Talk: Baggins5154

• User talk:Baggins/archive1
• User talk:Baggins/archive2
• User talk:Baggins/archive3

Bolvar

First of all, you should know better than to leave non-editorial comments in an article. Second, the scan is an eyesore...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So is the poor quality scan of the card. Someone needs to make a scan of the card that doesn't crop out half Bolvar's body.Baggins (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Try not to remove correct citations and move information around haphazardly.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 06:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not an adminstrator. If you fancy yourself an armchair administrator and attempt to confront the admins any more you will lose your ability to edit.Baggins (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

All I said was to check out that edit you did, I guess on accident. You removed a citation and the other citation you put 5 spaces below the sentence. You also said an Alliance level was a Horde level.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 06:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you were the one who called it a Horde level. All I did was move your sentence around a bit. You are more than welcome to look at the edit history to see your mistake.[1] Avoid being confrontational, and you won't suffer this problem. Although my fault was that I might have backspaced the reference to "alliance level" accidently. However, that is no reason for you to accuse me of vandalizing your comments.

Secondly I was working on fixing the citations in the correct format, not the haphazard way you initiall left it. That edit was about to come up, if you hadn't edited first.Baggins (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL Haphazard is my word. I saw the edit you did and fixed it first that is all. I thought you were working on Beyond the Dark Portal information and didn't think you realized what you did. Also, when did pointing out some edit mistake and posting on a talk page (nicely I might add and I have been told that is the way you discuss something on here) become confrontational?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I never said you vandalized anything. I just said citation removal (because one citation disappeared from the page and the other sorta migrated down the page) and grammar edits because the sentences moved around sorta made it confusing reading it.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, I am not being confrontational. I have not said anything bad. I am just filling out that Edit summary box about what I edited like you told me. Can't admins make mistakes too? Also, I am not trying to make an admin fight another admin and then fight another admin.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Um, you might be asking "what do you want?" but Dragola has reverted 3 of my entries (and put more stuff on the violation list) for reasons he made up. If you could check them out and see if I am wrong it would be cool.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions regarding these revertions, then please do not hesitate to ask. I fully support them. In addition I'd like you to have another look at Rolandius's account since claims against him seem to be building up. Good day. Dragola (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolandius first, I hope you talked to Dragola in his talk page before asking me to look into the problem. I mean ask him in a non confrontational way (no accusations, just "why"). If conversation didn't lead you to see eye to eye, then you could ask the other admins, preferably by linking to your discussion so that we can mediate.

Secondly, if you have followed that procedure first, and then you got to the point to ask us, links to the pages of contention would be handy. Otherwise I'm not exactly sure what I'm having to look for.

Rolandius, if you are referring to his edit to "There is a game demo" messages in pages, a link to the game demo would be preferred over a link to the game demo page. The game demo page doesn't even have links to the game demos. Its not a strong citation. I'd suggest someone toss up the sources needed template into the game demo page until someone actually gives the links to said demos. Yes I know the demos exist, but as a service to the community, links to them are needed.

Rolandius about the violation list, it contains two kinds of entries suspect and ban entries. While you may be marginally safe while being a suspect, if you don't avoid the violations being listed you could easily have suspect turn into ban entry, when that happens well you probably will get the ban. Further explanation to the system, for first time offenders (which no longer applies to you) who manage to get put up on the list by WoWWikians might be put up first on the ban. If admins look at the given information, and depending on the severity of the accusations, we might choose to either change the accusation to "suspect" or remove it after talking to the suspected person. Additionally if someone who has earned the respect as a valuable contributor to the community (well written and relevent additions to the wiki), was to somehow get put into the violation list by another community member, then that would be taken into account. If it appears to be a rare mistake/infraction, then more than likely the suspect or ban entry would be removed, and both parties given explanations. This of course doesn't apply to problem offenders (those who repeat the same types of infractions, similar, or additional types again and again). These users are not likely to earn community respect. More often then not problem offenders will put themselves into the position of bans.

Dragola, while yes you understanably have the right to add additional perceived violations to the suspect and/or ban entries on the violation list (both types of entry) its what the list is made for. However, if you are going to add something to the violation list, please try to be a little less vague, please give a link to where you believe he added "false info", and please try to explain specifically what kind of false info. I hope the previous paragraph also gives you some insight into how the violations system works.

Also Dragola, I can't keep track of all your edits, and I don't know if you do this or not. I'm not sure were you are getting info to transcribe text from character/boss quotes, and I'm sure your probably getting them from legit places (I don't have Wrath, so I don't know what's been publically released). But please be careful if you haven't, not to add any datamined information from Wrath files (of unreleased beta content), or from off limit/closed areas, it still falls under the non-disclosure act. If you haven't datamined any details then please disregard this part of the message.Baggins (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't talk to him on his user page but I was talking to him on a page's talk page. The "There is a demo game" message I have put on Warcraft I's page and Warcraft II's page and no one said anything. It is there to just give people extra info that a demo exists. They can then go to the demo page and see what a game demo means, then maybe we can link stuff there like the WoW Trial demo is linked there. Instead, he just reverted the sentence then to top it off said the link goes nowhere. Also, on my Young Thrall image page I only was working with the info I had which was the demo. The demo only lets you see the orc campaign. You see an orc with broken chains. You click play and it tells you your now in the Arathi Highlands and you start playing as Thrall. So I thought that the orc was a depiction of Thrall when he first escaped prison since he had broken chains on his hands. By the way in prison they wouldn't exactly let Thrall have long hair I would think. He is still technically a caged prisoner. Anyways, Dragola then added me on the violation list for putting that image up and started telling me that by the soil and rocks around the orc that it looks like that the orc was in the Barrens, Kalimdor. That is speculation to me.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. You have been told give exact citations whenever possible. A link to a page that lacks citations itself is not good enough. Dragola had a point. Although he could have probably helped you out and given the links. But that wasn't his job, it was yours.

2. I deleted the image because it was speculation. Dragola's original point that it was speculation and should be deleted. He was right as every one else was trying to point out to you. But you had to go and attack him personally (you should not have accused him of being another vandal especially one who made many of the same mistakes you are making). Finally whatever speculation he made about the picture besides pointing out the fact it had to be deleted is irrelevent. I don't care if he speculated in the talk page. The only thing I care about is the fact that you originally assumed it was Thrall despite no concrete evidence, just a weak assumption. I don't care about you try to justify your reasons for naming that its all just circumstantial even less than that.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that Thrall is described as having hair in Lord of the Clans while he was in prison. Not that it matters. Just trivia. -Baggins (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Baggins (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I give exact citations they seem to be ignored have you noticed? Okay maybe that wasn't Thrall but it leads the demo player to believe it might be him. You see that orc. You click play. You are now Thrall. I am sure a lot of people think it is him when they play that demo. Also, once again, in fact ten times again for some people, the link where I said "A demo also exists" went to the page "game demo" where people could see what game demo means. I have done that on the Warcraft I and Warcraft II page with no problems. There are a lot of red links on wowwiki about game info for example an author or company that made a game. You don't see me going "hey delete that author's name from the page the link goes nowhere" right? I would be put on the violation list so fast your head would spin. Yet he said my link "held no information" when it did. There is a lot of info on what a game demo is on the "game demo" page. I did not say click here and you get to download a demo.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is more to posting than just giving exact citations... There are alot of factors... But I think I've tried to explain to to you in the past...

