Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Ethnic groups"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Bah, ignore the Greater Dragon example... e.g. [[Ashaxei]] is a Greater Dragon! Of all the things I should know... *thump me* [[User:Asara|Asara]] 22:17, 8 February 2008 (GMT) | Bah, ignore the Greater Dragon example... e.g. [[Ashaxei]] is a Greater Dragon! Of all the things I should know... *thump me* [[User:Asara|Asara]] 22:17, 8 February 2008 (GMT) | ||
Can we get rid of [[:Category:Humanoid races]]? Not only will it be useless ([[:Category:Denizen races]] and [[:Category:Adventurer races]] might as well directly go in [[:Category:Ethnic groups]]), but also some races arn't humanoid ([[glubbers]]). Also, making a [[:Category:Denizen races]] seems like it will further mislead people into thinking [[:Category:Adventurer races]] are adventurer-only (because [[:Category:Denizen races]] are denizen-only). --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 22:37, 8 February 2008 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 22:37, 8 February 2008
In the instance where a denizen's race/ethnicity is mentioned in the article, should it link to the relevant race article even though troll, dwarf, Tsol'aa, etc. are categorized only as "Adventurer races"? Or should there be articles for these races as they occur in non-adventurer beings categorized in "Humanoid races'? Gnaash 21:17, 6 February 2008 (GMT)
- Yes, mentions of adventurer races, even in denizen articles, should be linked, IMO. As for the categorisation issue, Category:Adventurer races is already categorised in Category:Denizens. --Krypton 21:52, 6 February 2008 (GMT)
- It occurs to me that the entire Category:Ethnic groups might as well be put in Category:Denizens, as all articles under Category:Humanoid races and Category:Adventurer races are represented in the realms by denizens (in the case of "Humanoid races", denizen representation is even 100%). --Krypton 06:38, 7 February 2008 (GMT)
- Hm, I only just now looked at this discussion and I don't think 'adventurers' should be a subcategory of 'denizens', as denizens and adventurers are mutually exclusive. I think it might be erroneous, therefore, to categorize these two based off race since race is not their defining difference (the difference actually being source of 'soul'.) To alleviate this, categorize the Dwarf article, for example, as also part of the denizen category, since Dwarves are both a subgroup of denizens and adventurers. Asara 01:47, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Wow, that was confusing. To clarify, I don't think ethnic groups should be categorized under denizens, as adventurer races are a subcategory of ethnic groups. Ergo, I don't think 'adventurer races' should be a subcategory of 'denizens' as 'adventurer races' pertain to adventurers. Asara 01:51, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- All adventurer race articles -were- categorised in Category:Denizens at the beginning. But since every adventurer race was categorised in Denizens, I made it less cluttered and just had Category:Adventurer races categorised in Denizens to be all-encompassing. Now it occurred to me that every race in Category:Ethnic groups, "adventurer" or "humanoid", deserves to be categorised in Denizens, so the "one fell swoop" solution would be to just put "Ethnic groups" in the Denizens category. My bet is that the problem lies in the wording more than the categorisation. For instance, both Category:Ethnic groups and Category:Humanoid races mention "humanoid" as a criterion of sorts.. that doesn't make much sense. --Krypton 03:23, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- If you think it helps any, you could categorise "Adventurer races" in Category:Adventurers, too. --Krypton 04:31, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- All adventurer race articles -were- categorised in Category:Denizens at the beginning. But since every adventurer race was categorised in Denizens, I made it less cluttered and just had Category:Adventurer races categorised in Denizens to be all-encompassing. Now it occurred to me that every race in Category:Ethnic groups, "adventurer" or "humanoid", deserves to be categorised in Denizens, so the "one fell swoop" solution would be to just put "Ethnic groups" in the Denizens category. My bet is that the problem lies in the wording more than the categorisation. For instance, both Category:Ethnic groups and Category:Humanoid races mention "humanoid" as a criterion of sorts.. that doesn't make much sense. --Krypton 03:23, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Wow, that was confusing. To clarify, I don't think ethnic groups should be categorized under denizens, as adventurer races are a subcategory of ethnic groups. Ergo, I don't think 'adventurer races' should be a subcategory of 'denizens' as 'adventurer races' pertain to adventurers. Asara 01:51, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Hm, I only just now looked at this discussion and I don't think 'adventurers' should be a subcategory of 'denizens', as denizens and adventurers are mutually exclusive. I think it might be erroneous, therefore, to categorize these two based off race since race is not their defining difference (the difference actually being source of 'soul'.) To alleviate this, categorize the Dwarf article, for example, as also part of the denizen category, since Dwarves are both a subgroup of denizens and adventurers. Asara 01:47, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- It occurs to me that the entire Category:Ethnic groups might as well be put in Category:Denizens, as all articles under Category:Humanoid races and Category:Adventurer races are represented in the realms by denizens (in the case of "Humanoid races", denizen representation is even 100%). --Krypton 06:38, 7 February 2008 (GMT)
