Forum:Article layout - creatures

Since GhostAvatar was looking for a layout guideline for creature articles and we currently do not have one, I figured I'd get the ball rolling by creating a first proposal (which can be found at Forum:Article layout - creatures/proposal). Any input welcome :)


 * A few explanations/additional thoughts of mine regarding the proposal:
 * Distribution of content over articles:
 * I think it'll be pretty uncontroversial that we should employ the usual overview/gameplay article setup we also use for items etc.
 * In addition, I think we should merge all variants per game into one page. For example, rather than having "Super mutant", "Super mutant (Fallout 3)", "Super mutant brute (Fallout 3)" and "Super mutant master (Fallout 3)", there should only be "Super mutant" and "Super mutant (Fallout 3)", with the standard, brute and master varieties being described in subsections on the FO3-specific page.
 * I've intentionally left out creature stats as the previous discussion was not really finished.
 * I can foresee some overlap between the "Biology" and "Background" sections. For example, what creature another one mutated from could probably be put in both.
 * -- Porter21 (talk) 09:37, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a decent compilation of all the attributes of creature articles. I only have a few suggestions:


 * 1) I think the "See Also" and "Related Quests" sections are unnecessary and more just a way to extend the length of the article (in general). Any links that could be put under "See Also" should, in my honest opinion, already be linked in the article content. As for the "Related Quests" section, with specific regards to creatures, I don't see how it could apply in any context.


 * 2) Shouldn't there be an "Appearances" section under the bottom layout items section?


 * -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 10:15, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all the "See Also" sections should be removed wiki-wide, for all types of articles. As Ghouly said, those pages should be linked in the text or not at all.--Gothemasticator 16:44, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on a few things, the "see also" and "related quests", I generally dislike the use of them myself. But on the other hand there are a few rare cases where they could be considered as being required for certain articles eg. Giant worker ant with Ant Misbehavin' and Can You Find it in Your Heart? quests, so adding them as a none required section will preserve layout continuity across the Wiki. Otherwise without them mentioned in the layout guide and where they should be placed in relevance to the other section, will mean that contributors will end up placing them where ever they feel like in the article page and could result in destroying the flow of the page content in terms of the reader.


 * As for appearances, if we go down the same line of having a overview page then game only pages, then there is no need for this in the game only pages, as it would have been repeated several times before hand (infobox, lead section and most likly the page name etc). The only page that would require a appearances section would be the overview page, even then I have my doubts that it is needed, with the use of Games template displaying which games they appear in at the top of the page, do we need to repeat that information again?


 * Now with the layout, I agree completely on the removal of the stats section. After looking at some of the creatures last night in the GECK to fill out the incomplete stats tables, several times I came across instances where more then one version was placed in game and varied in its base stats, so in my view defiantly a good call.


 * With the "Biology" section, while I like the term and it seems the right fit for the type of page. After thinking about it, it does feel like it is a bit of a narrow term to describe some of the creatures in terms of game play. In some cases like Super mutants, describing a encounter and what weapons they are likely to employ against the PC in combat, would not really fit under the description of biology or any other section at present. So I suggest either another section called "Encounter" or "Behavior", otherwise changing "Biology" to a more general term like the good old "Characteristics" (Which would probably prevent the crossover between "Background" and "Biology" already stressed by Porter).


 * The only other thing I feel is missing, is locations. While in most cases with creatures being random spawns it is not generally needed, in some cases (for example legendary creatures in FNV) there would be a real need to place a location section for these creatures. ☣Avatar☣ 17:43, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * As for stats (maybe it's better to continue the discussion here, not on the long inactive page), I think they should be included. If the stats of the same creature vary, the article should simply cover all known variants. While they might not be exact due to the variation, it's still useful info, especially stats like DT in New Vegas. The main question is whether we should put them in the infobox, or in the separate stat tables like now. Ausir(talk) 23:08, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a example on that, I took a quick look in the GECK at something as simple as a Giant Mantis, there are 7 different variants placed in cells, working off 3-4 different specials variantions, do we need that level of detail? ☣Avatar☣ 23:29, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe not necessarily SPECIAL, since these stats themselves are not really that relevant (same with NPCs). But I would include the HP, DT, XP, combat skill and attack damage for all variations. I do think that these stats are a vital part of creature pages for our readers who are looking for gameplay help. Out of SPECIAL stats, only Perception has direct relevance, since it determines how easy it is to sneak past a creature. Ausir(talk) 23:33, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that those stats are of more use to a reader, however I still have reservations as those stats vary just as much. That coupled with the fact that you cant easily identify which variant you are up against during game play, to be able to make use of the information .... heh, I dont know if it is really that useful. But if they are to be included, I would say that they would be best placed in the info box. ☣Avatar☣ 23:52, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I quite like UESP's way of listing creature stats (see e.g. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Animals), and I'd agree they're a vital part of creature pages. Of course, we'd need to determine which stats are relevant on a per-game basis (as Ausir said, most of the SPECIAL stats don't really matter, for example). Moving the stats into the infobox wouldn't be very practical if we decide to use my proposal regarding article distribution; when you're listing multiple variants of the same creature on one page, and then add in multiple variants of each variant, you end up making the infobox look quite overcrowded/confusing.

Renaming "Biology" to "Characteristics" is fine with me, although I think gameplay info might be better put in the description section for the specific variant.

Regarding "Appearances", I left it out for the reason GhostAvatar brought up. Of course, if the "in-universe" style for the lead sentence would be preferred (i.e. "is a creature found in the Mojave Wasteland of 2281" rather than "is a creature in FNV"), it could warrant further discussion, but there's always Games and the infobox supertitle which repeat this info anyway.

