Template talk:Race

Addition suggestions

If you wish to have a race/creature added to this template, please make that request here. Providing the icon would greatly help as well.

• Murloc Children
• Wyverns
• Gryphons
• Hippogryphs

Extension

This is a nice template, I know the purpose was just to make quick things for the main playable races... but with this, we could remove all the multiple race templates currently used. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:51, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Started to add a few, and fully removed arakkoa, replace them any time you see one.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 17:58, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to consolidate the various troll and dwarf types? It just looks very large (especially for trolls), and is misleading since I can't think of any place where the template would be used that would apply to every single dwarf or troll (except on the base dwarf and troll pages themselves). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:19, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Zones with boxes that display Dwarf as a whole withouth precisions on which dwarf or troll it is.

And by the way, even if dwarf have 5 icons and troll 6, that's not so much more than dragons or elementals who have 4 icons.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 18:22, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

But how many zones contain every single kind of troll or every single kind of dwarf? And actually, I'd probably split up elementals into their various subtypes as well. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I would not put all dwarves and all trolls in one grp, you're likely to never use it that way. And if you do encounter instances of each type of troll in the same area, you'd want to split them up anyway. Now for elementals.. If you use {{race|<elemental>}} it should use all 4 types, only when you specify which type, should it just use the one icon. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Eredar should also be displaying the Man'ari eredar icons rather than the draenei ones. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:20, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well not really, because Eredar are said to be like Draenei and Man'ari have twisted and mutated from their original form.

Or am I mistaking?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 07:40, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes, the draenei are the original eredar race. Unless Blizzard pulls a "surprise!" in the future, though, there are no remaining "pure" eredar who aren't with the draenei, and the word "eredar" is used almost universally to refer to the man'ari eredar. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:05, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm finishing the template and its doc, I let you decide which icons you prefer.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 17:12, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well... there are a few Eredar like Velen, but for the man'ari simply use {{race|<Man'ari>}} Man'ari eredar. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 17:19, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Velen is a drenei, as are all the rest. They're not a racial offshoot; they're the original eredar who have renamed themselves to distance themselves from their demonic brethren. Even the man'ari eredar page redirects to eredar. There are not currently any eredar in the game (or even known in the universe) who are neither draenei nor man'ari. The other problem with the racial "man'ari" template is that it implies that is their name; it isn't. It's simply a description. Everyone always refers to them as eredar. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:35, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Playable Races

This template lacks the capability to link to the "(playable)" race pages for when it's used in various gameplay tables and such. Shouldn't there be <race>-p version for each or something to do this? -- Zeal ^(T/C) 17:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, as long as we don't get confusing. (Awesome to see this template in action by the way!) Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:25, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Edit: we actually have {{RaceIcon}} that kinda covers that. However, once the general move to this template from individual NPC races is sorted, perhaps that one should get merged into this one?

When I originally created this template... I designed it for the 10 (at the time) playable races with a link to "<race> (playable)". Can we get that back? --k_d³ 02:45, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

This template changed his purpose, he was redesigned to replace the multiple {{RACE Race}}

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 06:25, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I believe kd3 is suggesting adding a "playable" parameter. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:59, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ow. My bad.

Does {{Race|RACE (playable)}} is ok to you all?

Not to self: "Learn to read morron."

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 14:33, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

No need to be so harsh on yourself! I think that style works. Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:05, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Or a {{#switch:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|<playable race>=<race> ([[<race> (playable)|(playable)}} to detect if the race is playable or not. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:30, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Do we want to display:

• Human and Human (playable)?

or

• Human (playable) only?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 20:57, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Should be displaying as normal unless people state they're refering to the playable race in the template, in which case only the playable one should be linked. I can't think of any sensible case for displaying both, as it looses its meaning and looks silly. -- Zeal ^(T/C) 22:16, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

So we go for the word (playable) after the race's name?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 22:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

 Human

 Human

-- Zeal ^(T/C) 09:09, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I meant the parameter. Do we add "Race (playable)" to the list? or something else?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 13:08, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Woops, lol. I'm not really bothered. After that experience subst'ing the template, i think there's probably far too many verbose ones already.

