Template talk:Wikipedia fauna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Classics

I think it is important to note the "classic" WikiFauna. I feel there's a rough consensus that the WikiFauna template whould be limited pretty much to those at this time, based on some of the activity and comments lately (meaning last few months). This is totally a feeling and I'm not researching heavily (which is why I note it here for discussion as necessary).
Classics include:
• VigilancePrime • • • 03:45 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

[edit] Other Classics

Question: should the Wikipedia:Mascot, even though a historical page, be included on the template somehow? What about, though a little less relevant to fauna, everyone's favorite anime, Wikipe-tan? • VigilancePrime • • • 04:34 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

[edit] Recent "creations"

For reference, some of the more recently-created WikiFauna-like pages include (alphabetically):
I don't think these should be in the template right now, but I would like to elicit discussion regarding them... • VigilancePrime • • • 03:49 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

[edit] WikiCapybara

I'm biased on this one.
I think this has potential because it is long, has userboxes already created, and is modeled after actual WikiArticles.
And Capybaras are really neat animals!
But, like I said at the start, I'm biased on this one, and I would really like to garner additional thoughts, comments, and ideas on the WikiCapybara.
• VigilancePrime • • • 04:17 (UTC) 9 Mar '08
The little amazon animal is nice but has a to complicated nature, I can´t understand it. I like the wikisloth and of course he could need some company but should we not keep to the fairy-tale? /Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiImp

Since when are citations needed on project pages? Wormwood Appears (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point... the WikiImp tags, and thus it got tagged. It was meant to be funny. (And actually, a little, succeeded.)
I think that this WikiFauna may have some potential. There ought to be a WikiFauna for one who literally goes around tagging articles (legitimately!) all the time. Sometimes I'll get a bit WikiImp-ish, especially after the "Random article" button lands me on the third straight stub! But, before adding this to the "official" WikiFauna list, it needs a lot of work and to {{Expand}} a lot! • VigilancePrime • • • 04:15 (UTC) 9 Mar '08
Perhaps the tagging was funny, but the WikiImp's tags, while (perhaps) annoying, are generally placed appropriately! Wormwood Appears (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And FWIW, I'll tag articles all the time - when they need it (and most on Wikipedia desperately do!!!) • VigilancePrime • • • 07:48 (UTC) 18 Mar '08
Great, as seen above these really exist. Like trolls and ogres, these are not epitets that the user himself will recognize maybe they should be named in a more positive way. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a userbox for the WikiImp? Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I made one. I'm an amateur but here it is. Kristamaranatha (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Imp.PNG This user is a WikiImp

User:Your Username/Userboxes/WikiImp

[edit] WikiKnight

Cute. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiKnights, species of none. WikiDragons may be a dying fauna with less than 30, but Knights are extinct. — Save_Us † 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start: I don't care for this one. That could be because of it's "opposite of the WikiDragon" theme. Seems overly confrontational and I think it comes off as flippant. Granted, the WikiDragon article used to a while ago also. Anyone else have views on it? • VigilancePrime • • • 04:11 (UTC) 9 Mar '08
Great and blends in among the other fairy-tale fauna. I especially like the "When other WikiVillagers run for cover the WikiKnight stands tall" but do they really behave as wikignomes in peace-time?/Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Thoughts

Well, there's been virtually no comments on the removal or inclusion of the "new" WikiFauna, so here's a thought: What do we think about what this box would look like with the above three new additions included? Good idea? Bad idea? Please, desperate for comments and consensus and collaboration here...! • VigilancePrime • • • 03:35 (UTC) 20 Mar '08

To add this "Expanded Wikipedia Fauna" box to a "new fauna" page, use {{Template talk:Wikipedia fauna}}
Here we can add new and even self-serving "new" fauna while preserving the Classics in the template proper.
v • d • e
Expanded Wikipedia Fauna