| Forums: War Room → Armadillo lion or Tigerdillo? Or both? | 
|
It looks like we might have two pages for one animal on our hands. The armadillo lion and the tigerdillo may actually be one and the same. Have a read over this user's edits to the tigerdillo article. They attempted to set up the tigerdillo page to be what we have for the armadillo lion; and indeed there does seem to be a level of confusion here. However; now there is still going to be speculation here - this is a zoo; it could have animals all over the world. Maybe the "tigerdillo" is from the Fire Nation and not the Earth Kingdom. You see? Speculation, yet again. Blast!
Anyway; I'm reaching out to see if someone has further input and/or information on this dilemma. Should we remove the "armadillo lion" article and update the tigerdillo with relevant information, should we leave both articles as is and do nothing? Or is there another route you think this should go? Neither creature is in the "Art book" (I had someone check), so...we don't have those names to fall back on sadly.
This old edit leads me to discredit the existence of the armadillo lion article further. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 05:08, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, without much to go on, there may be no hope for a change. Again, it's speculation upon speculation unless the title has actually been confirmed or there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Kind of odd this was missed for so long though. KettleMeetPot (wall • contribs) 05:12, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- As being the one that made the edit, I'd also like to point out that the "armadillo lion" was never actually called such in "The Tales of Ba Sing Se." Aang looked at the creature, it looked at him, roared, and then rolled away - and that was the last of it until the animals followed Aang outside the wall and it was seen again. I'm not even quite sure where the "armadillo lion" came from, as I've never heard anyone in the series even mention the animal. I've only heard someone (Zuko) mention the tigerdillo in the series, and then later in The Legend of Korra because of the Golden Temple Tigerdillos.
- As for it being a Fire Nation or an Earth Nation animal, the Hundred Year War involved Fire Nation peoples expanding into the Earth Nation itself; it wouldn't be that far fetched for them - epspecially Fire Nation Royalty - to know what a tigerdillo is. I also wonder why we have heard of the tigerdillo twice, but have never actually seen it as this wiki claims? This may be speculation yes, but there is physical evidence to look at. There may not be any official statement by the creators or artists, but close comparisons of what we see in "The Tales of Ba Sing Se" could show more of a tiger than a lion to some people.
- I go back to the edit I made - specifically the anatomy and connection parts. As you can see, I even uploaded a second image to show the profile view of the creature in question. The coloring pattern mainly follows the split coloring of a tiger without the stripes (lighter color on its belly, muzzle and lower half of its face, and inside -and in the creature's case, outside- of its legs, darker color on top), the head is the same boxy shape, and the way the fur is displayed on the head only further supports the physical aspects of a tiger.
- I'd also like to point out the comments on the armadillo lion's page. There are only three comments and they all say the same thing, "This is a Tigerdillo." However, on the tigerdillo's page, people point back to the armadillo lion's page. It is very confusing, but I honestly believe the armadillo lion is the tigerdillo. Ivy Hawk (wall • contribs) 05:54, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- After checking them both out, I believe that both pages do indeed represent the same thing and should be merge/combined into one article. My personal preference is to have that article be "tigerdillo". --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon)
06:00, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- After checking them both out, I believe that both pages do indeed represent the same thing and should be merge/combined into one article. My personal preference is to have that article be "tigerdillo". --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon)
- I'd also like to point out the comments on the armadillo lion's page. There are only three comments and they all say the same thing, "This is a Tigerdillo." However, on the tigerdillo's page, people point back to the armadillo lion's page. It is very confusing, but I honestly believe the armadillo lion is the tigerdillo. Ivy Hawk (wall • contribs) 05:54, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Due to two editing conflicts, I had to retype this, but this is mostly in response to Vulmen.
Anyway... This is exactly the sort of thing that I hate about a lot of the animal articles, and I expect this will run into a lot of the same problems I encountered with that "goat dog" name change. The main problem is that what looks like one thing to one person doesn't appear the same to another. I, personally, think that the so-called "armadillo lion" looks much more like a tiger in facial structure, and also in that it doesn't have a mane. If the Ba Sing Se zoo animal had originally been called a "Armadillo tiger", I expect it would probably have been merged by now. However, since it was originally created with that name, I'm sure somebody will argue - and not without some valid evidence - that it is in fact a lion. For example, it doesn't have stripes and is more tawny-colored than tigers are. And the fact remains that there isn't "evidence" that the two are the same. We didn't hear the animal at the zoo called a tigerdillo, and it has never been proven in official sources. We don't actually have any concrete descriptors of a tigerdillo. So, how can we change its name to "something just as speculative"?
Mainly, it seems to me that we have become complacent with some sort of level of speculation with the animal articles, and I think it's setting up a situation where speculation is allowed as long as it's popular enough. The responses here, for example, seem to tend towards "go ahead and change it", even though we don't have definite proof that it is, where as other articles I've attempted to change the responses have been "don't change it, we don't have proof" even if the article itself (or the claims made in it) are severely lacking in proof. There needs to be some kind of clearer guideline for what is and is not considered acceptable in these fauna articles. But I'm rambling... to get back on track, it does look like they're probably the same thing to me, so personally I would merge it. The two things we know about it seems to give some credence to that - it is defensive and is known for its roar, and the first thing we saw that zoo animal do was roar and curl up into a ball - though, of course, I would expect anything named after either a lion or tiger to roar, and anything named after an armadillo to curl up in a ball. I'm sure you see how difficult it is And of course, being a zoo, you know nothing about where an animal comes from. (And for that matter, who's to say a tigerdillo is a Fire Nation creature in the first place? Zuko didn't say so... but again, it's apparently "acceptable" speculation to assume it is since he referenced it in the first place.) If only we could just ask the animators! telane (wall • contribs) 06:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Due to the fact that there COULD be differences between the two species, I think we should leave things the way they are. DarkKnightRises (wall • contribs) 10:34, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- TLane, I agree. I know. I already even said this, multiple times over. It is a grey area that is pretty much unavoidable. The name of the creature, I mean. As for the creature pages itself, they definitely should be as speculation-free as possible. For example; there's arguments that it's an Earth Kingdom creature, a Fire Nation creature, maybe it could hail from both, etc. In these situations; don't give it such a tag at all. Don't list it as Earth Kingdom, don't list is as Fire Nation. But the sad truth is; we have to at least agree on a name to host the article's content. (and include the "well it isn't his name but..." template to show it is not proven canon) Vulmen (talk • EoK) 04:00, June 13, 2012 (UTC)