Talk:Centauroid creature

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2011. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Article redirected, please make any new comments at Talk:Hybrid (mythology)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

References[edit]

Any references for this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muxxa (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well for Chakats http://www.furry.org.au/chakat/Intro.html is written by the creator/invertor of the chakat.-- KaiAdin 08:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... got anything besides original research? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-move thoughts for improvement[edit]

Title: No objections at all to moving the article away from taur. That's simply where I found it, and pagemoving wasn't really the sort of improvement I was immediately concerned with. However, centaur-like doesn't seem -- at least in the sources I've got -- to be the most common form. Perhaps the article should ideally be located at centauroid creature?

Phrasing: Should the line regarding the Dan Beard illustration directly refer to its publication in Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" or is it sufficient for that to be noted in the illustration's caption and in the references? I would like to see it in the maintext as that provides a more significant context. Separately, is "Within Furry and related fandoms, centaur-like creatures are often affectionately reffered to as 'taurs'." the appropriate wording? The use of "taur" as a descriptive does not seem entirely restricted to the furry fandom (Dungeons & Dragons consistently calls them "tauric creatures").

Otherwise, I think this article has gone from total dreck to something readable pretty quickly. Kudos for the refactoring by chronology. In retrospect, had a thought of it, I'd've built the article that way myself. Finding the material and sourcing it was just easier by species, and so that's sort of what got put together. Serpent's Choice 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I'm not familiar with D&D; maybe a line about that term should be added to the bulleted item? "Furry and related" could be changed to "furry and fantasy" or something like that. I'd be hesitant to move it to "centauroid"; somehow that sounds like it's referring to a specific type of creature rather than a loose conglomeration of creatures with a similar body plan (also a search on google books seems to turn up mostly science fiction), but it could work. Feel free to move the article, but good luck at changing all the dozens of "(animal-name)taur" redirect pages. That was a bit of a pain. Kotengu 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of both my phrasing concerns. Hopefully the current state will be amenable as a compromise to the editors of the deleted chakat article; I have tried to give it due credit (and a second reference) without undue weight. Going to let the title sit at "centaur-like" because any choice is going to be largely arbitrary, and this seems the more reader-friendly titling; the other phrasing will redirect to here. Serpent's Choice 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centauriod maybe a more correct (if you will) phrase. Centaur-like seems to discribe the term Centauriod, rather then the other way around.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its tough to say; the manual of style dictates that we use whatever is "most commonly" used. That's going to be a tough measure to take. I'll survey the sources for the historical/mythological references tonight and get back with some sort of hard data to work from. Serpent's Choice 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experences, Taur is common, as is Centauriod. I'm not sure I've ever heard/read/seen the use of centaur-like, I could be wrong thought.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Centauroid"[edit]

It seems that centaurod is the most common non-genre-specific use. Taur certainly gets more hits due to the overwhelmingly common furry use, but its important that the article title not reflect just the one application (indeed, that's why another user moved it to centaur-like to begin with). Utilization numbers for centaur-like term are inflated; it is common in astronomy (for certain classes of asteroids near Neptune). It also sees some use comparing things to "normal" centaurs. Centauroid is almost exclusively used as the article employs it, and is well attested. Poul Anderson, John Ringo, and Walter Jon Williams all use centauroid in major published novels. It also sees use in a robotics project white paper and a bunch of random webhits. I'll tweak the article wording to reflect the compromise. I think it can finally live at this name in peace. Serpent's Choice 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just one minor, minor issue; why is it 'centauriod creature' and not just Centauriod? You don't have an articel called 'humaniod creature'.

