Why stop at Cantha? And how will you address the fact that Cantha the continent exists in Tyria the world? Why not say: Minister Cho's Estate, Shing Jea Island, Cantha, Tyria (world), The Mists, Guild Wards Universe? You know why? Because of... Common sense. :) --Karlos 10:58, 29 May 2006 (CDT)
Now you're comparing apples and oranges. While in real life it may be possible to extend the tree from continent to planet and further, in the game it makes no sense at all. In the game continents are the largest known "units" of land so far. (The realms of the gods can be counted as a continent. ;)) With ANet's current scheme every campaign will add one continent. We don't even know the name of the "planet" (Tyria is a continent, not the planet!). And while you can expect anybody to know the 5 real life continents, you can not expect everybody to know all the ingame regions. If everything goes according ANet's schedule, then in two years from now we'll have 6 campaigns, probably with about 30-40 regions overall. For a GW newbie who owns only 2 of those 6 campaigns and who is looking for a particular boss to capture an elite the continent does add more info!
Having said all that, I'll let it slide. No continent info in bestiary article, as you wish! But don't say I didn't warn you. If we realize in two years that listing the continent would have been helpful I'll give you a call and let you fix a few thousand articles. ;) j/k
Now, icons is a different matter. I don't see any harm done at all. We should add them to the bestiary template. That goes for skills used as well as items dropped (provided an icon is available). --Tetris L 05:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
Ok, I'm in from the pool for a while today (got a little burnt). If you want to add the icons, then do a crusade and go thru all the bestiary articles and add them. My biggest complaint is that we have two different formats that we are following and that makes no sense what so ever. Generally that seems to be the way things happen (NPC categories anyone?), some articles get changed while others don't and then people move forward with new articles depending on which one they looked at last. --Rainith 10:50, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

I've only skimmed through the responses so let me know if I've missed anything. I personally don't agree with a "tree". I don't disagree with it either, but personally I subscribe to the "it's a link so I can click it to find out more" approach.

Regarding the icons, I quite like the look of them. :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:17, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

I don't mind the continent being added, though I don't see any reason to.
Its like saying I live in:
  • North America
    • United States
      • North Carolina
        • etc, etc
It's just not neccessary, imo.
And for the icons, I will admit I have gone through and taken them out and continue to take them out whenever I stumble upon one. I'm not one for crusades, so I haven't gone that far yet, but the icons space out the skills, items dropped, etc, and it just doesn't look uniform to me. And besides the icons being so small you can't see the detail in them and they don't seem to add any important information to any article. I feel this Wiki is about the information, not so-called "eye candy". Sorry if this seemed harsh, but I'd figure I'd speak about this issue before Tetris gets plenty of time to go through with it :P --Gares Redstorm 17:28, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
There should probably be two sections here, one for Locations and one for Icons.
The argument that we aren't about "eye candy" is a poor one; the point of the wiki has always been to provide information in as user-friendly a way as possible. There is no point in having information if people can't easily comprehend it. We use screenshots, maps and icons throughout the wiki to convey information in as user-friendly a manner as possible. For example, in many articles where we list a number of professions we use Ranger instead of simply saying "Ranger". If using skill icons is more user-friendly than just linking to the skill then skill icons should be used.
Personally I feel that skill icons are more user-freindly and help people to see at a glance the skills a creature uses. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 14:42, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
I think the point is that (IMO and I think for Gares too) the skill icons are not useful and actually detract from the simple list of skills. This is not true for the profession icons as they are rather simple (not meant as a slight against them) and are easily recognizable at a glance, whereas the skill icons are more complex and less easily recognizable.
More talk about the over iconization of the wiki can be found at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Quests. I don't know the exact section and I have to go catch a plane soon so I don't have time to look for it. --Rainith 15:27, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
Perhaps eye-candy was not the term to best describe my point. For one, maps and screenshots are definitely not eye-candy. You would use a picture of Gorgaan Hatemonger instead of trying to describe him in words such a "A Charr Warrior boss with a Yellow glow around his body. He carries a Tower Shield and a Longsword." Granted, that is pretty much what he is, but it would be conveyed better as a picture of him. Maps are useful in that they show a reader exactly where they need to go. You wouldn't give directions to a boss or NPC location by writing "Turn left as soon as you leave here, then go straight a little ways, then make a right, etc, etc."
Profession icons I can see how they would be useful, because they really are not that complex a picture and thus can be seen and noticed with a glance. But when it comes to skill and items icons at 25px, the detail is so small on a majority, not all, that there makes no sense to add them in. For example, CharrCarving.png, this is a picture of a Charr Carving at the size, 25px, I found it at in an article. There is no detail and unless you have already seen Charr Carving before and know what it looks like, I can bet that someone would just see a brown thing with a black background. Another instance, Faintheartedness.jpg. This is Faintheartedness, a necromancer skill. If you didn't know what it was, you would perhaps assume it looked kind of like something in the center with a green aura around it. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some skills and items that, even at such a low pixel, are still well detailed, Heal Area.jpg for one, but if not all are clear enough to see and be recognized, then none should be in place.
I do my best to try and make things around here more friendly and easily accessible to its users. It not only helps them, but helps myself when I need to reference something. But as the icon topic goes, that is why each skill and item have links. If you unfamiliar with a term, click on it, and go to its article. In my opinion, that helps the user out more, cause when they hit that link and they read what is in that article, they learn more then what they were originally after. After they are familiar with the skill/item, learns some new things that will assuredly help them in-game, they can always hit the back button. :D I hope that better explains my hurried response in my last post.
And it seems in my longwindedness that Rainith has beat me to it, but my comments agree with his. --Gares Redstorm 16:13, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
Don't worry Rainith, the icons are purposefully simplistic, so I would not take it as a slight! :) The points you make, Rainith and Gares, are reasonable. I do think there is still an argument for using skill icons. Take Balthazar's Aura Balthazar's Aura and Balthazar's Spirit Balthazar's Spirit. Just looking at the text the two skills could be easily confused. Someone who is familiar with the icons, however, can see at a glance that the skill is either spirit or aura. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 17:04, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Maps[edit source]

