Forum:Lordaeron of the Forsaken

Forums: Village pump → Lordaeron of the Forsaken
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Continued from Talk:Lordaeron (kingdom) and Talk:Forsaken#Race_and_Faction.

It has become clear, in my opinion, that a new page should be created separate from the "Lordaeron (kingdom)" article that details the Forsaken state which now calls itself Lordaeron. Due to controversy, I feel that it would be best if the context and contents of such a page be discussed before the page is created.--SWM2448 02:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to name the page "Lordaeron controversy" or "Forsaken controversy." A list of the claimants could be organized as follows:

Living Claimants

Alliance (led by Jaina Proudmoore and Varian Wrynn)

Argent Crusade (led by Tirion Fordring)

† Scarlet Crusade (Led by Balnazzar)

† Cult of the Damned (Led by Kel'thuzad)

Undead Claimants

Forsaken (Led by Sylvanas Windrunner)

Scourge (Led by Bolvar Fordragon, formerly by Arthas Menethil)

Fojar38 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said in both Talk pages, the article that refers to the forsaken state should be called Lordaeron (Forsaken). The modern forsaken state has nothing to do with the fallen Kingdom of Lordaeron, wich no longer exists as a political entity. In the other hand, I think that the Forsaken deserve an article about their nation, as we have an article for Stormwind, Theramore, etc. --Cemotucu (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although the main problem here is that if we did that, we'd have to do it with both Arthas' Lordaeron, Tirion's Lordaeron, and Sylvanas' Lordaeron. Too many things called "Lordaeron" that it becomes very confusing. I believe that rather than calling the Forsaken state "Lordaeron" it should instead be called "The Forsaken Empire" with a note that says that it's also sometimes referred to as "Lordaeron" by the Forsaken.

I propose that we use "Lordaeron" itself for the former kingdom and for the nation that the Alliance wishes to restore. "New Lordaeron" for the Argent Crusade's nation, and "Scourge Empire" for Arthas' Lordaeron.Fojar38 (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is we don't have a mention of an Arthas' Lordaeron and neither Tirion. The kingdom domains were just absorbed in the Plaguelands, wich are not a kingdom, but a territory of the Lich King domain: Scourgeland, if you want. In the case of the Forsaken, it's clear that in "Edge of Night" the territories they control are named by them, the Warchief and their queen as "Lordaeron", not the fan-term you use (Forsaken Empire). In fact, until now, we didn't know how the forsaken state was called: Undecity's domains? xD But now, we know. They called it Lordaeron (even if they are right or wrong in doing that).

Do we know how the Socurge state is called? Is it even an state? But well, it could be perfectly defined as an empire. The thing of "New Lordaeron"... is referred somewhere? In the other hand, I think we could agree that a Lordaeron (Forsaken) and a Lordaeron (Kingdom) articles should exist, couldn't we?

Arthas referred to himself as "King of Lordaeron" in Warcraft 3, and even went so far as to build a recreation of Lordaeron's throne room in Icecrown Citadel. That says that he did view the nation he ruled over as "Lordaeron." I remember Garrosh mentioning "troops from Lordaeron" in Edge of Night, but that was in reference to the City, not the Forsaken dominion, because he was in Silverpine, which was at the time already controlled by the Forsaken. It would be like saying that you're getting "Troops from America" in a war being waged in America.

The Argent Crusade also considers their capture of Stratholme to be "a new beginning for Lordaeron" which suggests that they consider their dominion to be just that; "New Lordaeron." That said, I will concede that the Forsaken consider their dominion to be "Lordaeron" but the problem of confusion remains. We have 4 distinct entities all claiming to represent "Lordaeron." If we simply considered all of them that, then any time someone references "Lordaeron" in the lore, it could be in reference to any of those four. For simplicities sake, I think that we shouldn't refer to the Forsaken nation as "Lordaeron." And yes, we can agree that we need a separate page for the Forsaken dominion, although I don't think that it should be called "Lordaeron." Fojar38 (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About Garrosh mention: in the story, Sylvannas mentions "the Bulwark, the half-finished fortifications that lined Lordaeron's border with what had become known as the Plaguelands." The human Lordaeron extende far away, up to Stratholme. It's pretty clear that the Lordaeron she refers is not the same kingdom/dominion as the fallen kingdom. Knowing that, we could be sure that forsaken's nation is called by them Lordaeron. A name the warchief acknowledged. But well, lets hope some other gave their opinions.

