What is this? This seems to imply that non-game lore isn't necessarily part of the Warcraft storyline. It is. Only the RPG books should be considered "not entirely accurate".

--Bevans (FeldmanSkitzoid) 12:41, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

It doesn't imply any such thing... It just points out that some lore is found only in the novels, and short stories that aren't necessarily found in the games. This is just to warn people know that it came from a novel, and they won't find any refrence to it in the games. As for the view that rpg "isn't entirely accurate" that is just a fan view that isn't necessarily the view of Blizzard Entertainment or Chris Metzen, who on the contrary infact have repeatedly stated that the RPG is part of canon, quotes can be found in Warcraft RPG articleBaggins 15:02, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Novels & Short Stories

I think I should clarify, this template is used to designate when info in an article originates from a "novel" or "short story", in any source.Baggins 04:22, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Should Novels & Short Stories be Seperate Tags?

I'm wondering if this tag should be split up. It seems to me, when you are talking about the novels, you have something that was 100% commissioned by Blizzard and are definately considered part of the lore. Then you have the short stories, which are mainly part of the RPG series to be used as flavor, and may not be considered accurate by some people (myself included).

As an example of what I'm talking about here: Danath Trollbane and Cristof Dungalion. The short story outright gives Danath the wrong last name ("Dungalion") because at the time it was written, he didn't have an official last name. Yet the "Novels and Short Stories" tag on Christoff's page is ambiguous. Aside from the fact the page doesn't specify which one of the two he is from, it tends to give the character more legitimacy than he probably deserves.

Personally I see the short stories of the RPG books as more along the lines of fan fiction. They are campaign hooks to give you ideas on how to create your own RPG adventure. They might not necessarily be inaccurate lore-wise, but I don't think they were ever intended to be treated as 100% sources of factual information (i.e. "character X did this") either. You also have short stories from the strategy guide in there, which I don't believe Blizzard has ever gone on record as saying the Strategy Guides are canon :P

The only real exception I see to this, are the short stories from, since those are officially written by Blizzard (except the "Life on GM Island" one, as that's obviously more of a joke story than anything else). And potentially the short stories that are supposed to be part of the new WarCraft Legends Manga line.

I'm sure Baggins will fight me on this, but I figured I would at least express my feelings about it. --WarlockSoL (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he will, and i don't want to speak for Baggins but on some points i have heard him in the past agree with i think (need i meantion Apprendix three). But i also understand why certain policies are in place. Regardless of your, mine, or Baggins inner opinions theres certain things done at the wiki to maintain integrity (though some may argue it hurts it). Personely i'm in total and complete agreement Warlock. RPG campaigns, adventure hooks, adapted matierial, etc.... i personely don't see as canon (forbidden word here). Stratagy guides i'd be shocked if anyone actualy took seriosuly. But i don't see things changing and i can sorta understand the reasons why. I'm also sure this is far from the first time you've heard this said and aren't thrilled about it. Many share that sentiment.
As far as seperating these articles. I think This tag made purely for the novels. Short stories from the rpg should be recatagorized under the rpg tag and the short stories article be split. And another tag made for online material such as the War of the Shifting Sands, Unbroken, Road to Damnation, etc...Warthok Talk Contribs 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll just say that I don't think this should be used in the case of an RPG story, as those aren't novels, but rather, as you see it, tales from the RPG, which would imo be properly tagged as {{RPG}. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Short stories are short stories. They are released for different media. But are not specifically RPG content, a video game content, or website content They can appear anywhere.Baggins (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the template name is an issue, rename it to "Prose stories". Because that is what stories and short stories have in common. BTW, the definition of novel is not the most clear of terms :p... It is mainly defined as a invented prose nearrative. It is usually long (but obviously doesn't have to be. By that definition it could include any number of things that are "prose narrative", including short stories. Long stories and short stories can be "novels" :p.


"Danath the wrong last name ("Dungalion") because at the time it was written, he didn't have an official last name."

He was Danath Trollbane in sources predating Shadows & Light (WoW was released before Shadows & Light made it to the market). Why the short story called him something else who knows... On the other hand human naming convention as described in the RPG is a bit weird and doesn't follow modern western naming conventions as we know them. Its very easy for humans to take on titles as names for various reasons according ot it, its more like ancient styles of naming conventions as seen in Tolkien's writings (characters can have more than one name). Whatever the case, your explanation was so far out of the ballpark in the foul its not even close to a homerun.

