Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Species/Archive2

101,502pages on
this wiki

Back to template | < Template talk:Species


Goblins and Worgen Edit

Shouldn't we be moving Goblins and Worgen to "Alliance" and "Horde" by now? I mean, they're officially confirmed as playable races in Cataclysm. Severin Andrews 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, you seem to ascribe to us superhuman or computerized speed we are not quite capable of- for another, an argument could be made that they will not be joining the Alliance and Horde until Cataclysm is released (not that I'm making that argument for this template, I'm just saying)--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Severin, I'm not sure what you're talking about... they were already moved at 16:13, August 21, 2009. Almost a whole 24hrs before you asked. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, sorry, I didn't want to sound rude, if I sounded like that. And then, when I was posting that, I couldn't see Goblins and Worgen in there. Strange. Sorry for the mess. ;) Severin Andrews 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Messy TemplateEdit

For a working copy of the template free of editing restrictions, use Template:Races/dev.

The azeroth part of this template is so messy, this should be simplified someway, i propose to at least organise some of the races more or less like this:

i tried to put them all in a roughly into alphabetic order

Just to simplify, because in the current incarnation, i belive is too messy, these are some of the examples of what could change for the better, or at least those that have three or more variations

ps: arent werewolves worgens i see no need for that to be there when there's should be a worgen link instead of a werewolf one, and in dont get why there are barely sentinent constructs in here like the anubisath and the obsidian destroyer

pss: well, i asked for help in scrolls of lore forums and theyre helping me making a better list for this template --Ashbear160 (talk) 11:55, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far, I suppose... I think we can safely ignore some of the RPG-only races, depending on which book they come from. My only objection to the use of the parenthesis is that it doesn't discriminate between genuine subraces, corrupted versions and the like, but getting more specific than that is a bit out of scope for a navigational template. I'm also not convinced that revenants should count as a separate race. Aren't Skardyn modified dwarves? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:22, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Tomorrow ill put the template which i asked support in scrolls of lore to make--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:02, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
See also: http://www.scrollsoflore.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5111 --SWM2448 23:51, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
I like more as it is now. This new template has some weak points: It lists non-races (such as Cenarius and undead), there are some wrong parenthesis (sush as nymphs being related to cenarius and his children), the Old Gods part seems to much complicated in my opinion, as Ragestorm said the parenthesis aren't well formated (sometimes they are used for corrupted races, other times for minions or desendants, other times for evolutions or subraces and sometimes for the progenitors), also I'm sure that people would look in the "H" for humans and not in a parenthesis from the "V" of Vrykul. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:02, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
To be fair "Cenarius" should be "Children of Cenarius" or "Cenarian". I'd like to use some of the changes Ashbear is proposing, but I think we can leave the Horde and Alliance heading, which would enable us to leave the ten (soon to be twelve) races out of the main heading if we want. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:35, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
these were my main ideas sort of like an example prototype some of the thing like cenarious is supposed to mean child of cenarious ill put the new template i thought of as soon as i can and the parenthesis are used for the corrupted races,subraces and mostly whats designed as a big evolutionary tree, and ignore the old god category that pretty much a messed up area

this is not the final version as theres somethings that need to be corrected or reviewed, the "other" section is the only one not organized alphabetly, i think it might be a lot bigger and to explain races that have more that 2 examples have a category, thank god for return otherwise i would have to write this all over again if you have any suggestions it would deeply appreciated--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:11, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

I still like more the current one, this one is way to big. Besides it has some of the problems I have told before: the categorization are inconsistent, the gnomes include their progenitors, the mechagnomes, while the aquir includes its decendants, etc. Also the playable races are repeated below making it retundant. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:22, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe something based on Humoinad, dragon, demon, etc..
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:06, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
well mine involves far too much space, but in yours we still have a cluttered humanoid category, and a totally wrong elemental category--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:33, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Ashbear's version involves far too much dead space- the parenthesis are better from that perspective. A'noob has a better arrangement, I think, though I like the idea of grouping races together as opposed to a pure alphabetical listing. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:35, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
I have another idea, will try to develop it better tomorrow. Basically, it consists of creating main categories, each one with one of the playable races or a predominant race, and then add related races. For example:
Ogres: Gronn, Ogres, Ogre kings, Ogre mages.
Humans: Human, Vrykul, Frost Vrykul, Sea Vrykul.
Dragons: Dragons, Drakes, Dragonspawns, Drakonids, Whelps.
I'll update the complete version tomorrow.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:29, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
i tried my best,Well my other idea is
Demon section for demons and fel corrupted races
Undead section for undead races
Titan section for the ones without the curse of flesh like eathen and mechagnomes
Flesh section for the inflicted with the curse of flesh
Water or sea section for aquatic species like the makrura, nagas and murlocs
Alien section for the ones that come from other worlds(in case of some variations like sand gnome and nether drakes they should be together with other races)
Native section for land races from azeroth that dont belong to the other sections
Nature section for nature spirits like cenarius children and trees
Dragon Section Here be dragons!
this doesnt seem as big as my suggestion so it might work ill try to put in template later--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:41, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Here's mine:
It still needs cleaning, but you get the idea. If you don't like that, you could like my second one instead:
Still needs work, too, but you get the idea as well.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:11, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
i dont think we should work with gameplay mechanics
well here goes my third attempt at this
ps this is incomplete since i rushed do to annoyng parent ill try to complete the remaining of the list tomorrow
I'm still voting for A'noob's template. --User:Gourra/Sig2 21:42, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:04, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
like i said i still havent completed it, men my parents are really annoyning me when i try to do this--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:42, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
I like A'noob's, I only have a problem with it: since when is "insectoid" a type?--Lon-ami (talk) 11:00, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
well now it's more complete but there are some fine tuning(like arranging some dots(Done i think) ,putting half-breeds somewhere and adding missing races, and fixing some things alphabetcly)it should have removed cluttering and deadspace from the other templates i even arranged the horde and alliance category to show which part of the race is playable since not all parts of the mentioned races are playable ?if you see this is because i need help here?(there seems to be a problem it's the third time my parents make me rush things in this template....) there appears to be some problem with my ist that i cant find....--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:38, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
Found the Problem didnt know such a small thing could be such a big problem anyway it might be better if i put the water section in the other sections since it seems to be smallest of them all makrura and murlocs would go to native ,naga to elfs, kvaldir to to vrykul, and sea giants to giants--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:36, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

so what do you think oh and things betwen ?? means that i need help here--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:43, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like it because the categorizations are vague, it is very rare to see the terms native, alien and nature in warcraft universe to refer to the creatures in the categories you put. Also the template has speculation within, as we are not sure where the sand gnomes come from, also I don't like that the playale link is separated from the race link. And also, it has many spelling/grammar mistake and capitalizes every second word (which is incorrect), although this could be corrected. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 15:52, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
Well common mistakes happens, many of the spelling grammar mistakes are obviously to be corrected before being a final version, and native, alien and nature are common denominators(it's denominators right?) of these categories, but if you can find any way to express these categories please bring forth your suggestions, we could change it to Azeroth Native or similar, and ill add the ?? to parts that until a better denominators are found will be used, and about the categories vagueness it's for not having too many cluttered or too much dead space, and the separation of playable is for the distinction that not all parts of the said race are part of the alliance and the horde, in this form which is much more correct(in my beliefs) and to avoid problems with arranging sub-races and repetition of the same races, and as of the sand gnomes the only thing we know is that they hide under the sand and theire called gnomes so as far as we know they are gnomes and should stay in the gnomes sub-race, which were caused by the curse of flesh, and when proved wrong should be changed accordingly.--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:48, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
Oh and the capitalization of every second word is due to copy pasting a lot, but if you find anything like typos and wrong capitalizations you are free to change yourself, or note me about it. --Ashbear160 (talk) 16:53, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
Still the categorizatin are a bit confusing because of this:
  • Why aren't the dragons in natives?
  • Is the undead category really necesary? I mean, they are not a race.
  • Why aren't the nature in natives?
  • The curse of flesh category seems useless as there is a titan one.
  • The parenthesis still are confusing as it isn't used for a sole purpose but mixes corruption, desendants or subraces.
  • The playable races are confusing as they have lore name but directs you to the playable article, and the lore article can't be found easily because of the many categories.
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:42, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • Because there is a dragonkin in gameplay mechanics although i said we shouldn't use that mechanic the dragonkin is the most correct of them all, and we know there's a large variety of dragonkin, i was going to ask if we could put each colour of the dragonflight since they are a diferent subraces now that we have space for that, also theres netherdrakes in outlands so native might be slightly wrong, but the main reason is below.
  • i dont think so too it's was just an attempt.
  • Because natives are for the other that don't fit the other category, that we don't know the origin so it does excessively clutter stuff, and nature are distinct because they also appear in outlands as native, at least ancient and treeants, and nature means they are nature spirits or related to nature spirits.
  • Well that might be, but someone earlier complained about mixing creator races with cursed fleshs, i believe it's better the other way to and the titan and curse of flesh should be titan only, but if i were to change it should the gnome be the one or mechagnome
  • Thats the point the parenthesis list all variations of the race be either corrupted, descendants and sub-races if we tried to list everything individually it would be confusing, and were trying to simplify the current template not making even more confusing
  • So then what article you suggest to put i did change it for the playable articles since they seemed the correct ones, but if you think they are not and found the correct article please tell me so.
Ps im going to make a new one to show how it becomes with the suggestions above removing the undead, curse of flesh category, but keeping creator races separated from the cursed races,Ive added the dragonflights but if people doesnt like it, it can be changed back
--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:06, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
So... no more suggestions?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:45, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
  • You said that dragonkin was used for gameplay purposes, but none of the template is based on gameplay as you also said, that's a bit confusing.
  • Still, the centaurs, keepers of the groves, dryads and wildkin could be considered natives. Besides is a term too vague, how do you know that the nymphs are of nature?
  • The problem with the parenthesis inconsistances is that they don't follow a pattern. Sometimes the one inside the parenthesis was a progenitor and sometimes an evolution, this tends to complicate the matters as to what put in the inside the parenthesis and what put outside them.
  • I'm not talking about the correct articles for playable races. I am talking about putting thinks like "Exodar Draenei" or "Darkspear Troll" when it was decided in the past that they should be refered as "Draenei (playable)" or "Troll (playable)".
Finally I want to tell you that I am having a very busy life right now and don't have the same amout of free time I had the last month, so I can't be in WoWWiki as much as before. That's why I didn't answered quickly (if you were refering to me about the questions of "no complains now?"). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:51, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that, i said that the dragonkin area is the most correct of them all, and there should be a dragonkin area because, it's differentiated from the other areas and the most correct in both gameplay and lore
  • but these four you mentioned are descendants from nature spirit, elementals, and a goddess, but most importantly they're children of cenarius, basicly this is the area where we put nature spirits and related to nature spirits, or goddess in case of the wilkin since they're guardians of holy places of elune, the only nymphs that exist in game are frozen dryads anything else about dryads as far as i know is that they're tree spirits
  • About the two above were added to avoid too much clutter in the native zone which is the current problem with the current template, and the native zone if for those races that little to no relations with each other, that don't have a specific origin and are native to azeroth
  • I used the most Acknowledged denominator before the parenthesis, and the ones that have relations to the denominator inside the parenthesis, in some cases, elf troll or dwarf suffice, in others it doesn't, so it must be Aqir and Children of cenarius, however since you're so deadset on this could you tell me where is the dubious parenthises in the most recent template i made?
  • Just because a thing was decided one way doesn't mean it should stay for ever that way and/or it's the most correct way, and im proposing many changes, not all of them must be accepted, however im suggesting this because the link in the alliance section goes directly to draenei, that might or might not be part of the alliance, and it should go directly to the playable section because that's the draeneis that are part of the alliance and it removes repetition when used correctly below
  • i was talking in general not to anybody in specific but it was rather rude so i change it to something more nicer
i try to think this template, the most correct as possible but i make mistakes as im human so if you have any further corrections or suggestion tell me more--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:31, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


