- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Template talk:CreatureInfo 40d
Just wondering if there's any rationale behind the ordering of the butchering returns. Ordering by descending number of expected units obtained (i.e. bones, chunks and meat; then fat; then skin and skull) seems to me to look more ordered. Also, any reason why skin is Yes/No and not a number? --Mechturk 23:27, 4 November 2007 (EST)
- You can have multiple skulls, but only one skin. The categories are listed in an arbitrary order. You can't dynamically order them based on the numbers in the template design. Feel free to reorder the list if you think you can improve it. Later on I or someone else should include size and value info as well as room for special attributes to be listed. I didn't do it making the template because Wikimarkup's table structure is greek to me. I made this by copying the Template:alloy page, and got sick of messing with it. --Ikkonoishi 15:40, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Ah. Nice. From my brief foray into hunting and looking into the raws, it appears that the bone, chunks and meat values are equal to the SIZE specified in the raws, and the fat values are specified in FAT. Skin is present unless NOSKIN appears in the creature descriptor, while the number of skulls should come from the body descriptor, a few of them, such as BODY:HUMANOID_2HEAD having more than one. In the vast majority of cases, SIZE > FAT, and there is only one skull. I figure that having the SIZE related attributes at the top followed by fat, skulls and skin should look, errr... prettier? Since the numbers will be in descending order. I'm not sure this would be the case with one or two of the more fantastic creatures, but it should be true most of the time. --Mechturk 16:11, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Yeah I had noticed that, but I did not want to cripple the template by linking the bones, meat, and chunks directly to size. --Ikkonoishi 19:14, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Ah. Nice. From my brief foray into hunting and looking into the raws, it appears that the bone, chunks and meat values are equal to the SIZE specified in the raws, and the fat values are specified in FAT. Skin is present unless NOSKIN appears in the creature descriptor, while the number of skulls should come from the body descriptor, a few of them, such as BODY:HUMANOID_2HEAD having more than one. In the vast majority of cases, SIZE > FAT, and there is only one skull. I figure that having the SIZE related attributes at the top followed by fat, skulls and skin should look, errr... prettier? Since the numbers will be in descending order. I'm not sure this would be the case with one or two of the more fantastic creatures, but it should be true most of the time. --Mechturk 16:11, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Now you don't have to - it'll use the "bones" (etc) parameter if specified, size if not. That way only size has to be specified for most creatures (bet this all changes in the next version with all the body stuff Toady's working on though) Random832 12:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Automatic Wikipedia article link[edit]
Should we really have this in this template? I think it would be better to link to Wikipedia manually for creatures that actually exist. Perhaps a small box, similiar to the one Uncyclopedia uses, would be better for this purpose. --MaxVance 20:48, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
- See giant cave spider for how the wiki link may be omitted. Or are you suggesting omission should be default? VengefulDonut 01:49, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Skulls[edit]
Would it make sense to default to one skull when the parameter is not given? Random832 11:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- IIRC, all creatures have 1 skull, if any. Even hydras. VengefulDonut 22:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- If it defaults to 1, though, it may display incorrect info due to an author's omission. That would be bad. Difficult type of mistake to catch. VengefulDonut 23:05, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- How about we drop "skull" altogether from the template? It's not terribly important information.--Maximus 23:50, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Gamedata[edit]
I just dropped it in, even though I know it's terribly positioned, because articles are missing the information now. --Briess 03:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)