Talk: Ragestorm46443/Archive9

Revision as of 14:14, 6 November 2010

Class lore

I discussed with several admins including Adys, and Kirkburn in the irc channel about the posibility of switching class lore pages into the primary page, and moving tactics/instructions to the secondary pages. A similar action to how we treated lore characters by seperating tactics from the lore. There would of course be inpage citation so people know click on a link in order to get to the game mechanics page. I'm curious about your opinion?Baggins 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter lore. That's my opinion. Remember, this is a website with the focus on WoW. With lore on the nastys, that's because the lore for them came before WoW; not always the same with the RPG. /squeaky wheels. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually enchanter lore material could be merged into "enchanter", which isn't being used for anything but a redirect, and then a internal link to enchanting could be given from within enchanter. Engineer is also only being used for a [Redirect] when it could be used for the lore page with an internal link to Engineering. Alchemist and Incriber are probably only being used for redirects as well when they could be merged to their respective pages and contain in-page citations.

Also generally for the articles that share the same names as the professions, the lore info is small enough they could be used as an introduction to the entire page. For example if Engineering was made to redirect into "Engineer" you'd have a lore introduction to the history behind Engineers, and then how to be an Engineer in WoW.Baggins 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used mage as an example how to merge Mage lore into Mage without combining too much of the previous pages information. You'll find that some of the info went into Mage races, and Focused mage. I added link to those at the bottom of Mage. Don't worry if you don't like this in any way, we can just revert it back to how it was. If you like the previous idea of making lore page primary and gameplay secondary, we could do that too.Baggins 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think classes are a slightly different situation than characters, but if this method of presenting the lore (and the gameplay) is preferred, I'm all for it. My one concern is now the number of mage-related pages, as it's clear this is more than simply a switch. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful about pushing WoW-related info down too much. As great as it is to have lots of background information, the class tactics sections are a very important part of the wiki - I think most people will come more for how to play, than for the history of their class, unlike character articles. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I said they're a different situation from characters. In this case, I'm assuming my "I won't go against consensus" stance, but I'm leaning more towards the idea of keeping the WoW-class material prominent. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

/more squeaky wheels. This isn't consensus. This is Baggins, for once (no, I'm not Zarnks, much as you might be wondering it right now.) I'm still not sure how I agree with how it is now. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky, it was an admin discussion, including Adys and Kirkburn that I discussed it with, and we thought it might be a good idea then, but the idea is to find out what others think (yes, you count as a single other, sky). I've showed Adys this alternative, last night and he liked the idea as well. However, I'm not going to go about changing all the pages until I found out from other admins what they thought. I will certainly return mage page back to how it was if they disagree, or if there is a huge hoohaw from wowwikians. Mage stuff is only to test the waters right now, and see what others think.Baggins 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins are no more important than normal editors, save for the fact they help settle disputes (as mediators, which anyone can do) as well as delete and block. You betcha I'm being a squeaky wheel, but it would seem Ragestorm holds the same convictions as I. And Kirkburn, actually, even though you said he agreed with you on IRC (perhaps it was tentative agreement on IRC?). I'll go along with whatever decision, but I am also allowed to be a squeaky wheel. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is if the admins and especially bookkeepers (whose job is to keep track of the lore side of things) like it, then there is a good chance there will be other people out there that like the idea. The idea is to find out what others think. Get their opinions, and if majority doesn't like it it can return the way it was, its got to be diplomatic.Baggins 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps this should have been posted at Wowpedia talk:Village pump, rather than on Rage's talk page. ;) --Sky (t · c · w) 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be, the first step was to get Ragestorm's opinion I didn't want to go over his head. Going to the Village pump would be going over his head, since it involves changing wowwiki policies, and he may not like the idea. After I got his opinion the Village pump is next. However I'll probably only have time to do that sometime next week. I have studies to do right now.Baggins 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... I have to admit, I'm reluctant to sign off on this. I understand where this is coming from, and I do think it fits better to have Mage reflect lore, but I think the current class page organization is rather efficient, and disseminates information in the appropriate way. While we do operate more as a general Warcraft wiki in terms of lore, we are still the World of Warcraft wiki, and most people are coming here for that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I think there are limits to how much lore we should put on a page. The example on the Mage page shows what I think is probably give or take the maximum allowed, so that it doesn't burden the rest of the article. Luckily when it comes to playable classes there usually are very limited amounts of lore. The RPG had to put more work towards creating lore from scratch for its new classes it invented, to give them context for their existence. BTW, the World of Warcraft strategy guide follows this current format btw, with a lore heading, and background for the class, and then followed by the mechanics.

BTW, we can probably reduce it down further by making a brief reference to Dalaran, the dalaran section really isn't needed. Baggins 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wowbox captions

I've added "caption=" to the various lore/wowbox infoboxes - race, faction and character - allowing a caption to be added to the images (seeing as they can't be described otherwise), whilst also giving them a bit of a spruce up. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is great.--K ) (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good that all the lore people watch this page too ;) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And others (...), as well. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Lore people'? *blushes* *flattered*--K ) (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Knaak verifying process of writing as well as Night

Have a watch with this video, if you can DL it: BlizzPlanet: Wow: Night of the Dragon - Richard A. Knaak Video Interview. (also posted on Rage's page) --Sky (t · c · w) 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, be careful, it uncovers so much that you may fall off your chair.--K ) (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Added the stuff about Night of the Dragon. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's essentially the same process claimed in previous interviews with novel authors and Metzen, and with other authors in the RPG as well.Baggins 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Racenames

September 2006: As per the recent race names vote at Wowpedia talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "draenei" and not "Draenei"

All racenames are lowercase unless part of a title or the beginning of a sentence.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have syndicated this to your talk page for ease of reference. As a post-graduate double law student and beta-origin Wikipedia administrator I find it amazingly disturbing that we're categorising races as species rather than races. Just as someone who is African deserves a capital as much as someone of Germanic origin, taking grammar into the fantasy realm doesn't differentuate the appropriate means of using capitals.

I noted that the vote was 6:2 and the main reason was as cited, 'for ease of typing'. That's beyond a pathetic reasoning for using incorrect capitalisation, and citing Blizzards use of poor English is no grounds either. It's not hard to use proper English, however if Wowwiki's editors choose to opt out of such normalities, so be it. I have also syndicated this to the policy page as a show of irritation at the mass stupid being illustrated on the subject. :) Alexandar 20:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Continue on Wowpedia talk:Writing policy‎. Kirkburn talk contr 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Baggins reverts of my edits

Could you please ask Baggins not to revert my edits like this - he just reverted all my edits in the Alliance of Lordaeron article without any sort of reason. Just because he has some "power" he does not have the right to act like almighty God. --Theron the Just 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warning can be found in User Talk:Theron the Just. We do not tolerate removal of cited information, no matter how much you might disagree with it. To explain it in better way you can't just revert other peoples edits, that is not your decision, which includes removal of information.Baggins 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And as a contributor I cannot tolerate your "I know what is best" behaviour. The fact that the information has source is not give you right to revert without any sort of reason since all information is not relevant to the article just because you think so. This has nothing to do with "vandalism", you use your "almighty powers" to push your PoV forward is deciding what information must be relevant to the article just because it comes from written Warcraft universe text. The fact stands that this line "# Daval Prestor, Joined the Alliance during the middle of the war, leader of a small kingdom in the north (or so he claimed).DotD #? " is invalided by the fact that there was no such nation. Also, Nortshire is not an independent nation and listing all the territories inhabited by Wildhammer is pointless. And how exactly is the "Gnomeregan, represented by the dwarvesAPG 161..." line relevant to member nations? Not all of the information was even sourced and that doesn't make it anymore relevant. You do NOT have the power to decide such because the information comes from written Warcraft universe text. Irrelevant information can be deleted by any user and all contributors are equal. --Theron the Just 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"I know what is best" behaviour."

Let's see the only one who is acting like "I know what is best" is you. Do not be a hypocrite, and do not accuse others of being somethign if you can't see your own faults first. You have no right to revert information that others had incorporated into the article to flesh out destails. That is not your right. You do not have the right to push your "PoV" forward and decide what information must be releveant to the article just because you think you have a better idea what comes from written Warcraft text. BTW, the northern nation may or may not be real, leaders believed it was real enough, obviously there is land in the north that they have not explored. He was considered a member of the Alliance, so the info has relevance. Just because you interpret things differently does not mean your interpreation is the end all or be all source of information. Tides of Darkness is very specific that Northshire was a major member faction through the Church of the Light. "Members" doesn't mean "member nations" only but important "Members" and leaders of the Alliance.Baggins 10:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"and do not accuse others of being somethign if you can't see your own faults first" Double standarts. You do not have the right to remove information like the plain way you did. "You have no right to revert information that others had incorporated into the article to flesh out destails." There is no such policy which would deny me the right to edit a page especially as you do not decide what information is relevant - neither do I, which is why I was hoping for start of a discussion over this, not plain reverts like you did (twice). "You do not have the right to push your "PoV" forward and decide what information must be releveant to the article just because you think you have a better idea what comes from written Warcraft text." I have not done so, I do not edit things with summary "this is right" or revert plainly with no summary at all. "BTW, the northern nation may or may not be real" Speculation. "He was considered a member of the Alliance, so the info has relevance." The nation still doesn't exist and Prestor was without it as power base until proven otherwise. "Just because you interpret things differently does not mean your interpreation is the end all or be all source of information." Again, double standarts. "Tides of Darkness is very specific that Northshire was a major member faction through the Church of the Light." No, the Tides of Darkness says that Alonsus Faol and his church were supporters of the Alliance - his allegience was still with Kingdom of Azeroth and he and he was part of the Kingdom of Azeroth. "Members" doesn't mean "member nations" Listing group XX within nation XX as member of the Alliance in the manner you have currently done is a weak argument. Waffen-SS was a major supporter of Axis powers war effort in World War II, yet the group (which had nearly one million soldiers) is not listed as an seperate Axis power. --Theron the Just 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Theron you were the first and only person to remove information, I only added the information back in (adding is not removal, and I kept any edits you made that either fixed grammar or improved wording), and backed it up. You were broke a violation by removing that information first. There is no arguement here. If you continue to want to persue this path, you have been warned. Everything you are accusing me of doing you have done first. I just have to fix problems you started. That is the job of both a book keeper and an admin.

Btw, Alliance Player's Guide has the Church of Light and Knights of the Silver Hand as major members of the Alliance as well, that has been cited as well. They are considered "Heart of the Alliance". The books also consider Daval Prestor to be one of the main members as well. Note that that article is discusing mainly the councils of Lordaeron, that formed the Alliance of Lordaeron. I'll be writing an adding an on the "History of the Alliance" in the upcoming weeks to mirror the History of the Horde article. Lore is the sum of all sources, not individual parts.

Just because Warcraft II only listed a few doesn't mean its the only source we go by. We go by all the official sources, and what they say (we do not favor one source over another, and we try to be as complete as possible). On a related note, in Tides of Darkness, Hinterlands was the major kingdom to which Kurdran was the Chief Thane, not Aerie Peaks. Rather than the other way around as you were trying to put it. Also Tides of Darkness also establishes that the Nation of Stormwind exists at the time as well. Those are all important information to mention.Baggins 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Btw, Alliance Player's Guide has the Church of Light and Knights of the Silver Hand as major members of the Alliance as well" As Waffen-SS is considered a major faction member in the Axis powers, yet it is not listed as an Axis power - faction within nation. The faction XX within nation XX is not a valid reason to list a faction as seperate. This is called factuality. Nortshire was not an independent member of the Alliance, and Daval Prestor, even if he was considered to be part of the Alliance he should not be listed in the manner - there is no evidence to support that his "nation" ever existed. I have nothing agains't the inclusion of Wildhammer dwarves in the list, but Wildhammers have one leader and thefore listing all territories inhabited by Wildhammers is somewhat pointless, since the clan was part of the Alliance. --Theron the Just 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yay exaggerated comparisons to Nazis... Godwin's law has just gone into effect... Why is it that law must always become true... You have proven it yet again... Main reason to include links to other territories is because they have related information relating to the Dwarves involvement and history in the war. Its called hyperlinking...Baggins 10:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "nazis" (not all of the Axis powers members were "nazis", anyhow). The point is that they should not be listed in the manner they are now. They can be written elsewhere in the article, I have nothing agains't that. --Theron the Just 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is you had to draw this out reference something related to WW2 that is known as [Godwin's Law http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html]. It seems most discussions always disentegrate and follow that pattern given time... So it comes down to you saying you odn't like where the info is located. Seems to be that's just your opinion and personal "aesthetic". Aesthetics and opinions are not a good reason to remove information, if the information is connected. Which in this case it is.

Anyways I must bid you adieu, its getting late, and I'm off to bed.Baggins 11:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even participants in this particular alliance (and certain real life alliance) they are not independent and should not be listed among nations (and when it comes to this particular real life alliance it is so). "The point is that they should not be listed in the manner they are now. They can be written elsewhere in the article, I have nothing agains't that" Meaning that sections should be made for them elsewhere in the article, and not listed among nations to begin with. "if the information is connected. Which in this case it is." Yes, the information ect Nortshire-Azeroth is connected, but Nortshire is not an nation and should be treated as such, major non-nation participant of this particular alliance. --Theron the Just 11:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is "members" not "nations". Its about those said to be major members. If you haven't noticed the "nations" section is right below it.Baggins 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"The section is "members" not "nations". Its about those said to be major members." The nations are still listed here (and were from the beginning) "If you haven't noticed the "nations" section is right below it" I do not consider that as the list, but as a short description of the nations. I listed the "major factions" along the Silver Hand area of the article. The first list should be that of the nations, and the factions be noted at the end, in the way I have currently suggested and done. --Theron the Just --Theron the Just 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we have certainly reached an agreement with Baggins. I apologize for my somewhat hostile tone, but, I wish that in the future you would provide an edit summary of sort to begin with in these kind of cases so we can handle issues like civilized people, as we eventually did. I do not mean to be cocky (this is not mean to insult you), I know I presented faults too, but I have this "bad feeling" when someone reverts like that without an summary. Regards, --Theron the Just 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that sleeping is not wise for those who must settle arguments. First of all, I must agree with Theron that Prestor's involvment is suspect in any case- he credibility doesn't mean that this northern kingdom should exist, in fact, I find it more likely that all of his credibility came from his charismatic magic. UNless my memory fails me (which it might), Prestor didn't even become a player until the Second War's aftermath. I'm not entirely clear as to Northshire's nature, so I can't really speak for it- as far as I know, it was just the name of the Abbey.

As for you two, this is getting ridiculous. I've been grated by Baggins's "all lore is viable" stance for a long time, and I've been checking Theron's claims since almost as long. Both of you have your contribution strengths and weaknesses. Honestly, the pair of you have a long-standing rivalry, for reasons completely unclear to me. I'll be blunt here: the both of you annoy me about equally, but you've both made beneficial contributions to the wiki, and I know neither of you would make a totally biased edit or an unfactual one. I honestly don't know how to help you resolve this- Theron's issue with what he percieves as Baggins's "knows best" attitude could be applied to a number of other users and admins, myself included.

So, I guess that the Prestor mention will be removed (Baggins, just because you have a citation doesn't mean it can go into the article), but the other cited mentions will remain (Theron, occasionally "we don't know" is allowed in the article). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Prestor didn't even become a player until the Second War's aftermath."

Ragestorm about prestor, yes actually he joined before he end of the second war, ahem;

"Deathwing, an ancient and powerful black dragon, assumes the form of Lord Prestor — a young human diplomat — and infiltrates the high council of the Alliance. Using subtle magic, the dragon ensnares the minds of the human leaders and forces them to grant him the title of king of Alterac. The Alliance pushes the weakened and disorganized Horde all the way back to the Black Morass, where the Dark Portal is located. Lord Anduin Lothar is slain during the Alliance’s final victory. The Dark Portal is shattered. The Second War ends."

"such as during the Second War when he pretended to be a heroic noble named Lord Prestor..."^[1]

Let it not be said I don't do my research before I put anything down :p... (at least I try to make sure I do research before hand). Yes, I know the first quote may have one detail out of order, at least by other official timelnes (I'd have to check). I don't think he got the title of King of Alterac until after events of the second war, but so is the problem with most official timelines we have (the order of events or the dates differ in each one). Unless LoC was interpreting Daval's kingship as flashbacks that happened before main events of DotD story (Rhonin/Krasus stuff), which may be the case as the timeline has it split that way.