BTW, according to APG, and HPG, the short stories are immerse the reader in the Warcraft world, related to lore in the nearby page, and to allow readers a chance to rest from the game content[1].

Finally, for sake of neutrality we do not even allow discussion of what is and isn't canon. See the writing policies. Fan opinions are not allowed. We just state what something from an officially published source says, but we avoid tacking on discussions of if they they have been retconed, or ignored, or validity. That is one factor that we tend to share with wikipedia.Baggins (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Baggins (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright i think i kind of see what you are saying. this template is for any information derived from a story, regardless of source. Am i close? Warthok Talk Contribs 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just took a look at one of the short stories - Orc Tale in HPG, page 193. I don't really see any reason why we can't include them s sources. However, I do agree with Sky that they should be tagged RPG, not novel, as they come from the RPG books. They may not be "normal" RPG content, but they're not far off Bronzebeard's writings, which certainly are RPG content. Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the template is for prose style "stories" regardless of source.Baggins (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just been talking to Baggins on IRC and he has pointed out to me that there's a continuous spectrum of story content, from short stories in the RPGs to a larger short story, Of Blood and Honor, to novels. Thusly I think I agree with keeping them all under the same banner, and the main RPG "factual" content separate. Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "e-book", Of Blood and Honor is halway between a long form story and a short story, :). The Broken story is in the same vein, somewhere between short story and a long form story "novel". These two don't fit so easily into a single definition. A template that shows a style of storytelling, "prose style fiction" is better for categorizing purposes since they all share the same style, no matter the size.Baggins (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out, regardless of what I think of the RPG short stories, I'm not trying to say they should be removed from the wiki or anything of that nature. My main point here was to say they should be labeled seperately from the Novels, so at the very least, the reader can make his own judgement on it. Like I said with the Christoff Dungalion article, there is nothing in there that actually describes the character's source (other than a very small citation tag, which is not present in the Danath article where he is presented as a relative of Danath). --WarlockSoL (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"My main point here was to say they should be labeled seperately from the Novels, so at the very least, the reader can make his own judgement on it."
Hmm, can I point out a hypocricy and contradiction in that statement?
1. If we want people to make their own decisions we shouldn't have to label anything. Labels go beyond mere categorization and act as a kind of "warning" of what is up ahead. Before they even read the article you are suggesting to them what to think, ahead of time. It goes against the idea of "allowing someone to make their own judgements". The types of labels that Warthok, and you aparently suggest, give the idea that there is somehow a difference in material based on the source it originates. However the fact is prose content is prose content, and type of source doesn't change it into something else. What you are asking for is a type of pre-determined judgment.
Also you would never see templates like that in a published enclyclopedia, only citations and bibliographies. As it goes beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia is intended (to show information).
2. Currently the label specifies that details come from novels and short stories both. It doesn't specify anything more than that they can come from prose content. There is nothing there to force a judgement. The fact that content is either from a short story or a novel is a fact, not an opinion. You can't force someone to believe it is a short story/novel or not. It would be bit silly to believe something is something other than what it actually is. That's like someone believing 1+1 = 3, despite the fact that it really is 2.
Again, the short stories article gives the synopses for each short story thats been written and what source its from (page numbers will be added soon). People can read it if they want to or choose not to. Its their choice. Since most of the stories do not have their own titles, they can't have their own pages. So the article gives a good overview of them all. The page does not have reviews, as that would be trying to influence others to judgement.
3. The template is not trying to force anyone to read anything, or tell them what to read. It is as neutral as possible about the issue. It tells people where to look for a source, but doesn't tell them they have to read any source if they aren't interested, or even if they are. They can make their own decisions.
What you ask for is like trying to tell people stories aren't stories, despite the fact that it is a story. Its putting a judgement and trying to get people to judge something before they even read it for themselves. We are not about judgements, just referencing what has been published, and mentioning the information in the published source. This includes pointing out that a short story is a short story, nothing more nothing less. Anything more would include opinions.Baggins (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Side note, so long as we always cite where stuff comes from, people should be able to find out what something is (novel/short story/etc) from that. Kirkburn  talk  contr 07:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We should probably link this discussion on the template page, so people have a better underestanding of that this template is for.Baggins (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)