User talk:Ragestorm/Archive9

From WoWWiki

This is an archive of User talk:Ragestorm. Please do not edit this page! If needed, direct any comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Class lore 2 Wowbox captions 3 Knaak verifying process of writing as well as Night 4 Racenames 5 Baggins reverts of my edits 6 My videos (so as to keep you entertained) 7 Blademasters 8 Chit Chat in User:Oscararon/Talk 9 Tjsid 10 Vrykul capitalization 11 Vandalizing? Or this guy just doesn't know? 12 Nathrezim/Tothrezim 12.1 Arbritrary Break 1 13 Infobox about some characters 14 Shattered Isles 15 Remove me 16 Err... What do publicity materials have to do with anything? 17 Eternals again 18 Sleepers thing.

Class lore

I discussed with several admins including Adys, and Kirkburn in the irc channel about the posibility of switching class lore pages into the primary page, and moving tactics/instructions to the secondary pages. A similar action to how we treated lore characters by seperating tactics from the lore. There would of course be inpage citation so people know click on a link in order to get to the game mechanics page. I'm curious about your opinion?Baggins 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter lore. That's my opinion. Remember, this is a website with the focus on WoW. With lore on the nastys, that's because the lore for them came before WoW; not always the same with the RPG. /squeaky wheels. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually enchanter lore material could be merged into "enchanter", which isn't being used for anything but a redirect, and then a internal link to enchanting could be given from within enchanter. Engineer is also only being used for a [Redirect] when it could be used for the lore page with an internal link to Engineering. Alchemist and Incriber are probably only being used for redirects as well when they could be merged to their respective pages and contain in-page citations.

Also generally for the articles that share the same names as the professions, the lore info is small enough they could be used as an introduction to the entire page. For example if Engineering was made to redirect into "Engineer" you'd have a lore introduction to the history behind Engineers, and then how to be an Engineer in WoW.Baggins 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used mage as an example how to merge Mage lore into Mage without combining too much of the previous pages information. You'll find that some of the info went into Mage races, and Focused mage. I added link to those at the bottom of Mage. Don't worry if you don't like this in any way, we can just revert it back to how it was. If you like the previous idea of making lore page primary and gameplay secondary, we could do that too.Baggins 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think classes are a slightly different situation than characters, but if this method of presenting the lore (and the gameplay) is preferred, I'm all for it. My one concern is now the number of mage-related pages, as it's clear this is more than simply a switch. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful about pushing WoW-related info down too much. As great as it is to have lots of background information, the class tactics sections are a very important part of the wiki - I think most people will come more for how to play, than for the history of their class, unlike character articles. Kirkburn talk contr 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I said they're a different situation from characters. In this case, I'm assuming my "I won't go against consensus" stance, but I'm leaning more towards the idea of keeping the WoW-class material prominent. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

/more squeaky wheels. This isn't consensus. This is Baggins, for once (no, I'm not Zarnks, much as you might be wondering it right now.) I'm still not sure how I agree with how it is now. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky, it was an admin discussion, including Adys and Kirkburn that I discussed it with, and we thought it might be a good idea then, but the idea is to find out what others think (yes, you count as a single other, sky). I've showed Adys this alternative, last night and he liked the idea as well. However, I'm not going to go about changing all the pages until I found out from other admins what they thought. I will certainly return mage page back to how it was if they disagree, or if there is a huge hoohaw from wowwikians. Mage stuff is only to test the waters right now, and see what others think.Baggins 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins are no more important than normal editors, save for the fact they help settle disputes (as mediators, which anyone can do) as well as delete and block. You betcha I'm being a squeaky wheel, but it would seem Ragestorm holds the same convictions as I. And Kirkburn, actually, even though you said he agreed with you on IRC (perhaps it was tentative agreement on IRC?). I'll go along with whatever decision, but I am also allowed to be a squeaky wheel. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is if the admins and especially bookkeepers (whose job is to keep track of the lore side of things) like it, then there is a good chance there will be other people out there that like the idea. The idea is to find out what others think. Get their opinions, and if majority doesn't like it it can return the way it was, its got to be diplomatic.Baggins 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps this should have been posted at WoWWiki talk:Village pump, rather than on Rage's talk page. ;) --Sky (t · c · w) 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be, the first step was to get Ragestorm's opinion I didn't want to go over his head. Going to the Village pump would be going over his head, since it involves changing wowwiki policies, and he may not like the idea. After I got his opinion the Village pump is next. However I'll probably only have time to do that sometime next week. I have studies to do right now.Baggins 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... I have to admit, I'm reluctant to sign off on this. I understand where this is coming from, and I do think it fits better to have Mage reflect lore, but I think the current class page organization is rather efficient, and disseminates information in the appropriate way. While we do operate more as a general Warcraft wiki in terms of lore, we are still the World of Warcraft wiki, and most people are coming here for that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I think there are limits to how much lore we should put on a page. The example on the Mage page shows what I think is probably give or take the maximum allowed, so that it doesn't burden the rest of the article. Luckily when it comes to playable classes there usually are very limited amounts of lore. The RPG had to put more work towards creating lore from scratch for its new classes it invented, to give them context for their existence. BTW, the World of Warcraft strategy guide follows this current format btw, with a lore heading, and background for the class, and then followed by the mechanics.

