From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"I" iconAs per the recent race names vote at Wowpedia talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "dwarf" and not "Dwarf"

Stoneform slow

Didn't Stoneform used to slow you down, in some way?--Darkfox190 00:27, 13 Mar 2006 (EST)

Trivial Information

I don't mean to be a killjoy about it, but is the "trivial information" really adding much to the article? To me, it feels like it starts to take things away from "information about Dwarves in the Warcraft universe" until it's essentially mirroring Wikipedia's entry on dwarves. Yes, there are obvious influences from the listed sources, but it doesn't have much bearing on the actual game or lore. Maybe move it to a page specifically about inspirations for the game's environment? --Emcepticon 09:32, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

I think it could be cut down (it goes a bit too much into depth about Tolkein), but I think having a concise 'origin of the species' thing seems reasonable to me. If there was a page on 'inspirations', it would indeed make sense to put it there with a link from the main page - I'm not sure if one exists, anyone know?? If not, creating one seems like a good idea. -- Kirkburn 10:04, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
I contribute a fair amount of the Tolkien stuff, and while I'm not particularly... determined to keep that information up, I do think it to be relevant. The Warcraft franchise takes so much from the Tolkien franchise that I think NOT throwing a bone to the Tolkien aspect is almost unfair. With reading on the decline as a hobby (partly due to games such as WoW), I think it's safe to say that most teens today have not read Silmarillion, nor know anything of Tolkien's work other then what they saw in theaters... WoW IS Silmarillion, changed just enough to where they won't get sued by Tolkien's estate for plagerism. And I think that people, reading the greater details of what could be defined as 'modern fantasy dwarves', might take a greater interest in reading the original works in general. Understand, 80 years ago, 'Dwarves' weren't beared, axe-wielding, hard-living, fun-loving short vikings. They were short, suspicious, sinsister elements of english stories, as were elves and a large number of the other folk culture story races that Tolkien took and redefined. --Piroko, 06.27.2006
Just to point this out, most Fantasy derives from Tolkien no matter how you want to slice it. And to bring this forth, Dwarfs are Norse, not English. The 'gnomes' or Hobbits are specifically taken from the Welsh(Tolkien mentions taking them from the Welsh and are meant to mirror the Welsh themselves). The Elves are Germanic. In a lot of ways, Tolkien's Elves are closer to the Tuatha de Dannan of Irish lore. Tolkien was a master at pulling from different legends and lores, both those influencing English culture and those outside of it. The Dark Dwarfs in WoW are more Wagnerian than Tolkienian, incidentally, and are far closer to the vision of them from the Germanic/Norse tradition. WoW draws from more traditions than just Tolkien though. Tauren are obviously Plains Indian, possibly even more Lakota than any other. The Trolls are given to the Carribian/West African tradition while having an Aztec archetecture.. There's even Greek influences in here with the Gryphon, Hippogryphon, and other monsters. The Naga are taken loosely from Hindi culture. So, there's a lot more going on than just Tolkien. bridgettebeneshe

Still, The trivial information is the largest block of information in the article, longer than the introduction and history section. i still think it needs cutting, and that the dwarf page needs some more info on it, i will get to work on adding more.


As I have with every Tolkien reference I come accross, I shall mercilessly trim it down. Let me know if I get too overzealous.--Ragestorm 00:42, 12 December 2006 (EST)


Though I'm not sure how much objectivity weighs in pertaining to WoWWiki, but I find this particular article to be very opinionated. Does anyone agree with this? -Blackhawk003

We're extremely dedicated to objectivity, although certain users dont concern themselves with it too much. As for opinionation, I don't think this article is too bad, but I agree that it is idealistic- extremely ironic, considering the complaint aobut the Draenei not being flawed.--Ragestorm 00:39, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Inspiration section

Two comments on the inspiration section:

First, yes, there's obviously a trend in fantasy to make dwarves all of a type, but Tolkein didn't invent this type; all he did was popularize it in modern fiction. Norse mythology includes beings that are nearly identical to Tolkein's dwarves, including the fact that there's a dwarf named Durin mentioned in several poems. Since I've seen other hints of Norse influence in the Warcraft universe, it's just as likely they were working off the Norse mythology than Tolkein's universe; absent a quote from the creators, I see no reason to emphasize Tolkein above any other possible source. I also take exception to a widespread claim like "as with all dwarves in modern fantasy"; that's gotta go.

