Should a note be made regarding his death in World of WarCraft? This leaves Danath Trollbane as the only possible heir to the throne.

--Pure.Wasted 21:17, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Of course information regarding his death should be included in the article. I am not however familiar with the quest that leads to it, so adding the information is up to someone else. --Theron the Just 01:21, 31 October 2006 (EST)

I started a discussion a while back at regarding how to deal with WoW events in articles. I think it's an issue that could definitely use a policy or guideline. My preferred approach, for reasons stated in the link, would be to simply say outright that he is killed as part of a Horde questline.--Aeleas 20:11, 8 November 2006 (EST)

It is my strong opinion that the existence of a quest to kill an NPC should not be regarded as canon, and that the WoWWiki article corresponding to the NPC should not state the NPC is dead. The existence of such a quest should certainly be stated, as well as the desire of another NPC for the players to inflict bodily harm upon the quest target, but I don't think that we should write off the character as dead. So in the case of Galen, the article is fine the way it is. I agree however that we need an official policy. --Mikaka 23:00, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Well, my opinion if the event is written in stone, then it should be refrenced as such.
For example the fight between heros and destruction of the bones of Hakkar in sunken temples is mentioned in the Alliance Player's guide. So that should be open to mention. However Brann also says that resurrected Hakkar may now be in Zul'Gurub. So events of ZG have not yet occured in his time frame.Baggins 23:04, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Ok, but what qualifies as "written in stone"? Mentioned in RPG books is a good start, but remember that these books also said that Maiev was dead. Then BC comes around and, lo and behold! there's Maiev hanging out in a prison. Being mentioned in a quest shouldn't be considered "written in stone".
I humbly suggest that the article state that Galen has not been killed by "agents of the Horde", and instead only that he holds an item that said agents want in order to steal the sword of the Trollbanes. --Mikaka 23:32, 8 December 2006 (EST)
This is a wikipedia, we can state the claims of various sources, until things change. Things can easily be changed as new info is released. For example the destruction of the "hakkar" skeleton in sunken temple, and his resurrection having just occured in ZG, as mentioned by Brann Bronzebeard can be assumed to be "written in stone" until Blizzard decides to rechizel said stone. Where as for another example, according to Brann, Tirion Fordring is currently still in exile, so his quest line hasn't been fullfilled yet..Baggins 23:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)
I don't want let this discussion get bogged down with too many off topic examples and counter examples, so I'm going to ask you to state your position on the matter at hand. Should this article state that Galen Trollbane has been struck down in the prime of his youth by unknown horde agents who then stole the sword Trol'kalar from the grave of Galen's father, or should it state that certain elements of the horde INTEND to do so and are seeking the help of intrepid Horde heroes to carry this nefarious scheme out? --Mikaka 23:53, 8 December 2006 (EST)
(P.S., more recent sources in WoW strongly suggest that Tirion Fordring has reestablished the Order of the Silver Hand or something along those lines, meaning his quest line has been fulfilled, so even that's in despute. But that's neither here nor there).

Ok you wanted an answer for this example, in Brann Bronzebeard's accounts (which are more or less concurrent with the timeframe of WOW/BC right now), in Alliance Player's Guide for example, he is still alive, but has enemies that may be after him. They haven't gotten to him yet.Baggins 00:00, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Ok, thank you. I'm changing the article to state something along those lines. --Mikaka 00:17, 9 December 2006 (EST)
"more recent sources in WoW strongly suggest that Tirion Fordring has reestablished the Order of the Silver Hand or something along those lines, meaning his quest line has been fulfilled, so even that's in despute. But that's neither here nor there"

Well, wow has several time frames that jump around at different points in time. Its unclear where they are all set. In Brann Bronzebeard's specific timeframe Tirion has not yet reuninted the "Order of the Silver Hand". That's not to say that in a future point in time(beyond Brann's current point of time) Tirion has taken over the Order. This is an issue where time is relative, we have seen events that occur sometime in the future, as well as events that have already passed from Brann's POV, in the World of Warcraft.Baggins 00:04, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Article Name: Prince Galen Trollbane vs. Galen Trollbane

I kind of noticed a small revert war going on over this subject. So instead of just changing it, can we try and talk about it and come to some sort of argreement?

