Wowpedia
Advertisement
Wowpedia
240,465
pages

Dwarf Races

Should Ironforge dwarf under Major races, and Wildhammer and Dark Iron under minor races be changed to Mountain dwarf, Hill dwarf, and Dark dwarf respectivtly, as those are their actual races rather than political factions? As Dark dwarf isn't a page I guess it could remain as Dark Iron.Erthad (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

... Yes--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lordaeron Alliance

Is there a reason to keep the leaders of the Alliance of Lordaeron here? IE Terenas, Lothar, Turalyon, Antonidas etc weren't part of the modern Alliance. --Mordecay (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bump. Someone tried to add Kul Tiras and the Kingdom of Lordaeron into the template. I undid the modification because I thought that the template is related to the modern Alliance, not the Alliance of Lordaeron, but then I saw that some Turalyon and Alleria Windrunner are mentionned. There's also plenty of outdated stuff, like Theramore and Stromgarde Keep still being counted as Alliance places... Should we split the template between Alliance of Lordaeron / modern Alliance ? Should we add a column for former members and cities? Xporc (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to add another column. Not only does that needlessly complicate the template, but any distinction between "Current" Alliance and "Alliance of Lordaeron" are entirely arbitrary. Some kingdoms like Stromgarde and Lordaeron don't exist anymore but their people are still in the Alliance. Many characters listed as part of the "Current" Alliance are dead, and were dead long before World of Warcraft (Such as Lothar) yet nobody would dispute that they are Alliance characters. Why would we include dead Alliance characters but not destroyed Alliance nations as well? Why shouldn't the Alliance's history be reflected in the Alliance's wiki template? Fojar38 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
What's more, if "destroyed" kingdoms can't be included even if its population are still in the Alliance, then Gilneas shouldn't be there either even though not including Gilneas would obviously be ludicrous. If we can't include people who were never part of the "current" Alliance (whatever that is, since despite Blizzard's attempts to make a distinction between the Alliance and the Alliance of Lordaeron they have not given details as to when exactly this "split" occurred and what the nature of it was, leaving a colossal gap in the narrative) then we would have to remove the following characters: Alleria Windrunner, Anduin Lothar, Antonidas, Daelin Proudmoore, Terenas Menethil II, Turalyon, and Uther the Lightbringer. That is a lot of lore to just straight up dump from the list because of some vague distinction between the "current" Alliance and "former" Alliance that nobody acknowledges in the narrative anyway. Finally, including a list of "former members" carries the implication that the people and factions listed there left the Alliance when that isn't true. Lordaeron never left the Alliance, Alleria, Lothar, Antonidas, Proudmoore, Terenas, Turalyon, and Uther never left the Alliance. What happened is they got killed/destroyed. Do we place Varian on the "former" list because he's dead now? Fojar38 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, even if the distinction between "Alliance of Lordaeron" and "current Alliance" is a bit arbitrary, it's not like we're gonna rewrite the whole wiki to merge them together. Anyway, I agree that we should put Lothar and the other Alliance of Lordaeron characters you spoke about into a separate template, or at least in a separate place from the Alliance template. You don't find Kargath Bladefist or Cho'gall in the Horde template either. IMO the goal of the template is to offer a snapshot of the current state of the Alliance, not to reflect its complete history.
Gilneas is a different matter than, let's say, Lordaeron - its lands are inoccupied but the king is still alive, there are clear political and military leaders, several armies still in place, all unlike the current state of Lordaeron. If we were putting Lordaeron and Kul Tiras in the list of Alliance-aligned countries, should we also put the Quel'Thalas there? They were clear members during the Second War, now there are not anymore, but since some high elves are still in the Alliance if we were listening to you we'd merge everything from the Second War and WoW eras into a single generic template, which doesn't seem the best idea to me.
One thing I do agree with though, is that the Baradin's Wardens should be added to the list of Alliance organizations. We don't know what Kul Tiras is up to, but these guys are clearly fighting for the Alliance. Xporc (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't have to rewrite the entire wiki, that's why we're talking about a template. And no, I don't think that characters like Lothar should be in a seperate template because unlike with the Horde, there is no clear distinction between "old" and "new" iterations of the faction. Cho'gall hasn't been relevant for the Horde since Warcraft 2, but Lothar continues to be relevant to the Alliance up to this very day. The template 'ought to be about reflecting both who is in the Alliance currently and the portions of its history that are still relevant to it today, both thematically and narratively. Lothar and Terenas and whatnot absolutely qualify in that regard.
Regarding Gilneas and Lordaeron, I will point out that there are still Lordaeron forces as part of the Alliance serving in-game right now in Silverpine, Hillsbrad, and Western Plaguelands largely in the form of militias, but there is also the 7th Legion which, being a "Legion," uses Lordaeron's military grouping system, and was present at Hyjal. It is a Lordaeronian army by origin, even if it now includes non-Lordaeronians. Quel'thalas is different from Lordaeron because Quel'thalas actually left the Alliance and joined a different faction. Lordaeron never did, and to this very day what remains of it still fights alongside the Alliance. You're making an apples to oranges comparison, and I'm not sure why you're so adamantly opposed to these minor changes to the Alliance template to better reflect the history that remains relevant to the Alliance to this very day, and also acknowledges Lordaeron's continuing influence on the Alliance. Fojar38 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not "adamantly opposed" to anything, and you do make some good points about Lordaeron. I'm not convinced about Kul Tiras though - while we know Lordaeron was an Alliance of Lordaeron kingdom until its end, the current fate of Kul Tiras is entirely unknown right now. Do anyone else on this wiki have something to say about this? I'd be interested to hear more opinions Xporc (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Kul'tiras is trickier because Blizzard has given tons of contradictory information on it. One one hand, there's a tweet or something that calls it a "former member" but on the other hand there is the Kul'Tiras presence in Tol Barad, Tirasian marines as part of the Alliance back in Vanilla, the fact that a member of Kul'Tiras' royal family is still a major leader of the Alliance, and the aforementioned fact that it is not clear when or under what circumstances it ever left the Alliance. In fact, there is nothing to suggest it ever actually did, like Quel'thalas did, it just went silent. Personally I would include it for historical reasons alone but there is also in-game evidence to suggest that it is still involved in Alliance affairs. Fojar38 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Mmh well, here's my proposition: we add Kul Tiras to the Alliance template to reflect its historical importance, but we keep the current affiliation of the kingdom to "Neutral" on its page until we know more about its whereabouts. What do you think about that? Also, do you know about Admiral Walsh? Personally always thought she hailed from Kul Tiras. Xporc (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the historical part of the template. Although they may not have been physically members of the Grand Alliance, they are, at least, honored and remembered.--Mordecay (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Glad you like it! Xporc (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Back we had an "Historical" section for members of the Alliance of Lordaeron, now we have a section for "Former" members when Anduin Lothar and Terenas were never members of the new Alliance : / Xporc (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Shadowmoon Exiles

