Template talk:Demons

Why are you damaging the article You're not just removing information you're removing links for basicly no reason--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a navigation template for demons, not everything that is related to something demonic. -- 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was that just the original creator that forgot to put(Because he didn't let me) since the template was made before this page was made essentially--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was PCJ that didn't let me create the template when he decided to divide the templates--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I think that "fel-corrupted" is not an appropriate category for Demons. That they were corrupted does not itself impart demonic nature, IMO. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That why the template was named Sapient Demons and Fel-Corrupted Races, he just removed that for no reason--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The history of this template shows no name change. Title change, perhaps, but not name change.
 * If it has to be I'll change the names of the articles Because PCJ didn't properly name the articles when he made them--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. -- 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? What's the problem of fixing it so the name is fit to the original purpose of the template? because that was the original purpose of the template and you're destroying for no reason--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can even read about that here http://www.wowpedia.org/Template_talk:Species--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Which particular page(s) did "PCJ not properly name"? The Demons template is linked to from pretty much each individual demon type on the template, and from no overall category page aside from Fel corruption, and that link seems particularly weak. Including "Fel-Corrupted Races" expands this template greatly. Why not have a separate template for those, since the two are so very distinct? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a night over sleep and i less irate so i can answer it better:
 * 1-
 * I requested and made this template(with help) to PCJ to be about "sapient demons and fel corrupted races" as a sub-template of Species ou can check me requesting that on the discussion of that page.
 * 2-
 * There is already a template for demons, it's a sub-template of the creature template, it's supposed to be about sapient demons so it's not a duplication.
 * 3-
 * Erik they are not so distinct in fact i think i had problems with people distinguishing if fel corrupted should go on their respective sub-races template or the demons templates, it was decided this way because it's shorter, this is also not a demon template, this is a sapient demon template and it not supposed to have sentient demons which are not here, also making a template for 5 races is wasteful, when they can fit nicely there since they are frequently called demons.
 * 3.1-
 * These 4 guys need a place to set them in the sapient templates
 * -Corrupted Ancient · Felblood Elf · Fel Orc (Dire)
 * Suggest an alternative and put them there if you want, but the reasons why Fel Orc can't go to Orc is Because then satyr would have to go to elves and man'ari eredar to eredar, which are both out of the demon template, to not do so would be applying double standards to the template which i think it's bad.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact the name of the article was named in a spurt of the moment and it's not relevant to the article purpose.
 * Hope that was clarifying--Ashbear160 (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "it was decided this way" - not to be argumentative, but... decided by whom, where? Could you provide a link to the discussion?  I gather that Gourra feels differently than you on this issue.


 * I dispute that this is necessarily the "Sapient Demon" template, in that that asks for "unintelligent demons". As well, adding the word "sapient" to the template is a new invention.  Why is that a necessary distinction?  Still, this template delineates species.


 * "Satyr are descended from night elves..." Much the same way Naga are.  We recognize Naga as a separate species.  So too should we recognize Satyr.  They are not recognized as Night elves, thus they do not belong on the night elf template.  They earned their place on the Demons template.  (Speaking of which, where ARE the Naga?  Murlocs got in on Template:Species but Naga didn't?


 * Fel orcs are not so far from orcs as to be unrecognizable. In fact, it is only a matter of degree, between fel orcs, "azeroth green orcs" and "uncorrupted Draenor brown orcs".  Regardless of their place on the Demons template, they deserver a place with the orcs.   A similar argument could be made for the felblood elves.


 * Man'ari eredar ARE Eredar, you'll find them a category on Template:Azeroth aliens.  I have no problem with them appearing there. Of these disputed elements, they hold the closest claim (IMO) to being true "demons".


 * I guess all this boils down to my opinion that: the simple fact of corruption vs not corrupted does not cause speciation. More extensive physical changes are required for that;  but once those changes have occurred, they are different species.  How much change is required is, of course, a topic for smoke-filled salons of debating dons.