I've read the recommended format and seen the example, Alana Pekpek. I have also been lurking around articles as I do and noticed Ghial the Bone Dancer. That seems to look more uniform having it under the bestiary box like that. It seems to me like the top of bestiary articles are squeezed with the bestiary box, map, and ToC. Anyone agree to a reformat? --Gares Redstorm 12:34, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Both examples render pretty much identically in Firefox, which browser are you seeing the major difference in? --Rainith 16:06, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
Firefox. In Alana Pekpek, the map is on the lefthand side of the bestiary box, and in Ghial the Bone Dancer, the map is directly below the bestiary box. I'm suggesting that the placement of the map below the bestiary box looks more organized and doesn't clutter the information on the lefthand side of an article. Perhaps it should be taken into consideration and the Style and Formatting be changed to reflect that. --Gares Redstorm 16:26, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
Not for me, in Firefox v1.5.0.4:
FF Pekpek.jpg
--Rainith 19:40, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
Its the Wiki's preferences that are causing the mix up. I am using the Cologne Blue skin, both here and at work. I went to the Monobook skin after I saw your image and both maps on both pages are where they should be. I guess it depends on the skin as I just previewed them all and two of them have errors on the main page. Less work to do I guess. --Gares Redstorm 21:46, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Categorizing multiple location monsters[edit source]

Been organizing categories and correcting categories in bestiary articles. Got one question that has me perplexed. How do you categorize monsters that are located in multiple areas, like 5-8? It can be done and I don't mind doing it, but would all those categories in the articles look tacky? I really don't like how some monsters are categorized into generic locations, like Carrion Devourer or Shatter Gargoyle, where, imo, only locations and POIs should be.

I would also think placing them in respected areas would give more exact categories for anyone looking to see what is in an area and not using the area's article. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated...unless they are derogatory remarks. :D --Gares Redstorm 12:30, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Since I have had this up for near a week now and no response, I take it no one objects. I will start on the project soon and also implement my idea for a comment to separate categories from the rest of an article, see Categorization of Bestiary (Bishop's talk page.) --Gares Redstorm 16:09, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
I swear, I thought I responded to this... I must be getting senile in my old age, next thing you know I'll be talking to myself... I like the idea of "exact categorization" for lack of a better term. If moster X is found in locations A, B, C, D, and E, then put it in those categories. As for the comment to seperate catgories from the main article, it can't hurt, so I say go for it. --Rainith 15:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
I talk to myself all the time, it's when someone in my head talks back, that will be the problem. As for the comment, I'm hoping users will recognize not to place anything but cats below the line so we won't have anymore Chests incidents. --Gares Redstorm 07:35, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
I do not fully understand what the problem is. If a creature can be found in multiple locations, you add it to each and every location category. Simple principle, and works fine. Note: In case of missions, don't forget the "(Mission)"/"(Location)"/"(Explorable)" suffix!
As for the categories location, I like categories at the top of the article, which looks cleaner IMO, but that's merely a matter of taste. But since bottom has been the standard on GuildWiki for some time now (though not strictly enforced) and the majority of articles has the categories at the bottom, I'd prefer with what is well established. --Tetris L 07:54, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
I'm not just going after the bestiary, I'm going after everything. The problem is, when I noticed it, was that not all categories are used for every location a certain monster/NPC is in. In the case of Stone Scale Kirin(will have 8 cats when done), Wardens (some locations are not even listed, Drazach Thicket, Melandru's Hope (that's as far as I've gotten on that side)), Carrion Devourer(will have around 15), etc, etc. Given that when all these categories, when placed in an article, will be a paragraph in and of themselves, having them at the bottom does not interfere with the main information of the article. Not to toot my own horn, but I created most of the split ((Mission) and (Explorable)) categories for Factions, so, unless I'm drunk :P, I doubt I will forget that important bit. I hope this helps to you to better understand what is about to happen. --Gares Redstorm 08:21, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Fancy skill listing with icons..[edit source]

Does anyone mind us putting the fancy skill listing with icons into the Bestiary template? (Like was done in Tahmu which Gares recently reverted for non-compliance.)