As for Warcraft III demo you could have at least linked Exodus of the Horde.Baggins (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Exodus of the Horde is right on the same page. I even told him check out Exodus of the Horde. I mean only other thing I could do was draw an arrow down to the next paragraph.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 03:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: non relevent pages

Thats fine, I was watching some parts of the conversation between Rolandius‎ and noticed how he threw me under the bus with the couple of pages I agree that I shouldn't have made... I was just waiting for someone to let me know of my actions... actually I was going to confess I had made those pages on his talk page during the conversation, but I didn't feel like getting involved. Every time he violates a policy, a warning always seems to turn into pages of talk talk talk. If you find other pages I made (that shouldn't have) just let me know... *cough* I can already think of a few... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

it may also mean something else. dark irons yes, but something else TOO Noobi666 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ahn'kahet

Oh joy.

Honestly, I'm thinking this is one of those times where we have an exemption from the normal rule. Of course, redirects are fine, so we can move it back if we want, but this is definitely a case where "Ahn'kahet" is going to be the more common usage as opposed to "Ahn'Kahet: The Old Kingdom". When I moved it back, I assumed it was a name you pulled out of the RPG, rather than the name found on Wowhead and co. --Sky (t · c · w) 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A further note is that we pull the titles out of character names if possible, and I would consider this much the same. We don't pull the titles out of place names, but "The Old Kingdom" is a reference to the Old Kingdom, so... --Sky (t · c · w) 13:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Continued on your talk page.Baggins (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted, however, your example is faulty in one way I think if not many, for "the Ebon Hold" is another name for it, I would say. I do not immediately associate the Old Kingdom with this new name of Ahn'kahet — perhaps that is something I will have to get used to. On the other hand, we may wish to tweak the policy to allow for ambiguity in this case - meaning both Acherus and Ahn'kahet would have their names shortened. Essentially, the biggest issue I have is the colon in place: it sounds and appears to be the title, but in both cases doesn't present the name of the place well. Would you call it Acherus: The Ebon Hold every time you needed to type it? Take for example, country names. The majority of country names in formal are items such as "the Kingdom of Sweden", but we call it simply "Sweden", and similarly on Wikipedia, it is located at "Sweden" and not at "Kingdom of Sweden". This is the case I'm making. "The most popular" makes the most sense in this case.

If you attempt to bring up "Kingdom of Lordaeron" or another such page, we do this for disambiguity for the other forms of Lordaeron, and not for any other reason.

As for removing titles, we break the rule because we have no other name, or in the case of Grom Hellscream (specifically), it is because that is his most common name. Which is again, what I'm arguing. You bring up a good case with weapons, and I think I'll answer that with the fact that item links using {{loot}} had to be exactly named — the functionality of which was only more recently added to npcbox and questbox... --Sky (t · c · w) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem you present isn't really a problem because both Old Kingdom and Ahn'kahet redirect into the full in-game place name. Ebon Hold and Acheaus redirect into the full in-game place name. It was Kirkburn that pointed out Acheaus: The Ebon Hold to me, as an example that Blizzard is now starting to do this with place names in-game.

Also, the only difference between the two place names is that yo had previously heard of "the Old Kingdom" but not Ahn'kahet, whereas Ebon Hold and Acheaus are new to you. That isn't an excuse, and really should not have a baring on the reason to leave out one name or the other.Baggins.

Btw, according to Gourra exact in-game place names are important, especially for dungeons, as they are used for certain templates (he apparently has had technical difficulties with Nexus being split into two pages, and apparently Utgarde Keep). Where the dungeon and an instance in the dungeon share the same name, being split intwo two articles (this has lead to the decision to combine the articles, since the difference between the two is only marginal.

For that matter he's apparently had difficulty in templates as well for when character names have been changed from their exact NPC names.(talk) 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"The problem you present [snip]" did not answer either of my points in an intuitive way; that the most common-place name (which I positively know most people won't be saying "Old Kingdom" or "Ahn'kahet: The Old Kingdom") should be the page's name makes sense, does it not? Nor did you answer the question of "What are you calling it?" In your specific case, probably the Old Kingdom, but for most people?...

Nor did your post answer my concern with titling nor the fact that for most places (or people!!!) that have titles (especially in the RPG), we chop the title off if we can.

"Also, the difference [snip]" - yes, I noted that. It was not an excuse, but a lead-in to the rest of the paragraph.

Technical difficulties? I'm critical of "difficulties" — I'm willing to bet there was an option not considered. As for character names, that is a restriction of Pcj's .js, which is the reason why items were cemented as not having a name-change allowed. His .js was not initially intended to be used with NPCs, so it wasn't an issue when it was developed.

As for you, Mr. Burn, he left a note on my talk page with his first, rather than directing me to the talk page of the article in question. I would have gladly left my opinion there otherwise. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*cough* use the article's own talk page :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sky depends on context. IF I was referring to a specific source, like WArcraft III, or the RPG, and quoting it, then I would be using Old Kingdom of course. If I was referring to WoW, I'd be using Ahn'kahet, and Ahn'kahet: The Old Kingdom most likely. Similar to how if we discuss black temple/black citadel, I would be quoting whichever a specific source said (with of course the differences given in the article). In anycase the discussion I had with Gourra, and Kirkburn is that the page itself should go by whatever the dungeon is specifically called in game, the full name.

Technical difficulties issues aside... That's not my department.

As for your "kingdom of" comments... What about Isle of Quel'Danas, when we could ahve just called it Quel'Danas and left out the "title" part of it. No, we chose to go with the ingame name for the place.

Finally, maybe I'm taking this too personally, but would have have attacked this action had Gourra or Kirkburn did instead? ...or was it just because I was the one that moved it? Cause frankly it seems you reverted me just because I made the move, based on some preconception that if "Baggins" moved it, "it must because of the RPG". Can I say that's rather a biased stereotype you have of me?Baggins (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My JS does not require the item/quest/NPC to be the same as the page name, that is not an intended limitation, but would be a bug. Seems to work fine for me, please provide an example if this is not working. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pcj: Then I don't know what kind of issues with templates Gourra would be having, as that is the only unintended functionality that your script ever had, and was obviously fixed. And other issues with templates are solvable by the normal user...

Baggins: Yes, I probably would have. I discussed this issues of colons with Kirkburn before, but when you broached it on my talk page, I replied accordingly, and discussion ensued. The preconception that you think exists does exist I will admit, but the idea behind "it must be because of the RPG" was not the sole motivator, and in this I think you are taking it personally when you should not be. As I said, I made my move back due to other factors as well, and look now — we're discussing it like human beings, eh?

