Template talk:Azeroth natives

Name
Can't we get something sorther seriously? Name length is getting way too big.

10:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sha
In Chinese culture, sha is simply the evil spirit, or in WoW term, a manifestation of negative energy that would compare to shade. Hence I would not consider Sha as sapient species. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, what Sha is in Chinese culture is not important, since Blizzard is free to do whatever they want with it. However, I would hold off on adding it until we know more about it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually wanted to add any of the races that haven't been in canon yet, the mogu are probable of titanic origin anyway--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Worgen in Titanic creations template
Should we move the Worgen race to the Titanic creations template, since they kind of are, mostly, an off shoot of the human race. We could maybe add it to the Elves section, of this template, too, since some were elves.Guyomeprime (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They started from night elves, and was brought over to the humans... So I think they're in a good spot here. 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't consider them a species as much as i don't consider Slyth, Tigons(basicly the same as a worgen) and forsaken as a species, they are just different states of the same species(Worgen and the first 2 examples druidic/loa mumbo jumbo and the last undeath), of course Leper gnomes and wretched already slipped inside so... Meh--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Slyth and tigons aren't even remotely in the same category as worgen and forsaken, because they're not defined groups. Even so... I do agree that worgen and forsaken aren't technically species in and of themselves, but magical afflictions (for lack of a better term) that affect multiple races. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of purely discussion, i can argue that while they are not as defined, the Tigons and Slyths share many qualities with the worgen:


 * They both have origin in animal gods which are hinted to be the same.
 * They are anthropomorphic versions of the gods they represent.
 * They are both directly related to classes that have been directly related, although one is far more specialized in the god themselves(Loa Priest) while the other focus more on nature itself(Druid).
 * I'am in now way am arguing to put them on this list... i would've preferred to remove any examples of afflictions from this list, like in Brann Bronzebeard Journal(it doesn't list afflicted races), but it also doesn't list Fel Orcs and Felblood elves, which i think are also a race(altrough it could be probably be said to be a fel magic affliction)--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, about undeath too, that they weren't species per se, but victims of something that can afflict several different races. Sure, other races have sub-races because of an affliction like the Fel Orcs and the Broken, but I feel like each is a race of its own instead of a universal form taken by everything afflicted by that condition (worgen curse), or a "state of being" (undeath).Guyomeprime (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jinyu and High/Blood elves

 * I separated Jinyu from murlocs because they evolved from murlocs and are not a subspecies of murlocs(same reason why murlocs aren't inside gorlocs)
 * Joined High Elfs and Blood Elfs back together, because they are the same race and having wretched repeated is unnecessarily confusing.
 * If anybody has problems with this tell me :) --Ashbear160 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to answer A'noob, in this case Jinyu are not a subspecies of murlocs, but a different species that evolved from murlocs, doing these sets of templates using your argument, we would have to change the Murloc section/family would have to look like this: Gorloc (Murloc (Jinyu º Other Murloc subspecies)); because we know that murlocs evolved from gorlocs according to the wow magazine. Much like the Troggs are not: Trogg (Stone Trogg º Grummle º Kobold (Snobold)).
 * In summary what i mean is that brackets are to include only subspecies and are not to be used as evolutionary trees. (well because a admin told me not to put brackets inside brackets in this template :S)
 * I however will not revert your change, start a edit war or attempt to extend this discussion much further, because frankly i don't want to be banned over this; so feel free to see my argument and do a change it, or not, according to how you see fit.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient guardian races
So the WoW Mag had some of the Ancient-descended races with "&lt;animal&gt;?". Are we taking that as unknown to be descended from an Ancient or that the name of the specific Ancient is unknown? Due to them being pointed at by an arrow from "Ancients", it seems to me that it's known they are descended from an Ancient, but the specific one is unknown. For grell, there's a question mark next to Aessina and a note that she said "maybe".

It should be noted that goblins and pygmies are in this section, but with just a question mark instead of an animal. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Brann is speculating that they're descended from unknown Ancients. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Aqir and n'raqi
Since we now know that they were spawned from the Old Gods after they slammed into Azeroth's surface from the Great Dark, can the aqir and n'raqi really count as being "native" to Azeroth? -- 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Several issues
As I understand it, this template regards species that were born on Azeroth between its creation and the arrival of foreign species (Old Gods, Titans). As such, it should be reworked.

1) The Mur'gul should be added to the Gorloc family.

2) There should be a link of some sort between Trolls and Elves. They're listed as two completely unrelated groups, which is false.

3) Any (animal or not) race created by ancients, which are creations of a Titanic watcher, should not be considered native, and hence removed from this template.-- K IROCHI  ) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * After a little research, I give up petitioning to mention the Mur'gul here. However the other two points still stand. Why should Freya's creations be called "Azeroth natives" while other races created by other Titanic watchers aren't?-- K IROCHI  ) 23:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems like, according to the druid Artifact research book in Legion, Wild Gods such as Ashamane, Ursoc and Ursol were born naturally in the wilds as opposed to being directly created by Freya, so I think we can still keep those on the template. -- 08:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you, I'll look it up. Any suggestions for my point number 2?-- K IROCHI  ) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There isn't really a nice way to link trolls and elves in such a rudimentary template as this. The broad categories on the left are just that, broad categories. If you wanted to follow the pattern for descent already implemented, everything in the "Elf" section would just be parentheses after dark troll. IMO, that would look like shit. The elf races already aren't dumped into a parentheses CF showing descent from night elves. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we want nice or do we want true? Besides, I have a solution:
 * 1) Put Troll on top of Elf (no, this isn't dirty, I promise), since they aren't ordered alphabetically anyway.
 * 2) Put (Elf) next to Dark Troll
 * 3) Put either ↪, ↳, ⤹, or ⤿ before Elf.
 * How's that looking to ya?-- K IROCHI  ) 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of the template isn't to make the most accurate and detailed representation, it's to provide quick links to related pages. So yes, "nice" is in fact the goal here. Obviously "wrong" is unacceptable, but "not the full picture" is perfectly fine. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop me if I'm wrong, but this direct lineage between trolls and elves is the only one that isn't pictured in the template, even though it's one of the most important revelations in World of Warcraft. It explains a significant portion of the history of Azeroth and shouldn't be discovered as trivia while skimming the articles that mention it, while every single other minor filiation is accurately mentioned on the beautiful template we have here, that allows users to understand everything else in a glance.
 * Seeing as every other relationship is accounted for here, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and label this template as wrong in the current context.
 * I feel compelled to reiterate my request then: are any of the solutions suggested in my previous post:
 * 1) Enforcing the canonical truth
 * 2) Useful
 * 3) Simple enough to implement?
 * I believe the omission here is easily solvable with minor effort. Unless there is another reason I don't know about why this relationship shouldn't be shown.-- K IROCHI  ) 10:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The NElf descent relationship isn't shown. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All Elven race offshoots are on the same line, just because the accurate branching isn't shown doesn't mean the descent relationship isn't shown. There is as of today no possibility to misconstrue different elven races as not having a common ancestor while that's exactly what's bound to happen regarding the relationship between trolls and elves. It is concealing the truth, therefore it is wrong.-- K IROCHI  ) 12:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Xporc, this looks great. Beau gosse.-- K IROCHI  ) 12:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure whether the term "trollkind" is correct and even used with the nelves tho...? --Mordecay (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely convinced either but I had no idea for a better name Xporc (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)