Lore talk:Bestiary F

Falmer

In a loading screen of skyrim I found that the falmers are almost blind, can sneak very well and are seeking to destroy all life on the surface. maybe this should bei in the article. — Unsigned comment by 87.155.80.153 (talk) at 21:04 on 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation or Not?

Should creatures with multiple names get a single entry, or one for each name? Specifically, I'm thinking about the Fire Atronach/Flame Atronach. Presumably, they're the same thing, just in different games. However, to only mention "Fire Atronach" on some pages dealing with Atronachs would be wrong, since people who haven't played anything but Morrowind and/or Oblivion have never seen them called that. Similarly, just using "Flame", while not as bad because it's more current, is still not accurate. I think on non game-specific pages, both entries should always be used for the sake of clarity.

There are numerous others that are duplicates with changed names, I'm pretty sure. Ice Atronach and Frost Atronach I think are equivalents, and I think some earlier games used "Daedra" or "Golem" to mean the same thing prior to the appearance of the word "Atronach" Also, the "Robot" and "Dwarven Robot" in Redguard will be easily recognized by Morrowind players as a "Centurion Sphere" and "Steam Centurion", respectively. The "Lesser Daedra" from Daggerfall is known as a "Daedroth" in Morrowind and Oblivion. (Even though both terms are used as elsewhere general terms for ALL Daedra - "Daedroth" is just the singular of "Daedra", and "Lesser Daedra" is just a term used to distinguish the Daedric Princes from all other Daedra creatures - but they still are both used in the specific to refer to the half-crocodile creatures. I'm pretty sure that "Daedra Seducer", "Dark Seducer" and just "Seducer" may all refer to the same thing as well. (It's possible that the "Winged Twilight" in Morrowind is also in this group.) Also considering the possibility that Morrowind's "Golden Saints" and Oblivion's "Xivilai" may be different names for the same creature.

Also, some are more general, such as "Rat", "Cave Rat", "Giant Rat", etc. Do we put one entry for all rats? It's not like there's that much difference between them. Likewise for the various forms of skeletons. Opinions? --TheRealLurlock 14:33, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

Fire Atronach and Flame Atronach are already consolidated; I just fully spelled out each name so that you can create links to either name more easily. Also in my daedra-merge, I added a note to the Daedroth entry on that particular naming issue.

As for the more general question, I would be inclined to have one main entry for clearly similar creatures. The other names would be listed in the bestiary but the entry would just say "See [[main entry]]". But I'd reserve that for creatures that really are identical; for examle "Golden Saint" and "Xivilai" definitely have different appearances (golden-colored women, blue-colored men). If you suspect they're similar, just add cross links to their articles.

So my vote would be to have every name listed alphabetically in the bestiary, but use cross links wherever appropriate to either consolidate or cross-reference. --Nephele 15:09, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

It is nice (especially for non nativ english speakers) to be able to find the creatures under exactly the name they are show in the game. if linked or not, is unimportant. — Unsigned comment by 87.155.80.153 (talk) at 21:04 on 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that this is still an issue. Right now Lore:Bear redirects to the Bestiary B page, only there's no entry there for "Bear". Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Felsaad Terns?

The entry states that Felsaad Terns have black wings, but the picture right there shows that Felsaad Terns are all white? Wut.--WoahBro (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (GMT)

Nevermind, it says black feathers on the head. Woops.--WoahBro (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2013 (GMT)

Restored Frostbite Spider Entry

I restored the Frostbite Spider entry. It was previously removed as it is mentioned under the Spider entry, but looking at the actual articles the preferred practice seems to be to mention significant variants separately, which seems like the best way of continuing our documentation in a way that is both manageable for us and interesting to readers. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is determining what counts as a significant variant. For example, I would suggest that Frostbite Spider and Skein Spider are very significant, whereas Forest Spider, Cave Spider, Venomspit Spider, etc. don't need individual bestiary entries. The work in progress on Lore:Spider should reduce the number of bestiary entries required by mentioning the various subspecies there. —⁠Legoless (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)