Template talk:Robot navbox

From PathfinderWiki

Naming convention

Any reason for the parentheses around the word robot for some of the robots in this template? That seems like a complication and an inconsistency to me, and one a searcher is unlikely to type in. I noticed they were added afterwards so a thought had occurred re this so I shan't delete now. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me how we refer to them, whether it's (for example) Arachnid or Arachnid robot or Arachnid (robot). There's nothing in Project:Naming conventions about dealing with consistently named subtypes. I'd personally avoid Arachnid as it's ambiguous unless the robot has a distinct name (like Thought harvester or Gearsman); there's more precedent for Arachnid robot among creatures and more for Arachnid (robot) among disambiguating common words that have other meanings. I brought up a similar question regarding goblin tribes on the Naming Conventions talk page. --Oznogon (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. Looking at the source material 'name robot' and 'name' seem to be the most commonly used ways to describe a robot. Thus I propose we use 'name robot' or 'name' as per the text in the relevant bestiary as the standard in this template and for pages on the wiki. Where both are used we'll favour 'name robot' for avoiding duplicates or ambiguity. We can use redirects for alternative names or to avoid confusion where needed. --Fleanetha (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed item

Per the canon policy, I'm differentiating between repair drone and repair robot because we assume no conflicts by default, and they appear to be described significantly differently (behavior, number of limbs, abilities). Fires of Creation is also a higher-tier source than Construct Handbook.

Regardless, HTD, we should avoid deleting articles from navboxes without any discussion whatsoever unless there is a clear error, and even so that action should ideally be explained on the Talk page. -Oznogon (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, my mistake. I just thought that they were similar enough that one could be considered to be a variant of the other without the need of different articles. - HTD (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)