Talk:Third invasion of the Burning Legion

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"War in the Broken Isles"

This needed an infobox and a made-up name? Already? Really?--SWM2448 02:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I know right... *announcement made* quick throw empty Legion sections in every article, change all major articles with assumed lore, create empty legion nav sections in the large navboxes!!! *sighs* Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


The way certain events went down.
  • Havoc Demon Hunter Artifact is followed by Subtlety Rogue Artifact. (Evidence: Xirus is alive during HDH, he is a quest objective and is killed in SR)
  • Marksmanship Hunter Artifact is followed by Blood Death Knight Artifact. (Evidence: Gorelix the Fleshripper Retakes the Citadel during MH, he is a quest objective and is killed in BDK)

Add more if you have any.Shammiesgun (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fire Mage Artifact is followed by Havoc Demon Hunter Artifact. (Evidence: Taldath the Destroyer is alive during FM, he is a quest objective and is killed in HDH)Shammiesgun (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Should we rename this one "Invasion of Azeroth" or something? It's all over Azeroth at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solomi123 (talk · contr).

If there's gonna be a name change, I propose "Third invasion of Azeroth" since it is said it is their third invasion. I don't really mind the actual one tho. --Mordecay (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that it should be named Successful Third Invasion of the Burning Legion (or Successful Third Invasion of the Burning Legion on Azeroth or even Successful Third Invasion of the Burning Legion on the world of Azeroth) as the Invasion of Outland was the failed one.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 02:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Adding verbosity just to make a page that's already named on a purely speculative basis more technically accurate is a terrible idea, and bears no resemblance to anything in reality to boot. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If it does need a new name how about Burning Legion Invasion (Legion)? It's short, simple, to the point and it illustrates that it occurs in World of Warcraft: Legion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X59 (talk · contr). -- 21:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Druid order

Is it the Dreamweavers of the Cenarion Circle? --Mordecay (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

While undoubtedly there may be druids who claim membership in both (lore-wise if not in-game), the Dreamweavers are considered their own organization. My reasons for this are two-fold:
  1. The faction description "The druids and their allies in Val'sharah have guarded the Emerald Dream since time immemorial", which greatly implies that its members do not solely consist of druids (in contrast to the Cenarion Circle).
  2. It seems that Ysera herself was the leader, at least prior to N [100 - 110] The Fate of Val'sharah, so it couldn't be a sub-faction within the CC since she was above Cenarius himself in authority.
-- Alayea (talk / contrib) 17:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Yea right, so Malfurion is likely not a member, right? And the player character becomes the leader of which group? --Mordecay (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, but the class hall isn't the Dreamweavers. That's the Cenarion Circle, and Malfurion is actively part of setting it up from Moonglade. ReignTG (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Why was the infobox unnecessary? --Mordecay (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that perplexes me too since the no one has argued the info-box in the other war articles are unnecessary. So on that note I'm undoing that edit and if it's issue that lets discuss it here before making more changes about it.--X59 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the infobox was unnecessary either. It's comically long though, ideally the information should be trimmed down and split between infobox and main article. Xporc (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty detailed yes, so maybe remove some NPCs from the Commanders and leaders section but otherwise it looks fine. --Mordecay (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Either remove the infobox or trim it down significantly. An infobox is supposed to give a quick overview, not replace the article. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I have commented that infoboxes in other war articles should not be bigger than the rest of the page or full of nonsense. That is sort of like not having them given their current state.--SWM2448 04:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Now, do we have an official position on putting waayy too much NPC templates? :p Xporc (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I don't believe we have an official policy on that one. At least I haven't heard of it or seen it....--X59 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that if the question can be phrased as "Do we have or need a rule about what one editor is doing?" with legitimate concern for Wowpedia's content (via consensus) then there are procedures. Or just talk about it. I need to have a talk with people before things escalate. Some think that the NPC templates are more helpful than normal links. I (personally) think that they are more intrusive than useful, though they are more useless than harmful. No one else is mass-adding them, so maintenance/consistency will fall behind.--SWM2448 03:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Third invasion

