Older comments moved to User talk:Ragestorm/Archive1 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive2 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive3 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive4 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive5 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive6 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive7 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive8 or User talk:Ragestorm/Archive9.

All conversation welcome; however, I will ignore any User who uses Outland in the plural, and don't expect sympathy if you're complaining about retcons or lore inconsistencies. Also, if you use a custom signature ruthlessly stolen from Kirkurn's, I'm likely to be less polite; that's the price of unoriginality. Also be advised that I may turn nasty if you're someone who thinks Illidan is just the greatest- sorry, he's not. --Ragestorm (talk · contr)

Not classes?

I was wondering, is it possible for a "class" to be a "class" also? For example, a gnoll warden's class is usually that of a "healer". The article has a category saying that the gnoll warden is a "class" too. Second, how do you tell if something in Warcraft III is a "RTS class" versus just a "RTS unit"? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 10:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


I will probably never understand all the reasons for the rules, but I just wanted to check if I had them right.

  • 1.) Organizations use all capitalized first letter words. (ex. Argent Dawn)
  • 2.) Tribes, clans, etc. are subcategories of the category organizations.
  • 3.) Tribes, clans, etc. do not have the word tribe, clan, etc. first letter capitalized. (ex. Wildhammer clan)
  • 4.) Tribes, clans, etc. sometimes do not use the word tribe, clan, etc. in their name? (ex. Dreghood)
  • 5.) Factions is a subcategory of the category organizations.
  • 6.) Factions use all capitalized first letter words. (ex. League of Arathor)
  • 7.) Races use all lowercase first letter words. (ex. blood elf)
  • 8.) Classes use all lowercase first letter words. (ex. troll headhunter)
  • 9.) Game units use all capitalized first letter words sometimes? (ex. Fel Orc Grunt yes, owl scout no)
  • 10.) Game building units use all capitalized first letter words sometimes? (ex. Altar of Storms yes, chimaera roost no)
  • 11.) Classes that are also organizations or races use all capitalized first letter words sometimes? (ex. Druid of the Talon yes, keeper of the grove no)
  • 12.) Races that are also factions use all capitalized first letter words sometimes? (Forsaken yes, taunka no)
  • 13.) No rules for spelling inside templates?
  • 14.) Races that are or were tribes, clans, etc. are a mix of rule 3.) and rule 7.)? (ex. Bronzebeard dwarf)
  • 15.) Tribes, clans, etc. that are factions do not have the word tribe, clan, etc. first letter capitalized sometimes? (ex. Frenzyheart Tribe yes, Zandalar tribe no)
  • 16.) Tribes, clans, etc. that are factions are sometimes renamed? (ex. Magram Clan Centaur no, Magram clan yes)
  • 17.) Cartels are organizations.
  • 18.) Cartels use all capitalized first letter words. (ex. Bilgewater Cartel)
  • 19.) Kingdoms, empires, etc. use all capitalized first letter words. (ex. Kingdom of Stormwind yes, Gurubashi Empire yes)
  • 20.) Kingdoms, empires, etc. sometimes do not use the word kingdom, empire, etc. in their name? (ex. Stromgarde)
  • 21.) WoW takes precedence sometimes? (ex. Frenzyheart Tribe yes, Zandalar tribe no)
  • 22.) You are not allowed to say that you made an article a certain way because you saw a similiar article?
  • 23.) Titles in front of a name use all capitalized first letters. (ex. "King Arthas")
  • 24.) Titles in the name of an office uses all capitalized first letters. (ex. Varian Wrynn is the current "King of Stormwind".)
  • 25.) Kingdom, nation, country, and city-state are interchangeable?
  • 26.) A tribe, clan, etc. that seems like a race sometimes is not? (ex. Dark Iron dwarf yes, Fire-gut ogre no)
  • 27.) A group that seems like an organization sometimes is not? (ex. Alliance Remnants yes, Marshal's Expedition no)

