Talk:Rumored Races/Archive12

Centaur tribal population numbers
With official centaur tribal numbers given in the rpg, that centaur tribes are generally no larger than 200 individuals, I believe that this would force us rethink the facts and how we have them colored so far.

We already know that limited population numbers is already one of the factors that blizzard thinks about when denying a race's playability. If centaur numbers are low, then this would seem to deny the possibility of a race becoming playable, especially if if its limited to one or two tribes, that do become allies of a faction, as that would only mean 50-400 members at the most became members of that faction (26-200 if only one tribe joined). It would seem that it would take all the centaur tribes coming together as one group before Blizzard would even think for them to become playable race. As of yet we only know about 8-9 or so tribes total, and that gives roughly a population of 234-1800 centaur total in the world considering those tribes only. Not all centaurs are affiliated with tribes however, some are solitary, others are in companies (5-8 individuals), or troops (8-18 individauls plus a leader). We know that there are at least 6,600 centaur in Desolance, though the total in Barrens, Durotar, and Mulgore and elsewhere are unknown.Baggins 00:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting
So, how bout adding a vote section for each race. You vote yes/no and can vote for each race once. You can also change your vote, of course. Not sure how the voting machine works, but we could do it manually with a list and sigs. I'm sure there is a better way. 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because it would be pointless.Baggins 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

but, that is the point, that this whole discussion is pointless. Blizzard/WoW will do what they want to do. Other games have 50 races, wow has 10. I say the Horde needs a small race. The Alliance needs... maybe a furry-face race. 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Voting would be pointless because because Blizzard will not decide on races based on fan choice. We simply don't do voting except within talk pages, voting systems are uncyclopedic.Baggins 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * well, the vote would show which of the races listed is supported by the wowwiki community, and which is not, hence should be deleted.  20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote to delete the whole article. --Pcj (T&bull;C) 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote
Well, it's been 5 days. I'm pretty certain "keep" has won, with just one vote to "delete" remaining. The vote has been archived under Talk:Future race ideas/Archivevote

Comments
Again votes are to remain in the talk pages due to policy. Voting processes do not go outside of talk pages.Baggins 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

HAH! Pcj,Im with ya there!-- 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, was that last comment in any way useful or constructive (you too, Pcj)? Why do you cultivate a feeling of resentment towards the page? Enlighten me, o bandwagon demolisher. :/ --


 * Jamvaru, read what I wrote about voting above... Delete the whole article? In a perfect world, no. Pcj is known for dislike of anything without factual grounding (Understandable but not fun, but wikis are not for fun), but has a point here. This page has become nothing more than a list of arguments about twisting lore so that no race that has fans is seen as 'bad'. I liked this page, but it has gone crazy. I think no one reads this page as a list of facts, their mind decided on the one it will be, some see this page only bashing that race without a NPOV (Read NPOV as 'facts no fans dislike'). With WotLK having no new races, and the way the discussions are going, I think I will say yes... Unless the aforementioned noobs shut up.-- 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm,Baggins,III waaasss juusst kiiidddiiinngg.Ook?-- 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not Baggins.-- 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops I ment Vorbis.-- 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WoWWiki is an encyclopedic work. This article would not be in an encyclopedia because its nature is highly subjective.  Review WW:NPOV.  Also, it's not like Blizzard will reference this page before adding playable races. You want my opinion on which races should be kept?  I vote that none of them should be kept.  --Pcj (T&bull;C) 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. This page's purpose was to see the likelyhood of races for TBC based on what Blizzard said. It seems to have fallen off since.-- 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is to be voted off the island, then all related pages should be up for the vote as well. Such as future expansion ideas, and the subpages like Pandaren ideas. If one goes they must all go.Baggins 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * lol...sounds good to me. --Pcj (T&bull;C) 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll round them up if this goes, let us not make too many separate votes.-- 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * this page only bashing that race without a NPOV

One comment however, bashing is not allowed, only information that was from official sources and properly cited. If Blizzard showed a negative side of a race, or the reasons it wouldn't join one faction over another, then that was properly cited. Fan opinions are not allowed, read the introduction for more information. This was one of the major things that a few admins decided on when we revamped the page.

