Talk: Rolandius

Older comments moved to:

User talk:Rolandius/Archive1

and

User talk:Rolandius/Archive2

and

User talk:Rolandius/Archive3

Medivh

In Shadows & Light, it says Medivh is an Eternal, but we are not sure when this happened I guess. Two theories under the "Status as an Eternal" section says it could be when he was Medivh/Sargeras or maybe when he was "The Oracle". How about when Medivh vanished, to take his place "amongst the legends of the past." in Warcraft III? Maybe he became an Eternal at that moment, if Warcraft III came out before Shadows & Light? Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That works, though it is implied that he leaves behind mortal struggles forever after that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that his abilities, his role playing notes, and combat section are a combination of his sargeras and human abilities, i.e. it describes as his "dual personalities". It appears that all the roleplaying suggestions and rules are for how use him while he is still alive, and still struggling with Sargeras spirit for control of his body.

From the combat section as an example;

"Medivh’s tactics are often erratic, depending upon which personality is in control at the time. Nonetheless, the common theme with both personalities is to stay at range and harass enemies with potent spells."

Its pretty clear that the article (and therefore his Eternal status) is relating to his Sargeras/Medivh period and not after, despite the brief mention of his pre-third war Warcraft III period in his bio section. Unless of course you think he still has a bit of Sargeras controlling his body after he was resurrected, during Warcraft III, and post-Third war...Baggins (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the part saying that he left behind mortal struggles forever meant he had somehow become something "higher", like an Eternal. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't actually state that within in Shadows & Light actually. It doesn't go into any details during and after the third war. The one paragraph that makes any reference to Warcraft III related events is limited to two sentences, and doesn't discuss anything about his power. It only states that he was believed to be a ghost, as he never physically interfered, and said a few things, and believed to have redeemed himself somewhat.. The only material regarding his powers and abilities are limited to his schizophrenic possession period.Baggins (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Farahlon giants

I am not sure if this counts as a race, but the giants around the Netherstone area are called "Farahlon giants". They have farahlite sticking out of their bodies. Cragskaar is supposed to be "the patriarch of the Farahlon giants". Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Variation of colossi.Baggins (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah that is confusing then. The colossi pages says that Behemothon, King of the Colossi and Goliathon lead them all. I already found Cragskaar and Netherock, two leaders of their own people. There might even be more but I just ran into these two right now. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Netherock

It says on the Netherock article that "The king of the local mountain giants in Netherstorm has been terrorizing the Crumbling Wastes." which I think is slightly wrong. The quote from the quest says "The king of the local mountain giants, Netherock, has been terrorizing the Crumbling Wastes. He's been interfering with operations all along the south ledge of the island!" meaning that he is the leader of the ones on that island section of Netherstorm, not the entire Netherstorm area. We already know that Cragskaar is a leader of some giants in the Netherstone area and there could be other leaders. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My editcount

It says on User:Rolandius/editcount that a bot edited my editcount to 20326,243. I know I am active, but that is a crazy number. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I look at your count, just remove the last 3 numbers and it should be somewhat accurate.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will do it later as I am banned at the moment. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Activity is not an important factor in being considered a valued editor. Quality not quantity.Baggins (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms

Some minor observations. According to [[1]], "MOB" is capitalized and is short for "Mobile Object Block", not just "mobile" or "mobile object". "N00b" is spelled with an N, two zeros, and a b, not with an N, two o's, and a b. You can see if there are any others. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Boars

How come felboars are a race of helboar, and not the other way around? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume cause the Helboar as a source. Monster Guide pg89.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. The felboar just seems a bit different, as it was in Warcraft II

and III

and in World of Warcraft its skin is called felboar. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Things will also look different from past games as graphics get better... and the file names can't always be trusted. RPG > model names. Unless you can find sources calling them felboars.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Side note felboar and helboar both have their own pages and are given almost equal standing. At one point someone tried to eliminate all references to "helboar" as being retconned as "felboar" until the term helboar actually started reappearing in sources.Baggins (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering why felboar is not a race like helboar. The sources don't say felboars are helboars. If felboars are going to have race=helboar then why don't we just put helboar=boar and felboar=boar as their races? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of note I'm pretty sure despite the file names that helboar as a term was used in Warcraft III. Felboar didn't appear until WoW.Baggins (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, unless they silently changed the website from hel to fel[2], felboar does appear on the Warcraft III website.Baggins (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the model and skin name is "felboar" too in WoW. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In anycase there is no lore for "felboars". Helboar has the lore and general backstory for all demonic mutant boars.... Demonic mutation etc, etc. Helboars appear first in the game, and felboars are stronger ones that appear later in Shadowmoon.Baggins (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess "fel" turns some creatures and landscape green, while others red. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Scourge gnome

In regards to Scourge gnome, aren't there a lot of different "Scourge" creatures? I have seen Scourge humans, Scourge murlocs, etc. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The model is unique to that type of thing, and even though there is only one mob with that model it is still sort of generic.--SWM24 48 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read on here, it is not a new model it is just a new skin. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a skin, however the model is actually called something like leprous, leper or what not. It was an unused leper gnome from alpha that got recycled as an undead gnome.Baggins (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I read that it was the model of the gnome with a recycled skin over it or something. That is what happens when only some people know how to find all the model names with a secret program. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you compare it to a regular gnome you can easily see that the shape is different, notice the troggish hair on the arms. Its also has less polygons. BTW, Coobra is the one with the program. I don't know what he's using. In anycase the model might be called gnome with a leper skin, but its not the same model that is used for the player gnomes, and leper gnomes.Baggins (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I use WMV, and Baggins is correct, these gnomes are classified under Creature → Gnome → GnomeSkin (not used to my knowledge) and GnomeLeporSkin (only used twice). The playable ones are classified as Character → Gnome → Male (with the in-game leper gnomes using skin number 5). I'd upload the GnomeSkin (creature one), but its unreleased content... though technically it was in alpha... hmm... eh, maybe add to gnome page for alpha look... nah.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. WMV for the Mac OSX is like 80% less functional then the Windows version. I have OSX... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unofficially named creatures

Shouldn't this category be called "Unofficially named races" since we are guessing what their race is, not creature type. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Game files?

When an article says something like, "The name "flesh titan" is taken from the game files as no other name is known.", which "game files" are we talking about? Is it using WoW Model Viewer, some other program, a text editor, wowhead, or what? It would be nice to look at all these "unofficially named creatures". I have a Mac by the way. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we are actually allowed to list what program is actually being used... due to the datamine rules :p...Baggins (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But we are allowed to use the terms from said programs? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unless something else replaces it.Baggins (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agh. Well if the "program" is WoW Model Viewer, it does have a page on WoWWiki already... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rotgill

I think he is called a "mur'ghoul" not "mur'gul". A quest calls Rotgill a mur'ghoul along with another quests mentioning "mur'ghouls", there are three other NPCs with "mur'ghoul" in their name, and there are 8 items with "mur'ghoul" in their names. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This might be a new race since we have gnome (undead). At least with these guys we have an actual name, "mur'ghoul", and not just murloc (undead). Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are Mur'gul as well, it seems more like they combined Murloc and Ghoul and formed Mur'ghoul... They are simply murlocs transformed to the undead by the nearby necromancers. Rotgill is most likely not even his true name, but something we called him cause he's... well... rotting.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The other quest says that they are murlocs turned into Scourge. Does this mean we can make an article for "mur'ghoul" since we have gnome (undead)? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, least race wise... but maybe yes to a "tribe/group" like the rot-hides gnolls are..... maybe...

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 07:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok this is what confuses me and gets me banned. We have an article and a race for (gnome) undead, which isn't even a real name, but then mur'ghoul, which has way more support than gnome (undead), can't be made into an article or race? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The quest to kill him called him a "mur'gul" when I did it, even though the murlocs around him have "mur'ghoul" in their name. I took it as an alpha oversite, like they were Mur'gul at one point but were changed to ghouls for some plot reason, but I do not see any hard evidence that it is a typo. Supporting the relevance of a page creation with another page you think is stupid is not very helpful to your point.--SWM24 48 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also "Gnome (undead)" is not a race name its a disambiged title pointing out that they are gnomes with the undead status. Sort of like saying Gnome (player) is not a race name, but a disambig from the regular gnome article. Try to get a clue (your logic is sorely lacking)... As for creating a mer'ghoul page I'm sure it would be ok but it would be speculation to state that it is a race. You have been here long enough you should have already known that page titles in parenthesis denotes disambig from the main article. So please avoid basing arguements on your absurd interpretations of page titles its not very logical and won't get you anywhere.Baggins (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well when I looked at the NPCs they had a category called "Scourge gnomes" or something acting like it was a race. I based it on that. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Different human races?

