Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, DeludedTroll, and welcome to Wowpedia, the Warcraft wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we heartily encourage you to continue contributing!

Some links you may find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) as this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, or need help, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the site forums. Again, welcome! --Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 10:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Just as an FYI, you've left a ton of commented stuff in your signature that's getting transcribed to talk pages. You may want to remove it. Thanks! -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, weird. No idea what could be causing that. I've only entered the race icon, the class color and links to my talk page and contribs. IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be something in how you're linking the icon. If you can't figure it out, just paste the full code for the signature and I'll see if I can debug it for you. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, here 'tis. I've noticed that even when I just enter the code for the troll DK male icon, it automatically puts "SUBST:" in front of it, which seems to cram all that other crap into the wiki text. The DK race icons were somewhat recently updated, so that might have something to do with it.
EDIT: I've tested with a few different race icons, and definitely seems to be the "SUBST" who does it. I've seen other users have race icons in their signature without automatically getting that part, tho, so no idea what's up with that.
IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs)
I don't see the code (at least, any differently than I usually see it), but perhaps try just using {{RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}} instead of however you're currently calling the icon? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Didn't know how to make it not be treated as wikitext. This should work: {{SUBST:RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}}<span class="cc-deathknight">[[User:DeludedTroll|DeludedTroll]] ([[User talk:DeludedTroll|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DeludedTroll|contribs]])</span>
When I try to just enter "{{RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}}" it automatically changes to "{{SUBST:RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}}". Zero idea why it does that.
I made a slight edit to the RaceIcon template that will hopefully correct this. Try it again? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you did, you broke the way it interacts with pages. Now where ever {{RaceIcon}} is used, it does a line break and puts a box around whatever follows. Like so:
IconSmall Malfurion.gif Malfurion Stormrage
--Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
No idea why, since all I did was move the comments out of the includeonly tags. I changed it back, though. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved the comments out of both the includeonly and the onlyinclude tags, so it shouldn't be getting transcluded whatsoever. I did a quick check and it doesn't seem to have broken anything this time, but if I'm wrong go ahead and revert it back. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I tested, and whatever you did seems to have removed most, but not all, of the unnecessary text automatically included when using {{SUBST:RaceIcon}}. This is what appears in the wikitext when I tested using {{SUBST:RaceIcon|Archimonde}}: <span class="linkicon">[[File:IconSmall_{{#switch:{{lc:Archimonde}} |night elf=NightElf |blood elf=BloodElf |high elf=HighElf |#default={{ucfirst:Archimonde}}}}{{#if:|_{{{2}}}}}.gif]]</span> --IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 09:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, so ultimately the issue still seems to be that the signature call is outputting the entire text of the template instead of just the template call. Not sure why that's happening. Possibly one of the more code-savvy admins will know. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha, looks like this is a "feature" of one of the MediaWiki software upgrades (lord knows why, though). This might shed some more light on it, as well as some work-arounds: [1] -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, alright, I'll try it. Guess I have to create two new pages, tho, since I don't have a separate page for my sig. IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey look, it worked. Hurrah! IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A pic

Ho there! You are taking pictures of Outland, right? Would you be so kind and took a pic of Mother Kashur? I kinda realized too late that I need one for my article. --Mordecay (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'll probably do Nagrand once I'm done with Netherstorm. Is there any particular image you need, or just her current infobox image with an updated model (which I was going to do anyway)? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
With the updated model. --Mordecay (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
There we go: File:Kashur.jpg -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ty! --Mordecay (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


Yeah I see I was mistakingly a bit too trusting with wowhead once again. Several old-world imps have had their 3d model updated in their 3d viewer, but when I went to check up on them, they were still using the old ones. Perhaps when Legion hits.. We'll see I suppose :) PeterWind (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Factional Icons

A discussion is taking place at Forum:Neutral Faction Icons about these icons, I'm attempting to get opinions from editors like yourself about this issue, please make your opinion known. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a look. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Gul'dan's spikes

He has been shown with these File:Gul'dan HoW.jpg, File:Guldan.jpg, File:Gul'dan TCG Alt.JPG, File:Gul'dan TCG.jpg so it could apply for both, no? --Mordecay (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, true. I guess I just assumed people would know that those were part of his clothing since there are similar-looking spiked cloth shoulderpads in-game. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Movie characters

Hi, now that Durotan is coming next week, I was thinking of what was previously said about the characters of the movieverse. Coobra agreed to have Name (movie) for their articles but I was thinking that with the expanded literature it could be Name (movie universe) (since some don't appear only in the movie). Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mordecay (talk · contr).


I dropped the dev comments, because there's in-game information. Go stand near the demon showcase before the Broken Shore and you'll see what I based my writing on. Stop changing it. Meganerd18 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Have any links? Googling it just brings up videos about demon hunters. Never mind, just looked at the felstalker talk page. There's no Horde equivalent for that NPC, and I haven't actually done the Broken Shore on an Alliance character yet, so I had no idea that that guy even existed. Do remember to at least add specific citations so other editors can know where you got your information from next time. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Vrykul (language), Tauren

Jorhuttam is directly referred to as the "Great Worm", specifically capitalized in the quest text and mission title. I assumed this meant a direct translation, such as Lak'tuk's name and title referencing a direct translation as well. I was also curious why you removed the bit in Tauren trivia about them being called Ronir. Dargrul directly calls them this in two separate quests. -Cannibeans (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I just think that just because Jorhuttam has the title of "Great Worm", that doesn't mean that that is the literal translation of its name. Gar'mak and Lak'tuk being Orcish for "Anguish" and "Suffering", respectively, is a reasonable assumption since it wouldn't make much sense for someone to have "Anguish" as a title... but I suppose ultimately there's no way to know for sure about these things, as it seems like these matters may be too minor to warrant a dev response on Twitter or whatever.
Regarding the ronir thing, that doesn't seem to specifically refer to tauren, since Dargrul also refers to the Rivermane + the player as "these ronir" during N [10-45] Crystal Fury, and he calls the player a "shan ronir" in N [10-45] Dargrul and the Hammer. Also, I'm of the opinion that we should have separate pages for the Kalimdor tauren and the Highmountain tauren, so the ronir thing doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of the tauren page. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 17:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I also just noticed that we have a Drogbar (language) page as well, which I wasn't aware of before. Fair responses, though. I'll continue to keep an eye out for more concrete examples of direct translations. -Cannibeans (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's mainly because I created the drogbar language page around 2 minutes after removing the note from the tauren page. :P -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Ohhh you sneaky bastard. xD -Cannibeans (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed that you are a rather active contributor to both the wowpedia and hearstone wiki. If you don't mind, can I ask you some questions about Hearthstone? I don't play the game at all.