NPOV means not allowing fan opinons into account, however, cited Blizzard lore and facts does not fall under NPOV policy. It is is its own entity altogether.Baggins 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then vote keep. That is only a fragment of my sentance (I just edited it for clarity).-- 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm currently thinking of abstaining from voting. While I've done alot to try to clean up the page's format, it was not neutral to begin with, back when it started as a TBC speculation page. We have tried to fix it since then, and make it more NPOV. However that doesn't mean that I'm for or against the page.Baggins 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As for a revamp, I got an idea. A five-point-scaled system, which measures the popularity, lore possibilities, how civilized and cultured a race is, and how few technical problems it would cause. There could also be a category called other, which brings up issues like the "Pandaren and China law" problem and stuff like that. The more points a race gets on each category, the more likely it is to get selected. That said, some of these categories are of more importance than others, like the lore reason is obviously more influencing on the possibilities of a race getting selected than the technical issues and other categories. However, a too low score on for example technical issue, ie. flying, can decrease the chances a lot, since it would give a heck of a lot of problems on Azeroth. Beyond the generic points, there could be points influencing horde and alliance chances of getting said race. However, when measuring the horde and alliance possibilities, only the lore and other categories could apply, since none of the other points could influence on the possibilities of being picked for the said faction. --Kulsprutejojjo 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletion is really going a bit far. The page has simply been around too long. Slap a fanfic tag on or remove links to the page by all means, but destroying this article and the articles which link to it doesn't solve any problems at all. It's a sandpit, a debate forum - don't take it too seriously. I enjoy arguing the toss on this talk page, and wowwiki would certainly be dull without it.
 * Either way, it's unlikely this page will actually disappear. It may be kept as a wowwiki relic like the Burning Crusade page and if not, you can guarantee it will appear on someone's user space. Possibly even mine. --


 * I'll change my vote if we can get it to a NPOV. Here is my suggestions: Two colors, red and green, for 'for' and 'against' (With grey comments). No picture captions beside the race name.-- 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SWM to help with the neutrality issue, can you create a new discussion, pointing to the specific issues you have found? It would be a big help.Baggins 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm Sandwichman, not Sky (Both have four number after their names for no reason and stary with S). Upon... thinking about it, I realize that there is no issue. Fans/noobs think a NPOV is 'just facts they do not dislike'. What I said before mainly applies to the talk page, with little of it spilling on to the mainspace. Who cares what these trolls think?-- 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna take back my vote. I don't like being called an  arrogant controlling n00b, and you guys want to keep your article.  Compromise.  I've learned my lesson.--Blayaden 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Confuzzled, huh?Baggins 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna stay out of the way for now.--Blayaden 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he meant you when he used those terms, :p...Baggins 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not mean you.-- 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * S'ok. My antidepressants ran out yesterday, and I'm in super mega hyper sensitive mode. ^_^; I'll be better tomorrow.  In the meantime I wonder what can be done to make the thread less... controversial? ::shrugs::--Blayaden 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe articles like this and other speculation things that are collaborative need to be marked as such and maybe live in their own namespace? We have plenty of fanfic on the wiki already, this seems to fall under that category even if it's not true RP. There's no reason it shouldn't stay, it just needs to be filed in the right place. Maybe it's time for a "fan speculation" policy? --Piu (?!) 05:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically only the white ? and grey comments are supposed to be speculation, anything else is actually pure official annotation.Baggins

Break
This page isn't fan fiction. It's also not about voting or opinions - it is an article recording the various positive and negative reasons why races may or may not be possible for addition. It is also hugely popular, and well sourced. Voting on whether races are included is also utterly absurd. 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember the Rumored Races issue with the likeliness of each race? This article can't be a democracy, it would be turned too quickly into a dictatorship of POVs. A few serious people have to watch this page, and that's all.-- K )  (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do remember the fun discussions about liklihood, soon after I arrived :) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Murlocs, read then hate
We recall ogres right? Ogres. A stupid race who leads and fights using brute force, with the exceptional one or two ogres. Then, BAM! We get Ogri'la, a bunch of super-intelligent ogres. Now you say Murlocs have no culture and low populace. This is true, but the posibility of a deus ex machina, like with Ogri'la, can cause Murlocs very smart. Don't deny the possibility. They could easily take any side of the war, and they would fit in with a Great Sea expansion. Or they could have a neutral city against the naga, since it seems logical that murlocs would be at war with them like the makura. Comments? --Mantriox/T/C 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, murlocs do have a culture as do ogres. Try reading the murloc page before making claims of that sort.Baggins 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

High elves/wiki policy
I for one would like to see this "policy" you speak of. I think more so this is you imposing your OWN ideas as to who should be and not be added. High elves should have a place on this post


 * Go here if you want to read about wiki policies; or here for guidelines. However, I think what you're looking for is this: required factors for races to be added to the page. As high elves do not fulfil all of the qualification factors they have thus have been removed (repeatedly!) by majority consensus. --

Again i would like to see an official statement from blizzard specificaly stating that high elves are not to be included in future expansions or patches. So far what you have shown me is a couple links to policy and guidelinds that have no relevancy to my question. And the third link simply states the SAME thing that was on the article page. I have seen blizzard (blue) and their encyclopedia and though they say the race is unlikely to be included they dont say a definate wont be. This shows even though UNLIKELY as it may be, blizzard is not prepared to say a definate no to high elves being added. One thing iv noticed in the forums is that high elf posts are a pretty common thing, further more if you look at the population calculator elf races in wow are in the top three most played races proof enough that a large number of WoW subscribers like elf races. --


