From Erfwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rob wanted a page called "Wildlife". I propose a re-naming of this page to "Wildlife" since the terms are completely redundant. --Kreistor 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the creator of this page, I completely agree. I created this page the day or so before Rob used the term wildlife in an update. I would have done it myself but I don't know how to rename a page. Commander I. Heartly Noah
Hot the "Move" tab on top. --Kreistor 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know animals can be used to make rugs? The only rug we've seen was made out of a cloth golem, which is not wildlife. All we've seen is they can be made into provisions. --Wrecan 16:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. We know that corpses can be used for other things, and corpses do not seem to be limited to just dead units. Any corpse can be used as a resource. Is it really such a reach that a dead animal becomes a corpse? You need Rob to tell you that? --Kreistor 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I just think it should be in Speculation, rather than Proposed Canon.--Wrecan 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it just common sense? I mean... if the meat stays around for days as provisions, wouldn't the fur stay around as a blanket? You're getting into a certain amount of hair-splitting here thinking one part of a corpse obeys different rules from another. --Kreistor 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me to be one of two things. Either it's obvious, and doesn't need to be written down at all, or it's speculative because we're assuming things we haven't seen in any strip. Not to mention we haven't seen any wildlife that you can make a rung out of. Are you really going to make a rug out of rats? Pigeons? How do we know that wildlife even includes large carnivores from which you can make a rug? You may be right. You may not be right. Either way, it seems pretty speculative to me.--Wrecan 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you not make pillows out of feathers? Needles out of fish bones? I used rugs as an example because there is a rug in GK -- it's from a battle bear, but it's something people know and see. But there are lots of other things I could use as examples of how an animal's body can be used. Ancient people used every bit of the dead animals they hunted, so every tendon, every bone has a potential purpose. So, it comes to this. We know that fish flesh does not disappear, because it becomes provisions, a wanted item, so parts of dead animals can remain. Two things de-pop -- trash and corpses. Technically, Croaking only applies to Units. Go read the Croaking page and note what leaves bodies -- dead Units. Animals aren't Units. So that means they aren't covered under the corpses rule. That makes them covered by the trash rule. Trash is, inhrently, something that is not desired. If it's desired, it's not trash. So if someone makes something to keep, it's not trash, and won't de-pop. It can be that simple. Parts of dead animals that are wanted are inherently not trash, and so will not de-pop. No, Wrecan, it is not speculation. It is the application of the known rules about de-popping. You're asking for animal meat to have an exception to a rule no one has suggested in the text. --Kreistor 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Someone added "feral bats". You're jumping to conclusions. That may have been a naturally popped doombat, a potential Unit, not a pet. We know that Stanley "tames" dwagons, and for awhile we thought that may have just been talking about the dwagons popped by GK (ie. "taming" lets Stanley pop dwagns at GK), but now we know that taming happens in the wild, so that conclusion was partially wrong. Stanley can now tame a naturally popped dwagon, in the same way Vinny tamed a bat. This is going to get messy. I'm going to start a thread on the forums. Let's all get on board with how we're going to implement this before anyone jumps in and starts creating pages. --Kreistor 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say they were "being bold" more than jumping to conclusions. Why start a thread on an outside board when the Wiki has perfectly good talk pages? If a discussion is necessary, lets have it here, where the people who work on the Wiki will see it. --MisterB777 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Because it sucks as a message board. See my commenst on the forums. These talk pages are often missed, don't edit well, and are just plain bad at this kind of discussion. Forums are designed for conversations: this page is designed as a web page, and only provided as a convenience.--Kreistor 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
These talk pages function just fine for a project the size of wikipedia. I am sure you can manage on a wiki with only a few hundred pages. Users trying to find out about edit history and policy should not be required to look in multiple areas, and as a moderator on the forum I do not wish to have to read through a thread for every wiki page with a difficulty. Please continue using the prescribed and appropriate media.
Further, I'm not sure why you think it will get messy. We know dwagons can pop in GK, and we know Stanley can tame them. We can surmise taming means converting a feral unit to your side, as Jillian basically tells us as much. All we're missing is a final definition of a feral unit and where it comes from; the rest seems quite clear and simple. Remember: Proposed canon is not canon. The wiki will be all right if someone jumps to a seemingly logical conclusion and it turns out to have been only half-right. --> ERK!|eyeBook me 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's how I'm interpreting things based on what we've seen: Arkenhammer lets Stanley pop dwagons at Gobwin Knob. Otherwise, he must tame random dwagons that pop in the wild. Same could be said for the Transylvitos. They can pop bats from their cities, but can also tame bats in the wild. That way they can obtain a unit without needing the resources to pop it. Saves shmuckers and space in the creation queue. Going to total speculation, some games where you can tame wild creatures or have other creatures born in captivity will have more powerful creatures from the wild (better stats or bonuses). They grew up in a harsher environment, etc. Thus a reason to try and obtain wild critters than always popping them from cities. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Kreistor, I'm sorry if you feel that wiki talk pages are inadequate, but, you definitely seem to be in the minority on this one. It just doesn't make sense to take discussions like this outside of the page about which it refers. It's nothing personal, but not all of us are actually on the Erfworld Forums and, while it may be convenient for some editors to discuss Wiki stuff over there, there are plenty of us for whom it is inconvenient and who will then be left out of the discussion.
On to the actual topic at hand. So, as I understand it, the consensus so far seems to be: Taming is a specific skill that indicates the converting of a "feral" or "wild" unit to a ones side. As such, taming could have its own page, as well as a reference on this one (Wildlife). Further, it seems that "feral" and "wild" (and possibly barbarian, though to me, that would seem to be speculation at this point) are synonymous and can be used interchangeably. As such, it does not seem to make sense at present to have "feral" be a separate term with its own page, but more of a reference on the existing Wildlife page. Unless there are any objections, I'd say we have an agreement. --MisterB777 18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Tamed wildlife can be named. Like the fish called Wanda.

Units or not?

At times I have to remind myself why something is accepted to be fact (or likely fact). Other than a hunch, do we know Wildlife aren't units prior to taming? It may even have been my hunch in the first place. But since dwagons and bats exist in the wild and can then be tamed (and used as combat units), it makes me wonder if they are a) different from other wildlife or b) the same in every way, and c) are just barbarian units that forage daily (turnly?) for rations or d) don't have an upkeep until tamed. CIHN