Forum:D&D Monsters in Warcraft

Forums: Village pump → D&D Monsters in Warcraft

I'm quite disturbed by the amount of monsters from Manual of Monsters that are in the section which adapts monsters from the original D&D Monster Manual; the monsters aren't original in any way and has just been given new backgrounds that fits in with Warcraft lore, while other monsters that may be from other RPG setting do have stats, background lore etc. I'm not yet suggesting to delete the articles in question, but at least they shouldn't be in the races template. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This man speaks the truth. They weren't made to be part of WarCraft universe, they were placed there just to be adaptable from another settings. It's like saying Terminator is part of Alien canon because there was one (uncanonical) crossover. Severin Andrews 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before (of course), and while I wouldn't support removing the articles either, I do agree that including them in high profile templates is a bad idea. Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kirkburn. The RPG screwed things up, but they legitimately opened the door. We should remove them from navigation templates, just as we would for any other weakly supported subject. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:22 PM PST 11 May 2009

Agree completely so lets get down to it. What needs to be done to get this rolling and how soon can we do it?Warthok Talk Contribs 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of note. Some of the monsters in Manual of Monsters that were adapted from D&D have been mentioned and/or become races in later sources. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because they are mentioned doesn't mean that they are somehow significant. If they have been added as a race in a later source then it will be dealt with individually. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as it's generally supported, I have a suggestion: merge all of the creatures from the section in Manual of Monsters into its own article (Other Monsters in Warcraft or Manual of Monsters/Other Monsters in Warcraft comes to mind) with all of their descriptions and such. Scrap the images; they are from the D&D book and this isn't a D&D wiki. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gourra, on both counts. It's past time we took a stand on this.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, Baggins is the user most closely connected with this topic, so I feel we should wait for his input. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That article sounds like it would be sort of large and confusing. It would be several pages long. Like Fandyllic said "...they legitimately opened the door". I think the images help the user see what the creature may look like versus people putting fan art or speculation about what a creature may or may not look like. I mean, we do have a halfling article with its own images which is not in Warcraft or even "adapted" to Warcraft. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well what kind of article name would you propose, then? We have several articles that are very long (see Special:LongPages) but that doesn't stop from merging all of the creatures into one single article.

If there's any fan art put up on a race's article then it will be removed without any hesitation. And again, the images on the creature's article or its talk page does not belong here as it's not a D&D wiki. People can find it somewhere else.

And don't drag in other issues than the one we are discussing. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the one page idea. Yes, some races that started out as a DnD note became WoW races (Like Rhinoceros, but I am pretty sure there are better examples), but those can be split off if need be like gOurra said. Basing actions off the existence on another page is not much of an arguement, and that particular page (Halfling) is another issue all together.--SWM2448 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The halfling article is a perfect example of a double-standard on races and to say it is not on point makes no sense. I'm not sure putting everything on one page is a bad thing, but we'll have to see how big it gets. We broke up the newbie guide and terminology pages because they were just too unwieldy on one page. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:43 PM PST 12 May 2009

