Template talk:Sapient Species

Archive: Template talk:Species/Archive1, Template talk:Species/Archive2

Sub-Templates

 * Titanic creations
 * Azeroth natives
 * Azeroth aliens
 * Demons
 * 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. -- 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)


 * Dragonkin, Titans, Burning Legion already existed and were already in use. -- 13:39, 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). -- 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)


 * Why can't you add to those templates? -- 14:08, 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)


 * Why did you change it to link to the templates when the pages it was linked to were already suitable? -- 19:15, 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)


 * How is an incomplete page worse than linking to a template? -- 19:19, 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. -- 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)


 * Well, its preferable to link pages over templates but since those don't have pages (yet) it doesn't matter for those so much...I think it's fine the way it is now. -- 19:38, 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)


 * Ancients and elementals and angels unrepresented in which category? -- 19:43, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nature since it doesn't link anywhere--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:50, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * They're all listed in Eternals. -- 19:51, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * You still didn't say a thing about my suggestion...--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:14, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I said the template is fine the way it is. -- 21:21, 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)


 * What is it missing? -- 21:35, 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)


 * OK, I'll add those soon. -- 21:44, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:55, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I added Demons but with the dragonflight there isn't anything missing from this template except the dragonflights, so there isn't much point. We can look at it again if there are more sapient dragonkin added. -- 01:39, June 6, 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 removed it, these templates are for species, not individuals. Currently Vezak's article identifies him as a Faceless one, not a Faceless general. -- 00:30, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * What about titanic watchers? 00:49, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hard to say, but there is at least more than one known possible titanic watcher. -- 00:51, 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.
 * 12:08, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you shouldn't make an article about faceless generals, if you want to do that go ahead. My point was don't link to the individual rather than the species. -- 12:13, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure.
 * 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: 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)
 * Elementals and Nature
 * Divine


 * 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)