Nerglish

Heeeey, wait

I'm sorry, but making faction page for every Elemental lord doesn't make sense to me. Therazane has it's page because it's playable faction, while other are not. If you really want to create pages like Ragnaros' minions abd so on, you should also do it for Tgerazane, because she doesn't have this page either. Just my opinion ;) Neutralion (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's doesn't need to be done too since the Elemenetal plane could be considered their kingdom or faction--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hystory section

I'm having problems with the hystory section i know something but i don't know how to write them in Pre-wow history

• Before the titans there were the old gods and the elementals
• they were imprisoned by the titans
• they influenced the war of the ancients to weaken their prisons
• C'thun caused the war of the shifting sands

Could Anybody help?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody?--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the history section neither the alliance or the horde article have it--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinda Finished

The article is currently kinda finished the rest i think it's just correct small errors, add some image and i think it's very similiar to the horde and alliance articles, I anybody has any problem tell me, meawhile i'm going to put this uder scrutinity of the guys at sol--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the Article name grammatically correct the ' seems to be in the wrong place

Anyway the Hystory section and disorganized text are saved at User:Ashbear160/Old god force's in case someone needs it--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The name is grammatically correct. An apostrophe is used to denote possession; in this case, the forces belonging to the Old Gods. Your page name is wrong, because you are using an apostrophe to denote pluralization, which is absolutely wrong all the time ever. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone needs to rewrite the opening two paragraphs, because I can barely make sense of that. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's really a mess. This page is going to have the {{Construction}} tag for a LONG time. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rewritting the first paragraph i rewrote the second paragraph, is this more to your standards--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit, but it's still one big, long, run-on sentence. And as Gourra pointed out, the rest of the article's not much better. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tried Changing it again i think it's better except for my abuse of the words old gods, i'm thinking of trasfering the second paragraph to another section, but what do you think of the first 2 paragraphs now?--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not like this page. I have not liked it since this project began, and it has only improved slightly. I would have deleted the page a while ago if not for 1) the concept existing, and 2) the chance that it could improve. Making Ashbear160, Gabrirt, and anyone else who contributed to this page not feel bad was part of my inaction, but in retrospect that is slightly stupid. This page exists, and I fail any fan who reads this at face value and gets the wrong impression.
This is a little personal against Ashbear, but only because I feel that what is on the page now is the best that he can do, but factoring in him or not, this the page is still lacking. However, this is immature on my part, and Ashbear asked for criticism, so I will give it and assume that this will become better. Having something that you put your heart into dashed down (even if the reason may have been debatably justified) is one of the worst things that can happen to a person, so I do feel a bit bad for writing this.
Now, the criticism: The opening paragraph was a bit off, so I rewrote it. I feel that it is better this way. The icon-tastic (a word, so says me) list often takes liberties, trying to classify things in definitive ways, such as "race" name and function, based on circumstantial (or less) evidence. The list also seems to go out of its way to try to list every race of every faction that the Old Gods have somehow influenced. Whoever made the Kevin Bacon game might be proud, but some trimming could be justified. It also seems to make up names for sub-factions that are implied to be going to be filled in at a later date. This list itself loves icons (much like its creator), and is one of the most expansive bullet-pointed list that I have ever seen. Paragraphs might be better, but I am not sure, or sure how to fit them in.
The paragraph at the bottom is a welcome, but seemingly out of place, break. However, it is riddled with minor factual, and grammatical errors (like the list is) that just build up over time. The "Notable Leaders" section seems redundant with some section of the bullet-pointed list (while being another list itself), and just seems like an excuse to attempt to add a table. Also, of course the Old Gods lead them. I notice that the reference section is existent, but blank. The infobox itself seems to quite a bit of this page more or less redundant, especially the leader section. Finally, you have a template that seems to make quite a bit of this page more or less redundant. Also, the Old Gods are behind a lot, and their minions are only united really in that fact. That is my criticism.--SWM2448 03:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've written. I also feel (and have felt for some time) that many of those same points apply to the Burning Legion page, and the list at the end of every single member of the Burning Legion ever and everyone who's ever allied with them. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)