Changes: Burning Legion

Revision as of 12:45, 5 May 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horde article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If you're new to the wiki, please take a look at our Talk page guidelines.	Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming
If you wish to discuss the subject itself, please use Talk:Horde/Analysis. Non-editorial comments made here should be moved to the Analysis page.

Past discussions archived to...

...Talk:Horde/Archive01 Archived May 4, 2011

Leadership

"Unlike the Alliance, the Horde has clear leaders for every race represented in its ranks. The clearer hierarchy makes things a bit more organized for the Horde, although the Horde has the disadvantage of having at least one race that is only interested in looking out for its own, the Forsaken A wise general learns to balance the orcs’ battle rage with cunning tactics." i know this has a source but from everything in lorethe alliance is the same way the allince has clear leaders aswell and every race is represnted in there ranks while the night elfs maybe not be close like the article says the forskaen are not close in the horde and a clearer hierarchy? the allience has genrerals majors etc a very ordorly army i think this osuld be removed from the section even if it is sourced it still makes the allience look like a disorderly band of thugs and brutes the alliance has just as good leadership as the horde Dark mage999 (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Horde, while each race has a leader their ultimate loyalty is to the Warchief. For the Alliance, however, things are much more complex. There is no overall leader, although Jaina and Varian seem to be contending for the post. Among the night elves Tyrande is the official leader, but Fandral Staghelm has much influence and many elves owe their loyalty to him instead. And if Malfurion came back things would be even worse. Humans are split between Stormwind, Theramore, Kul Tiras and Stromgarde, as well as those few still in Lordaeron and the Sons of Lothar, each group following their own leader. It's the difference between a friendship of peoples and a friendship of commanders. User:Jormungand01/sig 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

but the blood elfs and forsaken they are not extremly close to the horde infact they are planiing to betray the horde (atleast the forsaken are) and the humans are not really that divided each nation sents troops to fight in the allince army and stormwind and ironforge are close allies almost as much as thunderbluff and ogrimnarr also the dranie have alot in common with the humans and night elfs thus bridging the cap between the two races i dont see any thing like that happening to the orcs and forsaken also tyrande and fandral may disagree with eachother but its notlike acvil war is about to start you cant just say becuase the allince has it problems that is is divied and if you do you have to include the horde aswell becuase they are in the same boat as the allince with the blood elfs and forsaken Dark mage999 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What Jormungand means is that for example if Lor'themar choose to disovey Thrall it will be considered as treason, but if for example Tyrande choose to disovey Varian it would not be considered as a treason but as a diference of ideas as none of the two are leaders but equals. Also use better grammar. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the Tauren and soon to be Goblins, as well as the Trolls, would not answer to the Forsaken, they would answer to Thrall or their respective leaders more so. Also, Jaina had no true hold on Alliance leadership, not even a say, until very recently with the rebirth of Dalaran, yet she has been the main leadership in the Alliance article solely because she's the only one in mainland Kalimdor.

So I have to disagree, Cairne especially, he is a founding member of the Horde and part of why the Horde exists, and is the largest giver to it in Kalimdor barring the Orcs themselves. Lor'themar I think is subjective, according to the story he is now the official leader of the Blood Elves, and they are full members of the Horde. However, he is not involved in politics as the other three are, indeed all three seem to be neck deep in policy decisions and running the Horde. I think it's obvious founding members, barring those without a home or resources to donate, are part of the main leadership regardless of how much "clearer" the hierarchy is. Part of the reason is, given ideal circumstances such as in the past, the Alliance would consider defying their leader treason, but that is not true of the current Horde.

