Again, welcome! --Warchiefthrall (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spell checking

Thanks for all the spell checking! Out of interest, how are you doing it, WoWWiki:List of common misspellings? Kirkburn  talk  contr 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was looking at things I could do to help. I saw that link and used it to do a lot of spellchecking. Sometimes I just run into pages that need spellchecking also. I am new here so I am still learning how to edit and look for things that need fixing. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New articles

Please follow the npc/mob guidelines for creating new pages of mobs. Thankyou, User:Coobra/Sig3 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I got confused between broken pages and wanted pages. I was just filling in information for those red links that allready existed on Special:Wantedpages. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spell check

There's not really any need to spell check things said on talk pages.--User:Gourra/Sig2 10:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I went spell check crazy. LOL Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Just so you know, {{User:Laurlybot/Donpc}} is not the same thing as {{Stub/NPC}}. What you are doing is setting the page to be replaced by a bot, thus destroying your work. Whereas {t|{Stub/NPC}} requests that the page be worked on.

Basically you use the {{User:Laurlybot/Donpc}} on blank pages, and use {{Stub/NPC}} on pages that already have content. User:Coobra/Sig3 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. The bot part was allready there so I did not want to erase it, in case that is something you are not supposed to do. So I just added everything underneath it. I guess I am supposed to erase the bot part when I do pages that are in bot from? Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, if you start working on an NPC page, just turn the bot stub into an npc stub. User:Coobra/Sig3 03:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I am still a beginner at this it seems. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Dotd vs LotC

Rolandius a lot of your recent additions from Lord of the Clans are accidently cited as being from Dotd. Just thought you should know.Warthok Talk Contribs 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I must have mixed up my citations. I will correct them all. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As a note, you should sign what you say, by typing four tildes in a row "~~~~". --Sky (t · c · w) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I didn't think I had to sign it if it was on my own page. Okay I have fixed them now. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Rolandius, on your new pages on weapons and the sort from books you appear to be miss-citing them, i'd correct them for you

but i'm not sure what they are from, all i know is they are not from DotD, Happy editing --AngelofDeathandDarknessSig-T/C 03:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The weapons with the citations are ones I saw mentioned in Day of the Dragon about gladiators, but I had to get the description of those weapons from wikipedia. The weapons with no citation on them are ones that exist in the game, and I had to either get the description of those weapons from wowwiki or wikipedia. I am not sure if that helps? The weapons do exist though. Rolandius (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see I did mix up the citations between DotD and LotC. I will fix them all now. Rolandius (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was just commenting on the citations because on your page for the broadsword and one other item which I don't recall, i looked in the book in didn't find the word mentioned.--AngelofDeathandDarknessSig-T/C 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did miss-cite them like you saw. I am fixing them all up now. Rolandius (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, if you need any help let me know what to re-cite them to and I'll help you out!--AngelofDeathandDarknessSig-T/C 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I was able to do it quickly. By the way I have the Warcraft Archive book and not the individual books. I couldn't find the Warcraft Archive book in the citation book section of wowwiki. I left a note on the talk page about this problem but no one responded. Rolandius (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you could add it to the citations list. --AngelofDeathandDarknessSig-T/C 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought of that awhile ago but I cannot find an edit option on that page. I also have the book Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive and so I am citing from that book and not the individual books. Rolandius (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link to the page of the citations and there is an edit button. --AngelofDeathandDarknessSig-T/C 04:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Yes but it says something about do not edit on the top of the edit page. I thought only an official person could edit those or something. I am not sure I even know how to make up new book citations. Rolandius (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess your right, :P i didn't actualy click edit, you could ask an admin nicely though i bet and they'd make one or allow you too. Im pretty new to WoWWiki so i don't know myself though.--AngelofDeathandDarknessSig-T/C 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL That is why I wrote in the talk page so they could read it. I thought they would see my inquiry. Rolandius (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


It would be really great if you could use some categories in all these new pages you are creating.

See Category:Category requests, most if not all of those articles are yours. So if you could, please go through them and add them, please and thanks. User:Coobra/Sig3 03:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I was trying to enter all the pages in a row. Rolandius (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A note about Creatures category

Just a usage tip. The Creatures category is for types of creatures not just any creature that isn't obviously a mob (in-game enemy), NPC (interactive non-enemy), or what you might think is a lore character. I re-categorized a bunch of trolls you added as Lore Characters, since they are characters that appear in lore, even if they were mostly just fighting hill dwarves. I re-categorized some horses that way too. You could put the trolls in Humanoids and the horses in Beasts, but those categories are generally only used for WoW Icon 16x16 classification. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:18 PM PST 28 May 2008

Okay so if something is only in a novel just put Lore Characters. I will remember that. Rolandius (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


nice lore, even orcs in draenor speak it. dont delete speculations, we don´t really like it. If u like to delete, read rpg books first. have a nice day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M1330 (talkcontr).

I thought orcs spoke it only when they invaded Azeroth and came in contact with humans? I didn't delete any Common page speculation. I am pretty sure there is no "we" its more like "you". I like to read. It is night here. Rolandius (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
... ROFL... that coming from M1330, I'm sorry but after reading what M1330 had to say I burst out laughing considering what he does to articles. User:Coobra/Sig3 19:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL I was surprised too. I am pretty sure this week he has had the most entries reverted. Also he got mad at me for something I didn't even do, it was an admin I think that took out his entry. Rolandius (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually note quite

"The Kingdom of Gilneas is a human nation located at the tip of the southern peninsula—which is directly south of Silverpine Forest—on the continent of Lordaeron.[1] (DotD 5)"

Actually in modern times its the entire peninsula, not just the "tip". See Lands of Conflict, which was written several years after DAy of the Dragon. I'll let you correct it. But if you don't I may need to rollback.Baggins (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL That is what I get for reading books. Rolandius (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well its not just Lands of Conflict but in World of Warcraft MMO as well... As well as World of Warcraft RPG sourcebook, and Allianced Player's Guide, off the top of my head. It might have been the tip at one time, but things changed quite a bit between the end of Day of the Dragon and present times.Baggins (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess since the end of the Day of the Dragon he probably expanded his kingdom to include the whole peninsula since he eventually built that big wall up north. I thought that maybe the peninsula was also called Gilneas. In the World of Warcraft MMO you cannot even go see what is in there really. I am 100% sure at the time though it was only at the top of the peninsula. Rolandius (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

LotC references

Which version of the book do you have? Mine is in pocket version and got only 278 pages, while I see you references as far as page 348.--User:Gourra/Sig2 02:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have talked to some posters on here about that. I use the Warcraft Archive and Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive books for my citations. I went to the book citation page and they do not have those on there for some reason. I put a message on the talk page but no one replied to me. The edit page says do no edit so I am not sure what to do except what I have done now—put the title of the book and the page of my book. Rolandius (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you use Archives, don't put page number citations. Those are specifically for the single book versions. Instead leave the page number blank. The archive is its own beast altogether, and should have its own citation, WCA, or WotAA, or some such, but we haven't decided on it. Also you can check page numbers by looking up the same material on book search, or google books.Baggins (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay. I hope you make citations for them soon. I will leave them blank or something next time. I have dozens of entries with wrong citations I guess. Rolandius (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You could use the ref /ref, and {{reflist}} commands.Baggins (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I really know what all that means.LOL I clicked that link and it went to a blank page. Rolandius (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm changing LotC page numbers to "# in Archives" as I come across them, but they really should be corrected.
Using the reference tags is easy. After the pertinent passage, enclose citations/references in <ref></ref> (<ref>cite or reflink</ref>) and then put == References == and <references/> at the end of the page somewhere (before External links and categories). As far as I can tell, {{reflist}} just adds some fancier formatting to <references/>.--Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:47 PM PST 2 Jun 2008
What Baggins was probably meaning to mention was {{ref book}}. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay I will try to use the method Baggins suggested by using the book search. Rolandius (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: WoW question

It's used mainly on articles that uses lore only from World of Warcraft, that doesn't use lore from RPG or any other source. NPCs doesn't really count as lore in that regard.--User:Gourra/Sig2 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I see. Rolandius (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


I do want us to catch up with Wookieepedia, but Potato might be stretching it a bit. Can you restrict your new articles to things that have notable Warcraft lore? I don't see any Warcraft related info in potato, so I'm gonna mark it for deletion, if that's ok. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:39 PM PST 2 Jun 2008

LOL Yes you can do anything you want I guess. I just put it in there since they mentioned potatoes so much in the Warcraft books I read. Rolandius (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking all those insect pages you just made are in the same category as potato, with what Fandyllic was saying. User:Coobra/Sig3 03:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay if you think so. I am just putting what I read and am not making up these things. I saw wasp already in wowwiki so I thought insects were a good subject. Rolandius (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, wasp has a reason though, as they're in-game. But gnats, bees, and crickets... oh my. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Is there a list of names not to put in wowwiki? That way I know if I am putting in something that is mentioned in WoW, but not that important. Rolandius (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just use your best judgment. LOL. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay I will try. Rolandius (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Also try to avoid making pages for one word references, if there is little to no info on the subject. Avoid things that you have to define yourself, using real world definitions, rather than giving a Warcraft definition. One sentence articles should be avoided.Baggins (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay one word references with no info are not good. Rolandius (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LG references

Similar to above. Amazon shows [The Last Guardian] as having only 320 pages, but your references appear to be from the Archives also. I'm going to mark LG reference pages above 320 as "# in Archives" also as I see them. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:03 PM PST 2 Jun 2008

Is there a way to look at all my contributions beyond just the last 500? Rolandius (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Show Rolandius' last 2000 contributions. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:16 PM PST 3 Jun 2008
LOL I don't know how you did that but thanks. Rolandius (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Btw, an ex-paladin is a paladin that turns away from the paladin class, and takes on another class. Being killed doesn't make someone an ex-paladin. Ghosts, ghouls, and whatever do not count. A death knight would, as most death knights are alive, and directly gave up their paladin powers for darker abilities, an antithesis.Baggins (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL I read the page. It says if they turn away or are kicked out as in ex-communicated. I didn't say being killed makes you an ex-paladin or else there would be many, many more in that category. These ghost, ghouls, shades are still in the game so they aren't dead in the normal way. Also a death knight can be dead like Arthas. Rolandius (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Arthas is dead? Where does it say that? CogHammer Ose talk/3721 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Everywhere? He is not a normal human I can tell you that. Normal humans aren't Lich Kings and melded with other people. Rolandius (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
He's not quite "undead" yet, probably... I believe Dark Factions says he is "alive". He's just possessed at this point, a spirit in his body melded to his soul.Baggins (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
He is alive, but as a death knight. Alive just means he still exists in the game. Either way there are Death Knights that are not human anymore in the game. I wrote Ghosts, Ghouls, and Shades in that title because a lot of those Ex-Paladins under the Death Knight title are not Death Knights. They are ghosts, shades and ghouls. Some dranei were thrown in there and a lot of undead were in there who aren't Death Knights. Rolandius (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1000 club!

