This is the talk page for Krogan/Archive1.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.


These secondary systems are capable of serving as back-ups in the event of damage to the primary biological structures (and also means krogan males have four testicles).

Is the testicles comment fact or conjecture? Perhaps humans are the only species to possess 2 and more or less is common. Unless I missed something and it is explicitly stated somewhere that 2 is the norm, I move that the parenthetical be erased.

Speaking with Garrus about Dr. Saleon's lab, he mentions that the typical price is 10,000 credits for a transplant and 40,000 for a full set, meaning krogan have four testicles. I forget exactly when or what the options are for him to say it, but it's there. —Feauce 22:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You have to have completed one or more stages of the main storyline mission (can't remember exactly how many). Just talk to Garrus after each mission you complete. You should be talking to all your crew after every mission anyway, as many side quests, codex entries, experience points and interesting dialog experiences can be found.
Since the player can say something along the lines of "Krogans have four testicles?" (I think) I assume that the comment is fact, and since Garrus offers no further information on the number of testicles of other races, I assume that the Krogans are different from the Turians at least. EliTe X HeRo 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That, and Wrex mentions during his story involving the asari mercenary that when the station's core went critical, "there was nothing left larger than a turian's right nut." So it could be assumed that turians have two testicles, but that's about the only reference I can think of at the moment. I would like to say, though, how odd it is to be seriously discussing this topic. o.O —Feauce 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless, of course, turians have their testicles arranged in a row, in which case the far right one could be referred to as "a turian's right nut". Although you have probably correct in saying that they only have two. In my opinion, there can be no "normal" testicle count for the Milky Way's races as we do not have sufficient information. The asari probably have none; the krogan have four; humans have two; the rest are unknown.
I would say that the article need not mention a normal number of testicles at all. Simply state that the Krogan have four, and leave the rest off. We will see if this is sufficient in due course - if a user has questions, they will ask them here. EliTe X HeRo 11:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"there was nothing left larger than a turian's right nut." This (I think) implies that turians have small testicles, because he said "turian". But this should go to 'turians' talk page... 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all I wanted in the first place. I'm not disputing the pfact that they do have four, I'm merely stating that the "extra" pair may not be extra. DaKroganKilla 8:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Right then. Glad we could sort that out. EliTe X HeRo 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Strange question, but what color do krogan bleed? I remember Skarr bleeding in Revelation, but I can't remember what color it was. I have a side project going on and I want to stay as canon as possible. Thanks. DaKroganKilla 12:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Krogan blood is orange. If that is actually blood; it could also be their neuroconductive fluid that makes them impossible to paralyse (see the section on biology). --Tullis 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Krogan blood is red cuz when you shoot gunt he bleeds red blood out of his lip71.102.145.61 05:07, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I can safely say that Krogans bleed crimson, the same as humans. Granted it looks just a shade lighter, but if you look it up on Youtube, you can see Wrex bleeding. After he discovers that Shepard sabatoged the genophage cure, he confronts him. Before Shepard puts the final bullet into him, you can see Wrex covered in his own blood as he raises his shotgun.--HELLBENDERelite 08:45, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Since a Cure is possible Edit

shouldn't we state that "unless a cure is found the Korgan will die off in a few generations"

Seeing how their homeworld alone has 2.1 billion korgan not really.

The whole purpose of the genophage was to keep the population stable. They didn't want the population to drop to extinction nor have a baby boom. If you did any of Mordin's missions or talked to him in ME2, this is pretty much all he yaps about the entire game. Besides the population was growing before they applied the re-modified genophage. Also there could be a change if you saved the research on the cure from Mordin's Loyalty mission for ME3. --Lord0din69 06:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

"grunt" Edit your new Krogan buddy-Jio Freed 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

hump Edit

All the krogans ive seen have had a large hump on there back, but all the grogans ive seen have been wearing armor. is that hump a real part of there body because it seems a little akward or is it part of there armor.

It's part of their body, and actually a sign of status. See Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Krogan:_Biology and Krogan#Biology. --Tullis 17:16, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan Edit

Do they actually have a longer lifespan than the asari? 17:38, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. The asari must've felt pretty bad when they started getting outlived. --Oblivion nerd 00:45, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

They live at least as long as an asari because what's-her-face on Illium mentions how you're in it for the long run in a relationship with a krogan. There are other hints in the game that they can live for at least 1,000 years. —ArmeniusLOD 17:57, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
If you go by Okeer's dossier, then yes. "Millennia of combat experience" implies at last two thousand years. Matt 2108 17:59, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
That's one thousand years Idontlikethenewskin 21:59, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
A "millennium" is one thousand years. "Millennia" is plural, as in multiple thousands of years. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Krogan Charge Edit

If enemy krogan get close to you, they'll charge. You don't want that.

The krogan charge isn't as strong as it was back in ME1. Most of the time Grunt goes charging in he is most likely going to die afterwards, unless if its on a normal or lower setting. Also you usually can dodge a charge in ME2 with ease, unlike ME1 where it kept chasing a long distance, around corners and other obstacles. Hopefully in ME3 they re-buff the charge a bit so it isn't as easy to avoid. --Lord0din69 06:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! I almost laughed every time I side-stepped a charge! --Oblivion nerd 00:46, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree on this as well. in me1 charge was pretty much an insta-kill ability on veteran or higher and if you saw a krogan it was always your primary target because of that. in me2 krogan are not that scary, they are just bullet sponges.


With Shaman, it is obvious that the Krogan have a shamanist religious basis. There is very likely a good corrilation between Krogans, and Native American, and other Shamanistic tribes(african springs to mind), though the full extent is lacking due to all are information comes from Shaman himself. Some reference of this needs to be added to the 'religion' section of the page, but I haven't been able to put it in such a way that makes enough sense to leave on the page. Skelethin 03:26, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to say there's any sort of correlation between krogan (remember, don't capitalize it, and the plural of krogan is krogan, not krogans) and American Indians or African natives just because they have shamans. For starters, there aren't even that many similarities between American Indians and African natives. Beyond that, we don't know that the shamans operate in the same capacity. Saying that there's a correlation based solely on superficial matters like this is like me saying that there is very likely a good correlation between the drell and the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Slavs, Aztecs, and others, because they're all polytheistic. It just doesn't pass muster. SpartHawg948 03:52, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
The nature of Shamanistic religions, which tend to focus on some aspect of their culture has a spiritual element that is important(grossly over simplified, I know) is the same, despite where they come from. What the focus is, and how they use/treat it, varies greatly. But it is still enough of a basis to mention it as a shamanistic religion, or at least shamanistic tendencies. Especially with the improtance of the role that Shaman has within the tribe. As the specifics of the practices are unmentioned, generalities are all that should be mentioned anyway. Skelethin 04:02, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
It would be if the Shaman had mentioned any sort of religious functions. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall him mentioning any such thing. All I recall is him stating that it's his duty to uphold the traditions and customs of his clan. SpartHawg948 04:04, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
That IS a shaman's role in a shamanistic society. It is why they are held in such high regard by the tribe, and consulted for advice by the leaders. That duty is the primary duty of ANY shaman in a shamanistic society. Thus why it should be added. Skelethin 04:06, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
However as Spart said, I also can't remember the Shaman mentioning anything about krogan religion apart from ti was hist duty to uphold the traditions of his clan. He also mentioned rights and rituals that he had to go thorugh every morning and evening but that's about it. Lancer1289 04:09, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