Secondly, it would be possible to condense the inspiration text quite a bit, noting the basic information without expounding on it. Right now, there's nearly as much text in the inspiration section as in the history, which seems rather unbalanced. I'd like to rewrite it in condensed form unless someone sees a need for it to remain this lengthy.--Tls 23:51, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Feel free. You think it's bad now, you should have seen it a month ago. Earlier this year, someone decided that heavy summaries of the Silmarillion were needed so that people could understand that no fantasy would be complete without Tolkien. Butcher it as you see fit. Any complaints, refer to me.--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 00:32, 31 December 2006 (EST)
Erm, not to kvetch about your changes to my changes, but I don't really see how your version is any more 'standard written English' than mine. Stylistic disagreements aside. That having been said...
I disagree with several changes. First, 'As in much modern fantasy' is much less generalistic than 'As in most modern fantasy', which was precisely what I was trying for. 'Most' goes right back to the problem, though granted it's still not as bad as 'all'.
The dwarves in question don't 'draw parallels'. Their portrayal does, so if you want that wording, it should really be "the portrayal of dwarves in the Warcraft universe". I'd probably revise my original wording to 'are similar in many respects to' for clarity.
And 'legendarium' is an obselete word at best, Wikipedia's use of it notwithstanding. If you want to compress that sentence, why not pick a more accessible term? Tolkien's universe? Tolkien's body of work?
I'm not making these changes because exactly what gets me to not want to be involved with a wiki project is having someone jump all over my changes. I love the lore of Warcraft and want to see people thinking about it, and as someone who has professionally edited (and been paid for writing as well) I personally felt I could contribute a fair amount to the pages. If I'm going to immediately get thrown into stylistic arguments, well, I'll make suggestions for changes and do minor edits but leave the major edits to the people who have strong feelings about the tone of writing this wiki should have, as it clearly differs with mine. Sort of a CMS vs AP problem, I suppose. --Tls 09:27, 5 January 2007 (EST)

1.) I don't think "as in much modern fantasy" doesn't scan well grammatically. 2) As you say. 3) Tolkien's writings, or Tolkiens' universe work fine.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:00, 5 January 2007 (EST)


I don't know anything about the dwarfish lifespan i wish i know something as for example when the dwarfs arrive to ascension the article about the dwarves here doesn't talk about that so this is more of a question someone knows please answer. By the way, they sure live more than humans Muradin Brozebeard is 221 according to the manual which probably would fit in human 40's.Manuelwow 11:55, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Other Factions

Shouldn't the Horde faction should be put down on the main page along with the Alliance since there are some Horde Dwarves. Or no since theres only 2 who could be considered crazies? So Im kind of confused on this one. Mr.X8 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thorium Brotherhood

The Thorium Brotherhood is not a race, they are just rare 'friendly' Dark Irons.Baggins 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why all the bearded ladies

Is this some kind of joke or vandalism? Since they have two pictures now and it talks about them alot, a bit big compared to the rest of the article if you ask me. --Dehnus (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The appearance part talks ALOT about beard. What's with the obsession over female dwarf beards? Zukhramm (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What would a dwarf be without a beard? Even Tolkein's female dwarves were bearded and man-like! So, no - no joke intended despite the obvious humor in having bearded ladies. --User:Vorbis/Sig 01:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
As an avid player of female dwarves, I find the obsession on female dwarf beards a bit offensive, as it's only made reference to once in WoW itself (in a joking manner, too). As current lore stands, the "Tolkeinzation" of Warcraft female dwarves has been retconned. Even Knaak, who originally made dwarves sexually uniform in Day of the Dragon, later changed it to the current sexual dimorphism based on in-game WoW dwarves in Night of the Dragon. In addition, using the Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans screenshots as proof female dwarves have beards seems questionable, as the game was cancelled and never published, thus rendering it an invalid source of lore on the subject. A published, active game and its dipictions should take presidence over a cancelled game from over a decade ago that was never even officially made canon. In short, devoting the entire female dwarf paragraph to their beards seems equivilent to devoting the entire Wikipedia entry on Germany to David Hasselhoff fandom. WoW models = canon. LotC drawings = not canon. --Kranberry (talk) 16:57, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Dwarf classes

Should there be a section called Dwarf classes? Or, should it be its own page?