Rulkan serves as a follower, yes, but shouldn't it be stated that it's the same for the whole of the group? --Mordecay (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As she leads the group, we can assume that her faction is, at least, aligned with the Alliance. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, we can assume that. In a speculation section. --Mordecay (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
A faction whom work closely and specifically with the Alliance is not enough to be aligned with it? We have nothing to speculate, their pose and position are inherent Alliance-friendly. It's an unobstructed/organic interpretation. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 15:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Are they not just a neutral group that happen to be on good terms with the Alliance? Is there any hostility towards the Horde from them? Do they, as a group, appear to further the greater goals of the Alliance, or is contact between the Exiles and the Alliance merely an example of aligning interests? PeterWind (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that Alliance and Horde aren't exactly allies, but being with one does not necessarily means to be against other. There are well known cases of circumstantial cooperation between the major factions. And if their interests are getting aligned aren't it safe say that they are aligned between themselves? If you work closely in good terms with a faction, it's not a fact or safe to say that you are getting well along it? Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 18:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Houses of Kul Tiras

Can you specify why you have take out the Stormsong and the Ashvane Houses from the page? Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably because they go at war against the Alliance as soon as they are introduced t b h Xporc (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Long-overdue split

The way my browser window is sized, the template renders at 1052x1089 pixels. That is ever-so-slightly on the wrong side of ludicrously too large. I bet most non-mobile users couldn't even fit the whole template without scrolling. Thankfully, navboxes/navfooters are set to not display on mobile, but I can only imagine how it would look there...

What user would navigate from "Marcus Johnson" to "Razak's Roughriders" to "Valiance Keep"? Navigation footers need to have purpose in their contents, and not merely "every article that tangentially is in this overarching topic".

Many of these sections would be better served just as the categories or articles they already are. For instance, Alliance organizations could knock out nearly half the template. What's worse, "Alliance organizations" is already linked in the template! Cities and towns could probably get away with Category:Alliance settlements.

Let's think about what we can to do get this under control. It's always better to only have to keep track of lists in one location, and not several.

Our largest navfooter templates should likely be zone templates for big zones with lots of subzones. Everything else can be or already has been split, like {{Mountfooter}}. I'm not suggesting we go the mountfooter route here, but rather get this template down to the bare minimum and have actual articles for the rest. -- k_d3 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think having the template link to the categories instead of listing page of said categories might be a nice solution, for some of the current listings. PeterWind (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I use a 1920 x 1080 monitor myself, and even at full-screen it is huge. That's not being helpful to visitors; it's detrimental. I'm all for consolidating where possible so this monster can be brought back down to a much more reasonable size. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 17:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
For a first pass, look at {{Grand Alliance/dev}}. I'm not convinced all the races are necessary. The capitals line is duplicated by {{capital}}, so I'm tempted to remove it too. --k_d3 01:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI Alliance organizations is a page that some users are being very anal about and that I ended up stopping watching over :/ I dunno about moving stuff there Xporc (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Still considering this split? Another option could be is that we introduce each section as collapsed sections like {{Dungeons}} or even {{Animations}}. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
What about creating a template for every major faction? One for Stormwind, Kul Tiras etc. That way we could split and clean the Characters, cities and towns, territories and half of the organizations without deleting anything. Thoughts? --Ryon21 (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I lean more towards Suraf's idea, the collapsible sections. --Mordecay (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Any day, this change could be implemented. Just a matter of when to execute it. Smiley.gifSurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Fleet and general structure of the template

After looking into the Alliance navy, I had a hard time placing its many sub-organisations - as they were overlapping into other organisations. It would be more correct to list these sub-organisations in every single umbrella-organisation that they are part of, but then again it would also contribute to the messiness of the template. If we should only link to an organisation once per template, then how do you pick out the correct umbrella-organisation?--Amargaard (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Mh, good question. TBH this template is now bloated to heck and in the discussion just above there are talks about possibly splitting it ... :p Xporc (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Advertisement