Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Rumored Races/Archive

102,047pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < Talk:Rumored Races

Archive of Rumored Races discussion Edit

Furbolg Q and A Edit

Ok, I'm a bit of a newbie around here, so please tell me if I make any technical mistakes...

Anyhow, there are a few questions and answers as yet, uh, unanswered regarding the furbolgs. Here are a few to enlighten you:


Q. I thought that the Timbermaw were the only corrupted furbolg tribe. Will it be Timbermaw for the Alliance if it -is- furbolgs then, meaning that these recent changes were pointless?
A. Stepping back into reality here, wouldn't you think that another furbolg tribe could have escaped the corruption? Anyway, look at Krolg - he is Timbermaw, and uncorrupted.
Furthermore, this will not unbalance anything to do with the Timbermaw. What makes you think that all furbolgs would be on the same side? Are the Defias, which are humans, on the same side as the rest of humanity? Their relationship with the Timbermaw would be somewhat like that (to start off with at least). Why? Well, think. Wouldn't the Timbermaw assume the 'new tribe' on Hyjal to be corrupted like the rest? Are all furbolg tribes recogniseable on sight anyhow? Why didn't the new tribe aid the Timbermaw? The list of distrust goes on...
I am informed that some tribe with the '-bark' suffix (can't remember the first bit) are currently dwelling on Hyjal at the moment, untouched. Could this be the tribe I'm talking about?


Q. Aha! But the furbolgs in WoW don't wear armour do they? Just loincloths. And they are sooo primitive!
A. Take a look at the furbolgs in Warcraft III - especially the trappers. You can't tell me all that leather isn't strapped onto them... and like I said above, the loincloth teddies need a revamp anyway. If you can't see a bear in plate, go read some Phillip Pullman.
As for primitive? Who carved those giant bear heads at Timbermaw Hold and who burrowed through miles of solid rock? It could be said that they are even more advanced than the Tauren, who were only wearing loincloths in Warcraft III and hadn't done anything any more advanced than walk around a bit, hit a few harpies on the head with a log and built a few tents until Thrall told 'em to settle down.
Whereas the furbolgs have been living in tribes in a similar (but different) way to the Orc tribes of old Draenor since the War of the Ancients. They've been civilised for over 5000 years, and allies of the Night Elves for a similar time. AND they can speak perfectly, as illustrated by Krolg the uncorrupted.
Anyhow, I can't tell you how many furbolgs wear THE SAME bloody loincloth. Even if they're not the playable race, that loincloth is wearing a whole in reality. Just look at how many furbolgs there are wearing the same feather arrangement and pair of underpants as all the other thousand or so furbolgs...


Q.Who is Krolg?

(Could you give me some indication before you decide to whap a question onto the bottom of my post please, as well as your name? It's easier to respond to individuals then.)

Krolg is a furbolg located in Ashenvale as part of the Raene's Cleansing quest line. Along the way, players are able to speak to Krolg, and he gives a quest. I recommend thotbott if you want to find out more.


--Vorbis 18:00, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Arn't Nature Shamans called Druids? --Xmuskrat 13:18, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
Yep. Sort of, at least. The furbolgs shamans in Warcraft III were called shamans not druids though, so I had to clear up a few things. --Vorbis 13:18, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
Cause I want to stop using the term Nature Shamans. Cause that doesn't exist in Blizzard Lore, but Druids do exist in Blizzard Lore. Whenever anybody describes a 'nature shaman', they describe a Druid. --Xmuskrat 13:29, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
Not neccessarily. Druids revere Cenarius and have strict governing rules, whereas these 'nature shamans' merely use magic derived from nature. --Vorbis 5 Jan 2006
Then Geomancers? I just can't find ANY reference in lore to "nature shamans".
They don't have lore for everything, you know. The idea of 'nature shamans' is based on known furbolg beliefs and lore, spells used in Warcraft III and the non-druidic nature of said shamans. You could call them something else if you want, but neither druid, 'Horde Shaman' nor geomancer (Earth Mage) fits. --Vorbis 21:32, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Actually, its not a speculation that other Furbolg tribes avoided the corruption, the Timbermaw are one that did, but the Stillpine are other living proof, like it says in an article of Furbolgs, it shows the Timbermaw's unawareness of other uncorrupted tribes. The Barkskin (the name you were looking for) from the Warcraft 3 Hyjal/Barrow Deeps area, and the Grizzlemaw Furbolgs of Northrend are also most likely uncorrupted, as the Barkskin are safe way up there on Hyjal... and the Grizzlemaw, being a probable future playable race (along with the Tuskarr as I theorized in another article), have definetly avoided the scourges reach as it is a fact there are 20,000 furbolgs strong within the Grizzly Hills and their Capital according to official lore. Swords of Oblivion 11:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

