Talk: Lordaeron (kingdom)

Remove the flag?

From Talk:Lordaeron#Remove the flag?

Since the Forsaken and Argent crusade are now the domination force over lordaeron kingdom should we change it from Alliance to Forsaken and Argent Crusade?

and Alliance History as Pre-Thrid war?--Forsakenlord (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag? What flag? I don't see any flag. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry this responds to lordaeron (kingdom).--Forsakenlord (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Like it's been discussed earlier, this article is about the former kingdom. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is only focused on the past?--Forsakenlord (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the kingdom of Lordaeron no longer exists, yes, it makes sense for it to focus on the past when the kingdom did exist. Anything in the present would affect the city and the continent, but the kingdom wouldn't be affected any more than Prussia was affected by World War II. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is focused only on past and about the human kingdom then why Sylvanas Putress Varimathras and Arthas count as leaders since they all become leaders after the human kingdom was destroyed.--Forsakenlord (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

They probably shouldn't be, because they never ruled the kingdom of Lordaeron. They ruled the Undercity, which simply happened to occupy the same territory. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There are rants of both sides of this argument on the official story forums. The Forsaken do seem to still partially identify with the kingdom. Edge of Night supports this further.--SWM2448 19:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that there should be two articles: one "Lordaeron (kingdom)" for the past info, and one "Lordaeron (forsaken)" for the modern Forsaekn state. Otherwise, Lordaeron's articles should be removed from the Human kingdoms template since the actual article refers both the human kingdom and the Forsaken and Horde-aligned nation/state. --Cemotucu (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A similar suggestion has been made on Talk:Forsaken#Race_and_Faction. What would be on this page?--SWM2448 17:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this page should be used as a page for the human kingdom of Lordaeron, which no longer exists. May the human Lordaeron shares name with the Forsaken nation, but they are not the same entity. It is not like Sylvannas is Terenas's daughter and the government structure is the same. Sylvannas created a new whole state in the same place with the same name, but different in essence, values, etc. Forsaken's Lordaeron is not the same Lordaeron that founded the Alliance: both are politically distinct entities that share a name. I think WoWpedia should have a page for each: a "Lordaeron (kingdom)" and a "Lordaeron (Forsaken)", until we know he complete name of the forsaken state (we only know they call it Lordaeron, but we don't know if they consider it a Kingdom, a Nation, etc.)--Cemotucu (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we discuss the creation of both articles? --Cemotucu (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Kingdom of Lordaeron and its people fell alongside one another during the Third War. Now the citizens, raised into undeath, are doing everything in their power to restore the former glory of their kingdom, that being incidentally through conquest. My point is that the article covers the history of a single place as it has evolved over time, gaining new allies and states of mind. Reminds me of Quel'thalas actually.AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As you said, the physical place evolved. It changed owners. But the political institution that was the Kingdom of Lordaeron is no more. It fell. And a new state (sharing the same name) rose. In the other hand, Quel'Thalas evolved: his Prince appointed a Regent Lord to reign during is absence, but the social and political structure didn't change at all. They are not the same cases. Forsaken Lordaeron is not an evolved Kingdom of Lordaeron, is a new different thing. I would love more discussion. --Cemotucu (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes made by MoneygruberTheGoblin

First I apologize if I do something wrong as I am very new to this but these changes do not look like they were created from a neutral point of view. How ever the article is also a mess it makes no sense to read and many of the sections contradict each other such as the "Modern Lordaeron" section and nearly all of the new changes. I also don't think we can say that the Forsaken are Lordaeron continued, they sure think that they are, but the humans that survived believe themselves to be Lordaeron as well. If this is about Lordaeron the kingdom then the picture should also be reverted as it is not very representative of Lordaeron but more of just the Forsaken. I don't think that this gives a good summary of Lordaeron at all should say that the Scourging of Lordaeron destroyed the place and that there are multiple groups that claim to be Lordaeron and are attempting to retake the land and what not, this would include the Forsaken as one of them but the article should not be so biased as to say they are Lordaeron. Erthad (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)