User talk:Rolandius/Archive3

Edit summaries

I see you're using various edit summaries for just about the same thing, and I'd suggest you use some other summary to describe more of it. For example "Corrected spelling/grammar" would mean that you actually correct some spelling/grammar and not making more line spacing. "Cleanup" would be the article is bloated with information not needed, or has some text that can be wikified, and that you're fixing that. g0urra[T҂C] 11:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will put more than one edit summary or expand on single edit summaries when I edit articles. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me why your spacing edits are called "WW:MOS, Cleanup", as there's no such thing in Project:MOS. g0urra[T҂C] 07:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The WW:MOS is for a different part I fixed that is why I wrote "WW:MOS; Cleanup" since it is two different things I did. The Cleanup is the spacing edits. Usually I will put "line spacing deleted" or "spacing removed" if there is just one or two but I write Cleanup if there are a lot. Too much line spacing or regular spacing would be Cleanup wouldn't it? Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "cleaning up" when you do spacing edits, that's all in your head. There's no difference if there's a space between the DEFAULTSORT and the categories or not, so please stop that. Also, the lead sentence on book articles are supposed to be styled like this, not like "this", which I'm sure you've already read up on Project:MOS - or are you just trying to get away with edits? g0urra[T҂C] 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought there was a difference as it makes the article shorter if you get rid of extra spacing. Ah no, I read it pretty well. Read Project:MOS again regarding short works as the example right on WW:MOS shows the reader. Rolandius (talk - contr)

Talents

[[:Category:<class> talents]] are automatically added through Infobox talent. There's no need to add the category manually. g0urra[T҂C] 10:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. I saw it in a lot of the other articles so I thought it had to be there. Okay good to know. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox status guide

• Active= Used for gods, demigods, god-like entities, and a certain very powerful demon.
• Alive= used for most characters who are alive and kicking.
• Deceased= characters who are dead and have not been afflicted with the curse of Undeath.

NOTE: it is permissible to instead put a short description of the character's death, such as "Slain during the War of the Ancients", "Killed by...", etc.

• Killable= NPCs who are expected to be killed as part of quest chains or raids (ie, the "plot" of the game). This does not apply to characters who are killed by other NPCs (Illidan excepted) as part of world events, nor does it apply to faction leaders who are killed during PvP captial raids.
• Undead= characters who are undead.
• Unknown= the actual status of this character is unknown. If a character's status is known, but it rather complicated (ie, Malfurion), a short description may also be added.

A bit of flexibility is allowed, and there might be a few others knocking around there, but this is the major list.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay this is a good guide thanks. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Brewfest Achievement

Ya the {{quality|rare}} came from Thottbot, but there is nothing like that on wowhead, so I think I'm just going to leave it out. But FYI in case you run into it again on another page. -Howbizr (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok cool. I am glad I didn't take something out important. LOL Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

I used your page as a template for mine beacuse I'm not very good at this wiki coding yet. Hope you don't mind! :)--Denmon (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is great. LOL When you get to know more about wiki coding you can do stuff like make your own templates just like those on Project:List of user templates. I tried making a few. So, if you ever make your own stuff you can either just use it yourself by using your User:Denmon pages or put it on that page by using the "Creating a new user template" infobox and see if people like it. LOL Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! :) --Denmon (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Some overkill on corrections/grammar

Make sure you need to add "the" in some cases. This change to Ol' Sooty was probably unnecessary.

It's no big deal, but you could save some time. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:45 PM PST 4 Nov 2008

Ya, I guess Grizzlepaw Ridge was okay without "the" in front of it. LOL Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image categories

I don't think I'll have to tell you... categorize images that you upload, especially Category:NPC screenshots and Category:Mob screenshots. g0urra[T҂C] 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have been writing the category in the "Summary" box when I upload them. I thought they were sorted later if you wrote it in the small box. Okay i will do. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories are in plural, ie. [[Category:Mob screenshots]] not [[Category:Mob screenshot]]. g0urra[T҂C] 06:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When tagging for speedy deletion

Please work to remove the links to the page to be speedily deleted. For example, remove the few links that are linked to Stormspire Nexus Guard. Not a big deal, but it makes it easier to maintain for the admins. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I just made it last night so I didn't check. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple others in the speedy deletion category that you didn't do either, but I'll deal with them. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I will do them also so we can get them done in half the time. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit! --Sky (t · c · w) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The wiki spirit. LOL I think that is all of them now. LOL Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

While I have largely stayed out of critiquing your edits, I feel that your seemingly vague and possibly pre-made edits summaries are sometimes misleading. Take for example your edits to WoWWikian. While I may not agree, "redundant" which gives some justification and reasoning, is a lot better than "Corrected spelling/grammar" which just says "I don't like it" and gives no context at a glance as to what you did, and you also did a bit more than corrections.--SWM2448 03:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean pre-made edit summaries? I clicked on the "Standard summaries" bar and chose which kind sounded like the edit that I had done. I will try to be more concise, but it gets tiring if a person does dozens of edits and has to spend half the time writing in the "Edit summary" box when the "Standard summaries" thing is right there asking the editor to "(click to browse)". Maybe it is just me. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to choose one of those edit summaries, they are just the most common ones. Edit summaries aren't that hard to write either, unless you really don't know what purpose the edit was. g0urra[T҂C] 06:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just thinking if I spell check like 20 words in any given article, it is easier to pick the "edit summary" right? I don't think I can fit all the words I corrected into the infobox. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary should literally be a edit summary. I would also prefer it if you began using summaries other than the 'default' summaries. Ie, don't just use WW:MOS, say "correcting lead, bolding name", etc etc etc. It makes your edits take a little longer, but it makes it easier by everyone else to check out your edits. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: quality color

If you're going to have quality colors then use {{quality}}. However the item's name is only required to be mentioned once or enough times that are necessary; it would be bloated to type "Verigan's Fist..." every time instead of "This item...". g0urra[T҂C] 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I did use "This item..." but then I thought too many mentions of "This item..." wouldn't look great. So I thought I would change some of the "This item..." mentions to a colorful mention of the name. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't use {{quality}} because it would just make a link that way to itself. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gourra that many of the colored name additions were unnecessary, but not particularly harmful (except hard-coded colors, see below). However, Rolandius did have a point about not using {{quality}}.

You can use <span class="qc-quality">...</span> to apply quality colors. This is preferred to hard-coded color values, since we can globally fix quality color changes with a CSS change. See MediaWiki:Common.css. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:52 PM PST 17 Nov 2008

Deletion

The Speedydelete is only used when marking pages for immediate removal, such as in articles that were created as a result of vandalism, botched redirects and the like. If you think an article should be removed, add the normal delete tag and go through the proper channels. Addendum: I see now what you were trying to do, but in situations like this, it's best to just tell one of us rather than speedy it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 06:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave a message next time it comes up. I think they were mostly "redirect" pages that I wanted an admin to notice and move out of the way. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Line spacing and apostrophes

I don't know why you keep adding excessive line spacing (two line breaks between for example template and text), and apostrophes inside links ([[Blizzard Entertainment|Blizzard's]]), but that's not how you're supposed to write it. g0urra[T҂C] 08:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well on the computer, at least mine, if there is only one line break it looks like they run into each other and do not look seperate sort of like how sometimes people use ---- to divide a section from another. If that is how it is supposed to look all smashed together then I will leave it like that. The Blizzard thing once again is about how it looks. It doesn't look that great having a link then another color "'s" attached to the end. It looks much better this way, but once again if that is how you want it I will leave it. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you looking at Wikipedia, they have their articles the same way, considering both line spacing and apostrophes. If you don't like it, then so be it, don't expect the wiki to adapt to you and not the other way. g0urra[T҂C] 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this wasn't Wikipedia? I will go with whichever we are going with currently. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Spirit Healer (NPC)

May I ask why you added the article? The information needed is already on Spirit healer, and the article does not benefit from {{npcbox}}. g0urra[T҂C] 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I made it because the NPC info was not in the previous article which I thought was a general article on spirit healers. If it does not benefit from {{npcbox}} then I guess we don't need it. I thought since there were three different NPC Spirit Healers in WoW with various stats it needed something extra. I wrote the different areas you could find the three. The third Spirit Healer even looks like a Val'kyr which is much different than usual. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A spirit healer is found in every area with a graveyard. There's no exceptions, and as such there is no need to make an NPC article that exists in every area; it can all be summarized to the main Spirit Healer article. The fact that the third one in Scarlet Enclave has a Val'kyr model can be put in the main Spirit Healer article too; it's not something that requires its own article. g0urra[T҂C] 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I know a spirit healer is found everywhere, but there are 3 models. I only made one article by the way and not an article for each graveyard so is wasn't "every area". Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two different models; one for the "normal" Spirit Healer and one that is Val'kyr in the Scarlet Enclave. g0urra[T҂C] 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I know but there are three NPCs: 32537, 29259, and 6491. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deadmines has/have

You raise an interesting point. The name is plural, so have makes sense, but it is conceptually a single instance, so has' makes sense.