 * You will also note, please, that Felblood elves and fel orcs are under 'minions' on Template:Burning Legion. That, indeed, is their association, rather than demonic nature (which this template presumes).  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This template was made as a sub-template of species template, which came from the idea that we needed to redefine the races template, which as you should know it's for sapient species only.


 * http://www.wowpedia.org/Template_talk:Species/Archive2 In here over starts in the part Messy template and ends with non archive example, it took me a seriously long time to cater with everyone criticism.


 * Those are the Eredar before the corruption to demons which are the Man'ari and the run away of the draenei, it denotes their family and represents the before division eredar race


 * http://www.wowpedia.org/Template:Sapient_species_native_to_Azeroth Nagas are here categorized under elf(because they originated from the elf family), you should be aware that the main template only shows families.


 * This was the reason why i just classified them under Fel-corruption, to avoid excessive discussions on what constituted a demon and what didn't, it was a simplifying method to state that every race that showed enough mutation due to Fel, was essentially a fel-corrupted race, it was the only way i managed to cater with these arguments to make the dubious demons fit the template, and avoid Duplication of the same races


 * I could ask for this template to be renamed Sapient Fel Species or Sapient Fel-Touched Species if you think that solves the problem... anyway what your opinion on this?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that the naga and harpies are not described under "races", yet naga are listed under 'elves' in the template ... and harpy under 'other'. Why the different treatment?  Why also the inconsistency for naga?


 * I find your arguments for putting the fel-corrupted (but only lightly mutated if at all) arguments unconvincing, especially with your arguments that the Naga should be with their parent species. What is the root species for a fel orc, if not '0rc'?  If you truly can't see putting the fel-corrupted in the templates of their "ancestral species",  why not make a template specific to fel-corrupted critters?


 * Mostly, I joined this debate to try and find a solution to the wheel wars you and Gourra were going around with. I'd really like to see Gourra do more than push the "no" button on this.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Harpies are never confirmed to be related to night elves, in fact that is listed as speculation in the harpy Article


 * Fel Orcs and felblood elf are not lightly mutated, they have Fel orcs have Red skin, their teeths and arms have spikes and the fel blood elf has different skin horn and wing, there are 7 qualities that are given to demons and thy each have 3 i think that's demony enough, the original though was that if they were demonic or fel corrupted they got to this template if not go to another, there was a series of steps to define them guess it got lost in the archives


 * There is already a template for that, it can be checked on the Demon page in the creature template(the template changes depending on the page you are), this one is a sapient species sub-template, the other is about all demons and is a creature sub-template including unintelligent demons.


 * I'm trying to deal this with the most feedback possible the fact is that people complained about this and this was the solution i found--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific Argument is that i either put them all under the parent race forcing me to remove man'ari Eredar from demons, or put everything fel corrupted under demons or Duplication in different templates, since you and gourra are complaing i'm starting to think duplication is the best solution, now that the templates are separated it's not noticeable anyway, because originally these templates were all united into one template, i will await your answer--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fel orcs, dire orcs and felblood elves are not classified as demons, for the sole reason that they aren't demons. They are simply corrupted by fel energies. -- 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The template needs to be changed so these can fit, accordying to SWM suggestions i reached the conclusion that "Template:Demonic and Fel Races" is the best solution, since races denotes Sapience--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why use this template when there's Burning Legion already? Most if not all "races" in this template is already covered by the other one. -- 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pcj asked me the same question I answered why, and he made the new template according to my request I'll quote:


 * "in the burning legion template contains normal species that are not-sapient demons, or stupid animal demons and then separates things into major and lesser races, separating sub-species from main species like gan'arg and Moarg. I can't add void gods since they are not part of the burning legion, and we already have one template for demons, 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".


 * Here you can see in italic what's the name of the template that I originally requested PCJ.


 * "For example I can't add any of the other void demons because they aren't part of the 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."


 * This is the argument that convinced him, I used the similar argument for sapient Dragonkin sub-template, but the Dragonkin has only one non-sapient species, so it's really not worth it, and I agree with PCJ.