As for "See also" and "Related quests", I don't see the need for removing them. Keep in mind that "See also" is inherited from the general page layout (VA:LAY), and there are certainly some pages where it's useful. If you feel it's superfluous in a given article because the items are already linked elsewhere in the article, you can always just remove the section for that article :) "Related quests" I put in because I was thinking of creatures like fire ants in FO3, which pretty much only appear during one specific quest. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:46, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Iideally, if someone takes the time to check all that info, the article could include even information on which variant appears where. We could display the stats both in the infobox and in more detailed stat tables - the infobox would display them as a range, from highest to lowest variant, while stat tables would use a new format, similar to the UESP one, with one line for each variant of the creature (regardless of whether the variant has a distinct name or not, just like UESP has separate entries for each "Dog" creatures with separate base IDs and stats). Ausir(talk) 00:01, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is going to be a big task, trying to figure out the location of 300+ cells all with the GECKid of wilderness and no name, only way to track those cells is by the X Y position within the world map. But agreed of the stats table needing a new format. ☣Avatar☣ 00:30, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, it would be the ideal, not something I expect to happen right away. But still, I think that even if we don't have info on which version can be found where, showing all of the variants let players know what to expect from encounters with that creature and the range of its stats. Ausir(talk) 02:19, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * What we need is a way to export data from the game files into a text file, like Mirar did with FO3's notes or FO3's characters. Once exported, converted into wiki syntax and condensed to the values we consider useful (tasks which can all be done automated), the workload for adding those creature tables would be significantly reduced and a lot more people could help with adding them to articles (all the console players who don't have access to the GECK). This would not only help with creatures but with other things as well (note transcript, character inventories, leveled item lists etc).


 * For FO3, I've found a tool called "FO3Dump" which can do the export. Unfortunately, I haven't found a similar tool for FNV so far - maybe others are more successful than me in that regard.


 * Regarding the "range of stats" idea, I like it :) -- Porter21 (talk) 17:59, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've contacted the author of FO3Dump to see whether he is planning to release a FNV version. On the weekend, I'll go over the proposal and add the results of the discussion so far. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:48, January 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Got a reply from ElminsterEU - if no issues pop up, he'll release FNVDump on the weekend :) -- Porter21 (talk) 03:15, January 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * That was quick, but a nice bit of news. ☣Avatar☣ 19:50, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

In fact, he has already sent me the first version of FNVDump for testing a short while ago, so it should be available rather soon :) -- Porter21 (talk) 20:04, January 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, this is what an entry from the dump looks like:


 * What we need to do is figure out which of these values we need, and I'll convert them into wiki-style tables which can simply be copied to articles :) -- Porter21 (talk) 22:50, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we really need to find what flags if any, that show if the model is actually used in game. There is actually a lot of legacy content and unused content in regard to creatures. Also in regards to the base stats, whether it uses its own stats or runs of a base model for stats, or if those stats shown are the stats run of the base stats model. ☣Avatar☣ 00:36, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there any flags which show whether a given creature is actually used ingame - from a programming point of view, that's the kind of stuff which is rather generated by programs like the GECK. In fact, both FNVEdit and the GECK show whether a given creature is referenced anywhere, so it should be simply to go over the list and remove the ones which are unused.
 * Whether a creature is based on another one is shown by the TPLT record. Whether it also uses its stats is determined by the "Template Flags" set ("Use Base Data" etc). I'm not sure what we need this for though - if we go listing all variants, it doesn't seem relevant to me whether the stats of a given creature are inherited or not.
 * To get the list of relevant data started, here are the ones which I consider to be uncontroversial:
 * "Name", "Form ID"
 * "Aggression", "Confidence"
 * "Damage", "Health", "Type"
 * "Items", "Death item"
 * "Actor Effects"
 * TPLT (which creature this one is based on)
 * "Not sure whether relevant" list:
 * "Attributes", "Combat skill", "Magic skill", "Stealth skill"
 * "Attack reach"
 * "Turning speed"
 * "Factions"
 * "Speed multiplier", "Template flags", "Level", "Calc min", "Calc max"
 * -- Porter21 (talk) 08:45, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * It does matter whether it uses the templates stats, in the example posted above it shows no difference. But if you take Radscorpion all it specials are set at the default lvl of 5, combat and health set at 50 and its attack is set at 0. Yet the template it uses has it adjusted in all but 2 specials (which we are probably not going to use, its combat at 40, health at 70 and attack at 35.
 * What we need to do it filter out all creatures that dont have both Use Traits and Use Actor Effect List or its reverse, still not figured out which way round it is yet. The reason I say both is because under Actor Effect is where things like poison and DT of the creature are and it can get very complicated in that regard. For example the Young Cazador located in silver peak mine is the only variant of the Young Cazador that doesn't have a poison effect. The reason that gets complicated is because it goes through 2 different templates, 1 for the base stats and the other to get the lack of poison effect. And I have seen worse than that, 1 creature I looked into actual went through 5 templates just to get its base stats.
 * Also if you are going to include things like aggression, items etc, then you are going to need to add other flags like use AI Data and use Inventory. This is all going to get very complicated very fast, I dont want to seem like I am putting this down, I just want to make sure we get accurate information. ☣Avatar☣ 17:15, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I understand what you're getting at - I really shouldn't post before I'm fully awake :) Yeah, these things will require some manual patching up, but what we can do automatically is simply remove the misleading stats based on the "template traits". E.g. a creature which uses another creature's stats would have its own stats field empty etc, which would make it easy to see that it inherits its stats. You could then "go down the chain" and copy/paste the stats from the bottom one, which would be easier to do in a table than when having to click through multiple windows in the GECK. Hope that's somewhat understandable.
 * What we need to determine first (still) is which values we need. I simply made some suggestions, but I can already see that they're going to need revision after doing some research at the GECK wiki (see e.g. http://geck.bethsoft.com/index.php/Stats_Tab_-_Creatures or http://geck.bethsoft.com/index.php/AI_Data_Tab). For example, "magic skill" and "stealth skill" are unused leftovers from Oblivion, "combat skill" is relevant if the creature uses guns but not if it uses melee attacks, "speed multiplier" is pretty worthless on its own, we'll need "flags" (in addition to template flags) because whether creatures are essential or not is stored there.
 * I think figuring these things out is worth it overall though, as once we have figured it out it'll enable us to provide accurate info for all creatures FO3 and FNV (+ add-ons) fairly quickly. Sure beats doing these things manually for each and every creature in all those .esms. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:51, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the FNV dump and using a bot, I think it is best to go ahead as it will quickly fill out all the details on the pages. To be honest it dosnt take much to manually check the stats of a creature, the real hardship is finding the location placements in the game.
 * What I am more worried about is a uniformed layout (including a new template for stats) and what should be included in the page. I have already stated my view on the layout above. But in regards to stat inclusion, I agree with your uncontroversial list. Also after reading the GECK Wiki (thanks for the links Porter), out of the "Not sure whether relevant" list, I would only go for Level. On a side not with death items, it seems most are linked out to LVL Creatures, so that might be a bot job to link them in. ☣Avatar☣ 20:41, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning to add the the data directly to the page; instead, I'll create a page with the data for all creatures (like Mirar did for the FO3 characters on User:Mirar/Chars). People can then transfer the data over. Using a bot would likely result in the data ending up on pages where it shouldn't be (due to disambig suffixes and the difference in capitalization between the GECK and the wiki), so this is safer.