Plus, Garrosh call the troops: "Citizens of Lordaeron". He is not refering to the city. There's no Lordaeron city... there is an Undercity. If he was refering to them by their city, he would have said Undercity each time he said Lordaeron.

The New Lordaeron thing could work, I see that now. But I think this whole think could be resolved with a disambiguation page and three pages of the "Lordaerons": the human and fallen, the forsaken and exapnding, and the rising and multiracial.--Cemotucu (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We're in agreement that the Lordaeron that Sylvanas refers to is not the Kingdom of Lordaeron from Warcraft 2 and 3. I remain sceptical of Garrosh referring to the Forsaken dominion as "Lordaeron" but I'm willing to let that go (Although Capital City is also called "Lordaeron" in some sources, but Garrosh's opinion regarding this is schizophrenic. He considered Arthas to be an Alliance figure in his story "Heart of War" and this was long after the Third War, so at the very least that shows he doesn't consider the Forsaken dominion to be the "Lordaeron" that we all know and love.)

With regards to how these all work, I maintain that Kingdom of Lordaeron (Alliance) and New Lordaeron (Argent Crusade) are easy to go by. What should the Forsaken dominion be referenced as? I maintain that "Forsaken Lordaeron" would be too complicated, because it would create confusion between it and the Kingdom of Lordaeron. I still think that "The Forsaken Empire" would be the most apt description of the Forsaken nation, with an addendum in the article that it's referred to as "Forsaken Lordaeron" by the Horde. Fojar38 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that in order to best keep a neutral view point on these different pages that the Kingdom of Lordaeron should only refer to the Lordaeron of the pre 3rd War kingdom. I say lable the Lordaeron that remains in the Alliance as Refugee Lordaeron although it is never called that anywhere, the Argents can be New Lordaeron, although I am not sure exactly where they refer to themselves as it. and the Forskaen and Forsaken Lordaeron. And if anything I think that that is the least confusing name as the Forsaken have been showing themselves to take up the name Lordaeron and it clearly shows that it is the playable faction's branch off of Lordaeron while the other names need more explanation. Erthad (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The speculation actually reminds me of another problem. Specifically, what would be on these seperate pages? Forsaken Lordaeron is a brand new entity in World of Warcraft and it's culture and history are already listed on the Forsaken racial page. Short of simply filling up the Forsaken Lordaeron or Forsaken Empire page with Forsaken propaganda, there isn't much that can be said on that page that isn't already said. The exact same problem applies to an Argent Lordaeron page. I'm starting to think that rather than creating entirely new pages, it might be easier to simply mention that the Forsaken nation is "Forsaken Lordaeron" on the Forsaken's racial page and the Undercity Faction page, rather than creating a brand new article, because there honestly wouldn't be much to say that hasn't already been said. We would leave the Kingdom of Lordaeron article as it is, and simply insert references to Forsaken Lordaeron in the Forsaken pages that already exist.Fojar38 (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

