Ashbear1603980@legacy41525370 (talk | contribs) |
Ashbear1603980@legacy41525370 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
::The only reason it's listed as Troll/Elf is because we don't have any name to give to the whole family (like goblin and pygmi families).--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 13:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
::The only reason it's listed as Troll/Elf is because we don't have any name to give to the whole family (like goblin and pygmi families).--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 13:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :::On another note this could probably be easily turned into a footer...--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:19, 1 January 2012
Archive: Template talk:Species/Archive1, Template talk:Species/Archive2
Sub-Templates
- {{Titanic creations}}
- {{Azeroth natives}}
- {{Azeroth aliens}}
- {{Nature and Divine}}
Simplification
This template was becoming ridiculous. I have removed all of the subspecies and split off the detailed links to the various categories. For instance, the Azeroth natives have {{Azeroth natives}} while the aliens have {{Azeroth aliens}}. This should make this template much easier to use and to maintain. As such, I am unprotecting it. Don't over-complicate it again. Thanks. --Pcj (T•C) 04:03, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah it was and this is somewhat a good idea, anyway i added gnomes and relinked native to azeroth and alien to azeroth to the templates you made above, but could you make templates for the other type too plz?
- Sapient Dragonkin,Sapient titanic creations and sapient demons and fel corrupted species
- I think it would be best if we divide demons template into Demon section and fel corrupted section--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:32, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- But those have other thing in the mix and contain non-sapient species :S, those are more about factions than the sapient races :S--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:00, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless, navigation would be duplicated between the two templates (as it already was). --Pcj (T•C) 14:02, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- And i can't add evolutions of the titans creations and it has warlocks and normal blood elves in the mix, and stupid species-
- And it lacks information i can't add to those templates :S--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:04, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Because the titan one is specificity for titanic creations and not it's evolution making some things disappear like kvaldir and sand gnomes, in the burning legion template contains normal species that are not sapient demons stupid animal demons and then divides things into major and lesser races separating sub-species from main species like gan'arg and Moarg, can't add void gods since they are not part of the burning legion,dragonkin also has many stupid races, and we already have one template for also the burning legion template you showed is a factional template like a horde or alliance template and not a sapient demons and fel-corrupted species template--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:24, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- also the creature template has it's own subcategory and isn't linked to burning legion section, actually now that i think about it could be changed to work like the mounts and creatures template--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:24, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you undo?--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:14, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Err no they are not suitable Titanic creations is a incomplete page and nature is a schools of magic, and doesn't exactly have any race connected to it, and it's better if we link all of them to templates like native to azeroth and alien to azeroth--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:18, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Because the template is a breakway from the original template, i still think this template should go the direction mounts and creature type templates took, it would solve our problems--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:23, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- The group links are not to link to the templates, they are to link to the pages describing that category of species. Then the templates for the subspecies can also go on that page. --Pcj (T•C) 19:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Then some don't have articles, and what do you think of my suggestion to diverge it like creature and mount template--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Could you give your opinion on the suggestion?, also it makes the ancients and elementals and angels unrepresented in the category--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:42, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Nature since it doesn't link anywhere--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:50, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- You still didn't say a thing about my suggestion...--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:14, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Then it needs the sapient demons and sapient dragonkin otherwise it'll continue to be incomplete--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:23, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- For example i can't add any of the other void demons because they don't belong burning legion and it's only connection to the burning legion is trough slavery from the warlocks, and if Blizzard decides to make more sapient demons that are not part of the burning legion, i can't add it anywhere except in the creature template which is not fit for a sapient category, same thing with the dragonflights, if blizzard decides to make to make a sapient being that is not part of the dragonflight i can't add them(there are already non-sapient versions), it also becomes different from the other templates because it has characters, stupid creatures and is divided on factional importance--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:43, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:55, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll just add fel corrupted races.--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:59, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Added Azotha--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Added Titanic watchers--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Remade the nature and eternals template--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:07, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Added Faceless general,but links to General Vezax if possible make a article about faceless generals--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:22, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that General Vezax is the only faceless general we know of, and we don't know any information about them apart from what we know about General Vezax, including whether or not there are even any other faceless generals apart from Vezax. A separate article would be almost pointless. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:28, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll just comment that in cataclysm are going to be more and i forgot that i can't put information altered by NDA here--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:34, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Added a link to half-breeds to below because someone complained there was no reference to half-breeds--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:47, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Linked all half-breed articles to main template--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:17, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Added various links to below of sub-templates--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:20, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- The grim batol raid preview showed another faceless general that is red can i now make an article?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:12, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- On a possible Faceless general article, I would point out that Bone wraith is only made for Lord Marrowgar, as is Entropius the Void god and as was Thaddius the Flesh titan before WotLK.
