Category talk:Species

Race or Species

In order to solve the edit wars:

• Species are almost at the end of the scale of biological classification. The groups of animals we talk about are not species: "rabbits" aren't a specie, they are a family with multiple genera, each with multiple species. Therefore, if in the real world it's wrong to say that plants are a specie, or that "rose" is a specie, it doesn't make sense to claim that in Guild Wars plants are a specie.
• Race, in other hand, has many different meanings, one of which is "a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes". Therefore, we could claim that the Charr are a race, although it's unknown if the Charr are a single specie. Considering how Arena Net has chosen to call the Charrs a race, it's only logical that we would call the other groups of beings in the game "races" as well.

It's simple as that, really. Erasculio 02:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they are both a race and a species. Every species has two names, their scientific name and their common name. Like human and Homosapien. Charr, Rabbit, etc. etc. are the common names. They are still species. I made the species category as that is more specific than race, which could also mean nationality. If we have Category: Races, then we could easily put in Krytan, Istan, Kurzick, Druid, Ophir, Veldrunner, Harathi, Margonite, etc. in that category. Those are all nationalities, not species. Hence why I made a clarification in the name. -- Konig/talk 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. As mentioned, "rabbit" is not a specie; as you may easily see here, "rabbit" means a family, under which there are multiple species. Or, using my specific example: the expression "the race of fishes" is valid (as quoted on "a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes"), but the expression "the specie of fishes" is not; as seen here, "fish" is a group of classes, in which there are many orders, each with many families, each with many genus, and each with many species.

Which leads us to, "Every species has two names, their scientific name and their common name. (...) Charr, Rabbit, etc. etc. are the common names." - is completely false. Therefore, the proper category is "Races", not "Species". Erasculio 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: I think we should stick with a species category for creatures that are not a playable race. When Arenanet talks about the "races" they are, more often than not, referring to the playable races (Asura, Norn, Charr, Human, and Sylvari)... So in order to avoid confusion between the playable races and the other types of creatures in the game, this is a viable option. All this talk about the definition/meaning of Race and Species is just politics, we have to think about what is going to be less confusing for the average user. --hnzdvn 05:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm for using "race". It may be inaccurate in the "real world", but it's always been used in the context of RPG's over "species", and if ArenaNet have chosen to refer to stuff by race, then that's what we should do. Not that any of this really matters. --Santax (talk · contribs) 06:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Technically, members of different 'species' can not inter-breed with viable and fertile results while 'variants' (the proper name for 'races') can inter-breed successfully. For example, Horses and Donkeys are different species because the cross breed (Mule) is not fertile.

So, which is correct is a mater of lore. For example, if there are 'half-dwarfs', then the 'whatever the other half is' is the same species as 'dwarf' and a different 'race' of 'whatever species dwarfs are'.

However, ArenaNet's usage should prevail. --Max 2 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Mtew/Max 2: The 'half-dwarf' example is only usable if said half-dwarf is fertile. But anyways: Species is more clear and is to the point of what it is. There have been many cases (mostly on GW1W) where people have re-capitalized species/race names because they related it to the human races: American, African, Asian, European, Russian, etc. etc. That is not the right kind of race. I had it as Species to 1) prevent such mistakes when searching through categories and 2) to mirror the GW1W which has had Species for years and there have been no complaints. The argument that Race is less confusing for a category name and is more searched for, I think, is irrelevant because people do not search for categories - they are linked to them - unless they already know the category they are searching for. The term race is only official in terms of the playable races, not for all species/races.

@Santax: While race has been the more chosen word by game developers in other RPG's, this is not other RPG's and we are not game developers. We should not follow the folly (in my opinion it is, the whole use of race outside of a running competition was foolish in my opinion) of others just because it is the norm. That's like saying you want the same thing over and over again - like the bloody Michael Myers and Freddy movies being repeated already (i.e., you want that repeat, and to happen again and again).