I have not followed it closely, so I don't know if there are any technical glitches it introduces, but if not, then I think we should use it. Ideas? Thoughts? Hate mail? :) --Karlos 00:37, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree; but see the Location / Icons discussion above - it looks like we're a ways from any concensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:40, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
I've stated before, I personally don't like them or find them useful. If we come to the consensus to put them in, I won't make a fuss, but a mass updating crusade should be done so that all the bestiary entries are uniform, otherwise it is pointless IMO as people just copy what they see in other articles. --Rainith 00:46, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
Rainith is a conservative like Tom Delay, he's against Abortion and Gay rights and New Skill Icons. :) I think they are mildly useful (quick identification of many skills) and they are not harmfull, and they look pretty. I also think that slow migration from one style to the other is irrelevant. :) Even if it takes place in years. --Karlos 01:53, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
Actually I'm more liberal than most liberals out there... But if we're going to make a change it should be done right the first time, not so that we have to correct every new entry made. --Rainith 01:59, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
I think, as I argued above, the icons can be useful, depsite not always being useful. I recognise Balthazar's Aura Balthazar's Aura and Balthazar's Spirit Balthazar's Spirit by icon and not by name. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:42, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
I have stated my opinion way, way, way above in Location and Icons. I was waiting till a consensus was reached and from what I have been lead to believe, this Wiki strives on community decisions, and since no decision has been made, I reverted the skill icon edits of Boozer69n, even left a message on his talk page. Even I have been caught trying to be a cowboy, so I don't see why this case is any different, except for the fact that you personally like what he is doing. If the community does agree to add skill icons, I will not oppose (after the vote of course :P ) and will help add the icons onto the bestiary pages. --Gares Redstorm 08:38, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

I do not find the icons harmful. So despite I doubt its usefulness most of the time, I am not opposed to it. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 12:47, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Personally, I like the skill icons. In-game, I look at the icon to recognize the skills, almost never do I read the name/text. I like having them in the wiki for the same reason. Yes, some are somewhat difficult to read at low pixel counts; but most still come out clear enough to be easilly recognized for what they represent.
On a related subject, I've seen the skill icon template used sporadically for inventory items from drops. I've left the few I've seen (even migrated a couple from the 'icon' to the 'skill icon' template; but there are enough items that share similar or even the same inventory icon that the use for dropped items serves no real purpose to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:00, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
So, as it stands now we have 3 people for (me, Biro and Barek) and the rest don't see the use. It's a huge task updating all those articles, but it can be much easier if we update the template and then add it to the task list. Already there are people who like it. --Karlos 02:41, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

I was against the idea, but then I thought "Y'know, it's mighty convenient to be able to look up a boss or monster and go 'What the heck was that weird thing I've never seen before?'". Seems that adding the little tiny icons helps that a bit. — 130.58 (talk) (22:29, 11 June 2006 (CDT))

At the same time... they don't scale with the text, and there's no way to make them scale with text. This always concerns me, as it's a potential usability issue. And PanSola is right about some of them just plain not showing up. Still, since the material is supplementary in nature, it doesn't really hurt to put them in - the actual clutter factor is minimal, so the icons being useless to some people doesn't make the rest of the page any less user-friendly. — 130.58 (talk) (22:43, 11 June 2006 (CDT))

Vote on Skill Icons[edit source]

NOTE: Skill Icon vote archived to GuildWiki:Old_votes#Vote_on_Skill_Icons

Discussion[edit source]

What is the close date on this vote? It has been open over a week, but with an open ended close date, nothing can really be finalized. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 08:36, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Do we even have 6 more active people who would vote on this? I think we can end this today. --Gem-icon-sm.png 08:45, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
Shall we vote on whether to end this early? d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:49, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Haven't we (the beauty loving Kurzicks) defeated them (the ugliness loving Luxons) in this issue yet? --Karlos 16:07, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

I'll concede defeat, altho I will offer PanSola 10K for each sockpuppet he creates to vote for no icons. ;)
So now someone just needs to change them all.... --Rainith 16:41, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
"Someone"? O.o *wipes sweat from brow* I say its ended, skill icons win. --Gares Redstorm 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
No bots? *snif* I'll help with this, as long as we decide hoo to make it organised. --Gem-icon-sm.png 17:18, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
Just do it like we did the bestiary thing. Make sure to do a whole "sub category" when you start (i.e. don't start on Outcasts and stop half-way through). And then mark the ones you have done here. Also, if you see another working on them, then work from the opposite side (i.e. if he's going alphabetically from A to Z then you start from Z). --Karlos 18:37, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Carrying out[edit source]

I went through all of the bosses by species. There might be bosses which do not show up in Category:Bosses by species which I have missed. I will also go through the bosses by profession to be sure. --Gem-icon-sm.png 05:05, 1 July 2006 (CDT)
I have also checked the alphaetical order of skills, categories and map positions for the bosses of all species starting from 'J' to 'Y' and some of the others. --Gem-icon-sm.png 16:40, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Here's my list of non-boss monsters which have Skill Icons updated, by species:

--Rapta 14:10, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

I just updated the skill icons for the non-boss monsters for Wallows, Wardens, Worms, Wurms and Yeti. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 23:39, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

I'm done with Turtles and Trolls. --Ab.Er.Rant 19:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Finished with the Titans too. Won't have opportunity to work on anymore until much later. --Ab.Er.Rant 23:45, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Elmentalist bosses should be done now. -- 8:22, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