I found this quote "As with elves, dwarves, and especially humans, there had existed different types of trolls."Template:Cite Could this be saying that there are other races of humans or just that some humans act differently than other humans just like elves, dwarves, and trolls? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly using the term race in the same way that some people on earth use the term race to categorize different ethnic groups. You know how many people categorize other ethnicities into races by "by color", "religion", "culture", etc (note however I don't suggest you do this). Its not suggesting that there are different human "species" per se (neither does the earth definition of human "races"), but simply that humanity is diverse (note I can't stress the fact that ethnicity is a better term than using race in real life). Humans from Azeroth would certainly be all of the same species however.

In anycase the thing about writing a book is that earth terminology and interpretation will be used by the author. Thus this the reference you found is definitely using earth based use of the word race. As you may know the RPG uses race interchangeably with the word "species", however this is not always the case. Do not assume just because you come accross the use of the word race, that its talking about a seperate species. Race is a word with several meanings and uses.Baggins (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is what I thought might be going on. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. Don't we treat humans as at least a few different races? For instance "humans", "Azotha", and "Humans of Draenor"? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If by race you mean species...? Defining terminology and defining races are two different things. It would be hard to know if they a seperate species or just ancestral name for same species. Just because two articles have been written doesn't mean they are being seperated into seperate species.Baggins (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no idea about "Humans of Draenor", but I think Azotha and Humans being races is similiar to how Night Elves and Kaldorei are "races". Kaldorei were the "early primitive" night elves and Azotha were the "early primitive" humans. In a way, you could say the Kaldorei and Azotha were two races and also the Night Elves and Humans are two races even though the primitive races could be said by some to be the modern races. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Slight difference though "early primitive" "Kaldorei" were said to be changed by the Well of Eternity. So they underwent some "evolution".

Azotha are different in that "primitive humans" doesn't necessarily mean that they were physically different, and we only know that they were culturally different. There is no given evidence that azotha underwent any magical or physical evolution. Without more data we can't know for sure if they were a different race or not. Remember "early" "primitive" human societies on earth are not "seperate races".

Early primitive just means existing earlier than something else, and being primitive. Defining primitive can take on different meanings depending on the context. It probably doesn't mean physically primitive.Baggins (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true. On the Azotha article though it seems to suggest that they had a "connection to titans" with their ruins and everything, while humans sure do not, and being connected to the titans could be as life-changing as being near the Well of Eternity. Also, it says that "There may even be remnants of a lost Azotha tribe or tribes still living there as well." instead of saying human tribes. Lastly, a lot of users on WoWWiki treat the Azotha as another race, not physically, when they make their race charts showing Azotha being seperate from humans and wearing clothes sort of like the primitive Kaldorei or Zandalari trolls did. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Being connected to titans in some unexpelained way doesn't mean they were physically related to titans or physically like titans. Nothing is specifically stated that Azotha were changed either. To be fair we really don't know what kind of connection exists. The vague account we are given only snippets of in the Lands of Conflict has the expedition looking for ruins in Stranglethorn Vale, coming accross Azotha ruins, and discovering something titan related. Hardly anything there to specify if they were physically different race or physically the same to modern humans by the time that colony was founded. This is getting into the realms of pure speculation. Side note modern dwarves have a titan connection, and still have titan made artifacts like the Ironforge itself. We know that early awakened dwarves were changed from Earthen, but were physically the same as modern dwarves.

Azotha? Were they the first humans born to the Vrykul? ...or does Azotha culture appear later, and the term refers to the humans that went through the Sundering? Lands of Conflict gives us more detail about their existance during the period of the Sundering (than any other period). It still cleary doesn't give us any information on if the Azotha at the time of the Sundering were physically different than the humans that founded Alrathi Empire. There just is any information to know for sure. I'm not even sure "Azotha" has even been specifically said to be a race, just the reference or two to them being savage and nomadic humans. In those references human and azotha are used interchangeably. For all good it does us Azotha could be more like a tribal name than a race name.

Also, what other users treat something, doesn't make it so. It would still just be speculation, hardly a confirmation. A lot of users could believe that hobbits exist in the warcraft universe, that wouldn't make it true.Baggins (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be true that the Azotha are just humans, but if they were just a "tribe", why does it say "There may even be remnants of a lost Azotha tribe or tribes still living there as well."? Can a tribe have a tribe(s)? That doesn't make sense. A race has a tribe(s) not a tribe itself. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see the Wildhammer clan is split into several smaller clans. Same goes with the Bronzebeards. The Amani are apparently split into several smaller tribes... Guess tribes can be split into smaller groups... Does this help us much in confirming if it is a race? Not really.Baggins (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say the Wildhammer clan is split into several clans? With the Ironforge clan, those splits became "races" so that actually is another thing supporting that the Azotha could have been a race. The Amani are not split into several tribes, the Amani Empire had different tribes in it. The Amani Empire isn't a "tribe". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Wildhammers have a clan-like caste system. A thane rules each clan, and the mightiest thane rules Aerie Peak.", LOC, 99

Let's see "each clan" within the Wildhammers?

Stonefist clan is not a race, nor is the Stormpike clan, nor is the possible "Hammersmith clan".

You are seem to be right about the Amani. I think I confused myself from the fact that Zul'jin was a member of more than one of the clans. He was Amani, but also apparently part of the Revantusk.Baggins (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we don't get to know any of the names of the Wildhammer clans except Wildhammer? Okay I thought you meant the earlier split where the Ironforge clan, which was a race by the way, split into the Dark Irons, Bronzebeards, and Wildhammers. In lore, those three "clans" from a "clan" are treated as new "races". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ironforge clan, which was a race by the way"

If you meant dwarf when you said that the Ironforge clan is a race you would be correct, but that doesn't mean much (all the dwarven races are "dwarf"). There is no ironforge clan race. The racial class "Ironforge dwarves" are the same thing as bronzebeard dwarves. In some sense Ironforge clan is an alternative name for Bronzebeard clan when the information is compared with other sources (in as much that it overlaps with the Bronzebeard history. In anycase those of the Ironforge clan were apparently the same race as the Bronzebeards, as their leader was of Bronzebeard blood. I don't think you can find any source that states that the Ironforge clan "is a race", let alone that they are a unique race. Good luck though.Baggins (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the "Bronzebeard clan" is made up of "Bronzebeard dwarves" and they categorized as a race. The "Dark Iron clan" is made up of "Dark Iron dwarves" and they are categorized as a race. The "Wildhammer clan" has "Wildhammer dwarves" and they are categorized as a race. The "Frostborn" have "frost dwarves" and they are a race But it is not okay to say that the Ironforge clan has Ironforge dwarves and is a race? So a non-race (Ironforge clan) had three races come out if it? Interesting... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Dwarf" is a race. Ironforge Clan did have a race that came out of it Bronzebeard dwarves. "Ironforge dwarves" = "Bronzebeard dwarves". Its more likely going with what we have that the Bronzebeard/Ironforge dwarves were the orignal race, and the Wildhammer and Dark Irons spun off from them. Its noteable that Dark Irons didn't start changing physically until after they were enslaved by Ragnaros. The Wildhammer are different because they left the mountain to live on the surface. Ironforge/Bronzebeards have been treated as the standard dwarves with no evidence of further change other than the fact they were once earthen.

Point of note frostborn = frost dwarves. Frost dwarves didn't spin off of frostborn both are terms for the same race. Other than that we really don't know much about them or what frostborn/frostdwarves spun off from.Baggins (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So then technically "Ironforge dwarf" is a race like I have said. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, technically Frostborn does not = frost dwarves because we know their leader sure isn't a frost dwarf. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bronzebeard/Ironforge dwarves are a race. The same exact race, not two seperate races, but the same race (I'm not sure how you missed it but I said that like 2-3 times above). This race is even a racial class in the rpg.

