Talk:Day of the Dragon

101,292pages on
this wiki

Back to page

The continuity placement of the bookEdit

There's something I've wondered about. Was Day of the Dragon always meant to take place after the events of Beyond the Dark Portal? Looking at the book and the continuity that was present when it came out, it would seem to indicate that it took place prior to then. In the book, the Alliance has yet to split up, and the Dragonmaw clan is still active. But in the manual for BTDP, it says that the Alliance split up before then, and that the Dragonmaw clan had been captured. It's mentioned in the book that the Kirin Tor took out Deathwing, but it doesn't say when or where it happened.

To clarify, I'm aware that the official continuity is that it takes place after BTDP. I'm just wondering if that was always the case. --Austin P 18:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure its ever been explained why timelines starting with manual of Warcraft III placed the book after the events of TFT.Baggins 18:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

well...from what I know...accourding to the Pen&Paer sourcebooks: Draenor blows up and Ner'zhul become lichking: year 7. DotD: year 8--Maibe 19:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Initially, I thought it was an error on Blizzard's part. But then I found out how suprisingly unclear Knaak was on the true indentity of Cenarius' mother, and wondered if it was a mistake he made. I don't know if anyone ever asked him, I just wanted to make sure. --Austin P 09:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Basically there is an issue, and possibly a retcon, Let's continue this talk over in Talk:Alexstrasza.Baggins 00:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Night of the Dragon?Edit << Apparently Richard A. Knaak is writing something related to DotD. I just thought it'd be interesting to point out.

He has a thing for dragons, I see. --Austin P 06:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Should this be added in the main article? The title and the placement on the bibliography page make it pretty obvious that this is a sequel to DotD. --DarthMuffin 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah. It'll involve dragons, but it isn't necessarily a direct sequel to the events in DotD. --Austin P 12:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikifications Edit

I don't really think 2 more wikifications overload the article. The thing is, since it's in the habit to wikify any name the first time it occurs in the article (and no more), to wikify a character and his/her disguise would leave him/her unwikified (along with his/her disguise) should he/she occur anymore in the list (as in this case)... according to this "rule". So, either we choose to wikify both of the names (character and disguise), like I'd prefer to, or we wikify just one alternatively... but I'd find the latter much unuseful. Let's suppose I'm to check the article about Lord Prestor: why should I have to search the whole list through before to find the proper link? In this case is a matter of ease. As for the clan thing, I certainly agree to leave the Wildhammer name in the headline. Aurigon (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The reason behind making this:
Instead of this:
1-Why delete links?: Facilitate the reading. By my way, you see that character has two apperances, and you know the one you're looking at is the one labeled with brackets, while the one without the link is the other appearance. It helps to know who is who, and what's his name.
2-Why put Korialstrasz before Krasus?: Because Korialstrasz is the real one. That helps readers know who is the disguise and who the real form.
3-Why remove "Mountain Dwarves"?: Think a bit. Why the hell did you put that there? If I had put "Forest trolls" and "Hill dwarves" is because we don't know the name of their faction. We know those are Wildhammers, so why do you keep adding an unnecessary label? I don't understand you. Reasoning like that, we should put "humans" after Kirin Tor and "orcs" after Dragonmaw clan, shouldn't we?
--Lon-ami (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I got your point of view... in the end I think it's as worthwhile as mine. However, I had already said that I agree with your change about the Wildhammer headline. If you check the revision history, you'll find out that it's Baggins the one who keep on undoing that ;) Calm down man! :-P Aurigon (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm calmed, or don't I look like I am? >.< xDDD
So, you understand now why I do that way? I think it's better... so, please, convince me of the otherwise or whatever if you still don't share my opinion :S.
--Lon-ami (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I won't try to convince anyone... I find both our points equally valid. ^.^ Aurigon (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, let's find a new better one way to do it. What if:

I'm not sure if the disguise should be included with the original. What do you think?

