Talk:Kael'thas Sunstrider

Untitled

 * ''Past discussions moved to Talk:Kael'thas Sunstrider/Archive1

Relatives
Does Kil'jaeden count as a relative? I don't think he should be listed as one, but I'd rather not edit the article until I find out more opinions on the matter... - Aladara 19:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think that would be too much of a stretch, especially given how little info we have. 19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thanks for making the change! - Aladara 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we include Eldin Sunstrider as a possible relative?We have little informatio on this but i don't think it would be a mistake.Opinions?(Marakanis)


 * Never heard of him... is he a younger brother? - Aladara 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a random name for Blood Mage in WC3TFT. I think it's not so necessary. --N&#39;Nanz 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the random names from Warcraft III actually represent a real person? I have always had the feeling they were just random names, with no support from the lore. --Odolwa 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't include them as lore characters, but they can be listed on their "type" pages. 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard someone say somewhere he had (or has) a wife. Is this true? Mr.X8 01:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that said and it isn't mentioned in the article at all, so I'm going to go with "no". - Aladara 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was reading somewhere that Sylvanas is his cousin. Both are from Silvermoon originally, so it's likely they knew each other at some point, but are they related? Gutsdozer (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculations?
I should probably just get up the guts to start editing things myself, but better safe than sorry... is this section *really* necessary? It makes no sense at all and on top of that is incredibly poorly worded and formatted. I'd rather not start an editing war on accident, so I figured I'd just ask first... - Aladara 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Semirg's speculation
Kael's pact with the burning Legion is an odd one. Many things fall into place shortly Before/After his joining. The Scryers break away from Kael and the Naaru comes into the possesion of the Hordes Blood Elfs. Siphoning power from the Naaru the Blood Elfs belive they are stealing power. But the Naaru of Shattrath show no hate towards these Blood Knights despite what they do to their own brother. Also no Escape, Rescue, or struggle is made to or against the Naaru of Silvermoon City. It may be possible that Kael seeing his people were dying made a pact with A'dal asking him to save his people. In return Kael joins the Legion as a double agent getting close to the legions leader so he can leak information or destory the leaders. The Blood Knights in the meanwhile continue to "steal" The power and what was once the arcane enegry in the Blood Elf body is now Divine energy. Changing the resource of magic to something that wont corrupt them and slowly save the Blood Elf race. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * Entirely possible, and I quite like the idea, but I dislike such lengthy analyses in the articles, particularly when there is little, even in the way of hearsay, to support. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense. My only concern though, then why are we attacking Kael'thas in Tempest Keep? It's under orders from A'dal, you know. --Odolwa 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Kael eventually broke the pact and that's why u get to attack his base(Marakanis 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Image
I think I prefer the Samwise. Any thoughts? -- Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As do I, since he's the focus of that image. 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the current might be fanart, unless someone else can find it somewhere. That said, I also prefer the Samwise. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not fanart. it's part of the image that includes Illidan, Vashj, and Akama blizz used at blizzcon. Regardless i think the samwise was more appropriate.[[Image:Illidari Leaders.jpg|thumb|left|Presumed leaders of the Illidari - Illidan, Kael'thas, Lady Vashj and Akama.]]Warthok 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I thought to replace it was because the Samwise image was also frequently used as just a generic blood mage. I had thought the new image would be better suited for a number of reasons, because it's more recent, because it's specifically Kael and no one else, and because it's much darker and as such better represents Kael's current stage of character progression. Though I seem to be the only one that thinks so. Dylan Bissel 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The name of the samewise artwork is "Blood Mage", but it is officially specifically of Kael'thas (Manual of Monsters). It is called Blood Mage for the main reason that Kael'Thas was the very first Blood Mage. It is not a "generic individual". The new image is far too abstract for an infobox image.Baggins 16:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Motion carried, then. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the Manual of Monsters, however the image first introduced as just generic blood mage art (on the Frozen Throne website), and then titled "Blood Mage" on Samwise's personal site. And it's kind of odd, if Didier was in fact specifically doing art of Kael that he wouldn't say so. In any other case I'm aware of that he did art for specific characters he has. The image was likely used in the Manual of Monsters only because no art existed at the time of Kael.
 * Also, I'm curious what you mean by abstract.Dylan Bissel 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If an image is the headline image of on a character article in the trump card of all lore sources, then it typically means that it's of the individual in question.
 * I don't think the other image is abstract, I think just think it's not good enough for the head of the article- it's not a detailed portrait, it wasn't meant to be viewed at so close a range-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I do realize that the image has been used as an image of Kael, however it's also been used as an image of a generic blood mage. Since there was no discernible difference between the two in Frozen Throne it largely renders the image viable for either use. I had been asking Baggins about the image being abstract.
 * I'm not trying to fight you guys on this or anything, I'd just like to understand the reasons behind your choices so I can better work around them in the future. Dylan Bissel 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, it hasn't really been used as a generic "Blood Mage" as officially we have really only encountered one blood mage in the games.(not counting the random blood mages in the multiplayer games). Truth be told Kael is the representive "generic blood mage".Baggins 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Secondly, I'd like to point out that Warcraft Encyclopedia is not the "trump card of all warcraft sources" its just "another source" actually part of the History of Warcraft, it is a source that is rarely updated mind you). Going by what Metzen has said in interviews all the sources are generally equal, although what goes on inside the games themselves is probably the highest level.Baggins 03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"De jure"?
My edit comment got cut off, but what I meant to say there was that someone apparently had "du jour" mixed up with "de facto" and came up with "de jure." It is now fixed.