I had asked for no one to touch the bosses. Read my response and reasons at User talk: Well, no harm done and thanks. :) --Gem-icon-sm.png 00:41, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


--Thedarkmarine 11:43, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Thedarkmarine.Icon.jpg Thedarkmarine 13:05, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I fixed the resurrect monster skill. You might want to see how I did it. --Gem-icon-sm.png 17:16, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
I see. However, that monster skill is for the Resurrect_Gargoyles. Does it also apply to these Dredges? Thedarkmarine.Icon.jpg Thedarkmarine 17:26, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
I think it's the same, but I don't know. --Gem-icon-sm.png 17:28, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Replacing all the skill links with the skill icon template is some kind of boring work. The last hour I experimented with an firefox extension to use regular expressions to do some of the work. Here the plugin: Install it (if you use firefox) and add the following rules (it's under Tools->Options->Convert Plugin)

Regular Expression:  /\*\{\{skill icon\|(.+?)\}\}\s*\(?\s*\[{0,2}monster skill\]{0,2}\s*\)?/ig
Replacment:  *{{monster skill icon|$1}}

Regular Expression:  /\*\s*\[\[(.+?)\]\]\s*\(?\s*\[{0,2}monster skill\]{0,2}\s*\)?/ig
Replacment:  *{{monster skill icon|$1}}

Regular Expression:  /\*\s*\[\[(.+?)\]\]/ig
Replacment:  *{{skill icon|$1}}

The first two rules are using my idea of a monster skill icon template and the last one is a simple replace. You can use the plugin by copying the lines you want to edit into the clipboard (ctrl+c) and then use the convert tool (shift+ctrl+v). I used it on the last remaining mantises and it worked great. I'm going to bed now. It's 3 am here. --Khan Reaper Kerensky 19:08, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Apparently, Khan Repear Kherensky has fixed up some pages for the Category:Tengu but didn't mention it. I went through them anyway and fixed up the categories and some ordering and 2 missesd pages. I'm also done with Category:Demons. --Ab.Er.Rant 21:10, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Mea culpa. Till now I just worked on the skill icons when I was on the pages to look up something. I will go to my watchlist and fix the rest of my touched categories. --Khan Reaper Kerensky 03:29, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Done (non-boss):

--Khan Reaper Kerensky 04:05, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Done (non-boss):

Category:Dragon Plants

Thedarkmarine.Icon.jpg Thedarkmarine 11:28, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

I've just gone through Category:Elementals and Category:Enchanted. Apparently, I found unrecorded and incomplete changes again XD. --Ab.Er.Rant 18:46, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Come on people, is it so hard to add a note to this talk page saying which has been changed? Just wasted some time opening up pages for Category:Gargoyles, Category:Grawl, Category:Hydras, and Category:Imps only to find that they have been done... --Ab.Er.Rant 19:36, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

GAAAH!! Please don't touch the bosses. Now all of the bosses modified by others and those with the non-template skill icons are mixed up. :(( --Gem-icon-sm.png 01:18, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

Monster drops note..[edit source]

What do you think if we put in a link in ever monster's "Items Dropped" section that says "Regular drops" and that will take them to a short article describing that money, dye, keys and equippable items will drop from ANYONE and that gems in Factions are the same while in Prophecies, gem drops should be record in talk:Sapphire and talk:Ruby. This is in hopes of avoiding the daily RVs of those clueless users? Maybe a note in italics that says "Please do not record regular drops here" or something? --Karlos 18:22, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I think that's a good idea. I was guilty of almost adding in a couple of common drops the first time I was around here. Luckily, I checked the style guide first. :) --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 23:40, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
Sounds good to me. --Gem-icon-sm.png 03:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Sorting normal skills and monster skills[edit source]

The guidelines doesn't mention how to sort them should a monster have both normal skills and monster skills. For now I'm assuming that monster skills are always sorted after normal skills. --Ab.Er.Rant 19:22, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Oh, Ledrug informed me regarding the generic monster skill icon I could use. So... I guess that solves the sort order.
Now I'm curious, how do you intend to sort the skills then? -- Ledrug 19:54, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
I suppose it now makes sense to just sort everything alpahbetically. --Ab.Er.Rant 19:58, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
My belief and the way we have been doing it is to sort it alphabetically for all skills. i.e. if we're talking about mursaat here, the Spectral Agony would go right between an "R" skill and a "T" skill assuming that there are no other "S" skills used by that monster. --Rainith 22:25, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Yup, everything alphabetically. Anything starting with " (warrior shouts) go first. --Gem-icon-sm.png 00:19, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Skills on monsters/NPCs[edit source]

← Moved from GuildWiki talk:Community Portal

(note: Dsicussion moved here from User talk:Specter)

