Talk:Antonidas

"Antonidas learned that the orcs had been under the crippling influence of demonic power (or warlock magics) for generations."

-- has that not been retconned to a 12-year war, with a few extra years dispersed before and after?

--Wasted 22:54, 3 July 2006 (EDT)

That's still about three generations. Gul'dan and other chieftains were relatively young when the corruption started. THere was enough time to drain life from Draenor, slaughter the Draenei, and both wars. That might bring us to at least a quarter-century.--Ragestorm 07:37, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

True Ruler of Kirin Tor

Not my words, its the words used in the Alliance Player's Guide.Baggins 19:12, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Former

Former is applied regardless of state of being. He is Former ruler and king. The ruler has been replaced, so that is certainly former, and with the kingship gone, that title no longer exists for is also former. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 01:38, 10 January 2007 (EST)

I agree with Ragestorm that "king" may be inappropriate, unless the verbage in the Alliance Players Guide suggests otherwise. I haven't personally read it. However, the rulers of Dalaran are often referred to as magocrats, and the Kirin Tor article references a senate. The lore I've read suggests an oligarchical or democratic government. This leads me to believe they didn't have as much a king whom one swears fealty to as much as a Most Respected Person, who would be Antinodas, "the Sect's public face."Template:Cite I think we should stick to "Head of the Kirin Tor" as a title and change it to "Former Head of the Kirin Tor." User:Montag/sig 03:57, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Well this was about the use of Former (in which you appear to agree with me).

King is a seperate issue, but imo, not an issue. APG specifically says "King" of the nation of Dalaran, if that is a mistake by Blizzard then it's up to them to correct themselves. We do not pick and choose what lore to display, we use everything we are given. My issue, as i've placed on Ragestorm's talk page, is that he has bowed to preasure of a biased user and gone against what is written in lore. I'd rather keep the two issues seperate though, so please, no need to reply to it here. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 04:29, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Regarding the 'former' thing, it depends on how you view it. Since he's dead (as written underneath), it's self-evident he's not head. 'Former' can suggest that he was removed from the position before his death. Since it is mentioned in the text itself about him being king, I don't see the problem with keeping it simple for the infobox. It's a case of presenting the 'best' info, over contested info. User:Kirkburn/Sig 10:21, 10 January 2007 (EST)

I'd prefer not to use "king" as that isn't what he was (I mentioned the controversy in case Baggins or Theon were paying attention) . He was king of Dalaran insofar as a President or Prime Minister is the "king" of a country, or Tyrande is "queen" of the night elves. Someone isn't a king just because he leads a country. Pericles is the perfect parallel: he was the ruler of the entire Athenian Empire, yet the word "Tyrant" was never used. And the word "former" implies that he was removed from that position and is still alive. We can get as specific as we want in the article, but the infobox should be as simple as possible. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:09, 10 January 2007 (EST)

I actually thought "former" would be more of a reference his death. Is there a current leader to the Kirin Tor, or is it defunct? If it's defunct, "former" might work for that reason as well. I also agree with your assessment of the word "king," especially in relation to Tyranda's position, since the two positions are very similar. User:Montag/sig 15:13, 10 January 2007 (EST)

The latest source says King, it is not up to us to decide to correctness and remove it. I agree it's probably not accurate, but it is what is used. If you want to add under speculation about why it probably isn't true, fine. But it still needs king. If i don't see it reverted, and i'm alone on this, i'm gone tbqfh. I'm strictly intolerant of removal of official lore under any circumstances. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 18:46, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Just gunna add, while after finally getting the truth of what is said from Baggins, i concede on that he is not actually called the King. Implication is not fact, it's speculation. Back to why i hate citation and that full quotation is ideal but not possible. Doesn't however resolve my issue with Ragestorm. Someone with APG needs to correct that citation to be accurate and show it's context, throw the kingship down as speculation. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 19:57, 10 January 2007 (EST)

The source discusses seven human kings of the seven nations coming together, and then discusses the seven nations. This implies that the seven nations are ruled by kings, especially when cross-refrenced with other sources that state it was the sevel leaders that met that day. King is not my terminology but something either the author intended, or wanted Brann to say, not sure which. It may have been incorrect choice of words on the part of the author or Brann, I do not know. This is why I personally chose to say "De facto", as I can't verify its accuracy. When cross refrencing the same information from other sources such as in-game books in WoW they only stated that seven "leaders" of the human nations got together, along with representives of khaz modan, and Quel'thalas. Again I don't know why the book switched to kings instead of leaders. So yes while that info can be mentioned in the main box, its not something we can exactly put in the character box.