If we're worried about length, we could split it, like an A-O, P-Z sort of list. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fandyllic my point with this forum post was that the D&D monsters that are described in MoM shouldn't have their own articles, and nowhere in my post did I say otherwise. The halfling article is not from that section of MoM and as such it doesn't have to do with this subject. I'm sure you can understand this, and not put words in my mouth that I haven't said. --g0urra[T҂C] 08:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem of putting all of them in one page may be the copyright, I mean, if we put all the lore in one article it would be like copying the full aprendix three on wowwiki and may get the {{Fair use}} template, which would complicate all. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My proposal would be to just leave them as is. They already have a notation at the bottom saying "This is from Appendix III..." or "For Manual of Monsters controversy see..." so if it isn't broken why fix it? The races template criteria is a different issue. I am just wondering do we want more Special:LongPages? On "...the images on the creature's article or its talk page does not belong here as it's not a D&D wiki", we aren't putting every D&D creature on WoWWiki. Blizzard and/or Metzen chose to adapt those creatures into Warcraft so why go only half way and just mention the description but deny users what in the world the creature looks like? The RPG doesn't say "use only this one sentence and don't check the D&D source" it says "use the info from the D&D source, but Warcraft info takes precedence" i.e. if a creature is from planet A in D&D, but it says in Warcraft that it is from Azeroth, then you go with the Warcraft description. That is why Appendix III's creatures have small descriptions to no descriptions because you are supposed to go to the D&D entry for most of the info since it is compatible. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're keeping images, I say only use those images that appeared in the Warcraft RPG books. Get rid of the ones that are from the D&D Monster Manuals. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Appendix III doesn't have any images. They wanted you to go to the four books they mentioned, that was the whole point and why creatures had small descriptions or no descriptions because they already were compatible with Warcraft. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Then the images should be removed. We're not here to provide images from other RPG books than the Warcraft ones, if people are interested in seeing how they look like then they should get a hand of the D&D RPG books themselves. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That is like saying if people are interested in seeing how RPG creatures in general look like then they should get the Warcraft RPG books. These aren't "other RPG books". These are four specific books that the Warcraft RPG adapted a lot of creatures for the Warcraft universe. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh..."adapted".Warthok Talk Contribs 05:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"A lot of creatures"... right... My opinion still stands: merge all information to one article and delete the images. I have a majority of people in this discussion on my side, too. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Appearently Gourra ignored my comment. It said: "The problem of putting all of them in one page may be the copyright, I mean, if we put all the lore in one article it would be like copying the full aprendix three on wowwiki and may get the {{Fair use}} template, which would complicate all." What do you think of this Gourra?

"I have a majority of people in this discussion on my side, too." - Gourra. I have read the entire conversation and just Ragestorm and Sandwichman had said that they support the idea of merging all information into one article, while 9 people have commented. (Note: This is not agression, I am just giving my point of view and stadistical information) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose the solution would be, then? We might as well put {{Fair use}} on the articles from Appendix III three now, so how does it hurt to put it all on one article instead? --g0urra[T҂C] 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have a majority of people in this discussion on my side, too." I wouldn't go that far. A majority agree we should do something about D&D monsters, but not necessarily agreeing to your method. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:39 PM PST 14 May 2009

Since there's a lot of controversy with the RPG and more than one Blizz-guy has stated it isn't canon, I would just remove all the "RPG-only" articles from templates. Only that, I don't want them to be deleted be they canon or not. Of course, if the images aren't from Warcraft, remove them or put a note down them explaining they're from D&D books.

Also, we have things like the Funny Bunny and other stuff seen at custom games uploaded by Blizzard. Same for those.

Anyway, we should separate in different pages those former "RPG-only" that eventually become creatures of World of Warcraft. In most of the cases the information have nothing to do between them, so we should separate it to another page, to avoid mistakes.

--Lon-ami (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lon. Luke Johnson, one of the developers of the RPG books, confirmed that Appendix III wasn't supposed to be canon, just a way for players to use their Monster Manuel in their Warcraft adventures. Some entries, like the centaur one, were clearly at odds with Warcraft portrayals of those races.

So, I agree with the above idea of creating a page specifically for those creatures and removing links to them from major lore pages. I also agree with removing the D&D images from those descriptions: if they're not Warcraft images, they don't belong here.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break one

"Since there's a lot of controversy with the RPG and more than one Blizz-guy has stated it isn't canon"

I'd love to see the quote/source on this. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, dear sir. I don't know if that thread still exists at the White Wolf forums, but you can check our discussion about that statement by Luke Johnson and WoWWiki's response to it here [1].--Wulfang SoL (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's what Luke Jhonson thinks, not what Metzen thinks. Just see this interview [2] there he said that he doesn't have the autority to tell us if all of the information of the RPGs are canon or not. Also I remember that in the page where he explain what he think are mistakes he clarified that, what he wrote, isn't supported by Blizzard and can't be considered official; unfortunately I can't cite this as the forums went down. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He said that in response to the many cases of the RPG being contradicted by newer material from the games. As in, material they wrote and Blizzard approved as canon but that later got invalidated. Here, on the other hand, he says that they wrote Appendix III as non-canon material from the start.

