Template talk:Sapient Species/Archive1

Playable links

So I added by the "playable" links in the spirit of distinguishing WoW specific stuff from general or other game stuff, but people removed it. Aren't the playable links WoW-specific? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:01 PM PST 29 May 2008

The orc (playable) article for example is WoW specific ya. Ironforge dwarves isn't necessarily. I'm still debating the idea of standardizing all the player race pages with "race" (playable), to make them all general WoW specific articles. In which case the lore more or less can be left off the page for some of them and mainly be the player information. Although just the briefest of lore information from the WoW manual would be decent.Baggins (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think they clutter the template, which I'm sure was gourra's idea as well. I see the issue "Playable" as well, however. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Although I think that's why we have two templates the one for "race links" and the one for "races". race links is specifically playable races.Baggins (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentience

Sentience is often defined as the ability to experience suffering (wikipedia:Sentience) - it's not really what we're going for here. This template is probably better defined as "races with cultures", or, races that have some semblance of higher intelligence - self-aware, inner thoughts, etc. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Would wikipedia:Sapience be a better term? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, I will alter the template now. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Undead?

Shouldn't the Undead (Playable) part be changed to Forsaken (Playable)? Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Or even better, just Forsaken. As far as I know there is only one faction of Forsaken, so it can't be confused with anything else. Jormungand01 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. LOL Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Playable?

Why doesn't Gnome, Night elf, or Tauren have Playable after them? Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because with them pretty much the entire race is part of the same nation. The closest you could get to independant Night Elves is the Cenarion Circle, whose leader Staghelm is nevertheless subserviant to Tyrande, and Tauren, while scattered among many different tribes, all answer to Cairne Bloodhoof who helped save them from the centaurs. Whereas for Orcs there is also the Dark Horde in Blackrock Mountain and the Fel Horde in Outland, plus the Mag'har, and for Humans there is Dalaran, Gilneas, Kul Tiras, Theramore and all the other nations, just for starters. Although I am surprised that it isn't Gnomes (playable), especially since most of them are now Leper Gnomes wandering Gnomeregan. Jormungand01 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Leper gnome != gnome. g0urra[T҂C] 10:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

They could still be called gnomes, just gnomes affected by radiation poisoning and who have gone insane. Jormungand01 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. That would mean Undead really should say Forsaken (Playable) as there are the Forsaken, Scourge, and I am not sure how many other Undead factions running around WoW. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The links for troll, orc, human etc. appear in the ally/horde columns. To me this seems to suggest that ALL trolls are part of the horde, and some are playable. Shouldn't we move the generic races out the ally/horde factions, and just put a link to the darkspear etc.? so it would look something like this:

Cowlinator (talk)

Well when you pick your race in WoW you have the choice of Orc, Troll, etc. This template follows that but then also has the "Playable Race" link to tell you which specific group you are playing within that race. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Highborn elf

I am not sure if "Highborn elf" should be a seperate race. Weren't they more of a seperate caste but still called Queldorei? I mean there were a lot of people using the power of the Well who were not Highborne. Also, if we make Highborne, which was a caste, into a race then we would have to make the nobles into a seperate race too since they were not commoner Queldorei nor Highborne Queldorei, yet some used the power of the Well. I don't think the "major" racial differences between the Highborne and the rest of the night elves hit a peak until the exile of the Highborne from Kalimdor. They then landed on the continent now known as the Eastern Kingdoms and became the High elves. The High elves would be the seperate race not the Highborne elves. I might be wrong but I don't think anyone has been described as being of the "Highborne race" as many times as characters being described as being of the "Night elf race", the "Quedorei race", or the High elf race". Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not a race, I do not oppose removal from the template, unless we can find a more roundabout way of listing them. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many characters on WoWWiki have Highborne as a race? I am not sure how to find out. If it turns out to be zero or something then we do not have to find a way of listing them at all I would guess. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly Highborne is not a separate race. Thus, they don't belong in this infobox. --Imperialles 07:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Northrend