BTW, my point was not if Daval's kingdom actually existed or not, but rather that he was one of the leaders of the Alliance as part of the Alliance high council. I never included his nation within the nation sections of the article only the member/leadership section.Baggins 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My videos (so as to keep you entertained)

Already told ya about them by e-mail. Here they are .--K ) (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, by the way, you're going to love me.--K ) (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Blademasters

Hi, sorry to bother ypu, but could you maybe answer a question of mine on Blademaster talk page? http://www.wowwiki.com/Talk:Blademaster

Cheers, Warchiefthrall 12:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chit Chat in User:Oscararon/Talk

hehe I just thought I should ask you about this, I know its a silyl question but... : Can I remove our little chit-chat in my talk page now? XD (oops sorry I know people doesnt like that smiley) --Oscararon 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

<shrug> You've learned your lesson, and your talk page is your domain. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tjsid

Sorry to be a nuisance, but I was wondering if you could step in and end a dispute between me and Tjsid on my talk page. If he continues any longer, I think I'll throttle him with my extension cord. --User:Vorbis/Sig

Thank you. --User:Vorbis/Sig

No problem, I've been meaning to analyze your Wood elf theories anyway.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Analyse? Theories? If you're say that then I've got serious work to do. ^^ --User:Vorbis/Sig

Just be thankful this is fanfic and not an actual lorepage. ;-P--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I never expected it to be quite so... controversial. :S --User:Vorbis/Sig

Just be thankful nobody was really spouting Tolkien. That is something I do NOT take kindly to. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vrykul capitalization

Hey Ragestorm. I wasn't really sure where to take this question - was oscillating between yourself and Kirkburn - but I ended up deciding on you since I figured this has more to do with lore than wiki policy. So anyway, the question is, should "vrykul" be capitalized or not? I am seeing it both ways even on the eponymous article itself. I'm not sure if they are to be treated as a "subset" of the giant "species", which would indicate capitalization (as the Forsaken, a "subset" of the undead "species" is capitalized), or as their own unique species, which would not. I was going to clean up the article and associated ones (Utgarde Keep, etc.) but I'll hold off until I hear a verdict. Thanks! --Flyspeck 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized subsets would be factions and classes, they are a new race and not a new group of an old one.--SWM24 48 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ogre mages are a subset/subrace of ogre, and its not capitalized. Strangly "Forsaken" is often spelled "forsaken" as well. "Kaldorei" and "kaldorei" are both common spellings. We usually go with the lower case though.

If you look hard enough you can find pretty much any race capitalized in sources. What am I getting at? This is a tricky subject. I'd suggest just making it lower case until we know more. On a related note vrykrul are "half-giants" not giants.Baggins 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I also saw from the link you put in Sandwichman's talk that Blizzard itself seems to be going with lower-case. Unfortunately I realized I have a project to do, so I won't be getting around to it tonight. --Flyspeck 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing? Or this guy just doesn't know?

http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Zakolj has been nuking the culture sections of every race's page without any explanation. Perhaps you could talk to him, but if he persists, I think a ban is in order. --- Zexx 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll warn him. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is that we have race naming sections in both language and the related race articles, so it represented a redundancy.. I think he was trying to link to the language articles instead to avoid that. However, I do agree that naming convention articles do belong in the race pages, although they also do have a connection to languages as well. I'm a bit more bugged by the citatiosn he left floating at the end of the language sections. Floating citations look bad.Baggins 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, We leave the name sections in and make sure the citations aren't floating, then? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathrezim/Tothrezim

File:Nathrezim.jpg

The only Tothrezim artwork

While the Nathrezim serve as lieutenants (that is to say, in very few numbers compared to cannon fodder), the Tothrezim, their demonic (as well) cousins much more serve as laborers, researchers, etc. Wouldn't that hint at the fact that the Nathrezim are in fact an elite faction of the Tothrezim, their (Dread) Lords and leaders? The Tothrezim seem to be commonly identified as a people whereas the Nathrezim are known to be elite commanders in charge of very large armies and/or planets.--K ) (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathrezim are also considered to be its own people in the RPG as well, they are "cousin races".Baggins 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

>_< I know what the RPG says, for God's sake. It says very few about the Nathrezim and considers properly as a people, but the RPG was incomplete about races such as the Draenei. My guess is that Lords can't be a whole people, there has to be "normal" people too. And the Tothrezim seem to fill those requirements.--K ) (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the biological differences, I think the relationship between Nathrez and Tothrez is about as close or as far as two of the Elven or Troll subspecies. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no, the Nathrezim and the Tothrezim are all Legion-aligned, whereas it's hard to find two Trolls or Elves that belong to the same faction around the world. I'm rather eager to see how Blizzard is going to implement the Tothrezim in game, with the temptation of reusing old models for new races \o/ They'll have to explain the connection between both races some day.--K ) (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Species/race/subspecies has nothing to do with alignment. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I misinterpreted what you meant by "relationship". Anyway I really don't think we can be sure about the racial connection between Tothrezim and Nathrezim, as the info from the RPG ever gets revamped, and Dreadlords have only a few range of skills in which they excel, while Tothrezim can play any part.--K ) (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By relationship, I meant biologically. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I finally figured that out, thanks. But as you talked about 'biological differences', what is the basis for your statement (I mean, what more than the words "distant cousins" from S&L and skill differences)?--K ) (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact S&L states as as a fact that they are distant counsins (which can't simply be ignored, it is official lore), you can also tell they appear physically different than Nath, from their artwork. For example they are slumped over, and have like four arms (nath only have 2), something about their wings appears different as well. But ya four arms is definitely a big difference.

On a related note something tells me we probably won't ever see the Toth show up in the game, they appear to be one of those chances where the RPG team were able to design an original race (not all original things that come out of the RPG have ever made it into the games, usually because of limitations, but more likely due to obscurity).Baggins 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's one lone mere artwork of the Tothrezim which may or may not be representative, and demons like them are known to be keen on shapeshifting, so I can't think of the four arms thing as a major point. And his posture definitely can't be taken into account, it is just due to the Tothrezim model's then-situation. As for the wings, stitches, scars and demonic tatoos are the answer.

Will they ever appear in game? How can you tell? =D The Tuskarr are finally appearing in WoW, though their only appearance outside the RPG was rather poor and was only deemed necessary due to the lack of creeps and mercenaries in TFT. Same thing for Nether Drakes.--K ) (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ah, there's one lone mere artwork of the Tothrezim which may or may not be representative, and demons like them are known to be keen on shapeshifting,"

Dude, Tothrezim were invented by the RPG, and its authors, actually we know the author of that section due to the credits, "Luke Johnson". He certainly knew what he intended for the race, "a four armed, hunched over, and distant cousins to the Nathrezim." The artist represenation is the official representatin of the Tothrezim, infact its mentioned in their official description;

The dark-skinned humanoid would stand at least twice as tall as a normal man, were its form not unnaturally hunched over. Four abnormally large arms connect to bulbous shoulders, each hand clutching a glistening, black blade. The Tothrezim are the distant cousins of the dread Nathrezim.^[2]

Obviously the artwork is representive of the written lore. Also, no they do not have the "shapeshifting ability" in their racial abilities, I've checked the book.

Sir, its rather obvious that you haven't read the entire article on the tothrezim, because their racial description in words is mentioned there as well. Sorry but I think your just argueing for the sake of argueing, and are just trying to ignore the official lore for the race.Baggins 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also on a related note, The Burning Crusade introduced the Mo'arg, and Gan'arg, which hold the same position that the RPG invented the Tothrezim for (to contruct infernals and other Legion technology), so the odds that Tothrezim will show up in the game are even less now.Baggins 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I protest, the Tothrezim's posture is in no way an argument. I agree with you that the official lore has to be taken as such, but I'm having an interpretation of what hints Blizzard let slip. On the other hand, you seem to be backing the speculative retcon of the Tothrezim "out of existence". If the Tothrezim already existed, why would they create the Gan'arg for the same purposes? As for the 'shapeshifting ablities', you should know that I didn't take my informations only from the RPG, which is very dubious as an unique source, but also from the other Warcraft information sources. We do know that demons such as Doomguards, Eredar, Felguards, Nathrezim and Succubi can shapeshift and often do so in order to trick opponents or hide on Azeroth.--K ) (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In otherwords your argeument is pure speculation, one that involves tossing out or rewriting lore to fit your own fanfic of how you would like the race to be. And as such as it has zero baring in the article, and will remain outside of the article. I'm pretty sure that Ragestorm rarely has much interest in purely speculative and fanfictional ideas. Sorry its rather pointless to argue with someone that takes their fan fic and "what-if" ideas as being more valid than established lore.

As for shapeshifting its rarely a "racial trait" generally its magic that individuals have learned. Very few races are actually "shapeshifters". You can't apply a examples of members of a race shapeshifting to mean the entire race can shapeshift. Also what you may think of shape-shifting may actually be "possession" which may be the case with the Nathrezim.

No I'm not argueing that "tothrezim don't exist" (they obviously exist in Lore), but rather that they are not likely to show up in the video game, as Blizzard has created another race holding the same position that they are more likely to use in future content, since they are not obscure to players.Baggins 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"dubious as an unique source"

I don't know what you mean by that, but its already been established that the RPG is considered just another source like the novels, comics, etc, see History of Warcraft, or Warcraft RPG for quotes. Its no more or less an official lore source than any other material in the series. If your opinion is otherwise, then I won't be taking you seriously in your opinions, as it goes against Blizzard's stated view on the issue.Baggins 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally its been said that Burning Legion is not like normal races. When the races for it were created by Sargeras, they were specially created to do special jobs for the Legion. See the Warcraft Encyclopedia. ...or if you prefer the older lore, basically they were pure demons, rather than races, and as such each one was devoted to a special existence in the demonic hierarchy. It was because of this reasoning by the Warcraft III's writers that they did not allow them to be player race, as they did not believe they could have a "builder race" to make buildings, or their own construction style.Baggins 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're being insulting, dude. I can't talk with someone who actually said that I use my "fan fic" ideas to interpret the lore. You have just convinced me to give up arguing about anything with your personal accusation. I have FOUGHT against lore twisting fanfic writers. What you said is disgusting.--K ) (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No I said its either fan fic or speculation or what if. Whichever is your case, it really doesn't help, since its not official. What you have been argueing for the last several posts has involved ignoring the official lore that was established (you have been discussing ignoring "the picture", the racial physical discriptions, their cultural differences, the phrases "distant cousins" & "share a common ancestry", possibly the "RPG" in general, etc) for your made up theories instead. "What if"s are pointless to argue about, since hypothetical are not "established" as fact. There is a difference here.Baggins 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet "lore twisting fanfic writer" could be used describe you right now. Funny that. Your theory doesn't hold up, stop trying to push it by ignoring facts. If Blizzard change the situation, which is likely, then it will open the way up for you. I'd probably go laong with this theory myself, but this has to be NPOV, and under that ruling it doesn't have 2 legs to stand on right now. --

<imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zeal</imagelink>
<imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zeal</imagelink>
<imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zeal</imagelink>
<imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png%7CUser:Zeal</imagelink>

20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeal, actually to quote the speculation policy;

"This article or section includes speculation, observations or opinions supported by lore or by Blizzard officials. It should not be taken as representing official lore!"

Basically this means speculation is allowed but only if it is supported by lore or comments made by Blizzard officials. Speculation should be taking all sources into account, if it is denied by even one source of lore at all, then its not supported by lore. In that case it doesn't belong in a speculation section. Kirkburn changed this policy to be this specific because people were putting any kind of speculation into articles, even ones that had many holes when compared with established lore (especially types that seemed to intentionally ignore certain aspects of lore). Basically it was speculation involving the idea of "what-if" Blizzard would "retcon" something to support an idea that they wanted to speculate.Baggins 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is quite entertaining. I've already said my piece, so feel free to keep up. And Zeal, don't you think that this new sig is a little too... well, Macish? Vistaish? Err... gaudy? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What would describe you Zeal is an ignorant pedant (haha, take that! I'm so funny :D). No, seriously, the only fan fiction I have written doesn't twist in any way the lore, it doesn't even touch it. I have interpretations of lore and I speculate, as everyone does, on the lore. As for the "made-up theory" term, I'll ask you where you got it from, since a theory is always "made-up" and can only be referred to as such in a belittling way. I am not trying to ignore RPG facts, but trying to provide backing for my theory that is as accurate as possible. Of course all demons can shapeshift, even if it's not in their racials. Their magic allows them to do so. Of course having the same abilities as the Mo'arg couldn't prevent them from being featured in WoW: they could be the leaders, the better ones, or merely the assistants, there are thousands of possibilities, I am not here to invent them. And I'm quite not puzzled about the picture (additional limbs have always been caused by magical experiences or accidents). What is considered valuable lore is what has been confirmed by more than one source, the rest is, ehm, "flavor lore", with pending accuracy. Worthy enough to be written in articles and considered as temporarily canon lore, but likely to be overwritten over time (I'm not making this up, it happens all the time).--K ) (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbritrary Break 1

Ok major problems with your what-if scenario.

First off our speculation policy only allows speculation to be based on known facts referring to a specific topic. This is either lore referring to that specific topic, or based on Blizzard employee comments referring to that topic. Generally speaking something from a completley different topic is not allowed, in most cases, unless a strong connection can be made, and its agreed upon.

Saying that, I will be using other examples from lore in other topics, as comparisons, that are fairly common throughout lore, that support the official Tothrezim lore, rather than "ignoring it".

1. Ok, let me paraphrase something you are tyring to say, "Blizzard makes changes all the time, so they will make a change going towards my theory."

A few problems with this idea. Blizzard making retcons too much is part of the reason they are losing credibility with many lore fans. Using past retcons as a reason to make new retcons is rather silly. The average player that doesn't care about lore doesn't care about changes. But there are always lore fans that get upset whenever Blizzard changes things. Just because Blizzard changed things in the past doesn't mean they will change every detail of every single topic. This makes it incredibly hard to predict whatever will be changed. This kind of reasoning is not allowed in speculation topics, because anyone could speculate anything, and say Blizzard could change it that way because they have retconned things in the past.

I could say that Tothrezizim, and Nathrezim are subraces mutated and evolves out of the Eredar race, they share several physical features that are the same with most of the demonic races, and that Blizzard will retcon it that way in the future. However, that would be a brazen claim on my part, for I'm not psychic nor do I have any idea where Blizzard is going to take things. However this idea might actually have a stronger support than yours, if one takes various sources of lore into account. Based on new lore in the Warcraft Encyclopedia and other sources;

A. Because of newest lore sargeras made all the demons. The idea that demonic races may have not been demonic at one time is also supported by the RPG, in Manual of Monsters, and Monster Guide.

B. Eredar were the first of his demons.

C. We know that there are other races that have evolved off of the Eredar (Wrathbringers, and possibly Ered'ruin).

D. It has been officially stated that Tothrezim and Nathrezim evolved from a common ancestor. Hmm perhaps it was the Eredar.

2. Flavor Lore

Something only becomes flavor lore if it is specifically retconned in the future. Until it is retconned it specifically official lore, the true history for something, or to use your terms "valuable lore". Whatever is established first is valuable lore. Whatever changes it is a retcon, although it becomes valuable lore as well. Flavor lore is something that is created out of retcons.

We don't assuem something written is going to retconned in the future, as that is rather silly. It is valuable lore until it is retconned.

Also, Ragestorm will probably back me on this, but we generally hate the terms, retcon, flavor lore, etc being tossed around too much if it can be avoided. Its also not a good reason behind speculation. A "what if" something is flavor lore, before it has become flavor lore, is not verifiable nor citeable. It would not be allowed in speculation pages, or sections. It has similar problems to number 1 (above).

Note there is a second kind of flavor lore but it doesn't apply here. The other kind is when a book gives two possible background ideas from the get go, in order to make the information mysterious, and to leave room for future changes. The Brann angle basically. This isn't the case for the Tothrezim or Nathrezim articles in the books.

3. Kirochi if you continue to call people "ignorant" or "pedant" or other forms of name calling.

I have to give you a warning. That does violate certain wowwiki policies, and calling someone ignorant is pretty strong. Sure I think you meant it as a joke, but I'm sure people don't take being called that lightly, and not notice you meant it as a joke. Also Zeal has a point, you are trying to create a new story ideas by ignoring established lore. Unofficial story ideas are by definition fanfic, it is also "what if", and speculation.

4. Multiple Arms

Actually the only race that has gotten multiple arms through mutation that we know of, is the naga. However what happened to the naga doesn't necessarily apply to other races. Let's take the Qiraji/Nerubians. Many have multiple limbs because they evolved from insects and spiders, not through mutation.

As for demons we know of Shivarra, and Tothrezim races having multiple arms as part of their racial traits. We do not know what their ancestor races were like. Nor do we know why they evolved multiple arms, all we know is that it is a major physical feature of their race.

5. Mutations in general.

Its good that you brought up mutations. In lore, mutation by defenition is usually what makes a race become a seperate race from other races.

We have many examples;

Naga mutated from high elves, and became their own race. High elves mutated from night elves becoming their own race. Fel orcs mutated from orcs. Satyr mutated from many races, but especially elven races, and became their own race. Leper gnomes became mutated and became their own race. Ogre Magi were mutated from ogres and became their own race. Harpies are mutated from high elves, and became another race. Man'ari Eredar and Draenei evolved from a common eredar race, and are considered seperate races. Broken and Lost Ones have evolved/devolved from Draenei and generally considered races/sub-races of Draenei.

So indeed we know that Tothrezim and Nathrezim both evolved from a common ancestor, Monster Guide, and Manual of Monsters also states that all if not most demons evolved from a non-demonic ancestral species. So ya following established lore, for many other races they both became their own races.

Gan'arg and Mo'arg appear to be treated as seperate races, although part of an overall ancestral race. They have major physical differences as well, which has added to this seperation. This seems to be similar to ogre/ogre magi example.

Its very rare that mutation keeps the race within their original species. Only example of this happening is with sub-races in ahn qiraj, and naga variants. Which we know according to lore are highly variable.

6. "All demons are shape shifters."