As you can see, I wrote this Q and A back in Jan 2006, quite a while before I did more research and created the Furbolg Speculation page. Back then, the Stillpine didn't exist and I don't think Lands of Mystery (?) was released... but yes, their existence makes the argument for furbolgs all the stronger. --Vorbis

Making High Elves Unlikely from Possible Edit

It would be way too confusing having High Elves running around on the Alliance side with Blood Elves looking nearly identical (if not identical) running around on the Horde side. Also, if Blood Elves control Quel'Thalas (and Silvermoon), where would High Elves start? How would High Elves be different from Blood Elves?

---Fandyllic 2:02 PM PST 21 Dec 2005
I agree. I'm not a big fan of high elves being possible. I also agree that we should vote on how possible they are. I'm on with you for Unlikely. But I also think that every race deserves a line, even if they are all negative points. --Xmuskrat 07:35, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
I changed the sign of an argument from "plus" to "minus": that was odd to say that High Elves were so few that it's an important reason to say that it'll be the next race ^^


Pandaren Likelihood Edit

Voting closed in favor of POSSIBLE. At least four votes will lock the Pandaren likelihood at Possible, disallowing any further changes to Unlikely.

I think not. I just voted for Unlikely which makes it 5 votes Unlikely to 4 votes Possible. --Fandyllic 1:02 PM PST 10 Jan 2006
I am glad to know that I can vote after a vote closes. I will note on our voting policy page that closing a vote is meaningless. --Xmuskrat 16:23, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
Look at the dates of the votes, Fandyllic... --Kakwakas 16:57, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
  1. There is no current policy on closing arbitrary votes, so how can someone arbitrarily say a vote is closed?
  2. You will notice in the WoWWiki:Policy status phases policy, votes don't really close, they just change state. Policies can always be recalled.
  3. I didn't see any time period mentioned? How do we know you just didn't close the vote because your side was winning at the time?
  4. It's painfully obvious the intent of the vote was to declare Possible the winner, despite who voted for what.
  5. CrazyJack voted on the same day, I did.
--Fandyllic 4:35 PM PST 10 Jan 2006
Come on. Even the files you are working on now have a certial NUMBER of votes to be ratified. This was added with the text "four votes" to lock text, as done in other places. Please stop accusing me of fixing this process. You can EASILY see via the dates and time and history of this page when it was signed and that possible DID reach four before unlikely did. If we don't have a voting process, then this is just friggin' text for now. So who cares. Put what you want whereever you want, you're the admin. --Xmuskrat 20:26, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
You'll also notice the processes I've proposed include ratios and time, not just a simple n votes and we're done process. Also, my process has a potential for recall, meaning even after one side wins, the other side can take it back.
I'll put my vote and Crazyjack's in a separate area, but I still disagree with the simple 4 votes and lock process. It doesn't really make any sense to me.
--Fandyllic 5:46 PM PST 10 Jan 2006
Eh. Whatever. What an admin says goes, I guess. The side I was supporting there is the side I voted against if you look, by the way, =p
--Kakwakas 21:02, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
I have no problem with a new process, or vote change. My mistake was just running a vote the same way I had seen it done before. The thing that I'm upset about here are things like this: "How do we know you just didn't close the vote because your side was winning at the time?" and " Also, unless the whole voting thing is BS, Possible is losing, so I don't see how you could assert Possible as valid. Some people just think a wish can make it so, I guess." You have a history, you are an admin. These aren't things you "wonder" publicly. These are things you can check. My problem isn't about what the vote ends up or not, it's the fact that you're treating me like a liar, somebody who's trying to pull a fast one. Why are you being such a jerk to me? --Xmuskrat 21:02, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)