Acdtually there leader was a mountain dwarf adopted by the "frostborn". Other than a single reference made by Brann describing them as "frost dwarfs" the frostborn simply refer to themselves "frostborn". So the accuracy of brann's statement is questionable. More data is needed to clarify, we only have Brann's Point of View, and the Frostborn themselves. Please don't try to create uncessary speculation for something we don't have much information about.Baggins (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In the RPG though, didn't they say something about they actually meant Ironforge dwarf and Bronzebeard dwarf are two different races? Or maybe that was just an author saying he thought it was like that. About the Frostborn, they are frost dwarves according to the Official Guide and the website.[3] Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah in the rpg (at least in the WOW RPG) bronzebeard dwarf and ironforge dwarf get used interchangebly. Ive been saying that frostborn are frost dwarves all along :). Alternate names. Actually the faction is "The Frostborn", there is no evidence if there are other factions of "frost dwarves". Its important to note that "frostborn" is spelled lowercase in quests denoting it as a racial term.[4] So while the faction is upper case, the race term is lowercase.[5].Baggins (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I put some more citations in case people don't believe us. The article right now is on both (Frostborn aka frost dwarves) so I guess we have to treat the article as the faction and race. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Settlements

Cool, we are finally getting Metropolises, Outposts, etc. on WoWWiki. That helps me in trying to argue for their additions myself. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Metropolis

I have a list here of all the settlements with their populations/titles and, besides being a "region" not a "settlement", Azshara is never said to be a "metropolis". Only 6 settlements are called "metropolises" in the RPG and they use a template sort of thing that lists "name", "population", and "type of settlement". Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Aszhara was historically metropolis, the citation is near the beginning of the Aszhara article.Baggins (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Azshara was once the greatest night elf metropolis.Template:Cite"Baggins (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't go by those type of sentences on my list since they call Stormwind City a town, city, and metropolis in sentences. I used the RPG template thing for my sources where they tell you "name of settlement", "population", and then "type of settlement". That is more accurate. Azshara does not even exist anymore as a settlement. Also, if we say Azshara is a metropolis then we would have to use the part where they say Stormwind is a town. Using just sentences and not the template thing, they also call dozens of other settlements town, city, and village, all in the same paragraph even at times. I think we should list the settlements that are used in the template where it gives you a "name", "population", and "name of the type of settlement". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Either way is okay with me. Going with your method and having Stormwind with a "town category" sounds crazy to me though. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lore citations over mechanics. Besides there no explanation as to what the rpg mechanics mean. Ironforge should probably be a metropolis it has a higher populaton than Orgrimmar. Plus Ratchet's designation fluctuates in its mechanics from like city and metropolis depending on the source. YOu'll notice that for a few of the cities. Sometimes those mechanic descriptions sound really absurd and don't really describe the actual appearance of the city. LIke a single structure as a tower being described as a village, or tent community. The mechanics are useful for gameplay for rpg players but not really a good description when compared to lore. This is a reason why I've desiginated those descriptions to merely categories, but not actual pages.Baggins (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the template is lore and mechanics. Using the template, we can actually see the name, population, and type of settlement. Also, the towers I see on it either designate them as "tower" or "personal tower", I am not sure which you are referring to as being listed as a village. Azshara is a region, so if you do put metropolis it should be on the Zin-Azshari article. It looks rather crazy having the region of Azshara have a category of Metropolis. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed that WoWRPG states that the region was once the city. It is that reference that links to metropolis.Baggins (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the Azshara article is the region. The city is Zin-Azshari. It even says that some ruins of the city can still be found on the eastern edges of the region of Azshara. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Half-human

"Half-human is the term used to describe individuals who have descended from a parent that is a human" sounds like a term made by someone, not Blizzard. Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Draenor humans" too. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Races

First of all, pay attention, if the races are already listed in the Alliance/Horde subdivisions, they don't need to go into the general Azeroth part of the template. Second, I'm thinking we don't need subraces (this is somewhat hypocritical, I admit, given that we have to keep different kinds of elves for obvious reasons), particularly Bronzebeards and the like. The template is getting nigh-impossible to read. I'm also thinking of reviving the suggestion that we remove RPG-only races. Thoughts?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I have said before with other discussions, I will go with whichever method is chosen, but we should choose one method. The thing is we have some races only in the race template, some only in the race category, others only in the race infobox of the race's article, or some mix of the three. So when I try to actually streamline things by making sure a race is matching in all three, people get mad. For instance, the whole dragon area of races. We have drakes, whelps, wyrms, etc. in the race infobox and race category, but then not in the race template. That doesn't make sense. Why would it be a race sometimes, but not other times. Second, we have races sometimes in just the race infobox, like Gnome (undead) aka Scourge gnome which I don't even think is a race, but then it isn't in the template or category. Third, we have actual new races like Mur'ghoul, which no one wants to admit is a race. Lastly, we have some terms like Necromancer and Undead in the race infobox when Necromancer is a class and Undead is a creature category. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, both you and several other people need to get used to conjectural terms. As for the necromancer in infoboxes, that's a rather glaring error, so those can be rectified as needed. Don't be too concerned with making every little thing fit. Mistakes happen and zero tolerance isn't possible. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with the word race depending on context it can refer to species or it can refer to ethnicity. Subraces and subspecies fall under the former, but not the latter. Additionally subrace/species may simply be called species, thus the designation of "sub" is rarely unimportant. So called "subraces" may be "race/ethnicities" within a particular species depending on the context of the source.

I agree with Ragestorm, the race template really doesn't need to list every single "race", "species", "ethnicity" or whatever you want to call it. It would be a good overview if it contained only a general overview of well known (as in has appeared more than once throughout WoW, Warcraft III, NOvels, and RPG games) and playable races. Primarily it should probably focus on WoW "races".Baggins (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a long time ago I said something like "should it be focused on WoW races more or less or races that have appeared many time in lore"? I don't think I ever got an answer. I also pointed out that some races, like the titans, would not have been eligible for the template at one time because we had little info on them but we put them on it anyway because I guess they are important? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Titans = important. 1. mentioned in Warcraft III, 2. mentioned in original WoW (with a dungeon devoted to their history and in-game models), 3. Given a full length article and racial stats in the RPG, 4. Mentioned World of Warcraft website (including encyclopedia), 5 Mentioned in the manga, 6. Sargeras is a titan, that has appeared in lore, and was a major influence on Azeroth.

Titans have been mentioned and appear in several different forms of media, and are fundamental to the creation of the world, seems pretty important to me. They don't just exist they influenced a major aspect of lore.Baggins (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't thinking of the timeline of when WoWWiki was created. I was talking about mentions of titans in sources before WoW was released, but then WoWWiki was not even around then so nevermind. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaces/line breaks

Ok, what I don't understand is... before you would constantly add line breaks between everything: Images from the first line, stubs from the images, bottom templates (like Races) from the categories, etc... but now you're removing all extra line breaks, attaching external links, templates, and categories together... why the sudden change? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, people complained that I was adding too many line breaks between everything... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok then.. lets get you to do juussstt right

. General rule of thumb, no spaces between the stubs and images. And no spaces between {{DEFAULTSORT:}} and the categories. But yes a space between externals links and categories and bottom template (navboxes)... Whos been complaining?

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Gourra used to get mad at me doing something or other. I don't think I have been putting spaces between stubs and images have I? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been.. and I think thats what was making him upset.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was mad because I use to add double spacing between things. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Double spacing and excessive spacing in general. I've never said that spaces between external links sections and navboxes, neither spaces between navboxes and categories/defaultsorts, are bad. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay appearantly you have misunderstood me or something, because I just said that there should be a space between the external links template and the categories. You shouldn't remove those. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I just find out what is happening. I have been using "Visual View", not "Code View", so to me it looked like the External links section was the end of the whole article. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like 2 linebreaks before a bottom template, but that's just me. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:50 AM PST 28 Mar 2009

Moving articles

If you can't move an article to a different name, then you should ask an administrator to do it for you. You should NOT move the information manually, as the page history is needed. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok I won't move anymore. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, in general this is not a very good use of your time. Your strength is ideas for new articles and finding sources for existing ones or adding additional info to existing articles. I would focus on that. Moving around articles and merging is likely to stir up trouble. Even I have been given heat for doing that. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:42 AM PST 28 Mar 2009

Your note on loading problems

It would be great if you had some screenshots, with browser/OS details for us to help. I can tell you an easy answer on the warmammer skin. Login and it disappears.... Gil (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay if it starts up again I will take a screenshot. It could be just my browser. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead links again

I noticed you added links to "arachnoid" and "B.F.F." on Nerubian.[6] As I explained in our previous discussion, you should not do that without asking your mentor first. Due to your new mentor's increased activity, there should be no reason why you can not take my suggestion.--SWM24 48 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If so many articles are going to include "arachnoid" and there is a capitalized term that many would not know what it means like "B.F.F." then people should be able to see what they mean. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe his point is that you shouldn't be creating the links, until the page has been made, or if you intend to make the page right away... its no different than categories. Approval of article/category before adding them to several pages. Even if you're certain of approval you should not be jumping the gun.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the "so many articles", I only saw it the once. To help you, while WoWWiki is not Wikipedia, {{wplink}} can be used to link to their pages if you feel people really would not know about a topic not directly relevant (page worthy) to WoWWiki.--SWM24 48 01:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant "arachnoid" is used a dozen times I have seen at least. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, please don't take as many liberties as you have. It makes it harder to defend your actions and you know the rules also.--

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:25 PM PST 30 Mar 2009

I will try to watch my edits, although some are just correcting spelling/grammar. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add "Azj'Aqir Kingdom" and "Azj'Aqir Empire"?[7] Do you ever follow things you are told to do completely? Even Fandyllic told you this time. I see Empire on the mentor page (Which seems more like a category to me), but not those two.--SWM24 48 22:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add them. I linked them. Once again if someone puts something like Azj'Aqir Empire or Azj'Aqir Kingdom then it should be linked since it is capitalized. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean if? You don't make links in preparation for something that might be made, you link things that are there already or you know are about to be created in the near future.

