Talk: Rolandius/Archive2

Again, welcome! --Warchiefthrall (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Older comments moved to User talk:Rolandius/Archive1.

Empires

It is preferable that you don't continue to make Empire articles when we are still working on the ones you have already made. Just because a term is used somewhere, does not mean it requires an article. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean that the Gurubashi Empire and Amani Empire pages should be deleted since they are terms mentioned?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dragonmaw empire" is used only once, and it's not clear what he's talking about. They've been consistently referred to as the Gurubashi Empire, the Amani Empire, or the Twin Empires. Kirkburn means that you don't need to create an article for every term or description concieveably mentioned. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. Aren't we trying to catch up to the other wikis though? I mean, it is not like I made a page called cheekbones.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicts x2) No, we're not worried about catching up. The Wrath beta is just around the corner. We'll be picking up a few thousand articles (at the very minimum) in very short order. --k_d³ 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry about catching up. Quality is better than quantity, especially if quantity means spreading information thinly. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well okie dokie.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "empire" usage - if someone shouted that "the human empire will fall!", it does not mean such an empire literally exists, just the idea of it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL okay.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloodaxe clan

You better have a better citation for this surnames aren't necessarily clans on their own, and organizations aren't necessarily clans either. You better have a specific reference to the term "Bloodaxe clan", rather than the wild speculation included in the article currently.Baggins (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that organization was a clan. I said there is a group by that name. Also, I have seen clans where the source was one person in the game with that name. So, delete Urok clan.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Where else has the name "Bloodaxe clan" been used?. I've never heard of it before. Warchiefthrall (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I made it up. No Bloodaxes exist in the game. The game may not exist either.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Right lol, I see. Warchiefthrall (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of my articles being deleted. When I told Kirkburn about the info for a page Baggins deleted he said okay. I have never heard of an Urok clan have you? Yet it exists on wowwiki. Which tells me Baggins that you are deleting my stuff on purpose.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"making stuff up" and pure speculation was one of the biggest problems with Kesmana/M1330, and a reason why they were banned for a year... Beware lest you end up down their path... At least you aren't working through a sock... Urok article is a bad example on your part for multiple reasons. 1. there are more than one NPC called "Urok" in the game. 2. the article isn't "Urok clan", its just "Urok".Baggins (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It says right there on the page "Urok may be an ogre clan". Also those are Urok's minions and Urok is his first name. If we made a clan for every minion and person's first name that would be a lot of clans. If you played the game you can see that he is part of the Stonespire Clan.

The page name is not "Urok Clan" if it had been it would be a problem, and I clarified that it may be an organization. But there are certainly a group gong by "Urok" ingame, whatever they may be, a gang, a mafia, a band, whatever. However you making up the term "Bloodaxe clan" was a no-no. Making up stuff (fanfic) is actually a violation of the writing lore policy. Unless of course it goes into your namespace only.Baggins (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make it up. I thought it was a clan since there are two orcs by that name and an organization with that name, so there must be something special about that name.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you admitted above that you "...made it up"... Please don't lie us, or be sarcastic, or whatever your comments are....

You didn't even bother to reason that perhaps it was the organization that was special and named after an important family name? There is no point in making a term up ("Bloodaxe clan"), when you could have stayed closer to known information, or use a known term.Baggins (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. I am pretty sure there is not a rule against that. Stop saying I made it up. Don't start this all over again. You want edit wars or something? If you look at the quest he sure seems to be part of the Spirestone clan.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this was simply a mistake by Rolandius more than anything else. Yes it wasn't the right thing to do, but it was just that, a mistake. Warchiefthrall (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If he would just read the quest information then he could tell me why Urok should have his own clan.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you are saying you didn't make up the term "Bloodaxe clan". If you didn't then where was it used, and who made it up? If it wasn't used by an official source, then it stands to reason that you either made it up or came upon the reference to the term's use somewhere else... Please don't try to pull the wool over our eyes and deny your fault if you made one. We can see right through what you say, and where a contradiction exists.

Yes, warchief I agree, if it was just a mistake, and he fesses up to it, or explains where he accidently got the information, then there are no problems. But he should at least be more clear in his explanation, either admitting he made it up, or giving a citation where he learned the information from, rather than denying things and making contradicting statements.Baggins (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally Quest:Urok Doomhowl simply doesn't discuss anything about his organization, or who he belongs to. It only discusses that he's in Blackrock Spire. You can hardly base any speculation of any kind off of that quest text... While yes warosh's scroll discusses a connection between Urok Doomhowl and spirestones its not specific on if he is a member of it or just controls the tribe. In anycase even if he is a member of spirestones, there still is an organization called "urok" in game, as shown by certain NPC titles. So while the article has some speculation, its not mistitled. That is the title of the article does not add anything outside of what the game establishes, it isn't a made up title.Baggins (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay first point. I thought since there were two characters in the game with that last name that they were part of a clan that was kicked out of Blackrock Spire, or at least related in some way to them.

Second point. Urok I am pretty sure is part of the Spirestone clan, but at least read the quest before you say he isn't.