The primary duty of any shaman in a human shamanistic society. Given the Urdnot Shaman's lack of any apparent religious role (as seen in-game), his lack of any statements that he is a religious figure, and his dislike of traditional behaviors and attitudes, it seems that krogan shamans may be somewhat different. Observation supersedes supposition. I'm working off of observations here, taking the Shamans words and actions as evidence. After all, what we see on-screen is the ultimate canon, especially when the only argument to the contrary is based on human social practices which aren't applicable. Also, an interesting side note. It would appear that shamanism isn't common in Africa, as African traditional religions and shamanism are considered two distinct forms of religion. SpartHawg948 04:13, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Isnt shaman a broad term? isnt it like saying warrior, or priest. I dont ever recall is having a specifi purpose, other than being a tribal religious leader, what the heck does this word mean. ralok 04:16, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Another thought that occurred to me after looking at the article. Doesn't Wrex say in ME that the krogan don't really have much in the way of religious beliefs? SpartHawg948 04:18, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I put this here because of Spart's last comment, but yes he does when you talk about the hallows, he says "its about as sacred as any krogan place can get". Was just watching that part because of replaying ME as I go to get information. Convineant yes. Lancer1289 04:22, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Almost a bit too convenient... I suspect nefarious intent! :P SpartHawg948 04:23, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

No nefarious intent, just needed to talk to Wrex again and I just happened to be where he tells that story with his father. Lancer1289 04:25, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there's a new procedure around here. When multiple users are challenging the validity of your assertion, apparently it's now standard procedure to disregard valid objections and just go ahead and insert speculation in the article anyways. Go figure. SpartHawg948 04:38, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Shaman's position as overseer of the Rites of the Clan has no religious connotations at all, despite all evidence to the contrary. Thank you for disillusioning me to my rather first-hand knowledge of shamanistic societies. Skelethin 04:41, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

All evidence to the contrary being what, exactly? The fact that he's called a shaman? Oh my! What overwhelming evidence! And what is there really to counter it? Nothing, really. Just the fact that, when asked what being a krogan shaman entitles, Shaman doesn't mention anything about religion. Just the fact the Wrex describes the krogan as not being spiritual people. Again, observation supersedes supposition. Your "rather first-hand knowledge of shamanistic societies) gives you no more insight than my rather first-hand knowledge of meritocracies and military-based social structures gives me special insight into the turians. SpartHawg948 04:47, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Shaman admits to being in tune with the spirit of the Krogan, thier warrior, agressive nature. The role of a shaman traditionally. He is the overseer of various Rites, also the role of someone of some spiritual importance. Does this mean they are religious? No. Does it suggest that there is some sort of spirituallity that is part of thier culture? Yes. How important is this to thier culture? Varies between clans/leaders. His role is obviously important enough that he is willing to endure great pain, both mental and physical, twice a day to maintain his position. This also speaks of more than minor importance. Is this worth pointing out specifically on the krogan page? I believe so. Skelethin 04:55, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. All that sounds well and good, although the spiritual bit still seems pretty speculative. However, that isn't what you added in to the article. You added "The existence of Shaman, both his name and his apparant importance to his clan, show some semblance of religious beliefs. Any further cultural significance is unknown." into the Religion section. SpartHawg948 05:01, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned at first, I am havingg trobule puttin it in words that say what I mean, without having too many... offensive? connotations. I was trying to mean something closer to my last statement in that line, and obviously failed. I view 'spiritual significance' as a relious aspect of society, thus were it would be placed on the page. If you can explain it better, please do. I will try to come up with a better version if someone else does not. I will post it here first, though. Skelethin 05:04, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

As of now, I've put "The rite of passage and all other rites and traditions are preserved by the clan shaman. The shaman must undergo lengthy and torturous rites to assume the position, and is required to give up his name. Because of this level of commitment, the shaman is one of the most respected members of a clan." into the Culture and Government" section. SpartHawg948 05:15, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of religion, aren't there several planets named after krogan deities? This means that at least some krogan have at one time had a polytheistic faith. {{SUBST:User:Xavius/Signature}} 12:17, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Female krogan Edit

Does anyone have the source for them being treated as war prizes? 02:01, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that is true, i havent heard it. ralok 02:07, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Fertile Females were being fought over, they were not war prizes in the traditional sense. In the "as to the victor goes the spoiles of war" context, then yes they are war prizes. However again they were being fought over, at lease until Wrex came along, if he survived that is. Wreav, not so much. Lancer1289 02:09, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
They aren't War Prizes so much as objects of contention. Different clans would fight over the mere chance to mate with a female, which is why female clans came to be. Given that even the female krogan are still krogan... i imagine that they would be more than willing to take up arms against those who they deemed 'unworthy' so they would never truely be 'war prizes'. Skelethin 02:14, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Females from Clan Weyrloc (sp?) were absorbed into Clan Urdnot after Weyrloc was destroyed by a proxy of Urdnot (Shepard), and as was pointed out above, they are fought over. In that sense, I can see them being 'spoils of war'. Maybe not 'war prizes' per se, but I could definitely see spoils of war. SpartHawg948 04:18, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

But does anyone know where this info comes from?--HighTime 12:04, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Tuchanka. The conversations with Wrex highlights a lot of it. I think Shaman has something to say about it too, but I don't remember for sure. But most of the details are from talking to Wrex about his plans for the krogan, and how it came about. Skelethin 12:47, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fertile females are treated as war prizes. It's in the f***ing Codex.--Anonymous 06:14, December 02, 2011 (CST)

And the attitude with the last comment was unnecessary. You could have just said it's in the Codex. Lancer1289 14:40, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Style problem Edit

Near the end of hte biology section it claims that a handful of females pre genophage could produce the modern equivalent of a devision, my issue is not with the statement itself as the facts seem pretty well researched, but with hte usage of the word modern, is this in context of mass effect modern, or nowadays modern, i was under the impression that hte articles took an in universe point of view concerning this sort of subject, so wouldnt it be more appropriate to say that they could produce the equivalent of a 20th century devision or whatnot, and on this subject what is the mass effect standard for a devision anyways, does anything say this. ralok 09:04, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Division. Again, that's division. No 'E'. As for the modern equivalent of a division, it already says the 'modern equivalent' of a division. I see no need to make it redundant by adding 20th century. (Aside from the fact that it'd actually be 21st century) As for numbers, I don't think any specifics have been presented for what a Systems Alliance division consists of numerically (since there likely isn't any 'Mass Effect standard' for a division- each race probably has their own standard, just as today there is no set 'standard' for how many men are in a division), but as for modern standards, a US Army division is between 17,000-21,000 soldiers. I'd assume that this is what is referred to when they say a 'modern division', as it can't be a reference to Canada (where BioWare is from) as Canada has no divisions in its military (I say military because, of course, Canada doesn't have an army. Not trying to knock them, just stating fact). SpartHawg948 09:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
If we're talking "fact," Canada does have an army. It happens to be about 1/20th the size of the American army, but it's there. "The Canadian Army" as a name was dropped after WWII, but an army as a noun is just a land force, and Canada has about seventy thousand active soldiers. I'd rather leave this stopped here, though, because this wiki is about Mass Effect. Feel free to remove my somewhat-more-than-necessarily-indignant defense of my country if you remove your parenthetical not-knocking. 11:40, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

See that is a sign of just how old i am getting, i cannot even remember what century it is anymore, that is just sad. So this division info is from ingame then, because if it is i have no problem, my only problem was with how it was being stated i couldnt tell if it was using modern in context of mass effect or right now, see what im saying. ralok 09:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Klingon Edit

Krogans remind me so much of Klingons! It's really cool especially since the actor that plays Commander Worf in Star Trek voices a Korgan in Mass effect 2.Tau'ri 21300 04:42, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I just want to take the opportunity since we're on the subject to ask people (since I'm afraid it might start again) to not add trivia about how the krogan are supposedly a reference to Klingons, or to re-add the related but even more inexplicable tidbit about how Grunt is supposedly remarkably similar to Kahless. It just isn't true. But yes, it was awesome that Michael Dorn voiced a krogan. He was one of my favorite VAs of ME2, right up there with Michael Hogan (who voiced Captain Bailey), and Adam Baldwin (Kal'Reeger). SpartHawg948 04:56, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
Even Marina Sirtis (Matriarch Benezia)! It's amazing to know that their still active.Tau'ri 21300 11:30, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
That it is! :) SpartHawg948 19:48, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

uplifted by salarians Edit

How much did the salarians uplifted the Krogan? Did they just gave better weapons and armors to them, or, what is more possible, they showed them how to build starships, use FTL engines and mass relays? The rachni had warships, and the krogans had to get to their worlds, so I think they had some warships. And they fought after the rachni war againts the salarians, so they must had some.

