Talk:Races

With the exception of the Protheans and the Reapers, no race names are capitalized. They're written human, turian, asari, rather than Human. Turian, Asari. Somebody's going to have to go through and check every page, because tne names are improperly capitalized more often than they're written properly.
 * Addendum- There is a third race name that also gets capitalized, namely Collectors. So, to recap this and the above statement, the Protheans, the Reapers, and the Collectors all get capitalized. All other races (humans, asari, salarians, turians, etc), no caps. Thank you for your time and attention and whatnot. SpartHawg948 08:48, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Raloi
On cerberus news there's details of a news species called the raloi. What are we going to do with them?TrueHeresy 23:04, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What indeed? I think we're going to add them to this page. Oh, wait, someone already did. About 14 hours ago. So, looks like we already did something about them! :P SpartHawg948 22:52, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry - everybody :( TrueHeresy 23:04, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Propose changing "Non-Citadel Races" to "Non-Council Races"
There are Quarians and Krogan on the Citadel but they aren't council races so I'd like to go ahead and change that and if there is any disagreement feel free to reverse the change. Dman4412 17:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Upon further inspection I see you have it separated in a different manner than the codex... Would it be wise to organize the list of races in relation to how they're categorized in the codex? Dman4412 17:49, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Would humans count as a council race?


 * And that is one of the reasons that we don't use "Council and Non-Council Races" as categories. 1) It'd create another category. 2) It's a spoiler, as humanity doesn't become a Council Race till the very end of ME. And 3) (which ties back into 2) There's an accuracy issue. All the other three Council Races have been for quite some time. Humans, on the other hand, aren't a Council Race for the vast majority of the first game. SpartHawg948 20:16, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Rachni
Should the Rachni really be listed as extinct? I mean, I know one of the choices in the game (SPOILER WARNING!!!) can render them extinct, but the other choice leaves them alive and more or less well. Also, there are Rachni encountered on several other worlds. I'm just not quite sure if we need to lump them in the same catagory with the Protheans. SpartHawg948 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is that they're categorized that way because that's how the game lists them in the Codex. If visitors want more information on the true fate of the Rachni, they could always just read the page. King Zeal 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If we list humans under Council Races, rachni shouldn't be listed as extinct. Conrad Verner 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think humans should be. But, precedent doesn't produce a valid argument. King Zeal 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's something else to consider: we don't find out that the rachni *aren't* extinct until you're quite a way into the Noveria mission. Until then everyone's described them as extinct. So putting the rachni under non-extinct races could technically be considered a spoiler. Maybe not a particularly serious one, but... still, something to consider. --Tullis 11:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How bout we take a vote on this site if you saved the rachni or killed it. Whichever one had more votes, save or kill, is where the rachni will get put. I saved it. - ThePlatypus 00:57, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * And how about that violates policy because you can choose to save or kill them. Putting them into a category where if you save them, but are in the extinct category violates policy on contunality. So no on the vote because of that. Lancer1289 01:01, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Violation of canon policy right there. That's like saying we should take a vote on who saved the Council vs who didn't, and then declaring them either living or dead. SpartHawg948 01:09, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Garol
Oh...I see how this is gonna go, Tullis. If you want to block me...I'M NEVER COMING BACK TO THIS SITE AGAIN!!! BUH-BYE!


 * Um, I actually said the article would need to have some sort of source before we'd accept it, and that recreating a rumour-mill page without citation (or a fictional one) and presenting it as fact after you've been asked not to is grounds for being blocked. But from your own apparent admission, it sounds like these 'garol' are a race you've thought up and would want BioWare to add, rather than one you've heard about and want to share. If I'm wrong, just give me the source and I'll happily chow down on my humble pie. But if you still want to leave, that's your choice... sorry to see you go. --Tullis 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't know. I never said that I wanted to add my new "race" to Mass Effect 2, I said that I wanted BioWare to CONSIDER adding this race to Mass Effect 2.

I bet you already know that the elcor won the "Best New Species of the Year" award in the Official Xbox Live magazine. BioWare should consider adding an elcor squad member in Mass Effect 2.

Rachni
I don't think that the rachni should be listed as an "extinct" race. Since my Shepard (yes, my Shepard is female- got a problem with that?) freed the rachni queen in my game, I figure that the rachni will turn up again in Mass Effect 2. Tullis, do you know where the rachni queen went? I don't know, and I might never find out until ME 2 is released. And if it doesn't turn up in ME 2, I'll have to wait till ME 3 or even ME 4 comes out. I would also like to send a recommendation to BioWare to include a rachni squad member, which would be badass, as the rachni have some powerful melee and ranged attacks, including a ranged acid attack that acts something like Neural Shock. I also think that in Mass Effect 2 the rachni should be your allies and fight the geth at your side...possibly a long-overdue gratitude from the rachni queen for giving her life and witholding her destruction? If you have any opinions, please let me know.

24.237.35.132 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) MysticVulture, Tullis' backer

The notion of the Rachni being extinct is a contested issue. Personally, the Rachni still exist, but are extremely few in number, most important being the Queen. But the other Rachni are merely modified clones created by scientists in Noveria, extracting DNA from the Queen, hence her being in a tube and isolated from her "children".

Another issue of note is what happens afterwards in the game. Even if the player chooses to save the Queen, there are several missions in which the Rachni somehow still attack. If they were pure Rachni, the Queen would have a measure of control over them, thus confirming at least partially that these Rachni are simply genetically-modified copies.

H-Man Havoc 20:12, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why, in the Races footer, they are described as "historical" rather than extinct; it's sufficiently accurate to indicate that they are not a part of Citadel society, but not calling them extinct means we sidestep a lot of the did we kill / did we not kill / do we spoil Noveria or not issues. In the Codex they are specifically placed under extinct races, which may be why they're tagged as such here.
 * I do not understand why you are talking about modified clones. It is specifically said that the rachni brood on Noveria was hatched from eggs. The rachni queen explicitly states that she does not have control over her brood because they were separated from her and she had no chance to "shape their minds"; Yaroslev Tartakovsky says the same thing. Her lack of control in no way "confirms" that they are modified clones, and there is no suggestion that any of the rachni are clones.
 * The fact they attack in other missions--even after being raised "in close proximity to the master control unit", as Cerberus puts it--is moot, and an issue for the xenopsychologists out there. I assume it's because Cerberus are colossal idiots who forgot to treat the rachni as intelligent soldiers, rather than considering them to be merely smart animals. I imagine the rachni had a "damn dirty apes!" moment and just snapped. --Tullis 20:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Re: Garol
Hi Tullis,

I just wanted to let you know that I couldn't find ANY sources about the garol. So I figure that you're right. The garol don't exist in the Mass Effect universe at all. But I have a recommendation for BioWare to support my ideas by adding a garol squad member in Mass Effect 2. Also, I think that BioWare should consider adding an ELCOR squad member in Mass Effect 2. BioWare should also consider making the rachni allies to the player, possibly a favor from the rachni queen for sparing her life and saving her people? I always wondered where the rachni queen went after I released her.

24.237.35.132 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC) MysticVulture, your idea-maker

Re: Garol
Hi Tullis,

What I meant about the "garol evolving from the quarians" is a misunderstanding. I didn't say that ALL the quarians evolved into the garol, but I meant to say that once, before the geth were created, the quarians resided on their homeworld in happiness, but during the battle with the geth, some of the quarians were killed, while some of the others evolved into the garol and have never been heard of since. I'm sure that you'll understand. I also think that the quarians created the geth, but the garol funded their creation. So, write back! No, there IS no citation, but I STILL want BioWare to consider adding the race to Mass Effects 2 and 3.

24.237.35.132 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) MysticVulture, your idea-maker

P.S. I know that if I continue posting any rumors about the garol with no citation, you'll block me. But I think that I should be able to express my ideas. I'm sure that you'll understand this.

Unfounded speculation is not appreciated
Perhaps you don't understand the implementation of a wiki is not for community expression, but to facilitate community education.

If a private school 'educated' you that above the clouds there was an ocean of skittles, and someone later found that to be false, the private school would be unappreciated, possibly scorned.

If you wish to continue to express unfounded speculation, do so in a supporting environment; like in some public forums (this wiki has some, so does bioware), prefixed with 'Idea:', 'Speculation:', or otherwise in an appropriate category.

Clearly separate what you merely 'think' from what you know. The Rachni may or may not be extinct; therefore it is founded speculation (as opposed to unfounded speculation), thus it is acceptable for educational purposes, but should still be clearly expressed as speculation.

The Garol do not exist except as an idea, your idea, thus it is 'unfounded speculation' that they are even officially connected to the Mass Effect universe, and not suitable educational content. If you wish to describe them in further detail, it should be done in a 'Fan Fiction', 'Ideas', or 'Speculation' category of a social expression network (read: forums, such as the Wikia Mass Effect forums, or the official BioWare Mass Effect forums), instead of a social educational reference, like the Wikia Mass Effect Wiki.

Best case scenario, a 'Fan Fiction' category could be created here, and your 'Garol' could completely disconnected from all non-'Fan Fiction' elements of the wiki, such as the official list of known races, with a page header explicitly declaring it as a fan fabricated element, outside of official Mass Effect canonical material.

64.53.58.247 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I know that if I continue posting any rumors about the garol with no citation, you'll block me. But I think that I should be able to express my ideas. I'm sure that you'll understand this.
 * You're perfectly welcome to express your ideas. However, this is not the right place to express them. As said above, the purpose of a wiki is to provide accurate information to the best of our ability. We have a responsibility to make these articles as clear and informative as possible for everyone. That means personal speculation and ideas belong as mentions on Talk pages at most. There are already fan sites and forums out there for speculation, ideas, fan fiction, role-playing etc and there are useful links here for a starting point. If you really want BioWare to add the garol in Mass Effect 2, you should be posting on the official forums to bring it to their attention there, not here. Since you've already said above that the garol don't exist in Mass Effect, there are no 'rumours' apart from what you're creating yourself. The garol do not belong here.
 * As an admin, it is my responsibility to help keep this wiki in good order for all users and editors. Adding new races because you think they'd be cool forms no part of that. I have no control over what goes in Mass Effect 2 or 3 and it is not my place to state what happened to the Rachni Queen. (Part of Mass Effect's appeal is its ability to make choices; what's canon for you or me is not canon for someone else and we have to cater to them too.)
 * You've stated (and repeated) your opinion more than once. I understand your wish to have this race included, but this is not the way to go about it and we cannot help you. In the meantime you are creating a disturbance to other users and inconveniencing me. You've had your say and I've responded to it. Now please leave this issue alone. --Tullis 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I already know that you've warned me about this. Perhaps you don't understand. But I'm starting to think that I don't belong here, and I'm also starting to think that you think that my ideas stink. If that's how you want it, fine. I'm not going to tell you anything more about my incredible new race. And about the Rachni Queen? Yes, Mass Effect's purpose is based on the player's own decisions. But I STILL think that she has a debt that she hasn't repaid yet. You're the boss; I'll just take your suggestion and take my ideas and put them elsewhere, but not here. I'm done with this issue, and I'll leave the matter alone.