I changed the title to "Races and species", added a Beast cat, added more Demons, Dragonkin and Humanoids, and played more with some sub-species into parenthesis.
What do you say?
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:23, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to play to play devil's advocate here but you changed the objective of this template and the purpose of this discussion, the template is about sapient species, and it's even more messy and cluttered than the original, the problem is that youre using a dubious categories that have no place lorewise, and the fact that you twisted the purpose of the template for youre categories when what should have happened is the contrary, you should have twisted the categories around the purpose of the template. --Ashbear160 (talk) 20:42, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
but your miscellaneus area gave me a idea thanks, ill post it later, oh and ill use the dragonspawn subraces and the demon category--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:51, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
why does everyone keep posting dragon whelps an drakes as a different race? they are dragon babies and dragon teenagers, should we put human children and troll babies since they are ingame anyway?(sorry for the sarcasm but this issue severily annoys me)--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:57, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
Here goes another change
well i followed a few of the suggestion and removed nature section, i hope the native section doesnt become too cluttered, the new divine section is for beings related to divine magic(nature, elements, light, shadow and others the name of the category should say which)the repitition of ancients is made from the 2 types of ancient both demigods and trees once i learn to link to different parts of the article i will change it, i also put the categories orders for the more known to the lesser known, if people wish i can remake the nature section--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:10, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
if people has any more questions ask me and ill answer, if you have suggestions tell them too, oh and thank you A'noob
i saw somethings that i could use in mine thanks again, theres some corrections i still wish to make before i finalize this version of the template, i just waiting for some answers at http://www.scrollsoflore.com/forums/showthread.php?p=148515#post148515 :--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:48, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
On your last draw, I would say this:
- there has already been a way too long debate on how to name the playable races, and the result is <Race> (playable), not any random combination of <Race> <Capital>
- Titan category, why not, but the parenthesis are bad in there, because you choose to put Human out of the Vrykul evolution, same goes for the Iron dwarf/Dwarf and Mechagnome
- Grell are demons, not Native (no?)
- For the Tauren/Taunka, that would be the contrary: Taunka (Tauren)
- Ogre descend from the Gronn no?
- "Divine" is a bit too much imo, Naaru are powerful being, but gods... same goes for Titans, their abilities too create worlds does not mean their are gods, only techno-capable being
- I would have kept an Elemental category
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:59, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
  • well doesnt mean he cant be changed does it? of course it does not need to be my way either, I just did it to make categories the most correct and avoid repetition.
  • if you look closer you see that there is a part with pure titan races and curse of flesh however i think ill change so it's clear and i think i know how.
  • Grell are fey more related to nature and the emerald dream they just look like imps(note this is really confusing and i dont know the truth, so ill change it later accordingly of what is correct)
  • The parenthesis are there for connecting the most common races to it's subraces, is not about a descendant thing, i mentioned various times before, and as far as i know taunka are not ancestors of taurens
  • i wrote before that divine category, is about beings related to divine magic, however this is the name that I find most fitting for these guys and if you follow the link Divine you would see what i mean.
  • however if you saw your elemental category you would have see that noone of these beings are actual elementals, and there aren't many actual elementals that are sapient.--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:49, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

i did another improvement i dont know if it becomes better or worse look at the titan category and tell me your opinion--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:49, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Even with your corrections I still prefer the first template made by A'noob or the one that is currently used. It still has some problems:
  • First of all, please, try to use correct spelling and grammar. It's more profesional and gives more credibility to your words. If you use wrong spelling and grammar in your template (like saying "Ogrimmar" instead of "Orgrimmar", not separating the parenthesis from the words, etc) it tends to distract and made it looks worse than it actually is. Also the use of red links makes it look wrong.
  • The debate of the playable races mentioned before by me and A'noob can't be changed that easily, it was decided by the admins here.
  • The parenthesis part is still confusing with the humans, as it doesn't tell that they are related to the vrykul, but if they are put in the vrykul the people won't find them easily. So, this may not have a solution and maybe that's why the actual template doesn't includes parenthesis.
  • It is never told that the elementals are divine...
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:47, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
-well im only human... and the red part is because i used two scientific terms for categories in a fantasy game, however they don't stop making them correct, just that they dont have a link...and if you tell me the grammar mistakes i will correct them as soon as possible, and what do you mean of separating the parenthesis from the word? if you tell me ill try to find a way to repair this
-if the admins think it's better that way they'll put how they think it's best, not all parts of this template must be accepted.(do i need to repeat myself? continously because it's the third time i give people the same answer...)
-or i could put humans in the main part and link vrykuls as it's subrace but people are complaing about that, so it's better this way.
-like i said, related to divine magic, which shamanism is part of.
and why do you think is first A'noob was better? it had clutter, deadspace and some parts where very wrong? --Ashbear160 (talk) 08:25, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
I know you are human, but you could try a little harder like putting the sentences capitalized, ending with a period, etc. The grammar I mean when you write comments, not in the template. The parenthesis part is that you put "something(another thing)" instead of "something (another thing)".
The problem is that you put an arbitrary lore term for the playable races and put the races below the template, that's something I didn't like. But as you said, not all has to be accepted.
The human & vrykul part, as I said, may not have a solution and that's why I said that it may be the reason why the acutal template doesn't have them.
Where is it told that shamanism is divine magic?
I like A'noob firstly for the profesionalism, he used correct term for the categories, good spelling and grammar. I still prefer it as none of the templates you made really convince me, you said that it had cluttered the humanoid category, but it may be necessary one cluttered category, because, if you separate in too much categories the template is made too big and less interesting in my opinion. I'm not sure what you mean for deadspace, but if you mean the space after the last race then most of the templates you made are in the same way, besides it varies from computer to computer. And can you mention what parts are really wrong?
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:02, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
  • Ill try to do it as soon as i can but there are somethign that i simply don't notice, and my bad writing is mostly due to english not being my first language, and lousy msn related habits in the net, and all the damn typos that I don't notice.
  • It's not arbitrary it's the name of the culture of the playable races in the alliance and the horde.
  • Pretty much that the problem with humans.
  • Click the divine link, and it would lead to divine magic section, basicly divine magic is anything that isn't runic arcane and fel magic.
  • He used correct terms in the categories for gameplay, but as you would clearly see most of these are completely wrong in terms of lore, which is the main focus of this template, and what are we trying to avoid is cluttering races together and organizing the existing list in a more comprehensive one, and when I mentioned dead space, i meant little tiny categories that have only a handfull of fingers(5), and ive gone and done on purpose to reduce the number of categories to the minimum without cluttering the races together while trying to stay the most correct, and alien species and native species are correct terms and can be used in science and fantasy game. the wrong parts are elemental which is absolutely wrong and insectoid which are not distinguished that way in game and all are told to be descended from the aqir, and the biggest flaw of this categorization is that the gameplay mechanics doesn't respect anyway lore and you can find often races that are in two categories, the only one of these categories that can be really respected is Dragonkin, since those categories are used arbitrarily in gameplay, often for balance reasons, other just not to make new ones, i bet i could find more flaws. --Ashbear160 (talk) 21:56, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
Spaces were added between the race and the parenthesis, and red links removed to standard white words, some might have escaped me, but ill correct it as soon as i notice it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:31, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so your main language is not english, sorry about that. And so the msn habits are probably the cause for not capitalzing. After you fixed the spaces and removed the red links it made the template to look much better than before, ironically now I see it as a good template now with just some fixes.
However, I still dislike the idea of separating the race from it's playable link, also not separating them won't cause a problem for the human-vrykul part.
About the divine magic, the article in WoWWiki tells that, but I will remind you that it is not sourced. I want a primary source, meanwhile I'll put a "citation needed" tag.
I still don't like the categories native and alien as it is never specified that this template is Azeroth-based. And the divine category doesn't convince me.
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:21, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
-The problem is that will cause repetition problems everywhere in the template, it's more correct than before, since it displays which part race is in the alliance or the horde.(about this question this is my final attempt at justifying this change I cant say anything better than this).
-Well... The lore pretty much divides magic into divine and arcane, so... I don't know.
-I could make it Native to Azeroth and Alien to Azeroth, but I'm afraid that would make the name of the categories section to big, I could probably call divine, magic, spirits, demigod, other, but most of these don't fit with some of the races there and other is needlessly vague when being related to divine magic(elementals, ancients, demigods and such) or divine could also mean that is considered a higher being by the lesser races.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:41, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