By the way, I added a 1000 club badge to your user page, I hope that's okay. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:17 PM PST 3 Jun 2008

LOL I like it. Rolandius (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


If you create something you later don't want, just use {{Speedydelete|<Reason>|<~~~~>}}. Most admins don't look for delete requests on talk pages. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This is a seperate subject, but do you know when the admins are going to choose a citation name for the two Warcraft Archive books? Rolandius (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
First we are actually trying to do way with {{cite}}. We would prefer if you used the ref commands instead. Secondly you can get last guardian page numbers here;
Finally, avoid making articles with one sentence descriptions. If you can't find any more info cross referencing, please just avoid making the page. Thank you.Baggins (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I couldn't find some of the books using the method so I will use the method also. Rolandius (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the one sentence thing, that is what stubs are for.--SWM2448 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Except that stubs for articles that will unlikely to be unstubbed are just hideous. I mean random dictionary word things. Like for example if a book said "apple" and then creating an article on it, and resorting to using a dictionary definition. If one has to go outside of Warcraft sources to define something it probably shouldn't be an article.
Now a specific Warcraft subject like a unique clan name, race, or character would be another thing altogether. Those articles would be fine. Basically avoid making articles for things that aren't primarily Warcraft related, and add to or create articles for things that are uniquely Warcraft related.Baggins (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Could you please add categories to images you upload?--User:Gourra/Sig2 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I do that? I hit upload, and then it lets me pick the name and thats all. Rolandius (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Write "[[Category:NPC screenshots]]" or the like in the description box.--User:Gourra/Sig2 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok cool. Rolandius (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting the "]]".--User:Gourra/Sig2 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh woops, I thought I was putting the brackets in also. Rolandius (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:NPC screenshots]] was just an example... don't classify everything you upload as an NPC screenshot, you've uploaded objects and mobs as well. See Category:Screenshots for the subcats. User:Coobra/Sig3 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay so NPC screenshot, Object screenshot or Mob screenshot. Rolandius (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Accomplishment templates

"The" is not used in page titles, though a lot of names do have it in them. I'm not an expert on English grammar, but as far as I know, "the" is used before names when the names has a meaning (in English). I.e. the Molten Core (but not the Zul'gurub). So the only place it shouldn't be used is in page titles. CogHammer Ose talk/3721 14:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you mistype a page name, simply move it (with the move button) to the correct name instead of recreating it. Then go back to the "wrong" page and tag it for speedydeletion. CogHammer Ose talk/3721 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see. Rolandius (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Please be advised that this is not a forum, that that all talk page discussions should only be aimed at discussing content changes to the article, not for general discussion or personal clarification. Such queries can be addressed to the Warcraft pump or directly to a lore-minded user. Also, as a deterrent against the recent edit war, I will be banning the next person who edits species. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that whenever M1330, who thinks he is an admin, is involved it starts a battle. Rolandius (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the situation: if the war starts again, whoever restarts it will be issued a short ban. I've advised you about the forum issue, and you've otherwise been a good contributor. I'll be watching future developments, but you're fine, by the look of it. As it happens, I now see that Species needs a major overhaul anyway. Just go a little easy on the speculation, ok? Not to spare M1330's feelings, but because too much speculation isn't really helpful. That was LunarFalls' downfall, as I recall. Anyway, carry on. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I will try to avoid the situations. I am not sure who LunarFall is though? Rolandius (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
LunarFalls was a fairly established website that was, prior to WoWWiki's expansion, one of the few places where one could find character biographies and lore information from the WarCraft universe. Because most of their sections were a little thin (given the lack of background information at the time, and even still), they put speculatory (some fairly good) information without marking it. As a result, when LunarFalls' was consulted when writing lore articles here and elsewhere, a number of these speculations made it in as practically established fact, which we're still trying to sort out. They have now completely reoganized as Before the Twisting Nether, WoW fanfiction site. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay so you don't want to become like them. Okie dokie. Rolandius (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On my radar

I've noticed you have been creating alot of articles without any citations. This is a violation of the WW:LORE policy. Please be careful in the future. Also avoid making articles for instubstantial topics, especially if your ownly addition is a speculation.Baggins (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I did what you said, I tried google book search, but I think those pages they are giving me are from the archive even though I searched the individual books. I have also noticed dozens of entries without citation from many users here. I am not sure if there is a list of people who don't have to list citations or what? Rolandius (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also 90% of the things I cite are not speculation, its just that people have not read the books it seems. Rolandius (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has to follow the same policy. Just because others weren't caught doesn't mean that you can get away with it if you are caught not doing it. Also a combination of google book search and amazon books will work just fine as long as you make sure to avoid the archive version.
Okay I will try to go through them again and fix them. Rolandius (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also I never said that 90% of your posts are speculation. Although I've come across some like your Abyssal Plane entry that was. Those should be avoided.Baggins (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I know. The Abyssal Plane entry, I just saw that two different entries called themselves that also. The Twisting Nether and the Elemental Plane both say they are also called the Abyssal Plane. Rolandius (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to keep bombarding you, but please write from an in-universe perspective from now on, unless the section is very, very specifically editorial. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay which are some entries that are too editorial? Rolandius (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the naming note on Earthen for example should not be written from a real-world perspective. An editorial section, written from a real-world perspective would be something placed at the end of the article noting something about retcons or how the nature of the character has changed, for example Sargeras#Character_Development. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay the part where I wrote that they kept that name to spite the night elves. I put that in there because I thought I read it somewhere but I guess that could be seen as editorial. Rolandius (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I recall the same passage, so it's not editorial, just uncited. The section itself deals with lore, not with development, so it should be written from an in-universe, as opposed to a real-world perspective, that is not referring to the War of the Ancients books, just the war itself. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Okay I think I got it. Rolandius (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"The Twisting Nether and the Elemental Plane both say they are also called the Abyssal Plane"
For the Elemental Plane you are likely thinking of the Abyssal Maw, or the Abyssal Council. Those are something entirely different.Baggins (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


If the only information on a character is a vague physical description and possibly something about a battle tactic during the War, please don't create a completely new article. Articles of only a few sentences are a waste of space. And please stop adding Lo'Gosh to the ancients list. It's just an orcish name for Goldrinn, we don't add Xaxas to the list of Dragon Aspects and we don't add Lo'Gosh to the list of Ancients. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay what battle tactic article are you talking about?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
He's probably referring to the various names of characters from the novels, that have one sentence off-hand references. Personally I'm not against their use as long as they get cross referenced in other articles relating to their topici. For example a list of the gryphon riders in Tides of Darkness novel could be listed in the listed in the Gryphon rider article. Duncan Senturas paladins are listed in his article, etc. Garona's fictional made up names are more questionable, as they do not exist, and aren't even aliases.Baggins (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. I thought he was talking about the ancients who are not named in The War of the Ancients. They are important and I saw someone had made a category so might as well help add to it. I am surprised that when I add to it, it is a problem, but whoever added or made the category it was okay for that to happen?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I created the earlier ancient articles. Yes I think those are important. Hopefully they will get filled out in a later book, and given names. If they weren't ancients, and just some unnamed night elf or demon in the enemy forces, I wouldn't suggest making articles... I mean night elfs and demons are dimes a dozen, these guys are at least unique.Baggins (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I never put an article about an unnamed night elf or demon. Why would I do that? I only added to your category of unnamed ancients. Also, I put named night elves in articles just like everyone else I have seen do.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Who said you did, I was just giving examples of what not to do.Baggins (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay.LOL Well so far I haven't done that so I am okay I guess.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Baggins on this one; I was referring to pages such as Hooded ancient and Stick Bug Ancient. And it looks like the Hobbit and I need to discuss notability more urgently then I need to discuss it with you, Roland. Baggins, we should talk elsewhere. I really don't see how one to three sentence articles help at all.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about those. Okay well just tell me if it is okay or not. If not then I am fine with that. It is just that I saw the category and some examples already there before I even added mine.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You're fine, you were only being a good contributor- we'll discuss the notability issue and get back to you. But please lay off of La'gosh. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay no more La'gosh.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if one sentence issue is a problem the sentences could just be combined into the Ancients article. Although that article already is pretty large as it is.Baggins (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Big? have you seen Sylvanas Windrunner recently? Ancient is a spring chicken. Your talk page, Baggins, no need to take up Roland's space.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Roandius since it somewhat relates to those articles, make sure you don't capitalize things that shouldn't be capitalized. Only capitalize something if the book capitalizes it. In which case it means its important. However don't capitalize race names unless 90% of sources capitalize it.Baggins (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. When you create new pages though about a one word subject, it automatically gets capitalized though doesn't it?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the first letter, just make sure you don't capitalize second words, or in the article itself.Baggins (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay cool.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey hoe hoe your sig has got to go...

Your sig breaks up talk pages a bit much... well least the image does, I'm going to go ahead an shrink the image some more if thats alright. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya its the same reason I don't use my sig too much.BagginshobbitBagginstalk § contr
Your sig is the best lol. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Tbh coobra, you should probably change yours also. Moving things are bad for page loads... --Sky (t · c · w) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if I could make an improved scan of the picture, and if that would allow for a higher quality smaller icon? I love the sig, but its just too bulky currently...Baggins (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I liked my animated sig.LOL Well I'm trying to find this one icon, but I cannot remember where I saw it before. It looks like a determined paladin's face and he is wearing a gold colored helmet.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I would suggest you not use the template {{sig}} directly in your signature. Instead of {{subst:{{sig}}}}, do {{subst:sig|x|y}}. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I don't know what that all means. I just copied what the help page said to do. I think it might have even been your suggestion to someone in there.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Aww... but I love my snake, it wiggles... Lets just forget I said anything =P. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL See Coobra you poked the tree to get an apple and a dozen apples fell on you.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be silly... I wouldn't poke a tree... I'd hurt my finger lol. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Well I meant you got a stick, then poked the tree.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Rolandius: Show me what you have in the box in your preferences that the instructions told you to copy and paste something in. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok the instructions told someone to paste  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr). Of course I inserted my own name. Then click Raw Signature. And finally hit save.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, change that to {{subst:Sig|Rolandius|Rolandius|icon=Wc3Knight.gif|x20px}} that code. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay and I leave my Sig template page alone?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would a snake poke a tree, he'd just have a beutiful nude women do it for him, and then have her eat the apple.Baggins (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Oh well snakes can't reach a tree anyways.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, there are lots of tree climbing snakes. Although I don't think cobras belong to that group, at least the types I know of.Baggins (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true. Ya I don't know if the Coobra type of cobra could climb trees.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I only climb trees when a tauren stampede is in progress. User:Coobra/Sig3 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL I am guessing there aren't any tauren around hearing you say that?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


BTW, you don't have to capitalize cite, its left hidden, nor is it a proper noun. It also has nothing to do with grammar. Save yourself some time don't do pointless edits.