I personally believe that, Blizzard or no Blizzard backing him on that statement, if the developers of a book say they wrote something to be non-canon and that material is never used again in the games themselves, then it indeed isn't canon.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, some of the aprenidx three monsters were later used in warcraft setting, for example: animated objects, azeroth centaurs, elementals, gargoyle, nymph, owlbears, salamanders, bone golems, half-ogre, devil and maybe others. Note that nymph was included recently in Wrath of the Lich King, so, others may be added in future. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'm not mistaken. See: animated objects don't really count as a creature and are more of a staple of any magical setting; the centaurs described in that Appendix are nothing like the Warcraft centaurs, which already existed and were even described in that book; elementals already existed as well, and the Appendix also presents many varieties of elementals which I doubt will ever appear; gargoyles already existed as well, and the gargoyles in the Appendix were, once again, nothing like Warcraft gargoyles; on nymphs, the Northrend frost nymphs are nothing like them and there aren't any nymphs that fit that description anywhere; owlbears already existed as well; same with salamanders; bone golems, I can't comment since I don't really remember their description in the Appendix, but they're still a pretty standard undead creature for any fantasy setting; half-ogres, if I remember correctly, the description doesn't fit the Mok'nathal; devils were only in that appendix and nowhere else.

Anything else?--Wulfang SoL (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Although animated objects don't count like a creature, they started in the aprendix 3 and you have to admit it; remember that the Eastern Kingdom centaur are different from the normal centaur; Air, earth, fire, and water elementals are the only described, I don't know where you are taking the other types not referred again; read again the gargoyle part of the aprendix...then you'll notice they are exactly the same thing; the nymphs are a different type it appears, just like the other type of dryads, so you may be right in this; just check the bone golem article to check the information, it is cited and perfectly fit; check the parendix and you will see that half-ogres actually match perfectly with later sources; check again the devil article again, they are refered in other places. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

-Animated objects started in Appendix III? More like they started with the beginning of fantastic tales.

-Yes, the "Eastern Kingdoms centaur" are different from the normal ones, because they don't exist in Warcraft. There isn't a single centaur in the Eastern Kingdoms in WoW and never was one sighted in any other game (because, obviously, the TFT secret mission cannot be taken as canonical - are we supposed to believe Dalaran had dozens of pandaren imprisoned in their dungeons, for instance?).

-I must have confused them with some other of the various creatures that were in that index but never appeared out of it, sorry.

-I read the Appendix and they aren't the same thing - they even had to call Warcraft gargoyles "dire gargoyles" to distinguish them. The point still stands - gargoyles already existed.

-Like I said, bone golems are a generic enough undead creature for it to be on any setting.

-No, they don't - the Appendix describes them as violent, which Mok'Nathal clearly aren't.

-And just because you have "Devil Stitched Leggings" and a someone uses the word "devils", doesn't mean that there are devils.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Animated objects started in Appendix III - I mean in Warcraft setting, not in any fantasy world.

Why shouldn't the secret mission be considered cannonical? Also note that they are refered in a multiplayer map and also refered in another RPG.

Actually Gargoyle is the race and Dire gargoyle is a subspecie, if we go by names, the dire gargoyle is the one that hasn't appeared in other media.

Yeah, they are generic, but started in aprendix 3 (in warcraft setting)

These half-breeds tend to roam Kalimdor as solitary warriors. They do not have a society as such on Azeroth, but as a general rule seem to be seeking honor for themselves individually and recognition as a true species as a whole. - This is told of the half-ogres, now tell me where it say they are violent? Actually it fit with the half-ogres that appeared after Rexxar and joined the Horde.

If you check the sources there are four. Although you will say they are uncannonical or something they are still refered outside manual of monsters aprendix three. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, just because some of the entries there that aren't already considered generic and integrated into fantasy settings actually came close to what is portrayed in game, let's just take all of it as completely canonical!

And no, there are no centaur on the Eastern Kingdoms - The Crossing features creatures that had no way of being in Dalaran at that time in those numbers (pandaren, thunder lizards, centaurs). On half-ogres, I must have read the wrong entry here on WoWWiki - that actually seems accurate, for a change. And no, let's not go by race - the "dire gargoyles" are what gargoyles have always been portrayed as in Warcraft and what that appendix describes as a "gargoyle" has never appeared.