Hmm, real world example; ... would you say "Carlsbad Caverns have" or "Carlsbad Caverns has"?

Carlsbad Caverns have a souvenier shop - seems to say each Carlsbad Cavern has a souvenier shop, multiple souvenier shops.

Carlsbad Caverns has a souvenier shop - the entire Carlsbad Caverns system has one souvenier shop.

Carlsbad Caverns has/have bats could go either way.

Not exactly crystal clear, but I'd vote for singular location and use has. I won't revert it. Madkaugh (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I though so too, but then I saw these sentences in the next paragraph:

"Prior to the First War, the Deadmines were the greatest gold production center in human lands. However, they were abandoned during the First War."

I am not sure if that is a quote from a source or a user. I thought it might have been a source so I followed that example in order to make everything in one tense. It would sound crazy using "has" but then the next paragraph uses "were". It might be the way you are saying where we should use "has", which means the word "were" in that second paragraph should be "was". I guess it depends if someone can cite those quotes or if it was just a user's own entry. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On Verosogak's talk page

I would suggest not editing that. I unblocked him and summarily invited him to leave his comments on the talk page. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

After you unblocked him though, he wrote those comments about his "reasons", and you can see he still is joking around with us. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent additions

I don't see Sky's approval on your recent additions, including AKA, BRB, Cheese (Term), Con, and others. These pages appear to be largely similar to problem pages in the past and I don't see much connection with WoW (on another note BCG doesn't seem to be a proper citation, maybe I missed a memo). Please discontinue creating pages until you have Sky's approval, as per what we laid out. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I am using the World of Warcraft Battle Chest Guide, so it is connected with WoW, this time around though and not just making them up. It is not on the citation page so I had to guess as to what the citation would look like. I thought WoWBCG looked okay. I will ask Sky first like you asked. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that not everything in the guide (or other books) needs to be in the wiki. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that we had an Acronym and Glossary category on here so I wanted to add some more terms. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Character Re-Customization

How about a page on this new feature?[1] Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ulduar Earthen

The category's name is Ulduar Earthen with a capital E, they arent exactly like the Frost dwarves etc because they havent really gotten a proper name yet, please reply on my talk if you can.--You know im seriously 1337 now. ^{{T1337 to the extreme.•CThe dragon protects me...that and my MG 30 glock of course..)} 03:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes sorry misread it.--You know im seriously 1337 now. ^{{T1337 to the extreme.•CThe dragon protects me...that and my MG 30 glock of course..)} 03:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Races

There's still a discussion on the template page about the races that should be included. Or do you feel like adding all of the various types of dragonkin that exists? g0urra[T҂C] 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not until you changed all the dragon races back to black dragon, red dragon, etc. If you think black dragon, red dragon, etc have to be in the infoboxes as races then it should be in the races template.12:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Rolandius (talk - contr)

Race in infobox != race in Races template. g0urra[T҂C] 12:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I just said that. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove then by adding them to the races template? g0urra[T҂C] 12:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought dragon was a race. It is in the Race template. Now though, after your reverts, it looks like the races are green dragon, red dragon, etc. which I thought were only names of dragonflights. Therefore, if those are all sapient races then they should be included in the Race template. It does make sense. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again I refer to the template's talk page. g0urra[T҂C] 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edits

See Black wyrm. g0urra[T҂C] 13:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I read it. That is why I said "Black wyrm=race?" since it is just a growth stage. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Deathwing is a mighty black wyrm". Did you miss that part entirely? g0urra[T҂C] 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the part "A black wyrm is the adult stage of the black dragon life cycle"? I don't know what else to say, the page says it itself. When do we stop at a term? He is a Dragon, but then it was changed to Black dragon and now it is Black wyrm. What is next? Black aspect and then Black mature? Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent additions, 2

I don't see Sky's approval on articles such as Village. Did you forget the deal? g0urra[T҂C] 13:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to do some edits for future information. I will ask him again, although I don't see the difference between my pages and hills or mountains. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving information manually

Stop moving information manually if you can't move pages to the correct article; the page history doesn't follow, which is crucial. You should poke an admin if you want destination pages deleted. g0urra[T҂C] 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will poke an admin next time. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't poke too hard... you break em you bought em. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh it will be a soft poke. They won't see it coming. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of moves going on... hope you plan to update nav templates. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 07:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If by nav templates you mean the "what links here" articles, I will slowly but surely in the next few hours do it. Although, I thought admins did most of that. :) Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If by nav templates you mean "Warcraft Books - Novels, manga, comics, and pen-and-paper RPG sourcebooks", I will do it now. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, don't mark redirect pages for deletion if you haven't changed all the pages that link there to the new article... or just leave the redirect as it.

And by nav templates I actually mean the templates such as {{Books}}. But hold off on all the moves anyway... where's your source on the "Official names" for some of your moves? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good idea or else if it gets deleted too early I won't be able to see the "what links here" articles anymore.

For the source, I checked on how the Blizzard Store spelled the names of books and/or how the books are spelled on the cover themselves. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very well... always interesting how different sites list them as, some with the colon, some without... some with digits (3) others with numbers (three). It would just be best to leave the redirects there so that anyone can find them no matter which one they use. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 08:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard isn't the original publisher of the books; go by the real official site, e.g. BradyGames. g0urra[T҂C] 08:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I went with Ragestorm who said "One way might be to see what sellers are doing (Blizzard's store being the preferable source)". So I looked at how Blizzard spelled the titles on their store site. Also, the titles with numbers are actually right. Just look at the cover images of the books, or if you have the book even better, and you will see that they use roman numerals and whole words, depending on the titles e.g. "II" instead of "2" and "three" instead of "3". You sort of have to double check some titles sometimes because the cover and/or spine of a book will have the right info versus something written up. For instance, if somehow BradyGames sold something called World of Warcraft Besteiry, and you looked at the cover image or owned the book, then you would know something is not right and not copy that for an official page. Or if somehow Blizzard wrote World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich Kin, and you looked at the box image or owned the game, then you would know something is not right and not copy that for an official page. Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WC3_Icons/Map_editor_icon_library

Thanks for editing "my" page. I appreciate it. In response to your question in the editing summary - From Wikipedia, "The letters NB or Nb or nb may refer to: (as N.B.) an abbreviation for nota bene, a Latin expression meaning "note well".

No prob. Oh okay N.B. is an abbreviation. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Paladins as Caster Dps

Since when is Blizzard's word law? g0urra[T҂C] 07:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Blizzard was a pretty good source? Like I said earlier, if wowarmory is not an official source then change the article back. I didn't make up the info that Paladins are Caster DPS. I am just the messenger. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard is a good source, yes, but Paladins are not viable as good DPS casters (they have MAX 3 distance spells, and that's vs undead). You're not the messenger, you take words and twist them around. g0urra[T҂C] 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarantula

Do you have any facts or references at all that those mobs are tarantulas and not spiders? g0urra[T҂C] 13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

First, they look like tarantulas versus the smaller, not hairy kind of spider. Second, their skin is called tarantula. Third, they share the same model as the tarantulas. I mean tarantulas are spiders in the first place, but I was just trying to get specific. You know like we use "night elf" and "blood elf" not just elf. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because other mobs look like the Tarantula mob doesn't make them tarantulas. You added that they are found in Redridge Mountains, Swamp of Sorrows and Black Morass; however only one of the named tarantulas are in any of those zones. Don't get me started on model names, they are irrelevant. Let's see some references on those claims.

By the way, isn't this one of the things that you should take up with Sky2042 before doing? g0urra[T҂C] 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay just move those mobs anywhere you want then. To me they look like tarantulas and they have the skin "tarantula". They don't look look like the other smaller spider modeI. I thought he was on vacation or something. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to be moved anywhere. Sky2042 was on vacation until January 10th. g0urra[T҂C] 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't said anything on his talk page though. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PROC

There are sources ontop of sources for why its not programmed on random occurance.

