Category talk:Bestiary

Should there be a "Fleshy" category? A lot of spells and skills depend on the opponent having flesh.

I don't know if there should be a "fleshy" category. Perhaps some indicator though. 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (EST)

I'm sorry, I messed up again when trying to create the subcategory "Grawl" (like previously with "Dwarves"). I see I'm not the only one with this problem, though ;) Is there a way to get rid of the article with the same name? Do we want to get rid of those double entries? I think it's redundand and not needed. --84.175.121.61 08:28, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

I'm working on a COMPLETE beastiary master list. Can we please agree that ALL beastiary sub-category names shall be in PLURAL?! So for example the category name "Ettin" should be "Ettins" (with plural -s) --Tetris L 22:49, 11 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I think elsewhere it was decided that all category names (for everything, not just mobs) were to be singular. --Fyren 01:46, 12 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * The category thing I mentioned a month ago got re-decided, categories should be plural. Just noting. --Fyren 05:08, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I also suggest to make the singular expression the main entry and the plural expression a redirect. this would be in accordance to Wikipedia. (example: [Wikipedia: Dog(s)]) --drone9 22:54, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * nevermind. should have not only looked at Subcategories... --drone9 22:55, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

Ollj, this IS the category of all the creatures in Tyria, including humans and fungus. :) --Karlos 09:05, 28 Jul 2005 (EST)

I think this category needa a major work over. Currently we have some creatures organized in subcategories, some directly in the master category "Bestiary" (which is partially my fault and which I just learned is wrong). We have some subcategories in plural and some in singular, also some duplicates in both plural and singular. We have a subcategory "Ice Imps" with two Ice Imp bosses in it, as well as a subcategory "Imps". In one word: This is chaos. But before I go ahead and try to tidy this mess up a bit I'd like to know what exactly is the consensus. OK, points 1 and 2 have already been agreed on, I think. Number 3 shouldn't be much of a problem either. Any thoughts? Did I miss something? --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 18:19, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * 1) Don't put any creatures directly into "Bestiary" but put them into the appropriate subcategory and put that subcategory into Bestiary". I.e. Ice Imps have Category:Imps and that category has Category:Bestiary.
 * 2) Subcategories should be plural.
 * 3) No sub-subcategories. Ice Imps are Imps, too.


 * My 2 cents (ignoring anything that has been agreed upon in the past):
 * I prefer items to be in the main category as well as the sub-category. This is not specific to Bestiary. For example I think that Heal Other should be listed under category:Monk Skills as well as category:Healing Prayers, even though Healing Prayers is a sub-category of Monk Skills.
 * ALL category names should be in plural. Again, this goes not only for Bestiary.
 * There are some few cases in Bestiary where we need a second branch level in the category tree. For example:
 * category:Bestiary
 * category:Centaurs
 * category:Shiverpeak Centaurs
 * Shiverpeak Longbow
 * Shiverpeak Protector
 * Shiverpeak Warrior
 * On a side note, long time ago I created the page Creatures, trying to create a Bestiary masterlist, simular to the Locations Master List. I never completed the list, it is incomplete and under construction. --Tetris L 18:47, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I agree with 1 and 2, and I agree with Tetris on 3. For example, Drakes should have Ice Drakes, Lightning Drakes, and DRAKES (the fire ones in the Ring of Fire) and that's it. No need to make a category for Fire Drakes and one for Lightning Drakes. (I think I am the one who invented Ice Imps category.) Same thing, Imps are just different flavors of Imps. But For races that have multiple appearances in the game, like Centaurs, Like Tengu (I believe there is Tengu and Caromi Tengu), we should have sub-sub-categories. These are VERY few though. And the rule should be no sub-sub. :) --Karlos 19:12, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)

I hate the idea of items in multiple categories in the same tree and we did decide categories should be plural. So, I basically agree with 84.175 on his 1 and 2. I don't care if there are subcategories for, say, tengu since there are caromi tengu and avicara, but I would say there shouldn't be one for ice imps, since as far as I know, there are only ice imps. --Fyren 20:54, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)

Profession Cateogories
Just noticed the profession categories are all singular, heh. --Fyren 22:44, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I think they should be changed to plural. I also think that will be a huge pain in the hind quarters. --Karlos 22:46, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I didn't say anything in hope nobody would notice... :(D --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 23:15, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I only noticed because you were adding things to those categories while fixing the other ones. --Fyren 23:16, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Well, since I started this, I'll better see it through to the end. Commence the plural crusade! --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 01:53, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)

