Talk:Alliance of Lordaeron

A map of the Alliance Kingdoms

That would make everything beautiful :) Cowlinator (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See the way their locationas are marked?

Must agree with Cowlinator, it would be wonderful with a map like this one, just covering the Eastern Kingdoms or Lordaeron with all the nations marked in the same way as in the STV map. However I don't got a clue how to make such a map.. -Rovdyr (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just found this map on the german official forum, that's what you thought of, just the names are translated...:

--Hurax (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)http://mitglied.lycos.de/khyrinda/pics/lordaeron2sk0.jpg

Greymane and Trollbane's Titles

I think it's a mistake to assume they went by the title King, since of the other human leaders, only one was a king. Lothar was the Regent Lord, Proudmoore was an Admiral, Perenolde was a Lord, and of course Dalaran has the Kirin Tor. In any case, unless they are called King in a game or other work, we shouldn't presume.--Aeleas 10:37, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

"Proudmoore was an Admiral" Lord Admiral. (wink)

"Perenolde was a Lord" Yes, that's the title used of him in Warcraft II, but wasn't he also called Baron (not in the game)?

"In any case, unless they are called King in a game or other work, we shouldn't presume" Well, Thoras' son's title is Prince. Of course, that doesn't mean that his father had to be a king. Theron.

I'm not sure about Perenolde's title. If he was referred to Baron in some sources, that can certainly be noted in his article.--Aeleas 18:59, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure about Perenolde, but I belive that Thoras Trollbane was a king. Theron.

Thoras was a king, see the talk page for him. -rovdyr

Northeron

I'm also not sure I agree with referring to the Wildhammer dwarves of Aerie Peak as the nation of Northeron. If we take Northeron to be an old name for the Hinterlands, it covers much more than the dwarves' territory, which includes only Aerie Peak.--Aeleas 10:41, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

"I'm also not sure I agree with referring to the Wildhammer dwarves of Aerie Peak as the nation of Northeron. If we take Northeron to be an old name for the Hinterlands, it covers much more than the dwarves' territory, which includes only Aerie Peak." Are you sure? http://www.wowwiki.com/Northeron . Has it really been stated that the Wildhammer dwarves held only the Aerie Peak? Theron.

In WoW they only hold Aerie Peak, with the rest of the Hinterlands (the vast majority) being occupied by a high elf lodge and many troll villages and monuments. The War2 manual merely says they are from Northeron, with no further elaboration. Unless there is another source which uses the term to describe their nation, I don't think we should use it in that way.--Aeleas 18:59, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Ok, I think you are right. Theron.

Its possible that the old nation of Northeron included Grim Batol region as well, as that used to be the Wildhammer's old home, granted they are on seperate continents, or could have been the old name for the Grim Baton region before they moved to the Hinterlands.Baggins 22:15, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Did i get soomething wrong? as i remember Northeron was the mountains surrounding the Hintherlands. -Rovdyr

Lord - not an official title in this case

I don't think that Lord was any human leader's official title, but rather an general naming used of people who were in high position. For example, King Terenas Menethil II was never called King in the game Warcraft II, he was called Lord. Also, the term kingdom is used of Alterac and Gilneas in World of Warcraft. --Theron the Just 16:09, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

The term kingdom is also used in the War2 manual to describe Kul Tiras, yet it's ruler is given the title "Grand Admiral". Stromgarde is also a kingdom, but Trollbane is referred to as "lord of Stromgarde". Terenas, as king, may well have been the only one to use that title - he was called both "Lord Terenas" and "King Terenas" in the game and manual - but the others were not addressed as "King". It's not a question of guessing what their official titles were, or making presumptions about their systems of government, it's just a question of going by how they were addressed in the official sources. That's "Lord" for Perenolde and, for Greymane, no title was given that I am aware of.--Aeleas 17:35, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

"he was called both "Lord Terenas" and "King Terenas" in the game and manual" I know that he was called King in the manual, but I don't think the title was ever used in the game (By the way, I agree with you now about Thoras Trollbane's title). Regards, --Theron the Just 10:54, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Actually in the Warcraft II manual, ruler of Kul Tiras is called "Lord Admiral". He doesn't become Grand Admiral until joins the Alliance.Baggins 22:09, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Leaders and representants of the Alliance nations.

Let's try to identify the people in the picture.

http://www3.filehost.to/files/2006-11-08_03/160709_800px-Leaders_and_representants_of_the_Alliance.jpg

My opinion?

1. King Terenas Menethil II. 2. Representant of Stromgarde. 3. Regent Lord Anduin Lothar. 4. Grand Admiral Daelin Proudmoore. 5. Representant of Quel'thalas. 6. Representant of Alterac. 7. Representant of Dalaran. 8. Representant of Gilneas. 9. Representant of Khaz Modan.