I resent the tone of word you say "truth", as I only paraphrased what was said. I didn't go beyond that, discussions on if it is correct or not correct do not belong in that section of the article, in the talk page sure, in a speculation section fine. But not right after that section of the article. Although a minor note that its from Brann's POV is ok, and I've added that in.Baggins 20:17, 10 January 2007 (EST)

My view is that, as much as possible, only uncontested info should go in the infobox. However ... I will say now to all of you here that this was not dealt with in the correct way. If there were real problems with the text, it should have been discussed first, whatever your wiki position, please. User:Kirkburn/Sig 20:44, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Agreed.Baggins 20:46, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Just a quick note to add, we need to introduce a 'References' section to lore articles, to reference where the info in general comes from. For example a wikipedia style section. Hopefully we can add a references/citation plugin in the future, but starting to reference stuff this way may also help. User:Kirkburn/Sig 21:22, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Kingdom of Dalaran

Try doing your research and reading your warcraft III manual and you'll notice that kingdom and nation are used interchangebly, and mean the same thing... Infact the quote about Antonidas calling it a kingdom is right out of the manual.

"Hailing from the magical kingdom of Dalaran, the Archmagi represent the pinnacle of magical power"-[1]Warcraft 3 manual, pg 8.

"Antonidas is the head of the Kirin Tor, the conclave of wizards that rules over the magical kingdom of Dalaran. This venerable Archmage is reputedly one of the most powerful wizards in the world. Though his failing health prohibits him from spending to much time away from his beloved city, his apprentice, Jaina Proudmoore, serves as his eyes and ears in the world. Antonidas looks forward to the day when he will hand his power and mantle of leadership over to Jaina, who he feels will make a most impressive Archmage."-Warcraft 3 manual, pg 89

Additionally I should probably point out that the term "kingdom" doesn't necessarily mean it is controlled by a king. While one meaning is a politically terrority ruled by a king, this is not always the case. In other cases it is a realm or region holds a prominenent or dominant position.

Main Entry: king·dom

Pronunciation: 'ki[ng]-d&m

Function: noun

1 archaic : KINGSHIP

2 : a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen

3 often capitalized a : the eternal kingship of God b : the realm in which God's will is fulfilled

4 a : a realm or region in which something is dominant b : an area or sphere in which one holds a preeminent position

5 a : one of the three primary divisions into which natural objects are commonly classified -- compare ANIMAL KINGDOM, MINERAL KINGDOM, PLANT KINGDOM b : a major category (as Plantae or Protista) in biological taxonomy that ranks above the phylum and below the domain.-Webster's Dictionary

-Baggins 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize this happened nearly two months ago, right? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:-p The point is that there is no point to alter quotes, just because someone disagrees with the terms Blizzard has used...

Lest we forget, Dalaran is called a Kingdom in World of Warcraft (and many other sources). For example Dalaran is said to be one of the Seven Kingdoms... Its been referred to as one of the "seven kingdoms" since as far back as warcraft II;

"With the arrival of the Azerothien refugees upon the shores of Lordaeron, King Terenas formed a council of delegates from each of the seven kingdoms under his rule."Template:Cite

Yes it may have happened two months ago but I missed it... I'm sure that "someone" will come back to try to change it again if an explanation wasn't made, :p. LOL.Baggins 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Day of the Dragon also calls Dalaran a Kingdom several times, and also uses terms like "monarch" and "king" and "ruler" for the leaders of the seven "human kingdoms" as well... So the its not something the RPG invented.Baggins 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Antonidas as ruler of Dalaran

I hear that Tides of Darkness novel confirms that Antoidas is the ruler of Dalaran and the Kirin Tor?Baggins 08:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He was certainly their representitive, but I don't think it's actually confirmed, as Khadgar stands before the council. It's hard for me to remember; I wasn't that impressed by the book.--Hawki 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

..Ah well confirmation that he was representing them is definitely cool. It confirms one person on the meeting table artwork.Baggins 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It definitely had a quote calling him "leader of the kirin tor". I've cited it since its not really a spoiler.Baggins 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Last name/ Surname?

Ok, after reading the entire article, I noticed that there was no mentioned of his Last name. Could anyone confirm he has one? I could have miss it. =D --Blooddealer 08:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's never mentioned, so he might not have one. And it's spelled "surname." --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord?

Arthas adresses Antonidas as "Lord Antonidas", is this just a title of respect or an actuall lordship? Could he infact be Lord of Dalaran?--Mannerheim 07:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)