I think there is some big work to do here. We must classify every race, and give names to the species.--K ) (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Main helping page: Category:WoW icon templates.--K ) (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this page, and accuracy

I see problems with this page. Its too "scientific" we are dealing with fantasy here. In the warcraft lore species and race get tossed around with the same meaning. In fantasy any race can mate, and have offspring as long as they are sentient and generally bipedal.Baggins 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Make a 'different races that can mate' page and redirect it to everything?--SWM2448 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, dwarves, humans and even gnomes can mate apparently. They are interconnected. Gnomes are cousins of the dwarves. There has been at least one human with dwarven heritage. I just don't see the reason for a page like this at all.Baggins 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a good example for one of the problems with this page, is dragonspawn and dragons. All dragons are considered the same species. Dragonspawn can mate with dragons and produce offspring. Infact this is likely how the dragonspawn species was made, humans mating with dragons. Yet dragons and humans and dragonspawn are all considered seperate species according to the lore.
Here is a quote from the lore where race and species are interchanged;
Humans are the dominant (as in, “most obvious”) intelligent species on Azeroth, but they are by no means alone. Elves, dwarves, tauren, imports such as orcs, and SO on all share the world with humanity.[1] (WRPG #?)

--Baggins 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You generally don't see a reason for everything I do at all anyway. I don't care if you value more your suppositions such as "gnomes, humans and dwarves can mate, they are interconnected", which has absolutely no basis, and was merely speculated by a handful of nitwit elves. No one knows the lineage of Humans, nor there is any evidence that Gnomes, Humans and Dwarves can have offspring together. Let it be, dammit! Abusive uses of "race" and "species" terms lead ignorant and dispute-seeking people to arguments such as "Omg Blizz is teh r4cist aginst Horde!!11! lol". I started this article to clarify what a species and what a race were. Why should we care about the lineages of all races if we didn't care about what a race meant? Seriously. There is no need to be scientific about anything, and even if we were I can't see why it would be a bad thing. I don't expect science haters to come here and say "Hey, this page sucks, I only like boss-killing tactics pages"! It is part of the lore, whatever you'll say.--K ) (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"which has absolutely no basis", actually I was going by info according to the RPG. Which states gnomes are a cousin race of dwarves, and has one character who is human with dwarven heritage. AS for "clarificaiton of race and species" well we go by Blizzard's definition and use, not real world's even if there may be issues.
Also in the real world it is possible for two seperate species to mate and have offspring, usually not viable however. A liger is an example. A polar bear and a black bear are two seperate species but can mate. Species in real world actually get defined not mating possibility but by regional information as well. For indeed being seperated by region would lower the chance that the species would mate, i.e. the polar bear the black bear.
So again even your definition was off.Baggins 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What does exactly "cousins" prove? Humans and Chimps are closest cousins, that is no proof that we can produce fertile offspring together. A liger cannot produce fertile offspring, that is to say, liger offspring, because male ligers are undoubtedly sterile, same thing for tigons. And no, you don't go by Blizzard's definition and use because Elves and Humans are in no way described as cousins, though they are able to have children (and I expect fertile children, since the Half-Elf race is nowadays a whole one), which goes against what Blizzard states in the RPG (umm, I wish you understood that sentence, because I'm not sure I did). Who is the Human with a "Dwarven heritage" btw? I'm clueless about what that means.--K ) (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesi Falrevare of the Bloodsail Buccanneers is said to have dwarven blood running through her veins. The RPG describes high elves and humans as seperate species or races and often within the same sources. You might also note mongrelmen. As for cousins, well you have put nathrezim and tothrezim under the same section, yet they are considered seperate. If we followed the logic you used, then dwarves and gnomes certainly need to be in the same section. Hypocrite much? Baggins 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally there is no way a scientist would say a draenei is the same species as a human, one they have bovine features, and other animal like features. Humans do not have horns, tails, or cloven feet. Nor would they likely class two creatures from two different planets as the same species.Baggins 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I should mention, this page would be best tagged as speculation. That way we avoid slightly silly discussions based on real-world evidence. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, you have satyrs listed. Satyrs actually come from practically any race. Its said harpies can reproduce with any race.
You also put trolls with the night elves, however, to point back to your "was merely speculated by a handful of nitwit elves". Well actually the idea that trolls and night elves are related is only speculated by trolls, infact its stated it isn't confirmed at all, see troll compendium or even teh in-game book. By your logic above then it shouldn't be listed in the group. Hypocrite much?
Kirkburn I agree, however even speculation needs to be backed with citations.Baggins 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would say in this case the speculation can use real world references, as we're speculating about what is pretty much a non-Warcraftian term. Species would be an obvious choice.
So basically, we need a good consistent definition of species, and some tweaks the the article. I think it's an interesting idea, overall. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Baggins, I didn't add the Nathrezim & Tothrezim, I think User Nonsense did. I daren't put what you called "my rancid fanfic" into this page, first of all because it wasn't tagged as speculation and was meant to be an official and serious page, then because I am a bookkeeper, and eventually because my idea about these races wasn't backed at all by anyone nor any citation. I hate to say 'think and twist your tongue in your mouth before you speak' but I am not the only contributor here. As for the Trolls, I left the 'alleged' word to imply that we are still unsure; it is a commonly established theory and it deserves some room here. Do satyr come from any race? No. They only come from Elves, Orcs and... Goblins. How inconvenient, Orcs and Elves are here listed as members of the same species! Thanks god those Goblin Satyrs that we have never heard of are here to prove me wrong. And let's play hypocrite and bitch about a small part of the Satyr, though this page only talks in general terms. I've seen what you just did to the race page, let me tell you that you won't be able to use that quick-witted edit against this article, or else it would be really hypocrite.--K ) (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"rancid fanfic"?