Regards, --Theron the Just 11:05, 8 November 2006 (EST)

To be fair to give alternate interpretations, 2, 6, and 8 if not representives, could be Trollbane, Perenolde, and Genn Greymane, and its possible that 4, could just be a representive of Kul Tiras and not Daelin. As that uniform seems to be common for fleet of Kul Tiras.Baggins 22:13, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Also the according to the RPG and even in World of Warcraft, it says that it was the leaders of the Lordaeron were at that meeting rather than just "Representives", for example;

"Lothar met with the leaders of the seven nations of Lordaeron...The Alliance of Lordaeron was formed."

or from the Alliance Player's Guide;

"King Terenas of Lordaeron calls the other human kings together to discuss the Horde and Stormwind."

or from the in-game book in World of Warcraft,  [The Alliance of Lordaeron];

"the leaders of the seven human nations met and agreed to unite in what would become known as the Alliance of Lordaeron."-Baggins 04:34, 8 December 2006 (EST)

I think the Elf looks too feminine to be a dude, I dont mean to be rude

(Mr.X8 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

That's why the article speculates that Alleria represented Quel'Thalas. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lothar met with the leaders of the seven nations of Lordaeron...the Alliance of Lordaeron was formed."

The man from Dalaran cannot be it's leader. Dalaran is not ruled by a single person, but a goverment body that works much like a senate. Another ane of the errors the "guides" contain. --Theron the Just 21:29, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Well actually Alliance Player's guide says that Antondidus is the closest that Dalaran has to a leader, and he is the leader of the council of the Kirin Tor. So by all intents that could be Antonidus.Baggins 21:32, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Also, just to make sure are you forgetting the quote from the warcraft II manual;

"Recounting terrible tales of destruction and carnage..., the Steward Lord Anduin Lothar convinced the sovereign of Lordaeron to unite themselves against the great threat. Despite much quereling and debate, the lords aquiesced to Lothar and Terenas, and agreed to unite their armies under the general command of Lothar himself."Baggins 21:36, 8 December 2006 (EST)

For that matter if you just had one member of council of the Kirin Tor there you would infact have a "Dalaran Leader" there, by all technical definitions. Baggins 21:47, 8 December 2006 (EST)

"For that matter if you just had one member of council of the Kirin Tor there you would infact have a "Dalaran Leader" there, by all technical definitions." Pompey was in high position in the Roman Senate before the civil war between supporters of Caesar and the Republic started, but he was not ruler of the Roman Republic. An member of Kirin Tor can be concidered as one of Dalaran's head of states or "leaders", but not sole leader or ruler. Regards, --Theron the Just 21:56, 8 December 2006 (EST)

It can be interpreted that Antonidus was the "leader" of dalaran by being defacto leader of the council of kirin tor by some designers. Besides if you don't like the interpretation made by the creators of "Word of Warcraft" video game, or the rpgs take it up with Metzen if you want to. All I can do to remain NPOV, is only quote what official sources say, not make up my own opinions on the matter.Baggins 21:59, 8 December 2006 (EST)

"It can be interpreted that Antonidus was the "leader" of dalaran by being defacto leader of the council of kirin tor" This is what I meant. We had a small misunderstooding earlier. Still, the reason I prefer my lines, "Leaders and representants of the Alliance nations." is that not all of those persons are leaders. Regards, --Theron the Just 22:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)

What do you expect even warcraft II manual called Dalaran "leader" there Sovereign and a Lord. Its not like the designers have changed their terminology since the original source much. The "Human Leaders" quote only truly applies to the human nations at the council meetings though, who were the "leaders" of their respective human nations. The later sources are specific to point out refrence to the "Human" nations. It doesn't really apply to the High Elf or the Dwarfs, which you might know weren't given 7 nations sections in the warcraft II manual. They were more like side-alliances appart from the main alliance. So yes the official quotes are the best in that section imo. Though if you would like to add in a second sentence that mentions that high elves and dwarves were at that council as well, that would be even more accurate.