BTW, we can probably reduce it down further by making a brief reference to Dalaran, the dalaran section really isn't needed. Baggins 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wowbox captions

I've added "caption=" to the various lore/wowbox infoboxes - race, faction and character - allowing a caption to be added to the images (seeing as they can't be described otherwise), whilst also giving them a bit of a spruce up. Kirkburn talk contr 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is great.--K ) (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good that all the lore people watch this page too ;) Kirkburn talk contr 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And others (...), as well. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Lore people'? *blushes* *flattered*--K ) (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Knaak verifying process of writing as well as Night

Have a watch with this video, if you can DL it: BlizzPlanet: Wow: Night of the Dragon - Richard A. Knaak Video Interview. (also posted on Rage's page) --Sky (t · c · w) 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, be careful, it uncovers so much that you may fall off your chair.--K ) (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Added the stuff about Night of the Dragon. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's essentially the same process claimed in previous interviews with novel authors and Metzen, and with other authors in the RPG as well.Baggins 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Racenames

As per the recent race names vote at WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "draenei" and not "Draenei"

All racenames are lowercase unless part of a title or the beginning of a sentence.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have syndicated this to your talk page for ease of reference. As a post-graduate double law student and beta-origin Wikipedia administrator I find it amazingly disturbing that we're categorising races as species rather than races. Just as someone who is African deserves a capital as much as someone of Germanic origin, taking grammar into the fantasy realm doesn't differentuate the appropriate means of using capitals.

I noted that the vote was 6:2 and the main reason was as cited, 'for ease of typing'. That's beyond a pathetic reasoning for using incorrect capitalisation, and citing Blizzards use of poor English is no grounds either. It's not hard to use proper English, however if Wowwiki's editors choose to opt out of such normalities, so be it. I have also syndicated this to the policy page as a show of irritation at the mass stupid being illustrated on the subject.  :) Alexandar 20:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Continue on WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing‎. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Baggins reverts of my edits

Could you please ask Baggins not to revert my edits like this - he just reverted all my edits in the Alliance of Lordaeron article without any sort of reason. Just because he has some "power" he does not have the right to act like almighty God. --Theron the Just 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warning can be found in User Talk:Theron the Just. We do not tolerate removal of cited information, no matter how much you might disagree with it. To explain it in better way you can't just revert other peoples edits, that is not your decision, which includes removal of information.Baggins 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And as a contributor I cannot tolerate your "I know what is best" behaviour. The fact that the information has source is not give you right to revert without any sort of reason since all information is not relevant to the article just because you think so. This has nothing to do with "vandalism", you use your "almighty powers" to push your PoV forward is deciding what information must be relevant to the article just because it comes from written Warcraft universe text. The fact stands that this line "# Daval Prestor, Joined the Alliance during the middle of the war, leader of a small kingdom in the north (or so he claimed).DotD #? " is invalided by the fact that there was no such nation. Also, Nortshire is not an independent nation and listing all the territories inhabited by Wildhammer is pointless. And how exactly is the "Gnomeregan, represented by the dwarvesAPG 161..." line relevant to member nations? Not all of the information was even sourced and that doesn't make it anymore relevant. You do NOT have the power to decide such because the information comes from written Warcraft universe text. Irrelevant information can be deleted by any user and all contributors are equal. --Theron the Just 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"I know what is best" behaviour."

Let's see the only one who is acting like "I know what is best" is you. Do not be a hypocrite, and do not accuse others of being somethign if you can't see your own faults first. You have no right to revert information that others had incorporated into the article to flesh out destails. That is not your right. You do not have the right to push your "PoV" forward and decide what information must be releveant to the article just because you think you have a better idea what comes from written Warcraft text. BTW, the northern nation may or may not be real, leaders believed it was real enough, obviously there is land in the north that they have not explored. He was considered a member of the Alliance, so the info has relevance. Just because you interpret things differently does not mean your interpreation is the end all or be all source of information. Tides of Darkness is very specific that Northshire was a major member faction through the Church of the Light. "Members" doesn't mean "member nations" only but important "Members" and leaders of the Alliance.Baggins 10:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"and do not accuse others of being somethign if you can't see your own faults first" Double standarts. You do not have the right to remove information like the plain way you did. "You have no right to revert information that others had incorporated into the article to flesh out destails." There is no such policy which would deny me the right to edit a page especially as you do not decide what information is relevant - neither do I, which is why I was hoping for start of a discussion over this, not plain reverts like you did (twice). "You do not have the right to push your "PoV" forward and decide what information must be releveant to the article just because you think you have a better idea what comes from written Warcraft text." I have not done so, I do not edit things with summary "this is right" or revert plainly with no summary at all. "BTW, the northern nation may or may not be real" Speculation. "He was considered a member of the Alliance, so the info has relevance." The nation still doesn't exist and Prestor was without it as power base until proven otherwise. "Just because you interpret things differently does not mean your interpreation is the end all or be all source of information." Again, double standarts. "Tides of Darkness is very specific that Northshire was a major member faction through the Church of the Light." No, the Tides of Darkness says that Alonsus Faol and his church were supporters of the Alliance - his allegience was still with Kingdom of Azeroth and he and he was part of the Kingdom of Azeroth. "Members" doesn't mean "member nations" Listing group XX within nation XX as member of the Alliance in the manner you have currently done is a weak argument. Waffen-SS was a major supporter of Axis powers war effort in World War II, yet the group (which had nearly one million soldiers) is not listed as an seperate Axis power. --Theron the Just 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Theron you were the first and only person to remove information, I only added the information back in (adding is not removal, and I kept any edits you made that either fixed grammar or improved wording), and backed it up. You were broke a violation by removing that information first. There is no arguement here. If you continue to want to persue this path, you have been warned. Everything you are accusing me of doing you have done first. I just have to fix problems you started. That is the job of both a book keeper and an admin.

