Lore talk:Bestiary

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

What Belongs in The Bestiary?[edit]

The wide variety of creatures has caused many problems with determining what belongs in the bestiary. This overview serves to explain both what should and what shouldn't be found in the bestiary, some of the more grey areas on what should belong, and why we include or exclude it.

Any creature, with a few exceptions for named creatures such as the gods Vivec and Sheogorath belong here. Besides this reason no creature should be left out, whether robotic, undead, or even sentient, it belongs here unless it meets the above standards. Non-player characters, while they may be humanoid belong here if you can not play as one. Certain creatures such as the orc are grandfather-claused into the bestiary as they were not a playable race until TES III: Morrowind. Werewolves and vampires are included because both are diseases that creates a new creature from the body of another. This means while a werewolf may have been an Altmer, it is now considered to be a werewolf, and therefore a monster. (moved here from main page by GK, 21:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

I do wonder about some of these creatures though. Frost and Ice atronach's appear to be the same creatures. Mad men are just that; mad people. All the different goblins are probably the same race, but with different occupations. Maybe we could merge some of these and put their varieties in their description? — Unsigned comment by 85.191.86.135 (talk) at 11:42 on 7 August 2011 (GMT)
I agree that the goblins should be merged, and the mad men simply don't belong. The difficulty with the atronachs is that the term has changed considerably throughout the games. In Arena and Daggerfall, the atronachs and golems were manmade creatures. In Morrowind and Oblivion, the previous elemental Daedra were renamed to atronachs, and the golem idea was abandoned.
I think that this sort of problem could be fixed by making larger "main" articles for a specific type of creature (i.e. Lore:Goblin), which could document all the different classes and images from different games, rather than the most recent. Then the bestiary would function similarly to the "places" and "people" lists; all creatures would have a brief section, but the major creatures would have a separate article as well. --Legoless 12:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Creatures that should be cross-referenced or merged?[edit]

Expanding on the idea posted above about 'main' entries for creatures, I propose that while specific species should still be listed and pictured, they should redirect to a more general entry. As it stands, including so many subspecies and ranks of creatures makes the bestiary quite repetitive and difficult to use. If all subspecies were to be gathered under a general entry, anyone searching for a specific creature would get redirected to that entry and get the right information regardless of where it's contained. We'd sacrifice perfect alphabetical order for each creature, but I think it'd look better and be far more functional. Here's a few I think should be merged:

  • Entries for individual horse species to go under 'horse'.
  • Ancestor ghosts, faded wraiths, gloom wraiths, ancestor guardians, etc. to go under 'ghost'.
  • Giant rat should be merged with 'rat'.
  • All ash creatures to be listed under an entry for 'ash creatures'.
  • All goblins and their ranks to go under an entry for 'goblin'.
  • Bonewolf and skinned wolves to be merged under either title.
  • Each bear type to go under an entry for 'bear'.
  • Seducer, dark seducer, daedra seducer to go under an entry for 'seducer'.
  • The multitude of types of skeleton to go under an entry for 'Skeleton'.

If anyone dislikes the idea, I'll try making it in a sandbox and link it here for everyone to see how it would practically work. Thoughts on this? --Admos 18:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm alright with some of those merges.
  • Horse all under the title 'Horse' and then listed seperately.
  • Rats can be done as well.
  • Goblins, yep. Or even a goblin page because of the number and variaties? If it doesn't already exist?
  • Wolves under 'Wolf'?
  • Skeletons same situation as goblins?
I think others could probably be left? --KizC ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This is mostly a good idea. A new Lore Project is currently being set up, and it's probably a good idea to do this as part of that. rpeh •TCE 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Putting the beginnings of this idea here for now. Anyone who wishes to contribute or update please feel free. --Admos 20:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've reconsidered my previous stance on this issue, and I now think the bestiary is actually good the way it is currently: in a list format. See Lore:Kwama, my attempt at writing a proper article for a certain "group" of creatures. This sort of system would work a lot better than what is being proposed. Each type of creature could have an entry here, but a full article complete with references, a gallery and minute details could be linked to "for more information". Order (preferably alphabetical) is essential for lists like this, and having giant entries for each "type" would make a list extremely redundant. Might as well make a Lore:Undead article than make a skit of it in a small section by itself on Lore:Bestiary U. --Legoless 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
So you'd prefer to keep the bestiary as a list and then have separate articles for broader species, rather than have a bestiary with grouped entries? I'm fine with either way, as long as there are pages there that make these sorts of connections. I find it interesting to see how certain species appear in different games. It does raise a question for me, though. Would articles which reference Kwama (for example) use Lore:Kwama or the Lore:Bestiary K entry? Right now, the bestiary nor the Morrowind:Kwama article links to your page, making it seem a little disconnected from the rest of the Wiki. If we do it your way there should definitely be links to the bigger articles in each entry of the bestiary. --Admos 21:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'll add that the bestiary changes I put forward will be more specific than undead, or animals. I'd only be grouping tangible connections between species and subspecies (i.e. Goblin and Goblin Warlord, Wraith and Faded Wraith), and each of these articles would still have their own entries that people would be referred to upon searching. Check my page to see what I have in mind, and what it might look like. --Admos 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The groups in your sandbox look good, but I still think articles would have to be pretty broad in scope but divided into smaller sections, e.g., Lore:Undead#Spectral Undead, as there wouldn't really be enough information to write an entire lore article on skeletons. The Kwama page is effectively orphaned at the moment, but when the articles have all been set up, each entity entry on the bestiary would link to its relevant section on one of the lore articles for more info. --Legoless 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

