User talk:Mattalari

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, WarGodZajru, 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! --Xporc (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Xporc. And I'll try my best to contribute, though, will make sure to take a gander at the links, considering I do need my mind refreshed when it comes to wiki formatting.. What I knew four or so years ago is almost all gone by now. --WarGodZajru (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


Hey, about these icon pages. Great idea to make the sections headers and have a TOC. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's useful! ^^ Figured the original pages were a bit clogged up. :p WarGodZajru (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Npcbox alignment

{{Npcbox}} floats right because {{Infobox}} floats right. To make a left-floating infobox for one page, add {{subst:Npcbox}}, save the page, then add {{subst:Infobox}} to where it says {{Infobox}}.--SWM2448 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, alright, I'll give it a go. Thank you! ^^
Question though, what is the "nowiki" for? Cus.. I'm a noob.. And suck at this. :c WarGodZajru (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The nowiki tag causes everything within it to be displayed as plain text. For example, SWM used it to show what the templates look like without actually calling the templates. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It is short for no wiki code. See the page history of this page for what happens when you don't add it.--SWM2448 21:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Welp.. Yeah, I see why it comes in handy, haha. Thanks again, to the both of you. c: WarGodZajru (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hm, Sandwichman2448 I can't seem to get it to work, is there no quick way, I've seen "float=left" used in some places, perhaps not for an infobox but uh, how come that isn't a possible variable for an infobox? I think it would be useful if it was... cus well, I'm a noob. :^)
And is it possible to have two infoboxes next to eachother, rather than below? As in, one infobox on the left, and another on the right, with text and headers in the middle? Would be nice, reducing the overall size of the page 'n' just looks better. :o WarGodZajru (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging does not work. My next bit of advice is to remake the boxes manually.--SWM2448 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Awh, perhaps it should be an option people can toggle on/off, if they wish to receive a notification whenever they're mentioned? Would be handy to have, no..?
But uh, remake them how? I like the current layout I made for my infoboxes in the user page section. Wouldn't it be possible to just add the necessary formatting/code to the existing ones? Whchever code that might be.. since those infoboxes took me quite a while.. WarGodZajru (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing retconned content

Yo. Don't do it. Just push it away in the Notes of the page, there's no harm in keeping old lore. Xporc (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Will keep in mind, danks. WarGodZajru (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Xporc (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Akil-> eagle

Aquila means eagle in Latin. At this point it's probably more truth that speculation. Xporc (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good to kno. Yeah, probably. I did change the word for eagle in my own dictionary to akil (was akilsomething), I didn't see the reason why not. Wasn't too sure about doing the same on the official page though. WarGodZajru (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Chronicle doesn't seem to say that the Zandalar were the first trolls. It explains how trolls came to be, and then explains that some of them settled in the mountain range that would later be known as Zandalar and built encampments. The most powerful group of those trolls there were named the Zandalar. But that's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyMindWontQuiet (talk · contr).