Btw, Alliance Player's Guide has the Church of Light and Knights of the Silver Hand as major members of the Alliance as well, that has been cited as well. They are considered "Heart of the Alliance". The books also consider Daval Prestor to be one of the main members as well. Note that that article is discusing mainly the councils of Lordaeron, that formed the Alliance of Lordaeron. I'll be writing an adding an on the "History of the Alliance" in the upcoming weeks to mirror the History of the Horde article. Lore is the sum of all sources, not individual parts.

Just because Warcraft II only listed a few doesn't mean its the only source we go by. We go by all the official sources, and what they say (we do not favor one source over another, and we try to be as complete as possible). On a related note, in Tides of Darkness, Hinterlands was the major kingdom to which Kurdran was the Chief Thane, not Aerie Peaks. Rather than the other way around as you were trying to put it. Also Tides of Darkness also establishes that the Nation of Stormwind exists at the time as well. Those are all important information to mention.Baggins 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Btw, Alliance Player's Guide has the Church of Light and Knights of the Silver Hand as major members of the Alliance as well" As Waffen-SS is considered a major faction member in the Axis powers, yet it is not listed as an Axis power - faction within nation. The faction XX within nation XX is not a valid reason to list a faction as seperate. This is called factuality. Nortshire was not an independent member of the Alliance, and Daval Prestor, even if he was considered to be part of the Alliance he should not be listed in the manner - there is no evidence to support that his "nation" ever existed. I have nothing agains't the inclusion of Wildhammer dwarves in the list, but Wildhammers have one leader and thefore listing all territories inhabited by Wildhammers is somewhat pointless, since the clan was part of the Alliance. --Theron the Just 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yay exaggerated comparisons to Nazis... Godwin's law has just gone into effect... Why is it that law must always become true... You have proven it yet again... Main reason to include links to other territories is because they have related information relating to the Dwarves involvement and history in the war. Its called hyperlinking...Baggins 10:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "nazis" (not all of the Axis powers members were "nazis", anyhow). The point is that they should not be listed in the manner they are now. They can be written elsewhere in the article, I have nothing agains't that. --Theron the Just 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is you had to draw this out reference something related to WW2 that is known as [Godwin's Law http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html]. It seems most discussions always disentegrate and follow that pattern given time... So it comes down to you saying you odn't like where the info is located. Seems to be that's just your opinion and personal "aesthetic". Aesthetics and opinions are not a good reason to remove information, if the information is connected. Which in this case it is.

Anyways I must bid you adieu, its getting late, and I'm off to bed.Baggins 11:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even participants in this particular alliance (and certain real life alliance) they are not independent and should not be listed among nations (and when it comes to this particular real life alliance it is so). "The point is that they should not be listed in the manner they are now. They can be written elsewhere in the article, I have nothing agains't that" Meaning that sections should be made for them elsewhere in the article, and not listed among nations to begin with. "if the information is connected. Which in this case it is." Yes, the information ect Nortshire-Azeroth is connected, but Nortshire is not an nation and should be treated as such, major non-nation participant of this particular alliance. --Theron the Just 11:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is "members" not "nations". Its about those said to be major members. If you haven't noticed the "nations" section is right below it.Baggins 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"The section is "members" not "nations". Its about those said to be major members." The nations are still listed here (and were from the beginning) "If you haven't noticed the "nations" section is right below it" I do not consider that as the list, but as a short description of the nations. I listed the "major factions" along the Silver Hand area of the article. The first list should be that of the nations, and the factions be noted at the end, in the way I have currently suggested and done. --Theron the Just --Theron the Just 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we have certainly reached an agreement with Baggins. I apologize for my somewhat hostile tone, but, I wish that in the future you would provide an edit summary of sort to begin with in these kind of cases so we can handle issues like civilized people, as we eventually did. I do not mean to be cocky (this is not mean to insult you), I know I presented faults too, but I have this "bad feeling" when someone reverts like that without an summary. Regards, --Theron the Just 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that sleeping is not wise for those who must settle arguments. First of all, I must agree with Theron that Prestor's involvment is suspect in any case- he credibility doesn't mean that this northern kingdom should exist, in fact, I find it more likely that all of his credibility came from his charismatic magic. UNless my memory fails me (which it might), Prestor didn't even become a player until the Second War's aftermath. I'm not entirely clear as to Northshire's nature, so I can't really speak for it- as far as I know, it was just the name of the Abbey.

