Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Deepholm

101,385pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Deephome vs. DeepholmEdit

Why are people reverting the name change to Deepholm? In the most recent updates to the Warcraft lore - as expressed at Blizzcon and as found on the official Cataclysm website, it should be Deepholm, rather than Deephome. Blizzard has apparently retconned the spelling.IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAMBER(RΘCK) 08:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the trailing e?--SWM2448 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this rank up with all the misspellings of "Karazhan"? --Joshmaul (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Many Americans are a bit tone deaf when it comes to words they haven't heard *g* - Like with the old scifi show "Babylon 5" - there was a race called Minbari - but a lot of people kept calling them Mimbari. I think the same happened here, someone was told "Deepholme" and the though it was DeepHome. In Ghostlands there is an area called Deatholme that suggests to me that Blizzard likes their 'holmes' (holm being a word in the english langauge). But we shall see in time. --Crash (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that they sometimes used "Deepholme" (with l and e) [1], sometimes used "Deepholm" (with l but not e) [2] and sometimes used "Deephome" (with e but not l) [3]. Although as Amberrock stated, they now seem to be using "Deepholm" exclusively on the official sites. See his link and this one. [4] Burzolog (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I say go with that till we can see what flashes across our WoW screens when we walk into it.Warthok Talk Contribs 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. If the current Blizzard usage is Deepholm, that's what we should use. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The that Burzolg gave link for "Deepholme" (with l and e) actually says "Deepholm" (with l but not e), check by yourselves: [5]. So I'm not adding it to the article until I have a source. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right about that, I meant to link this image [6] Burzolog (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Very good then, I'll add it to the article :) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Abeit it fall under NDA I'll speak about it, from MMO's screenshots claim that Deephome is the zone and Deepholm the dungeon.
To be continued in Beta...
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 07:18, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
Just to say as has been the case every alpha, blizzard are using conflicting names within the game again. --   18:11, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Deephome Concept Map Edit

Deepholm

This map like Hyjal was simple to make almost everything out in. The main thing I couldn't figure out was the portal in the southeast which almost seems like it says 'Portal to Vashj'ir'. Leviathon (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Deepholm is supposed to have portals to the five other 80-85 zones, so a portal to Vashj'ir is definitely at least plausible. Burzolog (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deepholm Gunships Edit

What both WH and WoR reported was incorrect. The ships never were and never will be Orgrim's Hammer or The Skybreaker. It's not uncommon for fansites to assume things and report them as fact incorrectly. They look indentical so granted it is an easy mistake, but a mistake none the less. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  17:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

