Talk:Minor race

This page is a candidate for deletion because: "Bestiary without 5 races".

Which 5 races are missing? I will be happy to add them or go ahead and do so. Please note, certain non-humanoid entries from the Bestiary are intentionally excluded. 1Maven (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mora's point is that this is basically listing all "races" (i.e. the Bestiary article) without the 5 playable races. I have to agree, there doesn't seem much point to an article like this. —Dr Ishmael 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There was considerable discussion on the Talk:Bestiary page to add structures and relationships. Nothing ever seemed to come of that. This is one attempt to do so on a page separate from the Bestiary page. The structure that I propose is a classification of all creatures into either Elder races (i.e. Dragon) , Major races (i.e. Human) that are playable, Minor Races (i.e. Quaggan) that are not-playable or Animal (i.e. Spider). This page is an attempt to do so. It would be acceptable if instead of retaining this page, more structure were added to the Bestiary page. 1Maven (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring the bestiary should be the primary objective. There is no need for this to exist as a separate page. —Dr Ishmael 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this page should be deleted, but it definitely needs more formatting to become relevant. For instance, if we talked more about each race and how they are important, instead of the bestiary which just lists all the races. The 5 minor races from the personal story (skritt, quaggan, hylek, ogre and grawl) all have cultures that can be interesting to talk about, and factions that are both friendly and hostile. Unless everything is just discussed on the individual race pages. --Rognik (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What usefulness does this page serve that couldn't be provided by being part of a restructured Bestiary article? —Dr Ishmael 02:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO The Bestiary page should be left as it is, a simple alphabetically ordered list of all creatures in Tyria (past and present) with pictures. Yet there is also a need for some classification structure in describing these creatures. I have attempted to make the Minor race page part of a larger structure now described in the new Races page, formerly a redirect page. I suggest a discussion on whether this structure and formatting are appropriate and how they may be improved. 1Maven (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought you were talking about when you brought up the past discussions on restructuring the Bestiary. IMHO, either Bestiary or your new Races page should exist, but not both. —Dr Ishmael 13:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

They are covering two completely different things, though. The bestiary is little more than a list of the races, with a sample image and a terse description. The races pages, though, give information that isn't really cataloged anywhere else. Now, you are free to combine that information into other pages, but it seems easier to add small details like these to the sub-pages than the articles detailing the individual races. Tha might just be me, though. --Rognik (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it simply: replace the current bestiary with this page, and expand it to cover everything, not just "races" or "minor races." The current bestiary page isn't very useful, but something like this would be, so let's replace the non-useful thing with a useful thing. —Dr Ishmael 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that any of the pages under discussion (Bestiary, Race and Minor race) should be deleted and I believe that Rognik does as well, although I would prefer that Rognik speak for him/herself. I would also like to hear opinions from other interested parties. IMHO each of these pages has a purpose, Race gives overall structure, Minor race gives more detailed structure (which needs further enhancement ATM) of a specific sub-set and Bestiary provides a simple list of all creatures (the full set) with pictures. To combine all three into a single page would be unwieldy. 1Maven (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The bestiary page is already trying to combine everything on one page and is redundant with race at this point. People shouldn't be scrolling through the playable races and "minor races" to find the animals for example. The minor race and animal pages can have a bestiary-style section for an overview of the races.--Relyk ~ talk < 13:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As I had understood it, "minor" and "major" didn't refer to their status as playable, but of their level of advancement. So Dredge, Kodan, Tengu, Largos, Mursaat and Itzel would be examples of not playable "major" races as races with a level of culture comparable to the other races, while "minor" races would be mostly those that are sentient, but less developed and mostly tribal like trolls, skritt, centaur, quaggan, ettin, ogre, hylek, grawl and jotun (who were once major but fell in disgrace). So you'll have major races, minor races, and then other creatures like animals, elementals, and dragon minions. MithTalk 03:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And that's why I think we should revamp the bestiary article to list everything in logical categories. For example:

• Playable races
• Non-playable sentient races (ignoring any minor/major delineation)
• Non-sentient races (skale, drake, wurm, etc.)
• Animals

There's no benefit to splitting them up into separate articles. —Dr Ishmael 03:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not forget there's creatures of magical nature that may or may not be sentient even if they are the same kind: Dragon minions, elementals, constructs, ghosts, magically-created creatures like wind riders, shadow creatures, demons, mists entities, etc... For example a djinn and a tar elemental are both elementals, but djinn are sentient and tar elementals are not, same with a icebrood norn and an icebrood wolf. You could just put all of these into an "Others" category, though. MithTalk 04:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those were just examples, let's not get hung up over what the exact organization will look like. Can we at least agree that this page, race, and maybe some others should be aggregated into a new bestiary page? —Dr Ishmael 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. If we look at real life classification, nothing is really separate like "sentient" and "non-sentient" and things like that. Humans are animals like any other. Any classification we make up other than "playable/Non-playable" will be mostly made-up, since they can come up with things like non-sentient beasts belonging to an exciting race of previously sentient and vice-versa. Playable races are part of the bestiary too as they exist as NPCs, so you put them all in one page, keep the playable race article since "playable" is a clear separate classification, same for the 'racial friendship' races since they are the ones with story missions, and if someone wants to categorize other advanced and tribal sentient races, they can do that with the Categories system without having to make other kinds of pages. MithTalk 15:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization by Genus