Been reading through it myself, and it baffles me how vaguely the author describes the trolls. Not once does it mention any troll species, it's always "Zandalari" or "trolls". Which could possibly imply that, Zandalari were the only existing species for millennia, or that all the species emerged at the same time (which is unlikely, since there was hardly any snow for ice trolls or forests for forest trolls to adapt to). Though Blizzard has stated in the past that the Zandalari are from where all trolls came. Although I do agree, it's uncanny how unclear Chronicle is about trolls in that chapter, considering the whole purpose of the novel is to shed light on lore. Must be an error on Blizzard's / the authors end. WarGodZajru (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, second :') WarGodZajru (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the "Zandalari" came to be a bit later and are distinct from the other trolls [that didn't come to the Zandalar mountains, or that didn't settle at its highest but say at its base instead] does indeed retcon that. So yeah they weren't the progenitors of trollkind.(third) -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't state that the Zandalari came later, it first only referred to all trolls as trolls, until the strongest group was named, aka "Zandalar tribe". I wouldn't say that the Zandalari aren't the progenitors though, as Chronicle is being -extremely- vague about the matter. The Troll Compendium does say how the Zandalar tribe is from which all other trolls are descended. Which adds up with Chronicle, the Zandalar tribe was the first named and also the most powerful. It took centuries before the Amani, Gurubashi and Drakkari came into play. WarGodZajru (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You said it yourself, there were [the trolls], and then among [the trolls] formed a group named [the Zandalari], which means that at this point in time there were [trolls] who were not [Zandalari], and as such it'd be wrong to say that [the Zandalari] gave birth to all other trolls.
By the way for the cleanup/name thingy, it's fine, as long as all denominations are clarified in the introduction ("the X, also known as the Y or Z...") you can use either of them (X, Y or Z) to refer to them in the rest of the article. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That's fair. WarGodZajru (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You misinterpreted what I said, the trolls existing at the time could still have been Zandalari, whether their tribe had been named or not. The book doesn't state what species of troll, it only says "trolls". Thus, all trolls could easily have been Zandalari throughout the entire chapter (they could have been jungle trolls as well, but no outside evidence of that), as before Chronicle, they have always been portrayed as the progenitor species. So without evidence that claims the first trolls were anything other than Zandalari, they remain the progenitors, with how vague Chronicle is, with only referring to them as "trolls", which can mean anything, the evidence we have from other sources would indicate that the "trolls" in Chronicle are Zandalari. WarGodZajru (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"the trolls existing at the time could still have been Zandalari" <- they're not. it clearly makes the distinction between the trolls that settled at the highest mountain peaks and who were called Zandalari, and those who didn't. It literally says "the most powerful group of trolls was called the Zandalar tribe", therefore there were other, "less powerful" groups of trolls. other tribes, who were thus not part of the Zandalar tribe. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The most powerful group of forest trolls is called the "Amani tribe", there are other "less powerful" groups of forest trolls. Same with jungle trolls and ice trolls. Same could very much be likely for the Zandalari back then. The trolls living on the slopes of the mountains could still have been of the Zandalari species, just keeping to themselves in other tribes, tribes that later could've become the Amani, Gurubashi and Drakkari. And as those three ventured out to take their own lands, adapted and became the forest, jungle and ice trolls. Not all forest trolls are apart of the Amani tribe, but they are still forest trolls. Not all Zandalari had to be apart of the Zandalar tribe, but they'd still be Zandalari. WarGodZajru (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no debating that sentence, it's verbatim from Chronicle, it literally says : "the most powerful group of trolls was called the Zandalar tribe". Not Amani. But yeah I think there's a misunderstanding here, I'm talking about the tribes, not the species. I'm saying the Zandalari tribe is not the progenitor of trollkind. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Definitely a misunderstanding then. I don't know how tribes came into this discussion though, since the first thing you said was debating if Zandalari, nothing about tribes, were the first trolls or not. So here I was, thinking you were on about Zandalari the species, not the Zandalar tribe. Zandalari are the progenitor species of trollkind, where did the Zandalari tribe being the progenitor or not come from..? That's what's confusing me right now. I don't know how a tribe can be the progenitor of a race anyway. Unless we're talking that one dark troll tribe that were magically transformed into the night elves, but ayy, da's magic. But no, Zandalari, first species, from the Zandalari came other types of trolls. Tribes are a different thing. WarGodZajru (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I can see the confusion! To put it simply, it's not : [members of the Zandalar Tribe -> all other troll species]. I think this should be clarified in the article by occasionally replacing "Zandalari" with something like "original troll race" or whatever in the relevant section. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That reminds me that the Zandalar tribe page really needs splitting. Wouldn't u want to do that, WarGod? --Mordecay (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
--> Talk:Zandalar_tribe#Split.3F
I mean, I would've, had there been enough information for each page. But yeah. WarGodZajru (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
And MyMindWontQuiet, Zandalari being the first species is the same as "original troll race", I think you may have misunderstood me again. I'm not really going to let go of the proof we have about Zandalari being the progenitor species. Since the book, which I've read through myself, doesn't explicitly claim the Zandalari weren't the first, only the first named tribe. "Trolls" as a term with 6 subspecies is extremely vague. If it had said "along the first and most prolific were the jungle trolls", then fair, I would have completely agreed with you, even against my own moral standards. But since the term "trolls" is extremely loose in the book, all we have is previous mentions of the Zandalari being the progenitors, from lore and I believe Dave Kosak mentioned it at some point as well. Nonetheless, they're staying the progenitor species for me until Blizzard clarifies if they aren't. WarGodZajru (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Side-note, I do agree with the change on the Zandalar page, regarding the interlude. Had it been a page about Zandalari (the species), then yes, "Zandalari were the first trolls" something along those lines would suit it. But since it's regarding the tribe, as the book indicates, it might not have been the first, but rather, the strongest. WarGodZajru (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm still a misunderstanding. All trolls came from the "Zandalari species", yes, but not from the "Zandalari tribe", that is my point. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Then we are now on the same page, good. Took a while. :') WarGodZajru (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


It's good to see you doing something else than trolls. Nice work on the Coins of Air thing, you even did the battle pets! Xporc (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pls, I don't do just troll things. :'(
But yeah, thanks! Was curious to see how much each item dropped was worth in coins of air, I was surprised to find the page lacked that information so I thought I might as well do it while I was busy pick-pocketing everything in sight. :D WarGodZajru (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