well i tried to add the native to azeroth and alien to azeroth but i cant manage to put in two lines only 3 or 1 lines, if somebody can do this please tell me how--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:52, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Since I cant see any improvements or any way better template than this one that I and other people helped me make, I'm proposing this template as the new template, if anyone sees any improvement/error I could make to my template, please proceed to tell so I can improve/correct it, now I would want any admin answer if possible, if this template could be the new one or not. (P.S. if anyone find a way to put "native to azeroth" and "alien to azeroth" in a two liner please proceed to tell me).--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:51, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

If this template is to remain focused on the sapient races, maybe it should be renamed to better explain it.
As for the global rest, here is my version, quitte the same, but more filled.
What do you think of it?
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 06:05, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
PS:If you think of other races feel free to add them here in the proper category.
I still have the same critique I said earlier about your template which is:
The humanoid section is too cluttered.
The elemental section is Mostly wrong(before was completely wrong).
The dragonkin section has things that aren't races, I'm sorry but whelps, drakes, aspects and wyrms ARE NOT DIFFERENT SAPIENT RACES(this infuriates me).
You betrayed the purpose of the template which is too show sapient races, there is already one for beasts and when people are looking for races they are looking sapient races, not animals.
Gameplay mechanics are not a trustworthy categorization, they are used by the developers with no thought of lore and used for convenience and balance of gameplay, when we are trying to make a template lorewise correct, only the dragonkin section is a somewhat trustworty section.--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:34, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

Im still waiting for an answer.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:40, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Well i renamed the categories tell me what you think, i still i could put them in two lines but obviously something is not working right or im not finding the thing that makes it into two lines.
I just did an gigantic facepalm for not remembering eternals to use instead of the divine category... and also added a few parts to a below that are related to the sapient species--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:21, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
Now i just need a admin telling me if it's changing the template or not, since apparently noone isn't against this template... --Ashbear160 (talk) 18:26, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fine, but wait for more people to voice their opinions before changing it ;).--Lon-ami (talk) 18:40, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
Silence usally means that their not against it :P--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:57, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
it seems that noone answers so ill ask for a admin to answer me plz--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:44, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but to me it looks just as messy now as it did before- if more categorized...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:17, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Well to put it simply, messy is the inert quality of the categories of warcraft races :S ;in the template I suggested is less messy because:
-Categories have lots of races and should be easy to understand, without any of the races contradicting the categories.
-Race (Sub-race) makes it easier to look for races with lots of members like troll and elves, and also makes the template uch more organised and simpler
That's why i think the template i made is better.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:23, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
i guess there isnt a veredict out yet?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:42, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
Very sorry about that. I think we'll go with your revamping on a trial basis and see how it's received. I'll update the template over the next couple of days.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:17, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I still prefer mine ;)
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 17:27, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
Having another look, so do I. I'm going to make this more complicated than it needs to be. I'll put Ashbear's up for the next week or so (Nov 28-Dec 5), see how it does, then put A'noob's up for the following week (Dec. 6-12), and see how it does. With luck. We'll get more feedback from one or the other of them. Again, sorry for this taking waaay longer than it should have.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:30, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and i shall wait for feedback(probably noone will tell theirs but theres nothign bad with trying) thre just one thing thats wrong in a'noob template is the fact that he changed the purpose from sapient race and species to races and species including animals which is not the purpose of this template, that's just my worst problem with his template(that and incorrect categorization but that's relative).

PS i did s small correction in both the ancients link, as now i know how to make it link to different parts of the article, PLZ update so it's more correct now--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:56, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Ragestorm i have a question is the purpose of this template of showing races based on lore or based on gameplay? i have to ask this because this is mainly connected to race article, and i need to know if this template should be based on my template or a'noob template, because the problem with his template is that lore-wise wrong while mine is lorewise correct, hes more based on gameplay mechanics and mine much less.
We could also make two templates one for lore races and another for gameplay mechanics races, which i think is the best solution to this dillema, making my template as "lore sapient races & species" and a'noob "gameplay races & species"--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:14, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
That's one gameplay distinction I am NOT authorizing. Looking at A'noob's again, his is based more on gameplay, and is thus more concise and easier to read. Yours is more specific when it comes to lore, and as a result is more complicated. The purpose of the template is easy navigation, not information bombardment. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:37, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
However a'noob template has many wrong lore categorization, because like i said earlier this was made by developers with more focusing on gameplay balance than lore, which in some cases lead to a total lore slap, and he didnt even bother to finish some of the sections(check the humanoids) and read other people criticism (which i did and changed the template i made, according to it), including mine which he didnt even listen, you might want it easy and concise but i think it when it leads to wrong information it should not even be considered, like classifying fungus as plants too make it easier to read, and i dont see why mine are information bombardement, theyre simple and imply something automaticly the more dubious, should be eternal and titanc creations which have a good link(i going to add a link to titan article in titanic creations plz updade it)--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:47, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
P.S. theres already a template for what he wants howerver it's largely incomplete Template:Creaturefooter--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:57, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. His template uses all creatures not just sapient ones. No, that won't do. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:02, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Remove the non-sapient, I still find it better. Your call Ragestorm.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 17:00, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
May I add that Ashbear160's categorization involves that you must know where to search a race lore-wise. While mine, being based on game mechanics, is "easy for everyone".
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:49, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
To be clear: that was my point exactly, yours makes for easier navigation. The template is meant to be for sapient creatures only- I'd rather not start calling things like bats and critters "races". --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:59, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
the difference is not that great, the biggest problem with yours is wrong information, in my view--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:54, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
So we are back to what I said earlier, remove the "non-sapient", and that be ok.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 07:37, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
I still see many errors in it...--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:03, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2Edit

For a working copy of the template free of editing restrictions, use Template:Races/dev.

Just chiming in. I like the new design. I've made a few lowercasing (WW:RACE)/styling/plurality tweaks and fixes the pointers to the various ancients.

Where's the non-playable worgen link supposed to be? "Alien to Azeroth"? --k_d3 21:21, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we know about the worgen. It needs some tweaks, like more giant races. Also, we do not know if there was ever a 'stone vrykul', so saying they are not 'pure' may be wrong (see Talk:Vrykul#Stone_Vrykul).--SWM2448 21:30, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

The worgen are a strange one, when first discussed in the RPG, Brann isn't sure where exactly they came from be it from another plane of existence, an alien world, or even possibly from another time. User:Coobra/Sig4 22:49, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

To answer the tree points made:

-The Worgen are a hard one they're currently in alliance sect as gilnean worgen only, because we know that it's a fact, but since we don't know they're origin since the comment "are they from somewhere else or some when else"(I think it was like this) I think like with gilgoblins we should wait before officially qualifying them, however for the timing being they should go to "native to azeroth" because we only saw them in azeroth.
-About the vrykul I just followed the pattern of beings infected with the curse of flesh become made of flesh so I putted them in flesh.
-And about the giants there are not more because the 3 I showed are considered the main giant races while the others are little variations of these 3 this might be changed in the future but that's best to deal with the current template choice and let the admins that are responsible for it decide it in the future.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:24, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it could be changed to giant(storm giant(storm giant subrace)...) or just Storm giant(subrace)sea giant(subrace) anyway i think the way I chose is simpler, but that will b another thing to decide after which template is decided.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:06, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

How about a third option? I based this off a combination of the two.Drakolord7 (talk) 23:32, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I like it. Combines the easy familiarity of A'Noob's with the comprehensiveness of Ashbear's. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:26, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Explain where is the combination please, except the fact that you split the Humanoid in two, I can't see (sorry I did not sleep much)
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:16, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
He's also expanded the dragons to take flights into account and expanded the elementals.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:44, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Gilgoblin Edit

Please add "Gilgoblin" to the Azeroth portion.IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAMBER(RΘCK) 20:55, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