24.237.35.132 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)MysticVulture

Humans as Council race
Please don't add humans to the Council races list. They don't become a Council race right until the end. --Tullis 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After repeatedly fixing this spoiler despite actually embedding a request for people not to do it in the editing source, I've reordered this page into Citadel and non-Citadel races. --Tullis 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, I suggest that the Citadel Races be split into two, much like the Wikipedia article: Council and Non-Council. Not to pry but since you built the site and is the admin, even you should know that.

Regarding the embedded request, you'll have to change the article anyway once Mass Effect 2 comes out, since they WILL be featured as a council race. Evidence of this can be seen in the voice acting video, in which the "former" Captain Anderson corrects Commander Shepard when the latter is greeted by the former, as he says to Shepard: "Councilman Anderson now".

H-Man Havoc 20:51, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, misread. And I didn't actually build this site, I just edit / admin it. : ) And my comment is... a year old. Seems odd to be discussing this again now...
 * It's a lot easier sticking to Citadel / non-Citadel, for the same reasons discussed here. Splitting races by their Council status has never gone well when we've tried it. --Tullis 20:56, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: there is no embedded comment. It became unnecessary as soon as the page was split into Citadel / non-Citadel. A glance at the page code will show that. --Tullis 21:03, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, can I just ask one question? "Not to pry but since you built the site and is [sic] the admin, even you should know that."(emphasis added) Was that really necessary? Funny thing about us admins, We aren't omniscient. As for why 'even we should know that' I assume you mean we should know because it's Mass Effect related? Funny thing about that. Last time I looked at a Mass Effect related page on wikipedia was over a year ago, reason being b/c there's no real reason for me to. It's not a valid source for info (although it IS a useful place to link to w/ non-ME related external links) and for issues of style or formatting, I'm much more likely to go to Wikia, not wikipedia, as this site is in no way affiliated with wikipedia. So in the future, can we maybe avoid saying things like "Not to pry but since you built the site and is the admin, even you should know that."? Common courtesy, please. SpartHawg948 21:19, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't necessary, but my point of saying that, was that I may not be an admin, but I do pay attention to details regardless of how small. I won't however remark on every single one as it is unnecessary. Point is that the subject matter is significant enough to be noted. As for my comment, at least it was not of an aggressive tone, hence the "I don't mean to pry" part of it.

H-Man Havoc 20:04, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * But again, as I noted, there really isn't much reason for us to keep an eye on the wikipedia page. If anything, they need to keep an eye on us to stay up to date. Also, our formatting is necessarily going to be much different from theirs, as we are much more thorough. Also, just out of interest I did peruse the wikipedia page, and it does not, as you stated, divide Citadel races by Council/Associate status. They divide them into the same groups we do: Citadel, Non-Citadel, Extinct. At the risk of sounding snide "even you should know that". (Sorry, couldn't resist :P) Lastly, the "Not to pry" bit doesn't take away from the fact that it was not necessary at all to say "even you should know that". It's like the whole "no offense" thing. You can't say "no offense, but..." then insult someone and expect them to take no offense to it. Same here. I have no idea how "Not to pry" was supposed to make "even you should know that" not seem rude, but whatev. End of the day, wikipedia does it the same way we do, so there's really no need to suggest we do it their way, cuz they already do it our way! SpartHawg948 20:22, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

I agree
The goral do not exist and should never exist the person who invented them just wants people to supporrt the goral to be in Mass Effect 2

Recent edits to races
Why have we suddenly gone from using " Salarians " to " Salarians "? It's not very elegant. --Tullis 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Vorcha Image
Should the vorcha have the image found on their page? Instead of the generic cluster of stars? -Ninsegtari 21:21, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just a concept art pic, I believe. Let's wait for a better screenshot. --Tullis 21:23, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it's a concept art pic, why is it on the vorcha page? And It's actually not concept art, watch this video. You can see vorcha and the look just like that "concept art pic". --Joshtopher27 20:02, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't oversee the ME2 pages, so I don't edit what's on them. If you want to grab a screenshot, feel free. --Tullis 20:08, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you were the head honcho on here. I'm sorry. I fail. :( --Joshtopher27 21:44, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no "head honcho", though I do what I can. : ) I just don't edit ME2 pages or watch the vids or anything, because it's already very hard for me to avoid spoilers. The man you want for any ME2 edits is SpartHawg948.
 * Re: the vorcha image though--I much prefer in-game screenshots to promo or concept art to keep a consistent look throughout the wiki and on the Races page, hence me suggesting we wait for the time being. But if there are images out there which might work better, feel free to upload them. --Tullis 21:47, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see your point with the pictures, I'll wait with ya lol. --Joshtopher27 00:59, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Species 37
Hi. I'm a little confused as to where the Thorian belongs in this article. We're told in the game that the Thorian is a unique creature, but I personally have a hard time believing that. Plus, you don't call a unique creature "Species 37". Maybe it exists a 'Thorian race', but every individual of that race is unique, in a different way than the members of other species. If we would include the Thorian in this article would we put it under Non-Council races or Extinct races. Swedish guy 18:11, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a race. The Thorian classes as a creature. --Tullis 19:18, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * But 'Species 37' is a species name, albiet with only one example. I propose that we remove non-sentient races from this page, as it seems wierd to list local fauna alongside technologyical civilizations of the galaxy. Shell Kracker 17:48, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Lystheni
i aruge that the lystheni derve a place on this page, they are a valid race from mass effect. Either as a foot note for the salarians, or a star image on non-citadel races. I have presented my reasons, if you support this thank you, if you dont please provide valid reasons. ralok 01:16, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll support that they should be added as a section to salarians.--Xaero Dumort 03:22, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with your edits, ralok, is this: You are just tacking the lystheni onto the salarians, which is not appropriate. The lystheni are offshoots of the salarians, not actual salarians. We don't know how much of an offshoot, just that they are distinct enough to be treated seperately. Also, they are NOT a council race. For both of these reasons, it is not correct to just add (lystheni) to the salarian post on this page, which is listed under council races. It's all kinds of factually inaccurate. They should be added as a separate entry in the non-citadel races section, or, if it does turn out that they are just a genetic offshoot of the salarian race shunned for some other reason (ie social or racial reasons) then the whole lystheni article can just get merged with the salarian page. However, since we don't know the exact nature of the "offshoot"/distinctiveness bit, I think we should wait for ME2 to see if it sheds a little more light. It's only a month and a half away. Not that long. SpartHawg948 03:30, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * the fact is they are a genetically distinct people who are not members of the citadel. That is all that is known, so i propose a link be placed in non citadel races and a blank star image be use as a place holder. This is reasonable andd i feel necessary. ralok 06:16, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is, and I supported that, if you will read my post. However, the edit you made (twice) to the races page adding (lystheni) onto the salarian entry is not acceptable. This was, of course, the gist of my post, as re-reading it will show. Although I will (again) point out (I seem to be doing a lot of rehashing of my last post...) that due to the lack of info we should hold off until ME2 comes out. In fact, I'm starting to doubt whether the article on the lystheni will survive if they aren't in ME2. The zeioph don't have a page after all, and we know as much about them as we do about the lystheni. And stating that they are a genetically distinct people is, at this point, pure speculation. We know they are offshoots. That's it. Maybe they're cultural offshoots, racial offshoots, who knows. Genetic distinction has not been stated thus far.So again, I support the proposal, but would like to hold off until ME2 to see if we get more info. Again, it's only a month and a half. That isn't very long at all. SpartHawg948 08:07, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not know they are genetically distinct. They may be simply culturally or socially different. And if even if there were genetic differences, they are still salarians, as they are referred to as Lystheni salarians, not simply Lystheni. There is already a page for them; when there's more information we can add a "see also" to the top of the salarian page.
 * But they are clearly not a Citadel race, so regardless, they shouldn't simply be tacked on to the salarians. If there's enough differences for them to be treated as a separate race and there's sufficient reason, we may add them as a non-Citadel race, but as "Lystheni salarians", which is their proper name. However, I think their proper place is as a corollary to the salarian article, certainly for the moment. --Tullis 13:13, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed entirely. We do not have any evidence that they are a different race - Lysenthi may simply be the name of a breakaway colony, or a religious group, or an organisation. Therefore, they do not deserve a place on the 'races' page, but do deserve their own article. Shell Kracker 17:46, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * IT isnt exactly known why they are shunned from council space, offshoot usually means there is some sort of genetic differences (at least i think it does). Soif anything it should be opposite of the edits i had made with Lystheni as its own box wiht salarian in perenthesis. ralok 14:55, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ralok, you said in your edit summary when you first added this, "I felt it would be a good edit, change it if you feel otherwise." We feel otherwise, so we've changed it. "Offshoot" could mean anything; like I said, they could also be cultural offshoots. We don't know yet because we only know three things about them: their name, the fact they're described as offshoots, and that they live on Omega because for some reason, they're not welcome elsewhere. For all we know, they could be some special kind of clan or political group. I really don't know what you mean by "separate box"; like I said above, IF describing them as a separate race is warranted, and IF we add them to non-Citadel races, they'd be described as Lystheni salarians (no parentheses). Because that is what they are given as in Mass Effect: Ascension, currently the only source we have for them. We'll see how they are handled / described in ME2, if they appear in ME2, before we make any decisions about how we want to handle them. --Tullis 15:14, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed, offshoot is not always a genetic term, but is also applied to civilizations - America could be called an 'offshoot' of European civilization - or Catheage of Phoencian civilization - or the Hellenic states of Greek civilization. They would still be salarian by species. Shell Kracker 17:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Extinct races fault?
There's a race called "Zeioph" listed under extinct races, but when you click on it you're taken to a page for one of the planets. Is that a mistake?--92.1.139.73 06:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure isn't! There used to be a page for the zeioph, but there really wasn't enough info to justify an entire page, so instead it was redirected to the page for the planet that contains all the known info about the zeioph. SpartHawg948 06:26, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I argue the zeioph deserve thei own page, i will use my ohome page as a test page to see how much i can stretch the info that is available on the zeioph. I will inform you when it is finished. ralok 00:16, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * The zeioph already had their own page. There wasn't enough info to justify it. "Closer investigation revealed these as millions of elaborate crypts a few meters below the surface, left by a long-extinct space-faring species called the zeioph." That is all the info on the race. There isn't really any way to stretch it. We don't even know if Armeni was their homeworld or just some sort of burial site. Unless more info comes out about them in ME2, they aren't getting their own page again. Simple as that. SpartHawg948 01:35, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, a lot of fiction Wikis would give them their own entry. I know we take a hard line on that here, more like Wikipedia - but this isn't Wikipedia, where fictional species from games and novels are given truncated lists - this Wiki is actually devoted to the fictional setting in question.  So there is a lot more cause to give something as important as an entire civilization its own entry, despite the poverty of information available on it.  Races that were name-dropped in a single line of dialogue are usually given an entry in other fiction Wikis. Shell Kracker 13:57, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Updated Racial Pictures
The pictures of the races from Mass Effect 1 look a bit dated in comparison to the newer species, don't they? It wouldn't be hard to find new ones to use. --SpectreJustice 22:37, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been talking about this elsewhere. We'll probably wait and get the ME2 Codex ones, if we decide to change them. --Tullis 22:38, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Sudden thought!
I've been trying to work out why I like the ME Codex pictures so much despite them being fuzzy and the thought occurs: it's because they aren't of any specific person (except the one for the quarians, but that couldn't be helped : ) ) and that's something we can easily fix if the ME2 Codex pictures aren't up to snuff. E.g. the salarians Codex image is of the salarian bartender from the original X06 demo, and he's still standing there in Flux, so I imagine getting a hi-res replacement shot of him wouldn't be hard. Ditto for finding asari and turian nobodies, all the hanar look the same and there's a few anonymous volus around.