Third point. Read  [Warosh's Scroll]. It has much better evidence that he is part of the Spirestone clan than some Urok clan. Those NPC's are his minions. He challenged the guy who gives you the quest and turned him into a Trogg pretty much taking his job in the clan away from him and replacing him.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So you made up the name "Blooaxe clan" based off a weak assumption because of a family name?... Did even even think about the fact about other shared family names? For exaple there are several Doomhammers that are related, and they arne't part of the "Doomhammer clan"? ..or what about the two Hellscreams, there isn't a Hellscream clan... YOu do know that families can be just families right? ...or how aobut hte deadeyes? What gave you the right to assume things to such a level that you applied the specific "clan" to the end of the age name? It was a bit misleading based on what we know about orcish surnames... Similarly we don't assume that every dwarf that shares the same name belong to a clan with that name. though at least for dwarves, we have confirmed cases where a clan name and a family name are one and the same.Baggins (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you say spell check?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Urok article is not the "Urok Clan" article if that was the name of the article then it would be completely wrong. But there is definitely a group called "Urok" the page name doesn't specify what kinda group they are. The article just lists a few npcs that belong to that group, and speculations that it is an organizaiton or clan. Yes I've read the Warosh Scroll and as I said its not specific. NOr does it talk about the details of the "URok" group, as to what kinda group it is. It confirms a connection to the Spirestone but doesn't go into the extent of his connection clearly.Baggins (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay but still Urok is a first name. Are there many clans based on first names?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You can argue about Urok all you want but it has no bearing on existence of a "Bloodaxe clan" article, it does not support your case, and they have next to no similarities. Its also a strawman argument, and strawmen are fallacies. Secondly you overlooked an alternate interpreation, the possiblity that Urok Doomhowl was named Urok after the group, rather than the gruop named after him. Thirdly considering we don't know much of anything about the creation of ogre clans, there is no telling where ogre clan names originate from... For as much as we know, some of the clans could be named after famous ogres or maybe not... Who knows...Baggins (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If I made that Urok page I am pretty sure it would have been deleted by now.LOL Oh and Strawman does exist.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope your last comment wasn't meant to be serious, otherwise I'd have to question your level of scholarship... Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a [Strawman fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html] and a strawman has issues they need to attend to... Considering they do not have related definition, and have little to nothing to do with each other...Baggins (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes once again I was being sarcastic because you kept saying strawman this and strawmen that.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Although dare I say it your use of wrong type of strawman in order to try to refute my reference tyour use of a strawman arguement was yet another example of the strawman fallacy being used again... Sarcasm or not, it was of the utmost rediculousness... It doesn't make you sound credible.Baggins (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL Your saying strawman way too much again.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you keep on commiting that type of fallacy its not "saying it too much", its stating a fact. I think its quite obvoius you don't know what what it means, and probably haven't even taken the time to read the link I gave on the subject... Frankly if you did know your comments wouldn't sound so ignorant (or dare I say it sound like another example of that type of fallacy). Your comments wouldn't sound so off the subject if you knew what it meant. Perhaps you don't even have the sense to know when your committing falacies of this type... ...or maybe i'm wrong and you just enjoy making silly and ignorant sounding comments that miss the mark, and know when you are making them.... I'm frankly starting to think talking to you damages my brain cells :P. P.S. Sarcasm doesn't come across clearly in typed medium, its best to avoid it, unless you want to be misinterpreted.Baggins (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it calm, eh? Urok makes no claims for it being a clan, only that it's some kind of organisation. At the moment, the page essentially acts as a disambiguation page, but with a bit of extra info. However, Bloodaxe clan claimed existence of a clan, though only two NPCs are in existence and are a long way from each other. I would find the page more acceptable if it just acted similarly to Urok, in that it was a disambiguation page with info like "due to the similarity of their names, they may be brothers". Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read your link actually Baggins. Do I have to remind you that you were also the one who thought I made up the story of the night elves turning shades of violet and thier stature changing because of the Well of Eternity? If I remember you said, "The Well didn't turn them purple and make them taller". I guess you never read the official web page. Also if you want to be technical, the Atal'ai and Hakkari tribes are not tribes, but in fact factions.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If your going to bring up old story, I'm going to remind you I never removed the "growing purple info" or said it didn't exist. Please try not to revise hsitory, based on your own misinterpretations... I just put up the fact check on it, asking for the proper citation for the info. Which no one seemed to be giving. You ended up actually just saying World of Warcraft.com, and not giving the actual exact web address itself... I got onto you for not giving the exact address and forcing me to have to find it for you... This is the same kind of thign Ragestorm and others have warned you about... Citations must be specific, and just saying sothing is in a certain source isn't enough if people have to go about hunting for the information. Even if you were 100% correct, and people can't find that information for themselves then you would have been giving an improper citation.

I"m not sure what you mean about the Hakkari and Atal'Ai not being tribes. I'm not the one that named those articles, nor do I have any idea what it has to do with me. Actually the Hakkari are called a tribe in game. There is the Coins of the Tribes, which includes the Hakkari, Zulian, and Razzashi tribe coins. The term Atal'Ai tribe is mentioned in game as well, in the Quest:The Atal'ai Exile. These are good examples that factions and tribes are not mutally exclusive terms. Tribes are factions.Baggins (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens

Actually, Rolandius, what you're putting in aren't hyphens, they're em dashes. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought somebody called those hyphens and not em dashes. Well whatever it is officially called, your supposed to put a — in a lot of sentences and not a - or a --.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Definetly an em dash. Hyphens are used when combining two words, ie, Governor-general or Mrs. Barker-Finch. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Someone told me I was grammar checking a lot and putting hyphens. I was using — though. Well what I am trying to say is that a lot of times I see a - or even a -- when a — should be used.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The publishing world is kinda mixed on the issue. RPG actually uses hiphens more than it uses em dashes.Baggins (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about source material Baggins, we're talking about the English Language. Unless it's an exact quote, what the RPG uses doesn't matter in the least. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not just the RPG, it occurs on the official site as well... As for "english language" actually this goes more into linguistical arguement... Style can vary depending on various authors and publishers... Many things that would be considered grammatically incorrect in a grade school setting are ignored for style once authors reach the real world... This is why you'll find authors who use run-on sentences (Ernest Hemingway IIRC)... Yet, authors who break the mold in linguistic grammatical use, are often considered some of the greatest in english authors... Sure its a paradox... But its something I learned in my linguistic classes that language is far more fluid than what grade school language courses tell you are mandatory...

Its actually somewhat funny that teachers make students read works by famous authors, yet, those authors style may break the rules of accepted grammar. So paradox between how one writes and others write exists. Yet, the author isn't considered to be grammatically incorrect, since he or she is famous, and thus allowed to ahve a different style due to artistic differences.

Also since going to university I've found that various formating and style guides such as MLA, APA, or Boston styles may differ on citation and grammar rules... To say there is a single set of "english language" rules is sort of one of the great misleading bits of elementary and high school education.Baggins (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, hyphens or em dashes are fine. I don't see a reason not to change hyphens to em dashes when appropriate - but I wouldn't say either way is "better" for the purposes of the website. Same way US and British English are fine, but can be switched (GB-->US) when appropriate. Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in those same classes, if the teacher or professor saw something and corrected it, I don't think you can say "but Ernest Hemingway did it". When you are a famous author, then you can write run-on sentences all you like. We should try to stay as grammaticaly correct as we can. With some areas though, we might run into a situation where either way is okay. In that case, someone telling the other person that they changed the sentence just because of one symbol is crazy.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Style can also vary by region, one grade school may tell you to use emdashes another may tell you to use regular dashes. In my experience I've seen different english books by different publishers sometimes give conflicting "grammar" advice between each other. This probably has to do with the fact that there are several different english dialects with their own types of "grammar".Baggins (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Game references

When referencing things from the games use the Template:Ref game citation, do not use the {{cite}} template.Baggins (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay is this Template new because I have never seen it used before, even by you. What happened to the days of the game not having to be cited by a Template, when you can just list the NPCs from the game in the page as proof?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it new? Do you even bother to look at the history page if you a question like that? The template likely predates your signup date... its almost a year old now...Baggins (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new template, but it hasn't been used a great deal. Regarding linking NPCs instead - only if page you link has the exact information cited. Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The template has seen the most use in regards to Warcraft III related articles actually. It has been used for WoW far less often.Baggins (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well when I say new, I mean I have never seen it used so I thought it was new. All the other blood elf organizations, and pretty much a majority of the groups, do not have a Template:Ref game in WoW. They just have a few sentences or sometimes a few of the NPCs on the page.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do this...

