Talk:Beast

Removing the critters
Critters get their own section on the creature template, which is why I (tried to) remove them. Should we fully integrate the critter list, or remove the critters from this one? Ijffdrie (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The critters that I've kept are there for a reason, because some of the mobs of the "race" are classified as beasts. Doomer007 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah, okay. Thanks for that Ijffdrie (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sub-species
Are the sub-species really necessary? --D oo meЯ  T C  13:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In most cases yeah it's necessary :S, but i think things like cubs, mounts and diseased bears shouldn't be.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mounts like the golden king and chargers specificaly, not the celestial steed or winged guardian--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the other ones probably shouldn't be there either. The scorpion one is just a link to Madexx, who is not the only being called a scorpion (who usually just use the scorpid model, which is why we have both species in one article), nor is he the only one using his model. And I'm fairly certain some of the other added creatures only appear as critters, who have their own section. Also, I'm not sure whether the nether ray should be in the flying creatures tab or in the spore creatures tab, since he bears a striking resemblance to the spore bat. Plus we don't have any confirmation whether the nian or wolpertinger are inherently magical. Maybe make an other-other category with just the nether ray, the nian and the wolpertinger. Maybe the warp stalker too, since otherwise he would be the only one on the magical creatures list without a body composed of magic energy. Ijffdrie (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Scorpion i have to think about it, and magical doesn't imply that it's solely made of magic, but also that it has magical abilities--Ashbear160 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but roughly half the list has magical abilities. We have two-headed monstrosities who spit acid, animated stone cats, mind-controlling squids, flying lightning-spewing serpents and a god. Warp stalkers and seen-when-drunk rabbits are no more magical than any of those.--Ijffdrie (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah but contrary to the others they can't be fit into any of the other categories.--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is why I think we still need an other->other category, for the ones that don't fit the other other niches.--Ijffdrie (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok Fine!--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Scorpid and Scorpion
Currently the scorpion article makes no mention of actual scorpions with the beast designation, which are all listed under scorpid. The problem is that the creatures listed with the name scorpion use two different models, the cataclysm armored scorpid model in the case of the Fire scorpions, and the normal scorpid model for the critters. Because of this, its unclear whether any of the other creatures listed under scorpid that don't have scorpid or scorpion in their name are scorpid or scorpion. In addition, its unknown whether scorpids are a subspecies of scorpions, another name for scorpions, a super-species of scorpion or not closely related to scorpions at all. Some options:
 * A) Merge the scorpid and scorpion articles/make the scorpion article solely about the warcraft I unit. It could be incorrect lorewise, but keeps it nice and simple.
 * B) Have scorpions and scorpids as seperate articles (so not sub or super species) listed under arachnid, list all creatures with scorpion in their name on the scorpion page and put the deep lashers and such on either page.

--Ijffdrie (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Scorpid is obviously the more important page. It is the pet family, and the more common creature. Models aside, I would say it would be best to say everything called a scorpion is a scorpion, while ambiguous things are scorpids. I split the creature type and the critter, and added a list. It may be pragmatic to leave the redundancy on the scorpid page, as they may be the same to most people.-- 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Related Items
I've been cleaning, updating and expanding the beast pages recently. In the process of the expanding part, I also started adding items related to its creature species. In practice, many of these items were probably not all that relevant to the creature in question, and a fair few of the sections have since been removed. However, I think at least some items should still be mentioned, most notably the armor sets, which may be useful to roleplayers. So, three possibilities to discuss.
 * A) Keep all items that mention the creature name. Probably very redundant, especially when it comes to, say, the spider.
 * B) Only keeping a few of the items, like armor sets and associated cooking recipes. This is my favorite option.
 * C) The pages are about the animals and just the animals. Throw out all the related items.

