This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Ununnilium: Should we lump were-tigers, were-rats, etc., or should we have a Lycanthropy page?
Pteryx: I'd say lump.
Sci Vo: Yeah, it's a recognizably similar thing, and this is all about ways of making them distinctive anyway.
Tanto: Crap, I completely forgot that we already had Wolf Man. We may have a problem here.
((Were Josh Peck Prince)): How about changing the title to All Lycanthropes Great and Small?
Begoggled Fox: Despite what Dungeons And Dragons might tell you, "lycanthropes" really only covers werewolves. If it must change, maybe "Our Werecritters Are Different?"
HeartBurn Kid: Funny thing there is that, in the Lycanthrope entry in the second edition Monster Manual, they outright say that "Lycanthrope" as an umbrella term is a misnomer, and "Therianthrope" would be more accurate. And then they proceed to use Lycanthrope anyway.
Were Josh Peck Prince: Well technically it DID originally cover werewolves but they're so many other types of other werecritters too living in different areas of the world- like in Africa they have werelions. I bet there have a few weremooses (if that's the plural for moose) in Canada (maybe even a werejohncandy or two, you never can tell). I think the wallace and gromit movie should be mentioned on the main page in the film section.
Gilgamirage: Have we considered this for a snappier rename? Something like Our Werewolves Are Hairier or Our Werewolves Are Housebroken?
