Forum:Model articles

Was there a conversation about what has been done with several articles either moved or created with the "model" name?

Banshee, for example, states 'The first banshees were former elf women who had been returned to a horrible, spectral existence. More recently, they have arisen from females from other races and a few rare men.' So if it's using a banshee model it is likely a banshee and Banshee model is not needed.

Category:NPCs using the Mad scientist model seems pointless, since every NPC that's in the category was in the Category:Mad scientists.

Bone spider and Bone spider model is practically identical. All this just seems to be overly complicating things. 03:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems mostly useless...--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That bit in the banshee article is cited as being from Manual of Monsters, which was deemed not canon. Not everything that uses a race's model is of that race, and that can be noted when it is is clear or explicit, but this adds needless complexity to classifying things, and adds a bunch of short pages that no one will care about. I do not hate or have any problems with LemonBaby, except in this case, and even then I only disagree slightly.-- 04:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all Coobra: I don't know why you changed Zar'jira back to beeing a banshee, because she isn't. She is a naga. Next, Ashbear160: What was the point of the Demonhunter page? There are/were five NPCs using that model in-game with no lore-connection at all. It was not a page about a race, it was a page about NPCs using that model. The warp stalkers have a similar problem: Several non-warp stalkers like lizards are using that model. So I moved the lizards from the walk stalker page to Warp stalker model. About the mad scientists: Several NPCs had the model name in der race tag - which is so wrong in many ways. Their race is forsaken or scourge. And their profession is mostly Apothecary. And the name "mad scientist" doesn't appear anywhere in-game as far as I know. It is a model given to several non-lore connected NPCs to give them a special look. Adding it as a occupation or even as a race with no lore behind it is the most useless thing you could do with that model. And Sandwichman: Do you have personal problems with my work here the past 8 years?--LemonBaby (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with you whole-heartedly on the Demonhunters and ESPECIALLY the Mad Scientists. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should not be the race changed to undead instead of Scourge and Forsaken? Scourge and Forsaken are organisations of undead race. And as for Zar'jira... she is a naga... or ghost naga or whatever but not a banshee just because of during the reign of chaos there were no naga models.--Mordecay (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dark T Zeratul. I have no problem with reversing the edits of pages like bone spiders and banshees. But lore-wise, many pages are still a mess.... And yes, Mordecay, I think you are right.--LemonBaby (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well i'll try to answer:
 * Zar'jira could be a Naga and a Banshee, as far as I know there isn't anything saying that she wasn't already dead when she first appeared.
 * Changing Demonhunter to Demonhunter Model seems just a bit redudant, either way a not would be more pointing those divergences would be more appropriate than renaming a article attempting to answer it's lore rather than deciding it's just a gameplay mechanic.
 * Then you should make that remark in the Lizards page(like it was done in other cases), not make a new page that's eventually going to be lost.
 * Well I don't like the usage of Mad Scientist as a "race" but it's definitely a class(just not a playable one) and should be treated as such
 * I could continue this discussion further. The biggest problem with this page is that it's redundant, and eventually nobody is going to bother updating them.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the mad scientist should not be used as a race, but it was fine as a category. Renaming the category to Category:NPCs using the Mad scientist model just seems pointless and excessive. And Mordecay makes a good point, technically Forsaken and Scourge should not be used as the race name either, but it makes it easier in the end to do it that way.
 * Obvious lizards should also be marked as lizards and not warpstalkers
 * As for Zar'jira, I only undid your edit, cause you had changed her category from banshee to NPCs that use the banshee model. Well, she doesn't use the banshee model, she uses a ghostly naga sea witch one. Whether she is/was a banshee could be determined later. Ultimately, doing it this way opens a doorway I don't think any of us want opened... and that is having model articles created for every model that has been created for WoW. 03:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep such a category is a bit useless.
 * That's a good point. Forsaken and Scourge are allegiances not races... or maybe they are if we count cultural context into races?
 * Yep no need to create such a useless article.
 * In that case it shouldn't be a banshee... unless that model was used by Banshees in whatever game she appeared.
 * Precisely, and any model contradictions are simply not listed in the species article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the Mad scientist, demonhunter and tigon models are not applied to several NPCs because of its lore. I think they were applied because of aesthetic reasons. Summerizing all NPCs using that model, put a 'bettername'-tag to that page and pretend there is a hidden lore-connection between Roar and High Priestess Arlokk is pathetic and does in fact create useless articles in my opinion. Worst of all are Categorys of pages like Unbound elemental, which is a list of NPCs using that model. The Unbound Fire Elemental doesn't use the model, so he is not in the list. Jainas recently added Bound Water Elemental doesn't use the 'Bound Elemental' model, so I bet it won't end up in the category. This page is already a non-lore article covering a model-related list. Less misleading would be renaming the page to either 'Unbound Elemental model' or 'Cataclysm elementals'(or whatever). We already have tons of model pages - why not mark them as such and stop pretending like they are not? I don't want a page for each model, but a page for each model applied to different races/creatures would be nice. What about a hunter who wants a bone spider but doesn't know the model is also found in pandaria because the page doesn't cover them? How about a pet collecter who wants the warp stalker but doesn't know it is found under the lizard page? Introduding a model-tag would be a great improvent to wowpedia. One of the biggest categorys we have is 'Category:Humans' and keeping it updated isn't that hard. It is easy. Wowhead had it once and it is gone. Do you realy think this feature would be useless and that nobody wants it? This will be my closing argument and if I still don't have any supporters I'll give up.--LemonBaby (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mad Scientist can be treated like a class. Demonhunter we only have the context transformation wise, it doesn't mean there isn't lore behind it. Same with Tigon which have lore reason to exist (because all the other high priests have these types of transformations) except for roar which is the only one that seems aesthetic.
 * The Unbound elemental and Bound elemental page doesn't list all the mobs. It only lists named mobs... actually check the page before you criticise it.
 * See with the Bone spiders you're assuming that they're not bone spider without the appropriate context.
 * A pet collector would find it in the companion page and would not be hunting for models...
 * Because it's ultimately useless given that other pages could be changed to reflect that, everyone will eventually forget to update these pages and it's huge burden to constantly update. I'm sorry but that's what it is.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the Mad Scientists... their race is Scourge / Forsaken (undead). It would be little bit odd to have undead (undead) so dunno... keep it as it is or change to undead (humanoid)? --Mordecay (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I argued years ago against using "Forsaken" or "Scourge" as the race name. Far too late to talk about changing that, though. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, the thing Scourge / Forsaken race is problem for many Forsaken heroes too, not only the mad scientists... How did the argument from years ago ended? Coz this race assignment is incorrect and I could start editing those articles but I need to know the opinions of others.--Mordecay (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Forsaken is the race, regardless of what they were in life. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the race is undead. Forsaken is a name of an organisation of undead.--Mordecay (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not gonna get into this again; for the purposes of this wiki, Forsaken is a race. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I deleted or moved the articles back to their original names (removed model) and deleted the model categories. Now I'm fine with the articles like tigon for example just referring to it as a model with no real lore connection, so long as model isn't in the name of the article. It's nice to be able to track certain new models with their own article, but I suppose we'll be more careful with their creation and try to avoid unique categories for them. For example bone spider should not get its own category and should just continue to use spiders are the category. 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)