Talk:Eredar

September 2006: As per the recent race names vote at Project talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "eredar" and not "Eredar"

Previous discussions archived:

• Talk:Eredar/Archive01 (14 August 2006 - 28 November 2009)

Man'ari height

Something that bothers me about man'ari is that, many people assume that they are on average gargantuan giants (15-30 feet is the most common assumption I've seen). Which, makes no sense whatsoever, nor have I ever heard of any lore mentions of this. When I ask, they either come up with no source, say they heard it from someone else... or base it on NPCs..

From the Biology section it says: "Most significantly, most man'ari tend to be much larger than draenei" Without a source.

I know Archimonde and Kil'jaeden have their lore reasons, being the left and right hand of Sargeras and all of that. But those aren't your average man'ari. So it would be much safer to assume that your average man'ari is about the size of your average draenei, 7' for females and 7'6" for males. And NPCs are definitely not a viable source or argument for their height, as there are no consistencies, a lot of bosses and elites that are absurdly scaled for targeting purposes and whatnot, this goes for every race and creature in the game.

I've heard someone say man'ari are 30 feet because of... Fel. I find no valid source on Fel making creatures grow 23 feet out of nowhere, nor do I think Blizzard had that in mind.

So, question is, is there actually anything supporting such a massive growth compared to draenei? As they are almost the same thing, except for the Fel corruption setting them apart, which is no reason for them to be absurdly tall either. – WarGodZajru (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't derive rules from things that are also assumptions ("fel can't make things bigger"). Demonic eredar tend to be taller than draenei, at least before WoD.--SWM2448 01:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And is there any actual lore on that? Or is it just the usual, "the NPCs are larger" argument. – WarGodZajru (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I forget.--SWM2448 01:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not saying Fel can't make things bigger, I just find a lack of references and sources for it actually implying that Fel does so in lore. Not to mention, even if Fel did make an eredar grow in size, I doubt it would be 23 extra feet on average. I can see 1-2 feet more being plausible, but 7-23 feet (based on people's assumptions), does not sound very believable.

All in all, there seems to be a complete lack of lore sources implying man'ari are much bigger than draenei. Which was my point. – WarGodZajru (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Eredar already varied in size greatly in Warcraft III. Archimonde and Kil'jaeden were humongous, eredar creeps were big but not giant-sized. WoW showed us that some man'ari are regular-sized, while others are indeed giants. I don't see the problem, the text just needs to be updated to indicates that both sizes can be found. Xporc (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

NPCs and mobs and their wide variety of in-game scales should never be used as a reference to lore, because they're not accurate. And Wc3 is even worse, ice trolls were gargantuan (compared to dark trolls and other trolls), nerubians too, and quite a whole lot of other units. In WoW, every race has NPCs and mobs that are way overscaled, so, essentially, we should update pages to say, "some humans can be well over 10 feet", "dwarves average between 5-8 feet", while giving them a reference to some massive mobs. I think not. What I'd like to see is an actual source on man'ari being larger, which there doesn't appear to be, making that sentence/claim entirely false.

Besides, Archimonde and Kil'jaeden are Sargeras' lieutenants, of course they need to show off their position and power, and compensate with massive sizes, but they're not your average man'ari. So they're excluded from this. – WarGodZajru (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Demon sizes vary greatly. Archi was gigantic during the Third War, smaller in WoD. Same for Kil'jaeden. Winged man'ari are taller, normal man'ari are draenei size, in Legion. Some man'ari bosses are super tall too. Dreadlords can be normal or absolutely huge like the one Khadgar annihilated in Karazhan in Harbingers which was thrice his size. So yeah it's a bit up in the air. But Xal'atath does say that the Legion makes pitlords bigger than they would normally be. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to get to, Zajru. Most eredar lords (Jaraxus, Archimonde, Kil'Jaden Smith) have always been depicted as being huge dudes. Then you had intermediary eredar commanders (Baelmon the Hound-Master / Combat Demos, Overseer of Hate) as less huge, then you had elite eredar (Hand of the Deceiver, Oblivion Mage) which were still bigger than draenei, and now you have rank-and-file eredar like those found everywhere in Legion. All of those are indisputable and not incompatible facts. The text just needs to be rewritten to say that some eredar are bigger than others, and that's all. Their sizes are actually consistent, it's not like Garrosh where he's normal-sized in the world and huge in his raid. Xporc (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