As you can see, some of them seem to contradict others. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 10:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Yes.
2) As far as I know, someone more up with the categories should be consulted.
3) Yes, as clan isn't nessesarily part of the official name.
4) Yes, definetly. There's no reason to say "Wildhammer clan" all the time, where there isn't much else "the Wildhammers" can refer to.
5) See 2)
6) Yes.
7) Yes, this is policy, this is the way that Blizzard does it, unless it is part of a larger title name.
8) Yes, unless it is also very clearly a title that should be capitalized.
9) They probably shouldn't be using all caps, at least not in the example you gave.
10) In the case of the Altars, yes, I will have to get back to you on other buildings.
11) Classes that are also organizations (Druid of the Talon) are capitalized. Typically, classes that are also races (keeper of the grove) are not. This is somewhat of a sketchy rule, however.
12) Yes, though the difference generally refers to in-game factions versus lore races. For the purposes of factions, both Taunka and Forsaken should be capitalized, but they are factions of taunka and forsaken.
13) Huh?
14) Yes, essentially.
15) Typically, we like to go by whatever the formatting is for the faction name in-game and in official materials.
16) you lost me there.
17) Yes.
18) Cartel is a more official organizational title that clan or tribe, so yes.
19) Yes.
20) Yes.
21) See 15)
22) There are many instances where yourself or another user has said this, only to have the original article have been blatantly wrong itself. (recall the necromancer as race cluster@#$% last month). Obviously, you're allowed to say it, it's a free country, but the point is that this is not a valid defense, at least not anymore, because you've been around long enough to know what things should or shouldn't look like. You also have a known problem of trying to make many things conform to a single formula, when that's not the way wikis or Warcraft work.
23) Yes.
24) Yes.
25) Blizzard has not given hard and fast definitions for these terms insofar as Azeroth is concerned. In the case of the humans, yes, these terms are mostly interchangable, though some terms are preferred over others depending on which polity we are talking about.
26) Yes, essentially, situations that work for other races might not work for which one is being talked about at the moment.
27) Yes, but that example isn't a very good one.
--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
4) What if it is the title of the article? Shouldn't tribe, clan, etc. be included? (ex. Dreghood tribe)
13) Sometimes in the templates, people spell things capitalized or lower case and you told me whichever looks nicer or something awhile ago.
16) The faction is called "Magram Clan Centaur" but on WoWWiki the article is just called Magram clan.
19) Sometimes I see in lore the word "kingdom" spelled in lower case for some reason.
20) What if it is the title of the article? Shouldn't kingdom, empire, etc. be included? (ex. Kingdom of Stromgarde) Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
4) It's probably more correct to use whatever the appropriate term is in the title, though it sometimes depends.
13) I'd have to go on a template by template basis, I'm thinking of removing obvious subraces from the main race template, for instance.
16) In that particular case, "Magram clan centaur" sounds more like a mob name than a faction name- this is Blizzard's fault for having centaur be the same for sing and plural. It's changed for clarity's sake.
19) The lore is inconsistent with itself. Strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with the kingdom of Stormwind vs the Kingdom of Stormwind.
20) In Stromgarde's case, the full official name isn't known, to my knowledge. It is referred to as a kingdom in a literal sense, not as a name. It also isn't clear if their rulers even formally took the title of king.
--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Here is an example of info that WoWWiki lets into an article because it is from an admin. "I thought I'd point out if people haven't read the citations in the article, but its implied in Shadows & Light, that Xavius has been seen after the War of the Ancients. Like all Eternals are capable of doing, he somehow regenerated apparently." says Baggins. Real quote "Though the Eternals who survived were largely unseen for almost 10,000 years, characters in epic campaigns set during this era might find themselves encountering Eternals such as the satyr Lord Xavius as he seeks to build his dark army without attracting Elune’s attention..." which is a big difference isn't it? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a lot of interpretation there. Now did you have a point in that somewhere? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just that edits from some people would be called speculation, while from an admin would be called fact. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more of a case that some of us have neither the time nor the money to check things like that ourselves, so when one admin makes an interpretation, but doesn't make it clear, it is typically assumed as fact, which, given the fact that they're an administrator, is not an entirely unsafe assumption. Yes, this is a glaring error, but this isn't a witchhunt.
Please accept my apologies. In future, I will ignore anything my fellow admins say on the grounds that they could be interpretations rather than fact, because, obviously, the fact that admins are generally quite reliable who are selected carefully isn't enough of a base to make assumptions. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean every admin is unreliable... Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware to (of?) whom you are referring. I was trying to drive home the point I was making about interpretation and assumptions, though I wound up letting the sarcasm take over. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I do get what you are saying. You expect something an admin tells you or edits, since they did become an admin by a process, to be pretty reliable. From my point of view, be it a lesser amount of time or edits I have seen them do or some other reason, it is not always true. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Title versus class

