Revision as of 02:05, November 13, 2007 by Zexx (Talk | contribs)

| User:Ragestorm

Older comments moved to User talk:Ragestorm/Archive1 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive2 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive3 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive4 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive5 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive6 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive7 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive8.

All conversation welcome; however, I will ignore any User who uses Outland in the plural, and don't expect sympathy if you're complaining about retcons or lore inconsistencies. Also, if you use a custom signature ruthlessly stolen from Kirkurn's, I'm likely to be less polite; that's the price of unoriginality. Also be advised that I may turn nasty if you're someone who thinks Illidan is just the greatest- sorry, he's not.--Ragestorm (talk · contr)


Here is one interpretation of Tyrande;


Personaly something about it looks too childish to me, or should say she looks like she's in her late teens... Just not kind of image I'd personally use for wowbox imo, although I'd like to hear your opinion as well.Baggins 04:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The words "when the Nether freezes over and icicles hang from Kil'jaeden's whiskers" spring to mind. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahh, didn't like that Samwise Tyrande image? Was it the size or resolution of the image? I could scan in a larger higher quality version of that image if that was the case.Baggins 10:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it was the posture and facial expression. I don't want to give the impression that she's the sort of woman who drapes herself over Malfurion's feet. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
LOL, wow, uh I'm not sure that's the uh image that Samwise was uh going for... My impression of the image was of a touching moment between two indviduals who love each other deeply, and are very close.Baggins 10:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't propose removing the image, just not put it in the infobox. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

El Pollo Diablo

Rage, even though I joke all the time on the talk pages of lore articles and you have to reign me in, I just wanted you to know... you're the best.

Master of evil. What are Kil'jaeden, Sargeras and C'Thun, chickens?

// Montagg (talk · contr) 00:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Tyrande picture

I just wanted to mention I have made a response to your post on my talk page. :) Safe to say, you made the decision I expected, which is likely why I pushed so much, but perhaps it was too much. It just felt like we were talking to a brick wall sometimes. Unfortunately he doesn't appear to appreciate my welcome or requests any more, but would appreciate if you could talk to him instead, or make a final comment on the discussion. If you read it through (only if you have a fair bit of time!), I would hope you agree with the points we were making - but any feedback is appreciated. Ta, Kirkburn talk contr 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed. How mistaken I was to assume that if I left for a few hours, things would sort out! As I said, Parqual is technically correct in that there's no confirmation, but the application of lore tells us who they are. An example: you don't know definitively in an Egyptian relief if the woman is Isis, but the throne heiroglyph confirms it. Similar in this case, about 97%. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He made some of hte same assumptions for pictures he was using for evidence, that he accused os of using on that picture... One he assumed was mal from an unmarked "christmas" picture actually looks more like a "Druid of hte Talon" art wise, and model wise. The Mal from the cutscene of WC3 looks more like the Mal from Shadows & Light. Even the ingame model of Mal has a larger rack, closer to the S&L in length. I had ot go back to WC3 to check this out though. Trying to take a screenshot, if I can to show you all.Baggins 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

His antlers are goat-type horns (one structure) in WC3 and and deer-type (a rack with multiple points) in other art. I find moose-type silly, but not surprising.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Check the final cutcene again. They stick out straight left to right about 2.5 to 3 feet across(more deer/moose like) more like the artwork on S&L instead of pointing "straight up" like a pronghorn (like the talon druids). As for the ingame model few goats have horns like that (I.E stick out from the sides from left to right), not any I've seen at least, I think its more an issue of low-poly detail.Baggins 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I mean. Their "real" shape appears to be similar to a stag (the cutscene corroborates), so I'm not clear on where the moose-shape came from. But that is neither here nor there- the image of the picture has been settled. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


and pop goes the weasel, cheers for the swift action  - CJ talk / cont  13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have seen me during the draenei crisis. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, do i even want to know how bad that was ?  - CJ talk / cont  13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Reveiw some of the more heated controversy discussions related to Blood elf, draenei and naaru. Now multiply the participants by three, throw in some newbs, some people who can't write english, and recall that we only knew about a tenth of what we know now. Oh, and there was also the Sargeras retcon that we had to worry about at the same time. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I was a newb at the time ... but I at least was on Ragestorm's "side" :P Kirkburn talk contr 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, they gave me the chance to do some detective work! There was this one flag that people kept trying to pin on the blood elves, but it turns out that it was a frankenstein of a blood elf spell breaker art and the human alliance flag. Pzychotix 09:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do I feel this way? Was I among these noobs you're talking about. Or was it among the SWE-ignorants? =)--K ) (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You're not one of the newbs we're talking about; you were here before I was. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Laments of the Highborne

As you no doubt will soon notice, I have updated the talk page with a lot of information I uncovered as I was reading on the site (recalling an article I had read a few weeks ago in a magazine). I did not publish this on the actual page, you can probably edit it a lot better than I could, esp. at 3-4am in the morning. I would appreciate you look at it, if you have not, as it explains a great many things and if you wish, for the lore keeping, grab a copy of June 2007 Games for Windows (WoW all over the front, big purple draenei) Arideni 06:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ragestorm, if you follow the link to the music4games article, it says that "Sylvanas herself died defending Quel’Thalas from the Scourge, and in dying, she failed to protect her people. Today she grieves at this failure still, if we are to believe her claims; even in undeath she is trying to aid the blood elves." I do believe that this is a notable point that should be included on the wiki, whether it be on the Lament page or on the Sylvanas page itself. It brings a bit of depth to a character that seems quite cold. I'm just not particularly sure of where this should be put. Pzychotix 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm... find someplace appropriate on her bio (just not the header or intro). I don't think it works on the lament page; not since Apollozeus nixed the whole quote idea, anyway. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


When I went to the Naaru talk page and saw the sentance that read "As Hordesupporter feared, this discussion was closed by a admin out of disgust", you know I can ONLY stare at that statement and ROFL. Hordesupporter 00:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

<shurg> Given that that's exactly what happened, I figured I wouldn't mince words. Remove the statement if you are so inclined. Otherwise let the acerbic British wit ooze. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Naw... i'll let it stay. Hordesupporter 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sign their posts please.