 * Blizzard will never state something like that until they have an entire expansion complete and in the beta phases. btw, this is Wowpedia, not Blizzard, those policies are the rules here at the WoWWiki.  All things added to the Future race ideas are races that are already known to live in the world of warcraft and all the information in there can be cited from somewhere in the lore books or from in-game.  16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HighElfSorcerer, what I've "thrown you" are the guidelines for the wiki, and the guidelines for this page (I was just hilighting them). We work this page (and the wiki) based upon common sense and reason; not on Blizzard's orders (we are in no way affiliated with Blizzard). If we were to add the high elves as you say, we'd also have to add every other unlikely half-race - and I don't want leper gnomes, Dark Iron dwarves or half-elves making the page overly long. Check the archives (please - before you post next) here and on the high elf talk; you'll see we've debated this so many times I could type "high elves won't happen" in my sleep.
 * We don't work on "definite won't be's", we work on "possibly could be's"; and I'm willing to bet that both breakfast burritos and high elves stand an equal chance to become a playable race. Both are incredibly popular amongst the masses, Blizzard hasn't said no yet, and I hear addiction is a commmon trait... --

=O How DARE you compare my second favorite WoW race to Burritos!Curse you!Hhmmph! 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)lol


 * The Felkarr may stand a better chance. Unless Zaoza overpowers David Blaine (check on Google, David Blaine has been beaten by a French magician).-- K )  (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Airiph, don't be so unhappy. I enjoy both of them in a non-WoW context. Kirochi, though I'm sure that you're burning with pride that a Frenchman has beaten an American, I'm not sure how it relates to the topic... and I don't have a clue what a "Felkarr" is. ^_^ --

K Vorbis,one thing that I tend to do,fake anger,I do that alot.For example:Well I cant think of one but its just a little thing I do,im not REALY mad.I usualy do like an lol after my sig like this time.I just had to say something about the burrito thing,its way to quiet at noon. 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Airiph, I do have a sense of humor, contrary to common opinion. ;) --

While I also feel that the high elves should be on the list (there were FAR more high elf npc's than blood elves ingame before BC) The policy clearly states no "recolor" races. My personal argument against that, however, is that you can make ironforge dwarves that look almost exactly like wildhammers and dark irons, and trolls that look like forest/blizzard/jungle trolls, but you can't make a night elf look like a high elf. Nearly all people who want high elves want to play em's Alliance. Hordies don't care cause it makes little difference to them.--Blayaden 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think high elves have a better chance than leprechauns.Baggins 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My brother sent me a picture of a gnome that looked disturbingly like "Lucky" from the lucky charms commercials... take a wild guess what he put as the caption. XD


 * In all seriousness, personal feelings aside, high elves simply do not meet the criteria for a place on the page. (if an exception was made all hell would break loose...) Its also been argued constantly, as the archives show. (resists urge to sing "This is the song that neve ends...")--Blayaden 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've discussed the possibility in the past to creating a spin off page for the recolored and sub-races, listing the pros and cons based on mechanics and lore. Races that would fit into an article like that, certainly don't belong on this page.


 * Also remember some races that might be recolors ingame may not be "recolors" in lore (a good example is Wildhammers). It may just be the case that a new model needs to be designed for those races to bring them in line with lore, and that might make them viable for playability in game.Baggins 05:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you can make them almost look like wildhammers... dark pinkish, skin, large red beard, and a "feathery" outfit with goggles would work nicely for RP purposes. That article sounds like an interesting idea!  Maybe it could be a compromise for all the rabid high elf fans out there... quiet!  They might hear us!  Eh? whats this foam on my mouth? --Blayaden 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The main physical difference with Wildhammer lore wise, is that they are taller, leaner, wilder, and have those blue tattoos. Its unfortunate that the models don't represent that (other than the tats).Baggins 09:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't really take that position with high elves though, because blood elves ARE high elves. It would be like making the Defias Brotherhood the new Horde race and randomly creating a totally different human model for them. -- Dark T Zeratul 09:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, while its true high elves are pretty much reskins, there are some physical differences lore wise.


 * I suppose the main difference is eye color, they could give high elves a variety of the traditional lore eye colors, like blue, purple, red, brown, green, etc (colors that don't glow as stated in lore or have less glow).


 * Another difference lore wise that blood elves are supposed to have tattoos. So they could add tattoos to blood elves design setup (with the option of no tattoos as well). Now these tattoos could be specific to the race and fairly bold to stand out, much like the artwork on the box for TBC. This of course would also require a tattoo parlor option to change tattoos much like the upcoming hair cuts. If they add tattoo parlors then there would need to be special tattoos for other races as well, but not as prominate as it would be for the blood elves.


 * Another difference lore wise is that most high elves do not wear red, so they would need recolored versions for any red armor type found in game.


 * Another stated difference is skin color, high elves would need moderate coloration, avoiding the more ruddy colors of many blood elves, and the extremely pale colors as well.


 * Another stated difference is hair cuts, its stated that high elves have different haircuts than blood elves. That is the blood elves created specific haircuts to appear different than high elves. The right haircuts would allow for a major appearance difference between the two races.


 * High elves could get their own dance, as well.