() When I originally gave a face lift it was suggested that the bestiary be organized in such a way that was similar to what you suggested. I decided this was a bad idea because no matter what you did, your own personal opinion on this subject may cloud the way you list them. To point out an example, you suggested merging the Lore:Lamia and Medusa entries, despite the fact that it was never proven that they were truly related. People would end up complaining how we listed things due to situations where creatures can't easily be lumped into a category with another creature (The golems from Arena for example). For example, the Dwemer Ghosts from Morrowind could both be categorized under a hypothetical section for both the Dwemer and ghosts. If two editors were to argue over where the Dwemer Ghost belonged on the list, there would be no clear resolution. Due we allow them to be redundantly listed in two spaces, do we only list them in one without resolving the issue? In the end someone's personal opinion on how to list these things would take sway. What about in cases where a creature doesn't have a clear classification for where it belongs, like the Riekling? If we gave them there own section, someone would argue that they were snow elves, or were goblins. What about the Riekling Raider? Where would that belong? If the Tusked Bristleback were to return with sub-variants of the species, leading to it getting it's own section, how would we categorize the Riekling Raider? My solution to this was to simply ignore the annoying redundancy and list everything the way it originally was. While alphabetical order isn't ideal, neither are any of the other possible suggestions. The easiest way to maintain these articles with the fewest conflicts is alphabetical.

The more I think about it, the farther from a solution I get. The best proposed solution I ever heard was on to create an index for the bestiary, but that never got off the ground. What I'm trying to say here is that no matter what we do, the bestiary will be annoying to navigate unless you already knew what you were looking for. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AKB: Differences of opinion would probably cause trouble, but what about a simple rule system? Only creatures with the same word or a synonym in their name may be grouped, perhaps? That would get rid of the annoying Giant Rat vs. Pretty Big Regular Rat entries, and the Ice Golem vs. Frost Atronach entries. All disputed speculative species connections, like Homunculus to Imp can get the 'See Also:' treatment.
Legoless: There could always be short grouped entries in the bestiary and full lore articles, right? It depends on how people would prefer the bestiary to look. Even if it's decided the current bestiary format is good as it is, I'd really like to try my hand at bigger, broader creature articles for lore, too. I noticed your Mazken/Seducer sandbox page, and it makes the exact connections between games I listed.
Anyway, I'll leave the idea for now and let others comment. --Admos 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think entries for sub-species would still remain in the table (e.g, Timber Wolf would still be found under "T") but these would just say "See x". If there's a disagreement we can use the normal wiki practise of reverting each other until an admin blocks everyone discussion on the talk page. Redirects for the merged creatures should also remain in place so that a simple search should still find them. rpeh •TCE 07:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to resurrect this old discussion, but upon rereading it I really think that AKB's index is a great idea. In my mind it would look far better than the spaced entries that we have right now. I'm still also holding out hope for some really comprehensive pages like Legoless' Kwama page. I may post my own interpretation of a Lore:Undead page up in a sandbox in the future, and you can all let me know if I'm on to something. --Admos (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2013 (GMT)

Emperor Crab[edit]

I believe that the Emperor Crabs need a section in the bestiary or a page or maybe even just a note on the mudcrabs section, there is no arguing that at least one existed and Nemindas dialogue refers to them in the plural ("They've all been since long before you and I were born."). I would like some other peoples opinion on this. (Eddie The Head 09:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

Skyrim[edit]

This entire section needs to be updated for Skyrim.