No disrespect, but use Template:Unsigned in the stead of asking them to sir. It may breed lazyness in the newer members, but it will make things easyer to read and I do not want to do it myself.--SWM2448 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Malfurion picture

Hello Ragestorm,

I found some faults in the picture of Malfurion Stormrage under the Lore heading. I have summed up the details that make the picture invalid on the Talk page including some citations. I didn't edit the article yet and will leave that up to you guys.

  Montronax  ( talk · contribs ) 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i need a redirect

Recentlyu whenever i attempetd to edit with scorpx2 I recieved a mesage "could not process your edit due to a lack of session information please try agaain or logout/in to correct" welll i triedboth and couldent edit and I get a 504 when i attemted to use the IRC on this new guy (only meant as a help request) Scorpx3 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)scorpx3

You'll have to contact a more technocratic admin- I'm only qualified for Lore, mediation and editorializing. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I relize but you are one of the few i know could you please direct me to said "more technocratic admin." that i need to spaek to?

Try Varghedin or Adys. If they can't help , try Kirkburn. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

K tyScorpx3 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)scorpx3

I've had the problem to, and it goes beyond admins. You'll have to contact the Sysops.Baggins 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Err... Baggins, we ARE sysops. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
He means "the bureaucrats". >.> --User:Sky2042/Sig 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
...or System Admin, above the beuracrats, WoWWiki:Administrators.Baggins 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Sysadmins are bureaucrats in this case. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ok now I am REALY confused PS can u link me the picture imbeder page again I forgot it i will try and find it myself tooScorpx3 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)scorpx3


Please, do not move my quotes on talk pages. Either we use thread flow in talking, as indicated by idents, where every idented block follows either block that it replies to or previous answer on same level of ident or we don't use this at all and revert to completely flat discussion with each new block added without ident to end. You move made my answer appear idented under your block that is irrelevant to mine and I fail to see how that edit brings any more clarity to discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rowaar13 (talkcontr).

All new comments, regardless of what they are precisely in response to, go at the bottom of the section. This is WoWWiki Talk page policy. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We use a flat discussion type here. The only reason why we use indents is improve readability, as we lack the features of a regular forum (i.e. separation/big honking indicators that a post has ended. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


"How do we know common was even invented 10,000 years ago? And if the kaldorei didn't want to call the tauren when they were all about to die, why would they name the planet after the Azotha."

First off the term was first used by Humans as far as publishing history goes. Azeroth was the name of the Human southern kingdom before it was ever said to be the name of the world, or the continent. This would imply a human connection.

But even stranger common and variations of common were known by other races not even native to Azeroth. So far officially ogres speak Low Common as their native language. When common is referred to as a "universal" language it is in the literal sense known by creatures all over the universe.

Common or at least Low Common is strangly enough is one of the automatic languages known by most races in the RPG along with their native language (that's not saying that all members of the race know the language, just that it is commonly known by the races). The knowledge is well known enough to be called one of the primary languages for nearly all the races, as opposed to being a secondary language for those races.

Additionally in War of the Ancients we have all the characters capable of communicating with each other with no problems. Now this isn't such an issue with Krasus and Rhonin both who have knowledge of the Darnassian tongue according to the RPG. However, Broxigar it is less likely that broxigar would have have knowledge of the Darnassian tongue (according to the RPG Darnassian is actually very uncommon knowledge for orcs, not even a secondary language, and it states, that "orcs only tend to learn the languages of their allies")?

Additionally in Warcraft III the night elves already knew common before they even encountered any of the "new races", they could speak to anyone. Let me point out that Tyrande and Malfurion both knew Common and that Thrall and Grom do not know "Darnassian" according to the rpg (In WC3, when grom first heard Darnassian being spoken among the trees he didn't have a clue what they were saying). Since night elves could speak common, and they had never had meaningful previous encounters with humans (with exception of Rhonin), where else would they have learned common (unless it was an old language to begin with)? I suppose they could have learned it from the krasus and rhonin if there was enough time... but was there? ...and still it begs the question of why its one of the primary languages to most races.

Although it is possible that Azeroth could be one of those words like "Lordaeron", which human people adopted into their own language, when the high elves allied with Arathor. But I think evidence backs up that it was probably common term, or something much older Titan or Old God perhaps.

I'll get back to you once if find the other references to the world being called Azeroth in early years, or other "Common" related information.Baggins 17:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Further information, Archeras the Custodian who is at least 100,000 years old, primarily speaks Titan, but is apparently programmed by the Titans with all the known major languages, including Common. Come to think of it wasn't Archaedas of Ulduman, also programmed with all known languages, and could give a copy of the discs in the language of the race could read?Baggins 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I discovered according to LoC, Azeroth is a human word derived from the term Azotha.Baggins 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Continuity error, then. --01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bookkeepers' favorite character

I'm sorry I disagree slightly with you on this point: in what way is a bookkeeper-to-be's favorite character our business? I know this is a noob-shield, but I got a bit suprised when I read the new rule. Anyway I will follow your guideline.--K ) (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This new rule has two goals: 1) to discourage. and 2) to be sarcastic. Clearly, I need a better way of conveying 2). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Use one of our wonderful ranges of smilies Smiley Kirkburn talk contr 12:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, I guess. I just hope this isn't bringing us a "smug" and despising reputation towards newbies.--K ) (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, they'll do their research and find that how I talk under normal cirsumstances. Upon reflection, perhaps I should just restrict editing to that page. Once I get around to finishing that team overhaul (which I've been working on for more than a year now), things should be better. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Naaru Gender

