Is "Low Common" an oficial term used somewhere in canon sources?--User:TopDread
I just followed up a link and made a few logical assumptions. I'd think it does exist somewhere in canon lore, but you'll have to ask the guy who put it in the 'other known languages' table. ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
Low Common is mentioned in the RPG books.Baggins 22:52, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Alliance of LordaeronEdit
According to the RPG, it says that leaders of the Lordaeron were at that meeting rather than just "Representives" in a few different books, for example;
"Lothar met with the leaders of the seven nations of Lordaeron...The Alliance of Lordaeron was formed."Baggins 15:18, 7 December 2006 (EST)
"the leaders of the seven human nations met and agreed to unite in what would become known as the Alliance of Lordaeron."Baggins 22:52, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Demon Names Edit
To avoid confusion, I must ask that you not start changing "pit lord" to "anihilan" or "succubi" to "sayaad." It's going to be extremly confusion to anyone who isn't aware of the Exodar holograms. they're still going to be referred to as Pit lords and Succubi, we just happen to know their racenames. Think of Night elf vs. kaldorei. --Ragestorm 12:41, 22 December 2006 (EST)
- Thanks :-)--Ragestorm 12:49, 22 December 2006 (EST)
I've made refrence that pit lord is more of a class within the Annihilan.Baggins 12:50, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Hmm... I am quite sure that 'sapient' is the correct term for fully concious beings, with 'sentient' reserved beings with only the capacity for basic consciousness - the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. Nevertheless, judging from your reaction, maybe it would be best if I left it as it is.---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
- You mistake my tone. I only meant to warn you that most sci-fi fans, particularly Star Wars fans, will think it's a mistake and start reverting (I say this from experience with similar issues). I think you're right, by the actual definitions, just keep references handy in the event of reversion. -- (talk · contr) 15:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am forever doomed by my writing. In black-and-white: you're right, just be prepared to defend against those who are wrong! -- (talk · contr) 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good. Now that we've made a big deal of it, there probably won't be an issue. Ah, the woes of a Bookkeeper.-- (talk · contr) 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that most blizzard sources use, "sentience" rather than "sapience". Case in point check out the website article for eredun in warcraft encyclopedia. A good reason to note is that felhunter may have a simple form of sentience and understand "Eredun" but does not have the wisdom or is physically evolved to speak it. Also, while most, if not all people are sentient, not all have sapience (wisdom).Baggins 07:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning to finally finish that revamp in the next week or so. Afterwards, Kirochi and I will be reviewing all standing applications and assigning titles and duties. -- (talk · contr) 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I join? I do not own many WoW-related books though...--21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I did... seems like a negative-ad against me...-- 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleting Images Edit
Why do you keep removing the images I add to pages? There is no wiki policy about not having fan art. The images are high quality and add to the article. please explain.
PS. The images are not mine, I found them across the web, many are from blizzard's fan art program, which receives an item on blizzard's WoW website (worldofwarcraft.com) whenever it is updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rani (talk · contr).
- If they're from blizz's fanart program, I would implore you to say so on the image descriptions, and then put them back. Otherwise, how are we to distinguish between something that might possibly be sanctioned and something that isn't? --Sky (t · c · w) 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- * So you are saying that as long as I mention the source of the image and confirm that it's not copyrighted and we can use it then I can add it? fair enough. --Rani 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Future Race IdeasEdit
I've protected Future Race Ideas for next few days in order to prevent a case of war editing, and non-cited comments, many that seemed as nitpicks or anal retentive remarks at obscure things just to find a reason add more negative reasons to races. One such example is tossing up Garithos on several races, and using him as a negative as to why races wouldn't join the Alliance, your welcome to read the discussion. Other times official cited quote/reference was removed or changes because someone "disagreed" with what was said (same person actually). Anycase rather than block him, I've told him to discuss ideas for changes in the talk page, and let his peers decide if the changes should be made, rather than initiating edit wars.
