Talk:Skull of Gul'dan

Current Status

Is there any specific reasons it can't be a random skull?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I can not think of anything. I thought this all along (scence the trailer), Sir.--SWM2448 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Given that none of the other characters in the trailer are lore characters, and that the continued existence of the Skull is unlikely (even if it did, it would be useless), I disgagree, but I acknowledge that I have no evidence to countermand the theory. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

They say he absorbed it...was it just the power or the marrow and all? The teeth look the same in all pictures. The useless comment can be shown when he just disgards it in the trailer.--SWM2448 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Do we really know what happened to the skull between WC2 and the Felwood level of WC3:RoC? And after Felwood it was assumed destroyed, but illidan could have kept the powerless skull on his house key.--SWM2448 19:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Bua ha ha ha. The best thing about Illidan dropping the Skull (see below) is that it validates my original creation of the "current status" speculation section. Dr. Cheis 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks

I know that looks can be deceiving but it seems identical to the one seen in the WCII cutscene (the WCIII screen seems to be in the game's standard graphics and hence not as accurate)Scorpx2 01:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)scorpx2 looking again it seems to be the two combinedScorpx2 01:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)scorpx2

In-game item!

This proves Illidan still has it.--SWM2448 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And it still has power. Had a feeling it would... BTW, i'm pretty sure it was called an "artifact" in warcraft III. Not so sure about the quests descriptions in Warcraft II expansion.Baggins 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the title sucks, I'd suggest just splinning the "The Skull of Gul'dan" to its own trinket page (that way people can also explain best way to use it, and what trinkets to stack it with), so that this page can remain "Skull of Gul'dan" to better follow wiki style. "The" is really an eye sore, :p.Baggins 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The "the" is used elsewhere. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a guild name, its not the same thing. Title of books that have "the" in the title keep "the" in the wiki pages title, for style. Locations, places, historical pages, and the like do not. Eye for example is not "The Eye" despite that actually being the title of the location.Baggins 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And? There's always gotta' be a first. ;) It's like the entire issue you had with Kazzak: we had to have him have the proper name, correct? Well, The Skull of Gul'dan is now the proper name for artifact. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually depends on the source, "proper name" actually varies depending on how it shows up in a sentence. By itself its "The Skull of Gul'dan" in a sentence, its "Skull of Gul'dan", often with a lower case "the", denoting that the "the" not important in most cases. I'm not suggesting a total rename, but like with Kazzak, disambugating the ingame item/person/etc to its own page. To keep out the inevitable, "how to use" content out of the lore page. Since this item has alot of lore behind it. Like we seperate gameplay content "tactics" from main lore content.20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So? That seems to work fine on other pages, such as Heart of Fury, and the ambiguous page with stuff from the RPG. :/ Heck, even Thunderfury, which has it's own lore. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In anycase I've found an additional issue, as The Skull of Gul'dan is actually a title of another battle, :).Baggins 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you move the battle, not this page, as the battle is named after the item. Not the other way around. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the article can now have the item as a basis for information, it should probably be put under the item's name. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Now thats just messed up. Even IF the full power of the skull had already been sucked out, it would not be epic. THIS thing should be the game's first Artifact... I don't get why blizz did this... Baldr 6:34 9/9/07

Use

I have the skull in game /flex, but anyway, one interesting use it has is that when you use the skull first, it does not trigger the cooldown of another trinket, so you can /use skull of gul'dan for 10% haste and then /use Hex Shrunken Head for extra spell damage, gaining the benefit of both trinket at the same time and hence lots of dps Js1006 20:39, 28 January (UTC):

Beyond the Dark Portal Update?

Didn't the Sons of Lothar send the skull back to Azeroth before the dark portal was closed via gryphon rider?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krasusinwow (talk · contr).

Yes, actually, but we never actually saw what happened to that guy, as I recall the portal collapsed just as he was going through... feel free to add it to the article yourself (just use an in-universe perspective), we don't employ a magical-self-updating Protoss database. Do we look like the Exodar, man!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the Kirin Tor got the Book of Medivh back (and possibly the Eye of Dalaran), I wonder if the Skull was also held in the Violet Citadel and looted by the Scourge when they destroyed the city? Then it was taken to Kalimdor with the Burning Legion. It's possible but it's only speculation right now. (Omega2010 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Possible, definetly. We don't actually know if it was the same Book. BtDP leaves it very vague as to what happened to that gryphon rider, and we don't know what happened to the Eye (logically, Khadgar should have sent it back immediately as he didn't need it for the closing), it isn't mentioned at all after they retrieve it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)