Talk:Rokhan
Location?
Where is he now? And where is Chen? Shandris 07:13, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
- I would like to know that as well... Thus far they're not in-game, maybe they'll appear in the Outland (Rokhan might be in one of the Troll villages in Zangarmarsh, as he's Thrall's best scout so he might have been sent to scout the marshes of Draenor). As for Chen... I think we gotta wait until we get any Pandaren WoW model (probably being Chen himself), or even until the Great Sea (or other) expansion, when Pandaria will be introduced. --Sul'jin 10:20, 4 January 2007 (EST)
Personally i think he's dead or gone missing,since he doesn;t appear in wow but still there may be hope ,maybe Voi'jin(or Thrall) sent him on a mission(Marakanis)
Ambassador to Zandalar would be my guess. --Austin P 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I hear hes going to be in WotLK but I haven't seen anything from Blizzard to support this. Lckyluke372 01:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope he appeares in Wrath of the Lich King. Maybe him and Garrosh Hellscream are the leaders of the new expedition in Northrend.]
Ah well, I can dream :) Warchiefthrall 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Mistake?
In Cycle of Hatred, which takes place after The Founding of Durotar, Thrall acts like he's meeting Rokhan for the first time. In The Founding of Durotar, however, Thrall acts as if he's known Rokhan for a while. I think Mr. DeCandido made a mistake. Any thoughts on the subject?Swiftstar 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Swiftstar
Citation for note?
Is there any credible source for this tidbit about him having supposedly been killed in Ashenvale? Warchiefthrall (talk) 23:12, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
- It is likely fan fiction extrapolated from on the info/rumors from the Horde Player's Guide. It was added here.--SWM2448 23:20, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
GM Ticket
I don't know why the GM ticket source keeps getting removed. It's already been clarified on on the notes, the reference AND the picture's page that it may not be real or official. Either way, we don't remove contradictory information from Wowpedia just because a new source says otherwise. If we're doing that all of a sudden, we can delete everything on the Demon page regarding regeneration since Argus came after Chronicle, therefore all of Chronicle's information on demonic regeneration is now defunct and entirely irrelevant. Cannibeans (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- The difference is that the GM ticket is not a source. It can't be verified. It has no weight. Previous lore on Demons exists and comes from official sources. We had that talk before on the Forum. Do not use this again. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- The GM Ticket is used as a source for other articles, it's why I even re added it to the Rohkan article in first place. I saw it on another article and on a whim checked the Rohkan and didn't see it present. As such if it wasn't on other articles I could of accepted this easily but the fact remains the GM ticket is used as a legitimate source for other articles. Thus I have to ask where is this conversion about not using the GM Ticket? Because it would be the best way for me to accept that it was an actual decision by the community instead of one's person opinion--X59 (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall it, noting that something under speculation is backed by a GM ticket is fine, but even so, it would still only count as speculation, as GMs often contradict each other. As for those other pages, this should be reflected where the content of tickets are mentioned. PeterWind (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- X59, you're correct. This is the only page in which the screenshot seems to be having an issue being sourced. The other pages and even the other GM ticket are still sourced and clarified to be speculatory on not only the screenshot's content, but the authenticity of it as a whole, which I feel is plenty. Thus far, MyMindWontQuiet seems to be the only one that continues to just blatantly remove it. All the other mods that I've seen involved seem fine with it being sourced and clarified as it currently is. If that's not the case, correct me. Cannibeans (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Out of interest, can you provide links to the other cases, just for comparison? PeterWind (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Elven druid, Death knight, Age for the first GM ticket, Ascendant for the second. Cannibeans (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it being used in speculation sections. Xporc (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Likewise. Cannibeans (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it being used in speculation sections. Xporc (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Elven druid, Death knight, Age for the first GM ticket, Ascendant for the second. Cannibeans (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Out of interest, can you provide links to the other cases, just for comparison? PeterWind (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- X59, you're correct. This is the only page in which the screenshot seems to be having an issue being sourced. The other pages and even the other GM ticket are still sourced and clarified to be speculatory on not only the screenshot's content, but the authenticity of it as a whole, which I feel is plenty. Thus far, MyMindWontQuiet seems to be the only one that continues to just blatantly remove it. All the other mods that I've seen involved seem fine with it being sourced and clarified as it currently is. If that's not the case, correct me. Cannibeans (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall it, noting that something under speculation is backed by a GM ticket is fine, but even so, it would still only count as speculation, as GMs often contradict each other. As for those other pages, this should be reflected where the content of tickets are mentioned. PeterWind (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- The GM Ticket is used as a source for other articles, it's why I even re added it to the Rohkan article in first place. I saw it on another article and on a whim checked the Rohkan and didn't see it present. As such if it wasn't on other articles I could of accepted this easily but the fact remains the GM ticket is used as a legitimate source for other articles. Thus I have to ask where is this conversion about not using the GM Ticket? Because it would be the best way for me to accept that it was an actual decision by the community instead of one's person opinion--X59 (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion concerning GM-sourced information in general is in Forum:Game masters and lore; it feels silly to "reference" unverifiable sources. This particular instance seems to be directly contradicted by Ion, so the "you can post anything under a speculation header" strategy seems dubious. — foxlit (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. And it doesn't matter if it comes from "yours truly" Cannibeans, it still can't be referenced as an official source. Because it is not. It has no weight. It can't be used as a reference on Wowpedia. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand. It's for the same reason that I'm not going to use this screenshot as a reference. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- My point in clarifying its source was to dispute your claim that it came from a nobody level 1 alt on the forums. Don't know where you got that from. Please check the referenced link.[1] Cannibeans (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. And it doesn't matter if it comes from "yours truly" Cannibeans, it still can't be referenced as an official source. Because it is not. It has no weight. It can't be used as a reference on Wowpedia. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand. It's for the same reason that I'm not going to use this screenshot as a reference. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Representative
What wowhead wrote, him being the representative of the Darkspear tribe, is their own wording, not something pulled from data, no? Based on how they describe Valtrois. --Mordecay (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)