In anycase I feel like you that if we tossed up every single nitpick for every single race, the thread would be bloated and go beyond the intent of what the topic was designed for. It is not meant to be a thread for Horde and Alliance roleplayers to continue the Horde/Alliance tensions outside of the game. But rather point out reasons why or why not Blizzard would choose to use those races as playable races, and reasons that they have given for why they would fit better more with one faction or the other.
I might suggest that perhaps we can leave the topic completely protected for a while, and make it entirely edited only by suggestions that have undergone peer review in its talk page. Keeping full editorial control to sysop staff, in order to prevent the inevitable horde/alliance headbutting.Baggins 04:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Suits me. It would be nice to give the poor page a bit of peace for a while! :) ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
- Amen to that... Admins in Irc agree as well, :).Baggins 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not necessarily make all of it Horde-biased, and I have changed it to be neutral. I feel the Pandarens would be in the Horde because Blizzard really isn't hypocritical. (As to note, Blizzard wanted people to play on the Horde, and used the Blood Elves to get what they want, if they notice that more people still play Alliance, they're going to place Pandarens on the Horde, via lore add-ons. And Metzen likes to use the element of surprise. I am allowing you to edit said stuff so long as you keep everything peachy. The Bael Modan portion that shows the Pandaren's philosophies are that friendship and honor are above all else. Why can't I use the Alliance's neglecting to help the blood elves as a means to show the virtue philosophies when Bael Modan was used? Garm 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm getting you wrong, but you seem to be mistaking my tone: I can seem abrasive at times, but my arguments bear no ill will. That covered, I still sense bias or at least misunderstanding of several facts that somewhat unbalances your argument. Whether intentional or not, I feel the need to point the these out. ;)
- PS. To answer your above question: Garithos was not a celebrated major figurehead of the Alliance; and more races than one were the subject of his racist bigotry. He eventually betrayed the Alliance, which just goes to show what an utter bastard he was.---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
- I see that Garithos was a meaningless character to the Alliance. However, that does not explain Durnholde and the irrational hunting of the Forsaken as "monsters". The orcs feel betrayed by the humans, and if they express anger for trusting them, the Pandarens might think twice before joining the Alliance. Another thing is that not all Forsaken are evil. In fact, some, if not a rough majority, are neutral or good guys. (Examine carefully) Garm 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's put Durnholde in real world terms: the Allied forces have just defeated the German war machine for the second time in 50 years. The first time, they were merciful to a degree (to what degree the Treaty of Versailles was 'merciful' is heavily debated...), opting to allow the Germans to remain a sovereign nation. The second time round, they weren't going to bargain. Germany was divided between the victorious powers, East Germany only reuniting with the independent (since 1955) West in 1990.
- Now let's translate this into Azerothian terms (note that I would not like it understood that the German people bear any similarities to the orcs!): the Alliance was faced by an evil bloodthirsty enemy driven by dark powers which rampaged across the Eastern Kingdoms before being driven back and defeated once and for all. When faced by an enemy totally opposed to everything you stand for and which simply does not bargain or give up, what do you do?
- The Alliance found a way other than murder to defeat the orcs and prevent them from attacking again: imprisonment. Where the Alliance failed was in not realising that the orcs were no longer the crazed monsters they had once been, and not allowing them to repent and attain independance.
- As for the Forsaken undead, human attitudes towards them are understandable (though not entirely reasonable). Your homeland has been entirely destroyed by an evil force of unnatural beings, the land raped of all life and the population wiped out (probably including your entire family). It having only been five years since this happened, tensions are likely to be still running high. How even-minded would you be, and how forgiving or trusting would you expect to feel towards (supposedly!) former troops of this force? How do you know that it's not a trap, or that these "Forsaken" will not just suddenly become mindless slaves again? Has a single Forsaken approached you and attempted to right wrongs committed? No. You will feel entirely justified sending them back to the grave in which they should belong.---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
OH MY GOD!! Edit
I found your Wood Elf page by accident when writing up the lore for my racial Blood Elf offshoot, the Wild Elves or 'Tel'Dorei'. I play on the European Moonglade server. I'm the only person there who seemed to have the whole 'Wild Elf' thing going...I had no idea someone else had a like minded thought.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azkera (talk · contr).