IQD: I was only mentioning Lordaeron because that is a necessarily disambiguated term, and I thought you might bring that up. For IQD specifically, we have a geographic "title" — to change what I have been saying, "The Old Kingdom" is a synonym and not a title, and again the issue I have arises. The common name should take precedence, and perhaps, in the case of IQD, that would be affected as well. Perhaps it would only be for the cases where we end up with a synonym in the name... --Sky (t · c · w) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of note "kingdom of Lordaeron (or Kingdom of Lordaeron)" is only a title as well. The place can properly just be called "Lordaeron", however the problem alrises that Lordaeron is also an alternate name for Capital City, and Lordaeron continent :p... Thus it has to be disambiguated. But its still a title.Baggins (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor point of order

Is it okay to post things on my user's page in first person, e.g. I and My, or should I rewrite it to third? evanfardreamer (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Its your user page. You can choose the style you use.Baggins (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abbendises

Thank you. That image is a screen caption from Ashbringer comic sneakpeek, Abbendis is a lieutenant of Highlord Mograine. Another interesting fact is the precence of Tirion that mocks Alexandros about his older age. Do you think is a good idea adding Fordring's image too? For example not as his infobox portrait? --N'Nanz (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Avatar

Avatar is a word used in many cases. for example:

• from Qiraji page: "...As the fallen Old God C'Thun recognized their appearance, he attempted to sunder the world that it once held in its unmerciful grasp. The Old God created avatars from the Silithid in its own image. These avatars were to be known as Qiraji. Sapient and with purpose, the Qiraji worked feverishly to build a force capable of laying waste to the world that would betray their god, with the Silithids as their minions..."
• Avatar of Freya
• Dwarven avatar

The page must reflect the main meaning of the world (that is "...It has since become more common to refer also to any bodily or other familiar representation of any god..." as you wrote). In truth the Dwarven ability/role is Dwarven avatar that gives the [Stoneform] ability. --N'Nanz (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually stoneform Avatar spell in the rpg, isn't tied to dwarves only. Humans, and gnomes can use it. Dwarven avatar is specific to rpg class.

Mark a section as "Avatar ability" but don't muddle up the Avatar class page.Baggins (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if I woould put the accent more on "other avatars", good work. ;) --N'Nanz (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference with stoneform? I mean in [Stoneform] page it's cited as the same. --N'Nanz (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Really not much of a difference, other than "stoneskin" is specifically the name of one of dwarven avatar's abilities. Its apparently a bit stronger (or can be used more often) than the standard dwarven "stoneflesh" ability or the RPG "stoneskin spell". Its also cast slightly differently (an ability rather than a spell). Later on a dwarven avatar can also get the "iron body" ability which is more or less an even stronger form of stoneform, turning their bodies to iron.Baggins (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus why keeping three pages (stoneform, avatar, dwarven avatar) for the same thing? --N'Nanz (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The avatar spell specifically has variants based on the source.

Dwarven avatar is somewhat of a poor man's mountain king. They don't start getting stone form abilities until later levels. So dwarven avatar and stoneform are not equal terms. Though some of the Dav's abilities are similar to stoneform.

Stoneform and avatar are seperate abilities on the RPG's mountain king even.Baggins (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

List of paladins

And now that the Silver Hand and the Argent Dawn have merged together, what RPG book would you take as main reference!? :p --N'Nanz (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To list Argent Crusade members you would need to pretty much only list Northrend paladins, and any paladins that specifically mention being part of the Argent Crusade. There isn't an even division, as far as I know. Unless they are completely removing faction or faction quests in game, Argent Dawn faction should still exist in game for people doing lower level quests. There will probably still be quests by people mentioning they are part of the Knights of the Silver Hand.Baggins (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See my reply in List of paladins talk page ;) --N'Nanz (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Duel concurrent membership=:

This way we should explain every attitude of a Knight of the Silver Hand: 1) pre-horde formation (part of the alliance, enemy of the old horde - e.g. Gavinrad the Dire and every deceased paladin before the new horde, a few radicals of today) 2) the new Silver Hand, friendly to both Alliance and Horde (Tirion Fordring) 3) member of the Alliance that have official role in it and thus was member of the Silver Hand and concurrently of the Alliance (e.g. Bolvar Fordragon). Is it good? --N'Nanz (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stormwind and ironforge are special cases, in that your paladins start out as being initated into the "bounced-back"Template:Cite, "Knights of the Silver Hand". This is the organization mentioned throughout most of the RPG. Though you have Tirion Fordring who apparently didn't acknowledge this part of the organization.Baggins (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What if we make something like Horde/Old Horde? Silver Hand (Tirions's one), Old Silver hand (Alliance-friendly one)? With the term "old" pointing out "old fashioned"--N'Nanz (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Never, never capitalize "old Horde" its not a proper organization. Personally that kind of discussion is something for the main Knights of the Silver Hand article. Its far too detailed for the infoboxes and goes up against a handful of given "official" interpretations and fan speculation that we simply should avoid in the boxes.Baggins (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, however my old-new was not meant as two different organization, just how the paladin read his role. I understand what you mean about the parenthesis. For example Bolvar Fordragon is a member of the Alliance and perhaps he still considers himself a Knight of the Silver Hand. On the other hand Brother Sammuel is a member of the Alliance and welcomes new paladins in the Knights of the Silver Hand, he is for certain a member. You would make them both concurrent members of the Silver Hand and take off parenthesis? --N'Nanz (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, it would imply "concurrent" without specifically stating so. Allowing for a bit of wiggle room in interpretation (though it was confirmed in published lore anyways).Baggins (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that former and ex-paladins suite better in the specifical section because it's difficult tracking their affiliation otherwise (and as always...) --N'Nanz (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Argent Crusade

It's like the old Argent Dawn, I don't know the difference (maybe just a mocking of the Scarlet Crusade/Scarlet Onslaught. What's the difference?). However proofs about being friendly towards Horde are:

• Quest:Warchief's Blessing and the quest item provided  [To Thrall, Warchief of the Horde]
• Eitrigg in Northrend tagged as a member of the Argent Crusade [2]

So its a shared faction? I.E. Horde can earn rep for it? I mean church of the light would allow in Horde members if they wanted to join, despite it being an "Alliance faction". Affiliation and who joins are two different things.Baggins (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems true as per the quest [3] I don't know for certain. (whoa Tirion isn't the leader of the Argent Crusade!!!). Wowhead hasn't yet Scarlet Crusade as a faction --N'Nanz (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I'm still examinating other sites... ATM it seems neutral toward the Alliance/Horde conflict --N'Nanz (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the only way that I can eliminate edit conflicts!!! Use two board, baggy :P --N'Nanz (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, the quest Pure Evil started in Zul'Drak by Captain Rupert, a forsaken that wears the tabard of the Argent Dawn (yes, I wrote right Argent DAWN) and ended by Eitrigg is for both sides thus I think it's a shared faction --N'Nanz (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

When Tirion says "My commander, Entari, awaits you at his post.", it does not mean for sure that Crusade Commander Entari > Fordring. 'My' may refer to my as in 'my boss' or my as in 'that guy who is mine', no?.--SWM2448 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Captain Rupert like Leonid Barthalomew in Light's Hope Chapel, who purposely cut his ties to the evil Forsaken? I'd be very careful about judging the organization's affiliation based on undead members. Because published lore has already questioned Argent Dawn's undead's loyalties to their original factions. Also one should take into account that Argent Dawn was already an Alliance favoring affiliation. Its also hinted that that the true forsaken faction (evil side of the faction) has had run ins with argent dawn at times. Although usually Forsaken were the only organization that Argent Dawn would work with. Only if Forsaken chose to work with the Argent Dawn when it suited them.Baggins (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right but in Zul'Drak, all around the Argent Stand there are NPCs of every race and purpose affiliated with the Argent Crusade.