I've warned you previously about moving pages without permission, and instigating edit wars. Citations have been given where At'ai and Hakkari are called tribes in game. While there may be a disagreement in interpreation the terminology between interpretations of various sources the terminology is certainly official ingame... If you want to ignore it and move the page without permission, then you will have to enjoy another vacation...Baggins (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya I think you should be banned for not giving a good reason. I am not the only one that agrees that one or both those are not tribes. Look again. I am not the one starting edit wars. Also, tell me how moving the Atal'ai page was wrong when only one NPC mentions the word tribe and my Dark Iron empire was deleted because, guess what, only one NPC mentioned it.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also since I cannot comment on talk pages, Dark Factions came out after Land of Conflict. Ingame all the member's tags say Explorers' League.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Baggins wake up. I cannot comment on talk pages when I am banned. First off, ok it is 2 NPCs not just one, but don't you need more than one or two NPCs saying it? As I just told you with the Dark Iron empire, I had evidence of an NPC saying it and their leader is an emperor but you still deleted that entry. Also, you coming up with citations after you have banned me already makes no sense at all. And saying I will take a short vacation if I keep things up, then 30 seconds later banning me when I could not have done anything in 30 seconds, makes no sense at all. Finally, there are a dozen NPCs in the game with the tag Explorers' League yet you keep ignoring that fact.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a typical example of Baggins not listening. The Twilight's Hammer is a cult yet it is listed as a clan on wowwiki because there was a Twilight's Clan a long time ago which was nearly destroyed. "The Twilight’s Hammer cult takes its motivation from the Twilight’s Hammer clan. After the clan was mostly destroyed, the cult sprang up, perhaps with encouragement from a few surviving members of theclan. However, the cult is not comprised primarily, or even mostly, of clan members."Template:Cite  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example. There is a quest called Army of the Black Dragon. Also on worldofwarcraft.com there is a picture with the caption Army of the Black Dragon. Baggins deleted my entry from wowwiki of Army of the Black Dragon saying the army is just called Black Dragonflight.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Third example. Baggins continues to say I am making up fan fiction or speculation whenever I say something that he disagrees with. He acts like I just changed something tremendous whenever I edit something he doesn't like. It is not like I am going around editing pages to say Humans can fly with thier arms or pigs are related to horses. Anyways, he will not explain why he called my statement, that the Well of Eternity changed the night elves' skin and stature, speculation when it is stated right on the official page that this did in fact occur. Whenever I give him sources for a page I create, that I find in the the game or official webpage, he counters with the comment that the RPG is a newer source so I am overruled. When I tell him about some RPG or official webpage source for a page I create, he counters with the comment that I am not reading it right or because of a game source and I am overruled. Also might I add that half of his comments to me on my talk page are badly misspelled.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what's frustrating me? Both of you. Rolandius, my advice to you is, please wait for talk page discussions to actually finish and come to a consensus before making major changes to articles - especially if it has previously been reverted. Anything controversial needs discussion first. We have {{move}} specifically for the purpose of discussing page moves. Baggins, stop getting so passionately involved. Talk pages are for discussion, and you both have to stop attacking each other on them. This is not a game of one-upmanship, it is a wiki. Everyone can be wrong, sometimes (though it is not a crime to accuse someone of being wrong, stop shouting it at each other, it doesn't help).

I deleted Dark Iron Empire because at the time, it seemed an attempt to prove a point, rather than a proper article. As far as I know, that is still the case, unless you have links. The Twilight's Hammer clan is indeed said to be the same as the cult - though the article could possibly do with showing the "split" better. "Army of the Black Dragon" does not sound enough to be citable - it's just a fancy description. Regarding the ban, I'm not going to do anything yet, because I want to see that you two have read this.

As a final note, if something is worth doing, it's worth taking time over. You don't need to rush stuff on a wiki. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have read everything, since I have just logged on, and commented below. Regarding the ban, what is the verdict? Baggins mentioned something, but I am not sure what your answer is.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't exaggerate... I do not claim all your additions are fanfic, or speculation, especialy if you correctly cite the information begin with, and your interpretation was valid. The only times I've accused something you said as pure fanfic was for things like "Bloodaxe clan" which you gave no citation for, or material you later admitted was an interpretation or speculation on your part.

...and try to check who edited or moved your edits before you put all the blame on me. Several of the things you have accused me of editing were changes by Ragestorm, Kirkburn and other admins, or users that noticed your mistakes. I've tried to explain this before if someone add material that isn't cited, a fact check is the normal policy put into place for such material. That should not be equated to calling someone's additions "fanfic" or "speculation" it just means that it needs to have a specific citation so others can look up the information for themselves.

Secondly, you were wrong about Atal'ai tribe only being referenced one time in the game, actually its used almost every time the term Atal'ai is used in a quest. Infact one quest goes as far to talk about the ancient Atal'ai civilization. Some of these quests were actually updated long after Dark Factions was actually written. I don't know anything about your so called Dark Iron empire and tried to search for "Dark Iron empire" specifically after you accused me of deleting it, but couldn't find any such comment. In any case an empire is completely different subject than a "tribe". However, let's bring up your so called "Bloodaxe clan" you never once gave any citation that such an entity existed, no direct quotes, no citations, nothing. As far as we can tell you pulled that term right out of your head.

I've thought about it and decided to give you some mercy. I've reduced your sentence to four days... But your violations will still be listed on the Violations page for future reference by other admins, and will taken into account for future violations.

However, please try to be less aggressive, please try not to twist the admins words, and listen to the warnigns by the admins more often (don't just listen, acknowledge and follow them, they are not suggestions)... Remember some of your actions are mirroring other posters that we have had to get onto before. We are not attacking you as a person, we are just following procedures for policies, that you may have broken. Some who have broken similar policies have listened and improved (and acknowledge they are listening rather than arguing the point in circles), see User talk:Zakolj for a good example (and anything we have told him applies to you as well). Especially look at some of the things, that he's broken and you have, but I haven't gotten on you for yet, for example your Acid Bullet addition is the exact thing we got onto Zakolj for...

...or there are those that never listen and keep on repeating the same mistakes, even after being warned several times, those end up getting bans, you know of some already, M1330/Kesmana as examples. If you can't show that you are willing to get along, or admit when you are wrong, then it can lead to worse actions. But if you try to be more compliant with the rules and admins (if you have been issued a warning, follow the warning, don't repeat the offence) then you will be less likely to get into trouble.

Usually "recent source" is not used as the end all benchmark for a source of information. Because its unclear if a source is really "recent source" for example was the book written before another source, but published after? or vice versa. A good example is Dark Factions, it was actually written long before the Naxxrammas patch, and before or during the writing of several other sources including the RPG books (MG, APG and HPG come to mind), but delayed and released much later. Those books were being written about the same time as Horde Player's guide, some material from those books were written after Dark Factions, each book was delayed at varying times of the publication schedule, and Dark Factions was delayed the most. Some sources are written at the same time but published at varying different times. Even recent sources may conflict with other recent sources or even with itself.