It's only shown in concept art... for now, until we get more concrete proof of it's existence we should not add it--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:40, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
The fact that concept art exists is proof enough that Gilgoblins will find their way to World of Warcraft, as Blizzard would not have created the art if it didn't intend to add the race. Gilgoblins should be added to the template.IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAMBER(RΘCK) 09:09, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Not it's not there has been many concept art of world of warcraft expansion that did not make it to the final game or was completely changed into a different race(check the burning crusade concept art and you'll see a few that didn't make or were changed), I'm not saying they don't exist or never will, I'm just saying that we should wait for it to be officialized as existent before adding it to the template--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:39, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favor of adding it, like the Volcanoth and the incomming Dodo!
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 10:58, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the Burning Crusade concept art ([1], [2]), and there appear to be no pictures of creatures that have *not* made it to the game. Unless you can show me some concept art that has not been released by either Scrolls of Lore or the official BC art page, your claim is dismissed. Apparently for Blizzard, concept art means the subject will make it to the live game. A'noob: I agree. IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAMBER(RΘCK) 11:30, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Now i cant find the best example but you can see some example of changes that occurred in the concept art in the burning crusade, like the three horned clefthoof and some variations of the spore bat, but that's not point the point is that concept art is just concept art, and we shouldn't jump the gun and started adding everything that appears, if that would do wed have to put sapient races from the appendix 3 which is not in the lore(mostly), what im saying is that i think that we have to wait before linking to a article that the only proof that exists is a picture with the name gilgoblin--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:49, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Well I found a earlier example of a unit for warcraft 3 called the dirt eater that never made it into the game, another example of things that blizzard pre-expansion release that never make it into the expansion is Nerubian vizier story, in Wrath which was said to be servants of a emperor, we didn't see nothing related about the nerubian vizier except similar models, and they were just called nerubians--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:58, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I think they should be at the wiki. Also, if you don't mind, could you include sources for that "dirt eater"? Never heard about it, I'm interested on whatever media depicts it.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:18, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Ahm, if you refer to this, that's just a concept that wasn't show anywhere but at SotS.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:20, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Yes i was talking about that, Gilgoblins are already in the wiki they are suggesting to add it to the template, which i think is premature, because we just have a picture with a name, and I presented the dirt eater as one of the concept art that didnt make it into the game--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:25, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Actually your example is not a good one, as it is never told that the dirt eater art was a cancelled unit, it is just speculated with no base. I support adding the gilgoblins, although I think this will have to end in an admin desicion as the template is protected. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:12, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying it's too early to be adding races that we only have a image with a name on it like the gilgoblin, I mean it has already a wowwiki article but if we're adding a race to the template I think we should wait until we have more information, or the article has little more information, before putting on the template.
I Mean i think it's a bad move to link the template of sapient races to a article that says this:

-The gilgoblins are a species of aquatic goblin, of which art was shown at BlizzCon 2009. Presumably, the gilgoblin race is to be introduced with World of Warcraft: Cataclysm.

It's just seems like a incredible premature action.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:54, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Just cause it has concept art doesn't guarantee it will exist in the game. Lamia has concept art, Rockman has concept art, but where are they... Mantaxx as well, and some more. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:27, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

And Robits! --SWM2448 21:00, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Mantax i saw that once in the template and i has gonna use it to prove the thing that not all concept art goes into lore but couldn't find it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:13, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Coming into this very late, I realize, but I would very much prefer NOT to add new entries based purely on concept art. Aside from the fact that there's a lengthy discussion on changing the layout of the template as it is, I see no point in linking to a virtually empty article about something that might not make it into the game. We lose nothing by waiting for more information. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:04, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between concept art shown before the release of the product of which the art was supposedly for, and "leftover" concept art that served no purpose whatsoever and received its first mention in a book, when the actual product has already been released. The gilgoblins were shown at Blizzcon, at which Blizzard previewed the upcoming expansion. Since the gilgoblin race seems to be related to water, it is a safe assumption they are going to be featured in the Abyssal Maw. Seeing as Blizzard has already published a preview of that, we know that area is already pretty far into development. At this stage, Blizzard must already have a clear idea what is and what is not going to make it. If gilgoblins were not to show up, Blizzard would have axed them already and they would not have made it to BlizzCon 2009.IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAMBER(RΘCK) 12:07, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
The same happened to azol'nerub which has axed into an instance, instead of an zone like it was said at Blizzcon a few years back... Like ragestorm said "We lose nothing by waiting for more information"--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:55, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

WorgenEdit

I a not going to ask why the templete was changed only because it makes things a bit easier in regards to having the types of trolls and elves together but I will ask why the worgen are not on the templete anymore.

So can someone who can edit the templete put the worgen back on it and because they are alien to azeroth they have to go there.--Sairez (talk)

I didn't put the worgens in alien because of conflicted conditions made by the cataclysm that is worgen might be from the past that was implied in blizzcon however i think for now they should go to alien to azeroth cat
ps the template is still not offcialized so dont jump your buttons plz--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:10, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Since we're separating the Gilneas worgen, we might as well add the default back into the alien section. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:26, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Making little changes Edit

anyway to simplify everything i think everyone should suggest small insignificant changes here like adding a race or correcting something.

ill start by
  • changing the category of |group3=Titanic creations to |group3=Titanic creations.
  • removing demon race inside the demon category and substitute it with devil.
  • maybe changing Pure to "Pure" but im not sure about this one.

yes i took these from the template:races/dev anyway instaed of spreading everything just suggest small changes here--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:59, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead and change it, but we're putting up A'noob's for the upcoming week. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:19, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
Mine is not the one you uploaded. See User:A'noob/Draft
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 15:30, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
So which template is going to be one used?--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:01, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Extra ways to add to the NEW race & species box Edit

i think Beasts, Undead and Uncategorized, and Mechanical should be added. It would be nice to if we can solve the problem about the races that are in concept arts in it own group down there. Hope you like the idea. Hallowseve15 (talk) 12:17, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

This version of the template might not be the final one and the mechanical beast undead and uncategorized we just made that some time ago, check this template Template:Creaturefooter if you click on the links to the page and run down the template is already expanded to carry those categories also kep in mind that is is only for sapient races and species--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:23, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

The TemplateEdit

Ragestorm what the final decision on the template?--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm leaning more towards A'noob's, which offers easier navigation and is an improvement over the old one. I'm still open to further discussion if anyone wants it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:01, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
I thought you said you would try for one week each template and then choose depending on the replies? and i dont find his easier mainly due to wrong information all abroad his template.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
Ps. check the updated version [3] I didn't think it was possible but it's even smaller now, has more subraces and the demon section has been reorganized--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:28, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Even smaller, I removed Infernals, Abyssals and Fel Reavers because they're not sapient constructs, and removed Silithid, Proto-Dragon and Bogstroks because theres no proof of being sapient besides being related to/look-like sapient races.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:09, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you just going to leave a'noob incomplete and wrong template? Because I need to know if I continue to update my template or just give up on it, because I think made a template and people said they prefer mine, however you keep insist on that template, and since this template protected I can't do nothing about it. --Ashbear160 (talk) 22:46, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
First of all, where has it been written that people prefer your version? This is exactly the the sort of feedback I would like to see, but I'm not seeing that above. I'm throwing up Drakolord's version for now, if for no other reason than to consider all options, but your latest is much more concise, looking good.
And how exactly is A'noob's version "wrong"? I can see why you think it's incomplete.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:12, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
That was been said mostly in scrolls of lore [4] I told them to post here their opinions here but i guess they don't want to, anyway ill cite the following errors, in this new template:
-Demonic hound, Felhunter, Fel Reaver, Abyssal, Fel Reaver, Nightmare, Void Terror, Anubisath, Obsidian Destroyer, Bone Giant, Fungal Giant, Bogstrok are not sapient.
-Stick Aquir and banshee in the middle of demigods and divine like beings?
-Draenor giant is a reference to all the giants of draenor (From the gronn to the ogres).
-Elemental has non elemental being from ambulatory plants to statues.
-Miscellaneous is not clear.
-Ancient guardians using the non-know name to distinct it from the trees really? Ancient(Demigod) is far more clear.
-Undead have no place in this template(See banshee and bone giant).
-Giants and humanoid is not organized
-Not all orcs tauren etc. are part of the horde so this is wrong information.
-There's no need for separation into subcategories, it isn't necessary if the category are right .
-Instead of a further reading category i just made a below with lots of things related to races and species.
-Using a method used for gameplay balance for categorization really? it's only easier for someone that played the game, and not everyone does, but it transmits wrong information, and even in the game its not clear just check the Obsidian Destroyer