Actually wrong, its stated in lore in the RPG that there are actually few shape shifting/shapechanging shape-shifter races, shapeshifting is generally a spell, a learned ability or feat, rather than racial ability, and having knowledge of those spells does not make the entire race a shapechanging race.Template:Cite As for the spell ability, it has to be taught to them somehow, either through a book, or by another being knowledgeable of the spell. Not all members of a race have the abilility, due to that limitation. Also not all members of a race are magic users, some are warriors or rogues. There may be inherint abilities that are magical in nature, that make up racial abilities of a race. These are naturally part of their racial abilities, but this doesn't usually include shapeshifting.

Again you would have to post proof or retract on a statement that states, "all demons, or all members of a demonic race are shape-shifters", and if you found one, you would only be establishing a contradiction in lore.

Infact, the article for article for Kil'Jaeden states that his ability to shape-shift is special to him, and is one of the reasons he is called the Deceiver.^[3]

7."I am not trying to ignore RPG facts, but trying to provide backing for my theory that is as accurate as possible."

You have proven that you are ignoring certain facts, that discredit your idea. Such facts, as the "common ancestor", the physical racial differences, the written word, etc. To claim you haven't is false.

8. Let's go back to one of your earlier statements. "Well no, the Nathrezim and the Tothrezim are all Legion-aligned, whereas it's hard to find two Trolls or Elves that belong to the same faction around the world."

Umm, are we forgetting night elves and high elves? Also humans, dwarves, and gnomes share the same lineage as well, and are on same faction. Yet they are all considered seperate races. Oh, ya remember ogres vs. ogre magi they are officially considered seperate races even though they even live in the same society usually, so yep they can exist in the same factions.

Let's take this further, high elves and blood elves may not be on the same faction, but they are physically very similar, yet are considered seperate races. The same can be said for leper gnomes, sand gnomes, and gnomes.

Final Comments

So yes there is alot of evidence that can be used against your idea by comparing other races in lore.

Overall the problem with your idea is that it ignores alot of things, and is based on presumptions that can be knocked down by bringing up other examples in lore that support the established lore. You seemed to have stated that examples didn't exist, but do exist. It is those examples that can knock holes in your idea. BTW, I hate using the term theory, as in science a theory is considered a scientifically proven fact. In which case nothing you have brought up can be considered "fact". Hypothesis would be a better term.

On a related note, I've added some more of the Tothrezim racial features, including their poisononus claws, and their ties to the twisting nether (an ability not shared by Nathrezim), as well as the information that their race is a secretive race hidden from other races. I will add the Nathrezim racial differences later. --Baggins 19:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox about some characters

I noticed that the bosses from 'The Eye'(like Void Reaver) have the lore character infobox. I think that for minor wow-only characters and bosses we should use the mobbox like Baron Geddon. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dakovski (talk · contr).

Indeed, they should be using mobbox. Kirkburn talk contr 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A few might merit the use of the lore infobox, (Lady Liadrin, for example, is significant enough to merit a lorebox even though she is WoW-only), but I think Void Reaver is decidedly not. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The lore infobox should really only be used if there is enough specific lore to fill in most of the sections. Generally speaking, I only do it if additional and specific info is given in another source other than WoW.Baggins 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Baron Geddon might have enough info in MG to get his own infobox, but I'd have to check.Baggins 06:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope nothing specific (for example class) that I could find, so definitely doesn't diserve an upgrade yet.Baggins 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Shattered Isles

We are wondering where the term Shattered Isles originates? We have been discussing it over in Talk:Shattered Isles.Baggins 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove me

Hey ragestorm, just thought id better let you know its probably a good idea to remove me from the bookkeepers. while ive enjoyed being accociated with you guys, i just havnt got the time these days to edit stuff here on wowwiki. Ive not made an edit in ages and cant see myself doing so again. Apologies for this but RL does tend to come up and bite you in the behind from time to time as im sure you know, stupid RL!! :-P --Diggory, Bookkeeper 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Once a Bookkeeper, always a Bookkeeper. Well, in your case, you'll have memorial status. Don't worry about it, and enjoy your RL!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Err... What do publicity materials have to do with anything?

I can anwser that! GBush got the idea to put that to match the Outland page (without knowing what it truely ment I think).--SWM24 48 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the new arrangement, how about you? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kirkburn talk contr 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I had a bit of trouble with the phrasing. <shrug> Just be grateful it wasn't a POV violation. Gods only know what I would have done about that! --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Eternals again

Hmm thought you might be interested. I was doing some searching over at the Whitewolf and came across a pdf on their site for some magazine. It had pre-release article about the then upcoming Shadows & Light and the eternal template/lore.

It had this to say about who coined the term (and no it wasn't the RPG staff like you probably think);

One final challenge remained, though: naming the template. “Immortal” didn’t feel right; although “divine” was used in Warcraft III for units such as Cenarius, it also felt a bit awkward. So, Bob Fitch and Chris Metzen (the main Warcraft guy at Blizzard) got together and came up with… “Eternal”![1]

Hope you found that interesting.Baggins 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a juicy tidbit. Hopefully it will quell whatever opposition remained. I'm still not certain that it's best under the status field in the infobox, but it's the only real place. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well like I said its not really a class, and its not an occupation, its not really a "race" either (any members of a race could potentially become one of the Eternals)... Status is the closest designation we have.Baggins 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sleepers thing.

Was it realy neaccacary to delete the whole post I made??? As there was only one thing in my post that was entirely on my perspective (The fact that I forgot the name of the weapon upgrade (couldn't you of just corrected that? INSTEAD OF DELETING IT ENTIRELY.--The last Alterac 08:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Afternoon

Welcome back :) I thought you should be appraised of this conversation I had a short while back - wikipedia:User talk:Qitelremel. Kirkburn talk contr 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I can recall the existence of such a debate (I'm pretty sure that that was the appropriate term to use on his part), and I can agree that I was probably rude about it, as I often am, but it will take me a while to relocate it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Rage is back!!! This place has been to hell and back since you've been gone :D Warchiefthrall 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So I see. Fortunately, the schemes of the Deceiver (I actually mean Kil'jaeden here) shall not thwart our efforts! On a related note, I shall hold a service thanking Elune that the M'uru mess has finally been sorted out. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hath thou ever doubted of Blizzard's talents in making up stories?--K ) (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir! I have a question.

I have recently read Rise of the Horde, and I just couldn't figure out what creatures the orcs say they have found, killed and eaten at the very end of the book (page 349), when the first scouts return from their investigations in the Black Morass. Could you tell me what critters they were talking about, from their description?--K ) (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the book in front of me, but I would guess sheep, pigs, or some totally mundane Azeroth animal. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I bother you because I don't think they are that mundane.

                               One was a reptile of some 
sort, scaly, long-tailed, with stubby legs and huge jaws.
The other was a four-legged, furry thing, with claws
on all four of its feet, a long tail, small rounded ears
and spots on its yellow glossy coat.

Am I wrong? What do you reckon?--K ) (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Azerothian zoology is not my strong suit, but based on those descriptions, those sound like a crocodile and a jaguar. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All right. Interestingly, they still haven't found any pigs, though those seem to be what they mainly tend to eat (pig farms in Warcraft II, maybe in Orcs & Humans too).--K ) (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We know Golden wrote RotH using a ton of first-hand gaming, so she probably had the orcs retrieve animals she experienced when gaming in the Black Morass. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Pages

What's the policy on content posted in discussion pages? Sandwichman2448 recently commented in my user talk page about a response I made on a discussion page and how I'm not allowed to put "opinion" in them. Do I have that bad of a rep for posting speculation in articles? :) I thought I did a good job of keeping canon separated from speculation. Please tell me that things haven't changed here so much you can't even talk about your personal opinion in an article discussion page! That's what that page is for, right? --Xmuskrat 00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the policy is still that we prefer non-editorial discussions not happen, but I'm fairly certain that opinions in the general sense aren't forbidden. Admittedly, people don't seem to tell me things any more, but I'm pretty certain of that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if my meaning was skewered, I seem to have a problem with semantics. I never said opinions were not allowed.--SWM24 48 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This does just appear to be a communication issue. No biggie. --Xmuskrat 01:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let me know if you need any more assistance- I consider you both invaluable members of the team. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy People Nomination

You have been nominated as a "Crazy person", a.k.a. "a really helpful and cool wowwikian"; if you will accept it. ;) --User:Vorbis/Sig 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... I ruthlessely uphold lore, erratically remind people that discussion pages are editorial only, and I'm my dry acerbic wit (aka rudeness) has scarred many. Yep, I sure sound like a Crazy Person to me. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sardonic as always. ;D

But if you ever change your mind about yourself, it's there for you. --User:Vorbis/Sig 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a sardonic acceptance spiel. I was being serious. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV vs Blizzard's lore

I may be bringing something that was justly killed up again, but what is WoWWiki's stance when a neutral point of view defies Blizzard? A good portion of the Scarlet Crusade article's talk page deals with people saying the Scarlet Crusade is not at all as evil in their actions as cited quotes say them to be. The Crusade is widely viewed as evil because they attack everyone outside their ranks. The quotes are likely in-universe from the perspective of the people getting attacked, not unbiased third-person. I think the debate peaked when this very long post was linked. Though it twists facts, gets things wrong, and assumes much, it fueled the debate considerably). The Crusade is not the only example, take for instance this un-editorial discussion about the Old Gods. The Old Gods are considered evil because they want all the titan's creations (the playable and most other races) dead, but are their actions 'wrong'? I do not think these debates, and other ones like them if any, were ever resolved. Is it a big 'NO' to add at least a footnote on these views in the articles?--Sandwichman2449 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on official stance, but my personal opinion is that NPOV is more to do with avoiding player or user bias into the articles. In-universe or Blizzard-based bias is a different situation. The Old Gods, for example are described as "evil" the very first time they are mentioned; possibly from the Titans' POV, but then how would that fit into their numerous genocidal plans? Perfect objectivity doesn't exist.

I am utterly opposed to user views within articles (except for speculatory comments, of course). I'd like nothing more than to delete the controversy pages. As far as I'm concerned, the only Lore opinions that have any business in articles are those that are published with a Blizzard Entertainment logo or written by someone working in a building with such a logo. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Night elves controversaries

Since you are a loremaster and keen on night elves I have some questions, or discussion topics regarding this race.

1. Why would their thousands-year-old language be named after a city build a decade ago?

2. Why would the new and unblessed world tree be much bigger than Nordrassil, the original world tree?

3. Why would they call themselves night elves 15 000 years ago when there were just no other types of elves? (maybe Knaak wanted to make clear to the reader)

Some of these may be due to retcons or game mechanics but I just wanted to hear your opinion.Dakovski (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I haven't the foggiest.

2. Personally, I don't think it's bigger lore-wise, as most of Nordrassil was atop a mountain and not inhabited. Antother explanation is that Staghelm thought "bigger is better" and that Teldrassil is bigger because the night elves were trying to recreate the blessings of the Aspects with only their own power.

3. One could argue that that the idea of elves that were not night elves never occured to them, such as we are "human beings" even though there aren't humans that aren't beings, nor have we encountered "beings" that aren't human (depending strongly on definition). Another (more outlandish) argument is that the entire trilogy is translated from Darnassian, and that Knaak as translator turned "kaldorei" into "night elves." My lack of faith in his style and my dislike of his WotA story make me doubt this theory. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1. May I suggest the idea that hte city was possibly named after their language?Baggins (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, Baggins, you stole my answer. Here I was, thinking I was all clever for thinking of that, and you did it first. Lckyluke372 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

lore.....

Bunny isle and funnybunny are listed as "lore from wc3", they sure are from wc3, but really, i dont think they´re part of lore, hogger sake! E: sorry, forgot my signature, M1330 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Tag it with the {{silly}} template, which should probably be updated to include Blizzard jokes. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly template is actually only to be used on fan created warcraft material. Blizzard jokes is too broad of a designation. Alot of things in Blizzard games are injokes, or puns, or some sort of humor. Many many character names in WoW though. Yes things may be silly in official Blizzard games, but that doesn't automatically mean they should be marked as such. We maintain a neutral point of view on this issue, and silly is a subjective terminology. Also bone up on the neutral definition of lore given in our policy page... Which is to include backstories from Warcraft III scenarios, with the caveat that they may have little to do with main warcraft universe. But that is not for us to judge.Baggins (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Humans

Aww, man, I really liked that quote, oh well, I understand why you took it down. Lckyluke372 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a great one-liner, I'll admit, but Brox's view of war is a distinctly orcish view, which is notably different from any other race's, so it doesn't really say anything about human or kaldorei warfare, except that Stareye was incompetent (although I could be getting the context wrong on that one).--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that was the first time he encountered Malfurion, while he was on the run from the moonguard, he talks about how Night Elves are too skinny and don't wear enough armor and how much more interesting and challenging a fight Humans were. Of course, I suppose Brox's specialty would be hand-to-hand combat, and Night Elves don't seem to be as good at that as humans. Really I just like it because in fantasy we're always the "in-between" race, we're never the best at anything, we're just all around fighters. It's good to feel appreciated isn't it? Of course, he might like humans because humans are just about the only Alliance race who really took the Orcs on in their element and did any good except the draenei: the dwarves just holed up in Ironforge and made it a protracted siege, the Elves all fight the orcs through hit-and-run attacks, and Gnomes fight mainly through Magic and technology, while the humans seem to the be the only Alliance race besides the Draenei capable or willing enough to fight the orcs out in the open. Lckyluke372 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Biologically speaking, Elves are athletic and lean- though male Night elves tend to have densely packed muscular frames (which could easily be artistic liscense), hence they would be more suited to hit-and-run tactics, ranged attack, and quick melee. Agility and speed are their strengths, while orcs, though shorter, are physically stronger and rely on strength over speed. The humans can probably rely on either tactic, so they could meet the orcs on a more familiar field. Also, the elves Brox went up against were gaudy, barely trained (apart from the Moonguard) militia serving near the heart of the Kaldorei empire, whereas the humans he would have fought were well-trained professional soldiers fighting for the race's very survival.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we know he fought alongside the highly-trained Sentinels at the very least, first impressions are everything after all. Hell, he may have even fought against them before they became allies. Lckyluke372 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Even so, see above; though perfectly viable from a combative or tactical standpoint, Kaldorei or even Sentinel fighting style would have been vastly different from those of orcs and humans. Brox's opinion that humans are more interesting opponents doesn't say anything about kaldorei martial arts apart from the fact that he didn't like it. To compare, look at a choice of weapons. I enjoy dual-wielding or using polearms. I find these styles and choices more elegant and interesting than using a single weapon and a shield. I don't think that this makes an opponent that uses such a style is less threatening or less skilled, just less interesting. Similarly, I am most interested in the lore and culture of the elven races. Does this mean I think the humans or the orcs or the trolls have less viable history? Of course not, I am simply less interested.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the quote was "interesting and worthy" opponents, "worthy" has a connotation of value and quality. Lckyluke372 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

From Broxigar's point of view, the night elves were less worthy. Brox was a master of his art, and his simple (though of course not unintelligent) warriors' mind did not really understand how the night elves' fighting style, one that works great for their body build, makes them just as deadly in battle as humans, a race that has a body build somewhere between an orcs' and that of a night elf. Like Rage said, either fighting tactic can work for a human, but they often combine aspects of both, using strength and speed. Mostly strength. Humans obviously fight more like orcs, and this is why Brox thought they were more interesting to fight. Because he can compare his expert warrior skills and mind to that of humans. So again, because he had little knowledge or experience with elves, he went off their thin appearance and dubbed them less worthy than humans in battle. It seems I have forgotten the date... so I hope I have posted this before the point where replying to a post becomes awkward. If not, I guess it's just too bad. --Mesethusela (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lore discussions are never closed on my talk. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like all of these explanations are viable, the points salient. I believe it has to do with the context of 'worthy' as Brox used it: as either deserving effort, attention, or respect. If he found that the human fighters were more deserving of effort, he likely viewed them as a superior threat to night elves in general; this may have been caused by an accurate judgement of skill (the elves were just weak), an inaccurate judgement of style (assumption that elven combat was less effective), or a bias perspective (he has seen the damage human and orc styles can accomplish). If he found the human fighters more deserving of attention, perhaps he desired to study and learn from their similar combat style in order to better fight and strategize against them; night elven style may not have suited him, so he may be stating a desire to fight and feed fire with fire. If he found the human fighters more deserving of respect, he either viewed the night elves as weaker or simply related more to the humans; prejudice, an accurate judgement of skill, or a poor understanding of that particular style of fighting may have been amongst his reasons for this opinion. Sorry if this was unnecessary and verbose, but I was very interested in this thread. By the time I had realized how much I had written, there was no way I couldn't post it. --as9 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Common

How is it possible that so many race speaks common, even if they never had contact, can speak common. Like ogres and orcs in outland? M1330 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deus ex Machina. Well, Orcs and ogres would have picked it up as a result of being in Azeroth (one could argue that Ogre-magi also learned it magically via the Altars of Storms, but that would mean they could speak Thalassian as well). If Common (language) doesn't offer further clues, ask the Hobbit for whatever half-brained explanation is used in the RPG. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps common is version of Titan (language), known by Earthens, ancestors of many humanoid races. btw if you are referring to baggins, he had no answer, or didnt tell it.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M1330 (talk · contr).