It's nice that you are working on the skill icons for the NPC pages. However, don't mark elite skills as elites unless the monster/NPC is a boss. It was decided long time ago that only the elites of boss monsters are marked, because t is the only place where it is relevant. --Gem-icon-sm.png 15:33, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, I'm not sure anymore. I saw that Bishop had added the elite note on one NPC, so you better ask PanSola or something before adding or removing them from any article. --Gem-icon-sm.png 15:36, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
I noticed that the henchman have their elites marked as such, so I followed suite. — Specter 5:32, 23 June 2006 (EST)
That's the problem. So many pages use different styles and it's not easy to remember what is used where. I'm sorry to disturb with this, but asking someone who knows would be the best opton. --Gem-icon-sm.png 15:40, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Some of the henchmen (Luxons including: Aurora, Seaguard Gita, Argo, etc) are bosses in a particular mission, and you can capture Elites from them there.- Greven 15:46, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Where was that decision? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:51, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Everyone has been saying this whenever someone adds the note of a skill being elite to a monster article. I don't know where this decision was made and when, and I'm not sure if it also includes NPCs, but I thought it would. --Gem-icon-sm.png 16:00, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
I've also seen this given as a reason for removing an 'elite' tag next to elite skills for monster articles, although I've never removed them myself. I have no idea where or if this has been discussed, or if it's just something that became a defacto standard that's just part of tradition in how it was done before. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:05, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Let's find the prior decision before saying there is a prior decision, so in case there isn't (and someone was simply saying it mistakenly or to make the point stronger) we don't propagate the error. Or start a new discussion on it. And don't confuse the discussion on whether Location articles should have a "Skill Capture" section with that issue. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 16:09, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
It will be easier jsut to discuss this again. i think this is not the best place, but I'm going to bed soon and want to say my opinnion. I think we should (ofcourse) mark the elite skills of bosses. I think we shouldn't mark them on normal monsters. (Would be a massive job to change) I am not so sure if we should or should not have them on NPCs. It doesn't harm, but it doesn't help either. (The skill icon next to the name shows the yellow border) I vote for not having the text unless there is a good reason for it. --Gem-icon-sm.png 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
See: GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Bestiary#Skills Used. - Greven 16:44, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Also, apparently this was added by Rainith on [1 March 2006]. - Greven 16:51, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
That didn't say only Bosses should have elite skills marked. But I agree with Gem, if we are using skill icons, the entire marking issue is superfluous. The gold border will handle them all. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 16:53, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
So I suppose all the henchmen articles have to be fixed? — Specter 14:50, 23 June 2006 (EST)
Well, I think you should fix normal NPCs, like the Guild Lord and such, but leave the henchmen alone. If some of the henchmen do show up in missions so that you can capture their elites, we should mark the elite of all of them. --Gem-icon-sm.png 16:59, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
NPC-henchies use different skill sets when being NPC vs when being Henchies right? If so, their skill listings should reflect as such.-User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 17:00, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Okay. How about a general rule: Mark elites when they are capturable with SoC, otherwise don't mark them. --Gem-icon-sm.png 17:03, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
How about don't mark them period? The marking was from an era before we use skill icons. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:01, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Note: today, the text "Monster Skills are to be tagged with (Monster Skill) and Elite skills are to be tagged with (Elite) , but only on Boss monsters, where it is relevant (SoC confirmation should be done as well, see below)." was added to this article in the Skill Icons section. I moved the relevant discussion above to here so that we could ensure everyone is in agreement on this. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:30, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for moving this here as I missed the entire conversation. Since I started on this wiki (little less than a year ago) the defacto standard has been to mark elites on bosses. To me there is no point in marking elites for creatures that you cannot capture them from. I added the remark: Bosses with elite skills should have those marked with (Elite) after the elite skill. to the S&F guide in March as someone suggested that it be added there. I didn't (and still don't) think that remark is ambigous at all, bosses get the tag, period, not normal monsters. Nowhere in the remark does it state that normal monsters should have it.
All that being said, as others have stated, with the icons being added, there really is no reason to have the tag at all, so I say we remove it altogether. The monster skill tag is somewhat more complicated as some monster skills use the generic monster skill icon, while others have their own icon. As there is room for confusion there, I say that we keep the monster skills tag in the articles. --Rainith 21:41, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Zzzzz. Wha? --Karlos 22:02, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Agree with Rainith -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:22, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
If we are still supporting text-only browsers, then I say keep the ([[Elite]]) tag. - Greven 22:49, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
And some people with slower connections disable images from their browsers. I vote for keeping the elite tag for anything that you can capture it from. --Gem-icon-sm.png 04:12, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
Good points. I agree. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 04:16, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Okay, wait. It still doesn't say whether or not to mark elite skills as such on things you can't cap from? Because I still don't know from the S&F and this discussion. =/ — JediRogueSig.jpgRogue 14:59, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

BeastInfo Template[edit source]

Regarding the section that explains about the template, it actually recommends that people use "Unknown" and question marks for professions and levels. I actually thought that we shouldn't do something like and should just leave it blank (which is what I did with the NPC articles I touched). I thought the "Unknown Information" section on GuildWiki:Style_and_formatting also means we don't need to indicate missing information - if the information isn't there, the logical implication is that it's not known... --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 00:59, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

No one noticed? If nobody objects, I think I'll remove the part about using "Unknown" for unknown profession as it doesn't make sense to have a global guideline not to do things like that and yet have a recommendation to do it for the bestiary template. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 20:31, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
As far as I'm concerned if a section has no information then it would be best left blank. There may be exceptions to this rule but I think that, as you say, if an area is missing then it is implied that the information is unknown. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:58, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