But the page itself never actually specifies a height does it? Saying that "most" are larger might be a bit on the speculative side unless we have a written source for that. One might argue and say that all draeneis and all eredars put together respectively, the median height is higher on the eredar side. Although, as you point out, NPC size is not always accurate lore-wise. If there is nothing specific to back up the "most man'ari tend to be much larger than draenei" then I, personally, don't see a problem with changing "most" to "many" as an example. The areas on the PTR as an example is ridden with regular sized eredar enemies, but we also have several new mutated eredar models, the eredar brute being one such example. We also have a new winged eredar, saw a couple, one being Commander Vecaya. I've never heard the 30 feet claim myself, and I wouldn't be too worried about that, seeing as we don't back that up, from what I can see. PeterWind (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, Blizzard has never really gone in-depth on heights and so on, so I understand the whole subject is unclear. Though as pointed out, the reason I brought this up was that, the page claimed most/all man'ari were much larger than draenei, while in lore, there is nothing saying anything like it. NPCs have never been a reliable source, the only accurate models are the playable models, and in some few cases, not even that is true. But they're a lot more thought-out than say, a massive eredar elite mob or boss. I get man'ari NPCs have been scaled up, that doesn't affect lore, though. Archi and Kil have lore mentions about their large sizes, tied in with how close they stand to Sargeras, but again, they're not your average man'ari. But, as Xporc fixed the wording, I can proceed to calm down now. I mean... I could've changed it myself.. but I didn't, idk why I didn't. Oh well, mistakes are made.

Stahp bringing up bosses and elites, they're always upscaled like mad and are far from accurate, this goes for every creature. There are 40' tall Zandalari in ToT, doesn't mean that's a possible lore height for them. Varian is(was..?) over 10' in game, but would most likely not push far beyond 6' in lore. Same can be said for man'ari, while they appear as 30' tall bosses and elites, they're most likely not much larger than your average draenei when it comes to lore. Unless Blizzard lore writers come one day and says, "man'ari are X feet taller than draenei on average" maybe because of the Legion, as MyMindWontQuiet pointed out about the pit lords, or maybe Fel does have a random, size-increasing side-effect, then sure, but as far as I know, anything like that hasn't been implied yet.

Fyi, the only times Garrosh was normal-sized was in TBC, after that he was slightly scaled up in WotLK, further scaled up in Cata, even more scaled up in MoP... and scaled up in WoD until he finally died. Poor Garrosh, all those size-increasing steroids did not do him well.. :'(

But yeah, wording has been fixed, so, da's my issue dealt with. :D (Though personally I'd remove the "most significantly" as well, it isn't that significant, unless lore proof is given..) – WarGodZajru (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that for humans and orcs, they can look oversized when compared to a reference model, whereas before WoD the reference model for eredar were all huge Xporc (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

While I partially agree, I do think, that if Blizzard has ne mentions of their general height, and only the bits about specific eredar, we'll probably have to go with what we have, about NPCs. We should of course make sure to word it so that it is clear, that the descriptions border on the speculative, due to lack of reliable source material. PeterWind (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Eredar page move

Mmh relaunching the debate. Should we change the default "eredar" page to "man'ari eredar", along with a corresponding category, and have a generic eredar category/page for draenei + man'ari? Xporc (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm interesting, so the eredar page would be like pre-corruption state? --Mordecay (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean having Eredar with the race's history up to Sargeras' coming, and then Draenei and Man'ari with their respective lore ? -- MyMindWontQuiet 16:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this or use the also existing Man'ari eredar shortcut and have it become a full page since it's already widely used.

