Talk:Wild God

First mention

Is this tweet the first mention of the term Wild Gods? --Mordecay (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe so. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Brann's account

Do we keep Brann's version or do we update it with the Chronicle info? Because Klakmuf changed tauren into yaungol (as per the Chronicle) but also furbolg being created by Ursoc is no longer correct as there are jalgar. --Mordecay (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We can combine them.--SWM2448 20:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Notable Wild Gods list

Personally I'm not really happy about how the Notable Wild Gods section looks currently. In my opinion, a simple bullet point list would convey about as much information as the table but look less cumbersome. Something like this, with or without the "Avian", "Feline", etc. distinctions, and with added short descriptions or titles, like this:

•  Aviana, Mistress of Birds, Mistress of the Mother Tree
•  Chi-Ji, the Red Crane, spirit of hope
•  Ohn'ahra, the Eagle Spirit

Or this:

•  Aviana <Mistress of Birds>
•  Chi-Ji <The Red Crane>
•  Ohn'ahra <Eagle Spirit>

Thoughts? -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your list looks good to me but I think I like tables better with the role, status and location sections. Although this one probably needs cleanup and trimming.

EDIT: On second though, since this is supposed to be a list of notable Wild Gods, I think your list could be used here with tables added and replaced the current lists in the Loa and Ancient Guardians pages.

Thoughts? Mordecay (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that would work for the Ancient Guardian page, but not for the loa page, mainly because there is such a large amount of loa and because most only have descriptions spanning over one or a few short sentences (Grimath, Shango, Kimbul, even the Gurubashi ones like Bethekk, etc.). -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I went ahead and replaced the table with a bullet point list, but I made the choice to not include the distinctions between avians, felines, ungulates, etc. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Stupid question but why do we have a "Wild God" and an "Ancient Guardian" page? They seem to be the same thing, but i'm far from an expert on the topic. Xporc (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior to creating this page, I proposed merging Ancient Guardian, loa and August Celestial into the same page, but the consensus (well, from the two people who replied, anyway) seemed to be to keep those three as separate articles but with Wild God as a new "supertype". See the Ancient Guardian talk page. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know much about wild gods/ancient guardians so I don't have an opinion on the topic, but thanks ^^ Xporc (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RE: Cenarius' birth

ReignTG is correct. Cenarius is significantly younger than the other Wild Gods. The main Wild Gods came from Freya's enclaves before the titans left. Cenarius was born after Ysera had already become an Aspect (after the Galakrond stuff which was "ages after the Pantheon left"). Cenarius' birth rippled through the Emerald Dream and alerted Ysera. She guided him to the Dream and became his foster mother.^[1] --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this flavor lore? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Warcraft Encyclopedia doesn't present it as flavor lore. It's in the opening section for Cenarius' page and presented as fact. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"The tauren have a myth that purportedly relates the story of Cenarius' conception." Isn't it expanding on that myth? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You can't just call things flavor lore. Where is the explicit contradiction?--SWM2448 21:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a tauren myth. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No. The myth being referenced is about Cenarius' conception. What the WCE described was his birth, in a separate paragraph. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for completeness, this is corroborated as factual on the Malorne page of the WCE and somewhat on the Elune page. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cenarius descendants

I know WP policy is not to take new lore over old lore, but seriously? It's referenced directly in 2 sources published after the WotA trilogy that they are Cenarius' children, including Chronicle which is intended to be the definitive lore book. These sources were properly cited on the page. I can't find any instance of "others like you" in the trilogy. There is only one "dryad" mention in the trilogy (The Well of Eternity, "My own dryads and keepers make use of the Emerald Dream in their duties, but sparingly."). And 1 other mention of "keepers" (The Well of Eternity, "I give thanks to the brothers of the forest, the keepers of the wild. I know you watched over me until my friends could find me.").

You also completely removed the proper inclusion of centaur as his descendants. They are related to him. Zaetar was Cenarius' son. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the part :

“My own dryads and keepers make use of the Emerald Dream in their duties, but sparingly.”

- “I’ve never heard of it,” Malfurion admitted with a shake of his head.

“Likely because no night elf save those in my service has ever walked it…and they only when they were no longer of your race. You would be the first of your kind to truly take the path…if you so desire.”

The fact that they are warped/transformed mortals/night elves does not conflict with the fact that he might consider them his children. But they are not directly his children or descendants because they were not birthed by him, he just took in elves and they became Keepers of the Grove : this applies to Zaetar too, which means Centaurs are not related to him in a proper genetical way, but to Zaetar. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That passage doesn't say that keepers and dryads are warped night elves. It just says that the night elves that served Cenarius and went to the Emerald Dream stopped being night elves.