Anyone have something to say on the subject? --Ijffdrie (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer creature articles to just be about the creatures. Blizzard names and models many items after all the creatures that appear in WoW, unless they're important items, they really aren't note worthy. 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However i would would put cooking recipes in them, after all cooking recipes are Lore.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cooking information only is the way to go. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 22:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go and do that. Also, you guys have any comment on the dinosaur thing above?--Ijffdrie (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ravens and Crows

 * A) In real life, ravens refers to a small group of the animals commonly refered to as crows. Does this mean that we should put ravens as a subspecies of crow, merge it with crow or keep it as it is now?--Ijffdrie (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge It--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ungulates and Bovids

 * B) While canine and cat are relatively well-known terms, bovid and ungulates are not. In addition, when people are looking for something, they are likely not going to know whether or not its a bovid. In addition, I don't think the terms were ever used in warcraft lore. So I propose this:
 * 1) Rename ungulates hoofed animals
 * 2) drop the bovid category and just merge them into hoofed animals

--Ijffdrie (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Hoofed animals is too simplistic, i thinks it's best if we got either a common term or a scientific one.
 * Although dropping the bovid category in this page, seems to be the best solution.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing the dinosaur category?
As far as I know, the term dinosaurs was only used in the now non-canon RPG. Since the RPG is now non-canon and the dinosaur category does not fit the real life definition of dinosaur (which would not include the treshadon or the pterrordax, but would include the raptor and Stegodon), I think it would be fitting to just put the dinosaurs in with the rest of the reptile category. Any objections? --Ijffdrie (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm You're right. But i'll ask you this: Can we find a alternative that includes all 5 plus raptors? I preferred if they stayed in one place.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 plus raptors? Do you mean the subspecies, which are mentioned on the raptor page?--Ijffdrie (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is the term Dinosaur a RPG only term... Dinosaur Bone, Enormous Dinosaur Talon (The Fossil-Finder 3000), Fresh Dinosaur Meat. Just because the RPGs are now considered "non-canon", doesn't mean every term and creature description is throw out the window. 18:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, should have wowheadded it. Still, I would cast doubt whether the Treshadon belongs to the dinosaurs, as it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the rest, doesn't drop something with dino in the name and lives outside of Sholazar Basin.--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Condors and Arctic Condors
All Condor mobs now appear to use the same model and the term Arctic condor was used only because it was taken from the model files. I'mma go merge them if no one has any objections.--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Them, also remember to correct the links--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove Carrion Birds or add Birds of Prey?
We currently have all the carrion bird species as subspecies of Carrion birds, but we have all the birds of prey listed seperately (plus, we have the rocs listed as carrion birds when they're somehow both carrion birds and birds of prey). So, I've got four possibilities all lined up for your convenience:
 * 1) Remove the carrion bird category from the list, and just put all the birds in birds.
 * 2) Put all the birds of prey in one category and list roc in both carrion bird and bird of prey
 * 3) Do it by model. Put all carrion birds except the condor in the same category. List rocs as a subspecies of owls and eagles.
 * 4) Keep it as it is.

--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the best is 1--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Crabs and Sand crabs
Currently, crabs and sand crabs are listed as separate species because they use separate models. Several sand crabs (like crushclaw and the infectis scuttler) have been seen outside of the deep seas, so its not like they are a notably isolated group either. In the cases of the roc, scorpid and scorpions, we have different models belonging to a single species already, so there is a precedent. In a final addition, the crab article mentions several notable sand crabs and crab species. I propose we simply merge the pages and put crabs in the other category (since otherwise crustaceans would only have one creature).--Ijffdrie (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List necessary?
I thought about it and i have to ask is the list truly necessary? We already have a template that works that has same information(minus icons) below...--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally quite like having such a list. Plus, you can't open the template with the beast tab open in its own page, as far as I know, so we need some page for people who browse "beast" to find. On a related note, how do you edit the beast tab of the template?--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the list.-- 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Plus, you can't open the template with the beast tab open in its own page, as far as I know, so we need some page for people who browse "beast" to find." - What do you mean?
 * Here Template:Creaturefooter/Beast. All the other parts of the template is linked in the discussion Page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Footer templates are navigation shortcuts. They are not substitutes for pages. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why i asked, it's just because it feels redundant to have the same information repeated twice--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dark T Zeratul's reasoning is my own. The footer navigation templates are not to replace pages.-- 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just asking, because i wanna know someone else opinion--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We are keeping the list, as Sandwichman2448 and Dark T Zeratul has also said. -- 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And i didn't say anything about not keeping it after what Dark said.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm making the point clear unless you missed that. You tend to miss the point at times (or choose to ignore it later on). -- 06:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)