Why WoWWiki is the devil.

[Kenzuki]

If ever I saw a reason to flame WoWWiki, this would be it. Of all the things to not delete....

http://www.wowwiki.com/Celestial

http://www.wowwiki.com/Hope

Discuss.

[Vicious]

Celestials use swords of Holy Light. DUR DUR

Awesome, awesome articles.

[Warlock]

If Celestial worship existed in Stormwind before the First War, it could be a way of reconciling this apparent retcon.

lol..

WoWWiki throws around the word retcon way too much. I swear to god. A change from "Red Ridge" to "Redridge" is not a fucking retcon. "StormWind" to "Stormwind" is not a damn retcon.

[Vonhahn]

Ugg. Back when they made warcraft 1, they dident have all the warcraft universe figured out, or how the worship of the light worked. Its not like thats a reticon, its just the warcraft universe becoming more developed.

[Tularis]

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but WoWwiki isn't really all that bad a place. If you know the lore of Warcraft then you know what is crap and what isn't, and getting past that the site is actually incredibly informative, not just on stuff in WoW but also lore itself. If you want to know information about Deathwing quickly and don't have access to any books, WoWwiki is a great source; just so long as you already know what is right and what is wrong.

[Smeedle]

You should have named this thread "Why Baggins is an idiot". Seriously a lot of the problems the people on this forum have with WoWWiki are solely the fault of Baggins. Both of the pages you mention, Kenzuki, were created by him. Also the often used example of the Leprechaun-article on WoWWiki does only exist because of Baggins' stupid obsession with appendix III of the old Manual of Monsters. He's also responsible for throwing around the words "retcon" or "flavor lore" around way too much and using them as an excuse to put all sorts of stupid information in the wiki.
Basically just do the following when looking at articles on WoWWiki: If you find the username Baggins in the history of a page then it's best to either ignore the page completely or take the information on it with a huge grain of salt. If you do that you will mostly be fine (although there are of course still a lot of mistakes on WoWWiki, but it's really not as bad as some people on ScrollsofLore claim it to be).

[Ersinus]

I wonder how can they write these things, there is not single explanation by blizz about those angel like figures that apear on the paladin resurection spell.
Or they want to exhibit their creative skills, which sucks. :raisedbro

[Warlock]

You should have named this thread "Why Baggins is an idiot". Seriously a lot of the problems the people on this forum have with WoWWiki are solely the fault of Baggins. Both of the pages you mention, Kenzuki, were created by him. Also the often used example of the Leprechaun-article on WoWWiki does only exist because of Baggins' stupid obsession with appendix III of the old Manual of Monsters. He's also responsible for throwing around the words "retcon" or "flavor lore" around way too much and using them as an excuse to put all sorts of stupid information in the wiki.
Basically just do the following when looking at articles on WoWWiki: If you find the username Baggins in the history of a page then it's best to either ignore the page completely or take the information on it with a huge grain of salt. If you do that you will mostly be fine (although there are of course still a lot of mistakes on WoWWiki, but it's really not as bad as some people on ScrollsofLore claim it to be).

Heh, probably.. but therein lies the whole flaw with the system.

Besides, what about stuff like this?
http://www.wowwiki.com/Genn_Greymane

Not wrong, but god, that's all you can say about the guy? That just disappoints me every time I see it.

There's also quite a few Lunarfalls writeups just copy/pasted as articles, which while not always horrible, usually contain a lot of made-up materials and tend to have little stories for the most insignificant NPCs and random people with names (i.e. "there is a guy named Bob in this War 3 mission.. here's his story!")

[Flamestrider]

Lunarfalls is pretty much always reliable, if not always relevant.

Wowwiki is an excellent source for anything other than lore. When I wanted to find out who the bosses were in the Molten Core, for instance, I searched it on Wowwiki and instantly found, among countless strategies that did not interest me in the slightest, pictures of the bosses and descriptions of their locations in the Core. For somebody who doesn't raid, this can be quite useful. For characters (such as most minor raid bosses) on whom we don't really have any lore, a picture is quite valuable.

[Creative]

Lunarfalls is pretty much always reliable, if not always relevant.


Isnt that the site than made up lore for every hero name from Warcraft?

[Flamestrider]

Check it out for yourself. (http://www.lunarfalls.com/WarCraft/index.html)

It's got info on people who you'll never need to know anything about, but it doesn't make things up.

[Vicious]

but it doesn't make things up.

Yes it does, it makes various assumptions that may or may not be true.

Not that it´s necessarily a bad thing, i personally like the page but it´s not 100% accurate.

[Kenzuki]

Lunarfalls does make up things, here let me show you.

Aggronor

Aggronor the Mighty was a Thane of Khaz Modan who survived the demonic invasion of Lordaeron, and sailed west with Jaina. With Greymane either dead or missing, Aggronor was chosen to command what remained of the Gilneas Brigade. Jaina, sensing a strange power coming from Stonetalon Peak, ordered them to build a settlement at its base.

Aggronor and the four other commanders built settlements there, and soon, to their surprise, they came under the attack of Grom Hellscream and the Warsong Clan. They went to retaliate, but attacked Thrall's base by mistake. To keep them at bay, Thrall was forced to defeat Aggronor and destroy his base.


Ai

Ai was one of the few high elves who remained in Lordaeron after Quel'Thalas rescinded from the Alliance. She took up residence in the town of Andorhal, and survived the initial destruction the Plague brought their town.

Ai was horrified when Terenas was reported killed by his own son, the once-beloved Prince Arthas, but even more so when she saw him returning to Andorhal, with an undead army at her back. Immediately, she and her neighbours rushed indoors. Ai's fate afterward is uncertain, but few survived the wrath of Prince Arthas.


Algammon

The ancient and terrible Algammon came to some renown within the ranks of the Nathrezim, and demonstrated unwavering loyalty to the Burning Legion in the past. As such, Kil’jaeden trusted him enough to send him to Azeroth with the charge of ensuring that Ner’zhul, the new and eerily eager Lich King, did what it was intended to do – destroy any who might oppose the Legion when it arrived in full. In some cases, Algammon was forced to put himself at the head of a Scourge force, though his true pleasure came from machination and manipulation, and he delighted in discord and the sorrow of his enemies.


Now while these are all very interesting to read, I don't know where they got this information from.

[Flamestrider]

Aggronor is the name of the Mountain King you fight during the third mission of the orc campaign. His troops are grey, and they are called "the Gilneas Brigade."

Ai is a high elven woman who runs into her house when your units approach in the second level of the undead campaign.

And Algammon is one of the random names for a multiplayer Dreadlord.

That's what Warcraft III tells about these three characters. Lunarfalls doesn't really say anything different, it just puts it in a form that's somewhat more interesting to read.

[Creative]

Some more bizarre things...

Adric:
Adric was a human who died from the Plague, and rose to join the Forsaken. While scouting the woods by a human village, he came upon Garrick, his childhood friend who had come to cure him of his ailment. Garrick told Adric to go with him that he might be cured. Adric instead shot Garrick, and explained that he had never wanted to be cured. He then sat down, and waited for Garrick to join him.

...?


Anubris:
Among the favoured sons of Cenarius, Anubris assisted the Sentinels throughout the Long Vigil, using his vast power over nature to aid the night elves and bring great ruin to their enemies.

The Vigil was ended suddenly when the orcs, led by Grom Hellscream at the behest of Mannoroth, tore into Ashenvale and murdered Cenarius himself. Along with his brothers and sisters, Anubris was saddened and angered, and galloped into the battlefield to wreak great vengeance upon the demons who masterminded the death of his benevolent father.

Azsune
Azsune, the night elf princess, long ago mocked the wisdom of the Oracle. As punishment for her insolence, she was transformed into a statue of living stone, guarding the passage to the Oracle's dwelling place.

When Thrall happened upon the statue, the voice of Azsune spoke in his mind, and she told him that she would not rest until her heart was returned to her.

Thrall found the heart in the possession of a dragon. The dragon was killed by harpies, and Thrall retrieved the heart and gave it to Azsune. With this act, he ended the curse, allowing her spirit rest, and also gained access to the Oracle.

The essence of Azsune's heart had come, through unknown means, into the hands of the Kirin Tor of Dalaran. They locked it away in the dungeons beneath the city, where it was eventually found by Vashj.


How come I never heard crap about any of them? :/

Except Azsune, that seemed to be a hell of lot more than just some statue :X

[Timolas]

Ai is just a blonde villager female that you can kill in one mission, yet there are paragraphs of info on her. Nothing even indicates she is a High Elf, let alone all that biography etc.
I agree with the majority on this one.

[Flamestrider]

I've never heard of Adric either. But it says his debut was in Lands of Conflict. That means that this anecdote was probably mentioned in LoC. Personally, I'm not acquainted with the RPG books, so I can't say more on the subject

Anubris is a random hero name for a Keeper of the Grove. If you look up Centrius, for instance, you should find the exact same bio. That's because the bio doesn't actually say anything other than the fact that he's a Son of Cenarius. Lunarfalls simply assumes that all the multiplayer heroes of Warcraft III exist in the lore, that even if they don't do anything significant in the Third War, they were present. I think this is a fair assumption to make, because there are now several instances of characters who first appear as random multiplayer heroes, and later are given some specific role (Araj the Summoner, Ras Frostwhisper, Banehollow, Morg Wolfsong, etc).

I will admit that, yes, the Aszune passage does invent something, namely one line of backstory about how she got to be a statue. But most of the story is taken directly from what happened in Warcraft III. The second and third paragraphs describe what happened in the seventh mission of the orc campaign. The "Essence of Aszune" is an item Kael'Thas and Vashj can find in the "Dungeons of Dalaran" mission if you kill an enormous Arcanite Golem. So that wasn't made up either.

Regarding Ai: She uses the high elf (female) model, whereas the other women use the villager (female) model. She is the only one in the village to do so. If we assume (which I think is a reasonable thing to do) that she's a high elf, then the first line of the bio makes sense. The second sentence comes from the fact that a) you find her in Andorhal, and b) if she hadn't survived the initial attack, she would be dead already.

As for the second paragraph, Nephalim presumably deduced that she was terrified from the fact that she ran into her house, which, again, is a reasonable assumption to make. So really, nothing here is made up. It's just made to sound nice.

Yes, there are a few exceptions (the first sentence in the Aszune bio, for instance). But, as usual, I'm going to have to agree with the minority on this one.

[Kenzuki]

Check out the stuff on their Diablo section. Most of that is made up, I know for a fact.

[Flamestrider]

I don't think it exists anymore. But I know what you're talking about. I think the Diablo section did make up little backstories for Super Unique Monsters.

[Smeedle]

I've never heard of Adric either. But it says his debut was in Lands of Conflict. That means that this anecdote was probably mentioned in LoC.
Yup, you can find Adric's story in Lands of Conflict on pages 13-14. Lunarfalls just summarises the events of that story.

[Timolas]

I never mentioned Adric.

Most of that is all assumption still, even if they seem correct or reasonable. The model Ai uses is also used for High Elven civilians sure, but it still dosen't prove beyond reasonable doubt. Not like the model has pointy ears either...
It' just an example.

As for the stories for those random hero names, you can't just put them down like that. Somehow all of those Dreadlords were really trusted individuals etc?

[xlandhenry]

Everything has its pros and cons, don't blame WOWWiki that much. It has many mistakes on lore, yet it did remind me something in case i forgot. And I hope the lore part of this site will soon be available for us as a ultimate replacement of wiki trash!!

[Flamestrider]

The stuff on the dreadlords pretty much just says that they were respected enough to be sent to Azeroth to oversee the Scourge. Obviously, Kil'jaeden would not have sent the stupidest and clumsiest, or the least reliable of the Nathrezim. It's not really very much of a stretch at all.

[GodofUtopia]

makes me wonder when will the lores for this site be operational....

[Kerrah]

makes me wonder when will the lores for this site be operational....
That reminds me of the infamous

Are we there yet?
No!
Are we there yet?
No!
Are we there yet?
No!

that has to be put in each and every movie including 8-12 year old kids.

[Gashbadder]

Actually, I believe that first line of Azsune is true. Did she not tell us that herself? My memory of the campaign is vague, I need to replay it.

[Flamestrider]

Aszune says she was a night elf princess in ages past. I don't recall her saying anything about why she was trapped in the Stonetalon caverns. But now that I think of it, that information might be in the optional quest description.

[Kirkburn]

You should have named this thread "Why Baggins is an idiot". Seriously a lot of the problems the people on this forum have with WoWWiki are solely the fault of Baggins. Both of the pages you mention, Kenzuki, were created by him. Also the often used example of the Leprechaun-article on WoWWiki does only exist because of Baggins' stupid obsession with appendix III of the old Manual of Monsters. He's also responsible for throwing around the words "retcon" or "flavor lore" around way too much and using them as an excuse to put all sorts of stupid information in the wiki.
Basically just do the following when looking at articles on WoWWiki: If you find the username Baggins in the history of a page then it's best to either ignore the page completely or take the information on it with a huge grain of salt. If you do that you will mostly be fine (although there are of course still a lot of mistakes on WoWWiki, but it's really not as bad as some people on ScrollsofLore claim it to be).
It's fun to be an arrogant ass isn't it.

Just because you think Appendix III shouldn't have articles based around it doesn't mean you're right. It's in a Warcraft RPG book, WoWWiki is a Warcraft wiki site - oddly enough, the two go together. Not only that but such pages already have a disclaimer saying the info is from an RPG book AND a controversy note.

Seriously, all you WoWWiki haters, why don't you try to improve it rather than railing about how crap everything about it is. It's a WIKI, if you understand what that means? It's user created, meaning users can improve it! If you feel you've got mightier knowledge than the thousands of other people who use the wowwiki, why don't you apply it?

As fun as it must be for you to sit on the sidelines and laugh, you have no idea about how much each contributer adds to the wiki. As someone who spends a lot of his free time there as an admin, I have a rather better view of what goes on, and I am as passionate about the lore as any of you. So please, stop actingly like this :)

Edit: I should mention, everyone is welcome to edit the wiki. It's not an exclusive club. I know some people get pissed off if their edits are reverted - it's generally down to having not read the policies, or not bothering to talk about it first. I should also probably link the related discussion on Baggins' talk page in the spirit of co-operation. User talk:Baggins (http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Baggins#Manual_of_Monsters_Appendix_III) . We don't get paid for what we do, we do it because we enjoy it.

[Wulfang]

It's fun to be an arrogant ass isn't it.

Just because you think Appendix III shouldn't have articles based around it doesn't mean you're right. It's in a Warcraft RPG book, WoWWiki is a Warcraft wiki site - oddly enough, the two go together. Not only that but such pages already have a disclaimer saying the info is from an RPG book AND a controversy note.
As a lot of people have said over and over again, Appendix III of the MoM is not canon. At the time, the Warcraft RPG was just an extra setting for D&D and that appendix was just about the devs making up some lore so that players could explain the existence of creatures of other settings in their Warcraft campaign if they decided to use them.

Seriously, all you WoWWiki haters, why don't you try to improve it rather than railing about how crap everything about it is. It's a WIKI, if you understand what that means? It's user created, meaning users can improve it! If you feel you've got mightier knowledge than the thousands of other people who use the wowwiki, why don't you apply it?
You can be sure that the majority of people who post in these forums know more about Warcraft than many of those who write the articles for WoWWiki. Some of us have tried to correct those articles that have either false information or that have no canon source, but they end up reverting to what they said a few hours after being changed.