That's it for now. ill find more later.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:20, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I come to like your template Ashbear160, with the exceptions of some things that A'noob kept and they are:
  • The template is supposed to be from races and species, but you added factions (i.e. Exodar draenei or Orgrimmar orc).
    • And even those factions would be incorrect, as Orgrimmar orc doesn't include the Frostwolf clan for example, so you wouldn't be telling that they are the orcs form the Horde, just a subfaction of the Horde and that would be confusing.
  • In your template the following is found: "Ancient (trees) (Treant)"' But it doesn't seem neat, what A'noob did was better, in my opinion.
  • You have things that are not confirmed as races, like Sporeloks.
  • You pointed out that A'noob added banshees and said that was wrong, however, your template include the darkfallen.
  • I think that putting the incubi as part of the sayaad race is speculation, and shouldn't be in a template.
  • You put gronn as a subrace of ogre, when it is the way around.
I think the rest would be right of your template. And about the things you pointed out of A'noob:
  • I think that those elementals you pointed out are like that because they are classified as that in WoW.
  • How do you know that draenor giant are all giants?, that is just speculation in the article, I mean, they were big enough for death knight to live within them.
  • Miscellaneous category is not clear, because miscellaneous mean "haphazard assortment of different kinds (even to the point of incongruity)". However I agree that, if it could be avoided, it should be.
  • I don't know why you said that humanoid and giants sections are not organized.
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:57, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Well to answer that:
  • In my opinion it should be completely removed the horde and alliance section but its just there for playable races and I think if it's here they should be distinguished from the other sections, but only retain playable races.
  • Problem is almost none knows what a ancient guardian his and to be honest when I saw that I was kinda like "wtf is that?!?!" using a name almost none knows I think its a bad solution.
  • Sporeloks is disputable our information on them is that that they're a extinguishing race that live in caves... so its hard to think about it with so little information I think they should remain there but if people don't agree it easily removed.
  • You're right about the Darkfallen but they're vampire blood elf's some of them even have wings? but it like the above with the sporeloks, if people don't like it's easily changed
  • Incubbi are the male versions of the Sucubbi so it's obvious they're part of the Sayaad race, it's not shown because i doubt blizzard would do the sexually explicit male race here...
  • Meh the same could apply to other like Mechagnome and Earthen let's just said the most common known denominator should be used as the many race like gnome, dwarf, elf and troll and such.
And to answer those questions:
  • It's still wrong information, and it's classified like that for gameplay balance and should no be used in a template about sapient races in lore.
  • How the heck should I know it's not I who used that name in a template and I believe they shoulnt be used in a template.
  • Well there should be no need for that kind of category
  • Look at his look at mine there's no subraces division in his for the giants and humanoids, and there's a lot of organization that's in mine, that is not in his.
--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:51, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that it has worked well how it was, I mean, with the race and in parenthesis the playable faction. I mean, when one think in humans, they imagine the Alliance ones or the orcs, they imagine the Horde ones; the template is supposed to made the navigation easier.
  • Still, it's an official term that distinguishes them from the trees and makes it look better.
  • As you said, I think we should wait for opinions as to weather darkfallen and sporeloks should be kept or removed.
  • And where did you get that icubbi are male versions of the succubi? It isn't sourced in the article... so I think it is just speculation.
  • Well, that is a problem since you began to make the template, the subdivisions are made arbitrary (though they are much more better than at the biggining ;)).
And about A'noobs template:
  • If we base in lore for the template, then, yeah that may be wrong. But still, I think it looks good, but as you said, it could confuse people that haven't played WoW.
  • Well, I thought you should know if you were complaining on it...
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:05, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Benito, if you were to correct the problems you had with Ashbear's template, would you be satisfied using it? Or would you prefer a fixed version of A'noob's? If anyone else is reading this, we need additional on-site opinions. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:09, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Answering again
  • However that also removed the need to repeat those names below for example: Gnome(Sub races of gnomes), this way there's a difference between the two and it's also more lorewise correct both ways.
  • But most people are not aware what ancient guardians are, and the only information is name given in wc3 manual which is obscure nowadays, but by calling it Ancients (Demigods) and Ancient(Trees) there's already a clear distinct difference between both.
  • Because a incubus in theology is a male version of the succubus and that's pretty much implied by the name.
  • Actually the gameplay mechanics are much more arbitrary than my current template citing two example the grell, obsidian destroyer and a few giants and undead(First point on this classification doesn't work), while mine are not as arbitrary which are based a elimination process by following this order:
  1. Eternal(It's a god or demigod?, If not pass to the next order)
  2. Fel(If it has fel-Corrupted or is it a demon?, If not pass to the next order)
  3. Origin(Is it a Titan creation or Dragonkin?, If not pass to the next order)
  4. Azeroth(It's Native to Azeroth?, If not is Alien to Azeroth)
This pretty much fits anything sapient in warcraft
  • That's exactly my second point in why this classification doesn't work people that don't play the game don't understand it, third point, it's incompatible with lore in some cases.
Ragestorm i tried to tell them to give their opinions here but i think people aren't much willing to give their opinion here
--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:43, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
My opinion? I have watched, and I have groaned. All submissions have been flawed, and arguing each point would take forever.--SWM2448 22:09, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
We already did argue most of the points out of the equation, my template is complete, I don't see any room for improvement except adding races and subraces that are missing(alas im not omniscient) and coming(alas I don't see the future), so it's pretty much finished, while a'noob version is pretty much needing an organization by races and subraces a few removals and reducing the clutter, and there's the problems with categories being arbitary and dubious while mine isn't--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:43, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Treant, Elemental, Naaru and Old Gods are not Eternal. I would keep Miscellaneous instead.
I still prefer mine (with few changes) :) Problem is: we do not have much opinion of the wikians.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 23:26, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
If this comes to a vote (or even a casual consensus), I am afraid SoL will be used as a giant meatpuppet. What this, and many other things on WoWWiki, needs is care.--SWM2448 23:31, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
A'noob we already dealt that, Naaru and old gods fits the description, treeants are there by being a sub-race or young versions of ancients(not sure which), The hardest is the elementals because the whole ranks and kinds are controversial by itself.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:51, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
I could also change it to something like eternals and servants? maybe just a option to fit with the ancient(trees), elementals and angels.
Also to cite earlier there already a difference bet the ancients, the trees are ancients while the demigods are Ancients, the first with a small a and the second with a big A.
it fixes both problems? don't you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:06, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break oneEdit

To answer Ragestorm: Yes, I've come to prefer Ashbear160 template. If they are corrected, I would prefer to use it.
Now, to sumarize and answer the problems I currently have with Ashbear160's template:

  • A way to avoid the following: "Ancient (trees) (Treant)".
  • As A'noob said: Treant, Elemental, Naaru and Old Gods are not Eternal.
  • And correct some arbitrary parenthesis:
    • "Human · Vrykul (Frost · Iron · Kvaldir)". I think that it's not correct to separate them if they are related because all the template work the other way.
    • "Ogre (Gronn · Mage · Lord)". Instead of putting an arbitrary race, it could have the Giants of Draenor as the main race.

The rest I think its good as it is. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:59, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to solve that
  • what do you want to avoid in "Ancients (trees) (Treant)" if its the (trees) I suggested a idea above to change the demigods to "Ancients" with a big A and the trees with "ancient" with a small a.
  • Elementals and "ancient" the trees are dubious, but the Naaru and Old Gods definitely fit the title of eternals, and that's why i suggested it to change "Eternals" to "Eternals and servants" to fit the treants and elementals, although I'm suggesting to change it to "Eternals and Nature" or some variant of nature spirits.
  • I put that way because people complained of "Human (Vrykul·Frost·Iron·Kvaldir)" however I don't think it would be too serious.
  • Good Idea, Since all Draenor giant seem intricately related, but there's a problem, by changing the structure Mage and Lord would take more space because I have to add Ogre to it, lets compare the potential new version with the old:
  • Ogre(Gronn·Mage·Lord)))
  • Giants of Draenor(Gronn·Ogre(Mage·Lord))
  • As you can see it adds sub sub races and occupies the double of the space which is unnecessary, and just to clarify in this cases i used Ogre Human Gnome etc. as the main race because of two particularly reasons, it's the most known term of that race, and that sect of sub-races are part of a race that as no classification like Elf, Troll and the children of cenarious.
thanks Benito for the tips.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:13, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
**whisle**
Elemental  ·  ·  · Ancient (Treant)
Miscellaneous  ·  ·  · Ancient Guardians · Angel · Naaru · Old Gods · Qiraji · Titan (Aesir · Vanir)
**whisle**
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 23:38, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
ancients aren't elementals and miscellaneous it's not clear enough, and like i said before mixing the qiraji with demigods and forces of nature really?, "nature and eternals", fits better than just making categories to have almost nothing.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:58, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking in "Vrykul (Frost · Human · Iron · Kvaldir)" as the Vrykul is the original race and the human is a desendant.
And about the Giants of Draenor it could be either of the followings: Giants of Draenor (Gronn · Ogre [Lord · Mage]) or Giants of Draenor (Gronn · Ogre [Lord · Mage]).
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:02, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
That's why i have already given up on putting orginal races and instead just go with the more common denominator like gnome, human and elf, well for me it just seems a waste of space, but of course it would be more correct, i dont know but i think i can make a big change everywhere, using that giants of draenor with the reduced sub-sub races, i would apply that but i think it would take a lot of work.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:52, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why ragestorm favours a incomplete template against a complete one ?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Work with Benito to make the changes, then I'll put yours up. If I'm not avaliable, ask Sandwichman or Coobra.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok then ill implement the second "giants of draenor" option but i think ill need rethink the "vrykul;human" situation(for the notice we will not be using descendants and ascendants, well be using the most common denominator)--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:18, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
As for the Vrykul situation i thought of
Human (Vrykul [Frost · Iron · Kvaldir])
if somebody disagrees with it tell me why and ill try to correct it as soon as possible to a better version.
and that should be everything benito had problems with, i think so, could any admin change it, if they aggree this problems are solved--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:58, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm still against naming a race's faction like "Gilneas worgen", this has been (way too long) debated and the answer is <Race> (playable).
Else the actual template (abeit minor moves to be found and done later) is quite fine.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 13:14, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
I already said why i think its better this way like a thousand times, it presented wrong information, and should be corrected.

--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ogres Are NOT Sapient. Edit

The word "sapience" implies intelligence, and that trait is one that most ogres have been shown to lack.--The last Alterac (talk) 02:39, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

So... you're trying to say Ogres aren't a race cause most of them are dumb? Perhaps you need to give Ogre an actual read. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:56, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

No, I am trying to say that Ogres aren't a SAPIENT race because they are stupid. And after reading the Ogre article I have proof of my statement "While ogres excel in strength, they are also rather slow-witted; this doesn't mean that they should be underestimated however, since they can possess a surprisingly brutal cunning. Still, most ogres are best suited to melee clobbering, though the two-headed ones are proficient in the mystical arts as shamans, magi and priests." Now, let me show you the DEFFINITION of the word "Sapient"

–adjective
having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment.