- Well... thanks. Weird how we got the same name too! I hope the wild elf thing works out for you. :) ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
500 edits Edit
I have 500 edits,can I put the 500 club thing on my page?-
- Shoot!No I don`t,Sorry.-
- When you do, you can :) 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I thaught you were,Oh well--
I removed the line "shortly before opening of the dark portal" as that part of it was a presumption, and I've limited to the what the ogres and scholars pov was in Horde Player's Guide. The way it reads in the book would give the impression that ogres interpreted the orcs hunts and raids on their race as ruthless attacks on their people, and were defending themsleves. Where we know that orcs thought that ogres were attacking their people. Much as if there was a huge misunderstanding going on between the races. It seems to go back before the "Horde" was founded, and we know there was some demonic influence before the "Horde" itself was founded. BTW, it was the story according to Rexxar as told to Brann.Baggins 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then. But I've added "of the Old Horde" so as to differentiate the orcs who carried out the attacks from the current race.
- Edit: Ahhh... then what do you suggest? Even considering that the pre-Horde orcs were an otherwise shamanistic and peaceful people, orcs of all types have changed much since then.---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
- As a note, the HPG considers the Horde the Horde, there is no differentation between an older entity and newer entity. Its just the "History of the Horde" and the Horde Player's Guide. Basically its like a government that has had it laws and leadership change over the years but has lasted in some form the entire time for the most part.Baggins 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole quote was;
- Some orc scholars believe that the ogres were once intelligent and the dominant species of Draenor before the orcs rose to power. Orcs ruthlessly conquered ogre territory, enslaving or killing the ogres as they went; the war between the two races lasted quite a while, fueled by corruption from demonic forces. Soon the ogres were broken, the race either forced into exile or enslaved and used in experiments. To this day, most ogres hate orcs with a passion, remembering the wars they fought against each other.
On a related note, you might not have caught it but Rise of the Horde novel was told in such a way that it was the reminscing of Thrall on events as he was told them. So different scholars have different interpretations of what exactly went down, and how each race viewed each other.Baggins 19:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove most of the lore, and why did you make the picture an ugly huge banner in the middle?Baggins 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No lore was removed from the article - instead, more was added. As for the picture, I believed that Ganthrifal was simply not clearly visible when his image was reduced to "thumbnail" size. I agree that it is a bit ugly as a banner, but I can see no other way of including the image. ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
Why not use px to forcibly enlarge it?Baggins 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I hereby wish to apologize for several of my actions regarding the argument over the faction of the wood elves. I understand and have understood that this is a fan fiction page and have tried to take up an argument over such a stupid reason. I hereby take full responsibility for my actions and deeply apologize to Vorbis for my actions. I hereby agree to stop fighting for the faction of the wood elves, however these recent events have not changed my mind, only changed the fact that what I believe is most often times better to stay shut. I apologize to everyone and most deeply apologize to Vorbis for all of my actions.
I hope you don't mind that I made reference to "unique structures" neutral. I did it based on the fact that the lore actually uses their structural designs as a negative towards them compared to other races. However I don't think its as negative to the point it should be marked orange or red.Baggins 05:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow dude, I'm very sorry. You have to put up with a bunch of Star Trekky nerds all day who think editing the high elf and wood elf articles are funny. You deserve to be an administrator by now. Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry? You needn't be, you're a good member. People just set of my temper too easily.