I don't think that the fact that "he" is used in-game makes these naaru male. It's a pronoun used more for accessibility than anything else. However the naaru are energy entities with no actual gender. They have no genitalia, no voices, no faces. They lack anything by which we can ascertain gender. The characters in-game are speaking for familiarity. Referring to a living creature as "it" can be demeaning. But nothing about A'dal is male. Parqual Fintalas 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What specifically is this in response to?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is possibly a response to a change you made a while ago. The naaru were listed in their boilerplates as "male" and I changed them to not applicable and neutered the appropriate pronouns in the article. You reverted a number of these changes back to "male (presumed)" but I think we are in error to presume the naaru have genders at all. Parqual Fintalas 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
True, perhaps. What would you prefer for the infobox? "Unknown" or "None (presumed)"? Changing the pronouns from "he" to "it," however, it utterly useless as they use the male pronoun in-game and in lore sources. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in Rise of the Horde, which is really the only source to deal with the naaru in intimate detail, the "it" pronoun is used when referring to K'ure. My suggestion, which was the change I had originally made, is to write "Not Applicable" under the gender category. Parqual Fintalas 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My one problem with that is that it hasn't been confirmed. Similarly, the use of "it" as the pronoun for K'ure is somewhat inconclusive. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you mean? Parqual Fintalas 17:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to move this to my talk. Maybe you should go and reread those "qualifications" Rage (you seem to have discredited the first sentence with the second :P). I'm pretty sure owning the discs (and having played them) counts for pre-WoW lore. :P. And no, Stormrage is certainly not my favorite character; I lean more toward Medivh. :) --User:Sky2042/Sig 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Medivh is for nubs, Taretha is where it's at. Kirkburn talk contr 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The two of you will be the death of me. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, at least I chose someone few would choose (or know about) :) Kirkburn talk contr 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll grant you the former. The latter, though, is a laughable statement. pft. --User:Sky2042/Sig 23:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Here ya go, Sky2042. You have your answer. My favorite character is...
I actually spent four minutes on my keyboard before coming up to the fact that I love Arthas for the way he climbs up the stairway to the Frozen Throne. That's all. I hate everyone else. Maybe apart from Uther Lightbringer for he's the ultimate Warcraft III character.--K ) (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Weaksauce. Liking someone for how he walks up some stairs. What has this wiki come to?!?!?! --User:Sky2042/Sig 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, this has nothing to do with the wiki, and in fact it shouldn't even be related to it. This is my personal liking, and it may appear "weaksauce" to a geek, but in fact it's a truly realistic reason to like a character (just learnt to pronounce that word properly with my Aussie cousin, CHA-racter). What this wiki has become? Nothing alarming since I arrived and became a bookkeeper, I guess. Should I welcome you here? You don't seem to know us very much. ROFLMAO.--K ) (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I think... that you should double check to see how well I do or don't know you. ;). The middle link inside the parentheses in my sig should help, or you could come chat on IRC with us :D. Besides, it was meant as a joke. A funny. I honestly don't care which your favorite is or for whatever reason. --User:Sky2042/Sig 06:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bookkeepers idea

Seeing the number of applicants, perhaps it's a good idea to create some kind of 'secondary' list page, for those that don't warrant a title, but is an acknowledgement of their commitment to lore? Kirkburn talk contr 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are accepted or rejected applications anyway, so it'll can be a simple archive. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, you may have noticed I basically finished off the team stuff. Thought you might like a heads-up :) Kirkburn talk contr 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

<grumble> I'll try to have my team's overhaul proposal on your desk by next week. I'm on triple shift this week, so time is contstrained. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries, there's no rush :) Kirkburn talk contr 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And the answer will finally be... No rehash because of the new info about WotLK! Haha. I'm by your side, I swear, not making fun of the situation at all.--K ) (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
<shrug> Right now, my only concern is avoiding a repeat of the draenei crisis. Since I can now ban and protect, that won't be too much of a problem. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite, cite, cite!

Good news :) Check out WoWWiki talk:Village pump#Cite extension now active.21 Kirkburn talk contr 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an anthropologist, so I have very little idea of what this actually means to someone skilled in programming or whatever subfield this is <bemoans ignorance>. I gather it's something that that will streamline citations? --12:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You can see it in action here - Kirkburn talk contr 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it adds footnote citations! Muy excellente... --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


In one of the panels they just did on the stream Blizzard commented on the capital city of Northrend being Dalaran. The story behind it given was that the Blue Dragonflight now has gone mostly mad and is basically waging a war against users of magic. So in turn the wizards of the Kirin'tor have brought Dalaran as a floating city to a central location above Northrend. Proof wise not much I can give unless you saw the stream or if the video is put up somewhere. Unfortunate that Giga doesn't allow you to search the video feed. Leviathon 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot comfirms this and you can get to it by flying mount.--SWM2448 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that's a nice twist. Don't bother keeping things quiet, but please refrain from editing anything until you can produce a corporeal patronus- I mean, a reliable citation. Not that Gamespot isn't a reliable source, but I'm wary of any updates that trickle in over the course of the event. In short, file it away until Tuesday.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