--Lon-ami (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty fine... of course, the same will apply to Lord Prestor. Alright =) Aurigon (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild dwarves and mountain dwarvesEdit

That information was straight from the book itself (where the characters are not called Wildhammer dwarves in any reference). If that reference is removed again, I will take admin action.Baggins (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lon-ami about that. I mean, since I'm still reading the book for the first time, don't know if all of the dwarves listed under the Wildhammer headline are gryphon-riders... should that be the case, such note would appear too superfluous to be added. Aurigon (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait, Baggins. What you tell is that "Wildhammer" word doesn't appear anywhere at the book?
Hmmm... That's a little problem. I'd give a better example for it:
What if I added Giramar and Galadin to the WotA character list? Yeah, they appear, but they're not named, and that could end in confussion...
Guess you are pointing that with the "Wildhammer" word. So, if that's it, we should put whatever name they have in the book, and redirect it into Wildhammer clan or leave it as it is. I'm not sure.
Lon-ami (talk) 18:19, 18 feb 2009 (UTC)

Ya, wildhammer does not appear in the book. Only "wild dwarf", and "mountain dwarf". I think they are all described as gryphon riders though.

As for listing Giramar and Galadin in WotA well they have now been given names, and they are definitely the only sons of Rhonin and Vereesa. So its not likely they would be confused.Baggins (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the book: didn't remember I had already come across all of those dwarves, anyway they definitely are all gryphon-riders... which makes the current headline more than appropriate. That's it, they're Wildhammers, period. On the other hand, I must recognize that Baggins is absolutely right: not even once the Wildhammer word appears in the book, those dwarves are always referred to as wild dwarves, and by mere exhaustiveness we can't leave that out. I'm going to fix that bloody headline accordingly :-P Aurigon (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, "wild dwarves", and mountain dwarves (on page 35).Baggins (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. Isn't a single occurrence too few to justify such a long headline? I gave you an inch and you've taken a mile XD Aurigon (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not when considering the fact the book actually contrasts the differences between mountain dwarves and hill dwarves. Actually I'm an admin, people don't give us inches, we take our own initiatives, :). If you want a short headline, I'd recommend mark them Gryphon riders, and putting the note at the end of gryphon rider section. Its not the only section to have a note, see also kirin tor.Baggins (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Touché XD By the way... what differences are there between the former and the latter? Are hill dwarves from Khaz Modan while the mountain ones are from the Aeries? Aurigon (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically ya. It calls the wild dwarven gryphon riders, the mountain dwarves, and and says they are slightly taller and skinnier than their earthier cousins, but they were no less muscled. I think it also discussed the emenity between the two.Baggins (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... but it's the same as with Giramar and Galadin. We now know these dwarves are Wildhammers, so it doesn't matter if the word Wildhammer doesn't appear at the book. Twins weren't named in WotA either.

Anyway: I believe that they're not Mountain dwarves. It's just a mistake. Why? Source time!

The word Mountain dwarf only appears in DotD once. Page 18, exactly:

The dwarves themselves did not simply manage their mounts, either. Slightly taller and leaner than their earthier cousins, the mountain dwarves were no less muscled.

I believe there was misinterpretation here. Wild dwarves aren't mountain dwarves. Now, you'll ask for another source which could support this. So let's go, LoC page 20, they speak here about the dwarves pre-WotTH:

The dwarves split into three clans: the Bronzebeards (mountain dwarves), the Wildhammers (hill dwarves), and the Dark Irons (shadowy, wandering sorcerers).

So, the mountain dwarves aren't the same as the wild dwarves. And the wild dwarves seem to be the "next step" of the hill dwarves. Those who left Grim Batol became wild dwarves after changing their lifestyle. More stuff at DotD page 18:

Only the dwarves of the distant Aerie Peaks, a foreboding, mountainous region beyond even the elven realm of Quel'thalas, rode the wild gryphons . . . and only these skilled warriors and their mounts could face dragons in the air.

DotD page 147:

A wild one from the Aerie.

APG page 210:

Gryphons are intelligent and loyal, suppressing their natural aggression and territorial behavior to assist the wild dwarves who share their mountain homes.

I think it's clear that the Hill dwarves are those Wildhammers that didn't left Khaz Modan and stayed in their former kingdom. The wild dwarves, also known as Wildhammer dwarves, are those Wildhammers that changed their lifestyle.

So, considering this and that, and the fact we know what their faction is, it's clear for me that they should be under "Wildhammer clan" tag.