<race> (playable) seems perfectly fine as it matches the page name and is obvious. -- Zeal ^(T/C) 13:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Titanic watcher

As there aren't any titans, but only there watchers in WoW, shouldn't we change Race|Titan to Race|Titanic Watcher ? DeSatyr (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that they weren't titans... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Freya herself, for example, is called daughter of the titans, so I assume she's none. DeSatyr (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sea vrykul

I think all mentions of sea vrykul should be changed to kvaldir.--SWM2448 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was already agreed upon... when did that change... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

i'm trying some suggestions:

• Remove Drakeadon from the chromatic flight, they have lost their only association with the chromatic flight by being used by the twiligh flight
• Add more icons to each elemental race template example: Earth Elemental i used these four since the limits seems to be 5 icons per template(could add unbound or bound elementals) since these 4 are consistent in the elemental hierarchy(missing 2 prince but that i don't think it matter)
• Add Nerubian spiderlord to nerubian
• Add qiraji prophet and emperor to qiraji

What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to stick with one male and one female only, or only one icon if the subject has several types or is ambiguously gendered.--SWM2448 04:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What SWM said. The point of the icons is to give a quick visual reference for the race, not to be representative of every single individual within that race. Two icons serves this purpose; a long string of icons just looks excessive. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree very much so with what they said... and I really want to limit how many icons are allowed in this... depending on the name size, should the icons cause the one race/creature to need 2 lines in the infobox, then it has too many icons. This is a problem with the dragonflights. I can't remember if it was ok with 4 icons, but 5 is too much. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a long name, it probably only stayed on one line with just one icon. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Still think you should remove drakeadon and add some icons to each individual elemental, maybe the unbound and bound ones.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your first point (likely about the Drakeadon Mongrels) is seemingly speculation, and your second point is the opposite of what three other people have said.--SWM2448 00:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ash's Topics:

• 1 - No. The Drakeadon don't lost their associationjust becouse they work TOO in another faction. **Also: Can someone change the order of first and second icons of the chromatic ones? It's to match the order of the Drakes of the another dragonflights.
• 2 - Can be... but I have my doubts
• The Rest - Completely agreeded.

Commentaries: DTZ spoke absurds for me: If the point is guive visual REFERENCE of the template, the template should make REFERENCE to more icons that reference the entire race as possible. But I agree with the fact that we should avoid put in more than one line. Despite this I prefer take two lines instead remove or don't add some icons, in certain cases. Basically I'm with Ash. 2X3, for now. But may numbers don't be the solution to the discussion
And I go to, due this, make...

...more requests:

• A - The subtemplate "Troll" reffers unfairly just to jungle troll Icons, excluding the other subspecies (being excluded is horrible, no? :D). So I propouse: " Troll".
• B - "Faceless one" have very few (just one) icons so, please addd more to reference the others types; " Faceless one".
• C - Naga as well: " Naga" (or create "" refering to " Naga").
• D - Create an icon for Forgotten one.
• E - Create to refer Elemental ascendant.
• F - Create Unbound elemental.
• G - As well: Bound elemental.
• H - Improve or create: Ghoul.
• I - Improve: File:IconSmall Mercury.gif Elemental.

Gabrirt (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilnean Human

We've got icons for kids, may as well have them for Gilneas as well given the circumstance. File:IconSmall Gilnean Male.gifFile:IconSmall Gilnean Female.gif. are the icons. At the time of posting this they're rough versions I need to edit up a bit. Race template should be

|gilnean=[[File:IconSmall Gilnean Male.gif|Gilnean|link=Gilneas (faction)]][[File:IconSmall Gilnean Female.gif|Gilnean|link=Gilneas (faction)]]

|gilnean= {{{2|[[Gilneas (faction)|Gilnean]]}}}

as the data, and the template should end up looking like

*{{t|Race|Gilnean}} {{Race|Gilnean}}.