I'm looking for information on why people play such and such race/class, in this case dwarf classes, in a similar manner as on the Starting a warlock page, under race. Or, should all such information be relegated to the 'starting a ...' pages? ;>jamvaru (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess this isn't the place (like a forum) where we discuss what we like and stuff like that. But... I don't get the last edit... in references, from Dwarven Clans to Dwarves... but it shows Dwarven clans... weird ;>jamvaru (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, how would one implement a page here, on wowpedia, where we have different views on what makes a good race/class combo and why, etc... ;>jamvaru (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably not going to find an article of user opinions toward races and their classes here. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You can add the section to "Dwarf" if it is lore-based, but if it is a guide I would add it to the "starting a ..." pages, just as advice. I don't quite know why people pick them (racial-class ability combos, personal preference... and so on), so I do not know what to implement in such a page or section. Coobra says it is a bad idea. About the last edit, where the template was changed from "Dwarven clans" to "Dwarves", but it shows Dwarven clans, Template:Dwarves is the name of the template. Bug Lon-ami about that.--SWM2448 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
k, i'll give it a test run on the talk page, perhaps, thanks ;>jamvaru (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


Left side.

I think the subraces should be a bit more...cleaned up in a way. Wildhammer and Ironforge Dwarves are listed as non-canon...yet their respective pages lead them to what is established lore in game, along with Ironforge Dwarves being listed as the race for Bronzebeards. On that same note, Ironforge Dwarves as a 'race' only seem to apply to this page and the Bronzebeard Clan page...elsewhere, the Dwarf name on it's own seems to be the prefered method of differentiating between Dark Irons, Wildhammers, and Bronzebeards, such as the Explorer's league page, which lists Dark Irons and Dwarves as a separate race entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbond15 (talk · contr).

The problem is that "Ironforge dwarf", "Ironforge clan", "Bronzebeard dwarf", "Bronzebeard clan" and simply "Dwarf" all seem to refer to the same thing, aka the playable dwarven race, but Blizzard has never been really straightforward in telling they are the exact same thing, or at least in canon material, considering the RPG isn't canon anymore. Then you have the confusion between mountain dwarf and hill dwarf, and then you have the ambiguity with the Wildhammer dwarves being either a sub-species of the main Dwarven race, or just a clan of blond dwarves, if you get my meaning. It's all so complicated :x Xporc (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into all this it's actually pretty clearly laid out. A lot of the issues come from the fact that, if you comb our pages, Lands of Conflict is still being treated as canon. It's RPG, so it needs to be thrown out. As per the following:

Ironforge dwarves are "Hill" dwarves. This is supported in Day of the Dragon, the WoW magazine, and even by Falstad wildhammer's click quotes. The only recent conflicting info is something from Heroes of the Storm, which is non-canon and should be ignored. They're called Bronzebeard dwarves and Ironforge dwarves in a few places, but their official demonym is Hill Dwarf.

Wildhammer dwarves are where it's confusing just because of which term to use. According to the WoW magazine, they're Mountain Dwarves, which is also called such in Day of the Dragon, but they're more commonly referred to in the latter as "Wild Dwarves". Regardless, DotD and the magazine are still canon and as such they're either Mountain or Wild, whatever people thinks is the one that should be the title page; it means the same thing in this case. A lot of the confusion comes from Land of Conflict, which calls them hill dwarves.

Dark Iron dwarves are called "Dark" dwarves in the WoW magazine. This makes a lot more sense to me, personally, as calling them the Dark Iron clan. Dark Iron nation. etc, is excessive. Dark Iron seems to be their faction claim, though the race as a whole is obviously called a Dark Iron dwarf as well; so we could realistically make either the proper term. This one seems the most cleared up in terms of dwarf terminology, I think we should use Dark Dwarf personally as their entire listing is excessively listed as "Dark Iron", so dark dwarf would at least make the differentiation that "This is the race, Dark Iron is the faction'nation", because there's dark dwarves that don't align with the Dark Iron nation, but that's just me splitting hairs. Dark Iron is otherwise uncontested and they both are more or less the same thing.

My proposed change for the subspecies thing, before page overhauls. Anything with a / is just the options we have for the primary name, I'm caught on the wildhammer mainly:

According to Brann Bronzebeard, there are four major subsections of dwarves.[1]

WoW-novel-logo-16x62.png This section concerns content related to the Warcraft novels, novellas, or short stories.

  • Skardyn are cursed descendants of Dark Iron clan dwarves who fled into Grim Batol after it was cursed by queen Modgud.