You're still jumping around... stay on one page, and sign sign sign your posts.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is as best as its explained is already in the Common article. Officially most of the main races have their own languages, but almost every race also knows common as their primary languages as well. Yes its weird. But its pretty much been that way since the early RTS especially in Warcraft III. Races who had never met would encounter each other and already know how to communicate with each other. Ogres speak Low Common as their language. Sure Blizzard could introduce an ogre language, it just hasn't been done yet. Generally speaking its best to avoid speculating about things that haven't been introduced yet. Fanfic is not allowed.Baggins (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. Hope you understand me.

Hi Ragestorm. I'm a new user of WoWWiki. Therefor I'm honestly quite a newb. Since it looks like you are a experienced user i would like to ask you. My editing so far has been adding links to some articles. But if one word is written more than once in an article,[example "Horde") should I make All "Horde's" in that article links? Or should I only make the first "Horde" a link, and leave the rest to be normal text? Hope you understand, and answer to a newb. Hewbie (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Only link the first instance. If it is a particularly long article, it's alright to occasionally link a later occurence near the end. Also, an infobox doesn't count, so a character biography can have a link to Horde in the intro and in the infobox under affiliation, but not elsewhere in the text. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Old God

Hi, Sky2042 said that Hakkar is not Old God, and Branns writings are just speculation, not real source, is that Really true? M1330 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See his talk page for exact translation of that question. --Sky (t · c · w) 09:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Scarlet Crusade

Scarlet crusade is listed as Lawful evil, but it is just trying to do good (not gain power), so why is it listed as evil. thanks. Kesmana (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Evil is much more complicated than simply wanting power. The worst kind of evil is the narrow-minded good that only sees the world in black and white, like the Scarlet Crusade or the real-world Inquistion. One can also seek power yet still be good, like the politician or Kirin Tor archmage who geuinely wants to help. That, and that's the alignment the RPG gives it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

your right thanks Kesmana (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Species

User:Rolandius vandalizes species article, puts gryphons to dragons, ogremages to gronns, hippogryphs to centaurs, tell him few facts about lore. thanks M1330 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. You might want to work on your reporting language. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In-game lore texts on WoWWiki?

I have grown more interested in Azeroth's history as I play. At first the materials in the published game guide sufficed me, but now I am discovering other chunks of lore in inns all over the world. It is highly inconvenient reading these while a spell or poison is dribbling away, so I began to wonder if they are available (verbatim, but not necessarily format as they are in-game) elsewhere--like, here, for instance. If so, I would like to know where they are cached. Can anyone help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozmirage (talk · contr).

We don't duplicate and store every piece of in-game lore here, but a number of in-game sources are duplicated as part of quest articles. We deal more with encyclopedic information; if an innkeeper tells a story about Jaina Proudmoore, the information is referenced in her article. If you wish to familiarize yourself with Azeroth's history, I recommend playing the previous games, reading the novels, or just browsing WoWWiki. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Say what?

I know Sargeras is a vanir titan and not a demon titan. I thought, call me confused, that those were two seperate titles as they are two seperate links. It looked to me like this Demon/Vanir and Titan/Dark titan. So I thought I would make it more neat as Vanir/Demon and then leave Titan/Dark titan as it was. It is not my fault it looks like two seperate titles. Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could use rearranging. Baggins was trying to link to the two separately. Try another arrangement.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I listed him as "Vanir Titan" because that's how he was classified in Shadows & Light article.Baggins (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Burning Legion#Command structure

I want explanations why I have been treated like a vandal and my change was reverted without any description why. Please now explain why have you reverted it, because you had no reasons. Severin Andrews 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I used the rollback revert because I was in a hurry, I apologize. I admit I acted in haste, you are not being treated as a vandal . Garona Helforcen's alleigance, while an interesting question, did not include the Burning Legion. Though the Shadow Council was an extension of Gul'dan, who was an agent of the Legion, saying that Garona is affiliated with the Legion would be like saying that Malfurion Stormrage is affiliated with the Scourge because he stopped Illidan from destroying Northrend. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Garona was an agent of the Shadow Council, as stated in the Last Guardian, definitely. And Shadow Council was Legion's pawn so Garona was indirectly associated with the Legion, just in the same manner as Arthas - who at a time was agent of Scourge which was then arm of Legion. Arthas's and Garona's associations with Legion were in the same grade at some points and Arthas is mentioned there while Garona is not. Severin Andrews 19:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is under review anyway. I don't think Arthas should be there anyway, although it should be pointed out that Arthas at least knew his masters were of the Legion, where Garona did not. Addendum: If you feel that strongly, you can put it under the Notable Former Allies section, but I still feel the connection is thinner than Arthas.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WoWwiki

I need to talk to you asap.--K ) (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it about why they never interact with the wiki?--SWM24 48 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandwichman!

Won't know until tomorrow morning, at any rate. Good thing Kirkburn's over there.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum

Understood. However, as I currently don't have an active subscription and thus can't post in the game forums, I just had to push this off somewhere from my head.. But I guess I'll turn this in to the RP forum once I can afford to renew my subscr. --RocketBrother (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

No, I think those reverts you did are okay. I was just wondering why the Northrend battles aren't counted as anything but the Highlord Kruul event gets counted as an invasion. Rolandius (talk - contr) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Kruul situation to comment. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well it is listed as a third invasion on the Burning Legion page. I am not sure if it is called that in WoW or some other source. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my

Oh my goodness what happened to my "Older comments moved" sentence near the top of my Talk page?LOL Now it says Older comments moved to [[User talk:Rolandius/Archiv<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href=" KHTMLFixes.css ">e1]]. Rolandius (talk - contr) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. I've no idea, you'll have to ask a more code-savvy admin. Kirkburn or pcj should be able to help. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I will just write the sentence again. I was just wondering because it says it happened on your edit. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea, I didn't conciously touch it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr)

Its ok I just wrote the sentence again.LOL Did you sneeze at any time? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why, but half the time you edit my page it keeps doing that change thing to my "Older comments moved" sentence. It happened again. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say, apart from the fact that I didn't do it intentionally and I haven't edited your talk in severl days. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is Gremlins. I should make a page about them. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tirion Infobox Image

Rage could you look into something for me. Wowsjostedt has changed the tiron infobox pic at least three times, even after warnings from yourself and myself. A new user TirionRulesEU changed it again. I suspect a sockpuppet, or at least two stubborn "contributors".Warthok Talk Contribs 06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be sockpuppetry at work here. I will warn (or ban if needed) Wowsjostedt, he's been vipering a bit. Give the new guy a warning and explain about the infoboxes, in case he's actually going to do something else. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hey man, could you help me with my page? Its kinda messed up...see for yourself! Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ose fixed it. Ragestorm is more about lore-related help.--SWM24 48 23:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ty. I'm new to Wowwiki and I'm not very familiar with all the Admins. I just grabbed the first one I could find and asked, lol. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, when dealing with admins, if it's a lore or in-universe question or issue (either a general question or with an article) come to me, Baggins (when he gets back), Sky2042 or Gourra (they can do technical stuff, too). If it's technical, go to one of the other admins listed. User-issues and the like go to anyone. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems

Talk to Baggins. Problems starting again. He deleted ominous island which had several sentences not just one or two. He told me to write better summaries of pages I edit yet he wrote zero summaries for the pages he deleted. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk to him, but bear in mind that I like articles like that significantly less than Baggins.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay the name wasn't great but that is all I had. The content was a lot though not just a sentence or two right? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, does it really need an article? They rested, had nightmares, fought a few ghouls, Krasus said he'd return to finish the job, which probably means engulfing the island in dragonfire.

This seems to be a trend with you: you're doing fine, remembering instructions, then do something totally unexpected and, quite frankly, bewildering. The only thing I can suggest is not starting new articles until you've gotten a second opinion.

And your method of dealing with it- recreating the article as your query- is NOT the way to confront Baggins or deal with it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it needed one? Also, I made that page a few months ago why is it suddenly not that great now? Well I couldn't ask "why did you delete this?" to anyone because the talk page was missing. Unless you mean ask him on his own talk page? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gourra deleted southern islands. What is the difference between that and the Channel Islands? I put references about the southern islands and no one reads them or what? It clearly says and shows that they are in the Southshore region and south of Southshore. If you look at both maps you can see a really small and a somewhat small island where the Orcs are at. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ragestorm you need to refresh the admins on the rules. Gourra put me on the ban list because he said I wrote inside a deleted article twice when I didn't. I have no idea what he is talking about. You said use the talk page and I did. What am I missing? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What you're missing (in Gourra's case) is this: 09:35, 22 August 2008 (diff) . . Rolandius (Talk | contribs | block) (312 bytes) (New page: You deleted this why? ~~~~)

This is what I was referring to before.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said use talk pages to talk to people? Pages have talk pages right? Am I mixing something up here? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well looking at the deletion logs, it appears you put, "What is the difference between this and the Channel Islands? Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)", on the southern islands link, rather than talk:Southern islands. The move and deletion comment by gourra states, "See talk page. Don't sign in articles". This appears to be the second warning you received for the same type of action made on the ominous island article after it was deleted. In that article you put "You deleted this why? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)", to which gourra deleted it with the warning comment, "See talk page. Don't sign in articles.)"

Furthermore it seems besides the two sets of warnings by gourra. You had also received warnings by ragestorm for reopening the deleted pages. YOu need to be careful to make sure you talk on "talk:<insert page name here>" rather reopening the main page. Don't repeat the same mistake you have been warned multiple times already about.Baggins (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion log info

Deletion log

14:08, 22 August 2008 Gourra (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Ominous island" ‎ (See talk page. Don't sign in articles.)
13:32, 22 August 2008 Baggins (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Ominous island" ‎ (content was: 'This ominous island is big enough to hold a fort or an estate only. On the trip to Kalimdor, Krasus and Rhonin stop

Comment:

Page history

13:35, 22 August 2008 (diff) . . Rolandius (Talk | contribs | block) (312 bytes) (New page: You deleted this why? Rolandius (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
04:49, 15 June 2008 (diff) . . Rolandius (Talk | contribs | block) (667 bytes) (spell check)

Deletion log

14:35, 22 August 2008 Gourra (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Southern islands" ‎ (See talk page. Don't sign in articles.)
14:13, 22 August 2008 Gourra (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Southern islands" ‎ (Not an official article name; "southern islands" could be any "south" island.)

Comment:

Page history

14:34, 22 August 2008 (diff) . . Gourra (Talk | contribs | block) (35 bytes) (moved Southern islands to Talk:Southern islands)
14:03, 22 August 2008 (diff) . . Rolandius (Talk | contribs | block) (296 bytes) (added category)
12:51, 22 August 2008 . . Rolandius (Talk | contribs | block) (274 bytes) (added southern islands)

-Baggins (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I still don't see where I did it "numerous" times. On southern islands I did say that. On ominous island I did say, "You deleted this why?" The second comment I made on the page was I am pretty sure before Gourra said "see talk page". Where were the multiple deleted pages I created though? By the way I did it on accident I thought I was commenting on the talk pages only not on the actual deleted page. Especially with southern islands I was sure it was the talk page. And how come Gourra said I left some confrontational message in the page? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I count that you did it twice. Twice is a number bigger than once, and one time too many, especially since you had been warned for the first infraction about half hour before hand.

Also it might have been an accident as you claim, but you should have been more careful in what you did, and put up the {{speedy delete}} template after you made the mistake, and explained your mistake before admins came around to correct it.

Btw, excuses, even good ones generally won't get you excused if you are suspected (and have had been previously suspected or banned for other infractions similar or otherwise). However, good excuses might get you out of a ban, or reduce a ban, if you are already banned.

Just remember being suspected doesn't mean you will get banned. You just need to be more careful in the future. Its a second degree warning (after the first warning).Baggins (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I am watching myself. I really thought I didn't comment on the page the second time. I am pretty sure the second time was in the talk page. I still don't get the part where I said something "confrontational" on the page though. All I asked was why did you delete so and so. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bewildered

Okay this is getting crazy. I know I made a few mistakes but I am listening to what you are saying and fixing them. Meanwhile, some people don't listen to anything I say though. Guess what? I am still getting warned. It is like some people are warning just to see the words "warning" on a page. I am citing everything and filling the whole Edit summary box with what I am doing. I wrote that Teldrassil was an island continent with the citation and everything. Baggins says nope I am wrong, somehow an island continent is not a continent. How is that possible? My uncited stuff is speculation and made up. My cited stuff is out of context and wrong. I do the exact same thing Baggins does with a map. He says the lettering on some map makes them subcontinents, even though there is nothing in lore saying that, so I point out a map and say so and so are subcontinents of the Eastern Kingdoms and he says oh no your all wrong when you try my method yourself. I just did the exact thing he did and my outcome is not right? Then he talks about fallacies here and there but he tells me "some people call Iceland an island continent but its not, so Teldrassil cannot be one either." It says right in the lore Teldrassil is an island continent. I even told him several times to look at the Teldrassil page where earlier I had cited and written "island continent". I mean is the policy here to have pages 80% citations and 20% information? How many times do I have to cite something. Also, why am I going to cite something when it is going to be ignored anyway? Who watches the Watchers? I am educated you know. I am pretty sure when something says island continent it is what it says it is, with no caveats by Baggins. I keep getting told something I wrote is wrong when I just followed the exact thing they did. Also, why do I get a lot of comments from some people that sounds like they are saying "you know 2 + 2 = 4 on wowwiki, I don't know about your world" when my contributions are not that wild or out there. Once again, I see a difference between what I am doing and people who vandalize pages and user pages. Anyways, this is hard to stay with the rules when the rules keep on changing. Seriously, if I do the exact same thing Baggins does how is it possible mine is wrong? If something in lore says something is an island continent how is it possibly wrong? Is this a location barrier or a cultural barrier? I am not spelling wowwiki with 8 w's or saying Azeroth is really in the pocket of some giant being. I am in the United States, so if someone from wowwiki could tell me where I am going wrong every single time I type a word it would be great. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bewildered is a good term. IT describes what several of the admins feel about you and quite a few of your edit practices... Adding stuff that is fairly irrelevent, adding stuff out of context, creating articles with false page names, putting info in the wrong locations, adding in speculation where it shouldn't be. The list goes on and on. Judging from the above comments by Ragestorm he doesn't see eye to eye with your actions either. You are slowly causing issues for several of us including ragestorm, gourra, coobra, fandyllic, and kirkburn who have tried to explain to you how to improve your edits, and how not to get overboard, but you either act confused, argue with us, or try to play us each against the other admins... Its no wonder that you are noticed by others you may not even known or interacted with putting up complaints about you (such as the addition on your latest violation listing). Yes we are all fairly bewildered. Let me give you some common knowledge, Ragestorm is not my boss, we are equals, and we are probably not likely going to listen to your attempts to pit us against each other. Its rather juvenile. If we have need to discuss something, we discuss things together like gentlemen.

Friend, you are are whining to the wrong crowd.Baggins (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins

Ragestorm have you talked to Baggins? He is getting mad at nothing and putting stuff about me on the suspect list. He removed a few correct citations from pages so far and moved sentences around incorrectly. I told him on his talk page that he edited some page maybe accidently and to check it out. He now says im confrontational, trying to be an admin, making admins fight each other, and am getting very close to being banned. What is that all about? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've warned you about (since yesterday)... Do not try to pit another admin against another (do not try to get ragestorm to reprimand me or gourra). This will not be tolerated and you have been warned already. This is very juvenile and much like a tattle tale trying to get someone in trouble. This is exactly why I added the comment to the violation list. Do not go down this course again, otherwise we have no where left to go but beyond suspect violation warnings, i.e. step three. Step three being bans. Think of this as being a mercy warning.Baggins (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see eye to eye with Baggins on this, Rolandius, you must realize that admins are given their privileges for a reason, and that Baggins has more experience using WoWWiki's citation system and policy than you. I don't agree with the way that this situation has been handled on either end, but the bottom line is that while you are a good contributor in general, there are things that you just aren't learning, and this antagonizes the admins. The only recommendations I have are getting a second opinion when starting new articles and not starting formatting jihads. Everyone needs to cool their jets, or else this isn't going to die down. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to take Rol on as an editing mentor. He is free to make edits, but anything you guys have problems with, come talk to me and I'll chat with him. I'm not so bothered by his edits as it seems the rest of you are, so maybe it would work. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know Baggins has more experience. I do seem to not learn some things, not in my opinion, because I keep getting in trouble. The reason i posted to Ragestorm was because it says he is "Laird of the Lore" which I thought meant sort of like head of that area. I thought there was some hiearchy and that Baggins was like assistant "Laird of the Lore". I guess I was wrong. But when the time comes when I can't even post a message without getting accused of " pitting one admin against another" is the time things are getting crazy. Then when I post a message talking about Baggins saying the "pitting" quote he uses that as an example of "you are pitting one admin against another". He then adds onto the violation list. So anytime I say anything it is evidence against me. I wouldn't be surprised if this post gets used against me and I get another addition to the violation list. Also, no one has answered my questions for a few days now. Question One: What was "confrontational" about me that was on the violation list? All I asked was "why did you delete that page"? Question Two: How come a cited entry I put in a page talking about Tedrassil being an island continent gets deleted? I thought it would at least be kept for posterity if you don't like that citation so much. Question Three: What does Iceland, which by the way I never heard in my life called an island continent Baggins, have to do with Tedrassil? I will go with Sky's idea if you want. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When you recreated deleted pages, to add signed posts, Ragestorm described that is "confronting me", see above. You should have directly asked me in my talk page, not recreating a new page from the one that was deleted. As for Iceland actually I meant Greenland. But the main point of my post was to point out that you can't rewrite context of other sources based on the one obscure reference, if there are other references that give alternate descriptions that state the opposite. The citation probably shouldn't be put in as one of the headline summery quotes, but somewhere else in the article, perhaps geography.Baggins (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When I was told to use talk pages I asked "article talk pages" or "user talk pages"? No one said anything except "talk pages" and just said I "recreated deleted pages" which I had no idea what that was about. I had to figure out by myself that they meant when you sign a talk page it recreates the deleted article. If someone would have just said "when you sign an article's talk page it recreates the deleted page you know?" then I would have understood. Instead of "don't sign, stop creating pages, you are confrontational". Then I was just put on the violation list. Well about Tedrassil, I saw the source. I didn't make up the source, write the source myself, or change the context. It said "Teldrassil is an island continent." So I added that, cited it, and stamped it. Then it was deleted and it was like I had made the amazing story of the island continent up. I have read on wowwiki that sometimes you may find sources that contradict each other, but that doesn't mean one has to be "deleted". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"I had to figure out by myself that they meant when you sign a talk page it recreates the deleted article."