First - I know that Hearthstone is considered as a game inside the larger Warcraft universe. So technically Hearthstone itself as a game is canon, but its content is supposed to be flavor lore, right? What about characters like Aya Blackpaw? Are they supposed to be real characters, fictional characters even inside the warcraft universe, or are they real characters that also happen to have a card named after them in the in-universe Heartstone game?

Second - About Heartstone things that are considered as canon, like the murloc member of the League of Explorer, or even artworks and such, do you (personally) care about porting them all to wowpedia too or do you consider than a warcraft fan should read both wikis to get the whole picture?

Thanks. Xporc (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, it's a pretty confusing matter, and last I heard we don't really know. These two pages on the Hearthstone wiki do a far better job of summarising and describing the situation than I could, though these two recent statements may force some rethinking about Hearthstone's canonicity or lack thereof. Taohinton is by far the most active and knowledgeable editor on the Hearthstone wiki, so you might ask him to see if he has more information.
Anyway, your second question: Personally I reason that we should include Hearthstone lore (of course with links to the Hearthstone wiki's more extensive and complete coverage) because Hearthstone is still (mostly) based on and set in the Warcraft universe, and the official description of Wowpedia reads:
"Wowpedia is a wiki dedicated to cataloging Blizzard Entertainment's Warcraft universe (with a focus, though not priority, on World of Warcraft); covering the entire Warcraft series of games, RPG reference books, strategy guides, novels, comics (manga and otherwise), and other sources."
Though if the two recent statements I linked to cause the entire game and all related lore to be written off as sorta-non-canon by default unless canonized by being mentioned in or added to WoW (like what happened with Hearthstone's Sir Finley and Morgl and Heroes of the Storm's Murky, Lunara and Brightwing being added in Legion), I'm honestly not sure if should still keep making new pages for HS-only characters. I imagine that would be up to the admins or other editors with more experience than me to decide. I do wonder what would have happened had the Warcraft RPG been declared non-canon before it received widespread coverage on Wowpedia (though I guess it was still Wowwiki back then); would there still have been any reason to create pages for characters like Ashar Ghosthoof if he was already known to be 100% non-canon at that point? I honestly have no idea.
Hopefully those answers help in some small way. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Well thanks for your answer. Honestly on my side I think wowpedia should be as extensive as possible on everything Warcraft-related, even in the case of non-canon-but-still-Blizzard-made content. Xporc (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Burning Legion destroys life or planets?

Hi, I would like to signalling you this discussion; if you want to give your opinion you are welcomed! cheers, --Xnsyntfxynytnh (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

PTR datamining

Hello, a certain picture from the Kil'jaeden fight was datamined from the PTR, can it be featured on WoWpedia? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Images of datamined or unreleased content are not allowed. See WP:DUC.--SWM2448 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Hiya, I've noticed that you've grown a "habit" of undoing a bunch of the edits I make (don't worry, I don't mind it), what I'm most curious about though, how come you undo the speculation sections I tend to add? For example, the speculation about devilsaurs possibly inhabiting an area close to Suramar, due to Su'esh's appearance, and so on. Is it uh, not allowed or? It's kinda confusing when you see your work reverted without a reason mentioning why. :'( WarGodZajru (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should probably get better at explaining my reasoning in the edit summary. Regarding Su'esh specifically I didn't think it really needed a speculation section, since there is no other evidence of devilsaurs on the Broken Isles aside from that there's a single one in the Suramar menagerie, same as with those zhevras. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, well, I know what that's like. I keep forgetting to put my signature on comments I make, most of the time...
Though yeah, I get your point. We can blame it on "magic", until further evidence. :D WarGodZajru (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems like they just grabbed a bunch of animals from different places on Azeroth. I am curious as to when they did that though. Just after the dome was taken down I imagine? Just don't recall this being mentioned though. From the plaques at the Menagerie it seems the animals have been there a while. Did they just teleport them in? PeterWind (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they captured a bunch of animals before the Sundering and have bred them and maintained populations of them in the menagerie for more than 10,000 years. Somehow. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, Su'esh managed to lay an egg... somehow.. so there must be some devilsaur pimp somewhere on the Broken Isles, or hidden in Suramar. Her egg's at the lower floor of Shal'aran. WarGodZajru (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe devilsaurs are capable of parthenogenesis. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Xporc (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be a lot of angry, female devilsaurs, Deluded. :^)
And ofc, Xporc, gotta come with a jurassic meme... WarGodZajru (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dragonmaw icons

There's a problem for these icons, they were merged with the gray orcs by Coobra 2 years ago. It would be separated to be able to do something with it.Klakmuf 20:36, 14 March 2017

Is it not possible to create new files at File:IconSmall Dragonmaw Male.gif / File:IconSmall Dragonmaw Female.gif and get rid of the redirects? I'm not really familiar with the inner workings of the wiki software, so if there's anything preventing a split between Dragonmaw and OrcGray icons we could always make due with just continuing to use the gray orc icons. It's not really a super high priority. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Orcish clans