Huh? I never said that.

"I've seen what you just did to the race page, let me tell you that you won't be able to use that quick-witted edit against this article, or else it would be really hypocrite"

Quick witted edit to race? Actually I've backed up Blizzard's use of "race" and "species" with references, in this article of all places. It has nothing to do with wit. Infact now this article more accurately portrays Blizzard's use of "species" over real world use. The real world use is actually a bit misleading, thus why its pointed out that it isn't in line with lore.

"but I am not the only contributor here."

Sorry but it was a little hard to tell with you coming in aggressively defensive about the article (as if it was yours), after I warned of its latent problems with written lore. To be fair I didn't know who created the topic, I was just pointing out its problems. I'm not the one that was defensive from the get go. Perhaps you would like to discuss this in irc?

"As for the Trolls, I left the 'alleged' word to imply that we are still unsure; it is a commonly established theory and it deserves some room here."

Thus the idea that humans come from dwarves is officially established too, and diserves to be listed. Both exist as similar in-universe theories. Remember, via NPOV policy we don't play favorites, or consider one aspect more valid than another. More about dwarven, gnome and human connection can be found in azotha.

"Orcs and Elves are here listed as members of the same species!"

Which they aren't lore wise. Lore wise they are seperate species. I've added plenty of citations that mention that fact. Oops seems that the speculation went off the mark. --Baggins 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the page with information from the RPG which use the term "species", as well as added information that in science "it is possible" for there to species that can interbreed and have fertile offspring, such as the "beefalo".Baggins 18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The beefalo are exceptions. You can't seriously establish a rule out of exceptions. Orcs, Humans and Elves are major races.--K ) (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, blizzard has stated what are species. Real world exceptions only support the fact that there can be species from different regions that can mate and have offspring. It was the original version of this article that was based on flawed assumptions and lack of citations. For all we know the "species" established by Blizzard (I've given the citations and list in the article) are the "exceptions" in the Warcraft universe. However we do know they are different species officially.

The idea that they are "not species" is not supported in lore. Infact it is speculation that is contradictory to established lore.