Generally speaking our ultimate rule is to list all known information and variant interpretations, if one conflicts with another we don't pick or choose the sources, and treat both equally to try to keep opinions of source credibility out of articles, for NPOV purposes. However, sometimes an editorial comment is needed, and explanation at the end of the articles to explain the possible contradictions or alternative interpretations. Its not easy, but if we didn't have this policy people would be removing/replacing information willy nilly because they had an alternative interpretation.

Beyond that each topic is looked at on a case by case point.

Final note, we don't usually get onto people for "spelling errors", because spelling can be caused by a number of factors (typing too fast, keyboard issues, etc), and most of the time they are typographical errors. I've found that most people who accuse others of spelling errors make the same typographical mistakes. I could be anal and point them out to those people, but that would be bad of me... So let's avoid the pot calling the kettle black.Baggins (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have said many times that I am just making up things that I write, and you keep injecting the "strawman theory" into it. Half of the things you say I have made up were in the end, in fact, real, and the other half were me being too quick to make a page with only circumstantial evidence. I have not just made up things in my head though, I actually thought these were possible pages that could be made by things I read in sources. I did not, for example, pick a random page and delete the whole contents or change something huge in a page stating for example that humans can fly in the air. I think that would be called vandalism from a user than what I have done.

So firstly, yes the "Bloodaxe clan" was not a great entry I think since it might be just an organization and not a clan also. I thought I had seen some clans on wowwiki in which there were only one or two NPCs in the game alive, so I thought I would copy that example. I guess it was just a family name and organization name though. Also, I thought it was you that had deleted the "Dark Iron empire" entry because you are the one that keeps banning me and reverting 75% of my entries — so that was not you that deleted the entry.

Secondly, with the "Atal'ai" situation I was going by the evidence I had read. I read in Dark Factions and Troll Compendium that they were a faction. I was not the only one with that view if you look at the talk pages. I actually was trying to follow things you had told me in the past about Dark Factions being pretty current versus other sources. You told me about the Coins of the Tribes quest, but there is no coin for the "Atal'ai" — although yes there is one for the "Hakkari". All you told me was that one NPC mentioned the "Atal'ai" as a tribe. Since my "Dark Iron empire" was deleted, although not by you, for only having one NPC mentioning "empire", I thought the same should apply to the one NPC in your example mentioning "tribe". After you banned me, then you told me that there were around 4 quests and 2 NPCs that mentioned the "Atal'ai" as a tribe or a great civilization, but I was already banned before I even saw that evidence.

Thirdly, I am not sure what is the matter with Acid Bullet? I found that in Dark Factions. Did I mess up the word? I thought I copied it just like Dark Factions mentioned it. I am not sure what you are talking about with M1330/Kesmana except that he was banned for something to do with either socks in the internet (you know socks as in IP addresses or internet stuff) or a sock puppet.

Fourth point, I am pretty sure I heard from you that Dark Factions is the most recent source out there. I remember when we were talking about Azshara really being a coast of Ashenvale. You mentioned that in an RPG, which I think was Dark Factions, that it was right and I was wrong. I tried to tell you that in the game they are two different zones. I am only trying to copy what you tell me, but I still somehow I get it wrong. You told me the game was released before some of these RPG sources so my evidence was overruled, and that Blizzard does not have time to fix everything in the game to stay current with the RPGs. So I said, ok then Azshara is really a coast I will go with you on that. Now your telling me the opposite. Your telling me Dark Factions was written before some of these RPG books and parts of WoW, and that once again I am overruled. Also I checked the RPG timeline on wowwiki, since I am actually trying to be helpful and correct in these things, and it has Dark Factions, more or less, as more recent than APG, HPG, MG, and every other RPG book.

Lastly, two of my entries: the "Explorers' Guild" and "Bloodwarders". I thought "Exploreres' League" would be the most proper name, as is it is written in Dark Factions in that fashion — it is the heading in the Table of Contents. Brann is the one that keeps saying "Explorers' Guild" according to his point of view, but in the actual article it says "Explorers' League" and then underneath in smaller words it says aka "Explorers' Guild". Then later you told me it also is spelled as "Explorer's League", which I thought you were misspelling because I did not see it in Dark Factions, and you told me later what RPG it was spelled like that in, but got mad at me. I still told you though, the title of the actual page should still be "Explorers' League", and then you can write aka all the other titles afterwards, because in Dark Factions that is how it is written, and in the game the NPCs tags all say "Explorers' League". With the "Bloodwarders" all I said was that they were a blood elf organization. You said no because one or two other groups have "Bloodwarders" in their group — which are by the way blood elf groups too. I see many examples though of two or more groups sometimes sharing one unit with another. For example, there are two groups: one called the "Bloodaxe Legion" and the other the "Scarshield Legion" who reside in the Blackrock Spire area. One unit is called the "Bloodaxe Worg", yet both the "Bloodaxe Legion" and "Scarshield Legion" have that unit in their teams. According to you that cannot be possible, yet it happens. Tying in with my example of the "Bloodwarders", you would say that there is no such thing as a "Bloodaxe" group because the word Bloodaxe is used in two different groups, yet that does happen as seen in this example of the "Bloodxaxe Worg" being in two different groups. Yet there is still a "Bloodaxe Legion" that exists even if it shares units between another group. I am not sure if this is because of their close relationships or what, but it occurs. Saying the "Bloodwarders" may not be a group, even though there are 16 NPCs with that name, and is only maybe a class, is not entirely correct.

So there is my reply. I am trying to follow the rules, although I mess up sometimes, but the rules seem to always change on me. One day a source is more important that another. Then I use that same source for my page and it is now not that important. Also, maybe the Move Page button and stuff should be disabled for non admins since sometimes when it is used, correctly by some users, bans occur.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm trying to be clear here, but I'm not giving any promises (i'm not sure we speak the same linguistical dialect). Not everything fits into perfect molds. For many things we take tings on a case by case situation. Some materiallike Juggernaught, or Conjurer we go by the first term ever mentioned in lore, even though there are equally valid alternative spellings that mean the exact same thing. Tinker and a tinkerer mean the same thing for example. Point of note "also known as" always has and will alway smean equivlant to, or equal to. Ingame while yes Explorer's League is more common, Explorer's Guild came first, and Explorer's Guild is referenced in WoW on rare occasions. Both have equivalent and equal meaning, and both have equally been used as page titles for major articles. In this case the first source clause has been kicked in (this is why its been listed under Explorer's Guild, even though you can also find Explorer's League ingame for who knows how long). The Explorer's Guild , and simply "the Guild" has also been used as the official titles for certain members of the Guild as well. The trick here is we consider all the terms equal, and that's what the definition of "also known as" means as well.

