Template talk:WikiFauna

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Department of Fun Bottom‑importance This template is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles Bottom This template has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

I think it is important to note the "classic" WikiFauna. I feel there's a rough consensus that the WikiFauna template whould be limited pretty much to those at this time, based on some of the activity and comments lately (meaning last few months). This is totally a feeling and I'm not researching heavily (which is why I note it here for discussion as necessary).

Classics include:

• WikiDragon
• WikiElf
• WikiFairy
• WikiGnome
• WikiGremlin
• WikiSloth
• WikiOgre
• WikiTroll

• > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 03:45 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

Question: should the Wikipedia:Mascot, even though a historical page, be included on the template somehow? What about, though a little less relevant to fauna, everyone's favorite anime, Wikipe-tan? • > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 04:34 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

For reference, some of the more recently-created WikiFauna-like pages include (alphabetically):

• WikiCapybara
• WikiImp
• WikiKnight

I don't think these should be in the template right now, but I would like to elicit discussion regarding them... • > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 03:49 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

I'm biased on this one.

I think this has potential because it is long, has userboxes already created, and is modeled after actual WikiArticles.

And Capybaras are really neat animals!

But, like I said at the start, I'm biased on this one, and I would really like to garner additional thoughts, comments, and ideas on the WikiCapybara.

• > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 04:17 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

The little amazon animal is nice but has a to complicated nature, I can´t understand it. I like the wikisloth and of course he could need some company but should we not keep to the fairy-tale? /Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are citations needed on project pages? Wormwood Appears (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the point... the WikiImp tags, and thus it got tagged. It was meant to be funny. (And actually, a little, succeeded.)

I think that this WikiFauna may have some potential. There ought to be a WikiFauna for one who literally goes around tagging articles (legitimately!) all the time. Sometimes I'll get a bit WikiImp-ish, especially after the "Random article" button lands me on the third straight stub! But, before adding this to the "official" WikiFauna list, it needs a lot of work and to {{Expand}} a lot! • > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 04:15 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

Perhaps the tagging was funny, but the WikiImp's tags, while (perhaps) annoying, are generally placed appropriately! Wormwood Appears (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And FWIW, I'll tag articles all the time - when they need it (and most on Wikipedia desperately do!!!) • > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 07:48 (UTC) 18 Mar '08

Great, as seen above these really exist. Like trolls and ogres, these are not epitets that the user himself will recognize maybe they should be named in a more positive way. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a userbox for WikiImps on my userspace and added it to the userbox galleries. I don't mind making them for any others that don't yet have a box but if other people fancy doing that then no problem. Just thought I'd give a friendly notice about what I've done. Also, thanks Wormwood Appears, for fixing my silly mistake on the WikImp page! Coldmachine^Talk 12:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a WikiImp on the Nintendogs Article Talk Page. I'll have a look to see if the Imp has the template and if the Imp hasn't then I'll recommend the template to the Imp. Wikiert (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Do WikiImps have an "eventualist" streak in them since they think somebody will fix their tags?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiKnights, species of none. WikiDragons may be a dying fauna with less than 30, but Knights are extinct. — Save_Us † 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start: I don't care for this one. That could be because of it's "opposite of the WikiDragon" theme. Seems overly confrontational and I think it comes off as flippant. Granted, the WikiDragon article used to a while ago also. Anyone else have views on it? • > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 04:11 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

Great and blends in among the other fairy-tale fauna. I especially like the "When other WikiVillagers run for cover the WikiKnight stands tall" but do they really behave as wikignomes in peace-time?/Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't much care for it, but that may be because I feel like I'm half-knight, half-dragon, and clearly not fighting myself. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's been virtually no comments on the removal or inclusion of the "new" WikiFauna, so here's a thought: What do we think about what this box would look like with the above three new additions included? Good idea? Bad idea? Please, desperate for comments and consensus and collaboration here...! • > VigilancePrime > • > • > • 03:35 (UTC) 20 Mar '08

To add this "Expanded Wikipedia Fauna" box to a "new fauna" page, use {{Template talk:Wikipedia fauna}}

Here we can add new and even self-serving "new" fauna while preserving the Classics in the template proper.