And those links were totally uncalled for anyway- For one thing, they're almost certainly referring to the same polity- for another, there's so little information about the aqir anyway that the thing would probably have been redirected. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So it is okay to put in articles words like "Azj'Aqir Kingdom", "Azj'Aqir Empire", "Superman Supreme Commander", etc. but then linking those words is not okay? If they are not important words or real then they should not be there or capitalized in the first place. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that everything that is capitalized needs a page. That is not correct. Rolandius, you added them both like that to start with.[8][9] This reminds me of point four of User talk:Ragestorm#Clarification, which he more of less stated again above. They mean the same thing more or less, and do not need to be linked.--SWM24 48 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay next time I will not link them but instead I will put quotes around them. That way they aren't red links but someone will see the quotes and can expand it into an article if they want. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you going on about? The "Azj'aqir Kingdom" and the "Azj'aqir Empire" are the same thing, they're the empire called Azj'Aqir. No need to make an article for either. And why exactly do you think it's necessary to indicate items that some other random person might ant to make an article on? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just thinking about the spells on WoWWiki. They don't have a page since many are from the RPG and have little info, but usually have quotes around them so people see that the capitalization is meant to stay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're quoting a direct source, quote the entire sentence/paragraph/whatever, and add [sic] to anything that might be wrong. That's the way it's usually done in papers and published materials.

I repeat, why exactly do you think it's necessary to indicate items that some other random person might want to make an article on?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so someone who might know more about that subject will see that it has not been created yet and can expand it? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, what you see on Azj'Aqir is what you get. You have to stop taking so many lore points literally (though there are some that you should), and understand the presence to typos- it's more than possible that "kingdom" and "empire" weren't meant to be capitalized, and even if they were, we might not need articles on it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Noteability, just because terms are used by users doesn't mean that it needs an article. Also if you think its important enough that it should be linked to a definition, then link it to wikipedia (if its a real world word). However, don't use that suggestion to mean that you need to link to wikipedia for every word... Don't even go there.Baggins (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You added Cataclysm to Wyrmscar Island and it was not even capitalized.[10]--SWM24 48 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sundering aka Cataclysm check it out at Great Sundering. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which might have been fine, except that Cataclysm is a Warlock spell, not a Great Sundering redirect. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah man. I guess I will have to do a Cataclysm type link. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be the solution. Next time check your links, just because you think that something should be a redirect doesn't mean it already is. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Guideline and Policy pages

Please do not edit guideline and policy pages without linking the pages you changed on the User:Rolandius/Mentor page. I don't want to have to hunt for these edits. Also, they make the other admins nervous. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:25 PM PST 30 Mar 2009

Okay I will, although I just corrected spelling/grammar. Also, an admin agreed with my edit on one page at least. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was fandy, and he did say don't do it again.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about WoWWiki:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle where it was reverted but then reverted back to mine. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Expedition

The Human Expedition and its subfactions are all described from the Warcraft III campaigns. You might want to do some own research before tagging. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I could say the same with you removing the organization category from organizations like Marshal's Expedition and Nesingwary Safari. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no article as Marshal's Expedition - there's a Marshal's Refuge but that isn't the same. What's your source for that Nesingwary Safari is an organization? --g0urra[T҂C] 06:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I know there is not an article, so I had to put it on the next closest article I could, Marshal's Refuge/Williden Marshal. Nesingwary Safari/Nesingwary is in a lot of the NPC's titles/names. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.. we have Ohlorn Farstrider and "Shotgun" Jones with Nesingwary in their "title", and then there's the Nesingwary Game Warden and Nesingwary Trapper. Not "a lot" of them, are they? --g0urra[T҂C] 09:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok more than one but less than five. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Scourge Invasion articles

Before you start adding categories back to them, as I see you're starting to do, know this... Articles placed into the removed from world of warcraft category should not have any other categories included with them. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah man. Okay I did not know. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's right at the top: "This category houses articles on subjects that are no longer in World of Warcraft. They should probably not be indexed in other categories." How in the world could you have missed that? -- g0urra[T҂C] 08:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No one reads the fine print. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be a fine print if it was nestled somewhere in ab obscure place. This was at the top of the category description. Way to take things out of its context. -- g0urra[T҂C] 09:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well now I know which is what counts. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus I didn't go to the category article. I just read "The subject of this article or section was part of the Scourge Invasion, a world event that heralded the opening of Naxxramas in patch 1.11 or for the opening of Northrend. Once the world event has run its course, this will no longer be available." which doesn't say anything about not adding categories. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories (2)

Guess I'll remind you about adding parent categories to articles... Transportation is a parent of: Boats, Zeppelins, Dirigibles, Flying machines, and a few others. Also, it's Dwarves, not Dwarven.Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I will only add them to articles that don't have a parent cat yet. Dwarves sounds like it is an actual dwarf, while dwarven sounds like it is in the RPG, which is something of dwarven construction. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't have items made by dwarves in Dwarven, and then put items made by gnomes into Gnomes and goblins into Goblins.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Stop removing the Nav Template "Template:Races" please. We can't move from a race to another if you take the nav of one. Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just cleaning up as there are too many articles with Category:Races that aren't races. If I remove any that shouldn't be gone, then add it back as I may remove some that others think should stay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

When the article is in the template, don't take it off maybye ?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I only took out ones that were in the template twice. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding (my bad). I was speaking of the "Template:Races" Navigation :)

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay so what is the "Nav" thing look like in articles so I can see what you mean? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

...It looks like {{Races}}.--SWM24 48 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I thought he was talking about {{Race links}}. Well then, like I said above, I only took it out if it was in there twice. Why have {{Races}} on, for example, humans twice when there are just humans (1). Rolandius

(talk - contr) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He said "Template:Races". The two templates are slightly different in function.--SWM24 48 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He said something about "nav" though, so I thought it was the other one. I have to go eat ham... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Race class != race

Look, I know you want to add things to templates and be... helpful, but the Eredar Diabolists etc are not a race just because it may have its own unit in Warcraft III, or a section in the RPG. The way I see it (and that you should see it) is that the Eredar Diabolist is a diabolist class of the eredar.

Please, be rational when editing. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not sure about the other two...but I am sure that "eredar warlock" is a race because in the RPG they have their own section and they even have some characters' race as "eredar warlock". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, there are only two eredar subraces, maybe three. Man'ari, and draenei. Maybe Wrathguard, because we don't know where their clawed feet came from. Warlocks, Diabolists and sorcerers are not races, they're classes. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of note eredar warlock is actually an alternate name for man'ari eredar. It was the name of the race in the Warcraft III manual and Manual of Monsters, and other parts of the rpg. Eredar warlock race can take warlock as a class in the rpg, thus noting that the term means more than just a class (otherwise it would just be redundant). Eredar diabolists and sorcerers are eredar warlock that have have become diabolists and sorcerers.

Its also interesting to note that in Warcraft III, sorcerers, diabolists, and warlocks are all mob types under the race category of "eredar warlock"[11]. This latter fact denies the the possibilty of diabolists and sorcers from being seperate races. This should have been pretty clear as the links exist in the articles.Baggins (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As a side note I think the only reason that Eredar warlocks has received its own page, opposed to main Man'ari eredar page is because as its being used to archive the original published lore (as stated in History of Warcraft, in-game books and other sources) as opposed more released lore. It would probably be possible to merge the two pages, and switch the page name from "man'ari eredar" to "eredar warlock". As eredar warlock, is actually a properly citeable alternate name to "eredar" (denoting the evil eredar variety). Whereas I think we have established that while the eredar call themselves the man'ari, they have never specifically called themselves "man'ari eredar"?Baggins (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Man'ari sounds cooler. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with that statement ;).Baggins (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So then in regards to "Eredar warlock", I was right that they are a race... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked in the book War of the Ancients and they seem to call the race "eredar warlocks" or "eredar" for short. "He had never faced one himself, but the wizard recognized from descriptions an Eredar warlock. Not