Normally this wouldn't be necessary, but with Mac'Aree and the Army of the Light I guess it could be a bit cleaner. That way, people like Nuuri could stay as an 'eredar', and people like Kil'Jaeden would be a man'ari eredar. Of course, this is a change that could require a lot of cleaning up and switching a lot of habits, so I wouldn't proceed with it unless everyone was in favor for it. Xporc (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be more intuitive for the readers. It'd take some work though. What about AU Draenei? A subsection of Draenei? Its own page? -- MyMindWontQuiet 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the AU draenei are functionally the same "race" as main universe one, so I don't think there'd be a need to split it. Still, any more opinions on this topic? Xporc (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Demonic Eredar and Man'ari eredar were merged back with "Eredar" before. I am not sure either are proper terms. "Man'ari" is used on its own as an insulting adjective.--SWM2448 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The demonic eredar do seem to have embraced the term Xporc (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Even so, the more "proper" page names would be something like "Eredar (demonic)", "Eredar (man'ari)" (which is a little too esoteric), "Eredar (Burning Legion)", or Eredar warlock.--SWM2448 20:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure such a page is needed. I don't think we've actually seen any non-demonic eredar who aren't a) draenei or b) broken. Unless I'm mistaken, all the NPCs involved on Argus fall into one category or the other. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the articles need to be split into two: "Eredar" (which would refer to the lore up to Sargeras) and "Man'ari" (which would refer to the lore after Sargeras up to now). In my opinion, this article is a bit difficult to follow...I know it needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but the split would be the best idea. Hallowseve15 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I can definitely agree with cleaning up and properly wikifying the article, but I think doing so will resolve any issues that you perceive as necessitating a split. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There. I created a Category:Eredar characters category from which Category:Draenei characters inherits. I also tagged every Burning Legion eredar as man'ari eredar as its race parameter, so if we ever want to create a Category:Man'ari eredar characters category to go alongside the Draenei one we can use a bot to transfer them easily, leaving only the Mac'Aree ghosts as true "Eredar characters". BTW, sorry for the frontpage spam, I should really have asked for a bot to help :( Xporc (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Eredar who are demonic are man'ari. "Man'ari eredar" is not a good name and has not been used officially to any noticeable degree. Better names would be "Eredar (demonic)", "Eredar (man'ari)" (which is a little too esoteric), "Eredar (Burning Legion)", or Eredar warlock.--SWM2448 21:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

To be pedantic, "man'ari" is essentially the eredar word for demon. It's not exclusive to demonic eredar and is used in Rise of the Horde to describe other demons as well. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that Archimonde and Kil'jaeden were already tagged as "man'ari eredar" years before I even joined the website. Also, since we're copypasting our previous arguments, there are several "man'ari" items and spells on wowhead. To me that makes it more current and relevant than the "eredar warlock" name, which has not been used since warcraft III/ Burning Crusade and would be very awkward considering not all of them are warlocks. Anyway, that was just a possibility for the future, if it's not needed we can always use a bot to clean it up. Xporc (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There are several "man'ari" items and spells on Wowhead. Nothing calls them man'ari eredar, just man'ari. Eredar (man'ari) would be valid, but that is just a weird way of saying Eredar (demonic).--SWM2448 01:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever we choose, I'd just rather not have any race name contain parenthesis in them. Just looks terrible in the infoboxes. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Then either keep them as eredar or switch it to just man'ari. Just be aware that man'ari is far more obscure than eredar. It also applies to all demons.--SWM2448 02:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you are right about this: "eredar" as a name is very well-known, unlike man'ari. However, eredar is also a term that can be used to functionally describe several races. So what we could do, is to overhaul the eredar page to have different sub-sections in it, with one specificially dealing with the man'ari/demonic/warlock eredars. And then we just have to update man'ari eredar to link to that particular section of the page. That way newcomers can easily distinguish the original eredar and the demonic ones. Xporc (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So the Army of Light members are truly Lightforged draenei and not eredar! Xporc (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So Ryon21 launched the debate again. Honestly, I'd rather have an Eredar page properly cleaned up with several sections, one for each race, rather than an "Eredar (demonic)" apart from it. I'm not a big fan of parenthesis in race names as well. Xporc (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That was my preference as well, especially since--as far as we are aware--there are no non-demonic eredar that are not draenei. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I messed it up or something :/ but after reading what you said I agree with it. Then when I can I'll erease the Man'ari page and try to more or less make a section in the Eredar page about the demonic eredar. Ryon21 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Relax, you didn't mess up anything. Xporc (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Kil'jaeden's palace

