Lore talk:Bestiary B

Reviewing Bestiary

>Thoughthorder< I am reviewing the Beastiary Lore to look for new content and check old content and I haven't gotten far, but I found one thing that seems like it could be worked better. On the page [[1]] it has Brown Bear listed, Oblivion first and Skyrim second. I feel that this should be replaced by the title Bear, with the varients listed below for Oblivion and Skyrim, which have there own variety. For example, on the Skyrim page [[2]] It has three Bears listed (Bear, Snow bear and Cave Bear) which is beautifully written I might add, and the page [[3]] has four in-game bears and one semingly base bear. Three of which are substancially differnt, for example, Snow bears have resist frost, theoretically from only being in ice cold climates outside, they also have high damage like the brown and black bear, were the cave bear has low damage. cave bears are secluded and probably don't see much combat and so have become weak, were the others are out in the wide and get to practice and get stronger. I love the lore of TES and the work put into UESP all across the board, but I was hoping for a more updated version of the beastiary. I know some of the things I have mentioned are speculation but I consider UESP to be the all knowing source for TES goodness, on a simular topic, in oblivion there are several variety of bears which are very simular except for brown and black bears, cubs, westweald and the Forest Guardian who strangly is not listed in the Beastiary whatsoever. Sorry for any poor grammar and any writting that is not in proper format. 206.172.0.205 17:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Buffalo? (and possibly more?)

I happened to venture on the Special:UnusedFiles page and one of the first images I noticed was that of a buffalo in Redguard. Should this be included as a part of this bestiary? Are there other creatures like this in Redguard or other games not in the bestiary and should these be included? *WoahBro^►talk 04:20, 9 June 2013 (GMT)

See this discussion. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:31, 9 June 2013 (GMT)

Bonemen

The Battlespire Bestiary lists them as skeletons; but they are called bonemen in the game, and notably in this book. (Likewise, mistmen correspond to ghosts, and wrathmen to wraiths.) Also, here. --Gez (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (GMT)

The wiki's bestiary is likely incorrect. —Legoless (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2013 (GMT)

banekin

I'm unsure but should Banekin be added to the bestiary? Lorenut (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2014 (GMT)

Yep. Go ahead. —Legoless (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2014 (GMT)

Blue Sandcrab

Blue Sandcrabs were removed from the page because the ESO achievement text calls them mudcrabs. They're a clear variant of a regular mudcrab, which is grounds enough to give them their own entry (see Black Bear and Bone Hawk on this very page). Thoughts? —Legoless (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

Didn't we try and combine bear into a single entry at one point? In any case, they aren't really that much of a variant as they are still found in the exact same location as mudcrabs (near the water) and they are called mudcrabs in-game. The only real difference is the color and the name, in which case we should have separate entries for all the horses in ESO as well. There just isn't a qualitative lore difference between the Blue Sandcrabs and Mudcrabs. Jeancey (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

Appearance and name are usually enough. Going back to the hawk example, we have separate entry for Hawks and for Felsaad Tern, even though they're both found in the sky and use the same model. It's a tern, not a hawk. Same difference here. It's not like Bristleback vs. Tusked Bristleback. I also wouldn't be opposed to adding separate entries for the ESO horse breeds, since we have the Oblivion ones. —Legoless (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

The difference between the Hawks and Felsaad Tern and the Blue Sandcrab and Mudcrabs is that hawks and felsaad terns are widespread, covering all of skyrim/solstheim, respectively. Blue Sandcrabs are found at one single location. That's it. They aren't just a variety of mudcrab found in various areas, they are unique to one location in one zone. That's it. It just doesn't seem to be enough difference between them and mudcrabs to justify a lore entry. We aren't gonna have a separate entry for Strifeswarm Kwama vs normal Kwama, or for Redguard Valley Ogres vs normal Ogres, are we? Jeancey (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

Their appearance in-game doesn't matter as far as lore goes. They're not named Shipwreck Strand Mudcrabs after the place, like the examples above. Both Spectral Mud Crabs and Emperor Crabs have an entry, despite only one of each ever appearing. As far as we know, sandcrabs could be all over Tamriel. If we want to obey strict game mechanics and call them mudcrabs in the Online namespace, that's fine, but lore follows a different logic and sand is not mud. —Legoless (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

Why do Spectral Mud Crab is just a mudcrab ghost why does that have an entry? Emperor Crabs are very very different things. If we follow along this logic, there are about 30 or so new entries that should be added. I just don't see the usefulness of adding entries for things that simply have a different name and color, but are otherwise identical in behavior. Jeancey (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

Because it's an in-universe bestiary for listing all species and monsters. It is all-inclusive, which means there has to be a good reason to remove something. —Legoless (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2014 (GMT)