 * Lore wise its been stated that blood elves will further change from high elves, according to Monster Guide. Retroactively they could redesign a new high elf model designed to appear closer to retro warcraft II-III artwork for high elves, and state that the current blood elf model represents "changes" that occured. Wretched apparently represent the final outcome of the changes.Baggins 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
So what im hearing is because YOU dont like high elves, you dont think that those who do should have a chance to explain on this page why they think they should be added is this right?


 * Watch yourself and watch your accusations. Again this page is most likely races to be added as playable races. I.E. races that are currently the most physically different than any other race in the game, and would make for most visually interesting playable races based on how things appear in game currently. This is based on the concept that all player races so far have been visually different from each other, with unique models.


 * It tries to avoid races that would require complete model makeovers to become viable. It has nothing to do with popularity or lack there of. Infact, we try to avoid fan opinion on things whenever possible in order to stick to the NPOV policy.Baggins 11:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I still say the chance is there...

its more likely high elves gets added than children of cenarius... blizzard can make them very different, and if they dont they accomplish a perfect roleplaying part, ie you see an elf, is it a high elf or a blood elf? they can also disguise each other to trick the opposing faction and so on.--Gurluas 11:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All you would have to do is click on them! The game tells you name:race:class, and you can't target opposing players for friendly spells.  I've had problems telling the difference between female's at a distance.  (especially ones bearing little skin) What ever happened to those tattoos expressed in lore? I always found that odd.  (the guy on the cover has one!) High elves could have a different idle stance, new animations, different hairstyles...etc.


 * Along with different features, high elves would definatly have different racial abilities. No mana tap, arcane torrent etc... I could see bow/sword specialization easily. And blizzard could make up the rest. BTW, Whats the deal with blood elves having +5 to all resistances?  Is that also a mutation?


 * Oh, and highelfsorcerer, Baggins is being NEUTRAL. Not anti-elf.--Blayaden 15:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OH just a couple things,Id say that be awsome for a battle grounds with the two looking alike.Also for the people incluiding me that thinks that goblins can be a race that can go for Alliance OR Horde,you should be haveing the same arguement!Though Ive stated that alot I beleive. 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the largest reasons i've heard to not add high elves is because they look identical to blood elves and are not unique, as someone has already pointed out there are a few suttle diffrences in their appearance and a large diffrence in their culture and views. Someone pointed out in the WoW forums that the beta blood elf models were changed into what they are now, that the older models were a little slimmer and taller. Those models could be used for high elves. Also one thing that they bring to WoW that no other race could is a "civil war" feel to the horde/alliance conflict. BTW ever see a BE and Human paladin decked out in most their raid gear? They look pretty similar to me other then their stances.--

The +5 to all resistances is not a mutation, and the identical look only helps lore. especially on non pvp realms. I still say put them in until it is proven they wont come, look what they did to forest trolls.--Gurluas 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * HighElfSorcerer, we've discussed this with various different diehard blood elf supporters several times: see here, here, here and here. We've heard all the points several times before from every angle possible, so I'm afraid all you're doing is beating a dead horse. Your arguments fall on deaf ears. --

Arbitrary break 2
So what your saying is you have no proof blizzard has stated they will never add high elves and further more you decided to seat yourself in power over this thread and impose your personal opinion of high elves on the rest of us. This Majority Concensus of yours is it a multiple personality disorder? cause alot of the posts on this thread alone have been pro High Elf. "If we were to add the high elves as you say, we'd also have to add every other unlikely half-race - and I don't want leper gnomes, Dark Iron dwarves or half-elves making the page overly long." Whats funny is you already have, by reading some of the race suggestions (Satyr/Nerubian/Nathrezim/Mo'arg/Ethereal/Dragon spawn/Drakonid/Centaur)You obviously dont work on the "possible could be's" as the majority of these suggestions are "definate wont be's". Your a hipocrite that allows some obvious never be races on the page simply because you would like to see them playable (IE Saytr who are DEMONDS) and claim they have a better chance at being a playable race then high elves. This thread has lost all validity and is a joke.


 * Just add high elves and put the obvious negative points in their section! Compromise!-- 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with SWM, a good compromise.--Gurluas 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit mixed, since this would be an exception to the policy. But since the high elves are ALWAYS being argued, (as opposed to wildhammers, and random trolls) I'd have to also agree.  Just get it over with so we can move on to something else!--Blayaden 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I quite strongly disagree. This is not a fan-love page. This runs by the reasonable and logical framework we (not JUST me) have laid down to keep the page structured and limited.
 * HighElfSorcerer, I would have thought more highly of you than to stoop so low in ad hominem attack. These "multiple personalities" are indeed these others who have opposed or disagreed with the hard-core of high elf fans who want to see them on the page. Furthermore, the races you have laid down as half-races are those most clearly not: but for satyrs, which appear so obviously different to the night elves so as to be a totally distinct race; every race on your list is clearly seperate from our current playable races. Did draenei not come from such a group as this? Would you, 12 months ago, not have opposed the draenei with such vigor?
 * It is you who is acting on opinion, sir; and though I concede that I have bias, my arguments most readily fit the clear pattern laid down by Blizzard and the most likely route agreed upon by many members for them to take next considering all the factors. I am no hypocrite: I read the rules and stick to them, and I do not care how you see them and the races allowed under them with your skewed zeal.
 * I will not demand that you accept this page as true, or constrict your opinions. No system will ever please everybody. I will however ask you to be a man and be gracious enough to stand down and dismiss this page instead of demanding we yield to your opinions. I will also ask you to respect me and my fellow members on wowwiki; if I recieve another ad hominem attack I will uphold my right to use this website free of intimidation and report you to the administrators. --