This will probably contraversial but actually Knaack's comment wasnt' a mistake when it was made. His "hill dwarves" are probably actually Ironforge dwarves considering their location. So what happened here is not a mistake but rather things got retconned. Yes, keep track of the year tha Day of hte Dragon came out in comparison to Lands of Conflict. Lands of Conflict came out years later. But its rather obvious Knaack most definitely intended to contrast hills dwarves against mountain dwarves, and it wasn't a mistake since Lands of Conflict didn't exist at the time. A retcon sure, but don't try to take context out of the publishing order.
The details that imply that hill dwarves were the Ironforge dwarves and wild mountain dwarves were the later Wildhammer include "wildhammer dwarves are taller and skinnier than bronzebeard/ironforge dwarves" lands of conflict, shadows & light. That there is a bit of emnity between wildhammer and ironforge dwarves. Check, the same goes for hill dwarves vs. wild mountain dwarves. Plus several other details.
Further more if you go back to Warcraft II, you had Khaz Modan dwarves vs the dwarves of Northeron. Same backstory dwarves from the aeries of Northeron were taller and skinnier than dwarves from Khaz Modan, and there was a bit of emnity between the two.
Finally if you go back to some of the earliest sources it was the dwarves of the aeries that clearly more defined by living in mountains more so than references to those living in Khaz Modan. The "forboding peaks of Northeron", "the frozen mountains of northeron" (wc2), the "ice cliffs of northeron" (dotd) Infact very little about Khaz Modan was ever even described and it made more about their subterranian lives rather than focusing on them living under the mountain (there is a single reference to them living in a "mountain kingdom"). Even the hill dwarves in Day of the Dragon book are focused as being more subterranian than living in the mountains (yet another clue that they are Ironforge dwarves). Whereas many references in the book connects "wild dwarves" to their primarily mountainous way of life.
Essentially the story reinvented itself three times.
Now I don't have Night of the Dragon, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the returning "hill dwarves" actually are called ironforge dwarves somewhere in the book.
Now this is an aside but apparently in earlier fantasy and dungeons & dragons (not Warcraft RPG) "hill dwarves" were actually the more common type of dwarves, and mountain dwarves were the rare variety. In general in Warcraft we see Ironforge dwarves as being the more common dwarves, and wildhammer being the more rare type of dwarf. Thus the earlier role of dwarves of Khaz Modan being hill dwarves and the Wild dwarves being the mountain dwarves fits into the standard fantasy theme as well.Baggins (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Confusing topic. Three points of note. 1) I don't think the hill dwarves were the whole of the Ironforge dwarves but were just part of the Ironforge dwarves, if you know what I mean. Remember, many of the Ironforge dwarves were already living in Ironforge at the time these hill dwarves were around in Day of the Dragon. The Horde even got to the Gates of Ironforge and made a siege there but were not able to get into the actual city. The hill dwarves were probably just the outlying Ironforge dwarves who lived further down the mountain of Ironforge and its hills. 2) The hill dwarves did not "chose" to stay there, and I don't think they were from Grim Batol but lived in the rest of the Khaz Modan area near Grim Batol, but were cut off when the Horde came in and only some clans were able to get away. 3) The Stormpike dwarves may be the hill dwarves who were able to escape Khaz Modan as the Horde invaded. In lore, I believe, the Stormpike dwarves are way over in Alterac, yet are said to be somehow connected to the Ironforge dwarves. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 14:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I just read the quote The dwarves split into three clans: the Bronzebeards (mountain dwarves), the Wildhammers (hill dwarves), and the Dark Irons (shadowy, wandering sorcerers).. It may be that they are talking about early on before the War of Three Hammers. This would mean it is way, way before Day of the Dragon. A couple of sentences right before the quote it says, "Emerging from beneath the earth, they begin to explore their surroundings...", and then they split into three clans which is actually what happened before The War of the Three Hammers while they were still living "together" under Ironforge rule. I believe I read on WoWWiki that the Bronzebeard clan lived within Ironforge mountain, the Wildhammers liked to live lower in the hills of the mountain, and the Dark Irons were starting to practice dark sorcery. Correct me if I am wrong. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That is more or less correct interpration of Lands of Conflict information about the split. You might check out APG for further bits on the Three Hammers history. One thing of note the Dark Irons were actually the deepest of the mountain dwellers. Though Wildhammers also can live deeply as well as Grim Batol was a good example, and all three races lived underground in Ironforge Mountain (but not all of them). However further references to Ironforge/Bronzebeard dwarves being called mountain dwarves also exist Yorg Stormheart.Baggins (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It is nice to see that such academic matter has met with so much interest ^.^ Of course your sources are much more plentiful than mine (you know, being in Italy...), then I'd like to know if the term "mountain dwarves" appears just once, in DotD. If so, it would be fair to assume that even Knaak didn't mean to use it in reference to a particular dwarven branch, and it should be considered "as it is". As the Occam's razor principle suggests, is that so? This be the case, the tag "Mountain dwarves" should be removed... remember after all that's the thing for what the whole question has arisen :-P Aurigon (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in DotD, "mountain dwarf" only appears once. The only other media where I have found "mountain dwarf" is LoC, and it appears in a text referencing times before War of the Three Hammers.
I keep thinking the appearance at DotD was directed to a comparision between wild and mountain dwarves.
--Lon-ami (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Small addition: There's a reference to Mountain dwarves at Wotlk:
(line 11)
That, IMO, confirms Mountain dwarves are just the Bronzebeards and the others at Ironforge.
--Lon-ami (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's definitely it... in the light of this, we can reasonably cut the reference to mountain dwarves off the list. Could you report the excerpt in LoC which refers to this, that would further clarify the matter... even though it seems much simpler than I expected - and than the above dissertation dropped hints of! XD Aurigon (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aurigon, point of note the reference to mountain dwarves is very specific its not accidently used and its in contrast to the hill dwarves in the book. "Slightly taller and leaner than their earthier cousins, the mountain dwarves were no less muscled...The long beards of the wild dwarves fluttered in the wind as they literally laughed in the face of the giant menace."DotD 35

