Is there any source that calls Trollbane a king? The War2 manual calls him "Thoras Trollbane, lord of Stromgarde". The Stormwind monument to Danath is signed "Thoras Trollbane, Lord of Stromgarde".--Aeleas 01:28, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

If there are no sources specifically referring to him as a king, I will change it back to "lord". Please don't change it back without adding a citation to a source that refers to him as "King".--Aeleas 12:38, 5 November 2006 (EST)
Well, he is the lord of Stromgarde, but the king of the nation of Stromgarde, so im gonna change it. -Rovdyr
As I said above, please provide a citation to any official source referring to him as a king before changing the page. I've changed it back.--Aeleas 11:46, 26 November 2006 (EST)
well i dont got any citations or any thing but it makes sense, as he is the ruler of the nation/kingdom of stromgarde he is the king of stromgarde. still im gonna wait with changing it until u can a chance to reply -Rovdyr
I agree that if "kingdom" is being used in a specific sense following the real-world definition, then the ruler would be a king, and barring evidence to the contrary, I think that would be a reasonable assumption to make. However, there is evidence to the contrary, in that Trollbane is frequently addressed as "Lord" and never addressed as "King". Kul Tiras is called a kingdom, yet its ruler adopts the title "Grand Admiral". Dalaran is also called a kingdom, but is led by the Kirin Tor. The leaders of Lordaeron and Stormwind are referred to as kings, but Genn Greymane, Daelin Proudmoore, and Aliden Perenolde are noticeably not.--Aeleas 17:40, 29 November 2006 (EST)
"Dalaran is also called a kingdom, but is led by the Kirin Tor" Where was Dalaran called a kingdom? Even if this is stated somewhere in one of the games, game manuals or other writings it is clearly a mistake. The Kirin Tor seems to be similiar to the Roman Senate. Dalaran is definitely not a kingdom or any type of monarchy. --Theron the Just 18:47, 29 November 2006 (EST)

The government of Dalaran is called a "magocracy". The son of Thoros Trollbane is a "prince". So it is more likely that Thoras is a prince himself, if not a king. In which case his "kingdom" would technically be a "principality" or "princedom". As for Proudmoore, his title is actually, "Lord Admiral" of Kul Tiras, but the Grand Admiral of the Alliance.-Baggins 19:22, 29 November 2006 (EST)

"Thoradin, the king of Arathor" this is a line in the history of WoW found at, and at the page of Trol'kalar here on wowwiki it says "After the war and with the departure of Thoradin's ruling descendants the Trollbane family ascended to the throne." as Thoradin was king and the Trollbane's ascended to the throne and took control of the kingdom it only makes sense if the highest member of their family would become King. -Rovdyr

Well Alliance player's guide says that all the human leaders of the nations who came to meeting to form the "Alliance of Lordaeron" were the kings of their nations.

"King Terenas of Lordaeron calls the other human kings together to discuss the Horde and Stormwind."[1] (APG 160,161)

Does it really matter if he's a lord or king? The terms mean basically the same thing, and Blizzard seems to use them interchangibly. --Mikaka 04:32, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Yes it does appear that Lord and King are used interchangeably by Blizzard.Baggins 04:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)
So, would anyone mind if i changed it to king? "King of the nation of stromgarde and lord of the city"?? -Rovdyr
yes, its fine to refrence the term King, as it is used in an official source. It is valid refrence, and does not contradict any other source. To remain neutral all refrences must be made, and given equal standing. It should be noted it is possible to be both king and a lord of a nation.Baggins 19:32, 23 December 2006 (EST)

"Ruler and King" Edit

My edit to the initial line to make it "Lord Thoras Trollbane was king of the human Kingdom of Stromgarde," was reverted without comment. I'm not clear why we would want such a redundant wording. I'm going to change it back, please leave a comment here if there is a specific reason for it.--Aeleas 13:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I think he prefers ruler as that was what was stated in the original warcraft 2 manual, which is apparently his main and possibly only source of information for anything warcraft. Where as Thoras was called, King of Stromgarde in the Alliance Player's Guide. I can only guess he wants both quotations to get equal standing... There might be a way to incorporate both somewhere in the article without the entire article sounding redundant to make him happy.
But I defer to you on your choice on this issue.Baggins 13:30, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Stromgaurdian equivlent of JFK? Edit

Um... yeah that is pretty much it.--The last Alterac 09:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? -- Dark T Zeratul 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

????? Warchiefthrall 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By mysterious asasination--The last Alterac 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
JFK is not the only leader to have been assassinated without a clearly confirmed killer. He was not the first, nor will he be the last, and certainly there have been dozens if not hundreds of them in fiction. To make such a comparison based solely on the circumstances of their death is ridiculous. -- Dark T Zeratul 09:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, and also another example of The Last Alterac not using talk pages correctly. They are not for posting wild theories, ok? Warchiefthrall 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not a theory... That was just the 1st time I posted something retarted for the sake of retartation. (The other times had at least some retarted base). THRALL ARE YOU WATCHING ME OR WHAT (as well as Dark T) (One other time which was on the brink of stupidity was when I said EPIC PHAIL when I asked who made thrall warcheif and someone else said who did it and said a little extra)I am trying to refrain from stupid topics though. --The last Alterac 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not watching you specifically, but we do watch the Talk pages, and when you post stuff on them that doesn't belong on them (and you do, with some frequency), we notice. -- Dark T Zeratul 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the talk pages does not work like a forum... Orher wise it means any one can edit someone elses edit (To make look like idiots). Not saying mine have been edited (AS MY STUPIDITY IS GENUIN!) --The last Alterac (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.