I'll export all the leveled item data in a similar fashion. People can then use them for whatever they want (I remember some people wanting to add the content of containers to pages; I guess it'd be useful for them as well.

On a sidenote, I'm aware it's not that much work to figure out for a single creature, but once you have to do it for all variants of all creatures it adds up. Plus you basically exclude console players from helping out this way. The more people can help, the better.

Finally, I'll write up the creature layout tomorrow (and will also do the exports) and put it up for vote. I'm not sure why I always have to be the one to write up layouts and guidelines though... -- Porter21 (talk) 23:04, January 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Cus your good at it =P ... But look at it this way, you may write it up, but you don't have to implement it.


 * But yeah I get you, I just didn't express myself properly in that regard. ☣Avatar☣ 23:27, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

First revision of proposal
I've incorporated what seemed to be the jist of the discussion to date into the layout. Specifically, I've renamed "biology" to "characteristics" (which seems more fitting especially since the layout should be applicable to robots as well) and added a few clarifications.

There is one issue I mentioned in my intial post which hasn't been addressed so far: whether all variants of a creature per game should be merged into one page or not. From my point of view, this needs to be resolved before we decide where to put the stat tables. If there is only one variant per page (i.e. if we have pages like "Super mutant brute (Fallout 3)"), it'd be better off if put into an own section in my opinion. If we merge all variants into one page (i.e. if we only have "Super mutant (Fallout 3)" with "Super mutant brute" as a sub-section of "Variants"), then I'd put the stats at the end of each variant's section. Personally, I'd prefer the latter.

Let's get this done ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 21:01, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated the alien page to match the first proposal, as a test page. The only issues that I had was that there was nowhere to list all the alien technology (contrast with previous diff), which if we are going to use the creatures layout for entire species could be a problem, since things like drone cannons are not strictly variants. Also, the lack of an appearances section meant that there was nowhere to list specific appearances - whilst the infobox may be sufficient for listing the appearances, it cannot note, for example, that the aliens only got a minor appearance as a corpse or an easter egg in one game and a full-blown appearance in another. Other than that, no issues. --Flower of Pock-Lips 23:29, January 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * The only question I have on merging them into a single page per game is how will this be reflected in the infobox. In other words are we going to incorporate stats etc in there as well, as I believe Ausir suggested. Other than that, I am indifferent to whether they are separate or combined. ☣Avatar☣ 00:15, January 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is defiantly a concern after seeing a info box like this - Enclave soldier ☣Avatar☣ 05:19, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

If we go with having all variants per game on one page, I'd leave the infobox as it is currently, i.e. without stats. Alternatively, we could list a range for each stat per variant, but I feel that might already clutter the infobox too much. On a side note (I know you likely just used it as an example for an overcrowded infobox), but Enclave soldiers are characters and are not affected by the creature layout. The article layout for generic characters should be more like the one of Chinese Remnant Soldier (minus the "SPECIAL" column; that makes the table too crowded with the FaceWikiShack skin).

On to Flower of Pock-Lips' post - your example page does not really match the proposal :) Rather than having game sub-sections ("Fallout 3" etc), it should be more akin to the item overview pages like e.g. laser rifle, i.e. on the main "alien" page you'd have sections for "alien worker", "alien captain" and "alien" (the standard variety) with a short description, an image and no stats. Then you'd have pages for "Alien (Fallout 3)" and "Alien (Fallout: New Vegas)" where you'd have tables with the stats for each variant.

The key for merging the pages would be not to overdo it. Drone cannons are not really the same "creature" as aliens; I'd only consider "standard", "captain" and "worker" to be variants of the alien species. Alien technology could be described/linked in a sub-section of the main overview page's "Background" section; this is a bit of a special case though :)

Regarding the "appearances" section, it could indeed be needed for a few articles, although you could probably argue that you could put the easter egg thing in "Behind the scenes". But again, I think it's a bit of a special case. If a creature is fully "mentioned-only", this can be reflected via Gamearticlelist by switching it to the appropriate mode. Would be good to get some other people's input on this. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:33, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox
I think it'd best if I set up a few example pages so we can take a look at how it works out in practice. Going to do so next week (will likely not be around on the weekend). -- Porter21 (talk) 23:14, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Might not be needed, looks like TrailerParkApe did it to Centaur about 3 months ago, needs a bit of a clean up (might actually do that myself over the next few days), but it gives the general idea. ☣Avatar☣