What is a race example? Humanity. What is a species example? Homo sapien. Same thing, but species is more precise in what it is about. We can keep "Playable races" - I have no issue with that - but the others should be under Species for the sake of clarity. -- Konig/talk 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the last line of what I said. This is not just any discussion. It is a discussion of what ArenaNet is doing. If they use the term 'race' to describe a particular kind of player or non-player character. then 'race' it should be. They also set the standard for capitalization. It is their world after all, and we are guests in it, even if we are paying guests. --Max 2 17:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I just don't fully agree. They call the five playable races that - playable races - but races and species are more or less interchangeable and species is more accurate. -- Konig/talk 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, then you are being deliberately pedantic, rude and boorish. I'll remember that and treat you accordingly:

Where's your evidence? Provide it or SHUT THE FUCK UP!

--Max 2 18:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I fail to see how I was being rude and boorish (I do have a tad bit of OCD so I can't argue against the pedantic, though idk about deliberately). I already said we can keep Category:Playable races as is, but I think that it should be [[:Category:Species]] not [[:Category:Races]] because Species is more accurate and less confusing. Unless Anet calls all creatures races, instead of species, that isn't a case of "what Anet says goes." Species is more clear, that's rather obvious due to its single meaning whereas race has multiple meanings some of which have already, and will, get confused. -- Konig/talk 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Race is more biological whereas ethnicity is more cultural/social. I vote for "race" for the five playable races, and "ethnicity" for Krytan, Ascalonian, Canthan, and Elonian descriptions.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 18:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Before RPGs, didn't "race" only apply to humans? I think perhaps, to avoid confusion, "Race" is good for the playable races, "Ethnicity" for origin of birth or culture, and "species" for wild animals. As to Max, that was greatly uncalled for and just plain rude on your behalf. Konig did nothing rude nor boorish, and you are greatly overreacting. Not only that, but you just broke 2 Wiki rules (Civility and NPA). :P --Amannelle 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Shew: Race is also nationality (as I said), and it is interchangeable with ethnicity/nationality along with species. I agree with Amannelle for how to do this, but I don't think an Ethnicity category is needed, as those can go right under the race/species' category. Edit: Oh, and I think that it shouldn't be for "wild animals" but non-playable species (animals, plants, demons, w/e). -- Konig/talk 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should have read everything above my post first, but I think I agree with you. Canthan/Elonian/etc. could just be subcategories of human.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 18:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Insisting that someone else must be doing something wrong is rude and boorish. Doing it after being told to stop is deliberate. ArenaNet's developers are doing the work, therefore they define the terms.

As for accuracy, this is a mater of lore, not of real world facts. If you are going to insist on using a particular term, cite the lore that makes that term more appropriate than the term ArenaNet is using. Also remember that the terms used have specific meaning within the realm of lore and those meanings are often quite different from those of the mundane realm. Also remember who creates the lore.