I also think we need to unmerge the Frostborn, given that there's distinction made in the magazine, but either way, this is my proposal for how we should go about fixing this headed forward with the dwarves. I've cited each name source. Another cause for concern is the naming for the "Dark Iron clan" which has more evidence of it being the Dark Iron nation, rather than clan alone; though both are used. --Berenal (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that mountain and hill are quite ambiguous and Day of the Dragon has some unique things that maybe we shouldn't consider as canon anymore. Ironforge dwarf in this case seems more "official" than hill or mountain right now. But does the WoW magazine says that Wildhammer are mountain or Ironforge are hill? I know there's an image but it doesn't specify. About Dark Irons, although I would prefer Dark dwarf, it seems Blizz is more eager to use Dark Iron dwarf so we should leave it like that. And I support the split between the Frostborn and the Frost dwarf racial page. --Ryon21 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
While true on the DotD thing, it's still canon and fairly recently so considering Night of the Dragon makes reference to it; and that was a Cata-era book. Until Blizzard comes out and says "This isn't canon", Day is still canon even if it's a bit outdated. Terminology from the book is still undisputed, even if some of the logistics of their travel doesn't make much sense. Edit: With that in mind, the question of what "Hill/Mountain" can be answered through using DOTD as a reference. Otherwise the book doesn't specify what a 'frost' or 'dark' dwarf is, but we can figure those out by just using what's available to us as well.--Berenal (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I undo the edit for a number reasons. First, the discussion is open and more people have an opinion about this issue, also it is a thing we should thoroughly discuss before making any major changes. Second, DotD should be considered very carefully since it was made before W3 and lots of things have been retconned since (18 years ago is not fairly recently no matter NotD which is 11 years old, a lot too (my goddess time passes so fast :rip:)). On the other hand, the magazine image was decided to be dismissed as per the decision to name the Dark Iron dwarves as that over the former name, Dark dwarves, if I'm not wrong. And as I asked before, is there in the magazine any mention of to which group Brann refers when talking about the Mountain/Hill dwarves or are just assuming this from the draw image which doesn't specify? Lastly, quotes in-game are sometimes references to things. In this case, Falstad's quote is a reference to DotD. --Ryon21 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
PD: A [80] Fervor of the Frostborn complicates things more by calling Muradin a Mountain dwarf. And this is from WotLk which is an in-game source. --Ryon21 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is supposed to be mentioned in Night of the Dragon, Berenal?
The magazine has no description on the dark, mountain, and hill subraces; it just shows: dwarves - frost, dark, mountain, hill. --Mordecay (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Among other things, it seems as though we can't decide on if Ironforge and Wildhammer Dwarves are even canon, as it was recently changed back to it's prior status. While i'm not entirely sure myself, I'd like to point out, neither the Wildhammer Clan or the Ironforge Dwarf pages state it to be non-canon. If anything, this is the only page where it is considered as such. Wild the Wildhammers are a bit more vague, Ironforge Dwarves as a canon group are very much so, being mentioned both on the website and the Ultimate visual guide. Another issue, though more broad is, the website as a whole seems to use Dwarf and Ironforge Dwarf interchangeably. While that's not too hard to figure out, some pages can be very vague. Case in point, the Explorers League, under race, lists both Dwarves...and Dark Iron Dwarves, despite Dwarves being the entire race as a whole.Tbond15 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In night of the dragon it specifies that Rom and his group were from Ironforge, not Aerie Peak, was my point. Also while a 'reference', it's reference to canon material. I'm not sure why we're suddenly picking and choosing what's canon and what isn't canon? DotD is canon. While info in it might be out of date, the events of DotD are still canon. Falstad's reference, and Night of the Dragon, which is supposed to be an obvious call back to Day of the Dragon, are cata-era references. A quest in WotLK is older than both of them so I don't get how that quest goes over them both. The magazine being tossed out is also really odd to just randomly juxtapose here as being invalid because he says Dark instead of Dark Iron. While i think most of us agree that a "Dark Dwarf" sounds better phonetically, it could have just been short hand. Plus the listing of dwarves is kind of obviously a listing of types of dwarves; otherwise what is he doing? Just listing random words for no reason? We also treat the picture as canon on the Frostborn page, so we need to start making the following clear:
Is DotD to be treated as canon still? If not that's a lot of pages that need to be edited. Age or not, there's nothing stating it isn't canon anymore, so randomly ignoring the information within is really pick-and-choosing for the sake of an argument.
Do we throw out the picture from the magazine or use it? It's used on the Frostborn page and Dark Iron page. It's footnoted on the dark iron page, but for the sake of Hill and Mountain, it's a reference to DotD. On what grounds beyond the Dark dwarf thing is it being dismissed? That could have been short hand notation or, potentially, it's just another way of referring to the Dark Irons.