Where does it state that Zaetar is not Cenarius' son? I cited a quest which states he is ("I am Zaetar, son of Cenarius"). It's also in Blizzard's site, and the Dungeon Journal. Chronicle p. 144 says Zaetar is Cenarius' son, not creation. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess the vagueness works in your favor here, even if it seems stretched to me (he mentions keepers and dryads, who look just like night elves, and says that the other night elves who joined him are no longer night elves.. seems coherent). As for Zaetar my point was that if keepers & dryads were indeed transformed night elves, then he wouldn't be a literal son of Cenarius as in birthed by him, but one elf among many others who became a keeper of the grove, that he would consider his children. This falls flat if you consider the premise wrong. If the premise is wrong, it also begs the question "what did the night elves that joined him become?", if they're no longer night elves but aren't keepers/dryads either. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well Cenarius also looks like a night elf without being a night elf, so ... Xporc (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that Zaetar is definitely Cenarius' literal son. Blizzard's site says, "The great temple/cavern is the burial place of Zaetar, one of two immortal sons born to the demigod, Cenarius." Whether or not the keepers/dryads are Cenarius' literal children might not be as explicit, but it definitely leans more towards them being his children taking post-TWoE novel into account. The novel can at best be taken as implying NElves were transformed into keepers/dryads and it would certainly work to rectify their physical resemblance to NElves (except that Cenarius himself resembles a NElf). Every description simply refers to them as Cenarius' children (or his son's children), not that they were "like children". This is in Chronicle as well, which for contrast describes Freya's relation to the Wild Gods "as if they were her very own children" vs. "for they were Cenarius's own sons and daughters." --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Bear Lord

Ursoc is called the "bear lord" in   [10-45] To The Hills. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ursoc and Ursol are described as "the colossal Bear Lords" in Chronicle Volume 1, page 40, where a bunch of the most notable Wild Gods and their titles are listed. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that's the reason I made the modification, specially since "the Wise" was redundant and a title shared with Niuzao. I thought it'd be wiser to distinguish between them. Plus, giving the two bear brothers their Bear Lord title allows the reader to instantly make a connection between these two. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Why was the Chronicle info removed? It now states that "some loa are wild gods" but the Chronicle literally says that the loa are wild gods. Probably mistook it with the Ancient Guardians? Or is it because of the troll-Loa? --Mordecay (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's because we know that the trolls refer to a great many things as loa that aren't Wild Gods, such as wisps. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. I think that the Chronicle sentence should be mentioned somewhere. --Mordecay (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

All wild gods are loa, but not all loa are wild gods (for example : wisps, C'Thraxxi..). This is why the page now states that some loa are wild gods. I think the paragraph explains it well and I'm not sure what you want to add/remove. "Loa is the name given by trolls to the beings they worship, including Wild Gods, and [...]". -- MyMindWontQuiet 03:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually originally read the Chronicle text as basically saying "loa = Wild Gods", but what the book actually says is that:

"Yet no matter their individual customs, what all trolls shared was a common religion that revolved around Kalimdor's elusive Wild Gods. The trolls called these powerful beings "loa", and they worshipped them as deities." (Chronicle Volume 1, page 70)

In other words, the book states that the trolls refer to Wild Gods as "loa", but it doesn't say that the name "loa" exclusively means "Wild Gods", if that makes sense. To use another example, if the book said that "the hozen referred to the mogu as 'wikkets'", that doesn't mean that "wikket" is the hozen word for "mogu" (because we know from in-game that the hozen call all sorts of things "wikkets") but that it's just a term that can be applied to various different things, including the mogu. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's my entire point, and why I changed the wording of the page which was incorrect. -- MyMindWontQuiet 08:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I get the part, what I was trying to say was that it should probably mention that they call all Wild Gods loa. --Mordecay (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

" "Loa" is the name given by trolls to the beings they worship, including Wild Gods" is that not good ? -- MyMindWontQuiet 11:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm rereading Chronicle 1 right now, I agree that the wiki doesn't give the same importance to the wild gods as the book IMO. First the trolls worshiped wild gods, called them "loa" and then started calling other things loa later. Right now the page sounds like "eeeh the trolls worship many things, including this and that", but the wild gods are clearly supposed to be more important to the trolls than Zanza or wisps ... I'm kinda annoyed at how all the animal troll loas are not considered wild gods when IMO that's the meaning originally intended by Blizzard, as it is said that Wild Gods lived in the Zandalar Mountains and came to the help of the Zandalari against Kith'ix. Xporc (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

^^^ --Mordecay (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we can't write that all animal gods are Wild Gods because it has not been stated, even if it's likely the case. -- MyMindWontQuiet 22:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't have any reason to believe that there are non-Wild God animal gods out there though. ReignTG (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And the opposite is true as well. It is not Wowpedia's role to make such statements. All we know is that there are animal spirits and gods, and some of them are Wild Gods. It has not been specified if all animal gods are Wild Gods. Most of the others so far are just categorized as spirit beasts. Or just "animal spirit/god". (As for the general statement ("non-Wild God animal gods"), we know for a fact that the animal gods from Draenor are not Wild Gods).-- MyMindWontQuiet 00:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The Zuldazar Visitor's Guide states that "loa are Wild Gods—or spirits of Azeroth". Does this make any difference in this debate, or is it one of those cases where one line in a blog post isn't enough to warrant any major changes to the article? Perhaps it's enough evidence to list all of the Zandalari loa (Pa'ku, Rezan, etc.) as confirmed Wild Gods. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say the latter, yeah. It is also probably either a mistake (wisps are loa, but they are not Wild Gods) or it's referring to the Zandalar loa specifically (Pa'ku, Rezan, etc.). The blog post has some other weird stuff like that, like calling Zandalar a subcontinent, when it's the size of Azuremyst. Crow is aware though, might look into it. -- MyMindWontQuiet 16:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

What a surprise no one could have seen coming :parrotsleep: Xporc (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)