This Forum has been archived

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

In the Drakeadon article it says that a Drakeadon IS a four-legged beast and that Chromaggus IS a Drakeadon. There are many more articles like this such as that Festergut and Rotface ARE Flesh beasts. My questions is that if "is" or "might be" should be used in these articles. We do not know if Chromaggus IS a Drakeadon for instance. It's just something people on wowwiki speculate on based on the models name. No lore quest ever states that there is something called a "Drakeadon" et cetera. In my opinion, it would be better if these articles said "A Drakeadon MIGHT BE a four-legged beast. Chromaggus MIGHT BE a Drakeadon, if there is such a speices.". "Marrowgar MIGHT BE a Bone wraith but it might also simply be a title given to him by the Kirin Tor."

--RoyBoy (talk) 16:30, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the Drakeadon, but definitely not about Bone Wraith. He's called a bone wraith, thats more than good enough. Otherwise it leads to a slippery slope about every other creature's name simply being what something or someone else calls them, which is exactly what everything in existance is. So even if the speculation I removed is correct, something i doubt, the disclaimer is still completely unnessesary. And thirdly it's referenced so like always people can make up their own mind.Warthok Talk Contribs 17:19, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
<name> might be <description> is a horrible way to start a page. I like how Sandwichman worded it. User:Coobra/Sig4 00:26, February 19, 2010 (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.