Talk:Ramkahen (faction)

Inspired by wemics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wemic <  These do seem to somewhat fit the bill for the inspiration of the Ramkahen, at least physically...  Does anybody agree or disagree? I know this isn't a forum and all those millions of things, but this might be worth adding to the article under an "inspiration" section, or something. --Super Bhaal (talk) 05:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * They do seem to look like them, no doubt. -- 12:09, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian flag?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia  < Is it me, or does it look kinda similar with the Ramkahen logo? Soundwave (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both insignias are a sunburst, but that's about where the similarity ends. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now when I compare them, they really do look similar. Dedokire (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramkahen the people vs. Ramkahen the town
Since there's a flight path "to" Ramkahen, there has to be a town of the same name; maybe this is grounds for two different articles? Lethal Breastmilk (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Race, faction and place. They were all merged when created under current policy. --Zeal (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Separate race?
The article seems to treat the people of Ramkahen like they are a separate race or species from the Tol'vir. While they do look different and have a different biology, all concept art labels the fleshy/furry cat people as Tol'vir in addition to the stone ones you see in instances like Skywall. I believe it would be far less confusing to simply call the inhabitants of the city Tol'vir as well. Omacron (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. "Ramkahen" is a city/tribe of fleshy tol'vir just called tol'vir.-- 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Aye the intro needs reworking, but we already decided to go that route Omacron. 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that when the pages were created, it was pointed out that this is no different than Dwarves, Earthern, Troggs and the rest of their offshoots. They are considered seperate races, otherwise go change Earthern too unless the decision is to use "Blizzard are doing it this way in these abstract cases, even if it's inconsistant, inaccurate, and wrong, so let's do it too".
 * Consider the original quote for the faction "The cat-people of Ramkahen are the distant but direct descendants of the Tol'vir, guardians of Uldum. Though they've lost their stone bodies, protecting the secrets of the Titans is still a part of their rigid tradition." they're clearly no longer the same race. Is it worth pointing out again, the correct usage of proper nouns for the races...? -_-;


 * Sadly, Blizzard removed the "distant but" part of that in live, which undermines the original IRC agreed decision that they are seperate races, so here's a newer quote to support it:
 * "The tol'vir were originally stone constructs created by the titans to safeguard the secrets of Uldum. They posses feline lower bodies and heads as well as human torsos. Like many other titan creatures, the tol'vir succumbed to the curse of flesh. Three tribes exist in the present day: Ramkahen, Orsis (nearly wiped out) and Neferset. The latter tribe has allied with Deathwing in order to regain the tol'vir's stone form."
 * Why say Tol'vir there, and not just "their"? Implies to me they are distinct from Tol'vir, they're a new race, with 3 tribes. As there's no basis to name that new distinct race like there is the exact same case as Dwarves, Earther and Troggs, Ramkahen makes sense as a prominent neutral tribe, that actually has a faction with states they are direct descendants, no? --Zeal (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me more like they are all the same race (tol'vir), but split to different tribes (Ramkahen, Orsis, Neferset), just like the different groups of trolls, dwarves and orcs.
 * The way I see your quote is that they're trying to regain the stone form they originally had before succumbing to the curse of flesh, something that happened to all tol'vir (or seems like it). Not all earthen were transformed to dwarves due to the curse of flesh. -- 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Split
I'm wanting to split the article into city and tribe, but since the faction will contain more info than the city article would, which would be preferred... moving the city to Ramkahen (subzone) or moving the faction to Ramkahen tribe. 01:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest both...--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the faction is just called Ramkahen, so that's what the page should be called. I've not seen anything calling it the Ramkahen Tribe. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there were others, but The High Council's Decision is one of the sources they're tribes. 07:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name
Since the main page is now taken by the city and this was moved here, we should just it to Ramkahen tribe rather than having (faction). It would match the other tribe articles and if needed this could be a redirect. 19:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Ryon took great care in having both Ramkahen tribe links when speaking about the lore, and Ramkahen (faction) when talking about the reputation faction. Right now the two links redirects to the same page. Maybe we could have Ramkahen (faction) redirect to Ramkahen tribe#Reputation? Xporc (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That would work. 19:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The main reason I used Ramkahen (faction) was because I thought that is the official in-game name for the faction. --Ryon21 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is. I don't think a page about a rep faction should be named something other than what's displayed in-game. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with having it the other way around: Ramkahen tribe could redirect to Ramkahen (faction)#Background Or even a plain redirect to Ramkahen (faction), works for me :D Xporc (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)