Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
("Newly-crowned")
Line 179: Line 179:
 
:::: I mean the text is small I can't see the space between ()for some reason, even in preview. So I am now trying to make sure to manually add it in, and check by using the arrow keys. I think there might actually be something wrong with this computer's video card, and I can't wait until the day that I retire it :p...[[User:Baggins|Baggins]] 19:22, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 
:::: I mean the text is small I can't see the space between ()for some reason, even in preview. So I am now trying to make sure to manually add it in, and check by using the arrow keys. I think there might actually be something wrong with this computer's video card, and I can't wait until the day that I retire it :p...[[User:Baggins|Baggins]] 19:22, 16 January 2007 (EST)
   
  +
Thanks for the comment, it at least perked my curiosity to learn the mechanics of the site. I know the lore but navigating this place is scary :-p
== "Newly-crowned" ==
 
 
Yes, I know, I know, my bad. For some reason I forgot that Muradin was the middle sibling, not the eldest. I went back and fixed it right afterward. [[User:Bragus|Bragus]] 01:40, 19 January 2007 (EST)
 

Revision as of 07:44, 19 January 2007

Cites

Yay for citing, keep it up. Once I get access to my books again and probably re-read them, I'll see about adding more of my own. -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Yes, citing = good.Baggins 17:04, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Lore stubs and RPG

In future, when you make a section, would you mind actually putting in information? Only I doubt that many users are going to be able to add information for most of the blank stubs you've put in. Also, I'd be in favor of removing epic classes from the lists, as they don't appear in-game. They're what pen-and-paper RPGs (and D&D-based video games, like Neverwiner Nights) use to define a player who has either achieved a very high level in his class, or had stuck to a single class instead of multiclassing. Since most players expect to reach high levels, and multiclassing cannot be done in WoW, the information is useless. And to go back to an old point, could I encourage the preview button again?--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 23:03, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Don't worry I'll be adding in those sources. Those are just placeholders to remind me to do it. :p... Secondly, "epic classes" had lore, so I posted it up. Brann refers to characters as "epic" occasionally, like he refers to rexxar as the "epic beastmaster" I put them in the base class pages rather than creating seperate articles because I felt it wouldn't make much sense to make twice as many articles for what was only a small bit of lore in the first place. Also you'll note samwise even made his own fancy artwork for those "epic classes" so I feel that that makes them pretty valid bit of information.Baggins 00:59, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Are you certain that's a priest and not a paladin? hit acknowledged.--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 09:45, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Are you referring to the "Pyremaster"? The book said "funerary priest". Maybe you meant the artwork for "Epic Priest"? That's the artwork in the book itself for the epic priest. Samwise has it listed up on his site as "Epic Priest" as well. So ya I'm pretty sure ;).Baggins 11:31, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Well, I guess he knew what he was doing. That artwork does look more like a paladin thanm a priest, but perhaps among the epic, it no longer matters.--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 11:41, 26 December 2006 (EST)
Heh, Heh. But ya I see where you are coming from. He has sections of armor connnected to his robes. His mace looks like a tiny hammer.Baggins 11:50, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Citations

Where are you getting all the info about pandaren stuff? --Hobinheim 15:06, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Manual of Monsters, Alliance & Horde Compendium, Lands of Mystery, both Magic and Mayhem books, and plenty of other assorted RPG refrences. Yes, they will be cited in the future as soon as I get around to it ;). Citations = Good. I avoid the april fool's version as some of the information from that source has changed in order to make it fit the lore better.Baggins 15:09, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Blood elves and fel magic

Noted, but the point I'm making is the misguided idea that all blood elves rely primarily on demonic magic to replenish themselves. As we see in-game, that is simply not true. I changed the reasons why the blood elves in general were rejected from the Alliance. It's not because of the race's willingness to embrace demonic magic because the race as a whole does not want to -- it was for Kael'thas' treasonous actions during the year following the Third War by accepting aid from the Naga and breaking free of Dalaran, and then following Illidan into Outland.

