User talk:Baggins5154/Archive1

Join the Bookkeepers (Lore) team?
You seems to be quite knowledgeable and concerned about Warcraft lore. You might want to throw your name on the Bookkeepers join page. I left a note with Ragestorm, the current leader of the group that you would be a good candidate. The group is kind of large and motley, but perhaps the more the merrier? --Fandyllic 3:15 PM PDT 14 Apr 2006

I've actually been observing you for recuritment recently- if you;ve perused the team page, you'll note we have verious problems with organizing the team- it's fast grown into one of the more popular community efforts. We're in the reorganization stage right now, so I'll contact you soon with more information- you might be dragooned to help write our contradictions policy. --Ragestorm 22:36, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

RPG Books
The information from the RPG books seems to be, in some cases, contradictory with, or at least separate from, the world as it exists in the game. While I don't object to it being added, perhaps it should always be clearly labelled as to its source, so as to make clear the thing being described doesn't exist in World of Warcraft, as you've already done in many places.--Aeleas 11:11, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

The current policy is treating RPG with care- several contradictions exist there, and it isn't presented reliably (for example, the likelihood that players will actually witness Norgannon laying AoE damage in the game is almost nil). Novels and game manuals are considered official and canon. In the event of contradiction, the more recent source is canon, with the exception of the "War of the Ancients" trilogy and Furion vs. Malfurion. -- Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 18:51, 11 April 2006 (EDT)


 * I think there would be a lot of benefit in developing a formal policy in this area, perhaps as a section in WoWWiki:Writing policy. (Edit: created a page at WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing/Lore policy discussion).  --Aeleas 19:58, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

Take a Break
Look, we appreciate your work (A LOT, I mean it), but you're no good to anyone if you have a nervous breakdown. Step back, take a breath, and maybe take a break. Every thing will fall into place. Just give us a few day to process what new information there is, and we'll find a bit of middleground, write some disclaimers- though I admit that these retcons are more than a bit annoying. anyway, just BREATHE. :-) --Ragestorm 18:03, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

LOL, everything is fine. I'm more fascinated than anything. The change may be confusing, but the story is still an interesting read.Baggins 18:10, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Amen to that, brother. FYI, I added you to the bookkeepers- I can't have you taking on this crises and not be one of us, now, can I? ;-P --Ragestorm 18:13, 10 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Wow, thanks, and the title is so formal heh, I feel so honored.


 * Anyways I was thinking, may I suggest that in the case where old eredar/sargeras/burning legion story contradicts with the brand new retcons, that we use the concept of "Other Legends", as our way pointing out where a retcon and/or flavor lore exists, as a nice way of saying its a legend but its not necessarily true (as many of those backstories can also be found in places within the game as well).


 * That way we can still refrence the old material for anyone interested in it, but list the truth in the main part of article. I used a similar concept in the centaur article a few days back.


 * However if the case where doing this would make a topic too large, and showing the alternate legend would clutter the topic, we just have the topoic link to the "retcon" or "flavor lore", or its own topic page, where applicable.


 * This way we have a way of showing how the world of warcraft's story and development has evolved over the years, and throw a nod back to the old stories for anyone interested in that material (they might not be the truth but they certainly have entertainment value). This goes for quests, characters, and lore that was removed from WOW by patches. How do we treat patch lore(lore mentioned only patches, as a way of explaining the changes in the world), btw?


 * Now many things are so minor that it wouldn't be feasible put "other legends" Heading, in every topic but for some of the more larger, retcons/flavor, it might be a good idea. If something that is deemed to be a possible retcon, but is marginal that it could be merged into main topic without contradiction, we can do that(with Cite notation, or warning lables where needed, as you mentioned).


 * What do you think?Baggins 18:57, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Broken
If a user is only familiar with the terms used in Warcraft III, they would search for Draenei. They would then find the Draenei page and find out what the Broken are. For these people who are only familiar with Warcraft III, there would be no problem finding the Broken units from Warcraft III. The people who are only familiar with WoW would not like having Broken labeled as Draenei. The change in names is a retcon. Blizzard now intends the Broken to be a separate race. -- User:TopDread 19:17, 10 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Actually we consider Broken to be a type of Draenei in the Draenei article as well. The Broken didn't mutate to their current stated until after they joined illidan, as per the visuals in Warcraft 3. Infact currently ingame  corrupted Draenei are still called a type of draenei, and there are still refrences to these sad mutated beings still being called draenei or corrupted draenei in articles, along with "Broken" faction designation. We do not know if that will be altered. We really don't know how far back this retcon or evolution of history goes actually. I really think as long as there is doubt we go with what was said within the the older game, but explain that an evolution has taken place. Also changing unit or class names adds another danger, do we no longer consider Sylvannas to be "Dark Ranger" cause that class doesn't exist in WoW, and she was given a different class set?Baggins 20:12, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

They are called Draenei at the time, hence they shiould remain Draenei- if anyone protests, we can just say the the name "Broken" is applied to Akama and his ilk by the true Draenei. Also, in terms of lore complication, the "Unbroken" applied to a pinkskin subspecies of Faceless One. Like TopDread says, the Broken are clearly discussed on the Draenei page. As for your thoughts on patches and the "other legends" explaination, I think that's our best course for now. And I meant "Assisant Policy Writer" (There's no official one, so an Assistant is a better title for a "democracy"- there are too many bookkeepers to continue using the original conception of the community teams) poliy ratification rests on teh shoulders of all of us- with veto option from myself and the majordomo. Sylvanas and other lore characters do not have to conform to the WoW class system -- Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper

There name should be Broken even if there are doubts. The new canon information will probably be disseminated across WoW. Blizzard will probably change their name in the next patch. I don't feel it is safe to side with history on their name, because Blizzard has clearly stated the new canon on their website.