Okay, just wanted all the words to look the same — either all cite or all Cite.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 07:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't become anal rententive or obsessive compulsive it will become the death of you, :p.Baggins (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL You can say that again.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Soloed Dungeons

I dont want to offend you but i find it kinda hard to believe that you soloed the steam vaults and shattered halls, now im not saying its not true but i would like to know how you did it. Mizrath (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya I haven't.LOL I am working on creating some templates in my sandbox, and I guess I linked the whole sandbox page to my user page instead of the ones I actually soloed.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Why are you adding random artwork with Blizzard copyright? User:Gourra/Sig2 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So I can put them in thier respective pages — or someone can add anything they know about it on the page.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be added to existing relevant pages, 'Terrokar Edge' could easily go on the Bone Wastes page.That is just my opinion.--SWM2448 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well Terrokar Edge is sort of in between two different areas. It is not one or the other really.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
don't add too many it is a copyright issue.Baggins (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said it had to be official or else it doesn't count? I mean half of the images on here are copyright aren't they?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Essentially you can be breaking copyright by taking too many images without permission (well technically taking any image without permission). So generally the smart idea is to only take images if they are truly needed, only use a section of an image, and only if they are an improvement over an already uploaded image. Generally speaking there isn't a reason to upload every single variation of something, for example. Not unless it adds something important and new.Baggins (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think I uploaded too many variations though so I am okay. Most of them were unique — as in there wasn't an image on the page I added it too or the page didn't even exist yet. Although I have seen pages on wowwiki with lots of pictures of the same thing.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry in advance, I could easily be in the wrong here, as SWE grammar is a fickle thing, but I notice that whenever you edit grammar you're not just fixing the dashes, you're replacing commas with them and are using dashes in place of commas or parenthesis in most articles. In a few cases, this alters the tone and flow of the writing. I must also remind you once again to stick to an in-universe writing style. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I will look for that. A lot of times though the sentence is a run-on sentence. It has 8 commas and is the size of three sentences. Other times I replace a hyphen with a dash since a hyphen is wrong in that situation. Still, I will try to look out for altering the flow of writing.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In situations like that, it's better to split into separate sentences. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I wanted to keep it as close to thier original entry as I could. So I just put hyphens so thier sentences make a bit more sense.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair intent, but spiltting run-on sentences flows better. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. Well goodbye dashes and hello periods.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


I've warned you about this before. But yes some things may be in "conflict" with other sources on the surface. Two quotes may be directly in opposing of each other even. A citation gives a link back to that quote so people can see what was said for themselves. That won't help it "merge" with whatever it is conflict with, but it shows that alternative interpretations exist.

Changing info and completely ignoring the info that was cited, to turn it into something else to "make it fit" is not only fallacious (you can't simply say the source said something other than what it actually said) its against our policies. Do not try to "correct" cited sources, unless you know for sure that someone mis-quoted, mis-paraphrased the source given.

If I have warn you on this issue again, I will take actions.Baggins (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya I have no idea what you are talking about. I never, that I remember, erased things that had citations on it for no reason. I erased things that had no citations on it, but not the real cited stuff. The times I did erase something with a citation was because it was wrong. I looked up that citation and it was just wrong. For example, the citation that dragons + gryphons = wyverns was wrong. I fixed that, then you put it back even though I told you the citation was wrong. Things work both ways I thought. Also if you look at the history on that page mysteriously my edit is "gone". Unless I am missing something in the history, I don't see my name there. Now the page currently is changed to what I said a long time ago: that dragons, wyverns, and gryphons have the same ancestor but not dragon + gryphon = wyvern. If you want to keep false information in wowwiki go ahead. I want to know who erased my name from the history, that would be interesting.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"wrong" again two different sources may state seperate things. For example in reference to Azshara city. Early warcraft III stuff for example had Ashenvale (aka Ashenvale Forest region) all the way to the sea. Later stuff has Azshara as part of that region. Look at early warcraft III maps in game for example. Thus the context being used in A&HC was using the ashenvale region definition, rather than the subregions of Ashenvale and Azshara as it things are split in WoW. If you change the citation you take the book out of context and are lieing about what the book states thus making the "citation" incorrect, it ceases to be citing what it was originally citing.Baggins (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As for wyverns either you have a different version of the manual or you clearly overlooked this quote pg 27.
Wyvern Rider

The sentient wyverns of Kalimdor were eager to ally themselves with the shamanistic horde. Impressed by the orcs' commitment to honor and victory, the wyverns allowed the orcs to ride them into combat against those who would disturb the tranquility of Kalimdor and its denizens. The wyverns, who share a common ancestry with both dragons and gryphons, use their powerful claws and razor-like fangs against both airborne attackers and ground troops, while their riders may hurl envenomed spears at the enemy.

Clearly it wasn't the book was wrong it was your sourcing of the information, or you have a flawed manual. If you would like a screenshot of the manual I can give it to you...Baggins (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay for the Ashenvale citation you have the book so I will go with that. I am just saying in the game, as of today, Ashenvale has no beach. As for the wyvern citation, I still have no idea where you see it saying that dragons and gryphons were parents of a wyvern.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't read this sentence? "The wyverns, who share a common ancestry with both dragons and gryphons"? Rlandius the point I was pointing out was that Azshara region is part of the entire Ashenvale forest that covers most of the flank of western Hyjal Mountain. The region visitede in the game is only one very small part of that entire forest. But I guesss that's too hard to understand? Its mentioned in the Ashenvale article... This is one of those world scale issues we have tried to warn you about previously. That lore maps do not always match up with the game world maps, because the lore world is a much larger beast.Baggins (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay Ashenvale has a beach then I guess. It says wyverns share a common ancestry with both dragons and gryphons. That does not really mean dragons and gryphons were the parents of wyverns. What am I missing here?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about the wyvern page only quotes that sentence, and you removed the sentence saying it was wrong... It never said "parents"....Baggins (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so.LOL I left that sentence in there. The sentence I took out said dragons and gryphons created wyverns. I looked the citation up in the manual and it didn't say that. I took it out of the page but then you undid my edit. I guess you forgot that part.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What day did this happen, Rolandius? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Um I don't have a clue what your talking about. Check the page history... There is nothing of that sort in the page (the only reference to parent is to "parental instinct"). There is nothing of the sort of sentence you suggest even 8 edits back or so... If there was I would have been the one who removed it since I made most of the last edits on that page, besides kesmana on something. So no I have no clue what your talking about...Baggins (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I know Baggins, I am trying to edit my page right now to tell you I had the wrong page.LOL But my page keeps getting edited, so here goes.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I like your red sentences, but I can read and I allready agree with those sentences. You don't have to repeat it and then make it in a red font. Okay I looked it up. It wasn't the "wyvern page" so I might have confused Baggins, it was the "future race ideas" page. So I got the page wrong — although you can see it did happen. Look at the drakonid and dragonspawn entries. I tried telling people it was wrong and editing it but no one listened or they undid my edits.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well i'd point out, that page is a speculation page. Secondly its marked as a "?" white speculation which means it is pure speculation. So people are speculating based on the common ancestry comment. As much as you might not like it it is following the policy for that page. It does have evidence (which can rougly be interpreted that way), connecting them (and there isn't anything to specifically refute it). Now if it was marked dark green or light green I'd really have a problem with it.Baggins (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also you might want to look up what ancestry means, and what "common ancestry" means. Gryphons by themselves do not share ancestry with dragons, and dragons do not share ancestry with gryphons... If you use definition of ancestry that really can mean one thing that I can think of.... Do you know what that probably is?Baggins (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay I will go with that. But I have seen people using that idea on other pages. Those other pages, like Origin of the Races, are speculation pages too though.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay it could mean that, but wouldn't they have just said gryphons + dragons = wyverns? Also just look at the wyvern, the thing doesn't look anything like a recent descendant of a dragon and gryphon.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you like to read, but biology and genaology book tend to use the term "common ancestor" or "ancestors" because its more technical and not "grade school". I can't think of anyone who would write that kind of informatoion in a book like a math problem. We have acccess to a more detailed language than that kind of grunt + grunt = grunt. We have moved beyond language like "me tarzan you women You go treehouse".... At least I hope we have moved beyond that.... Wyern does have a grotesque lion type head/body, with a dragon like mouth, loosely. The wings of dragons are somewhat batlike, like the wyverns. What were you expecting out of something that shares both races as ancestors?Baggins (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well how about a gryphon head or dragon head? Where in the world did a lion's head come from, if the ancestry is recent. I mean a half-elf (if it had an elf and human as parents) looks like a human and/or elf. You wouldn't expect bat wings on a half-elf unless something happened way, way back in thier ancestry. I am just saying that the dragon + gryphon = wyvern did not happen or else there would be something in the wyvern that looks much more similiar to a dragon and gryphon. I do think they can still share ancestors.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Where did the lionhead come from? The lion genes that gryphon have? Maybe you should ask Blizzard. We have no idea why blizzard said they were the ancestors of wyverns, just that they are. Yes you wouldn't expect a half-elf to have wings, since neither parents have wings. At least wint draongs grypons both have wings, and dragons have skin-like wings.Baggins (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok then I'll go with what you said, I guess dragons and gryphons together made the wyvern somehow.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Texture models

Adding screenshots of textures models, without putting them in existing articles about it, is considered datamining and against the DNP policy. You have been warned. User:Gourra/Sig2 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay riddle me this. How does an existing article with a screenshot in it allready ever get created? Also it says under the screenshot page that it is alright as long as you cannot find an in-game screenshot.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that you can understand now that you're not allowed to add screenshots of random texture models and files that you find in WoW Model Viewer or elsewhere, just because you can't find an in-game screenshot of it right away. User:Gourra/Sig2 10:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well tell me this then. 1) Why are there pages on wowwiki with WoW Model Viewer screenshots. 2) Why does it say this on wowwiki, "WMV images are allowed on the wiki, though in-game screenshots are preferred." Source you ask? Why wowwiki of course WoW Model Viewer.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I can explain both of your questions with that it's allowed to upload WMV images as long as they can be found in-game. By adding texture files such as :Image:Chinese Dragon.png|this one you do not add anything to any existing content, as you made a completely new page devoted to that single texture model. The polar bear cub cannot be found in-game, and has been said that it's under the NDA, and I respect that and so should you. User:Gourra/Sig2 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well okay now I know it has to be in-game, although I have seen some WMV images of things on wowwiki not in-game. The polar bear cub subject I had no idea was already talked about by people.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