Alliance:

• Draenei ([4])
• Dwarf ([5], [6], [[7], [8], [9], [10], )
• Gnome ([11])
• Human ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27])
• Night Elf ([28], [29], [30], )

Horde:

• Blood Elf ([31], [32], [33])
• Orc ([34], [35], [36], [37])
• Forsaken ([38], [39], [[40], [41])
• Tauren ([42], [43], [44])
• Troll (none)

Commanders are from every race not only humans and dwarves like the Argent Dawn. Plus there are emissaries from [Cenarion Circle and Earthen Ring that were at Light's Hope Chapel. --N'Nanz (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense for orcs and tauren, of the Earthen Ring and Cenarion Circle to be working with the Argent Crusade, while not necessarily members themselves. For the Earthen Ring would work with the Argent Dawn, although both factions were independent of each other, and not directly affiliated. The Circle is also an semi-Independent, alliance affiliated organization.

Additionally as mentioned in Dark Factions, a few members of the Horde would assist Argent Dawn, even if they were not official sponsors (not affiliated directly). Whereas as mentioned before the Alliance were sponsors, had direct affiliation. Even the main Argent Dawn headquarters was in Darnassus. Plus their various Alliance only outposts scattered throughout the world.

As mentioned before Forsaken is questionable, in the Argent Dawn some would work with the Crusade even if the Horde was not affiliated. Some completely left the Forsaken to become Argent Dawn members, becoming independent themselves.

Of course if these towns are neutral towns, it would definitely imply that they still hold their semi-independent status, although it still seems they probably favor the Alliance a bit more than they do the Horde.

Is there any evidence that the Horde is a direct sponsor at this point, or is the situation about the same with no direct affiliation?Baggins (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems nor Alliance nor Horde is directly affiliated with the AC because you join the Crusade (at least in Icecrown) indipendently, there is not a member of the Alliance or the Horde (that's to say a NPC) that sends you to join the Crusade, you are invited in by Tirion Fordring (the quest is Quest:Honor Above All Else). --N'Nanz (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus Gourra (one of wowwiki's few WotLK beta testers that posts something) confirmed me AC is a neutral faction. --N'Nanz (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Argent Crusade is a neutral faction; it gives out quests both to Horde and Alliance. g0urra[T҂C] 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to the Bolvar Fordragon/Saurfang the Younger happenings (Battle for the Undercity) now we know why nor the Alliance, nor the Horde directly supports the Crusade. --N'Nanz (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Karazhan paladins

Specifically Keira Berrybuck and Rafe Dreuger. I think they should not be listed as paladins. They have abilities like a paladin but from an historical point of view they can't be as such because they are nobles that went to Karazhan to visit Medivh (Ebonlocke quotes). This means that they were living before the end of the first war thus before the distruction of Stormwind (and its territories) and the formation of the Knight of the Silver Hand (first paladins to appear in Azeroth). Do we have to list them as paladins? --N'Nanz (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't confirmed to be paladins, then its best not to list them. Personally I'd stick with individuals that are said to be paladins in some fashion.Baggins (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Ok, I'm a newb at Wowwiki.

What's a citation? Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A reference where you got the information, so a person can click on something to know where the wiki got things from. You can use {{cite}} with WoWWiki:Citation index, <ref>Link goes here</ref>, or a few other things.--SWM2448 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do I have to go through the same thing with you too? Please use infoboxes when you create missions, or I'd be inclined to delete them per WW:STUB. g0urra[T҂C] 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem what do you think I'm actually working on...Baggins (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why should I?

The top says "in World of Warcraft"

They were not in World of Warcraft.

The top should be changed if you expect me to add those back. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire universe is called "World of Warcraft". Let's see Pandaren are in the rpg, which is also known as "World of Warcraft". Also, if you don't comply, I could just revert you, and actions could be taken.Baggins (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But the entire series ISN'T called "World of Warcraft".

I do believe Warcraft, Warcraft II, and Warcraft III are called by their respective names though, and not called "WoW", as the MMPORPG is.

And I will not put Garona back. While she may be part orc, she is still not an orc. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Garona did I? Actually the entire universe is now (retroactively) known as the World of Warcraft, despite previous games, and a few manga using the former plain "Warcraft" title. Of course to know this you kinda have to read the editorial letters in various sources like the manga :p...Baggins (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

/shrug. Well, I haven't read the manga, so I don't suppose you can blame me too much <_<. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the beginning of this conversation was about but I just wanted to mention something. It seems to me, as read on WoWWiki, that the word World of Warcraft stands for WoW, which is the name of the MMORPG game, but not the entire series. The entire series of games, books, etc. falls under the titles of Warcraft Universe or History of Warcraft. I am not sure if there is a retcon but on the official website it asks, "Want to know more about the lore of World of Warcraft?" It then says that to play World of Warcraft you are not required to know past Warcraft lore. That being said, as far back as Warcraft I, this was written in the introduction of the first game: "Welcome to the world of Warcraft". It would seem that prior to the WoW MMORPG everything was called either Warcraft or seen as being set in the world of Warcraft. When they titled the MMORPG World of Warcraft though, to distinguish between the two, it is called World of Warcraft for everything having to do with the era when WoW started, and of course beyond, and Warcraft Universe for everything having to do with the eras prior to the age roughly in which World of Warcraft began. Rolandius  (talk - contr) 05:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"World of Warcraft" has a triple meaning. A) the MMORPG, 2) the entire franchise, which people have taken to calling World of Warcraft because it is that game which had made it so mainstream (and because it is a general turn of phrase to call something "the world of <franchise>" and Zed) the universe of Warcraft, for the same reasons as previous. The only real and official rule is that Warcraft is the franchise and World of Warcraft is the game. Everything else is turn of phrase and convention.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange triple meaning with two arguments...

To me the "world of Warcraft" means the the Warcraft world and everything around it, and "World of Warcraft" is the MMORPG and the lore around it. That the WoWWiki name is "Your guide to the World of Warcraft" is a different matter... g0urra[T҂C] 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Meitre

Way to discuss that one. We know nothing about Meitre apart from the fact that he was apparently a night elf and that he wrote the scrolls. Eh, not worth arguing about, though I'm wondering if DeCandido did that much research...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well my point is more along the lines that the book discusses "Meitre's scrolls", the "Meitre scrolls", "Meitre's spells", the Meitre spells, "Meitre's penetration spell" etc. Meitre is the important thing that draws all those terms together. The use of the terms scrolls or spells themselves are more like descriptions of his journals :p.Baggins (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rolandius/Mentor

The idea of the page is so that he can list ideas and then he can edit after permission has been given, as well as general suggestions and possible policy-related questions. I don't mind you helping in clarifying matters that the RPG goes into or otherwise, but creating the Archmage page should have been reserved to him...