However if one would read the Codex it states that "When the salarians discovered them, the krogan were a brutal, primitive species struggling to survive a self-inflicted nuclear winter. The salarians culturally uplifted them, teaching them to use and build modern technology so they could serve as soldiers in the Rachni War." The krogan were violent and had no advanced tech until the salarians arrived. So it would appear that the salarians taught the krogan everything that is probably after 1950s era tech. Lancer1289 15:26, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

hmm according to mass effect 2, the krogan didnt even have interplanetary travel within their own solar system. ralok 08:20, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Envoy from the female camp, aka Natorth Edit

Contrary to what seems to be a somewhat popular belief, Natorth, the envoy to Clan Urdnot from the female clan, is not a female. For any doubters, please refer to this video, specifically 2:35 into it. Wreav clearly identifies Natorth as being male, when he says "We have an envoy from the females in the camp right now. Name's Natorth. He can decide what to tell you about the females." (emphasis added) So yeah... Natorth appears to be a he, not a she. SpartHawg948 04:10, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's Wrex because it sounds like Wreav to me? Also I think the subtitiles say Wreav but they are very hard to make out. Lancer1289 04:12, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
So it is... my bad. I was focused on the dialogue, so I didn't notice the lack of wicked sweet facial scars. SpartHawg948 04:14, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Thought so, anyway nice find, I guess I missed that conversation with Wreav so nice find. Lancer1289 04:15, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was sure that someone at some point confirmed that Natorth is a dude, and I was fortunate enough to find it in the very first walkthrough video I looked at, which is awesome since there were at least 5 (I think) Tuchanka walkthrough videos. To quote everybody's favorite turian, "Sometimes you get lucky." SpartHawg948 04:19, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Clan list Edit

This is just a list I've assembled of known krogan clans. I don't know how to incorporate it into the article at the moment (or even if a section for clans would be appropriate), so I'll just stick it here for now and come back to it later.
Note: We are aware of only four of these clans explicitly: Urdnot, Weyrloc, Gatatog, and Hailot (which is detailed somewhat by the CDN). The other six clans (Bragus, Drau, Ganar, Quash, Ravanor, Rox) can be presumed to exist, but we only know of them through krogan names provided by the CDN (or Codex in the case of Ganar); we don't know who leads these clans or where they are based, unlike with the first four.

  • Clan Bragus - Bragus Thul is a quarterback in a football team on Earth.
  • Clan Drau - Drau Sorze is a "ruzad", or "judge", in the Republic of Ghurst on Tuchanka.
  • Clan Ganar - Ganar Wrang, an exiled krogan battlemaster, founded the Blood Pack mercenary group.
  • Clan Gatatog - led by Gatatog Uvenk on Tuchanka.
  • Clan Hailot - clan leader Hailot Wrund controlled Garvug prior to the abortive corporatist invasion in 2185.
  • Clan Quash - Quash Hurgott is a Blood Pack commander.
  • Clan Ravanor - Ravanor Tusk is a krogan warlord.
  • Clan Rox - Rox Ghuli is a heavyweight fighter in the Galactic Combat Sports League.
  • Clan Urdnot
  • Clan Weyrloc