The Pagename is "Burning Legion" because there is no point whatsoever to calling the page The Burning Legion and having it show up under T in an index. When referring to the organization in any is "the Burning Legion," unless it is being used as an adjective ("Burning Legion agents" or "agents of the Burning Legion" nor "The Burning Legion agents" or "agents of Burning Legion"). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I went on the website to try to find any clues. Of course they have only factions up there, not all the groups that you can find on wowwiki, so it will still be hard to figure it out. On there they just call it "Burning Legion". For example they have "Cenarion Circle" and "Farstriders". But then they also have "The Consortium" and "The Violet Eye". I am not sure how they know when to call something "The" or just the name of the organization.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Burning Legion and "The Burning Legion" are interchangable as titles. Blizzard alternates between them in many different sources...Baggins (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. It gets confusing, on thier site under factions it just says Burning Legion. They don't use "The" often only in "The Consortium" and "The Violet Eye".  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the information they have. You'll notice that in normal sentences, they say "the Burning Legion." Don't bother changing "Burning Legion" to "the Burning Legion or vice versa, if it's in an infobox, it doesn't matter in that case. --Ragestorm (talk · contr)
LOL Okay then why was mine reverted back if it doesn't matter?
The first one was because I think that "The Burning Legion" looks better than "Burning Legion." The second revert was unneeded.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well okay, but Sargeras being part of "The Burning Legion" and Kil'jaeden being part of "Burning Legion" looks crazy. So I changed his to match yours.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about looking "crazy", but no problem there. I'm just saying that you don't have to go out of your way.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL I am not sure why, maybe he got mad at me, but Baggins is going crazy on the World page.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


For future reference, a screenshot is an image from the game, either WoW or one of the RTSs. Drawn work and that Magtheridon/Mannoroth are not screenshots. Also, please be more careful- the image of Archimonde you uploaded is already in the system. You've done pretty good with linking your images, but a word of caution: cluttering up an article with images does nobody any favors.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I should have said image then. I couldn't find that image of Archimonde anywhere on wowwiki, I thought I was the first to upload it. I didn't see it on his page.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because it's the headline image on eredar and man'ari eredar. Blizzard used it in the BC bestiary as a generic eredar image, so we didn't bother putting it in his article. Similarly, Blizzard put Mannoroth's head on Magtheridon's page. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh by the way, I am not sure if it was misspelled by them or just retconned, but the picture by Blizzard of Archimonde was titled Archemonde.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a concept picture. Could be either a typo or an abandoned spelling. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You know on those charts where they have the different draenei species. They always have on wowwiki a question mark for what the original eredar looked like. Isn't Velen that missing link?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so Velen looks similar to other draenei, apart from his former skin color. I personally don't like those charts, because it assumes that both branches have been changed by magic. I think the draenei are physically identical to the original eredar (we know for a fact that fel energy mutates, so the man'ari are definetely changed). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok you're banned.

Ok, we have warned you repeatedly about removing information if it's from a cited source, and you seemed to be ignoring my repeated attempts at getting you to read the shadows and light page's contents. Me and Ragestorm have warned you about making un-editorial discussions. we have warned you about initiating edit wars.... You keep on adding things that don't even fit, and are of pure speculation on your part. So we are tired of giving you mercy, You will be getting a short ban. Hopefully when you return you will know better. Sorry.Baggins (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They had no citations that is why I moved them. You are the one that has a few times in a row just erased and redirected pages I created for no reason. When you see things I put with no citation you just erase it.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 05:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ya it is called he cannot spell.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 05:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually your talk page is so long that its causing my keyboard to crap out... But if you want to make more insults we could up your ban to a two weeks if you like? Also I must point you to warcraft encyclopedia for a definition of god, that pretty much proves we can't list everythign called a god, on a "gods" page. Only Elune, the Old Gods and Hakkar are actually gods.Baggins (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay now having a long talk page is against the rules? Also those entries had no citation. I told you about one of my citations being on the official Warcraft homepage and you said nope not specific enough. So why do I have to go all over wowwiki looking for a reason that some of those uncited entries should stay? All you do is threaten. Ever hear of suggestions? If you erase my entries its okay. I move some entries that had no citation and I get banned.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 05:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No having a long talk page can just cause memory issues sometimes, it can cause a problem where one may type faster than the text will actually appear on screen, so not actually be able to see what one is typing. Entry doesn't have a citation? Then ask for the {{fact}}. Generally speaking alot of things you added to page, were either non-immortals that just happen to get revered by some minor minor faith. There was no evidence that they had any huge influence on history of Azeroth, nor did it seem that they had any evidence of of "molding the world". An'she can be allowed since its the "counterpart of elune" that gives it a direct connection to an Eternal. Certainly speaking anything that is an actual god, rather than things worhipped as gods. Besides if we listed everythng ever worshiped as a god, while ignoring the factors given we would have to add the random fish, whale, sharks, and the ocean itself that Murlocs worship. Physical objects and nonsentient creatures certainly do not belong on a list of gods, especially when Blizzard has confirmed that there are only a few true gods, and the rest are pretenders, physical objects, or merely demigods.Baggins (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally, let me put it this way. I don't threaten, I warn, and if people don't listen I act. Its gone beyond the warning state, to the action stage. We have given you suggestions but most of the time you ignore them. So if since you didn't listen to fandyllic, ragestorm, or others you'll just have to enjoy your vacation. Dont' worry its not permanent.Baggins (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember many of my entries getting a {{fact}}, they just got removed. Also, all you did was redirect every page I created into your page. An'she is just a Tauren belief of the sun. Also, all the loa could be seen as just worshipped by Trolls. I am pretty sure I didn't put any objects in the page as gods. I also looked up some of your citations and I never saw anything that said something about "true" gods. There are gods and that is it. I didn't see anything calling Hakkar being a "true" god in that citation, just one of the regular gods. I am not sure where you got "true" gods from. I told you many times that some of my entries were called gods by the game, not by some race in the game. Unless you are now calling the World of Warcraft game some kind of race or Blizzard a race?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Read sometime. I'm sure it's linked in at least a few of the citations in various articles. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I read that ten times and I still don't see anything talking about "true" gods versus gods.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
A better way to put it would be that only seven characters are actually confirmed as true gods: Elune, Hakkar the Soulflayer, and the five Old Gods. Though An'she could just be the tauren belief of the sun, the tauren belief of the moon is Mu'sha. Three guesses who she is? The Tauren also tell a tale of Apa'ro a wonderous white stag. Guess who he is. Evidence suggests that there is more to An'she than meets the eye. Re your edits a few specific cases should be addressed: God is about the monotheistic idea present in the first Warcraft game, not gods in general. Second, as you are relatively new, you don't know that we had a massive discussion about what to call and classify all these divine being about two years ago. Eternal, a term used in the RPG, seemed at the time the best recourse, a choice which most of us still agree with.
Finally, the two big problems are that you make sweeping reformatting changes to articles without discussing, including removing citations and adding uncited material, and that you've ignored repeated warnings that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article only, not for general topic discussion. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't here two years ago. The thing I am trying to say is that I was told that just because people workship someone as a god doesn't make them an Eternal. The Loa gods and Hakkar I am pretty sure are worshipped by the Trolls. Trolls count as people. Also Entropius is called a "Void God" by the game. I never removed citations. Talk about no discussion? Just one of my pages was "redirected" five times in a row for no reason. I create this page, nope it is redirected. I create a different name I thought fit it, nope redirected. You think I like rewriting the same page five times in a row? Talk about sweeping reformatting? I have noticed that whenever I find a problem with a page, it gets changed which is okay, but then the person who changed the page will say oh look see the page now? You were wrong. Really? Like I didn't notice you just edited that page one minute ago? They act like the page was like that when I did my edits. Also, there is no such thing as a true god. So far all I have seen are the words demigods and gods. I don't know who made up the word "true" god because, unless I am missing something, I have not seen that word except by people here. I even checked the "citations" and they say nothing about this is a true god or this is a god. Warcraft just talks about demigods and gods like Hakkar and Elune. I don't think using a talk page for general topic discussion is something that would get someone banned. Just look at my talk page. I want to see you ban everyone on my talk page that wrote general stuff and not changes to an article. Ya I don't think so because about five people would be banned right now. I don't mind what they say though myself. It just shows you that the rules are only a one way street.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Usertalks are for whatever discussion is needed by the user in question, because user pages aren't articles. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to the article itself and nothing else. While some non-editorial discussions slip, people have been banned in the past for ignoring warnings, which you did. And it is true that the definitions binding "Eternal" are different from the rules binding "god", though the latter apparently has little definition. Neither category seems to have anything to do with belief, however. With regards to "true" god, consider this statement: "One of Azeroth's few full deities, Elune is the goddess of the moon." Yes, different term, I know, but it amounts to the same thing.
Re talking, when you created Deity for example, did you ask us if we'd already tried that? My point about two years ago is that we discussed this at length, and the descision we made is still binding. As for your removing of citations, I think it is only fair that I ask Baggins to publicly produce a specific example of such an action. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I was told that belief had to do with gods. It is very confusing because the rules change every day. Once again there is no category called "true god". It is something made up by people on here to help thier argument. As for Deity, there is no rule you have to ask someone before you can even make a page. Or else there would not be many pages on here. Imagine every single page not being made until someone asked if it was ok. I don't think anyone asked if they could make the hundreds of pages of NPC's. You just make it as long as it has something to do with Warcraft. Like I said, I made a page five times in a row. In the talk page I even asked if there were any suggestions for a name that won't get erased for this page of actual gods in the game. Why is it okay to redirect a page five times? Yes I want to see where I removed a correct citiation. Then I can show my list.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am still waiting for those examples or else Baggins should be banned.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Notice the key point above, I said "we have warned you" this is hardly me against you alone I've been hearing complaints from more than one person. As for "true god/goddess" that term was established in the RPG, sorry for the confusion. However it was already cited in the eternal article, and I don't know how you could have missed it... I've recently added added one of the citaitons to the Elune article as well. AS for "removal of information" I've personally caught you altering cited material thus changing context more than full blown removal. If you removed anything it was generally parts of sentences rather than the whole paragraph. Although the removal of Xavius was borderline since I had previously explained to you in the talk page that Xavius was on the list because Blizzard had listed it as such, and then you rmoved it afterwords. As for elementals, ythere were citations at the top of the page that mentioned the Elmental Lords being part of the Eternal designation but you apparently completely overlooked those paragraphs or ignored them you removed the Elemental Lords section... This sentence in partiucula, "These are beings known only in legends to the peoples of Azeroth. Yet they are beings who have shaped not only the course of history in the world of Azeroth, but often the world itself: the Elemental Lords, ruling over planes of pure power and awaiting the time when they will once again serve the banished Old Gods"S&Lpg, 67, 69. or how about the multiple references to Elemental Lords in the History of the Eternals section? BTW, if you weren't keeping up the Old Gods are referenced and cited in those sections as well.Baggins (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the "we" is 75% you. I have not changed any cited material. I have removed parts of sentences, like you said, only because those parts were uncited or incorrectly cited. The correct cited parts I left alone. All the "true gods" citations I read said zero about "true gods", like you were trying to say with Hakkar. I read those citations and they simply said gods, and nothing about "Hakkar" being some "true" god. As for Xavius, I followed your advice which said "just because someone calls another person an eternal doesn't make it true". So that is why I took Xavius out. I am not sure what you mean by Blizzard has listed it as such. I looked in Blizzard's encyclopedia and all they say is that he was a satyr "Aside from demons, only a few warped individuals here and there pray to Xavius today." About the Elemental Lords and and some other people I took off the list let me throw you a quote that is on the Eternals page. "The Aspects, Elemental Lords, Loa, and demon Eternals are not true gods nor demigods, but are revered by some as gods. The existance of the Earthmother and An'she has not yet been confirmed." Using that quote that I read I moved the Elemental Lords, Loa, and An'she to another page because, not only does it say they are not demigods, it even says some like An'she are not even confirmed. After I did that you banned me. So either you should read the page before banning me for something I did that wasn't wrong or change the sentences on that page to whatever you think it should be, which also would mean I shouldn't have been banned because I went with what the page said.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The sentence about the Loa, etc. was meant as a disclaimer, and was out of date (the Earthmother's existence, though not her nature, has since been confirmed, and the word Eternal is used to describe the Loa in Magic and Mayhem). While these beings haven't been explictly stated at Eternals, they fit the mold of others on the list. Xavius is on the list for the same reason as Medivh: the Eternal template was applied to him in the RPG, and he was discussed in the same chapter as other confirmed eternals. This combined with the fact that the satyrs still worship him places him on the list.
You must realize, Rolandius, that as the Warcraft Encyclopedia said, "there are no hard and fast rules to define a god." This, sadly, is true for Warcraft lore, not just of eternals, but of most of it. The first two games have been almost completely retconned, and many of the later sources are in disagreement of events. The published summary information contradicts the games, the novels contradict the summary information, the RPG contradicts the novels, the RPG in turn contradicts the games again, and WoW itself contradicts them all. Metzen, most of the lore team, and the commissioned authors have differing ideas regarding plot and lore. As a result discrepencies and incomplete thoughts crop up all the time, with this one being one of the biggest. Dealing with Warcraft lore, particularly here, where we try to give all lore sources equal weight, requires a certain amount of flexibility, as well as speculation, given that we have no official connection with the people making it up.
Your ban will stand, though more for the ignoring warnings and not discussing than for the citation issue. Once it is up, you will be able to continue contributing to WoWWiki if you so choose. In the meantime, I suggest you review our policies and look at what's been done and try to investigate what sort of choices were made and why. I'll be here if you have any questions.
Ragestorm (talk · contr), Head Bookkeeper
Well if the sentence was out of date, why is that my fault? Are there like traps in the pages where if you point out a sentence the admin can say "well that is out of date didn't you know that"? By the way I tried to discuss it, but either people don't reply back or take forever (one example is that I asked on the talk page what about citing the two Archive books, which no one answered until they got mad at me that I was citing the "wrong" pages even though they were right in my archive books). Also my entries have been, once again I say this, removed or redirected for no reason. Consenquences to them? Nothing. I only removed things that had no citations or bad citations. The reply I got was "well um you should have known that on this other page it says this or that". Ya meanwhile I put a quote from the "official webpage" on wowwiki and it was erased. Reason? The Well of Eternity didn't "turn the night elves purple and make them taller". Well guess what? It is on the official Warcraft site and I didn't make it up so tell Blizzard not me. Of course it was erased because it wasn't in the RPG books. If the RPG books said somewhere that Anduin Wyrnn was an eternal, Baggins would erase everything about him and put Eternal on the top of the page. All this stuff you are coming up with are after the fact to bolster your reasons for banning me. I was told, once again, that just because someone thinks someone is a god doesn't make them one. I tried to make a page for "other" gods since it kept getting erased from the Eternals page for the reason, which by the way I have not read anywhere but you said it is somwhere in an RPG book, that they were not "true" gods. I tried five different titles which in a row were erased. I then wrote in the talk page is there a name that will actually fit and not get erased? See you guys can erase something five times in a row and it is okay but I move a sentence and it is the end of the world. I don't know about Xavius' template in an RPG book. You yourself told me that you were not sure if Xavius used the Eternal template but that you would talk to Baggins about it. I never heard anything afterwards from you if you had talked to him. All I know is the citation after Xavius' name said nothing about RPG but said go to this page in the encyclopedia. I went there and it said "Aside from demons, only a few warped individuals here and there pray to Xavius today." That sure doesn't sound like a lot of people or anything about Eternals. I have people over here that the game is calling gods or dieties and it is shoved away. Then these sun gods and people who aren't even worshipped by many people are getting included. So pretty much I will not be contributing any longer since you cannot point out what I did wrong — that I can see that admins have not done before or was changed after the fact. So far the only thing I see out all of this is that some people don't follow the rules and that is okay, and some people have to really, really follow the rules. All I see is that I used the Talk Pages to ask questions a few times when I should have used the Village pump talk page instead.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 04:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So no responses?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


