Template talk:Matoran

From BIONICLEsector01

A suggestion

Since the Toa template is tabbed for different forms, including Matoran form, could/should we add a similar feature on this template for Metru Nui Matoran? It could have tabs for their Metru Nui, diminished, and Rebuilt forms? (We have at least two of these for many known Matoran, and even all three for some.) LockmanCapulet Crusty relics! 04:51, 5 March 2014 (CET)

Huh... that's a good idea. -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 05:12, 5 March 2014 (CET)
Something like that might work, but there are some potential problems. If we decided Matoran portrayed in Metru, diminished, and rebuilt forms should have 3 tabs, then one could argue that all Metru/Mata Matoran should have 3 tabs, one for each form (with Noimage.png as needed), since that's what we do with Toa. Even Mahri and Voya Matoran would need two tabs in that case (pre- and post-Karzahni). That would also cause problems with characters like Kongu, who has been portrayed in Metru, diminished, rebuilt, Inika, and Mahri forms, totaling 5 tabs. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2014 (CET)
Maybe we could use nested tabs, like we do with Tahu's two Adaptive Armor forms? And I don't think we'd need tabs for Mahri Matoran, since I don't think we've ever seen any of their diminished forms. LockmanCapulet Crusty relics! 14:49, 5 March 2014 (CET)
Hmm, good point.... I've gone ahead and added tabs into the Matoran template and set tabs up on the Kapura page; if you think it looks good I can go ahead and add it to the other pages as well. It won't be quite so easy for Template:Toa because I'll have to modify the tab JS to handle subtabs within the first tab (currently only tab 3 can handle subtabs) but there's no reason it wouldn't be doable. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2014 (CET)
That looks great! Go for it. LockmanCapulet Crusty relics! 14:42, 6 March 2014 (CET)
Alright. Does the Aft page look okay? We know very little about the MNOLG2 Matoran, so I want to make sure the 3-tab format is still okay for them even though most of the fields are either blank or unknown.... -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2014 (CET)
Yeah, looks good. At least we have an image. *coughZariaetceteracough* LockmanCapulet Crusty relics! 03:25, 7 March 2014 (CET)

Too Many Tabs!

I appreciate the inclusion of separate tabs for each form of, say, Onepu, but this multi-template thing is quite an eyesore on Matoran such as Reysa and Defilak. If I might make a suggestion, perhaps we should only use separate tabs for Matoran forms on which we have information? For example, Dekar would have just the one tab, as would Dezalk; however, Kapura would have all three that he does now (since we know info about his Metru Nui form, even if we don't have a picture). This would clear up a lot of clutter and avoid having three separate "No image" blanks for pages like Kyrehx. --Angel Bob (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2014 (CEST)

I like this idea. Intelligence4 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (CEST)
I was originally hesitant to do this because it'd require changing some Toa infoboxes as well, but now I'm thinking this is the best way to go. However, we should probably let Dorek weigh in (if I recall he was one of the original proponents of this but it's good to double-check) and come up with some guidelines for how we handle pages like Krakua (two tabs as it is currently or just one?) before getting started. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2014 (CEST)
Well, I would let Krakua stand as he is. There's a much larger difference between a De-Matoran and a Toa than there is between an "original" Matoran and a "reverted" Matoran, and in any case, story material has depicted Krakua in both forms anyway. Similarly, Gaardus should stay the same, since his Matoran form was really different from his current form. (Phantom and Subterranean follow along the same lines.) I don't mean "do away with all alternate tabs that don't have images", I mean do away with all the alternate tabs such as "rebuilt", "reverted", etc. when we don't have information for them. I don't see the benefit of having five lines of "Unknown" for Aodhan's "Tohunga" form over just not including it, ya know? --Angel Bob (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2014 (CEST)
For cases like Aodhan, i would advocate just having two forms, his "metru" form, and his "mata" form, or possibly just one tab on the infobox, since there isn't really any info on the previous ones. at this point, i think we should leave the toa alone though, and of course, if we have an image for a previous matoran form, there should be a tab for it, even if there's no info to go with it. Intelligence4 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2014 (CEST)
Yes, I agree completely. Now we just need Dorek's opinion, I suppose. --Angel Bob (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (CEST)

I was mostly waiting to see how people responded, since I don't much mind one way or the other.

In particular, I'm okay with Karzahni basically being the ONLY exception to an otherwise "no need for pit mutagen forms" rule. My general rule of thumb is that if you haven't seen a particular form, there's not much point in noting it, unless it is in and of itself noteworthy (i.e. Matoran to Toa). Whatever the general consensus is for condensing the tabs is fine with me. -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 08:35, 27 April 2014 (CEST)