Talk:Centauroid creature

message: 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)
replies: text: Uh... got anything besides original research? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Centauriod maybe a more correct (if you will) phrase. Centaur-like seems to discribe the term Centauriod, rather then the other way around.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-move thoughts for improvement 

message: 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)
thread_title: Thoughts on expansion