If something is in the front of a name versus behind the name does it make a difference? For example, are Blackrock Grunts and Grunt Dogran treated the same or is Blackrock Grunt a "class" while Grunt Dogran a "title/job"? Are Axxarien Shadowstalkers and Shadowstalker Ickoris treated the same or is Axxarien Shadowstalker a "class" while Shadowstalker Ickoris is a "title/job"?Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 10:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Err... it makes a huge difference. You'll notice that Blackrock grunts and Azzarien Shadowstalkers are mobs, while Grunt Dogran and Shadowstalker Ickoris are NPCs, and quest-givers to boot. It's the same way that "major", "general" and the like aren't capitalized in casual conversation, but are when they're tacked in front of someone who holds that rank.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about the categories though. Would they both be under "Category:Grunts" or would Blackrock Grunts only use "Category:Grunts" since it is a class, while Grunt Dogran would be more of a title/unit and not fit in that category. Would the other examples both be under "Category:Shadowstalkers" or would Shadowstalker Ickoris only use "Category:Shadowstalkers" since it is an organization, while Axxarien Shadowstalkers would be more of a class and not fit into that category. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


If the title of an article is "Scorched Grove", within the article should "Scorched Grove" be bolded or "The Scorched Grove"? If "The Scorched Grove" is bolded why isn't that the title of the article to begin with? According to WW:MOS, you just bold the title of the article. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was there a question for me in there? It looks like you've answered it yourself. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well yes. I was told I was wrong at Talk:Scorched Grove. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Rolandius starting a Pcj versus Ragestorm? Articles have been he subject of a few debates before, like here and here, if that adds anything to this.--SWM2448 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly believe that all of us have better things to do than argue over bolding definite articles. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just want to know the correct procedure so I don't bold things that should not be bolded and vice versa. I read the rules and I don't see anything saying you should bold "The". The rules say, keep "The" out of article titles and bold only the article title. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

-man to -person issue

Hi rage, can you check out this discussion please? Thank you in advance. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

About Titans vs Old God wars

I have frightening scenario in my mind: if titans lose, Azeroth turns into playground of elementals and old gods, if titans win, they sweep away humans, gnomes and dwarves as broken machines or turn them into half-living mud/iron creatures again.

What is your opinion? Noobi666 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait until we know more about the titans and their goals before passing that judgement- Eonar at least doesn't seem to match this new image of the titans, but yes, that's the general idea of why the mortals can't afford to lose.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just mean that there may not be winners. Infact, great leaders and most powerful sorcerers are only pawn in war between aliens. quite depressing Noobi666 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're pawns- this implies that the titans are actively playing a game, which, from what we can tell, they aren't. They fought, the won, and they'll fight again if it comes to that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Category: NPC classes

This was the old description on the article. "Classes (or titles) held by NPCs in the Warcraft RPG, World of Warcraft RPG, and World of Warcraft." This is the new description. "NPC classes held by NPCs in the Warcraft RPG, World of Warcraft RPG for class/titles/professions held by NPCs in World of Warcraft and the RPG games see profession, title, and Category:NPC titles." The old one actually makes sense and the new one is just one run-on sentence that doesn't make sense. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: The category now says that NPC classes are only those from the RPG so what do we call "NPC classes" we find in WoW? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm looking at the right page, I'm pretty sure it still talks about WoW. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I put the category on an article for an NPC on WoW and Gourra said that according to NPC class it is not used for WoW. He said to ask someone who knows more about RPG stuff. He suggested maybe a Category:WoW NPC classes. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the category you are looking for is Category: NPC titles. While neither class nor title accurately describes the "titles" given to NPCs in the game it has been deemed that title fits better than class. Class is now being reserved for things specifically said to be classes. The "titles" used by NPCs could be classes, professions, or simply titles, but actual description for the term has not been given. Titles fits the best based on the fact that player characters can earn "titles".Baggins (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) t there is nothing specific Baggins (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Azeroth (continent)