Thoughts? I know I've been stubborn on this (sorry) but this might be something to consider. --Tullis 00:29, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the pictures shouldn't be of some specific person from the species (I'm not saying these are real) but like Xeltan for elcor, Liara for asari, Mordin for salarian, Saren or Nihlus for turian, Collector General for Collectorsm you know what I mean? - ThePlatypus 00:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Klixen
Though we know they exist, are we going to leave them off the races page until we know what they are? ie Creature or higher functioning Race?--Xaero Dumort 00:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's it in a nutshell. From everything revealed about them so far, they appear to be creatures. If it turns out they are a sentient race, they can get added to the races page. SpartHawg948 00:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

So should we add them to the Other Creatures or still just wait and see?--Xaero Dumort 01:30, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Arthenn
Commdor explained these arthenn are mentioned in a planetary survey somewhere, on par with the zeioph. But since we don't even have the planet itself yet, let alone the survey text, I think it's a bit early to add them. --Tullis 13:24, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The planet in question now seems to have an entry. See below.  I'm not sure if the race's name page links to the planet yet however.  P.S. I think these races should be given their own pages, despite the poverty of information on them, see the discussion on the zeioph above. Shell Kracker 13:59, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Other historical races

 * Arthenn
 * Inusannon
 * Thoi'han
 * Zeioph

I suggest that the zeioph and other historical races from planetary surveys, should be listed alongside the rachni and Protheans, as a historical civilization isn't judged by its importance to current affairs, or by the amount of information available on it. I realise that right now, these articles only link to planetary surveys, but it looks messy to seperate them into a secondary list, and to be honest, most Wikis would give something as important as a civilization (or unidentified ship class, etc) its own entry, despite the poverty of information - its what Wookieepedia or Memory Alpha would do. I think at least, we should list them here under the same heading as the Protheans and rachni - with the usual galactic "?" image to represent them. Shell Kracker 13:49, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I just added the other historical races to the main bunch - it looks much neater now. :-) Shell Kracker 14:20, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Non-Sentient Creatures & The Thorian aka 'Species 37'
It looks a little strange and untidy to list four non-sentient creatures with pictures, but then list a bunch without (even though most of them have articles and potential screenshots). At the moment they seem to be split between races with codex entries and those without, but there must be a better way of organising it? Perhaps all non-sentient races should be listed without pictures? Or perhaps only sentient races should be listed on this page?

Also, what is our position on The Thorian? It has a name given name like the Protheans do - 'Species 37' in this case - and it may infact be sentient. These would make it a potential 'non-council race', or 'historical race', depending on how you look at it.

