Talk:Winged arakkoa

Merge with the main Arakkoa article.
There's no need to separate this article. They're the same race. ReignTG (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Losing the ability to fly seems to me to be a major mutation.-- 21:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to have happened to the entire race at once, though, and since their name didn't change... -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It doesn't seem to be a change like Draenei->Broken where it was a small percentage. ReignTG (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, now it does seem that way.-- 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Name change
I think Beta revealed a more proper name of the Arakkoa living above the Spires' canopy: High Arakkoa (http://i.imgur.com/HAzvOP9.jpg). Should the article's name be changed to High Arakkoa, while the terms "flying arakkoa" and "winged arakkoa" are turned into redirects? Cemotucu (talk contribs) 16:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say yes; "winged" and "flying" are pretty clearly being used as adjectives rather than an actual racial name. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say a single usage in an Archaeology item isn't necessarily reflective of naming trends for the rest of the game. The usage may be eccentric, or may be referring to a more specific group within the winged arakkoa. That said, it is a better name, and that may be good enough for now. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By that same token, as far as I can tell the game just calls the "arakkoa"; the "flying" and "winged" descriptors are used solely on the promotional pages, and seemingly just to differentiate them from the non-flying, cursed arakkoa from Outland. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say change it to Adherents of Rukhmar, personally. ReignTG (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are rare winged arakkoa who are not a part of that faction. That was enough to split Mag'har.-- 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A good point. There does then need to be a distinction between the physical difference and any cultural splits. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The item refers to the civilization, not a single group (like the Adherents, or the Awakened). I think we should move the article, and have a subsection with High Arakkoan factions. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 22:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The name "high arakkoa" is used in the quest The False Talon King (http://i.imgur.com/45yzVjr.jpg). I'll proceed to move the article in half an hour, If nothing argues against. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 21:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I myself would rather see this article merged into the arakkoa article. They are the same race after all, even if some are cursed to live without the ability to fly. 22:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a possibility. However, the uncursed arakkoa have become extinct: the only arakkoa left are the cursed ones. How could a single race page depict them all, when they have varied to much? Cemotucu (talk contribs) 23:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With the advent of the Order of the Awakened, changing this page to Adherents of Rukhmar doesn't work. However, I'd still change it to high arakkoa. They're consistently called that throughout the game. ReignTG (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thoughts of merging notwithstanding, it might be worth mentioning that all the sound files on Wowhead use the term High Arakkoa, as in "Mon_WOD_HighArakkoa_Attack". If these names are taken from the actual game data, that's another thing in favour of the term. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Historically, I have to agree with Coobra. This is the original and true form of the race. Having a separate page for high arakkoa is like having an un-broken draenei page, and keeping broken on draenei. Obviously, their history, biology and culture are all either identical or very, very similar, and their origins are one and the same. The only question is, do we have a good reason to keep them separate? -- Taohinton (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't see a need for a separate article either. The arakkoa article, and the new Adherents of Rukhmar and Order of the Awakened articles, already cover everything here. It's kind of redundant. ReignTG (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right. I believe that the "High Arakkoa" page should be used to denote the civilization/culture, while listing the factions within it, as the "Apexis" page. Esentially, it is difficult because despite the race's mutation, they didn't adopt a new name: they still called themselves as arakkoa. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 12:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, unless someone has a point to raise in opposition, I therefore propose merging the articles.
 * I'm not sure whether we need a high arakkoa page. As it currently reads, the name of the next civilisation was the Adherents of Rukhmar, which again has its own page. Not sure we need one for the overlap between them and the Order? -- Taohinton (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Adherents are not the civilization. The name is "High Arakkoan civilization", and then you have Adherents of Rukhmar and the Order. Cemotucu (talk contribs) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. In that case a high arakkoa page makes sense, and that section on arakkoa also needs to be changed. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the main arakkoa article actually has an extremely well-written history, while this page is... Well, pretty bad. I've gone ahead and "merged" the articles, by which I mean I've turned this one into a redirect since it doesn't contain anything the other page lacks. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)