True, I should've just removed that sentence instead of undoing the whole thing. As for that remark, we don't know the name for that original troll race, well, they were just called "trolls". Some of these guys - those who settled at the highest peaks of Zandalar - became the Zandalari tribe, while others - those who occupied the lower parts of Zandalar or lived elsewhere - became rival troll tribes, such as the Gurubashi et caetera, including dark trolls. At least according to Chronicle. Previous lore had the Zandalari give birth to all other troll species if I recall correctly. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Zandalari have always been portrayed as the first trolls, even Dave Kosak described them as such. Chronicle was horrid when it came to trolls, it left out so much, and with that, subspecies. Which really annoys me, it was always "trolls" this, "trolls" that, never "forest trolls of the Amani" or anything similar. Always "Zandalari" or "trolls". Which gives the impression, at the time, only the Zandalari as a subspecies existed. And later down the line, the Zandalari that formed those tribes and empires adapted to their environments, becoming the first of forest trolls, jungle trolls, dark trolls and ice trolls. Then of course, sand trolls from jungle trolls after the Sundering, but that's way down the line. All in all, Chronicle doesn't contest the previous claim, because it lacks information on major scales even though it was meant to clear stuff up, it did a poor job at it. Nonetheless, Dave seems to stick with Zandalari being the first and as I said, Chronicle doesn't really contest it, it just has poor information on the subject. So yeah, Zandalari remain the first. They used to be the first subspecies and tribe, but Chronicle changed it to first subspecies and the most powerful tribe, perhaps not the very first, but the first to rise to power. – WarGodZajru (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
If the "most powerful group of trolls" that "claimed nearly all of Zandalar's tallest plateaus" and the "highest peaks" called themselves the Zandalar tribe, then those who stayed below or on the lowest peaks are the "other troll tribes" mentioned. However it does not mention whether the Dark Trolls are from the "lower troll tribes" or from the "zandalar tribe", that's why I edited your thing because it's unknown regarding dark trolls if they were zandalari (the tribe) or not. As for the other tribes: the sentence page 72 says "other tribes arose to challenge the Zandalari". other tribes than Zandalari arose, thus the Gurubashi ("the most notable of these were the Gurubashi..") etc. are not of Zandalari origin. -- MyMindWontQuiet 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
You're confusing subspecies with tribes. First trolls were of the Zandalari subspecies, most powerful tribe to arise at the time was the Zandalar tribe. The other trolls around them were still trolls of the Zandalari subspecies, but formed other tribes, and over the course of time, became the first of their respective subspecies. Forest trolls for the Amani, jungle trolls for the Gurubashi, and etc. Zandalari refer to both trolls of that subspecies, and members of the tribe, which gets confusing (Thanks Blizz), and is understandable. But you need to stop confusing the two. I'm talking about subspecies, which one was the first, the Zandalari were, all other trolls came from them (and in retrospect so did the tribes since all of the trolls were Zandalari (the subspecies) before adapting to become forest trolls and the rest of the subspecies), that has always been the lore. Chronicle doesn't say this isn't true, nor does it say it is, because the book is extremely vague on details in troll lore (leaving out subspecies, how dire trolls came to be, origin of voodoo, and other stuff), but considering the lore for more than a decade has been that they are the first, as well as a developer still supporting that, it's easy to say, Zandalari as a subspecies were the first trolls, and all other subspecies stem from them. Trolls of the Zandalari subspecies who lived around the mountain established tribes of their own to challenge the Zandalari of the Zandalar tribe. Zandalari of the Zandalar tribe ventured out and explored, settled down, made new tribes, adapted to their surroundings, became over time new subspecies of troll. Just like what happened to the sand trolls, they were jungle trolls, got cut off, stranded in a new environment, adapted to their surroundings and became a new subspecies. Only difference, the first Zandalari ventured out on their own, rather than having a continent-shattering event force evolution on them. (And deserts apparently didn't exist on Ancient Kalimdor either, so, that's why sand trolls didn't end up being a thing until later.) – WarGodZajru (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not confusing them, I very clearly wrote (tribe) when I was referring to the tribe. The Zandalari (the tribe) are not the progenitor of all trolls. The original troll species is not called Zandalari, it's just called trolls. The sentence "The Zandalari are the progenitor of all trollkind" is wrong because Zandalari refers to a very specific tribe in particular, it's not the name of a species. And deserts were a thing then, southern Kalimdor for example. -- MyMindWontQuiet 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The Zandalari are the original troll species. Chronicle says nothing to change this, in its vagueness, it nearly completely avoids the subject, thus it doesn't disqualify the lore that has for 12 years established that the Zandalari are from where all other troll subspecies came. Chronicle doesn't say all troll subspecies came to be at the same moment, nor does any other source, it has always been "Zandalari were first" before Chronicle, which says literally -nothing- about subspecies, which makes it something not to rely on when it comes to this matter. Thus it's pointless to have this argument, since Chronicle doesn't say anything about it, 12 years of lore says it is so, Chronicle keeps silent about it. "Troll" is the race with several subspecies, of which the first was the Zandalari trolls. But hey, if a lore writer from Blizzard ends up clearly stating that "all subspecies of troll came into existence at the same time", then give me a call and I'll be on your side on this. For now, with no actual source to disqualify 12 years of lore, I'm afraid we'll have our different opinions on a book that made a poor job of clearing up lore.