There are a lot of Elder Scrolls players that have never played Oblivion or any earlier game in the series. — Unsigned comment by CapnZapp (talkcontribs) at 17:17 on 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to update this page due to Skyrim, nothing on this page isn't still true in the light of Skyrim. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I was imprecise. By "section" I don't mean this page, I mean the Bestiary in general. Or does Skyrim have its own bestiary, completely separate from this one (for all the earlier games)? 90.229.34.175 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? The Bestiary includes creatures from all of the Elder Scrolls games, Skyrim included. Kitkat TalkContribE-mail 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's been more or less updated, though the content and format could be improved in some cases, and it's possible there are still some noteworthy creatures from Skyrim not yet accounted for in the Bestiary (though I can't point to any specifically). Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging of various entries[edit]

Going through the bestiary, I realized it is very messy. There are nearly 10 entries for different classes of goblins, entries for human guards from Redguard, and a bunch of other silly things.

I propose we merge, and improve of a number of these entries. And get rid of others, like the Elite Guard entry.

-Horse >Paint Horse >Bay Horse >Chestnut Horse >White Horse >Black Horse

-Bear >Black Bear >Brown Bear >Cave Bear >Grizzly Bear >Snow Bear

-Rat >Giant Rat >Cave Rat >Skeever? (Seperate Article)?

-Dog >Husky

-Fox >Snow Fox

-Bat (We see normal bats in Skyrim) >Giant Bat

-Wolf >Ice Wolf >Snow Wolf >Timber Wolf

-Sabre Cat >Sabre Cat >Snowy Sabre Cat >Vale Sabrecat >Sabretooth Tiger

-Netch >Bull Netch >Betty Netch

-Chaurus >Chaurus Hunter

-Dreugh >Dreugh Warlord >Land Dreugh

-Goblin >Elite Goblin >Goblin Berserker >Goblin Chief >Goblin Handeler >Goblin King >Goblin Rat Farmer >Goblin Shaman >Goblin Skirmisher >Goblin War Chief >Goblin Warlord

-Giant >Frost Giant

-Troll >Frost Trol >Painted Trolt >Swamp Troll >*Uderfrykte and the Matron

-Spider >Frostbite spider

-Guar >Wild Guar

-Kwama >Scrib >Forager >Worker >Warrior >Queen

-Minotaur >Minotaur Lord

-Mudcrab >Spectral

-Riekling >Riekling Raider

-Slaughterfish >Small

-Wisp >Willowisp >Wispmother

-The Various Dwemer Aminculi

-Fabricants >Hulking >Venemous >The Imperfect

-Ghosts >Ancestor Ghost >Ancestor Guardian >*Dwarven Spectre >Wraith >Faded Wraith >Gloom Wraith

-Lich >Ancient Lich >Nether Lich

-Vampire >Ancient Vampire >Vampire Lord

-Bonewalker >Lesser >Greater

-Skeleton >Crippled Skeleton >Champion >Gaurdian >Hero >Warrior

-Zombie >Dawn Zombie? >Dread Zombie >Headless Zombie >Zombie Gaurdian

-Clannfear >Clannfear Runt

-Daedroth (Not too sure to merge these) >Fire Daemon >Lesser Daedra

-Dremora >Dremora Lord

-Ogrim >Ogrim Titan

-Scamp >Stunted

-Spider Daedra >Spiderling

-Ash Creatures >Ash Vampire >Ascended Sleeper >Ash Ghoul >Ash Slave >Ash Zombie

-Corprus Creatures >Corprus Stalker >Lame Corprus

-Werebeasts >Wolf >Bear >Boar >Crocodile >Lion >Shark? >Vulture >Daedroth???

I'd like to have some opinions. — Unsigned comment by Nerfer2 (talkcontribs) at 14:00 on 5 December 2012

I'm not sure the discussion above came to a proper decision, but the one prominent point was "opinion". To much of this comes down to opinion, there are many species that are obviously the same, Goblins for instance, but skeevers are not rats imo for example. Vampire Lords are clearly not the same as Vampires either. Too much comes down to opinion, so in my opinion they should all have individual entries so as to not complicate matters in any way, imo. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 03:43, 11 December 2012 (GMT)

Index[edit]

I've finished that mentioned incomplete index. User:Ashendant/CreatureIndex2. Don't know where you guys planned to apply it.--Ashendant (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Don't we already have an index? I think what was mentioned was sort of a sideways TOC. We have links to each of the letter pages already, and a TOC on those pages would serve the same purpose as the index, but they are too long, so we need something that fits above the first entry on the page. Jeancey (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2013 (GMT)


Like this but with links?
A
Abecean Longfin Air Atronach Akulakhan Alit
Ancestor Ghost Ancestor Guardian Ancestor Moth Ancient Lich
Ancient Vampire Ascended Sleeper Ash Ghoul Ash Guardian
Ash Hopper Ash Slave Ash Spawn Ash Vampire
Ash Zombie Auroran
--Ashendant (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
I think something like that was the original idea, but it was simply proposed, never agreed upon. Jeancey (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
So if I made a template like for every page of the bestiary could I put it here?
A
Abecean Longfin Air Atronach Akulakhan Alit
Ancestor Ghost Ancestor Guardian Ancestor Moth Ancient Lich
Ancient Vampire Ascended Sleeper Ash Ghoul Ash Guardian
Ash Hopper Ash Slave Ash Spawn Ash Vampire
Ash Zombie Auroran
--Ashendant (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
We need a template that does it automatically, so that it doesn't have to be edited every new entry that gets added. Jeancey (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
I found this but doesn't seem to work here. [1]--Ashendant (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
Yeah, we would need to write one specifically for UESP. And by we, probably me, jak or RH since we know most about templates. :P Jeancey (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