 * Alright this is essentially hearsay since there is no way I can prove it, and based on vague memories of the original post. But the only Blizzard employee to debunk high elves that I can think of specifically was Caydiem, in the World of Warcraft forums. Way back when she said that there were few too numbers of high elves to support players, and that gnomes had more population than them. She also said that she believed that the RPG wasn't updated with population numbers of high elves at the time of world of warcraft.


 * However, since that time, the RPG has kept high elves as one of the main Alliance player races, even though according to the books they definitely have fewer than the gnomes. The exact ratio of gnomes to high elves is still unclear. Although we do know that there is enough population in the Alliance to fill out approximately 800,000 members of the Church of the Holy Light. Baggins 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was some time ago...the high elves are starting to return, and i still say add them and get over it, i dont care how many reds it gets, just let it exist.--Gurluas 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum, seems like alot of people are agreeing that they should be added, of course Vorbis who admited hes bias will looks past that and only see his opinion as the one that counts. BTW the High Elf population in the book (and this includes the defection of Blood Elves who are now in the monster manuel)is around 17,270. This figure also does not include those high elves at Allerian Stronghold and other parts of Outland. Gnomes are only at 7,510 (again without the numbers of outland). Lets not forget other races that also had small populations like the Draenei who were on a spaceship that crashed and killed alot of those in it. And the Darkspear Trolls who are only a tribe of Trolls.


 * You're still ignoring that Blizzard themselves have said it's not happening, and for goodness sake - stop making personal attacks. 18:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, stop with the personal attacks or you will be going up on violations list. BTW, between Lands of Conflict, and Lands of Mystery, there is a total of 25,720 high elves approximately. Also Lands of Conflict takes place before World of Warcraft. It has been said that there might have been more defections to the blood elves, or those that went independent in later books. You can see more of a discussion on that over in Talk:Horde. Baggins 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3
Them bring me a quote by blizzard saying that there is no way high elves would be added to WoW.

The only quote i saw was from Caydiem saying it was UNLIKELY, not impossible.--Gurluas 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blizzard is not a random quote generator, HighElfSorceror. I suppose Caydiem's quote doesn't live up to your "no way" standard.
 * I've told you once before: we are not run by Blizzard. We run by our own rules. If a Blizzard representative were to say "hey, since everyone loves high elves I've put in a good word with Chris Mezten and its... looking likely" then we'd obviously reconsider and put them on the list. But since Blizzard isn't known for focusing much on their back-catalogue of old identical races (Chris Metzen thinks his new klingon dinosaurs are just so "cool"!) I think the possibility of a quote of 'most any type regarding high elves is looking ever more remote. Metzen loves his new improved high elves too much. They're called blood elves. -- 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem like a very determined person, HighElfSorcerer, but you cannot just barge past us and add them. If the high elves are to be added to the page, you must seek a consensus first. Don't add them until you have approval: I'd prefer to avoid an edit war. --


 * Consesus given by me...face it, anyone wants high elves... they have good lore, good roleplay reasons and so on...
 * maybe the best idea really would be to make an exception and list pro and cons for it, after all it as never dismissed officially, and about appearance and so on you saw what happended to forest trolls.--Gurluas 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this page is not about what people want, and "consensus" means most people agreeing on a course of action. 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is about possible races and what people wants(because blizzard wont implent a race nobody cares about)

if we are going to deny all unlikely we can might as well kill children of cenarious and others unlikely. as far as i know the high elves are one of the most popular races, and im sure people would at least like to see why it wont be included on the page itself...--Gurluas 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If so many people want it in the list then why is it only 1 or 2 people every once in awhile that come here saying they want it on the list? Btw, High elves are an endangered race close to becoming extinct, if you haven't read, around 90% of them joined the blood elves. 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Gurluas, continually saying the page is something it isn't won't help. Blizzard implemented the draenei - I don't think many were clamouring for that. We have to draw the line somewhere, and high elves are pretty close to it (though on the wrong side). If high elves were added it would have to come with a disclaimer. 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a disclaimer too, better than nothing, and dont forget more and more high elves are being discovered, the allerian high elves are some of them(remember gaming scale...there are much more than just six, not counting rangers on the walls), and more will come in Northrend probably, and maybe sunwell plateau.--Gurluas 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Zurr, actually there may be more high elves than there are Darkspear trolls.