Perhaps both problems can be solved if the 'Non Sentient' and 'Other' catagories were merged into a single heading called 'Other Creatures' - the wording covers everything that isn't a civilization. Or perhaps the article should be renamed 'Civilizations', which makes sense since most people clicking on the front page are after the game's sentient races, not wild beasts. Shell Kracker 14:34, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it, I was just going to say this lol. --Joshtopher27 19:26, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Combine Other Creatures and Non-Sapient Races
There's no reason for the "Other Creatures" and "Non-Sapient Races" to be separated. They need to be combined, it only makes sense to. Please let's change it immediately. --Joshtopher27 06:17, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no reason other than the fact that we don't know that the creatures in the "Other Creatures" category are non-sapient (it's "Non-Sapient Creatures", not "Non-Sentient"). In fact, we do know that one of the organisms in the "Other Creatures" category is sapient/sentient/whatever, and is not part of a race, but rather is an individual organism/creature. Seems like a pretty good reason for the separation of the categories to me. SpartHawg948 06:22, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is also the fact (somewhat tied into what I mentioned previously) that the Thresher Maw, Varren and Husk are all specifically labeled as non-sapient creatures by the Codex, while the other creatures in the other creatures category are not. Moving them into the "Non-Sapient Creatures" category would be speculative and wrong. Pretty cut and dry, actually. SpartHawg948 06:32, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn I meant Sapient. But still. We need to combine them.--Joshtopher27 07:13, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Thresher Maw, Varren and Husk are in the codex because they play a part in the story. The other creatures are just part of the exploration. And, Judging you've played ME2 already, the Drell are not in the codex, but listed under the Non-Council Races section in the ME2 codex are praetorians, Sovereign, and Reaper Indoctrination (or something like that). If we're going by what the codex says, those need to be added to the Alien Races page. However, it doesn't make sense to put those in the Races section because we know they are not races. The other creatures (besides the Thorian, i suppose) are creatures that are more then one and they are a species, so they need to be combined with the other Non-Sapient Races. --Joshtopher27 07:18, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need to combine them. It would be speculative to do so. The creatures in the Other Creatures section are not listed in-game as Non-Sapient creatures, unlike the creatures in the Non-Sapient creatures section. Assuming that the creatures listed under Other Creatures are non-sapient is speculation, plain and simple. And you are correct about the drell, they need to be moved (although I'm not so good at the formatting stuff, so I'm not going to attempt it). However, stating that Reaper Indoctrination and praetorians need to be listed is not true, as they are subsets of races already listed in their proper categories. And what of the Thorian? You yourself said it can't go in the Non-Sapient races section. It's pretty darn sapient! So no, they don't need to be moved, as it would be pure speculation to do so. SpartHawg948 07:26, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And actually, just re-checked, no, the drell DO NOT need to be moved. The categories in the Codex are Council (not Citadel) races, non-Council races, and non-sapient. Non-Council races includes both Citadel and non-Citadel races (for example, both the non-Citadel batarians and Citadel hanar are listed as non-Council). So, no, the drell are fine where they are. SpartHawg948 07:32, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said the drell need to be moved, I said they are not listed in the codex in ME2. I also NEVER used the term "Non-Citadel". I always used Non-Council. Praetorians, Sovereign, and Reaper Indoctrination are listed in the ME2 codex under Non-Council Races, so, if according to you we go by whatever the game Codex says, we should add praetorians, Sovereign, and Reaper Indoctirnation to the Non-Council Races section. I'M saying that we know that praetorians, Sovereign, and Reaper Indoctrination are NOT Non-Council Races, so they shouldn't be added to Non-Council Races. It's pretty damn clear that the "Other Creatures" are Non-Sapient even though the game never says so. We need to stop being so anal about what goes where, even if it's not stated, it's VERY obvious that the pyjak, klixen, pod crabs, etc. are Non-Sapient. If you seriously don't think that they are Non-Sapient than what do you think they are? And as for the Thorian I was agreeing with you. Why don't we just create a new List of "Sapient Life-form" or something like that so the Thorian can go there? --Joshtopher27 08:31, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you saying that praetorians and Reaper Indoctrination don't need to be added because they're subsets is PURE SPECULATION on your part. The ME2 Codex has praetorians and Reaper Indoctriantion listed under Non-Council Races, while Husks are listed under Non-Sapient Races. How can the praetorians be a subset if they're listed in a higher class race then the husk? Nowhere in the game or codex does it say that paetorians and Reaper Indocrination are subsets. You speculated that. --Joshtopher27 08:37, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already addressed the Praetorians, Sovereign, and Indoctrination in my last post. And while you say it's pretty clear (please remember too that we have a policy about not using rude or vulgar language) that the Other Creatures are non-sapient, it's really not, as there is no proof. You cite a few obvious ones, but the shifty-looking cow steals money from you. Seems to me that pickpocketing does cast some doubt on it being non-Sapient. And how the (expletive deleted) can you tell that the Unknown Creature is not sapient? We never see more than it's skull! You can't make that kind of call based just on a skull! It is never clearly stated that these are non-sapient creatures, so the same policy applies as applies to the rest of the site. Saying they are non-sapient with no evidence, just a hunch (which is all saying "it's pretty damn clear" is) is speculation. We do not need to be less anal, if by anal you mean upholding content standards. And if I read you right, you want to reduce clutter by removing one category (Other Creatures) but also want to create a brand-new category (Sapient Life-form")? How does that work? Again, speculation is a no-go, and stating that all the creatures in Other Creatures are non-sapient with no evidence to support it is speculation. SpartHawg948 08:42, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to your recent add-on, how is it speculation to say that Reaper Indoctrination is a subset of Reaper? It's completely consistent with site policy. Look at the Codex. Each race has (in the Codex under the races categories) entries on biology, culture, military, etc. We don't add those here, we just look at the actual race, and place it within the category the Codex places it in. Do your homework! It takes about 5 seconds worth of research to learn that I SPECULATED NOTHING! Nada! No red herrings, please. SpartHawg948 08:42, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * With all respect, I give up talking to you. It's like talking to a brick wall. The praetorians, Sovereign and Reaper Indoctrination are under the codex as primary, as in the one with the voice. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!! But whatever this is pointless. You saying that the shifty-looking cow taking money is sapient is ridiculous. Oh, and d*mn is such a vulgar word right? Better wash my mouth out with soap. --Joshtopher27 08:51, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling me a brick wall is the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. Did I ever say that the Preatorian, Sovereign, and Reaper Indoctrination entries were not primary? Sure nuff didn't! All I did was point out that pretty much every race has entries that can be classed as subsets, and that we use the Codex on this page for the sole purpose of determining which category a race belongs to. Races that aren't classified in the Codex go under "Other Creatures". Also, I never said that the fact that the shifty looking cow pickpockets is proof that it IS sapient, just that it sheds doubt on it being non-Sapient. Again, lay off the red herring, and do the pre-requisite reading please. And you didn't tell me how we could determine the non-sentience of the other creatures listed, such as the Unknown Creature. As there is no way to determine sapience for them, since the game tells us nothing on the subject, the categories can't be merged without it being speculative. Sorry. And yes, "d*mn" (as you put it) is generally considered vulgar, at least in the States. I don't care if you ingest soap after this or not, just please watch the language on the talk page. That's all I ask. SpartHawg948 09:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where you say "how are they Non-Sapient", I say "how are they not Non-Sapient". Monkeys have been known to steal items from tourists in the real world like watches, food, clothes, but we don't consider them Sapient. And I already gave you my idea for the Thorian which you completely disregarded. As the the Unknown Creature, It's basically like finding a dinosaur skeleton. If the skull is as massive as it is then it obviously had a brain which means it searched for food, defended territory, etc. I just don't get how you don't see that. Sorry for the flaming, just frustrated. My apologies. --Joshtopher27 09:18, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not saying they are or aren't sapient. I don't care either way. What I am saying is that since we don't know whether they are or aren't, we shouldn't classify them as either. The only reason I ask "how are they Non-Sapient" is because you wanted to merge the two. If we're going to merge them, they have to be compatible. On the one hand, we have three races (Husks, Varren, and Thresher Maws) that are clearly and without a doubt labeled as Non-Sapient. Simple! The most accurate and non-speculative way to describe them is exactly how the game describes them- Non-Sapient Races. Then we have a bunch of other races that aren't classified by the game. Sure most of them pretty clearly seem non-sapient, but it is never stated that they are, in fact, non-sapient, and appearances can be deceiving. So since they aren't classified as either sapient or non-sapient by the game, and don't get placed in one of the three nice, neat race categories in the Codex, the only accurate and nonspeculative way to describe them is as "Other" creatures. That is my entire point, and the reason I said no way to combining the two categories. SpartHawg948 09:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Can we at least make that section look like the other sections by giving pictures so it all goes together well? And maybe label it "Creatures of Unknown Status" or something that doesn't make it look like a pile of useless races. I'm all about making it look nice, and that's my main goal here. --Joshtopher27 09:46, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get images of all of them and post it, make it look like the other sections, that's fine with me. I don't see any reason to change the name though. Status (on this page and related pages anyways) generally means status vis-a-vis the Citadel, which on this page translates to Citadel or Non-Citadel, and that's already covered. As for sapience, we do know it for at least one, probably two, as I believe Jenkins comments on the intelligence of the gas-bags, so I honestly thing Other Creatures is the best possible label. They are, quite simply Other Creatures that don't have Codex entries allowing for easy categorization. SpartHawg948 09:57, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that either catagory should be listed on this page - perhaps it should be renamed 'galactic civilizations' and include only galactic powers. Thats what people expect when they visit the races page, rather than local fauna. Right now, it looks a little messy with the cows and monkeys being listed at the bottom of a page largely about cultures. Shell Kracker 11:22, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really practical for a few reasons- 1) It would be listing 3 of the 4 race categories from the Codex, but not the 4th. 2) If we don't include the non-sapients and others here, then where? 3) Galactic Powers or Civilizations seems incredibly vague. Several of the sapient races here are not galactic powers by any stretch of the imagination (especially the drell and the vorcha, as well as the volus, being a client race and all) and others (esp. the keepers, geth, and Collectors) have little to no civilization to speak of, so why include them in a page titled "Galactic Civilizations"? Then you have the fact that the Reapers are not a Galactic civilization (seeing as they reside outside the galaxy, which would make them extragalactic) and it seems like there are some issues with that idea. SpartHawg948 11:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I could point out a number of reasons how things you have just said could be interpreted differently, because in the end how one defines civilization and power is a matter of perspective - the geth do have a civilization, just not one that is biological, and the drell are galactically engaged, just not independent. I omitted the Reapers as a mild spoiler concession. I threw those titles out there to stimulate similar ideas, not to suggest they should be final. So, setting those points aside; I find the bottom of the page messy, I dunno if you agree with that or not. It could do with cleaning up somehow, in my opinion. One way would be to find shots of all those creatures and merge them into one catagory, called 'Other creatures' or something - an easier way would be to remove them to another page. Context is important to consider here; the reason we have a page called 'races', is because of Mass Effect's heritage as an RPG, and as a space opera in the vein of Star Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5, Farscape and Star Wars - in RPGs, and in those space operas, the term 'races' implies civilizations - not fauna. People expect Klingons and Romulans on a page about Star Trek's races, but not Terran cats, Terran dogs, Klingon targs and Cardassian voles - should we include 'hamsters' on a page called 'races' about a science fiction RPG, because shepard has one? Its not a 'race', in this context. I think its a little silly to include varren or hamsters on a page called 'races', given the context. Shell Kracker 12:35, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right! How one defines civilization and power ARE matters of perspective! This is exactly why we don't use such vague, perspective-driven terms here and instead use the Codex classifications, as well as one "Others" category for stuff that isn't classified. As for the implication of races, race has several definitions, including zoological definitions, so it seems to work as well as, if not better than, most other alternatives. Honestly, what the word race implies in terms of other SciFi series is irrelevant. We're using it based on its actual definition, not it's perceived implications based on other series. It's not silly, it's factual! Stating we should do it another way because it's how they do it in Star Trek is what strikes me as a little silly. :) SpartHawg948 12:47, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going for scientific rigour, maybe we should rename the page 'species', rather than being selectively rigourous? 'Race' in biology is used to distinguish taxonomic subspecies. Hence, you are already using science fiction & fantasy conventions, and have no grounds from which to criticise the importance of their context. Shell Kracker 13:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I pointed out above, race has a number of definitions, including zoological definitions (race- 'a natural kind of living creature' seems to apply, no?). It also, of course, refers to a group of persons related through common descent. So it would seem that race works for both sapient beings and animals, doesn't it? Maybe before accusing someone else of being "selectively rigourous" you should ascertain what they are talking about, and not pick and choose what you want them to say. I referred to the zoological definition of race, so you cite the biological definition- how does that work? Species, on the other hand (if we are using the biological definition as you seem to prefer) is less accurate, as one of the hallmarks of the biological definition of species is that distinct species cannot crossbreed. Kind of rules out the asari, doesn't it? There is nothing about those definitions that involves "science fiction & fantasy conventions", it's straight out of the dictionary! So I guess I do have some grounds from which to criticize. And you can hardly call it "scientific rigour" when you overlook one of the main characteristics of the term in order to make it suit your wishes. All I was saying is that the definition of race fits the bill, regardless of what its implications are in completely unrelated SciFi series. SpartHawg948 13:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would point out that the asari don't crossbreed, since no genetic information is passed between partners. You never did tell me your opinion on whether the lower section of the article looks messy or not? And on how to clear it up, if so? I only sought to address the layout of the article, and reach a consensus. I am asking again, what would your suggestion be, on how to clear it up? Or do you find it perfect as it is? Shell Kracker 14:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as is pointed out by an asari Matriarch in ME2, there is some disagreement over whether or not genetic information is passed on. And it is stated that the "father" does in fact alter one of the two sets of genetic data passed on to the daughter. Regardless, this ability would seem to rule species out as an accurate title. As for why I never told you my opinion on the bottom section, it's b/c I already addressed it elsewhere and felt the matter was closed. I told Joshtopher that if he wised to go ahead and get images to use to bring the bottom section in line with the rest of the page, that was fine with me. In fact, the first sentence of my last post immediately preceding your entry into this conversation says exactly that. I'm fine with making the ;ast section look better, I just see no reason the article needs to be renamed to something less accurate, nor do I see any valid reason to merge the last two sections, which would be speculative. SpartHawg948 22:35, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was flipping through The Art of Mass Effect book and saw that all the creatures designs like the Gas Bags and such are called "Ambient Creatures" by the book. Also, the large flying creature that looks like a snake with wings on Tuchanka is what I beleive called a Harvester, because there is a drawing in the book and it looks exactly like it. I'll try to find the image. --Joshtopher27 18:22, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I added pictures, but I'm not good at resizing them to fit so if anyone is then please if you could do that it'd be very much appreciated. --Joshtopher27 18:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work man, it looks a lot better. Shell Kracker 22:11, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just that the pictures need resized, we need new pictures that can be made uniform in size like the rest of the article. No two pictures in the Other Creatures section (other than the "Terminus" pictures) are the same size, and that simply won't fly. I said I was fine with bringing that section in line with the rest of the article, but in order to do that it needs to be uniform, like the rest of the article. Still, it is a step in the right direction. SpartHawg948 22:38, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that new screenshots need to be taken? The cropped pics are just a placeholder till then really. Shell Kracker 23:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the recent edits you made to the pictures look great! And I do mean great! I had to undo them, as your intermediate edits didn't allow me to just revert the editing you did to merge the two sections (again, I see no reason to, and any merger seems pretty speculative) but I went back in and fixed the images so they look just the way you left them. Very nice! SpartHawg948 23:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou SpartHawg :) I thought merging the catagories made it look neater and more condensed actually, although it is purely an aesthetic change. Shell Kracker 23:08, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "speculative" is the wrong word, but, since the Codex clearly labels Husks, Varren and Thresher Maws as non-sapient creatures, and this page does use Codex categorization whenever possible, I think those three need to be categorized as Non-Sapient Creatures, not Other Creatures. And unfortunately the creatures in the "Other Creatures" section are not categorized in the Codex, so they get shoehorned in at the bottom. SpartHawg948 23:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you're on a roll! I was also going to ask you to please spell my name properly, as people have been getting it wrong a lot lately (not sure how, but they do), but you beat me to the punch and fixed it! Rock on! SpartHawg948 23:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking; perhaps in this case we should not adhere to the Codex's structure so much - because the development team only wrote Codex entries for those creatures commonly encountered as enemies - other than that, there is no reason not to merge the catagories really as 'other creatures' is a good descriptive phrase that covers all of them. Plus, we did add non-Codex races to the historical catagory, so there is some precident set earlier in the article. Its only this one section that we are significantly deviating from the Codex on - and it looks rather swish when they are merged ;) I'll leave the decision to you. Shell Kracker 23:17, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'll try to find screens of the following, at some point, or perhaps someone else can take some: Klixen, Klixen Harvester, Various Illium/Citadel Fish Species, 'Space Hamster' ;) Shell Kracker 23:26, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice on the pictures! It looks awesome. Now, do you think we should create separate pages for Scions, Aboninations and Praetorians? Since in the codex Scions and Praetorians have enough information about them, I think they should get their own pages separate from the Husks.--Joshtopher27 00:48, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, this may surprise you (:P) but I totally agree. We do have enough info, they are pretty darn distinct from Husks, especially the Praetorians (what with that turning into poison gas thing) and I think they qualify. Well, let me amend that. I see no reason the Scion and Praetorian shouldn't get added. The Abomination doesn't really seem dissimilar enough from the baseline Husk, IMO. It looks pretty much the same other than the color, and it's basically just a kamikaze husk. The other two though, I totally agree with. SpartHawg948 06:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree on something :) Agreed with the Abomination too :)--Joshtopher27 07:37, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you guys approve of the latest edit? If so, I will revert it to my old merged one, as it was alphabetical and neater. Shell Kracker 14:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, still totally opposed to merging. I've made this position perfectly clear, nor has anything occured to make me feel that deviating from the standard BioWare set is a good idea. The latest merge was a nice little bit by yet another anonymous user who feels it's acceptable to make sweeping changes to major pages on a whim. SpartHawg948 06:45, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and combined these two sections as a part of a major redesign I implemented to improve the article. I'm aware that there is an ongoing debate here, and made the edit in an attempt to be bold in attempting to improve the wiki, not to disrespect those who disagree with merging the sections. Put simply, I feel that using the codex terminology as the guidelines and not as a reference is flawed, and leads to ambiguous distinctions between categories. If the codex fails to list/expressly label something does not mean it should be shunted into a "miscellaneous" category. If we are thus constrained to codex entries, then anything without a codex entry would have to be omitted from this wiki. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 22:19, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted your edits, for the same reason as I said above. The combination you implemented was out-and-out speculation, inserting races into Codex categories that the game does not include in those categories. Again, whenever possible, we go with the Codex designations for purposes of organization. Of course, we don't insist that we only use things that are in the Codex, omitting anything without an entry. That would be silly, and given that no one here has argued in favor of omitting races not listed in the Codex, it's a bit of a straw man. Again, there is no way of knowing that all the races you lumped into Non-Sapient Creatures are, in fact, Non-Sapient. Assuming that they are is speculation, nothing but. So, to reiterate, whenever possible, we use the Codex categories, as BioWare's word is pretty much law, which means that when something is Categorized by them in the Codex, that's what it is. Unfortunately, there are a number of creatures not in the Codex, and we need to include them too, as not doing so would be ridiculous, so we have the "Other Creatures" category. It works, and most importantly, it isn't speculative. SpartHawg948 22:41, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I intended it as a reductio ad absurdum to show a hole in your logic. Not as a strawman. This article suffers from poorly defined distinctions between "race" and "creature". This article does not read from an in-universe or "lore" perspective, but seems designed simply as a list of enemies one might encounter in the game. The current article is clearly confusing, as evidenced by this long debate and other sections on this talk page. If your primary concern is the word "sapient", then I would suggest you simply have one "Creatures" category or&mdash;even better&mdash;a "Creatures" article entirely separate from the "Races" article. This would also allow you to add non-NPC creatures such as the "Space Hamster". I understand your concern, but this article does not "work" as is. Also, if your only objection is that I merged the "non-sapient" and "other" sections, you did not need to revert ALL of my edits. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 22:59, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash;also, I am confused how the placement of certain races as "citadel", "non-citadel" and "historical" is anything BUT speculative. Hence the debates over placement. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 23:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash;in an effort to avoid an edit war, please refer to my sandbox: Races page for what I'm suggesting. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 23:08, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, since we're using the categories specifically set up by BioWare, and not making up our own, making assumptions about the sapience or non-sapience of creatures as we go, it's absurd and there must be a hole in the logic? How does that work? And yes, I did need to revert all the edits. I also objected to the Council/Non-Council designators because, as has been stated ad nauseaum here and other places, it's kind of a big Mass Effect Spoiler, isn't it? SpartHawg948 23:11, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me the Codex includes an "Other" category and distinguishes between "citadel" and "non-citadel" races for all races, like the Drell for example? Is it really that big of a spoiler&mdash;especially at the cost of the effectiveness of this page as a reference? Look, I'm not saying you need to conform exactly to my suggestion, but one look at this talk page makes it pretty clear that some sort of clean-up needs to happen. The categories should be effective and clear. If that means changing it up entirely or removing them entirely, then that should be done. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 23:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, again, as I've said I don't know how many times, the Other Races includes races that are, unfortunately, not listed in the Codex. If you want to talk about absurd, talk about Common Races and Outcast Races. Why are the Common Races common? Where are they common? The races that were common in the first game aren't in the second, and the races that are common in the second are the so-called Outcast races, a number of whom haven't been outcast from anything. Who cast out the raloi? The Citadel races (and some of the non-Citadel) are welcoming them to the galaxy! Far from outcast! And who cast out the vorcha, or the Collectors, or for that matter, the Reapers? SpartHawg948 23:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how euphemisms for "Citadel Race" and "Non-citadel Race" are any less absurd. But please refer to my comments on your talk page. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 14:57, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick question- how are Citadel Race and Non-Citadel Race euphemisms? By any definition? You do know what a euphemism is, don't you? Using a nice, harmless sounding phrase in place of a harsher, less appealing one, like saying "he passed away" instead of "he died". So, if Citadel Race and Non-Citadel Race are euphemisms, would it be a euphemism for me to call the United States and Great Britain "NATO Countries" and Russia and China "Non-NATO Countries" if I was drawing up a list of countries and needed a way to categorize them? No! That idea is just absurd. Citadel Race means (big shock here) that the race is a member race of the Citadel. Non-Citadel Race means the race is not. These are not euphemisms, they are accurate descriptions. SpartHawg948 22:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought my meaning was clear. What you see as accurate I see as arbitrary. In that sense, they "offend" my sense of order. Disagree with me if you will, but implications against my language comprehension are unwelcome. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 15:30, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Citadel and Non-Citadel are arbitrary. As arbitrary as membership or non-membership in the Citadel. Arbitrary is good when you are categorizing things. Certainly better than using vague and subjective categories like "Common Races" or inaccurate ones like "Outcast Races". Also, I don't recall bringing your language comprehension skills into question (unless you are referring to my asking if you knew the definition of euphemism, which I did because it appeared you were using it incorrectly, to say the least). If I have done so, simply point me to my statements and I'll attempt to make amends. SpartHawg948 20:12, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I also still disagree with your decision to not merge the two catagories, it really does look totally uneccecary and untidy to seperate two catagories with pretty much identical contents for no other reason than because some don't have Codex entries - there is no reason why we can't merge the catagories under 'Other Creatures'. Obviously, other people feel the same way, and while this might not be a democracy, it shows that this isn't just some personal preferance on the part of any one individual. Please consider this. Shell Kracker 08:13, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to keep them separate. The races page looks nicer with less sections. - ThePlatypus 00:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really because the non-sapient creates have Codex entries and that is what seem to be used. The other creatures category seems to be forf the rest of the creaures that come up while playing the games and reading the books and comics. The page looks fine as it is. Lancer1289 01:10, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)No reason other than canon. Canonically speaking, they are listed separately in the in-game Codex. And, given that this is based as much as is possible on the Codex, it therefor emulates it. And once again (I really hate repeating myself) it is impossible to demonstrate that all the creatures in the 'Other Creatures' section are non-sapient, so they can't be placed in that category. Basically, it boils down to three options- keep everything factual and canon (i.e. leave the two sections separate), engage in rampant speculation (i.e. merge the 'Other Creatures' into the 'Non-Sapient Creatures'), or violate canon (i.e. merge Non-Sapient into Other). Which would you rather do? I sure know which I prefer. SpartHawg948 01:13, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Drell a Council race?
Where is it said that drell are a Council race? Captain Bailey said that he very rarely saw drell on the Citadel. --Ech0six 20:51, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the Citadel's concerned, they may be represented by the Hanar, since they live on the same world. Just cause not many are seen doesn't mean they're not considered a Citadel race - just that not many travel to the Citadel. The thing is they don't have an embassy on the Citadel, though again, they may be represented by the Hanar. Vund223 21:02, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please learn the difference beetween council and citadel. ralok 21:05, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sarcasm and useless reply, ralok. Thank you, Vund, for being polite and informative. However, isn't that just an assumption? Being represented by the hanar doesn't mean the drell have their own embassy, and would therefor not be a Citadel race. Ech0six 21:10, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, and this probably warrants more discussion. The assumption, I believe, is that since the Drell were rescued from their homeworld by the Hanar, they allow the Hanar to speak for them. Though you are correct, it is an assumption. Although coupled with the information that Thane gives - the fact that not many Drell leave home - it could explain why Captain Bailey sees so few. I think it depends on what the definition of "representation" is. For instance, the Asari come from many worlds, though their homeworld is Thessia. So does the Asari embassy represent Thessia or the Asari race as a whole? Hanar come from only one world, Kahje, so does their embassy represent just the Hanar race or the world Kahje, which would include its other race, the Drell. Just my thoughts on the matter. Vund223 21:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The asari originate from Thessia, but have many "colony" worlds (Illium, for instance). Though I'm sure just as many asari are born on Illium as they are on Thessia, all asari are surely told where they began. The hanar are likely the same way (originating from Kahje but likely have colonies elsewhere), but I don't think the drell are. They originate from Rakhana, but because they lack the technology to explore the stars on their own, they had to rely on another race to rescue and relocate them.