only were they the sorcerers of the Burning Legion, but they also acted as its officers and strategists." and "The Eredar ceased laughing when each bolt not only penetrated his shield, but went through his torso." Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, the majority of the eredar are warlocks or something extremely similar to warlocks. In fact, the surprising thing about orcish warlocks was that they weren't eredar. Trust me, "eredar warlock" is not a separate race, nor is the proper name of the race. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well they sure mention it a lot as if it is a race. It sounded like a race in War of the Ancients when they called them "Eredar warlocks" or "Eredar" for short, in Warcraft III the Eredar Warlocks, Eredar Diabolists, and Eredar Sorcerers are all under the Eredar Warlock list, and in the Warcraft RPG and WoW RPG they have a section on "eredar warlocks" plus some NPCs have the race as"eredar warlock", while their classes are seperate. A table even exists which shows some "encounters" you may find in Outland and it says "draenei", "fel hunter", "pit lord", "eredar warlock", "fire elemental", "fungal horror", "nether dragon", and "netherwyrm". So all those are races except eredar warlock? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it actually is the opposite, in which "Man'ari eredar" is the term that is not a race. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In alot of ways "eredar warlock" is alot like "pit lord", "doom guard", "succubus", "felguard", "dreadlord", etc in earlier games. The terms are race terms (perhaps in Common) but may also refer to "titles" or "classes" (as implied by npcs in later sources). Saying they are "proper" or "improper" terminology might be borderline speculation or based on personal taste. Rather its safer bet to say that those were the terms used in earlier sources, and later sources give new details.Baggins (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but from what I have read on WoWWiki, one demon likes to be called "Man'ari eredar" and now its a race, while "eredar warlock" is used many times but it is speculation? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Eredar is a disambuagation to evil Eredar and good eredar (Draenei). Both are technically of the Eredar race. I assure you that "eredar warlock" isn't speculation. You are right it is a race term, same as "pit lord" doom guard, "sucubbus", "felguard", "dreadlord", etc. The only reason that eredar warlock was seperated into its own article seems to be because it was also an NPC unit in Warcraft III, not necessarily for any lore reasons (or to imply that it was a different race than other evil eredar). Its not a seperate race, and it is the same thing as all other eredar (except for the good ones (draenei), and the wrathguards).Baggins (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that is the thing. There are "evil" eredar and there are "draenei". What do we call the eredar, although we have not heard of one I think, who are not "draenei" or maybe escaped the Burning Legion somehow and are not "evil"? I am guessing just eredar? So the "evil" eredar would be called either "eredar warlocks" or "Man'ari eredar". "Man'ari eredar" though is used way less than "eredar warlock". Unless we are just calling the "evil" ones eredar due to not knowing if there are any eredar in lore who are not "dreanei" nor "evil"? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the Eredar who didn't escape the corruption by Sargeras are man'ari. The ones who escaped are called Draenei. There is no borderline. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Except don't forget "man'ari" isn't really the name of the race. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that they are man'ari. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Allright. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes and rpg game rules

The infobox is for the purpose of giving brief references from lore sources. It is not a place to state differences in game mechanics between Warcraft RPG game series and the World of Warcraft RPG game series. Notes on differences between game mechanics may be mentioned in the linked articles, but should be the limited to those articles avoid repetition and to simplify things.Baggins (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also rule changes from the rules in one game to another doesn't mean you simply alter and replace specific cited information from one source to make it inline with the second games rules. I.E. Do not change all references to sorcerer, wizard, fighter, etc in articles to mage and warrior as per second game's rules. Citations should be accurate to the original source the material is taken from, and citations should be specifically citeable. If there is no specific reference to as a mage or warrior, etc then they should then those categories and classes should not be added. It is not our job to convert one game to another game when it is not done in the material itself. Also this wiki treats both games from a neutral point of view. Specific references to classes will be noted from both games with accurate citetations (page numbers) to those references, but elimination of "information" from one source over the other will not be allowed. Where there are differences in rules, it should not be redundantly posted on every single page (but only a single page in which the rule relates). For example rules about "sorcerers" should only be found on sorcerer page if any.

Also note, this is not the World of Warcraft RPG wiki, and it not our job to tell people how to play the rpg. We are not an rpg sourcebook, nor do we want this wiki to become one. We are primarily concerned with world of warcraft gameplay and lore from all sources. The Warcraft RPG rules do not really belong here. This is similar to the command we have given you about turning Wowwiki into a Warcraft dictionary.

If you want to create specific warcraft RPG or dictionary wikis, may I suggest you use request a new wiki and create your own wiki. Infact if you do create your own wiki you be free to create your own rules and do whatever you want. You won't have to worry about cross the path of any administrators but yourself.Baggins (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is helpful to tell people what has changed, and like you said, "lore from all sources". All I did was put "(deprecated)" behind the classes that were changed, I didn't remove the class from the infobox. I also put in the article at the bottom usually saying what has changed. Why put false info that something like wizard is an actual class still? Complain to Fandyllic or deal with it. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would also say "If you want to create specific warcraft RPG or dictionary wikis, may I suggest you use request a new wiki and create your own wiki." as I have found many of your "citations" pretty much altered by you to fit some idea you have instead of the source. See User_talk:Ragestorm/Archive9#Source_checking and User_talk:Ragestorm#Example. Plus, what is up with these near empty pages User_talk:Ragestorm/Archive9#Near empty pages with no info but a template? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see several of those examples you blamed me for doing something as if I made the descision without permission, whereas I was actually instructed to create the "empty pages" by Ragestorm and others. Another one you claimed I made false reference to "highborne" as a race. However quotes referring to highborn as a race do exist sporadically throughout the rpg. Though the difference between all Kaldorei is largely negligable otherwise.

This appears that you are simply trying to argue and play other admins against the actions of others.

Point of note I don't have to take this up with Fandyllic, he is not part of this. Do not attempt to play us against each other again.Baggins (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the empty pages were wrong. I was asking are they empty forever or are they expandable? Point of note, stop making excuses for your mistakes by saying it "appears that you are simply trying to argue and play other admins against the actions of others". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, one quote doesn't translate into "sporadically throughout the rpg". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Telling an admin to go "complain" to another or "deal with it" is not very wise... that shows you're trying to get admins to argue about you again... which will not help you in the end. Hmm, weren't you told you were no longer allowed to edit infoboxes on race/creature/faction pages anymore, unless you specified on your mentor page what exactly you wanted to change and wait for approval?

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Fandyllic is my mentor, so why would it be bad to tell him to talk to Fandyllic? I don't remember anything about not editing infoboxes. Those are just minor edits. If you see a factual error or have little new info, you correct it right? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of:

Normally I don't watch user pages... but with seven made right in a row... with 2-3 words in each of them... I have to ask... purpose?

-- Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I ran into some info all at once and so I was just making the pages real quick so I can expand them afterwards. I didn't want to forget them so I made them with little info at the moment, until I was done, and then go back to them. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going so fast, I even put one into the main articles without noticing but you fixed it. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check out User talk:Ragestorm/Archive9#Near empty pages which are main articles that have no info except a template if you are looking for things that need fixing. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest writing ideas down in a file or on paper so that you don't forget while avoiding creating dead articles? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I should. It was only one article that I put on there... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: RPG class template

You did see the sandbox page, right? It's not entirely finished... --g0urra[T҂C] 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I missed that. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought you said that there were already "eliminated" classes that doesn't exist in both types of RPG. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are classes that were eliminated and classes that were kept...so what do we do with the classes that were kept? We have to put both templates I guess? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what will happen. I'm adding the RPG class templates to the classes which are in the templates. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Verbatim

It would be {{Wikify}}. I think the category from {{Cleanup}} is added too with that template. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will see if those articles have that already within them and if not I will add it. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: NPC classes

It would be better if you asked Baggins, Ragestorm or Fandyllic about that, since they would probably know about that more than me. I'm following what it says on NPC class. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think the category description though said they were NPC classes as recent as yesterday. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the description was more than just vague... the WoW "NPC classes" would be in a category named "WoW NPC classes" or something like that. I'm not really sure. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just threw the question to Ragestorm to see what they are called. Maybe the solution will be to make a "WoW NPC classes" category. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I mentioned this yesterday... but maybe the post didn't get through. We eleiminated "class" from use of titles in WoW, due to the fact that "titles" have not been specifically referred to as "classes". NPC "titles" haven't been specifically referred to as titles either, but its at least more generically accurate than trying to apply terminology like "class". Fandyllyic was the first person to suggest removing the use of class except for things that have been specifically referred to as classes.Baggins (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay like class trainers and people who have been in lore with a class already? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What we had under NPC class before are now under category: NPC titles.

Okay but it is a little confusing as things like Primal and Pyromancer are classes. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Primal is a class found in both DnD Warcraft RPG and WoW RPG, it was in M&M and HPG IIRC.