Now, WW:NAME clearly states that "Character pages should be listed under the character's full name, excluding titles such as "King" or "the Destroyer". E.g. Arthas Menethil, Terenas Menethil II, Blackhand... etc." However, it also states that "NPCs (non-player characters) should be listed under the name that is displayed in-game, including case, e.g. High Executor Darthalia."

So the question we are dealing with here can be distilled down to whether or not Galen is an NPC or a lore character. I lean towards lore character, but an arguement can be made that he is simply an NPC, as to my knowledge, no mention has been made of him outside of WoW. Thoughts? --Mikaka 04:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)

WoWWiki policy on quotes and paraphrases

According to current WoWWiki policy, quotes are not to be altered, and paraphrases are not have extra information beyond what was specifically said in the text (to avoid fan theory from being mixed with official information). Any fan observation is not to be incorporated into cited information. Any observation or valid assumptions should be outside of a cited paragraph, either before a paragraph if applicable, or after a paragraph, or at least just after the citations. This is to firmly delineate official from fan ideas. The only time official paragraphs can be split if it is to add related quotes or paraphrases from other official sources (though each individual sentence or paragraph must be cited when that happens.(see quilboar for an example)).

This policy is to firmly delineate between the official text, and fan hypothesis and ideas (in order to prevent people from putting words in Blizzard's mouth, so that readers have a firm idea what was originally said in a cited source).

If a fan's assumption is not supported by any known source it must go into a speculation section (speculation that is extremely biased, will probably be removed).

Anyone not following this policy, is considered to be in violation.

An example in this article, is the repeated occurrence of someone trying to insert "where Thoras Trollbane was buried" into the cited paragraph from Lands of Conflict.

This not only alters what the book was saying, but it also alters the intent of the book, which is pretty specific that the real importance of the Trollbane Family Crypt is to hide magical and important artifacts. The name acts a bit to detour thieves away from the city's treasure vault, for those that might actually be looking for city's treasure vaults.

Secondly it is kind of irrelevent, a detailed discussion of the contents of Trollbane Family Crypt should be on its own page, its not required in an article about Galen Trollbane. Also its important to note that Lands of Conflict does not actually state where Thoras has been buried, it doesn't even mention him by name. The only reference comes from an offhand reference to his assassination. In any case where he is buried is irrelevant to a discussion on Galen. Any discussion of that type would be better placed in Thoras Trollbane's own article.Baggins 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just affirming the above. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince or King

I see no problem with that section - it's a fair comment on his situation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the section though unless it's explicitly stated somewhere i would feel better with the speculation banner.Warthok 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, speculation sections are allowed, as long as there is citations, and if seemingly implied, although not specifically mentioned, by published lore, interviews, or opinions by NPCs. As long as it is speculation deduced from official sources its allowed. What isn't allowed is unsubstantiated fan rumors, or fanfic, or fan ideas without any hard cited evidence.
Removal of a valid speculation section just because you don't think a speculation section is needed, can be viewed as a violation to other forum members rights, and can viewed as instigating war editing. Remember, the "changelogs" when editing a page, is not to be used to argue, reasons for removal of material. If you feel that you need to remove a section out of an article please discuss it it in the talk page first, and see if others agree. There is a specific system we follow here.Baggins 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


in game he has a mana bar so i think his class should be changed to Paladin

---User: Dunnsworth

A small point of note we avoid using in-game mechanics to describe someone's class if possible. If official classes are given then those are the ones listed.Baggins (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Clearly he isnt a Paladin, because he was turned into a Undead. Never mind, I forgot, Paladins can still turn into undead, just not by the use of a disease --Knighthonor (talk) 05:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.