Tommee

Not confirmed Kael'thas
Is there a source confirming that this image is Kael'thas if not it doesn't need to be in the article.

At the image is called Interrogation. Zakolj 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of course doesn't confirm its Kael'thas, all it states is the name of the picture is "interrogation" it could be any blood elf blood mage interrogating what looks like a jungle troll.Baggins 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting it is. It was in the article and I removed it, it already had the text under it, and maybe someone who added it or someone else knows of an article in the RPG or other official sources with Kael'thas mentioned and the image on the same page, which would comforme it, and in that case it won't matter it is named Interrogation at SotS. Zakolj 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The image is in the A&HC, however its just an article discussing all blood elves.Baggins 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like a bound orc screaming for mercy to me; which would fit with the "interrogation" theme. -- 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a ghoul. Note the tuft of hair on the back of its head, the long tongue, the large lower jaw, and the bony protrusions on its back. Egrem 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Point of note ghouls don't usually have 'a tuft' of hair on the back of their heads (they are usually portrayed with full hair, although balding towards the middle), especially not a pony tail. Nor do they usually have tongues (I don't remember any image of them having tongues, let alone a 'long tongue'). As for bony back that can describe quite a few things.Baggins 06:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also doubt the image would be called interrogation if that was a ghoul. You really can;t interrogate a undead zombie. Though on the tongue thing in warcraft 3 ghouls had very long tongues. Leviathon 06:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While they did have tongues in Warcraft III, I don't remember it sticking out of their mouth, nor being that long. The longest was in concept art for the game as far as I remember.Baggins 07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it looks like either an orc, or a jungle troll, with its hands bound behind its back, and squatting on the ground in front of that blood elf. But it most certainly is not of Kael'thas and a naga. --Mesethusela 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be a ghoul, but why talk to one?-- 01:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To figure out what people really taste like? --Super Bhaal 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From a 25-Man Raid to a 5-Man Dungeon...Hmm
I'm admittedly a little confused here. Kael'thas is supposed to be the big man in the TK raid (which I have yet to do...*grumble*), but they're knocking him down to a 5-man. My question is how - unless the battle against him in the TK raid weakened him so much that he needed to be revived with this fel crystal thing which reduces his powers to a 5-man group... *shrug* --Joshmaul 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what actually happened was he was severely weakened after his defeat at Tempest Keep, and he would be dead by now if it weren't for the crystal. It's some sort of life support, without it he'll probably die. Zentyr 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh actually we don't know for sure if we'll even get to fight him, and if we will get to fight him he'll probably appear at the 25 man wing of the instance where Kil will get summoned , also if he got weakened when he was almost killed then I guess he'll get healed back to full health again ...my opinion (Marakanis 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Oh sorry I didn't see the Sunwell Plateau article, sorry(Marakanis 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Note that instance size and level does not always (well, ever) represent actual power. Van Cleef is barely over level 20, yet he's on par with many a level 60 boss. 17:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way, Kirkburn? --Joshmaul 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Master Mathias Shaw (a level 62 assassin) says something to the effect of VanCleef being one of the most dangerous men he's ever known. In the RPG, VanCleef is the same level as Jaina.  I think it's safe to say that VanCleef is a fairly high-end character, lore-wise, but he was placed at the level he was for gameplay reasons (since you need some cool opponents before the endgame). Egrem 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Really IS nuts
Kaplan says: "This time he really IS nuts"... I guess this means Kael is, finally, beyond any kind of redemption, and will eventually end up killed in his own homeland as a lackey of the Legion. That's very sad indeed... s-windstalker 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My confidence in the lore-department is now finally completely broken. Who knows what more loved, former-good, characters will end up mercilessly slaughtered at the hand of us players?--Odolwa 11:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, players can kill him in game, but he is not actually killed in lore. It makes the game more fun to see all the heroes from previous Warcraft games, and also to kill them. But the P.C.'s dont really exist in lore. In a nutshell, Kael'thas is as he was before he was 'Killed' by any players. Non-existent people cant kill him. -Velsyarn