And I'm unable to find anything about deserts on Ancient Kalimdor, Uldum used to be a lush jungle before the Forge of Origination was used to wipe all life from its surface. Other deserts aren't really mentioned, but considering what the landmass was like, Tanaris, Durotar, Barrens etc were most likely jungles or forests as well considering they were further inland than Uldum, until after the Sundering. Not to mention, the entire south of Ancient Kalimdor was just jungle: Stranglethorn, Krasarang, Uldum (pre-FoO) and all the land connecting them. Which makes sense with all the theories about the bottom of Kalimdor being at the equator, supporting the rumor that there is a much larger, unexplored backside to Azeroth. :') – WarGodZajru (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, no, the Zandalari are not "the original troll species": they are of, they belong to, the original troll species. That original troll species has no name, it's just called "troll". Using a real world analogy, if Zandalari were Swedish people, all Swedish people were humans (the name of the species), but not all humans were Swedes. So at the beginning there were "trolls", and some of these trolls established a tribe that they named "Zandalar tribe". Not all trolls were Zandalari, but all Zandalari are trolls. The name of the species is "troll", the name of one particular tribe of troll is "Zandalar tribe". "Gurubashi" was another tribe of troll, and they don't descend from "the Zandalari", they descend from "trolls". Each tribe of "troll" evolved differently, some became Sand trolls, etc.
As for the equator theory, it has been debunked. Chronicle said that ancient Kalimdor "stretched to the southernmost reaches of the world". So current Stranglethorn etc. are at the south of the planet, they're not just in the northern hemisphere.
As for a desert, Silithus was already back then an "arid and inhospitable region". -- MyMindWontQuiet 16:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"Troll" is the word that encompass the entire race. And yes, once upon a time, at the very start, there was only one kind of troll. So far we're on the same boat. And that kind of troll had no name at first, but that kind of troll, is today known as a Zandalari troll. They stand upright, look a lot more elevated than all other types of troll, and were the original kind from where all other troll types came from, these first trolls who were of the Zandalari troll anatomy, explored and settled down, over time becoming the first jungle trolls, forest trolls and etc. So while they had no name at the beginning, except for "troll", we know them as Zandalari trolls, or Zandalari today. Members of the Zandalar tribe are also called Zandalari, which is why it's confusing. The Zandalari trolls are the original troll, even if they weren't named Zandalari at first. Their genes were the very first, not their name. I agree with them not being named Zandalari or Zandalari troll the moment they came to be since that is the name they took on after forming the Zandalar tribe, but the genes they carried is what made the other subspecies (ice, forest, jungle, dark), thus making them the original, whether you refer to them as Zandalari or not. In the beginning, they were "trolls", later, they came to be the "Zandalari trolls" or the term Blizzard prefer, "Zandalari", now the name of their elevated, original species... and tribe/empire members as well. Gurubashi were at first, members of the "Zandalari troll" species, who adapted to become the first jungle trolls. So while the original species didn't have an official name at the time, it was still the Zandalari, in the way that the Zandalari we see today, is what every troll used to look like, before they adapted/evolved and became subspecies of troll. It seems this whole debate is on what the name of the original species was, which we agree on, isn't "Zandalari", but the trolls of the original species are Zandalari, since all other tribes and empires belong to subspecies of the original species, of which the Zandalari are the only remnants of. Thus... the Zandalari are the originals, in the sense of, they are as original as we'll get when it comes to naming the very first species. Zandalari trolls, the only remnants of the original troll species.
That's fair, but even then, geologically speaking, it would make sense.
That's one region, inhabited by qiraji who just love to make ugly stuff so yeah, no wonder. Would probably have been a jungle too, had the qiraji not made it their home in the first place. :^) – WarGodZajru (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, P H E U W. Idk if I repeated myself too much, oh well. – WarGodZajru (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we know how the very first trolls looked like exactly. All we know is that modern day Zandalari are their descendants. But so are the Gurubashi and the rest, and they all look quite different, specially regarding their skin color.
Anyway, that's another debate. My only point was that "Zandalari" was the name of a tribe, and today, of a subspecies (since at the time they all looked the same). So to say that all modern day trolls descend from the Zandalari is wrong, because that would mean they all come from the Zandalari tribe. What you want to say is that all trolls come from the original troll species, which is just called "troll".
Here's a drawing. -- MyMindWontQuiet 18:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You're still misinterpreting what I'm saying, as evident by that drawing. First trolls > Zandalari/Gurubashi/Amani/Drakkari/various others, the first trolls that formed the Gurubashi and various other tribes were the same species as the Zandalari, but evolved to become new subspecies, thus, the only trolls of the original species that still exist today, are the Zandalari. The Zandalari have always been first in lore species-wise, Chronicle doesn't say they're not, Chronicle doesn't really say anything about it. I'm not talking about tribes and which came first. The Zandalar tribe didn't "give birth" to the Gurubashi, the first trolls, are what "gave birth" to the Gurubashi and everything else. They were Zandalari in the sense of being the first trolls, sharing the looks of the Zandalari trolls today. You keep assuming I'm saying the Zandalar tribe came first and created everything, I'm not. I'm saying the original troll species did, and the Zandalari, their species, is the original species. "Zandalari" has been used to refer to tribe members as well as members of that species by Blizzard themselves. Which is why I've said it's understandable if people are confused by the term sometimes. Along with the term "Zandalari troll", which has made much fewer appearances, but is still there. Zandalari troll, jungle troll, forest troll, they all describe what kind of troll it is. A Zandalari troll or "Zandalari" is a troll of the original species, a jungle troll doesn't specifically imply Gurubashi tribe, you assume