Talk:Alpaca

About this: I might just be going blind, but I can't see where that NPC is listed on the page other than in the hatnote, and just because it's in the hatnote doesn't mean it should be excluded from the NPC list. -- 15:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant the hatnote :-D I don't really see a reason to include it again, especially when the section is already filled. But, I guess, since you started a talk page about it... you insist? --Mordecay (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Following that logic, we should also remove the Lost Alpaca because it's mentioned in the image caption. It's supposed to be a list of all alpaca NPCs, regardless of if they got mentioned earlier on the page or not. And it's not like the list is excessively long, considering it's just 4-5 bullet points. -- 15:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is NOT supposed to be a list of all alpaca NPCs because that what categories are for. However, since the list is not long, I will let that one slide, although it remains unnecessary. --Mordecay (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So should the page never have been created with a "Known" section to begin with? As far as I know, it's pretty standard to include a list of every member of a race—both named and unnamed—on creature pages like this (e.g. krolusk). Also, as far as I can tell you don't seem to have had much issue with pages like captain, even though that one pretty much solely consists of listing hundreds of NPCs in a way that's far more suited to a category. -- 16:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only "standard" because certain editors have decided to do so across multiple pages. It shouldn't be, for precisely the reason Mordecay gave: that's what categories are for. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, it'd make more sense to me to just remove all of the unnamed alpaca NPCs from the page, instead of only removing one because it's mentioned in the hatnote and leaving the rest. -- 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)