Man, the more I read your stuff, the more I think the orcish clans are more varied, developed and interesting than the Seven Kingdoms :( Xporc (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. All of the human kingdoms are essentially some variation of "semi-generic high fantasy Medieval Europe" with a twist or two thrown in, whereas with the orcs you've got noble tundra-dwelling hunters who fight alongside wolves, not-so-noble tundra-dwelling hunters who kill massive stone giants, mountain-dwelling blacksmiths, samurai with burning swords, astrology-focused sages and shaman, one-eyed guerilla jungle fighters, insane cannibals who wear the body parts of their fallen foes, etc. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yo! I'm still a fan of your work, but the more you work, the more the pages for the alternate universes clans are outdated. Since Chronicles volume 2 confirmed that Warlords of Draenor is mostly canon to the main timeline too, maybe we could trim a lot the alternate universe clans and only keep mention of what actually differs from the main universe ones? Xporc (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure. I think that it might be a bit strange to not include alternate universe lore (Draenor Clans Archaeology, Adventure Guide entries for WoD dungeons and raids, Draenor questing and so on) on the relevant AU page when that information specifically concerns the AU but probably also applies to the MU. For example, since  [Wolfskin Snowshoes] is from WoD content and specifically describes the WoD-version Frostwolf Orcs, it would be a bit weird to me to only include that on the MU-version Frostwolf clan page and not on the WoD-version Frostwolf Orcs page, even if the information probably applies to both versions. It's probably redundant to copy things from MU material like Rise of the Horde (and maybe even Chronicle Volume 2?) over to the AU pages, (like how AU Garad's biography just links to MU Garad's biography instead of copying the entire thing) but when a lore bit was specifically made for an AU subject, I think it should definitely be included on the page about that AU subject, even though it can also apply to, and be added to the Wowpedia article about, the MU version.
So, for instance, in my opinion Frostwolf Orcs should still include the AU lore bits from H [10-40] Honor Has Its Rewards,  [Fang-Scarred Frostwolf Axe],  [Frostwolf Ghostpup] and so on since they are specifically AU lore material, while the MU version can have all of that AU lore in addition to MU lore like Rise of the Horde and Chronicle Volume 2 and so on. That's just what I think makes the most sense, though; we could always take it up on the village pump to see what others think, if necessary. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Mh, I see your point. Xporc (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, food for thought about the Frostwolves: for years I've been hearing that these guys kept their raiders all along when the rest of the Old Horde disbanded them. It seems pretty logical - Nazgrel was a raider captain even in Warcraft Adventures, the clan was banished before the raiders were even disbanded, they were close to the dire frost wolves of Frostfire, the raiders were reintroduced to the Horde after Thrall met the Frostwolf clan... But besides all these logical points, is it ever confirmed officially? Xporc (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does seem to be the most logical conclusion, but I honestly have no idea if that point has ever been brought up. I imagine that if it was ever addressed, it would have been in Lord of the Clans, but I've never read that book. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 11:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to help with those things you said you forgot about? Xporc (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, unfortunately. It was mainly things like rewriting parts of sentence I thought sounded clunky, fixing the odd typo or grammatical error, and so on; things I only noticed while proofreading and which I then immediately forgot about because I didn't need to think about them anymore. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh! Well, then, that's annoying, but at least you didn't accidentally lost lore-related information ^^ May I suggest using notepad++? It's so good that even when you delete the .txt file, next time you open notepad it asks you if you want to open a backup! Xporc (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I'll look into maybe using that. Thanks. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thansk to you for your continuous work! Xporc (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Will you ever finish all the clans? :p Xporc (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've been intending to do that. I've mostly just been busy on the Hearthstone wiki this last month with the Knights of the Frozen Throne card reveal season. I should hopefully get back to finishing up on the Burning Blade page tomorrow. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I had forgotten that you already worked on the Hearthstone wiki! Xporc (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank youuu for the Burning Blade update! Xporc (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Very nice overhaul yeah! PeterWind (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 09:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, someone updated the Laughing Skull page already. Maybe check it and incorporate its changes into your new page? Xporc (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't meant to rush you up! Take your time, don't worry. Xporc (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I was a bit hasty on that one, but I don't think there was that much more to add besides what I had already compiled, so it's probably fine. Maybe the Speculation section in regards to when Mogor led the Laughing Skull could use some expanding, if anything (though basing sentences of speculation about potential lore discrepancies based on one single obscure forum post from 12+ years ago, which was likely not meant to mean anything at the time anyway, is probably a pretty futile venture). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

History vs. biography

Hey, I've seen you sometimes change the two terms and you seem to do it for a reason, but I am not so sure what that reason is? :D Is it a thing in English? Rule here? Or just personal preference? --Mordecay (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's mostly personal preference. I'm not sure if there's an official policy on this or not, but the Manual of Style specifically says "Lore character articles should include a Biography section summarizing significant events in the character's past". To me, using "History" when detailing a character's, well, history seems a bit odd when "Biography" seems to be a more fitting term when specifically describing the events of a person's life, albeit a completely fictional one in this case. "Biography" also seems to be the most commonly used one on Wowpedia articles about characters, but I have noticed that some other wikis like A Wiki of Ice and Fire use "History" when describing a character's backstory prior to the events of the main novel/game/movie/whathaveyou. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Tbh, I was curious because I have been using "History" here and elsewhere and Biography meaning cv seems odd to me in a wiki but I guess it is not a big deal anyway :D --Mordecay (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mob Clarification

Heya! It's DP. So I noticed you've been working on and polishing up all the mob pages I've done so far! I've noticed there were a few discrepancy's between the edits and had a few questions... :)

1.) Firstly I noticed you took out the quotes for the gnolls... should those maybe just be put on the Palemane tribe page itself instead of each individual mob? Otherwise if it is unique to the mob, shouldn't that quote be added.

2.) Also for the Abilities, I know Xporc told me to do the simplified version, however you linked each one and inserted an icon. My only problem with that would be, since there's already a link to the mob to WoWhead on the page couldn't they look at the abilities there? Contrary, linking each one would provide information as to what other mobs use it. (on Wowhead)

3.) Another edit I saw was either truncating or expanding the mob description, like for the Windfury Harpy what you took out was where they were located, and I guess that's okay since that information is on their tribe page. Was there any other reason to that? EDIT: My bad, I missed the comment you made on the Palemane Poacher edit, maybe that could be set in stone?

