Talk:Devourer

Can we get a picture of this from the Spread Shot skill video? I know it may not be the same type, but it can be noted what a regular devourer looks like. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there is even a difference between the devourers. I mean in the standard of GW1 where there are the charmable version and then monster versions. Perhaps it is like the other pets where there are hostile "adult" versions like the Elder Snow wolves that just can't be charmaed. The webpage did say charm 'juvenile' animals. -- Konig/talk 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that this is the exact same as Devourer, except for the lacking of an image over here and the lack of a template over there. I suggest a merge. -- Konig/talk 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We might have to add [[Juvenile <animal>]] too, if there are considerable enough differences, though I suppose that might just be an NPC type in the list of Devourers. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, later on (possibly after the game is released) the two pages will have to be separated again. I'm ok with merging, but someone sometime is going to have to undo that later. Eive 21:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is a page for the pet, it'll be "Juvenile Devourer", since that's the name of the tameable creature, right? --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what the name will be, actually. We were just told "juvenile" animals. Which, to me, means low level - like in GW1, you pretty much had to cap pets at level 5 for the first time. Rarely were there capturable level 20s out and about. -- Konig/talk 05:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved this here because 'devourer' is bound to be used as a species page, so (i got this idea from the gw1:moss spider page) i split it into xxx and xxx (pet), i thought it was a good idea, but do what you see fit.--Neil • 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. The logic appears to be "let's call the page what they're referred to as in-game!" Now, as we don't currently know, it's premature to move the page until we do know. A F K When Needed 20:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't what the merge is saying (the move is, yes, and I disagree with the merge as Kyoshi put that up). It's saying "we shouldn't separate them until we know they are separated in the game." - @ Neil, yes Devourer will most likely become a race page, but so will every pet page and monster page. But these are not individual creatures we're able to list - except for cases like polar bear. The only individuals of a race we've been given have been the bear. We don't know how devourers are classified in the game - for all we know, they can all be tameable. This page is speculation in that a pet is different than any other of the devourer species. -- Konig/talk 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Juvenile to me means baby, like those we see walking around the menagerie. For the record, pets used to start around the same level as the enemies in their area in GW, hence Otyugh's Cry. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Move or no move?

Do we have a reason to not move it? Aqua (T|C) 04:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The merge or the move Aqua? The merge would be more consistent with the other pet articles, but doesn't necessarily reflect the direction we want to take with managing the fact that most pets and/or pet types are monsters also. Moving to Juvenile Devourer is inconsistent with other pets (Krytan Drakehound for example), and doesn't reflect the naming of later evolutions of the pet - to make something up; Dire Devourer or Loyal Devourer or Hearty Devourer. In summary, I don't think it should be moved but merging is an option. Or you could try and solve the larger problem of whether pets and monsters should be split and if they are which of those has precedence for the non-disambiguated page name. :) -- aspectacle  05:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they should be split. I prefer the "Juvenile <Monster>" naming style, and the generic pet page would obviously explain the leveling up procedure.-- Shew 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a video of someone taming animals? If not, I don't think we have enough info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konig Des Todes (talk • contribs).

No. In all of the videos I've seen there have been no untamed juvenile animals for rangers to interact with. I agree we don't have enough information to make a final decision about the organisation. However, merging would give this article something of a consistency with other pet articles but I don't see there is any urgency to act on it. -- aspectacle  00:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I say merge. We can split if needed. -- Konig/talk 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Life in Tyria video

Hi,

I know that the wiki usually doesn't add video content to articles but I feel like this maybe an interesting addition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbRblFBs5gg

What do you think? Thanks --Stephane Lo Presti talk 22:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My metric for what I'm comfortable with on the wiki is rather simple: Factual density and accuracy; minimal speculation; ease of accessibility. I think this video conveys a lot of solid information in a manner which our text based format cannot. I'm all for it being under the "See also" section. G R E E N E R 22:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Greener - but I'd rather file it under 'External links', rather than 'See also' (which I consider for in-wiki articles). —Ventriloquist 22:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I leave formatting to you ; ) G R E E N E R 22:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! --Stephane Lo Presti talk 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not have time to vet any of the other videos in that series, but if they meet the quality of the devourer one, then I'd like to link to more of them. Thoughts from others? I'm aware that we generally avoid linking directly to videos, but I believe when the quality is high enough, it may be worthwhile for our users (much like how we link to Trading Post sites). G R E E N E R 03:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)