() I guess that would take a lot of time eh. The only thing I can tell you is that I feel is that it's a bit harder to see these pages that it normally is.--Ashendant (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Creatures I found across the net[edit]

I found these creatures spread around the Net that weren't in the bestiary(as far as I know all of them are canon).
  • Monarch Butterfly
  • Blue Butterfly
  • Nordic Barnacle
  • Ant
  • Bat
  • Birds spooked from trees in Skyrim
  • Felsaad Tern
  • Whispering Spirit
  • Shade
  • Wisp
  • Wamasus
  • Clam
  • Pearl Oyster
  • Werecrocodile
  • Weredaedroth
  • Werelion
  • Wereshark
  • Werevulture
  • Bull
  • Cat
  • Cave Amphibian
  • Fleshflies
  • Frog
  • Jellyfish
  • Lion
  • Newt
  • Parrot
  • Pig
  • Pollywog
  • Rootworm
  • Scarab
  • Sea Serpent
  • Sea Gull
  • Sessile Crab
  • Shark
  • Orchid Shrimp
  • Snake
  • Sparrow
  • Tiger
  • Turtle
  • Guardian (Daedra)
  • Boatman
  • Ideal Master
  • Game Rat
  • Telvanni Sewer Rat
  • Rumare Slaugtherfish
  • West Weald Black Bear
  • Cave Collop
  • Kollop
I think at least some of these should be considered for the bestiary. There are some that might require discussion(like rats and bears). If anybody wants I can provide where I got the information.--Ashendant (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (GMT)

Fusing entries[edit]