 * It was once said that in order to qualify for an embassy, a race needs to prove that they can support the Citadel and the Council. To be a Council race requires an even larger economy. I don't believe the drell can do that, considering that there are only 100,000 of them (give or take) on Kahje, while the rest are bludgeoning each other to death on the blackened remains of Rakhana. Ech0six 21:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Valid points. We actually don't know the new policies for Citadel embassies anymore, and again, that's probably dependent on how your ME1 game ended. It should be noted, however, that the Drell (Kahje Drell, which are considered the "civilized" ones) and Hanar are usually thought of hand-in-hand. They each help each other with the well-being of their planet and peoples - the Hanar provide the Drell with technology and the Drell protect and act as the Hanar's armies. In fact, Drell have become so integrated in Hanar society that they are almost considered one people. While not as highly respected as the Asari or Salarians, the Drell are accepted as part of galactic society, and can perhaps be seen as a "Citadel Race by Association." Vund223 21:52, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and you may very well be right. But because there is currently no proof, wouldn't it be best to move them into "Non-Citadel Races" for the time being? Or maybe make a new category called "Undecided?" Ech0six 22:01, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * See, that's where I'm torn. I think they're respected enough among the other Citadel races that they don't deserve to be placed alongside the likes of the Vorcha, Krogan and Batarians. However, as we've discussed here, their status as a Citadel race can definately be called into question. They're very reliant upon the Hanar, but is that enough? I'm just not sure on this one, and I don't think we should be moving things around until we maybe get a little more input on this than just the two of us. Perhaps propose a new topic here, citing what we've discussed. Vund223 22:06, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for further discussion and input, but I'm kinda new here so I don't know how to do everything yet. Can you please make this new topic? Ech0six 22:10, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Codex entry on drell culture states 375,000 drell were evacuated to Kahje by the hanar, and the billions left on Rakhana are long dead; Rakhana is now a "cemetery world", and during pilgrimage season the planet's relative population is doubled. But to the point: the Codex states that the drell have been part of the galactic community for nearly two centuries since their rescue by the hanar. The Citadel is the only real galactic community out there; therefore, the drell are a Citadel race. If you're going by whether a race has an embassy, remember the Keepers. They have no embassy, and yet are a Citadel race. Furthermore, I think it's obvious the drell aren't a rogue race like the batarians, nomads like the quarians, or ex-members like the krogan. Separating out the drell into some "None of the above" category is arbitrary, we have plenty of evidence that links them to Citadel space. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the Keepers are hardly an argument, as they were already there when the Asari arrived and were figured to pretty much be considered more a part of the Citadel than a member of it. True, the embassy thing is actually more ME1 based, but as I've said, we're never really told the new guidelines. Quite frankly, though, this all works for me. I agree. Vund223 22:19, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The galactic community is anywhere that multiple races congregate and socialize, including seedy places like Omega. The Citadel is just the most "civilized" of these places. Also keep in mind that the quarians and batarians are also ex-Citadel races. They're still allowed on the Citadel (just not necessarily welcomed). The drell haven't been a space-fairing species for nearly as long as the quarians, batarians, or krogan, and are really only recognized and associated with the more commonly seen hanar.