Sylvanus and Aleria could be the only people who have delved into the "Ranger" class. I don't know what Sylvanus' WoW class is, but "ranger" could just be a synonym for different class builds. Ranger could be a talent tree build. There is no need to change Sylvanus' name. On the other hand, Blizzard has retconned the Illidan's Draenei to Broken. This is a different matter entirely.

I don't want to be on the team I am on. I don't even know what team I signed up for or what it entails. Please remove me Ragestorm. --- User:TopDread 20:03, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

If won't change them back to "Broken" if you change them to "Draenei" again. I feel I changed them to "Broken" in good faith and correct interpretation of the new canon, but apparantly you feel there is ambiguity in the new Blizzard statements. We will see if Blizzard decides to make everything conform to the new name and if they clarify what a Broken is. I feel they state that it is a race, not a faction. --- User:TopDread 20:36, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

all we're saying is that we feel that there isn't enough difference between the DNA of Broken and Draenei to constitute that difference. Also, the term "Broken" seems to have come from after their rule by Illidan. --Ragestorm 20:45, 10 May 2006 (EDT)


 * You really don't want to get into genetic arguement not at all, its a crazy field (Anthropology is actually my minor, and touches on the issue). Anycase, a sub-species is technical jargon denotes a species within a species, therefore a variation of the original species(but still within the original species). Yes it is an offshot of the master species but is still beneath that species, rather than becoming a new species altogether. When you get to that level of detail scientists tend to disagree on minor details, and create several hypothesis.


 * One famous example in anthropology that scientists are argueing even today, is status of Neanderthalis. Most scientists agree that Neanderthals are of the Human species too, the species, "Homo Sapiens". But they have two viewpoints on where they sit within Homo Sapiens species. Some think they belong as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and we are a divergent "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" sub-species that evoloved along side the neanderthals. Still other scientists have the view that the order was Homo Neanderthal, and then the Homo Sapiens. Then you have scientists who think that both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens are one and the same, and what we call Neanderthals can still be found in current human gene pool. Then you have the ones that believe they may be seperate sub-species but could mate and have viable offspring(which merged with humanity so may still exist today). ...or others that believe that Neanderthals and modern Humans would have sterile offspring like the mules, and therefore lead to their disappearance. Most scientists agree that modern humans are the sub-species, "Homo Sapiens Sapiens", of the species Homo Sapiens. Believe me you don't want to say Homo Sapiens Sapiens all the time when its whole lot easier to say Human.


 * Anycase I hope my treatise on the history of scientists and neanderthal man, at least shows that on that level not everyone agrees and have several hypothesis made on the issue.


 * On a related note, simply being mutated doesn't make one an entirely new species. Many people in Hirowshima had their genetics scrambled but it doesn't make them non-human. So back to the terminology "sub-species" being called that doesn't necessarily mean "new species", by most scientific standards it infact means part of the same species with a few changes.


 * Also like Ragestorm said, there is implication that Akama's draenei became known as the Broken after joining Illiden's forces. It doesn't necessarily apply to every Draenei living in outland as seen in Warcraft III, and Akama's faction was at odds with other Draenei there, which were treated as creeps. So yes there is alot of ambigouty in the statements.Baggins 21:25, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Baggins, I'm clocking out for the night (it's 11 pm here in the Big Apple). I think everything's quieted now, so good luck, ttyl. --Ragestorm 20:58, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Gnight man. Take careBaggins 21:01, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Imp red skin
I didn't know Imps had red skin. I don't own WoW. I'll change their listing and add the flames category. --- User:TopDread 08:22, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Broken and lost ones are not the same race as Eredar

 * These draenei have since mutated into lesser forms, resulting in a series of subspecies. The Broken and the Lost Ones (as seen above) are two such genetic offshoots. This quote from the Blizzard website shows that they are a separate race, not a faction. The Broken present in Outland are Akama's faction.


 * Sorry have to disagree here but by scientific definition that all races are part of the same species, a subspecies by definition is still the same species as its master species.

We are the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens of the human species, by scientific definition. This standard biological and anthropological science terminology.