The fact is the original narrow view of what "species" has no application in the Warcraft universe, Blizzard already has its own defined meaning for the term. Blizzard has already seperated many of the creatures into seperate 'species'. I've said this before and I'll say this again, real world interpretation generally has very little use in warcraft. What really matters is lore cited from official sources, not fan opinions.Baggins 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nay Baggins, Blizzard has not defined its own meaning for "species". Blizzard uses loosely the term "species" and hasn't issued any proper definition for the term "species" in the World of Warcraft and bases itself on the real world. I have said it before and I will say it again, this is not a fan opinion but an attempt to classify and clarify some parts of the lore by putting together coherent structures based on the real world.--K ) (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, blizzard has defined its use for the term species, I've added most of the citations where it does in the article. The fact is it has defined certain creatures as "species". The speculation section on the other hand tries to ignore where what blizzard has defined as "species". Real world interpretations, especially the particularly narrow interpration that was orignally in the topic, are largely irrelevent and are in conflict with what has been established by the the quotes. That has been fixed, and its been p ointed out in the article. Good day. Baggins 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not so fast. Your citations (I have checked most of them) don't prove in any way that there is a specific sense to "race" nor "species". They mix up words every time they get to define them. As in Lord of the Clans: couldn't find page 168 you were talking about, so I reread it; the only mention of "species" was to differentiate Thrall and hiw wolf mount. In Lands of Conflict, the "species enmity" ability is used to tell apart Orcs and Humans, though they are regularly referred to as races in the very same book. In Lands of Mystery, "species" it qualifies Centaurs (who are undeniably a species on its own, Trolls (who are commonly referred to as races in many WoW books), the ones the Titans left upon Azeroth before leaving, to other species than Dragons, to Scalebanes who are obtained with unnatural crossings, about hybrids who are cross-species (such as Magnataurs; they talk about many races who could or couldn't be magically obtained, but surprisingly don't tell us about any one of them, even denying the Magnataur race the "hybrid" name) who are kind of few in numbers (but there is a wide range of varieties), then Brann gets a bit more specific, and calls Orcs, Humans, Gnomes etc 'species', while he regularly speaks of them as races. Same thing for APG & HPG. I am telling you that Blizzard hasn't differentiated the words "race" and "species" and that this article aims at an accurate classification, using true words that have a meaning and that everyone will be able to understand even if they're not RPG-digging geeks.--K ) (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think you're both saying the same thing, but getting confused. I think the general idea is that since Blizzard already uses species and race interchangeably, we have to be very careful about applying our own (real world) definition to it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kirkburn that's what I've been trying to say all along, we know Blizzard uses the same words race and species as having the same meaning, and we can't just apply a real world definition to those terms because of that.
Actually its not just Blizzard btw, its an issue with the English language in general. Even thesauri will sometimes place race and species as the same thing. Its a definition that has been "allowed" in english usage as a valid meaning.
Now, I should also point out that "race" is also largely frowned upon as an unscientific word itself. So argueing over its use as a "scientific" term is somewhat silly. I've added citations to this fact into the article.
As for 'race' when used in a scientific context usually means 'subspecies' which is one of the main reasons why its being rejected within scientific circles. Obviously so called human 'races' are not 'subspecies'.
As for the LOTC reference, somehow I put the wrong page number done, and can't find the other quote. The one I'm thinking of was a reference to orcs and humans being seperate "species".
Which brings us to another issue, when "subspecies" is used in the rpg. Sometimes its used interchangeably with "species" other times its used interchangeably with "race", and occasionally its used in the context of being a subspecies within a species, I.E a troll species with troll subspecies and a dwarf species with dwarf subspecies in one or two examples.
Additionally another issue that makes this discussion silly, is that if one argues that they are all the same species by real world definition, they would also be argueing that they are all "homo sapiens", which rougly means they are all "humans". Baggins 03:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw this has been more of a discussion of semantics of which definition of "race" and "species" are being used. There are more than one definition in "English" language, as I've tried to point out. There is a common definition used within society (more or less the one the RPG uses). There is laymen's definition (something news reports would use, using terms common to the audience interpretation but not accurate scientifically or out of context). Finally there there is the actual scientific definition, which use is usually frowned upon for being unscientific in modern times, and perhaps "racist".
You also imply its an rpg only thing. Actually I've added a couple of novel citations, from RotH, and Cycle of Hatred, as well as a reference in WoW MMO itself that call orcs and humans, or orcs and draenei, "species", or "rival species" etc.Baggins 05:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, LoM does call "magnataur" a "hybrid race" on one page, as well as defining its particular use of "hybrid".
Azeroth has many hybrid races — creatures that resemble two different species put together — but the magnataur are unique among them for many reasons.[2] (LoM 125)
It states that while they are a "hybrid race" they are not likely related to the "decendents of Cenarius", and other known hybrid races (it speaks of Nerubians as being "hybrids" later on as well).--Baggins 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Removed frm the main article;