It is preferable that you don't continue to make Empire articles when we are still working on the ones you have already made. Just because a term is used somewhere, does not mean it requires an article. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean that the Gurubashi Empire and Amani Empire pages should be deleted since they are terms mentioned?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Dragonmaw empire" is used only once, and it's not clear what he's talking about. They've been consistently referred to as the Gurubashi Empire, the Amani Empire, or the Twin Empires. Kirkburn means that you don't need to create an article for every term or description concieveably mentioned. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. Aren't we trying to catch up to the other wikis though? I mean, it is not like I made a page called cheekbones.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflicts x2) No, we're not worried about catching up. The Wrath beta is just around the corner. We'll be picking up a few thousand articles (at the very minimum) in very short order. --k_d3 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry about catching up. Quality is better than quantity, especially if quantity means spreading information thinly. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well okie dokie.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "empire" usage - if someone shouted that "the human empire will fall!", it does not mean such an empire literally exists, just the idea of it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL okay.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloodaxe clan

You better have a better citation for this surnames aren't necessarily clans on their own, and organizations aren't necessarily clans either. You better have a specific reference to the term "Bloodaxe clan", rather than the wild speculation included in the article currently.Baggins (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that organization was a clan. I said there is a group by that name. Also, I have seen clans where the source was one person in the game with that name. So, delete Urok clan.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Where else has the name "Bloodaxe clan" been used?. I've never heard of it before. Warchiefthrall (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I made it up. No Bloodaxes exist in the game. The game may not exist either.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Right lol, I see. Warchiefthrall (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of my articles being deleted. When I told Kirkburn about the info for a page Baggins deleted he said okay. I have never heard of an Urok clan have you? Yet it exists on wowwiki. Which tells me Baggins that you are deleting my stuff on purpose.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"making stuff up" and pure speculation was one of the biggest problems with Kesmana/M1330, and a reason why they were banned for a year... Beware lest you end up down their path... At least you aren't working through a sock... Urok article is a bad example on your part for multiple reasons. 1. there are more than one NPC called "Urok" in the game. 2. the article isn't "Urok clan", its just "Urok".Baggins (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It says right there on the page "Urok may be an ogre clan". Also those are Urok's minions and Urok is his first name. If we made a clan for every minion and person's first name that would be a lot of clans. If you played the game you can see that he is part of the Stonespire Clan.
The page name is not "Urok Clan" if it had been it would be a problem, and I clarified that it may be an organization. But there are certainly a group gong by "Urok" ingame, whatever they may be, a gang, a mafia, a band, whatever. However you making up the term "Bloodaxe clan" was a no-no. Making up stuff (fanfic) is actually a violation of the writing lore policy. Unless of course it goes into your namespace only.Baggins (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make it up. I thought it was a clan since there are two orcs by that name and an organization with that name, so there must be something special about that name.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually you admitted above that you "...made it up"... Please don't lie us, or be sarcastic, or whatever your comments are....
You didn't even bother to reason that perhaps it was the organization that was special and named after an important family name? There is no point in making a term up ("Bloodaxe clan"), when you could have stayed closer to known information, or use a known term.Baggins (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. I am pretty sure there is not a rule against that. Stop saying I made it up. Don't start this all over again. You want edit wars or something? If you look at the quest he sure seems to be part of the Spirestone clan.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this was simply a mistake by Rolandius more than anything else. Yes it wasn't the right thing to do, but it was just that, a mistake. Warchiefthrall (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If he would just read the quest information then he could tell me why Urok should have his own clan.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok so you are saying you didn't make up the term "Bloodaxe clan". If you didn't then where was it used, and who made it up? If it wasn't used by an official source, then it stands to reason that you either made it up or came upon the reference to the term's use somewhere else... Please don't try to pull the wool over our eyes and deny your fault if you made one. We can see right through what you say, and where a contradiction exists.
Yes, warchief I agree, if it was just a mistake, and he fesses up to it, or explains where he accidently got the information, then there are no problems. But he should at least be more clear in his explanation, either admitting he made it up, or giving a citation where he learned the information from, rather than denying things and making contradicting statements.Baggins (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally Quest:Urok Doomhowl simply doesn't discuss anything about his organization, or who he belongs to. It only discusses that he's in Blackrock Spire. You can hardly base any speculation of any kind off of that quest text... While yes warosh's scroll discusses a connection between Urok Doomhowl and spirestones its not specific on if he is a member of it or just controls the tribe. In anycase even if he is a member of spirestones, there still is an organization called "urok" in game, as shown by certain NPC titles. So while the article has some speculation, its not mistitled. That is the title of the article does not add anything outside of what the game establishes, it isn't a made up title.Baggins (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay first point. I thought since there were two characters in the game with that last name that they were part of a clan that was kicked out of Blackrock Spire, or at least related in some way to them.
Second point. Urok I am pretty sure is part of the Spirestone clan, but at least read the quest before you say he isn't.
Third point. Read Warosh's Scroll. It has much better evidence that he is part of the Spirestone clan than some Urok clan. Those NPC's are his minions. He challenged the guy who gives you the quest and turned him into a Trogg pretty much taking his job in the clan away from him and replacing him.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So you made up the name "Blooaxe clan" based off a weak assumption because of a family name?... Did even even think about the fact about other shared family names? For exaple there are several Doomhammers that are related, and they arne't part of the "Doomhammer clan"? ..or what about the two Hellscreams, there isn't a Hellscream clan... YOu do know that families can be just families right? ...or how aobut hte deadeyes? What gave you the right to assume things to such a level that you applied the specific "clan" to the end of the age name? It was a bit misleading based on what we know about orcish surnames... Similarly we don't assume that every dwarf that shares the same name belong to a clan with that name. though at least for dwarves, we have confirmed cases where a clan name and a family name are one and the same.Baggins (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you say spell check?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 11:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The Urok article is not the "Urok Clan" article if that was the name of the article then it would be completely wrong. But there is definitely a group called "Urok" the page name doesn't specify what kinda group they are. The article just lists a few npcs that belong to that group, and speculations that it is an organizaiton or clan. Yes I've read the Warosh Scroll and as I said its not specific. NOr does it talk about the details of the "URok" group, as to what kinda group it is. It confirms a connection to the Spirestone but doesn't go into the extent of his connection clearly.Baggins (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay but still Urok is a first name. Are there many clans based on first names?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 11:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You can argue about Urok all you want but it has no bearing on existence of a "Bloodaxe clan" article, it does not support your case, and they have next to no similarities. Its also a strawman argument, and strawmen are fallacies. Secondly you overlooked an alternate interpreation, the possiblity that Urok Doomhowl was named Urok after the group, rather than the gruop named after him. Thirdly considering we don't know much of anything about the creation of ogre clans, there is no telling where ogre clan names originate from... For as much as we know, some of the clans could be named after famous ogres or maybe not... Who knows...Baggins (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If I made that Urok page I am pretty sure it would have been deleted by now.LOL Oh and Strawman does exist.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 11:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I sure hope your last comment wasn't meant to be serious, otherwise I'd have to question your level of scholarship... Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a [Strawman fallacy] and a strawman has issues they need to attend to... Considering they do not have related definition, and have little to nothing to do with each other...Baggins (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes once again I was being sarcastic because you kept saying strawman this and strawmen that.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Although dare I say it your use of wrong type of strawman in order to try to refute my reference tyour use of a strawman arguement was yet another example of the strawman fallacy being used again... Sarcasm or not, it was of the utmost rediculousness... It doesn't make you sound credible.Baggins (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL Your saying strawman way too much again.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If you keep on commiting that type of fallacy its not "saying it too much", its stating a fact. I think its quite obvoius you don't know what what it means, and probably haven't even taken the time to read the link I gave on the subject... Frankly if you did know your comments wouldn't sound so ignorant (or dare I say it sound like another example of that type of fallacy). Your comments wouldn't sound so off the subject if you knew what it meant. Perhaps you don't even have the sense to know when your committing falacies of this type... ...or maybe i'm wrong and you just enjoy making silly and ignorant sounding comments that miss the mark, and know when you are making them.... I'm frankly starting to think talking to you damages my brain cells :P. P.S. Sarcasm doesn't come across clearly in typed medium, its best to avoid it, unless you want to be misinterpreted.Baggins (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it calm, eh? Urok makes no claims for it being a clan, only that it's some kind of organisation. At the moment, the page essentially acts as a disambiguation page, but with a bit of extra info. However, Bloodaxe clan claimed existence of a clan, though only two NPCs are in existence and are a long way from each other. I would find the page more acceptable if it just acted similarly to Urok, in that it was a disambiguation page with info like "due to the similarity of their names, they may be brothers". Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read your link actually Baggins. Do I have to remind you that you were also the one who thought I made up the story of the night elves turning shades of violet and thier stature changing because of the Well of Eternity? If I remember you said, "The Well didn't turn them purple and make them taller". I guess you never read the official web page. Also if you want to be technical, the Atal'ai and Hakkari tribes are not tribes, but in fact factions.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If your going to bring up old story, I'm going to remind you I never removed the "growing purple info" or said it didn't exist. Please try not to revise hsitory, based on your own misinterpretations... I just put up the fact check on it, asking for the proper citation for the info. Which no one seemed to be giving. You ended up actually just saying World of, and not giving the actual exact web address itself... I got onto you for not giving the exact address and forcing me to have to find it for you... This is the same kind of thign Ragestorm and others have warned you about... Citations must be specific, and just saying sothing is in a certain source isn't enough if people have to go about hunting for the information. Even if you were 100% correct, and people can't find that information for themselves then you would have been giving an improper citation.