As for you two, this is getting ridiculous. I've been grated by Baggins's "all lore is viable" stance for a long time, and I've been checking Theron's claims since almost as long. Both of you have your contribution strengths and weaknesses. Honestly, the pair of you have a long-standing rivalry, for reasons completely unclear to me. I'll be blunt here: the both of you annoy me about equally, but you've both made beneficial contributions to the wiki, and I know neither of you would make a totally biased edit or an unfactual one. I honestly don't know how to help you resolve this- Theron's issue with what he percieves as Baggins's "knows best" attitude could be applied to a number of other users and admins, myself included.

So, I guess that the Prestor mention will be removed (Baggins, just because you have a citation doesn't mean it can go into the article), but the other cited mentions will remain (Theron, occasionally "we don't know" is allowed in the article). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Prestor didn't even become a player until the Second War's aftermath."

Ragestorm about prestor, yes actually he joined before he end of the second war, ahem;

"Deathwing, an ancient and powerful black dragon, assumes the form of Lord Prestor — a young human diplomat — and infiltrates the high council of the Alliance. Using subtle magic, the dragon ensnares the minds of the human leaders and forces them to grant him the title of king of Alterac. The Alliance pushes the weakened and disorganized Horde all the way back to the Black Morass, where the Dark Portal is located. Lord Anduin Lothar is slain during the Alliance’s final victory. The Dark Portal is shattered. The Second War ends."

"such as during the Second War when he pretended to be a heroic noble named Lord Prestor..."^{S&L 94}

Let it not be said I don't do my research before I put anything down :p... (at least I try to make sure I do research before hand). Yes, I know the first quote may have one detail out of order, at least by other official timelnes (I'd have to check). I don't think he got the title of King of Alterac until after events of the second war, but so is the problem with most official timelines we have (the order of events or the dates differ in each one). Unless LoC was interpreting Daval's kingship as flashbacks that happened before main events of DotD story (Rhonin/Krasus stuff), which may be the case as the timeline has it split that way.

BTW, my point was not if Daval's kingdom actually existed or not, but rather that he was one of the leaders of the Alliance as part of the Alliance high council. I never included his nation within the nation sections of the article only the member/leadership section.Baggins 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My videos (so as to keep you entertained)

Already told ya about them by e-mail. Here they are.--K ) (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, by the way, you're going to love me.--K ) (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Blademasters

Hi, sorry to bother ypu, but could you maybe answer a question of mine on Blademaster talk page? http://www.wowwiki.com/Talk:Blademaster

Cheers, Warchiefthrall 12:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chit Chat in User:Oscararon/Talk

hehe I just thought I should ask you about this, I know its a silyl question but... : Can I remove our little chit-chat in my talk page now? XD (oops sorry I know people doesnt like that smiley) --Oscararon 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

<shrug> You've learned your lesson, and your talk page is your domain. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tjsid

Sorry to be a nuisance, but I was wondering if you could step in and end a dispute between me and Tjsid on my talk page. If he continues any longer, I think I'll throttle him with my extension cord. --V - Talk / Spam

Thank you. --V - Talk / Spam

No problem, I've been meaning to analyze your Wood elf theories anyway.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Analyse? Theories? If you're say that then I've got serious work to do. ^^ --V - Talk / Spam

Just be thankful this is fanfic and not an actual lorepage. ;-P--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I never expected it to be quite so... controversial. :S --V - Talk / Spam

Just be thankful nobody was really spouting Tolkien. That is something I do NOT take kindly to. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vrykul capitalization

Hey Ragestorm. I wasn't really sure where to take this question - was oscillating between yourself and Kirkburn - but I ended up deciding on you since I figured this has more to do with lore than wiki policy. So anyway, the question is, should "vrykul" be capitalized or not? I am seeing it both ways even on the eponymous article itself. I'm not sure if they are to be treated as a "subset" of the giant "species", which would indicate capitalization (as the Forsaken, a "subset" of the undead "species" is capitalized), or as their own unique species, which would not. I was going to clean up the article and associated ones (Utgarde Keep, etc.) but I'll hold off until I hear a verdict. Thanks! --Flyspeck 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized subsets would be factions and classes, they are a new race and not a new group of an old one.--SWM2448 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ogre mages are a subset/subrace of ogre, and its not capitalized. Strangly "Forsaken" is often spelled "forsaken" as well. "Kaldorei" and "kaldorei" are both common spellings. We usually go with the lower case though.

