Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Ethnic groups"

m
no edit summary
m
Line 13: Line 13:
:::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. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 14:05, 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. [[User:Asara|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]]. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 16:31, 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]]. --[[User:Krypton|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]]. [[User:Gnaash|Gnaash]] 19:57, 8 February 2008 (GMT)
2

edits