Pyromancer is an npc title, it doesn't appear as a class in the rpg (as far as I remember) rather it was an npc.Baggins (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that is what I am saying. Primal is a class but it is under category: NPC titles when you said we are not using classes in WoW. Also, I got Pyromancer mixed up with the Pyremaster class in the RPG so nevermind on that one. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Primal is a class in both rpgs. It also shows up as a title in WoW. ARticles should receive all related categories.Baggins (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay so then classes are used on WoWWiki under category: NPC titles if they are also NPC titles, NPC trainer classes, or classes of NPCs from previous lore. I am guessing it also counts if a quest or text says an NPC is a certain class? See that is different than the original "We eliminated 'class' from use of titles in WoW" which you said a few edits above. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you mean if a quest says that someone is a "paladin" in the quest text? What should that be categorized under? Good question, on one hand it shares the same class as WoW player class, so could fit under WoW class category, but it could also fit under title. Ya, I have no idea how you would categorize things in that instance. There is a reason why I was trying to simplify categories under just "class" originally for overlap like that.

HOwever, generally speaking if a cahracter is said to be a "paladin" you can categorize him under paladin and not even have to worry about categorizing him under the class or title categories. A person really isn't a class now is he? NPC trainers aren't classes either, they just train classes, they would categorized under their related class simply because they are connected to that particular class.

On a related note, titles/classes can still be listed under "class" section of the infoboxes that list a character's various "classes" based on different sources.Baggins (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"A person really isn't a class now is he?" I thought we always put the category of the class of an NPC in its article? For instance, putting a category of paladin in Taelan Fordring's article is not correct now? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Category paladin is not noted as being “category: paladin title or paladin class” its simply refers to paladins in general. In fact it’s a subcategory of both class and title related categories. The category is not stating that the person is a “class” just that he has a particular class. Characters are not classes/titles, they have classes/titles. Baggins don’t have the “Baggins class” for example. They would be categorized under “burglar” because that is the class that Baggins have (hobbit/lotro reference).Baggins (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay some of these categories are confusing me. So there is a "Category:Paladin" and a "Category:Paladin title" or "Category:Paladin class" and I was just mixing them up? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I think I got what you said. If an NPC is said to be a Paladin in a quest you can use "Category:Paladin" which is different from "Category: NPC titles" because the article "Paladin" would be the one we are trying to figure out if it should go under "Category: NPC titles". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure we don't have any categories called paladin title, and paladin class. WE only have the paladin category, and its a generic category that exists as a subcategory under category:WoW classes, category: NPC titles, category:core classes, etc. There are paladins in all of those sources, and paladin can be a class or a title depending on the source.Baggins (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral template

I don't know why, but you seem hellbent on using {{Neutral}} on articles that says that it's neutral; the main use for {{Neutral}} is for NPC and/or mob articles where the NPC or mob as a attitude, unlike for example Template:Friendly or Template:Hostile. It is also used for reputation articles, but still not articles where a city may be neutral. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So Dalaran and Shattrath City would not count as neutral? I mean {{Neutral}} cannot be used for them? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, {{Neutral}} is not used for them; just use normal neutral linking. The Neutral template is for NPC and reputation articles. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay neutral it is. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before.[12] Though it seems you only understood what I was saying halfway.--SWM24 48 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But in that case you said why did I like it so many times. Not don't link it at all. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloodmyst Isle

Where does the name Silvergale Isle come from? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have looked into it more. I got it from Razormaw. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Wyrmscar Island was the island named silvergale Isle, not bloodmyst isle.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the ruins of the main night city in that area is on the main isle, bloodmyst.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a draenei in the green part of the Bloodmyst says it.--SWM24 48 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

Don't put them in your user space articles, they are only meant for main space articles. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fandyllic told me use {{Stub/Lore}} for them. "Please add {{stub/Lore}} or the appropriate stub to all your proposed pages, please." Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please start signing and putting a reason in the speedydelete template. "Author requested" is good enough for the reason. Thank you, Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a user subpage? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you're not signing them and I tend to notice this I haven't been looking at the history to see who marked it for deletion, and if someone wanted to be mean they could go through all your pages marking them for deletion... to which if you don't catch in time they could be deleted by me or another admin. It just makes it easier for admins to not have to check the history of the page, this is for your benefit as it is ours.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Okay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

...Though to be technical, if someone wanted to be mean, and knew you weren't checking edit history before deleting pages, they would add "author request" as the reason and be done with it. But do provide a reason for speedy delete. :P --Pcj (T•C) 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, does that mean keep using "author requested" or not? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but this is why I also asked for a signature... but then that could be copied from another source as well.... and yes Rolandius, keep putting a reason.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay so {{speedydelete|<Auther requested>}}. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation

You're in violation of rule #4, I see no discussion or approval of changing dead body articles to Corpses. Corpse is not a race. As for the category we already have Category:Deceased characters, and that is the category that should be used. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think I remember saying the same thing in the past. Rolandius: "Corpses are races?" Answer: "Confusing explanation saying that I should leave Corpse as a race". So all I did was follow the example given to me. I then made the category to fit them in since there are so many new ones introduced in the patch. Category:Deceased characters to me was for deceased lore characters since we never will see a "corpse" of them since they are in a novel, comic, RPG, etc. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, NPCs like "Slime-Covered Corpse‎" doesn't sound like a "character" name to me. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to show us where you got that anwser, and how you are not taking it out of context?--SWM24 48 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't memorize the talk page where I asked that question months ago. It is similiar to how Projection is not a race, yet it is now being used on WoWWiki as a "race". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Projection is used cause nothing else accurately fits, they aren't ghosts and they aren't the race they project. Whereas the articles you were changing to corpses are physical creatures that have a race that fits. Corpse is more of a status, however we use deceased not corpse. ( So don't take it from this discussion that using corpse under status is ok ).

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Corpse is not a status. Deceased is a status. Corpse is just like projection as they both have creature categories. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I said its more like a status, I did not say it was a status. Corpse is nothing like projection, take it or leave it.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They both have creature categories? Says who?

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wowhead? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for linkage, I'm not going to go searching for your evidence.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles I think already show you the creature category of the NPCs, you don't have to search. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I will post them. Wowhead's creature categories:

Beasts
Critters
Demons
Dragonkin
Elementals
Giants
Humanoids
Mechanicals
Undead
Uncategorized

This is how WoW categorizes their creature types, from which wowhead places into their database. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please report incidents like this on either User:Rolandius/Mentor or my talk page. Also, Coobra is correct in this case, Rolandius. You should not have made those changes without clearing them on User:Rolandius/Mentor first. I also happen to agree that using Corpse as a race makes no sense and is not a "factual correction".

By the way, it is also in the rules (#1) that the mentor (aka me) needs to be contacted. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:57 PM PST 30 Apr 2009

Coobra, I was trying to point out that the "race" called projection is just like the "race" called corpse. The "projections" have creature categories just like the "corpses" I had made. So pretty much my question was, why is corpse bad but projection okay as a race? How are projections called demons, humanoids, etc if they are just projections? This isn't a case where the creature status was "uncategorized" and so WoWWiki had to create a race. They had creature status' already, and WoWWiki just created some race called projection. So following that example, I made the corpse race for all the NPCs which you find on the floor as a corpse — which usually happens during quests. They usually do not interact with you as they are corpses. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How blizzard classifies them (creature wise) does not matter. They had a ooze classified as a beast, that doesn't make all oozes beasts. A Human is a Human as a dead human is still a human. A hologram, an image, a display, a projection, whatever you want to call them, are NOT what they project. They are images created by a device, these are projections. I really don't know how to be more clear with you. And news flash, we didn't create a race page for projections to links directly to the category. Corpse and Projection are not the same one bit, and I'm not going to argue about it anymore.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Assembly of Iron

Regarding this edit: the subzone is The Assembly of Iron, the boss article is Assembly of Iron. Check where the links actually goes to before you save them. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Aka

Why do you shorten 'x, also known as y' and 'x, meaning y', with various levels of parentheses, to 'x (aka y)'? What is wrong with the other ways of saying it? You often expand contractions in your many 'corrected spelling/grammar' edits, why shorten this?--SWM24 48 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that a math problem? Could you show me an example so I can answer you? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the fact that whenever an alternate name for something comes up you use "(aka...)". You never say "also known as" "sometimes referred to as..." or "often shortened to...", and when you see a longer term as part of your endless "cleanups", or "corrected spelling/grammar" edits, you always shorten it to "aka". I also notice that you never capitalize it or use periods, which would technically be more correct. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought aka meant also known as? It is much neater to just say "aka" then "could also be known to some people as" don't you? They also use it in the RPG sometimes. I never capitalize it or use periods because that is how I have seen it on WoWWiki, as "aka". I don't think I have seen any "AKA" or "A.K.A." if that is what you mean. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, aka, AKA, and A.K.A. do mean also known as. "Could also be known to some people as" is a very extreme example that I do not think has come up anywhere before now. Your case is that the Warcraft RPG uses it, so all pages on WoWWiki should use it too?--SWM24 48 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're bothering to use the term, we might as well say "also known as", at least in leads, I think it looks more professional.