PossibleEdit

  1. Xmuskrat 13:19, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  2. Kirochi 13:13, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  3.  ℑilver§ℑide 13:26, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
  4. --Pauly 15:28, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

UnlikelyEdit

  1. --Vorbis 13:19, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  2. --Kakwakas 16:24, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
  3. --Anticrash 13:57, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
After Possible reached 4 votes
  1. --CJ 07:56, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
  2. --Fandyllic 1 PM PST 10 Jan 2006

The Pandaren Likelihood will be LOCKED at Possible until further new evidence can prove otherwise. This is not to be changed from Possible until such evidence arises.

Comments Edit

I hate to pull out the admin card, but unless you are one, the locking of anything is more of a psychological hope than any actual enforceable thing. Also, unless the whole voting thing is BS, Possible is losing, so I don't see how you could assert Possible as valid. Some people just think a wish can make it so, I guess.
--Fandyllic 1:08 PM PST 10 Jan 2006

That's fine, you're the admin. I'm not one. It doesn't matter how much work I've put into this page, or created it. I should not try to work on things as a community, discuess them, or do voting as it's done on differnet pages. It doesn't matter the fact I've put at least 20 hours researching for this page. Nor does it matter that when the 4th vote was in for Possible, there was only 3 votes in for Unlikely. That's fine, I just won't vote on anything anymore. --Xmuskrat 16:26, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

If you don't vote, we will miss your input, but that's your choice. Also, a 4-to-3 margin is not a strong basis for anything (5-to-4 Supreme Court votes suck too). We all appreciate your time, but time does not equal validity. Effort does not equal rationality. Even by your research, the case for Pandaren is not strong.
Also, my point about being an admin wasn't that I was one, but that locking things down can only be done by and admin, so you saying a vote is closed doesn't prevent people from voting.
--Fandyllic 4:35 PM PST 10 Jan 2005
I try incredibly hard to be as impartial as possible, which is why Pandaren don't have a strong case. It's not as much Pandaren being unlikely bothering me, it's this entire process. There's no real way to grow this page as a community, as things stand now. We need a lot of policy written down. I only copied the process that I had seen done on the Draenei voting and any vote I had done previously. As far as I know neither Anticrash nor Superside are admins, but they've locked votes that they ran themselves. --Xmuskrat 20:12, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
The issue isn't locking votes, the issue is locking changes to content. Just because you make up some arbitrary rules and follow them, doesn't mean other people agree with those rules and doesn't mean you can tell people thaty can't change stuff. The unfortunate side effect of the wiki-way is that people can changes stuff. So you can ask nicely, but telling them really doesn't have muc meaning unless you really have the power to lock a page, which unfortunately isn't just locking whether someone puts Possible vs. Unlikely, but the whole page.
The idea of voting is good, but consensus (meaning more than a slight margin of agreeement) is much better because it shows alot more people agree than disagree. This is why I don't like the idea of saying 4 votes yes and lock regardless of whether there are 3 votes no at the same time. It seems both anti-wiki and a weak argument to tell people they can't change stuff.
I don't think we need to over bureaucratize things, but we should make our decisions have a good solid basis and not a 1 vote margin.
--Fandyllic 5:55 PM PST 10 Jan 2006
Omg this page begins to get illegible ... To Fandyllic : A good solid basis is an utopia, a dream, something odd in the imperfect world of speculation and rumor, so this margin is not the only wrong thing there. Closing this topic until a BLUE POST arises and is reported here with LINKS and disallowing savage vote breaks (because of no votes) will be the far best solution (for me). But before changing the "law" we have to finish to use the previous one, because (don't know what corresponds in English), "la loi n'est pas rétroactive".--Kirochi 21:20, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
["The law is not retroactive (or maybe reversible)" is the English translation in case it wasn't obvious; I don't know if that's a common phrase, though. Schmidt 22:16, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)]

