Lore talk:Bestiary R
Including the Reaper in the Bestiary?[edit]
I am referring to this creature, Reaper, seems like an unique daedric creature, what with it having a differing design and a daedric heart. — Unsigned comment by AllHailPinwheel (talk • contribs) at 12:15 on 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Rhinoceros and other Mythical creatures listing appearances[edit]
So me and Legoless ran into a little disagreement. This isn't an argument if mythical creatures should be on the bestiary at all, they should. But should mythical creatures be listed as appearing in "Lore" if they likely don't even exist. Personally I think they should due to the nature of the setting. Something said to be imaginary or only existing in legend could very well turn up being real. And even if they aren't I think they should still have an "appearance" listed as its still "Lore". If they don't we'd have to go over many similar creatures and removing them as appearing, like Mermaids and Phoenixes. But that would also open up the confusion of where creature of debated existence lie.
Tarponpet (talk) 12:04 PM, June 19th 2023 (EST)
- The source describes rhinos as imaginary, plain and simple. They do not exist in lore and a 'found in' link is therefore inappropriate. The comparison to unicorns is an attempt at humour: in the real world, the myth of the unicorn is thought to have originated from mistaken reports of rhinos. In TES, this is the inverse. If there are other examples of fictional bestiary entries with 'found in' links, those should also be removed. These sources should be linked to as citations, not as appearances. —Legoless (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
-
- I don't see a problem with the found in link. I've always interpreted it as "This creature appears in this game/Keyes book. If it never appears in a game/Keyes book, here's where you can read about it in lore." We even have a linkless found in lore under Skylamp because its only canon reference is a spell name. Mindtrait0r (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)