Talk:Hecarim/@comment-26203093-20160926085100/@comment-28977071-20160927125747

As long as you figure out the definition that'd divide champs correctly into Pet champions and non-Pet champions, I'm fine with it. I explicitly unfolded the definition into the form of three conditions where removing the third one changes the definition into the state where only the game-impacting pets should fall in.

The problem is that wiki provided inconsistent info before, having at least two different commonly linked articles about Pets with different lists of champions. The curent definition is the result of the merge of the data.

The starting impulse for the change was the merge of Sight champion category into Pet champions that basically made officially a pet champ.

I am fine with any strict modification to Pet definition that'd however produce a clear line between who is a pet champ and who is not, including the cosmetic pets or not. E.g. logically if is a pet champ, he is almost in the same position as,  or even , they are all using the bird avatar abilities. Again, if we don't want cosmetic pets on the wiki, then removing the third condition will do. Only has the avatar that shows signs of independent intelligence. But again, it'd remove and make the removal of Sight champion category invalid.