Could you tell Baggins to slow down his editing of the Azeroth (continent) article until he figures out what he is doing? He has removed the reference section, template section, and some other things in his last few edits. I am only bringing this up because I was in the process of putting some citations for some {{fact}} tags until everything got reordered around. Also, I said in its talk page that he had messed up the article a bit but he didn't respond/see it I guess. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The ref section and templates weren't "removed" they were just hidden due to a faulty <ref> tag. Also I note again that you shouldn't be trying to play admins against each other. If you had a problem you should have taken it to my talk page and discussed it with me first.Baggins (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looked "gone" either way. Also, I did try to tell you on the article's talk page that your recent edits had done something or other to the article. I thought you would see my comment. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 05:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting a discussion on another article's talk page is not proper procedure, if you are are trying to discuss something with a specific user. That is what the user talk pages are for.Baggins (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wanted to tell you quick because I was also editing it and lost my edit, so I thought you would see it quicker there. Ah well, I will tell you on your talk page next time. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You know that if someone has written on your talk page, you'll get a yellow bar at the top that says you have new messages? I think Baggins will have an easier time to pay attention to that than you writing on the talk page. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ookay, then. Baggins, start using the show preview (what is your reformat of the article anyway?)
Rolandius, perhaps waiting until the cray other editors are done might be an improvement, and Gourra's point is a good one. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay I will wait a bit next time. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 13:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh ya it does make that yellow bar. Ah well. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
How in the name of Elune did you not notice that before? There's been enough traffic on your talk page to repattern the Sahara desert. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I better rephrase that. LOL I didn't think about catching another user's attention using the yellow bar "method". I was thinking "user talk page" or "article talk page" only to catch another user's attention. I know about the yellow bar appearing because, like you said, I get a lot of traffic. For some reason, I didn't think about the yellow bar as a way to catch another user's attention though at that moment. LOL Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 13:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

please see my talk page for a sec

You and I have no problem, as long as you realize that WoWWiki isn't a place to discuss ideas of what you think are going to or would like to see happen. If you're asking questions for personal clarification, you can address them to a suitably lore-minded user or on the Warcraft Pump.
If you're looking for warcraft lore discussions, I suggest Scrolls of Lore[1]. They're a lore-oriented forum that might be able to offer what you're looking for.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sorry 'bout that. Just wanted to say something, since no one else was really giving him any warnings about it. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Understandable, next time just tell me instead. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart trying to reset the conflict on the Kargath talk page. I'm not complaining or anything but its just a heads up and i'm only responding to his comment because i think its childish to reset an issue that was fixed/ resolved like last week, you know what i'm saying? Anyways, i'm not mad at him i just think its sad that he wants to bring out "Old Hatreds" lol. Peace out, i was only checking my watchlist when i noticed that, i'm going back to Scrolls of Lore.--IconSmall DrakonidBlue.gifMaelstrong 01:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk to your admins

