Talk:Void ethereal

I think the page should make it clear which ethereals were actually referred to as void ethereals (the Locus-Walker and the Shadowguard) and which may very likely be ones (the nexus-stalkers). --Mordecay (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fair. I just feel like nexus-stalkers should be more than a footnote. ReignTG (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again. It should be clear from the article that nexus-stalkers haven't been called void ethereals and given the difference of models, may or may not be void ethereals. --Mordecay (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Only 2 NPCs have been called "void ethereals", the Shadowguard ethereals and that one Ethereal guy who appears in the joke "questline" for Johnny Awesome (and they were "called" void ethereals by spells, not even a direct mention). So should we call "Void ethereal" only the Shadowguard ethereals and this guy ? Or do we call "Void ethereal" the ethereals who look like Void ethereals and/or who have been explicitly said to have become Void, like the Ethereum, those who attacked Alleria, etc. ? It's the dog thing all over again Mordecay. If it looks like a dog, behaves like a dog, but is not directly called "dog", it's still a dog. Nexus-stalkers are ethereals, check, they have "become Void", check. And what are we supposed to call an ethereal who has become Void ?

-- MyMindWontQuiet 20:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What I think should be done is that since there's no real definition of a void ethereal, have it describe the new ethereals, just like the game does - ethereals with the new model. Also, after all, it isn't like the page doesn't mention the stalkers. It does. And it should. But what it also does is that it makes a connection which Blizzard haven't made. So why should the page? We don't know what makes an ethereal a void ethereal (well, except probably the model) so the page shouldn't generalize everything into one thing when there's no real evidence to that.

Also what is the dog thingy? Remind me.

Also take a step back and don't lecture me. U said that Sylvanas was warchief on the Broken Shore -_-

--Mordecay (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

1) These are ethereals made of Void. Thus, they are Void ethereals. There is no definition this goes against, it's not breaking any lore or definition, that is my point. You're the one coming up with random restrictions and saying they (and also the Netherguard and Locus-Walker) shouldn't be called Void ethereals despite them literally being ethereals made of Void. It's like the Skeletal wind serpent discussion, they are never called "skeletal wind serpent", there is no definition of "skeletal wing serpent", but they are literally skeletal wind serpents. The name simply describes what they are.

2) The dog thing was an example, it's referring to the discussion you were involved in (about skeletal wind serpents) and with you putting {{fact}} tags everywhere about things that don't need verification, like skeletal wind serpents or Void ethereals. If it's a wind serpent and it's skeletal, it's a skeletal wind serpent (even if they are never explicitly called that). If it's an ethereal and it's made of Void, it's a Void ethereal.

3) That was literally just a mistake due to inattention during a quick edit that was rectified right after, and that's petty because it's hardly relevant to this discussion. -- MyMindWontQuiet 21:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah thoughts so the fact tags will come. The skeletal wind serpent thing was me wanting to know how the name came to be whether it was a term used by Blizzard or not. It previously had the bettername tag for years, IIRC. Although I may indeed overuse the fact tag sometimes, over the long years here I've tried to use to have sections cleaned, or rarely to force people add sources, or when I saw a statement which was inconsistent (like a village thing a few weeks ago), etc. Me wanting to know a source of a name for the skeletals or me using fact tags is a little bit different situation that this - me wanting to at least mention that the void ethereal is a new term that was first used with the new ethereals.

Edit: I meant no disrespect or something with the Sylvanas comment, it is just that the dog comment sounded... let's say not very ok. --Mordecay (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)