Category talk:DF2012:Creatures

Creature page quality

Very many pages in the Creatures category are marked tattered quality. What information is wanted to improve their quality rating? Calite 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-creature pages

Since this is a category for creatures, I believe it should be limited to actual creature pages. Adding pages that "relate" to creatures (such as status icons, titles like King of beasts, etc.) is problematic for a number of reasons. There are already 500+ pages in this category; ancillary pages in the category are very likely to be "lost in the shuffle". (Who's going to search a list of creatures for information on status icons?) It also reduces the usefulness of the category for finding actual creatures. (How many creatures are in Dwarf Fortress? 564, minus however many non-creature pages are currently in the creatures category.) Finally, since Dwarf Fortress is a game about creatures, pretty much every article on the wiki is "related to creatures" in some manner--recreating Special:AllPages isn't valuable to anyone. --Loci (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Full, non-comparison alphabet lists are useless to human searchers in any case. Nobody is going to manually look up hundreds articles from A to X (unless he is checking all of them anyway). It's totally innefective way to search. Especially since there is regular searchbox for searching by name, semi-categorized sortable comparison tables, and, by now, useful and human searcheable lists in subcategories for searching by trait (great thing!). Ergo, main category should be freed for related, more general/inportant stuff, and creatures themselves should stay in trait related lists.
  "since Dwarf Fortress is a game about creatures" - creatures are regular content, moddable one, general mechanics are more important wikiwise and should not be stuffed "somewhere deeper". AO (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally find this category useful on occasion, but, useless or not, it does not become more useful by adding tangentially related pages. It certainly isn't necessary to "clean out" the creature pages from the creatures category so that you can repurpose it. Why not just create a new category? These "important" creature-related pages would have better exposure than they ever will buried in the creatures category, and it wouldn't interfere with the current use of this category either. I just don't see the downside to making a new category.--Loci (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)