As fun as it must be for you to sit on the sidelines and laugh, you have no idea about how much each contributer adds to the wiki. As someone who spends a lot of his free time there as an admin, I have a rather better view of what goes on, and I am as passionate about the lore as any of you. So please, stop actingly like this :)
I think that the concept behind WoWWiki is a good one: to create a complete encyclopedia of everything concerning Warcraft. I don't doubt that those who contribute to it work very hard or that they have good intentions, I just think that the way some of them work is very flawed.

We have tried to change what's wrong in WoWWiki, but we've all stopped trying because everybody there thinks they're right and won't let anyone change what they've written in their articles.

[Kirkburn]

As a lot of people have said over and over again, Appendix III of the MoM is not canon. At the time, the Warcraft RPG was just an extra setting for D&D and that appendix was just about the devs making up some lore so that players could explain the existence of creatures of other settings in their Warcraft campaign if they decided to use them."A lot of people" is not a convincing argument to remove info obtained from a Warcraft RPG book. A convincing argument would be "it's wrong".

You can be sure that the majority of people who post in these forums know more about Warcraft than many of those who write the articles for WoWWiki. Some of us have tried to correct those articles that have either false information or that have no canon source, but they end up reverting to what they said a few hours after being changed.Yup, baseless accusations, which I already addressed. And again, you're being seriously amazingly incredibly arrogant if you think that those here knows better than anyone else. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ...


I think that the concept behind WoWWiki is a good one: to create a complete encyclopedia of everything concerning Warcraft. I don't doubt that those who contribute to it work very hard or that they have good intentions, I just think that the way some of them work is very flawed.

We have tried to change what's wrong in WoWWiki, but we've all stopped trying because everybody there thinks they're right and won't let anyone change what they've written in their articles.Thank you, that is the idea behind it. But to say we stop people changing stuff is NOT TRUE. I know it's not true, because I've spent many months making sure it isn't true! Follow the policies, explain what you're doing, perhaps even talk about it. Do you really expect major changes to an article to occur without discussion? The changes would have been reverted because the changer was likely to arrogant to tell anyone why!

I've been having a search over the forum and I keep seeing the same old arguements of "look at this! It's wrong!" and no attempt made to help or sort it out. Then there are those who point to speculation and rumour articles and then call us idiots for having them or allowing people to post their ideas.

Some people even go back several months and say "look they had some incorrect info back then!". Perhaps, but it isn't there now, is it?. The fire naga article for example, could only confuse a severly stupid person into thinking they're actually 'fire naga' now. But you know what, when it said it originally, it wasn't wrong because it wasn't refuted.

If you find something wrong, change it. And if it gets reverted, talk about it and you'll probably find it's because you're the one that is actually wrong or you are lacking a source to validate yourself, I assure you.

[Bradford]

It's fun to be an arrogant ass isn't it.

Just because you think Appendix III shouldn't have articles based around it doesn't mean you're right. It's in a Warcraft RPG book, WoWWiki is a Warcraft wiki site - oddly enough, the two go together. Not only that but such pages already have a disclaimer saying the info is from an RPG book AND a controversy note.

Seriously, all you WoWWiki haters, why don't you try to improve it rather than railing about how crap everything about it is. It's a WIKI, if you understand what that means? It's user created, meaning users can improve it! If you feel you've got mightier knowledge than the thousands of other people who use the wowwiki, why don't you apply it?

As fun as it must be for you to sit on the sidelines and laugh, you have no idea about how much each contributer adds to the wiki. As someone who spends a lot of his free time there as an admin, I have a rather better view of what goes on, and I am as passionate about the lore as any of you. So please, stop actingly like this :)

Edit: I should mention, everyone is welcome to edit the wiki. It's not an exclusive club. I know some people get pissed off if their edits are reverted - it's generally down to having not read the policies, or not bothering to talk about it first. I should also probably link the related discussion on Baggins' talk page in the spirit of co-operation. User talk:Baggins (http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Baggins#Manual_of_Monsters_Appendix_III) . We don't get paid for what we do, we do it because we enjoy it.

I will be honest, when I need information about a boss fight or a quest line, I look no where but to WoW Wiki. Let me say I really appreciate the effort you all put forth to that side of the game. On the other hand, your site is about as realiable for the lore as general chat on a roleplaying server. It seems like you make it up at will, and when other go to CORRECT it, it gets changed back in a matter of hours. This is exact reason why I have posted on this site for over a year and will contiune to do so. I will admit that I do not know as much as a few others on this site, but when I have questions I need answered, this is where I will First and ALWAYS come. This is the true lore site for warcraft......

[Wulfang]

I will be honest, when I need information about a boss fight or a quest line, I look no where but to WoW Wiki. Let me say I really appreciate the effort you all put forth to that side of the game. On the other hand, your site is about as realiable for the lore as general chat on a roleplaying server. It seems like you make it up at will, and when other go to CORRECT it, it gets changed back in a matter of hours. This is exact reason why I have posted on this site for over a year and will contiune to do so. I will admit that I do not know as much as a few others on this site, but when I have questions I need answered, this is where I will First and ALWAYS come. This is the true lore site for warcraft......
Quoted For MotherFucking Truth

[Kirkburn]

I will be honest, when I need information about a boss fight or a quest line, I look no where but to WoW Wiki. Let me say I really appreciate the effort you all put forth to that side of the game. On the other hand, your site is about as realiable for the lore as general chat on a roleplaying server. It seems like you make it up at will, and when other go to CORRECT it, it gets changed back in a matter of hours. This is exact reason why I have posted on this site for over a year and will contiune to do so. I will admit that I do not know as much as a few others on this site, but when I have questions I need answered, this is where I will First and ALWAYS come. This is the true lore site for warcraft......So to argue your point, you:

1. Ignore my points.
2. Insult the contributers.
3. Go back to groundless accusations again.

I'm not saying anything bad about this site, I know it's a very good lore site. But the feverish bashing of the WoWWiki is disturbing to say the least.

Your last sentence appears telling: "This is the true lore site for warcraft"

This is not a fight. I do not 'wish to take down SoL'. I do wish to enlighten you on your false opinions.


Edit: we (the main contributers) do not make up lore. If other people decide to add it, that's not our fault. If we see it, we remove it. If others point it out to us, we remove it. If no one tells us or sees it, strangely enough, it doesn't go away. This is where people like you come in! ;)

[Bradford]

Edit: we (the main contributers) do not make up lore. If other people decide to add it, that's not our fault. If we see it, we remove it. If others point it out to us, we remove it. If no one tells us or sees it, strangely enough, it doesn't go away. This is where people like you come in! ;)

People like me ignore inperfect means of relaying facts, and all Wiki sites are just that. Im not insulting you, or the staff directly, but moreso the means the facts are posted for all to see and edit. I will give an example.

I am helping my guild mates in BRD. We get to the point where we encounter the ambassador from MC. At this point he says "Those are one of those fire Naga from Molten Core." I attempted to correct him, and he then he got upset and pointed to the article on the wiki site that stated they WERE fire naga, changed by the Old gods, or whatever it said. I had no way to backup my point to the rest of my guild that those were not "FIRE NAGA" That made me, the guy who knew 10000 times more lore than the rest of my guild, look like an idiot. I dont appreciate that. Your intentions are good, the means of relaying them are not.....

[Kirkburn]

People like me ignore inperfect means of relaying facts, and all Wiki sites are just that. Im not insulting you, or the staff directly, but moreso the means the facts are posted for all to see and edit. I will give an example.

I am helping my guild mates in BRD. We get to the point where we encounter the ambassador from MC. At this point he says "Those are one of those fire Naga from Molten Core." I attempted to correct him, and he then he got upset and pointed to the article on the wiki site that stated they WERE fire naga, changed by the Old gods, or whatever it said. I had no way to backup my point to the rest of my guild that those were not "FIRE NAGA" That made me, the guy who knew 10000 times more lore than the rest of my guild, look like an idiot. I dont appreciate that. Your intentions are good, the means of relaying them are not.....But did you try to fix the article afterwards? Or did you come here and laugh about it? At the moment the prevailing idea on here appears to be the latter, which disappoints me :(

On a side note, I respect SoL as a resource, and we would not have anything against links from the wiki to here., whatever may be thought. I don't want us to be in a war, but from reading the comments here, it appears you are :/

I understand your misgivings about it being a wiki. It is true, it gives free reign for people to fiddle, but I like to view it as a benefit rather than a drawback. You form articles by consensus, rather than from a single (likely biased, whatever the writer's own belief) viewpoint.

I too was angry when I saw the fire naga article. Very angry indeed. You'll find I was the one who originally fixed it (back on the 9th June 2006). I hope that at least gives me some credentials here.

[Kenzuki]

Kirkburn, I've tried to correct WoWWiki articles, writting a very long, and intelligent response and how it should be. I go back and hour later and it get's changed BACK to the incorrect information. So finally, I just said to hell with it.

[Kirkburn]

Kirkburn, I've tried to correct WoWWiki articles, writting a very long, and intelligent response and how it should be. I go back and hour later and it get's changed BACK to the incorrect information. So finally, I just said to hell with it.Do you have an example so I can check up on what happened? What was your user name - I can check edits that way. Thanks!


Edit: Note that I've only been working on WoWWiki since May 2006, so my view is unbiased my the previous state of the wiki. The wiki is not the same place it was 1 year ago so far as I can tell, despite what some may feverishly believe.

[Bradford]

But did you try to fix the article afterwards? Or did you come here and laugh about it? At the moment the prevailing idea on here appears to be the latter, which disappoints me :(

On a side note, I respect SoL as a resource, and we would not have anything against links from the wiki to here., whatever may be thought. I don't want us to be in a war, but from reading the comments here, it appears you are :/

I understand your misgivings about it being a wiki. It is true, it gives free reign for people to fiddle, but I like to view it as a benefit rather than a drawback. You form articles by consensus, rather than from a single (likely biased, whatever the writer's own belief) viewpoint.

I too was angry when I saw the fire naga article. Very angry indeed. You'll find I was the one who originally fixed it. I hope that at least gives me some credentials here.

Thats not the point. The point being, and I KNOW weve all seen them, are those children who play to ruin the gameplay for others. Corpse camping, spawn camping, DKs on quest giver, griefers in general. These are the same people that can come to your site and could post that Michael Jackson rapping Sargeras, was the original source of his corruption now that Metzen Retconned it. Its untrustworthy, that is a simple FACT! By me not fixing it, doesnt make me a hippocrit, it just means I have better things to do than babysit an imperfect mean of destroying my hobbie. Its easier to just ignore, and come here and ask these guys. At least i know these guys are serious. The admins here are like bloodthirsty pitbulls. One nonsense post and you are gone faster than a krispy cream in the hands of Rosie O'donnel. I commend you for your efforts to try and fix something that is un-fixable......either way, I am here to stay.

[Wulfang]

So to argue your point, you:

1. Ignore my points.
2. Insult the contributers.
3. Go back to groundless accusations again.

I'm not saying anything bad about this site, I know it's a very good lore site. But the feverish bashing of the WoWWiki is disturbing to say the least.
Kirkburn, me and Bradford have already given you our reasons to dislike WoWWiki. As I've said, I think that what you're trying to do with that site is remarkable and you deserve my respect for working hard on writing articles for it and trying to make it accurate. But, while the site's articles on quests and game strategies are great, some of it's lore info is made out of thin air. The other day, I found one page where was written that Nath (who has been stated by MagusRogue in the WhiteWolf forums as being a true god and the creator of the gronn) was probably one of the gronn serving under Gruul the Dragonkiller :sweatdrop

Besides the reasons that we gave you, most of us began to dislike the site when we realized that noobs who didn't know anything about Warcraft went there to get their information and consequently ended up having wrong ideas and passed them of to other noobs as true, in what I like to call a "plague of misinformation". I only use WoWWiki to refresh my memory on some parts of the lore that I'm not remembering at the moment because I can distinguish between what's right and what isn't, but someone who doesn't know anything about Warcraft will exit the site knowing some things that are right and other that are completely wrong.

[Kirkburn]

Thats not the point. The point being, and I KNOW weve all seen them, are those children who play to ruin the gameplay for others. Corpse camping, spawn camping, DKs on quest giver, griefers in general. These are the same people that can come to your site and could post that Michael Jackson rapping Sargeras, was the original source of his corruption now that Metzen Retconned it. Its untrustworthy, that is a simple FACT! By me not fixing it, doesnt make me a hippocrit, it just means I have better things to do than babysit an imperfect mean of destroying my hobbie. Its easier to just ignore, and come here and ask these guys. At least i know these guys are serious. The admins here are like bloodthirsty pitbulls. One nonsense post and you are gone faster than a krispy cream in the hands of Rosie O'donnel. I commend you for your efforts to try and fix something that is un-fixable......either way, I am here to stay.
I'm not suggesting you're a hypocrit! Neither am I saying you can completely trust the wiki either.

If someone makes a change like that, it will be sorted, but how quickly depends on whether people help do so. We keep a close eye on the recent changes, and I assure you edits like that are very rare indeed. Maybe one a day, and they're all caught. Generally vandals like that are very obvious, as they make multiple edits to random articles in a short periods - easily noticed. If you check the vandals page on the wiki, you'll see we block all vandals for varying periods, much like here I can guess :)

I think it's unfair to describe something that isn't broken as unfixable. You might as well dismiss wikipedia and every other wiki site out there too! It's not 100% reliable, of course not, but it's damn close.

You end with "I am here to stay". There's nothing stopping you helping both places. There's no conflict of interest or in fact conflict of anything. Do what you wish, I'm here to clear up incorrect viewpoints :)

When people come to the wiki (as anywhere else in life), you have to remember big changes don't occur immediately. It's why we have talk pages, so that major problems can be identified and fixed. I rarely see reverts, so I'm not sure where this idea comes from too.

Tbh, I guess I am suggesting people give the wiki a second chance, and I really cannot see why one shouldn't. I used to be like many here, very wary of it - but then I got involved and saw my error.

[Kirkburn]

Kirkburn, me and Bradford have already given you our reasons to dislike WoWWiki. As I've said, I think that what you're trying to do with that site is remarkable and you deserve my respect for working hard on writing articles for it and trying to make it accurate. But, while the site's articles on quests and game strategies are great, some of it's lore info is made out of thin air. The other day, I found one page where was written that Nath (who has been stated by MagusRogue in the WhiteWolf forums as being a true god and the creator of the gronn) was probably one of the gronn serving under Gruul the Dragonkiller :sweatdropHow in hell are we supposed to know that? We're not omnipotent. New info can only be added if someone adds it! It doesn't appear of it's own accord ....

I know you've given me reasons why you don't like it. That doesn't mean they're correct - which is why I am here, refuting parts of them. Again, we do not make lore out of thin air. Please stop saying that unless you can source it. The info comes from the RPG books, novels and games.
Besides the reasons that we gave you, most of us began to dislike the site when we realized that noobs who didn't know anything about Warcraft went there to get their information and consequently ended up having wrong ideas and passed them of to other noobs as true, in what I like to call a "plague of misinformation". I only use WoWWiki to refresh my memory on some parts of the lore that I'm not remembering at the moment because I can distinguish between what's right and what isn't, but someone who doesn't know anything about Warcraft will exit the site knowing some things that are right and other that are completely wrong.I know, and I see where you're coming from. But as I say, that can only be prevented by correcting it. The wiki isn't going away, and is very popular, so it might as well be accurate too ;)


Note: I know the wiki is quite slow at the moment, it's being worked on

[Bradford]

I'm not suggesting you're a hypocrit! Neither am I saying you can completely trust the wiki either.