For example;

"The leaders of the seven human nations met and agreed to unite in what would become known as the Alliance of Lordaeron. While Quel'Thalas and Khaz Modan also sent representives as well."22:18, 8 December 2006 (EST)

No offense, but its spelled Antonidas not Antonidus =) -Rovdyr

Well the idea that the seven kingdoms were "sovereign" "kingdoms" with "monarch" "kings" and those kingdoms "rulers", actually appears to have originated from Day of the Dragon and not the RPG (though its implied as early as W2Manual as well). Any claims that the RPG "made a mistake" are simply wrong as the RPG was clearly referencing earlier information from the novels and/or manuals. I've added in some of the relevant quotes from Day of the Dragon on the matter and cited the information. Also looks like they are called kings in Tides of Darkness.Baggins 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"I will summon my neighboring kings, These events concern us all."-Tides of Darkness. It's geting more interesting.Baggins 08:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Initial meeting

Tides of Darkness confirms who was at the initial meeting, and some of the later meetings, including the kings and leaders from the seven human "kingdoms"(yes it calls them kings and monarchs) of Alliance, as well as a few others. I've cited the information, as it really isn't much of a spoiler as it was mentioned in previous sources. But it should allow us to add individual pictures from the meeting table artwork to their related articles, as it is a stronger confirmation.Baggins 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Something I just noticed

Out of the 7 human kingdoms only the Kul Tiras remains in the Allience of Lordearon. (Azeroth never enterd it since only refugees joined it, Alterac betrayed it, Stromgarde and Gilnease left it after the second war, and Lordearon and Dalaran got sacked.)--The last Alterac 12:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Azeroth/Stormwind was considered a member state even though they were just refugees, they remained in it even to the point they recaptured Stormwind and rebuilt it.Baggins 21:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

stromgarde rejoined after third war, dalaran is still in existence and is still aligned with the Alliance Dunnsworth 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The template

Should we put the Dwarven citys,Gnomeregan,and silvermoon on the current history of the citys template?User:Airiph/sig 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe all of the Alliance of Lorderon citysUser:Airiph/sig 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should add each city, but rather the nations, so we should just add Quel'Thalas, Gnomeregan, Ironforge, and Aerie Peak -Rovdyr (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The kingdoms that the Horde destroyed during Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal

Well in the Horde Campaign you have to destroy the nations of Azeroth (city of Stormwind), Kul Tiras and Dalaran but in Warcraft III and World of Warcraft they aren't destroyed, also in the table below it isn't show they were destroyed in the interim between warcraft II and III, so this nations are really destroyed? Also Dalaran is destroyed during the Second War and it is told in a mission of Beyond the Dark Portal that it was indeed destroyed still we see in Warcraft III it was totally healthy, so is all the Orc campaign of the expansion retconed??? Benitoperezgaldos 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, SW is destroyed, and rebuilt between wc2 and WoW (the nation wasn't in wc3 iirc). Not real sure about the Kul Tirasians off the top of my head, but Dalaran was not destroyed per the orc campaign, only raided per the Alliance side of things, iirc. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While the events of Warcraft 3 are all part of one single narrative, in Warcraft, Warcraft 2, and Warcraft 2: Beyond the Dark Portal, the two campaigns were separate, mutually exclusive storylines. In choosing the official timeline for Warcraft 3 to follow, Blizzard basically picked a few events from each campaign, and retconne the others out of existence. -- Dark T Zeratul 12:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not "mutually exclusive" exactly there were some crossovers between missions in that missions in one campaign referred to events in the opposing acts missions. But then towrds the end they cease to interweave.Baggins (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive just read Beyond the Dark portal, and from what ive read, it says that neither Dalaran nor Stormwind nor Kul Tiras were destroyed, instead they were infiltrated/raided. So how does everyone feel about this bit of info? I feel that the Orc campaigns in WC2: Beyond the dark portal may have been slight exagerations, since the way to win in those games is command and conquer and not sneak and infiltrate, and the way they tell it in the book is that the Horde infiltrators snuck in. Unless i read it wrong, but im pretty sure i didnt see anything about the Horde laying siege to Stormwind again. In the book it seems the Horde army itself didnt even get through the blasted lands. Plus I have not found any in-game references to Stormwind being destroyed a 2nd time. So, change it to Stormwind was only destroyed once? Or does anyone have different evidence? Nvd23 (talk) 16:57, 21 August, 2010 (UTC)

So....No one?...if theres no responses soon im gonna change it :P Nvd23 (talk) 13:04, 2 September, 2010 (UTC)

The last status

To my understanding the alliance of Lordaeron was finished when lordaeron fall over as couldn't exist an "Alliance of "X"" without the "X". However the link and diplomacy between the remaining factions within was not destroyed; they reunited some after the Third War with a new name to a new faction: The Alliance. And as the pages of WoWpedia maintain the last status of the character and factions such as Gul'dan, Dranosh and Bolvar we should list the article before the AoL's fall; Arthas as a Death Knight, Quel'thalas, Gilneas and Stromgarde and Alterac as defectors and other things before the kingdom being destroyed by the enemy of all who lives during the Orc campain in .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gabrirt (talk · contr).