I've exchanged emails with Kirk and Rolandius over this. I'm not trying to be territorial about this — just give Rolandius a little breathing space, as you seem to be one of his main detractors (i.e., you two beat each other up more than you need to). --Sky (t · c · w) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to help him out. I thought he was pointing out somethign that was a problem, so I tried to help fix the problem.Baggins (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much. :) Just dropping you a line about what's going on, more or less. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My sig

i shrank the sig to 19 pixels so it follows the rules. Im trying to make a better one but its the right size now at least.--You know im seriously 1337 now. ^{{T1337 to the extreme.•CThe dragon protects me...that and my MG 30 glock of course..)} 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya its thin enough now.Baggins (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Class ideas

I'm here to talk about your edit comment. "not quite a redeemed hero. Try reading lore". Never mind that it sounded a bit rude, because I'm not offended. The thing is that what I meant was "hero got corrupted, then got redeemed" which fits with present DKs of WotLK. But after your next edit I think you perfectly understand what I meant. ;) Cheers, Severin Andrews 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warsong Clan

I play on the server Earthen Ring. I just have a RP question for you. I noticed as I am bringing my 2nd main through the Nagrand area. I revisit alot of the old clan ruins of the various Orc tribes ie; Laughing Skull clan, Burning Blade Clan and the Bleeding Hollow clan. This is great where as it sure helps me to better appreciate the lay out of the Lore Book "Lord of the Clans". However, I noticed that not all of the clans were included. I know Blizzard probably didn't have any point in adding all the ruins, but as a Role player and my main orc being that of Warsong ancestory. I'm curious to know just where the other clans were located. Was Garadar the original homestead of the Frost wolves ? I am under the impression it was name after Durotan's father. I am just out to learn more about the Orc life style before and after the portal. If you could give me a vague location where about the Warsong clan ( or any other) may have lived,that would be great. I am aware this is not something Blizzard has really set but I'm just curious :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syvbia (talk · contr).

Check out the maps on Draenor.Baggins (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Stormwind

History section done but my ugly english need corrections. How to make table fit? --N'Nanz (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the table should have the "collapse" on it. So that only shows if people click to look at it.Baggins (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. That's not a work for me. Needs a proper temolate, I think. --N'Nanz (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Titans again

On Talk:Aesir I mentioned that "...when a race that is made of metal makes golemish things in their image, it is hard to see where one begins and one ends." It was agreed that Archaedas and Archeras are constructs, but where do we draw the line? I know that is Blizzard's job, but there seems to be some confusion[45][46] regarding the flurry of pages you made to clarify the topic. Is it just Noobi's fault?--SWM2448 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think until blizzard makes a destinct description of what thigns and how they are different are we may just have to stick to model designations, or whatever is established in published lore. Archaedas and Archeras are somewhat easy in that we have been given specific published descriptions about them (even if stone keeper, stone watcher, and stone guardian gets used interchangeably depending on the source). Though stone keeper and stone watcher each had their own seperate articles in the rpg, with stone guardians getting various references in other sources. Stuff that use the "titan" model instead are even more difficult to define.Baggins (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Teron Gorefiend

I haven't BtDP. Are informations about his death correct? Was truely Turalyon to kill him? I remenber I read somewhere he committed suicide. --N'Nanz (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, it happens in the book... and ya, I think it ignores the storyline in the MMO. I seem to remember there being somethinga bout suicide.. I'd suggest doing something like with Kilrogg Deadeye, and point out the difference, if you know the quest citations.Baggins (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheched around for answers: in Quest:Teron Gorefiend - Lore and Legend (Alliance) or Quest:Teron Gorefiend - Lore and Legend (Alliance) the Ancient Shadowmoon Spirit (Teron's Spirit in disguise) says:

"...After the Second War, Gorefiend returned here, along with his death knights. Unable to cope with the terrible nature of his new form and without the support of his beloved leader, Gul'dan, Gorefiend killed himself.."

But afterward in Quest:Teron Gorefiend, I am... (Alliance) or Quest:Teron Gorefiend, I am... (Horde) he says:

"Surely you did not believe the fairy tale that I told you. The Altar of Shadows is my prison. Without your help, I would have been stuck here for all eternity. Now, I will take over your body and you will destroy my captors and break these bonds. Refuse and we will both be stuck here forever.

Teron Gorefiend will be free!"

Maybe his suicide was part of the "trick" to the player?--N'Nanz (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't discount that as being a possibility.Baggins (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Baggins, if you're reading this, User:Plytor is still being vandalized. --Bomyne (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Chicken or the Egg: Iron or Stone

Hello. I recently left a message on Talk:Race origins, but no one seems to have noticed it. It's about the question of who came first: Iron Earthen or Stone Earthen. On the page itself, in the evolution line, they have placed the Stone Earthen descending from the Iron Earthen without adding an 'alledged' tag. But I don't know of any evidence that points in that direction. On the contrary, the Discs of Norgannon seem to point that it is exactly the other way around. What is your opinion on the subject?

--Richeron [T | C] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say its possible that iron and stone are "races" if you will of "Earthen", and thus one doesn't "evolve" from another, but both being constructed the same time. Iron and stone gets used interchangeably in sources IIRC. I'm not sure they should be viewed as seperate species. To add to this as I recall there are hints at copper and bronze, and possibly other variations of Earthen. So i'm not sure the types are as generally that important, as the overall species as a whole.

Edit: I should at least point out that there were Earthen being constructed in different places all over the world. Some even in Kalimdor. They didn't all originate from Northrend.Baggins (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

aberration?

I'm inclined to agree with Rolandius on this one... I'm in the process of trying to clean up creature categories, so the fact that Category:Aberrations is not categorized is a little bothersome for me. If it fits in the Warcraft universe, I'd like to put it somewhere, but I'm not even sure what an aberration is. I looked up the D&D definition on wikipedia, which seems most relevant. Is "aberration" an important term in the Warcraft universe? If so, I think we need an article defining it. If not, I'd like to nominate the category for deletion. Just wanted to find out your thoughts first. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its actually a category used in the rpg, of the same level as "ooze", "giant", or "fey", as far as I know.Baggins (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is in the same category as "Monstrous", "Outsider", and "Extraplanar", but we don't use those terms. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Baggins, I'd be careful if I were you about putting what's in the RPG on the wiki. We don't want everything on here. g0urra[T҂C] 11:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm planning a structure for the RPG monsters categories. I'll fit it in there somewhere. I would suggest an article about what "aberration" means though. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The abberation section was already in Racial terminology, a long time ago. The category just didn't link to the relevant information. I've fixed that. ...and Gourra don't threaten me, the chances that I'll add anything new to the wiki is probably pretty slim. I have life in the way, and far more important things to do. Also, I really don't need to be anywhere where I'm not wanted... Your threat is pretty clear... I don't need this place giving me anxiety...