So maybe I'll add this into the article later if deemed fit, maybe it'll stay here. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:22, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't put it in as it is relevent to the article. Since we know how krogan names are constructed, as in Urdnot Wrex, I really can't see any stretching here. I think it would be a fine addition. Lancer1289 01:14, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
If I can think of an expository paragraph or something (I don't want it to be a cold list, like how Notable ___ sections are set up), I might just add it in. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:31, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
I like the sound of "Krogan Clans" for a heading. As to an opening paragraph: "The krogan live in a tribal society with many different clans spread across Tuchanka and elsewhere. Some clans are small, others large, and still others somewhere in between. However each clan has something to offer to krogan society like different rights and customs among other things." That's what I got, and I know that could use some work, but not bad for 5 mintues of work right? Lancer1289 02:11, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
In between is two words. Inbetween is not a word. Just throwing that out there. Also, not sure about the last sentence. The "however" is confusing, and I can't see the relevance of it to the topic at hand. If the intent is to go into more detail about the clans, maybe. But we don't have the info to do that. SpartHawg948 02:20, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
Fixed and like I said, this could probably use some work, or a rewrite unsure. Anyway expanding on what I have, or deleting sections is better than starting from scratch, unless that is necessary. Lancer1289 02:25, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x2) Yeah, I was planning on something in that general vein. It was going to be a subsection of Culture. I'll worry about it tomorrow, though, I'm wiped out and I still have to go back through the CDN to make sure I didn't miss any others. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:26, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm really comfortable with people seeing krogan with what appear to be two names just assuming the first part is a clan name, so therefore that must be a clan. I'm kind of referring specifically to this latest one, "Clan Khel - Khel Burrem is a competitor found on Pinnacle Station." How do we know these are clan names, and not titles? We know that krogan do employ titles in their native tongue, such as ruzad and krannt. If someone had seen, for example, "Ruzad Torsk" or "Krannt Uvenk" before we learned what they meant, they'd likely have assumed, incorrectly, that there is a Clan Ruzad, or a Clan Krannt. I'm thinking we need to limit it to confirmed cases where we know the clan exists. We know Urdnot is a clan. Ditto for Weyrloc, and Gatatog, and Hailot, and Drau, and it seems likely Ganar and Ravanor are also clans. These other ones, though... Bragus, Khel, Quash, Rox... we're really just assuming that they must be clans based on... not a whole lot, really. Before just removing them, though, I figured I'd bring it up here. SpartHawg948 04:47, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think clan Quash could stay. It says in the CDN report "Blood Pack commander Quash Hurgott", so I highly doubt the "Quash" part is also a title of some sort and not a clan name.
But otherwise I've got no significant objections. You might need to add one of those hidden notice things (like so: <!-- insert words -->; I can never remember the actual term for that) that says to check this thread, though, because I foresee other users re-adding these names. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:27, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ok... that's a decent enough justification for Quash. I'm a little concerned about non-clan names, as isn't there something mentioned in ME2 on Tuchankha about clanless krogan? I'm assuming (all it is, an assumption) that these krogan would also still likely have two names, possibly even something used in place of a clan name to denote that they are clanless, but that's getting nitpicky. I mean, we have to draw a line somewhere, right? Additionally, thanks for the embedded text lesson, but as it so happens, this is one of the few "technical" (if you want to call it that) aspects I am familiar with! :P SpartHawg948 05:36, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, "embedded text". I will (likely unsuccessfully) try to remember that. Anywho, I didn't doubt you were familiar with embedded text, but I wanted to be absolutely clear about what I was talking about ("hidden notice things" probably isn't the most informative of descriptions). -- Commdor (Talk) 05:54, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
No, I got you. And I will admit, if I had been at all unsure what you were referring to, the example did help. It stands out a bit so my eyes leapt to it first, and I instantly knew what you were referring to. :) SpartHawg948 06:30, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've added Clan Jorgal and Clan Jurdon. Jorgal is mentioned by Wrex when he says that Clan Jorgal has the longest breeding line. The scout commander mentions Clan Jurdon when discussing protecting Urdnot food reserves. Ninsegtari 03:20, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... that really needed to be added into the article with the clan names, to avoid it being undone, which it just was... SpartHawg948 03:22, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Clan Talyth was mentioned in CDN. They recieved money and blueprints in building a dreadnought from Ellis Valterus, turian lawmaker Cerberus Daily News - February 2010.Typhoonstorm95 20:47, December 7, 2010 (UTC) Also Ratch mention a clan about how mad a clan leader was at the person who brought the pyjak infestation. It was Clan Forsan.Typhoonstorm95 20:56, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not really sure that "the Talyth clan" (as that's what is referred to, not "Clan Talyth") constitutes sufficient proof that the clan is Clan Talyth. Talyth could easily be a city, settlement, region, etc, much like how modern news stories use locations, such as (using a hypothetical gang in the nearby and unpleasant city of Oakland) "the Oakland gang was caught in possession of ___". See what I'm driving at? Now, if the other one is explicitly mentioned as Clan Forsan, then cool. That'll work. But I'm not sold on the Talyth clan. SpartHawg948 21:17, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. And for Clan Forsan, Ratch says "One ball of pyjak dung nailed the leader of Clan Forsan across the forehead. That's apparently grounds for execution".Typhoonstorm95 21:34, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! Lousy pyjaks... :P SpartHawg948 21:40, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I find that argument to be pedantic, but it's not a point I'm willing to die for (my preferred means of measuring how important something is, along with "How useful would it be in the post-apocalypse?"), so I'll dispel my plans of adding in "the Raik clan".
I'm starting to wonder how relevant it really is to list every known krogan clan. It's like listing the surnames of all the other ME characters on their respective race pages. I'd say we need to raise the criteria for inclusion on this list, but I can't think of a good standard. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:49, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it's the the least bit pedantic. If you care to justify your comment, I'm all ears. I can actually give a somewhat better real-world example of why assuming "the Talyth clan" is Clan Talyth could very well be erroneous, but it would involve knowledge of the traditional Irish clan/family structure, so I used a slightly poorer but example that was nevertheless easier to relate to. So yeah, if you find it "pedantic", please feel free to elaborate. SpartHawg948 22:08, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's all the assumptions that would come with it: that not every instance of "clan" next to "krogan name" when appearing in the context of krogan culture is referring to a krogan clan; that BioWare's writers would intentionally apply real-life complexities and shades of meaning into these minute details; that the average gamer would actually notice or appreciate such distinctions. All things considered, this is fiction we're dealing with, and you can't hang it side by side with real life and expect an exact match. If the creators of the fiction don't go to some length to point out these details, we can't say for sure they exist anywhere beyond our own interpretations. Occam's Razor tells me "Talyth clan" or "Raik clan" are simply two more krogan clans; if we say they could mean something else just because of how the words are placed, where does it end? -- Commdor (Talk) 22:48, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
With everything not explicitly identified as a clan (i.e. "Clan ___") not being automatically assumed to be a clan. Makes perfect sense from an anti-speculation perspective. Occam's Razor is an assumption. Assumption is speculation. Speculation is inadmissible. I don't see the issue here. You say I can't hang the situation side-by-side with real life and expect an exact match. Well, I can take the words at face value and say "This is kind of vague. There could be other interpretations", can't I? Again though, your hypothetical "where does it end" has a simple answer that has been consistently applied since this wiki's inception. It ends with anything not known as a fact not being stated as a fact. SpartHawg948 23:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's reading far too much into it to say "Raik clan =/= Clan Raik" and common sense to say "Raik clan = Clan Raik". In the context of krogan culture, I don't see any second meaning for "clan", I don't see how "Raik clan" can be anything other than "Clan Raik" unless BioWare explicitly tells us. Nothing vague about it. You're saying "Raik clan" can have other meanings so we can't automatically say this is Clan Raik, but are you basing this on actual evidence from the games? From where I'm standing you're speculating; you see vagueness and room for interpretation where I see none. We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I also don't see any possible second meaning for the word clan. That is why, as you'll note, I never suggested any such thing. I merely suggested that "the Talyth clan" could, in addition to possibly meaning "Clan Talyth", mean the clan from Talyth. Note that I never (not even once) mentioned "Raik clan". Not sure then why you say "You're saying "Raik clan" can have other meanings so we can't automatically say this is Clan Raik". I said nothing of the sort. And I would ask in turn what actual evidence from the games you are basing your position on. When said evidence is lacking, we go with the path that doesn't involve speculation, even "common sense" speculation. One final question, and this one I really, really would like answered. You say "From where I'm standing you're speculating". How? How am I speculating by not including information that we don't have explicit confirmation of? How is this in any way speculation? I am not stating that "the Talyth clan" doesn't mean "Clan Talyth". I'm merely saying in the absence of concrete proof, we should not insert information based on assumptions. It's not like I'm demanding that alternate explanations be posited as potential fact in-article, merely saying we don't know for sure, so let's leave it out. The vast majority of mentions of krogan clans do follow the "Clan ___" format, so when we see one that doesn't follow this format, I tend to be a little skittish about foisting our own interpretations of the wording onto it. So I ask again, how am I being speculative by seeking to avoid speculation? SpartHawg948 23:59, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, having re-read the CDN report several times (and eaten dinner), I can now see what you were pointing out in your original comment way up top. I can't say that's the conclusion I'd make after reading the report for the first time (because I obviously didn't make it), but it's valid. This whole time I thought you were pulling this other meaning stuff pretty much out of thin air. Obtuseness on my part it would seem. But to answer your big "How?", I regarded (because of how I interpreted the report) your statement that Talyth (and the similarly-situated Raik, which I used as an example because it looked equivalent and came to mind faster) could have another meaning aside from a clan name as based on speculation that there were other meanings. I didn't understand where your talk of other meanings were coming from; the way I read the report, Talyth could only have been a clan name, never confused as a location (a perceptual blind spot, perhaps). Boiled down, my bad. This is another link in a growing chain of mistakes I've made recently, for which I apologize. At least I haven't made a fool of myself over something important. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:09, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I probably got a little more hot and bothered than I needed to as well. It happens from time to time. The frustration at not being understood properly combined with a bit of tension regarding a then-upcoming (since passed) Environmental Law final/getting my big paper back (got a 100%, with special mention because "[my] understanding of the [U.S. District, Federal Appeals, and Supreme Court] procedural process was very good." - demonstrating my ability to pull a fast one over on my professor, who just happens to be a lawyer!) conspired to make me a little crankier than usual. No harm done. It's probably safe to say we both could have handled it a little better, and at the very least, I know I could have probably handled it a little better... SpartHawg948 03:36, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Could we add Clan Jorgal and Clan Jurdon to the list? 23:26, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Should we add Thax's clan to the clan list? 05:24, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Titled Sections Edit

I don't know about some of you, and while I recognize (and deeply enjoy) the fact that in-article descriptions of species and what not are not capitalized like typical sci-fi, am I the only one who doesn't think 'Rise of the krogan' looks a little bit odd, as appearances go? --Aryn2382 15:06, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't, nor do I think it should be capitalized. Lancer1289 15:10, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The reason they aren't capitalized is because BioWare specified that they aren't capitalized. And BioWare is the ultimate authority here. SpartHawg948 18:20, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
Heh, no worries. Just tweaked my brain a little for the subsection 'title' there, as otherwise, yeah, I completely agree with the lowercase otherwise.