If someone makes a change like that, it will be sorted, but how quickly depends on whether people help do so. We keep a close eye on the recent changes, and I assure you edits like that are very rare indeed. Maybe one a day, and they're all caught. Generally vandals like that are very obvious, as they make multiple edits to random articles in a short periods - easily noticed. If you check the vandals page on the wiki, you'll see we block all vandals for varying periods, much like here I can guess :)

I think it's unfair to describe something that isn't broken as unfixable. You might as well dismiss wikipedia and every other wiki site out there too! It's not 100% reliable, of course not, but it's damn close.

You end with "I am here to stay". There's nothing stopping you helping both places. There's no conflict of interest or in fact conflict of anything. Do what you wish, I'm here to clear up incorrect viewpoints :)

When people come to the wiki (as anywhere else in life), you have to remember big changes don't occur immediately. It's why we have talk pages, so that major problems can be identified and fixed. I rarely see reverts, so I'm not sure where this idea comes from too.

Tbh, I guess I am suggesting people give the wiki a second chance, and I really cannot see why one shouldn't. I used to be like many here, very wary of it - but then I got involved and saw my error.

Most of us here understand how a Wiki site works, but not everyone else does. Like the example I listed above about the fire naga. I have had nothing but bad experiences with that site as reference, therefore its hard to give it a second chance. As you said its not 100% accurate, and my point is that it never will be. When you are dealing with a story that is as imperfect and ever changing like WoW, its hard to base a wiki site for it. The point of WoW, from my standpoint, is that the player can contribute to its future story line. Blizzard has done well with the game, but not with its progressive lore. You have an impossible task ahead of you keeping up with all the changes that have and will be made. I do not admire you for the work you have ahead of you, but I do commend you for your patients you have shown on this thread thus far. You seem like a reasonable person working on an unreasonable project. I guess you can say I am a "Glass is half empty" sorta guy. My apologies if it seems like I am flaming you, that was not my intension.

[Yuber8900]

Everytime I try to edit something I get banned.

[Kirkburn]

Most of us here understand how a Wiki site works, but not everyone else does. Like the example I listed above about the fire naga. I have had nothing but bad experiences with that site as reference, therefore its hard to give it a second chance. As you said its not 100% accurate, and my point is that it never will be. When you are dealing with a story that is as imperfect and ever changing like WoW, its hard to base a wiki site for it. The point of WoW, from my standpoint, is that the player can contribute to its future story line. Blizzard has done well with the game, but not with its progressive lore. You have an impossible task ahead of you keeping up with all the changes that have and will be made. I do not admire you for the work you have ahead of you, but I do commend you for your patients you have shown on this thread thus far. You seem like a reasonable person working on an unreasonable project. I guess you can say I am a "Glass is half empty" sorta guy. My apologies if it seems like I am flaming you, that was not my intension.No it's fine :)

You bring up an interesting point - that the lore is not exactly set in stone. I guess this can be part of the reason why some have had problems with the wiki. They may have heard only one part of the lore (e.g. from WoW), and do not realise that there is a conflicting alternative. This leads them to believe the wiki is wrong.

For example, regarding who was the first druid - the tauren say they were, some say Malfurion was. Both have valid information to back them up. However, some who are not open to new ideas take one view as the truth and therefore tell everyone the wiki was 'wrong', when, in fact, it was they who were wrong.

The fact we're a wiki makes it easy for us to respond rapidly to new info that arises - I think there's far more up to date info on the wiki than you realise. We're already mostly updated for RotH!

Anyway, no source of information is completely accurate. I've seen people complain about Scrolls of Lore, BlizzPlanet, WoWWiki, wikipedia, the Blizz encyclopedia (yes!) and many other sites. None are perfect. The wiki is not worse than the others.

[Kirkburn]

Everytime I try to edit something I get banned.No, you don't. Pray, do point me towards an example of this ... otherwise you are lying out of your ass, or are misrepresenting what you did.

[Yuber8900]

No, you don't. Pray, do point me towards an example of this ... otherwise you are lying out of your ass, or are misrepresenting what you did.

Whatever

[Adys]

Besides the reasons that we gave you, most of us began to dislike the site when we realized that noobs who didn't know anything about Warcraft went there to get their information and consequently ended up having wrong ideas and passed them of to other noobs as true, in what I like to call a "plague of misinformation". I only use WoWWiki to refresh my memory on some parts of the lore that I'm not remembering at the moment because I can distinguish between what's right and what isn't, but someone who doesn't know anything about Warcraft will exit the site knowing some things that are right and other that are completely wrong.

Sorry for coming from nowhere, but this is where you come and play your part of the game.
A wiki is made up entirely of user-created content, whether the content is itself made up from official sources or not depends on his/her intentions and eventually on his/her opinions, knowledge and attention to the work he/she puts in.
While editing the wiki, and I can say that as active editor myself, you will find hundreds of incorrect informations, misspellings, etc. It's where you play your part of the game, once again. This is where you don't say "Ok, there is just too many wrong informations so I'm not trusting them anymore" but where you fix them, explaining why etc.

You got banned for editing, then it means you didn't explain your changes anywhere. As per Kirkburn said, major changes will never make in the first time. You always have the edit summary for minor changes, and talk pages for bigger ones.

If we ban editors regularly its because we wish to prevent edit wars and one-sided opinions to spread. Trust me, we don't want wrong informations there and its for this very reason both Kirkburn and I are coming on here to tell you to come and participate. The more, the better.

You got problems with another wikian? Discuss with him/her. Eventually, other wikians will join the discussions and all we wish is peace to be kept.

Greetings,

--Adys (http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Adys)

[Kirkburn]

This reminds me of another occurence recently. I has someone insulting me live on wowradio because I deigned to try and defend the (pretty much) lies she was telling about the wiki. It seems her problem was that the speculation template wasn't obvious enough for her, so it meant the articles were "wrong". That pissed me off, but also resulted in a drive to make sure speculation is very very separate from referenceable info if some people are incapable of reading what is written. Of course, she also had a "bad experience" on the wiki - something I've found no evidence of (is Kenzuki going to tell me his wiki name, btw? I'm interested).

Over the last 6 months the policies and guidelines of the wiki have become much clearer, and I've been making lots of changes to help people follow them (lots of mediawiki hacks, much fun :)). I assure you, it's very different these days.

Bah, I can't do my signature on here - this'll do: User:Kirkburn (http://wwww.wowwiki.com/User:Kirkburn)

[zeal]

Ok, this is coming from someone who has only started getting involved with the wiki in the last month of so.

I don't frequent many of the so-called lore communities, as i tend to find, they either focus on RPers (who in general care not for fitting into the lore, but the lore fitting them), or the close minded ignorant sort. I do frequent a few, but most of the time, i find lore fanatics not open to hearing controversial speculations, and prefer to stick to their assumptions or interpretations of the lore and get angry and dismissive when challanged.

In ever community (except one where i tend to take charge) WoWWiki is always incorrectly criticized in places it doesn't deserve it.

First of all, no, it does not ever get things wrong, users get things wrong, and other users correct this when they see it. However what does happen is, assumptions from people like yourselves, sneak in under the radar and thus end up being displayed as fact. These things are speculation, and usually end up getting mixed in because of a lack of understand on the wiki policies on speculation or because the user beleives it to be fact.
Apparently, we need giant disclaimers (even bigger for some people..) for speculation to satisfy the criticisms from people like yourselves, who despite being able to read (and often quoting) that it is speculation, say the wiki has it written as fact.

I, while being new to the wiki, have tried to bring to light the criticisms the lore community has of the wiki, so the admins can understand them and hope resolve them. I'm personally on a crusade to help change many policies of the wiki to improve the wiki in itself, while aslo improving its use as a lore resource.

Many of you claim that you've tried to correct things you see wrong only to have it reverted. Let me tell you, i've not yet encountered such a practice, so i can only beleive you are doing something wrong. It is probably one of the following things:
Your perception of the lore was wrong.
You didn't follow a wiki policy.
You didn't discuss it before or after editing and the edits were controversial.
You tried to remove something that belongs on the article, but probably needs to be reworded or moved.
Your edit did not have an obvious source but you did not see fit to provide one to back up your edit.
You edits were based on bias and not of a neutral point of view.
In which case, you were in the wrong, so you it was correct to revert your changes.

You also claim that the wiki is a poor choice to present lore as anyone can edit it and it's always in a state of progressive development. Well, if you couldn't see already, the former is directly contradicted by the previous claim. Users and admins alike strive to keep the articles accurate, and this is evident with the prior claim. You do something wrong, it gets changed or reverted rather quickly.
As to its state, this can be said for any site, with the wiki however it is all happening at once, unlike a typical admin run site, where each article would be fairly complete or not exist at all. Some information is always better than none.

The wiki is not however idiot proof, nothing is. The Fire Naga issue is testament enough to this. It was not the fault of the wiki, it was the fault of the user who couldn't grasp what they are reading and where fact and speculation are different.

Some of you feel the wiki should not contain any speculation at all, but i ask you, in any lore community, how often is there a topic speculating on gaps in the lore? Speculations is needed to offer guidance and spark discussions on the lore holes, many enjoy it, i certainly do. The wiki has never claimed them as fact though.

It is oddly very common to find certain people with bias to soruces of lore, the wiki has encountered those who only stick to WC2 or WC3, those who beleive the novels and RPG books to be non-cannon, and most commonly, those who only view WoW as the one true source. WoWWiki has the policy of presenting all official sources of lore irregardless of opinions on them, they are there for users to make up their own mind on, you're always free to do that. But i no way are you allowed to remove or discredit sources. WoWWiki follows the implied stance of Metzen on lore, that all sources are valid, and Blizzard strive to make them consistant so you can enjoy and experience Warcraft through all mediums available.

I don't understand this issues soem of you have with the use of the term retcon on the wiki. Apparently some of you think it only applies to lore, not changes to spelling, captilization, wording etc. Well they have great impact on the lore, and impact on how the wiki works and is displayed, they are indeed retcons and must be resolved in order to provide consistancy to the users. I actually find the use of retcon on the wiki most refreshing, having seen it always thrown around and applied incorrectly to new flavour lore when it is conflicting with assumptions people had of previous lore. (This is probably the root of many issues people have with the wiki's reliablity, merely their fault.)

Generally, this is how i view most of what is the pattern here..

Scenario 1 (The lore noob):
User reads wiki, doesn't understand it fully, goes away with assumptions based on the entire article, irregardless of the speculation
User starts to preach them.
(No better than what goes on alot of lore forums)
User angers lore fans with the information he giving anf finds out it is from the wiki, thus a negative view is formed.

Scenario 2 (The lore fan):
User reads the wiki, sees something they believe to be wrong.
User edits the wiki wrongly (removing facts they they don't agree with or didn't know existed, adding bias or speculation as fact, making controversial changes without sourcing or adding reasoning to the talk page).
Someone reverts changes.
User beleives the wiki is biased and won't accept facts.
User tells his circle of lore fans about how bad he thinks the wiki is and starts to quote things he sees as wrong even when they are speculation.

I don't enjoy seeing the wiki discredited when it doesn't deserve it, especially against other unofficial lore resources that are far more unreliable and inaccurate (because they don't have the benefit of the wiki). Any good lore fan should be checking facts themselves where they can before ever sourcing the wiki and beleiving what is writen is 100% factual.
Understand, writing about lore with the odd citation and referrence is the only way, and with it often comes with slight interpretations that could possibly distort the facts. It is not possible to simply quote whole passages of lore because of copyrights, that's why no lore resource will ever be 100% compared to the original sources.

Hope that helps clear things up and sets things straight. If you decide to reply to this, atleast do it properly rather than dismiss it and resort to unfounded accusations.

[Kirkburn]

Sorry, another post from us ;)

If anyone is wondering why there's so much spam from us, it's cause we're chatting on the wowwiki IRC channel :D


I reckon I would probably join this forum more permanently, but time constraints make that hard (had to give up on the PvPRP one too). And obviously also the negative view of the wiki partly puts me off atm!

[Yuber8900]

Scenario 2 (The lore fan):
User reads the wiki, sees something they believe to be wrong.
User edits the wiki wrongly (removing facts they they don't agree with or didn't know existed, adding bias or speculation as fact, making controversial changes without sourcing or adding reasoning to the talk page).
Someone reverts changes.
User beleives the wiki is biased and won't accept facts.
User tells his circle of lore fans about how bad he thinks the wiki is and starts to quote things he sees as wrong even when they are speculation.

And if the changes he made are right and get reverted?

[Kirkburn]

And if the changes he made are right and get reverted?Then that's their fault for not editing correctly, and nothing to do with the wiki. Reference/cite your sources, provide a good edit summary, or talk about it on the talk page. You won't get rverted if you make a correct edit that way.

If he was right and got reverted, he should then start a discussion on the talk page. If we agree, he edits it back! Simple :)

[Yuber8900]

Then that's their fault for not editing correctly, and nothing to do with the wiki. Reference/cite your sources, provide a good edit summary, or talk about it on the talk page. You won't get rverted if you make a correct edit that way.

If he was right and got reverted, he should then start a discussion on the talk page. If we agree, he edits it back! Simple :)

If there are no sources to cite it's hard to do so.

[Kirkburn]

If there are no sources to cite it's hard to do so.Well then that type of change should be discussed on the talk page, so people can agree on it first. A source isn't a requirement for all info on the wiki, but it certainly is important for any major article change to occur.

It's almost a catch-22. People want to change articles to be more accurate, but don't source. Then people come along saying it's not sourced and therefore can't be trusted. So people edit it to go with the current sources, and the first person gets annoyed. This wouldn't occur if the un-sourced change was talked about first.

[zeal]

If there are no sources to cite then it does not belong on the wiki.. even speculation can cite sources for it's basis.

[Yuber8900]

What I was changing was an uncited source, but since there was no info on the character there was also no info to cite for my changes.

[zeal]

It would be easier to discuss this on the wiki, but if there is no soruce given you can simply use {{fact}} to ask for someone to get the source. When that was done, you would be able to confirm your changes and wouldn't need to source as its there.

Though i don't really understand how you could make changes to something that has no info and no source and not know the source yourself..

[Kirkburn]

Can I note that the reactionary edits of 'Fudo-chan' to Celestial and Hope have been edited to follow policy (contributions (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Fudo-chan)).

These kind of edits are exactly the type of edits that get reverted. They had no basis in fact.

Celestials are not in any of the Warcraft Game series or mentioned by anyone in the series. They are not a part of official lore until they are in-game or mentioned in-game.This is untrue. They are in the RPG books, therefore they are official. We do not decide what is and isn't official - Blizzard do that. However, what can do is provide context, and it has been changed to:

Note that the existence of Celestials in the Warcraft universe is debated...Followed by a link to the page with the debate info. Whether or not something is mentioned in the games has little bearing on its truth. The novels are canon. The RPG books are canon.

Now, who was it here who made the edits? :)

[Yuber8900]

It would be easier to discuss this on the wiki, but if there is no soruce given you can simply use {{fact}} to ask for someone to get the source. When that was done, you would be able to confirm your changes and wouldn't need to source as its there.

Though i don't really understand how you could make changes to something that has no info and no source and not know the source yourself..

Perenolde.

Before I got frustrated and gave up, I had to keep changing the "Lord Perenolde is a Death Knight!" Which other then having a Death Knight using that name had no info regarding what happened to Lord Perenolde after the second war.

[Kenzuki]

Don't you guys see? They are just trying to bait you into a fight. It's not worth it.