Rolandius actually Monstrous does get referenced in a few articles, as does Outsider (racial terminology page). Although I'm not sure Outsider and Monstrous are actually same level of categorization as Fey, Giant, and Aberration. Those are more "templates" added onto some other base types from what I recall, rather than racial types. Aberration received a few more refrences from Brann centric writing rather than being stat block only however, making it quite a different than something like "extraplanar". Side note "monstrous" is also terminology used in Warcraft III mobs, for super sized insect creatures and spiders.

edit: Ok yes outsider is the same type of classification as "humanoid", "giant", fey", aberration", i.e creature type. Monstrous is actually a size categorization, rather than racial/class categorization. Actually this is pretty much limited to monstrous spider, and monstrous scorpions from the Monster Guide Extras (monstrous is used as the actually creatures name referring to its size). Size categorizations include categorizes such as huge, tiny, small, etc. Thus monstrous spiders can come in various sizes of huge, large, etc. In this case "monsterous" is different form of categorization, actually a name description. The only exception is monstrous humanoid which is one of the main creature types, like Humanoid, or Aberration.

Extraplanar is actually a subtype, rather than creature type. Subtypes are totally differnet type of classification, and have nothing to do with "creature type".Baggins (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Which should I use?

I started with the whole Warcraft thing when WC3 RoC came out, but I played Tides of Darkness a bit later.

Which template should I use, the one that says I've been playing since RoC or since ToD? Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthropods and such

I'm going to ignore the "Don't know where you're from" comment for now, but if you have a problem with my edits, please discuss them with me on my talk page.

I moved Category:Arthropods and Category:Amphibious and any others that didn't fit out of Creatures because they are not a part of WoW. Category:Creatures is directly below some WoW specific categories and was filled mostly with WoW articles. It only made sense to move the RPG articles under the RPG category. Here is the structure to illustrate:

Category:World of Warcraft NPCs

• Category:Mobs (among others)
  • Category:Creatures (among others)

I've been cleaning up the Creatures category and I've been trying to be very vocal about it so that if anyone has any problem they can talk to me about it.

Now, I still don't think arthropods or amphibious belong in Category:Creatures and I don't think your change to the category helped keep it organized at all.

If these categories don't make any sense in Category:Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, then how about we make a Lore category that contains all creatures from every game? (Category:Lore is in dire need of some cleanup itself - 965 articles?) I propose this:

Category:Lore

• Category:Warcraft creatures (open to alternate name suggestions)
  • Category:Creatures
  • Category:RPG monsters
  • Category:Arthropods etc.

I'll wait for your comments before changing some of what you did. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is that things were being tossed under RPG monsters, that have nothing to do with the RPG. Novels do not "count" as rpg. We have other generic although perhaps too biological "scientific" categories that have nothing to do with the rpg at all. As for rpg categories, it needed far more specification pointing out that its different than the WoW or WC3 creature classifications.Baggins (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm the first to admit my lore knowledge is lacking. What do you think about the category I proposed above? -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping arthropods as a subcategory of "creatures". But expansion to the category explanation, to point out its not a "gaming" category.

As for RPG categories, I suggest using it for now, until we can think of better title. I'm not eliminating it, and actually just using it mainly for "overall" true rpg creature classifications.Baggins (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, RPG monsters was named that way to comply with the convention started with Category:RPG classes, Category:RPG fanbooks and Category:RPG professions. I'm not attached to the name, in fact, I probably won't go near the RPG categories because I don't have a MoM of my own to consult and it's not my interest anyway. Feel free to rename it as you see fit.

As for Category:Creatures, I do have an interest in that category, and I want it to contain only the 10 creature types that are classified in WoW, as it mostly has been all along. If you don't agree, I will create another category for that purpose and move the creatures category under the Lore category so that it does not descend directly from WoW.

So, it looks like another category needs to be created either way. Do you think it's better to use the Lore category structure I linked above (with Category:Warcraft creatures to encompass all warcraft creatures) or should I make another category named Category:World of Warcraft creatures (or something to that effect)? -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this actually. There's a category called Category:Creature types that I was voting to get rid of because it was redundant. I'll use that category in the WoW tree. We can move Category:Creatures under Lore so that it contains all warcraft creatures. Structures would look like this:

Category:Lore

• Category:Creatures
  • Category:Creature types
    • the 10 wow creature categories
  • Category:RPG monsters
  • Category:Arthropods etc.

and

Category:World of Warcraft NPCs

• Category:Mobs (among others)
  • Category:Creature types (among others)
    • the 10 wow creature categories

--Mordsith - (talk|contr) 00:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off I'd recommend to look at Category:Classes as a template, where we separate things into RPG classes, WoW classes, RTS and any other needed subgroup, inside the main category.

From there their may be some cross over, something might fit under both rpg and WoW, so an article might have more than one category directing it into various subcategories. I.E. something might be humanoid (wow) but a fey in lore and/or rpg terms.

Also creature classification is somewhat more complex. Sometimes we classify based on overall species type, and also by game mechanics, or in the case of some creatures model names(titan model for example). Mutants is more of a lore classification rather than a creature type.

Finally, a good thing to take into consideration is WoWWiki's aim, see the about page. We try to treat things at the same level, WoW might be the main focus but its not the priority. That essentially means in this case we try to make the main category for something disambiguate into sub categories that each focus on the various genre differences. But make the main category at least point out and explain main differences to avoid confusion. Baggins (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand and I'm really not trying to segregate. There will and should be overlap in the articles and categories. But the category tree structure from the top down doesn't make any sense as it is, making it extremely difficult to figure out where articles should go.

For example, if we go higher up, Root --> Content and then both Category:Lore and Category:World of Warcraft. The rest of the games are buried under Content --> Sources --> Games, and WoW should be moved there too imo.

As for the current situation, as I said, I'm not trying to segregate things, just organize them. WoW has a clear distinction about what the creature types are, and if an editor is trying to categorize a wow mob, they should be able to follow that tree down and figure out which is the most specific category that applies. The categories can and should be in multiple trees because everything overlaps in the warcraft universe, but I am working on structuring the WoW Mobs tree. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 00:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think ot make things most clear, I'd suggest creatures as the main article, then perhaps "WoW Creatures", and "RPG Creatures" to follow the format in the classes page. It should be easier to follow.Baggins (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But I understand that there's currently a discussion over "WoW" vs. "World of Warcraft". Current policy is to use the latter if I'm not mistaken, so here's my plan. Move Category:RPG monsters to Category:RPG creatures as you suggested. Then create Category:World of Warcraft creatures which will only contain the 10 wow creature types. Then I'll move Category:Creatures under Category:Lore and place both the RPG creatures and World of Warcraft creatures in it as subcategories along with any extraneous articles or subcats that don't belong in either RPG or WoW. How does that sound? -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 00:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wonders if we should also make "RPG" = Role Playing Game creatures, and do away with acronyms?Baggins (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah. =) I'm not getting into that here. There's a vote on the situation WoWWiki talk:Policy/Category/Names. Seems to be not really going anywhere at the moment. Personally I prefer the acronyms because "World of Warcraft creatures" is so cumbersome, but I'll go with current policy until the vote is over. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Barthilas