"Let a Thousand Die in a Clutch!" Edit

So, I understand Warlord Okeer suggests that krogan females can birth a thousand young in one go. So do they lay eggs? Or is it actually possible for them to birth a thousand live young? What bothers me is that Mordin says the genophage "prevented foetal development of nervous system". I thought that only live young are referred to as foetuses. Therefore something doesn't add up here. Either krogan don't lay eggs or this was a writing oversight. Tali's no.1 fan 13:17, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

We don't know what it is, and right now it is all speculation as we don't know much about the krogan and whether or not they lay eggs or not. Also don't forget Okeer could be referring to the fact that perhaps krogan and salarians refer to them as fetus as we do know salarians lay eggs. Lancer1289 15:02, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on that last sentence? Tali's no.1 fan 15:19, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was quite clear, but apparently not. Because salarians do lay eggs, they could refer to their young like mammalian species in that their young developing in the eggs are referred to as fetuses. We don't call them that, but they could and that is how it translates. Since we don't know if the krogan lay eggs or not, if they do, then they could do the same thing. Lancer1289 15:27, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

It would have been clearer if you'd said Mordin instead of Okeer. Tali's no.1 fan 15:37, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I've done some research and I doubt translator software would make us hear "foetal" as opposed to "embryonic", since that is how we would refer to organisms developing in eggs. If salarians and krogan do say foetuses, would translator software translate dialogue into a format we can recognise? Or would it translate literally? I guess it is all speculation, but I'd go with my first suggestions: krogan don't actually lay eggs, or there was a writing oversight. Tali's no.1 fan 18:20, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
And you are applying standards from modern communication software. Last time I checked, we hasn't encountered aliens yet, and we again don't know if krogan lay eggs, but we do know salarians do. Lancer1289 18:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
My research was into embryos vs foetuses, not modern translator software. So you are heavily mistaken. Anyway, I stand by my original theories. Tali's no.1 fan 13:39, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
And you are applying human terms for what these things are called. Perhaps in the native krogan and salarian languages, it translates to fetus as that is the equivalent in our languages. Lancer1289 14:57, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
But foetus is not the equivalent in our language. Embryo is, as I already said. I look at it like this (but I'm speculating here): Whatever krogans and salarians call their unborn would most likely translate into whatever we would call unborn egg-hatchlings (embryos). To me, that seems the most sensible way translation would work. So if krogan hatch from eggs it doesn't make sense for us to hear Mordin say "foetal". Tali's no.1 fan 13:59, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

The headbutting thing Edit

Is it ever mentioned in-game why krogan headbutt each other? I would guess that it's some sort of 'manliness contest' or along those general lines, but I haven't looked too hard for an in-game source. -- 04:53, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stated in game about why they do so. Because of that, we can only speculate as to why. Lancer1289 04:55, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
Given the context of each and every headbutt we see, the underlying reason is obvious: It's a dominance thing, a show of force to cow the opponent, sort of a "know your place" gesture. There's no explicit source likely because it was so obvious. SpartHawg948 04:56, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
I though it was something along those lines, I just wondered if anything was present in-game. -- 01:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Pluralisation Edit

Is the correct plural of krogan 'krogans', or is the plural the same as the singular? I just got the 'end of Rachni wars celebration' elevator message in ME1, and I noticed that the announcer says 'krogans' but the subtitles say 'krogan'. Which one is correct? -- 01:41, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

The plural form of krogan is krogan. Lancer1289 01:44, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Resemblence to Mandalorians. Edit

I know I'm not the only person who thinks the krogan resemble the Mandalorians, and rather than have Lancer just walk up in here and undo my trivia edit, I just think that it should be discussed before he (may) deletes it. LordDeathRay 21:43, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

And I feel outright insulted by this statement. I state quite clearly why things are removed and if you think it will be, then perhaps a discussion should take place first before it is removed. You are the one who has to justify its inclusion, and doing so beforehand is generally a good idea. Rather, it goes in and then you say "oh let's now discuss this". That's rude as it is like forcing something on someone. Discussing it beforehand is generally a good idea as it prevents incidents, and shows respect as you are saying "I'd like to do this, and if someone disagrees, then voice your concerns". Rather by putting it and then opening a discussion topic you say "this is going to happen and I ignored concerns that others might have". People might have issues with it even before it goes in, and this is why discussion is a great way to address those kind of things before you put something in if you have concerns it will be removed as you might see why there are concerns. The bottom line here is that if something doesn’t meet standards, it will be removed, and if you want to ask why, then you can do so. But don't say "oh this doesn't meet standards, but let's leave it in anyway while we discuss it". Discussing it beforehand would have prevented this and prevented me from being insulted. If an item doesn’t meet standards, then it will be removed. I will happily take part in a discussion, but not when one condition is that we leave not up to standard material in an article while the discussion is taking place. Again, if you think it has issues, then ask before next time.
Now to the matter at hand. This one is simply a no brainer. There isn't enough similarities, only passing culture similarities and passing similar themes in scifi and ones that the krogan have in common with the Klingons, among other examples, and the Klingons have more in common with the krogan. Yet it isn't trivia for a reason. There are too many differences. Last time I checked, the Mandalorians weren't hit with a bioweapon that limits their reproduction. The only things justifying the trivia is passing cultural similarities, similar circumstances which are extremely in common in scifi, and those aren't remotely enough for trivia. The Klingons have a better shot if put next to this one, at least they have more in common with the krogan, like redundant organs to start. Lancer1289 22:02, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
And I feel directly insulted by you. Whenever someone posts something on an article, it is usually reverted by you just to boost your self-ego. I've seen a whole bunch of good users here leave because of you, prime of them being Snicker, who left because you refused to believe that flashbangs could knock your shields out. I have experienced it, and they uploaded images and videos, but you dismissed all of it and basically made it sound like "I didn't see it, therefore, it does not exist.", and I know this was months ago, but the scar is still there. Infact, someone even imposted you because of situations such as that one, something of which I have never seen while being on wikis. And it's not just that, whenever I join your Xbox Live party, I always hear you complaining about Battlefield, yet when I mention the game I'm playing, you just piss off at me and tell me to leave the party, implying that you only care about stuff that happens to you. That, or you simply want to keep me out of yuor parties just like leginowrex. And even when you join, you never acknowledged me, not once. And I've heard that you boot legionwrex from your parties at sight. And also, you don't act pretty subtle either, only on the wiki. And finally, while I do believe that I should have opened discussion before I posted the trivia thing, I was a bit reckless.
  • Don't take this the wrong way. I respect you as an admin, but don't use that as an excuse to act like you're awesome and such. And you also know how to tick me off. (Blarg, I'm horrible with typing my thought.) LordDeathRay 22:50, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
So what does any of this have to with the subject at hand? The only thing I see is yet another insult, then a whole lot of off topic discussion which I will take elsewhere. Stay on topic here. Lancer1289 23:07, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
I think they're similar enough to warrant the trivial mention. So what if the Mandalorians weren't infected with a sterility plague? That's not the only defining aspect of the krogan people, and if you think so, well then that's just racist. SlayerEGO1342 23:35, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
How am I being racist by pointing out a big difference between the two people? What they do have in common is way to common in scifi, and elsewhere for that matter, to warrant a mention. If we mention the Mandalorians, then we have to also mention the Klingons as they do have more in common with the krogan than the Mandalorians do. Their culture, biology, way of life, and other factors have much more in common than the Mandalorians do. Except the Klingons aren't mentioned because there are too many differences, and there are even more with the Mandalorians. Therefore this isn't trivia. It also isn't a sterility plague, Mordin explains what it is. Lancer1289 00:11, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
So mention the Klingons, too. I'm sure LordDeathRay wouldn't mind incorporating them into his comparison. And if you're adamant in your assertion that their similarities are common elsewhere in sci-fi, then provide examples of that instead of just restating it. I think your insistence that it isn't trivial is causing more problems than letting the trivia be in the article. SlayerEGO1342 00:15, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Except it has been dismissed many times before by many different people. The relationships described there have deemed to common for a reference or trivia mention and this is the same case. Unless there is more evidence on this front for a trivia mention apart from very common themes, then there really isn't much further to say on this issue. Just look at the section on this page called "Klingon". Every time it has been added it has been removed for reasons that have been removed for so many reasons that have been already stated. Lancer1289 00:28, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
It's remarkable that SpartHawg actually responded to that user's comment instead of saying "As take this comment as to a forum or as a blog post as this is as not the place as for comments as such as that, as again as we have no need as for comments as these as such as". I thought Talk pages weren't for comments like that. Kind of inconsistent, in my honest opinion. As. SlayerEGO1342 00:34, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm completely off-topic, but I had nothing on-topic to say, so you don't need to point that out. SlayerEGO1342 00:36, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
That policy was enforced differntly at that time. Lancer1289 00:40, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the flaming, SlayerEGO1342. Ending a comment with a needless and disproportionately inflammatory barb like "well then that's just racist." is not called for. At no point was language of that sort merited here. You're on thin ice as is. Your ban just ended, and already this. Knock it off. SpartHawg948 09:38, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

