H3110l12345I20
He/Him- 4,770
- 2,408
- Thread starter
- #161
I was trying to go and do moa profile. And while we do have a profile on-site, the thing here is that the sizes of Moa heavily varied among species. One adult can even be the size of a turkey (which I'm planning to reconfirm it's 10-C rating for males). That's how inaccurate the profile is.
Unlike other animal profiles, the Moa is an extinct order rather than species in terms of scientific classification. And the fact that it's 9 species are very widespread among an archelpelago means that there will be heavy differences among types of Moa compared to numerous subspecies among a species. The 10-C to 9-C range is heavy compared to subspecies differences like the gray wolf.
I feel conflicted on whether to keep the moa (real world) profile or to take it away. It's not really composite, though the profile assumes the heaviest, tallest bird when we have Moa the size of a Turkey. If we choose to keep it and add Varies from 10-C to 9-C. I don't how that's going to be no different than putting a Varies between 10-C to 9-C among a profile for the canid branch of mammals (a more consistent version of composite canid). I want to see if there's reasoning as to how the current moa profile should be kept without it being "circumventing rules" type of thing or any valid and seemingly weird problem on the profile.
Like, someone might say having a tallest moa profile is redundant, and how is that redundant when the actual profile should technically have a 10-C rating? We can either do a makeover of the profile or delete it (which I would agree with the latter). I already have a profile of the tallest moa as a blog.
Unlike other animal profiles, the Moa is an extinct order rather than species in terms of scientific classification. And the fact that it's 9 species are very widespread among an archelpelago means that there will be heavy differences among types of Moa compared to numerous subspecies among a species. The 10-C to 9-C range is heavy compared to subspecies differences like the gray wolf.
I feel conflicted on whether to keep the moa (real world) profile or to take it away. It's not really composite, though the profile assumes the heaviest, tallest bird when we have Moa the size of a Turkey. If we choose to keep it and add Varies from 10-C to 9-C. I don't how that's going to be no different than putting a Varies between 10-C to 9-C among a profile for the canid branch of mammals (a more consistent version of composite canid). I want to see if there's reasoning as to how the current moa profile should be kept without it being "circumventing rules" type of thing or any valid and seemingly weird problem on the profile.
Like, someone might say having a tallest moa profile is redundant, and how is that redundant when the actual profile should technically have a 10-C rating? We can either do a makeover of the profile or delete it (which I would agree with the latter). I already have a profile of the tallest moa as a blog.