The problem is that you don't consider most of the later adaptations of the aprendix three because you say they are generical, and what I am trying to say is that they appeared in the aprendix three first and later in other sources. Both of us are correct, because they are generical and were later used in the Warcraft setting. About the cannonity of the secret level maybe this isn't the right place to discuss it, but there have been references to the event, such as panderen aiding the Alliance to destroy the blood elves.Template:Cite On the ogres I underestand now, you were reading ogrillon. About the gargoyle there is no evidence that the dire gargoyle are the ones from WC3 or that the gargoyles of the aprendix three are the ones from WC3; it could be either way, but I just pointed out that according to the name the ones of the aprendix three would be the ones from WC3. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

When a secret and optional mission features impossible situations (pandarens, trolls, various beasts, centaur and even red dragons helping Garithos by blowing themselves up against a portal), I tend to not consider it canonical. And on MoM, the entry on the main creature list is "Dire Gargoyle", so that's the one that defines the Warcraft gargoyle - the picture is that of a gargoyle like the ones in WC3. On the other hand, the "gargoyle" entry comes from an appendix whose only purpose was to allow purchasers of the book to use their D&D Monster Manual in conjunction with it, was clearly marked as having been created for the explicit purpose of adapting those creatures and the people who wrote have said it shouldn't be considered canonical.

So, I won't.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I respect your opinion, if you don't consider them cannon then I can't force you. But I think they are cannon (this is my opinon), and they are marked as apprendix three monsters in their respective articles, I think that this serves with the purpose that people decide if they choose to consider them cannon or not. And about the gargoyle, if you read both descriptions you'll find out that any of them could be correct, and I think that in the articles the dire gargoyle has it's own page of RPG only is becasue we can't assume that the dire gargoyles are the Gargoyles of Warcraft III if we have no evidence (not even the name). About the secret mission, I think if you want to continue we should go to it's talk page not here. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So let me ask: if the "dire gargoyles" are portrayed with official artwork for the Warcraft III gargoyles, are present in the book's section dedicated to statting creatures from the games and this nomenclature seems to have been dropped after the RPG books officially separated themselves from D&D, why should we even consider that they're not the Warcraft III gargoyles? To me, it seems clear that they were only labelled as "dire gargoyles" because there already existed a different "gargoyle" creature in D&D and that was subsequently present in the book's section dedicated to adapting strictly D&D creatures. Still that is speculation as there is not an official source that support it, also the centaurs, salamanders, owlbeast and others weren't changed their name because there was already one in other non-warcraft settings, so your theory isn't that strong. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Because those creatures are physiologically similar to their D&D counterparts, while the Warcraft III gargoyles aren't.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break two

I tend to agree with Benitoperezgaldos. Now you are saying that not only is Appendix III not canon but also some things in TFT? So is the only thing canon to you WoW and its expansions? No one forced Metzen and company to include Appendix III. They chose to include it and now the cat is out of the bag. Also, with the elementals, it says in the book that you should use that entry because in the future they may expand on elementals but have not yet. "Full-fledged Warcraft elementals may make an appearance in a future supplement, but the existing MM versions work fine in the interim." Like Benitoperezgaldos mentioned above, many of the creatures from Appendix III were later expanded upon in later sources like elementals, half-ogres, etc. We never know, many more could be expanded upon in the future. If you go to the official website it has a section on "further reading" on lore and includes the RPG books. I have not so far seen a disclaimer from Blizzard splitting canon and non-canon sources so pretty much everything that is written is canon. In the RPG books, I have never seen anything saying "Canon section" and "Non-canon section", so Appendix III is part of Manual of Monsters. Manual of Monsters is part of Warcraft lore. Therefore, Appendix III is part of Warcraft lore. If you throw out Appendix III then you have to do the same with Appendix I as they are both similiar. "The same is true for animals and vermin particular yo the world of Azeroth, as described in Appendix One. In the case of identical types of creatures, the version in Manual of Monsters takes precedence." The only way I see things changing is if someone goes back to the past in a time machine and makes Blizzard not create Appendix III or if Blizzard comes out with a list of things canon and non-canon instead of people guessing what parts are "sort of canon", "have not been used again so don't exist", or are "non-canon". Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Two things. 1 - Do not put words in my mouth. 2 - Do not talk to me as if I don't know what I am talking about.