 * I have cleaned up the Centaur pages, I have however, left the FNV all separate for the time being. But I have also made up a combined example in my sandbox. ☣Avatar☣ 04:36, February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've created a sandbox page for this layout (based on your example) which everybody can freely edit. I've made a few modifications (removed the AI parameters, not enough space; visual changes) but I'm still not quite happy with it. In particular, I think the "abilities" and "items" columns seem too narrow for practical use. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:13, February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * While your example looks good, I'd prefer a full-width table like in GhostAvatar's version, to fit all the relevant stats. BTW, the FNV official guide lists level and Perception (which is used for sneaking purposes, I think) among the creature stats (they don't list DT for some reason, though). I've made some modifications - what do you think? Also, I'm not sure if I prefer this version or this one. Ausir(talk) 01:28, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Stat table
You know what, I think we are all over the place on this discussion, going back and forth about various different parts of the layout. I suggest we should take one part at a time and resolve that before moving on to the next. Seeing as the stats table (and what should or shouldn't be included) seems to be the part that is the biggest contention at present, I suggest that we focus of resolving that first before working out various other changes of the layout. ☣Avatar☣ 07:17, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. What do you think about this version? I also added my proposed version for the new Fallout 1/2 stat table here. Ausir(talk) 12:41, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Defiantly like the FO1/2 stats layout. Now for the Gambryo stats, there is one big thing I have noticed that is missing and that is ranged attack. Looking into it I noticed that the centaur uses a weapon called centaur spit missile, so that defiantly needs to be added. Still not to sure on having perception included in the table, honestly I think the real problem is there isn't enough room to hold all the information that is required in the constrained width. ☣Avatar☣ 19:42, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perception controls how easy it is for the creature to spot you and how easy it is for you to sneak past it, so I'd include it - it's also listed in the official guide. As for the ranged spit attack, I've added its stats in the "abilities" section. Ausir(talk) 20:10, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I realise it is in the game guide, but as we all know the game guide is not 100% accurate. For example it doesn't list important things like DT as you mentioned all ready, you will also note it doesn't list both lvls of centaur in the guide. But even with that, I am not sure how important it is to be included in the stats table considering it only affects a small part of the game play. But if you go by that you can also argue the inclusion of luck that will affect the +20 critical damage to centaur spit, movement speed that will affect combat situations and so forth. There is just so much that could be included in the table it actually gets unreal. ☣Avatar☣ 20:35, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually do think that including critical chance (specifically as this, not as "Luck") might be a good idea, even movement speed as well. I think there's enough room for both perception and critical chance now that I've changed aggression and confidence to numerical (users can get full descriptions via the header links). Ausir(talk) 21:32, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you think of moving the ranged attacks to a separate table, like here? Or is it too overcomplicating things, and it's better to just keep the basic info in the main one? Ausir(talk) 21:52, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats kinda what I was thinking as there is just to much useful information and a limited width that makes a single line possible. However I am not to sure on separating them. ☣Avatar☣ 23:03, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you have in mind, then? I think the information is potentially useful, but I don't like that much how it looks in this version for now... Ausir(talk) 23:39, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

I have updated my sandbox on one version to kinda give the way I am thinking at the moment, I have also included all special stats for the sake of argument because you could argue for others like agility as well etc. Basically the way I am looking at it is to have the top line show primary stats and attributes that would define how the creature acts and reacts etc., then the second line more attributed to combat figures etc (note for creatures like Supe rMutants ranged damage would change to combat skill because of there use of weapons). Additionally I have added the base id to be under the name, the reason being that for some creatures this list could be long, and with that being the largest box will handle it better without extending the table downwards to much. ☣Avatar☣ 01:25, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the two rows/creature version, and it doesn't really strike me as any more informative than my current version. As for Agility (or any SPECIAL stat other than Perception and Luck, for that matter), what is their relevance in case of creatures? I can't really think of any. Ausir(talk) 01:44, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, none that I can see, but as I said I placed all of them in for the sake of argument. As for the reason for going two it saves the reader scrolling up and down the page to see all the stats, also there are other things I am considering adding in like poison resistance and fire resistance. As I said there is a hell of a lot of information to be held in one table with the width we have to play with. The other options I am considering is essentially emulation the Geck in layout style e.g first two tabs using the tabber plug in, or simply hidding the table and use a expand option due to the sheer size various level creature would take up in height of the page. ☣Avatar☣ 02:24, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but aside from SPECIAL, your two-row version doesn't really have any more content than my current one-row version (I do think that having name and base ID in the same column is a good idea, though, so I copied it over). I think it's better to keep aggression/confidence numerical to save space - it might not be as clear as using full names of the stances, but I think it's clear enough for a table like this, and the reader will get explanation of the numbers if they click on the headers. As for your other idea, maybe some kind of "expanded view" on click could be done via javascript, with a more basic one would be displayed by default? I still think the basic table should be simple, with just one row per creature, though. Ausir(talk) 02:35, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise that mine doesn't contain any more detail, the reason being was I wanted to see how it looked before putting effort into and condensing parts that have plenty of room to add further detail like fire resistance etc. Personally I would like a nice simple condensed single row as well. But the hardship is deciding what is and inst important enough to be included and not cluttering it. But I think you might struck on a idea with that simple view default and a expand with more detail option. ☣Avatar☣ 02:52, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just been playing around and I think tabber might be the answer to the solutions, it displays the first tab as default which could be a simple one line table, then you simple click the second tab for a more detailed view of the stats. And for those who do not have javascript enabled it will display both table one after the other. But I defiantly think that tabber needs some styling done to it, as it doesn't really fit the color scheme of the site, that is unless Porter can do something better (which I bet he can hihi). I have put a example of tabber in action on my sandbox using your table Ausir as the default view, then just some junk (partly done table, got kinda bored at that point) in the second just to give a idea of it in action. ☣Avatar☣ 03:19, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Good to see there's been some progress :) My thoughts: In general, I think we need to keep the number of columns in the stat table to a reasonable minimum. We should also consider using icons instead of text where possible in order to save space.
 * Using tabber is something we should keep in mind, but I'd rather get along without it if possible - it's more of a "last resort" for me.
 * Critical chance: Are we sure that the Luck stat has any bearing on this for creatures? I'm pretty sure that raising primary stats doesn't affect derived stats in FO3 (e.g. raising the INT of an NPC does not raise its Repair stat). Or did the increased numbers come from somewhere else?
 * Aggression values: I think the most informative (and at the same time space-saving) alternative would be to use a numerical "scale" notation. I.e. instead of using just "5" or "Very agressive", we'd use "5/5" (could even use filled/empty star images like in rating systems). In my opinion, this tells the reader more than just the number or term on its own. Tooltips could then be used to explain exactly how this translates to ingame behaviour ("will enegage no matter what the odds are). I'd also put both values in one column, separated by a line break.
 * Combining name and base ID: Good idea; I'd make the names bold though to have them stand out more.
 * Level: The reason why I used "XP" rather than "level" is that (according to the GECK wiki) the level only affects how much XP the player will be awarded when killing the creature. So instead of requiring the reader to know that and to do the math himself, we might as well list the final result :)
 * DT/DR: To be honest, I'd cut this column entirely. We'll have to look at this separately for the classics, but for FO3 and FNV there is no such thing as a DT/DR per creature (which is why you don't find it in the guide or the data export), and most creatures have none. Instead, the creatures which do have a DT/DR get this via an actor effect (e.g. super mutants have the effect "Super Mutant DT"). This might seems nitpicky at first glance, but overall this means I'd rather put DT/DR in the "ability" column for the creatures which do have it.
 * Damage: I think listing the GECK damage for the creature here has little use - it only applies to the creature's melee attacks. Instead, I'd also move this to the "abilities" column (i.e. list something like "Melee attack (24 damage)".

