Talk:Flamewaker
Name source
OK, I ask again on this new page... Where did the name 'Flamewaker' come from? --Kakwakas 00:36, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
A possibility is that they wake up Ragnaros - thus Flamewaker. Certainly Ragnaros says "You have awoken me too soon, Executus"... --Silin@Proudmoore 02:42, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
I don't think so, isn't Majordomo Executus the only capable of doing so? I think I read somewhere that Ragnaros could make life from stone, mayby these are "awakened by his flame" on this way? -- --Sanderu 1 Feb 2006
Perhaps all the fire naga in MC are flamewakers. I don't think the name has anything to do with waking Ragnaros, but I would think that only MD has the right to do so, since he is the majordomo. -- --Cachtorr 1 Feb 2006
- I wasn't thinking from a lore standpoint. I was wondering where the person who movied the article got the name... The last I heard, they still didn't have an official name. If they still don't, why were they moved to just another fan-made name? --Kakwakas 08:53, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
- It's hardly "just another fan-made name," as all the non-named ones that appear in game are called Flamewakers of some sort. --Adonzo 05:20, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
- I like the name, but I agree...we should figure out where it comes from. "Salamander" is obviously just something coined by the programmers. Fire Naga is even worse (and yes, I was the one who added that term to this Wiki...oh the shame) and is just made up.
- --Bevans (FeldmanSkitzoid) 18:05, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I like the name, but I agree...we should figure out where it comes from. "Salamander" is obviously just something coined by the programmers. Fire Naga is even worse (and yes, I was the one who added that term to this Wiki...oh the shame) and is just made up.
This : Lava_Pack is a firewalker. thus the extra redirect is removed for this page.
I think the mobs on the current page should be put back as Salamanders, as we all agreed they are named in the data files. this appears to be the most logical name for them, until blizzard can officially give us another name, lets keep them like that. Or, lets make a vote for it.. CJ 06:13, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
"Flamewaker" seems like a decent name to me. The unnamed "Fire Naga" in Molten Core are called "Flamewalkers" and "Flamewaker Protectors/Priests/Healers/Elites".
I don't think these mobs should be put back as Salamander. Indeed, so far Blizzard has no official word on their names, however, as has been stated here before, the bodyguards of the bosses are classified as Flamewaker of one kind or another, which is in my opinion close enough to an official name. Salamander is, I think, just something they made up on the spot when they put the data in the mpq. Besides, Flamewaker sounds much better than Salamander ;) --Atouk 16:44, 26 Feb 2006 (EST)
Salamander is in fact a very technical term; Blizzard has a mythical allusion behind the name, just like the Naga (snake people). Salamanders are traditionally as you may know small amphibians. However, they were believed to have been born (and reborn) of fire, and thus have mythical power over fire. This was because Salamanders often lived in logs, and when placed upon a fire (for say a cooking fire), the Salamander would leave/ come out of the burning log, "born from the flames". Thus this term fits in both a clear sense as well as following traditional Blizzard naming sense; Naga are based off of the snake people from Hindu mythology, dwellers in water. Salamanders thus follow a similiar reasoning. It wasn't simply "coined up", it has a clear base behind it's existance. ZorakBrak64
The name "flamewaker" was confirmed to be the name of this creatures by Luke Johnson, the main developer of the World of Warcraft RPG, months ago in this thread on the White Wolf forums: http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=26455 (see the second page of the thread)
A description of this creatures will appear in the upcoming new Monster Guide for the WoW RPG.
Salamanders are not the same creatures as flamewakers - despite what character model names in the game may imply. -- Foogray 05:17, 4 April 2006 (EDT)
So I agree that Salamanders is not the right name, since there are examples of other creatures in the WoW universe that are called salamanders in game. However, does Blizzard have an official policy on whether material from the WoW pen & paper RPG is canon? If so, then the link from the white wolf forums pretty much cinches it and we might as well clean up the article to indicate "Flamewaker" as official. --Maldian 00:54, 10 April 2006 (EDT)
- Eyonix has explicitly stated that "Any piece of literature authorized and licensed by Blizzard Entertainment is in-fact, official.", see http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/6335034.htm. So, yes, the Pen&Paper RPG is pretty much canon, although some minor things in the RPG do contradict things found in WoW. On the other hand Blizzard is contradicting itself all the time. Some things in Warcraft 3 contradict WoW, some things in the novels contradict the games, etc. Anyway, the Pen&Paper RPG is as much "canon" as any ohter publication authorized by Blizzard outside of the games. As long as the RPG doesn't contradict anything in the game I would say you can take its information as fact. Also, the "real" salamanders (Kodo-like creatures) are described in the old Manual of Monsters for the RPG and that book even has an introduction written by Chris Metzen himself. So, yeah, salamanders and flamewakers are not the same creatures. --Foogray 04:12, 10 April 2006 (EDT)
Elemental Plane
Can anyone confirm that one of the abyssal bosses u summon in Silithus is firewaker-esque? I was just thinking that this would suggest these things are not mutated dwarves but were summoned from the Elemental Plane to serve their master just like the corehounds.--Darkling235 11:09, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
There is a screenshot of him.--SWM2448 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A Blue Flamewaker