Kil'jaeden's palace/city on Argus is one of the main seats of power of the Eredar on Argus (or was), and where Illidan wanted to strike. Just like the Seat of the Triumvirate was where the rulers of Argus used to reside or rule from. I'm not sure Antorus was even directly called a capital technically (?), though we still list it. The |capital= parameter is rather loose semantically, it's just to point out that these are the main/the most important cities or bases of that race or faction. Krokul Hovel was never called the "capital" of the Broken, it's still listed with the |capital parameter.-- MyMindWontQuiet 15:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Antorus is called the "Burning Throne", aka the throne of the leader of the Burning Legion :p Also it's certainly a temple-city and the PTR called it the capital of the Burning Legion. I don't see anything wrong is listing it as capital of Argus and the Legion Xporc (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong either. Antorus is Sargeras' throne. This discussion is about Kil'jaeden's throne however, the one from the Illidan novel, which Mordecay put a fact tag over. -- MyMindWontQuiet 17:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Since it is in a novel and thus is not widely known, a reference would be nice imo. --Ryon21 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. That needs to be referenced. "It's in the novel" in the edit summary is not good enough. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what kind of reference is needed.

In the novel, "the demonic rulers of the Burning Legion [dwell in]" a giant city with an enormous crystalline palace (and then it's described as a "palace city" altogether, because it's so big) "on the lost world of Argus".

We are just listing that city-slash-palace or city-with-a-palace in that parameter. Users who want more info about it (the little there's about it) can click the link to its page, just like they can click the link to Antorus or the link to the Seat. -- MyMindWontQuiet 21:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You said you don't understand what kind of reference is needed, and then you described exactly the reference we're saying needs to be added. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No. This one single line of info is (or will be) available on the (very short) page itself, a reference is not needed.

Specially since infoboxes tend to be low on references, unless the element listed is an obscure or hard to find piece of information. For example the War against the Lich King infobox lists the Alliance casualties at twenty thousand, you need a ref here. But you don't need a ref for Valgarde being the base of the Valiance Expedition, you just click "Valgarde". Similarly you don't need a ref for Kil'jaeden's palace, not only is the name itself very' explicit but you just click the link that says 'Kil'jaeden's palace'. Just like you don't have a reference for Antorus or the Seat, you just click the link to Antorus or the Seat. -- MyMindWontQuiet 23:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved this to Talk:Eredar tbecause it's better for discussion about a specific article to take place on that article's talk page, and not the user talk page for whoever made the edit in question. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

25,000 years

A lot of pages on the wiki state that the eredar were corrupted by Sargeras 25,000 years ago, but what's the source for this? The closest I've been able to find is the TBC Townhall page, which only says that "Nearly twenty-five thousand years ago, the eredar race arose on the world of Argus". I feel like, logically, a decent amount of time must have then passed in order for the eredar to develop the advanced civilization they had, and  [10-45] Bringer of the Light implies that the corruption only happened 13,000 years ago. However, most of our pages instead repeat that the eredar were corrupted 25,000 years ago, and the High General Rakeesh page treats Bringer of the Light's text as a Blizzconsistency.