Since I have some free time now, I'll fuse the following types entries into a single one if nobody opposes them:
  • Goblin: Elite Goblin, Goblin, Goblin Berserker, Goblin Chef, Goblin Handler, Goblin King, Goblin Rat Farmer, Goblin Sergeant, Goblin Shaman, Goblin Skirmisher, Goblin War Chief, Goblin Warlord, Goblin Witch
  • Skeleton: Skeleton Archer, Skeleton Champion, Skeleton Guardian, Skeleton Hero, Skeleton Warrior
  • Riekling: Riekling Raider
  • Dremora: Dremora Lord
  • Minotaur: Minotaur Lord
  • Ogrim: Ogrim Titan
  • Scamp: Stunted Scamp
  • Clannfear: Clannfear Runt
The reason I choose these is because while these entries represent different creatures, its only in the games and not in the lore. There are already articles for Gameplay creature lists and this article is labelled as a lore article, it should only have lore correct information.
The reason I picked these specific creatures is because they are not different creatures lorewise, but creatures with different Rank/Class/Size/Weapons.
If anybody disagrees with any of this please tell me. :)--Ashendant (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
I would think that they could all be combined, but make sure to have a "variants include" section. And remember to update the redirects. Jeancey (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
Looking over the page, it looks like this is something we've been planning to do for a while, but Kalis Agea's went on a possibly indefinite wiki break. As long as they're fused appropriately (i.e., we can keep track of which variants are found in each game), I don't have any problems with it. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 22:55, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
The "Found in" part of the entries usually link to list with those, so i'm sure if i should just show the name of the variation like in the dragon entry or add a repeat to the link. Also the D page is protected and I can't edit it.--Ashendant (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
Ok I finished all of the above(except Dremora Lord because the page is locked) but I still have some problems I would like to fix but I need opinions on the following.
  • Giant Creatures: There are a few creatures that are labelled as Giant <Animal>, I think these should be joined with their appropriate smaller animal variations, listed as a variation of that creature. Those that don't have smaller creature entries should have one made. I think the same should be applied to Ancient Vampire and Ancient Lich.
  • Breeds/Subspecies of Animals: Things like sub-breeds of horse, wolf, bear, rats and other like it(excluding generic giant creatures), had a few mentions of joining them in the discussion above. Which I don't agree.
  • Bonewalker Question: Is it worth it having 3 entries with Lesser Bonewalker, Bonewalker and Greater Bonewalker?
  • Netch Question: There are currently 3 entries for Netches in the bestiary but none of them is for the netch species, there is 1 entry for each netch gender and another for a Netch calf. I think in this case the Netch entries should all be fused into one.
  • Tusked Bristleback Question: Is there any difference between a tusked bristleback and a normal bristleback? both have tusks and the tusked version seems to point out at the mount rieklings use instead of a different creature.
  • Guar Question: Guar and Wild Guars seem to refer to two breed of domesticated and wild guar, which have different skin colours. What do I do in this case.
  • Dreugh/Grummite/Chaurus Life Stages: These 3 creature entries have various life stages listed here. I think we should list every life stage that has a different name in here.(forgot to fuse the warlord :P EDIT: D page is locked.)
Sorry if this is a lot but I need more opinions than just my own.--Ashendant (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
We shouldn't "invent" any beasts that haven't actually appeared in the games, so any Giant creatures for which we haven't seen smaller creatures should stay where they are. We shouldn't presume that smaller versions exist despite the name.
I don't have a problem with putting all sub-species in one entry, though picking a representative picture might be vexing.
Ditto for bonewalkers.
Ditto for netches.
A Tusked Bristleback appeared in Bloodmoon; there was no regular, non-tusked Bristleback in that game. It appears to be the same creature in Dragonborn, they just shortened it to "Bristleback". I guess they decided to lose the redundant term somewhere along the way, as all bristlebacks I've seen are tusked. Should be no problem clarifying that in a single "Bristleback" entry.
Should be no problem fusing guars.
Ditto for the life stages of one type of creature, though you'll want to make sure you give each variant a suitable amount of coverage considering the more significant differences involved (for example, the difference between a chaurus hunter and a flying chaurus is greater than, say, the difference between two breeds of horse). Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:36, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
This is how I solved the problems
  • Ok since rat entry already existed, I put the giant rat there. Bat I created a new entry because they appeared in Skyrim. Giant Scorpion left them as they were. Ancient liches and vampires I just needed to delete the entries since they already appeared in the main entry.
  • I have a bit of problem because there are some that are just different skin and then some that can cast spells(like regular wolves and snow wolf), and maybe that's the kind of thing that we need to distinguish between variations of the same species that should have their own entry or not. Or maybe we just fuse them all into one and put the differences noted there.(As you've noticed I'm slightly confused on this) So I think there needs to be some discussion on this.
  • Guars, Bonewalkers, Netches, Bristleback done. Tell me if you like them.
  • My Problem with lifestages wasn't really the Chaurus or the Dreugh, my real problem is creatures like the Grummite which has the stages named differently, like Pollywog and Ballywog.
Also I think some of these pages really deserve their own lore articles, like Netches, Bonewalkers and Goblins.--Ashendant (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Gameplay Info?[edit]

"Although they can be damaged by unenchanted arms, any edged weapons (swords, axes, etc.) do only about half their normal damage. Adventurers are advised to used blunt weapons (maces, hammers, flails, etc.) when fighting these creatures. Experienced adventurers have no trouble dispatching them. They're immune to disease, frost and poison and resistant to shock." - Skeleton

Sorry if i'm being rude, but is this part of the skeleton entry appropriate for a lore article? Seems like this should be in gameplay articles.--Ashendant (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

Depends on if it's just player-to-player advice for a specific game, or if they lifted the information from an in-game source. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:22, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
I don't really know. I assume by the phrasing that it's advice, because I can't really see a book being that specific.--Ashendant (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
It appears Lurlock added it in the information dump from the original site, and I don't know how reliable that stuff actually is. You'll see a lot of this in the lore section. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:32, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
So what do we do in this case?(note: could you answer my questions in the previous section too?)--Ashendant (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
Slap a {{fact}} tag on it, wait a few days/weeks/months, then move it to talk if nobody can provide a proper source. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:23, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
Done.--Ashendant (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Mentioned Creatures[edit]

I want to add certain creatures, the problem is that they are only mentioned in things like Ingame book or loading screens, like the werecreatures and the Wamasu, and as such I'm unable to add the Found In: sections. What do I do in this case?--Ashendant (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Adding Galleries?[edit]