--Max 2 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Amannelle

Yes that was rude on my part but not entirely un-called-for. However, it was not a Personal Attack (an attack on his person) but an attack on his behavior. Could you cite the rule against incivility please? --Max 2 19:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I said it is wrong in my opinion. And an attack on one's behavior is an attack on the person. To me, you're starting to act rude and boorish, far more than I did in this conversation. As for where species is used? gw1:Endangered Species you'll have to F4 this one, in the dialogue, manual description, manual description, manual description, fourth burnt corpse dialogue, dialogue, outpost description, dialogue, you'll have to F4 that, manual description, manual description, dialogue, manual description, manual description, Traveler's Vale dialogue, in one quote here, reef lurker dialogue, BMP dialogue, BMP dialogue, quest dialogue, quest dialogue, third entry. And that's just GW1! And not including the game mechanics at that. You can see here that we already use "species" a lot more than "race." And I didn't even go through the GW2 artbook or interviews, I'm sure species is used plenty of times there. -- Konig/talk 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Can we get some more discussion? It's currently 4 in favor of species, 3 in favor of races. And though I enjoy the fact that the other side stopped arguing for races after I showed how common species is, and I do enjoy that the majority is in favor of species, I'd rather have a consensus and not a majority. And in turn I'd like to see if anyone's opinions have changed. -- Konig/talk 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a particular preference, if I had to choose between just those two, I have a slight preference for race. Species and race aren't the only possible terms we could use either GW1W uses several terms to group these in various ways; gw1:Army and gw1:Family are the terms which ArenaNet uses in Guild Wars for things somewhat similar in concept to species. gw1:Creature type is the gw1 wiki term and category for the different killable races/types/species - it replaces the term species there. -- Aspectacle  21:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The things you linked to are game mechanics, not lore. This is more of a lore standpoint. And honestly, the GW1W can't be used as a good example, because there are, more or less, five pages on the same thing. gw1:creature, gw1:family, gw1:army, gw1:affiliation, gw1:species. To be clear, gw1:family is the game mechanic term for species/race. Also, there is the fact that GW2 could be labeled differently with game mechanics. But ignoring that side of the argument, in terms of lore, it is only race or species. -- Konig/talk 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

edit: Also, looking through this and this, the only time "race" is used is either in terms of a running race, used by fans, or in reference to one of the five playable races. That said, both race and species work, but species is more specific than the 3-minimal meaning word "race." And by looking, species is used more often by Anet. -- Konig/talk 22:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes some are game mechanics terms, but I don't think you can claim this to be a lore only decision and completely discard them, Konig. The two are inexorably tied when you are talking about the monsters, races and other creatures in the playable game. I personally think a cat like 'creature type' is appealing because it removes all of the real world baggage (see discussions above) associated with species and race designations and whether they're technically used correctly or incorrectly by the game. Perhaps you could use both race and species? Race for those which talk back and species for those who don't? :) Thus Races; seer, dredge, tengu, norn; Species; undead, leviathan, jellies, giants, plants etc. A blurry line, but one you could draw if you wanted. -- Aspectacle  23:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not meaning this is a lore-only decision, I meant that we don't know how GW2's mechanics will work when classifying the different races/species. I don't really like the use of both race and species, because for one that list you made is incorrect: giants and undead would count as races, so would plants - but there are also plants that would count as species, and the category for animals would go under both as well. Using both just won't work. I dislike using creature type, and besides, when making articles, we can't say "the human creature type" or something, it just sounds... bad. To be honest, I don't see why people have a problem with species, since that was used on gww for years and there's been no complaints. -- Konig/talk 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Konig, my examples were intended to show how this needn't be a black and white situation so a compromise might be reached. For instance, if you don't like the word for the 'creature' category is there one that you might? Some more ideas: Beasties and Beings? Fauna? Critters and Cultures? Peoples and Monsters? Entities?

My main objection with both species and race is that ANet has called the playable species races so it is confusing. Beings with little apparent difference from the current races (aside from playability which might happen later for some) get a different name which just seems weird and a bit arbitrary to me. -- Aspectacle  07:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your objection seems to be the use of multiple terms, but yet you suggested using two terms? That made no sense to me... Or am I misunderstanding you? -- Konig/talk 07:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The category would be called "Beasties and Beings" - the thought being it captures both the sentient and the bestial in the same blob avoiding applying terms like creature to humans. I had another thought, probably off topic, but what do you think about calling the listing a bestiary? -- Aspectacle  07:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

More or less it is a bestiary, but it isn't a list of bestiaries nor a category of bestiaries. And I don't like "Beasties and Beings" - that sounds rather childish to me. They easily all fit under "species" or "races" - no need to use any other name, let alone a split in the term. -- Konig/talk 07:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You take what I say so literally, Konig - you seem to want to refute my words and the one example I pick but not my meaning. Perhaps I am being unclear? :( My meaning is this: Is there no other possible compromise category name that you can think of which can be used in place of race or species? One which answers my concerns and eliminates the issues others discussed about both the race and species category names and your own concerns about childishness and a single category name being unsuitable for all contained in it as with some of my suggestions.