Species and Subspecies[edit source]

How should we handle species and subspecies in the info box? The default seems to be to only include subspecies, which means that there is often no information in an article like Sand Drake indicating that the creature's a Drake. Other pages only list the species in the info box. I'm in favour of having the species, with the subspecies in brackets, like in the Grasping Root article. -- Gordon Ecker 20:34, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Um, huh? A Sand Drake isn't a Drake, it is a Drake (Species), and that is what is indicated in the article. --Rainith 20:38, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
Hmm... I'm actually of the opinion that the Grasping Root article needs to be fixed. Having Sprout is more than enough, since it leads to a page which already mentions that a Sprout is a Plant. No point duplicating. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 00:23, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
That's what I meant. Anyway, the entry is called species, not subspecies, and it's not exactly obvious that Ettins and Yeti are Ogres while Giants aren't. I prefer the format of Species (Subspecies), but I'd also be okay with keeping the current guidelines and only listing base species for the species entry in the infobox, as is done for the Am Fah, Jade Brotherhood and other human mobs, since the categories section of a properly categorised mob article already has the subspecies (if any) at the bottom of the page in the categories section. What I'm not okay with is only putting the subspecies in the species section, with no mention of the species anywhere in the article, as is currently done in pretty much every article for a nonhuman mob that belongs to a subspecies, contrary to the guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker 02:56, 19 August 2006 (CDT)
Oh. Right. Hmm.... in that case, I'd go with either Species or Species (Subspecies), but not Subspecies. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 20:59, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Map Image location in articles[edit source]

I noticed that the placement of a map image for locating the NPC beast/monster is not mentioned. This should be addressed in this guide.
The sequence on many beastiary articles is to first insert the Beast info template, then a map image, then start with the description. The problem is that in IE you end up with a large block of white in the upper left. Even the Contents box starts at the same level as the map image, instead of in the upper left.
By moving the map image to the "Location" section of the article, the Contents and Description section now fills the upper left, next to the Beast info box.
I do not have access to another browser from work, so can't confirm how this varies in other browsers. However, unless is causes display errors, I feel that the map image (if available) should be standardized to exist in the Location section of the style guide. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:45, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm fine with that convention. But are you really referring to just NPCs (since u commented about this in the Beastiary S&F, I assume you include monsters as well)? I don't use IE so have no idea how it looks ^-^. I've already mentioned on the NPC S&F that the Beastiary S&F is the parent guide. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 04:57, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
Oops, I meant to say Beastiary articles, but I see no problem applying it to both. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 08:12, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
Note: I've uploaded the two images to the right to show the difference in display under IE. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 08:21, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
Update: Okay, I tracked down part of the wierd quirk in IE (I wish work allowed other choices). It appears that if there's a blank row between the bestiary box and the map image, then the formatting gets mangled. But, if there is no blank line, everything formats cleanly (third image above). Go figure. Quality browser at its best - lol. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:30, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

case of (unique)[edit source]

Shouldn't {Unique) be (unique)? -- Gordon Ecker 04:15, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

We have (Unique), (Elite) and (Monster skill). I don't think we should change them now. It would mean a lot of work and the capital letters actually look much better. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
Can I rewaken this topic, as we seem to have "competing" edits happening. Noticed some editors are changing ([[Elite]]) to ([[elite]]) beside bosses with capture-able elite skills and ([[Unique]]) to ([[unique]]) beside green items those bosses can drop, but then others are re-editing / reverting them back to capitals. Could we try to discuss and come to a uniform consensus! (Personally prefer capatalised, but just wanna have one standard). --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 21:55, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I prefer lowercase ("elite", "unique" & "monster skill"). Same for headers: "Skills used" instead of "..Used" etc. --Erszebet 04:54, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Known attributes[edit source]

As we're starting to get info added about attribute levels, such as Hormak Ironcurse (and a couple of others I forgot), I think we need to come up with a guideline on where to put it. This applies to NPC articles as well, such as Eve. From what I can come up with, we have 3 choices.

(1) The simplest is to just put the information into the Description section, adding something like

Known attributes: Death Magic 10, Soul Reaping 4

(2) Or we can come up with a whole new section for it, like "Stats" or something which could also potentially be used to store the health, energy, damage and such... (however unlikely this seems...).

(3) Or just put the attribute note next to the first skill in the Skills Used section that's associated with the attribute in question, like

Animate Bone Fiend Animate Bone Fiend (at Death Magic 12)

Any thoughts? --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 03:36, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Personally, I like it next to the skill as that seems to be the least intrusive to me. I dislike the way it is in Hormak Ironcurse's page. --Rainith 11:02, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
I would also add it after the skill names like this: (Death Magic 12) --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
At the same time we can note such things as halved casting time as some bosses have skill specific bonuses. For example one of the Factions warrior bosses would have this after the Healing Signet entry: (Tactics X, halved casting time) --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
If we ever get this information, I suggest changing the order of the skills used by the Attribute-then alphabetical, rather than simply alphabetical. That would make it more fluid. - Greven 10:34, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Ok, this is way late but I like number (1). Ideally, number (3) would be best, but it feels like a LOT more work and the bestiary has already fallen behind with Hard mode out. (1) is much easier in terms of editing and readers will most likely have to refer back and forth between monster and skill articles anyway, although (3) lessens this by some. As for where it should go, I feel like it should go under the Skill Used section; I believe normal and hard mode mobs have different attribute levels so it'll better suited there. --Vortexsam 18:06, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Name priority[edit source]