I"m not sure what you mean about the Hakkari and Atal'Ai not being tribes. I'm not the one that named those articles, nor do I have any idea what it has to do with me. Actually the Hakkari are called a tribe in game. There is the Coins of the Tribes, which includes the Hakkari, Zulian, and Razzashi tribe coins. The term Atal'Ai tribe is mentioned in game as well, in the Quest:The Atal'ai Exile. These are good examples that factions and tribes are not mutally exclusive terms. Tribes are factions.Baggins (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Actually, Rolandius, what you're putting in aren't hyphens, they're em dashes. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought somebody called those hyphens and not em dashes. Well whatever it is officially called, your supposed to put a — in a lot of sentences and not a - or a --.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Definetly an em dash. Hyphens are used when combining two words, ie, Governor-general or Mrs. Barker-Finch. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That is what I thought. Someone told me I was grammar checking a lot and putting hyphens. I was using — though. Well what I am trying to say is that a lot of times I see a - or even a -- when a — should be used.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The publishing world is kinda mixed on the issue. RPG actually uses hiphens more than it uses em dashes.Baggins (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
We're not talking about source material Baggins, we're talking about the English Language. Unless it's an exact quote, what the RPG uses doesn't matter in the least. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Its not just the RPG, it occurs on the official site as well... As for "english language" actually this goes more into linguistical arguement... Style can vary depending on various authors and publishers... Many things that would be considered grammatically incorrect in a grade school setting are ignored for style once authors reach the real world... This is why you'll find authors who use run-on sentences (Ernest Hemingway IIRC)... Yet, authors who break the mold in linguistic grammatical use, are often considered some of the greatest in english authors... Sure its a paradox... But its something I learned in my linguistic classes that language is far more fluid than what grade school language courses tell you are mandatory...
Its actually somewhat funny that teachers make students read works by famous authors, yet, those authors style may break the rules of accepted grammar. So paradox between how one writes and others write exists. Yet, the author isn't considered to be grammatically incorrect, since he or she is famous, and thus allowed to ahve a different style due to artistic differences.
Also since going to university I've found that various formating and style guides such as MLA, APA, or Boston styles may differ on citation and grammar rules... To say there is a single set of "english language" rules is sort of one of the great misleading bits of elementary and high school education.Baggins (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, hyphens or em dashes are fine. I don't see a reason not to change hyphens to em dashes when appropriate - but I wouldn't say either way is "better" for the purposes of the website. Same way US and British English are fine, but can be switched (GB-->US) when appropriate. Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in those same classes, if the teacher or professor saw something and corrected it, I don't think you can say "but Ernest Hemingway did it". When you are a famous author, then you can write run-on sentences all you like. We should try to stay as grammaticaly correct as we can. With some areas though, we might run into a situation where either way is okay. In that case, someone telling the other person that they changed the sentence just because of one symbol is crazy.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Style can also vary by region, one grade school may tell you to use emdashes another may tell you to use regular dashes. In my experience I've seen different english books by different publishers sometimes give conflicting "grammar" advice between each other. This probably has to do with the fact that there are several different english dialects with their own types of "grammar".Baggins (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Game references

When referencing things from the games use the Template:Ref game citation, do not use the {{cite}} template.Baggins (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay is this Template new because I have never seen it used before, even by you. What happened to the days of the game not having to be cited by a Template, when you can just list the NPCs from the game in the page as proof?  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it new? Do you even bother to look at the history page if you a question like that? The template likely predates your signup date... its almost a year old now...Baggins (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new template, but it hasn't been used a great deal. Regarding linking NPCs instead - only if page you link has the exact information cited. Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The template has seen the most use in regards to Warcraft III related articles actually. It has been used for WoW far less often.Baggins (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well when I say new, I mean I have never seen it used so I thought it was new. All the other blood elf organizations, and pretty much a majority of the groups, do not have a Template:Ref game in WoW. They just have a few sentences or sometimes a few of the NPCs on the page.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do this...

I've warned you previously about moving pages without permission, and instigating edit wars. Citations have been given where At'ai and Hakkari are called tribes in game. While there may be a disagreement in interpreation the terminology between interpretations of various sources the terminology is certainly official ingame... If you want to ignore it and move the page without permission, then you will have to enjoy another vacation...Baggins (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya I think you should be banned for not giving a good reason. I am not the only one that agrees that one or both those are not tribes. Look again. I am not the one starting edit wars. Also, tell me how moving the Atal'ai page was wrong when only one NPC mentions the word tribe and my Dark Iron empire was deleted because, guess what, only one NPC mentioned it.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 07:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Also since I cannot comment on talk pages, Dark Factions came out after Land of Conflict. Ingame all the member's tags say Explorers' League.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Baggins wake up. I cannot comment on talk pages when I am banned. First off, ok it is 2 NPCs not just one, but don't you need more than one or two NPCs saying it? As I just told you with the Dark Iron empire, I had evidence of an NPC saying it and their leader is an emperor but you still deleted that entry. Also, you coming up with citations after you have banned me already makes no sense at all. And saying I will take a short vacation if I keep things up, then 30 seconds later banning me when I could not have done anything in 30 seconds, makes no sense at all. Finally, there are a dozen NPCs in the game with the tag Explorers' League yet you keep ignoring that fact.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a typical example of Baggins not listening. The Twilight's Hammer is a cult yet it is listed as a clan on wowwiki because there was a Twilight's Clan a long time ago which was nearly destroyed. "The Twilight’s Hammer cult takes its motivation from the Twilight’s Hammer clan. After the clan was mostly destroyed, the cult sprang up, perhaps with encouragement from a few surviving members of theclan. However, the cult is not comprised primarily, or even mostly, of clan members."[2] (DF 84)  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Another example. There is a quest called Army of the Black Dragon. Also on there is a picture with the caption Army of the Black Dragon. Baggins deleted my entry from wowwiki of Army of the Black Dragon saying the army is just called Black Dragonflight.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Third example. Baggins continues to say I am making up fan fiction or speculation whenever I say something that he disagrees with. He acts like I just changed something tremendous whenever I edit something he doesn't like. It is not like I am going around editing pages to say Humans can fly with thier arms or pigs are related to horses. Anyways, he will not explain why he called my statement, that the Well of Eternity changed the night elves' skin and stature, speculation when it is stated right on the official page that this did in fact occur. Whenever I give him sources for a page I create, that I find in the the game or official webpage, he counters with the comment that the RPG is a newer source so I am overruled. When I tell him about some RPG or official webpage source for a page I create, he counters with the comment that I am not reading it right or because of a game source and I am overruled. Also might I add that half of his comments to me on my talk page are badly misspelled.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what's frustrating me? Both of you. Rolandius, my advice to you is, please wait for talk page discussions to actually finish and come to a consensus before making major changes to articles - especially if it has previously been reverted. Anything controversial needs discussion first. We have {{move}} specifically for the purpose of discussing page moves. Baggins, stop getting so passionately involved. Talk pages are for discussion, and you both have to stop attacking each other on them. This is not a game of one-upmanship, it is a wiki. Everyone can be wrong, sometimes (though it is not a crime to accuse someone of being wrong, stop shouting it at each other, it doesn't help).