I have stated many times on this wiki on my user page and through blogs I hate racism or any for of predujice. I dont see how lancer's comment is racist. On topic though I agree with LordDeathRay, when I first played mass effect I immediatly noticed the simslarityes between Krogan and the Mandalorians of KOTOR. Though when I saw the section I was like the Krogan look nothing like the Mandalorians LOL. Both culturs are near enough the same both lost a war they started in similar way's which decemated their numbers, both end up spread out afterwords, a main charecter in the second game try's to unite all the clans. (If wrex survives of course). I am afreid I no nothing on thr Klingons. User:JediSpectre117 12:47, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

And I'm going to point out that the similarities here are passing at best. I will again state that the krogan have more in common with the Klingons than the Mandalorians and we cannot mention one without mentioning the other, and one has already been dismissed multiple times by multiple users. This is a case where strong evidence is needed and right now, there isn't a strong reference, there isn't even enough to warrant any mention.
Just pointing out that they both didn't start a way in a similar way. There are major differences in the motives behind the wars, the events leading up to it, the way the war was started, the way they were fought, and the way it ended. The similarity here is almost nonexistent with the only common element they lost and suffered devastating losses doing so. And that is a common theme. Bringing Wrex up demonstrates another difference, Wrex can be killed. And even then, one person trying to reunite survivors is also a common theme.
Provide some evidence apart from common themes and then perhaps we can do something with it, but this is a case where a solid reference is needed, and so far, it hasn't' been demonstrated. This is, like the Klingon trivia, is a stretch, trivial, and lacks enough specific elements to warrant a trivia mention. Lancer1289 13:59, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Accualy your right about the start and motives of the war's. The Krogan were just exspanding but the Mandalorian's wanted a fight. The simalarity I was thinking of was that the Mandalorians captured small outer world before attacking and so did the Krogan but both are accualy deferent User:JediSpectre117 15:24, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

I am honestly and completely stumped at how krogans resemble Mandalorians in any way.--Captainhu 14:06, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

You people are really taking my "playing the racism card" seriously? I really hate to point this out to you guys, but the krogan aren't real. There, I said it. It's true. Of course I don't think Lancer is racist, BECAUSE THE KROGAN AREN'T A REAL PEOPLE. SpartHawg, for someone as sarcastic as you are, I'm really disappointed in you. SlayerEGO1342 20:40, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
This is way off topic, but what you said doesn't make sense. Racism has nothing to do with the race being unfairly demeaned. Racism is all about the character of the racist. By suggesting that Lancer was racist, even against a fictional race, you are actually saying he is a person of low-character. That is the worst insult one person can level at another, so if you say this of someone, you need to be aware of words. You say sarcasm, but I don't think you know Lancer well enough to be this facetious about his core being.--Captainhu 21:34, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Oh no. Dear God, no. SlayerEGO1342 is disappointed in me. How will I ever go on? Surely, there can be no point to life if SlayerEGO1342, a problem editor who has expressed his dislike of me numerous times in the past, and whose opinion carries little to no value to me, is disappointed in me. Goodbye, cruel world... I bid you adieu, and will suffer the disappointment of SlayerEGO1342 no longer. Goodbye...
Sarcastic enough for you? As Captainhu points out, alleging racism on the part of another individual (for example, saying "if you think so, well then that's just racist") is not about the race being purportedly targeted. It's about the individual being called out as potentially racist. Again, there was nothing that merited your comment. It had no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. As such, I can only conclude it was an intentional act of flaming, which is also a conclusion supported by your previous behavior which resulted in a recent ban, and to treat it as such. SpartHawg948 06:48, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Spart you never fail to amuse me.--Legionwrex 06:57, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
I do what I can! :D SpartHawg948 07:17, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Since you feel the need to thoroughly apply meaning to a comment that carries none, allow me to thoroughly scrutinize your over-sensitivity. You claim that I alleged he's a racist, and that's not true. I said that if he thought that's the only defining aspect of the krogan people, then THAT THOUGHT is racist. You can see for yourself in your own quoting of me. The only racism I implied was conditional, and never once directed at his person, only his thought IF that is his thought. And captainhu, you're an [expletive]. Even if I did call him a racist, it would COMPLETELY matter what the context of that accusation was. He didn't say anything about a race of real people, so my comment would have carried NO WEIGHT. SlayerEGO1342 15:56, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
But I will say this: Lancer, I am SO SORRY you took my allegation of racism to heart. I didn't mean to offend you, honestly. Clearly, I have a vastly different sense of humor -- or I just live in a society and culture that doesn't have a problem with the word "racism" and any form thereof -- so I don't find it in the least bit offensive. We were talking about the krogan, a fictional species of redundant-biological-system-processing, dinosaur-like, warlord-worshiping aliens, not a race of humanity. Given the ENTIRELY FICTIONAL topic of the discussion at hand, OF COURSE I didn't mean to imply that you have ANY inkling of racism in you. However low my opinion of you is, it's just based on my extrapolations of your character from your interactions with me and others on this website, which to date constitute the ONLY means of communication between us. Because of that, as Captainhu pointed out, I'm not familiar with you enough to make facetious, and therefore value, judgments of your core being. Wouldn't that be indicative of my lack of serious intent? Whatever you and Il Duce and every other user who sees my comment may think, I don't think you're actually a racist. Why would I?
To SpartHawg: I don't like you. But I have warmed up to you. That sarcastic farewell note to the world is EXACTLY the kind of caustic tone with which I thought you perceived the wiki around you. From that perspective, I thought you would have seen my comment. Alas, 'twasn't so. I'm sorry I misjudged you. SlayerEGO1342 16:26, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, in an attempt to end this section with a comment that's actually about the subject at hand, I think the concept of a warrior race is too common to be mentioned. If you add trivia about the Mandalorians, you'd have to do it with the Klingons from Star Trek and the Brutes from Halo not to mention a dozen other fictional races that carry the same concept. Since that seems a bit unecessary, I don't see any real reason to add trivia about the Mandalorians.--DeadDATA 16:39, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Krogan influenced by bats? Edit

In a video on, it mentions that Krogan were influenced by bats. Do you think it would be something to add in the trivia or behind the scenes section? --Drgns007 20:52, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

longest lived race? Edit

should we put something in the article about the fact krogan seem to be one of the longest lived races in the galaxy? I know it sort of is speculation but it is mentioned in game that Wrex was old enough to have a position of some standing at the close of the Krogan Rebellions, and Okeer fought in them, making them both well over a thousand years old. Also the asari on Illium says that she is unsure of romancing a krogan due to their lifespan being comparable with asari.

