Talk:Ancestries of Golarion/Archive 1
Deletion or Cleanup
Ajs, this page will need to be deleted, as it goes against our basic policy (see PathfinderWiki:No crunch). All articles (other than articles about a publication, or other real-world element that we reference) must be written from an IC (in-character) perspective. Please let me know if you have any further questions. --Brandingopportunity 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to delete it outright. With only minor effort it could be repurposed into an article on races in general, as we often refer to races but never really define them. I can take that on. —Yoda8myhead 03:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, Yoda. --Brandingopportunity 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Move to Races of Golarion?
Would it make sense to move this de-{{crunch}}ed page to Races of Golarion? That seems like a decent parallel to other similar pages, like Poisons of Golarion and Recreational drugs of Golarion, etc. (and the books, like Bastards of Golarion, Cities of Golarion, Elves of Golarion, etc.) --Oznogon (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Move to Ancestries of Golarion? (Closed)
Should this page be moved to Ancestries of Golarion to keep up with the terminology of Pathfinder Second Edition? If not, should we document ancestries separate from races, and how would we make that distinction? -Oznogon (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Guess not. -Oznogon (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- A few days late, as I have only now reached 31 Oct 2019 in reviewing, but I think it is a good suggestion. I'd go further and suggest we just rename it 'Ancestry' as it does not need to be restricted to one planet. Race was such a woolly term in 1E: Category:Races is a mixed affair, and I had to invent a definition for Help:Creating category pages. Ancestry is more defined. Contrariwise, not all creatures loosely defined as a race on the wiki are yet (and may never be) an ancestry in 2E - that is a difficulty to consider, lest we have to make our own wiki-definition of ancestry. If we do make this change, we should also consider:
- Category:Races and all its subcategories
- Template:Ancestries navbox and its current definitions of core, uncommon, etc.
- How we handle this page - is a slightly annotated, always-out-of-date, raw list of any value in addition to the Template:Ancestries navbox, especially as we have an allergy to two places holding the same information as they quickly get out of alignment?
- Our new and useful Portal:Inhabitants, which will need alignment with any changes made
- probably many other areas, as this is no small change. -Fleanetha (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I'm the only contributor to this page for the last five and half years, and I say delete it. -Oznogon (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- You and others have put a lot of work into the page, so I'm reluctant to delete it outright. New idea: maybe we could repurpose this as a real-world page defining 'race' for 1E and 'ancestry' for 2E? Alternatively, have this page as a real-world definition of 1E 'race' and create a new 2E real-world 'ancestry' page? In both, we'd reference the navbox as the master list (though that navbox will need an update). We could retain the existing lists on this page but state they are just examples and do not need any additions to them in future, as the navbox is the master list. Currently, phrases such as 'core race' and 'other' on the page are crunchy already. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- If it's already crunchy, making it crunchier cannot be the answer. The concept is no longer relevant to new canon material, and is actively deprecated mechanically by traits and ancestries. There doesn't need to be a page on the wiki that does nothing but cross-reference lists for a deprecated concept; we already have lists in the category page and navbox. I'd rather see energy put into adapting or combining {{Races navbox}} and {{Creature types navbox}}. And — again, as the only contributor to this page for more than five years — I directly and strongly refute any assertion that the work anyone put into this page is still worth preserving. If the information on this page was important to the setting, the setting's authors would not be actively excising it from current canon content and retconning it out of existing canon content.
- I strongly support deleting this page. Not revising, not adapting, but deleting it as a direct and unambiguous violation of PathfinderWiki:No crunch. -Oznogon (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- You and others have put a lot of work into the page, so I'm reluctant to delete it outright. New idea: maybe we could repurpose this as a real-world page defining 'race' for 1E and 'ancestry' for 2E? Alternatively, have this page as a real-world definition of 1E 'race' and create a new 2E real-world 'ancestry' page? In both, we'd reference the navbox as the master list (though that navbox will need an update). We could retain the existing lists on this page but state they are just examples and do not need any additions to them in future, as the navbox is the master list. Currently, phrases such as 'core race' and 'other' on the page are crunchy already. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- A few days late, as I have only now reached 31 Oct 2019 in reviewing, but I think it is a good suggestion. I'd go further and suggest we just rename it 'Ancestry' as it does not need to be restricted to one planet. Race was such a woolly term in 1E: Category:Races is a mixed affair, and I had to invent a definition for Help:Creating category pages. Ancestry is more defined. Contrariwise, not all creatures loosely defined as a race on the wiki are yet (and may never be) an ancestry in 2E - that is a difficulty to consider, lest we have to make our own wiki-definition of ancestry. If we do make this change, we should also consider:
- Closing this and removing the RfD for lacking consensus. Still strongly think this page, in this context as written today, is a violation of PathfinderWiki:No crunch and having only a navbox is sufficient. -Oznogon (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)