Template talk:Titanic creations

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

10:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragonkin
Latest edit placed the dragonkin on this template... if I recall correctly, the titans used a giant protodragon to create the Aspects, but not the dragonkin as a whole. Unless new lore was revealed in the latest book? 02:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as i know nothing points to a change in that stance.--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On that note. do you think that Yetis, Wendigos, Sasquatches and Wildkin counts as Sapient beings?--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't dragons originate from those storm and stone dragons? Don't think they created them...--LemonBaby (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They may have. It hasn't been spelled out completely yet.-- 20:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I didn't consider everything when I made the edit. Since the template only listed the dragonflights (and not proto-drakes or elemental drakes) I put it here. Putting dragons in any single template is a bit tough, since so many people seem to mess with their DNA. Originally, they were likely elementals, then someone made proto-drakes, then someone created the dragonflights, then the titans created the dragon aspects, then the black dragonflight started messing around with the species. It's a basic issue with dividing the species by their creators (the same issue goes for the worgen, the night elves and the jinyu), especially if we don't know the creators for half the races. Three possible Solutions:
 * 1) Put the dragons under elementals. Since those seem to be the original dragons and we sort races solely by the creator of the original race, this would seem to be correct by current policy
 * 2) Seperate the dragons into elemental dragons, proto-drakes and dragonflights. It was never confirmed for 100% that the races were connected, thought it feels a bit wrong to split up the dragons.
 * 3) Merge all of the different sapient species templates. The current division just doesn't seem to be the most accurate, as it only looks at the creators of the original race, despite the subraces being created by different sources which have their own categories. I actually like this option best, as for many races, we simply don't know whether they were native, ancient-created or titan-created.
 * And as a sidenote @Ashbear: Most of those are confirmed sapient in warcraft 3: Wildkin were seen to speak, wendigo had shamans and sasquatches had oracles. Yetis were never seen to speak as far as I know, but the large yeti model includes several pieces of armour and decoration.--Ijffdrie (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing: Tides of War states that Molten giants are powerful fire elementals. Is there a source that they are made by the titans? The WoW magazine maybe?--LemonBaby (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it was the RPG. I didn't change it because i TOW talked about Magma Giants not Molten Giants.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The term Magma Giant is used in a few the quests that lead up to the Firelands. It's possible that molten giants and magma giants are two different species, which share a model in WoW, with the former being titan creations and the latter being elementals. Checking the Deepholme quests to see if something similar can be said for colossi and deepholm giants might also be worth looking into. --Ijffdrie (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In the Name of Loken uses the term stone giant to refer to the giant with the colossus model in Northrend. I haven't been able to find any sign of giants in Azeroth/Deepholme being referred to as Colossi. Maybe we should take this to another talk page?--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I read through the giant articles in Monster Guide and Manual of Monsters and it does not call them mountain giants, unless I missed something. I think that it is some kind of WoW-centric info (they obviously looked like mountain giants) that got an RPG cite behind it. I'm fairly certain that molten giants and magma giants are the same thing, and are elemental (not titan-made) in nature. Their recent model update seems to move them away from the mountain giant look. "Stone giants" are one of the five types (by most the recent listing, which was the journal in the last magazine) of titan-made giants, but I have no idea what the term refers to (the so-far correct but unhelpful answer is "a lot"). It at least refers to the colossi-looking giants with the trees on their backs, but it may also refer to some non-tree'd colossi-looking giants in Northrend... and a bunch of other things.-- 00:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll move them to the Elemental section of this set of templates.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Template name and usage are not matching up
This template has nothing to do with its name. It lists Titan creations with evolved titan creations and even non-titan creations. Either pages using only this template should change to use Template:Titans or change the name of this template to be "Races of Azeroth" or something (such as Template:Creaturefooter/Humanoid, which has the same titanic race problem) --Celellach (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree this is weird. Half of the races on that template were not created by the titans, they accidentally evolved from titan-forged or they were merely empowered by titanic watchers. Should we simply drop its usage? Xporc (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)