In reference to mountain dwarves in lands of conflict is also limited to a single reference as reference as well;

"The dwarves split into three clans: the Bronzebeards (mountain dwarves), the Wildhammers (hill dwarves), and the Dark Irons (shadowy, wandering sorcerers)."LoC 19

In reality the much older novel was a bit more detailed in its use of the term. As for the hill dwarves throughout the book they are contrasted to live underground just like the later termed Bronzebeard dwarves. I would not be surprised if Night of the Dragon refers to Rom as a bronze beard dwarf/mountain dwarf/ironforge dwarf. As of right now Ironforge dwarf is essentially a synonym to bronzebeard, and both are interchanged throughout the rpg.

In anycase directly referencing "factions" directly mentioned in the book is useful for anyone trying to read the book, that might be confused on the issue. I've decided to make it a note, and swicth them to gryphon riders. There will be no more discussion on this issue. General speculation won't be allowed. This is also nothing like the characters of Rhonin's chilrden since that deals with actual names, rather than racial issues.Baggins (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In anycase the use of hill dwarves and moutain dwarves in DotD is not a mistake, later sources may be retcons. But the original source was not a mistake. One might also note it was the book that had dark elves which are most likely an early version of night elves. In addition the various wild dwarves insult "hill dwarves" repeatedly throughout the book. Falstad only makes several comments where he denies himself being a hill dwarf. He wouldn't be insulting his own kind.Baggins (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "I mean, since I'm still reading the book for the first time, don't know if all of the dwarves listed under the Wildhammer headline are gryphon-riders..."

Actually they all are gryphon riders. They are part of Kurdran's gryphon rider group, and assist in helping several characters cross the sea on their gryphons.Baggins (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difference with Rhonin's twins. Before, we named them with a generic name. Now, that we know their true name, we use that name.
We now know Falstad and co. are Wildhammer dwarves, so it's senseless to tag them by their race. And the only dwarves to be able to fight gryphon-mounted are the Wildhammers.
Anyway, forget about Hill dwarves, we're talking about Mountain dwarves, who clearly aren't Wild dwarves. This ain't speculation, quoting was supposed to clarify it.
But, since I agree on that it's useful for the readers, I'm ok with them being tagged under "Gryphon riders" ;). It's the best option, so I take this discussion, at least by my side, as ended. Won't reply again if the page isn't changed :P.
--Lon-ami (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, LoC is certainly in open contrast to what stated in DotD, then. Because of this contradiction, the best way not to confuse anyone who's not well-versed in dwarven early history, is either to call them gryphon riders (as you did), or Wildhammer dwarves. That being said, I would undoubtedly prefer the latter, for gryphon riders aren't a faction on their own. Now, I've given a read to the related articles for more elucidation (mountain dwarves and hill dwarves)... and I'm sorry to admit they completely messed me up instead! It is my personal opinion those would not even be linked to, until gone through a deep revision which could more precisely mark out the distinctive traits of each. Aurigon (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What could be done is this:
Gryphon riders
Anyway, it's just a tag to help classify them.
--Lon-ami (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Point of note Night of the Dragon definitely confirms that the hill dwarves of Day of the Dragon are Bronzebeard dwarves.Baggins (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Named animals, unnamed characters or repeat charactersEdit