- And thanks, but I don't think I'd make a great admin. :) ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're so much into Tolkien, why'd you write him wrong then? :D User:Armagon 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Alphonse Tits McGee Edit
Excellent work on parodying Phoenix Wright. Although, it would make a good lawyer if only I knew what race it was. I'm assuming he's a furbolg. Garm 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- When I was a kid we used to have competitions to see who could come up with the most imaginative funny names. But I guess ol' Tits McGee is just a commonly used ripoff. ^^ ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Vorbis we were going to go for a page for Lo'Gosh much like Daval Prestor, or Katrana Prestor in that you have the "secret identity" information given, with links to his true identity.Baggins 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. I felt that with the rather bare Lo'Gosh page having been neglected for two months I was at liberty to merge the pages; though I do not mind if you have decided otherwise and wish to split them again.
- Nevertheless, I still feel that with Lo'Gosh deciding to take back his previous identity after only a couple of months of bearing an orcish name, both articles would have eventually merged anyway for the sake of continuity; as with the excellent Wookieepedia entry on Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Furthermore, Lo'Gosh is unlike the Prestors in that his was only an honorary name used in place of the one he had forgotten; and is not a distinct personality designed to conceal his true identity, only to be entirely disposed of when the time is right. ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't have the comics. So, I'll wait on a split, and see if there is enough info to do "identity" page justice or if its worthwhile.Baggins 02:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Account merge problem. Edit
The merge with wikia has wrongfully given me control of this account. If the original owner could contact me at douglasdotmetaatgmaildotcom I will try to restore the account to you. ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs
While expansion is one thing, the changes that were made in my absense have two problems.
1. It copies warcraft encyclopedia text verbatim (we should be paraphrasing content to maintain our own style).
2. It stripped details and citations drawn from the RPG. Again, as you know we consider rpg citations to be valid as any other source, and citations can at least lead people back to the source to read for themselves a version of the account.
I know you weren't the one that made the huge edits. But, if you can get around to it, do you think you could help fix it?
Thanks. P.S. Can you get your original name back? ...or have you already?Baggins 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Highborne - I'll see what I can do. ;) I'm a bit busy right now, but I'm sure I'll find the time to give it a bit of a hack.
- Name - I'm not sure whether I can get my name back or not, though I'm not terribly concerned. ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Crystalsong Nexus Edit
- Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't think of the name; I just copied the name of the other one with a similar look and added a "2". ^^ ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Bookkeepers redux Edit
- Recently I don't think I've been doing enough to honestly earn the title. Still, if you think my using the title serves a purpose then I'll continue to do so; though I don't believe it would make a great amount of difference either way. ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Future race ideasEdit
I can't keep always keep track of race ideas pages, but watch out for edits by a user Newb666... Some of his edits have been kinda questionable... Generally speaking either the edits were on the weaker side, i.e. overly speculatory, his citations were taken out context, or were weak. He put wrong color marks for his speculation (green when it probably should have just been a white "?"). Etc. Let me know if he continues this.Baggins (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just wanted to warn you that some of your drastic and major changes to Future Race Ideas causes some problems. Certain parts you removed screws up context of other parts of the article, or explanation of the context. You added "fact" to something that was already cited. Pandarens "horde" relation is actually questionable at the moment. If you read Dark Factions which is up to date source, there is very little knowledge of how they react in the present. Infact present it appears those that interact at all do so through the Alliance. You removed some cited informatin like clan sizes for centaur given in the RPG. Unless there is contrary information elsewhere I don't see that as valid to remove, and even if there was both would need to be mentioned.Baggins (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- The clan size citation had already been included in the "General" section for centaurs, and I believed that on some occasions in the Pandaren section points had been unneccessarily repeated. I do, however, agree I may have made some clumsy mistakes in my drastic alterations to the page (the statement to which I added ((fact)) appeared to have been bolted on... when in fact it was not), and I apologize for these. I'll try to be more careful in my handling of cited information in future. Edit: Thanks for correcting them. ;) ---- Vorbis Talk Contribs 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)