Forum:Template: Mounts

Template:Mounts - has gotten just too big... course it started out too big too... its essentially a category in a box. I dread adding the next 50+ mounts they'll add in the next expansion. This template should be destroyed and if users want a navigational template at the bottom of mount pages that ones could be created for mounts of similar nature, see example:

Opinions? 05:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are proposing making a template for each (Type) of mount: Proto-drakes, Bears, Horses, Tigers, Mechstriders, etc ... --  06:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather a dozen or so templates for each type, then this category in a box roaming any further. 06:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this looks great! I'm wondering, would it still be a good idea to have to have a mounts template as well, but that only listed types of mounts? We'd probably need to add "mount type" pages though to make it happen:


 * This might be overkill, but again, throwing out some ideas. 11:08 AM, 27 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * The links shouldn't all be title case. See WP:NAME. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:42 AM PST 27 Jul 2009
 * Just axe all mount templates: categories should be sufficient. -- foxlit (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Foxlit, I know people work hard on categories, but I'm just a visual person. I love these kinds of templates. And with all the achievements associated with mounts, I think having some "mount type" pages might be a good space to discuss the mounts. 11:10 AM, 27 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * I Agree -- I am Visual I do not use categories as a general rule, only on occasion -- I think we need mount templates. -- 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So you Visual people prefer text in a box to text on a page. Fascinating. :) -- foxlit (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's just that categories are too limited. They have sorting issues, they can't have images next to text, they have fixed font sizes, etc. Also a list of categories at the bottom of the page is less helpful for quickly finding relationships between things. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:42 AM PST 27 Jul 2009


 * Not to mention you can Organize/Group things in a template and can not do that in with a string of categories at the bottom of the page. -- 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this isn't a good example of visual since it's just a fat listing, but it's harder (several clicks, several page loads) to go across sister nodes in the category tree. So does any have a disliking for my idea about mounts? Just to emphasize again if there's people willing to make them, I definitely like the smaller templates as well (such as bear mounts) where needed. Obviously we wouldn't need one for "chicken mounts" or "pheonix mounts." 7:51 AM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * If you mean using your template (or one similar to it) as the new main template for mounts and then using Coobra's as the sub-templae(Child template) on the individual mount pages, then yeah I can agree go for that. Like this on each of the Bear mounts pages:


 * Horses on the each horse mount page, etc. -- 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts: if the intention of the mounts template is to help you navigate around all the 100+ mounts, that's really the job of the mounts page. It does sound more sensible to have a template for the different mount types, with navigational templates within that mount type. Basically what Morph suggests. 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's enough consenus to get cracking. Obviously up to you Coobra if you want to take the restriction off the template or not. 5:00 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Protection level lowered. 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also the project page . 5:15 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Actually that's a completely different project, nothing to do with the template. 06:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If a bunch of new pages are going to be made for this, please follow WP:NAME. Many of the examples above are not following WP:NAME (i.e. Argent Tournament Mounts vs. Argent Tournament mounts). Mounts should not be capitalized unless there is an item name with it capitalized. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:53 PM PST 31 Jul 2009


 * Thanks for the reminder. It was just a draft. 8:46 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Creation
Went ahead and created the new look, while everything is not complete, wanted to get opinions before everything is converted. Using the bears example again:

Decided to just go with the creature types in the main window and for things that don't apply will have their own section for just the second window:

-- 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Full speed ahead from me. 7:01 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Looks great, keep it up. I want to say the new mount pages Wyvern mounts, Gryphon mounts, etc ... look great.  I think the usage of the   tags make a more proffesional looking page.  I, also, agree that all of the swift / non swift mounts, of the same type, should be merged.  I forget which pages you put the merge tags on but I agree they should be merged. --  23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to be able to list all the mounts past and present, but I want a way to show you can no longer obtain one through the template... what do you think? a  meaning no longer available,   not available, or just   it out? Unless you guys have a better idea for marking as such... 01:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "NA", "N/A", or (however don't use the deprecated &lt;s&gt; tag please, use strike). I think "NLA" is an unknown acronymn and should be avoided.  9:22 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)

is no more, Mountfooter has taken over. I went through them a few times to see if I missed any, I did miss a few, but it should be good now. If I did miss more, let me know. 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)