Old God? I Don't Think So. Edit
The speculation that Ula-tek is an Old God seems rather iffy.
The Loa Gods are opposed to the Old Gods and Hakkar. Also, let's assume that the Old Gods are all big, massive piles of jiggly goo and eyestalks and tentacles of death and Cthulu-esque. Since we can summon Shadra in the Hinterlands, and she's obviously a giant spider, it'd be safe to assume that Ula-tek is a snake, like, y'know, her Champion can become.
So, in conclusion, I'd like to suggest the removal of the Old God "speculation." I'm going to give this about a day unless a Bookkeeper or somebody decides to contend the argument. --Yaki 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- ...Rather than being mere "speculation" its quoted from an official Blizzard source. Sorry as per policy cited information is not to be removed, despite opinions of the fans. As for your speculation about the appearance of old gods we know that not all look like "c'thun" the dead one in Darkshore looks like a nautilus. We have no idea how each one appears.Baggins 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the speculation should stay until things are cleared up by Blizzard, but I think what he meant by Cthulu-esque was that he believes all the old gods resemble Cthulhu and other Lovecraftian beasties, not just C'thun, and the dead one in Darkshore certainly fits the description (Though with all the odd things in the Cthulhu Mythos, a snakegod wouldn't be out of place anyways)Vulpes Wolf
- I've moved all the "unknown" stuff under the speculation banner. 03:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It should stay though I doubt Ula-tek is an old god. She'd be more poweful if she was one. Zarnks 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that this character has only been mentioned in one source Lands of Conflict, and has not shown up in any other sources. In that one source it was strongly said to be an Old God, and it was never once said to be a "loa" (infact she's implied to have a strong position much like Hakkar in Zul'gurub, who is also described as being an "old god" of the trolls). Ula'tek shouldn't be confused with "Hethiss" the Snake god that Venoxis reveres.Baggins 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read lands of conflict, but isn't the old god/loa connection more or less pure speculation by Brann, who has been wrong before? Remember that lands of conflict and mysteries are written as flavor lore, not necissarily true but believed by some in the game. Besides, Brann blames almost everything on the old gods. Not saying that the information should be taken out, just that it needs more of a "taken with a grain of salt" tone.Tweak the Whacked 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty much everything in Warcraft is written from a "flavor lore" style. Again we don't pick and choose sources, and we don't consider any sources more or less important than others. See, Lore, NPOV, or even WoWWiki:Lore policy#Conflicts As for information, some of it was Brann, others was from "concerned Ironforge dwarves". The article points this out, there is a near exact quote slight paraphrase in the article on that.Baggins 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Given what we now know of the purpose of ulduar, maybe Ula-tek was actually imprision in uldum (snake markings) and broke out. Maybe she was responsible for the transformation of the naga, and slithered off to join them. There are no dwarfs in or around tanaris as far as I can tell, so the titan ruins in uldum can't have the same purpose as uldaman and something obviously broke out that giants were guarding, reminiscent of ulduar. Maybe Ula-tek is in Najatar as there's nothing around tanaris that seems like it was strong enough and mean enough to be in uldum --Darkling235 12:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)