Try the following instead. - LA @ 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiKnight is nowhere near NPOV, as it is very POVed against the WikiDraogn! Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, the article sounds like WikiDragons are very very bad. I am going to tag it with {{TotallyDisputed}}. Sob sob! Nobody cares for our contributions now. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no userbox template for WikiKnight? The other Wikifauna have them, why not this one? Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidentally WikiKnights are not the coders of Wikipedia, only the defenders. Even though I am a WikiDragon, I will go make one. Perhaps it will strengthen the relationship between the knights and dragons. :) Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?

This user is a WikiKnight, valiantly protecting the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of calling it the WikiWraith. WikiWraiths are the Dark Lords of Wikipedia. Their natures are ephemeral, for they hide in plain sight. Their views are often extreme, intolerant or self-aggrandising, and they recognise that Wikipedia is the ideal platform through which to ensure that the world hears them and believes them to be true. However, unlike WikiTrolls or WikiKrakens, WikiWraiths are intimately familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and will often use them to their advantage, keeping their content just above the line of acceptability, splitting the opinions of admins and alienating from them those who stand in their way. This tactic of divide and conquer leads to them often gaining absolute control over wikipages, with all those innocent contributors that once freely flitted about its green hills now mere shadows under their will. Serendi^podous 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyers by any other name, wouldst still smell as foul? –xeno (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WikiSith. IHeartMath&#124Jason13579 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the addition of a new creature, the Wikivulture, which is an editor that circles about overhead waiting for new article postings, perhaps even watchlisting related pages. When it detects a new posting from afar (using unusually far-sighted, eagle-like vision), the Wikivulture swoops down hoping to snatch a paragraph here or there for a different article they hope to improve elsewhere, perhaps instead of looking something up offline and writing it up themselves. The Wikivulture contacts the original posting editor with a message to the effect that a particular portion of the new posting is really not relevant to the article it is in (or too biased towards the U.S.) and would be more appropriate if moved to a different location. The Wikivulture kindly offers to move and revise the text in question, and is presumably willing to sign that new posting him/herself. It is not necessary for the Wikivulture to know anything about the topic of the new or old article, because with a few deft keystrokes substituting new words for old, any paragraph can be made to appear like it fits in the new context (provided no expert readers stumble across the new posting). If the riginal posting editor agrees, the Wikivulture flaps off into the rocks with its select bit of roadkill, works it over, and posts it in the new location.

Any elaborations on this theme will be greatly appreciated. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good one. Solar Flute (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Wouldn't that be a WikiJaguar? Dog-poster 19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... –xeno^talk 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sure confuses me, but it's definitely not a WikiJaguar. It's a very odd persona that I'm not fully understanding from the description you've provided, and I can't think of any examples, either. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Zombies. Should the WikiZombie be added to this template? ~EdGl ★ 04:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WikiZombies would make a great addition. Perhaps there should be a counterclass as well: WikiButchers. Who battle WikiZombies by splitting articles. Proborc (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added WikiVampires as I've been bitten by such bloodsuckers and took away the life out of me, to a point that I couldn't edit any more. --TitanOne (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an idea could be a WikiSorcerer, a vandal who raises armies of sock puppets to fulfill their evil vandalism? Dogposter 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heh. arguably runs afoul of WP:DENY. –xeno^talk 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sock puppets or meat puppets? Both? I bet they're known for making pacts with trolls. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they could probably bend the will of others into meat puppets, but xeno might be right. Including an article might just encourage vandals. I'm not entirely sure though. Dogposter 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, but then again, WikiTrolls, WikiKrakens, and WikiGremlins run afoul of WP:DENY too, don't they? Dogposter 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, isn't WikiPuppetMasters a more appropriate term?--TitanOne (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I thought we were trying to keep as much as possible to "mythology/medieval" genre. Dogposter 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. IHeartMath&#124Jason13579 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the different WikiFauna, I found that the descriptions were a little limiting and thought to myself how many people would not fit the individual descriptions perfectly. For example, my editing habits partially resemble a WikiGnome and WikiOgre's but some of it doesn't fit at all (I don't do some things that WikiGnome's do and I've never made (nor plan to make) a bold and giant edit like a WikiOgre). I match the WikiOtter in that I like helping other users but I never get upset to the point of vandalizing a user page and stuff (though I won't hesitate to revert an edit and warn vandals). And then, there are some things that aren't mentioned at all like someone who generally observes and patrols certain articles but also likes exploring very often. So, I'm going to propose a new, everyman WikiFauna called a WikiGryphon that combines the different positive aspects of the different WikiFauna as well as add a few unique traits.

