Where does the title comes from!? --N'Nanz (talk) 20:32, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think it was datamined, but as long she is confirmed by Blizzard i -personally- don't see problems in just adding the title to her page. IconSmall Gnome MaleIconSmall Mage Eraclito 20:47, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering it myself... but now we know, I probably should move it, but I too don't see the title as a big deal now that she has been announced. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:53, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the "Countess" part is still datamined, but whatever. We know the "Lana'thel" half. By the way, should the info really be styled as a bluepost?--SWM2448 22:06, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
It can... won't matter once it goes live it will just turn into {{Patch 3.3.0|note=Added.}}. User:Coobra/Sig4 06:09, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

The problem of datamining ptr is that... it could change! Queen Lana'thel --N'Nanz (talk) 08:11, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Lana'thel anyone? --catbeef (talk) 10:44, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Lana'thel contains "background info" and her appearance at Quel'delar's Rest. Queen Lana'thel is for the IC boss.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 10:48, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


I'm just going to suggest they be merged... now maybe if she played a bigger role outside ICC, with quests or had previous lore of her background or a large page to begin with, I don't see the need to split the pages, it will only confuse users. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:55, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with both of you. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:25, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
I say we keep 2 artiles to split lore and IC. Adding more of the Quel'Delar article about her death and role as Sword-bearer, and removing all BG infos of the IC article.
Like Sindragosa, which is not much more developped.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 11:47, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree, but there's the matter of her title - seeing as it's the same both inside and outside ICC (or so I'm told by people who test this stuff), I'd say rename this page "Blood-Queen Lanathel (tactics)", like we do the other bosses. --Joshmaul (talk) 17:37, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we need her seen on the PTR in IC, to know her name and then create a "Blood-Queen Lanathel (tactics)".
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 17:54, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Really, though, does a single appearance in a single quest warrant a page split? We've got other bosses with lore and tactics on the same page because of how little there is. Hell, half of Lana'thel's lore page is just a transcript of her dialogue in the Quel'delar quest. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
I believe, puting all in one single article would be too much.
Shall we vote?
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:33, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the split of the articles, but I do not agree on the naming. The articles should be named Blood-Queen Lana'thel and Blood-Queen Lana'thel (tactics) just like any other lore-rich raid bosses. That keeps things clear.IconSmall AmberrockAMBER(ЯΘ<K) 11:13, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
The naming has to be done according to what is seen in-game. Outside it's "Blood-Queen Lana'thel", but inside, we still don't know. Of course "<NAME> (tactics)" is the good solution as always.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 14:03, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

The blue post on the schedule (which also confirmed the name for Deathbringer Saurfang - thanks Blizzard) seems to indicate that "Blood-Queen Lana'thel" is the name of the game. --Joshmaul (talk) 19:47, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I think a vote on whether or not to split it is an ideal solution. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:32, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
Since the Schedule give us her name in IC, I've moved for a <NAME> (tatics).
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 16:27, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

First BiteEdit

I'd like to suggest that the first bite target is not based on threat, but on damage dealt. We've experimented with hunters mis-directing and Rogue's TotTing, which has had no affect on the first bite target. However, we have noticed that a healer has once gotten the bite first, so it might be similar to how PVP mobs determine threat - this would also explain why it doesn't target tanks.

Also see this for more discussion:

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.