Forum:Magical Fields

Forums: Village pump → Magical Fields
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Moved from User talk:Kirkburn#'Magical Fields'.

It's starting to bother me that most lists of characters, such as Dreadlords, have this 'Magical Field' box. It states whether their magic was... Ice or Death or whatever. Aside from the fact that it is an illogical addition, because no such being has any known emphasis on one field of magic alone, there is also the fact that there are zero citation possibilities for these magical fields.

I suggest they all be removed. The statistic pages for Warcraft 3 units also make for an incredibly ugly sight on Lore pages. These are just my opinions and I thought I'd pass them along just in case you might agree.

-- Timolas (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of a "'Magical Field' box"? If it is what I think it is, then it had to do with the spells that unit could cast, and the 'Orb of <element>' that each Dreadlord had floating around his claw. I would not call it illogical. The statistics sections are slowly being split off by g0urra, so we will see what he does and does not keep.--SWM24 48 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The orb may have been a good indication of some aspect of the Dreadlord; but really. The abilities of most canonical units in Warcraft 3 are almost identical depending on their class. Dalvengyr casts the same spells as most other dreadlords, only some other heroes like Tichondrius might have one or two spells different. Is that enough to create a 'magical field' box? So what does this magical field actually mean? That this dreadlord's primary element is; Ice? So what does that mean? He only uses Ice spells? Or that his orb is an Orb of Frost? I find it to be a useless list and the result of nothing but wild guesswork.

http://www.wowwiki.com/List_of_death_knights Same applies for the Death Knights.

How does Munch have a specialization in Frost, Blood and Unholy, contrary to, say, Margrave Dhakar, who is just Blood? And yet, there is no indication of them having any such differences, as they are just NPCs with no special function.

And YET this magical fields box categorizes all the death knights distinctly. --Timolas (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask whoever started that. The history of that page is misleading, as it was split off of another page that I can not find. Baggins or Ragestorm may know.--SWM24 48 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well, on Lich I think I found who started the magical field thing, and it figures. The spells each one used and the orbs they possesed (If any) should at least be noted in my opinion.--SWM24 48 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. I just think that the magical fields thing is a bit too wildly speculative and pointless to fit in on an otherwise clean page. But I'd like to get approval from Kirkburn before I run off removing those things and substituting them. --Timolas (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat beyond my involvement: the forums would be a better place to discuss something like this, in the Forum:Wowpedia policy area. Kirkburn talk contr 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page.--SWM24 48 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then; I'm not sure what the consensus is, so I'm going to assume we're sticking by a combo of what Sandwichman and myself said; rather moving information of what orbs dreadlords use for example, but removing the magical fields? That is, until someone would like to voice their opinion otherwise. I just don't see any opposition thus far, however. --Timolas (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the Death Knight list but I think the Lich list should be kept. Or at least the WC3 part, it denotate the kind of abilities that the Lich has. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)