LOL. This just goes to show the absolute absurdity of some attitudes. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but see here: If you pretend that you have some authority, then you can have that authority until someone calls your bluff; then you have none. Even without authority or any pretense to that, then you can ask anyone anything, and if it's rational and the one taking the request is rational, they will comply. Some people are gentlemen and they don't have to be commanded. So, if you're not an admin, don't try to pretend that you are one or that you have the authority as if one. This sums up the facts (as I see it) with regard to power and authority. I have said nothing so far on the point of closing a vote at a time when others might consider it "early." That comes next.

I realize the need for execution. We can sit on a vote all year and still not decide anything. Or we can even decide something and not do anything with it. Someone needs the backbone to just say, "Look: This is the way it is, at least for now. Those who find it unfavorable, sign a petition. Those who affirm it, also sign. Until then, follow the policy!" (That's more or less what the U. S. Supreme Court does, and it must, because they judge the constitutionality — and sometimes morality, dubiously — of some laws and higher cases.) It's always good to have an admin put their hand on something and bless it as well. Until then, it appears unenforceable and weak. (Maybe that's just a misperception, but it's a strong one.) But it should not require only signatures but strong arguments. I'd rather think of this wiki as republican than democratic. Sometimes children want to place their hand on a hot iron or hot stove burner. They don't want what comes with it, but they want to do that anyways. You obviously don't let the child do that, because you know better. Unless the child can give me a really good reason why I should let him touch the burner, I'm not going to, no matter how many times he'll ask, and no matter how many people sign his petition.

What do I mean by all this? It's fine, in my own opinion, that someone might propose closing a vote and not reversing it even though more names appear. A straw shield is a shield of one sort or another, but it's not going to block anything that hits it, so you might as well not pose as if you have any admin powers if you don't. And above all, the thing that bothers me most about this is that people are arguing about the likelihood of something that may have already been determined; and if it hasn't already been determined, the only reason this might have any effect on the determination is if Blizzard devs would come by this page and see what we have here. They'd probably have a field day reading this, too. Schmidt 22:16, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

Oh, and one more thing: Stuff like this is what makes me really want a census so that we can know who to expect to vote, and we can know how many we need to get 50% or however many votes that should be required. How about WoWWiki:Census or anything else? Schmidt 22:49, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)
I did nothing more then copy a process I had previously observed done more then once. AT the time, we had NO voting policy document at all. This does not show my absolute absurdity of my attitude, nor was I trying to control a vote or show authority. Many others have done the exact same process I never saw it to be an issue before. I desire policy, I desire to follow the rules, I try to do my best, and when it's not enough, I deal with it, you deal with it and we figure out how to move on or not.
"The thing that bothers me most about this is that people are arguing about the likelihood of something that may have already been determined" -- OF COURSE IT'S BEEN DETERMINED. Of course they've already selected the Alliance race. That does not make this page any more valuable. This is a place where we share ideas. This whole problem is there for a single reason. Cause we have a field that states a mass opinion. Possible or unlikely. People feel differently and are willing to get into stupid fights over having their own opinion there. The thing is, things are as possible or unlikely as Blizzard wants, and since they never offically 'debunk' anything, all that field does is create fights. Unfortunately, since I've done quite a few of the updates to this page with some of the rumors that are less then viable, that makes people think I'm holding up a straw shield. I just want to get all of these ideas together, in one place. I love to document information and learn about Warcraft, and I hate the forums because people get into stupid power trips and we can't just work together as a community. I'm still not entirely sure I've found a better place here. However, that hasn't stopped me from adding new content, cleaning records, and sourcing quotes for several hours every day. If I really wanted control, I'd make my own site, put what I thought on it, and spend those 2-3 hours a day getting my own content.
I guess what bothers me here is that thought this entire process of this vote here, I was treated like a bad guy who was somehow trying to control an outcome. I'm not a bad guy. I'm just a guy. --Xmuskrat 09:33, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)

