Talk:Dwarf (subtype)

Consolidation

I wonder if humanoid subtypes should be consolidated with the race that shares their name? I don't see a reason why we need both Dwarf (subtype) and Dwarf, Elf (subtype) and Elf, etc. In general, I don't think we need subtype articles at all other than those for specific types of outsiders, like demons and devils. Types and (most) subtypes don't work any differently in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting than they do in the Pathfinder RPG in general nor do they have different flavor. I really need to suggest some revisions to the crunch policy and/or scope of the project to reflect this and see how it goes there. This page just reminded me of the issue. — yoda8myhead 20:29, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

So then the only crunch we would include would be that which is different from the RPG? --brandingopportunity 03:43, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention how crunchy elements like creature type play out in individual articles, nor that we shouldn't use generic crunch terms in infoboxes or categories. I just don't think we should have a dedicated article to things that are solely crunch and have no unique flavor aspect in Golarion. We don't need a fireball article (at least until we learn that Golarion fireballs are always blue and leave an odor of cooking bacon in the air) because it just works the way it does in the core rules without any flavor changes. I would posit that we don't need individual articles on any crunchy element unless its flavor in Golarion differs from the baseline. — yoda8myhead 04:40, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Good point here. I agree that the Xxx (subtype) categories can go. --Aeakett 18:16, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Categories or articles? I think we can probably eliminate both, but wanted to make sure I understand you. — yoda8myhead 19:26, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I totally missed that we were talking about an article here. Yes, both. Pffft... friday. --Aeakett 19:44, November 20, 2009 (UTC)