From the trailer - I spotted a forumpost suggesting this would be a Magnataur. Thoughts? Image:Wendigo-wotlk.jpg --Adys 12:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, I guess. Looks a bit more like a gigantic, mutated Sasquatch to my eyes, though. I know I've seen this exact design before, but I just can't place it...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Based on the exposed spine and stiches it may be like Gluth and have parts from all your ideas. :P--SWM2448 01:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In Art of Warcraft. Labelled as a wendigo. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But they walk upright, it was on all fours. Do you really think it is a normal Wendego?--SWM2448 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I got a shot of its back. it had spines of bone but 1 forgot how to upload pictures so i cant put it up myself if anyone would take the time to pause it there you could upload it instead.Scorpx3 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Race names

Woops, sorry. Missed that part. Sorry for the trouble caused. :x Soulshift 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Soulshift

Future reference: new comments at the bottom. No worries, no harm done. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lore Research Request

In my contribution to the WotLK talk page, I mentioned that I wasn't sure if the Forsaken had death knights or not. Given that my only exposure to Warcraft lore is from WoW and WC3, I bow to your superiority of knowledge in this area. So: do the Forsaken have death knights? Or is that a Scourge exclusive?--Weisskrieg 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hitherto (depending on the nature of the class), I believe that Death Knights were exclusive to the Scourge- the key point was that they were paladins who now served the Lich King. Prior to that, a different brand served the Horde. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


What? It's a talk page, plus it might explain the whole bucket thing to people who are not familiar with it. It's not any more serious than the posting of that "bucket item". ~ Nathanyel 13:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that if he posted fake material in an article again, he would be banned. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. The indentation implied you were responding to me :B ~ 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Qvestion: Any tips on where to place my Role Playing tips?

Hi, it's me the dume newbe that tryed to post tips where they don't belong. I understand why you did what you did. And Im sorry for posting my tips there. However I was wondering where may I post them? Just so I don't make the same misstake agen.

--Burgrsch 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not my department, so I'm not much use (I'm in charge of lore). You might examine the class navigation panel (on each class page) to see if any of those links are good. Or you might want to start a new page. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Check out the links at Role_Playing. One of those at the bottom can probably help you. --User:Sky2042/Sig 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The newplauge discusion broke

well 4 me at least i caant access the disscusion tab and wheb trying to get to the IRC chanlle i wasted my copy paste memory of what i said /cry who can help me please tell me if u know anyone ....there goes my nchance at aproval to update the real thing (i forgot to sign it)Scorpx3 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr... What? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I since did {{unsigned}} on the comment I think he was talking about, but ... I was also very confused. Kirkburn talk contr 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Chamber of the Aspects

Hello Ragestorm, I am Lexanos. I was curious to know if you might look into what I put up in the Chamber of the Aspects lore page, It is from several sources but I would like an expert to tell me. I am a specialist on Dragons (Mostly the Blue Dragons) and I do not like being misslead about them. ((And on a side not you may want to check your user page, you spelled Alexstrasza wrong, not meaning to attack you or anything, im just letting you know mate))

Thanks -Lexanos 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from an outsider: link to the leak? That would be pretty much all you need to make that pretty. --User:Sky2042/Sig 03:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite nice. Yeah, link to the insider source. Also, articles like this should be written from an in-universe perspective, and there is information from the first book of the trilogy that should be included. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Figured i'd come to you with this question. what exactly is the policy on spoilers? by that i mean when can pages be updated to reflect information from new sources. I would assume right away but i've seen cases in the past where bookkeepers have recommended a few weeks. Also what about discussion on talk pages? I'm refering of course to the Tide of Darkness novel.Warthok 09:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a specific policy- the convention I like to follow is heavily tagged spoilers. With novels, I like to wait a few weeks to put major plot information up, just to give people a chance to buy and read the book- of course, after the novel's release, these aren't spoilers, it's a plot summary. Talk pages are usually a different matter, but keep using the spoiler tags there. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hellscream kills Mannoroth. Kirkburn talk contr 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Does this occur on page 606? --Flyspeck 23:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, that's when Magatha kills Thrall. Kirkburn talk contr 00:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
After he's gone insane and Magtha turns out to be good Sargeras Warthok 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 :O Kirkburn talk contr 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WHAT?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
aww, I was hoping for a happy ending for Jaina and Thrall... IconSmall Druidŋɑϑ 09:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Eugh Nathanyel, beastiality *shrugs*--K ) (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Errr... I think you'll find that it isn't beastialism, Kirochi, given that Thrall isn;t an animal. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That was humour (thought you'd get it).--K ) (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maiev's Death in The Frozen Throne