Characters in general are persons. So listing animals is a bit misleading. If you take that route soon you'll have people listing "places as characters" (and other literary symbology). Races by themselves should not be listed as characters, we don't need to list a civilization as a character. A example I noticed was "highborne" listed as a character in one of the War of the Ancients pages. There really isn't much need for that. Highborne are most likely mentioned up in the main synopses sections.

Secondly we don't need to mention every character that doesn't have a name. Those tend to clutter up the lists. I don't see it in this page other than the Kirin tor note. But it shows up in similar pages. They really aren't needed. If anything if people want to be anal retentive a single note at the top of the section noting that the list only lists the named persons in the story.

Finally characters that share the same name but hold two identities should not be listed twice, a single link, with both icons put together will suffice. We don't need redundant links.Baggins (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As for listing animals I would agree... it's been you who added Hestra. Apart from the current layout (to put that between brackets following its handler appears quite unpleasing to the eye), what should really be emphasized is we don't actually have any clue depicting Hestra as Falstad's mount. It almost certainly is a gryphon, but who knows it was intended to be his rather than someone else as notable? It's speculation. About races being listed as characters, if I got it right, doesn't occur here...
Also, every character listed here DOES have his/her name mentioned in the actual book, then that has nothing to do with this article as well. =)
The matter character/disguise was discussed lately, we finally agreed on that method for the sake of clarity: characters who play double roles are listed twice... I wouldn't describe that as redundance. We're virtually forced to choose that way ^^ Aurigon (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I added Hestra based on other pages that had animals, but then looked at the other pages and decided it just doesn't fit. Also I don't know what you mean about Hestra not being his mount. He states it was the best mount he ever had.Baggins (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant we know what his gryphon is like, we just don't know if its name's Hestra. It appears only once, while he's swearing ("By Hestra's wings!"): that being his mount is an assumption. I.e., if my dog's named Damn and I swear "God damn" that doesn't mean my dog is God. Aurigon (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give you that. He might not be remembering Hestra but could be giving out an euphamism. As for repeat characters. I don't know who you agreed with but I don't agree. It really only needs to be listed once. Also this page is ont the only page, I've been following hte patterns from other pages as well.Baggins (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Infact the proper method was the styles done on Tides of Darkness and Beyond the Dark Portal for examples. The one here in DAy of the Dragon article is actually too detailed. It should be done by importance main, minor and cameo. Frankly I can't let you continue to fight policies. This is a warning. I likely won't ban you, but I can lock the thread if people continue to try to reverse edits.Baggins (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Baggins (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also generally speaking "other characters" or "other" is used for any non famous character that doesn't have more than a sentence worth of information. Any offhand remark character.Baggins (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Check here. I haven't seen other pages, but I think disguises should be deal with the way me and Lon-ami did. Can't see why you should threaten me now, I'm giving over my time to improve this Wiki, and if you considered how difficult it can be (since english is not even my own language) for me to contribute and then give account of any edit... you'd realize how matchless my dedication is. The way of listing the characters brought forth by Lon-ami (that is listing them by their faction) is both the tidiest and the most helpful for anyone: if I play WoW whilst haven't read the novel, that list appears to be undoubtedly more useful to me than one simply listing characters by sheer importance. Because it gives me a better chance to deepen my knowledge. Cross-references are the very foundations of any Wiki and should be encouraged... not hindered. According to me, other articles should be improved in order to match this pattern rather than vice-versa: I don't find it "too much detailed" at all, being an article concerning a book it can easily afford to be this detailed. Besides, don't we forget it's all about a game universe whose level of detail has been the Blizzard's luck, so articles such as this are most in its spirit somehow. As you can see I'm more than willing to account for everything to anyone, and my only aim is to better all I can. I believe such an approach can hardly be blameworthy. Aurigon (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So it was just a discussion between you and Lon-ami without knowledge that other systems are in place. This you can be excused for. However, yes we do have another system. Yes, we especially are trying to make things easier by pointing out to people that some characters do not even have roles in the book other than an offhand mention. Infact we have tried to avoid making pages for offhand referenced characters. Be happy that some of that is at least listed, but there are some admins that believe that information that consists a one sentence source are completely irrelevent and shouldn't be mentioned at all.