Although never said, we can assume the Alliance never really fell apart but after the third war dropped the "of Lordaeron" because it was no longer simply based in Lordaeron. This is more of a history section like History of the Horde since it's a former organization then it doesn't make sense to add defectors, as that is implying the group is still active. It should be noted in the article that they at some point left the Alliance, but that is all viewed from the timeline.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 22:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If "Alliance of Lordaeron" and "history of the Alliance before its configuration changed" do not match up, which should it be? Then some digging should be done to see if that term does mean that. That is my opinion. Still, no edit warring.--SWM2448 22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a History of the Alliance article is more fitting here then New Alliance and this as seperate pages.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly distinct splinter groups are different, like the New Alliance, and the Dark Horde, and the Horde of Draenor. This seems to be saying that the main Alliance is a separate entity from the Warcraft II incarnation, though there were differences. The Horde was deemed to be a continuous entity (linked by Orgrim in LotC). If no one can agree on what this page is for, then a history page might be better.--SWM2448 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 00:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK to build ("a nessessary") page "History of the Alliance", however I can't agree with the vision of the Old Horde and the Second New Horde (the first New one being the Draenorian version) being the same organization. The Old one is in structure, some beliefs, actions/propouse and even in some racial terms different from the Newest one and I don't believe that a cap letter from a book (I'm not completely aware of the entire discussion about it, but I remember that I read something about it) can be a bigger reason than the entire structure and nature of the faction. The Old Horde's end was coincident with the end of the Second War. Also, I will make a counterpart list to identify pages of the same kind:

• Alliance | (Second New) Horde
• Alliance of Lordaeron | Old Horde (Orcish Horde)
• History of the Alliance | History of the Horde
• (Splinter group example:) New Alliance | Dark Horde

Also isn't because a faction actually don't exists that I will keep a outdated version of the page; Illidan's forces is an example: Akama and Kael betrayed the organization, and because of this, they are listed in a "Defected:" list of the box leaders. At last I think that this is a predecessor of the Alliance; a faction that met it's end, if not at the fall of Lordaeron, at the moment that the remaining members and it's leaders started to reorganize this alliance and, at the non-existence of the Kingdom of Lordaeron, they simply called it "Alliance". List of the moments that could mean the official end of the AoL:

• A - Fall of Lordaeron
• B - End of the Third War
• C - The (leaders of the) surviving members started to negotiate, reallying the faction after the mess of the Third war, when the fall of Lordaeron left an empty on the faction, after the crippling blow that the Legion and the undead legions imposed (half of the human race was said to turned undead). When the negotiations get solid, the simply called the (new) faction "Alliance". Unfortunately we had low information about the Alliance politics during the WC3: RoC to WoW Classic period.

Gabrirt (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope you find it more... to your like.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 02:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be direct and say what's the problem? I'm not understanding what you want. The page is about the AoL in its last status and not calls "Alliance of Lordaderon in Second War". Also, if you don't noticed, the nations of Stromgarde, Qul'thalas, and Gilnes left by free will after the invasion of Draenor; the only betrayer "defector" was Alterac.~Also the representatives like Khadgar and Allleria are secondary leaders like Brann and Muradin. If you can't counter my argues, let me make my alterations as final. I have argue to every alteration.Gabrirt (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Revamp

Wow... There is times that I don't see such intense edit war! Forja Vs GabriRT vs MTG. Sandw. MaN will have an heart attack!
It's an honor to avoid his death (a mode Death Note) and propose: REORGANIZE EVERYTHING!!!!
There are a long description that states about the organization of the AoL but very low, if nothing, about the battles, actions, operations and happenings involving the AoL: I really think that it's time to organize and state what we want of the articles about Alliance and Horde. I will make an general discussion about it when the sun set up... I have to sleep and make an pre-propouse: Split into: Alliance and Alliance of Lordaeron; put the history of the Alliance until the Third War in the alliance of Lordaeron article and the rest put in the Alliance article. Since are different organizations despite the similar basis:

• Put the Organization and history of the Alliance of Lordaeron in the Alliance of Lordaeron page.
• Put the Organization and history of the Grand Alliance in the Alliance page.
• And Because of this don't create a history of the Alliance page

Gabrirt (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

...Ugh. Ok. Titles are excessive. No presumed leaders. 04:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A Broken Link

The link to the Lorology's tweet on the current status of Kul Tiras is not working. It goes under 46.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adunaii (talk · contr).