In English, race and species can be synonyms — i.e. mean the same thing or have similar meaning in certain contexts.

Main Entry: race
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: ethnic group
Synonyms: blood, breed, clan, color, cultural group, culture, family, folk, house, issue, kin, kind, kindred, line, lineage, nation, nationality, offspring, people, progeny, seed, species, stock, strain, tribe, type, variety.[1]

However, usually in science, such as biology, a species is more accurately defined as "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species"[3] and the term is not to be confused with race (usually synonymous with 'subspecies'). It should also be noted that;

race is now under dispute among modern biologists and anthropologists. Some feel that the term has no biological validity; others use it to specify only a partially isolated reproductive population whose members share a considerable degree of genetic similarity.[2]

In reality there are examples of two separate species mating and having offspring. Usually this produces sterile offspring, but this is not always the case.[4], see Hybrid, for a few examples of fertile hybrids (and details how hybrid species happen.) Because of this the term "species" is hard to truly define.

A good example is the debate on whether neanderthals and homo sapiens are the same species, separate subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens), or different species (Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis), and if they could reproduce together (including whether the young would be fertile or infertile).

Based on real world definitions, orcs and humans, may or may not belong to the same species (Homo sapiens), but not the same race (subspecies). It would be within the realm of science that orcs and humans could still be classified as two separate species even though they produce fertile offspring, similar to hybrids like the beefalo.

If orcs and humans were the same 'species' this would make them both Homo Sapiens, which would make them both 'human', probably separate human subspecies. However this would go against how subspecies is already used within Warcraft literature. --Baggins (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Harpy race/species information

They capture males of other humanoid races and force them to mate. In lean times, harpies can lay unfertalized eggs that become female copies of the mother. A young harpy may find romance with a male of another species who is willing to overlook the violence and filth common to the species.[5] (MoM 55, 56)

Harpies breed with captive males of many species, though they prefer elves, orcs, and humans to either smaller or larger species.[6] (MG 88) --Baggins 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the RPG mentioned possible males? Nice work on adding to this page BTW, seems like a lot.--SWM2448 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ya it does, mention possible males in Monster Guide, just that they haven't been confirmed.Baggins
At last, something as clever as I thought you could do instead of mindlessly arguing. Thank you, Baggins.--K ) (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Mindlously? Actually it takes alot of knowledge of actual science and anthropology to argue something such of this. Especially if the version of the page before I edited, was flawed as far as science was concerned.Baggins 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cousin races

After much research I have found that cousins has also been applied to these categories of race/species, subspecies or "undead sub-species".

  • gnomes and dwarves (Various)
  • night elves and highborn elves (various)
  • high elves and night elves (various)
  • high elves and blood elves.(MG)
  • wildhammer, ironforge, and dark iron dwarves. (various)
  • Pandaren and furbolg (S&L)
  • Furbolg and corrupted furbolg (LoM)
  • Humans and night elves[7] (APG 124)
  • gnomes and leper gnomes (MG)
  • troll "subspecies" (various)
  • Satyr and night elves (MoM)
  • Dryads, Keepers, and Centaurs (various)
  • troggs and dwarves (various)
  • tothrezim and nathrezim (S&L)
  • naga and night elves (WoWRPG)
  • Queen of suffering and succubi
  • sprites and night elves (MoM)


--Baggins 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Human's and NEs are related!?  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well they can reproduce, ;). Still they are considered seperate species from each other according to lore.
I think its also important to point out that that list doesn't cover every 'cousin race' mentioned in the books, but generally the more sapient ones. I left off sasquatch and wendigo for example.Baggins 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gnomes, humans and dwarves, oh my