There needs to be more distinction between blood elves in Azeroth and blood elves in Outland.--Zexx 17:22, 27 December 2006 (EST)

The main distinction is that blood elves in outland are apparently gone mad(although they haven't turned into Wretched), and they follow demons.
Otherwise culturally they are about the same. Blood elves still go for mainly red clothes, strange haircuts, etc. They still feed off off any form of magic including fel magic etc. You need me to cite the sources? Hell at the beginning of Burning Crusade they just think of themselves as part of blood elves of outland, and blood elf ambassdor from Outland lives with them. They only recently started getting more sources of divine and arcane magic because they were able to retake Silverwind which is full of arcane creatures, and because the abassador brought them a Naaru. They still have plenty of access to "fel" magic in Quel'Thalas though due to scourge presence.

Baggins 17:30, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Yeah could I get some of those sources? Just want to make sure.--Zexx 17:34, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Well first off is their new access to divine magic.[[1]].

As for mentioning they drain fel magic from demonic sources, that is mentioned in Alliance & Compendium, and World of Warcraft RPG core rule book.

As for access to using ability to get arcane magic, that is covered in a quest early on in the game used to show how to use the Spell arcane manatap [Mana Tap] ability. You are sent around draining mana from Mana wyrms, a creature of arcane design.

Blood Elves were just starting to try to take back Silvermoon and the Blackened Wood(which it states was also called Ghostlands), according to Lands of Conflict, but at that time they largely limited to making strikes from the island of Quel'Danas.

Is the practice of blood elves draining fel magic confirmed as not flavor lore?

It's not the idea that they siphon mana from arcane sources I'm debating, just that they rely heavily on demonic magic.--Zexx 17:46, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Mind you at that time of lands of conflict and Manga, Silvermoon was not a place to live it was alot worse of than it is now. Filled with Undead and demons. Blood elves have done alot through magic to repair the damage done by destruction of the Sunwell and scourge since then.
There is a short story in Alliance and Horde Sourcebook where one of the Azerothian blood elves kills a felguard. He starts to think how low his race has become. He contemplates on how he has been forced to sate his addiction to magic through lowly demons, as if he was just an animal (Akin to a vampire feeding on lowly rats). He starts to wonder what it would be like if he could catch an Eredar, or a human mage, perhaps even Jaina Proudmoore herself and feed on their arcane magic.Template:Cite This story was given in order to show culture and fate of Blood elves on Azeroth at the time.
As I've said before things have changed since then however, they now have access to divine and arcane sources rather than just fel sources.Baggins 17:53, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Well WoW

A WoW stamp, as I threatened. Thank you very very much for this weapon. <Evil, triumphant grin>--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 20:51, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Hey, you had me make it, I'm going to utilize it ;).Baggins 20:56, 27 December 2006 (EST)

WC2

I thought we agreed that someone would be able to link to the statistical page from the main page?--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 09:44, 29 December 2006 (EST)

I'm not sure where to put it on the main page. If you know where to put it that would be great.Baggins 10:18, 29 December 2006 (EST)

The top, like a disambig notice. "for Lothar's statistics from Warcraft II, see <...>"--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 10:25, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Oh you meant individual pages, not the "main page". Oh, I had been putting it on hte bottom in a "See Also: Link". But that can be changed.Baggins 10:27, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Unofficial classifications

Baggins, to stop the edit war, we should chat about the handling of such mob types as Frost giant. No, the term 'Frost giant' doesn't appear anywhere in official sources as far as I know either, but the creatures are obviously different from mountain giant, sea giant, molten giant, etc, at least in appearance. 'Frostmaul' is obviously a tribal name rather than something that would describe all giants of said type. There are plenty of other creature subtypes that have been given an arbritrary name if only to differatiate them from the rest (several Naxxramas mob types come to mind). Blizzard can't officially name every type of creature, and mishing the blanks together is not good enough. --Varghedin 17:42, 29 December 2006 (CET)

Well according to the RPG they are a type of "Mountain Giant" so if you must classify them put them in that category. But our job is not to make up terminology. Also I'm pretty sure the Molten Giant Mob is considered a typeo of "Mountain Giant" by the rpg as well.Baggins 11:46, 29 December 2006 (EST)
If they are officially a type of mountain giant, I will indeed do that, although stating that to begin with could have helped. My job as it were, or one of them, is to clarify creature types and put them in appropriate categories, and sometimes official terminology has holes. Not everyone has access to the RPG sources. --Varghedin 17:59, 29 December 2006 (CET)
Well at first I wanted to give you the chance to make a citation, just in case there was something I missed. I probably should have used the Source needed template rather than fanfic.Baggins 12:03, 29 December 2006 (EST)
Yeah, I kept looking for things in the articles themselves that felt 'fanficcy'. But it was always just about the name itself. I do feel we should make an ample note in the Mountain giant article about color variations or something similar to prevent it from happening again with someone else. --Varghedin 17:59, 29 December 2006 (CET)