Thrall is much more welcoming of opposing views and discussion, he's been betrayed quite a few times and responded with exile where Varian would have them executed. He's also had members of the Horde disobey him and not become wrapped up in protocol, but instead dedicated to discovering the reasons before acting. So in summary, Cairne must be considered part of the main leadership, he is a dear friend and confidant of Thrall, he is a founding member of the Horde, his views carry great weight with the other members including Thrall, and he is arguably leading a nation of equal power to the Orcs and Forsaken. Revrant (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually we don't know if goblins, tauren and trolls would not answer the Forsaken, just check out Arathi Basin, all races are fighting by orders of Varimathras. Also, Jaina is considered a main leader of the Alliance just because there is not true leader, every faction has it's own leader and some help each other, like Ironforge and Stormwind (in the Scourge invasion in the comic), but others are just allied (like the night elves, that didn't reinforce Stormwind in the Scourge Invasion). So, as there is no overall leader, we put the most important in the Alliance infobox, but in this case we have an absolute leader, which is the Warchief; we also put Sylvanas because she is the one who gives the orders in the other continent, it would be imposible for one man to give orders across two continents. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Battlegrounds seem to ignore racial attitudes across the board, so I don't think it's anymore valid than my referencing the achievements. Varian is the actual leader, but Theramore is the "lore" leader with the Night Elves, so it's somewhat confusing to say the least. It's obvious Thrall gives the orders overall, Sylvanas leads her own people, who are after all the dominant faction, and the rest seem to draw orders directly from Thrall, including all non-Forsaken outposts. Still, Cairne is a founding member, leads one of the most powerful factions, is responsible in large part with the Trolls for even allowing the Horde to form, and due to his close friendship and sway with Thrall arguably has far more say in the Horde than Sylvanas does, as she is treated with open suspicion(for good reason). Revrant (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, take it to a forum, guys, none of this is going in the article unless something is officially stated. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is what the talk page is for, to decide these things, none of the information on the Alliance page regarding leadership is "official" either, do not discourage discussion on the topic. Revrant (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not hypothetical or general discussion on the subject. Feel free to continue this discussion at our on-site lore forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion regarding a change to the article. Revrant (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize profusely. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No need, the change is regarding why Cairne should be considered a main leader of the new Horde, given his immense significance in both running it, creating it, and guiding its leader. Revrant (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Cairne wasn't a founder of the Horde. The Horde has always been the same, besides in Reign of Chaos he just fought against the centaur and was aided by Thrall, then he arrived Mulgore and they parted ways, he later joined to pay the debt to the Horde, but when Hellscream was defeated he returned to his home and Thrall continued his journey to Ashenvale Forest. Cairne didn't rejoin the Horde until Baine was saved by Rexxar in The Frozen Throne.

Although Cairne has lack of recent activity since the decision of allowing the Frosaken in the Horde, he is described as Thrall's right hand in Horde Player's Guide, so I'll put that as a citation. But also, after checking the Forsaken section, it isn't told that Sylvanas rules Lordaeron, just her people. Maybe both should be placed under secondary leaders, though Sylvanas still hold strong ties to the blood elves, so I'm not sure if she should be moved. For now I'll left both Cairne and Sylvanas, but if others disagree they should be put in secondary leaders. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding my own views, i don't disagree with the change, my revert was simply because a change was made before being properly brought up. That and the fact that Revrant's first edit was arrogant and stated to "reflect fact". Lets make something crystal clear: that is a complete fallacy, there is no "fact" in this matter of where we decide to place Cairne, and claiming to be so is the easiest way to get your edits marked as vandalism, not to be taken seriously, and to make enemies. But judging by this discussion i don't think those were Revrant's intentions.

That being said i don't feel strongly either way on the issue, and while i'd rather see him under main leaders, if the consensus is to ultimetly not allow the change i won't argue against that. I think the issue comes down to what a main leader is. If Cairne is being called a secondary leader because of his inferior position to Thrall, that's okay but i would argue Sylvanas would also need to be classified under a secondary leader for that reason. As it's been stated: The Horde, unlike the Alliance, does have a single ruler. If main leaders is decided by influence, position etc... i would say Cairne as well as Sylvanas is a main leader. There needs to be a distinct difference between Cairne and Sylvanas' positions in order to label them different, and while some have been suggested here i don't find any of them sufficently convincing. Vol'jin rules a small population in Thrall's city and Lorthemar is a temporary reagent as of right now so i wouldn't argue for those in case anyone is wondering.