--Whitedragon254 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Children are are different case, meanwhile whether Gilnean or other, humans are humans. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

True but we've also got Dragonmaw orc and Mag'hari Orc icons, Technically they're just orcs with different skin colors. Plus it'd look a bit more proper to use these for a Gilnean NPC rather than the human icon or listing every gilneas NPC that is in human form as Worgen. (when we don't know if they are or not.).--Whitedragon254 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Mag'har orc icons represent the uncorrupted orcs... as for the Dragonmaw, I can take or leave them, but some people like having icons for different skin colors. I'm just against having icons for the same race where the only difference is clothing. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Grimtotem is just face painted tauren. The Gilnean icons are actually representing the Gilneas people in human form or Gilnean humans. We don't know if a gilnean is a worgen or not by just looking at the model, so atleast the icon is somewhere in the middle. We've also got the Highborne, whose icons are just Night elves in different clothing..--Whitedragon254 (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No highborne have a pastier colour as said by blizzard and represented in these icons, i will say this trough if clothing is used to distinguish icons in races should be used at all?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Grimtotem is just face painted tauren" - No they're not. Grimtotem tauren are almost exclusively black skinned, which makes them unique. --g0urra[T҂C] 01:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I was also going to say that but i was not sure.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please no... we already have way too much icons --LemonBaby (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

LemonBaby speaks the truth! End the madness!--SWM2448 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As much as I love Top Hats I must agree. Mag'har and Dragonmaw actually look different under their clothing. Highborne is a subspecies. But the Gilneans just wear different clothes. If they are Gilnean humans we should use the human icon because they are well...humans.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Then what about the Sand gnome icon? It's just a gnome male with a mask on. If you've seen sand gnomes they're just gnomes in tribal clothing.--Whitedragon254 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

They are defined as a different sub-race, they are also supposed to be more pallid gnomes.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The sandgnomes are most propably a subspecies... but in my opninion there should be way less icons. Dragonmaw orcs are just orcs. They may have a different skin colour, but there are black humans and they don't got a unique icon. The same for the dragonflights. The icons should give you a quick nice information. This  Black dragon is just rediculus. Nobody looks at it and thinks: "Ah ok, there are whelps, dragons, drakes, draekonids and so on... very interesting..." This has to stop. And gilnean humans are crossing the already crossed line even further.--LemonBaby (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where the issue is in having an icon that gives people a better visual idea of the NPC, When I see the icons for human, I think Stormwind. And as I stated earlier, Since we don't know if the NPC is actually human or not during that point in time (Such as Celestine who is human form, But apparently is a worgen, don't know when that changes though.), It'd help classify an NPC as say "Gilnean", Which means they may or may not be a worgen, Rather than the human icon which is pretty much saying "This npc is definitely a human.".--Whitedragon254 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right. But where would you stop? Kul Tiras human? Theramore Human? Goldshire Human? Wolfcult member? There has to be a line. And this line was crossed long ago.  Red dragon is a result of to many icons. It is ridiculous and we can only hope that there won't be more members of the dragonflights in the future...--LemonBaby (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding my intentions. At the moment, The human icon (From my perspective atleast.) Should be used for an NPC that is a human, Gilneans ride a very odd line given that we do not know if a Gilnean NPC is actually a worgen in human form, Or a gilnean human (Such as Lorna Crowley.). That's where these icons come into play. Rather than using the human Icon which is typically associated with confirmed Human NPCs, We could use the Gilnean Icon instead. It'd rid of the confusion of "Should I be listing this npc as a human or worgen?" because we don't know of their afflicted status. Where as when it comes to Stromgarde and Theramore, We know they're humans, their nation hasn't come under such circumstance and their status as a human isn't very debatable, unlike the Gilneans. I'm not suggesting the icon because I feel they need their own for top hats or whatever reason, Rather because of the confusion that comes with listing a Gilnean NPC as either human or worgen without knowing which it is.--Whitedragon254 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What about all those non-gilnean worgen in their human form? Do you intend to make a unique icon for them too`?--LemonBaby (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not understanding me here Lemon, Unlike the other factions and races, The gilneans have more weight for speculation on their status as a Human or Worgen. The icon would just be a listing as, This person is gilnean. It's POSSIBLE they are a worgen, due to the large amount of gilneans that have been afflicted. When a worgen that isn't a Gilnean is in human form, It's not like we can tell unless they transform. In which case they'd be given the Worgen icon. The Gilnean listing would just be a better way of putting out the possibility rather than going for one way or the other without a doubt. I'm not saying everything needs a new icon, I'm just saying that the Gilnean race template could help better classify rather than saying "This is def. a human.". If the icons are to help give a better idea and visual of the NPC, I don't see where Icons become an issue if they only help to further that. Also, You've taken what I said out of context, I'm not saying every nation should have it's own icon, I'm saying Gilnean icons would help in reducing the confusion of a Gilnean NPC's status.--Whitedragon254 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Icons have been getting ridiculous for quite a while now...--SWM2448 21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I hate to see so many useless creature icons that could be used for notable charecters.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the big deal in having icons so long as they're used. I mean having an icon for every shade of green an orc can appear in would be ridiculous, But none-the-less. Would these fit perhaps in the raceiconext template? Also the argument can once again be made with the wildhammer dwarves. Yes, They have tatoos and are typically tan and in a different region, The thing is that you can still make a dwarf of that skin color and dress similar, it's just the tatoos that make them different, cosmetic differences like these icons.--Whitedragon254 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dragonflights

