Template talk:Humans

Try
I have been trying to create a Human Nation navigation template at my own user page at "User:Voidvector/Sandbox". The version I envisioned is more informative (e.g. including when they were formed). However, after playing with it, I can't get it to look good, so I am posting this generic template for now. Please feel free to critique and edit the Sandbox template at my user sandbox page listed above. --Voidvector 02:21, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Wastewander and grizzly hill trappers
Should these be included? i mean the first is a group of nomads and the second a groupd of communities in grizzly hills, but they fit the bill of these type of templates.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nations != small organizations. Of course not.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the problem is that this is the like the other template like this one which include that type of groups(i just call them ethnic groups). a common standard needs to be found for this type of template.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Template title is Human nations, not human organizations.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Such things are fluid, but the point of things need to be remembered. A few human groups are anomalies, but I don't know about adding them.-- 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why i started a discussion to try to establish some common standards to these types of templates, so far nobody answered.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nobody answered" doesn't always mean "do it anyway." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The thread originated after i asked this.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Tol Barad
Why Tol Barad is listed as a nation? As the articel itself says that "Tol Barad was an island citadel belonging to Stromgarde" and "the island nation of Kul Tiras claimed the former stronghold and established a magic prison over the ruins of the old fortress." Isn't it just a normal island belonging to the nation Kul Tiras? --Sutsuj (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Conflicting information caused by it changing hands. Day of the Dragon has it as a former kingdom.-- 05:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd remove it alleging DotD confusion/retcon, but it needs support. After all, isn't the guy in charge a Duke?--Lon-ami (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I support removing Tol Barad from the template. The only mention of it ever being an independent kingdom was in Day of the Dragon, and that was a single line with no elaboration.  Everything since then, WoW and novels both, have only referred to Tol Barad's history as part of Stromgarde.  At the very least, Tol Barad was never an independent member of the Grand Alliance, as the template suggests. - Hugo (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fallen
Could we make a separate section for fallen kingdoms?  (talk contribs) 03:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * They're fine here, aren't they?--Lon-ami (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Same as in Template:Orcs: How is Tol Barad defunct and Gilneas not? How is Stromgarde defunct, when it has soldiers around?
 * The old faction version was much more clear than the current status version.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gilneas still remains. The old version wasn't clearer at all. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How does Gilneas exactly remain, with most of their citizens exiled, and only a few guerrilla soldiers around? Isn't a situation similar to Stromgarde's? And how is Tol Barad defunct?
 * The previous one didn't have a single lore inconsistency, which makes it way more clear. You can't even tell the faction of each nation now, and I think that's more important than knowing whether they're active or not.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So what? Neutral nations have neutral marked on them. Besides I think it's improtant to know if a clan or kingdom still exists or not. Also Gilneas has most of their land back and is rebuilding. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 23:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A vote is really needed here! --Mordecay (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lon-ami here and on Template:Orcs, better stick with the organization by faction because "fallen" is not enough clear
 * 08:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I also prefer the order of the orc template. DeSatyr (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe they could have a "Survived" section, a "Fallen" section, and a "Contested" section? Anyway, I prefer fallen and not fallen above Alliance and not Alliance. (Luxor ( t / c ) 09:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC))


 * I still think it's not clear enough. If knowing if they're defunct or not is so important, we could just add "†" next to each of the defunct ones (after a proper definition of what's defunct or not) but having the faction version as the main distribution.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this point. Human nations are not organized the same way as orc clans, it's as simple as that. -- 13:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it needed to divide them in the template as "Surviving" and "Fallen"? -- 12:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It serves no purpose to have this classification.
 * Lon-ami's versions are better imo we should go back to Humans and Orcs
 * 14:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No information was lost at all. What's wrong with making it more specific? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 15:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer Lon-Ami templates too. It's not enough clear what "Surviving" and "Fallen" means to be added as main fields in the template. --Petrovic (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is a symbol † more specific? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 15:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like i'll have to go with what everyone wants anyway, I changed them all. Any problems? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think it's not clear enough. Also, "contested" makes no sense in this context (nations = factions, not territories, Lordaeron isn't contested or Horde, it's defunct).
 * What's what you don't like about the original one?--Lon-ami (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Original one was the best! --Mordecay (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the real definition. A kingdom is a land n ot a faction but I do see what you mean. But it depends then is this template for the factions or the lands they live in? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 16:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's supposed to be nations (factions). Capitals were included to show their seat of power, and to avoid nation/capital confusions.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the issue should be ignored. It feels petty. So, I made all kingdoms in one row. Thoughts? Also, I still disagree with the racial navboxes just being about factions.-- 21:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 22:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should vote what we want already and stop going back and forth. Include Template:Orcs in the vote, too.--Lon-ami (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just leave it. This isn't something you vote on anyway. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 22:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at all the "do not like" comments above, I'm not sure about "leaving it". Let's settle the layout for all these types of templates now and avoid having this discussion on the future. Go vote and discuss this matter here: Forum:Race factions templates.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now heres a crazy idea. How about we just... list the clans! Gasp! [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Moneygruber, I need you to chill out and realize there are other perspectives. Template layout is absolutely something that is voted on. I have reverted the templates to their prior layout until a decision is reached. -- 12:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All hail Pcj! --Mordecay (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you merely exist to make me look worse? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And nobody likes my wastewander and Grizzly Hills Trappers in this template(like other templates like this one)--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Theramore
Give me a reason not to or im removing it. One Giant Angry Badger (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a Human Nation...--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Im fairly sure it's a city of Lordaeron's survivors. One Giant Angry Badger (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While the Human Expedition was initially a forlon alliance of Lordaeron's, Gilneas' and Stromgarde's citiziens, it bows to the authority of the Alliance, Theramore has become a nation of its own right.
 * 18:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As he asked on Talk:Theramore Isle, he wants to know where it is called a "kingdom".-- 19:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a city-state, just like Dalaran. That it's not called a kingdom doesn't make it any less its own, separate, independent entity. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Necromancer! So shouldn't there be only one link to Theramore since it is a city-state and both, Theramore and Theramore Keep are the same thing? --Mordecay (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Like Kul Tiras, yes. Xporc (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gilneas
Gilneas is surely a kingdom of the Alliance. Why not put it on the first line? 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Initially, I moved it because lorewise, Gilneas and its city are abandoned and ruined.--Mordecay (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)