After all this hassle and I swear im going to be spited for causing so much controversy. My original idea was just having a forsaken racial and faction page but that turned into, well this. If forsaken undead are a canon term then I don't see why not make that the racial page and make Forsaken the normal faction page. As for this Lordaeron ordeal. As far as I see after doing the cataclysm quest lines is that the Argent Crusade and Forsaken are really the only ones competing here for being Lordaeron. The Alliance has no real presence besides Stromgarde and Gilnean troops but their from separate kingdoms. The Dreadlord Insurgents and Scarlet Crusade own very little land and even then they were slain and now members of the Burning Legion we also killed them in quests so their out. The Cult of the Dammed is far too small now. The Scourge I admit is still a fairly large group but Bolvar unlikely has any intentions to rule Lordaeron and likely would not care if the Scourge were killed off. Argent Crusade however have a reasonable presence and infact cleansed a good part of the kingdom, but are they really Lordaeron? Well yes likely some Lordaeron humans may remain in there but now they have draenei, dwarves, night elves even. They aren't really Lordaeron and when they say "a new age for Lordaeron" it likely means only cleansing the land same with the Cenarion Circle, many of the lives there and intend to heal the lands but their not Lordaeron. The Forsaken however control a very good chunk of the land and seem to be referred to even as Lordaeron They are almost all former Lordaeron citizens with minds of their own unlike the Scourge or Dreadlord Insurgents. I really am not sure what else more too say but i'll see what the rest of you can come up with.  MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 09:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the dilema with the "Forsaken Empire" is incorrect. That was already discussed in SoL. They are not an Empire. They are a dictatorship, or just... a nation. We don't know exactly how is the forsaken's Lordaeron completely called. We just know it's called Lordaeron. I think we should create an article aboute that nation, with a list of settlements, not 'forsaken propaganda', just like the pages for the Kingdom of Stormwind and the Kingdom of Ironforge.

Also, I don't think it would be confusing. Look the case of Stormwind: is has a disambiguation page with seven articles that use the word Stormwind in its title. We should do that in this case.

In the other hand, I think that the Argents and the Druids are cleansing the continent, but: are we sure that the Argents will establish a kingdom or another state? What we know is that they are an army that wants to eradicate the Scourge remnants in the continent. But we don't have an evidence of this happening (i think it will, but we don't see it know, it's just a conjecture). I think they will create something akind the [Teutonic State/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Teutonic_Order].--Cemotucu (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@MoneyGruber, you need to keep in mind that while the Alliance presence in the former Kingdom's territories is weaker than it's ever been, they remain a competitor in regards to the control of the kingdom. They're exerting tremendous pressure on the Forsaken from both Arathi and Stromgarde, and their presence in Western Plaguelands not only remains, but likely always will, and keep in mind that we know from the World of Warcraft manual that many Lordaeron citizens fled to Alliance territories. In addition, among the Worgen that the Forsaken are fighting are plenty of Lordaeron citizens after Silverpine questing, and in Gilneas the 7th Legion maintains a presence, most of whom are from Theramore, which we must remember is composed almost entirely of Lordaeron survivors.

As for the "Lordaeron" debate, you can't discount the Scourge that easily. There are plenty of undead among the Scourge that have enough free will to decide if they're still "Lordaeron" or not, and many of them decide that they are. In addition, the presence of free will doesn't disprove or support someones claim over anothers. The Scourge has just as much claim to Lordaeron as the Forsaken do. And that's the crux of the problem; the moment we start considering the Forsaken to be "Lordaeron" is the moment we have to start considering a half dozen other factions the exact same way., including factions that are exclusively PvE factions like the Scarlet Crusade and the Scourge. Following your logic, we could replace the Kingdom of Lordaeron article with one that presents the Scourge as the same entity and there wouldn't be a problem, despite how unintuitive that is. I think that at this point, even if we were to make a page for Forsaken Lordaeron, if we're to maintain a NPoV then it would essentially just be a list of Forsaken controlled settlements, and that's all, since cultural aspects and the like are all already listed on the Forsaken racial page. I'm not sure that warrants it's own page.

