Talk:Lordaeron (kingdom)

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Remove the flag?

From Talk:Lordaeron#Remove the flag?

Since the Forsaken and Argent crusade are now the domination force over lordaeron kingdom should we change it from Alliance to Forsaken and Argent Crusade?

and Alliance History as Pre-Thrid war?--Forsakenlord (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag? What flag? I don't see any flag. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry this responds to lordaeron (kingdom).--Forsakenlord (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Like it's been discussed earlier, this article is about the former kingdom. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is only focused on the past?--Forsakenlord (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Since the kingdom of Lordaeron no longer exists, yes, it makes sense for it to focus on the past when the kingdom did exist. Anything in the present would affect the city and the continent, but the kingdom wouldn't be affected any more than Prussia was affected by World War II. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If it is focused only on past and about the human kingdom then why Sylvanas Putress Varimathras and Arthas count as leaders since they all become leaders after the human kingdom was destroyed.--Forsakenlord (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
They probably shouldn't be, because they never ruled the kingdom of Lordaeron. They ruled the Undercity, which simply happened to occupy the same territory. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There are rants of both sides of this argument on the official story forums. The Forsaken do seem to still partially identify with the kingdom. Edge of Night supports this further.--SWM2448 19:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that there should be two articles: one "Lordaeron (kingdom)" for the past info, and one "Lordaeron (forsaken)" for the modern Forsaekn state. Otherwise, Lordaeron's articles should be removed from the Human kingdoms template since the actual article refers both the human kingdom and the Forsaken and Horde-aligned nation/state. --Cemotucu (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
A similar suggestion has been made on Talk:Forsaken#Race_and_Faction. What would be on this page?--SWM2448 17:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this page should be used as a page for the human kingdom of Lordaeron, which no longer exists. May the human Lordaeron shares name with the Forsaken nation, but they are not the same entity. It is not like Sylvannas is Terenas's daughter and the government structure is the same. Sylvannas created a new whole state in the same place with the same name, but different in essence, values, etc. Forsaken's Lordaeron is not the same Lordaeron that founded the Alliance: both are politically distinct entities that share a name. I think WoWpedia should have a page for each: a "Lordaeron (kingdom)" and a "Lordaeron (Forsaken)", until we know he complete name of the forsaken state (we only know they call it Lordaeron, but we don't know if they consider it a Kingdom, a Nation, etc.)--Cemotucu (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Could we discuss the creation of both articles? --Cemotucu (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Kingdom of Lordaeron and its people fell alongside one another during the Third War. Now the citizens, raised into undeath, are doing everything in their power to restore the former glory of their kingdom, that being incidentally through conquest. My point is that the article covers the history of a single place as it has evolved over time, gaining new allies and states of mind. Reminds me of Quel'Thalas actually.AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
As you said, the physical place evolved. It changed owners. But the political institution that was the Kingdom of Lordaeron is no more. It fell. And a new state (sharing the same name) rose. In the other hand, Quel'Thalas evolved: his Prince appointed a Regent Lord to reign during is absence, but the social and political structure didn't change at all. They are not the same cases. Forsaken Lordaeron is not an evolved Kingdom of Lordaeron, is a new different thing. I would love more discussion. --Cemotucu (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As has been stated, this page covers an entity that has been stated by Blizzard themselves to have been destroyed by the undead. Regardless of how the Forsaken view themselves, the article is supposed to be from an out of character, out of game perspective, and as such it must be emphasized that the "Lordaeron" that is being talked about is entirely separate from the Lordaeron ruled by Arthas or Sylvanas, a point which is emphasized in the "History of Warcraft" statements released by Blizzard (which states that Lordaeron was "crushed by the Lich King's iron heel") and the Human introduction from Vanilla, which stated that Lordaeron was "decimated" in the Third War. There's very little, if anything in the Forsaken state that resembles the Lordaeron that this article is referencing. If someone wishes to make an article about the Forsaken state, they are free to do so, but this article is about the Lordaeron of Warcraft 2 and 3, which is unquestioningly Alliance. The Lordaeron of the Forsaken is the antithesis of the Kingdom of Lordaeron, and to state that it's the same kingdom is being intellectually dishonest. Fojar38 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Can't agree more with you and Erthad. As both said, the article Lordaeron (kingdom) should be about the fallen kingdom. Not about the new political entity. --Cemotucu (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see any good reason to divide article about Lordaeron. In my opinion all about Lordaeron should be in one article, from beginning up to the Cataclysm. It doesn't matter if there were Human or Forsaken leaders / inhabitants. After all, again in the future there will be changes in leadership and so on... so will you create another article? I don't see any good point in this... --Mordecay (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is being discussed in the forum. But the reason we argue about this is because the "Forsaken Lordaeron" is not the same state the Human one was. It's lead by a High Elf, and the political organization is different. It's a whole new state. If Arthas or Calia or a Human ruled this kingdom and the House of Nobles remained unchanged and untouched, with the same social and political structure, I think it could have been said that it was the same Lordaeron. --Cemotucu (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yea, it is an idea of few people... but you are not Blizzard, and as only one of the biggest source of lore, you can't put new terms (the name of "post-human Lordaeron"?) that are not in official lore. "Lordaeron Kingdom" should stay as the history of this kingdom, which passed so many changes. And after all, there is only one change and in the ruler as inhabitants are former human who lived in Lordaeron.--Mordecay (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Mordecay... I am not creating new terms... "Edge of Night" pretty much confirms that the Forsaken name their state as Lordaeron. That's was I say that if a new article about the forsaken nation was ever created, it should be titled "Lordaeron (Forsaken)" to serve as an aclaration between that artcile and the artciel that refers to the fallen kingdom.
In the other hand, do you say the only thing that changed is their ruler? What about the Royal Apothecary Society, the Dead Guard, the Executors, the dissapeareance of peerages, the cult of reverence to Sylvannas and the Cult of the Forsaken Shadow? The whole change of the government structure is pretty different. I'm not putting that out of a fandom. They are facts you can see in the game. So stop saying I'm putting new thing that are not official. --Cemotucu (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
And? It was always called Lordaeron, by humans and by Forsaken too. It is nothing new. Maybe we just don't understand each other... Lordaeron used to be a human kingdom, thats right... and now it just ruled by Forsaken... and is this reason to divide? Well, until Blizzard tell that current Lordaeron has nothing to do with former I won't believe that :D and, btw, I haven't notice anything about term "Forsaken Lordaeron" in EoN...--Mordecay (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. The name is "Lordaeron", not "(Forsaken) Lordaeron"... I'm proposing create a new article because the human kingdom of Lordaeron and (Forsaken) Lordaeron are two different political entities that share a name. EoN states that the name of the nation of the Forsaken is Lordaeron. I speak of it as Forsaken Lordaeron, to distinguish it from the human Lordaeron. The name of the proposed article would be Lordaeron (Forsaken), because we don't know if it's a kingdom or not.
I will ask you a question... Do you see noble houses among the forsaken? Do you see the influence of the Church of Light or the Silver Hand? Do you see a nation reigned by the House of Menethil? Do you see a nation that extends from Tyr's Hand, to Hillsbrad, Andorhal, etc? I don't. The Forsaken nation is a different state, with a different kind of government, a different political organization, a different religion, etc. Look at Wikipedia. If we follow your standards, there shouldn't be pages for the Rusian Empire, the Soviet Union or the Grand Duchy of Moscow, because lol, they were in the same place and were inhabitated by the same population ¬¬ Seriuosly. I mean... -.- --Cemotucu (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Obviously we have different opinions in this :D so... do whatever you want and gl...--Mordecay (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you have a different opinion, but what gives credence to your thoughts? I have enumerated a list of items that made the (forsaken) Lordaeron different from the human and fallen Lordaeron. You still say that they just change their leader. I'll asume you are a troll or that you have reading comprehension. --Cemotucu (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Unindent. I think that maybe the Forsaken as a faction lay claim to the Lordaeron that was a kingdom, but now is not.--SWM2448 19:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they want to expand their nation based in that they are the same people (but twisted and undead) that lived there when Lordaeron existed. But we don't have any evidence of them reallowing the Church of Light, the House of Menethil, or the noble houses. They are creating and expanding this new political entity through war and justifying their conquests on their past ownership of the land. --Cemotucu (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes made by MoneygruberTheGoblin

