Talk:A New Power in Lordaeron (WC3 Undead)

Morbent Fell survived? The one in duskwood is the same guy? Thought he just used the same name. See Talk:Morbent Fel.-- 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, changed. He may still be the same guy... Coming Second 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True.-- 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Though, like all generic hero characters NPCs, that use names from the "random generated name list", this info needs to be checked to see if the character is random or not. If its random, then Morbent Fell shouldn't be listed. The same goes for Ras Splinterspine.Baggins 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked. Ras Splinterspine and Morbent Fell came up 5 times out of 5.  I again posit my theory that all heroes that feature in the Frozen Throne are fixed, with the exception of the Bonus Campaign that was blatantly thrown together at the last minute.  You can see Splinterspine fighting on the side of the Dreadlords in the Sentinels campaign. Coming Second 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm checking this map myself, but your theory is already flawed Coming Second, there are maps where the names are fixed, and maps where they aren't. If it was fixed during installation, and was different for different installations that would also make anything you saw your version of the game subject, if someone posted a screenshot showign something different. I can show you screenshots of names changing on maps if you want me to?


 * Also, these articles should contain mission names, not just the made up battle name, for citation purposes.Baggins 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes for this mission the two characters, ras and morben fell, are fixed on this mission it appears. If someone gets a different outcome, please post screenshots to correct us.Baggins 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only speak from personal experience, and in my experience the heroes stayed the same on the Sentinel/Blood Elf/Scourge campaigns. It's not earth-shatteringly important, anyway.  In the interests of lore, do you mind putting which mission it was in a different section? Coming Second 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically lore wise these battles don't have official names. You do understand that you have flub things a little bit by giving them some kind of title right? No, I'd prefer if the actual chapter mission exists in the forward in some way on each of these pages.Baggins 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh for goodness sake you MASSIVE pedant. Blizzard are never going to give them "proper" titles, unless they are mentioned in passing in some other part of lore, in which case they can be easily changed.  You would prefer them to be called something like "The Officially Unnamed Battle That Happened In Chapter Six: A New Power In Lordaeron That Was In Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne"? None of the battle pages I have created have exactly ridiculous names, do they? Coming Second 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think I'll just move them to Chapter title from the game, that would save alot of trouble (and make it possible to include any periphery information as well, like creep/neutral information). So this article would just be called "A New Power In Lordaeron". Infact I think I'll ask what others think in IRC.Baggins 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Baggins' proposal, the article devoted to the battle between Varimathras and Sylvanas should be called "The Dark Lady". Article titles provide information on the subject, while mission names usually are metaphores or references. For the articles I created I use the following convention:


 * Type of confrontation:
 * Raid: A small but destructive confrontation or attack.
 * Skirmish: Small confrontation between equal or similar forces in which there's little or none destruction of buildings.
 * Battle: Massive confrontation between medium or large forces. Structural destruction included.
 * Siege: Massive attack against a target aimed at crippling or obliterating said target. Using the attacker's point of view.


 * Place: Location of the battle employing an accurate reference (city or important location)

Using a title such as "A New Power In Lordaeron" would indicate that the article talks about said new power (The Forsaken). Using the name of the battle provides much more accurate information about the article's content, which is the battle.--Gonzalo84 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Listing an article under a fan-made false name, makes it more difficult to search for a mission for those that are going by the official source. It is because of this that wowwiki policy is to avoid fan-made, and fan-fic titles unless said titles are placed with the creator's own page, for example, User:Gonzalo84/Siege of Lordaeron. In which case you can do whatever you want with the article as it belongs to you. Otherwise articles must use an official title.Baggins 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine... Have it your way and please move the Battle of Tirisfal Glades to "The Dark Lady", a name that would be much more accurate to redirect to Sylvanas own article. --Gonzalo84 05:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "A New Power In Lordaeron" makes sense to me. I don't know about the other. -- Raze 05:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think it would have been better to name them by where they were fought, then put the actual mission names at the start of the article. It just reads a lot better, and people searching for the official name can still find it.  Coming Second 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How does it read a lot better? Since the article doesn't go beyond being a recap of an official mission, it should probably use the official name (and it is apparently policy to do so anyway). The offical name is also more recognisable by readers. The fan-made ones like "Siege of Lordaeron" (sounds like something from Warcraft 2) and "Battle of Tirisfal Glades" don't ring any bells for me even though I've played the missions. If it isn't going to be helpful to readers I don't see any reason to make it up. -- Raze 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, I know...I appreciate the reasoning behind it fully. It was just a silly aesthetic thing of mine, nothing more. Coming Second 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)