Sometimes a term might have multiple meanings, for example Eversong Forest has a valid definition (different from Eversong Woods) and the aritcle discuses both. I was trying to explain to you that such book that mentioned Ashenvale coast line was referring to an extended definition that goes beyond the in game zone, to a meaning forest that covers all eastern flank of Mount Hyjal including the Azshara zone area, and it was cited quotation. The importance here is try to avoid removing citations or quoted info. If at all possible list both quoatations. IF something confuses you ask in the talk page, we'll try to answer there. But make sure the questions are only for editorial purposes. Please don't think that because something worked one way in one place thatit will necessarily work well in another place.

Arcane bullet, the problem was not how you presented the content (although you capitalized the term although its not capitalized in the original article). The problem was a combination of relevence, and a copyright issue. Remember how e have warned you about adding articles that only one sentence in nature if at all possible. Try to limit it to stuff with proper nounds, and can be given a three to four sentence paragraph or more info. Try to read User_talk:Zakolj for more details relating to this topic. You'll notice I did give him permision to add more short content if he asked first, and there was related artwork, or if the material could be combined under another related article. Try to keep that in mind, please ask first.

As mentioned before please try to be careful against capitalizing things that are not considered proper nouns. An article might be capitalized but that doesn't mean the subject of the article is capitalized. Make sure you read the original articles closely to see if the term was capitalized throughout the entire article before you capitalize the article yourself.

As for moving articles, please leave that up to admins after consensus has been determined in a discussion or if they deem the move valid. Related to this try not to be an armchair admin or bookkeeper. That is not your job.

As for latest sources, its factored in to some degree, but it isn't the only benchmark, nor the main benchmark. Its also not 100% straight forward or reliable since one source may be the latest published source, but not necessarily the latest written/updated source. Generally speaking we treat all sources as equal as possible. Sometimes conflicts exist, all the info must be incorporated into the article somehow. but how that is done is done on a case by case basis.

Sometimes if the info is a small difference, an editorial note is added. Someties the notes are put at the end of an article in a speculation section. The larger the note the more likely it will be put at the end of the article. If inuniverse notation describes two beliefs as seperate beliefs by individual or named characters, then both may be listed as "believed by". Please look at History of the Horde for examples of editorial notes, end section notes, and a few "believed by" type notices. Sometimes if the info is chronological to begin with, then both accounts will be mentioned with equal standing with the chornolgoical details mentioned, where they were chronologically said to have taken place in the timeline.

Also quite accusing me of saying "you make everyting up" I've only accused you of making up the "Bloodaxe clan"" (although I didn't technically accuse you, I just asked for the citation, you later claimed to have "made it up"), and even suggested you should have named the article Bloodaxe Legion. I have asked you where a source of information came from this doesn't mean I was accusing you of making the info up. Also adding fact template doesn't equate to accusing you of "making stuff up", it jsut means please add the actual citation.

I know I might not have covered your whole post but I hope I covered most of it.Baggins (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we do speak the same dialect but I am not sure sometimes. Ya I do get what your saying except now I just read this today on the canon page. It says the game has a bit more weight versus other sources? "According to one example Metzen states the games themselves are considered the benchmarks for information, with the MMO setting the standard." I am not sure if the website is included in that or not, but it does give us something to look at — unless that page or quote is wrong. I am just reading it today.

I didn't make a page on Arcane bullet I made one called Acid bullet, but I think your talking about that one right? Yes it was short but I thought it was a good entry since it was from Dark Factions.

On sources yes I know now that publishing and written dates can be different but it is hard for the average user to know those different things. Also on the RPG timeline it looks like Dark Factions is the latest at least in the timeline.

Okay I think I got everything you said. I also wrote about the stuff I just found out recently.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I added that paraphrase of Metzen's comment today, since it relates to that topic (mind you in his original quote he used novels as an example, but didnt' go into any other examples, or specific details). Don't confuse the comment as wowwiki policy comment, it isn't.

Our policy is still that everything is to be treated basically equal. Metzen's comment wouldn't even be able to be enforced. Think of it this way, if everything is considered canon, but some sections of sources are considered less than canon. There is no way that we could know what sections were considered less than canon. We have to treat all things basically equal, because we don't now what Blizzard knows behind the scenes. Fan opinions of what is and isn't canon is not reliable, nor is it neutral point of view. Such discussion usually devolve into violent arguements. This is why in the past I've had to tell people to leave out discussions of canon. This is also why our writing lore policy is the way it is.

The timeline stuff is just going by publishing date, not necessarily written date. To be fair we don't always know what the written dates are, its an interesting bit of trivia that we even know about the background behind Dark Factions publishing history.

Yes, I meant acid bullet, sorry for the confusion. While yes I can agree with you that it might be interesting to some people, its rather too short to be relevent in other articles. You can't really link it to anything else. It doesn't even connect with MMO ammo, as far as I know. So its a bit too random. If there was a generic article on warcraft ammo it might make for a datapoint inside that article but not as a stand alone article. You can read more criteria on Zacolj's talk page.Baggins (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah that is why I read the canon page recently, I saw it on recent activity and read it.

Yes on the timeline I thought it was meant as a timeline in lore too. For example it says, "Shadows & Light covers material from War of the Ancients up to just after the The Frozen Throne" and "Alliance Player's Guide appears to take place during World of Warcraft, has material that leads into The Burning Crusade. Varian Wrynn has not yet escaped imprisonment on Alcaz Island". I thought that meant as each book came out on that list it had better sources or something. As in the later the book came out the better the source was? I guess it was not like that but I was starting to follow it like that.

On the Acid bullet entry, I thought some people were just interested in RPG type of information, so I put that in wowwiki since it was not in yet.

I seem to learn something new every day.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that timeline actually that's just when the books take place chronologically,it has nothing to do with with when it was written or when it was published. Its just there for people to understand roughly when the events mentioned in the book take place, compared to other timelines. There is some overlap between APG, HPG, and DF as far as the progression of major events, but some events have progressed between the books.Baggins (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see now.