Actually if you sign the talk page it won't recreate the article page. They are seperate. You have to manually click on the page itself and write into it to recreate it. They are seperate pages and not connected. The only time they get connected is in the case of page moves. In other words you had to have clicked on ominous island, rather than on Talk:ominous island. Looking at the history you never actually edited anyting on the talk page, except for the stuff you added later.Baggins (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then I am really confused. I thought I wrote in the page itself, accidently, then was warned not to do that so I said okay I am checking myself, but was put on the violation list. Then I started writing in the talk pages only and still kept getting warned that i was using talk pages of deleted pages, and more was added on the violation list about me being confrontational, and I guessed that I was still doing it wrong and started writing in user talk pages. Writing in the user talk pages got me, you guessed it, more stuff added on the violation list. Rolandius

(talk - contr;) 03:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't involved with warning you. I think it was Ragestorm that to to warning you before hand. You weren't put up on the violation page until you did a second time on southern islands (I didn't put you on the violation page). You can look at deletion log, for who deleted your pages and for times of the changes.You are not on violation for talking on user talk pages, but how you talked on the user talk pages. Instead of coming to me, you went to ragestorm. Then you tried to get him to give gourra a lecture. We don't do things like that.Baggins (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I went to Ragestorm was 1.) I thought he was head of lore. 2.) I had no idea what was going on with the recreating deleted pages/commenting on talk pages problems 3.) Every comment by me would get my suspicion listing added onto. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop exaggerating. Not "every comment" you have made has been added to the suspect list, only certain specific ones. If every comment you made was added to the list your suspect entry would already be several pages long. Sorta of like your arguments in this page... The suspect list only mentions six or seven things you commited tops.Baggins

, lorekeepers are not administrators (alhtough some of us lorekeepers are also administrators). They are seperate positions. Lorekeeper staff are more like specialized cleaners (they are not involved with aministration affairs). If you were looking for the head admin of Wowwiki/Wikia, you'd probably want to go to Kirkburn. But he'd probably be just as bewildered about you trying to get him to "give people lectures" as well. He would tell you to talk to me, as we don't allow people to pit us against each other.(talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I guess for now this is over. Ragestorm said, "Everyone needs to cool their jets, or else this isn't going to die down." So lets go contribute to wowwiki and if you see me do anything wrong just point it out to me. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest implementing Sky's suggestion.

Re the hierarchy (there isn't really one), I am head of lore, but generally, and particularly in cases like these, this doesn't make me a superior of other admins. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sky, as much as I would like to agree, I don't. Some of us had suggested something similar in the past (I even tried to guide him), as did Kirkburn, but he continued to repeat the same mistakes. To make matters worse for every small edit he made led to a discussion 300% the size of the original edit. How many mentors do you want to go through before enough is enough? How much energy do you want to consume trying to explain things to him, only for him to stubbornly repeat similar mistakes later on (leading to more time consuming talk talk talk)?

He even recently got the ire of PCJ for creating the page North America (reminds me of Eng-land), and a handful of other poor edits. He decided to ban him. I can't say that I disagree with his decision. In addition to his poor edits yesterday he also attacked another community member who disagreed with his speculation, accusing him of being M1330/Kesmana. Stuff like that simply can't be allowed.Baggins (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Baggins (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Continents & all that geology stuff

"Upper and lower aren't Geographical terms, are they? Eastern kingdoms are all one continent or possibly two, but not three. Megacontinent doesn't seem to be a term, any geographers please correct me."

Depends on definition of continent being used by the type of geographer (geological vs. political boundaries). Geologists have seperate definitions the social sciences. For example asia and europe are considered seperate continents despite them being physically connected to each other (for political reasons). A few people lump them together as "Eurasia".

Khaz Modan, Azeroth, and Lordaeron hav all been described as continents many times.

Example; "...the three eastern continents: Azeroth, Khaz Modan and Lordaeron.^[4]"

So yes, there are currently three continents in the Eastern Kingdoms.

Megacontinent, no I can't think of anything of that sort.

Microcontinents those are places like madagascar, a small landmass that breaks off of a continental landmass.

Supercontinents are usually places like Pangea, where several continents are connected together. Eurasia is also a "supercontinent" (although no where near the size of Pangea), and "Americas" put together as well are considered a supercontinent. Afro-Eurasia is a modern day supercontinent consisting of Africa and Eurasia.

Continents are usually defined by the mechanics of the plates they rest on. Sorry I don't know the exact details here, however. I think it has to do with the percentage of the continent on a specific plate. For Australia for example its because of the Indo-Australlian plate. Greenland usually isn't considered a continent because it is part of the north american plate (which comprises most of North America).

I don't know about europe and asia enough, but there may be a european plate, and a asian plate. Those micro continents like madagascar have their own mini plates.

Then there are subcontinents. Subcontinents are a type of landmass found withen continents, a good example is the Indian subcontinent within Asia. Depending on the person, "Europe" may be defined as a subcontinent of Eurasia. Greenland is sometimes called a subcontinent as well because of its size.

Edit: Megacontinent... What do you know...? It is actually a term used in geological journals[2] and even by Nasa[3] among others. Pangea is described as such... Perhaps this this it seperate it from modern day supercontinents?Baggins (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Sorry, it slipped my mind to call you, I keep forgetting the Geoarchaeology part (or is it archaeogeology?)

I've only heard of Pangaea as a supercontinent, but then, I'm an archaeoanthropologist. So, would you format Khaz Modan, Azeroth and Lordaeron as distinct continents from one another?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Geoarchaeology is a subfield of Archaeology (connected to the Archaeometry subfield) within Anthropology. I am primarily studying Anthropology (archaeology & cultural), with minors in geology & history.

Archaeogeology is someone who is primarily a geologist but uses his skills for the study of Archaeology.

Ya, I have previously only heard Pangea called a supercontinent as well. However the term supercontinent is often used for the later smaller breakup 'continents' like Laurasia & Gondwana(aka Gondwanaland), and the modern Eurasia.

As for formating the pages, if you mean by adding citations? I've added citations to several pages yesterday.Baggins (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See the recent edits on Azeroth (world). Would you consider Lordaeron, Khaz Modan and Azeroth separate continents as was implied? Forget formatting.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm not sure what you mean exactly? Do you mean "Eastern Kingdoms" as a whole called a "continent" (by some page editors) and the three "eastern continents" regions being called continents (specifically, rather than implied)?

Well only thing I can say that in the real world that supercontinent is a continent. Continent and supercontinent are interchangeable terms. Although the latter is somewhat more specific. But in books you will see Pangea called "the continent of Pangea" and other books "calling it the supercontinent of Pangea". Both terms are valid although one is a bit more specifically detailed.

In anycase this detail allows for valid sentences such as "The continent of Eurasia contains the continents of Asia and Europe.", as an example. While it might be initially confusing to some who might not like the idea that continents can contain continents inside of them, its not actually a contradiction in usage.

Now as far as I know Blizzard has never ever used the terms supercontinent if one wants to get technical. Although they have used the term continent quite a bit.

Baggins (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, would it be accurate to describe Azeroth as being made up of five continents (Kalimdor, Northrend, Lordaeron, Khaz Modan, and Azeroth) as the edit I reverted suggested?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I'd leave any sentence that specific. Blizzard might add more continents in the future if the need arises. Plus it overlooks other implied continents in other sources. I can't think of one official source that has specifically counted the number of continents on the world. The average sentence that describes break up of old Kalimdor uses phrases like, "Split into many smaller continents", or "several smaller continents".Baggins (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Titles

I just added some titles for Khadgar and Medivh are given in The Last Guardian. They are proper titles, properly capitalized in the book, although I can't figure why the author would have capitalized some of them (the "Old Man").Baggins (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the context? I somehow doubt that Old Man is meant to be a real title, even if it is capitalized--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As I found out later, after I made my initial post to you, Garona calls him "the Old Man" at something like 20-30 times throughout the book (I lost count). It seems to be her preferred nickname for him, in place of calling him Medivh all the time.Baggins (talk)

Well, if it's her nickname for him, I doubt it's a title...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of note, are "titles" section is for titles and nicknames. In anycase it doesn't state specifically if she's using it as a title or a nickname exactly.Baggins (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the titles section was for actual titles only and not nicknames, but there might be other opinions. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In anycase I'd definitely try avoid non capitalized titles/nicknames, only ones that were treated as proper nouns. I mean we don't need something like a random flowery description, that was tossed around in a single point in the book being used.

Note it seems in further reading that Old Man might be the term given to Medivh by Gul'dan, and passed onto Garona, there are a couple of her quotes that implies that is the case.Baggins (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems strange, Medivh didn't look that old, did he?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He did in Warcraft I artwork... Other artwork came later I think. Although he's also described as being old by Khadgar in the book, and the later Warcraft II adaptations, IIRC.Baggins (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Are dragonhawks and hawkstriders somehow connected? I mean, they resemble each other very much, dont they? Noobi666 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For a while it was theorized that hawkstriders were dragonhawk young, but I think that's been laid to rest. I think the only connection at this point is a common ancestor. Or not- biology sometimes surprises us by replicating designs. You'll notice that the dragonhawk is (as the name implies) much more draconic than the hawkstrider. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Arrogance and selfishness

Are two words that describe the introductory talk of this very page, as well as the way you reverted a change I made without talking it first, before finally rewording it (without talking it again), so that it appeared to be yours. ("Old Gods" page) This is not the spirit of a collaborative wiki. I do not salute you.

Edit: so long as you are not willing to discuss your issues with proper respect of strangers, and overall politeness, I'll have to pursue my current line of 'discussion'. Your willingness to talk it nicely out, places you in the 'Illidan' category, not the 'Malfurion' one I am afraid, 'Ragestorm'. Shabbashtan

To the first complaint, Guilty. My introductory was meant to be satirical to the events of the wiki at the time it was written. As to the Old Gods revert, I will admit I was hasty in my initial revert. However, implying plagiarism is not good form, as well as untrue. Your second was much better. I changed the format because A) such sections are usually titled "myth" (if inspiration is the only trivium, this convention is still being finalized), and B) such sections typically include wikipedia links to the relevant topics. I have not "reworded it... so that it appeared to be [mine]", I have built on your edit and brought it in line with similar sections across the wiki. Last I checked, allowing your edits to be built upon in such a manner is indeed in the spirit of a collaborative wiki that you refer to.

And I have never been looking for or expecting anyone to salute me.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I got spoiled

Haha, I totally did not know that the leader of the Onslaught is none other than Arthas' favorite dreadlord. That said, I seem to remember another dreadlord dying. Am I wrong with my memory? --Sky (t · c · w) 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, not one, but two! Tichondrius and Anetheron. I await your words. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We can, for now, act under "dead until proven not" (that's a description, NOT an infobox status!). Assuming that every last one of them is not dead is counterproducive, and will likely lead to lengthy and useless speculation sections as to their current activities. Tichondrius seemed quite shocked by Illidan's transformation, so it is possible that the Betrayer slew the Darkener once and for all. As for Anetheron, he could have been obliterated by the wisps as well. Or he could be the Emerald Nightmare. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Azeroth (subcontinent)

I thought I put a reason? Oh well, the reason is that it seems to be a copy of Azeroth (continent). I think I created that back in August when I thought Azeroth was a subcontinent and also a continent. It looks like, to me at least, that Blizzard doesn't use the word "subcontinent" but just says continent again. For instance, the Eastern Kingdoms are a "continent" according to Blizzard. The Eastern Kingdoms are made up of the "continents" of Lordaeron, Khaz Modan, and Azeroth too according to Blizzard. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wind Serpents

Okay I have one for you. Shouldn't the category called Wind Serpents be called Wind serpents? Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Things like this are easily lost among the jumble of such a large wiki. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Iron dwarf vs. Iron Rune dwarf

Are these two the same? I have seen both terms, although there seems to be more Iron Rune dwarf NPCs. The Iron dwarves look to be neutral while the Iron Rune dwarves are hostile. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The iron dwarves in Halls of Stone and Halls of Lightning are definitely hostile. g0urra[T҂C] 13:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if they're the same, more information required.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The ones in the Halls are Forged Iron Dwarves. Maybe they are different than Iron Dwarves. It says on Wowhead that Iron Dwarf Magi, Iron Dwarf Assailants, and Iron Dwarves are neutral or higher. Only the Forged ones are hostile. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle three

Thanks for dealing with that :) Kirkburn talk contr 17:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Illidan

I just noticed that Illidan wore the pair of pants Ravencrest gave him for over 10,000 years from the War of the Ancients to the time of his death. Lckyluke372 (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the WoTA cover and then look at the images from the Burning Crusade. He has worn the same pants for the past 10,000 years. Lckyluke372 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't see his pants on the WotA cover. They're hidden by the author's name. Jormungand01 talk · contribs 19:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chamber of Aspects

I added the description of it found in The Well of Eternity, and noticed that it is completely different than what is portrayed in Wrath of the Lich King under Wyrmrest. Is there a retcon here? Are the Chamber of Aspects and the Chamber of the Aspects separate places?--SWM24 48 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible that there are two separate locations, or that they renovated it. Retcon not entirely out of the question. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron Dwarf

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the word "iron dwarf"? Most of the NPCs are called Iron Rune "something" (17 of them) while only a few are called Iron dwarf "something" (4 of them). Are Iron Rune dwarves a new race, a clan of Iron dwarves, a species of Iron dwarves, etc? Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside information refers only to Iron dwarves. Unless you encounter Iron <something else> dwarf, it is premature to believe that they are a clan of iron dwarves. It is most likely that the name was changed. Are there any physical differences between Iron and Iron Rune? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the images I have looked at they don't seem to look too different. The only thing I noticed, besides the name, is that the Iron Rune NPCs are hostile and located in Howling Fjord and Grizzly Hills while the Iron dwarf NPCs are neutral and located in Storm Peaks. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I retain my "more information needed" stance. Until something emerges to clarify, we just don't know --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wrath of the Lich King guide calls them Iron Rune dwarves. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And the Wrath of the Lich King bestiary calls them Iron Dwarves, you see the impasse? Mind you, that source also makes it clear that Iron dwarves are covered in runes, so it appears to be nothing more than a nomenclature debate--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay so is it like an aka Iron Rune dwarves type thing? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Taunka

I think we should merge the articles Taunka and The Taunka, although some people do not agree. The Taunka are the race and a faction just like the Tauren. As it is with the tauren and Thunder Bluff, there are no other taunka really besides the faction Tuanka. In fact, if anything the tauren would get a seperate page before even thinking of splitting the Tauren into two pages. The tauren have many tribes, some which act like they are opposed to Thunder Bluff. Meanwhile, the taunka so far seem to have only one group. I will add some quotes from the "official guide" to add onto the evidence. Under the page for the faction The Taunka it says, "These strong, stoic people are distant cousins of the Tauren and share that race's bond with nature, though the harsh climate of Northrend has shaped the Taunka's relationship with the world differently that that of their ancestral relatives." Under the page for Howling FJord it says, "Like their ancestral relations the Tauren, the Taunka are a hardy people who have given their allegiance to the Horde." Under the faction The Tuanka on the website it says, "Ancient relatives of the tauren, the taunka have aligned with the Horde Expedition in the hopes of driving the Lich King from their homeland." All these quotes seem to say that the faction and race are one and the same. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Race