How about creature from Northrend will they be included in Azeroth since is the same world but a different continent or should it be a different section for them?--Phoenics 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess if there are any new races not already in the template they will be added. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They should already be under Azeroth, though it might be an idea to split the continents at some point (Kalimdor, EK, all). Probably best to knock up a test version to see how well that works though, first. Kirkburn  talk  contr 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What if one race is on two or three continents though, we would end up repeating a lot of races. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd have an Azeroth section, and then subsections for each continent where a creature appears on only one of them. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Most races are native to one continent anyway, so even if they are now found in other places they should still go under whatever their homeland is.  Jormungand01 File:IconSmall Rogue.gif (talk - contr) 16:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What about races like ice trolls? They are in Northrend and the Eastern Kingdoms. Also, the murlocs are everywhere and didn't really originate form one place unless you include the oceans. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Most races. Obviously it will have to depend on the case, but for some, such as Ice Trolls which are mostly in Northrend with only a handful in Eastern Kingdoms, they would go wherever the larger population is. As for murlocs, even though they don't originate from Kalimdor they have been known of there for far longer than in the Eastern Kingdoms. Or there could be a seperate Great Sea category. The only races I can think of which would not fit are the dragonkin ones, but they have never really been limited to any one continent.  Jormungand01 File:IconSmall Rogue.gif (talk - contr) 12:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mechagnome

Wouldn't Mechagnomes be more of a machine type race? Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

In the interests of navigability, this template might need an overhaul. I don't particularly like the idea of linking RPG-only races whose articles are only a few sentences, but as they are sapient, there isn't major grounds for removal. So, stricter criteria or reorganization? Thoughts? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 06:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a few more that could be added but it is already too big. One criteria could be "is there at least one individual of that race in World of Warcraft currently". The only thing is that this would have meant that some races like the Titans would not have been able to be added because we didn't see one individual of that race until Wrath of the Lich King came out. I don't think we saw any Titans before Wrath of the Lich King? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the titans were strictly in lore. That's a fairly good criterion, though it would leave out a few on this list. I would say that the race must be present in WoW at the moment, or that the race has enough information on it for people to bother navigating to it. And I really, really, don't think that Bunnies should be on the list. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When you say lore doesn't that mean RPGs too? Or do you mean lore in the games? Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

By "lore" in that case I meant they never actually appeared as characters in any source. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove all the races that only appear in Appendix Three of Manual of Monsters and which have not been mentioned anywhere else. Dakovski (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; there's no way to keep all races that one NPC/mob/character can be. We have categories for that. g0urra[T҂C] 13:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have "Dragon" as a race only and not "Black dragon", "Black wyrm", "Red dragon", "Green dragon", etc. Black, Green, etc. are dragonflights and wyrm is a growth stage. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you a bit hypocritical now? You're the one who added it in the first place. g0urra[T҂C] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Added what? I didn't add black dragon etc. in the infobox for characters. Only when you reverted my edits and put black dragon, red dragon, etc. did I put them into the race template to match your reverts. Now you came up with Black wyrm. So should I add to the race template Black wyrm? Are we going to say Human adult or Human newborn are races too? Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who added it to the template. Stop playing stupid. g0urra[T҂C] 12:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I added it to the template after seeing your example. You know? The part where you changed dragon to red dragon, black dragon, etc. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sections

Should there be sub-sections in the Azeroth Category? It is quite long. --User:Airiph/sig 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See #Criteria. g0urra[T҂C] 14:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

This thing is huge ugly, and doesn't need to list minor races.

Infact I'd suggest breaking the template apart into seperate templates based on region rather than race. Have one template for Eastern Kingdoms, one for Western Kingdoms, one for Northrend, and one for Outland.Baggins (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some races are on numerous continents and others are unknown so I'd say organize them by bipeds, quadrupeds etc. Also get rid of Dragons, there not humanoids. User:Airiph/sig 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not geography, that'll get far too complicated. And the template's purpose isn't humanoid races, it's sapient races. I would recommend removing races like the bunnies. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ya, really really obscure things should be removed. If it doesn't appear in more than one source then it shouldn't be listed.Baggins (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did an overhaul of it see User:Coobra/sandbox6 and give your opinions.... I ended up removing mostly all the creatures that had only a small mention, along with half-breed races. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the races we end up having on the final template, could we match it with the race infobox and race category so it doesn't look crazy? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all banshees or satyrs are former elves I thought? Also, dark troll? You mean dark elf? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I merely copied what was there... As I see it, dark elves are pure speculation whereas dark trolls appeared... at least in WC3.

