Talk:World of Warcraft: Chronicle Volume 1

Release date

I guess there was a press release in Jan 2015 about Chronicle being released on 4 November 2015 (comic shops) and 17 November 2015 (bookstores) as IGN, Dark Horse, and other sites give that date. Amazon is currently showing 15 March 2016 release. Micky says he's unaware of any change, but might not be up-to-date.[1] --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble is also listing 15 March 2016 as the release date.[2] But Dark Horse's site itself says 2 March 2016,[3] but that might just be the date for the earlier comic shop release. -- Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Shadow

Hey nerds, help me out. The cosmology chart has: Shadow - Shadow (Void) as opposed to Light - Holy. Now the text says Light manifests as holy magic, while Shadow (also referred to as the Void) appears as shadow magic. This does not match the chart, right? According to the chart it should be that Shadow manifests as shadow magic / void magic. --Mordecay (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that is weird. I assume it is backwards.--SWM2448 17:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Where's VisionOfPrecision when we need him? Oh wait he's banned lol Xporc (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would take the text over the image. Images are done by artists and harder to change if a lore change decision is made. While some art is done by primary lore people, it's usually 1 step removed. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, very likely, Sandwich. Did not see that one coming, X! :DDD --Mordecay (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: [4] & [5] --Mordecay (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Do we really need to single out how the depiction of Zin-Azshari is inconsistent? The book retcons tons of stuff ... Xporc (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Would a list of retcons from Chronicle be a good idea? No one complained when that was done for UVG. --Mordecay (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be an amazing idea (but a lot of work). I just meant that if we listed this inconsistency, we should also list other inconsistencies. Xporc (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

"Subject covered" section was good when the book was not released, but now it is all kinda redundant. I think the Content section is just fine to replace the "subject covered". Maaaybe adding additional sentence or two to the chapters would help but otherwise it should be enough. --Mordecay (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think any other book page here has this kind of detail as to its contents. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)