No, I think current adventurer race -articles- categorized under denizens is quite correct, whereas categorizing "adventurer races" in denizens is not. They imply different things. For example, Dwarf should be categorized as both an adventurer and a denizen race. However, "Adventurer races" in general should not be categorized as denizens. Similarly, "humanoid" is not a differentiating criteria between adventurer and denizen as much as race is not, so that is irrelevant. I don't know if this is any clearer... it's all very clear in my head! Asara 05:24, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Okay, so I tried to make a picture:
Still kinda confusing... Asara 05:44, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- This argument seems familiar. The races used to be split up differently, with the races seperate from the denizen pages. But someone wanted the races listed under the denizens because there were generic denizens in certain places and then we got into a big confusing mess about whether certain races were sentient races and I got upset because someone was trying to categorize sentient humanoid races as creatures and it all got more messy until Valnurana offered a compromise and I went in and did it by that and then they started getting blurred because people who weren't around for the original argument started doing things their way(is that a long enough run on for everyone?). I still prefer having the denizens limited to unique/named denizens and the races for the various races like the Hanai and the Angai etc with the sentient races separate from the critters but that argument with Delphinus and Trevize where a stupid talking spider, wolf, winged lion, and sun bear got sentience denied as a proof positive classification as a seperator between creatures and sentient races. It's late, I'm rambling, I'm going to stop now and if anyone wants me to clarify at a later time, catch me when I'm coherent and can remember what I'm going to say. Corvax 09:10, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Yikes. Well, I agree with at least two things: 1) Adventurer races (the races themselves, not the grouping "adventurer races") can and should be categorised as both denizen and adventurer, because these races are both (with the exception of Greater Dragon). (Again, race does not define adventurers vs. denizens - soul does.) 2) Denizens are defined against creatures by, thus far, one thing: sentience (whatever that means, right? ;) In other words, don't distinguish adventurers and denizens based on race (because that's wrong), and DO distinguish creatures and denizens based on sentience. This is a very clear place to start. Whether or not we want to define "denizen" by TWO elements: sentient AND humanoid, can be (and probably should be if it warrants enough input) put up for discussion on the forums... More later when I have the time. Asara 14:05, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Okay, I am fine with the "categorise each adventurer race in Category:Denizens, instead of the entire Category:Adventurer races" argument, but I wouldn't categorise each of those in Category:Adventurers, too, since that can logically be accomplished just by having the entire adventurer races category categorised there (which wouldn't muddle all the race pages with the pages about actual adventurers). But now we've brought up other issues: why shouldn't the adventurer races category go in Category:Humanoid races instead, since they are all obviously humanoid, and all humanoid races are obviously sentient denizens? And if you do that, you might as well do without the humanoid races category entirely, as would just be a meaningless intermediate between the ethnic group categories and all other pages within it. Perhaps it would be a good idea in the end to get rid of the humanoid races category, since not all sentient races are quite humanoid (glubbers, for example, only have human heads (so not really humanoid), but they are sentient). In the end, we could just have Category:Ethnic groups, wherein all non-adventurer races will be categorised, and the subcategory Category:Adventurer races, which would also be categorised in Category:Adventurers. I think that lessens also the problem of having Category:Ethnic groups in Category:Denizens. --Krypton 16:31, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- I agree with this proposed organization. Category:Ethnic groups>All sentient races and Category:Adventurer races>All playable races. In parallel, Category:Adventurers>Adventurer articles and Category:Adventurer races>All playable races. As some denizens would be linked in their article to the playable race page (e.g. Dwarf), those pages should not contain language which suggests that such a race is exclusive to adventurers, in spite of the fact that those pages would be primarily categorized Category:Adventurer races. Gnaash 19:57, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- I agree. I think, though, we'll need to figure out where all the other categories listed in the picture stand in relation to each other before we start moving things