- And datamining (yes it's bad, but still!) has shown new Faceless general and Bone wraith NPCs for Cataclysm.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:08, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Sure.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:16, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, i'm just bad at starting articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:16, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to make a link to the Tol'vir, since they have been mentioned in the: Ask CDev #1 Answers - Round 1--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- With the cataclysm NDA lifted i'm adding cataclysm races(i asked a admin he allowed) if you see any red links thy are temporary until i find the correct articles to link--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Can't find a link to aquatic faceless one so if anyone wants to remove it or fill that link with a article feel free to do so--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I added the dark ancient that appear in mount hyjal but it currently links to Ancient guardian article feel free to change this--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:03, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Would fungal giants be considered sapient there's a case of talking Fungal giant even though he's as dumb as ogre(which is sapient)--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Accordying to cataclysm worgens are not from another planet and are native to azeroth, can I change this?, there's also going to be race that is currently coined as the dragonman i think we should make a template in the near future--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:42, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I remade the Orc part in the aliens to azeroth part to include the new dragonmaw orc and dire orc--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:03, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I changed the Nature and Eternals template so it considers elemental a category and not Nature so we can add new races to elemental category without sub-categorising to much--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:46, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Added bog beasts because i remeber one in wetlands
Fel races aren't subspecies? Nature and Divine?
I have not watched this template for a while, but I always saw fel races, like fel orcs and felblood, as subspecies/subraces of their respective uncorrupted races.
Also, I think some demigod races could be outside the "Nature and Divine" template, it's weird to have "Titan" there and not inside titanic creations.
My idea for this would be to separate "Nature and Divine" into 2 templates:
- Elementals and Nature
- Divine
Divine wouldn't be a subtemplate of "Sapient Species". After all, most gods can't be classified as species, Divine would mostly be a place for religion and characters. Maybe we could include those "obvious" ones like Loas and Old Gods inside Elementals and Nature, but I'm not sure. I just feel the current template is worse than it was some days before :S.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here is my explanation according to what i remember of old criticism:
- Fel corrupted races were added to the demon template because they share something with some of the demons they were corrupted to fel to the current state for example satyr and man'ari eredar, so we have 3 solutions:
- -Put them in both templates(creates duplication)
- -Apply all of them to demon and fel template(Best solution)
- -Apply all of them to their original races category(Removes Man'ari and satyr from the demon template)
- -Put them arbitrarly(Who decides the arbitration blizzard they don't care, and by somebody else would be non-canon)
- The 5 races that this can apply that i know is:
- -Satyr
- -Man'ari Eredar
- -Corrupted Ancient
- -Fel Orc
- -Felblood Elf
- About the nature and divine template, my opinion is to remove deities(since there's a deity template) but you must notice that the only deities in it are racial groups of deities(titans, ancient guardians, titan loas and old gods )
- It's called Nature and Divine because divine, includes old gods, titans, loas and angelic beings, and nature includes elemental, ancient guardians, nature/Fey.
- I also thought of calling sapient spirit or sapient magic, but now that i think of it the best name is Template:Magic and Spirits
- Also the only reason why titans are not in the titanic creations is because someone said that a titan is not a titanic creation--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Noone offers a solution to the problem?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since nobody offers a solution i will just put them all in both templates--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Magazine Issue 5
With the magazine came a lot of lore, i'm not going to change anything until i have a solid transcription(a Omacron approved one) but initially it seems these are the changes that will happen to these templates, thanks to this new info.
- -Kobolds go to dwarves
- -Magnataur go to Cenarious Children
- -Separate Fire giant and Ice Giant, from Storm Giant
- -Trade places between Stone Giant and Mountain Giant
- -Fuse Pygmies and Goblins
- -Adding Earth Giants to Giants of Draenor
- -Moving Ettin to Giants of Draenor
- -Fuse Trolls and Elves(even trough it's true im relucant because i don't know what to call this section)
This is all that i extrapolated--Ashbear160 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I seen the content and will do some changes accordingly
- -Frostborn will be renamed Frost dwarves and will go into dwarves section
- -Dark Iron are officially called Dark Dwarves, Bronzbeard are Mountain Dwarves, Wildhammer are hill dwarves
- -Kobold are indeed descendants of the Troggs
- -Titans created 5 type of giant Stone Fire Ice Storm and Sea
- -Added Orsis because they are the one of the four that splinter from the Tol'vir line.
- -Fusing the elf and troll section but i'll keep them separated in some way... i have a idea hope it works
- This is all that i have confirmed for now--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now i also confirmed
- -Pygmies and goblins have common ancestry, turning them into one section
- -Magnataur are cenarious children, changing section for them
- -Adding Earth Giants and Ettin to Giants of Draenor
- -Sporelings and fungal giant are apparently fungi so i'm fusing that one
- That's all it seems--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Vrykul and Earthen
Shouldn't they be inside this? they're pretty major, unlike others who are already on it.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're are misunderstanding this template... This template was divided because it had to many things between "()", and this is not supposed to list all types of races, this list was made to show the groups in the other 4 templates, not what you're doing with the Troll/Elf is a group in another template, that's why it was listed that way.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only reason it's listed as Troll/Elf is because we don't have any name to give to the whole family (like goblin and pygmi families).--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- On another note this could probably be easily turned into a footer...--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)