[Kirkburn]

Don't you guys see? They are just trying to bait you into a fight. It's not worth it.We're not, and I resent the accusation. We're here to discuss the issues. You still haven't given me the info to allow me to check up on what happened for you!

Yuber8900, are you Theron the Just? Removing info is not appreciated. If there is speculation, it should use a speculation template and go in it's own section. Plain removing the info is vandalism. Zeal has just clarified this article (Aiden Perenolde (http://www.wowwiki.com/Aiden_Perenolde)) to show the speculation more clearly (i.e. it was updated in accordance with policy).

Again, just because you don't believe something to be correct does not give you the right to surpress it. You discuss before the removal of something. Not after. If you are Theron, note (http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Theron_the_Just) how many times you have been warned over the exact problems we've been discussing!

Theron the Just has come close to being banned several times, but has not, so far, ever been banned. The reason given would have been "not discussing before removing info and/or making major changes to an article". However, so far we have been lenient. Especially note the most recent note from me: here (http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Theron_the_Just#Discussion).

[Bradford]

We're not, and I resent the accusation. We're here to discuss the issues. You still haven't given me the info to allow me to check up on what happened for you!

Yuber8900, are you Theron the Just? Removing info is not appreciated. If there is speculation, it should use a speculation template and go in it's own section. Plain removing the info is vandalism. Zeal has just clarified this article (Aiden Perenolde (http://www.wowwiki.com/Aiden_Perenolde)) to show the speculation more clearly (i.e. it was updated in accordance with policy).

Again, just because you don't believe something to be correct does not give you the right to surpress it. You discuss before the removal of something. Not after. If you are Theron, note (http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Theron_the_Just) how many times you have been warned over the exact problems we've been discussing!

Theron the Just has come close to being banned several times, but has not, so far, ever been banned. The reason given would have been "not discussing before removing info and/or making major changes to an article". However, so far we have been lenient.

If you are soooo open to debate, please post the IRC channel in which you mentioned above. I will be happy to hop right in and debate this further. I also have a ventrilo server if youd like to speak with me. I also invite some of the other long time SoL people to come and join me. I have several questions to ask, and I am open minded and not looking to fight, just prove a point.

[Kirkburn]

If you are soooo open to debate, please post the IRC channel in which you mentioned above. I will be happy to hop right in and debate this further. I also have a ventrilo server if youd like to speak with me. I also invite some of the other long time SoL people to come and join me. I have several questions to ask, and I am open minded and not looking to fight, just prove a point.
Sure thing - it's linked from the front page of the wiki :P Sorry I didn't post it earlier - two different PCs makes it hard to copy and paste from one to the other!

WoWWiki IRC info page (http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:IRC)

At all: please, please do point out errors in articles, however you wish to do it. We can cope with being corrected! :)

[Yuber8900]

I only go by one name. Any name that does not symbolize my fanboyism is worthless to me.

[Kirkburn]

I only go by one name. Any name that does not symbolize my fanboyism is worthless to me.That's a yes?

[Nephalim]

Look, at the end of the day, the wiki just isn't reliable. It's not the fault of the staff, per se. It's the principle of the entire affair. If I see something on the wiki, I have to go confirm it elsewhere. I can't (and shouldn't) trust what I read on there, and I don't see that every changing.

[Kenzuki]

This is what is wrong.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Daemon

Notice all the info on there that has nothing to do with Warcraft but with Dungeons and Dragons?

Or these two entries

http://www.wowwiki.com/Devil


http://www.wowwiki.com/Demodand

They do not exist in Warcraft. Therefore when you write

"Minions of the Burning Legion are countless. Demodand are but one class of Demons in the Burning Legion's forces. Usually used as shock troops. May also contain leaders of the Burning Legion. Demodand are unlikely to associate with devils, demons or daemons, that is they are rarely found working together, unless under the guidance of a powerful leader. Even then there is likely to be strife between the different classes of demons. "

This is wrong information which leads people to quote this because it's on the WoWWiki as the gospel truth.

[Kirkburn]

This is what is wrong.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Daemon

Notice all the info on there that has nothing to do with Warcraft but with Dungeons and Dragons?

Or these two entries

http://www.wowwiki.com/Devil


http://www.wowwiki.com/Demodand

They do not exist in Warcraft. Therefore when you write

"Minions of the Burning Legion are countless. Demodand are but one class of Demons in the Burning Legion's forces. Usually used as shock troops. May also contain leaders of the Burning Legion. Demodand are unlikely to associate with devils, demons or daemons, that is they are rarely found working together, unless under the guidance of a powerful leader. Even then there is likely to be strife between the different classes of demons. "

This is wrong information which leads people to quote this because it's on the WoWWiki as the gospel truth.I guess you're denying the canonicity of all the RPG books then? Again, what was your wowwiki name, if you please.

[Yuber8900]

That's a yes?

Believe what you will thing.

[Yuber8900]

I guess you're denying the canonicity of all the RPG books then? Again, what was your wowwiki name, if you please.

The RPG books are not the game. Until it's in-game it's not real lore. The RPG books are standalone and have no effect or impacts on the whole of the story unlike the Novels.

[Kenzuki]

I guess you're denying the canonicity of all the RPG books then? Again, what was your wowwiki name, if you please.

I am denying that the OPTIONAL rules in the back of the OUTDATED Manual of Monsters is not canon, yes.

[Kirkburn]

Reply to Yuber:

Wow, if that's really your stance then ... well, I don't know what to say. You're wrong? Blizzard disagree? I'm not sure.

[zeal]

Look, at the end of the day, the wiki just isn't reliable. It's not the fault of the staff, per se. It's the principle of the entire affair. If I see something on the wiki, I have to go confirm it elsewhere. I can't (and shouldn't) trust what I read on there, and I don't see that every changing.
But this goes for all lore resources, your forums, blizzplanet, the lorekeepers (wowradio). name your lore site. The wiki doesn't need discrediting for that.

What Kirkburn said, they're from an official source, adapted from D&D for Warcraft. It is not for you, or the wiki, to decide if they are cannon and therefore will always be represented with the same level of regard and integrity as given to all official sources.

[Kirkburn]

I am denying that the OPTIONAL rules in the back of the OUTDATED Manual of Monsters is not canon, yes.The problem here is we can't just remove it. We're not able to make decisions on what is canon and what isn't. If Blizzard tell us "don't use this, it's wrong", then yes we can remove it. But we can't unless they do, because then we would no longer be a neutral source of information.

RPG canonicity info (http://www.wowwiki.com/Warcraft_RPG#Official_Source_of_Lore)

Kenzuki, can I point out Yuber has been resorting to ad hominem attacks in his comments - note the title of his quotes: "WoWWiki Whore". So much for keeping it civil ...

(I guess I'm not going to be allowed to check on your edits to see what happened?)

[Nephalim]

About Lunar Falls:

I realize this is becoming a moot point because the discussion has detached from the subject, but I'll address some things anyway.

First: We took liberties, I'll admit that. We elaborated and extrapolated a lot of the information we had on minor characters to give them biographies that amounted to more than a sentence or two. I mean, with, say, Filson, that's pretty much a bullshit biography, but it's grounded in known facts. I could have said "Filson was a rat whom could only be killed with a catapult attack that missed him because he had a talisman of evasion." That's not what I opted to do. We did address this in our FAQ (it's not there right now).

The random hero biographies, however, I'll defend. They're elaborations on Blizzard biographies, which were applied to every random hero. If I had specific information, I threw out the generic biographies and used that specific information, like with Aggronor or Banehollow. But I didn't just make them up out of nothing.

I'm not sure where the Aszune thing came from, I didn't personally handle that biography. It may have come from item info in the map editor (similar to the three keystones). What I do remember is that my then co-author and I had a fairly involved discussion because the statement that she mocked the wisdom of the Oracle, who was Medivh, couldn't really be possible if she's supposed to be ancient. We eventually went with it purely out of the fact that my co-author had a source. I'll ask her next time we speak, but I can't, at the moment, recall what it was. Sorry.

EDIT: I just spoke to my friend and she's fairly sure it came from the text in the quest log.

[Yuber8900]

Kenzuli, can I point out the Great and Always right Highlord Yuber has been resorting to ad hominem attacks in his comments - note the title of his quotes: "WoWWiki Whore". So much for keeping it civil ...

I calls them as I see's them, ask Kenzuli or Salomit.

hominem isn't even a word.

[Kirkburn]

I calls them as I see's them, ask Kenzuli or Salomit.

hominem isn't even a word.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edit: Actually, I'm glad to see that you're not attributing comments to me since you edited them to suit you.


As said by Baggins on the IRC channel:
<Bagginsww> You know I present material cause maybe someone will find it interesting ... not to force people to believe the material

[Kenzuki]

Two can play at this game. If this is true, does this mean that the Lords of the Nine are in Warcraft? Because your site lists some of them in the Devils catogory. Which must mean that the Nine Hells of Baator are in Warcraft as well as the Infinite Layers of the Abyss, as well as the Grey Wastes of Hades and the plane of Celestia. Hell let's throw in Moradin as the god of the dwarves while we're at it.

[Yuber8900]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edit: Actually, I'm glad to see that you're not attributing comments to me since you edited them to suit you.

And yet you're doing the exact same thing. In fact I do think you first accused me hmmmm.

[Kirkburn]

And yet you're doing the exact same thing. In fact I do think you first accused me hmmmm.I think you misunderstand what an ad hominem attack is. I just pointed out what you did.

[zeal]

Two can play at this game. If this is true, does this mean that the Lords of the Nine are in Warcraft? Because your site lists some of them in the Devils catogory. Which must mean that the Nine Hells of Baator are in Warcraft as well as the Infinite Layers of the Abyss, as well as the Grey Wastes of Hades and the plane of Celestia. Hell let's throw in Moradin as the god of the dwarves while we're at it.
None of these things interest me, i feel Warcraft has moved on from many religious ideals, so i can't say anything about each ones circumstances as i've not read them.
But yes, until something in future lore refutes them, their possible existance in and impact on Warcraft remains intact unless otherwise stated by Blizzard.

[Kirkburn]

Two can play at this game. If this is true, does this mean that the Lords of the Nine are in Warcraft? Because your site lists some of them in the Devils catogory. Which must mean that the Nine Hells of Baator are in Warcraft as well as the Infinite Layers of the Abyss, as well as the Grey Wastes of Hades and the plane of Celestia. Hell let's throw in Moradin as the god of the dwarves while we're at it.Link? Are they, in fact, in a WoW RPG book?

Some links:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Devil
http://www.wowwiki.com/Category:Demons <-- lol

There is no Devils category.

[Yuber8900]

Yeah I'm attacking you by calling you a WoWWiki Whore, and you accused my of being a liar.

[Kenzuki]

Minions of the Burning Legion are countless. Devils are but one class of Demons in the Burning Legion's forces. Many make up some of the generals of the Burning Legion, as well as other leadership positions. These unique individuals almost always have personal agendas that they are pursuing on Kalimdor. Devils are unlikely to associate with daemons, demons or demodand, that is they are rarely found working together, unless under the guidance of a powerful leader. Even then there is likely to be strife between the different classes of demons.

Some Eredar were known to be practicing Diabolists.

Famous/Named: Amon, Baaphel, Bael, Geryon, Gadder, Gorson, Hutjin, Lucifer, Moloch, Nupperibo, Titivilus, Tormentor of Souls



By the way, if you guys had paid any attention to the Warcraft RPG forums you would have known that the RPG guys blatantly said "Those are just add on creatures we added to allow Dungeon Masters to put into their games." The new Monster guide won't have any of that in it.

[Kirkburn]

Yeah I'm attacking you by calling you a WoWWiki Whore, and you accused my of being a liar.If you are indeed Theron, then you lied about being banned. You have never been banned.

I am looking at your block log. "No matching items in log", it says.

[Kirkburn]

Minions of the Burning Legion are countless. Devils are but one class of Demons in the Burning Legion's forces. Many make up some of the generals of the Burning Legion, as well as other leadership positions. These unique individuals almost always have personal agendas that they are pursuing on Kalimdor. Devils are unlikely to associate with daemons, demons or demodand, that is they are rarely found working together, unless under the guidance of a powerful leader. Even then there is likely to be strife between the different classes of demons.

Some Eredar were known to be practicing Diabolists.

Famous/Named: Amon, Baaphel, Bael, Geryon, Gadder, Gorson, Hutjin, Lucifer, Moloch, Nupperibo, Titivilus, Tormentor of Souls



By the way, if you guys had paid any attention to the Warcraft RPG forums you would have known that the RPG guys blatantly said "Those are just add on creatures we added to allow Dungeon Masters to put into their games." The new Monster guide won't have any of that in it.What, because they use the same names, we must take the wild route of including all that other stuff you said? Hey, I'll find a child called Tom, and we can add Tom Thumb too!

If you can link me to a source where they said that, we could get somewhere.

[Yuber8900]

If you are indeed Theron, then you lied about being banned. You have never been banned.

I am looking at your block log. "No matching items in log", it says.

I said I wasn't Theorn or whatever that name was, you refuse to believe me. You are wrong.

I have Never registered as any other name other then Yuber8900, that is my claim to fame, being able to confuse the hapless masses as to why I chose that name and number gives me pleasure.

[Kenzuki]

What, because they use the same names, we must take the wild route of including all that other stuff you said? Hey, I'll find a child called Tom, and we can add Tom Thumb too!

If you can link me to a source where they said that, we could get somewhere.

I would, except the old forum got scrapped along with the old line. I'll get you proof though, just wait.

[zeal]

By the way, if you guys had paid any attention to the Warcraft RPG forums you would have known that the RPG guys blatantly said "Those are just add on creatures we added to allow Dungeon Masters to put into their games." The new Monster guide won't have any of that in it.
Several of us have seen this, it does not discredit these things however. Several of them have been revisted in later sources and expanded, and the potential for the rest is still there.

Also point out some of the RPG staff have discredited themselves as having any real say on the lore of things and sticking to no comments or expressing their own biased views. Metzen's quotes > Non-Blizzard employes.

As to Yuber, i've checked through the entire history of all Perenold topics, what you have said was a lie. Aslo there is no user, nor has there been as user, with your name.

[Kirkburn]

I would, except the old forum got scrapped along with the old line. I'll get you proof though, just wait.Thanks, and I mean it! :D

[Kirkburn]

I said I wasn't Theorn or whatever that name was, you refuse to believe me. You are wrong.

I have Never registered as any other name other then Yuber8900, that is my claim to fame, being able to confuse the hapless masses as to why I chose that name and number gives me pleasure.No you didn't deny it. Not only that, but no user called Yuber8900 has ever edited anything on the wiki. And yes, well done on just creating a user called Yuber8900 - I checked the name earlier. Congratulations.

[Kenzuki]

Several of us have seen this, it does not discredit these things however. Several of them have been revisted in later sources and expanded, and the potential for the rest is still there.

Also point out some of the RPG staff have discredited themselves as having any real say on the lore of things and sticking to no comments or expressing their own biased views. Metzen's quotes > Non-Blizzard employes.

You'll be interested to know that Metzen did not stick those things in the back of the book, the old RPG team did it to give players more variety. Besides there are TWO conflicting accounts of Centaur in it alone. I mean come on, Leprechans?

[Yuber8900]

Should I just get the Legion to swarm this place in spam again, what little thrills I got out of this are gone now.

