v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Creature/is humanoid"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(re) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ''(Old discussion moved to [[Category talk:DF2012:Humanoids]])'' | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Problem with the HUMANOID_ARMLESS exception: [[crab men]] (edit:also harpies, but a case could be made that they shouldn't be considered humanoid). I think if we're going to do this categorization at all, it's going to have to be in Wittgensteinian fashion -- that is, a checklist where any creature satisfying more than a certain number of the conditions is considered humanoid (e.g., if we had ten conditions, any creature that met at least seven would qualify). --[[User:Zzedar|Zzedar]] ([[User talk:Zzedar|talk]]) 21:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | Problem with the HUMANOID_ARMLESS exception: [[crab men]] (edit:also harpies, but a case could be made that they shouldn't be considered humanoid). I think if we're going to do this categorization at all, it's going to have to be in Wittgensteinian fashion -- that is, a checklist where any creature satisfying more than a certain number of the conditions is considered humanoid (e.g., if we had ten conditions, any creature that met at least seven would qualify). --[[User:Zzedar|Zzedar]] ([[User talk:Zzedar|talk]]) 21:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Right, forgot about that. If that's the only exception, I may as well add it in as a special case. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 21:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:50, 16 April 2013
(Old discussion moved to Category talk:DF2012:Humanoids)
Problem with the HUMANOID_ARMLESS exception: crab men (edit:also harpies, but a case could be made that they shouldn't be considered humanoid). I think if we're going to do this categorization at all, it's going to have to be in Wittgensteinian fashion -- that is, a checklist where any creature satisfying more than a certain number of the conditions is considered humanoid (e.g., if we had ten conditions, any creature that met at least seven would qualify). --Zzedar (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)