Like i said: a distinct difference. If Sylvanas has more or less control or a say in all Horde activity in the Eastern Kingdoms in some official capacity, that would be a good reason. If the Horde in the Eastern Kingdoms are noted distinctly as the horde of the eastern kingdoms or something similar, something more than a direct extension of the horde on kalimdor, which Sylvanas has influence in, hat's a good reason. Like the RPG makes a distinction between the two alliances, the western and eastern alliance. If something like that exists then we have a reason to call Sylvanas a main leader but not Cairne. If someone can find such a piece of info we can use it to settle this matter.

Edit: This page has been reverted again since i began this response.Warthok Talk Contribs 05:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In Horde Player's Guide Sylvanas is told to just rules her people, not the entire Horde in the Eastern Kingdoms (i.e. Kargath outpost or the Frostwolf clan); there is not that pice of evidence in the citation that was given, so I changed the infobox. But it's also told that the Forsaken may be the strongest organization within the Horde. So, Sylvanas role may be more or less the same than Cairne, just the leader of his/her faction. As I said, I'll leave both in Main Leader but I'm open to suggestions. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Benitoperezgaldos: I don't mean the original Horde, I mean the new Horde, though lore states it always existed I really have trouble calling a bunch of orcs and a small population of wayward trolls stranded on a sinking island "the Horde". He did leave, though it could be argued he came back to aid them, which to me shows he considered them allies before officially co-founding the home of the new Horde in Durotar, Orgrimmar, and helping them build it.

I suppose I recognize a split between the old and new Horde where the lore doesn't, so I'm at a disadvantage when arguing this.

He very well should be, Thrall depends on him for advice regularly, and the added cite is appreciated given I do not own the guide and was unaware of that.

Warthok: For all my time here I cannot see where arrogance is considered a negative among contributors. ;) However I was merely citing the leaders of the Horde achievement as "fact", not my belief that it is fact. I'd like to think I could not be taken seriously and make enemies based largely on my lack of compassion for retconning and my general disdain for how purple people are so important and favored. ;)

Good reasoning, but given the new cite, and the revelation of the incorrectness of the previous cite, I think the debate is largely done with. I would suggest keeping Sylvanas as a main leader, she obviously, after the events of the Battle of Undercity, holds great sway with Thrall and directs the events of everything north of Thandol Span. Though it appears to be true she holds absolutely no sway with the southern Eastern Kingdoms Horde, who appear to answer directly to Thrall by way of Ratchet and Zeppelin, she is still a primary leader and orchestrator of events, especially given her control over half of the Northrend bases and plans therein. Even further, she is personally directing, alongside Thrall, half of the Horde's military, substantiated with her own military might, so that would be enough to qualify her as a main leader, at least in my mind. Revrant (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and let me reitterate, i don't dispute Sylvanas being called a main leader, just using her to justify Cairne.Warthok Talk Contribs 09:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I just left Thrall as a main leader and moved the others to secondary leaders, if someone disagree please discuss here first. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:50, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I reestablished this as I feel it is quite obvious Sylvanas is not a "main leader", especially after the events of the Battle for Undercity and Wrathgate not only firmly established her as not entirely trustworthy but not in control of the Horde forces in the capacity that was previously assumed. Revrant (talk) 19:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I, too, agree that Sylvanas should be considered a main leader. My opinion may be a tad biased, however. Sylvanas is my second favorite character in lore, just after Kael'thas. Sylvanas definitely has more of a presence than the other leaders, Thrall aside.