All of his Tweets were removed. Link to Blizzard lore posts#Sean Copeland. A dump of them, that may or may not stay its own page, can be found Archive lore tweets from loreology.--SWM2448 02:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging

I've seen a lot of people in the forums treating the AoL and the Grand Alliance as two separate and distinct things, when in Chronicle it is clear that it was always the same organization. Since the page is mostly about the composing organizations, it may be for the best to merge the two pages. I know some might be against this, but there no big reason to keep them separated, and it will lead to more confusion if so. --Ryon21 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The UVGs say the following: The Alliance is an evolution of the original Alliance of Lordaeron. The memories of the allegiances and idealism of the Alliance of Lordaeron―centered in the homonymous continent―served as the ultimate inspiration for the new Alliance of the present day (78, 80, second edition). -- Mordecay (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I knew the UVG said that, but it is never stated it was dissolved or anything. It's also not the first time the UVG might have made a mistake. In fact, Chronicle 3 page 115 says Stormwind arose as the new bastion of leadership within the Alliance after the fall of Lordaeron. And what it means evolution in this case? All organizations evolve. Like now the Horde has a Council instead of a Warchief. They are still the same thing though. --Ryon21 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ryon that it'd make more sense to treat the AoL and the Grand Alliance as the same thing since that's how Chronicle presents it (unlike the Old Horde/New Horde, which are more distinct from each other). It might be useful to have a page that specifically covers the Alliance's early history as a counterpart to the Old Horde page, but we don't really have that kind of "History of X" pages for other subjects (other than History of the Horde, which is mostly RPG content and marked for deletion), so I think I lean more towards merging the two Alliance pages to avoid confusion. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading Chronicle, the part Ryon posted, and the next sentence from page 115 "The black dragonflight still desired to crush the last remnants of Alliance power in the Eastern Kingdoms." which means it speaks about the same one organization. Except for the vague UVG bit, AFAIK, we never had a confirmation that the Alliance of Lordaeron was destroyed and that the Grand Alliance was a new successive organization (correct me if I'm wrong on this coz this is crucial). Even if the UVG is taken into consideration to some extent, there's still notion about new lore triumphing over old one, so I'd say it makes sense to merge them (even tho it makes me sad!).

How would the Alliance infobox look like, tho, would it include AoL's data?

What about links, especially those used for speaking about pre-WoW Alliance? Would "[Alliance of Lordaeron]" be changed to simply "[Alliance]" or would the (Alliance of Lordaeron) name be preserved and instead "[Alliance|Alliance of Lordaeron]" would be done? If the merge is done, I think I'd insist on the second option in pages and sections where it makes sense. -- Mordecay (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The UVG is the only source I know of which explicitly treats the AoL and the modern Alliance as separate entities.

I would avoid including too much data from the AoL infobox in the Alliance one, since they're both very long already. Links should still definitely still use the "Alliance of Lordaeron" name where it makes sense, since that's the historical name of the faction. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the links of the 'Alliance of Lordaeron' shouldn't be changed since they fit its time correctly. Also, that's why we have redirects so it'd be good to use them. About the infobox, it could be trimmed, and a lot of the "formers" (settlements, leaders, etc.) could be moved elsewhere in the page. Maybe it'd be time to overhaul the Horde and Alliance pages, though that should be done carefully. --Ryon21 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously nothing has come of this in the past three months (yet), but my two coppers: I would honestly leave them separate, as I consider them to be two different organizations, one succeeding the other. Look it from the perspective of the Horde - there's an "Old Horde", the clans, the Shadow Council, etc., and the current Horde, the "new Horde" as mentioned in "Lord of the Clans". While the current Horde has its origins in the original, it's not the same Horde. I feel this is true for the current Alliance. The old Alliance died when Lordaeron fell. Stormwind was the last of the seven still standing - the others had either seceded or been destroyed - and so became the genesis for a new Alliance. --Joshmaul (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The main reason I didn't do anything is because not many people participated here for a change as, I'd say crucial, as this one. Second, it's not our opinion that the Aol and the Alliance are the same thing, but instead how they are treated in Chronicle and other places. The only source we got they are not the same thing is the UVG, which in itself has had more than a few mistakes in the past. The Horde instead was official disbanded between the Second and Third Wars, and Thrall make it clear he was building a different Horde. The same cannot be said with the Alliance. Of all the renaming members during the Third War, only Lordaeron and Dalaran fell. Stromgarde, Gilneas and Quel'Thalas were already not part of it. And Kul Tiras just left because of what happened at Theramore. Everything else stayed the same. --Ryon21 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Two and a half years have passed since the last message, I asked in a private message to Ryon21 if he was ok with withdrawing the merge request and he gave me the permission. WardsJames (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Meow. --Ryon21 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)