Could we formalise the naming priority for monster vs species naming conflicts? Corsair, Hydra, Kappa and Minotaur are species articles, while Wurm is a monster article, as was Nightmare until I moved it. I have been informed that monsters are supposed to get naming priority, however this conflicts with the Bludgeoner precedent of giving the most common or basic item name priority and the Divine Path green item precedent of giving the most broad or general term name priority. -- Gordon Ecker 17:31, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

I think the naming priority should be species > monster > boss. To me, giving the species priorty works best. From the species article, links can exist to the monster-specific article. If no species of that name exists, then the monster article would have next rights to the name (such as in Jade Armor / Jade Armor (Boss)). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:00, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
The reason for Hydra, Kappa and Minotaur is because there were monsters with the same name but vastly different levels/skills in different regions, it was not done to make the species article the main article. Actually this was originally done with just Hydra, Minotaur and Grawl (which can be seen in the talk pages for those articles). Also AFAIK Corsair isn't a species, it is more of a social group, like Am Fah or White Mantle. --Rainith 20:23, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Description removal[edit source]

Why the removal of the "Description" header? --Rainith 11:15, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

I'd have to agree with Rainith there. In any S & F modifications, they should be discussed first to see what others think, even little things like adding or deleting a line. — Gares 11:19, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting#Section 0. I also added GW:S&F#Introductory_text. --Fyren 17:36, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

More on maps[edit source]

I experimented on adding maps to the beast info box. You can see examples of the change on Lou, of the Knives (one map), Ullo Specterhaunch (two maps), and Rubi Spottedmane (three maps). The change can currently work for up to three five maps. Is this something we want to incorporate into the S&F article, or keep with the current method and remove the maps from the template? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:27, 2 March 2007 (CST)

I like it (but then again, I've been saying I was going to try to get something like that working since last year). My only thought would be to have a default text of "Map, click to enlarge." or something similar if people don't want to add their own. --Rainith 15:22, 2 March 2007 (CST)
I'm all for that of course ^_^ Just 1 remark: it seems that for each additional image I get an extra horizontal line on top of the page, right below the boss' name. So Lou's page is ok, 1 extra line on Ullo's page, and 2 extra lines on Rubi's page.
And yes, I already tested it with IE6, FF and Opera - they all show it :) --Erszebet 16:00, 2 March 2007 (CST)
Rainith, it's already in there - if no map description is provided, it defaults to "click to enlarge" - although that could be worded to something else.
Erszebet, I see it, and I'm sure I know where it's coming from. I'll look into the code.
--- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:05, 2 March 2007 (CST)
Erszebet, I think I've fixed it - I just purged some code that I had inserted - looks like I was over-thinking it (or would that be under-thinking?), and had code that wasn't even needed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:11, 2 March 2007 (CST)
Sorry Barek, I'm at work and couldn't take the time to look at the code. I'm glad to see you were one step ahead of me. :) --Rainith 16:59, 2 March 2007 (CST)
Hehe, you might want to revert it 'cause now the maps are aligned horizontally squishing the other sections, and I can read parts of the code :p --Erszebet 19:16, 2 March 2007 (CST)
I temporary removed those images from the BeastInfo box but took a screenshot first. Rubi's page looked like this. The code should work though, I C/P'ed the BeastInfo box and fiddled with it (with the very limited knowledge I have about the stuff) - Result here. Tested 'my' info box with Ullo's page (See my Sandbox). The only reason I can think of is that the BeastInfo map1 & BeastInfo map2 aren't implemented well by the BeastInfo box. The code from map1 & map2 should be on separate lines otherwise it gets screwed up. --Erszebet 07:53, 3 March 2007 (CST)
Yea, my fault on that one. I was doing the edits from work, where I only have IE6 available. I should know better than to work on something like this where I don't have other browsers available. I did a partial revert of my changes and cleaned up some other parts of the code. Take a look now. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 10:49, 3 March 2007 (CST)
Ah, much better now ;) --Erszebet 11:20, 3 March 2007 (CST)
I like it :) - I just used it in Commander Sadi-Belai before I realised this was not standard. It would be useful if it automatically scaled the images, if that's possible, as you have to specify the size at the moment. Biscuits (talk Biscuit.png contribs) 11:37, 3 March 2007 (CST)
I thought about doing that - and it could still be done with a little reformatting of how the image name is supplied; but, I left the map size manual as well so that it could be set the same as the boss/monster image size. There's no consistency in the size of the image of the monster. The template defaults to the pagename at 128px; but if the image is something other than the pagename from the user supplying their own boss/monster image, they provide their own image size currently, so those image are everything from 128 to 250. As a result, forcing the map size may cause it to be out of sync with the boss image size. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:54, 3 March 2007 (CST)
Any idea why there is all the whitespace at the bottom of the beastboxes now? Any way to get rid of it? --Rainith 22:51, 3 March 2007 (CST)
I'm fairly certain it's coming from the way the maps are opted in on template:BeastInfo. I can eliminate the whitespace by putting all the map inclusions on one row instead of listing sequentially, but then when you include multiple maps the code chokes horridly. Basically, we need someone better at code than me to clean up my mistakes. *sigh* --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:06, 3 March 2007 (CST)
I believe that I've fixed it by nesting the IFs ... the main limitation is that if someone tries using a "map2" without a "map1", it won't show (or a map3 without both a map1 and map2). But, I would feel better if someone else reviewed my code to make sure (a) that I didn't miss something that may cause problems, and (b) see if there's a better or more elegant design solution that I hadn't thought of here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:40, 3 March 2007 (CST)