@Cemotucu, you and I are mostly in agreement. I'm still sceptical of what the name of the Forsaken nation is, but again, I'm willing to let that go. Rather, my main point of contention here is that this new page wouldn't say anything that hasn't already been said. That, and while Stormwind has a disambiguation page, that's simple for Stormwind because there's only one entity that refers to itself as "Stormwind" in the Warcraft universe, while we have several that refer to themselves as Lordaeron. I think that the best course of action would be to update the Undercity Faction page with a list of alternate names (Including "Lordaeron") and the territories it controls. In addition, this should be done for all other faction pages as well. I don't think that "The Forsaken call their empire Lordaeron" is a big enough revelation to warrant the massive changes that people want to make. The current Lordaeron article remains unaffected by that revelation, and the differences in Forsaken lore are extremely minor.

Ultimately, I think that one of the reason this revelation from Edge of Night is being made such a huge deal of is due to the ongoing debate regarding the Rights to Lordaeron, which is something that should stay off of WoWpedia completely on account of NPoV. The only changes that are applicable to this are minor ones on the Undercity Faction page, and that's really it. Fojar38 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fojar38 Well, I'm not doing this because of the Rights to Lordaeron. I said that such rights are disputed and are not absolute for neither faction or organization.

I do it because we don't know the name of many of the nations. We don't know the name of the orc nation, neither the tauren one. We also do not know the name of the draenei or the kaldorei states. If we know the name of one, in this case the Forsaken one, why don't give it a page, as we would do in the case of the precedent cases I listed? It's just because an organizative aspect. I like to correctly categorize things. If we have pages for the kingdom, why shouldn't we do another one? Just for confusion?--Cemotucu 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The orc and tauren nations are Durotar and Mulgore respectively. The RPG also calls the tauren faction the United Tauren Tribes. I'm not sure what to do about it, but the 'capital name = faction name' system in WoW may be misleading.--SWM2448 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Mulgore their homeland? I think that the "United Tauren Tribes" is a more appropiated name, given Mulgore is a land that was named long before the tribes united as one. But in the other hand, we don't know the draenei and kaldorei one. Why not create an article if we have an article for the Kingdom of Ironforge, the Kingdom of Stormwind, etc? Even the tauren tribes didn't have their own article, listing the settlements they control.--Cemotucu (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a page like that for somebody once but it was deleted shortly after MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs) 21:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for that.--SWM2448 22:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Something that strikes me as odd after reading through all of this is that people seem to be bent on inventing names that do not exist. Note that we do not create names. We do not rule the "warcraft world". We document. Inventing pretty names with no mention in lore is not something we should do. This article for instance, "Lordaeron of the Forsaken", should imo be named something more like "Lordaeron (Forsaken rule)" or something along those lines. --Mikk (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mikk in this regard, if there's going to be a page made I think it should be 'Lordaeron (Forsaken rule)' with 'Lordaeron (Alliance rule), (Scourge rule), etc. Secondly, at the moment, the Forsaken can be seen as ruling a good majority of the lands that were originally classed as the Kingdom of Lordaeron under the rule of Terenas Menethil, including Tirisfal, Silverpine, Alterac, Hillsbrad, Gilneas (although there is currently the battle over that) and parts of Western Plaguelands (specifically Andorhal). The only places that can be said for sure that is not currently in the control of the Forsaken is Eastern Plaguelands, held by the Scourge and Argent Crusade and the northern and eastern part of Western Plaguelands. So, looking at it this way, it would seem a predominantly Forsaken controlled area so the idea of separate pages with Lordaeron (Forsaken rule) and Forsaken (Alliance rule) would be something I would definately be behind as an option. --Synster (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a big problem here is that Lordaeron is/was the core of the Alliance, and yet its territories and undead citizenry are now associated with the Horde. Lordaeron lives on in various other (non-Horde) forms, but fans scream for the concepts to be forever separate. They say that the Forsaken's Lordaeron can not be the old/Alliance Lordaeron in any way, shape, or form. The question is, does Blizzard say this? How well can it be cited? I see edit wars about this. Cataclysm Silverpine questing and Edge of Night seem to be the boiling points for the Alliance fanbase's outcries, because it is made clear there that the Forsaken do not see a split. They are Lordaeron to themselves. Why is their claim so important when it has come up before in other factions? I could list reasons, but this is largely a fan controversy.--SWM2448 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just another thing to suggest, but in a way, the citizenship of Lordaeron hasn't really changed when you take into consideration that most of the Forsaken were the Scourge that Arthas created from his conquering of Lordaeron, so effectively the citizens are still the same citizens that always lived in Lordaeron, they're just now undead. I think this is why the Forsaken lay such a strong claim to the province, as it is theirs in it's own right. Synster (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Synster, that argument has been run through the grinder more times than I can count on both the official forums and on fan sites such as Scrolls of Lore. What should be kept in mind regarding the whole business is that Arthas and his Scourge also referred to their conquered kingdom as "Lordaeron." Arthas even referred to himself as King, and it was presented as just as legitimate by Blizzard back then as they seem to be implying with some new Forsaken lore. The problem is that nobody in-universe considered Arthas legitimate even despite his blood claim, on account of Arthas' being an evil