 * While there are approximately 25,720 high elves and 9580 Darkspear (at last census) scattered around the world (give or take any high elves that are independent, i.e. non-alliance or have become blood elves since the numbers were last given), also know according to lore that;


 * Very few high elves still exist...High elf numbers are so diminished by the war and then by the desertion of the blood elves that the high elf race, and high elf society, no longer exists as a contemporary concept. They depend on the charity of the Alliance, relying more on it than it does on them. The remaining high elves are sadly too few in number to play a major role in things right now...


 * Still most that still exist are part of the Alliance, although they are highly scattered individuals. They can be found almost anywhere there are alliance citizens, but are rare in northern Kalimdor.


 * The high elves are in dismal shape. A few high elf lodges still stand up near the Hinterlands and suchlike, but most of them fled to Stormwind or moved west with Jaina to Theramore. Those high elves who are still around are almost all battlescarred veterans and survivors; not many managed to flee from Quel’Thalas when the Scourge hit it, but a few fought their way out or survive elsewhere. Since high elves are now few and scattered, they don’t have the impact on war and the Alliance military that they once did.


 * And because they have problems with mistrust by other Alliance races many choose to keep themselves distant, almost pariahs but not quite. Some are even forced out of Alliance towns.


 * High elves are so few and scattered that it's hard to make judgments about their race as a whole. They are individuals, and they get along (or don’t) with others as individuals.


 * Those are several references that more or less states that they are no longer a 'race'. But not all hope is lost;


 * Its expected as the years pass they will rebuild and prove a great boon to the Alliance.

--Baggins 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4
Which, though interesting, does not provide us with a reason to put them on the page. --


 * Actually I was thinking they were more like reasons from Blizzard, why the race isn't likely to be playable ingame.


 * In anycase, using population numbers alone for reasons for leaving creatures off a list may be tricky at best, because quite a few races have been said to have been allegedly driven to near extinction. Its been said most humans were decimated with the loss of Lordaeron. Most goblins were decimated with the loss of gnomeregan. I've already mentioned lower numbers for Darkspear previously. Even tauren have been said to have been near extinction;


 * The tauren used to roam Kalimdor in great numbers. The constant skirmishes with the centaur tribes have whittled away at their numbers. The war with the Burning Legion diminished their population even more. Their alliance with the orcs and their spiritual strength are what saved them from extinction. Their populations are too low; one of their main goals — now that they are not looking over their shoulders every instant for a centaur attack — is to build their population back up.


 * As the article, Horde points out, generally speaking the Alliance has way more forces than the Horde, and yet both sides have been decimated by the various wars. I've mentioned this in a discussion above, but if we went by population as a major factor for why something shouldn't be on this page, centaur really should be left off the article, as their tribal structure is limited a couple of a hundred at the most per tribe, and only 1 or 2 tribes are interested in joining the Horde or Alliance. Hardly enough to be a playable race. The only known Horde ogres have a population of 400 ogres total, hardly enough to form a playable from.Baggins 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets go high elves lets go!Sorry... 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems the pro High Elves are posting their thoughts, and its true if population was a big factor alot of races including some already in game, never will be or should never have been playable. And as another person above stated high elves are just as likely to be playable as 75% of the races on the list. TRUE other races stand a better change (IE Furbolgs) BUT just because they stand a better chance does not mean high elves all the sudden stand no chance.---

High elves are probably more than Darkspear trolls and maybe Gnomes since a moderate population was discovered in Outland, it is also the only place with High Elven culture.--Gurluas 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair i'm neither pro nor con, I'm fairly neutral on the issue. I just post published facts, which may be pro or con. Still as far as content, it seems Blizzard has stated more cons than actual pros within published works.Baggins 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So?, can we add them?--Gurluas 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First off if I go back over talk pages, I've seen a half a dozen people that say absolutely and vehemently "NO" towards high elves on this page. As far as I'm concerned that represents a "consensus" over the 2-3 people that keep on complaining about lack of high elves on this page. The vote has been made previously, and doesn't seem to have changed. There hasn't been more than 5 people even complaining about the lack of elves. The same 2-3 people argueing for high elves isn't to change the numbers against it. So no high elves aren't going to be added to this page. But you are welcome to reopen a vote on the issue, following the normal voting process policy in the WoWWiki.


 * However if you really want to get around the inability to add it to this page, I'd suggest making a future subspecies ideas page for troll subspecies, elf subspecies, drainei subspecies, dwarf subspecies, etc, and then people can go all out about the pros and cons. The idea of this particular page is to showcase new unique races, rather than subspecies.Baggins 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats why most people say to just add them, o well let the editing wars begin :-D.