I guess the point i'm getting too is, maybe it would be a good idea to set up a template or rulebook for these mob pages that everyone agrees on. And I do understand that there will still be edits, and that's fine. But creating a template would save time from so many edits, and save alot of questions c: Well thank you anyway's for making these pages better. I just hope to learn from your edits as to what's best! Maybe we could set up a similar page in the forum like the Subzone one that's up right now. --Dperrea (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to say that I hopefully haven't discouraged you in any way; your edits weren't bad at all, it's just when I see a bunch of edits I somewhat disagree with I sometimes go a bit overboard in my haste of "correcting" the affected pages to what I believe is the optimal wording, formatting or whatever it is. Anyhow:
1. Those particular quotes ("More bones to gnaw on", etc.) are actually used by the vast majority of gnoll mobs in the game, similar to how there's a very large amount of kobolds who all share the same lines ("You no take candle" being the most famous one). On both kobold and ogre there are currently specific sections denoting that type of "stock" quote, although those same quotes are also listed on many of those mob pages as well. I'm thinking it might be best to add a similar section to gnoll... maybe. I'm not sure. It's not a huge deal if they're listed on each specific mob page as well, I just think it creates some unnecessary redundancy. If a quote is unique to a particular NPC or mob, or small set of different NPCs and mobs, then it should definitely be listed.
2. An example of different users preferring different options; Xporc prefers the simplified version when dealing with minor mobs, I prefer doing the elaborate version when I can regardless of the subject's notability (which is kind of arbitrary anyway). Mostly it just looks nicer with the icon included, and including the icon could theoretically help someone instantly recognize a dangerous ability if they look up a mob's Wowpedia page in preparation for fighting that mob. Mainly, though, I just like including the ID and icon for completeness' and convenience's sake, even if people could just look it up on Wowhead and WowdB.
3. Yeah, it's mostly just that I find that saying "The gnolls are poaching wildlife, which has caused problems with the tauren" on every Palemane mob page is fairly redundant when you can just put that on Palemane tribe itself since it goes for every single member of the tribe. If it's something that only applies to a specific mob (like if the quest said "The Palemane poachers are responsible for hunting beasts while the skinners and tanners are responsible for preparing the skins for selling to the goblins", or something) then those bits could be put on the relevant individual mob pages
Mm, perhaps. Oftentimes things to just come down to individual editors' personal preferences and judgment, with no clear-cut way of saying which format is better. I myself tend to be woefully inconsistent, though I do try to stick as closely as I can to the Manual of Style and boilerplates as well as looking at how already-existing articles of the same type look and copying that formula, when I'm unsure.
Anyway, keep up the good work! -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok! Thank you for the comprehensive response! Don't worry you didn't discourage me, I know getting your work altered by other people is a way of life on the Wiki haha. I just wanted to clarify some stuff as I go foward so I can make more uniform articles and so y'all didn't have to change so much ;) --Dperrea (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey again! So I know you've done this before and I was just wondering how to do it properly. I'm going to upload photos for the updated models of these orc mobs but i'm not sure what to titlethe picture to signify that it's new, should I just put (new model) in the title?--Dperrea (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Should be fine to just upload those files as new versions of the already-existing screenshots, like at File:Kashur.jpg, instead of having them as separate files. For the most part, it's not necessary to have two images showing how a character looked before and after the player character revamp unless it's a major lore character, such as a racial leader. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
When I try to upload the new version, it won't let me because there's another one with the same name, naturally. Is there anyway to bypass this?--Dperrea (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
NEVERMIND. I was trying to upload them the way I usually do, and I've never see that "upload new version" until now, guess I should pay more attention. So now I uploaded the file, but the new version dosent show up on the page, what do I do about that?--Dperrea (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It can sometimes take a little while for a file to display properly. It should fix itself fairly quickly. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah Wowpedia is a bit funny like that at times. Usually fast, sometimes it can take a few days though. But if you can see that your file has been uploaded, it should be good, even if at first the thumblink pic looks wonky. PeterWind (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
"Should be fine to just upload those files as new versions of the already-existing screenshots instead of having them as separate files" it really depends! If the mob has a new armor or new weapon after its update, IMO it's fine to keep both old and new pictures on the same page. Xporc (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
True, I didn't think of that. If an NPC has actually changed appearance, then it can be helpful to see what it originally looked like, but for the most the player character revamp just gave an HD facelift to the game while retaining NPCs and mobs' gear and physical features. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's been about 4 days since I uploaded those new pictures and they still haven't changed on the page, is this normal? I know it may take a long time, but I didn't know it'd take this long haha --Dperrea (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree it's bothersome but let's wait a few more days! Xporc (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


What did u mean? The shadowy creature is called ascendant in the last comic --Mordecay (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know what it is yet. It could be a shadow ascendant, or it could be a named creature of some other sort, but I think it's better to wait until we get a card reveal and some more solid information about it before adding it (just like I've refrained from adding DK trivia to all of the Hearthstone heroes' Wowpedia pages until their hero cards are revealed). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


Do you know the name of the kaliri spirits? --Mordecay (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

They're just called "Spirit". While their tooltip shows that they are level 100 NPCs, they're not targetable and I'm not sure if they deserve their own page or not. I did take screenshots of them just in case, so I can make a page for them if needed. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Blackrock clan's membership in the Horde

We see it in the novels ‘’Blood and Honor’’ where Eitrigg, a freed Blackrock orc joins the Horde, as well as ‘’Lord of the Clans’’, where Orgrim Doomhammer, former chieftain names Thrall his successor. Besides those Blackrock characters we doo see join, several important Horde characters like the Saurfang family all originate from the Blackrock clan, especially as many Blackrock members were incredibly loyal to Doomhammer.

Additionally both the orc campaign of Reign of Chaos and the Orgrimmar section in ‘’Frozen Throne’’’s Rexxar campaign have Blackrock banners. Finally Horde orc NPCs who have been present in WoW since vanilla use the Blackrock skin tone, also introduced in vanilla WoW.

Basically unless there has been a Retcon, there was a sizable population of Blackrock clan orcs in the New Horde before Malkarok. However like most of the captured clans, their clan identity appeared to have mostly eroded away. Also unlike the Bleeding Hollow Mag'har of Outland who had their own village, the Blackrock Mag'har like Draenosh don't appear to have maintained their clan identity either. Gann Stonespire (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Types vs units

Heya, doesn't it make more sense to be a unit (member) of an organization instead of a type (member) of an organization? --Mordecay (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the use of the word "Unit" because it feels too gameplay-y to me, akin to using "NPCs" or "Mobs". In the past, "Types" has usually been used to list non-unique NPCs and mobs of certain creature types (e.g. Yak#Types lists different types of yaks), so I figured it'd make sense to extend the same naming scheme to faction pages. Admittedly, "Types" might not make as much sense when listing unnamed members of a faction instead of unnamed members of a species. Something like "Unnamed" might make more sense (and I didn't change any of the cases of "Unnamed" I came across), though I do also dislike using "Named" as a section header since not every unique NPC has a proper name (e.g. Devouring Darkness, Rotting Frost Giant, Scaleclaw Broodmother). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 11:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, types in racial pages are ok, it is, after all, a creature type. What about keeping the section naming separated? "Notable" and "Types" for racial pages (creature / beast, like those you just showed) and "Named" and "Unnamed" for faction pages where, hopefully, there wouldn't be a problem of listing a "Big Bad Boy" (not a proper name, basically) under Named section of a faction page. --Mordecay (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, I'm fine with that. Personally, I'm kind of inclined to want to use Notable on faction pages as well due to the few outlier cases like the Blacktalon Quartermaster, but I guess that — unlike animals and creatures that only exist for players to kill — the vast majority of unique faction NPCs are going to have proper names anyway so it won't make much difference. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Abilities determine mob classes and are being added to infoboxes. Why should the two pirates be different?--Mordecay (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