[Kirkburn]

You'll be interested to know that Metzen did not stick those things in the back of the book, the old RPG team did it to give players more variety. Besides there are TWO conflicting accounts of Centaur in it alone. I mean come on, Leprechans?Yeah, I do understand your misgivings there - but we can't pick and choose the lore. Only with a quote confirming or denying it can we be certain either way. (On a side note Metzen didn't write the novels, much of the RPG books and much of WoW too).

Yuber8900 - can I say I'm glad? Continually lying doesn't work.

[Kenzuki]

Yeah, I do understand your misgivings there - but we can't pick and choose the lore. Only with a quote confirming or denying it can we be certain either way.

Dude look, it's not lore ok. There aren't leprechans in any source of Warcraft, they only exist in table top games and the developers stuck all those little extra monsters in the appendix, so that players could have more variety in killing stuff. It's not cannon. They merely gave them a Warcraft flavored background so that players could stick them into their games more easily. Your own friend says he saw them say that.

[zeal]

You'll be interested to know that Metzen did not stick those things in the back of the book, the old RPG team did it to give players more variety.
Care to cite? Thats not accurate to what i've read previously. There is no such disclaimer in the book to say it is not canon, in fact quite the opposite, and even more of the opposite from Metzen.

[Kirkburn]

Dude look, it's not lore ok. There aren't leprechans in any source of Warcraft, they only exist in table top games and the developers stuck all those little extra monsters in the appendix, so that players could have more variety in killing stuff. It's not cannon. They merely gave them a Warcraft flavored background so that players could stick them into their games more easily. Your own friend says he saw them say that.He's an acquaintance, not a personal friend. You're using semantics to reduce us to one person. I still need a link as proof.

Just telling someone again and again it's not lore wouldn't convince anyone, now, would it?

Specifically quoting There aren't leprechans in any source of Warcraft. If there weren't ... uh, then how would we have an RPG source book with them in?

[Kenzuki]

Care to cite? Thats not accurate to what i've read previously. There is no such disclaimer in the book to say it is not canon, in fact quite the opposite, and even more of the opposite from Metzen.

Quote Metzen where he says it's cannon. Cause even a retarded gibbering monkey can tell that the stuff is in the Appendix for a reason. Common sense tells you that! The New Monster Guide won't have any of that garbage in the back of it thank god.

[Yuber8900]

Yeah, I do understand your misgivings there - but we can't pick and choose the lore. Only with a quote confirming or denying it can we be certain either way. (On a side note Metzen didn't write the novels, much of the RPG books and much of WoW too).

Yuber8900 - can I say I'm glad? Continually lying doesn't work.

Of Blood and Honor.

Go ahead call me a liar, I'm right and everyone here who's opinions matter knows I'm right.

[Kenzuki]

That's fine, I'm in contact with a member of the RPG team, when I get my reply from him you'll have your proof.

[Kirkburn]

Quote Metzen where he says it's cannon. Cause even a retarded gibbering monkey can tell that the stuff is in the Appendix for a reason. Common sense tells you that! The New Monster Guide won't have any of that garbage in the back of it thank god.Did you read this link which I now notice is very hard to read so I'm making it bigger (http://www.wowwiki.com/Warcraft_RPG#Official_Source_of_Lore)?

[Kirkburn]

Of Blood and Honor.

Go ahead call me a liar, I'm right and everyone here who's opinions matter knows I'm right.I find it hard to argue with a computer program (mediawiki). I find they're quite finicky about telling the truth...
Anyway, what's this got to do with opinions? You called me a WoWWiki Whore, and you are denying the evidence on my own eyes.

What did you mean by saying "Of Blood and Honor"?


Kenzuki, I do appreciate your help. :)

[Yuber8900]

So that's how you got here.

[Kirkburn]

So that's how you got here.I'm ... confused?

[Kenzuki]

Did you read this?

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.


Yeah, that really sounds cannonical to me.

[Kirkburn]

Did you read this?

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.


Yeah, that really sounds cannonical to me.Ah, if we're talking about that specifically: http://www.wowwiki.com/Manual_of_Monsters#Appendix_Three:_Other_Monsters_ in_Warcraft

[Kenzuki]

Exactly, so you should take all that crap off the real entries claiming them to be cannon and leave it on that one page you linked.

[Nephalim]

And I doubt anyone thinks they're being "painstakingly anal" about continuity anymore.

[Kirkburn]

Exactly, so you should take all that crap off the real entries claiming them to be cannon and leave it on that one page you linked.We don't claim them to be canon or not canon. You'll notice all the pages from there have a link to the controversy page explaining the debate. We are looking at ways of making it more obvious - editing http://www.wowwiki.com/Hope was one step towards this. However, removing it is not going to occur without a confirmed and clear source.

And again, to the above and below - you still seem to be missing the point. We are neutral. We don't care if people don't like it or if they do. We make sure what we write is factual, or if not, marked as such.

[Kenzuki]

Amen Neph.

[Kenzuki]

We don't claim them to be canon or not canon. You'll notice all the pages from there have a link to the controversy page explaining the debate. We are looking at ways of making it more obvious - editing http://www.wowwiki.com/Hope was one step towards this. However, removing it is not going to occur without a confirmed and clear source.


You know you're corrupting peoples minds right? Hundreds of people reference you, use your powers for good not evil! Repent of your sins, and you SHALL be saved saith the Light!

[Yuber8900]

Defending everything about the site....makes you neutral....hahaha

[Kirkburn]

You know you're corrupting peoples minds right? Hundreds of people reference you, use your powers for good not evil! Repent of your sins, and you SHALL be saved saith the Light!Hahaha :) I think it's more like thousan- oh, you don't want to hear that ... ;)

Seriously though, yes we do want to make it clear what's more accepted and what's not, but we cannot decide what to carry as it would undermine our neutrality :/

Yuber, morally better than lying though, isn't it? I don't get paid for this, y'know. I'll remember to tell Switzerland they aren't allowed to debate anything since they're neutral too. And since when am I neutral? I haven't said that I believe there are really leprechauns - much like a lawyer does not have to believe everything his client says. But it is his job and purpose to report it in a court of law.

Kenzuki: so neutrally worded! Really doesn't sound like your trying to get a specific response at all ... leading questions don't get unbiased answers. Reword it please. http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=52165

[zeal]

Exactly, so you should take all that crap off the real entries claiming them to be cannon and leave it on that one page you linked.
So tired..
Nothing in what you wrote says it is canon or not, all official lore is considered canon (or in this case for the wiki, canon and non-canon do not exist) unless otherwise stated by Metzen, a Blizzard employe, or anyone authorized to do so on their behalf. None of which have happened.
To further support that fact they belong on the wiki is that several of them are refrenced in the main sections of the book (which is i'm hoping you don't wish to say is non-canon too), and also later expanded on as creatues in warcraft in other sources.
If you haven't figured that out, and still beleive it is up to you and your opinions to decide what is and isnt lore, then there is very little point in continuing on, as apparently you beleive you are equal to Blizzard, which anyone with sense can see the fault in.

[Yuber8900]

Yuber, morally better than lying though, isn't it?

Well if I was actually lying about anything.

I don't get paid for this, y'know.

This is relevant how?


I'll remember to tell Switzerland they aren't allowed to debate anything since they're neutral too. And since when am I neutral?

I'll answer with! Hell I'll even Bold boost them!

And again, to the above and below - you still seem to be missing the point. We are neutral. We don't care if people don't like it or if they do. We make sure what we write is factual, or if not, marked as such.

[Kirkburn]

Well if I was actually lying about anything.

This is relevant how?

I'll answer with! Hell I'll even Bold boost them!We, as in the wiki as as whole. What we create is neutral. I'm allowed opinions, even if they don't form the opinion of the 'we'.

I might think Medivh is an asshole (I don't), but I don't post it on the wiki :)

[Doomsday]

You should at least create a header at the top of the page that says
Many do not consider this information canon

then at the bottom refernce them to to the controversy debate. This would save everyone from a lot of annoyance.

A good place to start would be the demonadad (sp?) and devil pages. I do not consider that information canon in any form. It makes no sense in context of the world.

[Kirkburn]

You should at least create a header at the top of the page that says
Many do not consider this information canon

then at the bottom refernce them to to the controversy debate. This would save everyone from a lot of annoyance.

A good place to start would be the demonadad (sp?) page. I do not consider that information canon in any form. It makes no sense in context of the world.Thanks for pointing it out (http://www.wowwiki.com/Demodand).

Cited and added controversy note! For the header thing, we'll wait until we have better info, but we've chatted a lot about it.

[zeal]

You should at least create a header at the top of the page that says
Many do not consider this information canon

then at the bottom refernce them to to the controversy debate. This would save everyone from a lot of annoyance.

A good place to start would be the demonadad (sp?) and devil pages. I do not consider that information canon in any form. It makes no sense in context of the world.
Such a prominant header would imply the wiki condones the discredit of an article on official lore. We already have to have stupidly large speculation headers to satisfy people who don't like things that go against their opinions.
Linking to the debate in the article does not imply that the wiki considers it one way or the other, just that user view differentiates, same as how speculation is handled.

[Kenzuki]

Such a prominant header would imply the wiki condones the discredit of an article on official lore. We already have to have stupidly large speculation headers to satisfy people who don't like things that go against their opinions.
Linking to the debate in the article does not imply that the wiki considers it one way or the other, just that user view differentiates, same as how speculation is handled.

It's not official lore though.

[Kirkburn]

It's not official lore though.And so we continue to retread old ground.

Anyway I hope others who view this thread can form a balanced opinion from it, it's been fun!

[Doomsday]

if you read the whitewolf boards, the writers of the RPG book admit to not knowing the lore so well. That plus the fact that they are not heavily scrutinised by blizzard means that the lore they provide is suspect.

As long as it makes sense and contradicts nothing then it is fine. When problems arise, you have to understand that what they are saying is subject and therefore should be noted as such.

[Yuber8900]

And so we continue to retread old ground.

Anyway I hope others who view this thread can form a balanced opinion from it, it's been fun!

Like anyone here is gonna change opinions....

[DreamingGod]

Wow...just...Wow...Where is common sense now-a-days?

It SAYS in the book that it is not canon? How can you consider it canon!?
Put a fricken' "Non-Canon" sign if you won't delete and forget that it existed.

Lets see here, Lords of the Nine Hells....Yeah that is sooo warcraft :rolleyes:

Remove Hopes and Celestials, and take off the Alliance race page.

Yes, the books and the RPG books are canon until contradicted by current lore, but it says it is not Canon in the book what more do you want!?

And why do you want SPECULATION to be mistaken as official lore? It SHOULD have a header saying it is speculation.


::rant over::

[Kirkburn]

Wow...just...Wow...Where is common sense now-a-days?

It SAYS in the book that it is not canon? How can you consider it canon!?
Put a fricken' "Non-Canon" sign if you won't delete and forget that it existed.

Lets see here, Lords of the Nine Hells....Yeah that is sooo warcraft :rolleyes:

Remove Hopes and Celestials, and take off the Alliance race page.

Yes, the books and the RPG books are canon until contradicted by current lore, but it says it is not Canon in the book what more do you want!?

And why do you want SPECULATION to be mistaken as official lore? It SHOULD have a header saying it is speculation.


::rant over::Thank you for not reading the thread, or anything we've said. It's really fun saying the same thing again and again. Where you got that last sentence from, I just really do not know ...

[Kenzuki]

Thank you for not reading the thread, or anything we've said. It's really fun saying the same thing again and again. Where you got that last sentence from, I just really do not know ...

Our lore site is going to pwn yours!

[Doomsday]

so.. is there an ETA?

[Yuber8900]

It's really fun saying the same thing again and again.

Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is!

[Kenzuki]

so.. is there an ETA?

As Yuber once said "Chickens blow WoWWiki out of the water."

[Nephalim]

Uhh... let's see...

If High Overlord Saurfang was in a room with Onyxia, Magtheridon, and Wowwiki, and had a Core Marksman Rifle with only two thorium shells, he'd shoot Wowwiki twice.

If I close my eyes, I almost believe I'm in the Barrens.

[xlandhenry]

Ah...I just decided to argue a bit, only to find it's over. :(

[Flamestrider]

Don't be douchebags, guys. I feel the same way about the Appendix 3 stuff as the rest of you, but Kirkburn is being civil, and I think we should respect that.

[Cantus]

Flame's right, we need to keep this from degenerating into "WoWWiki expletive deleted expletive deleted their expletive deleted and expletive deleted..." Just because they're not bowing to demands doesn't mean they're saying this stuff is canon.

The best thing they can do as of now is move all articles under the speculation heading into a separate and obvious section that forces people to acknowledge there is speculation (or outright proof) the information held therein is not canon.

[Vicious]

Holy shit, i missed all of this?

God damn it!

[Wulfang]

Holy shit, i missed all of this?

God damn it!
It's hard to live in a different time zone isn't it? At least I was still on when Kirkburn started ranting :D

[Warlock]

http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=52165

Yo!

That MoM appendix was full of ideas about how you might incorporate monsters from other sources into the game, if you feel like it. Until I see mites running around in a Warcraft computer game, I wouldn't consider them canon.

I still can't believe Baggins/Kirkburn won't accept that ("However I find it interesting how we only got his personal opinion, as is established by his statement of "I", but does not mention Blizzard's stance on the issue. Needs more documentation."). But whatever, anyone with common sense knew this was the answer he was gonna give.

[Bradford]

I visited the Wowwiki IRC channel last night and I must say I think they are all really nice guys, with a grasp of the lore, but it still does not defeat the fact that wiki and its methods are imperfect. They have rules in place, and they follow them, but some of those rules exclude common sense.

[Yuber8900]

There's at least a WoWWiki admin named Kirkburn

http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Kirkburn

[Kakwakas]

Yuber, I'm pretty sure it actually is Kirkburn that's posting here.


...But seriously, folks, step off a bit. There's no need to anally point out random spelling/grammar errors or resort to namecalling.

And hello to you people that recognize me from WoWWiki. :D
Even you guys have to admit that there IS a problem with accuracy on WoWWiki.
You guys also would be retarded for not going with Luke Johnson's statement. You want to improve WoWWiki? Here's your chance to fix something.
Take a scientific approach. There was once a professor that spent his entire life trying to prove something, but a young guy beat him to it and disproved him. The professor thanked him for finally solving his hypothesis and furthering science.

Pretending something is canon when it has been proven that it's not is stupid. This is why Lunar Falls fails hard.

That said,
LORE FIGHT!!!

[Flamestrider]

Yeah, same Kirkburn.

EDIT: How does that happen with Lunar Falls?

[Aeleas]

I visited the Wowwiki IRC channel last night and I must say I think they are all really nice guys, with a grasp of the lore, but it still does not defeat the fact that wiki and its methods are imperfect. They have rules in place, and they follow them, but some of those rules exclude common sense.

It's a wiki; rules are easy to change if you don't like them and can get 5-10 people to agree with you.

[Nephalim]

Pretending something is canon when it has been proven that it's not is stupid. This is why Lunar Falls fails hard.Ok, what we did was speculate and assume within the realm of all available information, and we took no major leaps, here. If something was proven wrong, if something was later invalidated, we adapted to that. And we never touched any relevant characters. I think you're going a little far saying we "failed."

[Kenzuki]

No, Lunarfalls wasn't bad, I actually didn't mind reading their stuff. They at least didn't put Lucifer in Warcraft lore lol.

[Yuber8900]

No, Lunarfalls wasn't bad, I actually didn't mind reading their stuff. They at least didn't put Lucifer in Warcraft lore lol.

Pffft Akabane kicked Lucifer's goatee ass!