If you look hard enough you can find pretty much any race capitalized in sources. What am I getting at? This is a tricky subject. I'd suggest just making it lower case until we know more. On a related note vrykrul are "half-giants" not giants.Baggins 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I also saw from the link you put in Sandwichman's talk that Blizzard itself seems to be going with lower-case. Unfortunately I realized I have a project to do, so I won't be getting around to it tonight. --Flyspeck 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing? Or this guy just doesn't know?

http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Zakolj has been nuking the culture sections of every race's page without any explanation. Perhaps you could talk to him, but if he persists, I think a ban is in order. --- Zexx 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll warn him. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is that we have race naming sections in both language and the related race articles, so it represented a redundancy.. I think he was trying to link to the language articles instead to avoid that. However, I do agree that naming convention articles do belong in the race pages, although they also do have a connection to languages as well. I'm a bit more bugged by the citatiosn he left floating at the end of the language sections. Floating citations look bad.Baggins 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, We leave the name sections in and make sure the citations aren't floating, then? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathrezim/Tothrezim

While the Nathrezim serve as lieutenants (that is to say, in very few numbers compared to cannon fodder), the Tothrezim, their demonic (as well) cousins much more serve as laborers, researchers, etc. Wouldn't that hint at the fact that the Nathrezim are in fact an elite faction of the Tothrezim, their (Dread) Lords and leaders? The Tothrezim seem to be commonly identified as a people whereas the Nathrezim are known to be elite commanders in charge of very large armies and/or planets.--K ) (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathrezim are also considered to be its own people in the RPG as well, they are "cousin races".Baggins 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

>_< I know what the RPG says, for God's sake. It says very few about the Nathrezim and considers properly as a people, but the RPG was incomplete about races such as the Draenei. My guess is that Lords can't be a whole people, there has to be "normal" people too. And the Tothrezim seem to fill those requirements.--K ) (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the biological differences, I think the relationship between Nathrez and Tothrez is about as close or as far as two of the Elven or Troll subspecies. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no, the Nathrezim and the Tothrezim are all Legion-aligned, whereas it's hard to find two Trolls or Elves that belong to the same faction around the world. I'm rather eager to see how Blizzard is going to implement the Tothrezim in game, with the temptation of reusing old models for new races \o/ They'll have to explain the connection between both races some day.--K ) (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Species/race/subspecies has nothing to do with alignment. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I misinterpreted what you meant by "relationship". Anyway I really don't think we can be sure about the racial connection between Tothrezim and Nathrezim, as the info from the RPG ever gets revamped, and Dreadlords have only a few range of skills in which they excel, while Tothrezim can play any part.--K ) (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By relationship, I meant biologically. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I finally figured that out, thanks. But as you talked about 'biological differences', what is the basis for your statement (I mean, what more than the words "distant cousins" from S&L and skill differences)?--K ) (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact S&L states as as a fact that they are distant counsins (which can't simply be ignored, it is official lore), you can also tell they appear physically different than Nath, from their artwork. For example they are slumped over, and have like four arms (nath only have 2), something about their wings appears different as well. But ya four arms is definitely a big difference.

On a related note something tells me we probably won't ever see the Toth show up in the game, they appear to be one of those chances where the RPG team were able to design an original race (not all original things that come out of the RPG have ever made it into the games, usually because of limitations, but more likely due to obscurity).Baggins 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's one lone mere artwork of the Tothrezim which may or may not be representative, and demons like them are known to be keen on shapeshifting, so I can't think of the four arms thing as a major point. And his posture definitely can't be taken into account, it is just due to the Tothrezim model's then-situation. As for the wings, stitches, scars and demonic tatoos are the answer.

Will they ever appear in game? How can you tell? =D The Tuskarr are finally appearing in WoW, though their only appearance outside the RPG was rather poor and was only deemed necessary due to the lack of creeps and mercenaries in TFT. Same thing for Nether Drakes.--K ) (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ah, there's one lone mere artwork of the Tothrezim which may or may not be representative, and demons like them are known to be keen on shapeshifting,"

Dude, Tothrezim were invented by the RPG, and its authors, actually we know the author of that section due to the credits, "Luke Johnson". He certainly knew what he intended for the race, "a four armed, hunched over, and distant cousins to the Nathrezim." The artist represenation is the official representatin of the Tothrezim, infact its mentioned in their official description;

The dark-skinned humanoid would stand at least twice as tall as a normal man, were its form not unnaturally hunched over. Four abnormally large arms connect to bulbous shoulders, each hand clutching a glistening, black blade. The Tothrezim are the distant cousins of the dread Nathrezim.^{S&L 160}

Obviously the artwork is representive of the written lore. Also, no they do not have the "shapeshifting ability" in their racial abilities, I've checked the book.

Sir, its rather obvious that you haven't read the entire article on the tothrezim, because their racial description in words is mentioned there as well. Sorry but I think your just argueing for the sake of argueing, and are just trying to ignore the official lore for the race.Baggins 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also on a related note, The Burning Crusade introduced the Mo'arg, and Gan'arg, which hold the same position that the RPG invented the Tothrezim for (to contruct infernals and other Legion technology), so the odds that Tothrezim will show up in the game are even less now.Baggins 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I protest, the Tothrezim's posture is in no way an argument. I agree with you that the official lore has to be taken as such, but I'm having an interpretation of what hints Blizzard let slip. On the other hand, you seem to be backing the speculative retcon of the Tothrezim "out of existence". If the Tothrezim already existed, why would they create the Gan'arg for the same purposes? As for the 'shapeshifting ablities', you should know that I didn't take my informations only from the RPG, which is very dubious as an unique source, but also from the other Warcraft information sources. We do know that demons such as Doomguards, Eredar, Felguards, Nathrezim and Succubi can shapeshift and often do so in order to trick opponents or hide on Azeroth.--K ) (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In otherwords your argeument is pure speculation, one that involves tossing out or rewriting lore to fit your own fanfic of how you would like the race to be. And as such as it has zero baring in the article, and will remain outside of the article. I'm pretty sure that Ragestorm rarely has much interest in purely speculative and fanfictional ideas. Sorry its rather pointless to argue with someone that takes their fan fic and "what-if" ideas as being more valid than established lore.