Zandalari troll and Zandalari implies Zandalar tribe, it doesn't, not in this scenario, it implies what subspecies the troll is of, aka, he/she is of the jungle troll subspecies, or a Zandalari troll, a troll of the original species. That is lore that has existed since classic, and Chronicle doesn't say this isn't true. While it doesn't say it is true either, Chronicle is not a valid source for this debate as a result (in my opinion), due to its vagueness on the topic. There was the original troll species mentioned in Chronicle, and in lore pre-Chronicle, said species has always been the Zandalari troll, or Zandalari. Zandalari and Zandalari troll alike are thus both terms that refer to a troll of the original species. It's about how the Zandalari are the only trolls that remain of the original species, thus, Zandalari or Zandalari troll is a valid term for the original species. Maybe not back in the day, when the original species was composed of all the tribes, but in modern day it is, as the Zandalari are the only trolls left of the original species.
I go by lore spanning roughly 12 years, along with developers going by that the Zandalari were the first, in terms of species, not the tribe itself. Tribes can gtfo this discussion since it's not about them. It's about the species and subspecies of troll. Thus the vagueness of Chronicle isn't something I consider a good idea of bringing into the discussion. And the variation of skin colours between the types of troll isn't very large, or important.
At this point we might as well just agree to disagree. I'll go on with Zandalari being the term for trolls of the original species. While you don't. There's not exactly enough information for either of us to say, "you're wrong", anyway. Now it's just a battle of, "this sounds more prominent to me.". I can go on and on about how the Zandalari are of the original species (as evident by these walls of text...), and so can you, about them not being the original species, but a subspecies of the original. So, as I said, it's best to just agree to disagree. Maybe we'll get clarification one day, maybe not. Chronicle for sure didn't give enough clarification. And Chronicle doesn't actually say that the Zandalar tribe wasn't the first. It points out it was the most powerful group of trolls. For all we know, other tribes might not have existed until after the forming of the Zandalar tribe, since it was the largest group. Other groups could just have lived in communities, eventually making tribes of their own. And because of that, the Zandalar tribe could very much have been the first, as was the previous lore. Which then backs my argument even further. But, it comes down to, not enough information or clarification, thus we'll be stuck in an endless discussion until someone confirms either of us to be correct. And I'd rather agree to disagree until then. – WarGodZajru (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That drawing wasn't a chronological one, it was meant to picture relationships. It was not saying that the Gurubashi and the Zandalari were formed at the same time. It was showing that they were both from the "first trolls", that the Gurubashi did not descend from the Zandalar tribe.
The previous lore doesn't exist anymore. The original, first trolls do not have a name, referring to them as Zandalari is incorrect. Zandalari is strictly the name of a tribe (back then), and now it's also the name of a species (blue-ish trolls that stand upright with what look like rocky protrusions). Modern day Zandalari might look exactly like the first trolls (though there is no proof) in which case they are still the same species, yes, but the first trolls weren't called Zandalari, just trolls.
Forget the rest, to put it succintly: Zandalari refers to a specific group of first trolls, but not all first trolls are/were referred to as Zandalari, that is my point. (perhaps) same species, but not same denomination. All Zandalari were first trolls, but not all first trolls were called Zandalari. -- MyMindWontQuiet 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've never said the Gurubashi descended from the Zandalar tribe, I haven't said any tribe has. We've agreed on that the first trolls had no name, as it took a while to develop a language in the first place as well. But yes, for generations there was the Zandalari of the Zandalar tribe, and a bunch of trolls in smaller communities, but then larger tribes arose, the Gurubashi, Amani and Drakkari. So what I'm currently thinking of, it continues like this: For several centuries, they go on being just "trolls", until after the war with the aqir, the large tribes and the smaller tribes under their influence can finally settle down, this gives evolution a chance to kick in. Creating the first jungle, forest, ice and dark trolls. Now, we suddenly have a bunch of new subspecies, the Zandalari now has a reason to name their species, which remain the original/first species, and they name themselves the Zandalari trolls. And for the first time in troll history, the first troll species on Azeroth has an actual name, of which the other subspecies can refer to them as. Establishing that the name for the original species is now "Zandalari troll" or "Zandalari". So before evolution made new subspecies, there were just trolls, since they needed no name at the time, that much we agree on.
Also, Zandalari range from black, white, green and blue. Not just bluish. And not all have rocky protrusions, many have, many do not. As evident by their models.
Nonetheless, apologies for having dragged this out, trolls... can be a bit of a sensitive subject for me, and if I've come across as rude at times, I apologize for that. – WarGodZajru (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Never said you called the Gurubashi descendants of Zandalar, that was just me trying to explain my point, really that the original troll species has no name, even to this day. We don't know if modern day Zandalari look the same as they did 16 000 years ago, as the first original trolls, at all. On the contrary the fact that all other trolls evolved differently implies that they too did, and that no original troll remains. However, even if they did, if they still looked exactly the same as the original trolls, it would still be wrong to call these original trolls Zandalari, they're just called trolls. But you could say "Zandalari-like", as in "the first trolls were Zandalari-like" or "had the same physical appearance as modern Zandalari" or else.
As for the colors and the rest, that was a generalization, not trying to encompass all Zandalari as blue dudes.
It's okay I find this interesting, we're having a normal discussion here. -- MyMindWontQuiet 21:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

> trolls... can be a bit of a sensitive subject for me

No kidding! :D Xporc (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no bullying my 17 year-long love for trolls, okay. :'(
Though while I see your point, @MyMindWontQuiet, to me, there's not enough information in Chronicle about subspecies to suddenly make 12 years of lore saying the Zandalari were the first (species/tribe), invalid. The books were in my opinion, extremely lacking in terms of troll lore but hey, Blizzard lore has never had much love for trolls in the first place so I can't say I expected much when I heard news about it. Though when I read it, it made me even more disappointed than I was before the book's release, lel.
On topic though, someone on here once said Chronicle said the Zandalar tribe wasn't the first, though when reading between the lines of the chapter, it's more implied that they were the first. Nothing states they weren't. It says "they were the largest group of trolls to rise in power", as if there had only been small communities until this one group of many trolls decided to finally form the first tribe. It took other tribes "several centuries" to make an actual appearance.
And from the perspective of Chronicle, we don't know if the Zandalari we have today are remnants of the original trolls or not, so I'm with you on that (were I to agree that Chronicle was a valid argument point for this...), but at the same time, we don't know if they've evolved either. So that kinda goes both ways, neither of us are able to confirm our thoughts without a lore writer confirming either. Because right now, it's all "this sentence implies that", "but this sentence counters that and implies this", "old lore says this", "old lore isn't valid" (yes it is, else we should go on a lore purge rampage around here... >:() So while this can be an interesting discussion (even though the troll side of me is going "grrr"), I don't see it going anywhere without concrete proof. :I – WarGodZajru (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


Him being a part of the Mag'har group is a speculation User_talk:Xporc/Archive01#Garm. --Mordecay (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oooh, gotcha. My bad.. :p
Though it's weird that they'd give him brown skin if he wasn't.. Why wouldn't he be? Is there any lore about him drinking Mannoroth's blood? – WarGodZajru (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I really can't find anything on why it would be a speculation in the first place.. the heck did that come from... x_x – WarGodZajru (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
By all means, he should be a mag'har orc, but there's a story missing how he succeeded Fenris (who would be green). --Mordecay (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Aha, I see. Yeah, that's fair. But I suppose not an impossibility. – WarGodZajru (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dem trollz