Sebreth (talk) 23:41, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I think that the only difference between Sylvanas' power and other leader's power is that Sylvanas has influence over another faction, i.e. the blood elves. But I think that Revrant is right, with recent events she seems to has less control than she was assumed to. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:18, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

The same problem again, all 5 race leaders were moved to main leader. I think that Thrall should be the only one in main leader, while the rest should be in secondary leaders. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:39, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

That has been done according to the Alliance template, which has all race leaders as main.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 20:57, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have two problems with that. 1) Leaders should be reported to be as accurate as possible according to information given, as opposed to being reported in a matter that atempts to make things symetrical on the wiki pages of the two playable factions of the currently prominent game in the franchise. Which leads me to my second point: 2) If were including other leaders aside from Thrall it should not be exclusively those who lead playable races, at least it should not be decided by that specific reason. From an in universe perspective, which this is an article about since i don't see any information about Horde players on here, there is no difference between playable races and non playable ones (ogres, Reventusk, etc...)Warthok Talk Contribs 22:33, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though Varian seems to be the main Alliance protagonist lately, he is not of the same importance to the Alliance as Thrall, the designated Warchief, is to the Horde. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 11:39, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, the infobox appears to be changing without discussion. Sylvanas was added again as the "Leader in the Eastern Kingdoms" when it was proven false and is just speculation.
And in answer to the discussion above, I don't think that Vol'jin or Lor'themar would have the same rank as Thrall. Thrall is supposed to be the Warchief, while currently the Alliance doesn't have a Supreme Commander like Lothar was in the Second War; that's the reason why I would leave all the Alliance leaders in the infobox, but remove the Horde leaders with the exception of Thrall. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:03, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

I will stay on top of the infobox, it appears people are changing it on a whim without discussion, that is not appropriate. I agree with your deduction, it's based on solid fact, unfortunately due to stubbornness I don't think much headway will be made, one cannot even assert that the Warchief is the leader of the Horde despite a small mountain of evidence without quite a lot of denial and reverts. Revrant (talk) 11:31, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Command Structure

Why isnt there a command structure like there is for the Scourge and Burning Legion pages? I think one should be added for the Horde and Alliance.--Maelstrong 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Sourge or Burning Legion, it seems hard to tell who's who's superior for all the charismatic leaders of both faction.

Lots of debates inc!

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Taunka a major member?

Now obviously the Taunka are not a playable race but aren't they major enough to be listed with the other 5 playable ones a major race? My reasoning for this is because they have A: Racial Leader(Roanauk), B: A substantial population(Probably around Trolls), C: Are full members of the Horde(Taunka Questline in Dragonblight), D: Have a capital(If they reclaim Icemist) or will take one big village already settled and make capital(Taunka'le or Winterhoof). This is just a thought I came up with since Taunka unlike the other Horde allied races(excluding the 5 playable) are the only known race as a whole to follow the Blood Oath of the Horde. Rallas (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Taunka aren't with enough number or land to be called a major member. They only have a few camps, with most of them being evacuated to Horde settlements. They are similiar to the Revantusk, the MAg'har, the Mok'nathal and the Stonemaul clan. Horde-alligned and soemwhat dependant on them. Gorvar (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cataclysm

It seems to me that the tide of the war has turned in the Horde's favor as of the events of Cataclysm:

-they've captured Southshore, and parts of Ashenvale,
-they've reinforced Zoram'gar and have captured Silverwind post,
-they seem to be launching air assaults on Astranaar,
-they've established a presence in Darkshore
-they've launched an offensive against Gilneas,
-they now also occupy Azshara.

They seem to have launched a major all-around offensive that seems to be working. Lckyluke372 (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's your source about Southshore, all they've said is the Alliance lost it, that doesn't automatically mean the Horde took it. So far everything you've mentioned is the little info they've released, we don't know whats happened to most of the other zones, the horde heavy zones. Freewind Post could have been destroyed with their mtn bluff knocked over. Hammerfall could have finally been retaken by the Alliance forces. The mountain side could have come crashing down onto Revantusk Village in the Hinterlands... point is we just don't know everything they're planning yet.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On Blizzcon they said "The Horde finally conquered Southshore". Pudim17 (talk - contr) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They recently said it got flooded, but i think the Forsaken finally got the entire area under their control.Gorvar (talk) 21:31, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Confusion in the Apothecarium

