Talk:Invasion of Outland

Name
Should maybe change to second invasion of Draenor for purposes of continuity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * Wouldn't that be an anachronism? Which in my opinion should be avoided, but, perhaps thats just me. TherasTaneel (talk) 12:31, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that this article must have it's name changed, but I can't find any official name. The most suitable may be the one from WotLK manual: "Winds of Change: From Dark Horizons to a Beacon of Hope in the World of Warcraft", although we could cut it to just "Winds of Change". Another term in the manual is "adventures of Outland" (pg. 6, fifth paragraph), but that doesn't appear to be the name of the conflict. I also found "war in Outland" here, but it appears to be talking about wars in general, not this specific conflict. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * "War in Outland" seems good, or "War for Outland".
 * 09:18, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I say: The event that is the mark of the war, and also of that expansion pack, is the reopening of the Dark portal. Technically it shoud be called "War of the reopening of the Dark Portal", as the war happened in the Eastern Kingdoms as well.
 * Also I'm curious: how I can personalize my signature as A'noob did with his one?(Gabrirt (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Anyone oppose? Last chance. 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. "War of the reopening of the Dark Portal" is not only just as fanon as "War in Outland," but is overwought and quite the mouthful. When we have no official name, simpler is better. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The war not happened just in Outland. I consider that my propose, despite not more simpler, is more correct and exact than the actual name. And I did not understand the words "fanon", "mouthful" and "overwought". 19:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's made up, too long, and too complicated. Just because things happened outside of Outland doesn't mean we shouldn't still use Outland in the title. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And why should we use? It's illogical. I still believe that a more exact name is better. 13:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename?
The UVG states that the events listed here as the "War in Outland" are known as "The Burning Crusade", just like the events in MoP are listed as "The Invasion of Pandaria". Should this article be renamed? Cemotucu (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The events in this page are a part of the Burning Crusade, so the UVG is right. But due to the Burning Crusade having multiple wars, each separate war has it's own page. Otherwise, the War of the Ancients, the First War, this war and the Third War would all be jammed into just one page. --[[File:CogHammer.gif]]D oo meЯ  T [[Image:Battlegroup_RoundIcon.png|16px]]C  20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've renamed and I expect a non conservative view of this better name. 01:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The new name is cumbersome and awkward.-- 02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The old one was better.--Mordecay (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this horrible name?
 * This article covers all of BC events in Outland, so it should not be named for the first event listed in the article.
 * 07:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename 3
How about discussing it here rather than playing the revert game? Xporc (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, since there appears to be some opinion that this page must be renamed, I would like suggestions on what it should be. If not I'm taking the ambox off the page and it needs to stay off. -- (•) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the name of the article is fine but it's also fan-made, not canon. Isn't that the point of the Bettername template? Banning Mordecay over this seems unfair. Xporc (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The name is descriptive. "War in Outland" is concise and is what it is. It's not fanmade just because some person strung together a few words to describe the "war". I've not seen a strong case for another lore-based name. As for the block, I've told Mordecay I'm willing to lift it if he's willing to discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting my edits. -- (•) 12:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Including the Sunwell in this "war" also presents some issues as that's not technically Outland. Perhaps "War for Outland" would be marginally more descriptive in that case. I do want to say I'm not attached to the current article name for sure but I just haven't seen anything better and the current name seemed "good enough". -- (•) 12:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The way the template is currently used (Northshire River, Northern Lordaeron) seems to suggest that it is to be used for every article where there is no canon name, even when the current page name is a concise, descriptive and fitting one. All the Warcraft I missions are tagged like this for example, due to their lack of a canon name, even if they'll most probably never get one. I'm not against changing its usage but then it's something that should be discussed globally, not just for this war. Also can Mordecay even discuss about his willingness to be cooperative in his current blocked state? Xporc (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He could've edited his own talk page to indicate he was willing but I just unblocked him anyway. I would use the template more on pages without lore-based titles that are not descriptively named. I struggle to think of an example but say if we didn't have the name War of the Spider, we could call it War between the Lich King and the Nerubians without being conjecture because it's descriptive - and that's the purpose wiki titles serve, to be able to index and find things. Calling it Lich King's Extermination Party would merit the bettername template. --- (•) 13:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the titles you mentioned, yeah this probably needs to be discussed globally. A lot of these are not going to see the ambox removed for awhile if at all. -- (•) 13:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's possible for blocked people to actually edit their talk page? That's interesting to know. Okay, the stance on the Bettername template seems reasonable to me, and thanks for unblocking Mordecay. He's a swell dude and our best editor, IMO. I'm happy to see this end well. Xporc (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, you can add in a talk page block as well but that's optional and generally should be left for extreme vandalism. -- (•) 13:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Quel'Danas
Since the Quel'Danas events are covered here they probably don't need to be detailed that much here. A few sentences, maybe, with the main link to the battle? --Mordecay (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Zul´Aman
I´m wondering if the events of Zul´Aman should be covered on this page or if it should have its own page. It´s not really related to the "invasion of Outland" and the Battle for Quel'Danas has its own page. This page is getting bigger (thanks, Sports, in-game stuff like that is really the thing that is needed in such pages), but on the other hand, the Zul´Aman page would be kinda short, but since Battle for the Ebon Hold exists, it shouldn´t be a problem, hopefully? --Mordecay (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)