 * I don't know, it looks like the developers are getting more of a say in what happens with the lore than creative development.  :/  --Super Bhaal 14:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Making good lore =/= keeping characters alive. People die. 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of note Kael & his first blood elves was considered nuts even before we first saw him in Lordaeron in TFT, ;). Some of the last remaining high elves living there were totally against his burning of forests in what is now Ghostlands.


 * The surviving elves frighten me, Melena. They no longer call themselves high elves. You remember Prince Kael’Thas? He leads the elves now, being the last elf of noble birth. He calls his people “blood elves,” supposedly in homage of the dead. I am glad they no longer think of themselves as high elves, for they certainly are not. Melena, they plan to raze the forest - all of it! “We will not let the Scourge enjoy their plunder!” declares Kael’Thas. Travesty! I will try to stop this folly, but I doubt that I will be successful. These blood elves are crazed, manic, inflamed by vengeance and fueled by this unnamable need that seethes within our consciousness. They will go on with their plans despite my efforts. They may even try to slay me. Yet I will do what I can.
 * --Baggins 20:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

. Hope that helps Warchiefthrall (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, right at the top of the page, it says, "But Kael'thas now acknowledges a more sinister being as his master. Subsequent events have led him to betray Illidan, his own people, and existence itself...giving himself willingly to the service of the Burning Legion and its lord, Kil'jaeden the Deceiver." Since Kael'thas's biography is presented in chronological order, and his betrayal was a relatively recent event, it makes sense that the details of his betrayal wouldn't be found until the end of the page. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

as i already said, i know he betrayed them, but it doesnt say that they became aware of the betrayal. unless they knew he betrayed them then they would still be loyal servants and its never stated that any one other than the blood knights left his side. but as blood knights are a killable mob to all races on the isle then it isnt made clear that the blood elf race itself disowned him.


 * That's because this article is about Kael'thas specifically, not about the blood elves as a whole. That his people found out about his betrayal and disowned him has very little impact on his character, thus there's no need for it to be in the summary of this page.  On the blood elf, or blood knight, or Silvermoon pages, sure, but not here. Also, sign your posts. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

i think its actually rather important to his character but either way, why do you need me to sign my posts?


 * To see who said what . 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

well i seem to be the only one on my side so its sort of unnecessary


 * Liam, please excuse us. We didn't realize that you, unlike everyone else on this wiki, from the part-time contributors to the admins, don't need to sign your posts! Please excuse our ignorance, in future we will just assume that when someone is the only person arguing a certain point that its you, or meticulously check the history, instead of just looking at the end of the comment for a name.
 * Literally everyone else is doing it, Liam.-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

yo buddy, go fuck yourself. i dont care if you cant see who says what. its irrelevant. if some one says something why the fuck do you need to know who said it? its said and thats all thats important. dont get sarcastic with me. you havnt even said anything till now, so why are you chiming in now? and either way, if you know that my login name is liam then clearly i dont need to sign any thing. plus, if you really cared about the thread then you would infact read the entire thing. that way you could pose useful responses rather than sarcastic dribble.


 * Careful, please calm down. Ragestorm is an admin, and he was just pointing out our policy that people need to sign their posts on talk pages. Although, perhaps he could have avoided the sarcastic style.


 * Please do not argue with admins, its bad karma (avoid attacking anyone as well). If you are too lazy to hit four tildes you can always click on signature button above the typing window. However please follow our policy. It is a privilege to participate on WoWWiki, not a right. If you keep on ignoring it, it could lead to a ban. In any case welcome to WoWWiki.Baggins (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For more info, see WP:TALK. Signing is both a common courtesy, and a necessity for discussions to make any sense. 09:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ragestorm is needlessly being a dick over something that is completely irrelevant. having my posts signed doesnt make it any easier to follow the conversation. even if no one signed their posts that doesnt make the thread any more or less difficult to follow.