Well it appears it was more of a retcon to Warcraft III, than the RPG alone. I went back and played TFT, in the mission, The Search for Illidan, the first mission objective is to slay her and rest of the guardians of Illidan's cage, to recapture it. You can't complete the mission objective unless you kill her. Granted later she's resurrected several times from an Altar of Eldars to harass you through the rest of the mission. But the story definitely had her killed. So that's where the RPG got its information. All that hoohaw we had over it back then, where people were trying to use it as an excuse for why RPG should be ignored, were apparently either choosing to knowingly overlook what was stated in the mission, or simply didn't know or didn't remember that aspect of Warcraft III's expansion. Actually I've discovered for many of the things people try to use against the RPG, tends to be material that originally came from obscure references in other sources, like, Warcraft I-III, the manuals, the novels, even some WoW missions (Horde only and Alliance only missions), etc. Really if that material originated from something earlier than the RPG, or from another soruce, the RPG really can't be blaimed can it?-Baggins 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When did I blame the RPG? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not you, I was talking about others.Baggins 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Blizzard doesn't have to follow every tidbit from the rpg or even the games. Maiev effetively died with Illidan at the end of the Burning crusade. Zarnks 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Partially true. Its true that Blizzard obviously doesn't have to follow their own history given for stuff in previous sources, including in WoW itself. For example they took their right to change the eredar and draenei stories as much as they did (even if the same information appeared in WoW in an in-game book previously). They have a right to ignore themselves and retell things, found in any and every source (it has nothing to do with the fact if a source is a video game, an mmo, an rpg, a novel, a manga, a comic, manual or any form of media).
On the other hand Blizzard follows alot of tidbits from the novels, comics, manga, rpg, games, manuals or any form of media for that matter. Quite a few places in initial WoW first appeared in the early RPG books, is one example. Obviously a good portion of the upcoming expansion, Wrath of the Lich King is derived from material that first appeared in Lands of Mystery, as an example. The Burning Crusade first appeared in Shadows & Light several years before we even knew of the expansion as another example. References to Wrath of the Lich king, and Sylvanas journey's to Northrend, actually appear in Horde Player's Guide long before we knew bout that expansion as well. Even earlier examples include the Warcraft archive novels. Many things like dragon aspects, night elves, naga, Aerie Peaks, wendigo, and other things first appeared in those books before Warcraft III was released.
Infact Blizzard has had a history of ignoring a few facts and remembering others each time they released a new product. If we just take the games; Warcraft II forgets a few details from Warcraft I, Warcraft III forgets a few details from Warcraft I and II (and its expansion). Its been known for a while that WoW forgot many details from Warcraft III (its expansion), warcraft II (its expansion), and warcraft I. Burning Crusade forgot a few details from the original World of Warcraft, Warcraft III (its expansion), Warcraft II (its expansion), and probably even Warcraft I. I'm sure that Wrath will forget details from The Burning Crusade, World of Warcraft, Warcraft III (expasansion), and so on and so and so forth. Its inevetible and bound to happen yet again.
Most of the old timers already know this, its old news. Most of us don't care about it much.Baggins 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not thats exactly a bad thing as it was more fun to meet Maiev then to hear she died. It would've been cool if she was a raid boss. She never had a good heart. Zarnks 07:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes they may be good changes, other times it annoys people. Me personally I don't care either way...Baggins 07:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was little annoyed by the draenei retcon but I am okay with the ered draenei. I just think it would've been better if they were a seperate race and the force that showed them evil was a Nathrazim. Zarnks 07:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely Blizz should have done a better work with Maiev. Considering the dialogue about her between Malfurion and Tyrande in TFT and the last world of Maiev in BC her end should be simpler and cooler that now: Malfurion says in the ending cinematic of the sentinel campaign of TFT somethink like: "She has become vengeance herself." And after the battle with Illidan in the Black Temple (after she had her vengeance) she says: "He is right. I feel nothing. I am...nothing." At this point she disappears but I think that if her armor cracks releasing some sort of spirit (the Avatar of Vengeance) everybody should say: "COOL!" N'Nanz 07:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Class lore

I discussed with several admins including Adys, and Kirkburn in the irc channel about the posibility of switching class lore pages into the primary page, and moving tactics/instructions to the secondary pages. A similar action to how we treated lore characters by seperating tactics from the lore. There would of course be inpage citation so people know click on a link in order to get to the game mechanics page. I'm curious about your opinion?Baggins 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter lore. That's my opinion. Remember, this is a website with the focus on WoW. With lore on the nastys, that's because the lore for them came before WoW; not always the same with the RPG. /squeaky wheels. --User:Sky2042/Sig 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well actually enchanter lore material could be merged into "enchanter", which isn't being used for anything but a redirect, and then a internal link to enchanting could be given from within enchanter. Engineer is also only being used for a [Redirect] when it could be used for the lore page with an internal link to Engineering. Alchemist and Incriber are probably only being used for redirects as well when they could be merged to their respective pages and contain in-page citations.
Also generally for the articles that share the same names as the professions, the lore info is small enough they could be used as an introduction to the entire page. For example if Engineering was made to redirect into "Engineer" you'd have a lore introduction to the history behind Engineers, and then how to be an Engineer in WoW.Baggins 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've used mage as an example how to merge Mage lore into Mage without combining too much of the previous pages information. You'll find that some of the info went into Mage races, and Focused mage. I added link to those at the bottom of Mage. Don't worry if you don't like this in any way, we can just revert it back to how it was. If you like the previous idea of making lore page primary and gameplay secondary, we could do that too.Baggins 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think classes are a slightly different situation than characters, but if this method of presenting the lore (and the gameplay) is preferred, I'm all for it. My one concern is now the number of mage-related pages, as it's clear this is more than simply a switch. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful about pushing WoW-related info down too much. As great as it is to have lots of background information, the class tactics sections are a very important part of the wiki - I think most people will come more for how to play, than for the history of their class, unlike character articles. Kirkburn talk contr 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I said they're a different situation from characters. In this case, I'm assuming my "I won't go against consensus" stance, but I'm leaning more towards the idea of keeping the WoW-class material prominent. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
/more squeaky wheels. This isn't consensus. This is Baggins, for once (no, I'm not Zarnks, much as you might be wondering it right now.) I'm still not sure how I agree with how it is now. --User:Sky2042/Sig 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sky, it was an admin discussion, including Adys and Kirkburn that I discussed it with, and we thought it might be a good idea then, but the idea is to find out what others think (yes, you count as a single other, sky). I've showed Adys this alternative, last night and he liked the idea as well. However, I'm not going to go about changing all the pages until I found out from other admins what they thought. I will certainly return mage page back to how it was if they disagree, or if there is a huge hoohaw from wowwikians. Mage stuff is only to test the waters right now, and see what others think.Baggins 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Admins are no more important than normal editors, save for the fact they help settle disputes (as mediators, which anyone can do) as well as delete and block. You betcha I'm being a squeaky wheel, but it would seem Ragestorm holds the same convictions as I. And Kirkburn, actually, even though you said he agreed with you on IRC (perhaps it was tentative agreement on IRC?). I'll go along with whatever decision, but I am also allowed to be a squeaky wheel. --User:Sky2042/Sig 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The point is if the admins and especially bookkeepers (whose job is to keep track of the lore side of things) like it, then there is a good chance there will be other people out there that like the idea. The idea is to find out what others think. Get their opinions, and if majority doesn't like it it can return the way it was, its got to be diplomatic.Baggins 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps this should have been posted at WoWWiki talk:Village pump, rather than on Rage's talk page. ;) --User:Sky2042/Sig 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be, the first step was to get Ragestorm's opinion I didn't want to go over his head. Going to the Village pump would be going over his head, since it involves changing wowwiki policies, and he may not like the idea. After I got his opinion the Village pump is next. However I'll probably only have time to do that sometime next week. I have studies to do right now.Baggins 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... I have to admit, I'm reluctant to sign off on this. I understand where this is coming from, and I do think it fits better to have Mage reflect lore, but I think the current class page organization is rather efficient, and disseminates information in the appropriate way. While we do operate more as a general Warcraft wiki in terms of lore, we are still the World of Warcraft wiki, and most people are coming here for that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Also I think there are limits to how much lore we should put on a page. The example on the Mage page shows what I think is probably give or take the maximum allowed, so that it doesn't burden the rest of the article. Luckily when it comes to playable classes there usually are very limited amounts of lore. The RPG had to put more work towards creating lore from scratch for its new classes it invented, to give them context for their existence. BTW, the World of Warcraft strategy guide follows this current format btw, with a lore heading, and background for the class, and then followed by the mechanics.
BTW, we can probably reduce it down further by making a brief reference to Dalaran, the dalaran section really isn't needed. Baggins 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wowbox captions