I was walking through the Undercity today to look at the changes and overheard a peculiar conversation between Master Apothecary Faranell and Overseer Bro'gosh. I was rather shocked to see the orcs not only ignore the human captives but shut them up as well during the dialogue. It strikes me as strange seeing as the cruel experiments are what the Horde want stopped in the first place.AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 04:18, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, rather major lore inconsistency, the Kor'kron were placed in the city to stop research on the Blight and keep a close eye on the Forsaken, yet the NPCs assist them. Revrant (talk) 11:33, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

They're not there to make the RAS prance around in fields of flowers and sing kumbaya all day. They're just there to make sure they don't betray the Horde. Why should they care about the Alliance prisoners? They're human scum. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:32, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

'Cause they're still using them to research the very thing they used to betray the Horde? Revrant (talk) 08:28, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Why remove "New Horde"?

"This article concerns the Horde's recent history." So the specification "New Horde", to separate it from the old one, fits. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:02, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

It was specificly decided New Horde should be removed a while back. Someone managed to sneak it back in without anyone noticing (Rolandius, May 3, 2009). The reason being after long discussion by many people on the wiki the conclusion was reached that while there is a new Horde and an old Horde there is no New Horde or Old Horde. Thus why the Old Horde article was changed to History of the Horde. See the notes at the bottom of that by Baggins explaining the final reasoning.Warthok Talk Contribs 09:18, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Then I vote for a {{for}}, to distinguish right away between the new Horde and the old one. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 11:38, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree but I think a straight out distinguish (i.e. This is about the new horde for the old horde see...) would defeat the purpose. More appropriate would be something like: "This article is about the Horde's current state, for it's history see History of the Horde".Warthok Talk Contribs 11:46, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Leader Change?

Shouldn't you guys change Thrall to something like this: Thrall(Garrosh in Cataclysm) Kyuubinaruto123 (talk) 14:06, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

It is still not completely confirmed that Garrosh becomes the permanent warchief. So, no. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 14:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is permanent, we wouldn't change the leader until Cataclysm actually comes out; it's a future event. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:49, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

If we are only going to put it in once Cata comes out then shouldn't Gallywix be removed from the list of leaders on the Horde's main leaders? Rallas (talk) 21:22, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Recent inclusion of Fel Orcs in the Horde

In the Blasted lands their is the odd sight of Fel Orcs(or at the least red skinned orcs) aligned with the Horde, guarding the Dark Portal. While i currently do not know the extent or reason as to why they have joined the Horde, it begs the question that if Hobgoblins, wyverns, and Dragonmaw can be assigned as a race of the Horde perhaps Fel Orcs should be included as well.

Please note that these Fel Orcs haven't been specifically designated as Dragonmaw.

Marbo1 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure those aren't brown mag'har orcs? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a red tint in the air that is making them appear red I believe is what I heard. They are not fel orcs.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Specifically

http://www.wowhead.com/npc=42301#screenshots:id=192345

To make sure there is no confusion in what I'm talking about. Marbo1 (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Compare with File:Felorc.JPG. The NPCs are not fel orcs. --g0urra[T҂C] 08:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They are "fel orcs",they are Chaos Orcs,they are non-mutated fel orcs

Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing Strengths and weaknesses

That section of the page is out of date, unnecessarily long, and alot of the information there isn't even from the rpg at all. Personally I think both the Horde and Alliance articles should have the strengths and weakness sections cut out.

Copperblast (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Boss Mida

On the Horde template thing, she's listed as a leader. On this page, she's not even listed. What's she considered?--Ghoulmaster76 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how much of the fan fiction that spawned her is canon. People might assume that the Boss Mida-Goblin Slums relationship is the same as the Vol'jin-Valley of Spirits one. The goblins do not have a capital city, so there is some debate whether Bilgewater Harbor or the Goblin Slums counts as the de facto capital (which would presumably house the faction leader). The goblin page on the official site lists Gallywix as the leader, so I would go with that.--SWM24 48 19:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Revantusk official members?