• For example, there are the sources that specially refute the acronym in MMO terms, like the letter from Raph Koster; http://www.mmorchive.net/2008/05/05/it-isnt-an-acronym-okay/ (The nerfbat source, http://www.nerfbat.com/2006/04/15/what-is-a-proc, seems down for me, whenever I try).
• Then theres sources that specialise in programming that use the term in their own confinds; http://erlang.org/doc/design_principles/spec_proc.html
• Not that I'm saying that you havn't found a source to say otherwise, just that whatever source you found must be incorrect. Not only because of the evidence rife through the internet, but the 3 paragraphs immediately below your comment also contrdict it completely. Although, the source you have cited does not seem to exist anywhere, and isn't even mentioned on the Book citation page at all.

Well I have no idea if it is incorrect or not. I am just citing it. It is an official source from Blizzard rather then "the internet". I don't know why no one has put it in the Book citation yet. It is the official World of Warcraft Battle Chest Guide. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I moved it lower on the page, because there are so many sources stating otherwise, I didn't removed it from the page, and I just think your edit was childish and pointless.

Rolandius, I suggest not editing until Sky approves it. This is your last warning. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't want me to edit on here anymore I won't. See you later. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you said that, "These arrangements will be subject to review at the end of November, or at any time if we see them to not be working quite as intended." This is almost the end of January... Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing

When has Sky told you that it's okay for you to start editing again? g0urra[T҂C] 11:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In an e-mail. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If that isn't complete bullshit, then Sky needs to post here. Your last warning still stands. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I don't know about this "last warning". You did say "Sky2042 will be your only admin source of contact; the other admins will work with Sky if any problems arise or if Sky requests their help. All admins should be aware of this - if you encounter any problems, talk to Sky about it." It doesn't say anything about threatening me. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sky is not approving your edits. You should not be doing anything without his approval. If you can't understand that, you can't edit. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 14:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, talk to Sky. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to, but in the meantime you are not following the process we set out. If you continue, I will block you. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 14:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That took forever to add those edits. It is not like I made them up. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked Rolandius. Pcj, you are also violating the process by not consultng Sky before acting against Rolandius. See User_talk:Rolandius/Archive3#Welcome_back.

1. Sky2042 will be your only admin source of contact; the other admins will work with Sky if any problems arise or if Sky requests their help. All admins should be aware of this - if you encounter any problems, talk to Sky about it. This does not mean admins - or others - cannot edit your contributions appropriately; simply that no action should be taken against you without consulting Sky.

Please do not apply the rules arbitrarily without consulting Sky or at least Kirkburn. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:54 PM PST 29 Jan 2009

It says "Start of block: 06:55, 29 January 2009 Expiry of block: 06:55, 30 January 2009" when I try to edit. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can fix it? Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Elders Pages

Thanks for coming in behind me and cleaning/correcting these, I was using info from different areas or player comments that weren't all that great. --Mouren (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I try to help. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration

Have you taken leave of your senses? "Naga from Dungeons & Dragons." and related permutations are not appropriate. Is there a reason you are blatently ignoring the rules you and I set out for these sections months ago? (that is, titled "Myth", or otherwise put in the Trivia section, and not assume that DnD created them?)--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I might have added too many "Inspired" sections. How about just the ones in Appendix III of Manual of Monsters? Appendix III specifically says that they come from 4 books in D&D and D&D Warcraft The Roleplaying Game says you must use the D&D handbook. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the monsters are ones developed specifically for D&D (ie, Yuan-ti or mindflayers), or if Blizzard has stated that a D&D race was a specific influence (the night elves originally being based on the Drow, for example), fine. If the monster is originally from real-world mythology, I really don't see the point. Creating separate sections also serves no purpose, particularly as more than half of the sections you added already had a myth or trivia section.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was reading the Appendix III creatures, I also saw others like the naga that were also in D&D so I thought it would be interesting to add those. I guess those were not really needed like you said since there is already the Myth section. I will just stick to the Appendix III creatures. On a side note, could we add images of the D&D creatures developed specifically for D&D (ie, Yuan-ti or mindflayers)? A majority of those pages are just 2 sentences and it would help fill the page and show people what it looks like at least in D&D. Also, I saw some pages had fan art so the D&D image would be a better image or addition at least to the fan interpretation. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...that's enough of that. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I talked to Ragestorm about these edits above so I shouldn't have been blocked. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Ragestorm did not agree with you or approve your edits. He basically said that Blizzard specifically had to be drawing from DnD origins. And then you go and add that nonsense to a page like Centaur as well as all the others without discussing it thoroughly or citing your Blizzard sources. This is not the method we set out for you to edit. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 13:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, Salamanders are not D&D exclusive creatures. I refer you to the nearest zoological garden or natural history museum for more information. Similarly, read the myth section on the gargoyle page. NONE of the creatures you've tagged are D&D exclusive or created (though I'll concede that bugbears might as well be). If you can tell me exactly how they were influenced, put a sentence in the Myth or trivia section, but only if it's absolutely nessesary. Give me a list of the creatures you want to have a mention, and I'll tell you which ones to edit. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You told me if the D&D race was a specific influence. Here is the quote from the book, "Creatures from other d20 sources can add an exciting new element to a Warcraft campaign. This appendix details monsters from the MM v3.5, Creature Collection Revised, Creature Collection II: Dark Menagerie, and The Tome of Horrors." That says it all right there. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about actual LORE, not Sunday night tabletops. The inclusion of Naga, Gargoyles, Centaurs, and many others predate Appendix 3 by a significant margin. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is lore. It is from the Warcraft RPG. How am I supposed to know if it is an original D&D creature or a myth creature that Blizzard is taking it from except by what the RPG says? I asked you about Appendix III and you said if a D&D race was a specific influence. Can I be unblocked now? Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This was no reason to ban me. The Warcraft RPG says specifically that quote and then has a section on each of the D&D books and lists all the creatures info Warcraft took from those books. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am tired of having to rewrite all my info, from actual sources, again and again. Pcj should revert all those back so I don't have to enter them for a nth time. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully soon? Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"How am I supposed to know if it is an original D&D creature or a myth creature that Blizzard is taking it from except by what the RPG says?"

Research. Most of the creatures you've been adding these sections to were introduced in WC3, released before the RPG kicked off, amongst other facts.

The other thing I take issue with, which you have been warned about before, is the sweeping range of additions (which all consisted of a single sentence not conforming to SWE) you added. And not only did you do this to every page on the list, you also blatantly ignored the information already present on many of the pages.

I'll see about reducing the ban, but the fact is that I am issuing essentially the same warning to you now as I did four months ago. And four months before that. And four months prior to that on.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay what does SWE mean? I am not trying to do this on purpose/mess up pages. I am trying to just give credit to the sources in which the Warcraft RPG got their info from i.e. those 4 D&D books. Just go to Manual of Monsters and read about Appendix III. It says "A few entries (wyvern, dryad, centaur) seem at first glance to contradict other known lore on the subject, however the book explains that they are unique, or a rare variations of those creatures." So that is what I did. I put a small section on only the creatures we took from Appendix III stating that the info is inspired, converted, or however you want to call it from those 4 D&D books — or at least unique versions of those creatures. For instance, I never heard of an Ankheg, a Nightshade, or a Shambling Mound in Warcraft or myth stories. Those were some pages that were reverted though. If this info is not from D&D, why would there be a whole section, divided by the 4 D&D books, listing creatures and giving info about those creatures if they are not even from D&D? Also it says, "Creatures from other d20 sources can add an exciting new element to a Warcraft campaign. This appendix details monsters from the MM v3.5, Creature Collection Revised, Creature Collection II: Dark Menagerie, and The Tome of Horrors." It doesn't say this appendix details monsters from myth stories. If these creatures are not inspired by D&D, why wouldn't they just make up their own versions instead of taking info from D&D? Could you give me a list of creature articles I can edit? It seemed to me like you said creatures in Appendix III were okay. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are telling me that 1) it has to be a creature where the info was taken from D&D 2) it cannot be a creature that D&D took from myth 3) it cannot be a creature that appeared in Warcraft I through Warcraft III? Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard World English, if I am not mistaken, and if your sentences were not conforming to it, then Ragestorm means they were grammatically incorrect. By the way, while I prefer to stay out of this endless debate, when did he mention the RTS series?--SWM2448 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My sentences were SWE I thought or at least Standard English. He mentioned the RTS when he said "most of the creatures you've been adding these sections to were introduced in WC3, released before the RPG kicked off" that is why I was asking about creatures from W1 to W3. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I am referring very specifically to the dryads, centuars, etc. I don't give a damn about the ones only mentioned in Appendix III.