I was thinking that maybe a solution to avoid redudancy and repetition of entries would be adding a small gallery to the bottom of the entry, for those cases where creature have more than one variant and appears in multiple games.
This way we could present how they look in multiple games and variants, if the creature doesn't have a lore article of it's own. Just throwing this idea. This is how it would look.User:Ashendant/CreatureIndex2--Ashendant (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
The Bestiary page is a general overview, not an exhaustive list of every possible creature. A single image is enough. Also (as I said on your talk page), every new entire has to have a description. If they still don't have descriptions by tomorrow or maybe the next day, I'll probably remove them from the list. Jeancey (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
The problem with just a general overview is that we don't have any way to go into detail with those creatures, mostly because of lack of such information. I wanted to put those images here if both of these happen: It has more than one visual representation(model/skin), and if it doesn't have their own lore article. Maybe if I just posted those tat appeared in the latest game? check:User:Ashendant/CreatureIndex2
That's a problem with Shadowkey. I know these creatures exist because they are listed in those pages. But I can't find picture or any descriptions on the whole internet. I was thinking of making a image request but that seemed overwhelming request.--Ashendant (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
If you can't give a description, then they shouldn't have an entry here until one can be given. Also, we don't go into detail about their visual representation in different games because that has no bearing on the lore, it is specific game information, which we do not include on the page. To put it another way, whether the creature changed appearance in games doesn't effect WHAT that creature is in any way. Does that make sense? We only WANT a single image on the bestiary pages, per creature. Having more than that is detrimental because it detracts from the purpose of the entire bestiary section. Jeancey (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
I guess Shadowkey creatures will have to go then. Shame the we will lose on lore because a game is very rare.
I already removed the game-specific information. I only put in the list minor variants(like wolves). What about differences between lifestages that are named differently?
There is no lore difference between a Water Dreugh and a Land Dreugh, or a Grummite/Pollywog/Balliwog, or a Chaurus and a Chaurus Hunter, how should we trat these cases? Fuse them and only have the adult image? fuse them and have both image? keep them separate?--Ashendant (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
I think different life stages should be separate. Caterpillar and moth have different behaviour, role in nature, etc, so different life stages can often have a huge difference on location found and how they act/are viewed, for example, whether they are found in the water or on land, whether or not they can fly, etc. Jeancey (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
In the case of the Dreugh/Chaurus it's really easy to just fuse, and the differences can be succinctly explained in the same entry, since the information on them is relatively small (The dreugh are probably calling for a lore article, with them ruling a previous Kalpa and all). The real problem comes with differently named stages like the Grummite the balliwog and the pollywog. A possible solution is just showing one image really. But I guess we can leave it as it is even if I don't personally agree with this methoD.--Ashendant (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
Just to interject, the Land Dreugh and Dreugh are distinctly separate creatures. Cousins of a sort, but they don't belong in the same entry. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:57, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
Uh, not they are not. Land Dreugh is the adolescent stage of the Aquatic Dreugh.--Ashendant (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2013 (GMT)
Sorry, I forgot about Sun's Dawn, I was only remembering the journal that questioned the links between them. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:11, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

() Still what's your opinion on it Silencer? Fuse it or not fuse it?--Ashendant (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

That was a retraction of my comment. Do whatever it is you are doing with life-stages of a single type of creature. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence
I'm not doing anything with them actually, I still want more opinions, before I do anything, but hardly anybody comes over here and gives them. I think in the case of Chaurus and Dreugh the only problem is really choosing which image. The grummite is a problem of having 3 different names for 3 different stages. EDIT:I did fuse the Netch Calf and Genders into one Netch entry, but that wasn't a problem since there was a single image with all 3 images.EDIT2:Well there's also the Mania and Dementia Creatures where it should have both creatures in the image but only has one type, so there's atleast a precedent of a type of creature being shown while other is not. --Ashendant (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (GMT)
This discussion has gone rather off the headline topic, but I'll reply here since has continued like this for a while. I'd agree on the merge of the Dreugh, since land dreugh are lore-wise exactly the same, just an adult dreugh that thought "I'd like to walk on land, it's more dry than the water." About the Grummites I'm not sure since the Baliwog article says: Rumored to be a larval stage of the Grummites or the Scalon. I'm not sure where that information came from or if any form is confirmed, so until there is a reliable source, we should keep them separate. Horses should be merged too, or even created an own page for them, since they are just minor different from each other. A thing I'd also like the opinion of others are the Snow-, Frost-, Ice-, and else creatures (mostly from skyrim). Could they be fused into the article of the main species, too? -- SarthesArai Talk 17:29, 25 June 2013 (GMT)
This is more than a year late but Ballywogs, Pollywogs and Grummites are stated to be different lifestages in this book Shivering:From Frog to Man--Ashendant (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2014 (GMT)

new section[edit]

How do you make a new section on the lore pages like the bestiary or the places? — Unsigned comment by 69.14.13.111 (talk) at 19:17 on 18 May 2014 (GMT)

With great effort. What do you have in mind? —Legoless (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2014 (GMT)

I was thinking things like the different beasts from eso.

Linking to lore articles[edit]

The fact that there is a more general lore article to some of these creatures get heavily passed over or goes mostly unnoticed, being crammed into the text of each entry if it exists. I think we should make them slightly more notable for those that does exist.

