Talk:Treant

I was thinking about adding trivia that oakhearts mash animals they encounter and use them to fertilize their young. Not sure if it belongs on the page though. Eive 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

... What? --Odal talk 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it either... ge4ce 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What don't you get? It's a fact. Should I add it to the page, or not. I think I should, because we rarely have the chance to add trivial notes like this to a creatures page, so this would be one of those rare chances. (Got it from Ghosts of Ascalon) Eive 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you were trolling to be honest. I wouldn't add it to the page though, maybe under Notes. See what other sthink first though. --Odal talk 18:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say notes.... Notes are generally for game relevant info, trivia is well, trivial. Eive 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I say go ahead for a trivia note Venom20 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would actually keep it a part of the main page space. Look at the Fleshreaver page. Its info relevant to the race, trivia I think should be for things like if its referencing something or other stuff like that.--Corsair@Yarrr 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Lore should go at the top, not in notes or trivia. Trivia is for references and notes is for... notes regarding the topic - though usually game mechanically related in some way. -- Konig/talk 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up then. :) Eive 01:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Always bring your axe ;3 --The Holy Dragons 12:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Use this for its image?

Concept art would look so much nicer for the top right image, so should we use this instead? 173.190.30.90 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both being featured here would be good, but a render (or screenshot) as the primary image just makes sense. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that concept art looks nicer, for articles, in-game renderings take top priority of being on pages - then screenshots if there are no renders, then concept art. Of course, concept art takes priority when there is a render/screenshot already (unless the screenshot is of something unique - i.e., a special animation) for when there's enough text that there becomes a lack of images feel. At the moment, there's not enough text for reasoning the use of the concept art - this was an issue over at grawl, as both a screenshot and a concept art were wanted to be used, but there wasn't enough text. -- Konig/talk 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Render isn't as clear as the concept art. Render shows two images of Oakhearts. I prefer the concept art that only shows one Oakheart and that it's a better view of an Oakheart. I'd rather use the concept art, until we get a better render. Ariyen 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Kyoshi in regards to a render or a screenshot being better than concept art in general, I will agree with Ariyen on this matter. The current render does not portray, IMO, the Oakheart like this concept art being presented does. The article may be able to benefit from both until either a better render or a screenshot is available. Venom20 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Both would create too much white space. To me, it doesn't matter which is used, what I said above is just the typical advance on this issue. -- Konig/talk 03:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)