I said that The Crossing - a secret, optional, non-plot relevant and (since it was a tower defense, an already irrealistic challenge) inherently irrealistic mission - isn't canon. I face it more like a funny, entertaining mission but nothing that should be taken seriously. Garithos was a douche, but not a big enough douche to send hundreds of his troops to explode themselves against a portal, running across a pre-defined path and not attacking anything on the way.

And I consider the RPG books canon. At least, what hasn't been retconned in later games or novels. Appendix III was clearly labelled as being only an adaptation of D&D creatures so they could be used in an adventure consistent with the Warcraft Universe. And the writers themselves have come forward to say they didn't write it as canon, and that's enough for me.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a few writers/editors/people say they meant this instead of that in an RPG book, but since it is not "official" and just their thoughts, it does not count as a source. For example, someone connected to the RPG books came out with World of Warcraft RPG Core Rulebook Errata but it is not allowed to be used on WoWWiki even if people say "and that's enough for me". Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

...which is exactly why many people who like the lore aren't particularly fond of that "everything is canon" stance you've set up here.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying we should or shouldn't be able to use sources like World of Warcraft RPG Core Rulebook Errata? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that, if the writers created an errata to correct their previous work, is because they know where they messed up and how to fix it. I'm not saying that the Errata should be taken as Word of God, because it isn't, but it shouldn't be simply put aside either.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well on WoWWiki it is put aside, but I didn't exactly make the rules. I am just saying what is and is not allowed according to what I have been told/read on WoWWiki. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I know what you allow and don't here. I'm commenting here because I saw in this discussion a chance to change some of the more i*****c choices this wiki has made (it's not a curse word, but you never know - using it the last time got me banned).--Wulfang SoL (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I get banned once a month for crazy reasons so I know what you mean. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What started out as a discussion about removing the "adapted" creatures from the navboxes (And removing the images) somehow turned into a canon vs. non-canon debate. A debate that seems to have went outside the realm of the fate of the content, and into the realm of general canonity. In my opinion, it is not "everything is canon" it is "everything is", and the Warcraft information should be presented at face value. The mission happened, and I expect the reader to see where silly ends and lore begins for themselves. Also in my opinion, the images are not from a Warcraft source, while the text may be (SoL seems to think it is not). About those 'two things', Rolandius does that, and I would like to see Rolandius' source on that Errata issue. This page was started because he uploaded all those pictures of them, bringing this issue to the forefront. Also, that ban comparison is very off-topic.--SWM2448 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the errata Sandwichman [3]. About the change of topic issue, I am sorry, but I just wanted to show Wulfang SoL that some things (I say things to include animated objets, creaturs, etc) of the aprendix three were later adapted into warcraft setting, but then the discussion went out of control.

This page was started because he [Rolandius] uploaded all those pictures of them - Sandwichman; I thought it was started because Gourra wanted to remove them from the templates and had nothing to do with the images that Rolandius uploaded. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Errata issue" was not the work itself, but rather what Rolandius said people said about it. I was unclear with that quote. The dominant part was supposed to be the bringing it to the forefront, as his additions made a decision about this a priority, making some part of his statements (Like leaving it how it is) confusing.--SWM2448 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The way that I recall we aim to treat these things is to present all sides of the issue. We shouldn't ignore stuff, but we shouldn't give the impression there's no controversy over something either. Now, there are always exclusions like obviousness, but I'm not understanding 1) why we would ignore the errata, and 2) why we should remove everything from appendix 3. I agree with removing them from prominence, due to their somewhat dubious nature, but all out removal means you lose context and information that may be of interest to readers. You should always let the users know all sides of an issue, even where lore conflicts. We can't abdicate all responsibility for policing the lore, but we certainly shouldn't be trying to take charge of it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirkburn is right. Gourra has went outside the bounds of what was already decided and discussed on at Talk:Manual of Monsters ad nauseum.Baggins (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

He moved them all to Manual of Monsters/Appendix Three, but Not-Ettin is sad his link is dead (Ettin).--SWM2448 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So in over 16 days you have only managed to say one thing, which is that it's wrong I was actually bold to do something. I applaud you. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates to look at

Here are some templates which may have D&D stuff in them. Please review and suggest items for removal.