From Slack:

Q u o t e:

Suraf [16:57]
Hmm, what about characters that are in say [[Category:Warlock characters]] because of the spells the NPC uses but doesn't have `|class = [[Warlock]]` in the infobox? @xporc
xporc [16:57]
i'm not sure I understand where you're going on :shrug2:
DeludedTroll [16:58]
Me and Suraf discussed this the other day
I used the example of
He uses Drain Life and Fel Immolate, so I'm fine with putting him in a Warlock characters category
But I'm personally more hesitant to put warlock as his class in the infobox if there's no Blizzard source explicitly calling him a warlock
Anyhow, what I'm getting is that I feel like we can be more lenient with categories, whereas infoboxes should more strictly stick to official canon
MyMindWontQuiet [16:59]
xporc [17:00]
I often put "xx characters" categories on weird characters depending on the spells they use
like these guys
technically nothing says they are actually druids, but they used two druid spells in vanilla
so I added the druid characters category :shrug2:
xporc [17:02] you can sometimes see weird lore this way, that eventually ends up canonized
DeludedTroll [17:02]
So I can revert Mordecay's edit with "Per Slack, he's not explicitly called a warlock so he shouldn't have warlock in the infobox, but the category can stay because categories are less strict"
xporc [17:02]

But meh, I'm not gonna argue over it. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine to tag them with the Warlock category because categories are much more loose on lore, but I agree that infoboxes should mainly reflect official/lore/confirmed things. NPCs will often use player spells, like a quillboar using Thorns, but that doesn't technically/officially make them a druid, or an eel or jellyfish casting Drain Life, it'd be odd to put Warlock in its infobox. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think blizz is consistent with determining these. This is only with the player abilities, of course. I don't think we should lower the importance of such abilities and call it no blizz source when it IS a Blizzard source. Technically, quilboar would be tagged as thornweavers and fish would of course be NOT tagged as such, but other humanoids should be ok. Plus the classes themselves are not so strict and exact either, they are broad terms that contain variants which in turn can apply on those mobs. Mordecay (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess. Personally I'll continue to avoid including things like classes in infoboxes unless there's a source for it, though. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Morde on this topic. If a character exclusively/mainly casts spells from one class, with nothing pointing to other classes, I think it's fair to assume that the character is of said class. We can't know for sure but with what we have, there's no reason for us to assume otherwise. PeterWind (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of a nuance between tagging as warlock an NPC who is wearing a Warlock set, casting Warlock spells and doing Warlock-y stuff without having "warlock" in its name, and completely random NPCs casting player spells for who knows what reason, in this case a.. Zandalari troll.. who is a pirate.. and who is undead.. who casts a Fel Immolation spell for some reason. -- MyMindWontQuiet 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I can understand adding |class = Warlock to an NPC who wears a Warlock set, cast Warlock spells, and other Warlock stuff... but a skeleton Zandalari troll who is a pirate and nothing else but the spells don't really take the cake. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
i'd say it's kind of a case by case thing. in many cases it does make sense to go by spells (e.g. kobold geomancers being mages makes sense, a bandit being a rogue makes sense, etc)... and in many cases it doesn't. like, with Grik'nir the Cold, he uses a death knight spell but i doubt he actually became a death knight at some point; frost strike is just thematically fitting for a dude who uses a sword and has an affinity for frost. for the skeletal trolls, my gut says it's a similar situation, where warlock spells just happened to be suitable to the mob's vibe --Eithris (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Technically, since the Zandalari can be warlocks, the pirate may have been a warlock in life and his skeleton version retained the skills. But I agree that it may also be a case by case thing as well in very weird combinations only. --Mordecay (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Eithris. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Same MMWQ. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