I'll see about modifying the sandbox according to my suggestions tomorrow. I'm a bit in a rush right now. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:48, February 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of comments on your notes


 * Critical chance: I cant see any reason why luck would not play the part, for example with Centaurs. Centaurs spit is actually a weapon that is listed with all others weapons in the GECK, it is also part of the Centaurs inventory. Like all weapons it has a crit chance and crit damage values, so I cant see why a creatures luck would not affect it, otherwise there would be no reason to change a creatures default luck value from 5 or even to have specials. Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to test this to confirm otherwise from the norm.
 * Aggression values: I like that idea a lot, especially the stars system, a nice graphical representation that is easy enough to understand at first glance.
 * Level: Yes the GECK wiki says that, but the official guide says differently. Now I have done some initial testing in game and it seems to support what the guide says. I tested Jack Rabbit springs, where up the ridge near a camp fire there are two supermutants (1 melee and 1 guns) placed, looking via the GECK. Now I have visited this site at a few levels several times. What I can confirm is that at lower levels only does the guns super mutant ever spawn, while at higher levels both spawn. What is triggering this I can say for sure, but it does seem to support the official guides premise.


 * As for the rest I will see what it looks like in the sandbox, but I am not so sure on having so much in the effects box as it becomes essentially a free form box describing the creature, but you may have something more in mind than I envisage. ☣Avatar☣ 21:28, February 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * This would be my current idea for the stats table: /sandbox4.
 * Level: Which cell are you talking about? Not having played FNV, I'm having trouble tracking it down. In any case, I've included both level and XP in my latest table setup.
 * Critical chance: Well, in any case I don't think it's that important. I doubt anybody is going to notice the difference between a creature with 0 luck and one with 10 luck, to be honest. For the classics, it's a different matter probably, but for FO3 and FNV I'd not include it.
 * Abilities: I think I might not have made myself clear enough (maybe it's clearer with the example), but the things which go in there would be clearly defined and not "freeform". What I meant to include there are basically the creature's attacks and actor effects (in GECK terms) - nothing else - with different icons used for defensive (DR, DT, rad resist etc) and offensive (melee attacks, ranged attacks etc) abilities. The latter is a bit hard to see in the example as centaurs don't have any defensive abilities.
 * On a side note, finding all those icons took bloody ages... -- Porter21 (talk) 17:09, February 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome design! I like it. By the way, Aggression is not 2/5 - the Aggression scale is from 0 to 3 (and Confidence is 0 to 4).


 * DT - regardless of how it is applied, I think it would make more sense to put it in the "Stats" box for the creatures who do have it (and just not display it for creatures who don't). Gameplay-wise, it doesn't really matter if it's a stat in the GECK or an actor effect, I'd say it would make more sense next to hit points than in the Abilities box. And then maybe rename Abilities to Attacks? Ausir(talk) 19:01, February 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * After looking into it a bit more, I guess DT is far-spread enough to move it over to "Stats" - I'd display it always though, even if it's just 0, for consistency's sake. We'd have to list DR as well since a few creatures use that rather than DT (e.g. Nightkins). I'm open for suggestions regarding a DR icon (for DT, using seems fitting).
 * I'd leave "Abilities" as is; there are a couple of defensive abilities which have nothing to do with DT/DR (e.g. rad immunity, poison immunity, "healed by radiation"). -- Porter21 (talk) 19:28, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe same icon but of different color? Ausir(talk) 20:09, February 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I defiantly like it, and now I understand what you are getting at with the ability tab, makes perfect sense with a visual aid. And if DT/DR is to be included, is there another stat that might be worth considering just to even up the number in that box? And with the shield icon, I can rip the shield and broken shield icons from the game files for to be used for DR/DT if you wish. Same with a few other icons like rads etc if we want to keep it in the same style as the game. Oh and the cell I was testing in was SLJackRabbitSprings ☣Avatar☣ 21:04, February 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added DR and DT to the "stats" column, hope the icons are somewhat distinguishable. Still need to reduce the padding on the inner tables a bit (which will make each row a bit less spacious), but that's easier to do once I can do it properly via classes and site CSS.
 * Not sure about using ingame icons. On the one hand, it's easier for readers who are playing a specific game to make the connection; on the other hand, using an own icon allows for consistency across all the games on the wiki (e.g. we wouldn't have different DT icons for FO1 and FNV).
 * Glad you like the design overall :-) -- Porter21 (talk) 23:07, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

So, anything still amiss? Otherwise I'd start turning the stat table into templates. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:02, February 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely none on my end, I am more than happy with it =D ☣Avatar☣ 20:22, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, how about showing DR always as a percentage (even if 0%)? This way it will be more clear which one is which. I'd also use "Name/Base ID" for the header, not just "Name". Other than that, no further complaints on my part. :) Ausir(talk) 21:29, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to use a similar design with icons for the FO1/2 creatures. Any ideas for critical chance, sequence, action points icons? I'll use for armor class,  for attack skill and  for melee damage. Ausir(talk) 21:37, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe also an icon for every standard type of damage? Normal, Laser, Plasma, Fire, Explosive, Electrical, EMP? Ausir(talk) 22:04, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Some suggestions: (sequence),  (critical chance),  (action points),  (healing rate). I'll try finding icons for damage types later. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:28, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Meta-template & creating the game-specific templates
I've finished the new meta-template for stat tables (Stats creature) along with the stat tables for FO3 and FNV (Stats creature FO3 and Stats creature FNV). I hope the instructions are somewhat understandable.

