Talk:Thoras Trollbane

Title

Is there any source that calls Trollbane a king? The War2 manual calls him "Thoras Trollbane, lord of Stromgarde". The Stormwind monument to Danath is signed "Thoras Trollbane, Lord of Stromgarde".--Aeleas 01:28, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

If there are no sources specifically referring to him as a king, I will change it back to "lord". Please don't change it back without adding a citation to a source that refers to him as "King".--Aeleas 12:38, 5 November 2006 (EST)

Well, he is the lord of Stromgarde, but the king of the nation of Stromgarde, so im gonna change it. -Rovdyr

As I said above, please provide a citation to any official source referring to him as a king before changing the page. I've changed it back.--Aeleas 11:46, 26 November 2006 (EST)

well i dont got any citations or any thing but it makes sense, as he is the ruler of the nation/kingdom of stromgarde he is the king of stromgarde. still im gonna wait with changing it until u can a chance to reply -Rovdyr

I agree that if "kingdom" is being used in a specific sense following the real-world definition, then the ruler would be a king, and barring evidence to the contrary, I think that would be a reasonable assumption to make. However, there is evidence to the contrary, in that Trollbane is frequently addressed as "Lord" and never addressed as "King". Kul Tiras is called a kingdom, yet its ruler adopts the title "Grand Admiral". Dalaran is also called a kingdom, but is led by the Kirin Tor. The leaders of Lordaeron and Stormwind are referred to as kings, but Genn Greymane, Daelin Proudmoore, and Aliden Perenolde are noticeably not.--Aeleas 17:40, 29 November 2006 (EST)

"Dalaran is also called a kingdom, but is led by the Kirin Tor" Where was Dalaran called a kingdom? Even if this is stated somewhere in one of the games, game manuals or other writings it is clearly a mistake. The Kirin Tor seems to be similiar to the Roman Senate. Dalaran is definitely not a kingdom or any type of monarchy. --Theron the Just 18:47, 29 November 2006 (EST)

The government of Dalaran is called a "magocracy". The son of Thoros Trollbane is a "prince". So it is more likely that Thoras is a prince himself, if not a king. In which case his "kingdom" would technically be a "principality" or "princedom". As for Proudmoore, his title is actually, "Lord Admiral" of Kul Tiras, but the Grand Admiral of the Alliance.-Baggins 19:22, 29 November 2006 (EST)

"Thoradin, the king of Arathor" this is a line in the history of WoW found at wow-europe.com, and at the page of Trol'kalar here on wowwiki it says "After the war and with the departure of Thoradin's ruling descendants the Trollbane family ascended to the throne." as Thoradin was king and the Trollbane's ascended to the throne and took control of the kingdom it only makes sense if the highest member of their family would become King. -Rovdyr

Well Alliance player's guide says that all the human leaders of the nations who came to meeting to form the "Alliance of Lordaeron" were the kings of their nations.

"King Terenas of Lordaeron calls the other human kings together to discuss the Horde and Stormwind." -Alliance Player's Guide pages 160,161

Does it really matter if he's a lord or king? The terms mean basically the same thing, and Blizzard seems to use them interchangibly. --Mikaka 04:32, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Yes it does appear that Lord and King are used interchangeably by Blizzard.Baggins 04:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)

So, would anyone mind if i changed it to king? "King of the nation of stromgarde and lord of the city"?? -Rovdyr

yes, its fine to refrence the term King, as it is used in an official source. It is valid refrence, and does not contradict any other source. To remain neutral all refrences must be made, and given equal standing. It should be noted it is possible to be both king and a lord of a nation.Baggins 19:32, 23 December 2006 (EST)

"Ruler and King"

My edit to the initial line to make it "Lord Thoras Trollbane was king of the human Kingdom of Stromgarde," was reverted without comment. I'm not clear why we would want such a redundant wording. I'm going to change it back, please leave a comment here if there is a specific reason for it.--Aeleas 13:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I think he prefers ruler as that was what was stated in the original warcraft 2 manual, which is apparently his main and possibly only source of information for anything warcraft. Where as Thoras was called, King of Stromgarde in the Alliance Player's Guide. I can only guess he wants both quotations to get equal standing... There might be a way to incorporate both somewhere in the article without the entire article sounding redundant to make him happy.

But I defer to you on your choice on this issue.Baggins 13:30, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Stromgaurdian equivlent of JFK?