For a bestiary, you simply call the page listing creatures a bestiary. You add related top level pages to Category:Bestiary - I don't recall there being a hard rule that it absolutely had to be a plural especially when it is clear the name indicates some sort of compendium or collection alone. It is like another alternative to the race/species category which has a fun but fairly uninventive name which is already associated with the listing of creatures both fantastic and real.

Either way, as I'm the only one who voiced an opinion so far on a compromise category name I'm going to step out of this conversation until someone else pipes in with their thoughts. If no-one else shows up you can go back to the world of black and white. :) -- Aspectacle  11:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To deal with this issue I used my language: if you translate "species" and "race", you can see the difference. "species" also may understood as "type", and you won't say "charr" are type in GW2... So I think race is better, only because it will use correctly in other languages. Itay Alon • Talk 11:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've translated race into multiple languages, and species into multiple languages. Then I translated back. French, German, Dutch, Italian and Spanish I translated. The only time there was a translation issue was with German, which translated race into run and species into sort. What language did you use? Otherwise, as far as I can do with translation (which isn't much), there's no problem, aside from German. And besides, this is the English wiki, not the German wiki, or of any other, so it should be taken from an English context, not the context of another race. -- Konig/talk 01:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is great - "species" in English means only one specific kind of being, while "race" may be used for a large group of different beings. So, since we're following English, and the majority here agrees with "race" anyway... Erasculio 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Majority agrees with race? Wrong. It's evenly tied with one having not chosen a side. And species is more accurate here as you yourself just said, it refers to one specific kind of being, while race may be used for a large group of different beings. Thus, a race is not a single kind of being. By your very words, species is more accurate in what we're using this category for. -- Konig/talk 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Konig, I'm sorry, but only you and Phnzdvn think species should be used the way you think. What you have failed to understand, despite how I have already pointed out multiple times, is that species is more specific than you believe it is: if you tried to call "rabbits" a specie it would be wrong, since "rabbits" is a large group of different beings (in other words, a race), not a specific kind of being; or, to say the same thing in different words, "rabbits" is a group of species, while only something specific like "European Rabbit", or Oryctolagus cuniculus, is a specie. You are probably confused because human beings belong to one of the few groups in which there's only one specie, but it's the same thing as if you were calling "apes" (which is another group of species, including human beings) a specie. Those large groups of beings are, instead, races. Erasculio 02:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I could have sworn it was consensus that mattered, not majority. Using majority as leverage and fighting over its current state is kind of silly. And saying that one person "hasn't chosen a side" is kind of silly too, seeing as Aspectacle isn't choosing one of your "sides". "If no-one else shows up you can go back to the world of black and white. :)" etc etc.

Anyway, I think "species" is fine. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Me, Phnzdvn, Max2 said that it should be determined by lore, I showed him that species is used in lore, thus his would be for species - but lets count him as neither, Anamelle said species excluding the playable races, (and now Kyoshi). That was 4, now is 5.

Change:Esaculio, Santax, Shew, Ita. That's 4.

Neither: Aspectacle.

How is the majority for changing? How is just me and Phnzdvn the only ones for keeping it? And as Kyoshi said, majority doesn't matter.

But anyways, I don't really care anymore, I changed it because it matched the GW1W, and I still think it should be Species. Just to not confuse people even if it isn't completely accurate. You have a way to escalate things to the point of people not giving a shit anymore. I guess that's your biggest tool. -- Konig/talk 02:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To expand on what I said on the "even if it isn't completely accurate" bit: Species is used a lot more in GW than races, as I showed earlier. -- Konig/talk 04:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

I've dropped out of this discussion for a while because I realized that I was over-reacting to something that should be trivial. The list of places 'species' is used in GW1 is informative, but would have been better had there also been a list where race was used to indicate the same thing as well. Species does seem to be used by preference, but the development team, which is the controlling authority, does use both and, in my opinion, trying to get them to change only shows a disrespect for their effort.