I've added "caption=" to the various lore/wowbox infoboxes - race, faction and character - allowing a caption to be added to the images (seeing as they can't be described otherwise), whilst also giving them a bit of a spruce up. Kirkburn talk contr 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is great.--K ) (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's good that all the lore people watch this page too ;) Kirkburn talk contr 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And others (...), as well. --User:Sky2042/Sig 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
'Lore people'? *blushes* *flattered*--K ) (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Knaak verifying process of writing as well as Night

Have a watch with this video, if you can DL it: BlizzPlanet: Wow: Night of the Dragon - Richard A. Knaak Video Interview. (also posted on Rage's page) --User:Sky2042/Sig 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, be careful, it uncovers so much that you may fall off your chair.--K ) (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Added the stuff about Night of the Dragon. --User:Sky2042/Sig 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's essentially the same process claimed in previous interviews with novel authors and Metzen, and with other authors in the RPG as well.Baggins 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Icon-information-22x22As per the recent race names vote at WoWWiki talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "draenei" and not "Draenei"

All racenames are lowercase unless part of a title or the beginning of a sentence.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have syndicated this to your talk page for ease of reference. As a post-graduate double law student and beta-origin Wikipedia administrator I find it amazingly disturbing that we're categorising races as species rather than races. Just as someone who is African deserves a capital as much as someone of Germanic origin, taking grammar into the fantasy realm doesn't differentuate the appropriate means of using capitals.
I noted that the vote was 6:2 and the main reason was as cited, 'for ease of typing'. That's beyond a pathetic reasoning for using incorrect capitalisation, and citing Blizzards use of poor English is no grounds either. It's not hard to use proper English, however if Wowwiki's editors choose to opt out of such normalities, so be it. I have also syndicated this to the policy page as a show of irritation at the mass stupid being illustrated on the subject.  :) Alexandar 20:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Continue on WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing‎. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Baggins reverts of my edits

Could you please ask Baggins not to revert my edits like this - he just reverted all my edits in the Alliance of Lordaeron article without any sort of reason. Just because he has some "power" he does not have the right to act like almighty God. --Theron the Just 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warning can be found in User Talk:Theron the Just. We do not tolerate removal of cited information, no matter how much you might disagree with it. To explain it in better way you can't just revert other peoples edits, that is not your decision, which includes removal of information.Baggins 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And as a contributor I cannot tolerate your "I know what is best" behaviour. The fact that the information has source is not give you right to revert without any sort of reason since all information is not relevant to the article just because you think so. This has nothing to do with "vandalism", you use your "almighty powers" to push your PoV forward is deciding what information must be relevant to the article just because it comes from written Warcraft universe text. The fact stands that this line "# Daval Prestor, Joined the Alliance during the middle of the war, leader of a small kingdom in the north (or so he claimed).DotD #? " is invalided by the fact that there was no such nation. Also, Nortshire is not an independent nation and listing all the territories inhabited by Wildhammer is pointless. And how exactly is the "Gnomeregan, represented by the dwarvesAPG 161..." line relevant to member nations? Not all of the information was even sourced and that doesn't make it anymore relevant. You do NOT have the power to decide such because the information comes from written Warcraft universe text. Irrelevant information can be deleted by any user and all contributors are equal. --Theron the Just 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"I know what is best" behaviour."

