Talk:Deep-claw Digger (Zelem-melek)

Are this and the Deep-claw Digger indeed different entities? In what way? They seem to share loot and basic stats. There are different quests, but is that not rather from a quest-locality/zoning restriction where the quest is active only in certain zones but these creatures are indeed the same anyway, just at different sides of an area border? Redhorn Lodes are really close to Zelem-melek and within the same region, right? -- Zimoon 16:03, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

The Bult-kar mobs have been rescaled to lower levels since Moria revamp. Looks like Deep-claw Digger has not been updated. It should be level 53 (or maybe level 52). Please don't go merging mobs on the basis of documentation, which might now be wrong. Make sure you actually observe the mob you are changing. Remember, too, that the Moria resource instances randomly have 1 of three different mob populations. RingTailCat (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

The main difference are the levels of the mobs and the loot. There are six solo resource instances in Moria, two instances for each resource. For example, at the lumber instance hub, there's Bult-kar with Ilex wood and level 53 mobs, and Sejer-tharakh where you find Mallorn and level 57-58 mobs. Each time you run an instance, it's populated with a different type of mob such as orcs and goblins or cave-claws and deep-claws. I'm just running through the instances real quick and I've seen the cave-claw/deep-claw combo in three out of six instances.

So there are level 53 Deep-claw Diggers and level 58 Deep-claw Diggers. The same level mobs seem to be the same across regions, but this needs a bit more verification. As for loot, there's Barbed Claws, Spotted Skins and Magnificent Hides on the level 53s, and Raking Claws, Creepy Skins and Extraordinary Hides on the level 58s. The rest of the possible mobs in these instances need quite a bit of work, too, so watch out for those when you come across them. Neum (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

@RTC, that is why I ask, or rather why I added the merge-suggestion and went away ;)

@Neum, thanks, I have seen you are also doing creatures but my LM is way lower than yours, so...

I may explain...this sweep is purely walking over creatures having location-specification in their names and move the "original" to also having a specification. Why? I do not know how often you check up on it but I have done it for a long time now, and we editors are sloppy and often it seems we think "if a link is not red it is correct" but we do not follow it and verify that the creature at the other end is what we intended. Hence I have found anything from critters dropping high-end stuff (yesterday), creatures in the Shire dropping Exceptional Hide, to Moria pages referencing creatures in the Shire. Such lazy mistakes is much harder to do if we need to look up the real creature. (Of course there are links to Disambiguation Pages too, which if course should go to a real page, but... .)

Another reason was the discussion in Talk:Creatures#Longer Discussion on Same-name Creatures which resulted in the recent updates on the creature template/doc and boilerplate. In short, if possible, try using "shared pages" ... mainly for improving usability/affordance for the casual visitors; use separate pages only when called for. And even before that, I split some mob-pages in Angmar which covered level 40-50 same-name mobs found at different locations, dropping different loot (incl. class-trophies from level 45 mobs); but it was questioned whichever was better, shared page or split on several pages.

I would say that loot in itself is perhaps not a very strong argument for split pages, that could be handled in the Drops section as suggested at Help:Creatures#Same-name Issues. But if there are even further differences that would make the page look very complex and confusing, then I completely agree. The two big issues here are not about "entities" but about "easily accessed information" and "aiding editors doing it right"; visitors being forced to select correct page but finding the wrong page is not user-friendly (and sadly, quite often the "Other" template is missing); editors referencing incorrect page is a real problem, examples are found every day when I walk over many pages on some "mission".
-- Zimoon 02:36, 9 October 2012 (EDT)