Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
Advertisement

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

Sub-Templates[]

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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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). --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 00:30, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
What about titanic watchers? SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 00:49, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Hard to say, but there is at least more than one known possible titanic watcher. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 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.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:13, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Sure.
IconSmall Hamuul 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... Would anybody like if we fuse the 5 templates into a footer?--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
As I understand this, it's a template for major racial groups. We have elf, but we don't have blood elf. We have vrykul, but we don't have sea vrykul.
Not wanting to include vrykul is like removing elf or troll from the template. Makes no sense.
Also, parenthesis are fine if they include only major racial groups. Elf comes from troll, so it should be between parenthesis to show the relationship, and not with that weird "/" that only confuses readers.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to go with the "family name" model, then "&" should be used instead of "/".--Lon-ami (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right on the "&", and you're right on it being major racial groups but it's based on having the same origin(if they are of the same origin, they are of the same group).
However you're right that it looks partially wrong... the only solution i'm seeing is turning this template into a footer, because the admin that made this template said "No races between parenthesis", which was the reason why the previous template was turned into various.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sapient Footer[]

I thought of turning this and the other 4 templates into a footer, i made a initial sketch here:User:Ashbear160/Template:Sapientfooter


What do you think? Good Idea, bad idea?--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Good idea --LemonBaby (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
... of course there would be a need to create articles(or find good alternatives)...--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
What's this obsession with footers? They are called navigation templates for a reason, and footers makes articles harder to navigate. --g0urra[T҂C] 17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It's because one template doesn't work(the list is just to huge) and putting it like this causes some trouble (ex pointed out by Lon-Ami: can't find vrykuls because they are incorporated in the human group).
A Footer reduces both the size and has still manages to have all of the info at the same time, that's why footer are usually preferred by the majority.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is this "majority" you speak of? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Lot of people in wowpedia seem to prefer footers, could be wrong trough.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you ask the readers and not just the editors? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I hate footers. They may work with the tabber extension, but I still prefer solid inalterable navigation templates. This template is fine, and anyway, don't we have templates for the subcatgories already?
This template only needs to be more clear. You can't have human and lack vrykul, when vrykul comes before human. Same for earthen. Maybe we could leave this template for major racial groups only?--Lon-ami (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, major racial groups is enough. --g0urra[T҂C] 00:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Humans already include Vrykul, Like Dwarves include Dwarves, Kobold, Eathen and Trogg, and so on and so on, This template already lists every sapient race group in the game.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MoP Races[]

Trying to accommodate Mop races in this group of templates, tell me if you find anything wrong or disagree with.

  • Grummles go into Titan -> Dwarves -> New Race
  • Hozen go into Natives -> Other -> New Race -> Mountain, Forest, Giant, Jungle
  • Jinyu go into Natives -> Murlocs -> New Race
  • Mantid go into Natives -> Other -> New Race
  • Mogu go into Natives -> Other -> New Race
  • Saurok go into Natives -> Other -> New Race
  • Virmen go into Natives -> Other -> New Race
  • Yaungol go into Natives -> Tauren -> New Race
  • Sprites go into Natives -> Other -> New Race -> Mountain, Forest
  • Sha go into Natives -> Other -> New Race
--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reworking the "Holy and Nature" template.[]

I think we should rework the Holy and Nature part of this template into a sort of a "Sapients Species of the Cosmic Forces". It would be divided into 7 sections and move a bunch of stuff from the other templates around to have the following creatures:

  • Light: Naaru.
  • Disorder: Demons.
  • Death: Eternal Ones, Kyrian, Tirnen and Maldraxxus Natives.
  • Void: Void Lords, Void Creatures, Old Gods and derivatives.
  • Order: Titan, Constellars.
  • Life: Wild Gods, Ancients, Treeants, Faerie Dragons.
  • Elements: The entire Elemental Section.