Where did the picture of the buleflamewaker come from, and how do we know he's arcane based. Water-based sounds better since he's blue. Mr.X8 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, wow this is embarrasing. My bad, sorry. Mr.X8 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that the thing about the blue flamewaker possibly being taken down. There's been absolutely no indication that flamewakers exist for the other elements, and Shazzrah's skin doesn't really mean anything beyond a different look. After all, fire burns in every colour. Dylan Bissel 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that Shazzrah's spells are arcane based ... Kirkburn talk contr 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well technically lore wise, fire based spells are also "arcane", ;). Best I can tell Shazzrah is still from the Firelands though. According to MG all flamewakers come from there.Baggins 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Servants of the Old Gods
Hasn't anyone noticed that the "flamewakers" really look like the Naga we all know. Now, I thought, if the flamewakers are beings of flesh and blood, just like the Naga, perhaps then they are, just like the Naga, former mortals. If the Highborn were transformed into Naga underwater and made servitors to the Old Gods, then perhaps whoever were flamewaker before, they were also transformed, but not into underwater beings, but rather beings of fire by the same Old Gods. Since the elementals serve the Old Gods, flamewakers were made servitors of Rangnaros since they are too few in numbers, and cannot create their own empire like the Naga and battle an elemental lord. G.L.F. High Commander (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Possible, but as a whole this seems to have been debunked by Monster Guide, as noted in the "Notes" section.--SWM2448 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, I didn't notice it... Anyway, it is still strange that the Flamewaker model looks so much like the Naga model. Although perhaps it is simply a coincidence - the Naga are actually underwater-living snake-like creatures, while the Flamewakers... the Flamewakers are creatures of fire just like the "fire salamanders", who are also from the Elemental Plane. G.L.F. High Commander (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Notes
The sentence may still make sense, but it doesn't really make sense to point it out if you don't include a mention of the fan theory that it disproves. It'd be sort of like having a section on the trogg article which initially states "Some fans once believed that troggs were mutated leper gnomes, but Chronicle Volume 1 revealed that troggs are not related to gnomes at all", then someone edits out the leper gnome part so all that's left is "Chronicle Volume 1 revealed that troggs are not related to gnomes at all", which doesn't really need to be pointed out because it's already evident from the rest of the article. -- 
DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is different though, in that we don't know the origins of the Flamewakers. Then we have the RPG books saying that they are native to the Elemental Plane. It's relevant, and the Dark Iron thing is completely unrelated to that, it doesn't bring anything at all. Finally, we have the in-game element that might support this. Ties up. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Except it is relevant, because the original intent of the note was to point out "there's a fan theory, but a non-canon book and some canon evidence points against it". --
DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Except it is relevant, because the original intent of the note was to point out "there's a fan theory, but a non-canon book and some canon evidence points against it". --
TCG
On second thought maybe it could stay in the main part of the article as it is not directly from the game / cards but rather from website. I'm thinking it may be the same thing as with the Hearthstone and HotS summaries for heroes that are used as sources here. Thoughts? --Mordecay (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking, yeah. None one of the information from the site really contradicts canon lore and seems to align with it pretty well, like the Bindings of the Windseeker thing with Geddon and Garr or Ragnaros planning to create an army of golems to kick Nefarian out of Blackrock (mentioned in the Molten Core entry of the Game Guide). The site also adds some - in my opinion - much-needed clarifications and details on the elemental hierarchy, the nature of flamewakers, and the background of Molten Core bosses that don't have any other real lore to them. But I suppose that's not really that valid of an argument since you could say the exact same thing about much of the RPG; admittedly, I'm fairly biased on this matter, since I'm still quite salty over the fact that the TCG was de-canonized.
- I think it'd be helpful if someone could tweet Matt Burns or someone to ask if the info on that particular teaser page could be considered canon or not, even though the TCG itself is non-canon. I'd do it myself, but I don't have a Twitter account. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- In what way do you mean opening a can of worms? I guess it could be seen by some as an invitation to constantly pester the devs with questions about canonizing specific parts of non-canon material, which wasn't something I really thought of and which I suppose is a fair enough reason to just want to label everything from the TCG and RPG as non-canon with no exceptions to avoid potential headaches. The status of the Molten Core teaser page has just been sort of bugging me lately. Shame that Blizzard doesn't seem to be doing Ask CDev anymore. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- In what way do you mean opening a can of worms? I guess it could be seen by some as an invitation to constantly pester the devs with questions about canonizing specific parts of non-canon material, which wasn't something I really thought of and which I suppose is a fair enough reason to just want to label everything from the TCG and RPG as non-canon with no exceptions to avoid potential headaches. The status of the Molten Core teaser page has just been sort of bugging me lately. Shame that Blizzard doesn't seem to be doing Ask CDev anymore. --