So my suggestions(using Kwama Warrior as an example) is:

  • Adding to the top of the entry: ''For main article see: [[Lore:Kwama]]'' , like it's done in most other wikis.
  • Make the entry name itself the link: ==[[Lore:Kwama|Kwama Warrior]]==

I prefer the entry name itself, but I thought I should ask for more opinions before doing anything.--Ashendant (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (GMT)

Usually we just link the first instance of the name. Perhaps redirecting Lore:Kwama Warrior to Lore:Kwama instead of the bestiary would be best? —Legoless (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2014 (GMT)
Yeah but that's easily passed over. The fact that there is much more information on that entry is largely ignored because of those barely noticeable links in the middle of the entry. My suggestion is removing those links and adding more obvious references to the fact that there is there is indeed more information to be read on that species in the bestiary itself. (which is something I've seen commonly done in other wikis)
Possibly. I'm not entirely certain on that through since the Lore:Kwama article has no section when it comes to different types of the same species.--Ashendant (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2014 (GMT)
Since nobody commented further I will do this to the pages I can find.--Ashendant (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2014 (GMT)
You should generally wait a week for people to respond. You waited a day and a half. Wait a little longer. Jeancey (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2014 (GMT)
Yes I guess I could wait further. Already did Lore:Bestiary K trough...--Ashendant (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2014 (GMT)
I don't really see a problem with it. More links are good. —Legoless (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2014 (GMT)
Since I've haven't any negative answers I will do this later today.--Ashendant (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2014 (GMT)

() I actually think that linking the name would be best, especially since these all occur next to each other in the lists, the hatnote seems redundant all in a row like that. Jeancey (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2014 (GMT)

You mean make the entry name itself the link? Like this "==[[Lore:Kwama|Kwama Warrior]]=="?--Ashendant (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (GMT)
Yes. The way you did it before was a hatnote. Btw, you shouldn't be removing the link in the first instance of the name. That needs to stay since it is a site-wide policy. Jeancey (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (GMT)
Ok I'll do so.--Ashendant (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2014 (GMT)

Lore Articles[edit]

As some of you may have noticed I've recently done the Lore:Bear and Lore:Wolf articles. I was working on the principle that having at least two different forms, would be the requirement to those articles, but as I was doing the Lore:Fox article, Jeancey opposed it on not fulfilling the multiple requirements. So while discussing what or what not should have their own article, I realized that I was limiting the discussion to peoples that checked my talk page so I've decided it to continue it here.

So in anybody's opinion what should or shouldn't be made into Lore:Articles? Here's a few examples I've gathered:

  • Goblins, is often requested as an article(in this very discussion), but in my talk page Jeancey was clearly opposed to it. I should note that Lore:Rieklings have their own page which has less lore than goblins, and they do suffer suffer a lot of model variation between games that it needs to be noted, which doesn't help because the bestiary can only have one/two images.
  • Ghosts? There are loads of types of ghosts. It would also address the problem of having multiple ghost animals types in this bestiary. In the same way the Lore:Dwemer Animunculi is made.
  • To be honest I have no idea on how to deal with antelopes, deers, elks and other related animals/variations?
  • Grummites(as an entire species) as Ballywogs and Pollywogs are stated to be their younger forms.(and from what I understand scalons are also rumoured to be associated with ballywogs) And other creatures(Chaurus and Dreugh) like it which have different states depending on age.
  • Sabre cats? They have at least three different types. Same with rats... Horses? Cats? Spider? Hawks? Dogs(maybe this one should be folded with wolves)? Cows and Oxes?

--Ashendant (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Creature Variations[edit]

Should name variations of creatures which only appear in one game and have no apparent lore significance really be included under "variations" on their Lore:Creatures pages? Obviously, variants like the Burnt Spriggan, which have their own section and are (lore-wise) notably different from the "generic" type of that creature should be included. However, should variations like "stunted scamp", which only appear in one game and are only slightly gameplay-wise any different from the "generic" form of the creature really be included? I don't think they have any relevance to the lore pages. Is there any consensus on this matter? Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy[edit]

A lot of the discussions of this page stem from the problem of having multiple names for the same or very similar creatures, which of those are significant enough to belong on the list, and how much information should be given for each of those. I believe these problems are just symptoms of a more fundamental problem; the bestiary is sorted alphabetically. It would be ridiculous to sort the timeline alphabetically, instead we use a relevant organization to a timeline, (chronological order.) Similarly, it would make sense to use an organization scheme relevant to biology for the bestiary. Fortunately, such a system already exists; it is taxonomy. Taxonomy of animals originated through organizing them by similar attributes, and was later augmented as more information, such as genetic similarities and differences were discovered. Likewise, creatures would be sorted by similar features unless the lore says something else about how related they are.