Should we promote the Revantusk to official horde members now? Elder Tortusk and Primal Tortusk seem to be saying "for the Horde" a lot in their quests...they don't seem to give off an independent vibe. (Sports72Xtrm (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

probably--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the Stonemaul Clan

Does Tharg count as a secondary leader? His position as chief is only rumoured, and that doesn't really guarantee fact. For the Alliance!For the Alliance!For the Alliance!For the Alliance!For the Alliance!For the Alliance!For the Alliance!TheFairfieldRuler of All Awesomeness!For the Horde!For the Horde!For the Horde!For the Horde!For the Horde!For the Horde!For the Horde! 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Stonemauls have gone through a lot of leadership changes, but it seems like Orhan Ogreblade is leading them. FunOnABun 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Orhan is just in charge of Stonemaul Hold in Feralas. --Sairez (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentient Bats and Dragonhawks

All sources i've seen say that these are sentient creatures --MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost all animals in existence are sentient, and as far as i know those aren't sapient like human and elves.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what source says it, so if you could elaborate on that Moneygruber... I do know Wvyern has been sourced, which is why they were in the infobox.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

icon

Can i know at least why did you revert it gourra?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why the heck did you remove all the icons? now it's harder to associate the races appropriately.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's already plenty of icons for the races in the infobox, and only icons for the main races are really needed. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree i think it's needed because it makes association with the respective nation/force/alliance significantly easier to see, nevermind that the infobox is either incomplete or doesn't bother to differentiate between major races, allied races, and tamed animals(which are missing a lot in the infobox) while the member part does bother, and the icon for the major races are really the ones that are not needed since they are the most obvious ones of the group--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They are as "obvious" as the other races/factions that are in the article. If that's so, have no icons except in the infobox. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No they are not, example ravasaur trainers, mag'har orc, dragonmaw orcs, taunks, these become significantly easier to identify with icons in a big list of various different races(which is why the icons were made for and this is a page that needs visual aid to distinguish the races), this page is paralel to other organizations pages which also has icons used like this one(so you're going to have to change all of them), and you still have to decide what people want i the infobox.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So you might as well go remove every racial icon from the scourge, burning legion, alliance, elemental planes, azeroth, outlands since the same rules apply to them, while you do that i'll ask someone else opinion and depending on his answer i may revert it--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to give my opinion, so here it is. Comparing to the Scourge article, the icons are used in the race/creature list, whereas the Horde article where the icons were used, was mostly a list of groups/factions within or aiding the Horde... I don't know, sometimes those icons are overly used in places where it may or may not be appropriate. As one of the maker of the icons I'm happy to see them used, but as an editor/reader I'm finding them to be a distraction when used in anything other than a list.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well this is a list, and i can tell you that the icons help me read this page, and the scourge list has a small description in front of each creature describing what they are(since it uses mostly mind control), this is a list of mostly racial political factions that re alllied or part of the horde, the difference is that the scourge article is not structured to distinguish, whetever it's part of the scourge or just allied of the scourge(since it's not playable faction.)--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What i am saying is that this is like the list on the scourge list only with more detail on politics.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you want me to make it a list of races in the alliance and the horde... but that would be unpraticl since there's already a list of political factions with races that work too--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning time

Ok that's enough of that... nearly everyday this page flipflops with info in the summary box, removed and added again. I'm keeping it locked until we clean it up, discussed (and voted on if needed), and then finalized. At that point and time the article will be unlocked. Should information be either removed or added in excess from what will be discuss, not only will we have a restore point, but said editor(s) will be given a time out. This ends NOW! Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This apparently will need to be done to the Alliance article as well, and we will be getting to that, maybe not at the same time, but it will happen.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning discussion

Topics can be added under this section for the purpose of discussing what has been cleaned or going to be cleaned. Use the ====<Subject name> cleanup==== format for new topics.

Leadership cleanup

Ok, lets start this with defining what should and should not be considered a secondary leader. Under the template it's been defined as the other prominent NPC leaders associated with faction. Is there an disagreement to how it's defined? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Icons on the member list clean up=

I want to readd the icons to the member list so it becomes consistent with every other article like this oe and becomes easier to identify the races that are in it.

Wowpedia