--The last Alterac (talk) 07:14, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

A more accurate term instead of "Sapient" would be "sentient" --The last Alterac (talk) 07:19, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

It depends how literal you want to take the definition. They are a race still more intelligent than your normal animal capable of organizing themselves into clans with a hierarchy and are far more sapient than a rat for example. The reasoning behind 'sentient' not being used is actually discussed further up in this very talk page also. Leviathon (talk) 07:32, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ok Alterac.. now read the paragraph after the one you quoted. And removing this template from the Ogre article before this "topic" is finished can be seen as vandalism. User:Coobra/Sig4 07:50, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if I remember right I edited the ogre thing before I started this discussion (Give or take a few minutes, both edits occurred in the same hour.). Also there has never been any one discussing for sentience and merely against it. Now that I have read the paragraph you talked about I shall say touche'.

As for Leviathon's comment, if what you say is true then why isn't the Wolf a member of the template, being that they also have clans (their packs) as well as a hierarchy? If not a wolf how about a bunny, since they also fit that description?

I hope these last two paragraphs have given you some food for thought. (I heart Starcraft) --The last Alterac (talk) 13:02, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
In general, beast are sentient not sapient, that would be why wolf does not appear in this template.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 13:38, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ogres are sapient, they are able to craft, talk, and solve problems(even if some are just smashing solution), in some way having a tribal hierarchy instead of a pack hierarchy, among other things their just stupid sapient not a intelligent animal.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:43, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Christ, how can creatures which can talk not be sapient? Even the "great wisdom or sound judgement" bit applies to some ogres. Thumperward (talk) 22:03, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Dentarg was sapient enough to know that he failed against Khadgar and let himself be executed. If this it not true intelligence, then what is it?
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:34, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I feel I should point out that in the real world, sapience and sentience are terms used more often in philosophy than as a means of classifying the higher functions of organism, so the sci-fi definitions we're using are fanon, in a sense.
That said, if we adhere to what we've been doing (sapient=ability to think and sentient=ability to feel), then ogres are sapient, wolves are sentient. If we revert to the typical sci-fi definition, ogres are sentient (as would be everything else on this list), wolves are nonsentient.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:47, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dentarg is an Ogre Mage which is a different race that evolved from ogres. I said nothing about Ogre Mages or Ogre Lords being insapient, only Ogres of the peach/red ogres are the ones I was referring to. --The last Alterac (talk) 01:06, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Other wise... Ragestorm pretty much won this debate with his "I feel I should point out that in the real world, sapience and sentience are terms used more often in philosophy than as a means of classifying the higher functions of organism, so the sci-fi definitions we're using are fanon, in a sense."
It left me speachless, and a little confused on whose side he is on, but this statement here that I am making is why I have nothing more to contribute (that or I haven't had my Dexamphetamine and Lovan this morning) --The last Alterac (talk) 01:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
He said what we said, he only added that "sentient" has a different meaning in sci-fi fanon--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:12, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


Skardyn fix Edit

Just to note that Skardyn is still listed under Dragonkin. Just because they got black, scaly bodies and associated with a black dragon, does NOT make them related to dragons. The appropriate place would be Humanoid/Azeroth, as they are warped decendents of Dark Iron dwarves.--Mondoblasto (talk) 11:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. As an aside, can we petition CDev to not allow authors to create their own mutant races who only appear in one book?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:51, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
They'll probably appear in cataclysm associated with the grim batol region--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:11, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Gan'arg and Mo'argEdit

Gan'arg are know to be a subespecies of Mo'arg, just like the Felguards. Therefore, I would ask for them to be next to the felguards inside mo'arg.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:23, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nerubian, Qiraji and SilithidsEdit

They are pretty sapient, imo, and thus, I ask for them to be included under Aqir.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:49, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nerubians and qiraji yes, but the silithids seem more animalistic to me. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:31, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
could someone tell a admin to change to this template[5] ragestorm already agreed to change it if i fixed benito problems which i did and told me to ask a admin to change it, but I don't know how to talk with a admin.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:54, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Use their talk pages, you don't need to follow any special way. Here you have Ragestorm's: User talk:Ragestorm.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:12, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

ElvesEdit

I require the addition of Kaldorei and Highborne in the Elf group based on their respective articles:

  • The kaldorei would later be known as the night elves.
  • Despite their near-identical physical appearance, the ancient Kaldorei were already split across racial lines as night elves and "Highborne" elves.

IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 13:11, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they joining back together apparently blizzard doesn't consider them a distinct enough race to consider them a different race, if this is happening--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
They join back does not mean they are not separate race, my quotes comme from Land of Conflicts, they are a race like another.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:24, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
They would be like a sub-sub race part of the night elf sub-race, and as far as we know the only differences are cultural, but im thinking of a way to organize the big racial entries of elf, dwarf, troll and expanding the giant category --Ashbear160 (talk) 14:10, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
The differences are not only cultural, Lands of Conflict says that were split across racial lines.
That would mean no sub, but a parallel evolution
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 14:16, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Dues the book say what are racial differences besides culture?, well in my opinion, they're different genome families, but there's also no proof of reproduction of the night elves and highborne since they were both immortal, not allowing evolution to take it's place, however you can't deny the highborne are not part of the night elf race since blizzard is going to join them with the nght elf alliance and the fact that there's no difference between them.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:40, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Organizing racial entriesEdit

Well I thought of organizing the big racial entries of dwarf, elf and troll and a slightly expanding the giant entry, like this:

  • Race (Sub-race [Sub-sub-race (or like I call Genome Family)]

A few examples of possible entries changes are:

