Category talk:Humanoids

Is it possible for demons be placed in this category? They seem to not fit in the animal category.--Richards 23:59, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Unlisted

I have seen a bunch of man infused species that are not listed here like Tigermen and slugmen maybe we should add those.--Cerol The Elf Hunter 20:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To delete or not to delete?

Is there any way to do wildcard matches with DFRawFunctions? I was going to add all the humanoid creature variations (HUMANOID_HOOF, the zillion different numbers of limbs each type can have, etc.), but if there's any way to just search for any body tag that begins "HUMANOID_", that would be infinitely preferable.--Zzedar (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find any creatures that had tags like those, but something like this:

{{#rsplit:{{#df_tagentry:{{/raw}}|BODY|0|1|NOT_HUMANOID}}|_|0}}

should give you "HUMANOID" or something else, which can then be checked with #ifeq:

{{#ifeq:{{#rsplit:{{#df_tagentry:{{/raw}}|BODY|0|1|NOT_HUMANOID}}|_|0}}|HUMANOID|1|0}}

where 1=yes, 0=no. --Lethosor (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Example: Antman - 1, Cat - 0, Ettin - 1

Implemented. Thanks for the idea. --Lethosor (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh... barn owls should definitely not be included in this. The #switch may have been a better way to determine this after all. Thoughts? --Lethosor (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of birds use HUMANOID_ARMLESS. On the other hand, so do crab men. I guess we could exclude (armless + 2 wings), but that's awfully hacky. Let's take a step back. What is the purpose of this category? I mean, what attributes of humanoidness do we care about that it's worth making a category for them? We should just check those.--Zzedar (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this category should just be animal men or obviously humanoid creatures (ettins, humans, etc.). I'm not sure of an easy (non-hacky) way to do this either, but I'll take another look at the raws. --Lethosor (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's going to just be the intelligent/learning creatures plus the bronze colossus, isn't it?--Zzedar (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about fire imps. Lessee... are there any non-humanoids with [EQUIPS]?--Zzedar (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Or other creatures that have human-like bodies (which there aren't that many of). I'd intended to include all creatures with BODY_HUMANOID or some other similar tag, but then there's the problem with HUMANOID_ARMLESS creatures. Maybe just excluding the HUMANOID_ARMLESS tag is easiest, but then another tag's bound to turn up. --Lethosor (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Checking that...

Green devourer does not have [EQUIPS], but it's unclear exactly what it's classified as. I'd say it's probably more bird-like, though. --Lethosor (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Molemarians are another edge case. The more I think about this, the more I think is that the problem is just that there isn't a good definition of humanoid -- it's not a term that really has meaning in the game. I'm inclined to say we should just get rid of the category entirely --Zzedar (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Category:DF2012:Learns? I think most of the creatures described by this category fit in there too (except for edge cases). Maybe merging these two would be a better option. --Lethosor (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But then there's fire imp again. Ugh. --Lethosor (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of this category. Does anybody really need or want a list of humanoid creatures? Intelligent creatures, speaking creatures, creatures that can open doors... these would all be good to know. But the humanoid body shape? (Unless this has some significance for aimed strikes in adventurer mode, which I don't play so I wouldn't know about)--Zzedar (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The category itself seems to date back to the early v0.31 days. Quietust might know something about this, since he created the category page, but other editors have also tagged creatures, so it's hard to track down exactly who came up with this idea. I have yet to come up with a concrete use for this category as well, but it still might be useful somehow. --Lethosor (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was originally designed to hold intelligent beings who weren't one of the 5 "races". Edit: more accurately, to hold intelligent beings including but not limited to the 5 races; I think it was essentially an expansion of "race".--Zzedar (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am rather ambivalent about this category, but please do not merge with Category:DF2012:Learns. "Learns" is an easily-identified in-game creature attribute which has direct impacts on gameplay (skills, ethics, etc.). Combining it with this non-canonical category would significantly diminish its value, in my opinion. --Loci (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BABY HUMANS ARE TREATED LIKE MEGA BEASTS!!!

Some HUMAN BABY came into my fortress. (I think I saw in the report that it was talking.)