 * Let this be your warning, edit wars are not allowed. If you try to start one you will be put up on the violation list, and you might be banned. Breaking the policy at the start of the article without, the new content passing through a voting process, is not allowed. Infact read the warning at the beginning of the article, about the processes for the page. Again, no one has instituted a vote, and I've given you an alternatve option as to where you can put up a high elf list until then.Baggins 07:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok you are now up on the violation list, as I caught the fact that you altered a policy page. Next thing I catch you will be banned. It will be 3 days or so.Baggins 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I still say add, however, please lets avoid the edit wars okay?--Gurluas 11:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Gurluas, we've been debating this for months, we're on "arbitrary break 4" of the latest behemoth thread, a member has just been suspended for trying to force them on; so we're still gonna give the same answer. By all means take Baggins compromise and set up a new sub-race page, but please stop badgering us about high elves. I'm hoping this latest thread will be the last one. -- 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe you can do a high level and rare quest that gives them playable?Maybe with half orcs and half Elves and half ogres? 15:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually i thought about suggesting making a sunwell ring drop in the sunwell instance that would turn you into a high elf when you equipped it.--Gurluas 11:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Model stuff
Do emotes, player animations and graphical support for utilizing equipment, armor and weapons, make it more likely that a race is added, I think this needs to be removed. Zakolj 12:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it makes it more likely to be selected, just because it will take less time to optimize equipment and stuff. Goblins, for example, are already fully optimized for being playable, with support for all types of equipment, and almost all player emotes (if not all). The only thing that needs to be done is some more personalisation of the goblins, since they only have one hairstyle and one face, and only 2-3 skin colors.


 * But in any case, I don't think that the equipment part does have any relevance to a race becoming playable or not. Blizzard would probably just make new models for such cases. --Kulsprutejojjo 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blizzard has limited time to make changes to WoW, and often take the shortest route for the greatest gain. The model issues with the naga, for example, are a massive block in the path of making naga playable. That said, I would only really go for the negative points on this issue, since positive points (e.g. goblins) are likely because they're already used that way in game.  16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, they would probably put a team on making a race playable with gear and stuff, if they would decide on adding two new races in a future expansion. It's true they don't have time for it now, but they don't plan to add any new race in the WotLK, either. And as far as I know, the ones working with WotLK is not the same guys who makes the patches for the current WoW. And should they decide to add new races in an expansion after that, they probably would organize the time enough so they had the time to make new models. Blizzard aren't lazy, y'know... They would probably only take the shortcuts if they are out of other options. And as I'm pretty good with 3D graphics myself, so I know it doesn't take that much time to make good models, even if the texturing can be a pain sometimes. --Kulsprutejojjo 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A good example is what they did to Forest Trolls, im sure they could be playable now. notice the left one, it is the new one.--Gurluas 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though I really like the new forest troll model; with a race already named "Troll" there doesn't seem to be much room to manouvre. Also, as we are attacking the forest troll capital, it doesn't look like they'll get chummy with anyone too soon. But anyway, good example of Blizzard making an effort. :)--

Forest trolls come in two flavors too as far as I know, the regular skinny trollls seen in hinterlands, and the "berzerker" form seen in Quel'Thalas. Unless they have gone back and changed the models all througout the game?Baggins 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just think although a race like goblins with are a very likely race the fact that they have graphical support for utilizing equipment doesn't make it more likely, like mentioned goblins have a dwarf skeleton and if they are made playable they will have most of their animations changed (stance and all), maybe they could use the head equipment models, other races like naga with have the same model just made equipable shows that adding graphical support for utilizing equipment is getting easier, I think the vrykul will also have graphical support for utilizing equipment from the in game Images i saw.