Agreed.Baggins 12:15, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Classes Category

I've expanded it to include official classes from the RPG, and Strategy Game a few weeks ago.Baggins 22:04, 28 December 2006 (EST)

I'd much prefer you create new categories like Category:RPG Classes and Category:RTS Classes for these classes that don't appear in World of Warcraft. Two reasons for this: 1) This is WoWWiki, so people may not expect non-WoW classes to be listed under classes and 2) with so many classes mixed up together, it's hard to figure out which ones belong to what kind of games. You can make Category:RPG Classes and Category:RTS Classes sub-categories of Category:Classes for people to find stuff from Category:Classes. --Fandyllic (talk) 11:41 AM PST 29 Dec 2006
The Wow classes already have their own seperate class categories, and those show up at the top of the page as "sub-categories". They don't show up in the below class categories. Also many of the other classes show up in WoW just only as NPC classes. Also most of the classes show up across more than one type of media. In some cases they get offhand mention in World of Warcraft, its RPG, or a previous Warcraft game, a novel, etc, that gave them more detailed lore. So it would be a lie to just specify them as "RPG" class, or "RTS" class, or a "WOW" class when they may show up in 2 or more sources.Baggins 14:44, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Kil'jaeden

Actually, Kil'jaeden's biology appears to be a retcon; in RotH, Ner'zhul, Gul'dan, and Durotan easily recognized the similarities between him and the draenei. Daemons debunked.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:29, 5 January 2007 (EST)

In Horde's Player's Guide it mentions he has appeared to the Horde in various forms the various times he's appeared before them. So yes they ultimatley knew what his appearance was. Not sure why he would take on different forms though, guess he just likes doing that.Baggins 20:34, 5 January 2007 (EST)

RotH establishes that he impersonated Orc ancestors to convince the shamans to convert to warlock magics- Gul'dan and Durotan were the only ones who realized what he truly was. The book even answers why some orcs seem mentally challenged, explains everything about the draenei; it's reconciled at least half a dozen lore issues, and those are just the clearest ones.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Ahh so its just expanded on what we knew further. Not really a retcon so much as a expansion. Orc ancestors had horns and wings?Baggins 20:43, 5 January 2007 (EST)

NO. There's no mention of wings, though he does appear to have horns (described in the same manner as the image you posted today). No, Kil'jaeden appeared as Drek'Thar's teacher and Ner'zhul's mate, to name two. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:46, 5 January 2007 (EST)

HPG, includes a nice fancy picture where he appears before Ner'Zhul in his full eredar glory during one of his appearances. I should scan that one up as well.Baggins 20:48, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Definetly. we need a better image for the infobox.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure its good enough for the infobox its too impressionstic, and in black and white. It has Ner'zhul I think standing on a peak, kil'jaeden is above him, flames coming out his head, etc.Baggins 20:52, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Well I've been keeping track of Kil'Jaeden's appearances as I read the story. As for the early ancestor appearances they are just described as looking like any orc we have seen so far, at least "brown-skinned". I didn't notice any refrence to horns on their heads, although I looked for the refrences. The book then starts discussing how the ancestors are in "communication" with "other beings".
This leads to Kil'Jaeden appearing himself after Ner'zhul requests to see one of the "other beings". Kil'jaeden is described as being red skin, it doesn't really describe his entire body in detail. However Ner'zhul only notices one physical attribute of his body that means anythng to him. He comments that Kil'jaeden's legs remind him of draenei's legs. Other than that he doesn't seem to notice any other similarities, not enough for him to say hey look they are the same species. This is vague enough that Kil'jaeden may have still appeared in the so called "demon/daemon" form, but with backward's canted legs like the eredar.
Much later in chapter 16 it final describes kil'jaeden's head, it says he has a horned red head, but doesn't really describe the nature of his horns. But even Gul'dan doesn't seem to notice a direct conection between draenei and Kil'jaeden and wonders why he wants the draenei killed.
I'm going to still keep track of later discriptions in the story as I read further.Baggins 23:21, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Manual of Monsters Appendix III