How specific should we get when finding out the race of an NPC? Blizzard seems to call a lot of things "race" like they use "continent" for everything. On WoWWiki it is also the same. For instance, I thought "Dragon" was a race and black was the dragonflight, while wyrm was just a growth stage. Now it seems some people are saying that "Black dragon" is a race and that "Black wyrm" is also a race. So now we have an NPC who is a creature=Dragonkin, which sounds good, but race=Dragon=Black dragon=Black wyrm. So "Black wyrm" is like a sub-sub-race or something. The same thing with "The Frostborn". "The Frostborn" are said to be a race of "Frost dwarves". Meanwhile, "Frost dwarves" are said to be a race of "Dwarves". So it would seem that the NPCs in the faction "The Frostborn" should be written as being all of the race "Frostborn". Any thoughts so I know if a revert of my edit should have been done or not? I put "Dragon" as a race and it was reverted to "Black dragon", or even "Black wyrm". I put "Black dragon" in the race template to match the new edit and it was reverted to "Dragon". A bit confusing. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not Ragestorm, but I think this is the same problem as your above post. Frostborn, I think, are a faction of frost dwarves, that may or may not encompass all of them. I have no idea what the difference between a Black dragon and a Black wyrm is. I think 'wyrm' is an adult dragon (see any wyrm page). Black dragon states a 'dragon' is younger than a 'wyrm' (like whelp and drake), but I think that may be minor speculation.--SWM24 48 02:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought they were a faction too. But there are sentences saying things like "Frostborn are a race of frost dwarves" and "Frost dwarves are a race of Dwarves". I also thought wyrm was a stage of growth but my edits of races was changed from Dragon to Black dragon and then to Black wyrm. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the wyrm, are drakes referred to as "<color> dragon" or "<color> drake" in the infobox? If so, then late adult dragons could be called "<color> wyrm". This could apply to the Aspects and perhaps certain consorts. I don't think this is the best idea, however, unless we change Anduin Wrynn's race to "human child"

Re the Frostborn, see SWM's comment above.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Population and races

In regards to the WoWWiki infobox, what should we do if we run into something in the RPG population infobox like Blackrock orc or Fire-Gut ogre? I know we use Ironforge dwarf and Dark Iron dwarf like the RPG does but I don't think I have seen Blackrock orc or Fire-Gut ogre used on WoWWiki for race. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we separate the dwarves because the Dark Irons are morphologically different from the Bronzebeards (Ironforge) and the Wildhammers. To my knowledge, the Blackrock orcs looked like normal orcs, they were just in the Blackrock clan. If you find a population statistic for them, you can try inserting it into the infobox on Blackrock clan, though I can't recall if this particular species of infobox allows that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing I am finding is population stats "by zone" in the RPG. For instance, it says The Burning Steppes has a population of 3,000 and 50% of it are Blackrock orcs. I guess I can just copy how it is on WoWWiki right now. It shows it as Orc, Blackrock. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you have population by zone, we can leave that out for now.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Book title spelling

I was wondering if we can get one version on how to spell book titles. For instance, the book Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy - Ultimate Edition has its article called Sunwell Trilogy (Ultimate Edition). The book Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive does not have colons but Warcraft: Legends does. So when should we not include the word Warcraft and/or colons or dashes? The spelling of the RPG books on WoWWiki do not have the "Warcraft" or "World of Warcraft" part to the article name except I think the first ones in the series even though technically that is the whole title. Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive could be spelled four ways, Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive, Warcraft: War of the Ancients Archive, Warcraft War of the Ancients: Archive, or Warcraft: War of the Ancients: Archive Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no official way of doing it. One way might be to see what sellers are doing (Blizzard's store being the preferable source). The "Warcraft" at the beginning is redundant, given our topic. Archive books should never use colons, because it doesn't make sense in context (extend this to the Ultimate Trilogy edition). Warcraft: Legends, however, MUST use a colon. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Eliteism @ Elune

Mea cupla, Shan'do. I'm still getting the hang of what is and isn't appropriate Wiki tone, and I get frustrated when people forget the classics. I am but a wee Warcraft newb, and have had the Valar pounded mercilessly into my brain by a friend for several years now. I was really just trying to emphasize that the two characters are really very close, even if that's just a coincidence. ;) You don't need to respond, (I know how busy you mods must be - look at the size of this page, for heaven's sake!) I was just popping by to apologize. :) Bluemalkin (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

poke

I have a question. Gorilla bear was put into the Primate article awhile ago. I looked at it and then the source and I could not find a connection between gorilla bears and primates. All the source says is that it is an aberration. So we don't know if it is some kind of gorilla, bear, or half-breed/hybrid. Some users want to put it back into the Primate page. My argument is that we don't know what this thing is and it could easily be said that we should put it in the Bear article if we are thinking about putting it in the Primate article. That is why I made it its own page. Since Baggins, I think the creator of the entry, is not around someone suggested I ask another de facto lore master. So what say ye? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not to bother putting it back for the moment (that's the problem with hybridized animals- nobody ever thinks of where they go), though there is a good case for putting it on the aberration page. Ideally, though, I would like to see fewer tiny RPG-only articles, but that's not a conversation we're ready to have at the moment...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

poke again

I found an interesting thing just now. I thought I was told that there was no way to create an article with a lower case word in the front. The first word in an article's title was somehow forced to be capitalized by WoWWiki or something. I just saw this article's title itemLink not capitalized and looked into the page. It was done with {{DISPLAYTITLE:itemLink}}. So why don't we use that method for fixing articles that we do not want WoWWiki to capitalize? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What articles did you have in mind? I can think of very few lore articles (if any) that require this.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I was thinking more of all the terms we use in lowercase that people think should be capitalized. This way it is easier, unless we make an article called something like "A primer on how to spell terms", on showing that night elf, high elf, frog, toad, dog, cat, human, dwarf, etc. are spelled in lower case. Right now, when people look at the article title, they would naturally think it is spelled capitalized like Night elf, High elf, Human, Dwarf, etc. This would help I think with finding rdits that have something like Night Elf, night elf, and Night elf all on the same article. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowarmory

Is wowarmory.com official or not? I have made some edits on the Paladin article using wowarmory stating that Paladins can be Caster Dps and they are being reverted. If wowarmory is unofficial then it is okay. If wowarmory is official, which I am pretty sure it is, then it should not be reverted. I even put in the Edit summary box "from wowarmory.com" for my edit. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's official- run by Blizzard. This doesn't mean that everything they say about gameplay roles is gold, though.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay so then wowarmory letting users search by class, in this case Paladin, and then by type of that class, in this case one of the four types is called caster Dps, is wrong? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Paladins are never intended to be a caster DPS class. g0urra[T҂C] 07:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay could you make a list of sources that we can use? So far, edits I made from info I found on wowarmory, the Blizzard store, and the World of Warcraft official guide have not been official enough. It seems you are picking and choosing what is good. Yup that is okay, nope we don't want that official info. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So if the armory says that hunters are good tanks and healers because their pet can tank and they heal them with Mend Pet, would you say that they are tanks and healer? g0urra[T҂C] 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think on WoWWiki there is actually a section on pets as tanks... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Hunters are NOT tanks just because their pets can be tanks (which, unless I'm mistaken, is often the point), and they are NOT healers (in a party-component sense) just because they can heal their pets. Gourra's point is that some of what they're saying doesn't make sense with what the actual gameplay situation is. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing the point. Ragestorm, wowarmory doesn't say "hunters are good tanks and healers because their pet can tank and they heal them with Mend Pet". Gourra said that. I have not seen that on wowarmory. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard says that Paladins can be caster Dps in PvE and PvP, but people choose to "not like it". What happened to WW:NPOV? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that they can be caster DPS in PvE and PvP? g0urra[T҂C] 14:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

<grumble> I was trying to explain Gourra's point in context. Anyway, please produce the exact quote- it's the only way we'll get to the bottom of this. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a quote. I just explained all this on the Paladin talk page. It is part of the wowarmory search function where you can either use the "Find an Upgrade" function for your gear or just search the regular way. Either way, you can you choose a class, like Paladin. It then lets you choose the types of that class. It also has filters to narrow your search down. But I have been told filters and search engines from wowarmory do not count as a source. I point to WW:NPOV where it says "Blizzard may officially state negative or positive elements regarding a subject" but I do not know if that counts wowarmory into the equation. It sure seems like this is what is ocurring with people just not liking that Blizzard has said that Paladins can be caster Dps. Ok back to the filters, one of the filters says you can search by PvE or PvP. In this case with Paladins, under PvE, it says Tank, Melee Dps, Caster Dps, or Healer. Under PvP, it says Melee Dps, Caster Dps, or Healer. Not much else I can say if people do not believe it or do not like it. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my only comment is that if Blizzard says that paladins and be caster DPS, and paladins actually can't be caster DPS, then there is a discrepency that goes beyond official or unofficial. As this is clearly not a lore issue, however, I am withdrawing from the conversation. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, retribution paladins are dps casters, since they use divine magic to increase their holy damage, right? They just can't do ranged dps. Could this detail fit in anywhere, or am I wrong? --Mesethusela (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranged DPS and DPS Casters are different. According to some people on WoWWiki, Paladins cannot be DPS casters. I am leaning towards Blizzard which says that Paladins can be DPS casters. I mean they did make the game. Until I see something from Blizzard saying "woops ignore that part" then it is correct. According to NPOV, "Articles should not be edited to remove correctly cited details" which means it should fit into the article, but apparently the rules don't apply to some people. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You don't have to have ranged damage to be a caster. Paladins are melee dps casters. Of course the rules apply to all people, but they should not be chastised if they forget them or do not understand. To err is human, and we all are. As far as we know...--Mesethusela (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a lore discussion, guys, take it elsewhere, please.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are an admin you should know the rules though. Also, if you are not understanding the rules, you shouldn't tell the other person that they will be banned if they add "correct" info to an article. So this isn't just about lore, and where else should we "take this". I was told I shouldn't edit anything and this is my "last chance". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, misunderstandings happen. Maybe just don't edit something if you're not sure about it. Sorry Ragestorm, I'll terminate this discussion. But one question, could you look at the image discussion on Demon Hunter? It being related to lore, I don't feel those pictures give the right impression on what a demon hunter is.--Mesethusela (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tauren/Night Elves

I posted to the Cenarius talk page about the direct contradiction to the consensus present, but I was just posting to present yet another contradiction I've noticed. I was reading through the history of the two races after noticing the Cenarius problem, and the Tauren "History" lead refers to two novels that it says there is support of the Tauren existing before the Night Elves. I was wondering, do you have these two novels? I'd consider buying them myself if they indeed had lore supporting this, it would seem strange then that the blue post of some forum manager be taken as more factual than direct lore in regard to the Cenarius issue. Revrant (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the WotA trilogy, but if you're planning to buy them simply for Tauren history, you'll be disappointed- the tauren have a minor role in the story, and none of the main characters are Tauren. I can't recall those specific passage referred to off the top of my head, but it is clear from the Tauren's behavior therein that they are much more aware of the true state of the world than the night elves of the same era. This doesn't directly contradict the blue post, however- Cenarius could easily have never taught the Tauren, even though they knew more of him than the kaldorei.

Knaak's pre-Kaldorei civilization (quite well-thought out, whatever else his writing may be) is one that has forgotten itself.

Also, I believe that Cenarius's complicated familial situation was first described by an Earthen, not a Tauren. The White Stag and the Moon didn't appear until WoW.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, I can't believe I never knew this in-game, and playing a Tauren among others, I would think it would have come up. I just saw the controversy surrounding Knaak, so I won't invest any time in the novels if they aren't terribly enjoyable.

I can see why there's a lot of controversy surrounding this issue now, given Malfurion's claim as the first druid, no Tauren were living around the pool to become immortal, thus none would have survived even if it were true they were taught the ways of the Druid before Malfurion. Entirely possible that druids didn't even exist yet, and what the Tauren were taught amounted to what would become Shamanism from a younger, more inexperienced Cenarius.

Thanks for replying, sad to see Blizzard get off kilter with their lore, but also very interesting given nothing is set in stone regarding that possible hypothesis above. Revrant (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, Tauren being druids was an innovation developed for WoW. Earlier lore very clearly establishes druidism as the trademark of night elf men.

And as far as Knaak goes, unplug him from the Tauren issue, he really doesn't have anything to do with it. My only major problem is that he needed to make WotA a time-travel adventure. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 06:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Which uh, earlier lore establishes specifically Druidic arts are specifically male night elf? The books don't seem to go back before Warcraft 3 for more than 12 months, at best, and they seem to be lead ups to it, rather it seems Night Elves were invented alongside Tauren from what I can tell for Warcraft 3. Do you mean at some point in these books it establishes only Night Elves and only Night Elf males can be druids? Thus Blizzard "retconned" or possibly added on to the lore where there was once only implication?

Rather frigid though, aren't we? =) Revrant (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly Warcraft III. The night elves were specifically designed with rigid gender roles: women were the warriors and priestesses, men were the druids. The Tauren (you're right that the two races were introduced in the same source) were designed to represent what the orcs were before their corruption: an honorable shamanistic people at one with the land. Though I'll admit this description screams "druid", there isn't any mention of Tauren druids, or female night elf druids, prior to WoW.

Don't mind the frigidity, it's just my frost nova ;-P--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, so they decided since they hadn't specifically said there couldn't be either, they were added to WoW, fascinating. Revrant (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there wasn't much material pre-wow, but besides Warcraft III, but the idea that tauren can become druids actually first appeared in the original Warcraft RPG book. That was uh circa the release of the Frozen Throne, I think. But they were working on WoW at the time. In addition the rpg also pointed out the prior to events of Warcraft III, in night elf women and men had divided roles in society, I.E. men were the druids and women were the archers, mounted warriors, and priests. It mentions it wasn't until around the time of Frozen Throne that both started becoming more equal, women were become druids, and men were becoming priests. This was partly due to the fact that many of their druids, warriors and priests had been wiped out in the third war and they had to fill in gaps for their own survival.

Granted, I'm not saying there weren't exceptions in the past of individuals going outside the norms. This was just the general idea for the whole race.Baggins (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to call you Bilbo.

Bilbo, that's a good theory, it seems to make sense logically, though as much as WoW utterly focuses on the Night Elves(and the Warcraft 3/Frozen before it) I'm not going to go off with any of my own theories in regard to that, hitting 80 and being lore-soaked has lead to Night Elf overload, and I don't really care to overdose on them. Revrant (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, when tackling druid lore, there isn't much else to overdose on. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusing titles

Okay hopefully I will get a answer that isn't just "No" or "That's unrelated" like I do from some people. Why are there articles titled Blood mage, Mountain king, and Spirit walker while we have articles titled Keeper of the Grove, Druid of the Wild, and Druid of the Talon? All 6 seem to be both from the RPG and WC3 units. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearest I can figure, we must have more sources not capitalizing the first three than we do not capitalizing the other three.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Some of those pages like Keeper of the Grove seem to have a lot of sources not capitalizing them, yet the title of the article is capitalized for some reason. I think it is confusing when some articles have capitalized titles while others don't for vague reasoning. Also, another crazy thing I notice is that within sentences, like the middle or end, the title of an article will include "the" capitalized like "The", yet the article's title doesn't even include the word "the" in it. I ask why and I get "That is how it is" or "Leave it like that". Some of these reasons just defy logic. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, read talk:Village_pump#Admin_move_request_for_Druid_of_the_fang.2FFang|this. Please do not comment on it there, as it is an older discussion. It was discussed on a few other pages. It just defies your logic (but this is not the place to discuss that). If a title of includes an 'of the' the second noun is capitalized, according to that.--SWM24 48 02:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like it is talking about organizations. These are classes though, not something like the Order of Silver Knights or Order of Tirisfal. I am pretty sure Keeper of the Grove is a class isn't it? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should still apply, for consistency's sake. Besides, Keepers are really a class, an organization, and a race. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if they are all three then I guess that would work. I thought they were just a class and a race. They even spelled it all lower case in the RPG if I remember. Well I just don't want anyone getting mad at me when I start spelling those "organizations" capitalized in articles. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of note using Warcraft III as evidence to capitalize something is rather a poor evidence for capitalizing or not capitalizing something since it actually capitalizes nearly everything... I mean race, class, etc. I'd suggest going by later sources. I'm pretty sure that keeper of the grove is lower case in WoW, RPG, and novels.Baggins (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checked, it seems editor "Murph" moved the various druids articles and changed all references to capitals thinking that the terms were proper organization terms. In the rpg the only exception to non-capitals is actually the "Druids of the Fang" but only when it discusses the actual organization that includes, "druids of the fang" class. Its lower case when referring to the class (APG).Baggins (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the capitals in the "of the" article titles, I think it looks nicer. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think capitals in titles looks nicer in general... I would never write an essay with lower case titles, :p... Are we willing to open that can of worms on the wiki?Baggins (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just say that it's an aesthetic choice for these very specific circumstances. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 06:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So is or is not Druid of the wild and other "of the" words all capitalized as article titles? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, capitalized. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay so we got the article title figured out. Now within the article, which "of the" articles are lower-case? All of them including organizations or just the ones that are classified as classes and races? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the ones referring to the race and class. The organization is still capitalized.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, if it hasn't been done we can remerge the two druids of the fang articles.Baggins (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there are NPCs named Druid of the Claw, Druid of the Fang, Druid of the Grove, and Druid of the Talon. Some of them don't have articles on WoWWiki yet. If someone makes those articles, will they have to be titled Druid of the Talon (NPC) for instance? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If they're generic NPCs who aren't quest-givers or anything, I wouldn't bother. But yes, that would be the route you should take.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh maybe that is why they were never made. They might be out of the way NPCs that are not important. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking I leave the generic NPCs to the editors that are into npc stats information... Without that info there is little need to make those sorts of pages.Baggins (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling again!