You need to talk to some of your admins...again. Okay tell me if this is a rule or not. "Other users' edits will get you a warning." I am guessing it is not a rule. Okay ,Gourra just "warned" me that I may get another "warning" because, somehow, I did not correct some other users' spelling/grammar. See Spelling/grammar. I know I make mistakes but come on. Now I am getting in trouble because I didn't correct an article "enough"? I don't know if you realize but I am not getting paid to fix WoWWiki. Why should I get warned for not catching 100% of some article's mistakes? Meanwhile "some" admins mess up articles with some kind of red "citation error" messages and haphazard reference sections and I don't see them getting a "warning". By the way, WW:MOS says "Do not put links in the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence. For example, "The night elves are an ancient race…" versus "The night elves are an ancient race." yet I have seen admins do that and get mad when I fixed it. Then Gourra says I am threatening him...when he is the one that keeps talking about "warnings" because I didn't correct other users' mistakes. I also went as far as to ask him how he would feel if I went on his talk page and starting saying things like "warning Gourra" for some other user's edits that he had nothing to do with. Of course he said that was a threat too somehow? Meanwhile, he is the one saying "warning" "warning" because I didn't correct some other user's mistakes "enough". He also says I am a "hypocrite" because I didn't correct an article "enough". I don't think the definition of a hypocrite is "one who does not correct enough". I need a raise if I am going to get in trouble for not correcting WoWWiki "enough". Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 12:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are really talented at reading between the lines, aren't you? Trouble is, you read writing that isn't there. Gourra's not getting mad at you because you're not correcting "other users' mistakes", he's saying you're being hypocritical for using the manual of style to justify things that aren't mentioned, and ignoring things that are. He's not accusing you of being lax in editing (Elune knows that's totally absurd).
For any of your future MOS edits, I MUST reiterate the lead-in for the MOS: "This Manual of Style outlines a standard of clean, consistent formatting for articles in WoWWiki. The formatting described here is a guideline and can be overridden where circumstances warrant it. These guidelines will never be unerringly perfect for every situation."
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but admins are supposed to issue warnings, that's part of the job. I'm not sure if I agree with Gourra for giving you a warning over this, but it's his perogative.
And yes, Rolandius. If I'm not being paid to work on WoWWiki, and Gourra, isn't, and Fandyllic isn't, I am certainly aware that you aren't either!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well to me it sounded like he was mad that I "corrected" only some of an article, and then didn't correct "enough" of the rest. Once again I know I make mistakes, but I also know I have followed a majority of the "rules" or "guidelines" from WoWWiki. For instance, Gourra asked "what part of WW:MOS says that" when I unbolded "The" and I told him. Why have WW:MOS if I can't point out to it when someone asks me why I did something — which WW:MOS says to do? I know you said WW:MOS is not "unerringly perfect" but why would I get a warning for following something it says you are supposed to do in bolding an article's title? Besides the actual words saying what to bold, it showed an example where it is written "The night elves and not The night elves, Night elves the, etc. If I get warnings for following the rules, then remove those rules so at least there is a real reason for me getting a warning. I also have mentioned linking within a bolding which the rules say don't do. Also, I remember we talked about Highborne as a race a few times and you agreed with me it is not a race, yet it keeps jumping back into pages. In conclusion, if I went to an article and blanked the page or did something contrary to a rule, then I would see why Gourra would give me a warning. But getting a warning for following rules? That makes no sense. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I thought you told me that we should only put the race "ghost" as an NPC's race if they are a ghost now, and not what they were before they became a ghost. Does this extend to categories too? Should there only be a ghost category for an NPC ghost or two categories for them as in ghost and then what they were formerly? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends. If the character did anything significant prior to being a ghost, you can have both, if not, then don't bother. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"of" and "of the"

We talked about this one before, but now I am seeing a mixture of spellings here on the "something of the something" and "something of something" kind of articles (I hope you can decipher my crazy writing). Is the second word in the term, after "of" or "of the", lower case or capitalized? I thought you told me it was only capitalized if it was also an organization, but I see non-organizations too being capitalized which should be lowercase. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be a case by case thing, give me an example. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay I guess an example would be "keeper of the grove", but the article is called "Keeper of the Grove", although I have been "allowed" to change the spelling within the far. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Keeper of the Grove is sketchy because it's a race, a class and an organization, and Blizzard isn't consistent with their capitalization. I'd suggest leaving the pagename capitalized, and either ignoring present in-text usage or taking it contextually.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Keeper of the Grove is an organization too? I thought it was just a class and race. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 05:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, looks like Baggins got there first, so nevermind.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so I guess it is just a class and race. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthas the Lich King

<<spoilers begin>> The epilogue of Arthas: Rise of the Lich King suggests that Arthas alone is the Lich King and that he is no more "one" with Ner'zhul.<<spoilers end>> That surely should affect their respective articles but are we allowed to post such spoilers so soon after release?Dakovski (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to wait a few weeks for books, but there's been so much hype and so many giveaways I can't remember the release date. So, wait a little while, and if you feel like adding it sooner, make sure that it's tastefully inserted somewhere at the END of the article- if there are two things I cannot abide, it's spoilers in a lead, and people who talk at the theater. Though that last one doesn't have anything to do with this situation.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Whatever i write is much better than a rubbish about a damned Crossbow which he doesn't have at all.

Mages have all the 5 elements and dont talk rubbish if you're ignorant."One should ideally be familiar with the events of Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos" I think that you're referring to yourself.

Please do not spout rubbish if you're totally ignorant yourself.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grimshetara (talk · contr).