Is it worth mentioning? Garhdo 00:47, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

No as it is both irrelevant, and speculation. You have absolutely no proof that the krogan are the longed lived and until you present that evidence, it is nothing more than speculation, and we do not permit speculation into articles. Lancer1289 00:49, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Okay but we could mention that they can reach ages well over a thousand years, evidenced by the fact that Okeer and Wrex fought in the Krogan Rebellions. I didn't mean to imply that they WERE the longest lived, just that they are among the longest lived. As i said it is speculative but there is evidence supporting it in-game. Garhdo 00:53, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Actually you have very little conclusive evidence, limited to two individuals, and we have no idea of their actual ages during the conflict, or after it. In addition, saying they are one of the longest lived says really nothing and therefore is really not needed. In addition, Neither Wrex or Okeer mention their ages in the game. For all we know they were just 20 years old when the conflict ended. Therefore adding anything at the moment is speculative and again, we do not permit speculation in articles. Lancer1289 01:00, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Secondary nervous vs. circulatory system Edit

Certain individuals seem to insist on the krogan biology section saying that krogan possess a secondary "nervous" system rather than a secondary "circulatory" system. The distinction is important because a secondary nervous system implies that there is more than one nervous system which is not true; the actual codex entry reads "Rather than a nervous system, they have an electrically conductive second circulatory system." We cannot have two articles on the same subject saying two mutually exclusive things, and since the codex is the ultimate source of canon information it follows that the codex is right. In other words, the correct term is circulatory system not nervous system.

And yet two people, well actually three, disagree with you, yet in three days, you actually finally take the right path by doing this. While at the same time, you still revert the article to be incorrect. If the revert happens again, then I will be banning more IPs for persist edit warring.
That said, I've already stated why the article is written the way it is, which are listed here. The fact remains that the games go into much more detail than the Codex, which is again why the article is written the way it is. If this does not stop because of the facts presented, then logic has been thrown out the window. Lancer1289 13:09, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
All this from someone who on the one hand insists that the codex is law (which is true) and on the other hand wishes to contradict the codex in a separate article. The hypocrisy, as well as being a rather amateurish oversight, should be obvious even to you. The average krogan isn't known to be all that scientifically literate and so Wrex likely referred to a "nervous system" as a generic term. As for your opening statement, multiple people agreeing with you is not an argument in your favour, it simply shows that your delusions are shared by others. One person actually changed back the edit on the grounds that the codex entry and the krogan biology articles were separate articles even though they pertain to the same subject. He did not even think to clarify the obvious contradiction between the two. The community project argument is not a shield to hide behind, its a pathetic and tiresome ad populum argument. This is clearly more about enforcing the arrogant will of the clique that runs this site than about any real concern for accuracy. A falsehood does not become true because more than one person believes it, at least clarify the contradiction in the wording of the biology section of the krogan article, because as it stands it looks like someone childishly insisting that they are right because they are right.
Ok, look, I don't recall the section of the game where krogan biology is discussed in more detail than the codex. However, no matter what the game says, the codex article does not change. I don't care if there's contradictions or what, the whole point of that article is that it is a word-for-word reprint of the in-game codex.
If the game does however contradict the codex, in more detail, then the article should note that. I do not believe that contradictions should exist without some note of why they exist. However the codex isn't necessarily law. It is one source of many and context needs to be taken into account whenever there are contradictions.
I'm not aware, as I stated, of where the game describes krogan biology in any detail, but if it does exist then it needs to be balanced against the codex information. The simple fact is we may have just run into a continuity error, but in my view suppressing the contradiction is not the way to go. JakePT 14:58, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Here's the irony, I saw this coming a mile off, and I already know how to respond to it. It is painfully obvious that the thought never once crossed your mind that BioWare would update their universe, evolve it as time went on, go into further detail than what is in the Codex. The reason the Codex is there is because it is nothing more than a word for word copy of the Codex, and in cases it needs to be referenced. However, if there are updates that are provided by other media, then the article must reflect that. In cases where the games explain things differently than the Codex, then this article must reflect the stuff from the game. The fact that three people have an issue with your edit should say something, yet strangely it doesn't. There are a number of conversations and insights in Mass Effect and Revelation that when put together, paint the krogan biology in a different light. With further insights from ME2, it becomes clear that the nervous, not the circulatory system, is the one being discussed, and the one affected. Therefore, the article has to reflect that. Accuracy is a concern here, and your claim that "enforcing the arrogant will of the clique" is so false that it really is nothing more than an insult. We strive to be accurate, otherwise the article wouldn't be written the way it was. Lancer1289 15:37, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

'Krogan Religion' section expansion? Edit

Hi, I'm just wondering if we should expand the section on Krogan religion, as whilst I'm fine with what we have on the void and the Hollows, if you look at the description for a couple planets in the Krogan DMZ, you'll see various references to Krogan beliefs. - Relates to a Krogan variation of the Norse Valhalla - References not only to a Krogan God named Vaul, but also to an entire pantheon of Gods. I know it is not much, but I feel they deserve a mention. However I thought I'd check before I went editting away. --Necrosis103 14:01, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Krogan history pre-nukes Edit

In Mass Effect 3, Eve tells us that before they discovered nuclear technology and ruined Tuchanka, the ancient krogan worked together, led by the females, and built proud cities (as we saw in Priority: Tuchanka), until they became the dominant species, and turned on each other with the rise of technology. Of course, this is likely skewed a bit by the krogan, but there is some there we could add objectively (led by females, tropical world, built large cities). Figured I should ask before trying to add it in, as it's pretty insubstantial. So, thoughts on adding this? Swordser Buddy 22:17, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

It probably needs to go in, but some spoilers tags will be necessary. Lancer1289 15:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Krogan Naming Edit

Eh he, how are the krogan named? the part of the name thats NOT the clan name?

Presumably the same as anyone else. Garhdo (talk) 09:36, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Cover picture suggestion. Edit

It was discussed in depth here and basically agreed that if we could find suitable images of male and female examples of a species then they should be used as cover images for a page, a la Quarian.
With that in mind I propose that we use this image [1] as the new cover image. Thoughts?Garhdo (talk) 22:13, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Clan Nakmor Edit

(ORIGINAL ISSUE - the addition of "If Wrex rules Clan Urdnot, a Nakmor Ambassador and two Nakmor Warriors can be seen in the Urdnot Camp, present for negotiations with Clan Urdnot to secure an alliance." to the Clan Nakmor entry in the mostly one-liner descriptions of clans. Has been challenged as irrelevant). Cattlesquat (talk) 11:52, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Lancer, why is the point about the ambassador irrelevant ? Maybe the point about warriors is too much but it is interressant to know that this clan is an ally of Urdnot's clan. Thoughts ? I will readd it in a couple of days if you don't mind, but I prefer open the discussion before an edit warring. --DeldiRe 08:54, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Really? You plan to readd it anyway? So what is even the point of a discussion then. The point is that details like that are superfluous that do not need to be in the article. Wrex/Wreav stated quite clearly that a lot of clans are loyal/allied with him, and that any who are not are usually killed. Therefore saying that that a clan is allied with Urdnot is irrelevant because it is self evident. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:43, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
the point of the discussion is as I said, I will re add it IF you don't mind. If you do, the we discuss as we are now. I think that discussion is word pretty clear. But sure, if you didn't mind to respond (as you do sometimes) then I would have re add it. And, learn my sentence again, I did NOT said "re add it ANYWAY" but "I will re add it IF"--DeldiRe 11:37, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
DeldiRe - how about we have a discussion here for the "standard seven days" and then at the end of it either re-add it or not depending on which way the community consensus expresses itself? That's the correct procedure. You could begin by letting the rest of us know what you think ought to be added. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:50, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cattle, the standard procedure is "do not remove any information if it can be relevant" if you do not agree with it, bring it to the talk page. If you can prove that it is untrue, then delete it". That's a standard procedure that admin do like to remind as soon as they can. But I can wait 7 days if you suggest it, it is quite fair and It is not even a really important topic ;)
Hi DeldiRe (I think that's you replying there in that unsigned comment, right?) - check out Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle for the best explanation of the details of how the preferred process works. The 7 Day timeframe is specific to MEwiki, but the rest of it we more or less inherit from Wikipedia. Think of any new substantive addition being made to an article as subject to challenge; Lancer's revert is the challenge (but any editor can challenge, not just an admin); the burden of proof then does actually fall to you as the editor who wants to make a substantive change to open a discussion article (check!) and then build/demonstrate a consensus for the change. One thing that will help is if you will state here for the record the change you're actually proposing, since it's difficult for anyone else to consider/vote/discuss if we don't know. I mean I could go diff the history but I'm saying if you want folks to come read & discuss/vote you'll want to make it as easy as possible. So when I add something and it gets reverted (challenged), and I still believe in my add after reading the revert explanation, I immediately open a Talk Page discussion, say what I want to add, and call for community input. That tends to make the discussion more about the merits of my add and less about "why did you revert my edit". Here is an example of how it worked for me. Cattlesquat (talk) 10:36, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