The only thing (functionality-wise) which has changed for the FNV template in comparison to the sandbox is that the aggression/confidence ratings now display value-specific explanation text when hovered over. One thing came to my mind when working on it though: How about adding "assistance" to the "aggression" column as well and rename it to "behavior"? It'd make the table look more balanced, plus we might as well list all AI parameters rather than 2 out of 3.

I'll look into the stat tables for FO1/FO2 later (all I need are the remaining icons for resistances). For FOT and FOBOS I'll have to pass since I have no idea what would be relevant for these games. -- Porter21 (talk) 13:03, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * For FOT it should be the same as for FO1/2, aside from single Energy resistance instead of Laser/Plasma. As for assistance, sounds like a good idea. Ausir(talk) 20:23, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't FOT also have a "gas" resist? It's listed in . What about the "EMP" resist? -- Porter21 (talk) 20:32, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. Forgot about gas. :) As for EMP, not sure, would need to check in the editor, since it might be there, just not displayed, like in FO1/2. Ausir(talk) 20:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about my current version of the FO1/FO2 stat table (example can be found at User:Porter21/sandbox3)? I wasn't sure about the damage fields - currently I've made one for unarmed damage, one for melee damage and one for ranged damage. Also added mentions "poison" and "radiation" DR since it's mentioned on http://www.fanmadefallout.com/procrit/.
 * Regarding FOT - could you check whether there's an EMP resist? -- Porter21 (talk) 09:35, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check. As for poison and radiation, I'm not sure how relevant they are for creatures, given that there's little chance of any creatures being exposed to either of these aside from maybe in some random encounters, where long term effects of radiation and poison won't really matter. Ausir(talk) 10:33, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave it up to you - I certainly won't be able to clarify how relevant the poison/radiation resists are :) If they are indeed used for long-term effects only though I'd leave them out as well. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they are (although not 100% sure), and even if not, they probably don't come into use that often. On the other hand, the resistances do look nice in the stat boxes with the current number of DR/DTs, so I guess I'd leave them in after all. :). Ausir(talk) 11:05, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the current version for FO1/2/FOT has Melee/unarmed/ranged damage. Shouldn't it also have melee/unarmed/ranged skill? Maybe a box separate from the Statistics one with "Attacks"? Or "Abilities" like in the FO3/FNV one? I think something like this would make stat tables more consistent across games. BTW, attacks are a bit of a complicated matter, especially damage, since it's often done by a weapon in the creatures inventory, much like the ranged creature attacks in FO3/FNV. Ausir(talk) 11:08, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me - I'll change the templates accordingly. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, how about removing radiation and poison resists and instead moving the AC icon where the rad resist icon is now? That'd allow us to save one column in the "Statistics" cell and give us a bit more room for the "Abilities" one. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:46, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Also, for FO3/FNV, how about using the sword icon for melee attacks and the current sights icon only for ranged attacks? Ausir(talk) 11:17, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure - I think it may be a little too much. A simple division between "attacks" and "other abilities" seems clearer to me. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * As for removing the PR/RR icons and moving AC there, sounds good. Also, the 0 damage/10 damage in "Abilities" is misleading - Melee/Unarmed damage only adds some fixed value to the basic damage, it doesn't mean that it's all the damage there is. And the base values are not easy to get - I'm not that well versed in these stats, unfortunately. Anyway, I'd skip the "0 damage" altogether and make the "10 damage" into "+10 melee damage" like in my previous version. Ausir(talk) 23:28, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, listing an increase over an unknown base value seems less-than-useful to me unless the base value is the same across all creatures - it's probably just misleading. E.g. if a creature has a base value of 10 and increase of 5 over that base value, and another creature has a base value of 5 with an increase of 6, listing only the increases would mean that readers get the impression that the second creature does more damage. Personally, I'd either list the "complete" damage value or none at all. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:23, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the base damage is the same for all creatures and characters, excluding any special weapons. I'd rather keep the "Melee Damage" derived stat in the stats section, anyway, since it is one. Looks like the "Unarmed Damage" stat is always 0, so I'd get rid of it completely. I believe Melee Damage is used for both unarmed and melee attacks. I'll consult some details with Fallout 1/2 modders, anyway. Ausir(talk) 13:44, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
Since we seem to be in agreement regarding the stat tables, let's move on to Infobox creature. I think the following fields should be removed:
 * appearances: Redundant
 * refid: We only list base IDs for creatures anyway.
 * special
 * tag skills

Fields I'm not sure about:
 * affiliation: Do we really need this?
 * role: Do we really need this?

Finally, I think we need to settle on standards for:
 * base id: I'd propose to simply set this to "see article" rather than double-listing all the IDs.
 * location: Rather than listing individual locations, I'd simply list regions ("Capital Wasteland", "Mojave Wasteland"). More specific locations can be mentioned in the description for each variant.
 * variations: I'd simply make the links here point to the variant-specific section (e.g. Example variant).

