Template talk:New Horde

Perhaps a new section named or implied where the faction is merely friends or allies to the Horde, but not true members.. like the Revantusk trolls. 02:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the groups are for--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:55, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

AshTotem Tribe?
I can't find any information about this even possibly being a tribe excluding a Taunka with that Last name.--FunOnABun 9:42, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy in organization names
Some of the organizations in the "organizations" portion of the template are redundant. Orgrimmar, Forsaken, Thunder Bluff, Darkspear Tribe, and the like are all already listed in not only the racial portion of the template, but also in the listing of territories. This should be altered to reduce the redundancy. Fojar38 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Orgrimmar is both a faction and location, some with Silvermoon, Thunder Bluff, Darkspear Tribe. It represents the united Orcish clans. Forsaken is a race and faction. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the post by Coobra at the top of this page, the groups portion of the template is reserved for groups that aren't fully part of the Horde and, presumably, sub-factions within the Horde. Listing the Orcs or Undead multiple times is pointless, especially considering in the case of the Forsaken it links to the exact same page that's already been linked in the template. Fojar38 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't Coobra, that was Ashbear... read. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 03:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True enough, I misread that. It doesn't change the redundant nature of the template as it is now. At the very least, if the same organization is to be linked multiple times, they should at least go to different pages. In this case, the Forsaken would have three pages, one to the race page, one to the capital page, and one to the rep faction page. This should be applied to all the main races and their respective organization. Fojar38 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that is a much better idea. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 03:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Garrosh
Should he be removed from the Leaders section? ReignTG (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Xporc inquiries
The name "Nation of Durotar" came from The Founding of Durotar campaign and the Grimtotem have a dissidence led by Jevan Grimtotem that is part of the Chiefdom of Mulgore. I don't use the term "Chiefdom of Mulgore", along with some others, because was never officially stated, however is what it is. Unfortunately Blizzard is not clear about names, and even events. 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you pinpoint the exact source for "Nation of Durotar" ? Xporc (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It does mention a nation but not Nation. --Mordecay (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's how Mordecay said. And how possibly could we reach the right name? It's a nation. It's called Durotar. It's not need to be a genius get on this name, even it been presumed. If the campaign The Founding of Durotar specify both names, call Durotar a nation is sensible. 15:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's use "Durotar" as the name then, not "Nation of Durotar". That's how countries work in real-life. Xporc (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I used "Nation of Durotar" not just to make surely different from the land of Durotar, but to have index. Countries like Bolivia, Mexico, Brazil and Ghana have official names like Plurinational State of Bolivia, United Mexican States, Federative Republic of Brazil and Republic of Ghana. If we don't have an official name like Chiefdom of Durotar I was using the term "Nation of" instead. Also, articles like Durotar, Theramore and Quel'Thalas should be split, as should one talk about the land/zone and another about the faction/organization. 01:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Chiefdom of Durotar" and "Nation of Durotar" are names you imagined, they were never official. We won't use them. If you really want to split the articles, then do Durotar and Durotar, like it was done for Stormwind and Lordaeron. Xporc (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So u agreed u are wrong to use the name u used? --Mordecay (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you exchange the words "And" by "But" and "even" for "yet" you can get better the idea. It have some a bit of presumption. The names have not been 100% tangled, but the name is sensible. 01:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Mok'nathal
There is sure them are just aligned with the Horde and not actual members of it? 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The mok'nathal beastmasters of Warcraft III were neutral mercs, at least Xporc (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Characters section
Hey everyone. I've been a reader of Wowpedia for a while and just recently decided to hop into editing, so excuse my potential ignorance to how some things work.

Anyway, I wanted to comment about how the characters section has become somewhat bloated in the recent years, and I think this extends to a lesser degree to the faction templates as well. I think NPCs like Nazgrim who are reoccurring make sense, but for those that sometimes only appear in a single questline in one zone of the game, I don't really see how they are Horde "characters" in the line of Garrosh, Cairne, even people like Rokhan and Nazgrim who I mentioned earlier, that most players tend to know about on some level and relate to the faction.

I think the best example of this is listing the leaders of Horde and Alliance Trauma, a pair of NPCs who haven't been referenced since Vanilla. Just wanted to get some discussion going and see if anyone agreed on some ideas, thanks. The animancer (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome! You are probably right about this. Another solution would be to edit the template to make it possible to hide some parts of it until the user clicks on it, like Dungeons. Xporc (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of all Horde / Alliance organizations, races and notable characters and leaders being on the templates but yea, they are huge now. --Mordecay (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply adding some collapsable sections would probably be an easy sollution. PeterWind (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I wanted to bring up another different conversation about the template. As of the last couple days I changed around a few things to make way for the Allied races and some other ideas. I just wanted to get some feedback from other users if this looks like an improvement on the format. If so, I'll carry over the same idea to the Alliance template, but I just wanted to make sure the changes were seen as positive and so people can compare both styles before deciding. Thanks for any feedback. The animancer (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hadn't time yet to validate the changes to this template, so I can't comment :( Xporc (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After review, the changes are ok. I Just put mag'har as an orcish group. Xporc (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)