I believe this is the best way to go forward, especially considering the way Blizzard seems to working on the Cosmic Planes of the Warcraft universe. Any opinions?Ashendant160 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That feels like a lot of unnecessary division for a template that isn't that granular, especially since most of those categories only have one or two entries. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I created this list by giving a cursory look at all the Sub-templates of this template and I can see that some part of these could be outdated so it's likely I could find some more to populate it. 5 out of 7 categories would be large, while the other 2 small ones would be Order, because there is an entire sub-template called Titan-Forged, and Light, of which there was only Naaru on this template. This is also work to prepare for the future since Blizzard has established that this is the way they are going forward. I will create an example template here, today or tomorrow.Ashendant160 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The navbox works completely fine as it is right now. There is no reason to make the template even larger and contain even more empty space. I agree with Dark T Zeratul here. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 19:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
And I disagree with that argument because the original circumstances in which these templates were made as changed(I known since I was one of the people who worked on it at the start). Nature and Holy was a template for others that did not fit the rest, with the introduction of Cosmic Forces and their respective Planes, now there is a place for them and others in a way that makes sense with the lore of the Warcraft setting. And because the Cosmic Planes are Alien planes to Azeroth that means that both templates will become increasingly similar with time and redundant. I will make an example and then you guys can vote on it.Ashendant160 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that adding more, or those subcategories at least, would really benefit this template, based on the current purpose. But of course, feel free to make an example. PeterWind (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Well it's not so much as adding more categories, as moving a bunch of categories from Azeroth Aliens. That template is already huge and is going to be get bigger as Blizzard develops more Cosmic Planes, the templates will get increasingly similar and redundant. I'm going to take a bit longer with this template because I'm noticing a lot of issues with the current templates(like Lightspawn missing or how it lists every sub-type for each Aqiri race, except the Aqir themselves).Ashendant160 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This template was already significantly truncated from its original form, because its original form was massively large. Adding more categories will only serve to go back to when it was huge and unwieldy and gross. The point is not to have a massive, enormous template that accurately reflects all the nuance of every race, because such a thing would be so vast as to be unusable for anything. The point is to have a quick reference to a small number of related articles, and this currently serves that purpose. THOSE circumstances have not changed. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I know what was the original purpose of the Template I'm one of the people that originally worked on it (User:Ashbear160). The original template was made to reduce the size of the original template, but also change it from a continent-based categorization to a origin-based categorization. The logic for the "Holy and Nature" was that it was an "Other Sub-Template" since the races in it were both Natives and Aliens to Azeroth. At the time this made sense, but circumstances have changed and issues are rising that I want to solve before they become worst.
Now that the Cosmic Planes exist, all these Nature and Holy sapients have a point of origin in a Cosmic Force. It makes sense to change it at this point since now all these Holy and Nature creatures are now Aliens to Azeroth. You can see this logic taking effect with all the Cosmic Forces based races ending up in Aliens to Azeroth sub-template. For example, both the Naaru and Kyrian(Why are they in the same category? they are unrelated) are in both templates and it seems Blizzard are hinting in DF that a lot of non-titanforged life on Azeroth was once Elementals. It will also be exceptionally difficult to deal with once Blizzard explores Life.
Also I think you are overestimating how big it would be, it probably will not end up bigger than Aliens to Azeroth.Ashendant160 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
You proposed adding seven lines to the template. That is more than doubling its current size. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say adding 7 to the current template, I said reworking it into 7 sections/lines and move some stuff from "Azeroth Aliens" template related to the Cosmic Forces to this one. My current iteration of this template is a little bit smaller than the current version of the "Azeroth Aliens" template.Ashendant160 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay here is my suggestion:
I've added everything I could find to this template that is Sapient. Kept Light and Order at the bottom in the Other section since there is very little of light and are better presented in the Titan-Forged template. I added a few subsections from when a section was getting too crowded and had more than 4 entries(Aqiri and 3 of Shadowlands realms.)
This template is quite a bit bigger than the current version, but if it is applied the 3 section for Azeroth Aliens (Twisting Nether, Void and Shadowlands) would be removed. This would substantially reduce the size of the Azeroth Aliens template, which is currently a far bit larger than my current suggestion.
I do have another suggestion. At the time we originally split this template there was no NavBox module, but that module give us enough features that justify bringing this template back together into one. Using collapsible sections we could unify all these templates into one, without the template itself taking a huge amount of space while also making easier to organize. A good example on how this would look is the Runescape wiki God Wars Dungeon template.--Ashendant160 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Or for an in-wiki example of what I propose is what you guys did with Template:Creaturefooter/Beast --Ashendant160 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"I've added everything I could find to this template that is Sapient" is precisely the problem. You example is twice as large as the current one (despite your objections that it would not be), far more dense information-wise, and still doesn't resolve the issue of the subject of the navbox being so incredibly broad as to be meaningless. Who is going to look at Constellars and want to quickly navigate to orcs? Or navigate between Coral Ancients and Qiraji? Or Doommaidens and Sylvar? These things are linked by being in almost the broadest category possible, such that the template is inevitably, almost by design, going to be both enormous and useless. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
My example is twice as large as the current version, but Azeroth Aliens is reduced to 1/3 of its current size, with both examples being quite a bit smaller than the current version of Azeroth Aliens(which is what I stated would happen). If your issue is that the templates are too large, this solution is a net positive since it redistributes things around to make two smaller templates than the largest one.
As for the issues that you brought, the purpose of these templates is to help with navigation so it should list as many entries as possible and as the plus of framing everything in relation to each other.
If your issue is purely with size then fusing them back into one and dividing them into collapsible sections, and adding a few more sections, is the best way to go forward as it would nullify the issue.--Ashendant160 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Who cares if an individual section is smaller? The template as a whole is massively larger. You're not wrong that templates are to help with navigation, but paradoxically the more information you put into a template, the harder you actually make it to find what you're looking for. The point is to have a small number of related things, not to find the biggest number of tangentially related pages possible. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(un-indent) imo "sapient species" feels like it'd be much more suitable as a category, not a navbox. it's a vague trait shared by a large number of races that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. this template is trying to be a complete list rather than a way for readers to easily find & navigate to articles with some relevance to the article they're on. it's an issue a lot of our navboxes have, including Creaturefooter; it's just kinda been on the back burner