 * And my personal view is that Keepers shouldn't be listed as a Citadel race; they should be put with "Other Creatures", but that's not the focus of this discussion. Ech0six 22:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Citadel Council's authority is recognized by the vast majority of known intelligent races in the galaxy (I think the number is 90% or something). That is the galactic community, not the lawless and unorganized Terminus Systems, of which Omega is a part. Even considering the TS as a galactic community, the drell live with the hanar; why would the drell be members of the TS community? And yes, the krogan and quarians are allowed on the Citadel, but they were removed as associate members for their crimes. The batarians voluntarily withdrew, and do not recognize the authority of the Citadel, so they aren't a Citadel race either. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:39, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Drell should be under the Citadel-Races, people's arguement for having them there is that they aren't "rogue" or "ex-members" like the Batarian or the Krogan, however, if you look under that group, it's not as if all of those races are rogue or banned from the Citadel, Krogran and Quarian are still allowed in the Citadel, and the non-heretic Geth may soon be acceptable for wondering the Citadel, it'd be a bit of a spoiler to place "Geth" and "Geth Heretics" up there both under the non-Citadel races, but they would still be allowed to be in the Citadel eventually, and yet not be a "Citadel race" Consider that we know nothing really about the Drell's relationship with the Citadel, we know it's not hostile, but we know it's not super-close or even anywhere near the status of Humans on the Citadel. A Drell actually arriving on the Citadel, and everyone finding it an odd happening, doesn't that there kind of show us that they aren't part of Citadel community? You see many more Quarians and Krogan on the Citadel than you do Drell, and they aren't considered Citadel races, true that the Drell haven't done anything to get on the "bad side" of the Citadel, however they have no active role in the Citadel community either. Also why would "Non-Citadel Races" be a "bad" thing anyways? Just because they aren't part of the Citadel community, doesn't brand them as a lesser race, or with no redeemable qualities, if so, then Krogan and Quarian wouldn't be down there. Jaline 23:12, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out real quick that just because members of a race are allowed on the Citadel, that doesn't mean that their race as a whole isn't "rogue or banned from the Citadel". The quarians were expelled from the Citadel. This is fact. With the krogan, it's unclear whether they withdrew or were expelled, and the batarians withdrew, but it has been made clear that even though the batarians left of their own free will, they are considered a rogue state. So again, just because an individual of a certain species is allowed on the Citadel, this in no way means that their race as a whole isn't "rogue or banned from the Citadel". SpartHawg948 23:29, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Drell are known throughout the galaxy for what they do for the Hanar, it's not like they're an unknown race. However, Thane does mention that it's very rare for a Drell to leave Kahje, and those that do are considered "adventurers" among the Drell, which would explain why very few are seen on the Citadel, or really anyplace else for that matter. Vund223 23:45, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording was mis-understood, by "rogue or banned" and exampling Batarian, and Krogan, I meant that Batarian *are* rogue, and the Krogan are ex-members, obviously the Geth are banned, obviously the Collectors and Reapers would be banned, my point was that the races under Non-Council Races aren't all "evil and anti-council" such as the Collectors/Reapers are. My point really was "The Drell haven't done anything *big* to contribute to Citadel space, they aren't leechers of the Hanar, but if anything, as put by Shepard, they are more of a slave race of the Hanar, even though they don't see themselves that way specifically." The fact that it's extremely rare for Drell to leave Kahje, and that they didn't even have their own technology for space travel, considering the issues that Humanity went through having to do with the Citadel, mostly explained in the first game, I don't see how Drell could simply be "accepted" when they have a low, quickly dying population (due to the Kahje not even being an ideal world for the Drell to live on), the Drell were unknown until the Hanar saved a few hundred thousand, so the billions upon billions of Drell that were left on their homeworld to die, were un-assisted by the Citadel community, the Hanar helped out, but they were the only ones, if the Drell were quickly accepted into the Citadel, you would expect other races to have helped out, Asari, Salarian, Turian, Elcor, Volus, but there's no mention at all of any of those races doing anything to help out the Drell, the Hanar do, and they even go so far as to attempt to help cure the problems the Drell have living on Kahje, but you would think that if they were accepted into the "Citadel Races" that they would bring some Drell to live on the Citadel no? Even if it was in the poorer wards, you would think that they'd be there, to help increase their presence in Citadel space, or they'd be fairly present on other worlds, I can certainly understand a large majority of Drell on Kahje, due to their close connection with the Hanar, but why are the two races that close? Because Hanar are the only ones who have offered to help the Drell. I can easily see the Asari for example "shunning" the Drell, because they never developed space travel themselves. Jaline 01:01, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't really make sense. Since there is no evidence that the asari, salarians, turians, elcor or volus helped out (even though the hanar did) that must imply the drell are not a Citadel race? Overlooking the fact that no one of these races could "bring some Drell [sic] to live on the Citadel" (that would have to be the Council, and we've seen no evidence that the Council has that kind of authority), there are many reasons the other races might not have helped. Perhaps the hanar were simply the closest geographically? As for the salarians, should it be any surprise they want to avoid influencing less developed species after the whole krogan uplift debacle? As for the volus, seeing as how they voluntarily ceded all control of their foreign policy to the turians, it's also hardly a surprise they didn't act. Additionally, given the scarcity of worlds they can inhabit, maybe they didn't feel they had room on their worlds for refugees. The elcor live on extremely high-gravity worlds, which would have necessitated much more in the way of equipment to sustain the drell population, making them not a really viable option. As for the turians, this is just a guess, but I'd figure they would want the drell to submit as a client race to the Hierarchy, something the drell may have not wanted to do, and again, how do we know the hanar simply weren't the closest to the drell? As for the asari "shunning" the drell for not having developed space travel, I find this somewhat hard to believe in light of their history with the elcor. The elcor had just started experimenting with space travel when the asari made contact with them. All I ask is that we maybe avoid the rampant speculation that I've been seeing here lately. SpartHawg948 01:39, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but as it says on the Drell race page, the Hanar "evacuated" hundreds of thousands of Drell over a time period of 10 years, I could understand the "closest to the Drell" if they hadn't done it for 10 years, which is quite a long time to do an evacuation without any assistance from other races. Also I don't see why other races couldn't have helped out the Drell in a similar way to how the Salarians did with the Krogan, it says for example on the Krogan page: "Roughly 2000 years ago the krogan were a primitive tribal species trapped on a world suffering through a nuclear winter of their own making. They were liberated from this state by the salarians, who "culturally uplifted" the krogan by giving them advanced technology and relocating them to a planet not cursed with lethal levels of radiation, toxins or deadly predators." Now, the Salarians obviously had an alternate goal, not purely to help out the Krogan, they wanted warriors, they wanted to use the Krogan to defeat the Rachni, however there was no enemy in the same situation the Drell were in, and if the Council/Citadel didn't have a problem with the Hanar helping out the Drell, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for other races to help out, perhaps set up a colony of Drell on a proper planet for them, Salarians did it for the Krogan, and that could have been a reason why other races were shy about helping out the Drell, fear of creating another Krogan situation, but the Krogan were always a warrior style race before that, the Drell as far as we know of, were relatively (to the Krogan) peaceful, otherwise their population wouldn't have grown to billions, enough to run their planet dead of resources. I wasn't trying to speculate about the Asari by the way, but it's just that on both sides of Drell actually being or not being a Citadel race, it seems like there's no evidence either way, there's nothing saying the Drell are an accepted race by the Citadel, and there's nothing saying they were denied acceptance either, creating an "Unkown" section for just Drell wouldn't be right, and they can't be "Other Creatures" or such, I just don't see why they're considered a Citadel Race, without proof or mention of their membership. I would think "Non-Council Races" would be a place for "Unknown" since it'd be safer to put an "Unknown" race under there, than saying they are part of it without it being provable. (Wild speculation ahead!) For all we know, the Drell could be completely uninterested in the Council and Citadel, they live fairly with the Hanar, and they simply could be uninterested in the Citadel. In that case it wouldn't be an issue of other races dealing with the Drell, they'd just have no interest, and would be content to live on Kahje with the Hanar, it could by why they rarely leave. (Wild speculation end) Jaline 03:11, February 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose any kind of consensus has been reached? I'm still for removing them as a Citadel race. Ech0six 04:49, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't remove it! Just because they're rarely seen on the Citadel doesn't mean there not a Citadel race. They're interegrated with the hanar, which means that they have connections to the Citadel and they inhabit areas of Citadel space. The drell and the hanar are like a 2-for-1 package deal. If they weren't part of the Citadel or Citadel space then the hanar would have nothing to do with them and they would mostly inhabit the Terminus systems, much like batarians, krogan, and quarians.Each of the 3 races I just listed have no connections to the Citadel, even though krogan and quarians are on it from time to time. Even though nothing definitive says whether or not the drell are a citadel race, there's more evidence IMO that points to them being a Citadel race.--Joshtopher27 06:30, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see much room for consensus, unfortunately. Given that there was a pretty big brouhaha recently about even having the amount of categories we currently have (with people wanting to merge the Non-Sapient Creatures and Other Creatures sections despite the fact that the creatures in Non-Sapient are clearly labeled as Non-Sapient in-game, but I digress) I really can't see justifying the creation of a new "Unknown" category just for the drell. (BTW, Jaline, please remember that with only a couple of exceptions, we don't capitalize race names). All the circumstantial evidence points towards the drell being at least somewhat affiliated with the Citadel, and there being no evidence to support them being a non-Citadel race, I see no need to change it. SpartHawg948 06:33, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