Let's see the only one who is acting like "I know what is best" is you. Do not be a hypocrite, and do not accuse others of being somethign if you can't see your own faults first. You have no right to revert information that others had incorporated into the article to flesh out destails. That is not your right. You do not have the right to push your "PoV" forward and decide what information must be releveant to the article just because you think you have a better idea what comes from written Warcraft text. BTW, the northern nation may or may not be real, leaders believed it was real enough, obviously there is land in the north that they have not explored. He was considered a member of the Alliance, so the info has relevance. Just because you interpret things differently does not mean your interpreation is the end all or be all source of information. Tides of Darkness is very specific that Northshire was a major member faction through the Church of the Light. "Members" doesn't mean "member nations" only but important "Members" and leaders of the Alliance.Baggins 10:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"and do not accuse others of being somethign if you can't see your own faults first" Double standarts. You do not have the right to remove information like the plain way you did. "You have no right to revert information that others had incorporated into the article to flesh out destails." There is no such policy which would deny me the right to edit a page especially as you do not decide what information is relevant - neither do I, which is why I was hoping for start of a discussion over this, not plain reverts like you did (twice). "You do not have the right to push your "PoV" forward and decide what information must be releveant to the article just because you think you have a better idea what comes from written Warcraft text." I have not done so, I do not edit things with summary "this is right" or revert plainly with no summary at all. "BTW, the northern nation may or may not be real" Speculation. "He was considered a member of the Alliance, so the info has relevance." The nation still doesn't exist and Prestor was without it as power base until proven otherwise. "Just because you interpret things differently does not mean your interpreation is the end all or be all source of information." Again, double standarts. "Tides of Darkness is very specific that Northshire was a major member faction through the Church of the Light." No, the Tides of Darkness says that Alonsus Faol and his church were supporters of the Alliance - his allegience was still with Kingdom of Azeroth and he and he was part of the Kingdom of Azeroth. "Members" doesn't mean "member nations" Listing group XX within nation XX as member of the Alliance in the manner you have currently done is a weak argument. Waffen-SS was a major supporter of Axis powers war effort in World War II, yet the group (which had nearly one million soldiers) is not listed as an seperate Axis power. --Theron the Just 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Theron you were the first and only person to remove information, I only added the information back in (adding is not removal, and I kept any edits you made that either fixed grammar or improved wording), and backed it up. You were broke a violation by removing that information first. There is no arguement here. If you continue to want to persue this path, you have been warned. Everything you are accusing me of doing you have done first. I just have to fix problems you started. That is the job of both a book keeper and an admin.
Btw, Alliance Player's Guide has the Church of Light and Knights of the Silver Hand as major members of the Alliance as well, that has been cited as well. They are considered "Heart of the Alliance". The books also consider Daval Prestor to be one of the main members as well. Note that that article is discusing mainly the councils of Lordaeron, that formed the Alliance of Lordaeron. I'll be writing an adding an on the "History of the Alliance" in the upcoming weeks to mirror the History of the Horde article. Lore is the sum of all sources, not individual parts.
Just because Warcraft II only listed a few doesn't mean its the only source we go by. We go by all the official sources, and what they say (we do not favor one source over another, and we try to be as complete as possible). On a related note, in Tides of Darkness, Hinterlands was the major kingdom to which Kurdran was the Chief Thane, not Aerie Peaks. Rather than the other way around as you were trying to put it. Also Tides of Darkness also establishes that the Nation of Stormwind exists at the time as well. Those are all important information to mention.Baggins 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Btw, Alliance Player's Guide has the Church of Light and Knights of the Silver Hand as major members of the Alliance as well" As Waffen-SS is considered a major faction member in the Axis powers, yet it is not listed as an Axis power - faction within nation. The faction XX within nation XX is not a valid reason to list a faction as seperate. This is called factuality. Nortshire was not an independent member of the Alliance, and Daval Prestor, even if he was considered to be part of the Alliance he should not be listed in the manner - there is no evidence to support that his "nation" ever existed. I have nothing agains't the inclusion of Wildhammer dwarves in the list, but Wildhammers have one leader and thefore listing all territories inhabited by Wildhammers is somewhat pointless, since the clan was part of the Alliance. --Theron the Just 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yay exaggerated comparisons to Nazis... Godwin's law has just gone into effect... Why is it that law must always become true... You have proven it yet again... Main reason to include links to other territories is because they have related information relating to the Dwarves involvement and history in the war. Its called hyperlinking...Baggins 10:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "nazis" (not all of the Axis powers members were "nazis", anyhow). The point is that they should not be listed in the manner they are now. They can be written elsewhere in the article, I have nothing agains't that. --Theron the Just 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is you had to draw this out reference something related to WW2 that is known as [Godwin's Law]. It seems most discussions always disentegrate and follow that pattern given time... So it comes down to you saying you odn't like where the info is located. Seems to be that's just your opinion and personal "aesthetic". Aesthetics and opinions are not a good reason to remove information, if the information is connected. Which in this case it is.
Anyways I must bid you adieu, its getting late, and I'm off to bed.Baggins 11:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even participants in this particular alliance (and certain real life alliance) they are not independent and should not be listed among nations (and when it comes to this particular real life alliance it is so). "The point is that they should not be listed in the manner they are now. They can be written elsewhere in the article, I have nothing agains't that" Meaning that sections should be made for them elsewhere in the article, and not listed among nations to begin with. "if the information is connected. Which in this case it is." Yes, the information ect Nortshire-Azeroth is connected, but Nortshire is not an nation and should be treated as such, major non-nation participant of this particular alliance. --Theron the Just 11:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is "members" not "nations". Its about those said to be major members. If you haven't noticed the "nations" section is right below it.Baggins 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"The section is "members" not "nations". Its about those said to be major members." The nations are still listed here (and were from the beginning) "If you haven't noticed the "nations" section is right below it" I do not consider that as the list, but as a short description of the nations. I listed the "major factions" along the Silver Hand area of the article. The first list should be that of the nations, and the factions be noted at the end, in the way I have currently suggested and done. --Theron the Just --Theron the Just 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we have certainly reached an agreement with Baggins. I apologize for my somewhat hostile tone, but, I wish that in the future you would provide an edit summary of sort to begin with in these kind of cases so we can handle issues like civilized people, as we eventually did. I do not mean to be cocky (this is not mean to insult you), I know I presented faults too, but I have this "bad feeling" when someone reverts like that without an summary. Regards, --Theron the Just 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that sleeping is not wise for those who must settle arguments. First of all, I must agree with Theron that Prestor's involvment is suspect in any case- he credibility doesn't mean that this northern kingdom should exist, in fact, I find it more likely that all of his credibility came from his charismatic magic. UNless my memory fails me (which it might), Prestor didn't even become a player until the Second War's aftermath. I'm not entirely clear as to Northshire's nature, so I can't really speak for it- as far as I know, it was just the name of the Abbey.
As for you two, this is getting ridiculous. I've been grated by Baggins's "all lore is viable" stance for a long time, and I've been checking Theron's claims since almost as long. Both of you have your contribution strengths and weaknesses. Honestly, the pair of you have a long-standing rivalry, for reasons completely unclear to me. I'll be blunt here: the both of you annoy me about equally, but you've both made beneficial contributions to the wiki, and I know neither of you would make a totally biased edit or an unfactual one. I honestly don't know how to help you resolve this- Theron's issue with what he percieves as Baggins's "knows best" attitude could be applied to a number of other users and admins, myself included.
So, I guess that the Prestor mention will be removed (Baggins, just because you have a citation doesn't mean it can go into the article), but the other cited mentions will remain (Theron, occasionally "we don't know" is allowed in the article). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Prestor didn't even become a player until the Second War's aftermath."

