Template talk:Mountfooter

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Existing types

Others

Obtainable

I'm confused looking at [Amani War Bear] and a template called "Obtainable mounts". I understand the template is for all mounts, but maybe "obtainable" should be dropped to just "mounts." /chomp‎ Howbizr(t·c) 9:08 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)

You're right, I didn't even think about it. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

what about ashes of alar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phorr (talk · contr).

What about it. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 07:21, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
I assume he means, what section is Ashes included under (since there isn't a "pheonix mount" category)? /chomp‎ Howbizr(t·c) 2:28 PM, 1 Oct 2009 (EDT)
'Unique', currently. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:19, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Retired footer

I propose we create a section for discontinued mounts(as in no longer obtainable) and remove those from the other sections, to make it more simple than adding those scratch things on the discontinued mounts.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Since noone said anything i will be making that footer, however i will call it retired instead of discotinued, and i will use this page as my base [1](excluding arena mounts)
I also going to remove the arena mounts from the drakes subsector because blizzard might create mounts for arenas that are not drakes.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Class footer

Would anybody complain if i added a footer for class exclusive mounts? (i also considered tcg and out-of-game footer but that is just overdoing it.)--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer if we tried to keep alike mounts together as much as possible, rather than separating them. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 02:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The only reason i wanted to do class mounts footer is because these mounts are normally not accessible to all individuals, like Arena, Crafted and Removed mounts, it would also make the footers themselves look less ugly and allow to reduce the size of some articles that are unnecessarily extended for some reason.
Of course we could always create a footers by source, but i also think that would be overdoing it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rockets

Rockets are in the first part of the template because they are a big enough(more than 2 mounts) type of mount(it doesn't need to be a creature otherwise we have to move mechanostriders too) to have it's own section, the second line of the template is more for exceptional mounts that have other conditions than family applied to them(The first are exclusive to arena mounts, the second are mounts that can only be obtained trough crafting, the third is the ones that aren't enough mounts to have their own family.(removed was supposed to be there))--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mechanostriders are unique, they can be creatures of their own programming, thus they fit with the other mount creature types. Rockets are just physical creations used as transportation and while not crafted by players, they may as well be considered crafted, thus they belong in the other type category... it's not a big deal, both type groups are shown on all pages the template is on. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 18:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing is i wanted the "other" part of the template to be about special mounts (ex:removed, class, crafted, arena) not the actual families of mounts, but specific mounts which by themselves are out of the ordinary with the other mounts, so it would make more sense.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)