He is still alive in Old Stratholme. Retcon of his death by orcs hands or misinterpretation? (Read talk page too) --N'Nanz (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the passage about that the paladin Barthilas may not be the same character as Magistrate Barthilas was somehow removed. I haven't read Of Blood and Honor, but I suspect that the lore about the paladin Barthilas is from there. g0urra[T҂C] 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Krenka.JPG

Why does the image say "SATYR" in the bottom right? Is that an artist signature? Or a mistake in the source, listing this picture as satyr instead of centaur? Just curious, and maybe a note should be added to the image page? -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Satyr is an artist[47], :p.Baggins (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Retouched the image. g0urra[T҂C] 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hestra

I hope there's more info than what you posted, or there'll be the "don't make one-sentence article" sense again. g0urra[T҂C] 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Last Guardian

Do you remember which character was the one that actually sent Khadgar to "spy" on Medivh? If I remember he was pretty high up in the Kirin Tor. I think he should be a supporting character because he had some lines and they refer to him a lot, if I remember correctly. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove that the character was used for 4-5 pages (not just brief references) or more in an important role and can expand an article beyond a stub. The so be it :).Baggins (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you remember his name. Or else I have to go find the book and see if I can find his name. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ohI don't remember exactly.Baggins (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agh. I will look in the book then. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Clans

Are we counting animal characters? Like the horses and wolves that had names. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Characters are people, not animals. More like a possession. I'd maybe add them to notes list.Baggins (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well you know how orcs and their wolves look at themselves as "family". Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider my pets family as well, but that doesn't make them "characters" from a real world perspective :p. Remember that this is intended to be a literary help, not in-universe perspective note. If it was I don't think they would be seeing each other as main or supporting or minor characters ;).Baggins (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course if you can prove that the animal actually has a literal readable conversation with other characters, i.e. a "talking animal" go ahead and add it. However, make sure a few noteable quotes from animal, proving that it actually speaks...and one sided druid/shaman "feeling" what the animal is thinking doesn't count. I mean literal phrases from the animal itselfBaggins (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will check if there are any quotes from animals. Oh wait there isn't. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think so :), heh heh.Baggins (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages

Is there a way I can move more than two articles in a row without waiting when I have a batch of pages to move? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure actually.Baggins (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of curious as to why the factions of taurens are being moved to "<name> tribe" and not clan, the quest Quest:Confirming the Suspicion says on the first line The Grimtotems may be the most warlike of all the tauren clans... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah, hah you might have noticed on our clan page, and tribe we have warnings that blizzard interchanges the terms all of the time. Grimtotem tribe was a major article title in the RPG, but they have been referred to as clans in random places all over as well. I personally wouldn't suggest moving them unless you have a direct reference either calling them a tribe or a clan specifically...

As for tribes actually the RPG probably uses it more for tauren than it uses clans. IIRC, Cairne Bloodhoof is described as Chieftain of the United Tauren Tribes. ...and of course "tribe" actually fits the whole stereotyped "Native American" motif...Baggins (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, ok then, just peaked my interest cause Rolandius was moving all of them to tribe and changing the categories to non-existent ones. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So this is non-existent "Category:Tauren tribes"? Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, meaning Category:Grimtotem clan and then Category:Grimtotem Tribe. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Although whatever is used, tribe or clan needs to be lower case.Baggins (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh an additional issue. Not all "surnames" are neccesasrily tribes. A good example is Grundig Darkcloud is a member of the Grimtotem tribe, but not a Darkcloud tribe.Baggins (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I changed it to start matching up with what they are. It doesn't make sense to have a Grimtotem clan article with a Grimtotem tribe category or vice versa. I didn't create any "new" tribes just whatever tribe was in the page. So if there was something saying Darkcloud tribe then i fixed it. If the Darkcloud tribe doesn't exist then it shouldn't be mentioned as a tribe. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dark Blood Knights

I'm not saying that they can't be blood knights (or well...I guess I did before...oh well <.<), I'm just saying that there aren't any felblood blood knights in the game or in lore, so they shouldn't be recorded as being able to be blood knights.

Also, Balnazzar only does it for survival reasons. If it was up to him, he'd be snuggling all nice and cozy with up where ever the rest of the Burning Legion was. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no I'm fine with you removing it from the list. I was just pointing out that the possiblity could exist, howbeit ever small. But since no known ones exist its not really needed in the list, so yes you were fine with removing it.Baggins (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've gotten into a bunch of trouble on this sight before, so I've always got a kinda "danger-sense" on, hehe XD Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scourge gnome

What do you think about Scourge gnomes? I would think like the other races... just undead creatures that happen to be gnomes. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I think I'd agree... and no support of a model name either eh? Edit: Oh at least it cites the model name.Baggins (talk)

Technically the model's name is Gnome with the skin GnomeLeperSkin... so yea... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So another LeperGnome skin variation...? :p... Eh.Baggins (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well from what I read, it was the Alpha skin used for leper gnomes, till they changed it to a more... well, kind of what they did to ogres they didn't wait a few patches lol. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. Same thing happened with humans. Old skins appear in Old Hillsbrad.Baggins (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see why Scourge gnome was named as such... to match Scourge troll. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I can verify that "scourge troll" was actually an official term in the book. "Scourge Troll, undead male ice troll barbarian"Template:CiteBaggins (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference

To your knowledge... is there a difference between using Category:Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game and Category:World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game? Or for that matter... a reason to keep both? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter is book specific, World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game.Baggins (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But that redirects to Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have linked to wrong page. I was referring To the corebook specific page. We also have a specific page and category for the original corebook as well.Baggins (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact check

Wanted to get your opinion of these edits:

1. Qiraji
2. Broken draenei
3. Fel orc
4. Ogre

Pretty sure all the info that has been there is all updated, since the articles aren't that young and I don't really have a way to verify them. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

heroes bonescyte battlegear

The page Heroes' Bonescythe Battlegear says that you can buy the tokens of the chest and the gloves for emblems but there is no amount, I tried to put the amount there, but I couldn't find them in the edit window. could you change it or tell me how? thanks, Mezirsha (Talk)

Hmm, if its a template issue you should probably post your question to User:Gourra.Baggins (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius again

I saw your discussions with him and if you have problems you really should talk to Fandyllic. It is not pitting you against each other this time, Fandyllic is Rolandius' new mentor and the only one that can deal with him. After what happened before it is best to be safe.--SWM2448 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Really. If Rolandius has broken the rules at User:Rolandius/Mentor#The_rules_reiterated, Fandyllic may do something. After thinking about my previous comment, it occurred to me that it sounded like I was trying to get you to start a war in my stead, but that was not my intent at all. If you want, I'll even be the one talk to Fandyllic. That is, if I can find a strong enough leg to stand on, as Rolandius has a lot of edits for me to go through in order to provide significant citation for any accusations. He is rude (Especially to you for some reason) and refuses to "get" many of the things he is told. Fandyllic may have chained his page creation, but his other problems are not going away on their own. Should something be done?--SWM2448 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I started User_talk:Rolandius/Mentor#Review.--SWM2448 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Plenty of questions. I basically bumbled through the creation of List of mounts. I think I unknowlingly trod all over User:Coobra, who is clearly a very wise and patient person *grin*. Thank you for the welcome, glad there is somewhere I can ask questions. Kainas (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Azeroth