Personally i think we should remove whelps and drakes from the dragonflight icons, mostly because they are just younger versions of dragons--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may add I think that dragonspawn should have their own female and male icons. The male should be removed and that would only leave the drake, whelp, and dragon. The drakonid should just be seperate.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well Money that wouldn't really be a dragonflight icon would it? besides we don't put children icons in the other race groups why should dragons be an exception--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was implying that we just call the whelps drakes and mature dragons. Dragons. A Flight may be an organization but that doesn't mean it's a race.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just skip the hassle and make it Black dragonflight? It's not like someone would glance at it and say "ZOMG WTF THERE'S ONLY DRAGONS LEFT THERE????".--g0urra[T҂C] 20:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's probably for the best.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the dragonflight icon...--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What's this "dragonflight icon"? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easy to say "Black Dragon" ?  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because the black dragonflight aren't just black dragons. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But the Black Dragonflight isn't a race.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 21:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's rare for place that appears dragons to not appear Dragonspawn or/and drakonidss--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness, I've been wanting this done for a long time now. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that we are creating Race Icons for factions or groups. And that is not the "purpose" of them. They should show you either: What species is that NPC or what creatures are living in that region. But they should not show you what members a special group has. When we make icons for the dragonflights or the scourge it is inevitable that this goes out of controll. I guess the next thing would be a series of race icons for the Horde the Alliance....--LemonBaby (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Alliance and Horde? --g0urra[T҂C] 10:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine too me! But those are only the playable races... We should not forget the wildhammer, dark irons, highborne and so on ;-) --LemonBaby (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Horde

Was it worth the effort just to show how ridiculous it would be? Yes. Yes it was.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 22:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I resolved that problem some months ago... check Twilight's Hammer.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Scourge and Demons

Since we're talking about icons taking up too much space I would like too bring up these these two.

•  Scourge
•  Demon

I especially dislike how Scourge is not named Undead but why would we use these instead of specific race icons?  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah kinda i would say rename the scourge to undead and put one zombie one skeleton and one ghost icon.