I think we really need a primer on spelling. Once again, I spent a lot of time correcting spelling just to have it reverted. Now, could you check Drakolord7's edits and tell me if they are supposed to be spelled in all capitals? They weren't before, now suddenly they are. Also, could you check Sandwichman2449's reverts and tell me if they are supposed to be spelled in all capitals? It is confusing. I am not saying they are wrong, I just want to know why they are spelled in all capitals. The edits I did were not on organizations like our discussion above, so that isn't it. They are just units, buildings, etc. Plus, you have some spellings in all capitals, while others are not in all capitals, in the same template. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor usage note, "all capitals" implies THIS SORT OF TYPING, not This Sort.

As far as SWMan's reverts go, they were totally unneeded, but then, so were your initial changes, it really doesn't matter what's capitalized on the template as long as it looks neat.

As for Drakolord, what specifically are you referring to?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I didn't mean ALL CAPITALS. I guess I meant capitalized. Okay so the template doesn't matter. I think it should be neat like you said though. I see some unit names that are lowercase in the template, while other are capitalized. That doesn't look neat. With Drakolord, I am just wondering if those pages he "moved" are supposed to be moved. He moved some pages that were lowercase to capitalized. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnall and Kilnar, etc

A few updates to the discussion; Talk:Finnall Goldensword.Baggins (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Finnall_Goldensword#Arbitrary_Adminy_Ruling, thought you might want a headsup on Wulfgang character, whom I think may be a sock of someone else. Its pretty low to resort to personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies...Baggins (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else edits that page, I'm locking it and issuing bans.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm through. There isn't anything more that's worth saying. I'm not going to take continue discuss abusive attitudes from SoL posters in the thread... :p...Baggins (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are quite rational, from what I've seen. This one wasn't. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Medieval Dragon, Rowan Seven, are all rational folk. Well Warlock usually is (except for the occasional trying to foist words into my mouth or others). I've had conversations with Medieval Dragon quite a bit. Also many of them don't take the stance that a little bit of "appocryphal" material makes the entire source "non-canon". A few do but they kinda ignore the fact that that stance would throw out novels (which contain parts that are less than canon, and some games as well (material that has been retconned).

As for your appendix III remark. Actually I don't neccessarily consider it "canon", but I choose to remain neutral on the issue. Thus I don't state it is canon or non-canon. Also we have freely admitted that some of the designers of Warcraft RPG in general have stated that they don't believe it is canon. But we also mentioned that they have stated it was their opinion and didn't represent Blizzard's words on the issue. We also pointed out where some of the material made it outside of the Appendix III into other articles (bone golems anyone?) or included references to previous material in a few instances. That's really all we can do about it. Also much lore in multiple sources (including the games) has been turned "approcryphal" (or conflicting) through retcons. Our job is merely to archive that information, not speculate or give definite interpretation of its status.Baggins (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to laugh for 1 week straight at SoL if Finnall Goldensword ever becomes an important character. Appendix III and other info may not be "canon", but it is still important because as Baggins said, "some of the material made it outside of the Appendix III into other articles (bone golems anyone?) or included references to previous material in a few instances" which means in the future you never know what will be taken from Appendix III and used more. Also, Appendix III and other info comes from the Warcraft RPG. The Warcraft RPG is connected to Warcraft. Hence, it fits in here and WoWWiki has a NPOV. Finally, Blizzard and Mezten have stated that the info is official many times. Metzen himself has written in the RPGs and he is supposed to be in charge of the lore I thought. Unless "official" and "canon" are two different things? I am not sure why some people have forgotten the fact that the RPGs were not made secretly without Blizzard and/or Metzen's knowledge. Here are some quotes:

"Metzen's personal view is that the history of Azeroth is not found in just one source, but includes the RPGs, novels, comics, manuals, and games." - WoWWiki

We've always tried to do that with our ancillary products like the D&D line and our novels. We are kind of painstakingly anal, about making sure all the details add up, that continuity is held to be sacred. So that no matter in what medium you are experiencing Warcraft it all feels like a contiguous experience." - Metzen

"Any piece of literature authorized and licensed by Blizzard Entertainment is in-fact, official." - Eyonix

"Want to know more about the lore of World of Warcraft? The game doesn't require any additional reading to play. However, you might enjoy gaining a more detailed knowledge of Warcraft lore. Here are some resources that are available: ...RPGs... Warcraft Role-Playing Games provide a wealth of information about Warcraft lore." - Worldofwarcraft.com Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well technically you can have "official" canon and "official" approcypha, the two terms are not exclusive. Although I'm not sure what Blizzard interprets the terms as they have thrown around both, and some fans interpret them to mean the same thing ([4]). Although that is just fan opinion.

My stance has always been to stay out of speculation of that sort, and only post official designer even if they can end up being contradictory with each other, every time they revent their ideas. Ideas change, and will change its part of being human. Humans are flexable like that.Baggins (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That link sort of confirms my statement that the RPGs and other novels are pretty important indeed. The quote says that they are both official and canon. The quotes I put above also confirm it. It says in that link, "We work closely with authors that help us expand our game universe, and the information should be considered official.", so I am not sure why some people think they are not canon. I say once again, Blizzard approved these sources. Until Blizzard states that the RPGs are not canon and that they did not approve them, then they are okay by me. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why some people insist on thinking that they aren't (It should be noted, however, that CDev has mentioned a few of them are outdated, though they were vague about which ones), and for some reason, Appendix 3 of the MoM's questionable canonicity (though given what I understand of how it's worded, it quite clearly isn't) means that the RPG as a whole is questionable. Similarly, many people chose to ignore Knaak's books as canonical until Rhonin and Krasus got in-game models. However, we do not have that luxury. Our purpose is documentation, not analysis.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dwarves

This comment is for both you and Baggins. Could someone clean up the hill dwarf, mountain dwarf, and wild dwarf pages? It is very confusing. On the Day of the Dragon page it has a "Hill dwarves" section and a "Wildhammer clan / Wild dwarves / Mountain dwarves" section. Except, if you go to those pages it says that the Wildhammer clan are hill dwarves, that Falstad Wildhammer ("Dragonreaver") is both a mountain dwarf and hill dwarf, that the Wildhammer clan are indeed mountain dwarves, and yet mountain dwarves "live primarily underground deep beneath the earth." which sounds like the Bronzebeard clan to me and not the Wildhammer clan. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Baggins!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not my fault that the sources are a bit contradictory on the issue. Falstad is called mountain dwarf/wild dwarf/Aerie dwarf in Knaack's book, and he's a wildhammer/hill dwarf in the rpg. Hill dwarves in Knaack's book are subterranian, hill dwarves in the RPG are usually surface dwellers.Baggins (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what are the hill/mountain distinctions from the RECENT RPG, as opposed to DotD, which came out at a much much much earlier stage of development? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond a single word reference? There isn't much description. Basically just statment that "...Bronzebeard (mountain dwarves), Wildhammer (hill dwarves)...". Uh, and we have the Yorg Stormheart reference.Baggins (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, stop cluttering up the infoboxes. However, I don't think there's enough information to go on right now. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we have chosen to leave the infoboxes for the characters as simply "dwarf".Baggins (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alliance.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the Ironforge dwarves. Their infobox says "Ironforge dwarves, mountain dwarves". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have Night of the Dragon but from what I understand Rom and the members of his clan are described as either Ironforge dwarves or Bronzebeard dwarves. A confirmatin would be handy, that that can be noted in the relative articles.Baggins (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the dwarf page and corrected some things. Technically, the Bronzebeard clan is not the Ironforge clan. It seems they do get used interchangeably sometimes but it isn't 100% correct. I know it is unoffical, but one of the supposed authors of the RPG wrote an "unoffical errata" article saying on certain pages to replace "Ironforge" with Bronzebeard" because they made a mistake. Now back to the "official" info. It says on Modimus Anvilmar, "Modimus Anvilmar was the high king of all the dwarves. The Bronzebeard, Wildhammer, and Dark Iron clans were united under his rule." Modimus Anvilmar was from the Ironforge clan. There were many clans under the Ironforge clan's rule as you can see on the dwarf page besides the "big three", two of which were the Stonefist and, I think, Stormpike clans. The Bronzebeard, Wildhammer, and Dark Iron clans just happened to be three clans that eventually emerged as pretty powerful. The Bronzebeard clan was closest to the king and saw themselves as the "defenders" of Ironforge. The Wildhammers eventually inhabited the foothills and crags around the base of the mountain which is why I thought they were called hill dwarves in LoC. The Dark Irons hid within the deepest shadows under the mountain as I think Baggins mentioned to me and were always scheming. As soon as Modimus Anvilmar died everything went into anarchy. The Bronzebeard clan "defended" Ironforge and we know what happened to the Wildhammers and Dark Irons. Reading that small part of LoC where it says what kind of dwarves the three big clans are, it seems that the Wildhammers are called hill dwarves before the War of the Three Hammers as you can see by the whole section telling to us how to "play in another era" after they have "awakened" after the Sundering. So I don't know if you call it a retcon or what, but around the time of the War of the Three Hammers the Bronzebeards were described as "mountain" dwarves, the Wildhammers were "hill" dwarves, and the Dark Irons were just plain scheming and using dark sorcery. I am not sure if the Ironforge clan had a "name". Later, chronologically I guess not publishing, in the Day of the Dragon we have some other "hill" dwarves (Ironforge dwarves?) and some other "mountain/wild" dwarves (Wildhammer dwarves?) descriptions. Now currently, you could probably enlighten me on this, but there was another retcon and the Bronzebeards are the mountain dwarves again, the Wildhammer are back to being the hill dwarves, and the Dark Iron are still scheming bad dwarves. I am not sure if the Ironforge clan has a "name" currently. On a side note, I have a theory that the "hill" dwarves that were able to escape the area before the Horde trapped the other hill dwarves ran to Alterac and became the Stormpikes. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot enlighten you on this- Elves are my specialty. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know if you are even going to get into a discussion of retcons, publishing order is more important than chronological order of the sources. Something published in the past can't by definition retcon something published after it. This being said publishing order would be Day of the Dragon, Warcraft III, Lands of Conflict, and then Night of the Dragon in that order. Day of the Dragon cannot by definition retcon Warcrart, III, Lands of Conflict nor Night of the Dragon since it was published long before. However all later sources can retcon previous sources.

That being said the context of the quote from Lands of Conflict was describing what those clans are. It had nothing to do with the era that was being desribed, though it was discussing what the gropus split into in that era.

As for Ironforge dwarves and Bronzebeard dwarves essentially means the same thing, the same race. But within the Bronzebeard clan are many lesser clans. Stonefist for example is one of the lesser clans within the Bronzebeard/Ironforge dwarf clan. Apparently dwarven surnames indicate lesser clans.Baggins (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay next time I will use publishing order.

Now the context thing you are making no sense. "It had nothing to do with the era that was being desribed, though it was discussing what the gropus split into in that era." So you just said it has nothing to do with the era because it has to do with the era? What? Who?

Now with the Ironforge clan, how can you say they are the same as the Bronzebeard clan when the lore says that the Ironforge clan was the first clan to awaken after the earthen had gone into hibernation after the Sundering? Also, if you look at the quotes, it says that the Ironforge clan was keeping all the clans together. If the Bronzebeards were in charge, they would not have stayed united, as you can see by what happened when Modimus Anvilma died. The War of Three Hammers occured. Stonefist was under the Ironforge clan. The Wildhammers, Dark Irons, and Bronzebeards were just three of the strongest clans that started to emerge when the population grew. That is why the Dark Irons starting living deeper, the Bronzebeards stayed around the city, and the Wildhammers lived in the hills of the mountain. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is while the LOC bit was talking about an earlier era, it was merely describing what the clans are in any period. It wasn't saying "no they are only that in that period". Also I don't think I said anything about "Ironforge clan", I was talking about the term Ironforge dwarves. That's a bit different. Although since you bring up Ironforge Clan, you might notice their story is exactly the same to Bronzebeard storyline as well. Both were said to be the third clan that fought during the War of the Three Hammers, thus while all three might have originally been Ironforge Clan, the only Bronzebeard clan remained the same essentially, the other two split off. Note Three Hammers is in reference to the three sides to the war, there were only three not four. Thus during that period whatever was left of the Ironforge clan had to be have been the Bronzebeard/Ironforge dwarves.Baggins (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you are confusing me because you said "As for Ironforge dwarves and Bronzebeard dwarves essentially means the same thing, the same race. But within the Bronzebeard clan are many lesser clans. Stonefist for example is one of the lesser clans within the Bronzebeard/Ironforge dwarf clan." which as you can see you ended up calling them Bronzebeard/Ironforge dwarf clan. You added clan at the end but then you said you were not talking about any Ironforge clan. I agree that the other two split off but not the part where you said what was left of the Ironforge clan had to have been the Bronzebeard dwarves. I don't think they ever said what happened to the main Ironforge clan. Maybe there weren't many of them in number just in royalty. Since the king died and everyone went to war, I am guessing there wasn't a direct descendant to the king who would have still held the other clans together. Remember the quotes say that the Bronzebeard clan was closest to the king and that they saw themselves as protectors of Ironforge. Now if the Ironforge clan is the Bronzebeard clan, how could a clan be close to itself? That doesn't make sense. Also, if the Ironforge clan was the Bronzebeard clan, how come there was not a war way, way earlier in history? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But I never said "Ironforge clan". Ironforge dwarf clan is one word too long to be "ironforge clan" ;). What quotes are you talking about? Care to go back to Lands of Conflict and find them for me? Maybe i'm overlooking them somewhere. The only references I see to Ironforge clan makes reference to its history before the war of the three hammers, its split into "three groups", and then the history of the the war of the three hammers. Since we know for certainly only three clans were involved with the three hammers, and Dark Irons and Wildhammers are mentioned, then whatever was left of the Ironforge clan was the Bronzebeard clan. Other sources have stated specifically it was the Bronzebeard clan that was the third clan. War of the Three Hammers (History of Warcraft) for example. Also make sure to read the account in Alliance Player's Guide.Baggins (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the confusion. I am not sure what Ironforge dwarf clan means. I agree that there were only 3 clans in the war due to the title of the war. I am just wondering, if like you said, "whatever was left of the Ironforge clan was the Bronzebeard clan." really happened. We are sort of guessing what happened to them aren't we? Maybe there were too few in number to matter or they ended up choosing between the three clans to join as they had no leader anymore. The quotes I was referring to are from the Modimus Anvilmar page which says its source is APG. It says "Modimus Anvilmar was the high king of all the dwarves. The Bronzebeard, Wildhammer, and Dark Iron clans were united under his rule. When he died, the War of the Three Hammers began." So to me that says Modimus was part of the Ironforge clan and his clan was keeping everyone together by a thread or something. Or maybe all the clans respected him and his clan. I think over on the Rumholt Thunderaxe page it says some Ironforge clan members took off and joined the Dark Iron clan which connects to me query of maybe the remainder of the Ironforge clan joined whichever clan they saw as fit. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Would have made more sense if I had said Ironforge/Bronzebeard dwarf clan? ...or perhaps Ironforge dwarf/bronzebeard clan? or simply Ironforge/bronzebeard? My point was just that they were intended to be teh same thing, the same clan. Actually rumholt's page talks about the ironforge dwarfs not the Ironforge clan. Seperate articles, ;).Baggins (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As for Modimus Anvilmar, I don't know much about him enough to make a comment, I'd suggest researching into him from original sources to see if they ever locked down what specific clan he belonged to, I wouldn't be surprised if was ultimately Bronzebeards. The Anvilmars that are still around are part of the Bronzebeards.Baggins (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I always thought he was from the Ironforge clan. The Anvilmars that are still around would be part of another clan, like you said the Bronzebeards, because way back during the War of the Three Hammers the Ironforge clan would have ceased to exist. Okay you said " I wouldn't be surprised if was ultimately Bronzebeards." but why wasn't there a war way before it actually happened if the king was just a Bronzebeard clan member? As you know, the Dark Iron clan did not like the whole clan of Bronzebeards and vice versa. So if the Ironforge clan is really the Bronzebeard clan that would mean somehow every clan disliked every other clan except for this one member of the Bronzebeard clan? Don't forget there must have been kings before Modimus who also somehow kept the clans all united which means the Dark Irons liked only Bronzebeards who were kings? But then there would never had been a fight because they would have also liked Madoran Bronzebeard. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of speculating on it go do the research for yourself. Check all references to the War of the Three hammers. I gave you the sources I know of above. Dark Factions also had a large section detailing it as well.Baggins (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will try to hit the books. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell from Dark Factions, Anvilmar was still alive when the groups started breaking up. But the war didn't start until he died.Baggins (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Alliance Player's Guide says that Anvilmar had closest ties to the Bronzbeard clan by blood and history.Baggins (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya it seems like they broke up and became the most powerful three of any other clans in Ironforge before the war even happened. I have to figure out though why they would stay united under Anvilmar if he was really just another Bronzebeard. Also, any kings before him if they were just Bronzebeards. Finally, why decide to go to war only at the point in time when a certain Bronebeard came to power. These all lead me to think that Anvilar was part of the Ironforge clan which was keeping every clan together until he had no succesion to his throne and it was up for grabs. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you notice in Lands of Conflict at the time of Anvilmir, the groups were split along the lines of Ironforge, Wildhammer, and Dark Iron. Bronzebeard is not mentioned. But its obvious the context at that point is the Ironforge it speaks of is the Bronzebeards. So that still leaves the Anvilmar a Bronzebeard. Even ingame book says Anvilmar had the closest ties to the Bronzebeards. It wasn't easy for him to keep the peace, its been described that hte peace was tenuous at best.Baggins (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Earthen dwarves

Okay now we have a race called Earthen dwarves? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Baggins should probably have left it at Ulduar Earthen... --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Need your mediation

http://www.wowwiki.com/Talk:Day_of_the_Dragon Your assistance would be helpful.Baggins (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going along with Kd3's arbitration on this one. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is authorizing the moves?