Template:Creatures

Anything else? --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:25 PM PST 21 May 2009

As far as I can see they have been "purged" already. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Demodand is still there.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gourra removed Demodand. So, I guess we're in pretty good shape with that part of the cleanup. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:39 PM PST 22 May 2009

I suggest Bunny deleted (from the template), I mean, it's just a seasonal map of warcraft III which may never be refered again. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been campaigning for that for several months, I agree. What stance should we be adopting on RPG-only races, ones that are Warcraft originals, but not mentioned elsewhere?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Which ones did you have in mind? In my opinion if it's been said in later RPG books that they have been declared invalid then they should be removed, otherwise it should stay. --g0urra[T҂C] 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mongrelman is actually the only one that leaps out at the moment... it looks like everything else has been cleared out.

As for other removals: Korred, definetly, and maybe consider removing devil.-_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So Ogrillon stays, even though it doesn't appear in any games, but is not in Appendix III? --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:47 PM PST 26 May 2009

Stays on the wiki, yes, on the template, perhaps not.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Completion

See Manual of Monsters/Appendix Three. I cleaned up the information from the creatures with the same name (centaurs in forest near human territories... right), creatures that doesn't exist in any other sources, and deleted the images from the D&D books. --g0urra[T҂C] 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gourra point of note, while I the articles certainly shouldn't be on the template, you broke the decision that was made a long time ago for the appendix three articles.Baggins (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion had been around for a while, though it should also have been in the policy forum (which I've now fixed). As long as no important information is lost, I don't think this is a bad way to do things. Are redirects and links in place on the relevant pages, though? It doesn't seem unreasonable to keep a reference to Appendix III info on such pages, and redirect unused creature name pages to the Appendix III list. Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing important has been lost; everything that was on those articles has been merged to that single article. And no, there are no redirects; the information that was about the D&D monsters were non-canon, so they weren't needed to be linked. Unless, of course, you meant something else.

I'm not so sure on the reference, though. Are you referring to have it mentioned in a "Notes" section like "In Appendix Three of Manual of Monsters, centaurs are described as cannibals..." etc? --g0urra[T҂C] 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

More a line saying in the notes section "this creature appeared in the Appendix three, see here for more info". Perhaps a little more than that, but nothing descriptive of the creature (unless highly relevant). As for redirects - I mean any articles that were solely about Appendix III creatures - those are redirected by name to the new page? Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced that any information from Appendix Three are relevant as it's non-canon, but that's just my opinion. My word isn't always law. As for redirects - I've deleted the original articles, and if there's any links to the specific creatures (I've removed most of them; the majority is on talk pages) then they can just be linked as for example [[Manual of Monsters/Appendix Three|Ettin]] (like I did on File:Races.png). --g0urra[T҂C] 06:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of note, Baggins, the decision was made a while ago, and now a new one has apparently been made. As I recall, not everyone agreed with it to begin with. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think pretty everyone here agreed when we started discussing this, so no point at resurrecting the topic. If you still insist, then let's make a poll or something like that.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The debate on if the material is canon or non-canon was never specifically reached, or verified. A few authors said they believed it wasn't canon, but they couldn't give Blizzard's official stance on the issue. The discussion I linked to above actually went into the specifics of the opinions of certain staff. We also pointed out that certain material existed outside of appendix III throughout the book. For example information on "mites" appearing under the section on Salamanders in the main chapter of the book. Secondly canon vs non-canon was never a reason to not to include pages in the past. We allowed pages for any "officially" published material. Non-canon is not a reason to deny the existence of a page, and it goes against everything we established for the neutral point of view policy. As long as strong verifiable quotes from actual Blizzard officials were known they could be added to the pages. For example the quote from Metzen discussing Finnal Goldensword or the comments about materials in novels being somehow less canon than other sources.

The only thing I draw the line was inclusion of material that didn't orignate from an official published source, for example fanfic. No, the RPGS don't count as fanfic since the were officially published books. If its the the new policy of WoWWiki to do waway with the neutral point of view, then this is not a place that will I will frequent anymore.Baggins (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)