I was talking to everyone here at once, sort of, or wanting to anyways; not just you, Xmuskrat. First off, as I said, it seems kind of absurd that we're even discussing the likelihood of something that has been determined. What's worse is that we're arguing about the likelihood. Well, I honestly say it doesn't even matter to me what the likelihood of anything is; I'll see it when I see it. It's helpful to know if something has been announced, because then you can plan. The only thing this particular page can do for us is to help us plan, but we wouldn't even know the beginning stats, nor the available classes, and so on. And I'm happy to see you add content, so don't take too much offense by what I said. I guess I was just spewing out onto my keyboard all the thoughts that built up reading here and elsewhere. Just be a guy. That's fine with me. lol I wish more people were. Schmidt 22:27, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)

Okay, sorry for jumping on you. Do you think it's a bad idea for us to have 'Possible' and 'Unlikely' on things that are really individual opinion? I mean, that's what all of this fighting is about. Group opinion, discussed rudely. --Xmuskrat 14:08, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Well, whatever anyone else wants to do with this; it doesn't really concern me except that the way people have been acting seems foolish. If it's up to me, I'd let you do whatever you want to do because this page has little to do with me, and I have no further opinion on it, as far as the page goes. If you mean to ask me, "Do you want to drop the whole 'possible' and 'unlikely' thing and just list points for and against," yeah. I'm all for that. Schmidt 02:51, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)

I know people have been acting foolish, and I've definately have acted foolish. I'd just like to find the source of the problem, and address that. I honestly don't want to continue fighting, I'd much rather have a community where everybody gets along. If it turns out that all we need to do here is not make public opinions and let people judge for themselves, it might turn out all the better. However, I think Fandyllic has a good idea about listing which expansion a race might fit best in. It's possible we could work this idea into whatever happens next. --Xmuskrat 09:53, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)