2) "<monster name> from Dungeons & Dragons." This is not a complete sentence, and it is not acceptable to be the only sentence in its own section.

3) There also seems to be confusion over the word "Inspiration." D&D Dryads, Kobolds, centaurs, etc. mentioned in appendix 3 are not the inspiration of the Warcraft counterparts, they are simply monsters that can be included in a Warcraft tabletop RPG game at the GM's discretion. My issue is with you creating one-sentence sections that imply that Warcraft Naga, Centaurs, Kobolds, etc. are inspired by the D&D version, when this is rarely, if ever, the case (and even if it were, appendix 3 is not a viable source to make that assumption). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make it short so people could read it quick. I didn't just say D&D I put the name of the whole book like <monster name> D&D Monster Manual Source Book III. Okay I understand about dryads, kobolds, and centaurs but what about ankheg, nightshades, and shambling mounds. I never heard of those myself. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, of those 4 races you mentioned just now, I didn't add the section back to the naga or kobold page the second time around after you told me. I only added that section to the centaur and dryad pages. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If I could put my 2¢...

We probably should not be using an "Inspiration" section at all, since it implies knowledge that only people in Blizzard probably know. Putting the relationship under "Trivia" should suffice. Also, enforcing supposed SWE does not justify reversion or deletion, it only justifies editing or rewrite.

One thing that is not a suggestion: Don't use reversion unless you're going to explain it in the talk page where you used it. Reversion is handy, but should not be used out of laziness, since it prevents seeing a change summary. If admins keep using reversion without comment, I'm gonna have to talk to Kirkburn about curtailing its use. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:58 AM PST 1 Feb 2009

I was trying to think of a section name and thought "Inspired" was okay, but I guess people didn't like it. "Trivia" sounds okay (although I thought that was more for something like an NPC's name being also found in a movie or a book) but how about Adapted or Converted since they are taking the creature's name and some info, or changing it slightly, directly from 4 named D&D books and also telling the reader/player that if they use those creatures they can use the stats from the D&D entry (unless superceded by a Warcraft entry's stats)? Instead of using the category of RPG creatures, or maybe together with that category, we should be able to use any categories mentioned for that creature in its D&D entry like Manual of Monsters suggests. Also, I saw some of those articles had fan art or no images at all so I think it would help the page if we were able to put the creature's image from those 4 D&D books on the page to make it look nicer and give the user an idea of what in the world the creature looks like. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay a section name that sounds the best so far is "Incorporated". That was one word mentioned in Manual of Monsters when they talked about the D&D info getting changed into the Warcraft arena. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea to post original artwork from non-blizzard rpg books was suggested by previous editors. Its not a bad idea. If you own the books, go ahead and scan them. But for now perhaps post the artwork to the talk page until we figure out how to format something like that.Baggins (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First example is at Talk:Animated object. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius:NO SEPARATE SECTIONS. This can go into pre-established Trivia or Myth sections, or into new Trivia sections if the need arises (I'm considering converting all Myth sections into Trivia sections anyway)

And for the record, I was not the one doing the reverting.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said you reverted anything. Okay I will put the info under the Trivia section or make a Trivia section if there is not one present. I still think that "Trivia" doesn't fit the info that a particular creature and its info/stats are taken directly from D&D. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Centaurs, kobolds, gargoyles, and naga are not taken directly and exclusively from the RPG. The information that they are mentioned in Appendix 3 is certainly trivia. If it makes you feel better, you can title the RPG-specific sections "note" or something. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know that now. I meant the other creatures which some people may have never heard of like ankheg or bugbear which would fit better under something other than trivia. Okay I will use "Note". Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: add this information to trivia or myth section, if they already exist, and rename "notes". --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 06:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RPG pictures

Ok, now don't go overboard, stick to one version (which ever edition Manual of Monsters refers to). We don't need every every single DND rpg picture out there... and its a tripling the copyright infringement...Baggins (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

...and don't add content from the non-blizzard sources into articles either. I.E. none of that "Types of Animated Objects" crap. If Manual of Monsters didn't go into details of variations, you don't either.

The only exception is unobtrusive category addition for a creature's type, "humanoid, outsider, etc" for purpose of keeping track of things. But don't go about adding any other statistical information.Baggins (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay just the edition MoM says. Okay no subraces of creature. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

D&D stuff

Please don't add stuff that is implied by the Warcraft RPG as being from D&D unless it has some Warcraft-specific lore to it. Allowing Warcraft RPGers to use D&D material was more of a convenience for the game makers to give some more flexibility to the game, but it doesn't belong in WoWWiki unless it is Warcraft-specific. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:34 PM PST 2 Feb 2009

Which example are you pointing to? The images or the Note section? Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the pictures are limited to the talk pages, and not the actual articles, I'd say he meant more about overly detailed notes, or the junk you added in animated objects that wasn't even from Warcraft source. Sorry about the run-on...Baggins (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The junk was removed by you already though. The notes I copied from Ragestorm after he clarified them on another page I had notes on. So I copied his new version. The only thing I did was some italicizing of words, like World of Warcraft. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it yes, but still doesn't mean you putting it there in the first place was right. ...And Fandy got onto you when he saw it. Me removing it doesn't absolve you of your crime, you can still be warned by any number of admins that may have saw it. Also, if I didn't remove it someone else would have, and you still would have been reprimanded.Baggins (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I am just wondering if it is something that was on the page before he commented or is currently on the page. I am pretty sure it isn't a crime though. Reverting edits for no reason may be a crime. He has got onto people about that recently. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was making a general statement to prevent any future unnecessary additions and time wasting reversions. Neither adding unnecessary stuff or unexplained reversions are crimes; they just shouldn't have to happen. If admins spent half the time just trying to be helpful than they do on you, Rolandius, WoWWiki would be a much nicer place. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:17 PM PST 3 Feb 2009

I agree. A lot of the time they spend reverting my decent edits could be spent on reverting vandalism like "Rhea" and "Dire Rhea" or fixing articles where the race of "human" is replaced by "peasant" or the mob NPCbox is removed from an article. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment, can you please stop bringing up that damned Rhea? It doesn't help your case. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit WoWWiki:Policy pages with staging them first

Please don't edit WoWWiki:Policy pages directly without staging an edited copy as a subpage of your user namespace first. The WoWWiki:Policy/DNP changes you made seem okay, but only Admins should be editing the policy pages and then only if they clearly explain the reason for the change on the talk page. I will comment on the Project talk:DNP policy page that I've reviewed your changes, but please don't do that again. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:18 PM PST 6 Feb 2009

Okay. I thought it was just like any other page since it wasn't protected. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Continent cats

Don't place these in village articles or any others. Example: Sen'jin Village has the cat Durotar subzones → Durotar → Kalimdor. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it too many cats? Should I just put the region cat the location is in? Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No we're trying to not put the parent categories into articles, the subzone categories cover the location. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Context and dead links

Rolandius, please stop putting out of context or dead links on pages. Just because a word is in a sentence does not mean that the sentence is talking about what that word links to, nor does the linked page need to be rewritten so the context become correct. As for the dead links, linking a page that is not made yet sort of says to users that it is alright to make that page, and because of your previous issues with creating new pages, I ask that you consult your current mentor before you create a dead link again, because it is almost as bad as making the page yourself.--SWM2448 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually only link things that exist. As for the ones that are red, I have linked those because they sound important or are capitalized which makes it sounds like it is an important word. It would help if you told me which page was the one where you said "nor does the linked page need to be rewritten so the context become correct". Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope "usually" and "sounds like" are not the operative words. You have not yet rewritten a page based on a link or links you put, to my knowledge, but you have rewritten pages based on your understanding of their topic, and I was merely describing what you should not do rather that what you have done.--SWM2448 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is capitalized or is a title or profession doesn't mean there is any or enough information to even create a valid article on said subject. Yes, I agree no linking unless what you are linking to exists in the first place.Baggins (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What about an NPC that is not on WoWWiki yet but their name is mentioned on another article? Are those not supposed to be linked until they are made into articles? I assume that since they are NPCs they may have an article about them sometime in the near future. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In-game NPCs are a different story. You should link those, as they will be created... but names of character not in the game should not, unless they have a lore page made for them already, or the person making the link creates the lore page right away (with more than just a stub). A mere mention of them should not constitute a page dedicated to them, though it doesn't always seem to be the case. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 07:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool. I just ran into four NPCs/mobs that I linked on Land's End Beach but ended up being red. I see that on the Inconspicuous Landmark page they are there too and red, in very small font for some reason. LOL Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You added a link to "mason"[2] and "tree"[3]...--SWM2448 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I must have been tired. I thought there was a mason and tree article on WoWWiki. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Were you tired when you thought a Warlock talent was relevant to the Riplash Ruins[4] (that you feel does not need the article in front of them)? I suggest that you make heavy use of the 'Preview'/'Show Preview' button when editing, and if you are using a PC, left click links and select 'Open in New Window' to check if they are relevant. Research can be just a few clicks away.--SWM2448 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now "construct" and "seed race".[5] Ask your mentor if all these pages should be created, or stop linking them.--SWM2448 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if people are going to use the word construct and seed race in multiple articles it should be defined. Not everyone knows what a construct or seed race means, yet it is used many times without an article about it. It is like not having an article about abominations, yet using the word in articles and thinking everyone knows what it means. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