 * More or less is also a sub-template of the sapient species template, it's not supposed to include non-sapient demons(which the burning legion template has) and small non demonic faction(shadow council warlocks are not demons, neither are blood elves clans/tribes), besides like I stated before there is already a demon template that contains all demons(independent of level of sapience), as a sub-template of the creature template, check the bottom of this page Demon and open the creature template.
 * i await your answer--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it so important to have a "sapient" demons template? I don't see the point in it. -- 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As a sub-template of this one http://www.wowpedia.org/Template:Species, so we could help navigate between sapient sub-species, PCJ forced the division of the main template so a sub-template was required, these are the 6 Subtemplates that are part of the main template, these 6 sub-template have the function to showing the subraces and/or races of the races or families of races of the main template


 * Titanic creations
 * Azeroth natives
 * Azeroth aliens
 * Dragonkin
 * Demons
 * Eternals


 * These 6 templates were originally one template which pcj divided into sub-templates so we could continue to list every sub-race in a template to navigate between them.
 * the dragonkin, is the only one without a subtemplate by itself because until now only 1 non-sapient dragonkin was released and that just not worth it to make a new template.
 * Note:the original template was messy, no distinction between races and subraces, and things were paired with planet and factions which was very messy, i hope you understand and i wait for your answer--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more for me to say. If you're so hell-bent on creating a different template (note: not this one), then speak with another admin. -- 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was already doing that..., he told me that "Template:Demonic and Fel Races" was ok but to heed your feedback first..., and this template like i showed you was made for the purpose of showing sapient demons and fel races, and also like i said there's already a demon template, so you're turning a unique template into a duplicate, also i'm sorry if i sound aggressive but these templates were very hard to make--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting this template
This template is pretty unnecessary now that i think about it(yes i originally created it), for the following reasons:
 * it's pretty small by itself.
 * most of it could go to alien or native templates without increasing their size significantly.
 * We already have a template solely for demons.
 * So my suggestion would be:


 * Delete this template
 * Create a Twisting nether section for demons in the Aliens Template, put Ered'ruin, Mo'arg, Sayaad, Voidwalker, Annihilan, Beholder, Imp, Nathrezim, Shivarra, Terrorguard and their subspecies there.
 * Move Satyr and Feblood elf to Elf/trolls Section in Natives Template
 * Move Fel Orc to Aliens Template in the Earth Giant Section
 * Move Corrupted Ancient to Divine Template in the Nature Section
 * Adapt the Main Template to fit these changes
 * Any Problems--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Demons are a rather well-defined group. They should be templated together in much the same way that undead are. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Except Undead don't have a template like this, besides there is already another demon template(for all demons and not sapient exclusive) which is far more complete than this one(which both appear in the same articles a lot), and most of these entries already appear in the other templates(because they mix), fusing them with the aliens template would be the best move--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See this template for repetition--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, since there's already another, better template, I have no problem with removing this one and replacing it with the Creaturefooter one. I recommend making a bot request to change all the affected pages. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry i'll do it manually. The reason i wanted to discuss this is because i want the Sapient Species Template Group to be coherent, and this is one of those.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just finished Be free to delete.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why manari eredar and eredar merged if they continue appearing with two names in the templates? If there is an interest to name them as eredar (uncorrupted) and as manari (corrupted demons) then should be two different entries. In the other hand, Blizzard has named eredar to the manari in the burning crusade lore and the RPG lore has been tagged as non-canon so why keep manari eredar in the templates? Did I miss something?
 * Btw more templates with eredar an manari marked as sapient species. Two different names for an unique entry. Crazy.

--Petrovic (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah they shouldn't have been merged because they are different things, but this template is going to be deleted so you should probably comment on it in the Eredar discussion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Blizzard named Eredar to the manari in The Burning Crusade Bestiary. I'm actually creating the eredar entry in the spanish wowpedia and only want to keep clear the terms. Seems Blizzard has mixed names one more time or maybe manari term become obsolete. --Petrovic (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The eredar are not called man'ari eredar, and man'ari is not their proper name. "Man'ari" by itself is an insulting nickname the draenei gave them.-- 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)