Forum:The RPG dilemma

Main discussion
I checked around and didn't find anything about the last news about the RPG, and how to proceed. As you know, CDev questions 2 said the RPG was not canon. Before WP becomes a complete mess with people removing, people tagging or people making new sections, I think we need a policy.

This is my take on it:
 * Small lines integrated into something bigger: references should be enough.
 * Small lines not integrated into something bigger: moved to trivia: "In the RPG blablabla, although it may not be canon".
 * Medium texts that can act as standalone: Moved to a "In the RPG" section with a RPG-section tag.
 * Articles that are 90% RPG: bring back the RPG tag in the first line of the article, so people know it's from the RPG without needing to check sources one by one.

Well, that's my suggestion. Waiting for general consensus before everyone starts to do what they want. Would be nice if this was linked as a sitenotice, so everyone is aware.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I already modified Template:RPG-section to clarify. -- 11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's enough to handle the problem. I'd call for community discussion.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of that, but it's a start. -- 12:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need a smaller icon for certain situations(example denizens of deepholm that are only on the RPG)something like the icons on expansions.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should Appendix 3 be back to the mainspace? I thought we banished it, and that wouldn't change no matter the new stance.
 * As for that small information, I'd just leave it in a "trivia" section. Not worth tdo what you ask, considering it's not canon anymore.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Appendix 3 should be forever banished from the mainspace.
 * As for the Deepholm denizens (and other areas) that are only in the RPG, they should be abolished overall from the lists. The last thing we need is even more icons. -- 12:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, most of those don't have icons anyway. I'd move them to trivia in list form, something like: "In the RPG, these creatures were denizens of this realm: a, b, c and d, but it's not canon".
 * As for Appendix 3, I asked because I saw someone moving the information: Ettin.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * i don't know if you misunderstood me or not, but what i meant was adding a icon like the one in the Template:RPG-section but without the text to the list from those that were from the RPG--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (inserted) Already is, RPG-inline. . 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest creating a huge category of RPG, containing all things RPG and create RPG characters category inside to include RPG characters and move them over from the Lore Characters category. And also, sorry about the ettin article, didn't know the source was banished, I thought it's just another RPG book... [[Image:IconSmall_HighElf_Male.gif]] Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 15:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is: Category:Warcraft RPG. -- 12:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try the separate the rpg information from he official information in the elemental hierarchy article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think i've managed.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, Aesindor. We decided Appendix 3 was D&D long ago :P.
 * As for doing changes, try not to do big ones until we decide a policy, or you may get removed (not talking about elemental hierarchy, Ashendant, I think that one looks right).--Lon-ami (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It took a lot of interpretation but i think i got it right--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What about all the pictures from the RPG? Like Elune or Queen Azshara? --LemonBaby (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think pictures are any problem... at least until we get better ones--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the Zandalari related pages(especially Rastakhan) and mainly minor races pages(ogre,ogre mage,sea giant and such) abit of trouble... overall I "de-RPed" 270 articles. Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now there are just a bajillion to go :D --Ashbear160 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Warthok is purging "his" dragonflight pages of RPG info. Is this an issue? I respect him, but I feel that I should tell him not to. Would it would be biased to let him slide and others not? Are his actions fine in the first place?-- 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Aye, just mention it to him that RPG shouldn't be removed... it's still part of the Warcraft after all. 03:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Even though they said the books might as well be considered non-canon, they have stated in the same thing answer that things from the RPG do make its way into the game, and that they basically pick and choose what they what to be considered lore and not lore... (like they always have), so just plain removing all info, just because it comes from the books is not the right way to go about it. 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So let's take the Worgen page as an example (since it's what I referenced on SoL). The vast majority (actually all of it except maybe one line mentioning the skinning) references the RPG book. So what should be done is adding the RPG tag above those sections? Though there are things like the description of the way the creature looks (considering you can see that elsewhere such as in-game and other canon materials such as the comic) that don't really require a book to tell you such as the first line of that section. So what I am getting at is should there in some cases be multiple sections also? Leviathon (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you are talking about when the RPG and the obvious are redundant?-- 04:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What should be done with articles almost completely RPG but still considered canon?(Examples: Sargeras, Worgen, Sea giant, Ogre, Zandalari-related) Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The RPG information should be segregated from everything else. I cases where they exist outside of the RPG, but it is not cited that they do, then such citation must be found.-- 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew this would happen sooner or later, since the RPG books were causing way too many retcons, imo there's not as much problem as people think it is. As Coobra said before, RPG inline exists, we can simply put it as the headline for RPG info. 11:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Separate article sections
If you look at this article at the StarCraft Wiki, you'll see they use templates to "section off" parts of articles relating to branches within the canon (the plot branch brack template) in addition to the missions templates (StarCraft II has missions which can be played in different orders, in addition to "hard" splits, eg you can play this mission or that one). Similar templates could be used for RPG info, to "section off" RPG info but still keep information in chronological order. Brann Bronzebeard is an example of an article that could undergo that treatment.

It's also simpler to use section breaks for significant sections derived mostly or entirely from the RPG.

I edited the RPG template slightly to include references to sections, and also to fix a typo. IMO language such as "not canon" should not be used as it's too definitive; I think it should refer to "lesser" or "disputed" canon status, perhaps with a link to the official policy when we end up with one. Bob the Nailer (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this was already decided:


 * This one for entire article with information only from the RPG and have no representation in other blizzard products.


 * This one for sections with information from the RPG, but have representation in other blizzard products.


 * This one for entries within a list that the information is only from the RPG.
 * It's non-cannon because that's the term blizzard said RPG is now--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify a bit more: template: RPG, template: RPG-section and template: RPG-inline. Bob the Nailer (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories
We should probably look at stripping some of the categories from articles that are 100% RPG material. It doesn't make sense, for instance, for a non-canon character to be in the Lore Characters category. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a new cat... RPG characters. 04:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support an RPG Characters category. Makes sense.--Drakolord7 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I support it, since I suggested it:P(see a few lines above this section and you will find it)[[Image:IconSmall_HighElf_Male.gif]] Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 09:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly, should creatures that exist outside the RPG have the RPG categories removed entirely? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, would say so. It doesn't relate to them anymore, I suppose. Zamoonda (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. They're still mentioned in that RPG book, regardless of its canon or not.--Drakolord7 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They should be removed from RPG-Specific categories(like RPG characters for RPG only characters(there should be one for RPG only creature too)).--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we going to make Categories for RPG-Only creatures and RPG-Only Objects? i thin it would be usefull--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:RPG creatures already exists and as for the items like Gorshalach, they have categories already under Category:Items. It's primarily why everything from WoW had been given their own category system, anything that doesn't appear in WoW appears in this category or subcategories (that does not include WoW subcats). 19:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that work for items that only appear in the RPG (Plate of the Damned, Orodur and Phlogiston for example)--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should the Category:RPG creatures have things that appear in other games? or is it a rpg only thing, because i see some creatures there that are not RPG only.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just read the main line


 * "This category contains creatures from the Warcraft RPG and World of Warcraft RPG that are not found in the other games."
 * So i'm going to remove those that appear in other games trough this should probably be written as "Not found in other products of the warcraft series" or something like it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the subcats to avoid confusion with other sections of the game but if you want them to stay they stay.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine to remove individual subcategories from the main parent (categories like Humans, Cats, Bog beasts for example) but the main category with which classifies all creatures (ie Humanoids, Elementals, Giants) should remain.  20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthopods and vermin are Beast could we substitute those two section with that then?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the categories for Aberration and Outsider should be deleted they have nothing new and they barely have anything in common with the articles within it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I purged most of the rpg characters in the lore characters category to the rpg characters category, but i did it really half-assed(select category for lore characters, copy category of rpg characters over it).
 * There are only 3 types of rpg categories missing Category:RPG items, Category:RPG organizations and Category:RPG locations.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Notices
Are we capable of putting up notices like we did prior to the move? Cause if we are capable, we should point to this topic on the notice and ask users to not simply remove all RPG info. 03:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How is that?-- 03:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I wasn't sure if it still worked or not, good to know it does. 04:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick takeaways
So, I propose a list of quick takeaways gets added to the top of this page (and perhaps somewhere in the Lore policy) just so everyone's on the same page with regard to removals and such:
 * Do NOT simply remove all RPG information based on the Ask CDev response.
 * Paragraphs of RPG content disconnected from the rest of the article should be moved to an "In the RPG" section near the end of the article.
 * Pictures from the RPG are fine (especially for characters like Queen Azshara where we don't have anything better).
 * Minor stuff from the RPG can be used as references, but not anything important. -- (this is subjective and probably not a good way of putting it)
 * RPG-only articles get tagged RPG at the top and removed from any gameplay/non-RPG-specific categories (Lore characters/Major characters/etc...)

Feel free to add/edit bullet points as necessary. -- k_d3 04:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of pictures, Shadows & Light has File:Nozdormu.jpg as Nozdormu, but the magazine (in a preview) has it colored red and as Alexstrasza.-- 04:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the TCG he is bronze as well, so... it would be odd that he, the leader of the flight, would not be bronze himself. Also, is it possible to see this preview image somewhere? -- 05:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't find it. Someone who bought it would have to scan it. It is not that Nozdormu is red, it is that the image was re-labeled and colored. I guess that the magazine's take is more canon (if confirmable), even though it felt like an error.-- 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you would mention pictures and color... Cenarius has different hair and skin color between his depictions in the RPG books and his appearance in Cataclysm (I'm ignoring his appearance in War3 because he did not have unique artwork in that game) File:Cenarius_Cataclysm.jpg File:Cenarius1.jpg File:Cenarius color.JPG. Although it could have been justified that he changed color after his "reincarnation," the original color is now non-cannon... should pages such as his have their top picture changed to better reflect the in-game appearance? --Dr. Cheis (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't support removal of any RPG content. I think the set up we have now with the tag stating its non-canonicity is perfect, all that should be done is for the content to be reorganized.--Drakolord7 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I support deleting RPG content, but only small non important sentences(for example: Baine Bloodhoof grows stronger each day).[[Image:IconSmall_HighElf_Male.gif]] Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 10:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been removing all RPG articles from navigation templates(those that are not about the RPG of course) like the races and gods templates--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What about all that D&D "validity of the source is in dispute" stuff? Can we give all that the axe? Marbo1 (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say not. It is even less canon then before, but it still exists.-- 01:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, the validity of the source is no longer in dispute. Now that its exceptionally non-canon, If not entirely removed, it should be made clear that its non-canon and not "maybe" factoids. Marbo1 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As this is a sensitive issue, it needs more discussion. I think it is fine how it is, possibly with more labeling.-- 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the place to discuss it. Since the Appendix 3 page still exists, the information wouldn't be entirely removed for anybody who could have use for it. Just existing with all the other D&D information. Marbo1 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WHAT'S WRITTEN IN APPENDIX 3 STAYS IN APPENDIX 3--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

MoneygruberTheGoblin plans on removing the Appendix Three notes. It being long a source of controversy, does anyone oppose this now that it is even more non-canon?-- 17:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with appendix 3 notes so i'm neutral--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cdev question
CDev questions Should those about rpg info be removed?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Blizzard likely will not answer them. Aren't most of those questions yours anyway?-- 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably but i'm askin what should the official policy be tag them or outright remove them?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the page is for things users would like to ask (or know), not whether they can be answered or not. So... it doesn't matter to me if questions from the RPG are in there or not... as they said, they pick and choose elements from the books they like and want to use. A question you remove now, could end up being re-added later on.


 * Go ahead and place RPG-inline next to the RPG stuff, and we'll judge on them at a later time. 06:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That works too but i also think that they should be separated... well i'll do as you say anyway.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that all of them? 11, eh they can stay mixed in with the others and we'll simply add the RPG tag to them, I would just avoid asking anymore questions directly from the RPGs though. 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those that i saw there might be others, I added one today trough i was halfway writing when i saw that the informatioN which led me to ask that question was from the RPG, I said "what the heck" and just finished it--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

RPG Articles that need to be redone to include existing wow info
There are articles with mostly RPG cannon information and have been labelled in here entirely as non cannon articles, which is wrong since they exist in wow in some form or another, these articles need to be worked to have cannon info written into them and the rpg info must be separated from the "official" that we need to add. Here are the articles that need to be slightly redone, i'll add as i find them: I'll try to find more--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Scalebane(exist plenty in wow seem to refer to the male fighter form of the dragonspawn)
 * Wyrmkin(exist plenty in wow seem to refer to the female caster form of the dragonspawn(there is one heavily armed exception))
 * Nerubian spiderlord(Commander Eligor Dawnbringer refers to Anub'rekhan and Anub'arak as such before they were crypt lords)


 * Anub'arak is not referred to as a Spider Lord, only Anub'rekhan. -- 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right but he's not referred as the only one, he says "one of the finest Spider Lords of Azjol'Nerub" so it's still cannon--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If something exists in the RPG, but is also explained in WoW (or at least exists in WoW), the WoW info must be found and used as citation. I would suggest something like "Scalebane is a something." then go on to say how it is explained in depth in the RPG, which is non-canon.-- 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well i gave two for the dragonspawn based observation only:


 * "Wyrmkin are a type of dragonspawn, with breasts and slender figure and shorter snouts, with a proficiency for spellcasting"
 * "Scalebanes are a type of dragonspawn, with a more robust figure and longer snouts, usually armoured for close combat"
 * All of this can be directly observed from their models, skin name, and abilities.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So yeah I'll work with this, need to make one for the spiderlord trough--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be patient. Don't put it in the article just yet. It's only been a day, so let others see it first. Although this discussion doesn't belong here on the forums but on respective pages' talk pages. -- 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We'll these are articles that are entirely labelled as non cannon when they shouldn't be, and is due to blizzard decision that started this thread i might had some more later.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Did the first two, now i just need to find a definition that works for nerubian spiderlord, i'm thinking of:


 * "Spiderlords are a type of beetle-like Nerubian, that used to rule Azjol-nerub, but after dying in the War of the Spider, they were reanimated as powerful Crypt lords in service of the Lich King and the Scourge."
 * What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since someone replaced what i wrote with notes(which were better than what i wrote), i decided to not do the same to spiderlord article, instead i took the sourced information in the crypt lord article about spiderlords and copied it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * New list this time i added under construction tags:


 * Mur'gul
 * Couatl
 * Snap dragon
 * Tube wyrm
 * Nerubian spiderling
 * Dragon turtle
 * Red wyrm
 * Green wyrm
 * Bronze wyrm
 * Blue wyrm
 * Black wyrm
 * Cenarius's children
 * I'm adding it as i remove things from the categories.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should leave that to someone else... :/ -- 04:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That was partially the reason why i made this list here--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * More to the list--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Population numbers
Does this mean we can finally put the already highly disputed pop numbers to permanent sleep? Kellykins (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely. Such statistics can still exists as labeled notes, but they are now irrelevant.-- 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully also the Alignments? Like "chaotic evil" --LemonBaby (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of just scrapping those entirely. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, hopefully both alignments and those ridiculous numbers.Zamoonda (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Scrap both, is my vote--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Scrap both, or move them to trivia.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, "inappropriate classes" could also be moved to trivia sections. (If a character is said to be a wizard in Warcraft/WoW and a fighter in the RPG, then the fighter class info coudl be moved to the trivia section.) Bob the Nailer (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Azgalor's death
This is a perfect "what to do example". Most of the RPG info there is pretty valid (it's basically a retelling of what happens in Hyjal Summit). However, there's a single line (his no-death) which needs to be tagged, but we can't crate a section for a single line.

What's the answer? moving it to trivia, like "In the RPG Azgalor didn't die", or what?--Lon-ami (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this one really hinges on a final decision being made on what to do in case of directly contradictory information. Do we simply ignore it and use canon information instead, or do we make a note of what the now non-canon RPG says? Personally, I'm in favor of the former, but I'd rather not jump into that without more of a consensus first. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I'm not terribly familiar with his "death" status in WoW, other than knowing he is seen in the Caverns of Time, but it seems to me there's no conflict. He "dies" several times in the Warcraft III mission, and that never stopped him from coming back, so the RPG book wasn't making any kind of new lore by stating he was still alive. Similarly (but not as blatantly), several characters have been killed or seen to die in WoW, only to have players told they were merely "defeated" and not dead (lol merely a setback?) Since the bosses in Caverns of Time mirror the Warcraft III bosses, who did not die permanent deaths, I never assumed these characters were meant to have actually died (except for Archimonde, of course). Now, any evidence of Azgalor's survival is now non-cannon, but I don't see it as a lore conflict, just additional information that hasn't been corroborated. Also, I see no problem mentioning his survival in a sentence or two at the bottom in a new section.--Dr. Cheis (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet in absence of the RPG saying he survived, what reason do we have to assume that he's not dead? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one of those things where you just don't know... cause didn't Blizz say, a demon that is killed is simply sent back to the Twisting Nether, and they can only be truly killed there.... or was it just certain types of demons? 06:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, unless there's another source to directly say he survived, we should label him as deceased. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as with C'thun, he's still talking to people and we labelled him as deceased.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * C'Thun was explicitly stated to be dead in one of the comics (that he then talked to Med'an and Garona later in that same comic series merely serves to indicate that death doesn't have the same meaning for the Old Gods). Azgalor hasn't done anything since his demise in any source BUT the RPG. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What i'm saying is that we would should label it as deceased, like we do with C'thun, because like old gods, demons sometimes return, and the only source that says that he didn't die is now non-cannon.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we do something like "deceased/alive (RPG only)" with some sort of tag for the RPG part? Or is that too complicated for the main info-box? --Dr. Cheis (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the point, really? The RPG's non-canon, so including any information from it in the infobox is just going to confuse and complicate matters. Information like that should be relegated to the notes or trivia section, or a separate RPG section if applicable. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The point as I see it is that Wowpedia's cannon policy as I understand it is not to replace the retconned version of events with the new version, but to list both versions clearly (though point out which is current). The RPG books were cannon, and now they are not. That seems to me to be a retcon. I'll understand if that's too complicated for the infobox though. --Dr. Cheis (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy is that if there are two conflicting versions, they're both presented. If there is a retcon (or a de-canonizing), the canon version takes precedence. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC
 * Afaik Zeratul here is right in this matter. I'd say that if there are any more conflicting issues between the RPG and anywhere else (though personally, I don't trust the manuals any more than the RPG though) then the canon lore should overwrite the RPG, because we don't really need, as Zeratul said, clog up and confuse the pages. Zamoonda (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RPG-only characters with "presence" in wow
While bluntly putting characters with the rpg tag and substituting the lore character category with rpg character category i find some gray areas, these are characters that never appeared in wow but they created something that does... and i don't know if i should treat it like the rest of the rpg characters or make a exception, they are the following: --Ashbear160 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tal'Kierthan
 * Lor'gahn
 * Saria Nightwatcher
 * Erol Evensworth
 * Heffen Glitterbows
 * Hanna
 * Kaltor Ironfoe


 * They are not canon. If mentioned on the weapon pages, mark that part as non-canon.-- 00:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * hmm ok--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Elemental conglemerates
Are they now non-cannon? i'm confused--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The concept exists in WoW, but the explanation for what they are is likely non-canon. Please use one n.-- 21:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So what do we do about the article?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I say leave it be. All the info (what little this is) that was sourced from the RPG can been seen in WoW. 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I vote for putting most info under an RPG section. While there are creatures with the same name as the conglomerate elementals, they seem to work differently. For example, lava elementals seem to be treated like full-on fire elementals, appearing alongside Ragnaros' minions. There is also a complete absence of any of the triumverate elementals, which already had a large crossover with the dual elementals anyway (like with geyser and steam elementals)--Ijffdrie (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

RPG Characters
What is the position on RPG-only characters? If it is non cannon, do we consider they ever existed?

Should be remove them from Infoboxes/Relatives? Succession template? Family trees? Family named articles?

ex: Tandred Proudmoore, Beve Perenolde, Ignaeus Trollbane, Liam Trollbane, Cristof Dungalion

07:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * my answer:


 * remove them from infobox/relatives, infoboxes should only contain canon info
 * let it be on the succession template, possibly add a RPG tag to the names that come from the RPG
 * Family trees add a RPG tag to the names that come from the RPG
 * The last one i don't know can you give a example?
 * --Ashbear160 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

RPG Infoboxes
One thing I have noted is that the infoboxes contain a lot of categories that seem to originate from the RPG. Population numbers and alignment have since been cut (halleluja), but there's still a few others that feel iffy to me. For example, size categories, distinctions between animals and beasts, separate area and environment sections and most organisation(s) for animals. However, while no longer canon, these things are still relevant to warcraft (an alternate continuity if you will), which is why we have RPG sections to begin with. Rather than cutting these things from the infoboxes, I thought it would be a good idea to make a seperate infobox for these subjects in the RPG. To prevent confusion, we'd probably need a clear way to mark these infoboxes though. Any suggestions?--Ijffdrie (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I realy like your idea! How about making those new infoboxes in the "RPG-red"?--LemonBaby (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would indeed make everything pretty clear. Small question though, how do you add background colour to template elements?--Ijffdrie (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We would have to create new Templates... something like this maybe?--LemonBaby (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that looks great--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Made infobox at Template:Infobox/RPG_race. Added Challenge Rating (roughly equivalent to level), but kept the same as your idea otherwise. Snap dragon over here is an example of the infobox in action. I'd add more stats (maybe as a screen you only get when you hover it, like items), but I think that would be copyright infringement.--Ijffdrie (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating RPG sections
The RPG books have always been controversial. With the declaration that they were not canon, some editors really wanted to purge it all. However the decision was made to keep information from the RPG, but segregate it and mark it for what it was. However, some editors with certain views have found a loophole. By first moving all RPG text to an RPG section that contains to one big un-formatted paragraph made of the moved RPG text (with minimal regard to context and whether the citations still work or not), and then marking the page for cleanup with the obvious implication that this new ugly section needs to go (or leaving it a mess with Ockham's razor dangling there), especially if other beneficial tweaks were subtly made too, the RPG information dies with no real vandalism. Stop it. Also, if an article has quotes from the RPG books, it does not automatically, "quote extensively from the Warcraft RPG books," and to "clean up to conform to copyright laws and fair use" does not mean to have all RPG info to be removed. Stop that too.-- 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Complaining about earthen

 * Well then there's the problem of things like the Earthen page, where you didn't allow a RPG section and we end up with sections claiming that certain information is from the RPG and non-canon when it's not, or having a RPG tags all over the place...
 * You are right that certain places were badly dealt with (and a lot of them were probably my fault, but i was in the rush to split what was canon and what wasn't). However I've stopped editing those articles when it was clear there were certain hurdles I couldn't surpass.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't just you (I hope they know who they are and heed this), and Earthen remains fine. Your pet peeves, which revolve around the "dangers" of RPG things not all being segragated in one section, simply are not true, so I reverted it.-- 22:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't change the fact that you have information from the Tribunal of Ages and a WOW-item(Tear of the Moons) in the Earthen page labelled as RPG-exclusive and non-canon and that's my pet peeve in this case.
 * Another example of a hurdle I couldn't clear is the Snap dragon page which I have so little information I don't know where to start (Do I just transclude most of this page Snap Dragon?).--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That section on the Earthen page is about a series of contradictions that span several mediums of Warcraft lore. WoW itself seems to both reference and contradict histories found in the RPG. Splitting it would probably require four sections or subsections instead of one (troggs come from earthen, they don't come from earthen, and their respective RPG notes) and that is dumb. As for snap dragons, that is a lore page for a thing that only has lore in the RPG, and a page for the only RTS unit of that thing.-- 23:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Magazine leaves it pretty clear that the Trogg came from the Earthen because of the Curse o' Flesh(I could post the picture if you want). My problem is with something being marked as RPG-exclusive(if we disregard the non-canon part) when it's not even in the RPG(like the wow-item) or only partly (the tribunal of Ages part). It's false information because of misapplied tags, but I made my case and so I won't insist on this point any further. I also see this problem with most of old "race" articles, but I also won't touch that because that's a Pandora's box that I simply don't want to deal with.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If the magazine (which I have) is correct, where do stone troggs come from?-- 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No idea, but so far Stone Troggs doesn't contradict the existence of the Earthen->Trogg(and troggs are already stony enough).--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not fit.-- 00:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One bit of dialogue states that the earthen and stone troggs came from Uldum, suggesting they were already stoney over there. Also, the earthen of Deepholm seem more than a bit odd as well. They don't really seem to act like titan caretakers, more like regular dwarves. Because I love speculation, I'm giving three options:
 * A) The curse of flesh affected the different populations of earthen differently. The ones in uldaman became troggs and dwarves and the ones in Uldum became stone troggs and earthen that acted slightly more dwarvey. The watchers of Uldum were still a tad more sane then their counterparts in Ulduar and uldaman, so they sent the infected creatures to deepholm.
 * B) The curse of flesh had already fully transformed the earthen into dwarves and troggs by the time they were banished to deepholm. However, the influence of the many earth elementals turned them back into stoney forms over the centuries.
 * C) The titans/watchers engaged in an experiment to turn troggs and dwarves back into earthen. However, while both groups did turn back into stone, their behaviour hadn't changed back and the stone troggs had the same shape as before. Hence, they were dumped into deepholm.
 * Though I really wish this sort of thing would just get explained in-game or in the manual even. Having a clear backstory was one of warcraft's strenght after all.--Ijffdrie (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ashbear. Something being marked as RPG-exclusive when it's not even in the RPG or only partly is a problem.--LemonBaby (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ijffdrie has the right idea, focusing more on trying to make a page make sense rather than being pedantic over a template.-- 18:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Complaining about Deepholm

 * It fits as much as Rock Flayers being in Deepholm :X--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's the elemental plane of earth after all, and I guess that Therazane (and Blizzard) can do as she pleases there. -- 01:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad Sporelings didn't show up in Deepholme. 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But they're not even made out of rock. They just have some crystals in the back, and otherwise they're all fleshy and squishy. What are they even supposed to be eating in deepholm?--Ijffdrie (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So... crystal flayers? -- 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)