Talk:Llane Wrynn I
I've put a citation needed tag on the first occurrence of Llane Wrynn's name to request a citation to an official source that describes him as "Llane Wrynn IV". All the sources I've seen just call him Llane Wrynn, so I assume it's from the RPG.--Aeleas 13:07, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
- In most monarchies, the number refers to the number of rulers who bear the personal name, not the family name. If he is Llane I and not Llane IV, he is just Llane (like Queen Victoria is not Victoria I). --Ragestorm 17:16, 12 October 2006 (EDT)
It's been several months without anyone providing a source for the "IV", so I'll just change it back to Llane Wrynn.--Aeleas 20:16, 12 October 2006 (EDT)
Simple current status info versus specific information
I am not convinced that many characters need to have specific information regarding their current status in the infobox. Their current status should be made clear in the actual article, which would render the extra information in the infobox not important. Regards, --Theron the Just 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- As the infobox is tended to give an overview of all relevent information, all of which is explained in greater detail within the article, I disagree. When it comes to living/undead/killable/active characters, you're probably right (which is why living characters don't have a description unless their circumstances are unusual), but with characters who have died, a very short explanation is in order, given the fact that their deaths are usually important details. We would also prefer "Deceased" to be written instead of "Dead." -- (talk · contr) 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Became King after Orcs attacked?
Let me quote the Warcraft II manual for a second:
Before the coming of the Age of Chaos when the Portal was first opened, the kingdom of Azeroth was the mightiest of all Human nations. Ruled by the wise and just King Llane, Azeroth stood as a beacon of light and truth throughout the known world. - pg. 39
In that paragraph is says that Azeroth was ruled by King Llane before the Age of Chaos, which is when the Orcs attacked. The story on the official site backs this up. In the Warcraft I manual it says that he became King right after the Orcs attacked Stormwind and his father was killed, this is what is on this page right now. Is there a more recent source that confirms the Warcraft I version? Otherwise I think we should change it. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Apperance in WoTLK
It seems during the battle against Yogg-Saron, you are teleported back in time to see Garona Speak to Llane Wrynn.
Garona - Bad news, sire.
Garona - The clans are united under Blackhand in this assault. They will stand together until Stormwind has fallen.
Garona - Gul'dan is bringing up his warlocks by nightfall. Until then, the Blackrock Clan will be trying to take the eastern wall.
Llane - And we will hold until the reinforcements come. As long as men with stout hearts are manning the walls and the throne, Stormwind will hold.
Garona - The orc leaders agree with your assessment.
For those on the PTR:
It seems the article draws too much upon Warcraft I timeline, while retcons in future timelines. It seems to make reference to the long period of between the start of the orcs invasion and the start of the first war, and and longer length of the first war between the timelines of Warcraft I and references in Warcraft II. I'd suggest actually reducing the references to time and just give a broad overview of the events and not be as specific (because all the timelines are contradictory in some form). If references to time are to made Warcraft I and II material cannot be used because later sources definitely cut out the ten-fifteen years between the opening of the portal and the start of the first war.
Now, if someone wants to go into the timeline issues it should be relegated to a small section near the end of the article pointing out the discrpencies and retcons. But inserting directly into the article confuses the matter between accounts made the manual, Last Guardian, and other later sources.Baggins (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's been a long time coming, but I went ahead and revised it. The only problem is this has greatly extended King Adamant's reign by a good few years - but it preserves the Year 592 outbreak of war date and the 596 end of hostilities, and the 591 death of Adamant. The alternative would be to shortenn Medivh, Lothar and Llane's lives, and I think this is probably the better option of the two. Also, I'm not that great with numbers so if anyone spots an issue in my mathematics, please correct it. Everen (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, according to the Official Timelie with added dates from books as Cycle of Hatred or the Warcraft's History of the official ite, Medivh was conceived in year -45, so he was born in year -44. Using maths, we could say that he was 44 when the Dark Portal was opened and that he died a in year 5 (but that's just speculation).
- If it serves you, we know that Landen Wrynn (Adamant's father) ruled by the time of Aegwynn and Nielas Aran. Then, Adamant started to reign at some point of history, to then die a year after the first attack on Stormwind (year 2, maybe?).
- Llane was a little younger than Medivh, and Lothar considerably older than either. I'll be checking some of the other books later, but based on the WC1 and 2 manuals (which, unfortunately, I think are our only sources for Llane and Lothar), Llane was born in 564 and Medivh in 559, which would correspond to -33, not -44 (or 548). It's quite the difference, and the more recent has to take precedence. Lothar was 57 at the time of WC2, placing his birthyear in 541, which makes him considerably older than Llane, which is somewhat at odds of the description of their boyish adventures in TLG (unless, that is, Lothar was sent to safeguard the two and they didn't care he was an old coot by that time).
- If we take the Last Guardian history section as fact (which we are, unfortunately, bound to do), then the timeline is once again completely different because of the decision to both make everyone older, and of comparable age. Oy vey, thank you for bringing this up. I'll start figuring out the ramifications for the bio.Everen (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this true: "Ten years later, Llane was visited by a mysterious stranger who revealed herself to be Aegwynn, the mother of Medivh. She revealed that Medivh was behind the arrival of the orcs into the kingdom, warning that Azeroth would eventually have to deal with him." As in the Cycle of Hatred is said that she right after the battle with Medivh teleported to the Barrens. --Mordecay (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The First & Timeline
As there are no other known Llane named kings of this particular Kingdom then it would be correct to refer to the king as simply King Llane.
The roman one after his name means that there is definitely a "II" or second king of the same kingdom with the same name. That is not true.
The time line for the birth of Varian is problematic. Indeed I am troubled by much of the timeline but I highlight this as the worst offender. Reading the text it is possible to assume that Varian was sired when Llane was about nine years old and/or before the Age of Ascension. I don't have the inclination to link sources but could a well researched contributor please fix the timeline issues. Thank you.
Edit: The main offending paragraph is: "Llane Wrynn's son, Varian Wrynn, was born to him in Stormwind City ten years before the First War. He would taught him how to ride a horse. He also oversaw his combat training."
The following paragraph begins: "Six years later...". That would be 577+6 = 583. The start of the First War. Now, 583 - 10 = 573, Varian's birth year. But Llane was born 564. So, 573 - 564 = 9. Llane was 9 when he conceived Varian.
Given the citation "" above links to a non-existent Twitter page I would suggest that the whole paragraph be deleted. Due to there being no citation to justify its inclusion as fact.