In fact, the usage on GWW seems puts all this into category 'Creature Type'. Maybe both this category and 'Race' should redirect to 'Creature Type'?

--Max 2 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

When I get home in about 2 hours, I'll post all the usages of "race" by anet meaning what we're using. Also, GWW uses [[gw1:Category:Species]] along with gw1:Category:NPCs by Type as two different methods (and purposes, and lists) of creatures (the former is for a lore standpoint and thus classifies things differently than the later, which is done via game mechanics which doesn't have lore-only species like gw1:Snow beast). Anyways, there is a discussion regarding a mimic of the NPCs by Type here. Personally, I'd prefer to use the term more commonly used, which from what I saw was species (though I didn't link to any page utilizing race with the meaning we desire, a majority of the word "race" was for a race as in running). But to acquire a consensus and stop this truth-be-told pointless argument, I'm willing to go with Bestiary as per the link to the other discussion, despite how that doesn't really fit for a typical category name. -- Konig/talk 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as seen here, the only time in GW1 by anet (and not by fans) that "race" is used to refer to a group of a species is: f4 it, dialogue on Garfaaz, manual description, manual description, manual description, manual description, dialogue, reward dialogue, used throughout, manual description, manual description, reward dialogue, manual description, f4 it, cinematic dialigue, reward dialogue, dialogue, reward dialogue, manual description, manual dialogue, description, dialogue, description, manual description, f4 it, Dragon's Lair description, which basically is from the cinematic, dialogue, various spots in dialogue, basically a description of the previous, dialogue, manual description, dialogue, initial dialogue, reward dialogue, manual description

I didn't list the race usage before because I was showing that species was used, not that it was used more. Anyways, effectively, there are 24 uses of species in GW1 and race is 34. Most uses of "race" over "species" is by common dialogue or manual, which is not uncommon (how many times do you hear people talking about species outside of biological discussions?). Both are used a lot, one is a scientific use and the other is a more common use of it. I was going with the scientific when I changed things, but meh. Erasculio effectively made me stop caring about yet another thing. -- Konig/talk 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"I was going with the scientific": heh, ironically that was exactly what you were not doing. How many times each word is mentioned doesn't really matter; I could tell you how many times the word Dhuum is used in GW1, and yet that would not be an excuse to replace all occurrences of the word Abaddon with Dhuum; those words simply have different meanings.

And since you are so eager to discuss something you have mentioned multiple times you don't care about: why haven't you replied to the simplest, more direct and more scientific argument against the use of "specie"? Let me repeat it, in case you need to be told it again: "snake" is not a species, it's a suborder, which means it's a vast group of living beings that include multiple species. Therefore, calling "snake" a species is wrong; it's rather a large group of living beings, which is one of the meanings of the word "race". So in the real world, "snake" is not a species, rather a race. Now, do you have any reasonable explanation as to why such a simple and clear argument would be wrong? Go on, we will wait.