In reality there are more people interested in knowing the facts of who the important characters to a story are, followed by secondary characters, over knowing every single person who was even slightly mentioned. Its much easier to follow to have it split between primary, secondary, and then finally referenced.

Beyond the fact that if you haven't been able to tell the little graphics are supposed to be cross references to what race somethng belongs to. If they were working right the pictures would take you directly to the race.Baggins (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What? I totally disagree with this decision.
Although not being "intelligent", They can have their own personality and carve their own history.
If you don't include animals, you shouldn't include beasts, and I'm sure you consider beasts characters.
--Lon-ami (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we didn't have knowledge of other systems being used simply because, for what I've seen, there's no reference to pages that should set a default outline for novels. Thus we don't feel any need to be excused, either. I would rather like to be addressed, if you don't mind, to the page where this matter has been dealt with, so that I can check firsthand as to who would have determined what, and why... providing such a page does exist, of course. It really seems to me as you're just trying to have the last say, while I'm not childishly reverting your edits (some of which I even agreed with) from preconceived ideas: I'm simply doing what I reasonably think can improve the article. This is a wiki (aka "encyclopedia"), and as such it should be as much detailed as possible, assuming any information fits in with the whole article. And that was the case with the method Lon-ami chose, which I personally hold as perfect. I've seen what some novel pages looked like, and I can easily say what was written there proved to be of no real importance to me: they mostly reported the back-of-book description and few more... info I could find on any online shop like Amazon. It's true, casual readers may want to know what the most important characters are, but there are those who may care for something more. The race icons don't take you anywhere but the page where the .jpg has been uploaded, so they can't be considered "references" in the strict sense of the word. Yet what I think is we can satisfy both kind of readers, simply sorting factions by their importance, and the characters within by the same criterion: this way, readers will still be able to know who's important and who's not, along with the factions involved. I can't realize why someone may want to cut off characters mentioned once... the best articles are the ones that provide the maximum amount of detail, not those less time-consuming writing (or reading).
Now, I was wondering... Baggins, have you read the novels the articles related to you're modifying? I've right checked some of your edits, and since I did read them I've noticed various mistakes... if you're to sort the characters by their importance, you should at least know who's really important to the plot and who's not. Aurigon (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
While yes I'll admit that there are lists that still need to be cleaned up. I haven't had proper time to go through all the various books and characters to see how extensive their references are. We are working only making sure the system was adapted to every page, and not just the ones we started it on (Tides and Beyond). While yes we can understand that you have the right to disagree. There are people that will diagree with you. As for the icons yes I notice that the templates aren't functioning right. I'll go ask varg to make sure they are all updated to link to the race. As for "factions" you can easily get to that by reading indivdual character pages. As for encyclopedia ways of formating. The Dramatis Personae by importance of characte is quite common in some encylopedias. Its not "unencylopedic" but perhaps its not a model that you prefer.Baggins (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Mayor or minor, main or mentioned, they all should be included in the article. Horses too. After all, they're named characters, and I'm sure most of the readers want to know what characters appear in that book, be them important or not.
About the disguises thing, they have their own point, as Aurigon mentioned before. Sometimes, the disguise is inside another faction. Krasus is with the Kirin Tor, and Katrana is with Stormwind. I think that the disguise and the real form should be separated, one in each faction. For more info read the previous topic in this same talk page.
--Lon-ami (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1Edit

Just chiming in here from an uninvolved editor/admin.

I'd much rather us keep to a dramatis personae approach and only list actual characters taking part in the story, and not those who are only there as a passing reference (unnamed street urchin #384 and random, but named cat #12 need not apply).

I fear that the alternative is us pulling a Wookieepedia move and creating articles like Cheekbone. Let's not do that, please. --k_d3 03:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Must agree somehow. I'd include everyone who does something in the story, and leave out all those who are mentioned without doing nothing. If there's a flashback, that means action, anyway, but saying "Medivh was a powerful mage whatever" doesn't make Medivh a character of the book.
--Lon-ami (talk) 18:59, 24 feb 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki