User talk:DeludedTroll

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, DeludedTroll, and welcome to Wowpedia, the Warcraft wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we heartily encourage you to continue contributing!

Some links you may find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) as this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, or need help, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the site forums. Again, welcome! --Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 10:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Just as an FYI, you've left a ton of commented stuff in your signature that's getting transcribed to talk pages. You may want to remove it. Thanks! -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, weird. No idea what could be causing that. I've only entered the race icon, the class color and links to my talk page and contribs. IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be something in how you're linking the icon. If you can't figure it out, just paste the full code for the signature and I'll see if I can debug it for you. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, here 'tis. I've noticed that even when I just enter the code for the troll DK male icon, it automatically puts "SUBST:" in front of it, which seems to cram all that other crap into the wiki text. The DK race icons were somewhat recently updated, so that might have something to do with it.
EDIT: I've tested with a few different race icons, and definitely seems to be the "SUBST" who does it. I've seen other users have race icons in their signature without automatically getting that part, tho, so no idea what's up with that.
IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs)
I don't see the code (at least, any differently than I usually see it), but perhaps try just using {{RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}} instead of however you're currently calling the icon? -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Didn't know how to make it not be treated as wikitext. This should work: {{SUBST:RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}}<span class="cc-deathknight">[[User:DeludedTroll|DeludedTroll]] ([[User talk:DeludedTroll|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DeludedTroll|contribs]])</span>
When I try to just enter "{{RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}}" it automatically changes to "{{SUBST:RaceIcon|TrollDeathKnight|Male}}". Zero idea why it does that.
I made a slight edit to the RaceIcon template that will hopefully correct this. Try it again? -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you did, you broke the way it interacts with pages. Now where ever {{RaceIcon}} is used, it does a line break and puts a box around whatever follows. Like so:
IconSmall Malfurion.gif Malfurion Stormrage
--Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
No idea why, since all I did was move the comments out of the includeonly tags. I changed it back, though. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved the comments out of both the includeonly and the onlyinclude tags, so it shouldn't be getting transcluded whatsoever. I did a quick check and it doesn't seem to have broken anything this time, but if I'm wrong go ahead and revert it back. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I tested, and whatever you did seems to have removed most, but not all, of the unnecessary text automatically included when using {{SUBST:RaceIcon}}. This is what appears in the wikitext when I tested using {{SUBST:RaceIcon|Archimonde}}: <span class="linkicon">[[File:IconSmall_{{#switch:{{lc:Archimonde}} |night elf=NightElf |blood elf=BloodElf |high elf=HighElf |#default={{ucfirst:Archimonde}}}}{{#if:|_{{{2}}}}}.gif]]</span> --IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 09:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, so ultimately the issue still seems to be that the signature call is outputting the entire text of the template instead of just the template call. Not sure why that's happening. Possibly one of the more code-savvy admins will know. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha, looks like this is a "feature" of one of the MediaWiki software upgrades (lord knows why, though). This might shed some more light on it, as well as some work-arounds: [1] -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, alright, I'll try it. Guess I have to create two new pages, tho, since I don't have a separate page for my sig. IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gifDeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey look, it worked. Hurrah! IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A pic

Ho there! You are taking pictures of Outland, right? Would you be so kind and took a pic of Mother Kashur? I kinda realized too late that I need one for my article. --Mordecay (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'll probably do Nagrand once I'm done with Netherstorm. Is there any particular image you need, or just her current infobox image with an updated model (which I was going to do anyway)? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
With the updated model. --Mordecay (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
There we go: File:Kashur.jpg -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ty! --Mordecay (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


Yeah I see I was mistakingly a bit too trusting with wowhead once again. Several old-world imps have had their 3d model updated in their 3d viewer, but when I went to check up on them, they were still using the old ones. Perhaps when Legion hits.. We'll see I suppose :) PeterWind (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Factional Icons

A discussion is taking place at Forum:Neutral Faction Icons about these icons, I'm attempting to get opinions from editors like yourself about this issue, please make your opinion known. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a look. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Gul'dan's spikes

He has been shown with these File:Gul'dan HoW.jpg, File:Guldan.jpg, File:Gul'dan TCG Alt.JPG, File:Gul'dan TCG.jpg so it could apply for both, no? --Mordecay (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, true. I guess I just assumed people would know that those were part of his clothing since there are similar-looking spiked cloth shoulderpads in-game. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Movie characters

Hi, now that Durotan is coming next week, I was thinking of what was previously said about the characters of the movieverse. Coobra agreed to have Name (movie) for their articles but I was thinking that with the expanded literature it could be Name (movie universe) (since some don't appear only in the movie). Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mordecay (talk · contr).


I dropped the dev comments, because there's in-game information. Go stand near the demon showcase before the Broken Shore and you'll see what I based my writing on. Stop changing it. Meganerd18 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Have any links? Googling it just brings up videos about demon hunters. Never mind, just looked at the felstalker talk page. There's no Horde equivalent for that NPC, and I haven't actually done the Broken Shore on an Alliance character yet, so I had no idea that that guy even existed. Do remember to at least add specific citations so other editors can know where you got your information from next time. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Vrykul (language), Tauren

Jorhuttam is directly referred to as the "Great Worm", specifically capitalized in the quest text and mission title. I assumed this meant a direct translation, such as Lak'tuk's name and title referencing a direct translation as well. I was also curious why you removed the bit in Tauren trivia about them being called Ronir. Dargrul directly calls them this in two separate quests. -Cannibeans (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I just think that just because Jorhuttam has the title of "Great Worm", that doesn't mean that that is the literal translation of its name. Gar'mak and Lak'tuk being Orcish for "Anguish" and "Suffering", respectively, is a reasonable assumption since it wouldn't make much sense for someone to have "Anguish" as a title... but I suppose ultimately there's no way to know for sure about these things, as it seems like these matters may be too minor to warrant a dev response on Twitter or whatever.
Regarding the ronir thing, that doesn't seem to specifically refer to tauren, since Dargrul also refers to the Rivermane + the player as "these ronir" during N [100 - 110] Crystal Fury, and he calls the player a "shan ronir" in N [100 - 110] Dargrul and the Hammer. Also, I'm of the opinion that we should have separate pages for the Kalimdor tauren and the Highmountain tauren, so the ronir thing doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of the tauren page. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 17:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I also just noticed that we have a Drogbar (language) page as well, which I wasn't aware of before. Fair responses, though. I'll continue to keep an eye out for more concrete examples of direct translations. -Cannibeans (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's mainly because I created the drogbar language page around 2 minutes after removing the note from the tauren page. :P -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Ohhh you sneaky bastard. xD -Cannibeans (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed that you are a rather active contributor to both the wowpedia and hearstone wiki. If you don't mind, can I ask you some questions about Hearthstone? I don't play the game at all.

First - I know that Hearthstone is considered as a game inside the larger Warcraft universe. So technically Hearthstone itself as a game is canon, but its content is supposed to be flavor lore, right? What about characters like Aya Blackpaw? Are they supposed to be real characters, fictional characters even inside the warcraft universe, or are they real characters that also happen to have a card named after them in the in-universe Heartstone game?

Second - About Heartstone things that are considered as canon, like the murloc member of the League of Explorer, or even artworks and such, do you (personally) care about porting them all to wowpedia too or do you consider than a warcraft fan should read both wikis to get the whole picture?

Thanks. Xporc (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, it's a pretty confusing matter, and last I heard we don't really know. These two pages on the Hearthstone wiki do a far better job of summarising and describing the situation than I could, though these two recent statements may force some rethinking about Hearthstone's canonicity or lack thereof. Taohinton is by far the most active and knowledgeable editor on the Hearthstone wiki, so you might ask him to see if he has more information.
Anyway, your second question: Personally I reason that we should include Hearthstone lore (of course with links to the Hearthstone wiki's more extensive and complete coverage) because Hearthstone is still (mostly) based on and set in the Warcraft universe, and the official description of Wowpedia reads:
"Wowpedia is a wiki dedicated to cataloging Blizzard Entertainment's Warcraft universe (with a focus, though not priority, on World of Warcraft); covering the entire Warcraft series of games, RPG reference books, strategy guides, novels, comics (manga and otherwise), and other sources."
Though if the two recent statements I linked to cause the entire game and all related lore to be written off as sorta-non-canon by default unless canonized by being mentioned in or added to WoW (like what happened with Hearthstone's Sir Finley and Morgl and Heroes of the Storm's Murky, Lunara and Brightwing being added in Legion), I'm honestly not sure if should still keep making new pages for HS-only characters. I imagine that would be up to the admins or other editors with more experience than me to decide. I do wonder what would have happened had the Warcraft RPG been declared non-canon before it received widespread coverage on Wowpedia (though I guess it was still Wowwiki back then); would there still have been any reason to create pages for characters like Ashar Ghosthoof if he was already known to be 100% non-canon at that point? I honestly have no idea.
Hopefully those answers help in some small way. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Well thanks for your answer. Honestly on my side I think wowpedia should be as extensive as possible on everything Warcraft-related, even in the case of non-canon-but-still-Blizzard-made content. Xporc (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Burning Legion destroys life or planets?

Hi, I would like to signalling you this discussion; if you want to give your opinion you are welcomed! cheers, --Xnsyntfxynytnh (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

PTR datamining

Hello, a certain picture from the Kil'jaeden fight was datamined from the PTR, can it be featured on WoWpedia? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Images of datamined or unreleased content are not allowed. See WP:DUC.--SWM2448 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Hiya, I've noticed that you've grown a "habit" of undoing a bunch of the edits I make (don't worry, I don't mind it), what I'm most curious about though, how come you undo the speculation sections I tend to add? For example, the speculation about devilsaurs possibly inhabiting an area close to Suramar, due to Su'esh's appearance, and so on. Is it uh, not allowed or? It's kinda confusing when you see your work reverted without a reason mentioning why. :'( WarGodZajru (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should probably get better at explaining my reasoning in the edit summary. Regarding Su'esh specifically I didn't think it really needed a speculation section, since there is no other evidence of devilsaurs on the Broken Isles aside from that there's a single one in the Suramar menagerie, same as with those zhevras. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, well, I know what that's like. I keep forgetting to put my signature on comments I make, most of the time...
Though yeah, I get your point. We can blame it on "magic", until further evidence. :D WarGodZajru (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems like they just grabbed a bunch of animals from different places on Azeroth. I am curious as to when they did that though. Just after the dome was taken down I imagine? Just don't recall this being mentioned though. From the plaques at the Menagerie it seems the animals have been there a while. Did they just teleport them in? PeterWind (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they captured a bunch of animals before the Sundering and have bred them and maintained populations of them in the menagerie for more than 10,000 years. Somehow. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, Su'esh managed to lay an egg... somehow.. so there must be some devilsaur pimp somewhere on the Broken Isles, or hidden in Suramar. Her egg's at the lower floor of Shal'aran. WarGodZajru (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe devilsaurs are capable of parthenogenesis. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Xporc (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be a lot of angry, female devilsaurs, Deluded. :^)
And ofc, Xporc, gotta come with a jurassic meme... WarGodZajru (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dragonmaw icons

There's a problem for these icons, they were merged with the gray orcs by Coobra 2 years ago. It would be separated to be able to do something with it.Klakmuf 20:36, 14 March 2017

Is it not possible to create new files at File:IconSmall Dragonmaw Male.gif / File:IconSmall Dragonmaw Female.gif and get rid of the redirects? I'm not really familiar with the inner workings of the wiki software, so if there's anything preventing a split between Dragonmaw and OrcGray icons we could always make due with just continuing to use the gray orc icons. It's not really a super high priority. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Orcish clans

Man, the more I read your stuff, the more I think the orcish clans are more varied, developed and interesting than the Seven Kingdoms :( Xporc (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. All of the human kingdoms are essentially some variation of "semi-generic high fantasy Medieval Europe" with a twist or two thrown in, whereas with the orcs you've got noble tundra-dwelling hunters who fight alongside wolves, not-so-noble tundra-dwelling hunters who kill massive stone giants, mountain-dwelling blacksmiths, samurai with burning swords, astrology-focused sages and shaman, one-eyed guerilla jungle fighters, insane cannibals who wear the body parts of their fallen foes, etc. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yo! I'm still a fan of your work, but the more you work, the more the pages for the alternate universes clans are outdated. Since Chronicles volume 2 confirmed that Warlords of Draenor is mostly canon to the main timeline too, maybe we could trim a lot the alternate universe clans and only keep mention of what actually differs from the main universe ones? Xporc (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure. I think that it might be a bit strange to not include alternate universe lore (Draenor Clans Archaeology, Adventure Guide entries for WoD dungeons and raids, Draenor questing and so on) on the relevant AU page when that information specifically concerns the AU but probably also applies to the MU. For example, since  [Wolfskin Snowshoes] is from WoD content and specifically describes the WoD-version Frostwolf Orcs, it would be a bit weird to me to only include that on the MU-version Frostwolf clan page and not on the WoD-version Frostwolf Orcs page, even if the information probably applies to both versions. It's probably redundant to copy things from MU material like Rise of the Horde (and maybe even Chronicle Volume 2?) over to the AU pages, (like how AU Garad's biography just links to MU Garad's biography instead of copying the entire thing) but when a lore bit was specifically made for an AU subject, I think it should definitely be included on the page about that AU subject, even though it can also apply to, and be added to the Wowpedia article about, the MU version.
So, for instance, in my opinion Frostwolf Orcs should still include the AU lore bits from H [90] Honor Has Its Rewards,  [Fang-Scarred Frostwolf Axe],  [Frostwolf Ghostpup] and so on since they are specifically AU lore material, while the MU version can have all of that AU lore in addition to MU lore like Rise of the Horde and Chronicle Volume 2 and so on. That's just what I think makes the most sense, though; we could always take it up on the village pump to see what others think, if necessary. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Mh, I see your point. Xporc (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, food for thought about the Frostwolves: for years I've been hearing that these guys kept their raiders all along when the rest of the Old Horde disbanded them. It seems pretty logical - Nazgrel was a raider captain even in Warcraft Adventures, the clan was banished before the raiders were even disbanded, they were close to the dire frost wolves of Frostfire, the raiders were reintroduced to the Horde after Thrall met the Frostwolf clan... But besides all these logical points, is it ever confirmed officially? Xporc (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does seem to be the most logical conclusion, but I honestly have no idea if that point has ever been brought up. I imagine that if it was ever addressed, it would have been in Lord of the Clans, but I've never read that book. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 11:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to help with those things you said you forgot about? Xporc (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, unfortunately. It was mainly things like rewriting parts of sentence I thought sounded clunky, fixing the odd typo or grammatical error, and so on; things I only noticed while proofreading and which I then immediately forgot about because I didn't need to think about them anymore. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh! Well, then, that's annoying, but at least you didn't accidentally lost lore-related information ^^ May I suggest using notepad++? It's so good that even when you delete the .txt file, next time you open notepad it asks you if you want to open a backup! Xporc (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I'll look into maybe using that. Thanks. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thansk to you for your continuous work! Xporc (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Will you ever finish all the clans? :p Xporc (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've been intending to do that. I've mostly just been busy on the Hearthstone wiki this last month with the Knights of the Frozen Throne card reveal season. I should hopefully get back to finishing up on the Burning Blade page tomorrow. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I had forgotten that you already worked on the Hearthstone wiki! Xporc (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank youuu for the Burning Blade update! Xporc (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Very nice overhaul yeah! PeterWind (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 09:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, someone updated the Laughing Skull page already. Maybe check it and incorporate its changes into your new page? Xporc (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't meant to rush you up! Take your time, don't worry. Xporc (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I was a bit hasty on that one, but I don't think there was that much more to add besides what I had already compiled, so it's probably fine. Maybe the Speculation section in regards to when Mogor led the Laughing Skull could use some expanding, if anything (though basing sentences of speculation about potential lore discrepancies based on one single obscure forum post from 12+ years ago, which was likely not meant to mean anything at the time anyway, is probably a pretty futile venture). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

History vs. biography

Hey, I've seen you sometimes change the two terms and you seem to do it for a reason, but I am not so sure what that reason is? :D Is it a thing in English? Rule here? Or just personal preference? --Mordecay (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's mostly personal preference. I'm not sure if there's an official policy on this or not, but the Manual of Style specifically says "Lore character articles should include a Biography section summarizing significant events in the character's past". To me, using "History" when detailing a character's, well, history seems a bit odd when "Biography" seems to be a more fitting term when specifically describing the events of a person's life, albeit a completely fictional one in this case. "Biography" also seems to be the most commonly used one on Wowpedia articles about characters, but I have noticed that some other wikis like A Wiki of Ice and Fire use "History" when describing a character's backstory prior to the events of the main novel/game/movie/whathaveyou. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Tbh, I was curious because I have been using "History" here and elsewhere and Biography meaning cv seems odd to me in a wiki but I guess it is not a big deal anyway :D --Mordecay (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mob Clarification

Heya! It's DP. So I noticed you've been working on and polishing up all the mob pages I've done so far! I've noticed there were a few discrepancy's between the edits and had a few questions... :)

1.) Firstly I noticed you took out the quotes for the gnolls... should those maybe just be put on the Palemane tribe page itself instead of each individual mob? Otherwise if it is unique to the mob, shouldn't that quote be added.

2.) Also for the Abilities, I know Xporc told me to do the simplified version, however you linked each one and inserted an icon. My only problem with that would be, since there's already a link to the mob to WoWhead on the page couldn't they look at the abilities there? Contrary, linking each one would provide information as to what other mobs use it. (on Wowhead)

3.) Another edit I saw was either truncating or expanding the mob description, like for the Windfury Harpy what you took out was where they were located, and I guess that's okay since that information is on their tribe page. Was there any other reason to that? EDIT: My bad, I missed the comment you made on the Palemane Poacher edit, maybe that could be set in stone?

I guess the point i'm getting too is, maybe it would be a good idea to set up a template or rulebook for these mob pages that everyone agrees on. And I do understand that there will still be edits, and that's fine. But creating a template would save time from so many edits, and save alot of questions c: Well thank you anyway's for making these pages better. I just hope to learn from your edits as to what's best! Maybe we could set up a similar page in the forum like the Subzone one that's up right now. --Dperrea (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to say that I hopefully haven't discouraged you in any way; your edits weren't bad at all, it's just when I see a bunch of edits I somewhat disagree with I sometimes go a bit overboard in my haste of "correcting" the affected pages to what I believe is the optimal wording, formatting or whatever it is. Anyhow:
1. Those particular quotes ("More bones to gnaw on", etc.) are actually used by the vast majority of gnoll mobs in the game, similar to how there's a very large amount of kobolds who all share the same lines ("You no take candle" being the most famous one). On both kobold and ogre there are currently specific sections denoting that type of "stock" quote, although those same quotes are also listed on many of those mob pages as well. I'm thinking it might be best to add a similar section to gnoll... maybe. I'm not sure. It's not a huge deal if they're listed on each specific mob page as well, I just think it creates some unnecessary redundancy. If a quote is unique to a particular NPC or mob, or small set of different NPCs and mobs, then it should definitely be listed.
2. An example of different users preferring different options; Xporc prefers the simplified version when dealing with minor mobs, I prefer doing the elaborate version when I can regardless of the subject's notability (which is kind of arbitrary anyway). Mostly it just looks nicer with the icon included, and including the icon could theoretically help someone instantly recognize a dangerous ability if they look up a mob's Wowpedia page in preparation for fighting that mob. Mainly, though, I just like including the ID and icon for completeness' and convenience's sake, even if people could just look it up on Wowhead and WowdB.
3. Yeah, it's mostly just that I find that saying "The gnolls are poaching wildlife, which has caused problems with the tauren" on every Palemane mob page is fairly redundant when you can just put that on Palemane tribe itself since it goes for every single member of the tribe. If it's something that only applies to a specific mob (like if the quest said "The Palemane poachers are responsible for hunting beasts while the skinners and tanners are responsible for preparing the skins for selling to the goblins", or something) then those bits could be put on the relevant individual mob pages
Mm, perhaps. Oftentimes things to just come down to individual editors' personal preferences and judgment, with no clear-cut way of saying which format is better. I myself tend to be woefully inconsistent, though I do try to stick as closely as I can to the Manual of Style and boilerplates as well as looking at how already-existing articles of the same type look and copying that formula, when I'm unsure.
Anyway, keep up the good work! -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok! Thank you for the comprehensive response! Don't worry you didn't discourage me, I know getting your work altered by other people is a way of life on the Wiki haha. I just wanted to clarify some stuff as I go foward so I can make more uniform articles and so y'all didn't have to change so much ;) --Dperrea (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey again! So I know you've done this before and I was just wondering how to do it properly. I'm going to upload photos for the updated models of these orc mobs but i'm not sure what to titlethe picture to signify that it's new, should I just put (new model) in the title?--Dperrea (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Should be fine to just upload those files as new versions of the already-existing screenshots, like at File:Kashur.jpg, instead of having them as separate files. For the most part, it's not necessary to have two images showing how a character looked before and after the player character revamp unless it's a major lore character, such as a racial leader. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
When I try to upload the new version, it won't let me because there's another one with the same name, naturally. Is there anyway to bypass this?--Dperrea (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
NEVERMIND. I was trying to upload them the way I usually do, and I've never see that "upload new version" until now, guess I should pay more attention. So now I uploaded the file, but the new version dosent show up on the page, what do I do about that?--Dperrea (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It can sometimes take a little while for a file to display properly. It should fix itself fairly quickly. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah Wowpedia is a bit funny like that at times. Usually fast, sometimes it can take a few days though. But if you can see that your file has been uploaded, it should be good, even if at first the thumblink pic looks wonky. PeterWind (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
"Should be fine to just upload those files as new versions of the already-existing screenshots instead of having them as separate files" it really depends! If the mob has a new armor or new weapon after its update, IMO it's fine to keep both old and new pictures on the same page. Xporc (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
True, I didn't think of that. If an NPC has actually changed appearance, then it can be helpful to see what it originally looked like, but for the most the player character revamp just gave an HD facelift to the game while retaining NPCs and mobs' gear and physical features. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's been about 4 days since I uploaded those new pictures and they still haven't changed on the page, is this normal? I know it may take a long time, but I didn't know it'd take this long haha --Dperrea (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree it's bothersome but let's wait a few more days! Xporc (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


What did u mean? The shadowy creature is called ascendant in the last comic --Mordecay (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know what it is yet. It could be a shadow ascendant, or it could be a named creature of some other sort, but I think it's better to wait until we get a card reveal and some more solid information about it before adding it (just like I've refrained from adding DK trivia to all of the Hearthstone heroes' Wowpedia pages until their hero cards are revealed). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


Do you know the name of the kaliri spirits? --Mordecay (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

They're just called "Spirit". While their tooltip shows that they are level 100 NPCs, they're not targetable and I'm not sure if they deserve their own page or not. I did take screenshots of them just in case, so I can make a page for them if needed. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Blackrock clan's membership in the Horde

We see it in the novels ‘’Blood and Honor’’ where Eitrigg, a freed Blackrock orc joins the Horde, as well as ‘’Lord of the Clans’’, where Orgrim Doomhammer, former chieftain names Thrall his successor. Besides those Blackrock characters we doo see join, several important Horde characters like the Saurfang family all originate from the Blackrock clan, especially as many Blackrock members were incredibly loyal to Doomhammer.

Additionally both the orc campaign of Reign of Chaos and the Orgrimmar section in ‘’Frozen Throne’’’s Rexxar campaign have Blackrock banners. Finally Horde orc NPCs who have been present in WoW since vanilla use the Blackrock skin tone, also introduced in vanilla WoW.

Basically unless there has been a Retcon, there was a sizable population of Blackrock clan orcs in the New Horde before Malkarok. However like most of the captured clans, their clan identity appeared to have mostly eroded away. Also unlike the Bleeding Hollow Mag'har of Outland who had their own village, the Blackrock Mag'har like Draenosh don't appear to have maintained their clan identity either. Gann Stonespire (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Types vs units

Heya, doesn't it make more sense to be a unit (member) of an organization instead of a type (member) of an organization? --Mordecay (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the use of the word "Unit" because it feels too gameplay-y to me, akin to using "NPCs" or "Mobs". In the past, "Types" has usually been used to list non-unique NPCs and mobs of certain creature types (e.g. Yak#Types lists different types of yaks), so I figured it'd make sense to extend the same naming scheme to faction pages. Admittedly, "Types" might not make as much sense when listing unnamed members of a faction instead of unnamed members of a species. Something like "Unnamed" might make more sense (and I didn't change any of the cases of "Unnamed" I came across), though I do also dislike using "Named" as a section header since not every unique NPC has a proper name (e.g. Devouring Darkness, Rotting Frost Giant, Scaleclaw Broodmother). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 11:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, types in racial pages are ok, it is, after all, a creature type. What about keeping the section naming separated? "Notable" and "Types" for racial pages (creature / beast, like those you just showed) and "Named" and "Unnamed" for faction pages where, hopefully, there wouldn't be a problem of listing a "Big Bad Boy" (not a proper name, basically) under Named section of a faction page. --Mordecay (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, I'm fine with that. Personally, I'm kind of inclined to want to use Notable on faction pages as well due to the few outlier cases like the Blacktalon Quartermaster, but I guess that — unlike animals and creatures that only exist for players to kill — the vast majority of unique faction NPCs are going to have proper names anyway so it won't make much difference. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Abilities determine mob classes and are being added to infoboxes. Why should the two pirates be different?--Mordecay (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

From Slack:

Q u o t e:

Suraf [16:57]
Hmm, what about characters that are in say [[Category:Warlock characters]] because of the spells the NPC uses but doesn't have `|class = [[Warlock]]` in the infobox? @xporc
xporc [16:57]
i'm not sure I understand where you're going on :shrug2:
DeludedTroll [16:58]
Me and Suraf discussed this the other day
I used the example of
He uses Drain Life and Fel Immolate, so I'm fine with putting him in a Warlock characters category
But I'm personally more hesitant to put warlock as his class in the infobox if there's no Blizzard source explicitly calling him a warlock
Anyhow, what I'm getting is that I feel like we can be more lenient with categories, whereas infoboxes should more strictly stick to official canon
MyMindWontQuiet [16:59]
xporc [17:00]
I often put "xx characters" categories on weird characters depending on the spells they use
like these guys
technically nothing says they are actually druids, but they used two druid spells in vanilla
so I added the druid characters category :shrug2:
xporc [17:02] you can sometimes see weird lore this way, that eventually ends up canonized
DeludedTroll [17:02]
So I can revert Mordecay's edit with "Per Slack, he's not explicitly called a warlock so he shouldn't have warlock in the infobox, but the category can stay because categories are less strict"
xporc [17:02]

But meh, I'm not gonna argue over it. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine to tag them with the Warlock category because categories are much more loose on lore, but I agree that infoboxes should mainly reflect official/lore/confirmed things. NPCs will often use player spells, like a quillboar using Thorns, but that doesn't technically/officially make them a druid, or an eel or jellyfish casting Drain Life, it'd be odd to put Warlock in its infobox. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think blizz is consistent with determining these. This is only with the player abilities, of course. I don't think we should lower the importance of such abilities and call it no blizz source when it IS a Blizzard source. Technically, quilboar would be tagged as thornweavers and fish would of course be NOT tagged as such, but other humanoids should be ok. Plus the classes themselves are not so strict and exact either, they are broad terms that contain variants which in turn can apply on those mobs. Mordecay (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess. Personally I'll continue to avoid including things like classes in infoboxes unless there's a source for it, though. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Morde on this topic. If a character exclusively/mainly casts spells from one class, with nothing pointing to other classes, I think it's fair to assume that the character is of said class. We can't know for sure but with what we have, there's no reason for us to assume otherwise. PeterWind (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of a nuance between tagging as warlock an NPC who is wearing a Warlock set, casting Warlock spells and doing Warlock-y stuff without having "warlock" in its name, and completely random NPCs casting player spells for who knows what reason, in this case a.. Zandalari troll.. who is a pirate.. and who is undead.. who casts a Fel Immolation spell for some reason. -- MyMindWontQuiet 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I can understand adding |class = Warlock to an NPC who wears a Warlock set, cast Warlock spells, and other Warlock stuff... but a skeleton Zandalari troll who is a pirate and nothing else but the spells don't really take the cake. — Surafbrov T / C / P 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
i'd say it's kind of a case by case thing. in many cases it does make sense to go by spells (e.g. kobold geomancers being mages makes sense, a bandit being a rogue makes sense, etc)... and in many cases it doesn't. like, with Grik'nir the Cold, he uses a death knight spell but i doubt he actually became a death knight at some point; frost strike is just thematically fitting for a dude who uses a sword and has an affinity for frost. for the skeletal trolls, my gut says it's a similar situation, where warlock spells just happened to be suitable to the mob's vibe --Eithris (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Technically, since the Zandalari can be warlocks, the pirate may have been a warlock in life and his skeleton version retained the skills. But I agree that it may also be a case by case thing as well in very weird combinations only. --Mordecay (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Eithris. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Same MMWQ. — Surafbrov T / C / P 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


When you open pages containing those "types" of character classes, you can see majority of them in the occupation field while the class field has only the in-game classes in them. --Mordecay (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Then why do we have a |class= parameter if we are not going to put the majority of classes in that parameter? I suggest that this "rule" needs to change to include all playable and non-playable [lore] classes. — Surafbrov T / C / P 11:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, it was agreed that "non-playable classes" are occupations and not classes when the NPC occupation category was created. I'd prefer it the class parameter remained for the playable classes. --Mordecay (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you link to the discussion where this was agreed on? It is very easy to tell the difference between playable and non-playable. — Surafbrov T / C / P 11:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that 99% of the time when the |class parameter is used, it's used for non-playable NPCs or archetypes, it seems to be slightly accurate at best and inaccurate at worst (having to tag witch-doctors as Warlocks, etc.), in addition to being redundant (having to say that an NPC is both a Mage and an Arcanist, both a Warrior and a Barbarian, etc.), thus overall just being kind of useless. The two could probably be merged into one parameter, |class = Arcanist would logically already mean that the NPC is a Mage. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Here the word occupation was chosen instead of NPC class for the current category. I think the correspondence with the infobox parameter and the category naming is clearer like that. The NPC class was not chosen because it implied the RPG term. Given one (occupation) is subtype of other (in-game class), by putting both, one can easily see the relation between the two. --Mordecay (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that that makes sense. Varian has the class warrior and occupation High King, but that doesn't make High King a subclass of warrior. In my mind it just makes much more sense to list all class-type information in the class parameter, instead of limiting |class to the very strict and not always particularly lore-compatible playable classes and splitting lore/NPC classes like dark ranger or arcanist off into a separate, tangentially-related field. In the case of arcanist, putting it in parentheses like "Mage (arcanist)" should make it clear enough that it's mage character with the subclass arcanist but even then I don't see why we can't just list the class as arcanist when the character is only called an arcanist and never referred to as a mage. IMO, putting subclasses in Occupation instead of Class is non-intuitive and just makes infoboxes more bloated by splitting up information that should logically be grouped together. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 14:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Also a good point, which I agree with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyMindWontQuiet (talk · contr).
So, u saying that when a subclass is present that the class should not be present when one is not called by its class at all? Or would it vary? --Mordecay (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying that all class-related info, including subclasses and lore classes that aren't part of the 12 playable ones, should IMO be included the |class field and not occupation. The part about the arcanist was more an example specifically referring to Arcanist Elleryn; she's only referred to as an arcanist, so might as well just put that in the infobox instead of both mage and arcanist. I guess I could have worded that better to clarify that it's not part of my main argument. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 17:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe the reverse, so both parameters keep their original function ? i.e this page would just have |occupation = Arcanist and no |class, instead of |class = Arcanist and no |occupation. If there's no clear occupation, then |class is generic enough to suffice. But if we already have the specifics (Arcanist), it's rather useless & redundant to have another, additional parameter as well (Mage). -- MyMindWontQuiet 17:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer just using |class= for classes and |occupation for... occupations like Merchant (aka Vendor), Musician, etc. — Surafbrov T / C / P 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Suraf. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that arcanist being listed in character field kinda denotes its RPG definition where it was listed as a class. I'm still for keeping character field for actual classes and have all other jobs & ranks in occupation field.
And, guys, stop edit warring and putting inconsistencies in just two articles. It's tiring. --Mordecay (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Arcanist is a sub-class of a mage by default; same as Dinomancers which are technically a druid and hunter combined. These aren't jobs/ranks. — Surafbrov T / C / P 21:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would argue that things like arcanist and dark ranger are classes and should logically be in the class field, even if they're not playable. Basically, my logic would be that the things that dictate what abilities one can use would be a class (warrior, druid, monk, dinomancer, witch doctor, pyromancer, berserker, skycaller, beastmaster, ranger, or whathaveyou), whereas anything else would go under occupation. Otherwise it, IMO, generally feels like an overly strict and unhelpful distinction; needlessly increases the size of infoboxes by splitting two related bits of information (e.g., "druid" and "dinomancer") off into separate lines; and, in general, doesn't actually help readers find relevant information about the character by, again, splitting up information that is inherently connected into different parts of the box.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind axing the |class field altogether and merging it with |occupation. I guess it's mostly the splitting-up of information that bothers me. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, what bothers me is the opposite. Having everything in one field. I like the current usage of the character and occupation section due to their system and even clarity. I even dare to say it would be a bit problematic in regards of what be the first what order would it have? Some NPCs have more than three things. Would it look nice having like 6 or 10 in one field? --Mordecay (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't get why it's so problematic to have |class= for the WoW classes and |occupations= for everything else Xporc (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Why it is a problem to have |class strictly for every class known in lore and occupations for everything else? — Surafbrov T / C / P 21:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Because then you have to debate about what is a class and I thought you guys were against arbitrary decisions. Is Tidesade a class? Is Deathstalker a class? Is Blood Knight a class? Is Merchant a class? Is Barber a class? Is Bard a class? Xporc (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a fair point, but merging the class and occupation fields would solve that issue, I think. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that is a fair point. Obviously a blood knight is a racial class under Paladins. Tidesade, Deathstalker can be a class as well. Including Merchant and Barber means you're just joking around but a Bard could've become a class if the joke wasn't a joke. — Surafbrov T / C / P 21:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I personally believe Blood Knight is a faction of paladins, not a class, so it's not that obvious. Hence, arbitrary. Xporc (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
If it is a faction, then it would be in the affiliation. Not class or occupation. — Surafbrov T / C / P 21:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
But then that would also be the case for Tidesage and Deathstalker, which you believed were classes. Are we gonna have to make an excel sheet of which thing is a class, a faction or a job? Xporc (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe Tidesage and Deathstalker are classes, I said that they can be classes (one can argue). Go ahead and make an excel sheet of what things can be a class or this can be handled the easier way, merge class into occupation and call it a day or keep class and allow the obvious ones such as Dinomancer and Arcanist to the class parameter. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "blood knight" was put in the character field as well back in the day.
Just a qq, do you want to continue in the forum to get more voices (and stop spamming your page, maybe :-D )? --Mordecay (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably best to do so. So we don't keep bloating DT's talk page. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

About HS Art

On the discussion of the Hearthstone content on this Wiki, you said that the arts would be continued to used. However, it was stated by a user in the Rastakhan page that HS art is not canon and should not be used in templates, so... what makes an HS art canon?? Thanks! :) Maykzinho 11:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a case of how closely the art matches canon lore. So things like File:Anub'arak HS.jpg is fine because it looks pretty much the same as Anub'arak's WoW model, whereas File:Subject 9.jpg shouldn't be used in the infobox because it looks very different from how Subject Nine looks in canon. That's just my opinion, though; it might be best to ask MyMindWontQuiet about it for his view, since I think we may disagree on some points (personally, I don't like Rastakhan's Hearthstone art and I would prefer another image to be used in his infobox, but I still think it's similar enough to his WoW appearance to be called semi-canon at least).
In any case, even if a piece of art isn't canon (such as images from Heroes of the Storm or artwork from the RPG books), in many cases it's still fine to include them on a character page, just not as the infobox image, as long as it's in a fitting place (like a Gallery section or in a "In the RPG"-style section talking about non-canon stuff). -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically yeah. Hearthstone is not canon, so it doesn't have priority over official, canonical material. We do use Hearthstone art on pages still, but in the infobox we may not (unless it's practically no different (or close enough) as DT said). In this case, Hearthstone-Rastakhan looks like a hulking monster which is a bit different than his World of Warcraft depiction, so we went with the WoW depiction. -- MyMindWontQuiet 14:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So, to use in the infobox, it's need to match the WoW deciption to be used in the infobox? Just to make things clear, because a lot of Rastakhan's Rumble champions, like War Master Voone doesn't match his WoW appeareance, and High Priest Thekal matches. Maykzinho 14:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. -- MyMindWontQuiet 14:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


Here, MoS says that real books should be italicized and we italicize them in reference lists as well. Logically, this would apply for quotation marks for in-game books in reference lists as well. Moreover, this is a Wikipedia standard, they use quotation marks in reference lists for certain types of articles as well. --Mordecay (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think you should take that up on Wowpedia talk:Manual of Style then, because I really don't see why it would be necessary to put quotation marks around book titles when they're just used as references. In my view it just looks ugly and redundant; adding bloat for the sake of adding bloat. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider it redundant, as it differentiates between works. --Mordecay (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do we even need to differentiate between works, though? Real-world books is one thing because they're actual products and therefore they should be italicized, but why should we need to stick quotation marks around "Arathor and the Troll Wars", "Weathered Parchment", or "Wanted Poster: Kel'gash the Wicked" when plain links can easily suffice? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just like the MoS says, quotation marks are meant to be used for other works besides real world books, like articles. Not for in-game objects. Although History of Warcraft chapters can also be read in-game, they exist(ed) as online sources. By the wording then the Serena Everwind‎ dont't need it. Yeah, I'll bring it on the MoS page. --Mordecay (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I did an oops

Sorry, I left a message on your talk page when it was actually meant for User:WarGodZajru. But anyway, since I'm here, I would like to thank you for your hard work on patrolling troll-related articles, even if you may not see eye-to-eye with me, I know. Madrenergic (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)