Who is authorizing the moves made by he who won't be named of various race pages? Like tauren to "tauren of thunder bluff" (look at the move history to see the person involved)? It was a dumb move since it was the primary and only tauren lore page, and makes little sense to "expand" the title for no reason. I assumed he must have had some kind of permission from his mentor (although if he does, I don't have much good to say about his mentor for allowing that move). I tried to mediate the issue by fixing the move back to tauren, but moving out the "game play" aspects to the "of Thunder Bluff" page. I also curbed him before he started to move Darkspear trolls to "Trolls of Darkspear" (which would make little sense). If he's making unauthorized moves, I'm not sure what sort of action we should follow...Baggins (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

When you're moving everything else from <modifier><race> to <race> of <location>, what do you expect? He sees you doing it and has no idea that you don't want all the racepages like that. This gods-forsaken split happened before he got here, and now you're expended a large amount of energy to bring it in line with sketchy sources (I fail to see any difference whatsoever between Human of Stormwind and Stormwind Human). The simplest solution? Go back to the original idea and give the playable pages something like <race> (statistics) or something. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with your "logic" is that "tauren" is a basic race page, and we do keep basic race pages for all the races. Thus just moving the entire page without splitting out the gameplay statistical/faction information made little sense. That's why I took the time to make sure if it was split it was done right, and fixed his mistake.

By the way I've turned all the "race/faction" pages into race and faction pages proper (adding the faction template, and adding reputation information sections). I've also started adding in ""Faction" (faction)" redirect to the various pages, i.e. Stormwind (faction). Gnomeregan Exiles is the only one that isn't specifically called "gnomes" since it had a proper faction name to begin with. I also fixed the Durotar Orcs, to Orcs of Orgrimmar to put it in line with the faction/race name within the game. I haven't done anything to Darkspear tribe since the page is rather short to begin with, and I've let him know that there isn't really a reason to change things yet.Baggins (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that Tauren is on the playable template, I think his actions are a perfectly understandable misinterpretation. Everything else sounds fine for now. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy

Isn't it strange that I am in the "top 7 most active users" but one person has been behind the banning of me around 7 times in about as many months? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of note, this one person you're referring to only did 3 bans on you... and its not like hes trying to get rid of you, just wants you to improve. Also... your comment is not very appropriate.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of note he did some bans with his name on them. The rest he was behind and we all know that since the people who banned me told me. He is not very appropriate. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I am about to put Baggins on the Violations list because 1.) He is padding his complaint against me adding more and more nonsense. 2.) He once again is single handly trying to ban me for the nth time. 3.) He does not follow the rules himself but expects everyone else to. 4.) I followed his example on some moves as Ragestorm could see above, yet mine got me on the Violations list and his have not. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd ban you. User:Adys/Sig 10:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would ban him too. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1 week, since you're asking for it. The time for a more active admin to take a decent decision on what to do with you. User:Adys/Sig 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to seeing this. This action is concerning to me and seems petty in the extreme. I don't have time to deal with this at the moment, but I'm going to follow up. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:48 AM PST 20 Mar 2009

This stops now

Okay I don't know where to put this nor who's the most active admin to deal with it; but this thing with Rolandius, it stops now. He's using WW's bureaucracy and taking bullshit getting you all against eachother. Just look at this. I'm bored of having to deal with "he did this he did that" always involving him. Enough warnings. Enough drama. You shouldn't have to mob so much to deal with someone like this. User:Adys/Sig 10:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, drop me an e-mail. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rolandius/Articles [5]?; User:Rolandius/Pack/pack, crystallized people, ash people, ent, mine kobold, etc???Baggins (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we didn't police user subpages. If he tries to actually add any of those, we'll relieve his misconceptions, but right now it's essentially fanfiction.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not policing his uh, personal wikipedia, but just making sure that his personal wikipedia isn't some variation of the "mentor" page, and that there isn't any plans for that stuff to be moved onto main pages. I the only reason I noticed this uh stuff, was the constant updating on Special:RecentChanges, which btw is the only way I keep track of anything thats edited by anyone.Baggins (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Any plans to move articles I made in [6], that are on the "mentor" page, onto main pages is up to my mentor, not me, so why are you worried about my subpages in [7]? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He's worried that after waiting for a while and not getting a reply, you'll go ahead and do it anyway. Perhaps a groundless fear, perhaps not.

Well, if you want any of that added to the main pages, someone is going to need to go through it all eventually. I'll do it if Sky isn't avaliable. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to "link" everything on my subpages to the mentor page. Some of my subpages are just works-in-progress and/or fun things I am making. No matter how crazy one of my subpages that I want to put on the main page look, it has to go through the mentor page acceptance first. So you don't have to worry about me throwing one of my subpages onto the main pages when no one is looking or something. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Magical beasts and Racial terminology

Should an article with the Magical beasts category have something in the article mentioning that it is a magical beast or is the category enough? Also, could I fix Racial terminology due to it having heading links which just redirect back to the page? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the cat should be enough, it isn't that vital. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

I found a sandbox reference in Kael'thas Sunstrider (Magisters' Terrace tactics) but I've never seen one in a such relevant page. IMO it links to some kind of fanfiction but at the moment I have no time to verify its well-placement. Is it well placed? If not can you remove it, I'm very busy now. --N'Nanz (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. The edit has been rollbacked. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft relations map

Hello,

I'm quite new to wowwiki, but I'm currently working on an interesting project, temporarily labeled "Warcraft relations map". It is supposed to be a map of relations between most important characters/clans/artefacts till the end of The Frozen Throne story. Almost everything is based on WarcraftIII:RoCh manual and WarcraftIII:RoCh+TFT games storyline. Something was taken here from wowwiki.

I've been missing something like this, so I decided to create it myself.

thumbnail:

WRM 2009-03-15 — Warcraft Relations Map snapshot (15.3.2009)

I would like:

to know where (and how) best to place it here on wowwiki.
if anybody would like to cooperate with me - e.g. in a sense of controlling the correctness, which should be maximum possible here on wowwiki..

Anny comments welcomed. Thank you, --crysman

Well, I'm not quite sure where this could be placed, since we don't deal much with lore analysis or intercharacter relations. Only think I could suggest correcting is that, while they have different models, the banshee Sylvanas and the Dark Ranger Sylvanas shouldn't be considered separate characters. Ditto for Kel'Thuzad ante- and post-mortem.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:( So I should create a new page named e.g. "Relations map" and then add links to it to relevant pages? In a case of Sylvanas and Kel'Thuzad.. They must have separated entities, because whether S.banshee served to Lich King, S.dark ranger is free and actually commands Forsaken. The same in Kel's case. He changed after he died.. --crysman 10:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While their racials have changes, it isn't directly tied to their alleigance. Kel'Thuzad served the Lich King for quite some time prior to his lichificiation. Sylvanas regained her ranger body at some point while she was still enslaved, and served his will for a while before his powers began to fade and she broke free.

What pages do you envision this linking to? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kel'Thuzad-Lich is just another character then former Kel'Thuzad. It must be modeled this way, because e.g. his affiliation to Kirin Tor was relevant only when he was still human dark mage. After all, he turned from human to undead, so the change is really significant.

And the pages.. I don't know yet, I thought it could be on these like "Horde, Alliance, ..", then on main important characters "Lich king, Arthas, Thrall, Grom, Archimonde .." and some categories (e.g. "Category:Orc clans" and such).. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:crysman|crysman]] ([[User talk:crysman|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/crysman|contr]]).

I'm not really sure. The main characters have infoboxes to track most relationships and affiliations, and most group affiliations are pretty clear. While having this information codified is quite helpful for reference purposes, I can't picture much practical use. Saying something like "see this chart for <subject>'s interconnectivity to other characters and groups" won't really work, again, because the information in question is already in a codified place on the page.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. But you are unable to see the whole map anywhere. It is like to have a map of Lordearon, Azeroth, Northrend and Kalimdor, but no map of the whole world, which may be (and it is) useful.. It is simply too complicated to imagine all the relations just in mind.. For example, if we take Medivh.. You cannot see all the relations like "mother Aegwyn, former inferior of Sargeras, opened the Dark portal, killed by Lothar and/or Khadgar.."

I find it useful to have a complex map, you do not. So perhaps we would need something like poll - to have a feedback from several people :) Maybe it will be in result so complex that it'll be useless, don't know yet, I will try to optimize it..

And the placement.. I don't know, really :( --crysman 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dwarf clans

Two questions. Why is the category called "dwarf clans" but the template is called "dwarven clans"? Also, could we move Anvilrage and Doomforge to Anvilrage clan and Doomforge clan if they are in fact clans? Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1) There probably isn't a reason. Whoever made the template probably preferred the adjective, whoever made the cat preferred the noun.

2) Yes, if we can positively prove that they are clans in and of themselves. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that some templates automatically add a category, to make it easier I am guessing, but some do not. The {{races}} does but {{dwarven clans}} does not for example.

Anvilrage and Doomforge are in "Category:Dwarven clans" though so it sort of does not make sense. Why doesn't it have to be proved that they are clans for the whole category thing but does for an article title? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Quilboar

What does "Neutral-Hostile" mean in the quilboar infobox? Is this a real term? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In the english language a dash (or en-dash) can mean 'to'. So when stating something from pages 229-256, someone would be stating that the material is from pages 229 to 256. When someone states something is "neutral-hostile" they are stating that it varies between neutral to hostile. It seems self-explanatory enough. I don't think its difficult to understand.Baggins (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I sort of know the English language. That is a hyphen in "neutral-hostile", like "half-elf", meaning it makes it into one word. You are thinking of "neutral—hostile". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure who ever posted that meant neutral to hostile, not "half-hostile". You already know people use ("mix-up") the hyphons and dashes interchangeably throughout wowwiki and even in the books. BTW, "== Quilbaor ==", its "quilboar", not quilbaor".Baggins (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Well it is "difficult" not "diffult". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DING thats enough.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks ragestorm. At the moment I'm tight on time but at some stage I just want to work on cleaning up my pages and adding info. Lintelotiel (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Source checking

Could you tell Baggins to check his citations a bit more? I had to fix a bunch where he somehow found info that didn't exist. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that unusual. Are these recent edits of his that you're referring to?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they seem to span all the way to last July. I guess they were there so long, or some other reason, that no one bothered to check it out. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you also have to take into account that A) only a small percentage of us actually own the RPG (I, for one, am not spending that much money on something that's only good for an occasional arcane lore reference) and B) most of us have better things to do than check every RPG reference we come across. This is unlike Baggins, even taking interpretation into account.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well most of it is connected to trying to make the Highborne look like a race. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There actually are a few obscure references in the rpg where highborne are referred to as a "race/racial". For example, "Affiliations are nearly always along racial lines, though despite their physical appearance the Kaldorei are already divided into the night elves and the “highborn” elves."Template:Cite

Note that it uses night elves and highborn elves as an example of "racial lines", and the reference is in a section referring to a period of time set 10,000-14,000 years before "present".

I don't appreciate your accusations, and the fact that you made the accusation proves to me that you are trying to play ragestorm against me, again...Baggins (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only one source versus dozens of contrary sources, which is the one you just quoted. That is it. I don't appreciate you taking one quote and changing other quotes to fit your ideas and then turning around telling other users that they are "making things up". For example, changing many mentions of "high elves" to "Highborn elf" as if no one will ever check your citation or something? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Near empty pages

Are these pages (Darnassus_(faction), Gnomeregan_Exiles, Ironforge_(faction), Stormwind_(faction), Orgrimmar_(faction), and Undercity_(faction)) supposed to be empty? They only have a template and I have been told numerous times that you should not have an article with just a stub, template, etc. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They are supposed to have reputation, rewards, quest information, etc. as on other faction pages.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then these articles are really lacking since they are nearly empty except for a template. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of note the pages were made because of a discusison on the village pump due to the fact that it was decided that faciton and player race pages should be seperated. I did as was requested, but since world of warcraft gameplay mechanics is not my strong point and nor do I have a way to research that info, I'm not going to add anythign to them myself. That is up to people that actually play the game.Baggins (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was asking. Is it to be expanded in the future or is that how it is supposed to look like? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an ARCHIVE--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous race as a category

I can't remember who told me, but I thought that the race in the infobox of an NPC was the category of that NPC, not both the race and previous race, for example a ghost who was once a dwarf. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the appropriate way to do an NPC is, I don't usually handle them. I'd prefer if it was just their race with the creature category in parens. In the example you're suggesting, I'd say something like "ghost (undead, former dwarf)" or "ghost dwarf (undead)", or something. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well pretty much I thought it was done like "Ghost (Undead)" since that is what they currently are at the moment. Putting "ghost dwarf (undead)", "ghost human"(undead), etc. would make it look like those are new races. That is how I have been doing it since I thought I was told that and it sort of makes sense so you do not make it look all complicated. If we put everything an NPC ever was, it would sort of like be putting the race of a blood elf NPC as "blood elf (humanoid, former high elf, former night elf)" or something. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your solution is fine, but it isn't incorrect with undead characters to put the former race, though for misc. NPCs there is no point to it. And I think most people know better than to do that to blood elf NPCs. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then for NPCs I have been doing it correctly I guess. Just their current race and creature type in their infobox and then a category for their current race. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say misc., do you also mean categories? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

^ Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 94. ISBN 9781588469731.
^ Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 160. ISBN 9781588469731.
^ Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 60. ISBN 9781588469731.
^ Arthaus. World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, 364. ISBN 9781588467812.

[1] Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 94. ISBN 9781588469731.

[2] Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 160. ISBN 9781588469731.

[3] Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 60. ISBN 9781588469731.

[4] Arthaus. World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, 364. ISBN 9781588467812.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 :"Deathwing, an ancient and powerful black dragon, assumes the form of Lord Prestor — a young human diplomat — and infiltrates the high council of the Alliance. Using subtle magic, the dragon ensnares the minds of the human leaders and forces them to grant him the title of king of Alterac. The Alliance pushes the weakened and disorganized Horde all the way back to the Black Morass, where the Dark Portal is located. Lord Anduin Lothar is slain during the Alliance’s final victory. The Dark Portal is shattered. The Second War ends."
-:"such as during the Second War when he pretended to be a heroic noble named Lord Prestor..."{{Cite|S&L|94}}
+:"such as during the Second War when he pretended to be a heroic noble named Lord Prestor..."<ref>{{ref book |author=Arthaus |title=[[Shadows & Light]] |isbn=9781588469731 |pages=94}}</ref>
 Let it not be said I don't do my research before I put anything down :p... (at least I try to make sure I do research before hand). Yes, I know the first quote may have one detail out of order, at least by other official timelnes (I'd have to check). I don't think he got the title of King of Alterac until after events of the second war, but so is the problem with most official timelines we have (the order of events or the dates differ in each one). Unless LoC was interpreting Daval's kingship as flashbacks that happened before main events of DotD story (Rhonin/Krasus stuff), which may be the case as the timeline has it split that way.
@@ Line 201: / Line 201: @@
 Dude, Tothrezim were invented by the RPG, and its authors, actually we know the author of that section due to the credits, "Luke Johnson". He certainly knew what he intended for the race, "a four armed, hunched over, and distant cousins to the Nathrezim." The artist represenation is the official representatin of the Tothrezim, infact its mentioned in their official description;
-:::The dark-skinned humanoid would stand at least twice as tall as a normal man, were its form not unnaturally hunched over. Four abnormally large arms connect to bulbous shoulders, each hand clutching a glistening, black blade. The Tothrezim are the distant cousins of the dread Nathrezim.{{Cite|S&L|160}}
+:::The dark-skinned humanoid would stand at least twice as tall as a normal man, were its form not unnaturally hunched over. Four abnormally large arms connect to bulbous shoulders, each hand clutching a glistening, black blade. The Tothrezim are the distant cousins of the dread Nathrezim.<ref>{{ref book |author=Arthaus |title=[[Shadows & Light]] |isbn=9781588469731 |pages=160}}</ref>
 Obviously the artwork is representive of the written lore. Also, no they do not have the "shapeshifting ability" in their racial abilities, I've checked the book.
@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 Again you would have to post proof or retract on a statement that states, "all demons, or all members of a demonic race are shape-shifters", and if you found one, you would only be establishing a contradiction in lore.
-Infact, the article for article for Kil'Jaeden states that his ability to shape-shift is special to him, and is one of the reasons he is called the Deceiver.{{Cite|S&L|60}}
+Infact, the article for article for Kil'Jaeden states that his ability to shape-shift is special to him, and is one of the reasons he is called the Deceiver.<ref>{{ref book |author=Arthaus |title=[[Shadows & Light]] |isbn=9781588469731 |pages=60}}</ref>
 :7."I am not trying to ignore RPG facts, but trying to provide backing for my theory that is as accurate as possible."

Wowpedia