And do you have a citation that their reporting was incorrect? Remember, their reports came directly from a Blizzard press event; unless you were there and know for a fact that Blizzard did not specifically say they were the same gunships, I'm inclined to trust the fact that both of them said "they are the same ships" and not "they look like the same ships." Otherwise, you're the one making the assumption that what's being reported is incorrect. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
And we all know what happens when you assume. (Trust me on that...) --Joshmaul (talk) 17:49, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Alpha source – and yes we're allowed to change incorrect information based on alpha. Please don't revert again. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  18:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Your problem is that you're acting as though that information is publicly and freely available and that we're knowingly spreading wrong information. Had you said from the very beginning WHY WH and WoR were wrong, it would have gone over better. Instead you were disputing two credible sources without giving a valid reason and that just comes off as being a jerk. One of your edit summaries said to "participate in discussion sensibly," but you aren't discussing it; you just keep reverting it and saying you're right and we're wrong. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
The sources cited came from a press event - held by Blizzard. These people have spoken with Blizzard developers. You were not there. They were. And they reported specifics. They didn't say "looks like", they said "they are". You're just making yourself look like a fool. I called it how I saw it - you're not accepting it simply because it doesn't fit in your mindset. I had this same dispute with the last Alterac when dealing with the "Sylvanas meeting Uther's ghost in HoR" - the evidence was there, plain as the nose on your face, and he dismissed it as "bullshit" that didn't need to be posted because he didn't like it. I blew him out of the water.
If it had come from MMO-Champion, there I would agree with you - apparently they keep Boubouille at arm's length. Not entirely sure why. But Wowhead has access to Blizzard. So does WoR. They were invited as among the major fansites. So they knew what Blizzard said. But you don't like it, so it must be wrong, and so you say they reported "incorrectly". What else do you think is "incorrect reporting"? The changes to Stormwind? The "worgen district" being in Darnassus? Garrosh being "acting Warchief"?
And by the way: You can't cite alpha information, period. I don't know what you've been reading, but it's not WoWWiki's rules regarding the NDA. So you can't prove it one way or another - in the meantime, we have evidence, from Blizzard, that gives specifics. So DO NOT. EVER. FRAKKING. PATRONIZE ME. AGAIN. --Joshmaul (talk) 18:27, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Because i can't discuss evidence here can i?
Me making an edit while also stating what was wrong with the information, while also avoiding talking about the evidence in the summary makes me a jerk? Where's that coming from? Next i'll be told i'm an evil person for not using an edit summary from time to time. O_o
Anyway, you have your answers in the form of where the source is from, but you'll have to look for the facts yourself. The names of the gunships have been set in the alpha for a relatievely long period before and now after the press event. What i've said is true and my edit record speaks for itself in terms of me ever vandalising or wanting to provide false information. I did this for exact same thing for WotLK – including when fansites sites reported incorrect information from events –, and i've been doing it for cata for weeks now without issue.
These unecessary insults do nothing but remind me why i avoid interaction with this place in general.
Joshmaul i'm not trying to patronize you, just asking that you discuss this and get all the facts before you start accusing me of things and being offensive towards me. Please see Alpha info on my talk page for a reference to a history of this rule. If you have an issue with it please take it up with Kirkburn and don't start unleashing your temper on me. I won't bother with this anymore because clearly you both can't talk to me reasonably, so i've passed this on to Kirkburn and he can deal with it. The 3 revert rule will probably unjustly bite me in the ass given what's happened so far. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  18:36, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, so ... tough spot, but I think we owe it to the readers to not spread knowingly false information, even if the method by which we know is not technically allowed. We can just choose not to report that information. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:04, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

However, the source for all "fact-changing" edits, including removal of conflicted information, needs to be sourceable. Since you can't cite your sources appropriately given the NDA, it is not reasonable - especially when the source of the original information is otherwise reasonably estimated to be valid. See WW:EDIT#Removing content. I see no reason to not present "incorrect" information (or at least correct it to say something like "the gunships appear to be similar to") since that is obviously what Blizzard wants fansites to believe - since we can change it if the information changes later. Alpha content is prone to change anyway; personally, I would trust a Blizzard "press" event more than something I saw in an alpha release. WoWWiki was invited to the same trip and would have received that same information first-hand had any of our admins went. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 15:06, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
(or at least correct it to say something like "the gunships appear to be similar to") Which in this case is what was done, as i recognised the ease of the mistake and how the fansites were not given hands on acces to view the correct names -- or told them by staff -- and simply assumed they were the same gunships.
I understand the dilema with being unable to directly link to the source as usual, but it's not like these things aren't freely available for validation despite the NDA. While i would agree in general with what source is likely more accurate and that the alpha info is very much subject to change, in this case – and others – the information has existed long before the press event, existed during the press event -- including what was shown to the press --, and still exists and continues to be expanded upon in both the alpha and discussion on the alpha forums. The names are known, they just can't be revealed ofc.
This isn't the first case of information being reported incorrectly by multiple press sources -- as i said, it's happened at Blizzcons too -- despite the correct information being known or reported elsewhere. They get things wrong, and it doesn't serve the wiki's best interests to knowingly propergate false information just because the source to justify correction is under NDA.
A possible solution could be to have an admin validate such edits in private, external to the IRC channel or wiki, to avoid public -- despite the public nature of it already -- revealing of NDA covered content that would be used to cite the edit.
As Kirkburn is the main contact from what i can gather, perhaps he would like to ask Blizzard their opinion on working around the NDA like this so that it can perhaps be recognised as something fansites need to be able to do to best serve their audience while respecting the NDA and be considered a standard practice. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  20:39, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Contacting Blizzard would be the best course of action at the moment. I still don't see the huge problem with being "wrong" about some minor thing until the NDA is up and we can properly cite sources. We should just keep speculation separate as we always have and go from there. People should know content in speculation sections can deviate from Blizzard's lore. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 20:47, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Well i don't think there's a precendent for putting fansite information under speculation -- it's usually treated as facts from a reliable source --, so i don't think that will help in this case. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  21:04, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Jumping from the appearance of gunships to look like the Skybreaker to a positive ID on them seems like speculation to me. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 21:16, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Aye, it's no different than assuming the necropolis in Halls of Reflection is Malykriss: The Vile Hold. User:Coobra/Sig4 21:22, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
May i suggest this be moved off Dark T Zeratul's talk page, as i doubt he appreciates the notices on an issue that has quickly moved on from being in relation to him? :p -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  21:07, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Done. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:09, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