Overall, we need to keep the infobox as short as possible to avoid it clashing with the full-width stat tables. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:44, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on the removals and even the not sure abouts (cant see any real benefit of those).
 * base id: agree.
 * location: Isn't doing it like that just a different form of appearances?
 * variants: I honestly wouldn't even use it for that, I would only use it to list variants not included as part of the page content. Most notably would be named creatures that are dealt with like characters e.g. Moe in FNV, other than that I would just leave it empty. The reason being that its placement in the infobox essentially places right next to the TOC which should list the variants.
 * ☣Avatar☣ 17:30, February 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in the case of FO3 and FNV "location" might indeed be a bit "appearances-like", but e.g. "core region" is not really game-specific. Truth be told, I'm fairly indifferent regarding the field's existence, but I think we do need at least a little bit of info in the infobox :)
 * Concerning variants, I wouldn't really list named creatures there. I'm not gonna start listing all named human characters on the human page which, for me, is pretty much the same thing. I tend to view creature articles as "species" articles; and just like the Vault Dweller is not an own species but simply a specimen of the "human" species/creature with a name, Moe is just a named specimen of the "centaur" species/creature (hope that makes any sense). You do have a point regarding the TOC though; guess we could just get rid of the field altogether. Its purpose is/was to link related creatures (like brutes and masters) together, sort of like a mini-navbox; if they are on one page anyway, it seems superfluous.
 * Finally, I'd suggest to add a "type" field where we can put things like "mutated animal", "mutated human" etc. We had that in the early creature stat drafts, and I removed it from mine because I planned to add it to the infobox (but then forgot to mention it here). It seems to make more sense there than in the stat tables, as the creature type is unlikely to vary between variants. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:12, February 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep I think type would be a good one, it essentially replaces the role section by defining it further. As for taking the broad stroke of species, I really dont like that. The reason being is it should really encompass all life forms including plant life. Also if we where to take this same principle to the Human page, shouldn't we then also include stats table for all variants of Humans? To me it makes more sense to keep creatures and NPC's (come to think of it, where is the lists for non named NPC's) as separate entity's and seperate sub-categories. ☣Avatar☣ 23:35, February 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Species as a biological term is applicable to both animal and plant life (see e.g. List of Rosa species); I did not mean to exclude plant life. My point is simply the following: If I take a centaur and give it a name, it's not suddenly a new variety of the centaur species; it's simply a centaur with a name. In the same vein, my dog is not a unique variety of the dog species just because it has a name. It's essentially the same principle we're already applying in multiple places; creatures with a name are treated as characters (see e.g. Snuffles, Ruzka, Dogmeat, Fluffy, Jitters etc), they aren't unique variants of their species just by virtue of having a name. As such, I'd maybe place a link to the "XYZ characters" category somewhere on the creature page but I would neither list their stats there nor list them as variants. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:45, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Anything else?
I've made a few (hopefully) last changes to the proposal; clarified what should go in the sub-sections of "Variant" and fixed a few typos. Is there anything else concerning the layout which needs to be discussed? Otherwise I'd put it up for vote - I don't think we need to wait with starting the poll until we've finalized the template discussions, seeing as there will be little (if any) issues with them at this point. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:33, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at it now, I'm not sure if removing the "biology" section was such a good idea. If it's merged into "characteristics", this will lead to the section being a mix of in-universe biological description of the creature and of gameplay information - I think it would be better to separate it more clearly. Ausir(talk) 18:16, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand your point but "Biology" isn't really a good name for the section either ("Biology" wasn't removed by the way, it was simply renamed to "Characteristics"). For one, the layout should be applicable to robots as well (of course, we could have a different name for section in robot articles), plus I feel "biology" does not include things like a creature's general habitat or behavior. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:46, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just mean that I think it's best to have two separate sections for that, one with in-universe characteristics (biological or otherwise, and I'd argue that behavior patterns and habitat are very much part of biology), and the other with additional gameplay info, which would be clear enough to potential contributors. Ausir(talk) 23:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of gameplay info you're talking about which would neither be barred by our "no strategy" rule nor belong in the variant-specific sections. Have an example? Right now, I think having both "biology" and "characteristics" would be endlessly confusing to be honest and worse than potentially having the illusive "gameplay info" in the section. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:23, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

So far I think you've done a great job on preparing the standards. A couple of things nag me though. Though overall, fantastic work. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 00:06, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is EMP resistance really necessary? As far as I know, EMP resistance is maxed for Fallout 1/2 biological creatures, while for robots EMP weapons are either an insta-kill or are least severly damaging, making resistance effects negligible. Fallout 1/2 doesn't even list EMP resistance.
 * 2) Same goes for radiation and poison. Creatures are immune to the first across all games, while the second has a neglible gameplay impact.
 * 3) This isn't technical, but rather ethical: I object to treating supermutants as creatures. Since they are sentient, I think it'd be more fair to either treat them as characters wholesale and adapting the CharBox or create a hybrid.
 * The stat tables for FO1/FO2/FOT are still under discussion (two sections up); we've already resolved to removing the poison/rad resists. As for EMP, I guess you know that I build the templates for the classics to the specifications I get from people who've actually played the game, so I'd suggest Ausir and you sort that out among yourselves :)
 * Although not really related to the layout, a little comment regarding the "super mutant" thing: To be honest, trying to shoehorn creature stats in the character infobox and/or creating a separate template seems like a lot of work for little gain to me. I suppose we can discuss it again if we ever get around to establishing a proper standard for "generic NPC" pages (as I do realize there's some merit in your argument), but for now I'd leave it as is. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:23, February 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * "generic NPC" thats probably the next thing I will be looking at, as there isnt even a overview page listing them per game like the named NPC (well none that I can find). ☣Avatar☣ 22:11, February 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's finish this one first before moving to the next one ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 15:01, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Alright, in the interest of getting this finished (it's been 1.5 months already), how about the following: -- Porter21 (talk) 17:47, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Characteristics" is renamed to "Biology" (for creatures) and "Specifications" (for robots).
 * All gameplay info goes in the "Variants" section of the game-specific articles.
 * "Variants" should appear in all creature/robot articles, even if there is only one variant of the creature in the given game. Seems the sensible thing to do - for the newer games, there'll likely be multiple GECK entries for each variant anyway, and we need it to display the stats tables.