First I apologize if I do something wrong as I am very new to this but these changes do not look like they were created from a neutral point of view. How ever the article is also a mess it makes no sense to read and many of the sections contradict each other such as the "Modern Lordaeron" section and nearly all of the new changes. I also don't think we can say that the Forsaken are Lordaeron continued, they sure think that they are, but the humans that survived believe themselves to be Lordaeron as well. If this is about Lordaeron the kingdom then the picture should also be reverted as it is not very representative of Lordaeron but more of just the Forsaken. I don't think that this gives a good summary of Lordaeron at all should say that the Scourging of Lordaeron destroyed the place and that there are multiple groups that claim to be Lordaeron and are attempting to retake the land and what not, this would include the Forsaken as one of them but the article should not be so biased as to say they are Lordaeron. Erthad (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted the page back to its original iteration before the changes. Not only do the changes done by Moneygruber need some serious work grammatically (There were spelling and grammar mistakes everywhere) but it is also an extraordinarily controversial action to make. As has been stated when this article was first put up, this article is about the former kingdom of Lordaeron under Terenas Menethil, which was unquestioningly Alliance. If the Forsaken Empire that refers to itself as Lordaeron must be dealt with, it must be done under a separate article. Fojar38 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
MoneygruberTheGoblin does have somewhat poor English, but I think he means well at this point. It is certainly controversial. I'll start a forum page on what to put on a separate Forsaken page (lore, context, controversy, and so on). I will also suggest that a list of successor states be put on this page (Theramore, Scarlet Crusade, Argent Crusade, Forsaken, and so on). See Forum:Lordaeron of the Forsaken‎.--SWM2448 01:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize about my grammar. I grew up with the German language. As for what I did here. This was all more of a prototype of what I saw the forsaken faction page to be. I didn't expect it to stay how it is was but I wanted to see how it would play out.IconSmall ForestTroll Male.gifIconSmall IceTroll Male.gif MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe(talk contribs)IconSmall SandTroll Male.gifIconSmall DarkTroll Male.gif 09:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
What I would strongly recommend, Moneygruber, is to copy the contents of this page to User:MoneygruberTheGoblin/Lordaeron and make the changes you want there. That way, we can all see an example of what you want to do before it's actually applied to the page. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Areas and Notable Leaders