When you open pages containing those "types" of character classes, you can see majority of them in the occupation field while the class field has only the in-game classes in them. --Mordecay (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Then why do we have a |class= parameter if we are not going to put the majority of classes in that parameter? I suggest that this "rule" needs to change to include all playable and non-playable [lore] classes. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 11:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, it was agreed that "non-playable classes" are occupations and not classes when the NPC occupation category was created. I'd prefer it the class parameter remained for the playable classes. --Mordecay (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you link to the discussion where this was agreed on? It is very easy to tell the difference between playable and non-playable. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 11:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that 99% of the time when the |class parameter is used, it's used for non-playable NPCs or archetypes, it seems to be slightly accurate at best and inaccurate at worst (having to tag witch-doctors as Warlocks, etc.), in addition to being redundant (having to say that an NPC is both a Mage and an Arcanist, both a Warrior and a Barbarian, etc.), thus overall just being kind of useless. The two could probably be merged into one parameter, |class = Arcanist would logically already mean that the NPC is a Mage. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Here the word occupation was chosen instead of NPC class for the current category. I think the correspondence with the infobox parameter and the category naming is clearer like that. The NPC class was not chosen because it implied the RPG term. Given one (occupation) is subtype of other (in-game class), by putting both, one can easily see the relation between the two. --Mordecay (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that that makes sense. Varian has the class warrior and occupation High King, but that doesn't make High King a subclass of warrior. In my mind it just makes much more sense to list all class-type information in the class parameter, instead of limiting |class to the very strict and not always particularly lore-compatible playable classes and splitting lore/NPC classes like dark ranger or arcanist off into a separate, tangentially-related field. In the case of arcanist, putting it in parentheses like "Mage (arcanist)" should make it clear enough that it's mage character with the subclass arcanist but even then I don't see why we can't just list the class as arcanist when the character is only called an arcanist and never referred to as a mage. IMO, putting subclasses in Occupation instead of Class is non-intuitive and just makes infoboxes more bloated by splitting up information that should logically be grouped together. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 14:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Also a good point, which I agree with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyMindWontQuiet (talk · contr).
So, u saying that when a subclass is present that the class should not be present when one is not called by its class at all? Or would it vary? --Mordecay (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying that all class-related info, including subclasses and lore classes that aren't part of the 12 playable ones, should IMO be included the |class field and not occupation. The part about the arcanist was more an example specifically referring to Arcanist Elleryn; she's only referred to as an arcanist, so might as well just put that in the infobox instead of both mage and arcanist. I guess I could have worded that better to clarify that it's not part of my main argument. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 17:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe the reverse, so both parameters keep their original function ? i.e this page would just have |occupation = Arcanist and no |class, instead of |class = Arcanist and no |occupation. If there's no clear occupation, then |class is generic enough to suffice. But if we already have the specifics (Arcanist), it's rather useless & redundant to have another, additional parameter as well (Mage). -- MyMindWontQuiet 17:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer just using |class= for classes and |occupation for... occupations like Merchant (aka Vendor), Musician, etc. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Suraf. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that arcanist being listed in character field kinda denotes its RPG definition where it was listed as a class. I'm still for keeping character field for actual classes and have all other jobs & ranks in occupation field.
And, guys, stop edit warring and putting inconsistencies in just two articles. It's tiring. --Mordecay (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Arcanist is a sub-class of a mage by default; same as Dinomancers which are technically a druid and hunter combined. These aren't jobs/ranks. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 21:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would argue that things like arcanist and dark ranger are classes and should logically be in the class field, even if they're not playable. Basically, my logic would be that the things that dictate what abilities one can use would be a class (warrior, druid, monk, dinomancer, witch doctor, pyromancer, berserker, skycaller, beastmaster, ranger, or whathaveyou), whereas anything else would go under occupation. Otherwise it, IMO, generally feels like an overly strict and unhelpful distinction; needlessly increases the size of infoboxes by splitting two related bits of information (e.g., "druid" and "dinomancer") off into separate lines; and, in general, doesn't actually help readers find relevant information about the character by, again, splitting up information that is inherently connected into different parts of the box.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind axing the |class field altogether and merging it with |occupation. I guess it's mostly the splitting-up of information that bothers me. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, what bothers me is the opposite. Having everything in one field. I like the current usage of the character and occupation section due to their system and even clarity. I even dare to say it would be a bit problematic in regards of what be the first what order would it have? Some NPCs have more than three things. Would it look nice having like 6 or 10 in one field? --Mordecay (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't get why it's so problematic to have |class= for the WoW classes and |occupations= for everything else Xporc (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Why it is a problem to have |class strictly for every class known in lore and occupations for everything else? — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 21:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Because then you have to debate about what is a class and I thought you guys were against arbitrary decisions. Is Tidesade a class? Is Deathstalker a class? Is Blood Knight a class? Is Merchant a class? Is Barber a class? Is Bard a class? Xporc (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a fair point, but merging the class and occupation fields would solve that issue, I think. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that is a fair point. Obviously a blood knight is a racial class under Paladins. Tidesade, Deathstalker can be a class as well. Including Merchant and Barber means you're just joking around but a Bard could've become a class if the joke wasn't a joke. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 21:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I personally believe Blood Knight is a faction of paladins, not a class, so it's not that obvious. Hence, arbitrary. Xporc (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
If it is a faction, then it would be in the affiliation. Not class or occupation. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 21:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
But then that would also be the case for Tidesage and Deathstalker, which you believed were classes. Are we gonna have to make an excel sheet of which thing is a class, a faction or a job? Xporc (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe Tidesage and Deathstalker are classes, I said that they can be classes (one can argue). Go ahead and make an excel sheet of what things can be a class or this can be handled the easier way, merge class into occupation and call it a day or keep class and allow the obvious ones such as Dinomancer and Arcanist to the class parameter. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "blood knight" was put in the character field as well back in the day.
Just a qq, do you want to continue in the forum to get more voices (and stop spamming your page, maybe :-D )? --Mordecay (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably best to do so. So we don't keep bloating DT's talk page. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 22:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

About HS Art

On the discussion of the Hearthstone content on this Wiki, you said that the arts would be continued to used. However, it was stated by a user in the Rastakhan page that HS art is not canon and should not be used in templates, so... what makes an HS art canon?? Thanks! :) Maykzinho 11:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a case of how closely the art matches canon lore. So things like File:Anub'arak HS.jpg is fine because it looks pretty much the same as Anub'arak's WoW model, whereas File:Subject 9.jpg shouldn't be used in the infobox because it looks very different from how Subject Nine looks in canon. That's just my opinion, though; it might be best to ask MyMindWontQuiet about it for his view, since I think we may disagree on some points (personally, I don't like Rastakhan's Hearthstone art and I would prefer another image to be used in his infobox, but I still think it's similar enough to his WoW appearance to be called semi-canon at least).
In any case, even if a piece of art isn't canon (such as images from Heroes of the Storm or artwork from the RPG books), in many cases it's still fine to include them on a character page, just not as the infobox image, as long as it's in a fitting place (like a Gallery section or in a "In the RPG"-style section talking about non-canon stuff). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically yeah. Hearthstone is not canon, so it doesn't have priority over official, canonical material. We do use Hearthstone art on pages still, but in the infobox we may not (unless it's practically no different (or close enough) as DT said). In this case, Hearthstone-Rastakhan looks like a hulking monster which is a bit different than his World of Warcraft depiction, so we went with the WoW depiction. -- MyMindWontQuiet 14:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So, to use in the infobox, it's need to match the WoW deciption to be used in the infobox? Just to make things clear, because a lot of Rastakhan's Rumble champions, like War Master Voone doesn't match his WoW appeareance, and High Priest Thekal matches. Maykzinho 14:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. -- MyMindWontQuiet 14:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


Here, MoS says that real books should be italicized and we italicize them in reference lists as well. Logically, this would apply for quotation marks for in-game books in reference lists as well. Moreover, this is a Wikipedia standard, they use quotation marks in reference lists for certain types of articles as well. --Mordecay (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think you should take that up on Wowpedia talk:Manual of Style then, because I really don't see why it would be necessary to put quotation marks around book titles when they're just used as references. In my view it just looks ugly and redundant; adding bloat for the sake of adding bloat. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider it redundant, as it differentiates between works. --Mordecay (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do we even need to differentiate between works, though? Real-world books is one thing because they're actual products and therefore they should be italicized, but why should we need to stick quotation marks around " [Arathor and the Troll Wars]", "Weathered Parchment", or "Wanted Poster: Kel'gash the Wicked" when plain links can easily suffice? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just like the MoS says, quotation marks are meant to be used for other works besides real world books, like articles. Not for in-game objects. Although History of Warcraft chapters can also be read in-game, they exist(ed) as online sources. By the wording then the Serena Everwind‎ dont't need it. Yeah, I'll bring it on the MoS page. --Mordecay (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I did an oops