(Offtopic: Don't capitalize race names? Guess that's just my grammar teacher's fault then, because it would seem logical to me to capitalize them, similar to how I'd capitalize American, European, Russian, Chinese, Korean, etc, then again, I guess they're a bit more nationalities, but when dealing with space races nationalities I would think would blend a bit the way races would. But, I'll try to remember.) Anyways, I understand the hanar/drell arguements, I just don't agree with it, if you figure the Citadel wouldn't completely turn away every krogan and quarian, just because of the history of those races, that they don't necessarily group "a few people from this race are allowed and are good, so they're part of us" sort of thing, I don't see how they'd allow "piggy-backing" one race with another, as in "If the hanar do something against us, the drell are out by association" on the same page, I just don't see "Well, we'll accept the drell simply because they live on the same planet as the hanar" that'd be like say, accepting a highly technological yet not space-faring race of aquatic people from Earth, grouped up in with the humans, yaknow, in case Atlantis and mermaids were real.. So, would the council immediately accept and group a race of aquatic people in with humans, simply because they lived on Earth with us? I'm not so sure. (Strangely enough it's a really good comparison, because hanar/drell would be the direct opposite of humans/aquatics, and consider them more fishy aquatics than the traditional lower half fish, upper half human.) And this isn't to say that there is life like that down there, just giving an example of it happening between two other races, on a closer to home planet. Jaline 14:33, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, it's not a really good comparison. I can make it one though! It'd be like if humans (a member of the Citadel ) went out of their way to relocate these aquatic people (which unfortunately means they aren't from the lost city of Atlantis) from their own homeplanet to Earth and integrated them into Earth society as well as, to a slightly lesser extent, galactic society. At that point, it might be logical to assume that these mermaids, who voluntarily chose to come to the homeworld of a Citadel race and become citizens of that world, would also be considered members of the Citadel, albeit represented by the hanar embassy, as they are citizens of a government that is a member of the Citadel, wouldn't it? (B/C you have to remember, the drell aren't from Kahje, which is why your comparison was not really good at all, the drell chose to come to Kahje). If anything, the matter becomes, by drell do we mean the drell on the original homeworld, or the drell on Kahje and out and about in space? And seeing as the drell on their homeworld don't have space travel technology and so are a non-factor, I think it means the drell you actually may encounter, aka the Kahje drell, who, as citizens of the hanar Illuminated Primacy, are represented in the Citadel. SpartHawg948 22:21, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I tried. Thanks for your time, everyone. Ech0six 17:38, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * And cheers to that! There's just not enough descent discussion (like this) on talk pages these days. Vund223 22:31, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Descent discussion"? What's that? Like the old-school game Descent? I think we may need to sit down and discuss what a "descent discussion" is. Maybe we could have a decent descent discussion? :P SpartHawg948 22:34, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dammit, Jim...I'm an artist, not a spell-checker! :P Vund223 15:42, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I do have another reason actually that would be a good reason to have drell under non-citadel races, and that is: In-game, if you look at the codex additions for Drell, you'll notice that they are in the "Secondary" area, the same place where there's information about the Krogan and Quarian, as well, if you take a look at Elcor, Hanar, Volus under the Primary section they specifically state: "Elcor are a citadel species" for example. However it doesn't have such an entry for the Drell. Jaline 17:10, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

DRELL ARE NOT A CITADEL SPECIES. If you talk to Thane about drell and hanar relationship, it will give you a new entry in the seondary part titled Drell: Culture. Category? Non-Citadel Species. ThePlatypus 21:38, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really becuase it is in the Non-Council races category. Maybe you should do your research. Lancer1289 21:40, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendium: There is no Non-Citadel Species Codex category in Mass Effect 2. Maybe before you start accusing people of being wrong, you should do the research first. Lancer1289 21:50, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