Not to mention there are certain ambigious terms in the Broken article that says they became the way they were by further demonic influences while under Illidan.Baggins 14:33, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

Eredar's Magical Schools are all the same faction
Diabolists, Sorcererors and Warlocks are all on the Burning Legion's faction. They have been shown to be together in small bands in Outland in Illidan and Kael's campaign. The terms just refer to magical schools.--- User:TopDread 14:36, 13 May 2006 (EDT)


 * The links are not meant to link them as factions but link all the various types of Demonic Eredar so people can go directly to those links to learn more about them. Go ahead and add a subtitle between "Demonic Eredar" and the Magic Schools.14:40, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

I never said half elves do not exist
I just said it was a poorly-adapted DnD conception of half Elves which does not fit into the WoW universe. The numbers and the description do not fit.--- User:TopDread 01:32, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

That is your opinion. Opinions do not belong in Wiki encyclopedias. Neutral Point of Views must be kept at all times.Baggins 01:34, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

Small advice
I noticed that in some of your recent edits you talk about the "recently released Alliance Player's Guide" (e.g. in Keepers of the Grove and Azeroth) or the "new Alliance Player's Guide" (e.g. in Half-elf). You know, using phrases like "recently released" or "new" isn't such a good idea because using that phrase automatically means the article will be outdated in a few months as the Alliance Player's Guide won't be "recently released" or "new" then anymore. So it would be better if you just leave out the "recently released" bit or use a more neutral and timeless wording like "the Alliance Player's Guide which was released in June 2006" or something like that. -- Foogray 03:18, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

Lore Guru
You're adding so much new info I just have to say: thank you. Really interesting read - I must get hold of the RPG books sometime! -- Kirkburn 19:27, 18 July 2006 (EDT)


 * I really must second this. Great work i'm seeing, especially in the way of new content. It's just not being a DnD player or avid RPer, i'm wondering if my money is well spent on the RPG books >_o -- Zeal ( talk  -  contr  - web) 15:55, 23 December 2006 (EST)


 * I love the RP books full of obscure lore, as well as explanations to things that were perceived as errors in earlier sources by some people. It also has information you won't find anywhere else that really enriches the franchise as a whole. You really can't know all there is to know about Warcraft unless you take advantage of all the media out there, novels, games, rpg, mangas, tcg, etc. But like anything out there sometimes occasional discrepencies arise, as the authors/designers, etc are human and mistakes can happen. This happens even in WoW itself, thus why we try to maintain a neutral stance here. But usually the problems are not earth shattering, so we just move on. BTW, I just get the rpg for lore, not really to play. I haven't yet had the courage to sit down and try to get friends to play a game. I think it might be that stigma associated with table top RPGs.Baggins 16:08, 23 December 2006 (EST)


 * I can't help but feel much of that was in response to my Bookkeepers application ;) All true, all agreed (knowing everything came out wrong), but i don't move on until it's agreed/decided on. :p Well the vast amount of information you're adding from the RPG is certainly making them more appealing to me. Have to see after xmas how money pans out. -- Zeal ( talk  -  contr  - web) 16:18, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Guide To Azeroth
Ciao! Just wondering why you feel the section neccessitates a fanfic tag? (see User talk:Aletto/Guide To Azeroth) :) -- Kirkburn 17:45, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

Changed fanfic vote around
There's now a "Partial Recall - must be about WoW" option in WT:Fan fiction policy. -- Mikk (T) 01:42, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

Controversy
While we're on the topic, here are some "controversies" that might be mislabeled. Would you mind clarifying for me? Have any of these actually reached the scale where they can be called "controversy?" (our own comments on Talk:Draenei/Lore notwithstanding.)--Ragestorm 19:36, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Blood elf Hunters
 * Blood elf Paladins
 * Anything related to the draenei

I woudln't call them big controversies myself.. I've seen debates pop up at gamefaqs, or official forums at times but nothing to the scale of calling hell on Blizzard or anything...Baggins 22:45, 9 November 2006 (EST)


 * Which begs the question: why do we have a controversy section on both the Draenei and Blood elf pages?--Ragestorm 22:58, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Good question... if people must put up every single so-called "controversy" maybe we could just have a "controversy" topic to lump them all into :p...Baggins 23:22, 9 November 2006 (EST)

If it gets people to starts complaining about some of the other races, I'll maintain. --Ragestorm 23:25, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Item lore
I really do like the lore you put in item pages, however someone researching informations on an item won't look primarly for its lore. I putted it back in Notes and flagged it with RPG, allowing that "different section" you were talking about. Will update the Boilerplate soon. --Adys 22:29, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Blood elves
Look, I know you want to get it just right, but try the preview button? --Ragestorm 23:30, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Do you have MSN Messenger?
I am asking you because I belive that there are many issues we could talk about. --Theron the Just 06:33, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I would be most thankful if you'd answer me. You clearly are a chap with strong interest in the story of Warcraft - so am I. Hence, I belive that there are many issues we could talk about. Regards, --Theron the Just 19:41, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Sorry I never use it.Baggins 19:44, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Are you sure? If you have one I'd be happy to know your address. Even if you use it very little I don't see how it would hurt anyone. I cannot force you of course. Regards, --Theron the Just 20:13, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Retcon
I've been going over WoWWiki's use of the term "retcon," and I have to admit, I'm a litle disturbed. A fair chunk of what says "it was retconned to" shoud actually be "it was later revealed." For example, the Draenei being descended from eredar is a revelation, not a retcon, but the eredar being corrupted is. In terms of timelines, of course, it's all retcons, but a lot of lore that's mentioned as recon is actually revelation. --Ragestorm 14:18, 2 December 2006 (EST)