i think it's fine to have templates for like... sapient demons, shadowlands races, and so on. but a template of ALL sapient races is so broad, it winds up overloaded to the point of not fulfilling the purpose of a navbox. it fulfills the purpose of a list instead.

(it also pollutes Special:WhatLinksHere when every race/species page contains links to dozens of other race/species pages. that doesn't affect readers, but i find it frustrating. WhatLinksHere can be an incredibly useful tool for editing and maintenance.) Eithris (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are all good points, but I think a Navigation box to fulfil its purpose must list all things. Usually when people are looking at a topic they will tend to look at similar enough topic next. At least that's my personal experience.
Another suggestion is to create 3 templates, one for each pair of Cosmic Forces (Shadow-Light, Life-Death, Order-Disorder), through I feel they will be loopsided and Elements would have to go on their own template?
What do you think of example I posted above? By moving all the Cosmic Forces sapient races from the Azeroth Aliens to the Holy and Nature template we end with two smaller templates than the current largest.Ashendant160 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
i don't personally see a benefit to pairing up the cosmic forces here. i think these kinds templates should generally link only to pages that have a fairly strong relation with each other--as DTZ said, pages where you could reasonably expect readers to want to go directly from page A to page B.
the way i see it, navboxes are very similar in nature to "See also" sections. they provide additional reading related to the article you're on. it wouldn't really make sense to put a link to, say, mantid in the see also section of the naaru page, because the two have virtually nothing in common. i'm sure there are articles from opposing forces that are strongly related to each other, but i'd wager those are a minority and don't warrant tailoring navboxes to them.
basically it's not just about the overall size, but about not overloading the bottom of every article with tangential fluff. the size is a symptom of the problem. if we're going to tackle navboxes, i'd like to see ones like these largely broken up so they represent narrower concepts. Eithris (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Advertisement