 * Personally I dont like this Biology or Specifications instead of Characteristics. Really I think it should be dealt with the same way as layout for locations, having subheading for interior and exterior if needed. Translated to creatures, that would be Characteristics with a subheading for Biology/Specifications and game play (got to think of a appropriate title name, maybe Behavior) if needed. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 00:35, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like GA's idea with subheadings. Ausir(talk) 00:45, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Behavior" sounds as much "in-universe" as "Biology", to be honest. I'm still wondering what this "gameplay info" is that both of you keep bringing up. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:48, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuff like "Ironically, if they follow you into water, they will have no underwater attacks and only "glare" at you. But if their sonic attack is fired from land, it will go straight through water like it does through the air, putting the player at a disadvantage not being able to attack back." from Lakelurk, for example. Or "A unique trait about albino radscorpions is the fact that they slowly regain health when exposed to direct sunlight. They have no weak point, but their legs can be crippled to undermine their mobility" at albino radscorpion. Ausir(talk) 17:38, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, then I see what you mean. I was thinking of stuff like "the best way to kill creature XYZ is by using a minigun", which would be barred by our "no 'my favourite'-type content" rule. I'll agree with making sub-sections of "Characteristics" then, but I think the "gameplay" section needs a name that makes its purpose more clear. How about simply "gameplay"? -- Porter21 (talk) 19:46, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Behaviour" was just a suggestion, I am happy to call it anything as long as we clearly separate biology and lure from game play and game mechanics. But I am not to sure about gameplay as a title, people might get the idea that should include strategies and the best way to do xyz. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:09, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it'll be hard to find a section title which makes clear that gameplay info but no strategy should go in there; for many people these terms are pretty much synonymous, and you can't change how people think. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:53, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only term I can think of is "game-specific implementation" or "implementation in this game". Somewhat lengthy, but seems clear to me. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:14, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with just "gameplay". Ausir(talk) 23:54, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "gameplay attributes" a bit more defined, less likely to get confused with strategy and not overly long a title. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 00:54, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that more than simply "gameplay". -- Porter21 (talk) 08:02, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ausir(talk) 21:17, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

I've made adjustments based on the recent discussion. Not sure whether "biology" and "gameplay attributes" are explained well enough; I'm open for suggestions. Unless there are objections, I'm going to put the layout up for vote tomorrow evening. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:50, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: Variants
I think we need to clarify what exactly constitutes a variant. For example, on Brahmin (Fallout 3) "pack brahmin" have been added to the general "brahmin" section, while on Brahmin (Fallout: New Vegas) "malnourished brahmin" or "Fiend brahmin" have their own sections, which seems a bit inconsistent to me. What do you think? -- Porter21 (talk) 15:56, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * They each have different stats and base IDs and aren't just variants under the same name so for gameplay purposes it constitutes a variant just as much as a young cazador is a variant of an adult. --233345-cartman1_tiny.gif Avatar talk.png 17:14, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point - to decide whether simply having a different name but being otherwise identical (like "mad brahmin"/"brahmin") constitutes an own variant, or whether variants should be determined in the biological sense. Due to the table setup we chose for the stats either is perfectly possible. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:18, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the different stats alone constitute a variant as this is a gaming wiki after all and it just makes things easier. The mad brahmin do indeed have different stats to their "normal" variety, look at the behaviours section. I think it's better to list the different varieties rather than omitting some without explanation, I don't think biology is a good enough reason to be removing entries as variants. --233345-cartman1_tiny.gif Avatar talk.png 12:52, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding me - I'm not proposing to remove any kind of stats. The question I'm asking is whether e.g. "mad brahmin" needs an own sub-section of "Variants" on Brahmin (Fallout: New Vegas), or whether its stats should simply be added to the table in the "brahmin" section (like the stats of "pack brahmin" have been added to the table of "brahmin" on Brahmin (Fallout 3)). Regardless of my personal preference, some standard needs to be agreed upon, as both approaches are currently used on creature pages.
 * That aside, I don't really agree that different stats alone constitute an own variant of a creature - by that logic, we'd have to make an own section if there was a creature called "brahmin" which had only one less HP than the standard one. -- Porter21 (talk) 13:24, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you mean I didn't see the pack brahmin entry. I think they should probably be split, because for gameplay purposes they are a variant of one creature, and as for the "brahmin with one less HP", because it has the same in-game name and model I think it should be combined with the normal "brahmin" stat box. This is just an opinion though I'm sure there are arguments to counter anything that is decided on. --233345-cartman1_tiny.gif Avatar talk.png 14:46, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Variants shouldn't be decided by stats or in-game names (example: fire ant soldier and soldier fire ant), they should be decided by the creatures characteristics, either appearance, physical, or behavioural characteristics. User Avatar talk.png 17:50, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and pack brahmins have a different model to a normal brahmin, and mad brahmin have a different bahaviour stat. This is first and foremost a gaming wiki, I think we should be classing variants by statistical, name, and appearance differences rather than "biological". If someone looking for a pack brahmin can't find it because it's just another stat box under regular brahmin I think the confusion is unnecessary, it would be easier to provide a picture of a pack brahmin which is what most people will be looking for. And the example of "fire ant soldier" and "soldier fire ant" is a strange one as they're essentially the same thing and the example is unrelated to the difference between "brahmin" and "pack brahmin" as the two soldier variants are arbitrarily chosen to represent two seperate names when they really don't. One can assume both of the soldier ants are the same thing, but one doesn't assume a pack brahmin is a normal brahmin, or that the normal brahmin carries a pack. --233345-cartman1_tiny.gif Avatar talk.png 19:11, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I never said they should be decided by names, every example I've given that I believe should be a seperate variant (e.g. pack brahmin, mad brahmin, young cazador) has either a seperate appearance or behavioural characteristic not to mention statistical. If that doesn't constitute a variant then I must be insane. --233345-cartman1_tiny.gif Avatar talk.png 19:23, May 21, 2011 (UTC)