'Construct' is used just as it is in the real world (but with less magic). Does 'seed race' even have a definitive definition at this point?--SWM2448 23:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Construct is a category shouldn't it be an article? I don't know if seed race has a definitive definition but it sure is being used a lot on here. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all categories need to have an article associated with them, which I thought you'd be aware of by now. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?

Try to move any character on the book pages that have only a single referenc or sentence made in the novels to the "minor characters" sections. They shouldn't be in the supporting characters of course. Also move any who have less than a supporting role i.e. only mentioned or do not have major interaction with the main characters.Baggins (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will take a try at it. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral links

Why did you link {{neutral}} so many times on Dalaran?[6] What does it add besides a mass of yellow? Things do not need to be linked that much, especially like that.--SWM2448 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounded good at the time. Oh well, I guess it was too much yellow. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pandaren Settlement

You changed "A Pandaren settlement was..." to "Pandaren Settlement was...". I changed it back and you changed it again and told me to "Read the title of the article before you revert my edits...".[7] I did. Pointing you back to an unrelated arbitration, that is still a good rule of thumb, by Kirkburn: "You don't need to repeat the title exactly"[8] Now, are you sure that the Alliance & Horde Compendium meant 'Pandaren Settlement' as a completely proper noun?--SWM2448 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that is the thing. I only said "read the title" because you changed it to Pandaren settlement when the title of the whole article is Pandaren Settlement. I was just trying to follow along with the article title. I don't know what Alliance & Horde Compedium says as I didn't create the article. I was just going by the creator of the page, Baggins, and I thought he knew what he was doing. If it is supposed to be actually Pandaren settlement, then you would be right to change my edit. Right now though, the article is called Pandaren Settlement. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a proper noun actually (I can't check). We used to have system of writing article titles in caps, as opposed to the system we currently use of avoiding capitalization. I honestly doubt the Pandarens would call their settlement, Pandaren Settlement. As of right now its actual name is unknown.Baggins (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I just checked. "A splinter group of pandaren arrived on Kalimdor in the aftermath of the Third War and has established itself in the Stonetalon region of the Barrens. Pandaren encountered outside the Barrens are wanderers and travelers..." So use whatever you can extract from those quotes. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref Spacing

FYI, typically in wikis, there are no spaces between ref tags, as in the end of this sentence.--Tyrsenus t c 13:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It just seems easier to click on. Instead, you might accidently click on #1 instead of #2 or vice versa because they are so close to each other. Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not make up your own style rules based on only what you think is correct or better. The refs are labeled with their numbers in the list at the bottom, so if someone was to miss for whatever reason (like being tired that day), a bit of scrolling could remedy that. If that person did not catch the number they can just check again. Changes to things like this require discussion, like on the Village Pump, or mass inconsistencies will occur.--SWM2448 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just think that would seem easier to click than, especially when the refs are into the double digits or higher. I will go with your suggestion. What about spaces between citation tags? Those do seem crazy together like this for example.{{t|Cite}}{{cite|Book#1|10}}{{cite|Book#2|20}} Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

{{t|Cite}} should really not be used at all anymore. I think Baggins made that template, so I would ask him if you have any issues with it. Please be aware that there is a fine line between and seeing problems no one else does, and seeing problems where there are none. Discussions are good.--SWM2448 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Baggins

Speaking of Baggins, what did you mean when you said Gourra was "starting to sound like Baggins" on Talk:Lake Wintergrasp?--SWM2448 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Gourra said "Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but could mean that it's merely not named yet." which sounded like Baggins when he said "Correction, the references in the rpg didn't say it had "no name", it simply doesn't give its name before the high elves grew the tree on the island. It just confirms that the island now takes the name of the tree." over on Talk:Kalidar. In both cases, they are saying something exists because we don't see it or because it just has to have a name. That makes no sense. If we don't see it, that means it does not exist until it is implemented by Blizzard. If it is not named, that does not mean it had to have had a name sometime in history. In the case of the island, we can't say it had a name before it was called Teldrassil just because everything should have a name. The evidence we have just supports that it was nameless and then was eventually named Teldrassil. In the case of the lake, we can't say this or that spot is really Lake Wintergrasp. The evidence states that the lake drained or otherwise vanished leaving only the Wintergrasp zone with some lakes here and there. You could put some ideas in speculation of what you think, but not in the main section of the article. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that something exists because we do not see it, or something exists because it just has to have a name both make no sense, but I would not describe either of those situations as being that. Both Kalidar and Lake Wintergrasp, not appearing in WoW, seem a bit speculatory, but does the evidence or your interpretation of it prove your case? On Kalidar, it is not just because everything should have a name. The RPG does not specifically state a name, but the preview does, and there is nothing that says the RPG has 100% of all relevant information about any given topic. On Lake Wintergrasp, I do not see how you could interpret Gourra's comments that way. Saying that a lake in the Wintergrasp zone, is Lake Wintergrasp because it does not have a name in WoW is not even close to what I gleaned from that conversation. It may not be a subzone, but it was labeled as such in the concept map, hinting at where it went more than any reasonable but baseless theory about draining. Keep in mind that both people you were arguing with are respected admins.--SWM2448 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The keywords are "preview" and "concept". In both cases, they did not make the final cut. Unless we are now counting concepts and previews as final works? Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

While its current validity is debatable, it is not the wiki's job to determine what is fact and what is not. These things exist as relevant information, and so should be presented.--SWM2448 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, its current validity isn't debatable because it has no validity. One of them is a concept which as you can see did not make it into Wrath of the Lich King when it was released and the other was a preview which as you can see did not make it into The Burning Crusade when that was released. It is not like a source says it is fact and another says it isn't, causing a conflict. There are no sources saying it is fact. Secondly, I didn't say they should not be presented. I said they should not be presented in the first paragraph just as you said "it is not the wiki's job to determine what is fact and what is not." yet you are saying it is fact. Which is it? Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to say 'it is fact', I was trying to say 'it is'. I think you are saying 'it is not'.--SWM2448 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, are we getting into some kind of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' 'is'" or something? Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually my comment was in reference to someone's edit that said that the rpg said the island orignally had "no name"[9]. I was clarifying that rpg neither confirms nor denies if it had any previous name before it was named teldrissil, nor does it confirm nor deny if was nameless. It simply does not give those details. To say it previously had "no name" would be pure assumption not specifically stated in the RPG. I edited the page in the article to better fit the actual quote in the RPG, thus to paint a more accurate picture of what was actually said, and remove the original misleading comment. The comment in the talk page was merely a edit note to point out the reason for the edit.Baggins (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making things a little complicated and arguing semantics. To say the island had no name before it was named Teldrassil is fair. To say that the island has to have a name before it was named Teldrassil is speculation. All we know is that there was this island, with no name, and the night elves named it Teldrassil a few years ago. You are just assuming it had a name before. Why does the island just have to already have a name before it was named Teldrassil? You name things when you discover them. You don't discover something and then say "we are naming this Teldrassil but be aware if may have had a name before which no one knows about". To our knowledge, it has only had one name and that is Teldrassil. You are telling me that the RPG has to say "the island was named Teldrassil, but it never had another name ever in the history of all of Azeroth" before we can say the island had no name before Teldrassil? Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, the problem here is you are getting into a canon vs. non-canon debate. Remember we do have that NPOV policy we don't speculate on "legitamacy of a source" if Blizzard had a source that called it Kalidor, we simply state the fact that the term was used. We don't offer an opinion on if it is valid or not valid, other than to note the controversy in the speculation section, or speculate that the idea might have been completely dropped. We also don't have a "its a preview" so its invalid rule, evething is treated neutrally. We have many articles built upon previews. We do not argue legitamacy issues at all, unless of course an actual quote can be cited.Baggins (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then it works both ways. You saying "we don't know if it really never had a name" is an assumption. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The