Sorry, I left a message on your talk page when it was actually meant for User:WarGodZajru. But anyway, since I'm here, I would like to thank you for your hard work on patrolling troll-related articles, even if you may not see eye-to-eye with me, I know. Madrenergic (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


Some headers are used as a source for capitalizations here. Gurubashi Civil War and Invasion of Gilneas come to mind. Should the "civil war" and the "invasion" be spelled in lower case or would these be a different case from "Ancient" Kalimdor? --Mordecay (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If the only source for those two being written in uppercase is Chronicle section headers that are written in title case, then yes, they should be reverted and written in lowercase. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Do quest names count as title cases as well? As in "Lady of Light" used as a title for Liadrin but cited nothing but the quest name of H [20-40] The Lady of Light. --Mordecay (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
From what I know, most quest names are written in title case, yes. I'm iffy on using quest names as sources. I think it needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis; like, I don't think we should refer to drogbar as "rock trolls" just because of the quest N [10-45] Rock Troll in a Hard Place, but on the other hand I don't have much issue with things like "Lady of Light" or "Hand of Nefarian" (N [60D] General Drakkisath, Hand of Nefarian) being treated as proper titles for those characters. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, agree on the Chronicle thing.
EDIT: What about File:Chron3 map of Outland before Azeroth invasion.jpg this for Invasion of Outland? Would it be valid since the wrote "the invasion of Outland" on page 164? --Mordecay (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it's the same thing with map headers being in title case. Especially if a header writes it one way and the main text writes it another way, go with the latter. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


Since the speculation is about Jarod and Duskwatch as well, I think it makes sense to have a mention of and a link to Duskwatch directly from Jarod's page. It just adds one more possibility for readers to see that connection (Jarod being potentially captain of the Duskwatch). --Mordecay (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

To me it just seems repetitive to put it on an individual member's page since it's speculation that relates to the entire organization and not Jarod specifically. If there were more named characters who were part of the guard, would we put "He/She may have been a member of the Duskwatch" on every one of their pages as well? Jarod's page already talks about how he was captain of the Suramar Guard, so if readers want information about the organization itself and not just Jarod specifically, they can already go to that page and see the Speculation that it's possibly another name for or the precursor to the Duskwatch. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 17:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


I think I vaguely remember you telling that you won't be adding health due scaling, but could you leave the parameter there when it's present? While removing lines like relatives for NPCs that have no relatives and can never be filled is ok, but trivial things like health could be kept to save some time. It is a bit easier for others (I think Wind adds them too.) to just add the numbers instead of typing the whole line (imagine the pain when you mistype the "|" :-D), and it is not impossible to get them. It is actually easy if you know them like corresponding 110 health is 14,962 for majority of them, but there are, of course, some exceptions. And then there's the scaling of the health on one level, but like pointed by Suraf we should work with what we have.

Anyways, would you mind maybe reconsidering and, since you are already by the mobs taking screenshots, add the number you see provided you are on a max-lvl char? --Mordecay (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've been mostly taking all my Vol'dun screenshots on two characters, one which is now 120 and one which is 111, but I do have another character that's exactly level 110 whom I can use to check NPC health going forward. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ysera art

I disagree (obviously, since I made the edit in the first place). I really do not see how the TCG art is better - it has the stupid beam, is less detailed overall and doesn't have any characteristics the HS art does not. The HS better shows the character - it is better in every single way, in my opinion. Dajax02 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I personally think the TCG art does a better job of matching her WoW model and depicting her more like the slender, graceful dragon she's usually portrayed as than the more gnarled version in Turovec's art (e.g., compare the size and shape of her snout in her WoW model, the TCG art, and the HS art). I also tend to think that Szikszai's more realistic style just looks better than Turovec's more cartoonish take. Looking at them again, though, I guess neither one is that much worse than the other. If you feel the HS art if superior, then I won't argue. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. But yes, I do far prefer the HS art. Dajax02 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


NPCs and mobs categories may be a tad tricky, but when they are visible by both factions and one is friendly, they are NPCs even though "their role" is just to die in the opposite faction's quests. That is why lots of NPCs are categorized into NPC categories already. --Mordecay (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