By the way, not to go back to the old subject really, but I was looking at those coins for that quest you told me about. Although Atal'ai is not included, it does mention Hakkari. It says that the "Coins of the Tribe" are also called "Paragons of Power". The thing is that the "Coins of the Tribe" actually are not just coins it says — they include Zul'Gurub Coins, Hakkari Bijoux, and Primal Hakkari to my knowledge. Now they say "Tribe" and not "Tribes" so I am not sure if they mean "Tribe" as in the whole of Zul'Gurub back when it was the Gurubashi tribe or not. Now if you look at the coin sets, there are 3 different sets. 2 of the sets have coins that are already established tribe names. The third set has Hakkari, Zulian, and Razzashi Coins. The thing is that all the Zulian and Razzashi NPCs are beasts in the game. I don't think there was ever a Zulian or Razzashi tribe. Half of the Hakkari NPCs in the game are beasts, but half are also Trolls. It just seems like they are saying that not all those coins are just connected to Troll tribes. Putting Hakkari with the set of Zulian and Razzashi doesn't sound too good for evidence of a Hakkari tribe. I mean why didn't they include an Atal'ai coin? And why didn't they call it "Coins of the Tribes"? I just wanted to tell you that so we could add it to our known information in deciding if the Hakkari and/or the Atal'ai are tribes. You might find something I missed.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's as actually "Coins of the Tribes" according to the WoW data collecting websites[1]. If it its called coins of the Tribe" in wowwiki its probably a typo. I'm pretty sure you are mixed up, the coins, bijous and primal hakkari are part of the paragons of power. the bijous and primal hakkari aren't the coins of the tribes.Baggins (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I guess I saw a misspelled word, it is really "tribes". Still, it says right on the page Paragons of Power that "Paragons of Power, also called "Coins of the Tribes", consist of Zul'Gurub Coins, Hakkari Bijoux and Primal Hakkari items that can be obtained in Zul'Gurub." If you look at the page Zul'Gurub coins it says "A lesser paragons of power from fallen troll empires". Also you forgot about the whole Zulian and Razzashi not even being tribes.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile...

So much to edit, yet I cannot.

1) Could someone check out the Sandfury troll page? This is what it says: "According to the Troll Compendium, they are the descendants of the jungle trolls. However, the later published Monster Guide states that they originated from the main troll races, which descended from the Zandalar trolls." Those sentences are pretty much the same. The jungle trolls are one of the main troll races which descended from the Zandalar trolls. It looks like just keeping the first quote is good enough.

2) Cool job, Coobra, on the WCIII GIF page. Hope more get added.

3) On the Trogg page under trivia it says that Trogg is a reference to the word troglodyte, or caveman. Wouldn't the Troglodyte of the RPG be more of a reference to the word troglodyte? Also, wouldn't either of them be more of a reference to Dungeon and Dragons, and not just cavemen.

4) On the Manticora page under trivia it says that Manticora is a reference to the manticore. Wouldn't the Manticore of the RPG be a more of a reference to the manticore?

5) Why is the word orcish, which is a language, used a lot in the sentence "The orcish Horde..."? Isn't that like saying the common Humans or the the dwarven Dwarves?

6) In the page Quest:Hameya's Plea, it says that the lich who caused Hameya's change is the Lich King. On the Mossflayer tribe page it just says a lich caused the problems.

7) The pages Frost Giant and Molten Giant say that they are both Mountain Giants. I checked the citations and I am pretty sure it never mentions them being Mountain giants. I think that like the elements — fire, earth, water (frost), and wind — that they are seperate from each other. I mean is the page on Storm Giant next going to say that it is a Mountain Giant too?

8) Does the Stormpike Emissary and Scarlet Crusade really share the same emblem?http://www.wowwiki.com/Image:Scarlet_Crusade_Tabard.jpg They both are red.

9) Proto-dragons might be the precursor of all the other dragon flights because: "White is the combination of all the colors of the visible light spectrum."http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/light/u12l2a.html#white I am not sure why some dragons say they were born at the "dawn of time" though. How come on the page Dragonflight it says that the dragonflights are "Sub-races of Dragons"?

10) It says on the Drakkari tribe page that "Unlike some other troll tribes, a group of ice trolls still retains a portion of its kingdom: The Drakkari live in Zul’Drak in Northrend." Doesn't that mean that they should be included in Troll Empires on the Template:Trolls? It wasn't as big as the Twin Empires, but they should get credit for having a sizeable empire at all.

Over and out.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm too bsuy so I can't go through all these right now, but here is a few comments

10. a kingdom and a tribe aren't the same thing.

9. If you cojmbined all the colors together you'll get brown dark colors, if you combine pigments. Pigements aren't the same as "light". That kind of speculation should probably be avoided.Baggins (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ok you can read them anytime. Okay here is my reply.

10. Why does it say then that the Drakkari still retain a portion of their kingdom? Take it out of the page then if that is not really the case. I think it is the case since the Drakkari still have other tribes under their rule.

9. Okay so then is it fair to say that the Black Dragonflight might be the precursor to all the other Dragonflights? If you combine all colors you get a shade of black color.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

5) "orcish" is being used as an adjective, it isn't referring to the language at all. The Alliance was sometimes referred to the "human Alliance."

9) That's too far into speculation we don't really need. Though most of the colors have symbolic significance, there's no evidence to suggest that one begets the other. By that logic, surely a White Dragonflight would be the precursor with the Blacks being what happened when the descendent colors breeded with each other. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

5) Oh okay so orcish is like saying human? I thought it would be something like the orc horde and not the orcish horde.

9) Well I am trying to figure out why the dragons said they were around at the dawn of time when there are proto-dragons around now we have found out.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Grammar edits"

I really don't understand why you keep on changing hyphens and call them "grammar edits", that's not it at all. Furthermore you keep on changing quotes from the RPG books, and while I would like it grammatically correct you'll just have to keep it that way. Also, categorizing something like [[Category:Titans| ]] will make it stay at the very first of the category, while categorizing Titan with [[Category:Titans]] puts it under "T" in the category. g0urra[T҂C] 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not changing hyphens, I am correcting em dashes. Ragestorm has said before that no matter what the source, it should be grammatically correct. The changing of [[Category:Titans| ]] to [[Category:Titans]] was me thinking someone accidently put an extra symbol. I didn't know that the symbol "|" was actually something that was supposed to be in a category entry.LOL Now I know.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

When did I say that? If it's an EXACT quote from a source it should be left alone, no matter how bad it is.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that Ragestorm. I didn't change any EXACT quotes, that I know of, except by fixing the spacing. For example instead of "... hi" I would change it to "...hi". I thought they wrote an extra space. I don't call that "changing quotes". As for the other so called "quotes", there is nothing saying they are even quotes to give me a clue. I thought it was someone writing a sentence badly. How am I supposed to know it is an EXACT quote when there are no quote symbols around the sentence or citations or anything? If you don't do that then your actually copying the source verbatim and breaking the rules — at least that is what I heard.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but I never told you "that no matter what the source, it should be grammatically correct." I think was g0urra was trying to say is that "grammar edits" gives the impression that you're doing something more serious ant noticeable than changing the length of a dash.-_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I think I got confused. This is what you said, "We're not talking about source material Baggins, we're talking about the English Language. Unless it's an exact quote, what the RPG uses doesn't matter in the least." I thought you were talking about em dashes or something when you told Baggins this.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sig

Because you're not supposed to subst: {{sig}}. Read WW:SIG. g0urra[T҂C] 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay I guess. Sky helped change it for me last month.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 12:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're still doing it. g0urra[T҂C] 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your still doing it Gourra.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Gourra. It says there are two methods. That aside:

Rolandius, change it to:

• {{subst:User:Rolandius/Sig}}

I fixed it a bit. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Change the box in your preference to that please. Then it should be good. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL Okay hope this works. I am putting what you said under "My Preferences" and then "Signature". Also, I click "Raw Signature" right?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. =) --Sky (t · c · w) 01:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Hope this is what some people wanted.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Random WC3 hero names

Please stop adding these to the relatives box of characters. Unless there is confirmed associated lore (rabid speculation on Baron Perenolde's identity doesn't count), we have no evidence that these names have any sort of significance. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is why I put (possibly). Also, I already saw it on another Perenolde relative. So if Baron Perenolde is listed as someone's relative on a family member's page, why shouldn't they be listed on another family member's page?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Baron Perenolde shouldn't be listed on ANYONE's page. It's one of the random names that comes with the WC3 death knight. Sylvos Windrunner and somethingorother Shadowsong are also there. Maybe these characters are meant to be other members of the same families, maybe even specific characters or the programmers forgot about it when inputting the random names. We don't know, and since we don't know, it doesn't go in the infobox. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

twins

Just for reference purposes, what's the citation for Nefarian and Onyxia being twins? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I found it here in the quest The Great Masuerade. I am not sure if that is enough evidence, but it is part of the whole Onyxia quest chain.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. I'll check BtDP, but I'm pretty sure it's not there either. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What is BtDP?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 04:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Beyond the Dark Portal. Darigaaz the Igniter (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay.LOL Well I hope it has something about them being twins. Marshal Windsor is a reliable NPC.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 06:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, that seems pretty clear to me. If thy weren't twins, he'd likely have called her Nefarian's sister instead. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I'm raising the issue is because information like this should be turning up in more than one place. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sections

Please don't use {{Speedydelete}} for sections within articles, just remove them if you believe they don't belong, or talk about it in the page's talk page. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. I thought they could be used for sections also.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stormwind

Hi, I think that article Stormwind should be renamed to Kingdom of Stormwind. Now there is confusion because people want to see article about Stormwind (faction from the game) but the problem is, that there are three articles about Stormwind - Stormwind, Stormwind City and Stormwind human. Other factions have no similar problems. We should do something with that. --Novis-M (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest that you do nothing of the kind. g0urra[T҂C] 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are not going to be able to change it.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to say, that half of the pages with the list of all factions (Silvermoon City, Orgrimmar, Ironforge, and similar main reputation factions) links to Stormwind, second half links to Stormwind City. And that's very confusing. --Novis-M (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could change the other half of the links to point to Stormwind City?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Question is - should the links point to Stormwind or Stormwind City? Oficial reputation faction is Stormwind, not the Stormwind City. --Novis-M (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL Okay then, I guess you could change the other half of the links to point to Stormwind?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know :) For example Ironforge is the faction, everything links to that page. It is inhabited by Ironforge Dwarves and it is the capital of the Kingdom of Ironforge (nothing links to the article about the kingdom). So we gotta choose what is the faction - Stormwind, or Stormwind City? We should divide whats is the faction, and what is the kingdom. OMG :D --Novis-M (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL Yes I am all confused. I think it is because Ironforge and those other factions don't have big kingdoms. So it is pretty much the city. Stormwind though was not affected by the third war as much as some others, so they have a city and also a big kingdom.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thats true because no other known kingdom is as famous as the Stormwind one. So maybe it would be better if the page Stormwind was renamed to Stormwind, and the page Stormwind to Kingdom of Stormwind. Because, there is no "Stormwind City" faction in the game, only Stormwind. We can only guess if it is related to the city or to the kingdom. I think to the city (Blood Elven faction is also city - Silvermoon City, same as Undeads, Taurens, Orcs, Night Elves...) --Novis-M (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Gourra said no one should change it. I don't know then.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stormwind is the kingdom and area, Stormwind City is the faction and city. What's complex about that? Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong - in the game, there is no faction called Stormwind City, there is only Stormwind faction. If the faction will be called Stormwind City, we can change name of Ironforge to "City of Ironforge" etc, and thats nonsense. --Novis-M (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think Novis-M is trying to say that some people think Stormwind is the faction and Stormwind City is just the city. If you look at the reputation pane it does say Stormwind only.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a point, yes, it does need clearing up. I suggest taking it to the talk page of the articles. Thanks! Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay Novis-M, talk about the changes you would like by commenting in the talk pages of whichever page you were asking about.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion here. In the published lore, "Stormwind" is the name of the kingdom, and Stormwind City is the capital of that kingdom. The citations are given in the articles actually. There is a second definition of "Stormwind" that being a "Faction" within Stormwind.Baggins (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where have you been? I have not seen you around in awhile. I think what happened is that most of the other factions that are major powers are cities. For example, Ironforge, Orgrimmar, Exodar, Silvermoon City, and etc. are cities and a faction. With Stormwind, you have the city, the kingdom, and then the name of a faction. So Novis-M was trying to figure out if the faction Stormwind was Stormwind City like the others or Stormwind Kingdom. I am not sure myself, but I do know that Stormwind has not suffered as much in the Third War as others so I said that they have a huge area under their control still. So I thought maybe the faction Stormwind could be the whole of Stormwind since they have so much land intact that they are not just a city with small land around them.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bolding

You should only bold the first instance of an article's name per WW:MOS; not every instance of it on the page. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL I just commented on your page.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you learned nothing? Only both the first instance of the name in an article, or don't bold at all, and if the first instance of the name has a title attached, bold the whole thing. It's not that difficult. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then just say bold the whole "name" and "title". I thought it was only supposed to be the page's name that was bold, not their whole title. Also, I haven't bolded more than the first instance of the name in an article in 2 weeks so I am not sure where you got that from.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] Sorry about that, didn't look closely at the date. And I have told you about the name and title before, if you've been keeping track of my edit summaries. Anyway, now you have the instruction, on to the next crisis. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, Kirkburn told me also that aka's should stay bold too so I started leaving those alone.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, on that count he and I might disagree... Anyway, just leave any bolding in the lead as is. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya I know. Just saying in case you see me bolding the aka's and wonder why.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating new articles

When you create new NPC articles, please use the NPC boilerplate. g0urra[T҂C] 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well something is better than nothing. I am just adding the little information I stumble on.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then at least mark it with {{Stub/NPC}}. g0urra[T҂C] 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh woops okay.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 12:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Isha Awak

It's fine to add "The quest" to "Isha Awak sends the...", but you shouldn't use the {{quest}} template for for same page you're linking to, thats why it was reverted. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL I know I messed it up. I went to edit it back and it was reverted already. You could give me 5 seconds to fix it.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one that reverted it, I'm just letting you know why it was. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't mean you as in Coobra, I mean you as in the person who did it and reads this.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum

WoWWiki is not a forum. Non-editorial discussions on talk pages are frowned upon, so please don't add more of it. g0urra[T҂C] 03:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you go on and tell that to everyone else on the page too.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We usually do by putting a swift adminy end to the discussion, but personal visits are made for those who are constantly starting non-editorial discussions. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was editorial, I wanted to know if his occupation was pilot. Unless it is a different page you are talking about.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 04:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, having reviewed some of your history, I can see that many of the discussions you've started have the appearance of you asking a question for discussion's sake or personal clarification. Talk:Wrath of the Lich King#Trailer or Talk:Queen_Azshara#Description_of_Azshara do NOT look like editorial discussions. Re Gazlowe, I can see how it might be an editorial question in theory, it also doesn't look editorial. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess our definitions of editorial are different then. I asked the trailer question for personal clarification, yes. The Azshara and Gazlowe questions I asked because of conflicting descriptions of those characters. Are you saying I cannot point out conflicting ideas about a character in the talk page? I mean come on, I have seen people talk about so and so character is ugly or so and so character would be a great wife in talk pages on here.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages (apart from usertalks, the Village Pump, and the Warcraft Pump) are meant to be for discussing editorial changes to the article only. Editorial meaning formatting, reorganization discussion and the like. The actual content should only be discussed if you think something is incorrect. As for the discussions you mention, one of two possibilities arises: 1) check the dates, those discussions are likely before we began enforcing this and 2) though we enforce it, we wind up ignoring one-off non-editorials, but as I stated above, you've begun several. Personally, I usually only clip off discussions that become editorial. In future, just address personal clarification questions to the Village Pump or the Warcraft Pump.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok for example, if I think some creatures called "Kraken" should not be called "Kraken", I have to use the Warcraft Pump and not the Talk page to mention it? Isn't that editorial?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that sounds as if it's fine for the talk page. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I am getting confused as to what is editorial and what is not. I thought my other questions about Azshara and Gazlowe were editorial also.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Images from WMV

Yes, you can add images (from WMV) to npc articles that have been removed from the game, however, try to use [Hue 160, Sat 0, Lum 48], [Red 51, Blue 51, Green 51] or [Hex #333] for the background color per WW:IMAGE. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, make it a nice transparent PNG, Coobra, of course. The background colour option is a fallback. Kirkburn  talk  contr 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just don't use them in the infobox if you can avoid it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I know how to change wowhead.com's jpeg images into Png images which is what I did. I have no idea about the background thing though. I put it in the infobox because there is no way we will ever get a screenshot of those people removed from the game, unless someone is holding onto a screenshot still and has not uploaded it.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who knows... I have tons of images stored away... most of which still have the default name... And yea, what kirkburn said. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well isn't it better to have a model image in the infobox then to wait for a screenshot which may or may not ever get uploaded by someone who may or may not have it stored away?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 04:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's no other option, fine. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Scanned artwork

If you're going to scan in artwork, to upload onto Wowwiki, please make sure to clean it up first. That is make sure that the image is only the image and doesn't include text from the book you scanned it from in the background. We really want high standards for images used in pages, especially for main article images.Baggins (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I am still learning how to take out unwanted parts of images.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Use photoshop, or just MS Paint. It's not hard. g0urra[T҂C] 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How come you call the peasant image I uploaded earlier a "duplicate" of your uploaded image, then put them both on the peasant page? The only difference between those is that the one you uploaded is facing to the left. Deleting your versions. g0urra[T҂C] 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, mine is a png image which if you read above a few posts is what Kirkburn said to try to upload it as. Two, the image of one peasant looking in one direction is from the Warcraft I Manual and the image of one peasant looking in the other direction is from the Warcraft II Manual and has the artist's signature on it. I don't know why they did it like that. I told Coobra about it on his user page, but I guess if I knew you were the one that was going to get confused I should have told you on your user page.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He suggested that they would be PNG if they were supposed to be transparent. If you don't know how to do transparent images then just stay away from image editing. At all. Second, uploading different images because they are facing in different directions doesn't make an excuse to upload more versions of the same image. Please don't be an arrogant fool. g0urra[T҂C] 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow you sure make me want to contribute to wowwiki. Cool.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WW:STUB

Do not create pages just to stub them. This is per WW:STUB. Thanks. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia"

Just a heads-up, if you're adding the mythological origins of something, title the section "inspiration", not trivia, unless there's other trivial information to add. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is how all the other pages have it. I haven't seen inspiration sections only trivia sections when talking about lets say Elves or Orcs.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Siren, Eonar#Inspiration_and_Speculation, Elune#Inspiration. If the article already has a trivia section, then the note can be put in there for the time being. Basically, trivia is interesting or fun information which most people might not know, but most people are aware of mythological connections. You should also be aware of Mythic_creatures_appearing_in_Warcraft, where we've catalogued most of this already. The page itself is up for deletion because we're thinking of putting inspiration sections in all the articles, but we might wind up keeping it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will start putting Inspiration sections next time. But I am sure you are aware that there are dozens of pages that just have a Trivia section and then a sentence about a movie, book, or t.v. show. Also there are dozens of pages that have a Trivia section and then a sentence about some mythological reference. I could probably fill a page with those links.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We're in the process of revamping how mythological references are cited. Also, it's up to you, but I wouldn't bother with RPG specific creatures. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I saw the Manticore and other pages so I was inspired.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "inspiration" isn't the best word... What do you think of "Myth" or "mythological basis" for creature pages and "inspiration" for characters? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay Myth then for creatures/beasts and inspiration for characters/objects.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

war leader

What's your citation for that? -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the whole page or some part of the page?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the House of Wrynn infoboxes. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh from the page War Leader. It says in Warcraft I that King Llane Wrynn I passed the title to you when he died. As his father King Adamant Wrynn III was the preceding leader during the war, I think King Adamant Wrynn III passed that title to King Llane Wrynn I naturally.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Err... was it mentioned specifically in the briefing, or are you basing this on the fact that war leader is what's listed as rank on the victory screens in the last missions? As for Adamant, Llane could have made up the title himself or claimed an older title that Adamant didn't. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No not on the rank, although it is a rank — but not the highest rank you can get. It is from the Human mission "The Temple of the Damned". After Llane dies it says you are passed on the mantle of War Leader. I am guessing it is like how the President is Commander-in-Chief during war time. The King is War Leader during war time. I am assuming Adamant was War Leader before that since they had been fighting the Orcs for awhile now, and Adamant was the highest leader while he was alive.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's too much circumspeculation (a word I made up meaning speculation that relies on other speculation) for the infobox. Judging from that, it's like a more localized version of Supreme Allied Commander... well, I guess it can stay in Llane's infobox, but I'm removing it from Adamant's. We have no idea how much of Orcs & Humans, particularly terms that appear only once, is still lore viable. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. I will also remove Adamant from the War Leader page.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)