While articles should not be added to a part of an article's title, as you have been told before, that does not mean the subject does have an article in front of its name. What do you have against "the"s in front of things? You have removed a few...--SWM2448 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I have not been told anything before about doing things with the word "the". If I am thinking of the same thing as you are then that had to do, 6 or so months ago by the way, of me including the whole article title like "category:so and so" instead of just "so and so" in the article. Second, if "the" is so important that you have to take the time to tell me about it instead of working on real problems, then it should be part of the article title. I only take out "the" when it is not part of the article title or part of the name of the subzone. For instance, "the Geyser Fields" and "the Abandoned Reach" I include it in the article because it is in the name of the subzone. For something like "Valiance Keep" and "Warsong Hold" I am not going to say "the Valiance Keep" or "the Warsong Hold" because it does not have it included in its name of the subzone. Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this? I am not understanding what you mean. I feel I should add that hostilities are not my intention.--SWM2448 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was thinking of the Kirkburn one you linked in some other discussion. It was where I added in the article the whole title "Wiki policy: something something" instead of just "something something". Back then, I though the whole title of an article had to be in the article. "The" is not that important and so I will slow down my taking out "the" from articles as I can see that you are not trying to be hostile. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree

I agree with Adys. If people stopped trying to get other people banned for nonsense, putting people on the Violation list when they just copied the same method you did, and using ad hominem attacks and saying things like "getting you all against each other" for the nth time, then WoWWiki would be much better. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked on Scorpid Dunestalker's talk page, which is an in-game NPC, and a couple of other pages why an admin added Magical beasts as a category. So what happens? It gets used against me on the Violation list as "spam", but the Magical beasts category does get taken out. I find a page about worgen named Nightbane clan by an admin, so I move it to the correct name which would be Nightbane pack since worgen do not run around in clans. So what happens? It gets used against me on the Violation list. He then puts a {{fact}} on it, but somehow Nightbane clan was an official name I guess? Finally, I see this quote "He's using WW's bureaucracy and taking bullshit getting you all against eachother. Just look at this. I'm bored of having to deal with..." which looks like some people do not like when other users know all the rules of WoWWiki and tell them when they are doing something wrong. The crazy thing is the repetition of me "controlling" people like I somehow give commands to admins and they say "right away Rolandius" and follow my orders. Of course, if you try to point out certain people's mistakes, they get all mad and call out for other people to come along to help them ban you, but somehow "you" are the one controlling people. The newest invisible rule used to ban someone is because they are "bored" of doing their job. Oh well, you can ban users but you can't ban the truth. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Another Magical Beast with no info about it being a Magical Beast." on several pages does not ask why an admin added Magical beasts as a category, it is just nagging spam. The comment on the Violation list offers a suggestion on what you should have done. On the page moves, do you have citation for either worgen clan or worgen pack? Fight fire with facts, not pointless arguments. Your main problem is a disregard for the arrangement devised for you (it is past November 2008), and an underutilization of User:Rolandius/Mentor. You also arrogantly turned the comments of other users into an attack on Baggins, in a rude and ironic way. How can you talk about "...know[ing] all the rules of WoWWiki..." (Implied to be referring to you), after all the discussions about your misinterpretations and mistakes? You can still improve, which was and is the goal of the mentoring.--SWM2448 01:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After I saw that there were going to be several pages with that category, I stopped commenting on the talk pages, which were not so many that it was "spam", and just asked on Ragestorm's talk page about it and he answered me. I think people should look at the history of the articles. I didn't make the "Nightbane clan" article, Baggins named it that. I just moved it to "Nightbane pack". Ask him about the citation for his edits. I thought I was correcting it since worgen do not live in clans. It says right on the worgen page that they live in packs, not clans. So where are the people asking why that article was called "Nightbane clan"? Yes it is past Novemeber 2008, so why am I still on these "arrangements"? This is March. Also, my comments on User_talk:Ragestorm#Oh_boy were after I read his comments right above. After Baggins once again started complaining about me, Ragestorm said in the end, "Given that Tauren is on the playable template, I think his actions are a perfectly understandable misinterpretation. Everything else sounds fine for now.", so not everyone thought I should get thrown on the Violations list for nonsense reasons. Also, he does tend to attack me, but I guess you never read those comments. Those are the facts, and I am not the only one that can still improve. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You did talk to Ragestorm, but that does not completely negate the semi-rude comments beforehand. The Monster Guide says pack, but Lands of Conflict says tribe and a few other types of groups based on size. Blizzard often uses pack and tribe interchangeably. You said your reasons here, but you did not before. You are still on those "arrangements" because they were meant to stop upon a review in November in which they were found to be successful and working as intended, not just stop in November. Ragestorm's comments were referring to the racial page moves, and it is unlikely that it referred to the entirety of your edits. I did read those comments.--SWM2448 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Magasha

I am not sure about this since there is a Magasha in-game. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You honestly believe that a troll in Zangarmarsh is related to the Grimtotem? --g0urra[T҂C] 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I am just saying that there may not be a connection between making an anagram out of that one word in the clues, getting Magasha, and then saying it connects to Magatha. Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its off by one letter... that could have been a typo, blizzard is known for those. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be it. Which means they made a typo with the original word, "Agasham", too. I am surprised they did it twice. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well.. technically 3 times... but yea... it could happen... like the typo could have been on the original editor's notes, so when the quest and items were made the person would have done it throughout everything involved in the quest. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya 3 times. Oh well, it is under the speculation section I guess either way. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would she use a perfect anagram of her name for a codename?--SWM2448 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Boglord

I was wondering if "boglord" or "bog lord" is a race? If you look at  [Withered Basidium] it says, "A piece of a withered boglord from the Dead Mire.", and yet they drop from Withered Giants. Also, Bog Lord Tendrils drop from Bog Lords, Fungal Giants, and Withered Giants. In some quests, the sporelings call them "bog lords". Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They are called fungal giants according to the Burning Crusade Bestiary. So no, they aren't called boglords or bog lords. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well okay. I am just wondering if there is more than one race, subrace, or something because it says in Quest:Witherd Flesh "The basidium you brought me comes from a bog giant. Their larger, hardier cousins, the bog lords, should prove more resistant to the degeneration that's struck the giants." making it sound like the bog lords are related to bog giants. I am not sure where fungal giant fits in exactly but it sounds similiar to the spore bat and spore walker creatures in which spore bats are the "cousins" and "highly evolved sub-species" of the spore walkers. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NPC mentions

I am not sure if these should have pages but probably should be mentioned somewhere. "Private Doan" from  [25-30] A Rare Herb, "Farmer Natin" from speaking with Apprentice Andrethan, and "old man Amorlin" from  [25-30] Indispensable Tools. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't put more than one line about them, don't bother. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts

Custodian Dieworth and Thadell are ghosts. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirin'Var Village

A little more info on Kirin'Var Village which they simply call Kirin'Var. "Kirin'Var survived 20 long years and countless orc attacks, but it could not withstand the forces of Kael'thas. A man who once called himself a member of the Kirin Tor murdered all of us, save one." Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find the wreckage of both a dock and ship at Kirin'Var. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically its Dalaran City, but shortened to Dalaran.. people that live in a place for a long time tend to do that. I live in Ormond Beach, but never say Beach when telling people where I live. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirin'Var Village is actually named Dalaran City? Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, what i meant to do was give examples of shortened names... I guess I did word it badly... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get it now. Dalaran was once called Dalaran City, but now they just call it Dalaran. So Kirin'Var Village is sometimes just called Kirin'Var. Someone should add that into the Dalaran article. I never heard of it called "Dalaran City" before. I am guessing it is from Warcraft III since I haven't played that game yet. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps a better example would be "the city of Dalaran" or "the kingdom of Dalaran". I recall it being called those a few times. But anyways that's not the point, so stop being a smartass about it.