0_o. I don't believe you people. You honestly think something that was originally intended to be an April Fools joke and which has caused people to threaten to cancel their accounts is actually feasible? --Vorbis 20:48, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Now watch them do a vote on ogres and vote them 'Unlikely.' I'm just waiting for it to happen. =p --Kakwakas 17:22, 7 Jan 2006 (EST)
I'd vote possible for Ogres, too. Ogres were an april fools joke, too. Loosen up. Blizzard can easily write the lore to do whatever you want to do. I think is somebody cancelled an account because they added Pandaren to WoW (just like Warcraft 3 and the Warcraft 3 Expansion) then I think... well.. they are way too uptight. It's a game. In the end, if people want to play Pandaren, they'll show up. In general, I think not making a race because some people don't want to play it is really kind of stupid. There's lots of choices -- pick something else. Those same people who threaten to quit their account over Pandaren are the same people who threaten to quit their accounts every month when issue of the week pops up. They are a vocal minority, and they are more then often young children who should have either been hugged more or spanked more. --Xmuskrat 08:42, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)
The problem is that they have a total lack of lore to back up their alliance to the Alliance. True, they may like drinking with Dwarves, but can you actually see a 'peaceful' Pandaren dancing round a Tauren body going 'OMFG! N00B!'? I prefer to see the Pandaren as little-seen ledgends which are used in childrens bed-time stories. The Pandaren are not a militant race as a whole. They have no need for participating in the war between the Horde and the Alliance. If anything, they should enter the game as neutral NPCs. --Vorbis 21:27, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
That's what I'm talking about. --Kakwakas 16:56, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)
There's a bunch of lore in the WoW RPG by Chris Metzen on them. Still Lore is one of the EASIEST things to write to make a race work or not work. Regardless, Pandaren are locked at Possible until we get some sort of annoucement from a verifiable source like a print publication or Blizzard post. --Xmuskrat 13:59, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
To Vorbis : you know, World of Warcraft isn't really a fairy tale nor a bedtime story, so everything's possible, for the best and the worst. You maybe noticed that I'm convinced that Draenei, Ogres and Pandaren are the most probable for this new race and I won't hide the fact that I mostly try to find the positive reasons for these ones and the negative arguments for the other ones, but I swear that I try to do my best in the most objective way. I really think that the Pandaren would fit exactly and that the Quillboars or the Furbolg would be absolutely wrong, but I don't put them down and make a vote to lock them in a position I like. I think this is useful only when there's a big disagreement between two factions (regardless of the exact number of people involved in these factions), like in this case. The people voted. SPQR. Sono Pazzi Questi Romani. We're crazy but unfortunately for you we are people and you don't have any right to deny what people voted.--Kirochi 16:55, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
Furbolg at least have relations with night elves, and quillboar don't have much official lore (I consider quillboar kinda between 'Unlikely' and 'Possible'). If you read the part about pandaren in the RPG book that Xmuskrat mentioned, pandaren have a neutral society, want peace whenever possible, and believe the Alliance is too complicated. Yes, they're cool, but they shouldn't have a place in the Alliance. --Kakwakas 18:22, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
A lot of people are very passionate about a lot of these ideas. Lore can be easily updated. I find much greater weight on technical barriers, like four legged models or bigger-then-door sized races. That takes a ton more work. Blizzard can always make a "splinter race" and do what they want. Sure, the Pandaren as a whole believe the Alliance is too complicated, but it also talks about the Panadren allying with the Alliance in fights in the past, too. All it would take is simple lore, say, the Burning Leigon wanting to destory the entire universe. With that, ANY race would work together to save it. --Xmuskrat 19:54, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
True, they could throw in a splinter group, though I'd smack Blizz for that. XD When it comes to outside of lore, though, I have to call the point of blood elves being on Horde to boost Horde player numbers. You know as well as I that EVERYONE would roll a pandaren. --Kakwakas 20:36, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
The Tauren were formerly neutral ; so were the Night Elves. But let's not say anything wrong because of the lack of proofs (but I agree with you, even if the Pandaren were in the Horde I would roll one :P). I'm off for now, see you later ^^--Kirochi 07:52, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
Pandaren have already been debunked "" by blizzard "" .. further discussion as "possible" is completely pointless. though i must say i find it interesting that this "debunked" information is suddenly gone missing.... one way or the other it wont be pandaren. CJ 07:56, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
Oh CrazyJack can't figure out how much I hate that ... Claiming that it won't be pandaren because of an hypothetical official reason which you can't find again when you're saying that ... Where did you find this information ? And did you see it from a polemical website bearing the "absolute truth" ? If you find that information but from a real official website, I'll trust you. But to assert "one way or the other it wont be pandaren" without providing any sturdy proof makes me kinda angry ...--Kirochi 10:46, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
It will not be Pandaren for purely political reasons. Pandarens are Samurai Pandas. Pandas: a Chinese animal; Samurai: a Japanese aspect of culture. Fusing Chinese and Japanese culture? Do you know how offensive that would be to the asian consumers? "Stupid Americans, don't know the difference between China and Japan." This could also put WoW sales in Asia at risk. Blizzard wouldn't risk that. --Anticrash 10:56, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
Caydiem stated it wont be pandaren. ( stil cant find the damn exact quote )
  • Metzen said the new race will have a shady alliance with the alliance(like undead with the horde), ogres fit that description.
    • Pandarens dont have a 'horde' appearance, are shamanistic in lore, and wouldnt do anything to solve the population imbalance.
  • According to Kotaku, the new Alliance race is none other than the Draenei. Now here is where it gets interesting though. You see this rumor and supposed confirmation of said rumor comes from Parting Visions and their scans of the February issue of Computer Gaming. But hold on, Blizzard comes along now. They will not confirm nor deny this story in fact. The only thing Blizzard has said is that they have not released any information on the new Alliance race to any website, magazine or other media source. They of course welcome the debate and continued speculation. Neowin
    • And thats why it won't be Pandaren. Blizzard wants the population to be more balanced, not unbalance it more. So "cute" race for the kiddies for horde (Blood Elves) and the ugly Draenei for the Alliance.
  • The rumor now is that the alliance race are those things that have that little village in Swamp of Sorrows and not Pandaren.
  • When the editors of the gaming magazines were brought to Blizzard’s offices to view The Burning Crusade for the first time, there were dozens of posters and artwork depicting the Pandaren as the new Alliance race. At the time Blizzard was 80% certain that the Pandaren were going to be the new Alliance race and it was presented as such. However, due to various complex reasons, there is now a zero percent chance of this happening. At best you might be seeing non-killable Pandaren NPCs in the game. from free candy for everyone
    • Not sure I believe the claims that the political reasons are because the Pandaren’s would die. I do believe the thought that it’s because all media released in China must be approved by the government, and that because the Pandaren has Japanese culture in it’s lore, that they would not allow it.
    • Actually I think it’s because of China. I heard they would ban the game in China if pandas were made killable. Something about they’re not allowed to display killing of pandas over there in any way, even if it’s just a game. I’m not positive but if that’s true, thanks a lot CHINA. For ruining it for the rest of the world.
    • Pandarens = No (Think about it) Tiger race = No (Blizzard’s not going to make a new race with no REAL history. Look at the Blood Elves)