I deleted Dark Iron Empire because at the time, it seemed an attempt to prove a point, rather than a proper article. As far as I know, that is still the case, unless you have links. The Twilight's Hammer clan is indeed said to be the same as the cult - though the article could possibly do with showing the "split" better. "Army of the Black Dragon" does not sound enough to be citable - it's just a fancy description. Regarding the ban, I'm not going to do anything yet, because I want to see that you two have read this.

As a final note, if something is worth doing, it's worth taking time over. You don't need to rush stuff on a wiki. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have read everything, since I have just logged on, and commented below. Regarding the ban, what is the verdict? Baggins mentioned something, but I am not sure what your answer is.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't exaggerate... I do not claim all your additions are fanfic, or speculation, especialy if you correctly cite the information begin with, and your interpretation was valid. The only times I've accused something you said as pure fanfic was for things like "Bloodaxe clan" which you gave no citation for, or material you later admitted was an interpretation or speculation on your part.
...and try to check who edited or moved your edits before you put all the blame on me. Several of the things you have accused me of editing were changes by Ragestorm, Kirkburn and other admins, or users that noticed your mistakes. I've tried to explain this before if someone add material that isn't cited, a fact check is the normal policy put into place for such material. That should not be equated to calling someone's additions "fanfic" or "speculation" it just means that it needs to have a specific citation so others can look up the information for themselves.
Secondly, you were wrong about Atal'ai tribe only being referenced one time in the game, actually its used almost every time the term Atal'ai is used in a quest. Infact one quest goes as far to talk about the ancient Atal'ai civilization. Some of these quests were actually updated long after Dark Factions was actually written. I don't know anything about your so called Dark Iron empire and tried to search for "Dark Iron empire" specifically after you accused me of deleting it, but couldn't find any such comment. In any case an empire is completely different subject than a "tribe". However, let's bring up your so called "Bloodaxe clan" you never once gave any citation that such an entity existed, no direct quotes, no citations, nothing. As far as we can tell you pulled that term right out of your head.
I've thought about it and decided to give you some mercy. I've reduced your sentence to four days... But your violations will still be listed on the Violations page for future reference by other admins, and will taken into account for future violations.
However, please try to be less aggressive, please try not to twist the admins words, and listen to the warnigns by the admins more often (don't just listen, acknowledge and follow them, they are not suggestions)... Remember some of your actions are mirroring other posters that we have had to get onto before. We are not attacking you as a person, we are just following procedures for policies, that you may have broken. Some who have broken similar policies have listened and improved (and acknowledge they are listening rather than arguing the point in circles), see User talk:Zakolj for a good example (and anything we have told him applies to you as well). Especially look at some of the things, that he's broken and you have, but I haven't gotten on you for yet, for example your Acid Bullet addition is the exact thing we got onto Zakolj for...
...or there are those that never listen and keep on repeating the same mistakes, even after being warned several times, those end up getting bans, you know of some already, M1330/Kesmana as examples. If you can't show that you are willing to get along, or admit when you are wrong, then it can lead to worse actions. But if you try to be more compliant with the rules and admins (if you have been issued a warning, follow the warning, don't repeat the offence) then you will be less likely to get into trouble.
Usually "recent source" is not used as the end all benchmark for a source of information. Because its unclear if a source is really "recent source" for example was the book written before another source, but published after? or vice versa. A good example is Dark Factions, it was actually written long before the Naxxrammas patch, and before or during the writing of several other sources including the RPG books (MG, APG and HPG come to mind), but delayed and released much later. Those books were being written about the same time as Horde Player's guide, some material from those books were written after Dark Factions, each book was delayed at varying times of the publication schedule, and Dark Factions was delayed the most. Some sources are written at the same time but published at varying different times. Even recent sources may conflict with other recent sources or even with itself.
Generally speaking our ultimate rule is to list all known information and variant interpretations, if one conflicts with another we don't pick or choose the sources, and treat both equally to try to keep opinions of source credibility out of articles, for NPOV purposes. However, sometimes an editorial comment is needed, and explanation at the end of the articles to explain the possible contradictions or alternative interpretations. Its not easy, but if we didn't have this policy people would be removing/replacing information willy nilly because they had an alternative interpretation.
Beyond that each topic is looked at on a case by case point.
Final note, we don't usually get onto people for "spelling errors", because spelling can be caused by a number of factors (typing too fast, keyboard issues, etc), and most of the time they are typographical errors. I've found that most people who accuse others of spelling errors make the same typographical mistakes. I could be anal and point them out to those people, but that would be bad of me... So let's avoid the pot calling the kettle black.Baggins (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You have said many times that I am just making up things that I write, and you keep injecting the "strawman theory" into it. Half of the things you say I have made up were in the end, in fact, real, and the other half were me being too quick to make a page with only circumstantial evidence. I have not just made up things in my head though, I actually thought these were possible pages that could be made by things I read in sources. I did not, for example, pick a random page and delete the whole contents or change something huge in a page stating for example that humans can fly in the air. I think that would be called vandalism from a user than what I have done.
So firstly, yes the "Bloodaxe clan" was not a great entry I think since it might be just an organization and not a clan also. I thought I had seen some clans on wowwiki in which there were only one or two NPCs in the game alive, so I thought I would copy that example. I guess it was just a family name and organization name though. Also, I thought it was you that had deleted the "Dark Iron empire" entry because you are the one that keeps banning me and reverting 75% of my entries — so that was not you that deleted the entry.
Secondly, with the "Atal'ai" situation I was going by the evidence I had read. I read in Dark Factions and Troll Compendium that they were a faction. I was not the only one with that view if you look at the talk pages. I actually was trying to follow things you had told me in the past about Dark Factions being pretty current versus other sources. You told me about the Coins of the Tribes quest, but there is no coin for the "Atal'ai" — although yes there is one for the "Hakkari". All you told me was that one NPC mentioned the "Atal'ai" as a tribe. Since my "Dark Iron empire" was deleted, although not by you, for only having one NPC mentioning "empire", I thought the same should apply to the one NPC in your example mentioning "tribe". After you banned me, then you told me that there were around 4 quests and 2 NPCs that mentioned the "Atal'ai" as a tribe or a great civilization, but I was already banned before I even saw that evidence.
Thirdly, I am not sure what is the matter with Acid Bullet? I found that in Dark Factions. Did I mess up the word? I thought I copied it just like Dark Factions mentioned it. I am not sure what you are talking about with M1330/Kesmana except that he was banned for something to do with either socks in the internet (you know socks as in IP addresses or internet stuff) or a sock puppet.
Fourth point, I am pretty sure I heard from you that Dark Factions is the most recent source out there. I remember when we were talking about Azshara really being a coast of Ashenvale. You mentioned that in an RPG, which I think was Dark Factions, that it was right and I was wrong. I tried to tell you that in the game they are two different zones. I am only trying to copy what you tell me, but I still somehow I get it wrong. You told me the game was released before some of these RPG sources so my evidence was overruled, and that Blizzard does not have time to fix everything in the game to stay current with the RPGs. So I said, ok then Azshara is really a coast I will go with you on that. Now your telling me the opposite. Your telling me Dark Factions was written before some of these RPG books and parts of WoW, and that once again I am overruled. Also I checked the RPG timeline on wowwiki, since I am actually trying to be helpful and correct in these things, and it has Dark Factions, more or less, as more recent than APG, HPG, MG, and every other RPG book.
Lastly, two of my entries: the "Explorers' Guild" and "Bloodwarders". I thought "Exploreres' League" would be the most proper name, as is it is written in Dark Factions in that fashion — it is the heading in the Table of Contents. Brann is the one that keeps saying "Explorers' Guild" according to his point of view, but in the actual article it says "Explorers' League" and then underneath in smaller words it says aka "Explorers' Guild". Then later you told me it also is spelled as "Explorer's League", which I thought you were misspelling because I did not see it in Dark Factions, and you told me later what RPG it was spelled like that in, but got mad at me. I still told you though, the title of the actual page should still be "Explorers' League", and then you can write aka all the other titles afterwards, because in Dark Factions that is how it is written, and in the game the NPCs tags all say "Explorers' League". With the "Bloodwarders" all I said was that they were a blood elf organization. You said no because one or two other groups have "Bloodwarders" in their group — which are by the way blood elf groups too. I see many examples though of two or more groups sometimes sharing one unit with another. For example, there are two groups: one called the "Bloodaxe Legion" and the other the "Scarshield Legion" who reside in the Blackrock Spire area. One unit is called the "Bloodaxe Worg", yet both the "Bloodaxe Legion" and "Scarshield Legion" have that unit in their teams. According to you that cannot be possible, yet it happens. Tying in with my example of the "Bloodwarders", you would say that there is no such thing as a "Bloodaxe" group because the word Bloodaxe is used in two different groups, yet that does happen as seen in this example of the "Bloodxaxe Worg" being in two different groups. Yet there is still a "Bloodaxe Legion" that exists even if it shares units between another group. I am not sure if this is because of their close relationships or what, but it occurs. Saying the "Bloodwarders" may not be a group, even though there are 16 NPCs with that name, and is only maybe a class, is not entirely correct.
So there is my reply. I am trying to follow the rules, although I mess up sometimes, but the rules seem to always change on me. One day a source is more important that another. Then I use that same source for my page and it is now not that important. Also, maybe the Move Page button and stuff should be disabled for non admins since sometimes when it is used, correctly by some users, bans occur.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm trying to be clear here, but I'm not giving any promises (i'm not sure we speak the same linguistical dialect). Not everything fits into perfect molds. For many things we take tings on a case by case situation. Some materiallike Juggernaught, or Conjurer we go by the first term ever mentioned in lore, even though there are equally valid alternative spellings that mean the exact same thing. Tinker and a tinkerer mean the same thing for example. Point of note "also known as" always has and will alway smean equivlant to, or equal to. Ingame while yes Explorer's League is more common, Explorer's Guild came first, and Explorer's Guild is referenced in WoW on rare occasions. Both have equivalent and equal meaning, and both have equally been used as page titles for major articles. In this case the first source clause has been kicked in (this is why its been listed under Explorer's Guild, even though you can also find Explorer's League ingame for who knows how long). The Explorer's Guild , and simply "the Guild" has also been used as the official titles for certain members of the Guild as well. The trick here is we consider all the terms equal, and that's what the definition of "also known as" means as well.
Sometimes a term might have multiple meanings, for example Eversong Forest has a valid definition (different from Eversong Woods) and the aritcle discuses both. I was trying to explain to you that such book that mentioned Ashenvale coast line was referring to an extended definition that goes beyond the in game zone, to a meaning forest that covers all eastern flank of Mount Hyjal including the Azshara zone area, and it was cited quotation. The importance here is try to avoid removing citations or quoted info. If at all possible list both quoatations. IF something confuses you ask in the talk page, we'll try to answer there. But make sure the questions are only for editorial purposes. Please don't think that because something worked one way in one place thatit will necessarily work well in another place.
Arcane bullet, the problem was not how you presented the content (although you capitalized the term although its not capitalized in the original article). The problem was a combination of relevence, and a copyright issue. Remember how e have warned you about adding articles that only one sentence in nature if at all possible. Try to limit it to stuff with proper nounds, and can be given a three to four sentence paragraph or more info. Try to read User_talk:Zakolj for more details relating to this topic. You'll notice I did give him permision to add more short content if he asked first, and there was related artwork, or if the material could be combined under another related article. Try to keep that in mind, please ask first.
As mentioned before please try to be careful against capitalizing things that are not considered proper nouns. An article might be capitalized but that doesn't mean the subject of the article is capitalized. Make sure you read the original articles closely to see if the term was capitalized throughout the entire article before you capitalize the article yourself.
As for moving articles, please leave that up to admins after consensus has been determined in a discussion or if they deem the move valid. Related to this try not to be an armchair admin or bookkeeper. That is not your job.
As for latest sources, its factored in to some degree, but it isn't the only benchmark, nor the main benchmark. Its also not 100% straight forward or reliable since one source may be the latest published source, but not necessarily the latest written/updated source. Generally speaking we treat all sources as equal as possible. Sometimes conflicts exist, all the info must be incorporated into the article somehow. but how that is done is done on a case by case basis.
Sometimes if the info is a small difference, an editorial note is added. Someties the notes are put at the end of an article in a speculation section. The larger the note the more likely it will be put at the end of the article. If inuniverse notation describes two beliefs as seperate beliefs by individual or named characters, then both may be listed as "believed by". Please look at History of the Horde for examples of editorial notes, end section notes, and a few "believed by" type notices. Sometimes if the info is chronological to begin with, then both accounts will be mentioned with equal standing with the chornolgoical details mentioned, where they were chronologically said to have taken place in the timeline.
Also quite accusing me of saying "you make everyting up" I've only accused you of making up the "Bloodaxe clan"" (although I didn't technically accuse you, I just asked for the citation, you later claimed to have "made it up"), and even suggested you should have named the article Bloodaxe Legion. I have asked you where a source of information came from this doesn't mean I was accusing you of making the info up. Also adding fact template doesn't equate to accusing you of "making stuff up", it jsut means please add the actual citation.
I know I might not have covered your whole post but I hope I covered most of it.Baggins (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we do speak the same dialect but I am not sure sometimes. Ya I do get what your saying except now I just read this today on the canon page. It says the game has a bit more weight versus other sources? "According to one example Metzen states the games themselves are considered the benchmarks for information, with the MMO setting the standard." I am not sure if the website is included in that or not, but it does give us something to look at — unless that page or quote is wrong. I am just reading it today.
I didn't make a page on Arcane bullet I made one called Acid bullet, but I think your talking about that one right? Yes it was short but I thought it was a good entry since it was from Dark Factions.
On sources yes I know now that publishing and written dates can be different but it is hard for the average user to know those different things. Also on the RPG timeline it looks like Dark Factions is the latest at least in the timeline.
Okay I think I got everything you said. I also wrote about the stuff I just found out recently.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I added that paraphrase of Metzen's comment today, since it relates to that topic (mind you in his original quote he used novels as an example, but didnt' go into any other examples, or specific details). Don't confuse the comment as wowwiki policy comment, it isn't.
Our policy is still that everything is to be treated basically equal. Metzen's comment wouldn't even be able to be enforced. Think of it this way, if everything is considered canon, but some sections of sources are considered less than canon. There is no way that we could know what sections were considered less than canon. We have to treat all things basically equal, because we don't now what Blizzard knows behind the scenes. Fan opinions of what is and isn't canon is not reliable, nor is it neutral point of view. Such discussion usually devolve into violent arguements. This is why in the past I've had to tell people to leave out discussions of canon. This is also why our writing lore policy is the way it is.
The timeline stuff is just going by publishing date, not necessarily written date. To be fair we don't always know what the written dates are, its an interesting bit of trivia that we even know about the background behind Dark Factions publishing history.
Yes, I meant acid bullet, sorry for the confusion. While yes I can agree with you that it might be interesting to some people, its rather too short to be relevent in other articles. You can't really link it to anything else. It doesn't even connect with MMO ammo, as far as I know. So its a bit too random. If there was a generic article on warcraft ammo it might make for a datapoint inside that article but not as a stand alone article. You can read more criteria on Zacolj's talk page.Baggins (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah that is why I read the canon page recently, I saw it on recent activity and read it.
Yes on the timeline I thought it was meant as a timeline in lore too. For example it says, "Shadows & Light covers material from War of the Ancients up to just after the The Frozen Throne" and "Alliance Player's Guide appears to take place during World of Warcraft, has material that leads into The Burning Crusade. Varian Wrynn has not yet escaped imprisonment on Alcaz Island". I thought that meant as each book came out on that list it had better sources or something. As in the later the book came out the better the source was? I guess it was not like that but I was starting to follow it like that.
On the Acid bullet entry, I thought some people were just interested in RPG type of information, so I put that in wowwiki since it was not in yet.
I seem to learn something new every day.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that timeline actually that's just when the books take place chronologically,it has nothing to do with with when it was written or when it was published. Its just there for people to understand roughly when the events mentioned in the book take place, compared to other timelines. There is some overlap between APG, HPG, and DF as far as the progression of major events, but some events have progressed between the books.Baggins (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see now.
By the way, not to go back to the old subject really, but I was looking at those coins for that quest you told me about. Although Atal'ai is not included, it does mention Hakkari. It says that the "Coins of the Tribe" are also called "Paragons of Power". The thing is that the "Coins of the Tribe" actually are not just coins it says — they include Zul'Gurub Coins, Hakkari Bijoux, and Primal Hakkari to my knowledge. Now they say "Tribe" and not "Tribes" so I am not sure if they mean "Tribe" as in the whole of Zul'Gurub back when it was the Gurubashi tribe or not. Now if you look at the coin sets, there are 3 different sets. 2 of the sets have coins that are already established tribe names. The third set has Hakkari, Zulian, and Razzashi Coins. The thing is that all the Zulian and Razzashi NPCs are beasts in the game. I don't think there was ever a Zulian or Razzashi tribe. Half of the Hakkari NPCs in the game are beasts, but half are also Trolls. It just seems like they are saying that not all those coins are just connected to Troll tribes. Putting Hakkari with the set of Zulian and Razzashi doesn't sound too good for evidence of a Hakkari tribe. I mean why didn't they include an Atal'ai coin? And why didn't they call it "Coins of the Tribes"? I just wanted to tell you that so we could add it to our known information in deciding if the Hakkari and/or the Atal'ai are tribes. You might find something I missed.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's as actually "Coins of the Tribes" according to the WoW data collecting websites[1]. If it its called coins of the Tribe" in wowwiki its probably a typo. I'm pretty sure you are mixed up, the coins, bijous and primal hakkari are part of the paragons of power. the bijous and primal hakkari aren't the coins of the tribes.Baggins (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I guess I saw a misspelled word, it is really "tribes". Still, it says right on the page Paragons of Power that "Paragons of Power, also called "Coins of the Tribes", consist of Zul'Gurub Coins, Hakkari Bijoux and Primal Hakkari items that can be obtained in Zul'Gurub." If you look at the page Zul'Gurub coins it says "A lesser paragons of power from fallen troll empires". Also you forgot about the whole Zulian and Razzashi not even being tribes.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