What do you mean by matching it with the race infobox? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No I mean dark trolls shouldn't be with the "Elf" ones it should be with the "Troll" ones right?

What I mean by matching with the race infobox is that, if we allow a certain race to be put into an article's infobox where it says race=whatever, that race should also be recognized by being in the race template right? Pretty much what I am saying is that, for example, lets say there is a race called "abc". The "abc" race should be able to found by users in the "sapient race template", "Burning Legion template", or "Undead template" depending what kind of race it is, the "race category", and if there is someone of that race also in the "race infobox" of their article correct? Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragons and more

Are we adding all the dragon races on here or just "dragon"? Also, what do we do with other races that have a lot of subraces like golems and mountain giants? I added the golem and mountain giant races on here, but some are red and I am not sure if everyone thinks they are races or not, but I thought they should be here if they are actual races. For instance, we have every subrace of elf, dwarf, gnome, troll, ogre, etc. on here so I am guessing that goes for golems and mountain giants too. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sapient and sentient races

If golems are going to be added to the template people better have a good citation where golems have been described as sapient or sentient. For that matter it seems the purpose of this template has been stretched beyond the definition of sapient or sentient. Not all races are sapient nor sentient and those do not belong in the template.

In fact I suggest golems should probably get their own template.

Also what's up with the links to the names of skins for models? Unless the terms are specifically used in quest text or show up in another source, or are used for a unique model (which can not be merged into a related article in some way), then they shouldn't be on the list.Baggins (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On the skins thing, "stone giant" and "hill giant" are treated as types of mountain giants so why not the others, or at least some of the others? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Stone giant is a term mentioned specifically within several quests and they appear as actual in-game mobs. Said mobs are also referred to as "mountain giants" in a similar fashion as the Colossi within certain in-game lore text. The fact that the term is referenced by model name or skin names, and in other sources are additions to the quest text that specify particular stone giants. One of the "unique models" referred as stone giant in the files doesn't even have a specific model name, other than "stone giant", and is thus merged into the stone giant article.

Hill giants however are not referenced within any quest text nor do they appear in-game as a specific mob (therefore the datamined information cannot be considered reliable). Hill giants are not treated as a type of mountain giant because of this. However the fact that hill giant appears in files is noted as a bit of trivia, and its noted that the information about specific models that use the skin are listed, but they are specified to be "mountain giants" until something confirms existence that skin refers to actual hill giants. The fact is we don't actually know what S&L reference to Hill Giant had in mind. Probably something closer to whatever D&D source it was referencing.

But why should I even have to explain this?Baggins (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So how many number of sources, or number of types of sources, should a term have before it is a "race" and can be put on the template? The criteria is sort of lacking. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not about the quantity of sources, but the quality of the source (has the information been confirmed in a published source or stated in-game?). If a unique model doesn't have any specific in-game reference (stating the name of the creature) and can't be merged into some other related article then it would be ok to create an original article based on model/skin names. This has been allowed for a few cases, see flesh titan for example. The moment an official term appears for that model it is subject to be moved to the established name (although in some cases a model or skin name may be confirmed by ingame or published text).Baggins (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Scourge gnome comes to mind. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Scourge gnome wasn't even properly cited. Its not even the model or skin name. I'm not sure where the term "scourge gnome" originated. My guess someone made it up based on something else.Baggins (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That is my point. "Scourge gnome" is on the Undead race template because it was similiar to "Scourge troll", but if it isn't a race... Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is a broken. Unlike the so called "Scourge gnome", the term "Scourge troll" has actually originally appeared in a published source. The RPG specifically states the term, and gives background lore for the creature within the Alliance Player's guide.