[Kakwakas]

Ok, what we did was speculate and assume within the realm of all available information, and we took no major leaps, here. If something was proven wrong, if something was later invalidated, we adapted to that. And we never touched any relevant characters. I think you're going a little far saying we "failed."

OK, I take back the fail remark. There was heavy speculation, though. There were characters with info on them longer than any of their ingame dialogue. Though I suppose you're right that you never messed with any important characters.

[Vicious]

No, Lunarfalls wasn't bad, I actually didn't mind reading their stuff. They at least didn't put Lucifer in Warcraft lore lol.

Yeah that´s true, i liked reading what they wrote even if it wasn´t 100% canon, it wasn´t terribly out of place like several sections of WoWwiki.

[Creative]

Shame I wasnt here when it started. Well, you know what side I'm on ;)


Yes it is!

Yes, it is.

[Kakwakas]

I know some of you have WoWWiki accounts (Timolas for one), so if you do, be sure to vote on this proposal (http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Writing/Lore#Proposal). If you don't already have a WoWWiki account, it wouldn't really be right to sign up just to vote for that (IMO).

[Doomsday]

This is probably a stupid question but how do I vote?

edit: nevermind figured it out

[Flamestrider]

Already did.

But yeah, I agree that it would be rather unethical to mob Wowwiki with new people whose only purpose on the site is to vote for the proposal. Let the system work naturally. We seem to be winning anyway.

[Warlock]

I know some of you have WoWWiki accounts (Timolas for one), so if you do, be sure to vote on this proposal (http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Writing/Lore#Proposal). If you don't already have a WoWWiki account, it wouldn't really be right to sign up just to vote for that (IMO).

I think it's stupid to include that stuff to begin with, but at least this way it's clearly marked.

Funny that Baggins is against it (as he seems to be the only one who thinks Appendix III is 100% valid)

Edit: I misread the thing, it sounds more like Zeal is the main one against it. But Baggins does still seem to be against it (but I think he conceeds that headings are ok where Zeal 100% does not)

[Kakwakas]

I think it's stupid to include that stuff to begin with, but at least this way it's clearly marked.

Funny that Baggins is against it (as he seems to be the only one who thinks Appendix III is 100% valid)

We've all fought tooth-and-nail over it. A special tag at the top of the page (like the fanfic tag) is the best we're going to get.

[Nephalim]

Why would anyone want Appendix 3 to be valid? It's ridiculous. I really hope that some White Wolf people are kicking themselves over it, because I heavily doubt that anyone uses it, and so all it's done has caused one of the single most inane Warcraft canon controversies in its history.

And this wiki's policies and exceptions and notices and whatever are equally ridiculous. Appendix 3 info will get a header that says it may not be otherwise valid? Welcome to EVERY OTHER fucking article on the wiki.
"This is in the RPG and so may not be canon."
"This is in a novel and so may not be canon."
"This is in World of Warcraft and so may not be canon."
"This is in Warcraft 1, 2, or 3 and so may not longer be canon."
It's becoming so preoccupied with covering its ass that I can't see newcomers getting any actual insight on anything that's going on from this.

[Warlock]

I edited my last post - I guess I misread the comments (it's confusing who's actually writing what.. I eventually figured out the name comes directly after the big block of text). It's Zeal who was the main one against any kind of header at all. Read this comment, I found it funny (funniest part underlined):

Also want to add that MoM is no different to any other source in this. It's only controversial because of narrow sighted people. We don't say WoW is controversial for Night Elves using the Holy Light, we don't say novels are controversial because authors are allowed to make up their own events and characrters to certain extent. Both of these, mechanics and author elaboration exist in all RPG books, and according to Metzen, are to be all considered part of Warcraft lore (he's impled they are all canon, shock horror). Metzen himself is credited and works closely on all sources, he allows the authors to go wild in places, it's created much of the lore we know and love, aswell as lore we hate. There is no reason for the wiki to single out MoM Appendix 3 for this, otherwise we must do it for everything.

Also, when does WoW have Night Elves using the Holy Light?!? But heck, is there anything that says they *can't* anyways? It's not that they would, but the Holy Light is obviously a force that can be tapped into by anyone, considering the Blood Elves managed to do it. So if there was that one Night Elf out there who decided Elune sucks and the Naaru rock, why couldn't he use the Holy Light? But again, I'm quite sure it says nowhere that they do.

[Nephalim]

High Priest Thel'danis in Uther's Rest is a night elf in World of Warcraft, but it's a tad confusing because he was called a high elf in Lands of Conflict, and that's where it called him a priest, as well. But since when are social deviates controversial? No one thought twice about Nathanos Marris, or Erlgadin and Ajeck. So there's a night elf who has associated with a foreign religion. This doesn't upset internal consistency at all.

Unless he's trying to say that all priests are devotees of the Light, which is laughable, and if he is, would go to show that he's not even remotely qualified to judge Warcraft canon in any capacity.

And this might be a little pompous of me, but I'm so fed up with the majority of the Warcraft community of late that I don't fucking care:

"Canon" is a term derived mostly from theology. Particularly in Christian doctrine, there are multiple relevant texts about their mythology, some written by key characters. But the Church decided which texts were in the best interests of their agenda, and which were not true to the spirit they were trying to endorse. Those texts they did deem to be fitting were canon while the rest were apocryphal. There's a whole gospel allegedly written by the disciple Thomas that isn't considered canonical. Among other things, it depicts a childhood Jesus turning birds into rocks to show off for his friends.

However just because the canonical texts are canon doesn't mean they all agree with each other. There are some flat out contradictions between the different books and gospels but that doesn't make them any less canon.

We aren't dealing with abstract concepts and spirituality here, we're trying to figure out the world of Warcraft - what happens in it, what's "real," and what doesn't belong in it. If I have two legitimate sources that say two contradictory things, that they are both canon gets me nowhere. Appendix 3 is canon, strictly speaking. So what? That doesn't mean anything.

So Metzen says everything's canon - this helps us out in absolutely no capacity. Metzen is never going to tell us to ignore a source; he still has a fucking job. Hiding behind his inaction is getting us nowhere and I wish some people would just open their eyes and get it through their heads that this is a fictional universe owned by a corporation and there are certain realities that come with that.

[Warlock]

High Priest Thel'danis in Uther's Rest is a night elf in World of Warcraft, but it's a tad confusing because he was called a high elf in Lands of Conflict, and that's where it called him a priest, as well. But since when are social deviates controversial? No one thought twice about Nathanos Marris, or Erlgadin and Ajeck. So there's a night elf who has associated with a foreign religion. This doesn't upset internal consistency at all.

Unless he's trying to say that all priests are devotees of the Light, which is laughable, and if he is, would go to show that he's not even remotely qualified to judge Warcraft canon in any capacity.

And this might be a little pompous of me, but I'm so fed up with the majority of the Warcraft community of late that I don't fucking care:

"Canon" is a term derived mostly from theology. Particularly in Christian doctrine, there are multiple relevant texts about their mythology, some written by key characters. But the Church decided which texts were in the best interests of their agenda, and which were not true to the spirit they were trying to endorse. Those texts they did deem to be fitting were canon while the rest were apocryphal. There's a whole gospel allegedly written by the disciple Thomas that isn't considered canonical. Among other things, it depicts a childhood Jesus turning birds into rocks to show off for his friends.

However just because the canonical texts are canon doesn't mean they all agree with each other. There are some flat out contradictions between the different books and gospels but that doesn't make them any less canon.

We aren't dealing with abstract concepts and spirituality here, we're trying to figure out the world of Warcraft - what happens in it, what's "real," and what doesn't belong in it. If I have two legitimate sources that say two contradictory things, that they are both canon gets me nowhere. Appendix 3 is canon, strictly speaking. So what? That doesn't mean anything.

So Metzen says everything's canon - this helps us out in absolutely no capacity. Metzen is never going to tell us to ignore a source; he still has a fucking job. Hiding behind his inaction is getting us nowhere and I wish some people would just open their eyes and get it through their heads that this is a fictional universe owned by a corporation and there are certain realities that come with that.

Ah yes, see I didn't talk to him much. I'm not sure but I don't think there was even a quest involved with him (but there may be now, I know patch 2.0 added one to talk to Uther's ghost). Either way, you are right. ZOMG one individual follows the Holy Light! How is that a contradiction? Personally I don't know why he's even a Night Elf though - how would a Night Elf even know Uther?

But yeah, good analogy. And in fact, the first two stories in the Bible are contradictory creation stories ("On the 7th day God rested" vs. Adam & Eve) but religiously I believe both are considered "canon".

[Timolas]

Thel'danis did have a quest to him - a Paladin one I believe. Didn't involve much just a grind, not revealing anything about him.
I rather like the idea of a Night Elf worshipping the Holy Light myself - I love 'exception to the rule' classes. Take for example a Blood Elf Druid, or in this case a proper Night Elf Priest. Even real High Elf Paladins.
Would love to be able to play a Night Elf Paladin personally... wouldn't make much sense but it would be possible. Nothing stopping one from being converted and taking up the shield and sword. Thel'danis is close enough proof to that I suppose.

[Kenzuki]

It's just like all the four gospels, each one has different events unique to it's own narrative, yet they share some of the same stories. Matthew says that there were Sheperds at the birth of Christ, Luke says there were wise men, does this mean that one was right and the other wrong? No, it's just from the point of view of the writter or the interpretation of that one.

Same as Warcraft, just because a character like Brann says "Gee, I think that Ragnaros may be an Old God" doesn't mean he's really an OG.

[Flamestrider]

Nephalim:

Yeah, I know, everything has a disclaimer on Wowwiki. However, I think it's a step in the right direction because at least it differentiates the appendix from the rest of the RPG books. They are fundamentally two different kinds of sources. The RPG books, for the most part, contain information about Azeroth that we don't get from other sources (i.e., specific regions in Northrend). In my experience, they are less reliable than the Warcraft games, but they have given us legitimate information.

The appendix, on the other hand, is specifically designed for adapting D&D creatures to the Warcraft Universe. Personally, I believe that appendix information shouldn't be included on Wowwiki at all, but even its most diehard supporters (Baggins, and Zeal, who defends it even more zealously) should agree that the appendix is a different kind of source.

The advantage of having an "Appendix III" header, I think, would be to differentiate the material contained therein from that in other parts of the RPG books. Let me give an example:

A player uneducated about but interested in the lore of Warcraft might come across the Leprechaun article while browsing Wowwiki. He's a bit curious, because he hasn't seen anything about leprechauns in Warcraft before. He sees the header, which says "This article contains information found only in the RPG books." Having recently viewed the article on Kul Tiras, which has the same heading, the reader decides to accept the Leprechaun article at face value, knowing from Warcraft II that Kul Tiras does exist, and assuming therefore that RPG information is generally reliable.

The point of the Wowwiki headings is to enable readers to decide for themselves what they want to believe. Some players don't think the events of WoW are cannon, so there's a WoW heading by Galen Trollbane's death. However, the way it is now, you must either accept all RPG information including Appendix III, or disregard all of it, including the government of Kul Tiras.

[Warlock]

You know, I just thought of another thing I havn't actually checked. Those little stories the RPG books included betwee chapters. Are any of those characters in there? Those are certainly not official (at least, no more than saying "your WoW character is an official part of the lore"), most notibly evidenced by the one in the Valley of Heroes where the writer actually gives Danath the wrong last name :P I hope if any of those characters appear, they don't share the same standard "This is WC RPG.. blah blah" header, because as far as I'm concerned that's all fanfiction.

[Nephalim]

I'm not sure I agree with that, Warlock. While, yes, they're not for the most part memorable epics, I think the sidebar stories are as much a part of the lore as anything else in the RPG. The "Danath Dungalion" was a mistake, to be sure, but it's not like the novels haven't made similar gross errors. If calling Adamant Wrynn "Landen Wrynn" didn't write-off Cycle of Hatred, I see no reason why the Danath misnomer should completely discredit all the RPG sidebars. I mean, in the end, the only real difference between fanfiction and an official novel is a Blizzard seal of approval, which these have.

Incidentally, those sidebars are, for the most part, absent from the wiki.

[Smeedle]

Oh, Baggins did include some of the stuff from the fiction stories of the RPG books in some of the articles on WoWWiki. It's just not that obvious. But take for example this part on http://www.wowwiki.com/Darnassian :
"There is two specific dialects called Darnassian, the current language, and older script, a strange dialect, that can be found in ancient night elf ruins."

This information is also repeated at the bottom of the same article and it apparently comes entirely from one little sentence of a story on page 134 of Shadows & Light where it says:
"Setting the jar upon the altar, Talario read the outer line of script curving around its sealed edge, in a strange dialect of Darnassian."

That's it. That's all that's ever mentioned in any source about this "strange dialect of Darnassian". Just this one little sentence in a fiction story in Shadows&Light. And Baggins puts it not in one but in two places of the same article on WoWWiki and writes it like this strange dialect of Darnassian can be generally found in ancient night elf ruins, although we only know of this one little instance in this one little story. You know, I've got nothing against including information like this in the wiki, but Baggins tends to blow these small things way out of proportion and interweaves them with the regular lore stuff on the wiki (just like he did with the appendix 3 stuff) so that people who don't know that much about Warcraft lore and the different sources have really no chance to distinguish what's valid information and what's stuff that only appeared in one little sentence in one little fiction piece in one of the RPG books.

And don't get me started on articles like http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven where Baggins concluded that there must be an entirely new language called "Elven" that's different from High Elven or Darnassian, just because in two little parts of two of the RPG books the writer forgot to put the right name of the Warcraft Elven language in the text and just wrote "Elven". I often get the impression that Baggins really does see the RPG books as some kind of religious texts that absolutly cannot be wrong. Like the word of god or something. Why, yes, of course, if the word "Elven" (without "High" in front of it) appears in a RPG book it must mean that's there's a new language called "Elven". No no, the writer couldn't have just forgotten to put the "High" there or how the language was called correctly. No, the writers cannot fail! Therefore this "Elven" language must exist! Let's put references to it on all kinds of WoWWiki articles! :rolleyes:

[Nephalim]

That banshee's name was Ielephia, not Lelephia, which makes virtually everything in that article wrong. At least they got it right that she's a banshee.

[Warlock]

Oh, Baggins did include some of the stuff from the fiction stories of the RPG books in some of the articles on WoWWiki. It's just not that obvious. But take for example this part on http://www.wowwiki.com/Darnassian :
"There is two specific dialects called Darnassian, the current language, and older script, a strange dialect, that can be found in ancient night elf ruins."

This information is also repeated at the bottom of the same article and it apparently comes entirely from one little sentence of a story on page 134 of Shadows & Light where it says:
"Setting the jar upon the altar, Talario read the outer line of script curving around its sealed edge, in a strange dialect of Darnassian."

That's it. That's all that's ever mentioned in any source about this "strange dialect of Darnassian". Just this one little sentence in a fiction story in Shadows&Light. And Baggins puts it not in one but in two places of the same article on WoWWiki and writes it like this strange dialect of Darnassian can be generally found in ancient night elf ruins, although we only know of this one little instance in this one little story. You know, I've got nothing against including information like this in the wiki, but Baggins tends to blow these small things way out of proportion and interweaves them with the regular lore stuff on the wiki (just like he did with the appendix 3 stuff) so that people who don't know that much about Warcraft lore and the different sources have really no chance to distinguish what's valid information and what's stuff that only appeared in one little sentence in one little fiction piece in one of the RPG books.