Hey, do u know what chapter mentions the shadow hunters being tribe leaders before the Zandalari empire was established? --Mordecay (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not actually on a specific page, which is why I had to add several pages to the source. It's like, one page says they came before the empire a whole lot of pages before the next, then another says they were the leaders, forming councils and led smaller groups etc. Page 258. Sen'jin has seen through the ancestors the days when trolls were led by shadow hunters, and they didn't need shadow hunters to lead when the first cities were made (16,000 years ago). There's also 254 and 255, regarding the leadership, "Vol'jin picked out a shadow hunter or two or five. Sometimes they had moved to the fore. Often they stood beside or behind a dynamic leader. Occasionally they huddled together as a council. Always was their endorsement sought and the wisdom of their decision respected." Aka what it's saying is, shadow hunters led groups of trolls either on their own, as a duo, or as five, depending on the group's size. These shadow hunters sometimes followed the "number one shadow hunter" as advisers or they led as a council.
Da's a bunch of text. :') – WarGodZajru (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"Often they stood beside or behind a dynamic leader" Doesn't this mean that they were serving and advising to a leader? --Mordecay (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, to another shadow hunter leader who were one step above them. Which is what I meant with saying if there were 5 shadow hunters leading a large group of trolls, 1 of them was the primary leader, the other 4 shadow hunters were advisers, because at that time, shadow hunters were the top authority. They were always the leaders. Sen'jin wants this to be the case again, he feels as if when the Zandalari created the first empire and temple city, shadow hunters were made redundant, replaced with kings or emperors who lacked the wisdom of shadow hunter leaders. – WarGodZajru (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I gotya, I was confused who the dynamic leader was supposed to be! :D Thx. --Mordecay (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Am glad I could help! c:
A lot of the novel text requires reading between the lines and the combining of several pages to make something sound reasonable sometimes, hahah, it can become a hassle. :p – WarGodZajru (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

What I ask is an example when a shadow hunter communicated with a loa in the Dream. The ones u mentioned don't have info in pages that they are located in the ED. --Mordecay (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

They're Wild Gods, where else would they be? Argus? Blizzard made it abundantly clear that they were Wild Gods in Chronicle V.1, Wild Gods reside in the Emerald Dream, they didn't care about clarifying anything else, the novels were a bust when it came to explaining lore. – WarGodZajru (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see what u mean, so it isn't directly stated that a shadow hunter communicated with loa that was in the Dream. The sentence should be edited, methinks. --Mordecay (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it's more of a connect the dots type of situation. It's the same case with the Shadowlands and the bunch of loa that reside there such as Bwonsamdi, Samedi, Mueh'zala, Shango, yada yada. Same goes for Emerald Dream, but with the Wild God loa instead. Vol'jin communes with both the Shadowlands and the Emerald Dream in Shadows of the Horde, it's not directly implied, but he interacts with loa from both planes several times throughout the novel, from that, you just have to connect the dots. – WarGodZajru (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep. But we don't know (except with Bwonsamdi) which loa from the book are where, or when he is dreaming that means the loa are from the Dream? --Mordecay (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know anymore. Some loa can apparently enter the Emerald Dream (Gonk) for example. Blizzard did a great job at making it a more confusing subject than it needs to be. Many loa are Wild Gods, but apparently only some can enter the Emerald Dream, some of which were bound there by Freya (Ancient Guardians), while others didn't meet her (Gonk again). Zalazane also trapped a bunch of loa inside the Emerald Dream, like Shirvallah and Hir'eek, aka, they can be in the Dream ez pz. Which begs the question, where do all the other, countless of Wild Gods reside? It's not on the living plane among all the races, that's for sure. And it doesn't seem to be the Shadowlands either, for all loa that is. A lot of them, sure, Bwonsamdi, Samedi, Hakkar and Quetz'lun apparently, etc. Where's the middle ground? Chronicle and its purpose to clear up lore gets worse by the day. Apparently trees can get into the Emerald Dream, Wild Gods are nature spirits created by Azeroth, so why aren't they "automatically" able to enter it. >_> – WarGodZajru (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Zalazane trapping the two loa is mentioned in...? NVM, found it. --Mordecay (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Haven't read the entire conversation but Wild Gods don't necessarily all reside within the Dream (24/7), for example Cenarius dwelled in a forest near Suramar. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Jungle troll height

Hey there, I'm not sure you were the one to write this but do you know the source for jungle trolls being 6'6.5 ? - MyMindWontQuiet 00:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