And demons i would say use the daemon from wc3 icon(it's the only that generally represent demons without afflitation to other demons).--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Undead could work but I think we should be specific with demon races.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, because Demon doesn't take 2 lines in an infobox, I think it's fine, same with Scourge, though I'd like to see a limit on these to have no more than 4 icons.  Silithid as well. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Race vs. group

The template has gotten out of hand with the dragonflights (above), scourge, demons silithid etc. lumped together in one group. This should not be the purpose of the template. It should instead be split up and pages use the individual races, like {{Race|Lich}} → Lich, {{Race|FacelessGeneral}} → Faceless general etc. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support this --LemonBaby (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just often those come lumped together, besides i don't even see the purpose of this page there is already one for icon...--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The main purpose was to group 2 icons (or more) along with their race article to make things quick and simple for the infoboxes. However, I don't see the need for 1 icon and race article when {{RaceIconExt}} exists. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Then remove any 1 Icons from this template--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more or less impossible to do that at this point, without causing a lot of work going through every page this template is on and changing them to the other one. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So make sure no new ones are added... Also why do we have like 3 exact same icons? and i would happily go trough everyone of them if it made this whole thing less of a mess.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You just need to give me the word and i'll find all of these 1 icons and change them.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that people share my views on the groups and races. I could help you if you need, Ashbear.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Only if coobra is okay with it--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're willingly to do the work, go ahead. Just keep the longer named ones around (that have 1 icon) like the dragonflights, Pandaren should stay here as well. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also why do we have like 3 exact same icons? - To which are you referring? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Check the draenei and human section of this template? and do we really need 2 repeated race icons for playable races?--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the original original purpose of this template was to link to the playable race articles, but it was merged with the several race templates that existed. So the original concept stayed, but was changed slightly on how it worked. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

However, I don't see the need for 1 icon and race article when {{RaceIconExt}} exists. Then why is this template called "Race" and not "Race Group"? The Scourge nor the dragonflights are races. Faceless ones and silithid aren't the names of all the current ones that are in the template. If it's possible, I'll go through the articles that have those groups and split them up to the actual races that are represented. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There's the fact that there are 16 different types of silithid... anyway i'll be removing one icons soon once i have time.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There may be more or less types of silithid than that, but whatever... models.--SWM2448 17:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was having races like the crystal dryad, mo'arg, snobold for example don't really need to be used by this template, whereas races that have more than 1 icon (to show gender, or multi creatures in the group) are served by this template the best. I don't care if the current single icon ones are removed or not, but I'd just rather not see additional ones added, especially when they're only used on a couple articles. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with male/female variations of a race, but that's where I draw the line. This template should not be used for race groups see above. --g0urra[T҂C] 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Template:Faction is available, if we want to move them off of here. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 17:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Races, groups and requests

I was probably the first to notice several years ago the incoherence in put "XYZ Dragonflight" in recelists, but I was not so 'communicative' at that moment. Anyway: I'm here to remake my requests and expose proposals.

• A - {{Race|Troll}} 'unfairly' has only jungle troll icons, excluding the other subspecies of Troll "(being excluded is horrible, no? :D)". So I propouse: " Troll" to substitute it, refering to all troll Species.
• B:
  • B1 - {{Race|Faceless one}} have just one icon, witch actually made it some useless. Can some blessed soul add more to reference the others types of faceless ones following the example; " Faceless one".
  • B2 - And also create {{Race|Faceless general}} as " Faceless general".
• C - Please, improve {{Race|Naga}} as: " Naga" (or create {{Race|RoyalNaga}} refering to " Naga").
• D - Create an icon for Forgotten one, if it's possible.
• E - Create {{Race|Ascendant}} as:
  • E1 -" Elemental ascendant" OR (despite I prefer this)
  • E2 - Elemental ascendant
• F - Create also {{Race|UnboundElemental}} as " Unbound elemental".
• G - And {{Race|BoundElemental}} as " Bound elemental".
• H - Improve {{Race|Ghoul}} to: " Ghoul".
• I - Improve: {{Race|Elemental}} to display "File:IconSmall Mercury.gif Elemental".
• J - The Dragonchange: Change the dragonflights icons at its templates to list all types of dragonkin like drakonid and dragonspawn conjointly with the dragon icon. An change the word Dragonflight to the word dragonkin because Dragonkin is more realated to race than the word dragonflight that refers to organizations. For the example: change " Infinite dragon" to " Infinite Dragonkin".
• K - See Forum:Problem_of_ambiguation#Orcs and exchange the names of Blackrock and Dragonmaw simply to "Gray Orcs" change the {{Race|Orc}} to Orc representing all types of orcs and create an {{Race|GreenOrc}} as {{RaceIcon|GreenOrc|Male}}{{RaceIcon|GreenOrc|Female}} [[Green orc]] displaying " Green Orc".