There is, obviously, no naming convention in the Wikipedia Manuals of Style to govern this situation, and no Wikiproject with consensus authority, so we're somewhat on our own here (hence two pagemoves for renaming in the past couple weeks). I'd suggest "centauroid creature" as opposed to just "centauroid" in order to avoid possible confusion with the astronomical term (while centaur-like is more common in referring to asteroids that are "like centaurs", centauroid is not unknown. Besides which, several of the authors employing the term have in fact used the exact phrase (to wit, Anderson and Ringo at a minimum). Serpent's Choice 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, The article should be expanded to refer to the term in generial. (like an article on Humaniod would)--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for expansion, I'd agree that there is room for growth. I find it unlikely that there are no such depictions after the c.1300 Bestiare but before the Dan Beard illustration! Otherwise, what did you have in mind for expansion content? With WP:FICTION in mind, we have to steer away from in-universe content, especially regarding modern fiction (documenting the use of the Posleen as centauroid reptiles is good; detailing their genetics and lifestyle is not, at least in this general article). Serpent's Choice 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, we should discuss the various forms of the creature, such as Hextaurs (six legged Centauriod). IT would also be useful to discuss the Centuariod compared to other body-'oids'. I don't really have the time right now to give more detail, I'll have to get back to you. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about how much we could add in this direction without running afoul of the guidelines in WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. I'm just not sure there is much we can say about some of the minor associated topics. Hextaurs, for example, have never had an independent article and their presence in the precursor taur article was, in entirety, "Hextaurs are less frequently depicted, being a kind of taur with six legs instead of four." Other former inclusions, such as "wristfootedness" and "boytaurs" simply lack the appropriate independent coverage for inclusion at all. On the other hand, I agree that the modern depictions setting is incomplete, but the ability to appropriate reference citations is going to be key; erring on the side of caution is better for the article in the long run. Serpent's Choice 10:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here is what I think should be done;

talk about the way the centauriod body 'works' (IE, it's a hexapodal creature but only four limbs are used for locomotion) Include information on centaur's themselves, because this includes them as well.
See if there is any academic discussation of this form of a body.
Discuss how it (may) have came into being (IE, What is currently believed about how the centaur (IE horse men or such))
Discuss the varations on the Body form (Chakats, wemics, hextaurs, what have you)
Compare to other '-oids'.

what do you think? --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chakat page should not have be redirected to here. It was full of informations about them.

Don't know who wrote this last one, but I second it. Chakat should not redirect to this page. It should link from and back to here. Digitalsabre 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the fun of the deletion debate. Redirection for it was the kind alternative to flat out deletion. Chakats are not notable enough to warrant their own page. The only reason I even know about it was a link I found on the idiocy of that debate. You want Chakats, go to Wikifur's entry —69.64.3.68 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing Chakats here and wikilinking to the wikifur page is a good compromise. (It's interesting to note, though, that there are still wikipedia.org pages about Chakats in other languages than English.) —Robotech_Master (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on expansion[edit]

Dropping this to a section for legibility. Here's my first thoughts on these ideas.

A lot of this is going to go into centaur rather than here. There are academic discussions about the origins of the bodyplan in myth (including several competing theories), and a very very limited amount of legitimate discussion about the biological feasibility of a centaur. We don't really need to go into that here, because the non-horse centauroids are largely back-constructions (except the urmahlullu, but our article has almost all there is known to say about that topic as it stands, sadly). As an aside, I promise I'll have a proposed reworking of the centaur article ready soon. I'm just waiting on a copy of one last scholarly journal article, delivery of which to me was delayed by the Denver weather. Pesky snowstorm; having it banned for disruption didn't work, it seems Wikipedia:Weather for Deletion isn't an accepted policy. ;-)
The problem with dicussing the variations in great detail is that there isn't much verifiable information in reliable sources. We note that some centauroids have more animal-featured upper bodies, but I'm not sure that we can go into much further detail. I don't think the odds look good for finding reliable sources for hextaurs, but I'll see if we can't tweak the existing descriptions to more clearly note that some critters have more than 4 legs.
Unless there's some existing source, like a comparative mythology essay or something, I'm not sure how we could compare body plans without relying on a novel synthesis of printed information.

--Serpent's Choice 04:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.