'elo, and yes, of course it was me, I mean... who else at this point, haha.
But yeah, that's the height of their model when hunched (aka their idle stand animation) as opposed to their T-Pose height, 8'4.5". That's not lore height, that's mainly based on in-game models combined with height comparisons from novels like Shadows of the Horde. I spoke to Dave Kosak about it a few months ago and he feels the heights there are accurate, though not really confirmed if they're the true heights. – WarGodZajru (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Got a link to the Kosak tweet ?
Also Brann's Journal states they're around 8' - MyMindWontQuiet 03:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't a tweet, was an email conversation we had, which is not to be used as source.
Again, that section is based mainly on models which in some cases appear to be more a accurate representation of a race's height (in many cases they aren't, such as non-playable races; vrykul, man'ari, etc), the jungle troll model in-game is 8'4.5" when upright, and as height varies, Brann might've seen some shorter jungle trolls or gotten his estimation off, estimating height right off the bat is not an easy feat to do because of postures and so I wouldn't shrug that off just because it's a video game. There's a reason the section is listed as speculation, it may have the support of Dave's personal thoughts, doesn't make it canon or anything.
Though I'm unsure what it is you're out after with this? Do you want it changed to 8' or have it mentioned? Because the latter is fine. I wouldn't replace the 8'4.5" though. (Also uh, you listed them as 8 inches tall, so I fixed that for you, apostrophe for feet, quotation mark for inches c;) – WarGodZajru (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hm no, just that we would want to use that element since it's canon. Another question, where does the "average in general for female sand trolls" come from exactly ? The troll section is enormously lacking in sources, there's only one, the Traveler one. I'd like to fix that. - MyMindWontQuiet 16:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
No need to treat it as if it's all supposed to reflect upon canon lore though. There's no point in applying a "needs sources" tag, as it's listed as speculation for that reason alone, there aren't a lot of sources for it.
The speculation tag states "observations"–these heights are based on observations in lore mentioning height differences combined with in-game model sizes. The reason it's lacking in sources is because in most cases, Blizzard don't care about giving out racial averages in terms of numbers; height, weight, etc as it doesn't impact on their gameplay, just look at the "In the lore" section; not even half of those values are from Blizzard, they're from BradyGames who love to change heights constantly. Tauren according to BradyGames went from 6' to 8' to finally 10' when Blizzard said something about them. The supposed sand troll average is 6'7" because of "observations" that sand trolls are the smallest troll subspecies. Whether Zathra is an averagely-sized sand troll or not is not stated, thus she could very well be a midget sand troll, lmao.
I made the troll section because of the fact that there are so many different troll subspecies all of which have different appearances including height. But since as you said yourself, it lacks sources, I flagged it as speculation and it will remain that way until we get more sources; which I doubt will happen. Thus no need for the "needs sources" tag. We're most likely never going to get them, which is sad af. :'( – WarGodZajru (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand, the 'source needed' tag had nothing to do with the Speculation one, it had to do with the fact that it's stated that we are using information from many lore sources, and then none of those lore sources are listed, except Traveler & Vol'jin novel & Troll Compendium, and even then there is no page number. So ideally I'd want these lore sources and / or page numbers. (Are there even other sources than the 3 mentioned here ?)
Question : the Frostmane/Winterax heights are purely made up, no ? Based on the fact that they're supposed to be shorter than Drakkari, I imagine. -- MyMindWontQuiet 18:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Reason I never applied page numbers to SoH is because they were so spread out, but I'll go find them again. I believe I listed them somewhere. But no, there aren't any more sources that I know of, there might be but as I mentioned previously; Blizzard don't really bother with numbers outside of gameplay.
And yeah, it's made up. At first I put them around forest troll height as I used to associate them to forest trolls due to their location before Chronicle came out (felt more like forest trolls who had migrated into southern snowy areas at the time) but I decided to put them between forest and Zandalari instead. Felt better. – WarGodZajru (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


Hey, please don't do this kind of changes. All pages on the wiki are already following the previous style. Xporc (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Just thought it looked way better than the old one and got the point across more fluently. :p – WarGodZajru (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! :D Xporc (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

creature types

Please remember that the creature type parameter refers to the ingame type primarily. In cases like with the loas, try to convey specific circumstances in the general description instead. This is also why humans, as an example, appearing only in books or comics are not ascribed the humanoid creature type, although clearly humanoid. PeterWind (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Gotcha. – WarGodZajru (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


Hey there! So me and other members have been debating about the Zandalari pages and we've come to a conclusion. We'll keep the two pages. I'd be cool if you joined our Slack channel, so you could see the reason of it and for future debates. It is a cool place don't worry, and it'd be good since like this we can work better together. Give it a try ;)
PD: The debate is still ongoing :) --Ryon21 (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Yeah that's certainly good to know, haha. Thanks! c: – WarGodZajru (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


Loa of Kings (his in-game title under name) and King of Kings (quest) are capitalized. When and if god of the hunt is changed, it can be changed here then. --Mordecay (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of dark trolls

Thank you for raising that point. I absolutely agree with you that Chronicles Vol I overwrites The Twin Empires to say that the dark trolls already existed before the Aqir War, and not only came around after the war. I was wrong not to realise that and I apologise for it. However, as regards the dark trolls' origins, Chronicles Vol I does not contest at all or comment on their origin, so I would feel that The Twin Empires should still hold some weight on that detail (which is to say, that they came the Amani). After all, maybe those "ancient texts" as mentioned in The Twin Empires just dated the event wrongly. ;) Madrenergic (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Forlorn Ruins

This ruins display as a subzone in Nazmir, or it is just the flight path name? --Ryon21 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is both a subzone (albeit a small one) and a flight path. –WarGodZajru (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)