The gunships are Llane's Oath for the Alliance and Storm's Fury for the Horde. As Deepholm is not a zone currently open for testing, i guess you could consider that datamined, but tbh testers can actually exploit – some have done so and reported in the alpha forums previously their throughts on the closed zone – corpse running from The Stonecore so this can actually be seen in game in the beta despite the intention of not being able to yet. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  03:29, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Zeal, I believe I owe you an apology. --Joshmaul (talk) 03:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Cataclysm nda lifted Edit

The dungeon is called stonecore. Almasa (talk) 23:22, June 30, 2010 (UTC) Im a tester so i know.

Concept Art Edit

Firelands Artwork 1

Concept art.

I've been through this entire zone and I've not seen it. It is very misleading to continue to place it here. This concept art should be placed somewhere else. The Cataclysm homepage would probably be good staging area until someone can identify which zone it's located in. I moved it because it seemed more applicable as Firelands' concept art. Anyhow whatever this artwork is it is not in Deepholm. Korval (talk) 15:25, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

As per the discussion on Talk:Firelands#Cata_Sources_and_Info, Sandwhichman pointed out that particular image is highly likely to be concept art of the top right area of the Deepholm concept map. The fact that many areas of the Deepholm concept map were changed or dropped and don't exist in beta has no bearing on if it belongs with Deepholm. The fact that several bits of concept art often end up being made redundent is, and in that case moving it to the cata main page only might be wise, with a mention in the caption that the particular concept was never brought to realisation and no longer relevent to it's subject. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  16:04, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Then can it be removed until someone can identify where it goes? I'd be happy to place it on my profile page until then. I just hate how this site is all about accuracy, as most of you have drilled this into my brain, and then when I come across something that clearly isn't concept art for Deepholm the rules seem to be liberally bent and relaxed. It's confusing to say the least. Korval (talk) 16:11, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Think you misunderstood what i said. I'm saying it's very likely that it is Deepholm concept artwork, and that's why it was moved here in the first place. That was a move to improve accuracy. The fact that the Deepholm concept map barely reflects what Deepholm is like now has simple meant the concept was never put into the game and that's why you can't see any evidence of it in Deepholm in the beta. Deepholm was meant to have fire, water and ice areas for what i can only guess was invasions from the other elemental groups, but that never made it into the game. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink>  18:10, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Adjacent areas wrong? Edit

Uldum is southwest of Tanaris, under Ungoro crater and in no way close to Maelstrom. Access to uldum so far is just flying in. Renmiri (talk) 00:57, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Highlands are supposedly Northwest of Wetlands (so far I see the map while flying above stormwind :p but i guess they will move it before they open it). Is not an "adjacent area" Renmiri (talk) 00:57, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The "Regions adjacent to Deepholm" chart is from an earlier version of Deepholm from BlizzCon 2009. It had portals around its circumference to all the other Cataclysm high level zones. It should be changed.--SWM2448 01:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki