Talk:Llane Wrynn I

Citation request

I've put a citation needed tag on the first occurrence of Llane Wrynn's name to request a citation to an official source that describes him as "Llane Wrynn IV". All the sources I've seen just call him Llane Wrynn, so I assume it's from the RPG.--Aeleas 13:07, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

In most monarchies, the number refers to the number of rulers who bear the personal name, not the family name. If he is Llane I and not Llane IV, he is just Llane (like Queen Victoria is not Victoria I). --Ragestorm 17:16, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

It's been several months without anyone providing a source for the "IV", so I'll just change it back to Llane Wrynn.--Aeleas 20:16, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

Simple current status info versus specific information

I am not convinced that many characters need to have specific information regarding their current status in the infobox. Their current status should be made clear in the actual article, which would render the extra information in the infobox not important. Regards, --Theron the Just 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As the infobox is tended to give an overview of all relevent information, all of which is explained in greater detail within the article, I disagree. When it comes to living/undead/killable/active characters, you're probably right (which is why living characters don't have a description unless their circumstances are unusual), but with characters who have died, a very short explanation is in order, given the fact that their deaths are usually important details. We would also prefer "Deceased" to be written instead of "Dead." --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Became King after Orcs attacked?

Let me quote the Warcraft II manual for a second:

Before the coming of the Age of Chaos when the Portal was first opened, the kingdom of Azeroth was the mightiest of all Human nations. Ruled by the wise and just King Llane, Azeroth stood as a beacon of light and truth throughout the known world. - pg. 39

In that paragraph is says that Azeroth was ruled by King Llane before the Age of Chaos, which is when the Orcs attacked. The story on the official site backs this up. In the Warcraft I manual it says that he became King right after the Orcs attacked Stormwind and his father was killed, this is what is on this page right now. Is there a more recent source that confirms the Warcraft I version? Otherwise I think we should change it. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apperance in WoTLK

It seems during the battle against Yogg-Saron, you are teleported back in time to see Garona Speak to Llane Wrynn.

Garona - Bad news, sire.

Garona - The clans are united under Blackhand in this assault. They will stand together until Stormwind has fallen.

Garona - Gul'dan is bringing up his warlocks by nightfall. Until then, the Blackrock Clan will be trying to take the eastern wall.

Llane - And we will hold until the reinforcements come. As long as men with stout hearts are manning the walls and the throne, Stormwind will hold.

Garona - The orc leaders agree with your assessment.

For those on the PTR:

Garona

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne01.wav")

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne02.wav")

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne03.wav")

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne04.wav")

Llane

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\KingLlane\\UR_Llane_YSVisOne01.wav")

Timeline Accuracy

It seems the article draws too much upon Warcraft I timeline, while retcons in future timelines. It seems to make reference to the long period of between the start of the orcs invasion and the start of the first war, and and longer length of the first war between the timelines of Warcraft I and references in Warcraft II. I'd suggest actually reducing the references to time and just give a broad overview of the events and not be as specific (because all the timelines are contradictory in some form). If references to time are to made Warcraft I and II material cannot be used because later sources definitely cut out the ten-fifteen years between the opening of the portal and the start of the first war.

Now, if someone wants to go into the timeline issues it should be relegated to a small section near the end of the article pointing out the discrpencies and retcons. But inserting directly into the article confuses the matter between accounts made the manual, Last Guardian, and other later sources.Baggins (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)