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)