Well, the professions are all plural now, but I just noticed there is another bestiary category in singular: Category:NPC. With 173 entries. I am so not going to go through all of them to set them to plural. I had my share of the plural crusade for now and I'm going to ignore this one. If someone else wants to do it: go ahead. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 00:53, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Eh, I'm bored and at work right now, so I'll work on these. --Rainith 03:52, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Ok, Category:NPC has been transferred to Category:NPCs and everyone's category has been changed. While doing this I noticed a couple others that could be changed to plural tho: Category:Armor Crafter and the less obvious one Category:Henchman.  --Rainith 07:06, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Well done, thanks! Those other categories will be taken care of in time, I'm sure. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 07:08, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Henchmen is done. I hate crafter and collectors and traders. :) Good job you two! --Karlos 07:20, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)

Much better, but not good enough yet
After one day of work I allow myself to say, it looks a lot better. I found there are quite a few beasts that I'm unsure of where to place though, what category or species they beloing to: Some of them already have the same question on their talk pages. I'll leave those for discussion and take a break for now, because frankly, I'm drained. I'll clean up the rest tomorrow. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 04:56, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Smite Crawler: I just hesitate to put them into "Scarabs".
 * Mergoyle: Do they go under Gargoyles, are they a subcategory of Gargoyles or are they a seperate species?
 * What exactly are Pinesouls, Oakhearts and the other tree-creatures?
 * Humanoid plants like Reed Stalkers and Thorn Stalkers: "Stalker" somehow doesn't fit imho.
 * Mragga is describes as a "Demon" by Vanyi. But I'm not sure if that's the right species, because Terrorweb Dryders are called demons, too, at some point. And they clearly are Dryders. The Mragga has the same model as the Forest Banshees of the FoW (The Wailing Lord quest).
 * I found absolutely nothing about this one Sevv Squallfroth. The only hits Google provides are from GuildWiki. Which probably means the name is misspelled. Delete?
 * Bladed Aatxe
 * Coldfire Night

Top-level by Species only, or allow any grouping?
Well, it really is about whether Category:Bosses should belong in this category. But I figure I'll push the discussion to a wider principle policy. -PanSola 01:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If nobody cares, I'm going to remove category Bosses as a subcat of Bestiary on Jan 13, so the top-level subcategories of Bestiary are consistently by species only. -PanSola 12:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the change. &mdash;Tanaric 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Split by Campaign?

 * I'd prefer if we'd split the "bestiary" by campaign for better overview, like we've done for many other categories. Yes or no?
 * On a side note, I still hate the name "bestiary", I'd much prefer if we'd call it "Category:Species". But that's a different story. ;)
 * --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif]]  09:32, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * How would you do that though? Say Factions and Prophecies bestiaries are split into two groups, how would you categorize a creature? Most are of the same species; for example Tengu. Sensali are Factions based and Avicara are Prophecies based. Would you categorize a Tengu creature Category:Tengu (Factions) or Category:Tengu (Prophecies)?
 * To me, the bestiary as it is now is not that cluttered when trying to find what I am looking for. The definition of Bestiary is "a collection of descriptions of real or imaginary animals". That word makes perfect sense. Species (noun) is "a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name". Each subcategory in Bestiary is a certain Species. Tengu, Spider, Dragon, etc, etc. --Gares Redstorm 10:15, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Gares, splitting it would cause more headaches than leaving it as is. And right now it really isn't causing any headaches.  --Rainith 11:14, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

If that wen ahead it should be:
 * Category:Canthan species
 * Category:Tengu
 * Category:Sensali

Category:Tengu (Factions) isnt nice. I don't think it needed right now, it isn't unreadable and we have enough dredge work as it is with skill templates etc :p Skuld  11:19, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

Split by Campaign - Revisited
Four months later, we're done with the bulk of work from Factions. Time to prepare for Nightfall.

I still think splitting the category by campaign will eventually be necessary. It's just a matter of how many campaigns we wait 'til we make the step. I can see it coming with Nightfall already, so we might as well do it now to define the structures so that we are prepared when the Nightfall PvE preview comes up (which will be very soon).

As for species that appear in more than one campaign, I'd create a "core" category. Tengu would go in there, but the sub-species would also go in their applicable campaign. So the tree would look as follows:


 * Category:Bestiary
 * Category:Bestiary by Profession
 * Category:Warriors
 * Category:etc.
 * Category:Bestiary by Campaign
 * Category:Bestiary (Core)
 * Category:Tengu
 * Category:etc
 * Category:Bestiary (Prophecies)
 * Category:Avicara
 * Category:etc
 * Category:Bestiary (Factions)
 * Category:Sensali
 * Category:etc

What do you think? -- 01:46, 18 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I see no need for it. It will already be split by campaign via the location categories.  --Rainith 04:53, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Rainith that there's no need to split the Bestiary into campaigns. - 07:12, 20 August 2006 (CDT)