Template talk:Playable races nav

I've gone ahead and removed the non-playable races from here based on the category discussion and the fact that it's purely speculative, and would in the long run produce a massively long list of every creature race in the game. Auslander 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's good for the time being until beta comes out. Thanks, Calor 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gold Legion?

Should the gold legion be on this? Due to players being inable to choose them? --aut (t) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

nah, it shouldn't-- Shew 17:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Heritage or class?

In the Personal Story Overview, Commoner, Gentry, and Streets is equated to the Asuran Colleges, I'm thinking this should be reflected in the Playable Races nav. Any thoughts, for, against, neutral, something else?--Corsair@Yarrr 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Urhm, I'd wait for more information. Otherwise it'll look human heavy and bulky. Stick with heritige atm. --aut /(t) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I suppose I should make it more clear, replace heritage with class. Having both would be a bit bulky.--Corsair@Yarrr 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that we all looked at this from the wrong way. Maybe stuff like Colleges, Seasons, Totems & Legions aren't life-defining decision, but rather questions of the biography as important as every other question. --Naoroji 13:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know some questions play a bigger role than others... my guess is that Heritage, College, Seasons, Totems, and Legion (the first revealed questions) are some of the more significant choices. --Amannelle 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

But in the last article they equated Social status with Colleges, Seasons, Totems and Legions, instead of Ancestry D: --Naoroji 13:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that indicates that either:

1. Social Status is also an important question, and that Asura, Sylvari, Charr, and Norn may also have another important question similar in effect.

2. They used the example of Social Status simply to say "this is also a biographical question, just as Colleges, seasons, totems, and legions are also included in the list of biographical question". They could've just been using examples of biographical questions we're familiar with so as to indicate they are all in that category.

I guess we wont know until more info is released. ^^ --Amannelle 14:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove all of them. There are going to be around 10 biographical questions. Some will be more important than others, but the nav is supposed to be a list of the races not a list of the character customisations. Perhaps make another nav of "human biographical questions" and this stops being an issue. -- Aspectacle  21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Aspectacle's solution seems like it would work the best, though we will need to wait to make the human and other race navs until later, possibly release.--Corsair@Yarrr 21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated

This template is outdated - the divisions it highlights are not as important as they were. Erasculio 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as I mentioned here, this thing is outdated and, in fact, everything but the races is unnecessary. The other things are part of the biography. In fact, this entire template is unnecessary, truth be told, unless we feel a need to list 5 things on a single template. -- Konig/talk 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: I think this template should either be deleted, or be redone to look like:

To include a template for every little thing, like people are doing, such as the biography options, is unnecessary. (Template looks crappy, yes, but the main point is to either only list the five races or list nothing (i.e., delete)) -- Konig/talk 22:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just revert it back to it's previous before -cough- I -cough- added the biography options :P --Naut 22:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in addition to the already named reasons (no need for bio info and only listing 5 things) the 5 items listed are right on the main page, after all they are big news. i vote to scrap it. Venom20 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with having them removed. I never liked having the biography bits in there in the first place. -- Aspectacle  23:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed too. The simple version is much better. Chriskang 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however I wouldn't probably list the races in bold and would add a little margin around, like:

All the information about biography is/will be on the races' pages and this would be sufficient. · loquayloquay · 09:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather delete it. I don't think we need a template linking people to five pages from one of those five. Erasculio 11:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While I don't oppose deletion, I'm going to edit the template and remove them from all the bio pages. We can discuss whether to delete it or not now since it seems to be a unanimous agreement that the bio stuff should go. -- Konig/talk 11:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Template should stay. It would help any person who does not know about the races and would navigate between them easier. Just because it's "outdated" to me, doesn't give it a great reason to delete. If it's outdated, update it. Ariyen 07:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the deletion tag was removed already.--Sharkinu 07:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yay, then. See I'm a day late about it (Sorta... maybe?). Anywhoo, it's resolved then? I see the delete tag is removed with the edit, but I was and I still am wondering with so many on this delete wagon (as of the 30^th). Ariyen 08:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion tag was never added. Discussion on whether or not to delete it was beginning, but discussion on the outdated bit (biography) was deemed unnecessary and was removed. Now it's not whether or not it is outdated for why it should be deleted, but whether or not it is useful. It's a very small template with liked articles - some of which will already be including links to the other in their own pages (human and charr for example) - which may well expand in the future when new lore is known. It essentially creates a potential case of becoming redundant and not very useful. -- Konig/talk 09:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Yea, you're right. I thought it was tagged for deletion. Anyway, I dont think is useless. A box with links to other races is easiser to notice than a lost link in the article. --Sharkinu 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I stand by my original statement "It would help any person who does not know about the races and would navigate between them easier." . It's not useless, when people can go from one race to another using the nav and not having to go all the way back to the main page or to the race page, etc. I feel that people are forgetting this is for the community by the community. That for a wiki, it should be created for the ease of the user/viewer... not the ease of the user/contributor. Hence, some things may be hard to do, but once done may be pretty easy for the ones who use it. Just because someone doesn't use this nav - does not mean that others don't use this nav either. Many have been here a while, some visit that may not have been here before. We will have more later down the road. I just hope none of this that I have mentioned ends up forgotten. Ariyen 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with deletion, too. This navbox is rather redundant: playable races are linked from the main page, they have their own categories, there's the Playable races article, each race article has links to some of the other races, and so on. To add one more navbox to what is already a very small list of subjects feels a bit condescending to the average wiki users; I'm rather sure they can find their way from the charr article to the human article without someone holding their hands. Erasculio 02:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"I agree with deletion, too." Uhhh, Era... thus far you're the only one who wants this deleted. o_o Everyone else wanted the bio stuff removed (myself included - though I wouldn't mind this being deleted since I find it unnecessary, but it's the kind of unnecessary which can still be useful). But yeah, my main point for finding this useless is the sheer... miniscule size/importance of the playable races - maybe if we ever get more added in expansions we can have a template - when it gets to like, 8 or 10 - but at five? Meh. We shouldn't treat people as they're retarded enough to not find the multitude of other ways that the five pages are listed as playable races. -- Konig/talk 02:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree with Erasculio. Putting navboxes everywhere is just creating a cluttered look (especially one with only five entries), and it is condescending to wiki users. Really, anyone coming here is already going to know what the five races are and how to find information on them. --★KOKUOU★ 02:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to know that.... I have had a few in game who talk about it, have asked how many races, etc. and I know of at least two others that have liked the nav. That's including Pugs, guild. ally, all chat, more so those interested in this second game. I don't see this nav, creating a cluttered look. I do see a list being rather mute, because who'd want to scroll on a page that's going to list four other races that a nav won't take up that much space for? Ariyen 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"especially one with only five entries" hey look what I found: gw1:Template:Eternal weapons nav (4 entries). If there is a race mentioned inside of another race article that doesn't make a nav template redundant. As I said, a box with links at the bottom of the page is easier to use and to notice than a lost link in article's body. If this tempalte is redundant, then show me a nav template that is not? What do you want now, removing every single navigation template from all this wiki?--Sharkinu 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"hey look what I found: gw1:Template:Eternal weapons nav (4 entries)": which is another great example of a completely pointless navbox.

"If there is a race mentioned inside of another race article that doesn't make a nav template redundant": indeed. Having the races mentioned at each other's articles and a category tree leading to all races and a Playable races article and having two links to each playable race at the main page, that makes the navbox redundant. You may as well say that we have to add navboxes to every single article of this wiki, considering how nothing else is linked from so many places in so many different ways. Erasculio 10:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Sharkinu. I think others here just want to remove this nav and are trying to remove "every single navigation template from all this wiki." If they can succeed here, they will try on gww. Navs work, get over it. It's not as redundant as having the words out in a list by themselves when you can have LESS pages with navs and they're used more. Hey, user pages uses navs from talk page to user page, to user subpage, etc. Should that all be removed too? This nav attack, I find stupid and disruptive to the wiki and shows how many does not know how those work on some wikis. There's no problem with this nav now and I prefer to see it left alone with deletion and used in the pages where it's at. You have boxes up in right corner on gww for profession skills and that's not in the way. Could make this one like such so it's easier and takes up even less space on a page. Oh, I did a page [[User:Ariyen/Sandbox/PageNavTest|here]] to show my idea of the race navs on a page. Ariyen 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to give some good examples of a nav that is in use. gw1:Monk and gw1:profession should show how the profession nav works. I don't see how this player nav can't work the same. You don't leave articles as a dead end (not to mention that there'd be a lot shown up in the special section in "Dead-end pages" area and that's what navs also do - help pages link and not have a dead end. Ariyen 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The GWMonk article is a good example of a nav that is popularly used. But the big difference there is that in the Monk's article there is little mention of other professions for it not to have one. Second, the profession nav is double the size. I think we should keep it. If I read the whole article and decide that I want to check out another race, what I'm not going to do is sift back through the article to look for a link to another playable race. Kokuou is right, people who come on this wiki should already know about the five races of GW2, and would most likely be looking for further information about a race that they're interested in, but some people come on here who are still undecided. The guts of this argument is that the navbar is small and the navbar is....small. I hate small navs personally, they stick out like a sore thumb - but I do think it's purposeful. And on the topic of sore thumbs, why is every article being branded with "GWW also has an article on blahblahidontcareblah"? (Xu Davella 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Question:

Why not make a races nav with a section for playable and then, underneath have other races such as Kodan and Grawl? Then again, the nav might be too long. - Lucian 0:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We have other ways of navigating assorted NPC (and PC) races, notably the bestiary. While I can understand the thought process behind it, when you are looking at the playable races, you probably should have links to all the other playable races, but you probably don't care in that moment about the Grawl. In conclusion: I don't think its necessary. Aqua (T|C) 02:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In the far future though, upcoming playable races (if at all), should be added to the nav on a seperate line. :) - Infinite - talk 15:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fo sho. - Lucian 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea, and came here to suggest the same thing. Why not switch to more of a "Races nav", and have "Playable races" listing these 5, "Sympathetic Races" listing the Hylek, Skritt, etc., and maybe an "Other races" section listing Tengu, and maybe Ettins, Trolls, etc. - LordEhzed 14:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

We Have the Capital City Symbols

So maybe we could add them in front of the race names? Definitely for the city nav, but maybe here too? Zolann The Irreverent 01:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See the Rata Sum "discussion" Chriskang and I had. Aqua (T|C) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

[[File talk:Rata Sum map icon.jpg|Here]]. Aqua (T|C) 01:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)