And, lancer, for your information, a "lot" of clan are ally to Urdnot do not mean that Nakmor clan is an ally. "Lot" do not even means a majority. So we could even say (with some speculation) that most of the clans are not ally with clan Urdnot, just a "lot" of them, enough to "represent" a community of krogan. Such as NATO, for example, represents a "lot" of states. However it is not "self evident" that every nation is part of the NATO. If it is we have a serious problem of simple logic. So please, do not bring "self-evidence" when you can't even understand the meaning of a single word.--DeldiRe 05:02, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

This information is maybe not "necessary" but your argument is wayyyy out of the common sense.--DeldiRe 05:02, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

The fact you even tried to draw a parallel between an organization that everyone knows does not represent every nation state, and Wrex's own statements is honestly one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have recently seen. Wrex's comments alone make the simple fact that adding superfluous information is irrelevant. There is no reason to add the information for that very reason. It is completely unnecessary and when it is boiled down, irrelevant information. Lancer1289 (talk) 05:18, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
The comparison was not even necessary, I just made it to help you understand a simple logic link. I took a organization that "everyone knows" to be much more clear which is a alliance of several party (here states instead of clan), the real difference is that there is no real leader in the NATO.
I did not also said that this information was particularly relevant and that it really needed to be on the wiki. I just said that you deleted a "valid" info (which is not incorrect) without explanation. And when I asked one, you just made an illogical statement. It is just about common sense, not about the content itself. And last but not least, the status of this addition that you gave, "irrelevant" is YOUR particular opinion, and is maybe not the opinion of everybody (I think to the editors who add this info for example).--DeldiRe 11:33, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Okay I finally went and looked at the original edit being challenged was. It doesn't seem irrelevant since it points me to where in the game I might have ever encountered Clan Nakmor (whose members I suppose are Clan Nakmorons?). A more telling objection in my view might be the fact that it makes Clan Nakmor a fairly fat entry in what's otherwise pretty much a list of one-liner descriptions. So to give my 2cents to the actual issue, I lean slightly toward "add" but would prefer to see if we can tighten it up and make it shorter, e.g. "If Wrex rules Clan Urdnot, a Nakmor Ambassador appears in the Urdnot Camp." So I'd prefer a shorter version, but support "add something" over "add nothing". Cattlesquat (talk) 11:52, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Cattle, I should have add the orginial issue at the beginning. However, as you said, as we are all part of the clan Nakmor at certain times of our lifes, the entry deserves more info ;). I'd like to be a Nakmoron :). And as you said, the shorter version is clearly the best way to do it, the part about the 2 bodyguards is maybe too much.--DeldiRe 11:56, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
I'm for adding a note that members of Clan Nakmor are in the Urdnot Camp to secure an alliance if Wrex is leader, or whatever variation on that information is agreed upon - it doesn't really need more than that saying, but it does highlight that members of another clan are present in a certain circumstance. Garhdo (talk) 12:54, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that the statement in question is irrelevant here (the Clan section is supposed to provide only a very brief summary of what is known about the clan and/or point out a known member of it to show the clan exists; whether or not a clan appears at a location due to a player choice is extraneous), but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong elsewhere. The articles Urdnot Wrex, Urdnot Camp, and Clan Urdnot are all far more appropriate locations for this info. In the first article this info would show how Wrex is adept at attracting allies to the negotiation table; in the second it would point out a specific feature of the location that only appears if certain conditions are met; in the third it would show how Clan Urdnot's strength is bolstered if Wrex is leader. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:35, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

In that case perhaps it would be worth mentioning in all three areas, if it can be used with relevance in them? Garhdo (talk) 21:32, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:49, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
Gardho - while discussion period is ongoing, would you care to clarify whether your opinion has changed viz adding something back to the list in this article? The present tally looks to be 3-2 in favor of re-adding, but that's counting your original statement. Your recent question doesn't recant your vote, but its context seems to raise some possibility that you might be reconsidering - so out of an abundance of caution and clarity could you please clarify? (Hopefully confirming you're in favor of adding something brief, lol). I have not counted the person who originally added the item in the tally, since they have not weighed in here on the talk page - I think that's how it works. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:05, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that if, as Commdor said, the information is more applicable on other pages than here, then we should put the information on those pages rather than her, making the vote pointless. So in this case the note would be placed on the Urdnot Wrex, Clan Urdnot and Urdnot Camp pages instead. Garhdo (talk) 15:32, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
It's a big "if" you're referring to, though. My argument would be that if we're going to have a "list of clans" here on the Krogan page, that a brief in-universe to the only place one might have encountered a particular clan in the game, a place that by its nature would be easy to miss or forget, is to be desired - and so we should have a note here. Adding notes on the other places doesn't bother me a bit, but just looking for your firm vote one way or another on the issue at hand (this list). So could you please remove the "if" in one direction or another for us? :-) Cattlesquat (talk) 16:09, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sakes Cattlesquat can't you take a hint? It has already been decided that the additions are irrelevant to this page. I happen to agree (because the page has only a laundry list of clans with proof-of-existence blurbs gathered from the more important aspects of their lore nothing more or less), the stated compromise was already pointed out above, Gahrdo himself already stated a vote is pointless, and you still insist on making a circus out of a paltry few words? Why not just go insert the additions yourselves? I am incredibly annoyed at having to be the one to do so instead of any of you. 17:11, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
It's not "decided" until a discussion thread has played out for 7 days, and the decision depends on what folks say in the thread. Gardho seems interested in adding things to other pages, but I asked him to clarify whether that changes his vote for this page - not sure why you're frustrated with that, it seems good to have a completely clear vote one way or another. Also you seem frustrated that we haven't gone to "insert the additions ourselves", but normally when a Talk Page discussion is underway we don't go running off and taking action until the 7 day period is over. I'm certain that things would get added (or not added) to whatever appropriate places the discussion concludes, just at the end of the 7 days that policy requires. Meanwhile your vote obviously added to the "don't add anything here" column. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:41, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can add sections to history that go into detail about a number of krogan working for Saren, the rise of Urdnot, and their role in the Reaper War. I'm just saying.--Mike Gilbert 00:59, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

The consensus here clearly landed in the "don't add here, add notes on those other pages" camp (never let it be said that I don't admit when consensus is against me <g>). I have a vague memory of at least one note getting added on one of the other pages, but in any event if someone wants to finish all that out it would be great. Cattlesquat (talk) 13:53, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.