Category talk:Species

I move that we remove Gargoyle Beasts and Loch Ness Monsters from this category. The category name "Races" (as opposed to "Species") implies that only sentient, intelligent races are included, and that will be confusing or misleading regarding garg-beasts and Loch Ness monsters. I know that technically, Greg doesn't like the term "sentient", but he has said that garg-beasts don't have human or gargoyle intelligence, and there's no evidence that Loch Ness monsters do either. We also have no evidence whether or not dragons are intelligent, so I move we remove them as well, until we have more information about them. Vaevictis Asmadi 12:53, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Who said I didn't like the term "sentient"? -gdw

Er, that was my impression from conversations archived at Ask Greg. Vaevictis Asmadi 14:24, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

There is another option: we could change the name to Category:Species instead. Wouldn't be hard. I only picked Races as a title because of the article Three Races. -- Supermorff 08:12, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd prefer changing the name of the category to species, since the word "race" isn't particularly well defined and is often a subjective term.--Moeen 11:34, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

That's true, although that also means that "species" can be more restrictive. Are the New Olympians technically a species, or are they something else? "Race" would probably apply either way. And if "species" doesn't apply in this case, and we nevertheless rename to Category:Species, do we include New Olympians or not? -- Supermorff 06:49, 19 August 2007 (CDT)