Talk:Retcon speculation

Dealing with retcons

In other articles, I've generally been treating the retconned version as the "true" version, and linking to this page if it was a significant, confusing (e.g. Stormwind and Azeroth), or controversial (e.g. Cenarius' mother) change.

I was trying to think of other things that could be added to this page. I believe there was a few problems with the timeline regarding Beyond the Dark Portal and Day of the Dragon; however they clarified that might qualify as a Retcon. The timelines around the opening of the Dark Portal, and the end of the First War, also strike me as areas that never quite sat right.

--Aeleas 01:21, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)

About this page.

Is it alright to add RetCons that aren't yet proven if there is good evidence? For example, things that were changed from one game to the next, but still lacking an official "correct" version?

--Dreyfuss of Durotan 14:44, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)

Adding unsupported retcons is okay, but you should mention something to that effect in the Discussion page. --Fandyllic 3:21 PM HST 8 MAY 2006

Garona

"In later sources, she is described as being half orc and half draenei."

The article says that, but besides a few theories by Caydiem on the forums what other source says that Garona was "Half-Draeni"?

I'm pretty sure the RPG doesn't state Garona to be half-draeni. Metzen himself has decided to say "No comment" on the issue. I don't think any of the novels have altered the issueBaggins 17:08, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

Last Guardian says she's half Draenei. They go out of the way to explain that she's partly from another race on the horde's home planet and is thus an outcast. I think folks are confused because most Draenei seen in game are mutant ones whom were exposed to the portal's energies when it collapsed and are burned. They are suppose to be even more human like than Orcs. (unsigned comment by User:Elfey)

The Last Guardian doesn't say she is half draenei. In it, she says that when an orc looks at her, he will see only her "human parts." Medivh says that her homeland must have had "humans or near-humans." The This may indeed refer to draenei, but that's conjecture.--Aeleas 12:55, 28 April 2006 (EDT)

The "Near-Human" comment doesn't necessarily mean "draeni" either, it could refer to some other race we haven't yet seen. Burning Crusade is supposed to establish all sorts of new races on Outland. All we know is Metzen is tight lipped on the issue and he may have something planned that goes beyond any previous conceived ideas.Baggins 15:13, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

Mistakes with Grom Hellscream's, Mannoroth's, and Magtheridon's Deaths

Does this really belong on the retcon page? Those were just errors that the developers of the WoW RPG have admitted to. So it's in no way a retcon but a mistake some author made. I agree though that it probably can't hurt to include that information somewhere, especially for people who read the WoW RPG and then go like "WTF?!? Thrall killed Grom?!?" --Foogray 15:21, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

I thought it was better to put it in this section, then put it in Grom's Manneroth, Illidan, or Magther's sections... At least it shows it was a mistake, and that editors came up with "fixes" to explain them away.Baggins 15:51, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

• • • the Swamp of Sorrows was the Swamps of Sorrow.

Actually it was also known as Swamp of Sorrows in Warcraft 1, in the game's manual...

Orc warlocks

I don't think this really qualifies as a retcon. We saw that there were still practicing warlocks in the Frozen Throne orc campaign, and I don't think it was ever stated the Thrall was successful in getting rid of every last warlock.--Aeleas 11:21, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't it it qualifies either - it's not as if warlocks are welcomed with open arms in Orgrimmar. -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

War of the Ancients

Not at all !! It's completely false ! The majority of the events in Warcraft 3 and WoW match the original timeline and not the altered one ! The lone exception is the fact that we haven't seen much of Hakkar the Houndmaster in the current games, but that's all !--Kirochi (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

That's what it says, isn't it? -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

In some way yes, but imo it implies that the original timeline exists only in the lore and not among the ingame content.--Kirochi (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

The only thing that differentiates with out a decent explination in WoW from WarCraft I And II is the loaction of the swamp of sorrows to the Blast Land (previously the Black Morass). In the first two games the swamp of sorrows was south of the Black Morass. In WoW the the Swamp of Sorrows is North of the Black Morass.

Speculation

I've created a new article at Retcon speculation, and moved several sections there. I think this article is long and complex enough to warrant a completely separate article for speculation, otherwise Template:Tlink will occur about a dozen times. The criteria I've set out in the intro here is that, for inclusion in this article, an apparent discrepancy must describe two clearly conflicting sources. Official statements that reconcile the apparent discrepancy are also included. All alleged retcons that aren't clear contradictions between two source (for example, it was not definitively stated that Kael led absolutely all high/blood elves in The Frozen Throne), and all theories for reconciling apparent discrepancies are in Retcon speculation, where they are clearly flagged as unofficial.--Aeleas 14:05, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Certain problem with flagging everything as unofficial as some of the refrences are infact official.Baggins 14:12, 14 January 2007 (EST)

If you could be more specific, I could address your specific concerns better. The sections I moved which were cited appeared to me to be theories supported by citations, as all good speculation should be, but theories nonetheless.--Aeleas 14:15, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Let's take high elf druidism. If its refrenced in new sources, it is no longer a retcon. Those quotes are not speculation, nor are they theories. It is refrence to the fact that there is a form of high elf druidism.

For that matter the assumption that there was a retcon because of a lack of mention of high elf druids previously was speculation. However material refrencing the existence of high elf druids exists now, pointing out the previous assumption was wrong in the first place.Baggins 14:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)

That's exactly why I moved it; it was speculation that there was any discrepancy to begin with.--Aeleas 14:35, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Well I suggest a special kind of speculation heading for it then. Cause the current one and what you said in your above post implies that all that material is unofficial.Baggins 14:38, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Not really, simply means it's written with speculation in mind, doesn't invalidate the sources used as the basis for the speculation. --User:Zeal/Sig 14:40, 14 January 2007 (EST)

What I'm saying is there needs to be a clearer explanation how something is speculation, if the section mainly refrences specific quotes. Speculation template for example might point out that its unofficial speculation based on non-official ideas or official refrences. I've added a disclaimer and explanation to the high elven druid section to point out that it was an assumption in the first place that high elven druids didn't exist as another way.Baggins 14:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

My default expectation for a speculation section is that it will contain extensive references to official lore, in support of the position it advances. I think it's generally clear from the phrasing and citation what is theory and what is official.--Aeleas 15:09, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Purpose

Can we get this page back to what it should be, an explanation of retcons in the context of warcraft (possibly with an explanation on, or link to an article for, the Bookkeepers stance on retcons), not a list of all possible retcons in existance. These retcons need to be added and explained in their relevent articles, or if too all encompassing and large (hardly) their own articles, not here. --User:Zeal/Sig 14:23, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Your conception of what this page should be would involve revising a policy, WW:LORE, which says to discuss the current version of lore only in the articles, and describe retcons here. So further discussion in that direction should probably take place there.

Where the conflict hasn't been clearly resolved, which would include I think Garona's parentage and Stormwind/Azeroth on the current page, it does say to put it directly in the article. I think, in the interest of both completeness of this list and avoiding repetition, we could remove those sections, but keep a link to the main article.--Aeleas 14:40, 14 January 2007 (EST)

The more i learn each day.. the more i hate the wiki.. -_- --User:Zeal/Sig 14:44, 14 January 2007 (EST)

"Hell is other people."--Aeleas 14:49, 14 January 2007 (EST)