Gabrirt (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A- i think the normal Troll should just be removed, it's useless and a triplicate.

B1- Unnecessary complication

B2- All 3 examples of faceless generals show different skins, ultimately useless

C- Unnecessary complication

D- It's on the list of requests at Wowpedia talk:List of race icons once someone feels like doing they will do it.

E1- Unnecessarily Huge

E2- I agree with this

F- No Mercury(also below)

G- Agree, but the elemental already represents them

H- Actually it should just be " Ghoul" the northrend model is just really a update to the old model.

I- Unnecessary complication

J- Too messy to respond properly

--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The true purpose of this template was to simply make it easier to to show races within the infoboxes for races that have genders. Of course if the race is used a lot in the infoboxes it can also be thrown into this template to make it easier for editors. Something like E1 is completely pointless, because it would be used on what... one article (the Twilight Bastion). Also, we're going to no longer add excessive amount of icons to an entry, since it was causing line breaks in the infoboxes. A 4 icon limit is in place, and that's only due to the elementals. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing i think should have more icons here is just really the Dragonkin/Dragonflight sections which should have all 3 icons--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It was about this that I was trying to talk about.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dragonmaw Orcs

They should really be renamed to something liked Gray Orcs since the Blackrock also carry their skin--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed again. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sand troll request

Could someone change the sand troll template to make it point to the sand troll page and not the Sandfury troll page? The latter is now a redirect to the tribe, while the former is a separate page about the race. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Two things

Would be nice if the layout of the page was made similar to that of the list of race icons that I changed a while back, by turning the race into a header, thus creating a table of contents for easy navigation. Example.

---

Second, I think it would be high-time to change "Zandalar troll" to "Zandalari", as well as replace the male icon with the one from patch 5.2. Mainly because, they haven't been referred to as "Zandalar troll(s)" since Vanilla (except for once in Cataclysm), not once were they referred to as "Zandalar troll(s)" in Patch 3.0.2 , Patch 5.2.0 and after, nor in Vol'jin: Shadows of the Horde or Chronicle Volume 1. It's a term long forgotten by Blizzard themselves. I don't blame them, the term sounds terrible compared to "Zandalari".

Don't get me wrong, "Zandalar troll" fits the racial naming pattern of other troll subspecies, but even then, the phonetics of the word "Zandalar troll" sounds terrible compared to the others such as "Jungle troll" or "Forest troll". Which is why I think Blizzard changed to using only "Zandalari" for the past few years.

Yes.. I have been looking through a whole lot of quests and texts to make sure this is true. It's a forgotten term by Blizzard, and it doesn't sound good in the first place. Heck, I wasn't even a fan of it 12 years ago. WarGodZajru (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not randomly start cleaning up all the "Zandalar troll" mentions without well, knowing that it would be backed up. Considering not everyone on here is always on the same page about stuff. :'D WarGodZajru (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Icon sizes

It has been a couple months since the Forum:Icon sizes discussion with no objections since. Could an admin add 18px 16px for the images so the icons can be uploaded as 64px sizes. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 16:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wildhammers

Could someone change the Wildhammer template to link to Wildhammer dwarf instead of Wildhammer clan? --Mordecay (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Blood elf, goblin and worgen playable icons

Delete the number 2 in the image names for the "Blood elf (playable)", "Goblin (playable)" and "Worgen (playable)" so it's conssistant with other /Race/ (playable) icons from this template. Mrforesttroll (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Well pcj seem about to overhaul the template into a module, so ... probably then :p Xporc (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

N'raqi

 N'raqis have this one link to N'raqi Mordecay (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should add K'thir to the icons to n'ragi list if they are really faceless. if so i am uncertain they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuvyuv111 (talk · contr).