Forum:New category: Models

Hey, I want to ask for your opinion regarding new categories called "models". Many articles on wowpedia are kind of made up names for a model blizzard used. Creatures like Doctor Sabnok have "Mad scientist" as their race tag. Roar is apperenty a "Tigon" with no lore relation that cames with that name. I think many people want to make a article for each model, so why not simply make a category like "Category: Tigon models" or "Category:Uldum watcher model"? Discussions in articles like Bone giant wouldn't be necessary anymore. It would be like the old wowheads "same model as" option it used to have. I am not a native english speaker - I hope my request was nevertheless made clear :-)--LemonBaby (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Model names are usually only used when we don't have a regular name, and pages based on models are rare and used enough as it is.-- 21:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats my point. There are several pages only dedicated to the model Blizzard provides: Otters contains severeal species that are not otters at all. Demonhunter is a page with a list of NPCs that uses a model called "Demonhunter". There is a model called "mad scientists" so a page was made up with this name and no lore connection between the NPCs other than the model. Or the Tigon page. And there are plenty more model pages. We already have the "Category:Unique model". Why not simply make a Category called "Category:Demonhunter model" and we can finaly get rid of this stupid page. There is already a section on the Warp stalker page with other NPCs using that model. With a "Category:Warp stalker model" we could get rid of that section.--LemonBaby (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of getting rid of them even without the categories, but maybe that's just me. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be the best solution in my opinion too. However apparently there is a great need from this community to make a page whenever Blizzard makes a new model. Thats how things like "Void gods" (who is also just a model page btw) came into existence. So making a Model Category for this cases might be a compromise. It would get rid of the pages who are nothing more than a list of things using that model and at the same time preserve the peoples need to add every model with every NPC using it. --LemonBaby (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But why do you have something against this; why shouldn't we make these articles for creatures that doesn't have a lore-established name for them? Personally I'd like to see creatures categorized, even if there has to be a made-up article for them. For example not all creatures that has the otter model are actually otters, but making individual civet and mongoose pages for those "races" would be kind of pointless (in my opinion) as there would be next-to-no content to it (I'll continue this discussion on the talk page). -- 12:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I love making articles for creatures - even if we don't have a name for them. Like the Pumpkin soldiers or the Fungal monster. There is no established name for them, so we make on until a official source names them. However I am against making up creatures just because there is a new model out there. Like the Void gods, Demonhunters, Mad scientists (they are actually listed in the race tag of NPCs!) or the Tigons. And I do have a point considering that pages like "Void gods" or the page formerly named "Dark naruu" got merged. But just to be clear: This is a well meant suggestion, not a demand. With a category like "NPCs using the Tigon model" or something like that we could preserve the peoples need to list models and at the same time remove the pages that are in fact just lists of NPCs using that model. It would be like the wowheads (sadly removed) "same model as"-function it had once.--LemonBaby (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)