As for shapeshifting its rarely a "racial trait" generally its magic that individuals have learned. Very few races are actually "shapeshifters". You can't apply a examples of members of a race shapeshifting to mean the entire race can shapeshift. Also what you may think of shape-shifting may actually be "possession" which may be the case with the Nathrezim.

No I'm not argueing that "tothrezim don't exist" (they obviously exist in Lore), but rather that they are not likely to show up in the video game, as Blizzard has created another race holding the same position that they are more likely to use in future content, since they are not obscure to players.Baggins 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"dubious as an unique source"

I don't know what you mean by that, but its already been established that the RPG is considered just another source like the novels, comics, etc, see History of Warcraft, or Warcraft RPG for quotes. Its no more or less an official lore source than any other material in the series. If your opinion is otherwise, then I won't be taking you seriously in your opinions, as it goes against Blizzard's stated view on the issue.Baggins 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally its been said that Burning Legion is not like normal races. When the races for it were created by Sargeras, they were specially created to do special jobs for the Legion. See the Warcraft Encyclopedia. ...or if you prefer the older lore, basically they were pure demons, rather than races, and as such each one was devoted to a special existence in the demonic hierarchy. It was because of this reasoning by the Warcraft III's writers that they did not allow them to be player race, as they did not believe they could have a "builder race" to make buildings, or their own construction style.Baggins 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're being insulting, dude. I can't talk with someone who actually said that I use my "fan fic" ideas to interpret the lore. You have just convinced me to give up arguing about anything with your personal accusation. I have FOUGHT against lore twisting fanfic writers. What you said is disgusting.--K ) (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No I said its either fan fic or speculation or what if. Whichever is your case, it really doesn't help, since its not official. What you have been argueing for the last several posts has involved ignoring the official lore that was established (you have been discussing ignoring "the picture", the racial physical discriptions, their cultural differences, the phrases "distant cousins" & "share a common ancestry", possibly the "RPG" in general, etc) for your made up theories instead. "What if"s are pointless to argue about, since hypothetical are not "established" as fact. There is a difference here.Baggins 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet "lore twisting fanfic writer" could be used describe you right now. Funny that. Your theory doesn't hold up, stop trying to push it by ignoring facts. If Blizzard change the situation, which is likely, then it will open the way up for you. I'd probably go laong with this theory myself, but this has to be NPOV, and under that ruling it doesn't have 2 legs to stand on right now. -- 

• 
• 
• 
• 

  20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeal, actually to quote the speculation policy;

"This article or section includes speculation, observations or opinions supported by lore or by Blizzard officials. It should not be taken as representing official lore!"

Basically this means speculation is allowed but only if it is supported by lore or comments made by Blizzard officials. Speculation should be taking all sources into account, if it is denied by even one source of lore at all, then its not supported by lore. In that case it doesn't belong in a speculation section. Kirkburn changed this policy to be this specific because people were putting any kind of speculation into articles, even ones that had many holes when compared with established lore (especially types that seemed to intentionally ignore certain aspects of lore). Basically it was speculation involving the idea of "what-if" Blizzard would "retcon" something to support an idea that they wanted to speculate.Baggins 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is quite entertaining. I've already said my piece, so feel free to keep up. And Zeal, don't you think that this new sig is a little too... well, Macish? Vistaish? Err... gaudy? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What would describe you Zeal is an ignorant pedant (haha, take that! I'm so funny :D). No, seriously, the only fan fiction I have written doesn't twist in any way the lore, it doesn't even touch it. I have interpretations of lore and I speculate, as everyone does, on the lore. As for the "made-up theory" term, I'll ask you where you got it from, since a theory is always "made-up" and can only be referred to as such in a belittling way. I am not trying to ignore RPG facts, but trying to provide backing for my theory that is as accurate as possible. Of course all demons can shapeshift, even if it's not in their racials. Their magic allows them to do so. Of course having the same abilities as the Mo'arg couldn't prevent them from being featured in WoW: they could be the leaders, the better ones, or merely the assistants, there are thousands of possibilities, I am not here to invent them. And I'm quite not puzzled about the picture (additional limbs have always been caused by magical experiences or accidents). What is considered valuable lore is what has been confirmed by more than one source, the rest is, ehm, "flavor lore", with pending accuracy. Worthy enough to be written in articles and considered as temporarily canon lore, but likely to be overwritten over time (I'm not making this up, it happens all the time).--K ) (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbritrary Break 1

Ok major problems with your what-if scenario.

First off our speculation policy only allows speculation to be based on known facts referring to a specific topic. This is either lore referring to that specific topic, or based on Blizzard employee comments referring to that topic. Generally speaking something from a completley different topic is not allowed, in most cases, unless a strong connection can be made, and its agreed upon.

Saying that, I will be using other examples from lore in other topics, as comparisons, that are fairly common throughout lore, that support the official Tothrezim lore, rather than "ignoring it".