And since "snake" is not a species, rather a race, it's only logical to believe that similar groups of entities in the GW2 world are not species, rather races. Erasculio 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, I am sick and tired of you, so I won't both arguing with you about things we already brought up and discussed time and time again. But as for which is used more often, that is not the same as your example, because Dhuum and Abaddon are different people but race and species are often used interchangeably (correct or not) and humorously enough, what it seems you'd call a race is also called a species. Specifically, Melandru's Stalkers, humans, the dredge, Wurms (rather general/large group, right?), the Tengu, the naga, and so forth. So I guess, no, you are not right with "it's only logical to believe that similar groups of entities in the GW2 world are not species, rather races." Either Anet is "wrong" as you claim I am, or you're mistaken (which is possible). -- Konig/talk 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"things we already brought up and discussed time and time again": heh, stop trying to dodge the issue and answer me. I'll even repeat the question, so you can read it again and try to find a reply: "calling "snake" a species is wrong; it's rather a large group of living beings, which is one of the meanings of the word "race". So in the real world, "snake" is not a species, rather a race. Now, do you have any reasonable explanation as to why such a simple and clear argument would be wrong? Go on, we will wait". Erasculio 08:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised you two are still fighting over this, since neither of your names work. o_o Erasculio, do you know what Race is? A "race" in biology, is a subspecies (meaning it is more specific than species). For instance, the Key lime and the Mexican lime are two different races of fauna, but both are of species Citrus aurantifolia. So.. you are both rather incorrect in wanting to call them race and species, since both of those are quite too specific scientifically. I have yet to find where "race" means a large group of species, Erasculio... could you cite a source for me? You could be totally right, but I have not seen it used in that way before. --Amannelle 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I mentioned it at the first paragraph in this discussion. Looking at a dictionary (example), one of the meanings of race is "a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes". Erasculio 22:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Era, I wasn't dodging the question, but rather I find it irrelevant because you're forcing the definition of reality with a word being used for a fantasy scenario. Thus, as Max2 said, it's up to Anet for what the term is defined as. But to satate your hunger for continuing the discussion and to hopefully end it: No, a snake is not a species. It is a sub-order. But a race isn't a group of species, as that would be a sub-family (or family, depending on what creatures you're talking about). Race is in fact more specific than species, such as a sub-species. I.e., Centaur=species, Modniir=sub-species aka race. If there is no species, the species is also a race. I.e., race=as specific you can get. That is how I was taught it, that is also what I found via wikipedia (no, not the best source, but it's the source you used for species, surprisingly). -- Konig/talk 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop it you two. It is getting tiring watching you two bicker like a couple married for too long. -- Aspectacle  22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, hello? Haven't you seen the link directly above your reply? The one with a dictionary definition showing the usage of the expression "the race of fishes"? Do you think that the race of fishes (with fishes being an incredibly large number of species, in case you don't know) is "in fact more specific" than naming a specific given specie?

"it's up to Anet for what the term is defined as": right, so next we will begin calling humans reptiles because that's what you think Arena Net calls mammals? That is an incredibly weak argument. The definition of the words "race" and "specie" isn't part of the lore of Guild Wars; those are words with specific meanings, no matter what you are talking about. Erasculio 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have one last thing to say, Erasculio, then you can go ahead and yell at your computer all you want since all you want is to instigate argument: Apparently there is no set definition of "race" in relevance to a kind of creature. Maybe we're both right, yet both wrong. Seeing how multiple textbooks is where I got what I said (along with a couple teachers along with an online site), and you got what you said from an online source, who knows. But hey, yell at a computer all you want, my little argumentative instigating "friend." -- Konig/talk 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are multiple definitions of the word "race"; something seen on the rather big article on Wikipedia about the multiple definitions of the word over time. While some definitions don't fit the purpose of this category (the subspecie one and the "black/white/yellow" one), at least one definition does (or at least it fits the purpose here better than just specie). A third option as a compromise would probably be better (something like "Creatures", if "Bestiary" hadn't already been chosen).

(And for the records, comments such as "I am sick and tired of you" sound a lot more like "yelling at a computer" than anything I have said; I'm actually having fun right now.) Erasculio 23:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooh I see, Erasculio. Thanks for the quote :D --Amannelle 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Idea for this Page

This page should list the monster types in game. Example (using GW1 terms) Human-

Charr-

Asura-

Demon-

Dwarf-

Beast-

Insect-

Undead- --Knighthonor 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is a category, the list will be made via adding [[Category:Species]] to pages and other categories, and Category:Humans, Category:Charr, Category:Asura, Category:Norn, etc. are, in some way, a sub-category of this category (or of [[:Category:Races]] due to the above mentioned argument). Thus, no such editing is needed. -- Konig/talk 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just keep all of them in the Playable race category and add new creature races found in the game.--Knighthonor 02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)