 * The forest troll model with I really like too (they are my second favorite race after goblins), I think if added as unlikely as it is they could just change the race already named "Troll" with ""Jungle troll" and this also shows how some models could be modified I mean with unique hair and tusks,faces and stuff, all for a one dungeon (but they could be reused for Ice trolls), maybe its just getting easier to make models with graphical support for utilizing equipment, then making models with many versions like Arakkoa or Quilboar but the strange thing is the Ogre models with contradicts this theory (but maybe they made the outland Ogre models before the other equipable models for naga and broken and didn't see the need for making equipable Ogre models but this is just a theory). Zakolj 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many (if not all) of the currently equipable NPC races have their models built from currently platable ones. Goblins utilize the whole skeleton from dwarves. Male Broken and naga utilize the male Tauren model (some animations have striking resemblances). The skeleton models are based from male forsaken models, as fel orcs are built from the standard orc models. The naga female model is built from the forsaken female model (similar animations can proove that). The Forest Troll models are actually bulkier versions of the model for the Darkspear trolls. They even share the same animations (as proven when the forest trolls do the same dance as the playable trolls). What I say is, all the current dressable NPC races have all been built from another race model, and I highly doubt that Blizzard would use two races with similar models and identical animations. If they would do that, then they would have to be damn lazy. And if you want picture proof, I can get you that. Just ask me. --Kulsprutejojjo 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Naga Pants
Personally, I'd say that it doesn't look very good, and defies my suspension of disbelief. I notice alot of tearing and stretching of the textures. The pants probably shouldnt' cover the entire tail. It still leaves the problem of "no shoes".Baggins 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any naga actually wearing pants, which means that they probably weren't designed to wear them anyway. -- 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC) As for shoes the tips of the tail could do it...--Gurluas 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which would be rediculous. The only reason people wear shoes is to protect the soles of their feet from the ground. There is no soles at the tip of a snake tail, and there is far more contact with the grounds along the middle of the tail, not the end of it. Baggins 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cant wear helms and cloaks either,and cant use mount.they just stand on it 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IF they do become races, the probably won't be able to wear helms, shoes, or cloaks. The pants thing is kind of a stretch though. I mean they should be able to mount. Maybe they'll almost look like they're riding side saddle or something. I mean people with bat costumes can mount, so why can't naga(s) (I don't know the plural for naga, sorry)  Mr.X8  Talk Contribs  01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they can wear everything if they are playable!-- 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they would get some support for all equipment except shoes, if they would be playable. Seeing how a few currently playable races already have shoes that doesn't really cover feet (Trolls, Tauren and Draenei), the naga should not be a problem, either with the shoes. See picture for a Troll reference about the shoe issue. Cloaks and helmets should not be issues, I think, for the following reasons; 1. The heads are clearly capable of wearing helmets, at least the males, and 2. Not all females do have those huge dorsal fins for hair, and many do have serpent hair instead, which means they could easily use helmets. And should they simply use the current models to make them playable, I still believe they would remodel them so they could have the serpent hair. That's the least they could do. Now, with the pants, I believe they could make it like tailguards, like they had in WC3, but they would probably have to tweak the textures a bit for that to work. Another alternative is to simply wear the pants like skirts or kilts, which probably would be a lot easier, I think. --Kulsprutejojjo 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically the pants should only go down half the "leg" or it just looks bad. Part of the moving process of many snakes involves the scales on the bottom of their bodies, if that was covered up by cloth, armor or other materials, it would most likely cause a problem from a "reality" stand point. If you look at pictures of most traditional nagas they never wear pants, usually only upper body armor.Baggins 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In real life a male Draenei would tip over at the slightest budge. Naga are fictional so pants don't hinder their movement. Zarnks 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, don't underestimate the power of a tail for balance. There are sources that state that clothing hinders naga movement mythology and otherwise.Baggins 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies page
As per Baggins suggestion, I've started off a subspecies ideas page in the same format as this; so any subspecies of the current playable races (troll, elf, gnome, dwarf, draenei etc.) go on there. I fervently hope this is the last time we'll see high elves argued over with such ferocity. -- 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Raptors
What about raptors?, they have intelligence, and are humanoid?--Gurluas 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They may be intelligent, but sapient they are not. They are classed as large animals in lore.--Baggins 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The one in barrens are classified as sapient, they have their own villages.--Gurluas 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the ones in Barrens are classified as large animals or beasts depending on the source, and non-sapient creatures in the written lore. I've added that info to the raptor article. P.S. if you don't consistently, sign your posts, I will take action.Baggins 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Raptors are beasts, not humanoids. They are already used as a mount by the horde.  21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep all raptors in game are classed as beasts (not 'sapient' or 'humanoid'). They can be caught by hunters.Baggins 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be gameplay reasons and have nothing to do with the lore itself, the lore actually implied the ones in the barrens are sapient, having a primitive culture and primitive villages.--Gurluas 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sunscale raptors are an anomaly and an "unnatural" occurance (though exactly how has not been explained). Their intelligence, though apparently far superior to that of many other beasts, is nevertheless basic and non-sapient: building complicated nests and desiring shiny objects are elements of behaviour which can also be attributed to many birds.
 * Even were they sapient, raptors would not be a playable race simply due to their body shape. Dinosaurs do not have the correct body shape to wear helmets or armor or wield weapons.
 * Edit: I may have used "caveman" erroneously; I did not mean to use it in reference to any human species beyond Homo habilis. It is not my intention to contradict your argument, Baggins. :) -- 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Gurluas me thinks you don't even know what sapience actually means. It hardly describes what we see in the Barrens. There are actually alot of animals capable of building complicated nests, and many animals that desire shiny objects, and many animals that do both. Pack rats, certain raptor species (speaking of birds of prey here), certain species in other bird types (non-bird of prey), and beavers to name a few. Even most spiders are capable of elaborate geometric 'construction', their building of webs. The act of building, using tools, or collecting shiny objects does not make a species sapient. There are even animals that make crude tools.


 * BTW, using the term 'cavemen' to describe "human intelligence" is so off the mark, remember, many of our current species Homo Sapiens were 'cavemen' before they started to move together and build civilizations. They were still just as intelligent, and like all other humans the capability of learning, and had developed cultures. Just look at any of their artwork, for religious purposes or otherwise (cave paintings, or clay figures for example), as well as their weapons and tools for hunting, or any tools for that matter. Plus many were already weaving textiles (for nets and baskets). No the idea that 'caveman' equates to low-intelligence is a myth, akin to myth that certain people claim that the so-called 'primitive' (a term that is erroneous & derogratory on its own) cultures are somehow less intelligent.Baggins 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)