1. Ok, let me paraphrase something you are tyring to say, "Blizzard makes changes all the time, so they will make a change going towards my theory."

A few problems with this idea. Blizzard making retcons too much is part of the reason they are losing credibility with many lore fans. Using past retcons as a reason to make new retcons is rather silly. The average player that doesn't care about lore doesn't care about changes. But there are always lore fans that get upset whenever Blizzard changes things. Just because Blizzard changed things in the past doesn't mean they will change every detail of every single topic. This makes it incredibly hard to predict whatever will be changed. This kind of reasoning is not allowed in speculation topics, because anyone could speculate anything, and say Blizzard could change it that way because they have retconned things in the past.

I could say that Tothrezizim, and Nathrezim are subraces mutated and evolves out of the Eredar race, they share several physical features that are the same with most of the demonic races, and that Blizzard will retcon it that way in the future. However, that would be a brazen claim on my part, for I'm not psychic nor do I have any idea where Blizzard is going to take things. However this idea might actually have a stronger support than yours, if one takes various sources of lore into account. Based on new lore in the Warcraft Encyclopedia and other sources;

A. Because of newest lore sargeras made all the demons. The idea that demonic races may have not been demonic at one time is also supported by the RPG, in Manual of Monsters, and Monster Guide.

B. Eredar were the first of his demons.

C. We know that there are other races that have evolved off of the Eredar (Wrathbringers, and possibly Ered'ruin).

D. It has been officially stated that Tothrezim and Nathrezim evolved from a common ancestor. Hmm perhaps it was the Eredar.

2. Flavor Lore

Something only becomes flavor lore if it is specifically retconned in the future. Until it is retconned it specifically official lore, the true history for something, or to use your terms "valuable lore". Whatever is established first is valuable lore. Whatever changes it is a retcon, although it becomes valuable lore as well. Flavor lore is something that is created out of retcons.

We don't assuem something written is going to retconned in the future, as that is rather silly. It is valuable lore until it is retconned.

Also, Ragestorm will probably back me on this, but we generally hate the terms, retcon, flavor lore, etc being tossed around too much if it can be avoided. Its also not a good reason behind speculation. A "what if" something is flavor lore, before it has become flavor lore, is not verifiable nor citeable. It would not be allowed in speculation pages, or sections. It has similar problems to number 1 (above).

Note there is a second kind of flavor lore but it doesn't apply here. The other kind is when a book gives two possible background ideas from the get go, in order to make the information mysterious, and to leave room for future changes. The Brann angle basically. This isn't the case for the Tothrezim or Nathrezim articles in the books.

3. Kirochi if you continue to call people "ignorant" or "pedant" or other forms of name calling.

I have to give you a warning. That does violate certain wowwiki policies, and calling someone ignorant is pretty strong. Sure I think you meant it as a joke, but I'm sure people don't take being called that lightly, and not notice you meant it as a joke. Also Zeal has a point, you are trying to create a new story ideas by ignoring established lore. Unofficial story ideas are by definition fanfic, it is also "what if", and speculation.

4. Multiple Arms

Actually the only race that has gotten multiple arms through mutation that we know of, is the naga. However what happened to the naga doesn't necessarily apply to other races. Let's take the Qiraji/Nerubians. Many have multiple limbs because they evolved from insects and spiders, not through mutation.

As for demons we know of Shivarra, and Tothrezim races having multiple arms as part of their racial traits. We do not know what their ancestor races were like. Nor do we know why they evolved multiple arms, all we know is that it is a major physical feature of their race.

5. Mutations in general.

Its good that you brought up mutations. In lore, mutation by defenition is usually what makes a race become a seperate race from other races.

We have many examples;

Naga mutated from high elves, and became their own race. High elves mutated from night elves becoming their own race. Fel orcs mutated from orcs. Satyr mutated from many races, but especially elven races, and became their own race. Leper gnomes became mutated and became their own race. Ogre Magi were mutated from ogres and became their own race. Harpies are mutated from high elves, and became another race. Man'ari Eredar and Draenei evolved from a common eredar race, and are considered seperate races. Broken and Lost Ones have evolved/devolved from Draenei and generally considered races/sub-races of Draenei.

So indeed we know that Tothrezim and Nathrezim both evolved from a common ancestor, Monster Guide, and Manual of Monsters also states that all if not most demons evolved from a non-demonic ancestral species. So ya following established lore, for many other races they both became their own races.

Gan'arg and Mo'arg appear to be treated as seperate races, although part of an overall ancestral race. They have major physical differences as well, which has added to this seperation. This seems to be similar to ogre/ogre magi example.

Its very rare that mutation keeps the race within their original species. Only example of this happening is with sub-races in ahn qiraj, and naga variants. Which we know according to lore are highly variable.

6. "All demons are shape shifters."

Actually wrong, its stated in lore in the RPG that there are actually few shape shifting/shapechanging shape-shifter races, shapeshifting is generally a spell, a learned ability or feat, rather than racial ability, and having knowledge of those spells does not make the entire race a shapechanging race.^{MG 196} As for the spell ability, it has to be taught to them somehow, either through a book, or by another being knowledgeable of the spell. Not all members of a race have the abilility, due to that limitation. Also not all members of a race are magic users, some are warriors or rogues. There may be inherint abilities that are magical in nature, that make up racial abilities of a race. These are naturally part of their racial abilities, but this doesn't usually include shapeshifting.