According to what? The mob page and Category:Mobs both say that a mob is something that is non-interactive and only exists to be killed, while Category:NPCs specifies that NPCs are interactive characters. Assault quest targets fit perfectly in the former category and not at all in the latter. It'd be much more useful and accurate to put them in a category that actually reflects their in-game role than to dump them all in Category:Faction Assault NPCs and leaving Category:Faction Assault mobs almost empty by comparison, just because you can technically see the Horde's quest targets show up as friendly when you're playing Alliance and vice versa. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the assault mobs, I asked the question here, and xporc said to sort them based on visibility, and not "role" probably due to other similar cases. For example, there are a bunch of Alliance-tagged NPCs in Durotar ready to be killed in quests, but all of them are tagged as NPCs because they can be seen by Alliance. And it kinda makes sense since NPCs that can be seen by both factions, one of which is friendly, already disagree with the mob category description since the friendly faction players cannot kill them. Also, the description of mob says that they are "non-friendly to everyone" which, I guess, the decision follows that. --Mordecay (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
While I can see arguments for an against, I personally lean to the side that an NPC/mob that is friendly to one faction would be an NPC. PeterWind (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't disagree with the mob category description, because that says that mobs "are different from NPCs because they are non-interactive, and exist solely for the purpose of being killed" and specifies that interactive NPCs should go in the NPCs category. Even if you're Alliance, you can't (AFAIK) interact with the Alliance NPCs in Durotar. You can't talk to them, they don't sell anything, and they don't serve any gameplay purpose aside from being killed by Horde players. To me, categorizing them as NPCs seems overly nitpicky and is not particularly useful to readers; it's weird to call someone like Lieutenant Palliter an Alliance NPC, because he's never going to have any actual gameplay relevance for Alliance players. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah mobs are NPCs, who are meant to be killed. This is the case here. They don't even have any other purpose like vending items or repairing gear, they're just there to die. Just because one faction can't kill them doesn't change that. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
So what is it, that is being suggested? That any NPC that is the target of or can add progress to a quest for an opposing faction be categorized as a mob instead now? Unless the "mobs" can be interacted with, talked to, or says things in a language not understood by the questing adventurer? To me it sounds like more trouble than it's worth, to not just lump them all in with "NPCs" as long as they are friendly to at least one faction. If a change is indeed wanted though, I'd suggest a list be made with the candidates in question, and we can go from there. PeterWind (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
i’ve always been under the impression that we go by actual gameplay role, not friendly/hostile. never seen any discussion or consensus one way or the other, but imo the practical approach (going by role) is far more useful than the technical one (going by friendliness) —Eithris (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think spoken quotes don't really matter for classification if they're just something the character says on aggro (like Captain Brent the Black or, well, basically any n'raqi mob). I'm also inclined to say the same if you can interact with a quest target for the opposing faction but they only have some gossip text and no other function, but I'm not as sure about that (although I can't think of any cases like that off the top of my head either way).
In general, I don't think there are a ton of cases where a character providing NPC functions (flight master, vendor, etc.) is also the objective of an opposing faction's quest. Would it be possible to automatically search for all pages that are part of a "<zone> NPCs" category and have an ==Objective of== section? In that case, maybe a bot could change their categories to "<zone> mobs" and any exceptions (i.e. characters who are interactive NPCs and serve a function other than a quest target) could be manually changed back to NPCs afterward. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, just lump them all in with "NPCs" as long as they are friendly to at least one faction. This is a simple rule and if you stop following it, then it could lead to annoying debates like "hey guys, is this character a mob or an NPC?" that wouldn't lead nowhere. This rule has also been applied for the last three years AFAIK, so it's kinda the standard now. Also, remember that the ultra-majority of people won't care about categories and as such any debate on the subject is already nitpicky as hell :thinkies: Xporc (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It would also be a simple rule to lump every page on the wiki into one big category, but that wouldn't make it particularly helpful. I dunno, I just feel like putting a page in one gameplay-related category or other should be based on what the page is actually about and not just "it's easy to put everything under one label". The majority of people won't care about any of the thousands of nameless NPCs in the game in the first place either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure the information about them is accurate.
And I really don't think it would lead to "annoying debates" as long as we settle on consistent criteria. Do you have any examples where it would be ambiguous if a character should count as a mob or NPC? Because I can't really think of any, personally. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 11:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know.. Maybe I'll change my mind once I see a list of the affected candidates, but for now I'd have to say I'm against the change. Too many different variables, it sounds like to me, to be practical. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. I'll wait for a list in any case. PeterWind (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


Don't remove stubs without updating the pages. Thanks! --Mordecay (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Finish the pages before publishing them, then. Since you added a link to the cache so quickly, it seems to me like that information probably wasn't hard to find and you could've just included it on the page to begin with. There are already over 10,000 pages in Category:Item stubs; we don't need to add to it. Also, a page is not a stub just because it's not 100% complete (see WP:STUB). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Hundreds of stubs are created each week, but barely any of them ever see their Stub template removed. This has been going on for years Xporc (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Even so, the stub template is surely used on many pages that don't really meet the requirement for what a stub is. Notably the line "Its purpose is to inform visitors that they've arrived at a very unfinished page (as opposed to a normal wiki page which simply never gets finished)". This is not pointed at anyone in specific. In general though, if an item page has both source, correct stats and categories, I don't think it can rightly be called a stub, even if I have likely left pages like that as stubs myself. PeterWind (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
On that topic, we could use a practical example. The page for  [Lightning Tether] is left as a stub. What more is there to be said about this item? Genuine question. PeterWind (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess theoretically one could try and find the name and ID of the associated equip effect. That's the only thing I can think of, though. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired

Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on about an interview with Madeleine Roux serving as confirmation of Mayla Highmountain being on the Horde Council. Thanks.--X59 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternate timeline Edit Question Answer

To answer your question as to why I linked another another fansite's summary of the interview instead of just linking the interview itself is that I just didn't think of it. I was on wowhead, felt the information should be added, and went from there to wowpedia without pausing to think about how wowhead obtained the information when making the edit.--X59 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


There are multiple group pages having named and unnamed lists, and not all of them list every member, so that doesn't really apply. I also intend to merge the types and unnamed (to have some examples, and maybe with accompanying pictures). There is also some alpha stuff that I want to have a closer look. But at a later time. Please refrain from removing such content when the expac is still fresh. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought you said on Talk:Alpaca that pages weren't supposed to list every member of a race because that's what categories are for. I don't see how factions would be different.
"There are multiple group pages having named and unnamed lists" - And how many of those were your work?
"and not all of them list every member" - When I read ==Unnamed==, my assumption is that it's supposed to list every single unnamed member. If not every member is included, to me that means the list is incomplete.
Having a list of unnamed members which in reality only highlights a few examples doesn't make much sense to me because there's no obvious criteria determining which members get to be on the list and which ones don't, unlike "Notable" (every unique member if it's a race/faction with a small amount of members, or a select few unique members that are worth knowing about because they play some role in the story if it's a race/faction with lots of members). To use a concrete example, you included Mawsworn Adjutant but not Crucible Soulrender, but I don't see what makes the former more worth highlighting than the latter since they're both just generic Maw mobs that don't do anything (as far as I can tell, anyway).
At the very least, if you're going to be adding lists, you could include some standard formatting (i.e. {{Mob}}) and not just a bunch of plain links that doesn't tell a reader anything. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 00:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I haven't said that there are supposed to be all Mawsworn, quite the opposite - "to have >some< example". Also the alpha stuff won't be listed. Oh, nvm, just realized that I have a dedicated page for the stuff I want to do later. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
And having an "Unnamed" list that's actually "Examples of unnamed members" is what the entire fourth paragraph of my reply is addressing. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 01:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
A while back, I was going through some Legion demon pages, and to represent them, I chose those that show various jobs (to show that race's variety of occupations) and were interesting (or it could be a complete page, but that wasn't a big factor for me then), and I removed duplicitous jobs (like if there were 5 "jailor/felsoul/legion torturers", I kept only one or two.) --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Think you could give me a hand in adding more information and stuff to Tara Strong's page? I’d really appreciate it if you did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AhsokaTanoJediKnight (talk · contr).