Talk:Llane Wrynn I

Citation request

I've put a citation needed tag on the first occurrence of Llane Wrynn's name to request a citation to an official source that describes him as "Llane Wrynn IV". All the sources I've seen just call him Llane Wrynn, so I assume it's from the RPG.--Aeleas 13:07, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

In most monarchies, the number refers to the number of rulers who bear the personal name, not the family name. If he is Llane I and not Llane IV, he is just Llane (like Queen Victoria is not Victoria I). --Ragestorm 17:16, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

It's been several months without anyone providing a source for the "IV", so I'll just change it back to Llane Wrynn.--Aeleas 20:16, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

His father is called "King Wrynn III" in the WC1 manual which makes him Llane "King Wrynn IV".

The only possible way he could be Llane IV too is if his dad (WC1 manual didn't list first name) and the 2 King Wrynns prior to him were al lnamed Llane too. Since we subsequently got Landen for II and Barathen for III that's off the table.

Wonder if we'll ever find out the name of King Wrynn I and whether or not he was Landen's dad or if the king prior to Landen was a non-Wrynn.

Seems like they retconned Llane being present in Stormwind as a 20 year old boy when the orcs first attacked? Or maybe that happened simultaneously with the Gurubashi war w/ the trolls? Tycio (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple current status info versus specific information

I am not convinced that many characters need to have specific information regarding their current status in the infobox. Their current status should be made clear in the actual article, which would render the extra information in the infobox not important. Regards, --Theron the Just 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As the infobox is tended to give an overview of all relevent information, all of which is explained in greater detail within the article, I disagree. When it comes to living/undead/killable/active characters, you're probably right (which is why living characters don't have a description unless their circumstances are unusual), but with characters who have died, a very short explanation is in order, given the fact that their deaths are usually important details. We would also prefer "Deceased" to be written instead of "Dead." --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Became King after Orcs attacked?

Let me quote the Warcraft II manual for a second:

Before the coming of the Age of Chaos when the Portal was first opened, the kingdom of Azeroth was the mightiest of all Human nations. Ruled by the wise and just King Llane, Azeroth stood as a beacon of light and truth throughout the known world. - pg. 39

In that paragraph is says that Azeroth was ruled by King Llane before the Age of Chaos, which is when the Orcs attacked. The story on the official site backs this up. In the Warcraft I manual it says that he became King right after the Orcs attacked Stormwind and his father was killed, this is what is on this page right now. Is there a more recent source that confirms the Warcraft I version? Otherwise I think we should change it. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it actually says that Llane ruled before the Age of Chaos, since that's actually 2 different sentences. Try reading as standalone thoughts:

1. Before the coming of the Age of Chaos when the Portal was first opened, the kingdom of Azeroth was the mightiest of all Human nations.
2. Ruled by the wise and just King Llane, Azeroth stood as a beacon of light and truth throughout the known world.

Azeroth probably stood as a beacon of light/truth even after it ceased to be the "mightiest of all Human nations" during the downfall when the rift opened and there was a 6 year period of crop blight and sick babies before Stormwind got attacked.

Garona's reference to "Age of Chaos" is actually after Stormwind counterattacks and drives the pre-Blackhand Horde into the Swamps... Garona is saying that Blackrock unifying the clans under him is what begins the Age of Chaos. The "ten years of skirmishes" is basically pre-AOC Tycio (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Apperance in WoTLK

It seems during the battle against Yogg-Saron, you are teleported back in time to see Garona Speak to Llane Wrynn.

Garona - Bad news, sire.

Garona - The clans are united under Blackhand in this assault. They will stand together until Stormwind has fallen.

Garona - Gul'dan is bringing up his warlocks by nightfall. Until then, the Blackrock Clan will be trying to take the eastern wall.

Llane - And we will hold until the reinforcements come. As long as men with stout hearts are manning the walls and the throne, Stormwind will hold.

Garona - The orc leaders agree with your assessment.

For those on the PTR:

Garona

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne01.wav")

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne02.wav")

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne03.wav")

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\Garona\\UR_Garona_YSVisOne04.wav")

Llane

     /script PlaySoundFile("Sound\\Creature\\KingLlane\\UR_Llane_YSVisOne01.wav")

Timeline Accuracy

It seems the article draws too much upon Warcraft I timeline, while retcons in future timelines. It seems to make reference to the long period of between the start of the orcs invasion and the start of the first war, and and longer length of the first war between the timelines of Warcraft I and references in Warcraft II. I'd suggest actually reducing the references to time and just give a broad overview of the events and not be as specific (because all the timelines are contradictory in some form). If references to time are to made Warcraft I and II material cannot be used because later sources definitely cut out the ten-fifteen years between the opening of the portal and the start of the first war.

