Does anyone know which instances it is spelled "Kraken" vs. "Krakken"? I was looking over The Fall of Gurubashi and it seems to be spelled "Krakken" there. Given that's an in-game reference, shouldn't that be the correct spelling? (and thus, Kraken should redirect to Krakken, and not the other way around). However I'm not sure where exactly it's spelled as "Kraken" either, which is why I ask.
P.S. - Regarding the "unkillable" aspect, keep in mind that was written from a Troll's perspective and may not actually be true (it's what *they* believed). It also may have been refering to that specific Krakken (or group of Krakken). It also doesn't specifically say they are unkillable, just that the one particular spell, while strong, wasn't strong enough to do it. I really do think Lurker and Tethyr are supposed to be Krakken. --WarlockSoL (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is that the only place? If so, I'd say the in-game spelling is more likely to be the correct one then (especially since S&L is older - the WarCraft RPG line tends to have a lot of details Blizzard later changed in WoW, such as "Gadgetzar", Maiev being dead, etc). --WarlockSoL (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Shadows and Light was published after the release of the MMO actually. So "which is older" is debateable. Krakken has technically only been used in relation to troll name for the creature, and file name (which is technically a datamined factoid). It hasn't yet appeared in modern texts. Kraken is the english spelling (or the spelling adopted into English) for the creature in real earth english. Krakken may be a troll spelling, but who knows. However if a future published source comes out and clarifies things then it can be moved. As for Gadgetzar, it might be a typo, because its only appeared with that spelling once, and it was later called Gadgetar once (which may be another typo). Maiv's death, was a mission objective in TFT (she had to be killed to progress the mission, although she could respawn after her death)... Not entirely the RPG's fault there... But Blizzard retconning themselves. What you should be saying is that Blizzard products tend to hae a lot of details that Blizzard later changes in future Blizzard products. It doesnt' matter what product, even stuff in TBC changed stuff in WoW base version.Baggins (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kraken versus lurkers belowEdit
I think all these creatures called Kraken on wowwiki may not really be Kraken. The only evidence it seems, unless I have missed something, is a model called Krakken. The Lurker Below, Oacha'noa, and Tethyr seem to look like the "lurkers below", who themselves do not look like Kraken. Going by the description of Kraken in the book, they seem to resemble giant squids like in the real world myths. They are described as having tentacles and being able reach out like they can wrap a tentacle around a person, as when one tried to grab Rhonin. Also, these guys seem too small, since Kraken are described as large enough to have leviathan swimming around them. It seems like Kraken are one type of creature and "lurkers below", The Lurker Below, Oacha'noa, and Tethyr are another type of creature. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should split this page into two. One for "Kraken" and one for "Krakken". I don't think there are two types of kraken, one with tentacles and one that looks like a fish. The only evidence I see for Krakken is a model image. Meanwhile, everything about the Kraken that I have seen talks about tentacles. I think wowwiki has done this before, for example with the Manticore/Manticora page. It was one page but then split into two. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- First off the term "krakken" only appears in WoW in ingame books and file names. The term "kraken" only appears in WoE and the RPG.
- The problem here is that their are krakken and kraken references that both mention or imply tentacles and large sized creatures. WoE reference discusses "kraken" and discusses tentacles. The references to "krakken" in the ingame books, tablets, and quests also seem to imply tentacles (or implication of many limbs). Both references describe kraken and "krakken" as being large creatures. The RPG references to kraken imply that they are very large creatures, and the references in the game to krakken also imply them to be large creatures.
- In other words there is no safe way to seperate krakken and kraken since descriptions both appear to be roughly the same, although thanks to "krakkens" now seen in WoW we now have two seperate appearances for "krakkens" in description and seen appearance.Baggins (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Manticora and Manticore aren't even remotely the same creatures. They were always seperate sections because they were different things. They got split because they were different things.
- Kraken and Krakken are just alternate spellings of the same "thing". If you go by ingame books there are krakken described with tentacles, just as you can find the term kraken described with tentacles in WoE. Just because Blizzard decided to make the models nothing like how they described Krakken ingame books doesn't mean that one can seperate that information out. You can't seperate things when they represent the same thing, and are described similarly.Baggins (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- My thought: tentacles are hard to model. 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- A single tentacle can be easy to animate, however, several tentacles on one creature that will need to flow with one another so that it looks good, not so easy... One could say, not worth the time. User:Coobra/Sig3 01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The spelling may not even have anything to do with the differences they may merely be mny creatures named Kraken or something like it just because giant creatures of the deep ocean are a tad difficult to catalog properlySargeLIVES (talk) 01:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)