This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index WoWWiki general Abyssal
(This is a dead topic, Please do not edit this page!)

RE: Abyssal

Moved from Rolandius's talk page

See the talk page, it's clearly explained there why it was deleted. Nowhere in the delete reason was it said that it's from Appendix Three. --User:Gourra/Sig2 06:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did see the talk page. Some user mentioned that "It was a language from Core D&D" which still doesn't explain why it was removed. The whole Warcraft RPG is influenced by D&D. Abyssal was not in Appendix III or anything, so I don't see why it doesn't count as being valid. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The language was not described anywhere in the RPG; it was just used in two lines of texts, both of which was used to describe a character's languages. Most if not everything else has a description or something more than a single reference to D&D. --User:Gourra/Sig2 06:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So all the languages on WoWWiki have a description section in the RPG? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
More or less, yes, or described in other media such as WoW. --User:Gourra/Sig2 07:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well some languages like Kalimdoran don't seem to me to have much of a description. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 07:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
At least it has a description other than it was used by some example characters. --User:Gourra/Sig2 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The "description" is just what the user wrote. In the RPG, Kalimdoran is mentioned just as a single word. It is the same thing as writing "This character spoke Abyssal" and saying it has a description. I don't see the difference at all. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 07:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's on a article of a race that is common in the Warcraft universe, not on a single example character's page who has no effect whatsoever on lore. What else was described on the abyssal language's article was nothing more than pure speculation of what the language could be except for that single reference. Does everything have to be handed on a silver platter for you, or can you actually think for yourself? --User:Gourra/Sig2 07:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is shown on two character's pages. The two characters are a former human who is now a shade and a former half-orc who is now a skeletal mage. So, yes I can think for myself and I think humans, shades, etc. are not rare in the Warcraft universe. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 08:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
They are examples of a race, they are not official representatives of the race in general. Just because one or two character knows Abyssal, doesn't mean that everyone of the same race or species does. --User:Gourra/Sig2 09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say everyone of the same race or species would know the language of one character? My argument is that Abyssal is a language as it says "Languages Spoken" and lists Abyssal. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 09:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You're straying from the point, which is that Abyssal is a language native to the D&D universe and was used in some characters examples where the publisher didn't really have a lot of reference for the game. Whether that counts for other languages or not is not the point of discussion. --User:Gourra/Sig2 09:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought Appendix III was the only part where publishers didn't have a lot of reference for the game. Also, I don't see a source saying Abyssal is something the publishers just threw in there for filler. How am I or a user supposed to know what part of an RPG is secretly something the publisher just threw in there and is now supposed to be counted as "unofficial"? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Figure that one out yourself. --User:Gourra/Sig2 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, how do I figure it out myself when there isn't even a source saying Abyssal is "unofficial"? Also, doesn't WoWWiki have a neutral point of view? Instead, Abyssal was just thrown out. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice your Opinion


  1. Yes Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) - (Nominated)
  2. Yes Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC) - (comments below)
  3. Yes TherasTaneel (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC) - (Same as Benitoperezgaldos)
  4. Yes Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 03:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC) - (no comment)
  5. Yes Fandyllic (talk - contr) 00:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) - (Add it back.)


Icon-lightbulbThere are one or more proposals to change this article on the discussion page. Please help us make WoWWiki better by giving us your input! The votes are to decide if we keep or not the article.

Information that was in the article

A language known to the human shade, Touarril and half-orc skeletal mage, Chauch-eta.[1] (MoM 145-147) Little is known about this language.


Super Bhaal said: "It was a language from Core D&D, put in the Warcraft RPG setting when White Wolf didn't really have a lot of reference for the game."

That comment is NOT sourced. I vote for keeping the article to mantain a neutral point of view. The article is sourced and has no speculation, so there is not a real reason to delete it. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: NPOV is relevant to the issue. All official sources of lore are considered valid. [1]. Either the reference with "Abyssal" is an official source of lore (entirely) or it is not. Choose one.

To the extent that it is currently considered an official source, I would say that Abyssal (language) deserved a page as much as "Kalimdorian". Until the language is officially confirmed or refuted, the specific objections, with their reasoning, should be noted on the page. Number of speakers listed is not a valid argument against it being a language in the lore.

The single best way to resolve whether this was "an official addition to lore" or "should be considered a 'house rule' or typo" is to ask the author (via the publisher). Even if refuted, I suggest the page remain, to prevent the issue rising again. I have make an initial inquiry to White Wolf on the issue, and will let you know if I get any results. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

White Wolf directed me to a set of forums. Presumably, that is a place that the authors of the work can be found. Does anyone have a list of authors for that book? ... And do you think I should continue to pursue this? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The authors are: R. Sean Borgstrom, Joseph Carriker, Bob Fitch, Graveyard Greg, Jason Langlois, Chris Metzen, Ree Soesbee, William Timmins and David Wendt. And if you want to continue you should and if you don't want, then no one is pressing you to do so :)
And, can you tell me what forums where you directed to? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The ones here. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.