Not that anyone is going to take it this way, but "aka" also means "to drive <oxen>" in Old Norse, and that's found its way into modern Icelandic. It also means "red" (amongst other things) in Japanese. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, my case is that the RPG and WoWWiki uses it — at least that I have seen. I even remember arguing with Baggins about the real name of the Explorers' League one time and he ended up putting like 4 different "aka's", so I think if an admin uses it then it should be okay for a regular user to use "aka". I don't remember too many people saying "Hey Baggins too many aka's" especially on just that one article. I put "aka's" on articles and now there is a problem? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between adding the alternative names and adding 'aka'.--SWM24 48 01:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay tell me the difference between my edits and this one "The Explorers' Guild (aka Explorer's Guild, The Guild, Explorer's League, or Explorers' League)". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpret what is being said here. Adding the term "aka" to pages is not the exact problem, as that is fine in moderation. The problem is the massive quantities of the term "aka" you have added to pages, and changed other similar terms to. It is not "cleaner", and just because WoWWiki uses it sometimes does not mean every page where the topic is called more than one thing needs it. Your support for your actions is weak.--SWM24 48 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that some pages can say "aka", but you want other pages to say "also known as", "sometimes referred to as", "often shortened to", "known to some people as", "could also be known to some people as", etc? That is "cleaner" than using "aka"? Okay your support for making things more complicated sure is strong... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am saying edits like this do not have to happen. Not all of them need to be like that, and if you are going to use "aka", please spell it out because it looks more professional. Do not bother with exceptions. Again, "could also be known to some people as" is an extreme example that you made up in order to take credence away from my case. I would like it if you stopped with the ironic retorts/comebacks.--SWM24 48 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do I have to be the only one that has to "spell it out" and not just write "aka"? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "Gorribal" mean "Dark seether"? If that's the case, then that's not an AKA at all, it's a translation.

Rolandius, you're the only one to my knowledge who is doing this at all. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article made it seem like an aka. Also, I am 100% sure I am not the only one that has put "aka" in an article. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were, and Ragestorm's "this" is open to interpretation. It is the sheer quantity of unnecessary additions of adding the term "aka" that is the problem.--SWM24 48 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If something has an a.k.a. then it should be noted. That is like saying there are too many articles with Category:Mobs in them... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You might have something there... Anyway, yes, a.k.a.s should be noted, I'm just saying that I think it looks better when it's spelled out. I'm also not convinced by some (Burning Shadow for instance was only used once and might have been metaphor) of the a.k.a.s I've seen, but that's another issue.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If "burning shadow" was verbal, and not specifically spelled out as a capitalized proper term, I'd be very wary of using it as an "as known as". We tend to try avoid using metaphors and descriptions, and stick to proper nouns, the crusade has also been described as the "demon/ic horde" in the Last Guardian for example, but since it was lower case, we don't have it listed as an alternative title. Something that is spoken only is impossible to tell if it is a proper title or just a description, and such should probably be left off.Baggins (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, if something is also known as something else, then it should be noted, but every page does not need to be changed to say "aka such and such".--SWM24 48 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put "Burning Shadow" upper case if it was lower case and vice versa. I guess I don't have to point out that "We tend to try avoid using metaphors and descriptions, and stick to proper nouns" is not always true since I have seen a lot of pages, like "avatar of Sargeras", which are lower case in the source but used on here as if they are proper nouns. The same thing with buildings. I have seen it upper case on here, yet in the game they use it in lower case when it is mentioned in sentences. Unlike some users, I spell it how I see it spelled. So far I have only played the "Prologue" of Warcraft III and they have already mentioned "Burning Shadow" a few times upper case. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention I have "subtitles" turned on in the game so I can hear/read what they say. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories 3

Please read WW:CAT: "Categories that will never contain more than one or two articles should not be created. If those pages need to be linked among one another, you should add a 'See also' section at the bottom of them with links to each other." I've already had to delete the Kaldorei and Azotha categories because of this, among others that you've created before. Follow the policies and talk to your mentor before you add these things. Do you want yet another warning? --g0urra[T҂C] 10:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain this "Category:Human tribes" then if "Categories that will never contain more than one or two articles should not be created. If those pages need to be linked among one another, you should add a 'See also' section at the bottom of them with links to each other." because it doesn't look like I am the only one that has not read WW:CAT. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar

You're quite the hypocrite when it comes to your "Corrected spelling/grammar" edits; for example see this edit where you only removed the "The" in the beginnings, with "WW:MOS" as your argument, which doesn't say anything about it. Furthermore you didn't correct where it said "[[Mob|mobs]]" where it should say "[[mob]]s", and the "[[Inscription recipes|inscription recipes]]" where the second text should just be removed as the first letter in links aren't case sensitive, and that the profession is Inscription and not inscription (notice the difference; not everything are lower case). That could either have the "Corrected spelling/grammar" or "Cleanup" edit summary. Yet again, do you want another warning for your vague and/or incorrect edit summaries? --g0urra[T҂C] 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. WW:MOS says to bold the title of the article. "The" was not part of the article so it should not have been bolded or even there probably. Okay now you are just reaching. You are mad because I did not catch more mistakes? How about you go fix "[[Mob|mobs]]" and "[[Inscription recipes|inscription recipes]]". I can't fix them all. So now you are telling me I may get another warning because I didn't catch more mistakes by some other users? I am using my time on WoWWiki to help it out when I could be doing other things. Although I do make mistakes, you are looking for non-existent problems at the same time. How about I go on your talk page and warn you that some articles have "citation errors" all over the page and then warn you that the Reference section does not include all the sources that it should have causing problems with if a category should or should not have been added? Or maybe you could go ask the person who did those edits? Wait, that makes too much sense I guess huh? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First WW:MOS does say that the title of the article should be bolded, but it didn't say about the "The" part. For your information I already fixed the links - it seems like you didn't even bother to check if it had already been fixed. I find it amusing that you keep using these vague edit summaries for very minor things, while there's other things that should be corrected too. You have an holier-than-thou attitude that is very bothersome to other people; don't try and deny it. The citation error things was because there was no / that closed the references name. If there is ever a citation missing that doesn't agree with the original source, then look it up and correct it. If it's not accurate, then put a fact tag on it.

When you removed the "Warcraft: The Last Guardian" category you didn't seem to remove the other categories. Why was that? Did those categories seem to be more relevant than the category you removed? And I'm not going to tell everyone that makes minor spelling mistakes to go back and edit it - I could do that myself. The user who did the edit might just be a passerby who wanted to add a little something.

And don't try to threaten me, intimidate me or be hostile to me. There will be consequences if you keep doing that. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Look further down on WW:MOS and you will see an example where the page is talking about other things, but does show you that "The night elves" does not have the word "The" bolded. I know you fixed it. I am saying that I didn't go to your talk page and say "Hey Goura warning, go fix this page". I didn't remove the other categories because the Reference clearly showed me that they were there. I didn't see The Last Guardian in the Reference section so I thought the category was in there for nothing. Also I didn't threaten you which was the whole point of me telling you that I didn't go to your talk page and say "warning' or anything like you just did to me. And don't try to threaten me, intimidate me or be hostile to me. There will be consequences if you keep doing that right back at you. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that you have edited or removed stuff before looking closer, so I assume that you will learn from your mistakes from now on. If you try to threaten me or act hostile against me, you're the one who will get consequences. I'm the one with admin powers, not you. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you keep saying I am being hostile to you when you are the one throwing around "warning", especially for the reason that I didn't correct an article "enough" and that I am somehow a "hypocrite" because I didn't correct some other users' mistakes. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I can't see how this discussion could get more petty. Back to your corners! --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:47 PM PST 30 Apr 2009

Wiki titles

I'm guessing they're not in title case?