Hi Baggins, may I ask you why did you move Kingdom of Azeroth to Azeroth (kingdom)? There are plenty of sources refering as kingdom of Azeroth, so why should a parentesis be needed? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was moved for the same reason as "continent of Azeroth" in that its as "kingdom of" and "continent of" are being used as descriptors to seperate the meaning of the term Azeroth from other uses of the word, but the actual name is simply "Azeroth". Neither descriptions being used as proper nouns. In most parts of warcraft and Warcraft II manuals its simply "Azeroth", and with the exception of one example in Warcraft I and and two in Warcraft II manuals, where "Kingdom of Azeroth" is capalized (noting it tends to capitalize many things including races) its generally referred to as simply Azeroth or is described as the "kingdom of Azeroth" most of the time. Infact its title heading in Warcraft II and Alliance Player's Guide is simply "Azeroth".Baggins (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the answer. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So Baggins you merged everything into two articles but that makes a bunch of problems...First, why would the world of azeroth need to be in parentesis Azeroth (world), while not the continent Azeroth; also you just ignore all the citation I and rolandius gave you about the continent and subcontinent and do whatever you want; at moving the pages like that and removing the disambiguation, many linkings to Azeroth (world) will now get you to the continent/kingdom article. And finally, why did you merge the contient article with the kingdom article?, this time I could give you as many citations as you like marking them as different things, as you say in World of Warcraft manual it has two uses, for the world and the subcontinent, but remember Warcraft II when it WAS a kingdom. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually first off the term "subcontinent" has never been used as far as I can tell. "Azeroth" has been described as a continent of the Eastern Kingdoms in all sources. Some of your citations never described eastern kingdoms or the various continents specifically "continents", but simply called the areas as a whole "Azeroth". No use of "subcontinent" was mentioned. Also point of note Rolandius had a completely different interpretation (speculation) of the text of the Lands of Conflict, than yours. I didn't completely ignore your interpretation, there is a note about "subcontinents" in the article, and your citations and speculation are in the talk page (actually a post rolandius version of your speculation, you might want to recover and add your version to the talk page). Secondly, there was a huge argument between what the meaning of what "Azeroth" is in the Warcraft II. Several regions that are said to be domains of Azeroth, including ("Balor, Azeroth", "Black Morass, Azeroth", "Stormwind, Azeroth"). Azeroth by itself isn't treated as a domain (no "Azeroth, Azeroth"), yet Horde definitely had control of it. Additionally the issue that Stormwind is "Azeroth" (the terms are used interchangeably), we already have an article for Stormwind. While it was speculationed previously that "Azeroth" was a term used for the kingdom before Warcraft III, this is not technically true, since we see that the kingdom of Stormwind was used in Tides of Darkness novel, which takes place the same time as the game, oops on Blizzard's part. So simply put the pages were more or less based on speculation based only on a few descriptions in varied sources (with different people's interpetations of the text). That is hardly reliable. Simply put, "continent of", "kingdom of" are descriptions rather than proper titles, and most of the time those descriptions aren't even mentioned, Azeroth is used primarily by itself (allowing for multiple interpretation of certain sentences depending on each person's perspective). Also has anyone noticed that by naming the three continents, "Eastern Kingdoms" they suggest that Lordaeron, Azeroth, and Khaz Modan are called "eastern kingdoms", but avoid clarifying things at all. In anycase the pages have been merged due to the fact that there are "different interpretations".Baggins (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Tides of Darkness novel tells us that the kingdom was named Stormwind since then, meaning it is a retcon, the problem with this is that I tried to make the article looks like: this was stated before by blizzard but have been changed; I propous to move that speculation to Retcon 2 but cited correctly, what do you say? If you want I can make a subpage of my user page like the ones of Rolandius and you tell me if is right or not to move it to the Retcon article. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say "a Sandbox"?--SWM2448 19:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, then a Sandbox, what do you say Baggins? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that retcon page notes it, but actually in the Alliance Player's Guide as has been noted, Azeroth and Stormwind are used interchangeably (thus it is officially possible to note that Stormwind is known as Azeroth, and visa versa). Both uses are coexistant within the same source (as opposed to pre-wow source vs. later sources). The vague implication that Azeroth and Stormwind can equate to the similar use also appears in Tides of Darkness novel in that it refers to the Conjurers of Azeroth, an organizaiton that was specifically connected to Stormwind, not all of Azeroth. So the theory that Stormwind was renamed somepoint after being known as Azeroth may be wrong, but the idea that Stormwind could be referred to Azeroth hasn't entirely been snuffed out. Yet, I also pint back to WArcraft II manual where use of "azeroth" as a term is not as clear as it could be. Yes there is an Azeroth "organization" so to speak run by Lothar, most uses appear to place domains within azeroth without specifying an area within "Azeroth" known as Azeroth. The map doesn't even list an area called "Azeroth" within Azeroth, although it does show the domain of Stormwind on the map. So even back in Warcraft II, the use of Azeroth as a physical land within the continent of Azeroth (as opposed to just an political entity term) is not spefically confirmed. As noted in WArcraft I, Azeroth is Azeroth, it doesn't make any descriptions other than to "kingdom of Azeroth" and Azeroth. It doesn't specify any continents nor does it specify the name of the world, and neither source specifies any detailed and explained definition for the "meaning" of "Azeroth". There is a note about this in the notes section of the Azeroth article. Also you might point out that Azeroth is referred to as a "nation" in Warcraft II, but I must at least point out that the term Nation, doesn't equate to the name of a "land". Nation refers to a political entity, not all political entities necessarily have land, though many do. A nation is more about the people, rather than the location (though under certain definitions may include their territory they live in).[User:Baggins|Baggins]] (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also you may create a sandbox on your own page discussing your opinion and interpretation of things, and you may even put that on the talk page of Azeroth if you like. Just be sure to mark it with the speculation tag.Baggins (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Retcon Edit

No problem. Sorry if I violated any of the rules.Martin 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)mdwall

Third time is the charm

Okay it says in MoM Doomguard (Tarshesite) meaning the doomguard are part of the Tarshesite, and not the other way around. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the book doesn't talk about tarshesite in any other section, and depending on how one looks at that it can mean that ered'ruin are included within the doomguards. Not sure but I think tarshesite is actually one of those races incorporated from the DnD rpg.Baggins (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it doesn't talk about them much but just look at what we have. Doomguard (tarshesite), then some other examples are Flametongue (dragonspawn), Wyrm kin (dragonspawn), Scalebane (dragonspawn), and Dreadlord (Natherzim). Now, the dreadlords we know already from other sources plus MoM section on them that they are the same as the Natherzim. So we look at the other three. Flametongue, Wyrm kin, and Scalebane are all dragonspawn. It isn't dragonspawn are a race of three different things called Flametongue, wyrm kin and scalebane. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thunderfury page edits

through some testing of my own, i have concluded that any class can start the thunderfury quest chain now(3.1.1a), and have edited the wiki page accordingly