Category talk:Bestiary

Categorization

been thinking about this, so tell me what you think as well: should categorize the bests a bit better, instead of like "young forest gryphon", it could be "gryphon, young forest" this way we can get all the gryphons together, and goblins and trolls, and what have you...
also i need help getting a link to the category:bestiary/level list on the actual bestiary page. i'm still very Wiki ignorant. The catalog thing could be done with level list i guess, but a lot of the creatures aren't on the official site where i got the information from. we'd need to place them where the might go... i know the what to hunt is a good indicator. ~ Yamcer 00:16, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Very good points, Yamcer. I'll touch on the bestiary categorization first. There is a way to leave the articles named as they are, but to have then placed into the category alphabetically by another letter, number or symbol. Using your example, Young Forest Gryphon could go into the category like so [[Category:Bestiary|Gryphon]]. In theory this should work perfect for those types of creatures. It will have to be worked from the Critter at a Glance template, I'll see if it can be done.

The level list you created is great, it really is. I'd move it to just an article, and not a category like you have it though. Categories are more for the collecting of other categories and articles, and not for the purpose that I see of that list. If you like, move the data to a page titled perhaps... hmm Bestiary Level List or some such. Somewhere on the page (top or bottom doesn't matter), put in this text [[Category:Bestiary|*]]. That will put the list in the bestiary category and at the very top of the article listing too, since it will be categorized as the asterisk symbol, and not by it's article name. Also, you can edit Category:Bestiary to put a link at the top to that article.

Let me know if you have any questions about what I've replied here.

--Naeya ^(talk) 00:36, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Recall Information

GM Dartenian just posted the guilds who have access to some extra critter history/lore via RECALL <critter>.

Bards, Barbarians, Paladins -- full access
Clerics -- Cursed and undead creatures only
Rangers -- "beasts" only, ie non-biped low IQ

Critters which have this feature are: cave trolls, spriggans, ice ghasts, mountain giants, black apes, faenrae chanters, black gargoyles, deadwood dryads,and a few unknown.

I've added the ghast and deadwood dryad ones. I believe spriggans and faenrae chanters are invasion-only critters for now, so please add any of the rest (Cave Troll, Mountain Giant, Black Ape, Black Marble Gargoyle) if you can. Entrance into black gargoyles can be a little tricky, so if a bard/barb/paladin without good enough climbing (200 I think?) is willing, I can take them through the shortcut that requires Uncurse.
--Aetherie 07:22, 22 November 2007 (CST)

Would 147 scholarship be enough to recall a black marble gargoyle? I'm a barbarian and if that's enough, I'll go recall it. Guaranzo 16:48, 24 November 2007 (CST)

To be honest, I have no clue of the required skill levels for recall. On another note, goblins of several varieties have just been announced to also receive history/lore recalls. I'm assuming Goblin Zombie, Field Goblin, Wildland Goblin, Goblin Shaman, Snow Goblin and Black Goblin.--Aetherie 00:56, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Creature specific categories...

I think that some of the categories that the critter at a glance template automatically adds are kind of pointless... not really information people would be looking for by category. The ones i would remove personally if everyone else agrees are basically the negative half of them "does not have coins" "does not have gems" "does not have boxes" "not backstabbable" "not poachable" "not skinnable" and to be honest i don't know anyone who really would look at the "has gems" "has coins" categories either... the has boxes, skinnable, Backstabbable and poachable categories i see being worthwhile though... what do you all think?--Rawkus 12:18, 30 January 2008 (CST)

sometimes its nice to know what you can't do to the critter before you try, i usually look at all that stuff before i hunt something new--Legeres 17:34, 30 January 2008 (CST)

I'm not suggesting removing them from the page, rather, just removing the category, they would still be listed on the "critter-at-a-glance".--Rawkus 17:49, 30 January 2008 (CST)

The poachable category is a bit redundant anyway. As far as I've seen any creature that is not backstabable is poachable, and anything not poachable is backstabable. There may be exceptions to this rule but I've never heard of one. --Cierst (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2008 (CDT)

It's been awhile, but this is not always true, Humanoids are pretty much the only backstabbables, and quad's are the only poachables, with some exceptions to that rule of course.--Rawkus 16:25, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

Bestiary Semantics

I think our next HUGE project should be overhauling the Bestiary with the semantic mediawiki stuff. Thoughts? When we do this, I think we should try to incorporate all the bestiary templates into one template, making the page more streamlined in the process and creating a form for it. Plus, with the Semantics, we can get rid of all those extraneous categories. --Naeya ^(talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (CDT)