 * Ya I'm in totally agreement that making the assumption that something is automatically a "retcon" just because later stuff revealed new information is drastic to the extreme. I am always bumping heads with Aeleas and getting into arguements on  the interpretation of what definition of "retcon" is. I've had to try to compromise at times, and keep things as neutral as possible. Infact, I shouldn't even have to make refrences to the term flavor lore all the time if the the term "retcon" wasn't thrown around so much.Baggins 14:23, 2 December 2006 (EST)


 * As defined in the article, as well as in popular usage, a retcon doesn't solely refer to inconsistent changes to the lore. It also includes additional backstory which recasts existing elements.  I don't think anyone would suggest that the initial conception of the draenei involved their current origin.  Grafting on a new backstory to fill in blanks is a retcon under the normal usage of the term.  Of course, as the Retcon article states, practically the entire Warcraft universe falls under that definition.
 * The broad definition of retcon therefore isn't much use to us, and the article states in the intro that it will focus on the second definition, retcons where old lore is invalidated. It doesn't currently do this, and I would support removing at least the sections on Azerothian blood elves and the history of the draenei (with the exception of the corruption of Sargeras), as they don't involve any clear conflicts.
 * That being said, however, I do stand by my position that when things are changed in the lore (and they often are), it is very confusing for readers to try to express and reconcile everything in in-game terminology. For example, the change in religion between the theistic, Christian-esque clerics of Warcraft I, and the nontheistic followers of the Light in Warcraft II.  That's a pretty clear break, and while it's interesting speculation to try and reconcile those radically different accounts, I don't think it's very encyclopedic to do so in a main article.  Rather, it's much clearer and more reliable to just present the two conflicting accounts, and have a separate article for an essay promoting possible reconciliations.--Aeleas 16:23, 2 December 2006 (EST)


 * I concur. --Ragestorm 16:54, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * I agree as well. If I'm reading you right, basically we don't discuss stuff in that article if it is not truly a "retcon" in that thread (if it is instead a "revelation")? Only discuss things that are verified to have been completely removed (as opposed to becoming flavor) from lore?


 * Yes, I think that's what I'm saying. If it's a revelation, or could be interpreted easily as flavor lore, than we need not mention retcons at all. Speaking of which, how should we interpret the Warcraft Encyclopedia?--Ragestorm 17:11, 2 December 2006 (EST)


 * I'm not quite sure actually there are elements mentioned in it that seem to be flavor (as it seems to mention a few alternate cultural views), and some stuff that seems to be written as matter of fact. It may very well be semi in-universe document, but I'm not sure. There is definitely some lose interpretations where it uses slightly different wording or interpretations than stuff published in other recently released formats. I think in those cases we just point out that there are different views on the issue.Baggins 17:20, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Eredar (Burning Legion) Have you ever heard of a demonic Elekk?--Ragestorm 19:23, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Me? no. Then again I don't know much about the Elekk but the few released bits of info :p... That seems suspect ot me though... Needs a fact check...Baggins 19:27, 4 December 2006 (EST)


 * I'm removing; it wasn't put in by one of our most reputable user.--Ragestorm 19:33, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Edit War
Your edit war with User:Theron the Just has not gone unnoticed. As Head Bookkeeper and AMA member, I must remind you that this will not be tolerated. Having reviewed the summaries of the "edits," it appears that this issue is something to be resolved on the talk page, NOT by mercilessly adding and removing. If you continue to be party to this edit war, you will be reported as a vandal. Since you clearly have passionate views on the issue, I encourage you to talk it out with Baggins on Usertalk or Pagetalk. I will mediate if needed. --Ragestorm 20:32, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I'm sorry, I agree it should be discussed through User:talk. I won't to add to any edit war. Theron I meant no offense when I was trying to warn you about certain actions which could be viewed as vandalism by others. I suppose by warning you I could have written it in such a way that you could assumed I was automatically considering you a vandal. This was not my intent, I was merely trying to warn you to not to repeat the same action. By doing that I only escalated an edit war for which we are both at fault, it seems, for that I'm sorry. Baggins 20:40, 6 December 2006 (EST)


 * Next time, post the apology where the recipient is likely to see it.--Ragestorm 20:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)


 * I think you should remove most of the sections. as it is, they take up almost half the articles, and that just doesn't work. Just say that it may be them, then put the analysis of the whole image on Alliance of Lordaeron.--Ragestorm 23:28, 7 December 2006 (EST)


 * Ok, I reduced, Aiden Perenolde with just the bare information. What do you think?Baggins 23:49, 7 December 2006 (EST)

"Kings"
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the statements about rulers of Stromgarde, Gilneas, Alterac and Kul Tiras being kings. Having personally read these "guides" to the story of Warcraft I can tell that they contain many errors. Those books are the only source where the rulers of Stromgarde, Gilneas, Alterac and Kul Tiras are called "kings". In sources ranging from Warcraft II to World of Warcraft the rulers go with the titles of Lord and Lord Admiral (no title has been given to Greymane). If you want I can try listing some of the errors the "experts" of the story made when writing the books. --Theron the Just 21:26, 8 December 2006 (EST)