And don't get me started on articles like http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven where Baggins concluded that there must be an entirely new language called "Elven" that's different from High Elven or Darnassian, just because in two little parts of two of the RPG books the writer forgot to put the right name of the Warcraft Elven language in the text and just wrote "Elven". I often get the impression that Baggins really does see the RPG books as some kind of religious texts that absolutly cannot be wrong. Like the word of god or something. Why, yes, of course, if the word "Elven" (without "High" in front of it) appears in a RPG book it must mean that's there's a new language called "Elven". No no, the writer couldn't have just forgotten to put the "High" there or how the language was called correctly. No, the writers cannot fail! Therefore this "Elven" language must exist! Let's put references to it on all kinds of WoWWiki articles! :rolleyes:

Wow, that's bad. And you're right, that is definately taking some things way out of proportion. Seriously, if someone says the elves speak "Elven", how is that wrong? How is that different? An Orc might say that "he doesn't speak 'Human'" (or something) even though the official Human language is called Common. That doesn't mean Humans speak two different languages.

Anyways, the way I view the RPG books is that basically it's not Blizzard's work. Unlike the novels which are specifically commissioned by Blizzard, the RPG books are basically a matter of "the whole project is Blizzard approved" and then Blizzard lets them go wild. Now while Blizzard I'm sure checks over the books, obviously they don't catch everything. Some of the glaring errors like "Thrall killed Grom", etc are proof of this (and I think ever since Bob Fitch stopped being actively involved Blizzard as a whole doesn't bother with what they are doing so much). So it's sort of a catch 22. Blizzard declares that the RPG books are official lore and canonical. But because they don't take the time to really study what these other authors are reading, things start to get contradicted by "whatever works for Blizzard". Like the Maiev thing - Shadows & Light says she is dead. Blizzard in TBC said she is not.

So the way I always like to view them is "it's right until Blizzard says it isn't". The way Blizzard has horribly retcon the first two RTS games, this is not all that different.

But yeah, along those same lines, that's why I put no stock in the side stories. For all intents and purposes it really is fan fiction - it's no different than writing up this story for your WoW character. They are more or less just examples of possible adventures you can have in the game. Something to give you ideas - flavor text if you will. Also, doesn't one in Lands of Mystery say that Nazjatar was raised from the bottom of the sea or something absurd like that?

[Nephalim]

They are more or less just examples of possible adventures you can have in the game. Something to give you ideas - flavor text if you will.I realize that but I don't see why that makes them not part of the lore. There are tons of asides in World of Warcraft, equally uninvasive, just to give you a feel for the people and the world. I don't consider these outside the lore.
Also, doesn't one in Lands of Mystery say that Nazjatar was raised from the bottom of the sea or something absurd like that?I'm pretty sure there weren't any stories in Lands of Mystery, but I'll check.

And obviously I'm not saying that these supersede established lore, and if something like that was said, I would ignore it, as I have Dungalion. But I do the same thing with the books and all the other information from the RPG. I've ignored the HPG's information on Horde relations, for example.

You're most likely right in the assumption that these stories weren't specifically commissioned by Blizzard, but the work, in its entirety, was, and if they had a problem with them, they would've put the kaybash on them when they were in production. Interestingly enough, the stories have mostly stopped appearing since Blizzard's lack of more intimate involvement. While they may not have specifically asked the RPG team to make a night elf named Oakwidow or a dwarf named Rogthur, they very likely didn't ask Christie Golden to make an orc named Greekik or a human named Lorin Remka, or Jeff Grubb to make Moroes. All these character serve equal purpose in adding flavour and expansiveness to the world.

[Warlock]

Well the difference is that Blizzard more thoroughly embraces the novels. So when the authors create these supplimental characters, there is bound to be tons of people at Blizzard who have read the novel and strive to incorporate that material into the game world. Just look at the crazy insane number of Day of the Dragon references, lots of Lord of the Clans stuff (Teretha was Christie Golden's creation), plus Moroes as you mentioned. Meanwhile, the RPGs generally get no in-game recognition, probably because unlike a novel, they are not interesting to a lot of the general public (that meaning, there aren't a lot of D&D geeks at Blizzard other than perhaps Metzen, Fitch, etc). Plus, without a solid story structure people are less inclined to remember such things as the supplimental characters (i.e. Finnall Goldensword). So what I'm getting at is while they didn't ask for these characters, they still embraced them as part of the lore.

But the other bit is that Blizzard did commission each novel. Whereas while the RPG *project* was commissioned, Blizzard probably generally has no real say in what books they make (they make the books needed to play the game). So it's less a "project of love" for Blizzard I guess.

But I guess I'm just round-abouting to my original point that Blizzard doesn't seem to have much interest in the RPG books, and that the RPG books are generally independant authors with *some* input from Blizzard. That's why I don't hold a lot of stock in that stuff.

[Warlock]

Oh, I remembered on the way home. The Nazjatar thing was a campaign hook, not one of those little stories. But sort of the same concept there.

[Darkwind]

I hate to chime in on this conversation so late, but what the hell, right?

WoWWiki. Hoo boy. I like the Wiki when it's right. It's handy to go to when you're looking for something specfic. The problem with it is, of course, that you have to have a decent amount of lore knowledge to know what to trust and what to question. Which is what brings me to what is fundamentally wrong about it:

It's a wiki.

See, when you create a history textbook, you don't give it to a bunch of history students and say "Have at it!" Sure, there might be a lot of things right in it, but the chance for error is too great. You have historians and history professors write the book. Sure, there may be some inaccuracies, but its going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than the history student version. Personally, I look forward to SoL's site because of this. I trust the people here with the Lore. They've proven to me that they know it and know it well. I've been tinkering with a similar site for some time now (Since before I discovered SoL), but there's only so much one man can do!

Also, the problem with remaining "neutral", as WoWWiki claims to be, is the same problem that exists in the media. When you try to present all of the facts, you get conflicting sources. You can't decide to which is correct, so you present both. The problem? Many people will consider both fact. Not many people will actually think about it and go "Hey, wait a minute. . ." It requires too much effort. Plus, its not their job; that's the media's (Or in this case, WoWWiki's) job!

This isn't to say I mean to demean the WoWWiki staff; I think they've done a good job, for the most part, with presenting a Warcraft Encyclopedia. I just wish they would move away from the "neutral" status and started using their common sense.

Moving on. The RPG books. I view them as supplemental only. There's a lot of good lore in 'em, but its meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Metzen doesn't oversee them. The games and the novels are the "hard" canon sources. Newer games overrule older games, and games always overrule the novels, but for the most part, both can be considered accurate because they don't often contradict each other (And if they do, it's usually specficially explained as a retcon). For example, Metzen explained, and apologized for, the Sargeras-Eredar retcon. Books? Metzen specifically addressed the Hakkar problem.

You see, with the RPG, they don't do that. They don't specifically say something is a retcon; it's just overwritten and the RPG then scrambles to correct themselves. To me, this says that the RPG is considered "soft" canon. It's simply not as important as the games or novels. Why? Well, I have two theories: One, is because it's a completely separate, and customizable, game. Or two, its because everything in the RPG is supplemental; nothing in them advances the storyline.

As for the MoM Appendix 3 problem, well. . .its corrected in the Monster Guide, which specifically states that it (Meaning the newer Guide) replaces the old MoM. Similar to the way the Alliance/Horde Player's Guides replace the old AHC. I can just hope the staff at WoWWiki understands that.

Anyways, that's just my take.

[Creative]

Nicely said, Darkwind.


...What do they call you in the west, cowboy?

[Rowan Seven]

Warlock wrote:
Oh, I remembered on the way home. The Nazjatar thing was a campaign hook, not one of those little stories. But sort of the same concept there.

The Nazjatar tale was one of the short stories that appeared in "Shadows & Light".

Anyway, I think Darkwind has summed up my thoughts on the RPG books fairly well. I also view them largely as supplements, and while Blizzard does have input and some say over what goes into them there doesn't appear to be a lot of oversight on their part. I'm generally willing to give the RPG lore the benefit of the doubt when it makes a degree of sense and doesn't contradict other sources because I know the Warcraft RPG team receives information from Blizzard (such as the information on the South Seas and Northrend that appeared in "Lands of Mystery"), but the short stories that sometimes appear in the RPG books appear to be largely independent works without direct input from Blizzard. Whether one accepts them as true depictions of the Warcraft universe is largely a matter of personal preference.

[Kirkburn]

Hullo again!

I was wondering, are there any outstanding issues people have with specific articles on the wiki? Everything seems to be running pretty smoothly at the moment, so I thought it might be a good idea to 'test the waters', as it were.

I also want to take a moment to reassure people that we harbour no grudges and that everyone really is welcome to edit. I hate that there seems to have been somewhat of a "us vs them" attitude. What with the expansion's release there has been a lot of new lore to add, and of course MG has provided many new creature articles.

If anyone has had any problems, tell us. It's important that we know :)

Regards,
Kirkburn (http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Kirkburn)

[Wulfang]

Y'know, I was actually happy when I saw that they classifed The Lurker Below as a possible krakken... until one week later someone changed that classification to say it probably is a lurker below, another of those creatures from that controversial MoM appendix...

[Kirkburn]

Y'know, I was actually happy when I saw that they classifed The Lurker Below as a possible krakken... until one week later someone changed that classification to say it probably is a lurker below, another of those creatures from that controversial MoM appendix...
Guilty as charged ... it doesn't say that any more though.

[Flamestrider]

What has to happen before a ratified policy becomes adopted? Because the one that Aeleas authored has just been sitting there saying "ratified" for about a month now.

[Kirkburn]

What has to happen before a ratified policy becomes adopted? Because the one that Aeleas authored has just been sitting there saying "ratified" for about a month now.
It's known. I'm busy with other work atm, and I haven't decided a good way to approach it yet.

On a side note, if people are going to make accusations about what happened to them on the wiki, actually allow us to look into it. Kenzuki never gave me his wiki name (and probably never will), and neither did Yuber. It's almost as if they have something to hide ....

[Nephalim]

Kenzuki never gave me his wiki name (and probably never will), and neither did Yuber. It's almost as if they have something to hide ....The Internet affords its users anonymity, and whether or not we are conscious of it in our decisions and actions, it's something we get used to, and I'd consider protecting that anonymity fairly knee-jerk.

[Kirkburn]

The Internet affords its users anonymity, and whether or not we are conscious of it in our decisions and actions, it's something we get used to, and I'd consider protecting that anonymity fairly knee-jerk.That wasn't the point. They were accusing members of the wiki of certain actions, and not allowing us to find out whether or not they were just making it up - they could have PMed me and we could have tried to sort it out civilly and privately. The wiki does not have single voice, and whoever they perceive to have slighted them may have moved on long ago. Life moves on, but people's opinions unfortunately don't.

They can have their anonymity, so long as they don't talk crap about others. When I make accusations, I at least try to back myself up with some evidence.

Back on topic, any articles at all that people feel need improvement?

[Yuber8900]

It's known. I'm busy with other work atm, and I haven't decided a good way to approach it yet.

On a side note, if people are going to make accusations about what happened to them on the wiki, actually allow us to look into it. Kenzuki never gave me his wiki name (and probably never will), and neither did Yuber. It's almost as if they have something to hide ....

You kept accusing me of being that Thorean the Just guy.


So since I'm apparently him, because you said so, so make sure to take any arguments from him, errr me, as serious business!

[Kirkburn]

You kept accusing me of being that Thorean the Just guy.

So since I'm apparently him, because you said so, so make sure to take any arguments from him, errr me, as serious business!Apologies if I am indeed wrong about you being Theron (fun how you keep 'humorously' misspelling him, and you have hardly refuted the possibility), but are you The-X (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The-X) then? This edit (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Perenolde&diff=prev&oldid=101362) appears to exactly fit your complaint.

Wow, 3 whole edits a year ago, none of which you gave a reason for. This is why you were reverted. If you cannot understand that, then you do not belong anywhere near any wiki. Oh, and you've never been blocked (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:The-X).

And I guess, since we're on that topic, do you have an any quarrel with the Perenolde articles (http://www.wowwiki.com/Perenolde) now?

[Yuber8900]

Apologies if I am indeed wrong about you being Theron (fun how you keep 'humorously' misspelling him, and you have hardly refuted the possibility), but are you The-X (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The-X) then? This edit (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Perenolde&diff=prev&oldid=101362) appears to exactly fit your complaint.

Wow, 3 whole edits a year ago, none of which you gave a reason for. This is why you were reverted. If you cannot understand that, then you do not belong anywhere near any wiki. Oh, and you've never been blocked (http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:The-X).

And I guess, since we're on that topic, do you have an any quarrel with the Perenolde articles (http://www.wowwiki.com/Perenolde) now?

Why honestly would I waste my time looking for the correct spelling of someone I'm not?

And I guess maybe I was The-X, it's been a freaking year, I can barely remember what happened to me today let alone that far back.

[Kirkburn]

Why honestly would I waste my time looking for the correct spelling of someone I'm not?

And I guess maybe I was The-X, it's been a freaking year, I can barely remember what happened to me today let alone that far back.
You were misspelling it even when replying to posts of mine containing the name :P

Anyhoo, you understand why it got reverted now I hope? It certainly wasn't we 'believed it to be true', but because you actually have to tell us why you're removing content. I wasn't even around back in March - I only started editing (visiting, even) in late May 2006.

Searching through the posts on here, I haven't seen any recent bashing of a WoWWiki article which, I hope, is a good sign :)

Back to more page revamping ...

[Timolas]

We have better things to do I assure you. Bashing Arthas, Illidan and other old time favourites is more of a priority.

Thanks for reverting all those changes I had made awhile back anyway.
All the best.

[Smeedle]

Back on topic, any articles at all that people feel need improvement?
Well, how about that article on this mysterious language called "Elven" I already mentioned above. The article seems to have been moved to http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven_(language) now, I see. Seems like someone realized that "elven" is just an adjective - but the same person obviously didn't realize that when a writer writes "Elven" when referring to a language that doesn't mean that there exists a language called "Elven" besides Thalassian or Darnassian, but that he is just referring to, you know, the language of the elves. Just like the language of the Trolls may be called Zandali but I could still refer to it as "Troll" or maybe "Trollish" without it meaning that there was a different language called "Troll" besides Zandali.
Also with the move of the "Elven" article to "Elven (language)" the author forgot to update his link to the "Elven" article in the Thalassian-article.

[Kakwakas]

Well, how about that article on this mysterious language called "Elven" I already mentioned above. The article seems to have been moved to http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven_(language) now, I see. Seems like someone realized that "elven" is just an adjective - but the same person obviously didn't realize that when a writer writes "Elven" when referring to a language that doesn't mean that there exists a language called "Elven" besides Thalassian or Darnassian, but that he is just referring to, you know, the language of the elves. Just like the language of the Trolls may be called Zandali but I could still refer to it as "Troll" or maybe "Trollish" without it meaning that there was a different language called "Troll" besides Zandali.
Also with the move of the "Elven" article to "Elven (language)" the author forgot to update his link to the "Elven" article in the Thalassian-article.

I'll bring it to the attention of other WoWWiki members.

[Creative]

I'll bring it to the attention of other WoWWiki members.

A double agent?!

[Kakwakas]

A double agent?!

;D
I spend some time there, yes. I'm trying to get their attention on that article... If no one replies in a day or two, I'm just gonna put it up as a deletion candidate and watch them scramble.

[Kerrah]

ehem, in the "Paladin Lore" article, it doesn't have Uther, Tyralon or Arthas in the "famous and named paladins" and it says Arathor the Redeemer is half-blood elf.