around. Hm, maybe I'll draw another picture... Asara 21:39, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- I agree with this proposed organization. Category:Ethnic groups>All sentient races and Category:Adventurer races>All playable races. In parallel, Category:Adventurers>Adventurer articles and Category:Adventurer races>All playable races. As some denizens would be linked in their article to the playable race page (e.g. Dwarf), those pages should not contain language which suggests that such a race is exclusive to adventurers, in spite of the fact that those pages would be primarily categorized Category:Adventurer races. Gnaash 19:57, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Okay, I am fine with the "categorise each adventurer race in Category:Denizens, instead of the entire Category:Adventurer races" argument, but I wouldn't categorise each of those in Category:Adventurers, too, since that can logically be accomplished just by having the entire adventurer races category categorised there (which wouldn't muddle all the race pages with the pages about actual adventurers). But now we've brought up other issues: why shouldn't the adventurer races category go in Category:Humanoid races instead, since they are all obviously humanoid, and all humanoid races are obviously sentient denizens? And if you do that, you might as well do without the humanoid races category entirely, as would just be a meaningless intermediate between the ethnic group categories and all other pages within it. Perhaps it would be a good idea in the end to get rid of the humanoid races category, since not all sentient races are quite humanoid (glubbers, for example, only have human heads (so not really humanoid), but they are sentient). In the end, we could just have Category:Ethnic groups, wherein all non-adventurer races will be categorised, and the subcategory Category:Adventurer races, which would also be categorised in Category:Adventurers. I think that lessens also the problem of having Category:Ethnic groups in Category:Denizens. --Krypton 16:31, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- Yikes. Well, I agree with at least two things: 1) Adventurer races (the races themselves, not the grouping "adventurer races") can and should be categorised as both denizen and adventurer, because these races are both (with the exception of Greater Dragon). (Again, race does not define adventurers vs. denizens - soul does.) 2) Denizens are defined against creatures by, thus far, one thing: sentience (whatever that means, right? ;) In other words, don't distinguish adventurers and denizens based on race (because that's wrong), and DO distinguish creatures and denizens based on sentience. This is a very clear place to start. Whether or not we want to define "denizen" by TWO elements: sentient AND humanoid, can be (and probably should be if it warrants enough input) put up for discussion on the forums... More later when I have the time. Asara 14:05, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
- This argument seems familiar. The races used to be split up differently, with the races seperate from the denizen pages. But someone wanted the races listed under the denizens because there were generic denizens in certain places and then we got into a big confusing mess about whether certain races were sentient races and I got upset because someone was trying to categorize sentient humanoid races as creatures and it all got more messy until Valnurana offered a compromise and I went in and did it by that and then they started getting blurred because people who weren't around for the original argument started doing things their way(is that a long enough run on for everyone?). I still prefer having the denizens limited to unique/named denizens and the races for the various races like the Hanai and the Angai etc with the sentient races separate from the critters but that argument with Delphinus and Trevize where a stupid talking spider, wolf, winged lion, and sun bear got sentience denied as a proof positive classification as a seperator between creatures and sentient races. It's late, I'm rambling, I'm going to stop now and if anyone wants me to clarify at a later time, catch me when I'm coherent and can remember what I'm going to say. Corvax 09:10, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
Here's what I have so far - the biggest problem was the all-encompassing "Denizens" category, so I eliminated it and things became much more clear. I thus propose that like Category:Adventurer races, we should have a Category:Denizen races. This would parallel Category:Adventurer races and Category:Adventurers with denizens. Then, for example, we can categoirze "Dwarf" in both the Category:Adventurer races and the Category:Denizen races categories. Thoughts on this? Asara 22:05, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
Bah, ignore the Greater Dragon example... e.g. Ashaxei is a Greater Dragon! Of all the things I should know... *thump me* Asara 22:17, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
Can we get rid of Category:Humanoid races? Not only will it be useless (Category:Denizen races and Category:Adventurer races might as well directly go in Category:Ethnic groups), but also some races arn't humanoid (glubbers). Also, making a Category:Denizen races seems like it will further mislead people into thinking Category:Adventurer races are adventurer-only (because Category:Denizen races are denizen-only). --Krypton 22:37, 8 February 2008 (GMT)