In order to remain NPOV we don't automatically assume something is an error. If something is stated in an official source, we quote it, and leave the refrence to the page number. That being said, many real life people hold more than one title, so being a king and a lord is not a contradiction by real life standards.Baggins 21:29, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Cease

 * I've been following this, and I can't even see what the issue is. Here is my ruling:
 * 1) The image will stay "Leaders and representatives of the Alliance of Lordaeron." Even if those men are Greymane and Perenolde, the elf is not Anasterian.
 * 2) On the pages in question, the sections will be removed.
 * 3) An analysis of the image will appear at the bottom of Alliance of Lordaeron.
 * Baggins, I would like to remind you that edit wars are unbecoming of Bookkeepers, and I do not expect to see this again, nor do I expect to hear this discussion again.--Ragestorm 22:10, 8 December 2006 (EST)

What?.... I never said that elf was Anastarian. My point was that it was the 7 human nations that sent their leaders to council. That's what the various sources say, even warcraft II manual itself.

I was not referring to the 8th and 9th non-human kingdoms, for we have no idea who they were. I've previously pointed out a more accurate replacement sentence for that photo in the, talk page for the alliance and the horde.

For example;

"The leaders of the seven human nations met and agreed to unite in what would become known as the Alliance of Lordaeron. While Quel'Thalas and Khaz Modan sent representives to the council as well."

Retrieved from "http://www.wowwiki.com/Talk:Alliance_of_Lordaeron"22:23, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Yes, but Alleria (honestly, who else could pull off that hairstyle?) was definetly a representative, not a ruler.--Ragestorm 22:40, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Yes, I agree, the ranger elf was definitely not a ruler. I think all sources agree with you on that. The only thing the sources are specific on, is it was the leaders of the seven human nations were there. While the non-human nations were merley represented by "delegates", and "representives" depending on the source.

As for it being Alleria? Was alleria mentioned pre-Beyond the Dark Portal? Unless they had ideas for Alleria that early, it could just be based off the generic "Elven Ranger" artwork that is scattered in the game and in the manual. Of course it could have been retconned to be Alleria, and I like the idea.

P.S. I hope this is just a friendly discussion, please don't bite my head off ;). :D.Baggins 22:45, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Councils of Lordaeron

 * "With the clarity of hindsight, we can presume it to be Alleria." When Sargeras was thought up originally, Aegwynn really did kill him. I'd say it'f fair to assum it's Alleria, especially given the tattoo on her face. Whatever you think, I think we can agree it's not Anasterian.--Ragestorm 22:53, 8 December 2006 (EST)


 * Ya definitely not Anastarian. The only problem is that every Elven Ranger had tattoos in the game, including the random artwork, granted most were males, :P. But since she is the only high elf female up to that point of any mention, I suppose its safe to assume it could be her.


 * Plus do we really need to say "another representive" for the representives of the human nations in those sections? Every source has been specific in that it was the actual leaders of the seven human nations and not just representives at those meetings :p... I doubt underling representives would be sitting at the council table when we know the leaders themselves were there.

BTW, I'm pretty sure various sources imply that it was Dwarven delegate who also represented the gnomes.

I suggest the section should be changed to, and citations be made when possible;


 * "The above image details the meeting of the seven leaders of the human nations and representives from the dwarven and elven nations to form the Alliance of Lordaeron.  The large gentleman with the ax is almost certainly Trollbane, and the pair in front of him resemble Terenas and Lothar. Proudmoore is the gentleman in the tricorn hat. Seated next to him is an ambassador from Quel'Thalas (speculation would point to Alleria Windrunner). On her right is an unidentified gentleman, believed to be Lord Perenolde. The mage with his back turned is obviously the Kirin Tor representative (probably Khadgar or Drenden. Next to him is another unidentified gentleman, but his tunic can be observed to bear the letter "G," implying that this is Greymane. The dwarf (possibly one of the Bronzebeard brothers) represents Khaz Modan. There is no visible representative from Gnomeregan.

Baggins 23:36, 8 December 2006 (EST)


 * I've been researching into warcraft 3 manual, and further into Alliance Player's guide and it seems there is more implication that the "leader" of the Kirin Tor was infact Antonidas, and controlled the ruling council. APG also says he was the Kirin Tor's public face (which would mean he would likely been the one at the councils).


 * "Kirin Tor, led by the Archmage Antonidas, pledged Dalaran’s steadfast support to Terenas’ rule."-


 * "Head of the Kirin Tor of Dalaran"...Antonidas is the head of the Kirin Tor, the conclave of wizards that rules overthe magical kingdom of Dalaran...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.