It's true. The drell culture entry mentioned by the user who cited it as proof that the drell are not a Citadel race is in the Non-Council Races category. Know what other races fall into this category? The elcor, the hanar, and the volus. By ThePlatypus' logic, this means that the elcor, hanar, and volus are all not Citadel species. That whole but where you could go into the elcor/volus embassy on the Citadel in ME? Apparently it never happened, and was just a figment of all of our collective imaginations, as the elcor and volus are not Citadel species. Lancer1289 is correct. Do research before accusing other people of being wrong. Now if only there was some place on this wiki where ThePlatypus could have done this research. Wait a tick! There is! It's the Codex article, more specifically the Codex/Aliens: Non-Council Races section, which contains the following: Codex/Aliens: Non-Council Races entry, as well as one on biology. SpartHawg948 02:08, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Jeez I just misread the codex. The first room I ever went into in the Citadel was the elcor/volus lounge... - ThePlatypus 00:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's just that the all-caps (the text equivalent of yelling) did kind of contrast with the incorrect information. I think the tone is more what was being responded to than anything else. I know my reply would have been less terse if you had started with 'Drell are not a Citadel species' as opposed to 'DRELL ARE NOT A CITADEL SPECIES', and if you hadn't also used the 'Category? Non-Citadel Species' bit, seeing as that was easily disproved with about 30 seconds worth of looking around the site. It was more the tone than anything else. It suggested absolute certainty that you were right and the others were wrong, despite the fact that you apparently misread the Codex. To avoid looking sheepish, 100% verification helps! :) SpartHawg948 01:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Adding Harvesters to Non-Sapient Creatures or Other Creatures
I'm not sure how to work the code and I don't want to ruin the page by trying. Could someone please add harvesters to the page? Thank you. Ech0six 23:04, February 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thorian creepers should also be included. Probably in the same category as husks. Ech0six 23:07, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note- don't really object to the harvesters and thorian creepers being added, but the thorian creepers would not be in the same category as husks. Husks are in the non-sapient creatures category, a category that is reserved for creatures the Codex categorizes as "Non-Sapient". The thorian creepers are not categorized as Non-Sapient by the Codex. In fact, they aren't listed in the Codex, period, which means they'd go in the "Other Creatures" category. SpartHawg948 23:11, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Where they go is moot. I do believe they should be added somewhere, however, as they are a fairly important enemy in the first game. Ech0six 23:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That they certainly are! SpartHawg948 23:35, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, the thorian creepers are not listed and the Non-sapient and "other" have been merged. I did this because the distinction would not be clear to anyone who wasn't familiar with the codex and I feel that the codex should be a reference, not the means by which we organize the creatures. I do not suggest adding the thorian creepers because the thorian is already added, and they are merely an extension of the thorian. However, if the Non-sapient creatures section was split off into its own article, I could see the creepers being added to that page. I'm just iffy on essentially listing "Thorian" twice on the same article. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 22:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Council vs Citadel Races
Even though this very subject was talked about previously on this very page, it still seems to be a bit of an issue, so I'll reiterate. The article uses the categories Citadel Races and Non-Citadel Races, as opposed to Council Races, Citadel Races (or Non-Council Races) and Non-Citadel Races for some pretty specific reasons. 1) Canon- Humanity does not become a member of the Council till the very end of the first game. Therefore, it would not be entirely accurate to place humanity as a Council race, nor would it really be accurate to not place them as a Council race. No real right way to do it using Council/Non-Council, which is why we use Citadel/Non-Citadel. 2) Spoiler issues. Again, humanity doesn't get a seat on the Council till the very end of the first game. Putting humans at the very top of the article in the "Council Races" section may spoil the ending somewhat for people just starting the first game. So, there you have it! The reason the page is set up the way it is. SpartHawg948 04:55, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * So where would a race like the raloi go? Is Citadel/Non-Citadel just short for 'Races that have a Citadel Embassy/Races that do not'? In that case the raloi are Non-Citadel, but I don't like how it fits. Non-Citadel Races have the Reapers and Collectors, the big evil races, and so the whole group looks fiendish; krogan and quarians fit a little better better because they are like outlaw races, vorcha too because they don't even have space travel and are the space rats of the galaxy, batarians are fascist slavers, etc. But the raloi are new. We know practically nothing about them, except that they're too new to have an embassy. It is unfair to lump them into the Non-Citadel Races just because of that, they obviously associate with the races of Citadel and shouldn't be stuck in the rogue/evil/criminal races. Isn't there a better way to divide the races, so that Citadel races without embassies (which the drell might be too) are in the Citadel group too? 164.107.237.185
 * I'm not a fan of how the races are broken down. I mean, why does Drell count as a "citadel" race? How do Krogan NOT count as a citadel race? (they have a statue!) What's the distinction? That Thane has been to the citadel? It's very ambiguous and this leads to edit wars and speculation. I think we should look back through the codex and break them into new classifications, council races, "citadel" races, and "hostile" races. Examples of "hostile" races would be those who are not welcome in citadel space (e.g., Collectors/Protheans, Rachni, Geth, Reapers), not simply those who are mean (e.g., Krogan, Batarian). Any ambiguously placed race could simply have a note behind it. "Human", for example, can have a note giving the date they were made a citadel race, with a link back to the battle against Sovereign. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 16:00, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Human picture kinda dark
It's hard to see the "humans" picture. Anyone got a brighter one? This should be the easiest one to find I would think. &mdash;fodigg (talk) | 20:35, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Space Hamster
There is a pet store on the Citadel where you can buy some fish and a "Space Hamster" for your personal quaters on the Normandy, is this worth listing in "Non-sapient creatures" section? It almost certainly isn't but since its listed "Space Cow" in that section i figured it might be worthy of attention. 91.108.15.36 21:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC) However we don't know whether the Space Hamster is different from a regular hamster. Therefore it shouldn't be added because of that. If it is different then maybe, but we don't know so no would probably be the best thing. Lancer1289 01:14, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see why "creatures" isn't its own article. With the article as it stands, it seems to be that the distinction is if you're capable of encountering it as an NPC in the world&mdash;that you can shoot it essentially. The fish and hamster seem like "items" to me. But, if someone were to split the non-sapient creatures off onto their own page, then yeah I'd say that the fish and hamster qualify. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 22:05, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * If they have pod crabs in other species space hamster can be in it too. Though I think we shouldn't even HAVE pod crabs on it because it's like adding "squirrel" to the list if you know what I mean. But add it--if we have pod crabs and space beetles it will be fine. - ThePlatypus 01:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does app[ear to be a plain old regular hamster. Adding it would be like adding the pigeons, or adding squid or whatever on the basis of Gardner's comment regarding asari food, in which he likens it to calamari (IIRC). SpartHawg948 01:17, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Propose separating "Races" from "Creatures"
As mentioned in the "Space Hamster" section, ME2 has a number of creatures that are more "items" than NPCs. Mostly fish. I feel that these should be included somewhere on the wiki, and creatures seems the best choice, but it seems silly to list fish next to turians and humans. Generally, I also think that "types of people" and "types of animals" are different enough to warrant their own articles, especially as the listings for both categories grow. Regardless of what classifications (groups) are used on either page, I do think that the Races and Creatures sections should be separate articles. If the concern is quickly finding encounterable NPCs from a "gamist" perspective, then a link to the new "Creatures" article could be added under the "Alien Races" link on the sidebar, and the articles can refer to each other. Thoughts? &mdash;fodigg (talk) | 15:02, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with moving clear-cut creatures to a creatures page, but there are some knowns and unknowns that are going to ensure that there will always be an "Other" category here. And we need to look at it from an accuracy standpoint, not a "gamist perspective". We still have some unknowns, "creatures" where it's impossible for us to judge their sapience, and as most people who've been around here for a while know, I am no fan of basing things on assumption. SpartHawg948 22:34, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your "specualation" threshold? Do we require a source for every single species that says 'non-sapient' in order to move it? Meaning Pod Crabs, Space Beetles, and Pyjak would all remain on this page, even when they are hunted as vermin? I think you're holding an artificially high standard of speculation/non-speculation. Most wikis I'm familiar with understand that they are gathering information based on verifiability, and not clear-cut fact. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 15:35, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * —for example, I accept that Pyjak are hunted like vermin as a minigame in Mass Effect 2 as acceptable verification that they are creatures and not sapient races, with the understanding that any future source could negate that classification if it so wanted. I feel such compromises are unavoidable without sacrificing the accessibility and quality of the wiki as a resource. &mdash;fodigg  (talk) | 15:38, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for just assuming you knew what I meant. I appreciate that. Of course I was not referring to the Space Beetle and the Pyjack, as they can be clearly observed and deemed with some degree of accuracy as non-sapient. My qualm was with creatures we haven't observed, or have observed that aren't as clean cut, such as the Unknown Creature (all we've seen is a skull), the Nathak (mentioned but never shown) and the Harvester (which as some have pointed out, does seem to display a degree of intelligence). Maybe next time just ask me to elaborate on my position before going off the deep end? SpartHawg948 20:07, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You could make a "pets" section... - ThePlatypus 23:47, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I don't think so. We have a page for the fish and for the hampster, and that is enough without needlessly repeating the information. We don't need a seperate section here. Lancer1289 23:49, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Geth image
I do not like the image being used for the geth currently, for a few reasons, it has its gun out and it kind of obscures some of hte featrues,and the geth is white, the more common color of geth is black isnt it?and i am pretty sure that they dont make racial dsitinctions based on color, and black colored geth are used more in expanded media arent they? i just think that a black colroed geth with more visible and defined traits would be better. ok then, i am oging to go to bed, have fun everyone ralok 07:10, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the most common color, given that the most common geth units are troopers and drones, which tend to be either white or gunmetal gray, I'd say either of those is the most common color, certianly more so than black. And to be quite honest, there really isn't a "good" image of the geth, because there are so many different kinds of geth. They aren't a single, homogeneous race with the only differences being aesthetic things like coloration. Take something as simple as locomotion, for instance. There are geth with two legs, geth with four legs, and geth with no legs. The trooper seems to be the most common and iconic, so the current image seems to fit. The gun doesn't really obscure much, all the distinguishing features are still visible. However, if there is a suitable image of a geth trooper sans rifle, I'd have no objections to it being used, properly formatted to fit, of course. SpartHawg948 07:18, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

well i think the most important and near omnipresent feature of the geth is the flashlight heads, and the image presented doesnt do the flashlight head justice, what about a downsized version of this image here http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/File:Legion_Character_Shot_2.png ould that work? ralok 07:34, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather avoid one of Legion, as Legion is pretty much the only "unique" geth. If it came down to it, I'd favor the current image, as the flashlight head seems pretty apparent to me. SpartHawg948 08:34, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I WILL find a good image, i dont know where and and i dont know how, but i will find an image that represents the most streamlined and common aspects of the geth, I AM going to go through every cutscene in both ggames, and every codex entry, i will find one that is acceptable, until then i dont thing the current one is actually that bad, i just dont think it fully represents the geth, or maybe i wont do any of that, maybe i will just give up, more likely than not i will just forget about all this when i wake up in the afternoon, ralok
 * Fair enough! If you want to find a better pic, more power to you! If you want to just forget about it and whatnot, I can respect that, as I too am a fan of forgetting things and sleeping into the early/mid afternoon. Mornings are so overrated. :P SpartHawg948 08:46, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Shatha?
I don't know the exact name of the species but if you select the charm option for a discount at Rodam Expeditions the owner asks Shepard if he could defend himself against varren and a species called shaka or something, forget exact name. Should it be added to the Other Creatures section? All that is known about them is they're probably predatory and dangerous. - --ThePlatypus 17:15, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's shatha. And, given that absolutely nothing is known about them other than that one turian shopkeeper implies that they are nastier than tame varren, I'd have to say no. In fact, contrary to your statement, we don't even have reason to suspect anything about them other than that they are dangerous. You can't even assume predatory. Many of the most dangerous big game animals are, after all, herbivores. SpartHawg948 19:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

totally, when i first heard about it i assued it was a sort of space hippo, only because i totally love hippos though i have no evidence backing it up, but thefact is hippos are dangerous also they eat plants, i wonder how a hippo would fare against a harvestor, i bet it would get at least one of its legs off before the herverstor killed it, im rambling because i am tired ralok 04:29, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I wrote the bit about the deadliest big game animals being herbivores, I was thinking more along the lines of the Cape buffalo (which kills approx 200 humans a year) or the Black rhino, which are two of the 'Big Five' or 'Black Death', the five deadliest big game animals in Africa (the other three being the African lion, African elephant, and the leopard), but you are correct. Hippos are very dangerous animals as well, capable of ripping a human to shreds, and having been documented to lauch unprovoked attacks on boats. Nasty animals. SpartHawg948 06:09, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. It just seemed like they would be predatory because they were mentioned with varren. Primates are pretty nasty too. The only difference is you see a cute chimpanzee or whatever and then...then you're either severely injured or dead. Probably dead.

It's worth noting though, regarding the inference that shatha are predators because they were mentioned with varren, varren are not really predators, or maybe it would be better to say that they aren't strictly predators. They're omnivorous, and are opportunistic omnivores at that, fully capable of acting as pack hunters or as scavengers based on where they happen to fall within the food chain in whatever biome or on whatever planet they find themselves in/on. So, if any inference is to be made based on the fact that the shatha and varren are mentioned together, it should be that the shatha are opportunistic omnivores as well. SpartHawg948 03:07, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Creatures
I propose making a section for lesser creatures, with no pictures (we won't have pictures for any of them) for aliens that were only mentioned or barely seen, like lystheni, shatha, space hamster, etc. - ThePlatypus 23:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't know enough about the lystheni to list them, as all we know is that they are related to, but somehow distinct from, mainstream salarians, but whether the difference is actually genetic or is something else, like a cultural difference, is unknown. This is why they aren't listed on the races page, as it isn't even sure if they are a race as opposed to a religious or cultural minority or something like that. And we already do have creatures with no pictures listed, it's just that they need to have an article to link to, and as stated above, there isn't enough info on the shatha (by which I mean there isn't any info) to start an article. Feel free to add the space hamster though. SpartHawg948 00:14, May 22, 2010 (UTC)