What do you think i tried troll and elf but is considerably harder ill try it later.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:29, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Elf done--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:46, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
You cannot use Ironforge dwarf, because you already use it in the playable group
Ok, just removing the word giant
Not putting blood/darkfallen/wretched as a sub-high elf, not putting Highborne as a sub-NE, because lore says the contrary, added Kaldorei. Note: If you say blood is sub-HE, then you should put HE as a sub-NE, and blood would have wretched/darkfallen as a sub => way too much
Ok, just removing the word troll
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 15:11, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • The links for ironforge dwarf are different, because the former group of the three dwarf was ironforge clan, anyway if you have a best soultion that substitute ironforge tell me.
  • D'oh completly forgot that
  • They all came from high elf, blood had a change of eyes, wretched are seriously diceased high elf, and darkfallen, are blood elves which suffered a significant change in undeath besides being the living dead, and Kaldorei is another name for night elf and the highborne are part of the Kaldorei race, about the difference is that they have a time enough separating them as a different Sub-race between the high elf and the night elf
  • hm sand is definitely much better than sandfury Sand
--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Made a dryad change
Added A'noob change to troll--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Kaldorei is the race that settled on the shores of the Well of Eternity, they turned into Night elves and Highbornes. So, if you don't want to recognize lore source, at least do Kaldorei [Highborne · Night elf].
And HE / BE are separate races, if you add them as sub, then you must include HE in NE, and naga in NE.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 15:52, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Read the article you just linked Kaldorei refers to the entire night elven society even the highborne and it's primordial ancestors
But between the creation of the high elves, night elves and naga there was a lot of time and history inbetwen them than the high elf and blood elf, even so they dont really have much difference between them except eyecolour
To be clear High elf and Blood elf are near enough to be part of the same sub-race, however night elf naga and high elf have a lot of history between them when racial division happened for example, The change of night elf to high elf happened over millennia with change from a night lifestyle to a day lifestyle, while the high elf and blood elf division happened when they started eating a little fel in their diets and decided to change their name in memory of the dead, you can clearly see the significant racial difference betwen both examples--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:04, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Well Tested it on [6] See for yourself--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:57, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with A'noob about the elves. If you are making sub-races it would be like this: Elf (Kaldorei [Night {High (Blood [Darkfallen] · Wretched)} · Highborne [Naga {Anomaly}]); and that's just too much. Also Kaldorei is the name of a race of nocturnal humanoids that later envolve into the night elves, but it appears that the night elves kept the name Kaldorei to difference themselves from the Quel'dorei (Highborne). I'd say that in the elves we should put the one A'noob made. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:05, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
However to clarify im not making genetic treelines and im considering this on a different scale,for example
the difference between night elves to high elves is that there are millenniums of racial evolution, and changing to a diurnal lofestyle essentially making them a different sub-race, however the same cant be applied to blood elves and high elves which they racial history diverged 4 years ago by name change and changing their magical diet to fel, essentially a'noob is saying i use genetic tree example but im more near using a near taxonomy example, the same happens between dwarf and earthen they had millenniums of change(and curse of flesh) that made them distinct enough to not be the same race but still connected by ancestry,
in taxonomy we humans are the same genus of for example homo erectus but not the same species as them,
Basicly what i want to say is if i used the genetic line example i would use yours but im not im using taxonomy as a example here:
Genus-Main Race or a group of races of the same genetic lines
Species-Race, in big groups or sub-races in small groups
Sub-species-Sub-races and mutations
Quick example:
-Big group of races-Giants of Draenor (Gronn · Ogre [Lord · Mage])
-Race and sub races-Kobold (Snobold)
Adding something extra, taxonomy doesn't make something that evolved out of another thing a sub-species, when there's enough divergence they considered a different species altogether under the same classification.
--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:47, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the evolution of a race happens in two years does not make it inferior or null in comparison to a millenia-long evolution.
What kind of argument is this? An evolution remains an evolution, no matter the time it took
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 19:27, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
The Evolution of the high elves to blood elves was mostly culture, and biologically a change of eye colour, but the evolution between the high elves and the night elves was has much as culture as biological, they changed from eye skin and hair colour, shape of the ears and eyebrows, even their body structure changed, you can´t compare the change that happened between millenniums between night elf to high elf as the same as high elf to blood elf, basicly they didn't evolve enough to be a different race while the high elf did, basicly they didn't evolve enough to be a different race while the high elf did, time is a weak factor yes, but that not the point the point is the degree of change vs time.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:53, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
You are starting to deny the blood elves as a race of their own, I will not debate this as this is "false argument", lore say it a separate race from the high elves, there is no need too argue over this.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 19:57, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Please point out where does it say that high elves are a different race than blood elves, and even so if this is considered in lore it creates a conflicting argument where anybody can say that any small mutation in anybody is a different race, even so there were high elves with green eyes before the existence of blood elves which leaves to consider the definition of race as genetics or culture, which is something I don't want to delve upon, so ill consider it a sub-race on the basis the change between high elf and blood elf was mostly cultural than biological--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:05, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
You've been explained by Benito and I, that BE are a separate race from the HE and if you put BE as a sub-HE, you must put HE as a sub-NE.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:17, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
And I already said that blood elfs are hardly even a different subrace to the high elves, and that the change between high elves and night elves are big enough to be considered a different race, I'm not using genetic treelines I'm using the basic knowledge in taxonomy to make a template, and to discuss further blood elfhood was a choice, you don't get to choose if you evolve or not, the change between night elf to high elf is significant, for peace sake you can't compare a eye colour change to body structure, eye hair, skin among many others.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:26, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Peace at the cost of wrong infos? I'm out of here ^^
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:28, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
It's not wrong info it's simple linear logic, all blood elves were high elves, they just made a political choice, would that make blue eye capitalists and green colour communists a different race? because it's exactly the same
--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:36, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Anyway Could a admin change the dryad troll and Giant entry to the new ones?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:46, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, here is from Monster Guide, pg. 64: "Blood elves are a desperate race who were once high elves."
So, yes, it is wrong info to consider them the same race.
Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:47, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
So this makes a race being a political choice?, should we classify it politicly or by genetic?, and in the same line says they were once high elves so that line is dubious by itself, in the same line i will take info that says it's wrong,
"In Warcraft lore, race often has the same definition as species.[1] Occasionally, within a race/species are groups called subspecies/subraces[2]"
Would you consider a eye colour change a different species? or a different subspecies(Hardly), tell me that and ill answer
--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:57, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
"While it was once believed that blood elves and high elves were exactly the same biological race,[3] separated more by cultural differences than physiological ones, it has since been determined that they are, in fact, beginning to evolve into a separate race, due largely to their consumption of mana from primarily fel sources.A&HC 6-7,14-15,67-69 MG 54-55"
-this refutes your theory even further says their beginning to evolve into a different but this havent even started and the differences today are cultural, and we saw when they did change was a felblood elf(lame word gluing)--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:05, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Actually that part of the blood elf article cite as a source the Monster Guide... and that is not a theroy of mine, I just put the exact quote from an official source. That paragraph basically serves for the purpose that readers see that they are considered the exactly biological race according to the encyclopedia, but they are considered a separate race in the RPG sources.
And if you still doubt that they are a separate race, you should check the official page stating the playable "races" of the Horde. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:24, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that we have multiple contradictory sources. Some say they're different races, some say they're becoming different races, some say they might be different races in the future, some say they're the same race. And many of these sources are chronologically similar, so there's not even a "newer source overrides the older source" option.
On another note, I'd like to throw in that I disagree with the kaldorei being listed as a separate race from the night elves, as there aren't any sources that explicitly say so, and those that implicitly say so are easily subject to interpretation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:52, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
sorry i didn't mean it as your theory but i also took information from the monster guide and the alliance and horde compendium which says they're the same race and evolving into another, blizzard uses the term race for convenience purposes this was already discussed in other lore forums, and was kinda agreed that blizzard uses the term races in playable characters as cultures, but anyway i took the simpler solution on what i believed was correct.
The blood elves showed a little evolution, from high elves, this would usually mean anywhere that they are a sub-race or sub-species, while the change between the night elf and high elf showed a significant evolution not just in eyes but even in bone structure, which is usually considered a racial change, is what i just said here true or not?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:56, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Dark T, and i used common terms in both fantasy and science, should we use contradictory information or bare minimum common sense in taxonomy and fantasy with a little interpretation--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:56, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
What I think we should do is to put it as A'noob made it: Elf (Blood · Darkfallen · High · Highborne · Kaldorei  · Naga [Anomaly] · Night · Wretched). With this we would avoid this discussion again and we wouldn't even do interpretations I think. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 22:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
so we shouldn't improve it because information is contradictory when simple common sense should suffice?
also higborne clearly goes under night elf, and since kaldorei are night elf.
at most: Elf (Blood [Darkfallen] · High [Wretched] · Naga [Anomaly] · Night [Highborne])
This discussion wouldn't be happening if blizzard gave us more clear answers, or we listned to common fucking sense--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
What you consider to be "common fuckin sense" is not for every one, for some people you are thinking reverse, and for you it's the other way around. Don't be to hard
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:39, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Its common fucking sense because eye colour doesn't define a species, and that is common fucking sense after you know even the bare rules of taxonomy and evolution even for the biblical persons out there creationism--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:42, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ashbear160 you'll have to accept that "your common sense" is not the common sense for everyone. While some times it appears very obvious to someone, it can be the exact contrary to someone else (I think that is the case why the {{Speculation}} template exists, so that people can decide if they consider the deduction correct or not). In this case, this is a template that is present in many articles, and I don't think speculation would be correct. The best would be to leave it neutral, without putting one source over another. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:00, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna be honest, I really prefer a model similar to Ashbear's. In this case, my suggestion is Elf (Blood [Darkfallen · Wretched] · High · Night [Highborne]). It more clearly delineates the different elf races as well as grouping together the appropriate subraces, and eliminates kaldorei, which I still haven't seen a solid source for being "different." Even the kaldorei article says that the name can refer to both the pre-elf race (which according to other sources may have actually been a troll tribe) and night elven culture as a whole. It also removes the naga, which I think we can all agree are sufficiently far off from the original night elves that they can be classified separately. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:07, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

The naga thing should stay because the nagas are descended of elves, this was already discussed before in human and gnomes because we want to avoid separating stuff, and the wretched are the degeneration of the high elves because they didn't change their names when the wretched were created due the shock of the removal of the sunwell, also benito it's not my common sense it's scientific common sense go ask any biology teacher if eye colour defines a different species, and to finish Valeera a blood elf in the Wowcomics changed her eyes to purple when she ate the magic of a naga trident did she just change race to Naga Trident eating Elf?--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:25, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Troll Dryad and Giant upgrade was done, ty ragestorm, now we just need to see if ironforge is acceptable or we need a more clear substitute, and im going to just skip the elf stuff until i find a better way to present this, i also suggested temporary solution to ragestorm until consensus can be found.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
sorry youre right dark t, Wretched were formed by blood elf that dint controll their addiction--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:26, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section BreakEdit

ps new idea for another changes

Im not sure about the twilight or the nether dragon, since the nether had quite some time and changed significantly more than the plagued DF so i'm also suggesting this as a alternative tell me which is best:

What do you think of these changes--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:45, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

The nether and twilight dragonflights should definitely be their own separate entities. They may have originated from the black dragonflight, but like the chromatic dragonflight they're very much their own flights now. I hesitate to put the plagued dragonflight as a subrace of the black dragonflight as well, because it's very likely that it's spread beyond the black flight; the only reason black eggs were used in Scholomance was because they were readily available, while Northrend provides a much more varied source. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:11, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Actually Plagued dragons research was only in scholo and never reached northrend so it's exclusive black dragons only, and twilight dragons are made of nether dragons altered with balacagos bane and dragon soul so they are very similiar except in coloration and tendencies.--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:09, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
They're still considered an entire dragonflight of their own rather than a sub-flight of the netherdrakes. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:27, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Actually you're right sinestra made the twilight DF using different dragonflight eggs and the power of the nether dragons
So ill just propose it on the new idea:
--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:44, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
That's about right, yeah. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:50, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

About the dragonflights I think it would be right the last version.
But about the eredar I disagree because the Lost Ones are actually a subrace of the Broken. It would be like this: Eredar (Draenei [Broken {Lost one}]); which its too messy in my opinion. I suggest leaving it as it is right now. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:04, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong it's not that they're different races but that they are different states of degeneration, just because one thing comes from another it doesnt make it a sub-sub-race(anyway we dont want to reduce it further than 3 divisons, and i dont think it's a state recognized in taxonomy), in some cases the draenei affected by the mist transformed directly into lost ones and into some cases it took time into broken and then into lost ones.
So just because it splinters from the sub-race doesn't mean it's a sub-sub-race, but that it's a diverged sub-race from that race that generated from a sub-race, making it a different sub-race of that race, this is basic taxonomy and as far as i know in taxonomy you can't go lower than sub-species.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:20, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Anyway ill talk to a admin to change these two, we still need to solve the dwarf and elf problem(in case of elf it's not really a problem just people don't understand what a blood elf is), also if anyone has any opinion on other possible changes besisdes these tell me.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:24, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think I kinda understand, but can you tell me where does it say that an unmutated draenei transformed directly to a Lost One? I don't rememeber seeing it anywhere. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:35, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Actually I don't remember, it might be wrong, sometimes I say things that my memory is vague about so... don't take it as a face value--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:12, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
On a different note i would like to justify the repetition of ironforge dwarf:
  • First from the Article: "Before the War of the Three Hammers the term Ironforge dwarf[2] could technically refer to the three main clans of dwarves that once inhabited Ironforge. After the War of the Three Hammers Ironforge dwarf primarily refers to the Bronzebeard clan and any of the smaller clans within the clan. In the case of WoW the term Ironforge dwarf is the term used for the player race. Ironforge dwarf is also a racial class in the RPG."
  • And second it links to a different article than the one used in the playable section, this is the one i was planning on using Ironforge Dwarf, and this is the one in the playable section Dwarf (playable)
I'm insisting on this solution because I can't find a alternative term to use in this situation--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:22, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
I think that article may need a cleanup, but still this part is probably correct: Ironforge [Bronzebeard · Dark Iron · Wildhammer]. As I have limited knowledge about the new kinds of dwarves I can't answer the other problems (if there are). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:51, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
The only real problem was with repetition of ironforge, but it linked to different articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:57, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
As far as the elves go, it might be simpler to just leave them as being on par with high elves and night elves; otherwise, one gains the impression that high elves can transform into Darkfallen (which is probably not possible if we adhere to strict definitions) or Wretched (which is unlikely).--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:05, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Meh okay, although i justified that used by using basic taxonomy instead of genetic lines, the wretched and darkfallen are a sub-species or sub-race, and they can technically can since Darkfallen are vampirical undead high elves, or wretched lost to the addiction, but i'm not going to complain more since it would be like repeating stuff like a bot.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Could you ragestorm change it to what you think of those two situations what is best?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:47, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Plagued DragonflightEdit