My attempt to address the original reasons for considering deletion of this page. It is part of a simplistic, but easily understood system, where the major functional differences in the game are highlighted: playable, non-playable (talking & weapon using Minor race) and Animal (all others) excluding the corrupted slaves of dragons. Although I understand the identification of non-sentient races, these is no functional difference between them and animals. ~ 1Maven (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can get something like a book in the priory relating all of that. It'll be mostly made up. For example, asura, ettin, giants and ogres have clearly similar traits like 3 toes, lack of body hair, little gender dimorphism, pointed ears, elongated arms with strong and sharp nails... And naga and krait are rather similar, even ore now that they have hands (I suspect krait hatchlings get traits from the victims fed to them in their young stages, but have no way to prove it). But even though they seem related, we cant put them together in any category. Because we have no info about that. So one can roleplay about it, but not put it in the wiki. In the wiki we put what's in the game, what was is the game with historical tags, and what we know for sure from other verifiable lore sources like books and story writing devs. MithTalk 15:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree. except that it's not mostly made up, it's all made up, including the lore and "lost" books scattered throughout Tyria by the Devs. Your perspective is just as valid as my own, which is oriented more towards functional aspects of the game then role-playing, who builds cities, who lives underwater, who talks, etc. I put in some time and effort documenting my perspective. I see no reason why you should not do the same. I did mention that there is "controversy" and that there exist competing perspectives. Dr Ishmael, on the other hand, would like to see all of this consolidated into one place. If you want to do this and/or add a creative layer that would be appreciated by role-players then I for one, encourage you to do so. ~ 1Maven (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What the devs make up is officially made up, though; what we make up is not. That's the difference. The only controversy here is that you want to document things in a way that is not supported by either the mechanics or the lore, which doesn't fit well with our normal practices. —Dr Ishmael 13:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So Mith, if you document a classification system based on the game mechanics and lore then it may be considered more valid then what I have documented. However, I suggest that all "Schools of Thought" be maintained to give the Role-players something to argue about. Consider how much interest, excitement and argument have been generated contrasting "Evolution" vs. "Creationism". One philosophical topic that has generated even more, including wars throughout history, is Religion, which already has considerable documentation that I may attempt to consolidate. Won't the Role-players have fun with that? ~ 1Maven (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not about what's more or less valid it's about what's in the game, and what isn't. Role-players can have fun however they want in-game. But if they decide to roleplay as Inquest - something players can't never become - they can't come to the wiki and change the Inquest page to say players can join the Inquest, when in reality they can't. When something is made by players it must be widespread and consolidated enough to get a page outside the User namespace. Like the farm page. Nobody would discuss that term to be added to the wiki when it's so widely used, even though it was originally made up by the community, not the developers. But keep it mind no one is telling you not to categorize creatures however you want. You'll just have to keep it in your User page or a subpage as a personal project, or other editors will just keep marking it for deletion as something that doesn't match the game, or changing it to match the know lore and mechanics. MithTalk 15:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather then solely criticize what has been done, however valid those criticisms may be; I invite you to correct, add or improve upon it. I would only object to deletion without replacement by something "better". ~ 1Maven (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, since the terms "minor race", "lesser race" and "tribal race" are used mostly during the racial sympathy story lines, and anywhere else where they are used it's mostly talking about those same races, I'd just make this page a redirect to Racial sympathy. Then keep the playable race page, and put all races in the Bestiary. I won't say it's better or worse, but that'll fit what's in the game.MithTalk 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is a candidate for deletion because: "Unnecessary and full of false information".

I disagree. I thought that this issue was over and done. Your initial objections were addressed. Now you are raising a different set of objections that I also disagree with.

• The functions of this page are not duplicated by other currently existing pages. Given additional time, it will become more apparent as this page is further enhanced.
• "Full of false information" cannot be correct if approximately 98% of the text is derived or directly copied from "official" sources.
• If you object to my categorization then why not impose/define one that is superior rather then threaten deletion?
• I freely admit that you are superior as an authority on GW2 lore and mechanics. Therefore, I request that you go about "changing it to match the known lore and mechanics." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1Maven (talk • contribs).

This page has been up for quite a while and still has no purpose that can't be fulfilled by Bestiary, without made up categories and information from you. Please source this information:

• "The usage of the term Race in Tyria is what might be more accurately called Species in the the system of taxonomic classification recently developed by scholars of the Durmand Priory."
• "...led by the Asuran Priory scholar Darr Wyn..."
• "Dragons were the dominant form of life until approximately 65 million year ago when a Great Cataclysm" (from Race, another near useless page)

There is no consistency with the categories. Give a reason to what the categories are based on:

• Genus Aquaticus — possible living area
• Genus Avian — appearance or ability to fly
• Genus Equine — appearance for a single creature type
• Genus Gigantus — appearance and intelligence
  • "...prone to violent behavior."
  • "Ogres are generally friendly..."
• Genus Subterranean — living area
• Genus Ursus — appearance for a single creature type

"The functions of this page are not duplicated by other currently existing pages." — What is the aim for this page or Race that Bestiary isn't able to do? —Mora 05:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

“

Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

— Anonymous

OK, OK, you and Ish have worn me down. Rather then get into a protracted debate, on our respective points of view, which is unlikely to change anyone's mind, I'm going to use that time and energy and try to see what merging these pages might look like when I have the time. Why it should be me instead of someone with more knowledge of lore and mechanics, I have no idea, but no one else seems to be prepared to step forward. I still disagree. I still believe that the Race, Playable race, Minor Race, and Bestiary pages should all be separate, but I'm also curious. ~ 1Maven (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Playable races are a clear and important distinction in both mechanics and lore. Racial sympathy likewise. Nothing else has anything approaching those levels of notability, which means attempting to distinguish between "minor races" and "non-races" is meaningless. Furthermore, the term "minor race" has no precedence in lore, and neither do "species" or "genus;" using those terms as the basis for your classification system makes this article more a work of fan-fiction than of proper wiki documentation. —Dr Ishmael 16:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)