I would like to have a heading above each map which would be the area name where the map is located and a default text below the map "Click to enlarge" or similiar. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I always write the location in mapx-text, don't think a header is needed for that - it'll only use more space. --Erszebet 06:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
One question comes to mind, do we want to specify a perferred pixel size for beast / map size? In a random sampling of boss articles, noticed 128px and 160px seem to be the most common, so go as far as stating a size as preferred (to achieve a more uniform "look"), or leave it up each page (so the image author can select a size that looks best to them)? --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 10:02, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Status[edit source]

Any objection to adding the map to the official formatting guide? I've noticed the maps showing on multiple NPC articles, so it appears to be known. We can always adjust the layout within the template later if how the maps show within them needs tweaked (see Gem's comment above re: this). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:04, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Been a week now, I think it's official :) --Erszebet 06:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
So ok if the S&F/Bestiary article is updated with the map details now? --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 10:02, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
EDIT: Decided to be bold and have gone ahead and added to the S&F/Bestiary guide, figure I'll soon get reverted if over-stepped the line, or someone can knock it into shape if need be. :) --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 10:28, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Creatures with no skills[edit source]

I have looked through the guidelines for skill lists on Bestiary pages, and I see no standard for creatures that use no skills. It admittedly looks unfinished with the skill list left blank or omitted. Personally, I think just writing "None." would work, but if there is some sort of standard I don't know about, or someone has a better idea, I'd like to know before I go off changing these pages. --Emelend 06:36, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

The convention is to omit it. An empty section should be removed. There's probably no harm in adding a clause to specifically say "None" if the creature is really confirmed to not appear to have any skills. Of course, the contention is that, how can you be really sure that the creature really has no skills? --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 05:35, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Ah, good point. I asked because I have seen several ways in which it was handled on monster pages, some omitted, some with "None." written, and some just left blank. If I come across pages with the skill list left blank, I'll make the appropriate change. (Changing to "None." if verified, otherwise removing it.) --Emelend 05:45, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Hard Mode Skills[edit source]

Shouldn't a standard format be set up for Hard Mode skills? I've noticed some people adding a separate section for HM skills (and either relisting all normal skills or only the additional HM skills) or others just adding the skills in the same section with Hard Mode in parenthesis. I personally am partial to listing only the additional HM skills in their own section, like Grawl Ulodyte, but I don't really care as long as all monster pages are formatted the same. BigAstro 14:49, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Sure, let's set one up. Listing only the additional HM skills has issues of their own. What if, depending the HM level, there are different additional skills? Not listing the whole set of skills implies a need to add a little note to every HM skills section to indicate that this includes the skills above. The problem is that different nomal mode levels result in a different skill set for hard mode, so for multiple HM, you'd have to say, "This includes all the level x skills", and then another HM section will say, "This includes all the levels x and y skills". Personally, I don't really care how it's presented, as long as it's intuitive for ppl who don't read guides to add. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 20:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Personally, I prefer the Hard Mode skills being listed in their entirety, just in case some creatures skillsets are changed more drastically. Also, I think a standard for displaying level numbers should be set up, as even in that Grawl Ulodyte example, it is nowhere to be found. The only possibilities I can think of would be to either simply put "(Hard Mode)" after the corresponding level numbers, or somehow differentiate them, like with bold or italic text. Unfortunately the first method is ugly, and the second unintuitive. --Emelend 22:31, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Ok I've added it in, seems to be consensus and no point in waiting any longer. --Xasxas256 01:47, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

I found a page where someone made a nice pretty box-thing for Hard Mode skills on a monster. See The Judge. While it would be a bit of work, it would certainly look nice if this was the standard S&F for all monsters. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 12:35, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Dropping the background color would be better imho. It's distracting and unnecessary. And with EotN introducing monsters with secondary professions, not going to work. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 03:45, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Gems[edit source]

Many users say that gems (rubies and sapphires) should not be on beast articles because everything that drops materials has a tiny chance of droppnig them, should the article be updated to show this?--Diddy Bow 07:06, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Can it be confirmed that all types of creatures have a chance to drop all types of gems? --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 20:17, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
You're right, that probably cannot be confirmed, but we can work off the consensus of wiki users based on everyone's collective findings, which at the moment is that every creature which can drop crafting materials can also drop rubies and sapphires. See the talk pages of those gems for details. As such, I don't think we should list gems on specific articles in the beastiary. BigAstro 21:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
I wasn't rejecting the suggestion to remove gems from the drops list ;) I was asking for confirmation. If it can be confirmed, then I'm in support. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 20:36, 19 July 2007 (CDT)