The full name is "Kirin'Var Village", "Kirin'Var" is simply a nickname for it. Now, I swear, if you're going to be a smartass nit-picky about one tiny detail about what I stated... Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Who or what are you talking about Toran? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gezhe

Some interesting info. When Gezhe speaks with Consortium Nether Runner various times, they speak of their "Sodaarmi backers", "heavy veldarite", "the Hara'samid Sector", "Heraazi exports", and rumors of a dispute with their "clients in Netherstorm". Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kariel Winthalus

Two observations on the article Kariel Winthalus. It says he is a blood elf Loremaster. First, the Loremaster links to an achievement article. Second, this is what Lorekeeper Lydros says about Kariel Winthalus, "It was the Prince who took exception to a high elf in his domain.", so wouldn't that mean Kariel Winthalus is a high elf? Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Category

Crust Burster and some others should have the category of "Bursters", and not "Sand worms", as this is their race. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be fixed. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fanglords

The four corrupted servants of Naralex are known collectively as the Fanglords. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Troll Wars

This article is on the Troll Wars but has things from other wars like RangerVsBerserker.jpg in it... Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yarzill the Merc

Small observations. It says on Yarzill the Merc's page that he is a "Goblin (Nether Dragon in disguise)" with no creature status, but on another NPC's page, Barthamus, it says "Nether drake (Dragonkin)". Also, in regard to Barthamus, it says he is a "nether dragon" in the main article and other articles, not a "nether drake". Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Squirrel

A lot of missing NPCs on the squirrel page. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Void lords

On the Void lord article, some of those named ones have "void lord" as their race, while others say "voidcaller" is the race. Someone should pick one or the other. Oh, and if void lord ends up being the one picked, don't forget to include Skra'gath. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Except Skra'gath is a voidcaller. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 03:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just going by the quest text for Skra'gath where Gurgthock says "They say he's a void lord or something..." in  [15-30G5] The Ring of Blood: Skra'gath, unless Gurgthock is confused. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Could also be a class/title rather than a race. Really needs more confirmation than that. The situation with doomguards comes to mind (in which depending on the context can be a race and can be a class/title). More information is needed, and some kind of biological confirmation.Baggins (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably is a class type... similar to humans being hunters, mages, warrior, etc... only difference would be the voidwraiths and voidgods. But still... would he be a void lord (cause of the quest) or voidcaller (cause of the model he uses)? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The standards we have maintained for voidcallers is that is that voidwalkers is the race (based on the quotes in strategy guide), everything else, "voidcaller", "void lord", etc is a title/class. We do have title and class sections, as well as the race section.Baggins (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sea witch

Are both "sea witch" and "priestess of the tides" two different classes? Some NPCs like Lady Vash have both classes in their infobox, but thrn over on Naga sea witch it says "Sea witch is the informal term for the naga priestess of the tides." so I am not sure. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Naga naming

Shouldn't the different naga pages be named naga tribe? Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Plague

Instead of the "Plague of Undeath", this says [10] it is called the "Undead Plague". Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rise of the Lich King

"Rise of the Lich King" also seems to be a short story.[11] Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of note, after looking through that, it doesn't seem like a short story, but more like an "annal" of history, like the History of Warcraft website. Basically an overview of historical events.Baggins (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Twin Ethereals

It seems that Zuben Eschamali and Zuben Elgenubi, two traders, are twin brothers. This also would mean that the ethereal race uses their last names in front of their first names. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do any other ethereals have last names? It may be a twin thing. Speculation.--SWM2448 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if any others have last names. I guess it is speculation that it is even a part of their name, as it could be some ethereal title they use. I can't remember if they refer to each other as "Zuben Eschamali" and "Zuben Elgenubi", "Eschamali and Elgenubi", or just "my brother". I do know they are twin brothers though. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Farahlite

Farahalite is named "in honor of this land's former identity" says Zuben Elgenubi. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ata'mal crystal

Both words in Ata'mal crystal are lower case. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hemathion

Due to his drops, could he be a "black drake" rather than a "black dragon". Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Valiance Keep

I am not sure about any other curse.com links, but the ones on the Valiance Keep page do not point to anything. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Zandalar

A few points on the Zandalar. The article for the faction should be named "Zandalar Tribe" like the Frenzyheart Tribe. The tribe would be named the "Zandalar tribe". Also, as individuals they are called Zandalarians or Zandalari.[12] Finally, there is not a troll race called "Zandalar trolls", as they were the first ones around. "Historians and physicians generally classify trolls into four categories: forest trolls, jungle trolls, ice trolls, and sand trolls. The trolls of the Zandalar tribe are considered unclassifiable because the Zandalari are the earliest known trolls, from whom all other trolls are descended." Each race has tribes. A fifth race may be dark trolls.[13] Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you didn't take Monster Guide into consideration, which was printed after troll website, and states that Zandalar trolls are a race, the "progenitor race from which all trolls arise", blah blah. Its also kind of interesting that the leader of the Zandalar trolls isn't even a Zandalar troll, but just a jungle troll. So speaking of the tribe, it contains assorted trolls of both jungle troll and zandalar troll types. While zandalar troll race itself are not jungle trolls.Baggins (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be it. How about on the whole spelling of the article as factions. Shouldn't it be spelled "Zandalar Tribe" like "Frenzyheart Tribe" has been spelled? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I saw on the Zandalar tribe page under the "Members" section is "You are either born a Zandalari or you are not; you cannot enter into the tribe unless your mommy is a Zandalari." meaning that since Dark Factions came out after Monster Guide their leader cannot be a jungle troll right? Unless that sentence is just a user's thoughts. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Two possibilities both might be possible to put into place. The Zandalar tribe is such a big article it might be split between a lore page and standard game mechanic faction page (taking note of Stormwind (faction) as an example). Secondly is the "tribe" rule, we have a policy of decapitalizing "clan", "tribe", as page names. In this second rule Frenzyheart tribe may need to be moved (I don't think its large enough to warrant a split however).Baggins (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay so "tribe" should be decapitalized even if it is a faction or organization? I thought if something was a faction or organization, like "Druid of the whichever", it stays capitalized as long as it is not solely a class but also an organization. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Companions

How come the pages on each companion don't include their stats? For instance, Murky is level 1, has 42 health, and is neutral to A and H. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Transborea

I think it should be rewritten that "The name likely comes from its location beyond the Borea River..." since "Borea River" itself is a speculation of the river's name. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. They were written by the same person.--SWM2448 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dwarves