Hi. What is the difference between this and the Third Invasion of Azeroth ? The war in the Broken Isles is listed as being part of the latter but then the article talks about Azsuna, Val'sharah, and so on. Thanks. ShellShockLive (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate, I don't understand the name of this article. Why is it called like that instead of "Third invasion of Azeroth" as mentioned in-game, in the comics, and at Blizzcon ? Specially since it doesn't even concern only the Broken Isles as the Legion also invaded Kalimdor, Pandaria, the Eastern Kingdoms, etc. as detailed in the article. ShellShockLive (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Since Legion invaded Kalimdor, Pandaria and Eastern Kingdoms, these should be covered in the Third invasion article, IMO. This one should be about the events that happen on the Isles, and is a part of the Third invasion. --Mordecay (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we could merge the two ? This is so redundant. I really don't see a reason to have two separate articles that are 80% the same (the Suramar sections are the same, the intro sections are the same, the Val'sharah parts are the same, I assume the other zones will be the same, the boxes on the right are the same, etc.). It should just be one article, the Third invasion of the Burning Legion, separated into 3 sections :
- Intro (Tomb prelude + Broken Shore (short paragraph with a link to the already detailed Broken Shore page))
- Broken Isles (sub-sections : Val'sharah, Azsuna, ...)
- The rest of the world (sub-sections : Legion invasions, Kharazan)
If there's a real need to have two separate articles then the middle section (Broken Isles) should be a short paragraph + a link to the War in the Broken Isles article. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually in agreement with ShellShockLive on this one. Separating the articles feels like a semantic distinction rather than there really being two separate conflicts. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with merging the two. Quite frankly, this article should never have been created in the first place. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 07:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Great, I volunteer and shall get to it in the next few days / this week. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Done, this page can now be deleted. The other one might need to be trimmed a bit but, yeah, there's no information on this page that is not available on the other one. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


I'm currently writing stuff in the page in little bits, due to my odd IRL scheduled at the moment. I intend to add the story lines for each class as they seem more focused on the Burning Legion than most of the Broken Isle quests. TheLoneAcolyte (talk · contr) 018:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel like the "War in the Broken Isles" section should be completely moved to the "War in the Broken Isles" page. The "War in the Broken Isles" is a sub-conflict of the Invasion of the Burning Legion, which is in turn a sub-conflict of the Burning Crusade. The "War on the Broken Isles" should be explained in a good summery on this article. But could go into further depth and detail on the actual page titled "War on the Broken Isles" TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the events on the Broken Isles can be mentioned here but detailed in the War in the Broken Isles page. --Mordecay (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Could we take advantage of the "Describe what you changed" box, to explain why a whole section was deleted or else it just looks like it was deleted for no reason. TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, for the same reason as stated two weeks ago. It's been moved here. Do you think it should be moved back with the Broken Isles war part expanded more? --Mordecay (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I kind of thought my description here was pretty brief. Both my Val'sharah and Suramar sections could be expanded upon in the other page. Just as the person who wrote the Stormhiem section wrote quite a bit. (TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Argus Campaign

Just a note that the events or Argus may be called Argus Campaign as it is written on the WQ bar: "Requires further advancement in the Argus Campaign." And Argus Expedition as evidenced in B [110] Two If By Sea. --Mordecay (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice catch. --X59 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Third invasion of Azeroth by the Legion"

This is how Blizzard called the conflict in this interview here: Xporc (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how that works when it is just the dialogue of them talking. I think it just comes down to the English language; it makes more sense for the "invasion" instead of it being capitalized. And the difference between "Third invasion of Azeroth by the Legion" and "Third invasion of the Burning Legion" are just the same. — Surafbrov T / C / P 12:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be capitalized because it is a major word in the title. Here is an example and here the Purdue Owl page on capitalization in English. TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
We capitalize things like that only when it's officially used by Blizzard Xporc (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Right now, it's not official by Blizzard. Should just be following the English language at this point. Invasion is a noun, but a common noun so it should not be capitalized by default. — Surafbrov T / C / P 10:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
But this is article. The title of an article functions like the title of anything. A book, a news article, a normal Wikipedia article. Why is wowpedia exempt from this rule and is there another example of a title describing an event not being capitalized on this site because Blizzard did not capitalize it? TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Tons of them, actually Xporc (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't find a single article describing an event with a lowercase letter for a major word in the title. May I have a link too a few? And why is wowpedia exempt from the rule? TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
In the Forbs article linked above, it is said in conversation describing the event not a title describing an event and thus it will be uncapitalized but should only be uncapitalized in that context. Even if you ignore that its still not Blizzard who wrote that. It was who ever transcribed the interview, who most likely worked for Forbs. TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Wowpedia is not Wikipedia nor run by Wikimedia. Also, here is some I found: Scourge invasion of Quel'Thalas (yes, reference is there and it's official). Plaguelands civil war. War against the Lich King. Drust incursion vs Iron Horde Incursion. Zandalari civil war. Of course, there are more. — Surafbrov T / C / P 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Although there are some that don't make sense, such as First war between the earthen and the iron dwarves and having some lower case (Drust war) but then have an official one uppercase (Gurubashi War). In the sense for this article (Third invasion of the Burning Legion), it should follow the Scourge invasion of Quel'Thalas until an official name is confirmed. — Surafbrov T / C / P 17:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware that wowpedia is not wikipedia, I figured they would function the same so I used them as an example. What you link are the names of events and thus proper noun, and should be capitalized so I'd put that on the error of Blizzard or whoever at Blizzard wrote those titles. Such as "civil war" pared with another word like "Plagueland Civil War" would be a proper noun. However I concede. I thought it looked unprofessional to me and I figured it was an easy fix. Didn't want to start an argument. TheLoneAcolyte (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)