To me it seems like this is a fan misconception that's been repeated as fact since 2006 (judging by earlier posts on this talk page) without any direct backing from canon sources—unless, of course, there's another source I've missed where the 25,000 years thing is stated. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For what's worth, Timeline (unofficial) has also the fact template by 25,000 years ago Sargeras corrupting of the eredar. Upon checking Rise of the Horde, UVG, Chronicles, old manuals, History of Warcraft, and some quests, none say that Sargeras corrupted them 25,000 years ago, instead I found simply "thousands years ago". I got a feeling that it may indeed be based on the townhall mention, but with the development in recent years, especially the Second Duumvirate (whose name likely means that there was at least one other set of rulers) stating 25,000 for the corruption seems incorrect, and Bringer of the Light should be taken into consideration. -- Mordecay (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was the one who added the {{fact}} to the timeline page a while ago :p -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

At this point I honestly don't think there is an official source on Sargeras visiting Argus 25,000 years ago, I haven't been able to find anything myself either. The only mention we have of that timeframe is the townhall saying that is when the eredar first arose/evolved/whatever, and as me and DeludedTroll joked about on Discord, we doubt Sargeras would look at some talbuks just having started walking on their hind legs and drawing cave paintings, and think they're the perfect candidates for commanding his demon armies.

Considering how Bringer of the Light is worded, that Kil'jaeden waited 13,000 years to send Velen's son-turned-assassin that he explicitly raised into the Burning Legion—meaning the son was still young/very young at the time—because Velen rejected the Burning Legion and high tailed off Argus, is to me saying that this is in fact when Sargeras contacted the eredar. As such I'm positive that a span of ~12,000 years (give or take of course) passed between the eredar first evolving and Sargeras contacting them. 12k years should be sufficient enough to build a "highly advanced" society as they're described as having at the time of Sargeras' arrival in World of Warcraft: Chronicle Volume 1, page 51.

Rather than adding {{fact}} checks I think we should instead start to update these pages with this information because we probably just broke the code. –Mattalari (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait a couple more days in case someone has any objections or finds any conflicting evidence. If not, I'll start going through pages and changing any mentions of 25,000 years I find to 13,000, citing Bringer of the Light (when it's specifically talking about the eredar corruption, of course; obviously this and other pages should still mention that 25,000 BDP is when the eredar first arose). -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 11:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's a problem, because the flavor text for  [Velen's Future Sight] does actually say that Velen "has led the draenei for over 25,000 years". I'm guessing this is the result of wiki magic since a lot of Legion legendaries have flavor text that seems to be taken from Wowpedia pages and this pretty clearly contradicts the townhall page, but I guess we need to acknowledge this contradiction on the page, per the lore policy. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Man'ari separate page and category proposal

I would like to propose that the man'ari become a separate page, again, instead of the eredar page serving as the main page for both the eredar and the man’ari eredar. The draenei have their own page even though they are closer to the eredar than the man'ari, both biologically and culturally. So having the eredar page currently be mainly about the demon corrupted version feels wrong, even if the man'ari are called eredar a lot more often than the draenei are.

On a related topic I think the man'ari need their own category specifically for the man'ari eredar characters and their subspecies (Wrathguard, Doommaiden and Tyrant), just like we have a draenei category, instead of them only using the eredar category.

Votes

Yes

1. Yes Terradon (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) - (Nominated)
2. Yes Wards (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) - (no comment)
3. Yes DeludedTroll (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) - (Eredar and man'ari eredar aren't synonyms, even if eredar history of course includes man'ari history just as it includes draenei history. We should have articles that explain both.)
4. Yes MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) - ()
5. Yes Xporc (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) - (As long as the split is done well)
6. Yes Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) - (no comment)
7. Yes Mordecay (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) - (no comment)
8. Yes Ryon21 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) - (a)

No