From Erfwiki
Revision as of 14:50, 27 July 2009 by HistoricAccount Kreistor (Talk | contribs) (Feral)

Jump to: navigation, 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)