Um... yeah that is pretty much it.--The last Alterac 09:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? -- Dark T Zeratul 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

????? Warchiefthrall 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By mysterious asasination--The last Alterac 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

JFK is not the only leader to have been assassinated without a clearly confirmed killer. He was not the first, nor will he be the last, and certainly there have been dozens if not hundreds of them in fiction. To make such a comparison based solely on the circumstances of their death is ridiculous. -- Dark T Zeratul 09:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, and also another example of The Last Alterac not using talk pages correctly. They are not for posting wild theories, ok? Warchiefthrall 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not a theory... That was just the 1st time I posted something retarted for the sake of retartation. (The other times had at least some retarted base). THRALL ARE YOU WATCHING ME OR WHAT (as well as Dark T) (One other time which was on the brink of stupidity was when I said EPIC PHAIL when I asked who made thrall warcheif and someone else said who did it and said a little extra)I am trying to refrain from stupid topics though. --The last Alterac 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not watching you specifically, but we do watch the Talk pages, and when you post stuff on them that doesn't belong on them (and you do, with some frequency), we notice. -- Dark T Zeratul 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the talk pages does not work like a forum... Orher wise it means any one can edit someone elses edit (To make look like idiots). Not saying mine have been edited (AS MY STUPIDITY IS GENUIN!) --The last Alterac (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Race

He's been dead, and laying in his tomb for a good while, he's just as undead as his son, so please don't remove Active (Undead) from the info box. Copperblast (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

He has the human model, like Thassarian, Darion, etc. And all undead characters just have active. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

He has the human model with the undead skin, that makes him undead, especially as he spent years as a rotting corpse, unless you want to argue Nathanos isn't undead anymore in Legion because he has the human model with the undead skin. And yes, we do use Active (Undead) for undead characters, we're doing the same for Galen. Copperblast (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

See Darion Mograine, Thassarian, Sylvanas Windrunner, Bolvar Fordragon, etc.. It's just active. He's be undead if he had the playable undead model, but he doesn't, he has the human model. Galen's will soon be deceased so it's not as big of a deal for him. And please stop saying Galen revived the undead when there's noproof he has that power. He proclaims Stromgarde restored during the quest, and it's too early to speculate on Stromgarde's fate. We can just say what we know right now. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sylvanas page says Active(Undead). Once again, Nathanos uses the human model in Legion, by your logic, that makes him a human. Its clear, Galen had them revived, who else would go to the trouble to specifically revive those were loyal to Galen? He may have had a Val'kyr do it for him, but its clear it was done by Galen's orders. Galen's plan was to revive Stromgarde as a kingdom under his rule, he said so himself. We don't say what happened to Stromgarde, only that its fate is left open. Copperblast (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wel bad example because she isn't a human death knight. But Nathanos is actually a Forsaken, and there's a difference between human death knights and human death knights who've died twice, as silly as it is. I was under the impression Galen they were raised by the Forsaken during Cata questing and Galen just claimed control over them. You're making way too many assumptions. What exactly does "plan to revive" mean? He already declared it and had fully control of the kingdom. Exactly, we don't know, so we should just keep it simple until we do. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

She is still undead, just like Thoras Trolbane. Marduk Blackpool is a Death Knight who died once, and uses the undead model. The distinction between undead model, and human model with undead skin is meaningless, both look the same in lore. Thoras was dead for years, his body is a decayed corpse. Having played Horde questing in Cata, the forsaken at no point raise Galen's old soldiers, its clear he did that so he'd have followers. Galen said he wanted to make it a Kingdom again that even Sylvanas would fear, as in a world power with its own military. Copperblast (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes.. and Thoras doesn't. The distinction is not meaningless because human and undead death knights are two different things. It doesn't make much sense that Thoras isn't a skeleton at this point, but he was a human character up until now and it looks like he will remain one. Nothing has suggested Galen has the power to raise the dead or his own Val'kyr, so please stop writing your own fan fiction. How would he "revive" or "make it a kingdom again" exactly? It doesn't have a clear meaning. The final version will probably fill in these gaps, but for now we should just upload what he know. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he's not undead. Except as mentioned, there are Death Knights who never died twice like Marduk use the undead model. Which one Blizzard chooses to use for an undead NPC is just style, and in the lore, you wouldn't be able to automatically tell the difference between a Death Knight who used the undead Skin vs the Undead model. Its obvious, Galen enlisted Sylvanas Val'kyr to help under the pretense of doing it for the Dark Lady. This has been mentioned to you already in the past, personal attacks as you're doing are not allowed, and can result in a ban. There is no consensus reached, so you don't have free reign to delete any edit you don't like. Copperblast (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)