I cannot accept the reasoning behind adding creatures mentioned in the MoM Appendix III as being in proper lore. The section actually states that they are creatures taken from other reference material (Dark Menagerie,Tome of Horrors etc) and transplanted into the WoW setting solely as an example for players creating their own monsters. The article on Celiestails is taking this source, which already states it is monsters from other non-Warcraft sources, and giving them far too much depth. The RPG disclaimer isn't enough, because unlike most other information from the RPG guides, this is actually stated to be false. Oahkoah 06:27, 14 January 2007 (EST)

As been stated before material from Appendix Three has actually made it into lore in later RPG books in the Warcraft RPG book series, sometimes nearly word for word. As well as some of the material actually showing up earlier in the book, in chapter 1-3 in MoM. So obviously Blizzard's opinion is different than your interpretation on the issue.Baggins 11:15, 14 January 2007 (EST)
Well your intepretation of the Celestials is just fanfiction based on something imported from Dungeons and Dragons MM and is pretty much a blight on WoWWiki being a credible source.

To quote a poster on the scrollsoflore.com forum: Seriously a lot of the problems the people on this forum have with WoWWiki are solely the fault of Baggins. Both of the pages you mention, Kenzuki, were created by him. Also the often used example of the Leprechaun-article on WoWWiki does only exist because of Baggins' stupid obsession with appendix III of the old Manual of Monsters. He's also responsible for throwing around the words "retcon" or "flavor lore" around way too much and using them as an excuse to put all sorts of stupid information in the wiki. How can you credibly defend the article on the Celestials? Oahkoah 12:41, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I'm sorry, but i need to step in tell you what a bunch of ignorant, and obnoxious pricks the people at scrollsoflore are. Baggins is right in what he's said, and the issues you've brought up are unfounded and a bunch of lies. Yes they are taken from non-warcraft realms, but they have been created and altered to fit into warcraft as a real peice of lore. It is not for you to contradict what the RPG says or for what Blizzard decide to do. Baggins does a great job of adding lore from a neutral PoV, and all you are spouting is a biased opinions of lore which have no place on the wiki. --User:Zeal/Sig 12:50, 14 January 2007 (EST)
As Zeal says, it is not for us to decide what is real lore and what isn't. We record what we are given. (I've now posted a defence here: [2] User:Kirkburn/Sig 14:41, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Take a look at what the RPG books say about wyverns. Do you think we should believe that, in addition to the wyverns that we know exist on Azeroth, there is another, entirely unrelated species, coincidentally also called wyverns, which are identical to wyverns from D&D? And that for some unknown reason nobody has ever set eyes on them?

One thing that makes Warcraft such a great series is because of instead of conforming to standard fantasy archetypes, it breaks with them. Instead of brutish minotaur, we have the gentle tauren. Orcs are not necessarily evil, and goblins are very intelligent. High Elves, traditionally the "good elves" in fantasy realms, have become addicted to the arcane, and instead of Dark Elves, we have the wise and peaceful night elves.