Detheroc Talk page

Sorry about that!, i thought i posted that on Scrolls of Lore. I was looking on the Detheroc page and i went to post it on the Scrolls of Lore forum, but i guess i put it on the discussion page. Didnt mean to post speculation:)--Icon Azgalor.jpgMaelstrong 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have lore forums now if you want to talk there, just keep it off the talk pages and were fine.--17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Just wanted to apologize for being a poor editor and an overall pain. Zarnks (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You weren't that much of a poor editor- at least you knew how to write in passable English. Anyway, what's done is done, and since we're not Knaak, we won't be dredging up the past.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


A certain admin keeps reverting my edits. For example, WW:MOS says to bold the title of a page "The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold..." but he reverted my edit and said "Not in WW:MOS". Are there two WW:MOSes on WoWWiki and I am just reading the wrong one? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between articles and categories. By the way, why are you bringing this up on Ragestorm's talk page? --g0urra[T҂C] 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Because if I start trying to talk to you, I will end up getting another "ban" for "intimidating" you. I thought a third person would help. So you are saying "categories" don't follow WW:MOS or any other rules? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


A certain admin keeps deleting my edits in talk pages which I thought were there for people to "talk" about the page. For example, in Category talk:Warcraft III Scenario Maps I asked if the page should be called "Category:Warcraft III scenario maps" and the talk page was deleted as "spam". Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 13:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are going to infinetly too much trouble over an issue that is mostly pointless. I fail to see why capitalization is such a major issue in this case.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the comment. Not sure if it was automated or what, but thanks anyways. Emxiaks (talk)

Creating redlinks

Re a comment to Rolandius:

What do you mean if? You don't make links in preparation for something that might be made, you link things that are there already or you know are about to be created in the near future. (emphasis added)
And those links were totally uncalled for anyway- For one thing, they're almost certainly referring to the same polity- for another, there's so little information about the aqir anyway that the thing would probably have been redirected. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first part, I must respectfully disagree, both in practice and as policy.

In practice, I've been editing quest pages this last month and more, unstubbing, creating item pages (reward, quest, incidental), and general cleaning up. Links were created some good number of months ago, but in many cases the item pages were never followed up on. In other cases, stub item pages were created that had only marginal value. And in some, names were simply misspelled, leaving redlinks laying around. (... which I then try to correct only to later discover the fact of the misspelling... :( ). So red links are indeed being made where there is the expectation that an article will be created some time in the future. But not followed up on.

As policy, though... My opinion is that red links indicate articles that the editor believes should exist. I feel that creating them is acceptable, though frowned upon as a general rule. A red link has the same offensive characteristics to me as a contentless stub does, except that the red link indicates overtly that remediation is called for. My usual procedure, though, is to create the target first then create the link. If I a) am pressed for time, b) don't know anything useful about the topic, or c) just don't care about the page (but recognize that the page should exist) I'll create the link and move on.

I suspect that the second paragraph was the one important to you at the time. Coupled with a history of Rolandius being troublesome, I suspect your temper was unduly frayed. My recommendation (from my comfy armchair, mind), would have been to create those redirects, possibly with the addition of a note on the use of the alternate name. In any case, that diverges from my thoughts on the utility of red links.

Thoughts? Is there an officially expressed policy? I could not find one on a brief search for "red links". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, you are correct in assuming my main point was about Rolandius's specific actions that time- that is, A) making redlinks with the intention of leaving them there, 2) making redlinks for different polities when they were in fact, the same thing (he was under the impression that Azj Aqir, "Azj Aqir empire" and "Azj Aqir kingdom" were three distinct polities- or at least subjects- meriting their own articles) and Zed) having been told about this exact issue before and repeating it. I suppose you're right about making them redirect back to Azj Aqir...
I'll admit, though, I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in policy about redlinks. I'm not planning on running through the server and purging all redlinks or anything like that, nor am I plotting to ban any user who makes use of them. Generally, I agree with your points overall, but my problem is that, if redlinks are being used to indicate what users think should merit articles, that's problematic. Most of the redlinks I've seen across the board are either simply redirects or something that doesn't merit its own article. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We encounter different portions of the wiki. I am guessing my experience would be more in line with yours if I were to actually look through Wanted Pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Organization articles