Edit: forgot signature. Also, just wondering why you removed Osirrian's "Qiraji" category. It's not very important to me, I just got a change summary link in my mail. Perhaps I should have joined the site with one I don't use frequently, heh. Gamerunknown (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which titles are you referring to? If you mean the races, they are lower case in sentences. I removed the "Qiraji category" because he is an anubisath. I guess since we don't have an "Anubisath category", the "Qiraji category" would be the closest. I think it has been put back into Ossirian the Unscarred's page. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See WW:CAT and WW:NAME. You are not to move articles except with the approval of your mentor. --Pcj (T•C) 02:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

People keep changing it to upper case though in the infobox. If it is supposed to be spelled "building" why is it spelled "Building" in the article? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, you'd think it would be easier to type {{warcraft II buildings}} than {{Warcraft II Buildings}}. Anyway, sentence case is policy. --Pcj (T•C) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if it was left as "building" in the text I wouldn't have moved the page in the first place. Like you said sentence case is policy but the reverts when I try to actually spell it lower case confused me. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you link the reverts? --Pcj (T•C) 02:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay I hope I did this right. [13] reverted back to [14], [15] reverted back to [16], and [17] reverted back to [18]. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he wanted to keep the link in there. But it would work lowercase. I'll make it lowercase and keep the link in there. --Pcj (T•C) 02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not linked when I edited it though or I would have also left the link there. To me it looked like someone didn't like it being lower case, but then also linked it as an afterthought. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true. I kept changing "buildings" and "units" back to being capitalized. I though it looked better. I hope Rolandius does not use this confession as retrospective or future justification for doing this himself on twenty or so pages. Rolandius' only argument for it was "Corrected spelling/grammar", so I kept reverting it. If he were to say something like 'the WoWWiki Manual of Style under "Section headings" states that you should "Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading and leave all of the other letters in lower-case." and that counts for navbox headings', I would have stopped (I did not think or know the navbox part), but he did not. The links were not an "afterthought", but did come later. What the categorization of qiraji and anubisaths have to do with the RTS templates is beyond me.--SWM24 48 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought "Corrected spelling/grammar" fit when correcting something that was upper case to lower case. Was I supposed to say "Corrected upper case to lower case" or something? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be slightly better, but a reason would have been nice.--SWM24 48 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly nitpicking going on here about the change summary. If SWM was being edit stalked like Rolandius, the changing of names improperly to capitalized would have been a cardinal sin. However, Rolandius should have cleared his changes first. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:22 PM PST 9 May 2009

I think we both broke the Three revert rule and the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I dismissed it because his reasoning was so vague. It was wrong in retrospect, but I stopped when a reason was given. Cardinal sin, eh?--SWM24 48 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I could correct a sentence like "Stormwing City is the capital of Outland" to "Stormwing City is the capital of Stormwind" and I would be attacked still. I am sticking to my subpages, and you can put all the false info in and take sourced info out of articles that you want. I am not playing your games. It is sad that people have to make up things to get a user in trouble. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof that anyone has ever done that to you? You said you "could" change that and be attacked, but that example is way out there. So you are saying that me capitalizing a letter is both putting in false info and takeing out sourced info, and made up? I am not playing a game, so you could not be not playing it.--SWM24 48 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not specifically that edit, I meant more as a whole there is some game going on as everyone can see by reading my Mentor review page recently. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Strand of the Ancients Battlemaster

It was a non-notable NPC with no other purpose than to handle a single issue that existed for a short time during the beta. And no, you can't justify it by that it had a "titan" model. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well first off, where does it say articles about NPCs in Beta cannot be on WoWWiki? Second, how does making an article for an NPC get put on my review like it was something bad? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, second off, you're not supposed to be creating pages in the main namespace without clearing them at User:Rolandius/Mentor first. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:16 PM PST 9 May 2009

Coobra told me don't make NPC articles on my User:Rolandius/Mentor. Obviously, I am listening to admins' advice too much. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Jinglepockets

Eebee Jinglepocket is not a goblin? (You removed a cat...) edit: Suprising since Bessbi Jinglepocket is presumably related to Eebee, and is definitely a goblin. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The category "Smokywood Pastures NPCs" has the "goblins" category already. So it was like a parent category. It would be like putting the "goblins" and "goblin quest givers" categories when you only need one. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The goblin category was removed from Smokywood Pastures NPCs, since not all the npcs were goblins.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not my problem. Most of them are goblins which I have seen admins use as a reason for categories and Smokywood Pastures is a goblin organization as per Goblin organizations. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Having the category Smokywood Pastures NPCs categorized under Goblins is misleading. You should probably categorize Smokywood Pastures under Goblins instead. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Six of one, a half dozen of the other. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to say that the categories "Smokywood Pastures NPCs" and "Smokywood Pastures" are one and the same? You're wrong then. If you can't tell the different, I'm afraid I can't help you. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though Category:Smokywood Pastures NPCs might generally have all goblins and Smokywood Pastures might be a goblin organization, you should remove a race category because the NPC is in a racially biased organization. Making that kind of mistake and saying, "Six of one, a half dozen of the other." is what gets you into trouble. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:14 PM PST 9 May 2009

I thought it was redundant because the Category:Smokywood Pastures NPCs had the goblin category. It looked to me the same as if an article had both the goblins category and goblin quest givers category. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then thats wrong, if you see articles with both categories [Goblins] and [Goblin quest givers] remove the goblins category.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

You should be putting the source info on the image's page, rather than the talk page you're placing them on... and page if you know it. Thanks Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All done. I guess I put the wrong category on them. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that was me, I thought I read the manual of monsters, instead of monsters manual.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was partly me though. I put manual of monsters on two of the talk pages and just fixed it after I realized it a few minutes ago. You might have seen those two. I tend to confuse people. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So these pics are from MoM?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they are from the D&D book that the monsters in Appending III of MoM, which "contains information on how to incorporate other monsters into a campaign for the Warcraft RPG", are from. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Baggins told me to just put them on the talk pages for now. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He meant move the ones you or anyone else had currently uploaded to the talk page for now, not continue to upload more images just to be placed on the talk page. And since you're not placing them in the article, I'm going to have to ask you to stop uploading them, otherwise I will be deleting them since they will be marked as unused. However, if you do decide to continue to upload them, please place them in the Non-Warcraft specific images category, or an appropriate subcat of it.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. He said upload them and put them on the talk page. I uploaded a few and got distracted awhile ago. Now I am uploading the rest. I will place them in the articles just hold your horses. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't ride horses, I ride worgs =P

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay hold your worgs. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, although you are not the one that told me, I hope I am not uploading these images for nothing. Baggins said put them on the talk pages, but are they going to be moved onto the main articles someday? I think it is better than no image or fan art images on the main article. It sort of gives a clue to the reader what the creature looks like instead of people guessing or putting speculation that it may or may not be this or that. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if we've made a decision on that yet... course... don't think we gave it much thought. I agree images are nice to have on articles, I'm just not sure if using those images from non-warcraft sources are in violation or not.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. Well the RPG does say, this is in the WRPG not WoWRPG which I think switched rules or something, for people to refer to the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide and Player's Guide. It also just gives a small description for each monster so you would have to refer to the D&D books for the stats, creature type, etc. so I am guessing the images would go with that. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't D&D, this is Warcraft, and if there's no real original content then it shouldn't really have an article on WoWWiki; rather have a "List of D&D monsters in Warcraft RPG" with the list that was provided in MoM. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am just putting the images in their respective articles. It is not like I made all those articles. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't upload any more images from the D&D books; there's still a discussion going on about what to do with the D&D creature articles. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article corrections

Why aren't you correcting the information on the article yourself instead of putting it on the talk page? --g0urra[T҂C] 09:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to the fact that I am not editing main articles on WoWWiki anymore. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So you think it's better to edit the talk pages so that someone else should correct it? Why don't you just edit things that are in your own user namespace instead. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I am. I guess seeing correct info is too much for you. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Camps

Um... As it is a category you added to some pages, would you define camps, please? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess everything that contains the word "camp" or is a synonym to it counts toward this category. According to Rolandius at least. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some of them were according to the RPG and the others I went by the name. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Early unblock

I unblocked you early (block was supposed to end June 23rd). If you get blocked again, I expect an entry at WW:V explaining why with a link to the offense. If not, I will unblock you. Put a note on my talk page at Wikianswers. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:10 PM PST 19 Jun 2009

Okay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Narnie

Instead of just saying "Narnie isn't a critter" why not expand the Template:Cats with another section instead of just deleting the poor animal.TherasTaneel (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will move Narnie to the Housecats section of Template:Cats. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can hear it purring allready TherasTaneel (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Narnie is back with all his friends. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Clarify

Moved to Forum:Deceased characters

RE: Abyssal

See the talk page, it's clearly explained there why it was deleted. Nowhere in the delete reason was it said that it's from Appendix Three. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did see the talk page. Some user mentioned that "It was a language from Core D&D" which still doesn't explain why it was removed. The whole Warcraft RPG is influenced by D&D. Abyssal was not in Appendix III or anything, so I don't see why it doesn't count as being valid. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The language was not described anywhere in the RPG; it was just used in two lines of texts, both of which was used to describe a character's languages. Most if not everything else has a description or something more than a single reference to D&D. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)