Next thing we know, another appendix will tell us that there is actually another group of Night Elves who are evil, live underground, and worship spiders. Accepting Appendix 3 at face value completely undermines everything that has set the Warcraft Universe apart from other dreary, typical fantasy worlds. --Flamestrider 16:10, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Which is purely subjective reasoning (including predictions of the future), rather than the objective reasoning Baggins gives about it being used in later books. No, we dont take it at face value, hence the disclaimers on the pages. I should mention that the appendix info would of course be superceded automatically by any later info that may be released. User:Kirkburn/Sig 16:18, 14 January 2007 (EST)
WoW, another species of wyvern based in D&D and translated to Warcraft. I really want to learn about those, though having a brain i know that these are not the wyverns we know, and as the disclaimer states in the book, i know they are there as a supplement to the word, not to conflict with existing things. I also understand that metzen helped create this, and that he is very persistant about wanting the lroe across all of warcraft to be consistant and valid, so there is no way i can not take this as official or non-cannon *rolls eyes* Seriously? you do have a mental defect right? <3 sarcasm --User:Zeal/Sig 16:24, 14 January 2007 (EST)
Zeal, no ad hominem attacks please. Discuss, don't flame. User:Kirkburn/Sig 16:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)
Zeal: Regarding wyverns, you say "i know they are there as a supplement to the word, not to conflict with existing things." D&D Wyverns in the Warcraft Universe do conflict with existing things, namely the wyverns that are already there.
Kirkburn: you're right that the latter part of my post was subjective. It was my personal objection to the appendix. However, I do believe that my point about the wyverns stands. It is a contradiction, and I'm inclined to believe what the game rather than the books tell us. Incidentally, the part about Drow wasn't a serious prediction for the future of Warcraft.
And thanks for being civil. I happen to be a contributer to the scrollsoflore forums, but I'm somewhat more optimistic about the prospects of Wowwiki than most. I have to say, I think there are problems, but not unsolvable ones. Recently, I brushed up the Nathrezim article, and I'll change errors if I see them. --Flamestrider 19:33, 14 January 2007 (EST)
Glad to hear :) The Nathrezeim article changes were v good - it was too much 'padding' before. We of course put info in order of 'importance'. That doesn't mean we should ignore 'alternative' info - I think the wyvern article is a good example - it shows clearly the different sources and types. Just because a name is reused doesn't mean that one of the two things is 'wrong'. Look at Hakkar for example ;) User:Kirkburn/Sig 19:40, 14 January 2007 (EST)
Despite the warnings i don't apollogize for what i said. Anyways, what Kirkburn said, my point with that sarcasm was that because i know it's a supplement, i know they are to be considered different from existing wyverns, not conflict with them. You always have the option to choose what to beleive, but the wiki does not have the choice of what info to provide, it will provide it all objectively. --User:Zeal/Sig 20:07, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: most of the pen-and-paper RPG for Warcraft is gafted directly from Dungeons & Dragons. That's why basilisks have six legs, why there have been class confusions (though I'm not at liberty to comment on the wyvern).--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Oh look, I'm going to drag myself into this argument. Oh, and DnD Basilisks have 8 legs if NWN is correct
Honestly, I'm against the various "Grabbed right from DnD stuff" to be considered cannonical at all. Sure it does make a slight attempt to get it to work, but its really just not lore. While a few things from it (Dire creatures are in the next monster manual) are refrence, the majority isn't, and some things are completely against most of the Warcraft universe. There's a single group of Demons, not 3 types, and the closest thing to Celestials are the random angels from various spells and possibly Spirit Healers
As for Scrolls of Lore... Meh to them. But Xaran isn't exactly supporting of these being cannon last time I asked him either, and generally if Xaran's against it, I am --Mecheon 01:05, 15 January 2007 (EST)


Oh wow, I didn't mean to cause this big blowup between the two sites. All I feel on the issue is that the Apendix III is very different from the rest of the RPG's. It should probably have a unique disclaimer stating that it is work derived as an extension to a D&D setting. The Celestial article really does take it too far though, and I honestly believe it is approaching fan fiction. I am not saying that all of the Appendix III things need to be removed, and I am in favour of having them their, as it is from a Warcraft source. However, the disclaimer needs to be improved, and people need to take a step back and try not to fill in blanks for material that was already dubious Oahkoah 06:05, 15 January 2007 (EST)

One problem with fixing the problem you describe is that relatively few editors have familiarity with, or even access to, the RPG books to determine what they say and how or if it should be incorporated, making it impossible to edit articles such as Celestial, or even Spell holy surgeoflight [Holy Light].
Regardless, this discussion seems to have grown too large to keep cluttering up Baggins' user page with it. Perhaps it could be continued at WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing/Lore.--Aeleas 11:59, 15 January 2007 (EST)

ENOUGH

I have stood by idly for months on this, and I cannot take it anymore: there is always a space between the end of a word and a parenthesis.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Hmm, I can't see if I'm adding the space or not on this computer (sorry about the issue), but will try to fix it in the future.Baggins 19:18, 16 January 2007 (EST)
Preview button.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)
I mean the text is small I can't see the space between ()for some reason, even in preview. So I am now trying to make sure to manually add it in, and check by using the arrow keys. I think there might actually be something wrong with this computer's video card, and I can't wait until the day that I retire it :p...Baggins 19:22, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the comment, it at least perked my curiosity to learn the mechanics of the site. I know the lore but navigating this place is scary :-p