I was just wondering why "Alliance Forces" and "Horde Forces" do not have articles for themselves, yet "Illidan's forces" and "Kael'thas' forces" do? I would think it would be the other way around where the two organizations with capitalized words would get articles and not the two "organizations" that have lower-case words as part of their name. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius the problem is that there is no source for the term "Alliance Forces" or "Horde Forces". Or do you have them? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. In WoW, "Alliance Forces" and "Horde Forces" is shown in the reputation pane. They even have their own little icon. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, they're the BG factions (besides Strand of the Ancients, anyways). IconSmall Wolvar.gifBig, furry, and insane (Have a conversation with the homocidal furry!) (Come and stalk me! ...No, wait, please don't.) 03:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Alliance Forces is made up of the Alliance BG factions and Horde Forces is made up of the Horde BG factions. Alliance Forces is then a group under the Alliance and Horde Forces is then a group under the Horde. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I have never paid attention to that. Maybe they don't have their own article because no one has ever taken the time to make it? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess so. I think they just redirect to the Alliance and Horde articles. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I find some organizations in Warcraft III, should I cite them as Warcraft III or do I have to know the level(s) also? I wrote down some groups as I went through, but then forgot to put down what level they were in. Is there a way to find the names of groups within levels without having to go through the whole game and/or level again? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, I have played WC3 so many times that I can almost tell you without playing. If you can just list them and I'll add the reference :) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have only played Reign of Chaos and half of The Frozen Throne so there may be some I am missing. Also, some of these might be seen by others as not being organizations, but they looked like it to me in the levels as they were capitalized, the name showed up if you hovered your mouse over them, etc. "Villagers", "Blackrock Warriors", "Blackrock Warlocks", "Local Populace", "Lordaeron Navy", "Ogre Legion" (Name found in the description of any ogres you recruit from Mercenary Camps.), "Dragon Camps", (For some reason, they put this name on a group of units), "Dwarven Expedition", "Elven Villagers", "Elven Protectors", "Elven Defenders", "Cenarius" (The name showed up on a group he commanded, not just him.), "Lordaeron Brigade", "Ancient Dead", "Captive Orcs" (Pretty much just captured orcs.), "ShadowTooth Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Shadowtooth clan.), "Felwood Furbolgs", "Orcish Horde" (On WoWWiki, it redirects to History of the Horde.), "Ancient Guardian" (The name showed up on a group of them, not just one.), "Corrupted Ancients", "Prisoners" (Pretty much just prisoners.), "Sleepers" (Pretty much just jailors who were asleep unless woken.), "Demon Elite Guard", "Barkskin Furbolgs", "Ancestral Spirits", "Wild Mur'guls", "Ferocious Beasts", "Night Elf Villagers", "Naga Strikeforce", "Illidan's Escort", "Stormreaver Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Stormreaver clan.), "Blackrock Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Blackrock clan.), "Twilight's Hammer Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Twilight's Hammer clan), "Tomb Guardians", "Kiljaeden's Seekers" (Might have been spelled Kil'jaeden's Seekers.), "Harbor Defenses", "Naga" (I guess they were also an organization?), "Night Elf Fleet", "Malfurion's Force", "Plagued Villagers", "Acolytes In Hiding" (The units of this group were spelled Acolytes in Hiding.), "Regional Defenders", "Silvermoon Guard", "Sorcerers' League" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Sorcerer's League.), "Mages' Guild" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Mage's Guild.), "Stranded Orcs" (Pretty much just orcs that were stranded.), "Sunwell Guardians", "Town Guard", and "Undead Caravan". Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 05:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ookay. Winding the clock back to the original question, "Illidan's forces" is its own article because it is the conjectural title of a group that was formerly presumed to be called the Illidari. The others probably deserve their own articles, I'm not sure, but they have nothing to do with Illidan's forces or Kael's forces.
Three notes about the WC3 factions/groups: A) I don't think you need them, but the levels are good to have for references, so thanks very much, Benito; 2) If you think you're going to make one article for each of those "organization", you're mistaken, and Zed) a significant portion of these are either descriptive names for NPC groups and not meant to be taken as literal lore names or are factions that are already present- capitalization does not an organization make. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
How do I know which terms are article worthy? For instance, the other two or three groups named "Blackrock something" that were with the "Blackrock Warriors" and "Blackrock Warlocks" have articles. The other groups who were with "Illidan's Escort" and "Naga Strikeforce" have articles. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Glancing at the list above, I'd say that very few of them deserve their own articles. It's obvious that "Elven villagers" are not an organization, unless it's the quel'dorei equivalent of a homeowners association. Simiarly, how in the hells could "Naga" be the name of an organization? If anything, these could go on a "List of NPC factions/organizations/teams in Warcraft III", Subdividing between RoC and TFT, and dividing by campaign. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that teams like villagers shouldn't have articles, the information should be incorporated to the article villager, who talks about the unit. The same for Naga, Cenarius, etc. But some, like Elven Defenders or Naga Strikeforce should. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Party

Moved to Forum:Deceased characters