Worgen = Possibly (Heard about that rumor from different places) As for what I think the race will be, I’ll bet money on the Dranei. They have a pretty lengthy history and can be found in the game, killable. CJ 11:06, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

So... (Even though none of this is new evidence, it's the same old unverifiable rumors that have been around AT LEAST since October...)
  • Caydiem stated it wont be pandaren. ( stil cant find the damn exact quote )

Quotes I can't find ANYWHERE. I was even in chat with Caydiem during the dev chat where she was asked if it was Pandaren or not. She AVOIDED the question.

  • Metzen said the new race will have a shady alliance with the alliance(like undead with the horde), ogres fit that description.

What video or magazine published this? I've read TONS of them, and I can't find this on any trustworthy source.

--Xmuskrat 11:51, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

I think its time to leave this alone. There is only one fact: We know nothing. Accept that and move on. Just wait patiently for the official announcement instead of arguing amongst ourselves about rumors. Its frustrating to watch all these 'subjective' debates. --Anticrash 12:00, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

OMG, thank you. --Xmuskrat 12:09, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

Thank you both Anticrash and Xmuskrat for what you did. We shall now unite and persuade the last subjectively-ran people to join us on the path to debunk fake debunkings and biased arguments. Thanks a million times. (This sentence should colden a little bit this page)--Kirochi 13:30, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
Well, looks like this entire voting process meant nothing, since it's back to unlikely again. Blizzard will just do what they want to do, and none of our ideas here will make the slightest of difference. --Xmuskrat 16:15, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
It didn't mean nothing, but apparently you didn't like the outcome, so it meant nothing to you. Also, lack of evidence (Blizz not confirming anything) is not evidence in favor. If people are going to vote for Possible vs. Unlikely, you would think for one or the other to be agreed upon, most people would have to vote overwhelmingly for one or the other. This is not the case. The vote was split, with a slight recent edge to Unlikely. No one has presented any good evidence that Pandarens will be more than an Unlikely possibility as the Alliance race. Even the current list of reasons has 4 minuses and and only 3 pluses. The bold plus is dubiously bold, since the area in question isn't even an island, just near where the RPG says Pandaria might be.
--Fandyllic 4:35 PM PST 10 Jan 2006
"but apparently you didn't like the outcome, so it meant nothing to you" Will you PLEASE STOP putting words in my mouth? --Xmuskrat 21:06, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
Wouln't Pandaren also fit this "Shadey Allaince" too? They don't much care for the Humans' political issues, they do not like the Gnomes' uses of mechanical weapons, they might not trust the Night Elves completely again yet for their uses of arcane magic in the past. The only race they really "trust" are the Dwarfs. They would probably start out neutral with everyone but the Dwarfs, and MAYBE the Night Elves. So they also fit this "shadey" alliance too! -- Seros

Voting, etc. Edit

I don't think we need voting. These are just rumors after all. This is a good candidate for the the normal cycle of add, edit, revert if needed. Most people will agree with changes if they are explained to some degree. I also am not sure about the bold/italic thing. Maybe I'll try switching it to colors.

