Template talk:Pet nav
Before this turns into an edit war, I want both sides to explain why bears should or should not be in the aquatic section. Eive 04:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is about bears being in the amphibious section because some bears are rumored to be able to swim. Venom20 04:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because I was edit warring with myself? :) I misread the IGN article which suggests that bears could be amphibious but on second reading sounds like their own speculation. Because I think there are only a few pets which have been confirmed into land/sea/both perhaps it is best to have a fourth section in the nav of 'unknown' and put the ones we've not got explicit confirmation of into it? -- Aspectacle 04:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- ← moved to Template talk:Pet nav
So I was thinking.
First and foremost, these links should go to the juvenile versions of the article. Second, I suggest three categories like we have here (terrestrial, amphibious, and acquatic) but further subdivided by family, (drakes, birds, big cats, etc.) It would look something like this:
I haven't done the other two, but this gives you an idea of what I am proposing. Since it would be quite lengthy like this I think a collapsible box would work best, tied to the habitat of pets.--Łô√ë Çåŕð ├┤ëŕô 02:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Updated with the complete list. I don't think habitat is really important in this navbox, especially since splitting that way would require listing Feline under 2 sections (dumb lynx). This just needs to list out all the pets; if someone wants to see them sorted by habitat, that's already done on the main Pet article. —Dr Ishmael 15:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone have any complaints or comments on this before I put it live?--Łô√ë Çåŕð ├┤ëŕô 20:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Why not have a single family of "Fish"?
Noticed currently the Armor Fish and Shark are in separate families, is there some historical reason for this? They are both aquatic fish, so why not combine together on the one line and bring into a common "fish" family? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 06:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Further, both the Bristleback and Smokescale appear reptilian, perhaps create a "Reptile" family, and place those two together? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 07:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Game mechanics. All pets in the same family share skills 1-3, with skill 4 generally being unique to each pet.
- Also, there used to be ranger traits that specifically affected pets by family, with sharks and armor fish being distinct families. See here for the one that affected armor fish (I can't find the one that affected sharks). —Dr Ishmael 14:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah ok, yeah knew about the traits thing, but hadn't realised the family for the navvie was being split that way. Figured there was going to be a reason for it, otherwise someone would have likely sorted this long ago. Thx Ish, will leave them as is. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 22:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't mean we can't be clever and figure out other ways to deal with it. :) I've consolidated these single-member families into a group I called "Unique." Look good? —Dr Ishmael 22:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)