I am not alone on this. If wild dwarves are mountain dwarves or hill dwarves, how are mountain dwarves "slightly taller by about six inches and leaner than than hill dwarves but just as muscled"? How is Falstad Dragonreaver (aka Falstad Wildhammer) a mountain dwarf, wild dwarf, and hill dwarf if mountain dwarves are "slightly taller by about six inches and leaner than than hill dwarves but just as muscled"? Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at and did not see anything saying "the wild mountain dwarves prefer to live on the surface of mountains." so factual correction on that. I looked at and did not see anything saying "Wild mountain dwarves are slightly taller by about six inches" it actually said they met a dwarf that was "6 inches shorter than Falstad", and Falstad is an Aerie dwarf. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a count check and got these figures. Number of times "hill dwarf/hill dwarves" is mentioned in the book is 16. Number of times "Aerie dwarf/Aerie dwarves" is mentioned in the book is 10. Number of times "wild dwarf/wild dwarves" is mentioned in the book is 9. Number of times "mountain dwarf/mountain dwarves" is mentioned in the book is 1. As you can see, the book calls Gimmel and his people "hill dwarves" and Falstad Dragonreaver and his people "wild dwarves/Aerie dwarves". "Mountain dwarf" is mentioned only once, and that is in the context that a few sentences before it says "Only the dwarves of the distant Aerie Peaks, a foreboding, mountainous region..." meaning that the Aerie Peaks are mountains quite obviously. They are trying to contrast the "earthier" cousins to the "mountain" ones. If mountain dwarf was a race due to that one instance, "earth dwarf" would have to be a race too. Furthermore, goblins would be descended from frogs because they call Kryll a "spawn of a frog" and there would be two other troll races, called "barrow troll" and "tunnel troll", because it says there "exists different types of trolls", some of which were found in "barrows and other underground realms" and the trolls that captured Falstad and Veressa were even a "lower form of troll" who had "long, taloned fingers, just perfect for digging through the rock and earth" and "had adapted well to their enviroment". Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is kinda moot now considering that rom, gimmel, and the like have all been confirmed to be "Bronzebeard dwarves" in Night of the Dragon. In other words, Bronzebeard dwarves can be both mountain dwarves and hill dwarves... kinda like oh Wildhammer dwarves. OH, and point of note I've always been careful not to put the "race category" on those terms, as they have always come across to me as being "descriptive" rather than being specific races. Generally speaking the "race" is "dwarf", and the "three hammers" sub-races, but that really just depends on the source. Some argue they are three different races, rather than sub-races.Baggins (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Bronzebeard dwarves can be both mountain dwarves and hill dwarves" but it just seems crazy that Falstad is categorized as a "mountain dwarf" due to what I said above, and we all have read the sources saying he is a wild dwarf/Aerie dwarf. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem goes beyond just a mere description, you might have missed, it but the quote in the book was "the mountain dwarves". The "the" enhances the whole entire thing. It implied a direct opposite to "the hill dwarves". As I've mentioned hill dwarves and mountain dwarves is not a racial term its a descriptive term, the racial term is bronzebeard dwarves and wildhammr dwarves.Baggins (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is half right. The term "the mountain dwarves" was contrasted with the term "the earthier cousins", not "the hill dwarves". They didn't say "the hill dwarves" and "the mountain dwarves", they said "the earthier cousins" and "the mountain dwarves". Whenever they contrasted "the hill dwarves" it was with "the wild dwarves" or "the Aerie dwarves". Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am just emphasizing it because Mountain dwarf is a category on here and is in Falstad's article. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is still a moot point. As far as importance of the two articles they are very low importance. They do not impact the dwarf page any longer, they are left as small notes within the various race articles, and Falstad is listed as either simply a dwarf, or as a "wildhammer dwarf" as his race, so the description of being a mountain dwarf does not really impact him in the slightest. Those two articles now just include the citations of when the terms appear in sources, and how they were used. The categories are there for the benefit for people trying to link the terms to whatever else it was used for.Baggins (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. I just think it would be confusing if someone went to the mountain dwarf category and saw both mountain dwarf and wild dwarf together. Mountain dwarf is usually associated with Ironforge dwarf or Bronzebeard dwarf. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Usually?" The terms are barely used (perhaps five times total, 3 md + 2 hd, in three sources?). I really doubt that many people think that hard, or even knows the terms exist. I'm sure there are very few that even read the sources where it was mentioned to even notice there might be a difference (and they surely wouldn't pull the context out of DotD, or WoW)... Plus the pages are all corrected now to show the updated information from Night of the Dragon, which make it pretty clear that hill dwarf means nothing.Baggins (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah well. On to other items. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Amani

The Tribes section on the Amani Empire article needs a {{fact}} tag probably. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragons

A lot of articles still have race=drake, and other terms, which are stages in a dragon's life and not races. Remember, it was discussed that we don't put "human infant" or "human adult" as races, so stages in a dragon's life should not be races. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually depends. Netherwyrms and Nether dragons are treated as cousin races, but could be different parts of the nether dragons life cycle. A red dragon whelp in Dark Factions is treated as its own racial/creature class that remains a whelp its entire life cycle without changing into other forms, even when it becomes mature. A more or less six-eight foot adult whelp. In this way dragons are a bit different than human life cycles.Baggins (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A red dragon whelp stays a whelp its entire life? What about that whole chart showing dragons, their ages, and the stages in their life? Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just asked you to stop being a smart-ass nit-picky 5 minutes ago... Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Different books, different charts, see life spans. Don't try to think about it too much, :p...Baggins (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Who or what are you talking about Toran? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Strand of the Ancients

Has anyone seen the statue(s) at Strand of the Ancients? They look more like the RPG depictions of titans then the "titans" under the "others" section of titans. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Avatar of Sargeras?

Avatar of Sargeras is an article? Okay, but this was an "avatar" of Sargeras, not a character named "Avatar of Sargeras". Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to it being "upper case"? Actually it varies between being upper case and lower case in the books. Brann or one of the other writers refers to him as the "Avatar of Sargeras" as least once. If you deny it was a character, that's debateable. Considering that it was sentient enough to take over Medivh's mind and communicate with several characters, and its hinted to still exist somewhere out in the cosmos.Baggins (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was "an avatar of Sargeras", not "Avatar of Sargeras". I am not sure if it qualifies for an NPC stub though. Also, I don't remember them saying that the "Avatar of Sargeras" took over Medivh's mind and still exists somewhere out in the cosmos, just Sargeras is mentioned doing those things. Well either way, does this mean that there are three Sargerases out there? The Sargeras who made the avatar, whatever infected Aegywnn after the avatar was defeated, and finally the avatar itself which was buried by Aegwynn and mysteriously disappeared before Gul'dan could find it? Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the source, Brann's surmises two beings though. The real sargeras and the avatar/Avatar, whatsoever. The thing buried was just an empty shell, the spirit part of the avatar having already passed to Aegwynn. Yes you are right some sources surmises the avatar that Aegwynn encountered and infected her, may be one of many. Just we have never seen any others.Baggins (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the spirit of the avatar sort of "join" back with the "original" Sargeras after it escaped in The Last Guardian leaving essentially only one Sargeras again? It seems it needs a body in order to do things. I remember in The Last Guardian, Medivh/Sargeras said he wanted to eventually find that buried avatar and enter back into it. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Who knows, I don't think its ever been confirmed. Other sources speculate that its just floating out in the great dark uh 'detached' so to speak.Baggins (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dire tolls

It says on the Dire troll article that "There is no racial distinction between them and the rest of the troll race." yet there is a race template... Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrupted furbolgs

Corrupted furbolg is a race? Just checking. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In as much that it had its own article section, society history, picture, racial class stats, etc? Yes. They fall into the similar category as leper gnomes really.Baggins (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Spelling/grammar errors in "This does not have currectly other use in game exept hunter food and eating, but maybe in future." on the  [Sewer Carp] article. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mythic creatures

I thought the page Mythic creatures went the way of the dodo, extinct. Now it is back. Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Try reading it. Its purpose is now completely different. Still probably uneeded, but that's another issue.--Ragestorm (talk · contr)

I blame Gourra, Rolandius, and others who thought that faun was a valid page when it was based off what was most likely a typo. At least this way it doesn't appear as a laughably bad page, that can't be verified with any legitimate citations. I'm noting the fact that faun page, would have been stuck witht he "accuracy" template for eternity for specifically stating that "fauns exist". You can read up on the discussion on Talk:Mythic creatures and Talk:Fawn. Baggins (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark trolls

I am guessing Troll Compedium came out after WCIII? If so, why does it say under Dark Trolls, "Known tribe: None", but then on the Shadowtooth clan article they are said to be a dark troll tribe? Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Troll Compendium came out later. The writers probably forgot/retcon the details in Warcraft III. Its not the first time. Black Citadel anyone?Baggins (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I haven't played Warcraft III, I am not familiar with the dark trolls in the game. Are they actually called the Shadowtooth clan? I went to [14] but it only shows the unit names like Dark Troll Warlord, Dark Troll, Dark Troll Trapper, etc. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a faction that shows up on the map, and a related quest. Don't remember the particulars exactly. Don't even remember if the tribe is specified to be dark trolls or not. Probably are listed as dark trolls as far NPC names, that is seperate from the ingame faction of course.

On a related note it would probably good idea if someone catalogued all the ingame quotes from quests or in-game dialogue that refer to the dark trolls, and which levels they appear in.Baggins (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure it wasn't a "lunar falls" idea they made. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Its always a good idea to make sure no lunar falls material ended up "coloring" the article with more info that exists in the game or other sources.Baggins (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hotfixes article

Is the hotfixes page defunct now? I see that User:Kaydeethree found [15] so maybe that page could start getting updated again? Unless [16] is just a rare instance. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Underbelly Elixir

One of the effects of this is seeing everyone in Dalaran as mages. if you look at the icon the text says "The City of Mages", describing Dalaran. Rolandius (talk - contr) 11:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Brogg

It says in the Brogg article that "For unknown reasons, he did not flee with the other survivors of the Stonemaul clan, but made his home in Mudsprocket." in regards to Brogg. Over in the Stonemaul Ruins article it says "Brogg, the Stonemaul Survivor, unhappy with Mok'Morokk's inactivity with regard to seeking vengeance against Onyxia's brood, has set up camp in Mudsprocket and seeks assistance from adventurers in his quest." which sounds like the reason why he is in Mudsprocket. Rolandius (talk - contr) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)