Content posted on this page is to only be about improving the article itself.
For all other types of discussion, please post them in the forums. This includes (but not limited to) theories, discussion about how great someone is, fanon stories, etc. You have been warned. Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes).
Hi there. It looks good to me. We do need something to distinguish characters from creatures. You have my blessing. The worst that can happen is the admins don't like it and undo it. You did your best to get their attention imho.
They could definitely be argued. With Gobblewonker, Aoshima, and Multi-Bear, I do believe I screwed up, and should have kept them with the Characters template. With Bigfoot, however, I think it's fine. I'll change those three back, but you do see where I'm coming from with things like Ghosts and Floating Eyeballs, yes?
Yes, BlueDagger, I understand that species are not characters. I also believe that Bigfoot is not a species, and is thereby a character. However, the character category must be removed from the species' pages, then.
Also, why do creatures have to be articles on the species? I still consider Gobblewonker and Multi-Bear creatures even though they're specific individuals.
The character would just be used for both. The categories however would be changed to match the proper title the gobblewanker and multi bear would be creatures and characters, perhaps just maybe the other pages should be changed to specis just a suggestion
Simple, for pages obviously talking about a character, that acts like a character, such as the Multi-Bear, we use the character template. For pages obviously talking about species, such as the undead, we use the creature template.
First off, this has been done, it was decided but not implemented a while ago, that there should be an animal category and a mystical creature category, and we would do away with the creature category for being to vague. Creatures are CHARACTERS. I don't care about the infobox thing...