Again you would have to post proof or retract on a statement that states, "all demons, or all members of a demonic race are shape-shifters", and if you found one, you would only be establishing a contradiction in lore.

Infact, the article for article for Kil'Jaeden states that his ability to shape-shift is special to him, and is one of the reasons he is called the Deceiver.^{S&L 60}

7."I am not trying to ignore RPG facts, but trying to provide backing for my theory that is as accurate as possible."

You have proven that you are ignoring certain facts, that discredit your idea. Such facts, as the "common ancestor", the physical racial differences, the written word, etc. To claim you haven't is false.

8. Let's go back to one of your earlier statements. "Well no, the Nathrezim and the Tothrezim are all Legion-aligned, whereas it's hard to find two Trolls or Elves that belong to the same faction around the world."

Umm, are we forgetting night elves and high elves? Also humans, dwarves, and gnomes share the same lineage as well, and are on same faction. Yet they are all considered seperate races. Oh, ya remember ogres vs. ogre magi they are officially considered seperate races even though they even live in the same society usually, so yep they can exist in the same factions.

Let's take this further, high elves and blood elves may not be on the same faction, but they are physically very similar, yet are considered seperate races. The same can be said for leper gnomes, sand gnomes, and gnomes.

Final Comments

So yes there is alot of evidence that can be used against your idea by comparing other races in lore.

Overall the problem with your idea is that it ignores alot of things, and is based on presumptions that can be knocked down by bringing up other examples in lore that support the established lore. You seemed to have stated that examples didn't exist, but do exist. It is those examples that can knock holes in your idea. BTW, I hate using the term theory, as in science a theory is considered a scientifically proven fact. In which case nothing you have brought up can be considered "fact". Hypothesis would be a better term.

On a related note, I've added some more of the Tothrezim racial features, including their poisononus claws, and their ties to the twisting nether (an ability not shared by Nathrezim), as well as the information that their race is a secretive race hidden from other races. I will add the Nathrezim racial differences later. --Baggins 19:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox about some characters

I noticed that the bosses from 'The Eye'(like Void Reaver) have the lore character infobox. I think that for minor wow-only characters and bosses we should use the mobbox like Baron Geddon. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dakovski (talk · contr).

Indeed, they should be using mobbox. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A few might merit the use of the lore infobox, (Lady Liadrin, for example, is significant enough to merit a lorebox even though she is WoW-only), but I think Void Reaver is decidedly not. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The lore infobox should really only be used if there is enough specific lore to fill in most of the sections. Generally speaking, I only do it if additional and specific info is given in another source other than WoW.Baggins 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Baron Geddon might have enough info in MG to get his own infobox, but I'd have to check.Baggins 06:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope nothing specific (for example class) that I could find, so definitely doesn't diserve an upgrade yet.Baggins 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Shattered Isles

We are wondering where the term Shattered Isles originates? We have been discussing it over in Talk:Shattered Isles.Baggins 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove me

Hey ragestorm, just thought id better let you know its probably a good idea to remove me from the bookkeepers. while ive enjoyed being accociated with you guys, i just havnt got the time these days to edit stuff here on wowwiki. Ive not made an edit in ages and cant see myself doing so again. Apologies for this but RL does tend to come up and bite you in the behind from time to time as im sure you know, stupid RL!! :-P --Diggory, Bookkeeper 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Once a Bookkeeper, always a Bookkeeper. Well, in your case, you'll have memorial status. Don't worry about it, and enjoy your RL!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Err... What do publicity materials have to do with anything?

I can anwser that! GBush got the idea to put that to match the Outland page (without knowing what it truely ment I think).--SWM2448 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the new arrangement, how about you? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I had a bit of trouble with the phrasing. <shrug> Just be grateful it wasn't a POV violation. Gods only know what I would have done about that! --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Eternals again

Hmm thought you might be interested. I was doing some searching over at the Whitewolf and came across a pdf on their site for some magazine. It had pre-release article about the then upcoming Shadows & Light and the eternal template/lore.

It had this to say about who coined the term (and no it wasn't the RPG staff like you probably think);

One final challenge remained, though: naming the template. “Immortal” didn’t feel right; although “divine” was used in Warcraft III for units such as Cenarius, it also felt a bit awkward. So, Bob Fitch and Chris Metzen (the main Warcraft guy at Blizzard) got together and came up with… “Eternal”![1]

Hope you found that interesting.Baggins 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a juicy tidbit. Hopefully it will quell whatever opposition remained. I'm still not certain that it's best under the status field in the infobox, but it's the only real place. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well like I said its not really a class, and its not an occupation, its not really a "race" either (any members of a race could potentially become one of the Eternals)... Status is the closest designation we have.Baggins 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sleepers thing.

Was it realy neaccacary to delete the whole post I made??? As there was only one thing in my post that was entirely on my perspective (The fact that I forgot the name of the weapon upgrade (couldn't you of just corrected that? INSTEAD OF DELETING IT ENTIRELY.--The last Alterac 08:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)