What is the significance of the Yorg Stormheart quote in comparison to the others? Blizzard has made errors before and at the time of the quest being made the RPG was still canon and the RPG made Mountain dwarf refer to Ironforge while Hill dwarf was referring to Wildhammers. It's also older than the Falstad re-quote and NotD which is referential to events of DotD.
Do we throw out Falstad's quote? It's a reference to his book phrase, which if nothing else personally adds more credibility to it. There's nothing saying click quotes aren't canon, see Calia Menethil, her quotes about crawling away from Ghouls in the mud are treated as canon.
I don't mind if we split hairs over this but we're not being consistent at all here. While DotD is old, it's still never been declared non-canon, has been referenced in more modern media, and logically holds up. --Berenal (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Through the years, canon materials have been, like de-canonnize a bit. This means, the overall story and its events are canon, but some details may not be anymore. It's not like we should consider all DotD non-canon but some things in it are outdated, or have not been referenced outside the books anymore. Does NotD say Rom is a hill dwarf? I know DotD does but if NotD doesn't, then it is not enough. A random reference to an older book is not enough to back-up something that is not said in the newer one, unless it clearly talks about it. The picture in the magazine, we can use it as to reference alternate names like Dark Irons dwarves are Dark dwarves or the Frostborn might come from Uldaman, but Brann doesn't mention to which dwarf he is specifying when talking about Mountain or Hill dwarves and it doesn't say much, because he doesn't say anything about it. It could be referencing the DotD or the non-canon RPG. Not enough evidence. And as before, Falstad quote is just a single WoW beginning era quote probably referencing to DotD. And why does Yorg's mountain dwarf reference in a quest be a mistake, but Falstad's quote not? The two simply neutralize each other so we cannot use any of them, even though since WotLK came out later Yorg's one has more weight. (Calia Menethil quote was also said in Before the Storm). And NotD and Falstad's quote are not from Cata era but from WotlK and Vanilla respectively. --Ryon21 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
No results for "mountain", "hill", or "wild" dwarf in NotD. --Mordecay (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a scan of someone previewing the World of Warcraft: Ultimate Visual Guide - - where both Ironforge dwarves and Wildhammer clan are mentioned under the dwarf section. The quote is already in the intro of the page. The Ironforge dwarf as a race is only mentioned in the RPG. I would also like to mention that in contrast to Elf or Troll which are group terms, the basic "Dwarf" could be a race name itself and not only a wider group term. I think with the current information Xporc's comment above summed up the problems perfectly, and currently there is no real clarification. Mrforesttroll (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The Dwarven race on the World of Warcraft website calls them as Ironforge Dwarves. Not to mention that despite listing them here as a non-canon rpg page, the page itself is not considered as non-canon, conflicting the two. And as mentioned, Ironforge Dwarves as a race are put right in the intro for this page, along with being mentioned under the Faith section, conflicting the later point of them being non-canon.Tbond15 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This page - - does not call them Ironforge Dwarves anywhere on the page. I've suggested on Talk:Ironforge dwarf that that page should be merged with Ironforge (kingdom), or that a Wildhammer dwarf race page should also be created, as it's currently inconsistent as to what exists as a page between those two on this wiki. Mrforesttroll (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
"Frost Resistance - Ironforge dwarves have a natural resistance to Frost magic." is the thing he was referring to when mentioning the WoW website. --Mordecay (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I was referring to that. Along with the visual guide mentions Ironforge Dwarves and clearly differentiates them from the Wildhammer Clan. On that same note however, I do think that merging the Ironforge Dwarf page with Ironforge (kingdom) would be a great idea or even, merging it with the Bronzebeard Clan. Alot of the incosistencies seem to lie with the debate of if Ironforge Dwarves mean Dwarves who inhabit Ironforge, or if it's an entirely different subspecies of Dwarf entirely. With that in mind, i'd also like to point out this quest, It's been removed from the game withthe coming of cataclysm, but it was still in the canon. Though earlier, it can be up for debate if it refers to a subrace or just the Dwarves living in Ironforge, which at the time was only the Bronzebeards Tbond15 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ World of Warcraft: The Magazine Volume II Issue I, Titan Creations Diagram
  2. ^ Falstad Wildhammer - "It would take a handsworth of these hill dwarves to bring one from the Aerie down!"
  3. ^
  4. ^ Day of the Dragon
  5. ^ Day of the Dragon
  6. ^ World of Warcraft: The Magazine Volume II Issue I, Titan Creations Diagram
  7. ^ Day of the Dragon
  8. ^ A [84] The Kirthaven Summit
  9. ^ A [84] Dragonmaw Takedown
  10. ^ World of Warcraft: The Magazine Volume II Issue I, Titan Creations Diagram