Lore talk:Bestiary/Sandbox

Bestiary

I've taken on the fauna overview and having reviewed their lore pages I have some additonal thoughts.

• I would sincerely prefer them to be like the flora pages (Example Lore:Flora#A compared to Lore:Bestiary#A) instead of it being a simple list of these creatures. I'd say that these pages general quality would be much higher if we did this. Also where do we draw the line on what we want on these pages? Though something like Lore:Deer obviously belongs to me. I think it is more of a grey area if a Dwarven Spectere or a Dwarven Robot belonging there. Though I could easily make a note of them being included in the just started fauna overview I'd like some thoughts on this subject now so I don't have to rewrite it halfway through to please everyone. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the bestiary category should be a very lenient with what counts as a 'creature'. Any non-NPC (obviously not counting things like Vivec in Morrowind) should be listed in it, no matter how natural/robotic/necromantic they are. I also think, if we're going to do a major overhaul of the pages, we should remove different 'varieties' of the same enemy. For example, remove nether liches but keep liches. These slight distinctions are only important on individual games. If necessary, different types of the same creature could be listed as subheading of the main section (but avoiding things like 'blighted rat'). Some creatures have so much info that I think they warrant their own pages (goblins are a favourite of mine, and SI gave us an insight on Golden Saints and Dark Seducers).

However, these generalisations will hurt things such as the TES Travels enemies (who are, at present, not documented). For example, the zombies in Stormhold have many different names (Zombie, Wight, Haunt, Thirster). How would we list them? I'm all for this idea, but reorganising such a large section to such a high standard will involve a lot of hard questions, and take quite a while to achieve. Legoless 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about we organize them as a primary creature, one several other creatures can obviously be called. Take for example the zombie, under the zombie we would list and describe alphabetically all other known variants, such as the headless zombie. The only downside of this method would be more judgement calls on what is appropriate for each creature, and this would mean the pages would be harder to maintain. On the bright side though this would mean less information would be repeated as only the main differences between the different variants would be mentioned (Headless Zombie is a zombie without a head). Once they were successfully reorganized we would be able too easily modify these pages as less information would be need to make these changes. Of course I'd like a bit more information on this as this would be a major overhaul to these pages requiring several editors help to do it in a timely fashion. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I'd also like to add that on reflection the only time we should not list a creature is when it is so blindingly obvious it is a previously discovered creature with a different name. The different name will be mentioned in the sub-header but it will be called by the first name it was known as. That is the best I can think of to solve the Travels creatures problem you brought up. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my mind again, this version would just require to many judgement calls for it to work. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that it could still work. If something could be controversial, it could always be put to a vote perhaps? But having Brown Bear, Black Bear, Grizzly Bear, Snow Bear, etc. all split up doesn't seem efficient. Redirects would have to be moved, but I still think this could be fairly better. Also, nice work ;) --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) My hands are now full with finishing the overview, so if you want to do it yourself feel free too. I don't really care enough to protest. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A test version of the finished product

This (Perma link in case it is reverted) is how I essentially want the bestiary pages to look. More like flora, instead of it just being a table. I really prefer the way it looks now but if everyone hates it I'll drop it. Though if this version is preffered I'll start changing the rest over to match this version. The main plus side of this version are the images, and the fact it looks less like a data sheet and more like an article.

I used the flora template to change how it looks, so it is worth noting that unless we want to create a fauna version of it all of the pages will say flora, which is a bit weird I guess. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, and I am definitely asking for feedback here, though I think this version is loads better I am still open for suggestions. So please if you have any complaints (And everyone does) voice them now and not when I am halfway to standardizing the bestiary pages to my proposed version. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely prefer this version. Good work! I think this way of listing the creatures will encourage people to add a bit more information, too. The existing descriptions are somewhat brief. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well since this seems to be preferred and the fact that the test version wasn't erased I'll start changing the other ones to match this one. If anyone wants to help me while I do this please start at Z so we don't edit conflict. Also I am removing entries like bear, as I am pretty sure that there never was a creature just called that. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a belated piece of feedback: excellent work! The new design looks incredible and made me realize I need to finish my Dawnstar bestiaryin the very near future. Keep it up! :) --Krusty 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The face lift is done. Now all I have to do is finish the Overview page and this task is pretty much done. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved Rambling notes

I can't really delete these yet because I might forget something involving them later on. But they are a bit inappropriate to have on the page. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Goals for this page

• Define what belongs in the bestiary
• Describe creatures environments, and how they have effected them. A good example would be the Cliffracer and how it helped further spread the blight outside of the ghostgate or how it drove the dragons out of Vvardenfall.
• Describe how they are used by the more intelligent species. For example farm creatures such as the betty or bull netch or the beast of burden known as the horse. Hunting could also be brought up here as well. maybe mention how some creatures are killed for their bodies alchemical properties?

The Primary (Playable) Races

Should we include them? We include things like guards or Mad Man, but not the races themselves. It would be a little easier to determine what would belong if we added the primary races (Altmer, Dunmer, Bosmer, Breton, Imperial, Red Guard, and Nord). Especially since the Orc is already in the bestiary (due to their earlier monster status which lasted until the Dragon Broke). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)