Why is the Plagued dragonflight written as an subsection of the black? Also Protodrakes got plagued, so they're not only related to the black flight. TheSatyr (talk) 18:26, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Before Wrath of the Lich King, the only "plagued dragons" were former black dragons in Scholomance. Now, we have the proto-dragons breeding in Storm Peaks.--SWM2448 21:42, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and now we aren't before Wrath of the Lich King anymore so we can change it now TheSatyr (talk) 13:47, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but i don't see any mention to proto-drakes there, since as far as i'm aware protodrakes are not sapient, and since only proto-drakes are the only new type of plagued dragonkin there doesn't need to be any change--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:03, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Recent moveEdit

Due to the split between Ancient and ancients, the links have to be changed.

Ancient#Ancients (demigod) ==> Ancient

and

Ancient#Ancients ("ancients", demigod-like trees) ==> Ancient (demigod-like tree)

Thanks

IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 14:30, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I like the pages they were moved to... since another term for Ancients is Ancient Guardians, I'd rather see that page moved there and keep the tree ancients at Ancient... I just hate using parenthesis for alike terms, when another name for one of them exists. User:Coobra/Sig4 14:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
This is one big problem i had with presenting the articles thank's for solving it much better now--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

adding icon to the templateEdit

I had the idea of adding icons to template before each race, the racial icons that varghedi makes, what do you think? i'll do some examples later.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:04, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

That would be way too big, see Template:Races/dev for an exemple.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 09:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Same thing for Template:Creaturefooter, this is supposed to be a small two/three lines template, that turn to be way too big and overcharged with icons.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Although I'm a big fan of icons which makes it easier to orient oneself, I have to agree with A'noob, in this peticular place it seems messy. TherasTaneel (talk) 13:02, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look significantly bigger in the Template:Creaturefooter, just a little bigger, and it becomes easier to orient however this one would have a lot more images, so i'll complete race dev and see what can be done from there, and the creature footer for elementals demons dragonkin and giants is still below 2 or 3 lines i've already measured it three icons=pinky and it doesn't increase the space a lot, and it makes it easier to identify, i'll have to complete the race before i give my complete opinion but so far looks good on the Template:Creaturefooter. --Ashbear160 (talk) 14:28, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I don't say big in the sens of tall, it's big in the sense "overcharged".
And having icons in such templates do not healp much, just add "flood" to the template.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 14:41, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Overcharged?, it makes the template slightly bigger but increases greatly the ability to identify each name, if it's about having more stuff in them, that is, sorry for the expression, a lame excuse--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:42, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with A'noob and TherasTaneel in the Template:Races/dev, but i think icons could be added to Template:Creaturefooter without making it to big. But the icons would have to be very neutral/simple (like some kind of cog for mechanicals, a bone for undead etc.) Aedror42 (talk) 19:16, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I think icons would just make it too cluttered. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, icons used in large templates like this would be messy, clutter things up, and make longer load times. Plus.. I don't think we have an icon for every creature on those templates, thus making it inconsistent as well. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:07, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Way too cluttered.--SWM2448 20:07, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Can an admin revert the articles please? Thanks.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 21:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I think it would look less cluttered because images would divide the words more clearly because it's the words that make it cluttered, and is i tried it on creature footer(before it was removed, after all that work pohey :()it only add 1 line at max and it takes a huge amount of icons to jump to the next line, there's also a surprisingly amount of icons (i was surprised) and we just don't have all of the images because either blizzard didn't do it or whoever made the rpg didn't add it, and the load times wouldn't be much higher, these are very tiny images with little ammount of pixels that's the reason it's used like crazy around wowwiki, also because they make it far easier to identify the races. --Ashbear160 (talk) 21:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Look at the dev template seriously, how can you consider it not overcharged? It looks like a rainbow crossed with Arlequin...
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:16, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
i don't see it maybe it's because you look a the whole template at the same time, you shouldn't be looking at the fact that the images doesn't combine beautifully because blizzard did a lot of different races, but the fact that it's easier to identify the races with the image than without it, it also looks less cluttered because it gives the names more space to breath and with a clarifying image, also define overcharged because that word isn't making any sense--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit easier to identify the races, and I like the idea of having all of the relevant icons on this central template. One the other hand, the icons simply don't look as good when there are almost a dozen of them on one line, and as Coobra pointed out, we don't have an icon for every race. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:53, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
I already asked to make the ones that we miss and some are proposly without images to represent a group of races and not a specific race, ill just make a quick list of what we miss:
-Incubus, angel, hill giant, plagued dragon and crhomatic dragon i already asked, and hobgoblin as a image coming in cata
-Ancient guardian and loa represent a pantheon of gods, however for loa i can just post a icon of wind serpent loa(same as hakkar) for being the most unique of them
-I could ask for a image of aesir and vanir
-Skardyn, mur'ghoul and mutant murloc we only have descriptions
-Dragonspawn and drakonids and conglemerate elementas we have to many images and we either put them all betwen [], or don't put them
those are the icons still missing, not many really--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:47, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
No one knows what an "Incubus" looks like (fan fiction is bad), mur'ghouls are in WoW, and mutant murlocs were in Warcraft III.--SWM2448 19:19, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Incubus i asked for an altered image based on the succubus image much like the female kvaldir image, and we know they exist so it isn't fan fiction, and i'm also going to ask to make a mur'ghoul and mutant murloc image but i'm not sure if anybody will do it--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:02, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Template:Races/dev hurts my eyes. User:Coobra/Sig4 21:26, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
After 1 minute you stop hurting and if you look at a image instead of the whole template it doesn't hurt at all, also it drasticly increases the ability to find a race--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think "it stops hurting after a minute" is a valid argument. "It doesn't hurt if you focus on one" isn't a valid argument either, because the entire point is to be able to look at the whole list for reference. A third argument against the icons is that it takes a VERY long time to load that many images. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:52, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
As I've said, big fan of icons for quick/easy orientation, but this?... Agree with Coobra and Dark T Zeratul. TherasTaneel (talk) 00:31, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ashbear160, most people have said they would not like icons within the template.
Do we really need a vote to end this debate?
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 07:01, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Nah i get it but let me just finish the template so i can save it in my homepage,just because other don't like it doesn't mean i won't--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:08, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok it's free now--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Gilgoblin againEdit

It seems blizzard has released a screenshot with a gilgoblin, i don't know if a admin should add it or not so i'm going to ask everybody opinion now--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:01, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

A screen but no real annoucement with it. I would say wait and see.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 13:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sapient races of cataclysmEdit

Well i thought it's best if make a list in advance of the sapient races that are going to appear in cataclysm and where should it should be added, to add later when cataclysm releases, i'll start with the two known accordying to current info, the star represents the position.

Things to add after cataclysm release:

  • Gilgoblin
native to azeroth(goblin(*))
  • Tol'vir
Titan(*)
  • Deep Sea murloc
Native to Azeroth(Murloc(*))
  • Pygmi
Native to Azeroth(*)
  • Aquatic Faceless ones
Native to Azeroth(Faceless one(*))

if you know anymore please tell me so i can add to the list.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:20, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Imo you should wait for the Cataclysm Bestiary to open, no need to rush, we'll have plenty of info in due time.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 07:01, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to rush it, i'm preparing for the future, for when it's released the admins know where to add it, and after two expansions with incomplete bestiaries i don't think their making another one...--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Don't be so sure, there is a plenty of concepts to be turned into an incomplete bestiary: volcanoth, dodo and more
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 06:39, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Added the pygmi because we already saw them in the goblin zones at blizzcon, except they had voodoo gnome models as a placeholder--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:30, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Aquatic faceless ones are in the screenshots that blizzard showed us--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:03, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Titan-borneEdit

Well i have to suggestions i recently thought of:

-Change Titanic Creations to Titan-borne, Titanborne or Titan borne
-Changing Titans from Eternal to the titanborne section
This suggestion is to make it clearer that section is about titans and add titans to it--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:08, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Change applied in hereTemplate:Races/dev--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:16, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Oh and changing the term Cenarious children to the shorter term Cenarian--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Are those even real, Blizzard-made terms? Purely descriptive is better than artsy descriptive for categorizing the unnamed.--SWM2448 23:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah right i just wanted to reduce clutter anyway--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki