Forum:Warlords of Draenor Characters

Alternate character pages
Since Warlords of Draenor characters like Gul'dan and Durotan are from an alternative Draenor, that's been linked to our timeline, should they have their own separate page? For example should we have Gul'dan for the prime timeline Gul'dan and Gul'dan (Warlords of Draenor) for the Draenor Gul'dan?--X59 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think they should have separate pages, yes. WoD's Gul'dan is to the original as Chris Pine's Captain Kirk is to William Shatner's: same basic character, but he's in an alternate universe, he looks a little different, and his story isn't going to play out in the same way. Egrem (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Differences are likely to include appearance, backstory and behaviour, and create a temporal divergence that will render much of the relevant information otherwise highly contradictory on many fronts. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Clans, zones, misc
This question is a good one, but also applies to things other than characters. For instance, the Frostwolf clan (and all other orc clans) is set to feature heavily in the expansion. However, I don't think the current page for the clan is really the place to put this new information. As with characters, we have too much contradictory information; they really are two completely separate timelines/versions of the same original thing. I think separate pages is the better option for all big key pages like this; clans, zones, etc. It's standard procedure for instances and I think this is the right way to proceed here too - not least of all for the sake of the infoboxes ;)

This seems to mean new pages for alternate-timeline...
 * Characters
 * Clans
 * Zones
 * Instances

-- Taohinton (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh... alternate timelines... the fun begins. I'd really hate to see "(Warlords of Draenor)" beside nearly all the major articles that apply to the new xpak, but I'd hate to see the article contain both timelines merging into one lore article as well. 06:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah… the developers never seem to think of the people working on the wikis when they design these things, do they? ;) I'd tentatively suggest "(WoD)", if only to save the headache from typing "(Warlords of Draenor)" so many times. The only other option seems to be to make the new pages the main ones, which would make sense in terms of traffic, but would probably be a bit weird... not to mention involve changing a few thousand links. I think the split is probably the only way; it seems a bit hard to have a single page for a character who is both old, dead and a hero of countless history-changing exploits, and young, alive and is going on to do completely different things with his life. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to the zones of Nagrand and Shadowmoon Valley, I'd rather not move the older articles and have to deal with all the changing of the links... however, they are quite old content and rarely visited now. Rather than making the new zones with "(Warlords of Draenor)" attached, I would suggest either moving the old articles to Nagrand (Outland) and Shadowmoon Valley (Outland) or making the new articles at Nagrand (Draenor) and Shadowmoon Valley (Draenor) and labeling them from where the currently are and not from their expansion name. 10:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed.--Mordecay (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So you two know I just saw Nagrand and Shadowmoon valley pages for Warlords of Draenor.--X59 (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're talking about where their permanent location will be on the wiki. 02:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't think about it at the time, but seeing timeline disambiguation being used, I created Draenor disambiguation for these two articles... and possibly future articles such as subzones that may or may not continue to exist, likely Nagrand will have several same ones. 05:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What happens to the Draenor page? I'm a bit confused here, does the alternate timeline stuff stay in the Draenor page and all the original timeline is moved to the outlands page?--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the planet doesn't change... it only changes when it became Outland, so all Outland info is all on Outland, while Draenor can be freely updated. 01:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The point of division is long before Draenor turned into the outlands...--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While Draenor should be Draenor, full stop, I feel that technically the new Draenor should have its own page; there will be a lore/timeline split, where later info (currently the 'Rise of the Horde' and 'Destruction of Draenor' sections) will refer only to the original timeline, and then most of the other info presented on the page will specifically and solely refer to the new timeline. Infobox data, info about inhabitants, things to do, and all future info about events that take place, will all reference the new version and be completely different to that for the old Draenor. The only real question for me is whether the fact that the 'old' Draenor has so little written about it means that we can just tuck that little info in an 'Original timeline' section and let the new info take over the rest of the page. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't really see adding a timeline switch to the page as being too bad an idea. It would be easily navigable and help keep things separate. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We aren't visiting the Draenor in Warlords of Draenor, we are only visiting an alternative version of Draenor from a different timeline, like the Alternate timeline. That being said, page names like Nagrand (Draenor) are completely misleading, as they don't describe the Nagrand as it was on Draenor from the main timeline, which still remains the main Draenor. The physical geographical information could be the same as on the main Draenor (although we don't know and never will know for sure), but the other things are surely different. If you don't like typing Warlords of Draenor all the time, Alternate timeline is also possible.

Summed up, everything from the alternate timeline of Warlords of Draenor is logical subordinate to the main timeline and therefore has to be located on a seperate page with specification in brackets, that is preferably most-informatively (Warlords of Draenor) or (Alternate timeline) but not (Draenor). That is the rational opinion of mine. IllidanS4 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternate History Buttons
My suggestion is adding the buttons that appear at the top of the quest pages for the alliance and horde versions, and turn them into the Outlands timeline and Draenor Timeline. I suggest we do this wherever a article has new information on WoD. This would include locations, groups, characters, creatures.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This could be a more dynamic way of linking the timelines in the articles. I think we should do this.--Cemotucu (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a really good idea Ashbear :) It might be a good solution to the problem of everything having "(Warlords of Draenor)" on the end of its name; you could just navigate between new and old from a single main page. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the example: Blood of the Chosen, but instead of having Alliance/Horde it would have something like: Not strictly these terms, just suggestions- We could also do the same for things we have from other alternate timelines but I don't think it would be necessary for those since it was so short. It also leaves the opportunity open if blizzard decides to add even more Alternate Timelines.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Main/Alternate
 * Main Timeline/Alternate Timeline
 * Core/WoD


 * That's a great idea, and we could use Template:Faction disambiguation as a basis for Template:Timeline disambiguation... we'd just need to decide on the terminology for the associated sub-pages.  We could go with something like "Prime Timeline" and "Alternate Timeline" (much as the Star Trek wiki uses "Prime Reality" and "Alternate Reality")...  but maybe something like "Original" and "Warlords of Draenor" would be more intuitive. Egrem (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah something more intuitive would be better. We could also ask name of the timeline on twitter. The question is if we do this for every alternate timeline(there have been some before) or just the very large ones. --Ashbear160 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that "(original)" and "(Warlords of Draenor)" or "(WoD)" would be best. Its intuitive and minimally confusing. This is basically the convention we have for these splits so far on the site, and I think most alternatives are either too clunky or confusing. We don't need to get into Timelines or Realities. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If we did use a timeline template, how would we go about editing those articles. I mean when I went to see how I could edit Blood of the Chosen the only thing I see in the article was Faction disambiguation.--X59 (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So Blood of the Chosen contains only the faction disambiguation tag. Blood of the Chosen (Alliance) and Blood of the Chosen (Horde) are the actual pages being displayed where the edits are made. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes i think that's how it works.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. --X59 (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think: the locations, creatures from other areas in the game and quests will have more than one page because Blizzard wants to stay at an minimum of how much content will be in what expansion or a major (maybe minor) Patch throughout. I would say just add on to the lore characters. You may never know what Blizzard will do with them in the near future.  They might do an act that we won't see coming.  Only "time" will tell. By the way it is not time travel expansion as said in the Q&A's I watched yesterday and today.  Just the Dark Portal changed into a different color because of Garrosh.  Bottom line, keep them where it is and add on on their lore page. --Darksora110 (talk) 6:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly believe that the WoD versions of characters need their own pages. I've outlined my reasons in the sections above, but I'll elaborate a little. You're really talking two completely separate individuals. They may have shared a history up to a point, but after that they will diverge substantially, in events, actions, personality, behaviour, appearance, affiliations, abilities, status… The issue of infoboxes alone is a reason to have separate pages. The new pages would have their backstory hosted on the original pages, but everything else that runs on from then is separate, which is perfect both in terms of data and emphasis, and also in spirit. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Its still an alternative timeline and no wiki that I remember does it like that(unless its a redesign retcon that erases the old timeline which is not the case here), because its very very confusing. With creatures its less problematic and easier to define, on the other hand races, groups, locations with the same name(like draenor) and characters we have to split it otherwise its too confusing.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you remember that I tried to get Thrall and Arthas' character twice of Old Hillsbrad and Culling of Stratholme? Thrall's past page was removed but Arthas' was kept. Arthas Menethil compared to Arthas (Stratholme). --Darksora110 (talk) 6:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda having difficulties understanding you. From what I understand Thrall and Arthas in those events fall into the main timeline that the infinite dragonflight was trying to change and their memories were altered to the original timeline by the bronze dragons so the infinite influence was negligible. In this case its an entirely different alternate offshot interacting with current times.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also that's a NPC page. We're strictly talking about biographies and lore.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm having difficulties with this too then. Think think think as what Pooh would say, lol. --Darksora110 (talk) 6:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Ashendant is right. This is an alternate timeline, not our past, but an modified copy of our past.--Cemotucu (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Test

 * It looks like someone has begun making separate character lore pages starting with Blackhand. --Darksora110 (talk) 7:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to test it out... but I couldn't get it to work.  I split Blackhand's information into Blackhand (Original) and Blackhand (Warlords of Draenor).  I created Template:Timeline disambiguation based on Template:Faction disambiguation (by replacing "Faction" with "Timeline", "Alliance" with "Original" and "Horde" with "Warlords of Draenor").  Then I changed Blackhand to read  just as Blood of the Chosen reads  ... but it didn't pick up the other pages.  Does anyone see what went wrong? Egrem (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two points: Firstly, don't delete the original page, move it to the new original pagename. Secondly, use "(original)" (lower case) not "(Original)". -- Taohinton (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is probably that Faction disambiguation calls on Faction switch. You'd need to similarly create a modified Timeline switch template that worked with the new system. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That did it, thank you. Check the Blackhand page now and see what you think of that setup. Egrem (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks great! Otherwise, the references tab on Blackhand (Warlords of Draenor) when you click on it doesn't show the correct reference. --Darksora110 (talk) 8:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it looks pretty awesome :) Also very accessible for readers. I notice there are some ref errors though, happening on both pages, despite both pages have Reflist. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The WoD page is also showing the Refs from the original page. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the one on the second page from to  .  It seems to be displaying fine now. Egrem (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Seems to have sorted it. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blackhand, Durotan, Grom Hellscream, Gul'dan, Kargath Bladefist, Kilrogg Deadeye and Ner'zhul should all be working now. Egrem (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The content bar for both Blackhand articles are a bit mixed up.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline switch
I'm wondering if there's some way to link directly to the WoD version of a page, while still keeping the timeline switch present at the top of the page for easy reference.

As it stands, if you link for example to Gul'dan, you automatically get the '(original)' page loaded. The thing is, almost every time we're linking to info from WoD pages, we're actually looking for the WoD info, and not the old and now completely contradictory/confusing info. With WoD there will be a ton of links flying about, almost all looking for the new versions of those pages, and it will be annoying to have to click onto the new tab every single time, and possibly also confusing for newer readers.

So ideally we could find a way to link directly to the WoD version of a page while still keeping the timeline switch so that readers can check up on original lore if they want to. Alternately perhaps we could set those pages to load the WoD version by default? -- Taohinton (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case it would have to be Gul'dan (Warlords of Draenor), but the timeline switch wouldn't be there.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Gul'dan will bring you to the new page while leaving the tabs available. Changing the script such that the WoD version appears on the first tab and the Original version on the second is also possible, but then any links referring to the old Gul'dan would bring you to the new one first (unless someone were to find and update all those links).  Egrem (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The content bars for these are very buggy.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a way, but its best to keep it as it currently is until we're closer to the beta. 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternate way
Well, I was late to the discussion since I didn't have any stable Internet connection right around BlizzCon, so I just saw this about now. Wouldn't it be possible to just use the original page title for the '(original)' version, and link the WoD version from there? For example Velen (original) moved back to Velen, which points toward the WoD version at the top, for example:

It would help against things like these, which may be more popular to browse in the future. -- 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm for moving things back as well.. its just becoming too annoying to deal with from an editing stand point and from a view stand point. I didn't like having (Warlords of Draenor) next to all the article names, but we doing it that way anyway but in tabs. I still would rather find a different name instead of Warlords of Draenor, cause there's no telling if these alternate characters will have story continue beyond this xpak. Maybe ?  03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * might be a good alternative, but could be a bit vague. I'd rather have a page title with  that would accurately describe that the article is about the WoD version of the character. -- 14:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think probably (Warlords of Draenor) is best for now; if they do indeed use the characters past the expansion, we can change the suffix then, but I would say their fate is far from clear at present, and (alternate) though good is indeed a little vague.


 * It's a shame that the tabs functionality doesn't work for mobile devices; according to quantcast about 11% of the last month's page views came from mobile devices, so I guess it's something worth considering. For myself, having to reload the page to get to the WoD page is far more annoying than having to click on a tab, and I personally feel it reflects the alternate timeline element more clearly than simply separate pages, as well as making it much easier to quickly zip back to check some detail from the character's main biography. I can't comment on editing difficulties though. I take it there's no easy way to make split pages readable from mobile devices? -- Taohinton (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see the tabs have been removed from the warlord articles... does this mean they'll also be removed from zone pages (Nagrand, Shadowmoon Valley, etc.), quest pages (with Alliance/Horde versions) and/or item pages (with LFR/Normal/Heroic/etc.)? Egrem (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not likely from the items pages (too many versions), quest pages will likely stay the same as well. 05:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are currently no plans for that, no. This was done as a (hopefully temporary) fix for the above issue. -- 20:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Specific characters
Hold on folks, I know for sure Thrall, Khadgar, Maraad and maybe Garona should not have a WoD page because they are going to come with us as themselves. -- Darksora110 (talk) 7:05, 5 April 2014
 * It's not the intention to create separate pages for continuing characters like these. The separate character/zone pages are only for those which are being featured in a second incarnation following the divergence between the timelines. WoD details for continuing characters can go on their regular pages. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Link between alternative counterparts
Rather than linking it on the top of the pages, I suggest we change it like its done on the Ben 10 wiki for Alternate counterparts, as in create a new section of the Infobox and call it "Alternate Counterpart". This would also help with some non-WOD alternate counterparts that appeared.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem to do that, cause of the multitudes of alternate characters they seem to have. Whereas we only have 1 alternate timeline going on. Anything else we have used are tactic pages. 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A more maintainable solution is what I implemented for Kargath Bladefist: Kargath Bladefist (disambiguation). We really don't need four hatnotes at the top of an article. One is reasonable, two is pushing it, four is right out. -- k_d3 05:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is more than one if we count infinite dragonflight interventions. So far from what I understand these are just fused with the general articles of that character even trough technically they are not the same character.
 * I don't think disambiguation pages are ideal either.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to spruce up the disambig page with headings and icons, to see if it would be easier to follow: Kargath Bladefist (disambiguation). Ddcorkum (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We could also do the same for tactics links? I dunno? Anybody has any more opinions?--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That actually looks pretty good, though it's definitely unneeded unless a character has at least three or four pages. I know some do, I just don't want to use this on every character who just has one lore and one tactics page. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually wished characters from alternate timelines was split instead of some of them being shoved into a single lore page while others get more than one lore page because they appeared in WoD. Like the Alpha!Blackmoore and ThrallDead!Blackmoore are in a single page even trough they should've been two. They are not the same character.
 * All this would actually require is adding a tactics and a alternate counterpart to the infobox template.(Maybe tactics could be a little "(t)" or "(tactics)" in front of the character name in the infobox)--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the Warlords of Draenor versions, none of the other alternates really has enough content for a separate page. With the exception of Blackmoore, all the alternate versions from War Crimes and Twilight of the Aspects could be summed up in a single paragraph - some in a single sentence. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think we shouldn't passively deny their existence by not giving their own article or at least put them in a different part of the article than the biography of of the main timeline character (as I've said before they are not the same character).
 * I still think we should add, at least, alternate counterparts as an option to the infobox even if they don't link to their own page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that we move in the opposite direction: only create separate articles for alternate versions of a character if the amount of things we have to say about that version is significant (i.e. more than a couple of paragraphs). For alternate versions that could be described in a few paragraphs, a separate section along the lines of Alternate timelines after the Biography section on the main article seems adequate to me. — foxlit (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that although they should still be listed in the infobox.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if some of them only link to that same page. I could also probably Ask Sol to help me compile a list of alternate counterparts.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm generally opposed to adding even more clutter to the already overly full infobox. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In case of separate sections, they would already be listed in the table of contents on the page. I don't think there's a significant benefit from including essentially trivia in the infobox. — foxlit (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not really "essentially trivia" as we know that these characters do exist and are separate from the main ones. The problems that this create is that in some cases these character links will get shoved into relatives part of the infobox(like Nozdormu and Murozond). And it will be painful if blizzard ever details more than 2 alternate counterpart.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just don't see the value of adding a line in an infobox to tell you that an alternate duplicate exists for no other purpose than to link to the single-sentence description at the bottom of the page that's probably already linked in the table of contents to an alternate universe version that has no significant impact on the story except to exist as a contrasting element. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. it's just my opinion and to stop inconsistencies of certain alternate versions of characters getting their own pages while other do not, because of differentiating sizes of content. I still think the solution done in the wiki I showed above was the best.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding two alternate versions of a character (like the three Doomhammers) in his infobox does anyone help. Inconsistencies of seperate pages do already exist and it is not a bad thing (like some bosses getting their own lore page). --LemonBaby (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it does but that's my opinion. That comparison doesn't really work since one is a tactics page and the other biographical, like there's a few mob pages of the same character in different places, but that's still split from the lore page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)