person who forcibly took over with horrifically evil methods. This is effectively the same situation with the Forsaken. Nobody really seems to consider their claim to be legitimate through anything but force of arms, similarly to how Arthas' claim was viewed by the rest of the world back before WotLK. Blizzard has also outright stated in their "history of warcraft" series that Lordaeron was destroyed and no longer exists, and as such WoWpedia treats the kingdom as it was before it ceased to exist in Warcraft 3. The fact that the Scourge and the Forsaken both refer to their dominions as "Lordaeron" doesn't change the meta-perspective and the in-universe perspective of those claims legitimacy. To be blunt, people weren't clamoring to make a "Scourge controlled Lordaeron" page when most of the kingdom was under the control of the Scourge, and there's no reason to make one for the Forsaken as the Undercity page is sufficient for that already. If we're going to make a page about Forsaken Lordaeron, we'd have to do one for Scarlet Lordaeron, and Scourge Lordaeron, and Argent Lordaeron, and the various other claimants to the region. Historically, it is an Alliance kingdom that was destroyed by the undead, and that is why when "Lordaeron" is references on WoWpedia, it is referring to the historical kingdom that birthed the Alliance, and edits should be made with that in mind. Fojar38 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This again? Alight here is our solution. Just leave everything how it is. I made Undercity the faction page I wanted to. We have a race and faction for Forsaken. Lordaeron as we know it is gone. Forsaken claim to be Lordaeron and this should be made note of same with the Scourge. I'll make a note of this somewhere but nothing much is needed.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 02:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The changes that you just made to the page were highly inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that adding a status for every single faction that believes it has claim makes the page messy, especially considering the Forsaken already have their own page in the form of Undercity and the Scourge does as well. Stop making edits based on your own personal view without any consensus. Blizzard has made it very clear that the Lordaeron being referenced in the page in question was Alliance, and ceased to exist upon being destroyed in the Third War. Fojar38 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though it's not my personal views, and the page looked fine. I didn't say Sylvanas was an offical leader, if that's why.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You changed the page type from location to faction, removed any Alliance connection that the infobox formerly had, and put a clause in that said that the Forsaken were "fighting to reclaim it" (Which is a loaded and intensely controversial statement in itself). The article needs absolutely no changing at this point, as it is an article about a historical lore entity that no longer exists, as Blizzard has emphasized. Regardless of whether or not you believe that the Forsaken are the heirs of Lordaeron, or the legacy of Lordaeron, or whatever, it still has no bearing on the content of that page, as the content of that page is based on an entity that was destroyed the moment King Terenas was killed. Altering the page is like altering the Empire of Strom page to reflect a particular faction believing itself to be its rightful heir should a case like that ever arise. Regardless of the validity of their claims it would not change the historical facts of the kingdom itself, just like how the Kingdom of Lordaeron didn't suddenly become historically neutral because many of its citizens were forced into the Scourge and the Forsaken. Fojar38 (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kingdoms ARE factions. Nothing from the Alliance was removed, funny how your so concerned about them all the time. Fighting to reclaim? Not controversial they once owned the land and they now fight to take it back, nothing saying they did or have a right to it.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 04:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Factions and zones are two different thinks as far as website mechanics are concerned, and that's really the most minor of the problems. And yes, things from the Alliance were removed, especially considering you changed its historical Alliance affiliation to "neutral" and then added the "Forsaken fight to reclaim" (more on that later) bit, ignoring the fact that the Scarlet Crusade, Argent Crusade, Alliance, Scourge, and Cult of the Damned are all also "fighting to reclaim." Why are the Forsaken worthy of special mention? Furthermore, it's very controversial as to whether or not the Forsaken are fighting to "reclaim." Not only have the devoted most of their efforts into conquering lands that never belonged to the Kingdom of Lordaeron, but their culture, affiliations, creeds, beliefs, and motifs are so far removed from what is historically referred to as Lordaeron that many people, including myself would contest the notion that they're trying to reclaim rather than conquer. I'm not sure if you really understand just how controversial and complicated this whole situation is, and it's not going to be resolved by a bunch of minor edits that do nothing other than push Lordaeron's history away from the facts and towards falsehoods. Fojar38 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How is this infobox? Your highness? Alliance enough for you?  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Again, it's absolutely fine the way that it is now, especially considering, once again, that the kingdom no longer exists. It doesn't matter who or what considers themselves the heir or anything. The kingdom is GONE. It is KAPUT. It has CEASED TO BE. It has KICKED THE BUCKET. It has GONE TO MEET ITS MAKER. Lordaeron is an EX-KINGDOM. Sylvanas, or Tirion, or Crowley, or anyone cannot be a "ruler" of the Kingdom of Lordaeron because none of them were ever in a position of rulership before Terenas was killed. The current status of the Kingdom's former territories has no bearing on the kingdoms history, which is what the article in question is about. It's absolutely fine, and accurate, as it is now. Fojar38 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I made that comment a while ago.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 02:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We should close this forum. Now that a conclusion was made.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 02:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