Ragestorm about prestor, yes actually he joined before he end of the second war, ahem;

"Deathwing, an ancient and powerful black dragon, assumes the form of Lord Prestor — a young human diplomat — and infiltrates the high council of the Alliance. Using subtle magic, the dragon ensnares the minds of the human leaders and forces them to grant him the title of king of Alterac. The Alliance pushes the weakened and disorganized Horde all the way back to the Black Morass, where the Dark Portal is located. Lord Anduin Lothar is slain during the Alliance’s final victory. The Dark Portal is shattered. The Second War ends."
"such as during the Second War when he pretended to be a heroic noble named Lord Prestor..."[1] (S&L 94)

Let it not be said I don't do my research before I put anything down :p... (at least I try to make sure I do research before hand). Yes, I know the first quote may have one detail out of order, at least by other official timelnes (I'd have to check). I don't think he got the title of King of Alterac until after events of the second war, but so is the problem with most official timelines we have (the order of events or the dates differ in each one). Unless LoC was interpreting Daval's kingship as flashbacks that happened before main events of DotD story (Rhonin/Krasus stuff), which may be the case as the timeline has it split that way.

BTW, my point was not if Daval's kingdom actually existed or not, but rather that he was one of the leaders of the Alliance as part of the Alliance high council. I never included his nation within the nation sections of the article only the member/leadership section.Baggins 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My videos (so as to keep you entertained)

Already told ya about them by e-mail. Here they are.--K ) (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, by the way, you're going to love me.--K ) (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, sorry to bother ypu, but could you maybe answer a question of mine on Blademaster talk page?

Cheers, Warchiefthrall 12:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chit Chat in User:Oscararon/Talk

hehe I just thought I should ask you about this, I know its a silyl question but... : Can I remove our little chit-chat in my talk page now? XD (oops sorry I know people doesnt like that smiley) --Oscararon 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

<shrug> You've learned your lesson, and your talk page is your domain. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to be a nuisance, but I was wondering if you could step in and end a dispute between me and Tjsid on my talk page. If he continues any longer, I think I'll throttle him with my extension cord. ---- Battlegroup RoundIconVorbis AvailablequesticonTalk ActivequesticonContribs

Thank you. ---- Battlegroup RoundIconVorbis AvailablequesticonTalk ActivequesticonContribs

No problem, I've been meaning to analyze your Wood elf theories anyway.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Analyse? Theories? If you're say that then I've got serious work to do. ^^ ---- Battlegroup RoundIconVorbis AvailablequesticonTalk ActivequesticonContribs

Just be thankful this is fanfic and not an actual lorepage. ;-P--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I never expected it to be quite so... controversial. :S ---- Battlegroup RoundIconVorbis AvailablequesticonTalk ActivequesticonContribs
Just be thankful nobody was really spouting Tolkien. That is something I do NOT take kindly to. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vrykul capitalization

Hey Ragestorm. I wasn't really sure where to take this question - was oscillating between yourself and Kirkburn - but I ended up deciding on you since I figured this has more to do with lore than wiki policy. So anyway, the question is, should "vrykul" be capitalized or not? I am seeing it both ways even on the eponymous article itself. I'm not sure if they are to be treated as a "subset" of the giant "species", which would indicate capitalization (as the Forsaken, a "subset" of the undead "species" is capitalized), or as their own unique species, which would not. I was going to clean up the article and associated ones (Utgarde Keep, etc.) but I'll hold off until I hear a verdict. Thanks! --Flyspeck 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized subsets would be factions and classes, they are a new race and not a new group of an old one.--SWM2448 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ogre mages are a subset/subrace of ogre, and its not capitalized. Strangly "Forsaken" is often spelled "forsaken" as well. "Kaldorei" and "kaldorei" are both common spellings. We usually go with the lower case though.

If you look hard enough you can find pretty much any race capitalized in sources. What am I getting at? This is a tricky subject. I'd suggest just making it lower case until we know more. On a related note vrykrul are "half-giants" not giants.Baggins 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I also saw from the link you put in Sandwichman's talk that Blizzard itself seems to be going with lower-case. Unfortunately I realized I have a project to do, so I won't be getting around to it tonight. --Flyspeck 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing? Or this guy just doesn't know?

Zakolj has been nuking the culture sections of every race's page without any explanation. Perhaps you could talk to him, but if he persists, I think a ban is in order. --- Zexx 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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