It would seem that while they claim to be a magocracy they did in fact have a single leader.Baggins 01:09, 9 December 2006 (EST)Baggins 01:05, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * "Magocracy" just means "rule by magi"- within it, it could have been a democracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy, a tetrarchy, etc. I'd say this fits an oligarchy, with Antonidas at the public head. --Ragestorm 01:15, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Ya, I agree. My point was while they are lead by all the magi, there is a single magi that seems to have final word so to speak in the government's affairs.Baggins 01:17, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Single magus. By technicality, it would appear that the Six, Twelve, etc. hold power, but Antonidas is clearly in command. It's the sort of arrangement that would naturally emerge in wartime, and quite natural to keep a "public face" in peace.--Ragestorm 01:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Well, I think we probably agree. But let me throw out some more info;


 * According to APG, Kirin Tor has 120 members usually. It also says the ruling council of six is in charge of the lesser council of archmagi.


 * So ranks of power goes something like this, "Atonidas", for all intents he would seem kind of like the president, though we have seen some writers(Bran Bronzbeard for example) imply him to be king (at least in title).


 * Then the ruling council of Six (which Antonidas is the head of, and member of). Under ruling council, is the twelve archmagi. Under the 12 "archmagi" is finally the "magi". Those fill in the 120 positions.


 * Finally last but not least, the majority of the citizens which are ruled over by the Kirin Tor, approximately 3000 or so according to Lands of Conflict, the non-kirin tor citizens;


 * Civilians so to speak, the non-magic users, and non-politician mages of the nation.Baggins 01:39, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Oh, btw, Archmage Ansirem Runeweaver is now the current ruler of the Kirin Tor, having taken over from Atonidus.

NPC Classes
I've noticed you're going through various NPC's articles and adding classes to their profiles. While I approve of most of these changes, I'm a little confused by the necesity to specify certain characters as both an Archmage and a wizard. Isn't an Archmage just a more specific type of wizard, thus implying that the character is a wizard?

From my understanding, Mage is a general term for anyone who uses traditional magic. More specifically, a character can also be classified as a Sorcerer or Wizard, the difference being that a Wizard is officially trained by some authority while a Sorcerer is not. Both of these classes are still Mages, just more specific cases. Similarly, an Archmage is still a Wizard, and thus a Mage, but since this is implied, a character's profile shouldn't say "Class: Archmage, Wizard, Mage", as it just creates clutter and confusion.

Your thoughts? --Mikaka 18:09, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * I'm only quoting classes specified for characters in the "RPG", rather than attempting to speculate what classes they are(as some contributors have in the past). Those classes each have their own unique lore as well in the RPG, which you can read if you go into those articles. As for where mage fits into the lore, check out Arcanist article I just uploaded.Baggins 18:12, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Ah, that's a big help, thanks. I suppose the question boils down to, should "archmage" be considered a class, or a title for someone who has reached a certain level of mastery in arcane magic. By Warcraft III definitions, it's a class, but by WoW and RPG definitions, it looks more like a title. I'm still confused as to the difference between mages and wizards, however. In my experiance, Blizzard uses the two interchangibly. --Mikaka 18:26, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Well in the rpg its both a prestidge class, and a title. In the RPG usually if someone is called an archmage, they always have the class as well.Baggins 18:28, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * While I appreciate the distinctions, I'm beginning to get annoyed with these RPG classes, specifically the ones that are almost cut-and-paste from D&D (Barbarian and Fighter). I'm not going to call you out on wizards or sorcerers (Jaina is confirmed as a Wizard in Cycle of Hatred), but I want you to excercise some restraint- for example, I had to wrack my brains for proof that Lothar was a Scout, and I still think Alleria doesn't quite fit Barbarian.
 * Oh, and if I ever see "Monk" or "Cleric," this operation is closed. :-)--Ragestorm 19:30, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * There is no mention of clerics in the RPG. But eh, cleric was in Warcraft I ;). There are no monks in the RPG. However they are in World of Warcraft, in the Scarlet Crusade in Stratholme, LOLBaggins 19:36, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * ROFL. But you see my point; I will not perpetuate the myth that all fantasy are aspects of either Tolkien or D&D.--Ragestorm 19:44, 9 December 2006 (EST)

There are all kinds of classes mentioned in World of Warcraft MMO btw as NPC class types. I can't remember clerics off the top of my head in the game, but I wouldn't be suprised if are some.

P.S. I don't play D&D so I know nothing about it.Baggins 19:47, 9 December 2006 (EST)

...yep, I did a search on ally(I can't spell it)kazam, and yep there are definitely clerics in World of Warcraft MMO. They are part of the Argent Dawn, Nethergarde Keep, and Scarlet Dawn. I don't make this stuff up, its official.

P.S. Barbarian has a few refrences in World of Warcraft as well, for example Barbarian War Axes.Baggins 19:53, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * Get out of my sight! ;-P Forget the cleric, but I'm sticking by the Monk. And for reference, I do not play D&D. I own Neverwinter Nights and a few Forgotten Realms novels, but that's where I draw the line.--Ragestorm 20:45, 9 December 2006 (EST)


 * LoL, there isn't much info to create a monk topic LOL, so I won't for now ;), but for your enjoyment, ;), here they are;


 * Condemned Monk
 * Crimson Monk
 * Scarlet Monk


 * BTW, I only remember fighting the crimson and scarlet monks. They are like ninjas, they kick and punch, and most of them have bald heads, heh heh. Reminds me of eastern monks.