Now, if someone wants to go into the timeline issues it should be relegated to a small section near the end of the article pointing out the discrpencies and retcons. But inserting directly into the article confuses the matter between accounts made the manual, Last Guardian, and other later sources.Baggins (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time coming, but I went ahead and revised it. The only problem is this has greatly extended King Adamant's reign by a good few years - but it preserves the Year 592 outbreak of war date and the 596 end of hostilities, and the 591 death of Adamant. The alternative would be to shortenn Medivh, Lothar and Llane's lives, and I think this is probably the better option of the two. Also, I'm not that great with numbers so if anyone spots an issue in my mathematics, please correct it. Everen (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the Official Timelie with added dates from books as Cycle of Hatred or the Warcraft's History of the official ite, Medivh was conceived in year -45, so he was born in year -44. Using maths, we could say that he was 44 when the Dark Portal was opened and that he died a in year 5 (but that's just speculation).

If it serves you, we know that Landen Wrynn (Adamant's father) ruled by the time of Aegwynn and Nielas Aran. Then, Adamant started to reign at some point of history, to then die a year after the first attack on Stormwind (year 2, maybe?).

Anyway, if Llane and Lothar were of the same age of Medivh, they would be of 44 (45 o 43) years old. --Cemotucu (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Llane was a little younger than Medivh, and Lothar considerably older than either. I'll be checking some of the other books later, but based on the WC1 and 2 manuals (which, unfortunately, I think are our only sources for Llane and Lothar), Llane was born in 564 and Medivh in 559, which would correspond to -33, not -44 (or 548). It's quite the difference, and the more recent has to take precedence. Lothar was 57 at the time of WC2, placing his birthyear in 541, which makes him considerably older than Llane, which is somewhat at odds of the description of their boyish adventures in TLG (unless, that is, Lothar was sent to safeguard the two and they didn't care he was an old coot by that time).

If we take the Last Guardian history section as fact (which we are, unfortunately, bound to do), then the timeline is once again completely different because of the decision to both make everyone older, and of comparable age. Oy vey, thank you for bringing this up. I'll start figuring out the ramifications for the bio.Everen (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In light of all the conflicting information, I'm temporarily reverting my edit while I work on a reconciled timeline. I'll post it on my userpage when its done and put it to a vote. It's likely to alter at least three other pages (Medivh, Lothar, Garona). Everen (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Still true?

Is this true: "Ten years later, Llane was visited by a mysterious stranger who revealed herself to be Aegwynn, the mother of Medivh. She revealed that Medivh was behind the arrival of the orcs into the kingdom, warning that Azeroth would eventually have to deal with him." As in the Cycle of Hatred is said that she right after the battle with Medivh teleported to the Barrens. --Mordecay (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The First & Timeline

As there are no other known Llane named kings of this particular Kingdom then it would be correct to refer to the king as simply King Llane.

The roman one after his name means that there is definitely a "II" or second king of the same kingdom with the same name. That is not true.

(Taraezor (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

The time line for the birth of Varian is problematic. Indeed I am troubled by much of the timeline but I highlight this as the worst offender. Reading the text it is possible to assume that Varian was sired when Llane was about nine years old and/or before the Age of Ascension. I don't have the inclination to link sources but could a well researched contributor please fix the timeline issues. Thank you.

Edit: The main offending paragraph is: "Llane Wrynn's son, Varian Wrynn, was born to him in Stormwind City ten years before the First War.[3] He would taught him how to ride a horse. He also oversaw his combat training.[4]"

The following paragraph begins: "Six years later...". That would be 577+6 = 583. The start of the First War. Now, 583 - 10 = 573, Varian's birth year. But Llane was born 564. So, 573 - 564 = 9. Llane was 9 when he conceived Varian.

Given the citation "[3]" above links to a non-existent Twitter page I would suggest that the whole paragraph be deleted. Due to there being no citation to justify its inclusion as fact.

(Taraezor (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Yes, the Llane's timeline is indeed messy but I think the Loreology's year is better than the old timeline. Nevertheless, we should probably wait for the Chronicle to (hopefully) clear the current timeline. --Mordecay (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

younger than he looks

The WC1 manual says Llane was born to King Wrynn the 3rd in year 564, and is 20 in 584 when he becomes King Wrynn the 4th (presumably dad died)

Guessing at that point he could've looked something like this File:Llane Chess Artwork.jpg

Year 593 is the last that Lothar writes about, so Llane would be about 29 at that point.

Guessing during those nine years he grew the beard:

File:Warcraft I - Llane Wrynn.jpg

the colorless artwork makes you think "white beard, old man!" but my guess is that he probably had some other color like brown but you just couldn't show that in black and white artwork.

The comic depiction seems like he doesn't have a beard at all (just a stache) so maybe he had beard in mid-20s but by late 20s removed it to look younger or be better in battle or something? Maybe to impress Garona? Tycio (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)