I think that this section should be altered as a lot of it looks to be remnants of the continent page. Some areas that for sure do not make much sense are the Arathi Highlands and the Hinterlands. The Alterac Mountains are also no longer a zone so that could be removed and just put in some text like formerly the Alterac Mountains. Though it should also be mentioned where borders may have been in the zones like how not all of Silverpine Forest was a part or Lordaeron, it should also be mentioned that Alterac was annexed from Alterac to Lordaeron. As for the Notable leaders I think that this should not mention just the king or main ruler of Lordaeron but also things like mayors, governors, and Lords. I would also suggest getting rid of leaders like Sylvanas, BalnazzAr, and other similar to them as they only came into power after the destruction of Lordaeron. There could also be a section that could explain what has happened in the former lands of the Kingdom of Lordaeron since its destruction and the chart that is already on the page could show the change in leadership for who held power over Capital City but it should deal with more then just that so it should also mention the Scourge controlling Andorhal, Stratholme, and Caer Darrow. The Scarlet Crusade and what they controlled and ect. Erthad (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This page should be temporarily locked.

As many are no doubt aware, the subject of the Kingdom of Lordaeron is intensely controversial in the lore community both on WoWpedia and in the Warcraft fanbase in general. Due to the controversial nature of the subject, I think that this page should be protected from further edits until a consensus can be reached on the related forums topic, which can be found here: Forum:Lordaeron_of_the_Forsaken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fojar38 (talk · contr). 06:41, 7 March 2012

We try to avoid locking down articles, unless completely necessary, and it's usually only for a short time. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 06:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that this situation may warrant it. People are editing the page to reflect their bias while completely ignoring the forum discussion about it, and it's a pain to keep on having to revert edits. Fojar38 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

About what...

This article is about the actual "faction" (witch article don't exists, only a redirect to another page) or the Fallen Kingdom? Well, its not about the zone. In some, I see the survivor ones and the kingdom as the same faction, although now the faction is more symbolic, being led by right by Calia Menethil and by "regency" though Henry Maleb as he is the major authority amog the survivors of the survivors of the orginal Kingdom.Gabrirt (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the the kingdom of Lordaeron. While I can see where your coming from on combining the Kingdom page with the survivors of Lordaeron I don't think it will work because this page is about the kingdom and the survivors of Lordaeron have split into the Scarlet Crusade/Onslaught, Argent Dawn/Crusade and the Alliance. Furthermore we have no idea if Calia is even alive, until that's confirmed her status is missing regardless of speculation and the fact of the matter is we don't know who in the Alliance originally hails from Lordaeron and who is merely trying to restore Lordaeron as an Alliance bastion of power. --Sairez (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Forsaken

I forgot about the previous discussions, and I'm gonna respect them, but I just want to ask if a note at the bottom of the page about the Forsaken would be okay? The Capital City page mentions the Forsaken at the end of the history section. --Mordecay (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Like it is now? Xporc (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If it is okay with the others? --Mordecay (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)