So much to edit, yet I cannot.

1) Could someone check out the Sandfury troll page? This is what it says: "According to the Troll Compendium, they are the descendants of the jungle trolls. However, the later published Monster Guide states that they originated from the main troll races, which descended from the Zandalar trolls." Those sentences are pretty much the same. The jungle trolls are one of the main troll races which descended from the Zandalar trolls. It looks like just keeping the first quote is good enough.

2) Cool job, Coobra, on the WCIII GIF page. Hope more get added.

3) On the Trogg page under trivia it says that Trogg is a reference to the word troglodyte, or caveman. Wouldn't the Troglodyte of the RPG be more of a reference to the word troglodyte? Also, wouldn't either of them be more of a reference to Dungeon and Dragons, and not just cavemen.

4) On the Manticora page under trivia it says that Manticora is a reference to the manticore. Wouldn't the Manticore of the RPG be a more of a reference to the manticore?

5) Why is the word orcish, which is a language, used a lot in the sentence "The orcish Horde..."? Isn't that like saying the common Humans or the the dwarven Dwarves?

6) In the page Quest:Hameya's Plea, it says that the lich who caused Hameya's change is the Lich King. On the Mossflayer tribe page it just says a lich caused the problems.

7) The pages Frost Giant and Molten Giant say that they are both Mountain Giants. I checked the citations and I am pretty sure it never mentions them being Mountain giants. I think that like the elements — fire, earth, water (frost), and wind — that they are seperate from each other. I mean is the page on Storm Giant next going to say that it is a Mountain Giant too?

8) Does the Stormpike Emissary and Scarlet Crusade really share the same emblem? They both are red.

9) Proto-dragons might be the precursor of all the other dragon flights because: "White is the combination of all the colors of the visible light spectrum." I am not sure why some dragons say they were born at the "dawn of time" though. How come on the page Dragonflight it says that the dragonflights are "Sub-races of Dragons"?

10) It says on the Drakkari tribe page that "Unlike some other troll tribes, a group of ice trolls still retains a portion of its kingdom: The Drakkari live in Zul’Drak in Northrend." Doesn't that mean that they should be included in Troll Empires on the Template:Trolls? It wasn't as big as the Twin Empires, but they should get credit for having a sizeable empire at all.

Over and out.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm too bsuy so I can't go through all these right now, but here is a few comments

10. a kingdom and a tribe aren't the same thing.

9. If you cojmbined all the colors together you'll get brown dark colors, if you combine pigments. Pigements aren't the same as "light". That kind of speculation should probably be avoided.Baggins (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ok you can read them anytime. Okay here is my reply.
10. Why does it say then that the Drakkari still retain a portion of their kingdom? Take it out of the page then if that is not really the case. I think it is the case since the Drakkari still have other tribes under their rule.
9. Okay so then is it fair to say that the Black Dragonflight might be the precursor to all the other Dragonflights? If you combine all colors you get a shade of black color.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5) "orcish" is being used as an adjective, it isn't referring to the language at all. The Alliance was sometimes referred to the "human Alliance."
9) That's too far into speculation we don't really need. Though most of the colors have symbolic significance, there's no evidence to suggest that one begets the other. By that logic, surely a White Dragonflight would be the precursor with the Blacks being what happened when the descendent colors breeded with each other. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
5) Oh okay so orcish is like saying human? I thought it would be something like the orc horde and not the orcish horde.
9) Well I am trying to figure out why the dragons said they were around at the dawn of time when there are proto-dragons around now we have found out.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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