[Wulfang]

BTW, I found an article called "Gorgonnash" (or something like that) that says that was the name of Sargeras' original blade. The real name of Sargeras' sword was Gorshalach, which then split itself into Taeshalach (wielded by Aggramar) and Gorribal (wielded by Sargeras).

[Creative]

BTW, I found an article called "Gorgonnash" (or something like that) that says that was the name of Sargeras' original blade. The real name of Sargeras' sword was Gorshalach, which then split itself into Taeshalach (wielded by Aggramar) and Gorribal (wielded by Sargeras).

Gorgonnash is one of the random names of a Pit Lord hero, is it not?

[Wulfang]

Gorgonnash is one of the random names of a Pit Lord hero, is it not?

Yeah, that's right! I knew I had heard that name before somewhere.

[Kerrah]

A Gorgon is a mythical beast in Greek Mythology.

Medusa was one.

[Wulfang]

A Gorgon is a mythical beast in Greek Mythology.

Medusa was one.

I knew that, but how the heck is that related to what we were talking about (besides the similarities between the words Gorgon and Gorgonnash)?

[Kerrah]

I knew that, but how the heck is that related to what we were talking about (besides the similarities between the words Gorgon and Gorgonnash)?

Dunno. I just don't see why name a Pit Lord after the Gorgons.

[Wulfang]

Dunno. I just don't see why name a Pit Lord after the Gorgons.

Well, they're both ugly as hell. And there must have been some people that died just by looking at Mannoroth:vile:

[Vicious]

A Gorgon is a mythical beast in Greek Mythology.

Medusa was one.

Wasn´t she the queen of them?

[Creative]

Wasn´t she the queen of them?

Wasn't there just three Gorgons in total?

[Kerrah]

Wasn´t she the queen of them?

No, she was the elder sister, and the one who brought the curse upon them all.

It's hard to have a queen for three beings.

[Nephalim]

I've usually seen her depicted as the younger of the three. But yeah, not a queen.

As for Gorgonnash, I really don't think they had "gorgons" in mind when they named him. Hard Gs are a pit lord naming trope. But who knows.

[Aldrius]

So what were the gorgons then...

COMMUNISTS?

[Kirkburn]

We have better things to do I assure you. Bashing Arthas, Illidan and other old time favourites is more of a priority.

Thanks for reverting all those changes I had made awhile back anyway.
All the best.
Are you f**cking kidding me? See the list of your contribs (http://www.wowwiki.com/Special:Contributions/Timolas)

You did not give a reason for ANY of your changes. Of course you were bloody reverted, and I gave my reason on User talk:Timolas (http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Timolas). Jesus christ people, this is like banging my head against a brick wall.

So it's absolutely especially clear, and also why I spent a long time trying to make it clear on the WoWWiki edit pages:

When you edit something, please enter a summary of or reason for your changes! Maybe even talk about it on the talk page!

Simple as that. Discussing is what you spend your time here doing anyway.


As for http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven_(language) ... I've poked the page author, which is what you should have done. Kakwakas, I expected better from you. Hopefully we can resolve this quickly :)

Meanwhile ... not naming names, but some of the people here seriously need to deal with their arrogance.

[Kerrah]

Are you f**cking kidding me? See http://www.wowwiki.com/Special:Contributions/Timolas (here)

You did not give a reason for ANY of your changes. Of course you were bloody reverted, and I gave my reason on http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Timolas (User talk:Timolas). Jesus christ people, this is like banging my head against a brick wall.

As for http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven_(language) ... I've poked the page author, which is what you should have done. Kakwakas, I expected better from you.

I'll repeat: "ehem, in the "Paladin Lore" article, it doesn't have Uther, Tyralon or Arthas in the "famous and named paladins" and it says Arator the Redeemer is half-blood elf."

To answer Aldrius' question: They were three sisters who were cursed by Zeus because of Medusa's vanity, turning their skins to bronze and each of their hairs into snakes. Their gaze turned everyone into stone.

That one hero killed Medusa, who was the only mortal one, by cutting her head off. When he flied over the sea with Pegasos, some blood dropped to the sea, creating Coral.

[Kirkburn]

I'll repeat: "ehem, in the "Paladin Lore" article, it doesn't have Uther, Tyralon or Arthas in the "famous and named paladins" and it says Arator the Redeemer is half-blood elf."

To answer Aldrius' question: They were three sisters who were cursed by Zeus because of Medusa's vanity, turning their skins to bronze and each of their hairs into snakes. Their gaze turned everyone into stone.

That one hero killed Medusa, who was the only mortal one, by cutting her head off. When he flied over the sea with Pegasos, some blood dropped to the sea, creating Coral.
If something is wrong, what the hell stopped you from fixing it? The wiki doesn't bite, y'know.

It was stuck right at the end of the page, barely readable and a relic from the pre-beta days. The other paladins are mentioned right at the beginning of the topic. (http://www.wowwiki.com/Paladin_lore) Anyway, tidied.

[Kerrah]

If something is wrong, what the hell stopped you from fixing it? The wiki doesn't bite, y'know.

It was stuck right at the end of the page, barely readable and a relic from the pre-beta days. The other paladins are mentioned right at the beggining of the topic. (http://www.wowwiki.com/Paladin_lore)

I tried editing a wiki once, it didn't do any good to my sanity.

[Kirkburn]

I tried editing a wiki once, it didn't do any good to my sanity.
Let me assure you WoWWiki isn't Wikipedia :) See the top left of my user-page - http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Kirkburn. We rarely revert edits, despite the opinions of some here.

Anyway, you don't even have to edit articles - you could just leave notes on talk pages.


Here's a good reason for editing the wiki - if you want the wider Warcraft community to "get the facts", the wiki is how to do it. It's where people go for the info. They can come here to discuss it, naturally, but the wiki is just an excellent way of collating the info to come out of the discussions.

I want a good relationship between the different sites, I really do, which is why I'm here, trying to help.

[Yuber8900]

Meanwhile ... not naming names, but some of the people here seriously need to deal with their arrogance.

Arrogance is what makes this place great.

Oh and for the Pernolde article, there was no evidence just speculation that he went and became a Death Knight, and no way to prove that he didn't go and become a Death Knight. However I will concede on this point as I (for once) have little experience on the matter of editing wikis.

[Flamestrider]

Yuber and Timolas: stop being douchebags. Kirkburn is right. This doesn't have to be a competition. If all you're going to do is throw insults back and forth, just stay out of the thread. I don't care if you despise wowwiki; that's no reason to be a dick about it.

[Yuber8900]

Lord Yuber and Salomit: stop being douchebags. Kirkburn is right. This doesn't have to be a competition. If all you're going to do is throw insults back and forth, just stay out of the thread. I don't care if you despise wowwiki; that's no reason to be a dick about it.

Did you even read my post?

[Flamestrider]

Yes, I did. You said "arrogance is what makes this place great," which reads as a sort of subtle "fuck you" to everything Kirkburn just said.

Aside from that, I admit, you didn't say anything assholic. My apologies for singling you out; it's the general attitude that is really bothering me right now.

[Vicious]

Flamestrider i know you mean well but don´t try to change our Yubber, he´s been here being our arrogant flaming dickhead since the dawn of this forum.

[Kirkburn]

Flamestrider i know you mean well but don´t try to change our Yubber, he´s been here being our arrogant flaming dickhead since the dawn of this forum.
Lol ... I must say, it's "fun" to "discuss" things with him.

[Yuber8900]

Lol ... I must say, it's "fun" to "discuss" things with him.

Soon it will be an infection, a desire to post randomly to things I say just to talk to me, and then one day I vanish leaving you with withdrawal symptoms and an odd craving for cheese.

[Timolas]

Oi, I didn't say anything offensive. I just gave a heart warming thank you to Kickifern.
Either way... I don't really care about this discussion. I use wiki when I need to get non-lore information, but that's it.

Yes, my stuff was reverted. I didn't crap myself and cut my wrists over it. I simply thanked you. Take it how you will.
Maybe I was kidding you.

... or maybe I wasn't.

Anyway, why do you honestly bother arguing here? It's not like it matters if the entire SoL community hates you. Or most of it. I'm sure you've got a healthy brainwashed playerbase to support you, you don't need to convert us.
Just for the record, I don't have anything against you, and I'm not trying to be an arse.

I just am one in this thread.

My heart goes out to Mage's victims too.

[Kirkburn]

Oi, I didn't say anything offensive. I just gave a heart warming thank you to Kickifern.
Either way... I don't really care about this discussion. I use wiki when I need to get non-lore information, but that's it.

Yes, my stuff was reverted. I didn't crap myself and cut my wrists over it. I simply thanked you. Take it how you will.
Maybe I was kidding you.

... or maybe I wasn't.

Anyway, why do you honestly bother arguing here? It's not like it matters if the entire SoL community hates you. Or most of it. I'm sure you've got a healthy brainwashed playerbase to support you, you don't need to convert us.
Just for the record, I don't have anything against you, and I'm not trying to be an arse.

I just am one in this thread.

My heart goes out to Mage's victims too.
*sigh*

Yes, I sure do love 'brainwashing' people into giving up their prejudices. If 'most of the SoL' community really do 'hate' us (the wiki? the 28,000 articles? the 90,000 editors? the users?) then that's just kinda sad.

And why is it, whenever I point out problems with someone's attitude, they resort to playing with my name? Seriously, I've heard all the jokes by now.

So anyway, back to the wiki issues - there's been progress on the Elven language article :) Any others people would like me to take a look at?

[Timolas]

One of my nicknames is Tim'ass anyway, so as you can imagine, playing with names is amusing. Should try it.

[Yuber8900]

*sigh*
And why is it, whenever I point out problems with someone's attitude, they resort to playing with my name? Seriously, I've heard all the jokes by now.


That's a term of endearment here.

[Kakwakas]

As for http://www.wowwiki.com/Elven_(language) ... I've poked the page author, which is what you should have done. Kakwakas, I expected better from you. Hopefully we can resolve this quickly :)

BAGGINS was the author. Come on, you know how well it would go if I poked him and told him he might be wrong! I didn't do anything drastic this time; I just brought attention to it and asked for a source. :|

[Kirkburn]

BAGGINS was the author. Come on, you know how well it would go if I poked him and told him he might be wrong! I didn't do anything drastic this time; I just brought attention to it and asked for a source. :|
Fair enough. :) New posts on talk pages just get lost rather easily. :(

Btw, I'm surprised no-one has called me Kickbum so far!

[Creative]

Fair enough. :) New posts on talk pages just get lost rather easily. :(

Btw, I'm surprised no-one has called me Kickbum so far!

Why should we...

Kickbum? :p

[Kirkburn]

Having taken in all the advice from this thread, I can announce that WoWWiki is taking a change of direction, and has a new name!

Visit MeoWWiki, your Warcraft cat info source!
http://www.wowwiki.com/Main_Page/MeoWWiki

:)

[Creative]

Having taken in all the advice from this thread, I can announce that WoWWiki is taking a change of direction, and has a new name!

Visit MeoWWiki, your Warcraft cat info source!
http://www.wowwiki.com/Main_Page

:)

I expect a long article about the horror that is the CRAZY CAT LADY.

[Timolas]

I expect a long article about the horror that is the CRAZY CAT LADY.

Now I want your babies.

[Yuber8900]

Now I want your babies.

Kidnapping is a crime Salomit.

[Timolas]

Kidnapping is a crime Salomit.

Hmmm... if I agreed that the latest versions of your evil girl avatars are cute would you close an eye and let me bag him for the night?

[Yuber8900]

Hmmm... if I agreed that the latest versions of your evil girl avatars are cute would you close an eye and let me bag him for the night?

Sure, it's a win situation for me in any direction.

[markellion]

Bag him?

[Timolas]

Bag him?

Put Generic in a small sack and take him to my lair where I could violate him till my objective is completed and I can crawl back into the deeper depths of my cave. Generic would wake up, trapped in a web, and would somehow manage to escape and return with an angry mob to finish me off after having an abortion.

That's one scenario anyway.

[Aldrius]

Generic? Isn't that creative? =x

What kind of whore are you?

[Yuber8900]

Generic? Isn't that creative? =x

What kind of whore are you?

It's not obvious just from talking to him?

[Creative]

Oh, Timolas. Finally you notice me. XP

Can I name the kids? I wan't to name them after the evil of my soul...s.

Generic? Isn't that creative? =x

What kind of whore are you?

Peter Park is Spiderman, Creative is Generic. It is to protect my secret identity. Although, I suppose Creative is not my real name... =/

[Yuber8900]

Hmmm I still fail to see you saying Avatar girl is cute Salomit.

In fact....

[Timolas]

Hmmm I still fail to see you saying Avatar girl is cute Salomit.

In fact....

Curse good memory.

Arietta is actually cute, and pretty too! At least in your most recent pictures!

You can put the [Demonically Charged Warblade] down now I swear.

[Wulfang]

I have to admit Yuber, she does look cute and kinda pretty in these new pics, but some of those you had before would make a child not sleep for an entire week.

[Yuber8900]

I have to admit Yuber, she does look cute and kinda pretty in these new pics, but some of those you had before would make a child not sleep for an entire week.

Well that was the intent.

[Kirkburn]

Kirkburn's mind boggles.

[Yuber8900]

Kirkburn's mind boggles.

Do you expect any topic to not be derailed and replaced with attention whoring or something?

[Creative]

Yeah, but that pink-haired lil' girl only look like NEAR EVERY FREAKING OTHER PINK HAIRED (female) MANGA CHARACTER SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME.

You know, the Generic Anime Girl? Yes? No? Stfu.

[Timolas]

It's a wiki; rules are easy to change if you don't like them and can get 5-10 people to agree with you.

Oh GOD HOW DID I NOT REALISE THIS IS THE GUY THAT CREATED THE LAST DRUID.

[Drz]

Oh GOD HOW DID I NOT REALISE THIS IS THE GUY THAT CREATED THE LAST DRUID.

That wc3 story campaign thingie, right? Man i haven't played that in ages! :P

[Mark_Romaneck]

Hey wait a minute... what the hell is a sandgnome? and what are they doing at outland?

http://www.wowwiki.com/Sand_gnome

DUN DUN DUN!

[Gurtogg_Bloodboil]

Well sand-gnomes are Blizzards fault, not the wiki. They are in game.

[Omacron]

Hey wait a minute... what the hell is a sandgnome? and what are they doing at outland?

http://www.wowwiki.com/Sand_gnome

DUN DUN DUN!


They're part of this quest where you bang a drum in the bone wastes. Half of the time a sandworm comes up, which is what you have to kill for the quest, the other time, these gnomes spawn.

And it irks me, because there are NO explanations to them.

[Mark_Romaneck]

They're part of this quest where you bang a drum in the bone wastes. Half of the time a sandworm comes up, which is what you have to kill for the quest, the other time, these gnomes spawn.

And it irks me, because there are NO explanations to them.

Which could reinforce some theories about titans having visited Draenor

[Omacron]

Which could reinforce some theories about titans having visited Draenor

Which is one of my theories, as you know. It explains why species from Draenor and azeroth can interbreed as well as the sharing of similar creatures and edible foods. Or even the fact that most endemic species are carbon based.

[Gurtogg_Bloodboil]

Which could reinforce some theories about titans having visited Draenor

Or they could just be crazy gnomes that decided to crawl in the sand.

[Kerrah]

Maybe they're the outcome of a gnome falling in love with a sandworm.

[Lon-ami]

They're the true power behind the evil at Outland!

PS: Lol, the creator of the best campaign ever!