Template talk:Infobox race

Origin
I changed "Planet of Origin" to "World of Origin". Warcraft lore doesn't really talk about "planets", and it works exceptionally poorly for creatures from the twisting nether. -- Mikk (T) 03:05, 1 November 2006 (EST)


 * That's the way I like it !!!!! You're keeping greater job every day !! This is gonna be so awesome when we get information about BC new races !-- K )  (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Example
Any chance you could show an example on how to use this template? Template:Questbox does this brilliantly, for example :) -- 06:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Err...
Apparently, you decided to make this template grey... and leave the text white. It's impossible to read now. >.< Omacron 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, tiny little error in the site CSS. My fault, and fixed. 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Additions to the Box
I've worked on a few other wikis, and one thing that I liked about races was that each one had the option of having "Preceeded By" and "Followed By" in their box for any notable evolution. This could be useful on some pages, as the Blood Elf article could have High Elf in the preceeded box and High Elf could have Night Elf in the preceeded box and Blood Elf in the followed by box. What do y'all think? M. H. Avril (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It could work (we use succession boxes already), though it would only really be used in application of the Elves- the evolution of the trolls isn't linear, and the relationship between Night Elves and Trolls or Qiarji, Silithid, Nerubian and Aqir is also a bit too convoluted. In addition, as each species of elves is a splinter of the previous one, with the others continuing to exist concurrently, the "preceded by", "followed by" structure doesn't really work that well. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Add "regions inhabited"
Adding regions inhabited would be a good addition to the article - for example, the Furbolgs could have "Northern Kalimdor (Teldrassil, Winterspring, Felwood, Ashenvale and Darkshore)". Saimdusan (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but that does lead to a lot of information, particularly if you are going by zones. --15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Making optional
Please change the following:

to:
 * above  =


 * above  =

Thumperward (talk) 21:06, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Mounts?
Does the "mounts" entry indicate "mounts this race typically uses", or "mounts requiring faction with this race to use"? Recent additions to Night elf, High elf, and Blood elf add flying mounts. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:51, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe its the creature they typically use. 01:01, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, then... Griffins for Humans (to a lesser extent Dwarves as well), Bats for Forsaken, Manticore for Orcs? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:29, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Except for the manticore.. don't think they actually exist in the Warcraft universe. 21:27, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Warcraft Wyverns are essentially classical manticores with wings. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 14:40, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they're still called wyverns. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:32, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * So call 'em Wyverns. You know what I was talking about.  The question is, are they appropriate to be included as "mounts" on the respective race pages? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:59, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * What I suggest is that we should add the mounts that the races are seen riding, but excluding the gameplay reasons (ie. just because your character got a mount, it doesn't mean that a lore character did it). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say TYPICALLY riding; just because one person rides a different mount ONCE doesn't make it another racial mount. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:18, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I forgot to specify that. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:43, January 28, 2010 (UTC)