Some of the potential pages of the bestiary (which would replace the alphabetical pages currently being used, some of which, are nearly empty anyways) could include:

  • Arthopods
  • Birds
  • Fish
  • Mammals
  • Reptiles
  • Transformed Creatures (possibly including hagravens, Lycanthropes, Vampires, and those mutated by corprus.)
  • Artificial Creatures (possibly including golems, Dwemer creations, gargoyles, Ayleid creations, and Sotha Sil's creations.)
  • Daedra

Sections, subsections, subsubsections, and so-on could be used to further categorize creatures (i.e. a section in mammals for canines, with subsections for dogs, wolves, foxes, and undead canines, and different breeds either being subsubsections or simply being mentioned in the text.)

If taxonomical organization were used, a person knowing only a creature's name could still find it using the search bar, while a person who doesn't know a creature's name could find it in its proper category. --71.244.165.225 23:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a very good reason that doesn't and hasn't worked, its called subjectiveness. It's easy enough to divide animals using real-life biology, but where do the made-up creatures go. You have "transformed" creatures which covers a very small portion, but where do Alit, Duneracers, Durzog, Echatere, Guar, Kwama, Nix-Ox, Nix-Hounds, Behemoths, Gargoyles, Hoarvar, Lamia, Mantikora, Minotaurs, Nereid, Ogres, Spriggans, Stranglers, Wamasu, Welwas, Wisps, and basically all the "undead" creatures fit under this system (not to mention the animals we know only the names of too). Every single creature that does not have an exact real-life counterpart will be placed according to what amounts to a guess. Some of them can be "correctly" guessed at, such as an Alpha Wolf, Mudcrab, Senche, Skeever, Thunderbug, etc, but it is still guesswork based solely on their appearance and similarity to other creatures, but nothing concrete, especially their physiology.
The discussions above are spaced over many years, this isn't a frequent topic for debate. Each time someone brings up merging the individual entries on the bestiary it ends up being shot down, there is just too much opinion needed for what exactly should be listed, so instead everything is listed. The #Fusing entries section above is an entirely different thing. From that section stemmed articles such as Lore:Bear, and Lore:Guar, which cover all bears and guar, respectively, on one page. I think that is working well and the only true way to avoid subjectiveness of inclusion and placement. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It would not be subjective to say that Kwama and Nix hounds have the characteristics of arthropods. Like it says above, until something as concrete as genetics (or in this case lore) is presented, they'd be grouped by their observable characteristics. There's a lot of different entries for lycanthropes and people mutated by Dagoth Ur (though I'm not sure all of them carry corprus.) The main problem I see is undead, not every undead has a beast counterpart like undead canines. Are undead canines really closer to other canines than to other undead? 172.58.185.206 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Observable characteristics is a deeply flawed method of categorisation. It was only acceptable until genetics proved how bad it was as a system, it wasn't just improved upon by new methods, it was debunked as an acceptable method. Until the development of genetics and ethical and hidden observation, hundreds of animals were wrongly categorised because they had similar characteristics or simply looked similar. There are real mammals that have some reptilian characteristics, reptiles with mammalian characteristics, etc. To try and classify animals without the availability of genetics and full observation of their entire life-cycle is just wrong as you are resorting to guesswork for each and every animal that doesn't have a real-life counterpart (and even for those with real-life counterparts you are guessing that there have not been any changes when they were placed in the games). There is still the case of animals mentioned but not seen, how can you even begin to categorise them. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not that we were wrong about what is a mammal and what is a reptile, it's that we redefined those groups to be based more on genetic similarities than on observed characteristics. As for unobservable creatures: The Canah is most definitely a bird. The depictions of eagles, are notably avian. Gheateus are magical beings (which Silencer already pointed out are lacking their own page in the above list. Gryphons are another oddball. Hackwings are birds. Hobs are mammals. Kraken barnacles are arthropods. Sea Drakes are probably reptilian. Voriplasm is described more similarly to a community of microorganisms than a single creature. Werecrocodiles, weredaedroths, werelions, weresharks, and werevultures are lycanthropes.
P.S. Hey dude, (Idk what to call you because you're anonymous here) I've looked at your idea. It's okay, but you wouldn't be much help working on it, the people here don't want it done (let alone wanting to help with it,) and I really wouldn't want to do all that work by myself (especially since it probably wouldn't even be implemented.) 68.134.185.92 22:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I remember when I wanted a categorized bestiary as well, but by now I have realized that it wouldn't work well... There are too many creatures we don't know enough about to correctly categorize them, some don't really fit any category, some are controversal, some have had their lore retconned/simultaniously have different explainations behind them (I'm looking at you, lurchers...!). There's nothing wrong with creating umbrella pages like Lore:Wolf, Lore:Dwemer Animunculi, or Lore:Elemental Daedra, provided the umbrella'ed creatures have enough similarities to surely distinguish them from all others. -- SarthesArai Talk 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)