However, I do not know what the name of models are for the new undead troll models that appear in-game. However whoever merged the model into the scourge troll article is justified by the fact that the term "scourge troll" existed in a previously published source. Thus nothing was invented out of thin air.Baggins (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying Scourge troll was invented, I am saying it seemed like Scourge gnome was being treated the same as Scourge troll on here so it was on the Undead template. I have taken it off now though. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Elementals

Do elemental races go here or is there an Elemental template for them? Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding more "races"

Before you add more things to the template, please talk here why you want to add it. We can't possibly have every single existing race that's mentioned in this template. Please be rational. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Many doubles in :

- Dragon is fine

- Giant should be alone instead of all the giant types

- Same thing goes for the Golem

- Same thing goes for the Eredar

- Same thing goes for the Earthen

- No need to put Half-breed, if we put all the half-breeds in the template

- Sand Gnome must be written with CAPS "G", like the article name

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Races aren't capitalized though. Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the article itself should be renamed

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

The race is called "Broken Lost Ones" not "Broken Lost One". Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't add D&D-like races from the RPG

Recently G0urra removed a bunch of races from the template. He did this because they were weakly supported races that are not really from the Warcraft universe, but were introduced as usable in the Warcraft RPG (most likely from Manual of Monsters, Appendix III).

Please do not add races to the template that only appear in a single source of lore, especially if it is not mentioned anywhere other than the RPG. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:28 PM PST 11 May 2009

It's kind of hard to edit the template anyway as it's protected - and for a good reason. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection??

Why is this template Protected for no reason. There isn't any conflict war as show in the Template History. This is totally stupid protection consider that Gourra itself is an administrators and making Original Research claims based on his own opinion.

The fact is they are thousand of games nowadays based on D&D and Scandinavian mythology, he should know better that Folklore Mythology, European Mythology and Mythical Beasts are already considered as part of game design trend / style in the gaming industries. This is part of the evolution of Game Culture (due to Technology Modernizations) and great contributions of interactive computing gaming ideas. So its either he accepts it or don't edit Wikis at all. Not to mention Wikipedia even approve Template:Speculative fiction and didn't considered it as crufting.

BTW interactive computing ain't a made up term, look up Holograms (Nvision 3D glass) and Wii remote yourself.

So I don't think I need to ramble on anymore....my finals word for your Gourra is: mature up. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly would it benefit you if the template was unprotected? --g0urra[T҂C] 07:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

First your template protection already violated Wikia policy for abusing adminship. You protected the templates with personal reasons (which are irrelevant and unconstrucutive, even more so relentless violating the process of consensus.). So specifically you yourself should have no position in stating any excuses for this action of consequences. Moreso, the contents you removed, some of them exists in WoWWiki (e.g. Bunny & Devil (Gorgon), that accounts for irresponsible and immature editing. Not to mention your response was interpreting as "beneficial." Thus why the hell should we even trust you to be smart editor & administrator, when you pose from a bias editor viewpoint, meaningless to say that any of your contributions would otherwise be considered responsible. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very insulting for someone new here. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a trial? Are you an official "Wikia.com" admin/dev?

This template was protected, because some (and me as a part of "some") added races that where more sub-species than race.

Over 20 new one in less than a day, it needed a check&clear.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 10:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't a give a f**k to people who doesn't give a sh*t about not following the policy. So what if you added a stub. That is the process of editing. Just because somebody added 20 edits in a day, therefore? you think you have the common sense to make everything perfect by protecting the template? They are at least 50 other Nothrend related creatures that haven't been added here, have you considered that fact?

Protecting the template just for a stupid excuses and thinking other people edits doesn't matter. Thats very smart of you to think so high of yourself.

--Ramu50 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information, this is not Wikipedia, so we do not necessarily follow the policies of Wikipedia. We follow the policies of Wikia.

That said the races you mentioned (Bunny and Devil) are not considered to be canon. Just because there are some vague references about them it doesn't make it canon. There aren't "50 other Northrend related creatures" that aren't already covered by main races in the template (except maybe Revenant). There's no need to put every single race and/or species in the template. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you're gonna talk like you're better then Gourra, at least work on your grammar a little plz. "Protecting the template just for a stupid excuse" is much more convincing then "Protecting the template just for a stupid excuses". Big, furry, and insane (Have a conversation with the homocidal furry!) (Come and stalk me! ...No, wait, please don't.) 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Giants

I see mountain giant, storm giant, and then no more giant races? Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lower case

Somehow "Sand Gnome" is capitalized? Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I love how sand gnomes are a race... And how they pop up so completely randomly in the game. It's like the leprechaun of warcraft.  Howbizr^(t·c) 12:25 AM, 25 Jul 2009 (EDT)

I know, it just has to be lower case. :) Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Azeroth

Can an admin change "Azeroth" for "[[Azeroth]]". Thanks in advance. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)