More citation would be nice.--SWM2448 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Where? Not much changed.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 02:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The "History of Warcraft" section that can be found both on Blizzard's website and in in-game books all refer to Lordaeron as a defunct nation. "Crushed under the Lich King's iron heel" is the way it's referred. Further proof can be found in the Vanilla racial intros for both the Humans and the Forsaken, the former which references Lordaeron as "decimated" and the latter which references the Forsaken living in the undercity "beneath the ruins of Lordaeron's FORMER Capital City." I'm not sure how much more proof you need. Fojar38 (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to say. Forsaken still live above Undercity too.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 03:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't until Cataclysm, and you're missing the point. The point is that they're referenced as the ruins of Lordaeron's former capital city. Meaning Lordaeron no longer exists. Fojar38 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The ruins of Lordaeron and Capital City are the same location. I don't really think they need seperate pages.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 03:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Capital City and the Ruins of Lordaeron are sufficiently different to warrant two separate pages, as are other locations such as Southshore, the Park, Taurajo, and Auberdine. Let it go. And STOP EVADING THE DISCUSSION PROCESS. I just saw that you made those changes to Capital City without discussing them in any way whatsoever. Fojar38 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be discussed. That my friend is a true completely lore accurate description of Capital City. Forsaken live there now and preform expiriments. It's still there it doesn't just go away.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 03:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In reference to Lordaeron, yes. Everything needs to be discussed. As for Capital City, it's explicitly referenced in the Forsaken intro that the Ruins of Lordaeron are not Capital City. There's also a precedent on WoWpedia for ruined settlements to have two separate pages, and Capital City is no different. Furthermore, the Capital City page is exactly the same as the Kingdom of Lordaeron page. It is a page about the history of a defunct entity. If you want an infobox for the ruins so badly, make one on the Ruins of Lordaeron page. Fojar38 (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)