 * No Ragestorm is simply enforcing a simple rule for the very reason that, despite what your limited expierience tells you, DOES make a page easier to folow since we will actualy know who said what, without having to sort through the history, especialy in the case of multiple edits. You have about ten edits, the rest of us combined probably have several hundred thousand put all together. So who would know better?. And yes it is completely relevent, your point has a better chance of being taken seriously if others see you are capable of reading instructions and following rules, instead of being a random spur of the moment blurt. No one is being a dick, and no one here has anything to lose other than yourself. 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Either do it or leave the wiki. We have no use for someone who barely does anything but complain. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will admit that I was overly sarcastic and not very respectful. I would apoligize, but I suspect it wouldn't be accepted.
 * If nobody signed, then we would have no idea who was saying what without checking the page history, so yes, the point is relevant. This isn't a thread, threads happen on forums in nice boxes that automatically show who posted. This is a wiki, so without signing, we'd have a wall of text that would occasionally be indented.
 * And in case you were wondering, I do think a small mention should be made about how the Blood Elves have now discovered the truth, but there isn't a point in giving it more than a few sentences. As for why the statues of him are still there, it's probably just Blizzard not feeling that Silvermoon's appearance needs to be updated, particularly as a number of the BE quests are chronological and take place before his treachery was discovered. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

General History
Is it really necessary to have this section? I think it should be merged with the Biography section, any objections? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the reason it was seperate was because it had a few phrases that were just about his personality, but also had phrases dealing with his origins thus the label "General History". I chaanged the section to Personality and moved the historical lines down to biography. But the article needs work. A lot of information is outdated, and written in the present tense. It needs to stay but be rephrased. Also the section i made under biography needs to be filled in, and information from RotLK added where appropriate. 19:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Race
Blood Elf?, Wretched? or Felblood elf?.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood elf. Much as he may look like a wretched in Magister's Terrace we can't really be sure (and it's probably more from being brought back from the brink of death by demonic magic than from magic withdrawal), and we know for sure he's not felblood; he never fed on demon blood that we know of. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion under "Blood Elf or Felblood Elf".--WoWWiki-Odolwa (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vial Remnant
Why didn't he simply use the vial he got to restore the sunwell rather than choose to ally with the demon that created the Scourge to destroy his homeland? - SLOWPOKE 1:00, 12 Feb 2010 (PTC)


 * Because one Vial was most likely not enough (Illidan used 3 for the new Well of Eternity), and that's why he used the manaforge to stack more energy.
 * Alexstrasza believed that the skull of Anasterian Sunstrider among other things were needed to restore the Sunwell's energies (Lands of Conflicts)
 * However that has been proven false, since it was restored without those articfacts.
 * 08:17, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

But Sunwell was created by using one vial. SLOWPOKE 1:25, 12 Feb 2010 (PTC)

Famous/Infamous
The description of Kael's setback line was changed with the reasoning, "So famous it's INfamous", which seems to suggest infamous is a stronger form of famous. It actually refers to something with an extremely poor or shameful reputation. Was this a mix-up, or do lots of players actually hate that line? Egrem (talk) 20:47, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've heard many players complaining about that line being overused (Kael'thas, one of the guys in the Blood Council in ICC, and then Hogger in Cata). So i believed that statement was added beacuse many players have started to hate it. - Aedror42 (talk) 21:03, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess, it turned "infamous", because of the ever-returning-and-ever-weaker Kael'thas, he beats raiders to death in TK and returns in MT as a big joke (for many).
 * 21:10, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

something i witnessed
who will stop at nothing to save his people, even if that means the slaughter of his former followers and allies.

ha isnt he simmular to arthas he wanted to save his people despite that he killed the civilians of stratholme and he took frostmourne and the shard killed muradin in the process he became a death knight slaughtered his father uther the lightbringer and some of the paladins of the silver hand here we go Lord Uther: your father rulled this land for 70 years and you grind it to dust in a matter of days Arthas: very dramatic uther just give me the urn and i will make sure you die quickly /this urn holds your father s ashes arthas what were you hoping to piss on them 1 more time before you let his kingdom to rot i didnt know what it held i will take for whatever i came for 1 way or another--Sartorias011 (talk) 15:36, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Location
First of all, in-game, he's still present in both Tempest Keep and Magisters' Terrace, so that needs to stay. Second, do you have a source for him being buried on Quel'Danas? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rommath states it from "In The Shadow of The Sun" His exact words "Another leader of the sin'dorei once said something very similar to me, Lor'themar. I did not argue with him then; indeed, at the time, I thought him right. We buried him on Quel'Danas. MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A reference
"The skull of his father, King Anasterian, is still in his possession and is among the artifacts that the red and green dragonflights thought would be needed to restore the Sunwell." The reference of it is just a sentence... so what is the real reference? --Mordecay (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a hook in the RPG.-- 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * * --Mordecay (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Lands of Conflict, page 115?-- 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Top page quote
"You may not care for your subjects, but I care for mine. I have lost far, far too much in dealing with humans. I stand only for the elves now - for the sin'dorei. The children of the blood." Where is it from? TherasTaneel (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a fragment of a speech made by Kael from Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, page 283.-- 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Race
His race should note he was originally a Blood Elf. I tried to add it, but as the History will show you, my efforts were laughable failures. Meganerd18 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Argument for Kael'thas as a warlock
The original description for the blood mage was "Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves 'Blood Elves' - these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost - even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion! Though still loyal to the Alliance, the Blood Elves' passions will lead them not only to the highest pinnacles of power, but to the darkest depths of madness." That and the whole demonic energy draining thing, and the joining the Buring Legion thing.-- 23:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lore wise mages can be corrupted into warlocks, so I'd say its possible. Though he only uses mage abilities in his encounters. 05:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oke, Kael was addicted / mad whatever to arcane but was still treated as a mage not a warlock in both his appearances. --Mordecay (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * His followers may be warlocks, but that doesn't mean Kael'thas is one. Beside, like the other mentioned, he's only been treated as a mage. -- 13:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wretched
Is there an official source ever really saying he was a Wretched in particular? It seems to me that he only looked that that because he had died and was being held alive by a demonic crystal, which obviously wouldn't be good for your complexion. Wretched are said to be blood elves that gave into their magical addiction, Kael was surrounded by magical resources, I doubt he's actually a Wretched. OneVeryFancyElf (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he's somewhere in-between a Wretched and a felblood, inclining slightly more towards the former than the latter. "Wretched" itself isn't really a racial term; it's just an unflattering description of degenerated blood/high elves through magic abuse, which definitely applies to him. Falsetti (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Giving in to their addiction means overindulging, not failing to sate it. Being surrounded by magical resources would make that more likely, not less. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I still stay to the belief we shouldn't list something we can't prove, unless we made a section in the article on the speculation of him being a Wretched. I've been around Quel'Danas lately and haven't seen the term thrown around about it. He's probably a unique case like with Illidan, but at his core he was born a blood elf and and there's no evidence of him mutating into a Wretched besides some similarities, for those reasons I think he should be listed as one. OneVeryFancyElf (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the nightfallen article is written: "While appearing similar at first glance, withered is a very different state to that of Wretched for blood elves. The main difference is that becoming withered is due to a failure to feed on the Nightwell's energies, it is due to withdrawal, while blood elves become wretched due to a reckless abuse of arcane magic." It is looking like what Falsetti and DTZ spoke. It goes on magic abuse, not in withdraw like the nightborne. 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

ATM, I can't confirm the UVG citation that the color change was because of fel. The DJ says, "his veins burn with limitless fel magic." Seems pretty clear to me that he became a felblood elf. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong redirect
There is redirect from Prince Kael'Thas. It should be Prince Kael'thas instead.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean; it's redirected from both. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he means that there shouldn't be redirect with capital T?--Mordecay (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean. If you type "Prince Kael...", there should be "Prince Kael'thas", not "Prince Kael'Thas". Even though it does redirect from "Prince Kael'thas" if you type precisely that.--Adûnâi (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since either will redirect to the correct article, I feel this is a non-issue. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of Kael'thas' Title
In-game, it's . We know, however, that the demonym is "blood elves", without capitals. Shouldn't it be "Lord of the blood elves" then? If it is edited, Anasterian Sunstrider and Lor'themar Theorn articles should be changed accordingly, too.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The title is what it is. He is Kael'thas Sunstrider, Lord of the Blood Elves, the lord of the blood elves.-- 03:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)