 * Perhaps I should clarify, I have never played D&D or played/read direct D&D sources, so I wouldn't know if I was quoting D&D info or not.Baggins 20:53, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Template stamps
You wouldn't happen to know why we have a "not found in other sources of lore" stamp for Warcraft II manuals (as seen on Beastmaster), would you?--Ragestorm 13:40, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Its a "may not be found in other sources of lore", to maintain a NPOV. It exists because of certain pieces of lore for example High Elven druids that hadn't been mentioned for who knows how long in other sourcs. high elven druids have only have recently been reincorporated into lore by other sources. It also used to mark lore established for multiplayer and bonus maps that are probably will not likely to be be brought up again(Uh, Funny Bunny, and uh Heart to Heart Islands).Baggins 13:45, 10 December 2006 (EST)


 * Five words: Warcraft... III... The... Frozen... Throne. Is the validity of the Sea Witch to be called into question next?
 * Works perfectly for everything else you mentioned, though. --Ragestorm 15:09, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Did you read the entire template? It mentions the expansion pack, The Frozen Throne :p... Bunny's are actually from TFT, btw... The template has nothing to do with validity, it is NPOV it is not meant to specifically state something is "non-canon"... If you haven't noticed I try to remain neutral always... It mainly just means if people want to look for more information they can go to that source. If they want to choose to think of the material as canon or non-canon, that is up to them, but discussion of it being canon or non-canon is not needed in the topics.Baggins 15:12, 10 December 2006 (EST)

BTW; The three templates are, Template: Warcraft I, Template: Warcraft II, Template: Warcraft III. each having to do with their individual respective, game (including the game'ss expansion pack, as they are not stand alone games).Baggins 15:21, 10 December 2006 (EST)


 * Weren't you the one advocating flavor lore? ;-P. Next crisis! Talk:Elf--Ragestorm 15:22, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Yep, flavor lore, I used that term because Blizzard uses the term in the first place heh... I'm glad the crisis has been adverted. Just wait for Pandarens, and Bunnies to show up in a future expansion pack ;).Baggins 15:28, 10 December 2006 (EST)

You'll excuse me if I'm short of temper with you or anyone over the next two weeks, but exams and holiday shopping will do that.--Ragestorm 15:29, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Ahh, its not problem. I'll keep that in mind.Baggins 15:30, 10 December 2006 (EST)


 * Am I also to assume that you are responsible for the numerous other stamps? Are we now to doubt any piece of lore in existence that is not explictly confirmed in-game or by more than one source? I'm expecting a good response- or else, you will be producing a template that says this article takes information from World of Warcraft that may not be found in other sources of Lore. Just to be fair to all sources.--Ragestorm 18:58, 20 December 2006 (EST)


 * I never made the rpg, or card game templates. I made the ones for novels, Manga, warcraft I-III. I made those templates because there were people who "doubted" something from each of those sources, and then wanted a citation of the source, and what source it came from. Most people doubted the "lore" that was written for the multiplayer maps for example, another one I found people "doubt" is the lore for the various warcraft III hero resurrection temples. They put up the "fact" check template, or the the one the accuracy template, which in my opinin are much worse than a source template. These "source" templates were to directly point out which source something primarily came from. They were designed to work in conjunction with the standard ((Cite|source|page)) template. If you would like to make one for standard WOW, or have me make it I could do that, that is not a problem.


 * But you'll see that I've made sure each of the templates are written for a more neutral stance. That is previously they said, "Not found in other sources of lore". I changed it to "may not be found in other sources of lore". The latter points out that some of the material may have infact shown up in other sources of lore, but refrences are more obscure than anything else. In which case the primary source is the most common knowledge for that information, thus the template. Alternatively we could reword the templates to make them further neutral, to instead say something like, "this articles contains lore that originated primarily from "particular source".


 * "Particular source" being, RPG, Warcraft 3, WoW, or whatever.Baggins 12:25, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Fine, but I'd still like you to make one for WoW- just in case we run into any... disagreements... with hardcores. --Ragestorm 16:11, 21 December 2006 (EST)

WC3 Maps use in tournaments really lore?
There seem to be alot of articles being created based on the a variety of WC3 maps of dubious heritage being stamped with Warcraft III which in turn stamps them with the Category:Lore. Are these maps really part of Warcraft lore or more like fan fiction that Blizzard recommends for use in tournament play? I think we're being a bit too liberal when calling this stuff lore. Perhaps a Warcraft III Map template should be used that excludes the lore category until we can show the proper lore source? If it proves to represent real canon type lore, we can change the tag back to Warcraft III. -- Fandyllic (talk) 1:27 PM PST 12 Dec 2006


 * Its not fanfiction if it comes from an officially released blizzard source is it not? Those quotes are actually the phrases used by blizzard from the TFT and Reign of Chaos game itself(they do not come from any fan maps whatosever).Baggins 22:15, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Rise of the Horde
Sure, it raises one or two minor lore issues, and one very odd question, but in terms of major lore issues- it's everything we've been waiting for. --Ragestorm 19:30, 18 December 2006 (EST)