--Fandyllic 11:08 PM PST 22 Dec 2005

I was consdering turning the whole list into a template. --Xmuskrat 09:37, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)

I agree with the color scheme idea. The bold/italics are too hard on the eyes and dont make the text flow very smoothly. I would suggest grey for neutral rumors, very subdued green or blue for positive rumors, and light pink or purple for negative. --Anticrash 10:08, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
Good ideas. I'll work on a new template as soon as I can in a sandbox, and then convert each of those entires so they pipe through the template. --Xmuskrat 10:09, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)


Huh ? Edit

What's the point of keeping races containing only minus reasons ? I don't get that ... --Kirochi

why not? if making a list, it can show people why its not likely.
Just as much point as there is to making a list with only plus reasons. you simply need both. CJ 11:11, 21 Dec 2005 (EST)

I'm all for plus reasons, however, I'm not for having 4 plus reasons that all say "alliance likes them". If you see some pluses, add them. Regardless, I think people deserve to read a list of all of the rumored races, no matter how unfeasable. Nobody should have to dig through half of those hate flame filled threads to hear the few semi-valid points that are there. --Xmuskrat 11:18, 21 Dec 2005 (EST)

Yay, I think so too, but I also think that there has to be a scale of importance for the different pluses and minuses (for instance, putting on the same hand the recent renewal of a race and the obvious hatred to the Alliance is quite odd, don't you think ?)--Kirochi 17:51, 21 Dec 2005 (EST)

This is wiki. Feel free to edit the page and add additional negative and positive points. I think the "scale of importance" is something each of us might feel differently about. Having 100 extra animations added to a character, vs. lore which can easily be changed (some people might feel the exact oppisate). Feel free to add additional + or - lines, but try not to if a line up there already blankets the suggestion. Has relationship to Alliance and Has Relationship to Night Elves as two seperate lines are probably a bad idea. If all else fails, just talk in here. :) I've tried to add myself any good ideas people talk about in here. --Xmuskrat 07:40, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)

Ok, so how would feel about Put the most important reasons in bold, th half-important reasons kept in normal font, and the very light reasons in Italic ?--Kirochi 09:25, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)

I guess the only way I'd really support that is if everybody (who was interested) voted on what reasons were important, non important, and trivial. --Xmuskrat 11:17, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
I don't think the bolding and italics and all that is very pleasant on the eyes. I think its easier to read when its all normal font. --Anticrash 11:24, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
I also think that what is an important and non important reason is even more person-to-person then the likeliness rating. Still, if everybody likes the idea we could make small icons with different colored circles with plus and minus in them. Perhaps one that go from grey to blue, with the more blue in them the more serious they are. Still, I'm not sure "how good the reason is" will be an easy thing for us to measure over a group of people, or to revise if somebody new comes along without a re-voting process. --Xmuskrat 11:27, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
Personally, I don't even think that kind of rating is even necessary. All we need to know is positive or negative.. Judging the importance of the reasons just seems impractical since there really isn't any kind of conceivable 'importance' that comes innately with any reason, and that kind of labelling falls strictly to user opinion (and opinions differ greatly, thus a system such as this is doomed to create conflict). Voting on how important a reason is would waste too much time and would just be a silly thing to do if you think about it (no offense to anyones brainstorming btw). All we can do (and should do) is discern the differences between the various reasons, such as Lore Discrepancies, Technical Difficulties, etc. --Anticrash 11:55, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
I know that I've been trying very hard to get all of the ideas together in one place, I'm all for having them evolve into something useful. Perhaps we should draft a list of categories that we could use for each, and just have one ([SupportedLore], [TechDiff], [ModelUpdate], etc) per rumored race. On the other hand, I also beleive that not having "mostly debunked" and "unlikely" would prompt many red users to delete, remove, or vandalize existing entries.--Xmuskrat 16:07, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki