Template talk:WikiFauna

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:

• WikiDragon
• WikiElf
• WikiFairy
• WikiGnome
• WikiGremlin
• WikiSloth
• WikiOgre
• WikiTroll

• VigilancePrime • • • 03:45 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

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

Recent "creations"

For reference, some of the more recently-created WikiFauna-like pages include (alphabetically):

• WikiCapybara
• WikiImp
• WikiKnight

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

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)

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)

I've created a userbox for WikiImps on my userspace and added it to the userbox galleries. I don't mind making them for any others that don't yet have a box but if other people fancy doing that then no problem. Just thought I'd give a friendly notice about what I've done. Also, thanks Wormwood Appears, for fixing my silly mistake on the WikImp page! Coldmachine^Talk 12:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I also don't much care for it, but that may be because I feel like I'm half-knight, half-dragon, and clearly not fighting myself. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Try the following instead. - LA @ 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the userbox template?

Why is there no userbox template for WikiKnight? The other Wikifauna have them, why not this one? Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no record of this creature

I'm thinking of calling it the WikiWraith. WikiWraiths are the Dark Lords of Wikipedia. Their natures are ephemeral, for they hide in plain sight. Their views are often extreme, intolerant or self-aggrandising, and they recognise that Wikipedia is the ideal platform through which to ensure that the world hears them and believes them to be true. However, unlike WikiTrolls or WikiKrakens, WikiWraiths are intimately familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and will often use them to their advantage, keeping their content just above the line of acceptability, splitting the opinions of admins and alienating from them those who stand in their way. This tactic of divide and conquer leads to them often gaining absolute control over wikipages, with all those innocent contributors that once freely flitted about its green hills now mere shadows under their will. Serendi^podous 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyers by any other name, wouldst still smell as foul? –xeno (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)