I'm ready to be spoiled ;). Anything thought provoking or major plot twists?Baggins 19:45, 18 December 2006 (EST)

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW

Discrepencies: Retcons: New plot devices/info: Revelations: -That's the gist of it. --Ragestorm 20:26, 18 December 2006 (EST)
 * Velen's skin is alabaster, as opposed to in-game blue
 * There is no mention of the Stormreaver Clan, Gul'dan was a Shadowmoon
 * Dragonmaw apparently existed before the Crossing
 * Orgrim was a Blackrock, not a Thunderlord
 * Blackhand was already chieftain
 * Seven magical crystals, three of which were taken by Gul'dan, three of which are owned by the draenei, one of which is always on Velen's person.
 * Velen might share Thrall's desire for reconciliation
 * Draenei word for demonic Eredar: man'ari
 * Ner'zhul was tricked into the Blood Pact- Kil'jaeden impersonated his mate.
 * Drek'Thar used to be a warlock
 * Griselda, Rend, and Maim, were magickally aged.
 * Orcish skin was originally brown.
 * ••MAJOR•• Ner'zhul was the one who warned Durotan about Mannoroth's blood••MAJOR••


 * I'm particuarly interested in the fact that Griselda gets a mention... Looks like her article needs an update, and we can move Griselda into refrenced missions in the retcon article as well?


 * As for the stormreaver clan, I have no idea about that... It was definitely mentioned in Horde Player's Guide... I think Thunderlord's got mentioned as well... Not sure why they "changed" those characters into different clans... Could it be that they are infact are offspring of members of each seperate clans, and share the clan heritage of both? For example, Guldan is both a Shadowmoon, and a stormreaver based on his parents heritage?Baggins 12:39, 21 December 2006 (EST)


 * Well, it's easy enough to say that Gul'dan formed the Stormreavers after the Crossing. The THunderlords are mentioned in RotH, just not in reference to Doomhammer.--Ragestorm 16:25, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Preview button

 * Whilst you edit with the best of them, I would heartily endorse the use of the 'show preview' button whenever you make any changes and only save the page when you've finished with it. Please. Otherwise, top notch stuff. --Vorbis 22:06, 21 December 2006 (GMT)


 * Sorry if it is reference to Fel Orc page its because I found info from different sources, in some cases a few minutes after I thought I had it all.Baggins 18:12, 21 December 2006 (EST)


 * Not to sound like like an intervention, Baggins, but it isn't just Fel Orcs- these days, I rarely see one of your edits that are just 1 edit- there's a whole chain of them. Not that the History pages can't handle it, but it avoids confusion and edit conflicts if you preview--Ragestorm 20:22, 21 December 2006 (EST)
 * Ragestorm, not to point out the obvious but I see you doing it as well in certain articles :)... I forgive you :). We can all make mistakes.Baggins 17:01, 22 December 2006 (EST)

My point exactly. I actually had to train myself to preview during my experimentation with infoboxes. Now, it's second nature. --Ragestorm 17:08, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Ya, I'm trying to train myself to read the entire article before I edit one section of it... I still have to catch myself from capitolizing race names as well, as well as remembernig to hit the tilde 4 times to sign posts :p...Baggins 17:10, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Another Wiki
Sup wiki buddy! Admin on another wiki, eh? What wiki? --Hobinheim 22:01, 21 December 2006 (EST)

King's Quest.Baggins 22:06, 21 December 2006 (EST)


 * <3 KQ --Gryphon 23:09, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Ya, KQ is awesome.Baggins 23:40, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Racenames
I'll wait to observe user reaction for the new pagenames, but you are NOT to start editing articles so that it says Sayaad instead of succubi or Anihilan instead of Pit Lord. Just in case you were thinking of it. Other than that, it's quite nice to now the proper names, and that succubi are not Nathrezim or eredar. happy holidays.--Ragestorm 12:32, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Eh, succubi are succubi, I think the class name is more important than the race name in most articles. Otherwise it could get really confusing.Baggins 12:35, 22 December 2006 (EST)


 * What this just means is that we can use Sayaad and anihilan in the same way we use kaldorei for Night Elves. --Ragestorm 12:37, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Well I think the difference is kaldorei is an alternate race name, whereas "Saccubus" is a class or Faction name. Saccubus are special class of Sayaad that hold a special function in Burning Legion.Baggins 12:40, 22 December 2006 (EST)


 * So, what to non-succubi Sayaad do?--Ragestorm 12:43, 22 December 2006 (EST)

I'm pretty sure we don't know yet, LOL. All I know those emitters are pretty specific to first refrence a class, then they are specifically mention the race, "Race: Blah Blah".Baggins 12:44, 22 December 2006 (EST)


 * I would say it's important to keep everything in relation to 'popular' view - i.e. what's most relevant to WoW. If we start making it complicated by frequently referring to 'alternative names' (or whatever) for races that almost no-one knows, it's gonna get messy =) Btw, I've finished reading most of the novels now, yay! -- Kirkburn  (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2006 (EST)