Here is some info showing the connection between gnomes, humans and dwarves.;

The city of Ironforge is not only home to the dwarves, but also their gnomish cousins driven from their capital of Gnomeregan.[9] (WoWRPG 34) Since the Ironforge dwarves’ recent discovery of their Titanic origins, the gnomes think that they too may be products of the Titans. Until recently gnomes remained estranged from their ancestral powers[9] (WoWRPG 41), but the abilities have been appearing in gnomish females in the form of stone and steel skin.[7] (APG 63)
Humans may be a variation of dwarves (earthen) that had grown taller than the rest[10] (DS 11) Like the gnomes females, and dwarves human human females have been showing ancestral powers as well, such as stone and steel skin.[7] (APG 63).
See, Azotha.

--Baggins 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragons and dragonspawn

Here is some info about dragons and dragonspawn;

For the most part, all dragons are of the same species with similar bone structure, anatomy, and physical capacity. Each flight, however, is distinct with different goals, interests, and ideals.[5] (MoM 27)
It is believed that dragonspawn evolved from humans who dedicated their lives to servitude under the great dragons. While all scalebanes were wyrmkin earlier in life, scalebanes are technically a different species, having been transformed by a complicated ritual similar to those undergone by dragons as they mature.[6] (MG 48, 49)
Although technically, advanced members of the wyrmkin race, flametounges' abilites and capacities are superior enough that they can be considered a different species.[5] (MoM 41)

--Baggins 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


i found some information in this page that might be plain wrong or at least i think it is, im just going to make just a small list of what i think its wrong:

leper gnomes arent isnt a specie, not even subspecie just some gnomes that were irradiated, i think its plain wrong to put elves as subspecies of troll, trough they might be to related, trolls have theyr own subspecies that arent listed and should be, furblogs should be listed as a subspecie of the pandaren rather the oposite.

this are changes i think they must be made p.s. im new in this wiki and english is not my main language--Ashbear160 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well leper gnomes were made their own "race" in Monster Guide btw. According to lore furbolgs may come before pandaren, or it may be the other way around. Its never been confirmed, and both theories have been given.Baggins 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


On the orc area, shouldn't it be brown orcs then green orcs? On the draenei area, shouldn't it be those that looked like Velen the Divine then the ones that are post-Naaru? Rolandius (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


My entries keep getting deleted. If Night Elves can somehow come from Trolls, why can't I put Gryphons next to Wyverns (they share the same ancestors); Ogre after Ogre Lords (since they descended from them); and Hippogryphs under Cenarius (since it is said they were created by him)?

Racial Families

I would think that trying to define which races can be considered species or not is likely to be somewhat fuzzy and uncertain. I would consider that defining possible Racial Families might bear a more useful fruit.

For example:

  • Titan Line - Species derived from the Titans and their creations. (Dwarves, Giants, Humans, Gnomes, etc...)
  • Elven Line - Species derived from the original Night Elven race (arguably the Dark Elves). (Night Elves, High Elves, etc..)
  • Troll Line - Troll races. (Zandalari, Ice Trolls, Jungle Trolls, etc..)
  • Elune Line - Species derived from Cenarius' offsprings. (Dryads, Keepers of the Grove, Centaurs, etc...)
  • Insectoid Line - Species related to the Silithid, Quiraj and Nerubians.
  • Elemental Groups - Elemental Creatures.
  • Natural Groups (Possibly an offshoot of the Elemental Groups) - Ancients, Treants, etc.
  • Beastial Groups - Races unrelated to the other lines who share common features with beasts and animals. (Tauren, Pandaren, Furbolg, Wolvar)
  • Draenor Groups - Races and Racial Lines from Draenor.
  • Argus Groups - Races and Racial Lines from Argus.
  • Undead Races.
  • Races of the Burning Legion.
  • Other groups.

These lines over lap for some races, of course. Those races are considered hybrid races, or in the case of Undead or Legion races, corrupted races. Some lines may also derive from other lines, but that remains highly speculative.

--Richeron (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.