The WikiGryphon, or WikiGriff, is a mythical WikiBeast with the head, talons, wings of an eagle and the body of a lion. WikiGryphons usually spend their time collecting knowledge and hunting typos, vandals, and other annoying vermin near their aeries (i.e. favorite articles). But every so often, they get the urge to explore and will fly off visit articles in faraway lands. WikiGryphons are very noble and courteous and are surprisingly patient with newcomers, welcoming them if they've made a good edit and chiding them gently for making bad ones. However, they will not tolerate Vandals and WikiTrolls and won't hesitate to dive-bomb (warn) and drop reversion stones on them. In fact, WikiGryphons regularly hunt these creatures no matter where they are and frequently use them as an excuse to travel out of their aeries. Like WikiOtters, WikiGryphons are very friendly and love helping new users and are devoted to guiding them and setting them on the right track (if they aren't already). While WikiGryphons don't snap as easily as WikiOtters, they're definitely not pushovers as they can knock a bullying user to next week with a swipe of a talon. In general, WikiGryphons don't typically make giant edits like WikiDragons, but are more than happy to add whatever they know about the subject if they don't see it in their articles.

That's all I've got for now so please feel free to add to that. If I get the okay to do so, I will create an article for WikiGryphons.--Twilight Helryx (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've gotten approval from Xeno, and he was even nice enough to put a pretty Gryphon picture in. <3 Here's a link: Wikipedia:WikiGryphon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight Helryx (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found pages about Wikipedia:wikicyclops, and Wikipedia:wikiKing Solar flute (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they should be added to the template. Dogposter 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. Solar flute (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think we have enough, we have 32. Solar flute (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...but we are in an age where new species are constantly being discovered. If this gets much bigger, I'd say we obsolete the template or at least omit of the new world species from the template. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of the "new world" species are a little too rare to be notable. Personally, I think WikiPig (don't know how many people do nothing but hunt vandals) and WikiKing (haven't seen anyone really claiming ownership of articles; also runs afoul of WP:DENY) fit in that category.--Twilight Helryx 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also there seems to be 3 species specifically for fighting vandals: giant, pig, and goon. Solar flute (talk)

So, what should we do about those? The only one that's really well defined is the WikiGiant while I don't see a real difference in editing habits between WikiGoons and WikiPigs; they look like they do just about the same things. Does this mean that at least one of those will have to either be removed from the template or get deleted?--Twilight Helryx 21:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiSpider is a really scary animal that eats any vandal that enters its web. What do you think? 89.241.178.27 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like a honeypot owner? On Wikipedia? I didn't know there were honeypots on Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new categorization for consideration. Named after the fictional Gordon Gekko, inspired by his "I create nothing. I own." quote from Wall Street. For those users who largely exist within the confines of policy pages and perhaps article talk pages, but not so much in articles themselves. Obviously a bit of a pejorative, and should probably be confined to self-identification. But for better or for worse, I have devolved into one these days. :) Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about making a page like this, but I was going to call it Metators. I seem to spend all my time on WikiProjects and talk pages! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this what a WikiPrincess describes? Fences&Windows 15:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccessarily... I hardly ever socialise on Wikipedia, but I assess articles and that only appears on talk pages. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for great (funny) work!

But, shouldn't there be WikiDragons included in those classics? WikiDragons: Incredibly well written piece, giving good idea about full WikiEnvironment, "WikiFauna" and it even seems to me, that other wikispecies doesn't give full sence, without WikiDragons being present in the story somehow. And also, it seems, that originally they had been part of the canon (as per above). I suggest, they should be part of the classic again.

Are they missing, because they are too infrequent? Not well known type among folk?

What do you think? --Reo ⁺ 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert with the edit summerey "lol its called cross namespace for a reason"; the abbreviation for template-space is "T:", "WP:" is for Wikipedia-space. T:WIKIFAUNA is technically a CNR, but "T:" is a Pseudo-namespace, so why it that a reason to remove it from the shortcut box? Besides, WP:WIKIFAUNA is also a CNR (Wikipedia-space to template-space). And what was the point of the "lol", that seamed rather condescending.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bpage (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks things such as "WikiGoblin", "WikiWitch", "WikiWarlock", "WikiHobbit", and "WikiBogeyman" should be moved from the modern section into the medieval section? --LichWizard (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just realized that it is in regards to when said WikiFauna was created. My apologies. --LichWizard (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect T:WIKIFAUNA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § T:WIKIFAUNA until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]