User talk:Mordecay

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Previous discussions archived:


Concerning Mission Table

I think the general idea has so far been to say that the NPC is just "alive" or otherwise remained at current status unless there's a mission that counteracts it (IE, the alliance version of the fenris keep mission takes place before the Horde version.) So Belysra Starbreeze should still be listed as alive i think. That's just the way i've been seeing it go for the others, otherwise we have to list a bunch of lore characters, like Darius Crowley, Ivar Bloodfang, Logan Talonstrike etc as 'unknown' also. Plus these missions are repeatable etc, it just seems messy to try and make it ambiguous unless an NPC gets outright stated as dead. --Berenal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The status should be a factor of definitive statements imo. Missions do not have clear, canonical outcomes, so they can't decide of a character's fate. Especially the BfA ones since the same event can end differently depending on if you're Alliance or Horde.. -- MyMindWontQuiet 21:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that canonicity of missions is dubious, so "Alive" and "Deceased" don't really fit to it, hence the Unknown. But, given that we didn't include the status in regular mission mob pages, "Alive" should be ok in important characters and NPCs. --Mordecay (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes and trivia

==Notes & trivia== or ==Notes and trivia==? — Surafbrov T / P / C 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"and" instead of & in headings. Been adding & for a long time, but noticed the bit in the MoS few days ago. --Mordecay (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe for all the current ones with & can be bot requested. — Surafbrov T / P / C 19:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I remember having an argument over this with you some time ago, and was surprised to see you started using "and" a few days ago despite your prior opposition to it, to the point we brought it up on Slack ! Regarding the bot, we could also probably have it replace all "&" in ==Sections== (or subsections..) with "and". Unless there are cases where we don't want this to happen ? Though I can't think of any. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't remember opposing using and instead of &, but it could have happened as I have noticed it being in the manual only recently. Could you refresh my memory and point me to it? --Mordecay (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I just remember you reverting my edits when I edited pages and in the process changed Notes & trivia to Notes and trivia, and perhaps an edit war, because "this is how it is on other pages". But it doesn't matter much now. :P -- MyMindWontQuiet 22:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure :-* --Mordecay (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
monkaS — Surafbrov T / P / C 22:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Kirin Tor banner 1 & 4

Hey! What's the difference between this file and this one? Isn't it only the lighting that's different? PeterWind (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the same banner in the day vs. at night. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I remember taking pictures of these banners at the same time, during the day. I may have thought the coloration is slightly different but now that u mentioned it, it may be caused by the shade. I guess 4. can go. --Mordecay (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


"Loa of graves" is as much a title as "Loa of Death". Rezan literally referred to him as such. If that is not a title I don't know what it grammatically is. -- MyMindWontQuiet 00:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This is wrong, we have always used capitalization as it is used in the game. The loa of death and loa of graves are not capitalized in those sources. --Mordecay (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

He literally says "You speak to the loa of kings, god of the hunt." He is using titles. He is not calling you "god of the hunt". Again, a title is not defined by the use of capitalization. -- MyMindWontQuiet 00:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Though it's another one of the cases that backs up the idea of merging |occupation and |title into one parameter (I mean.. they technically mean the same thing 99% of the time, these two words). Possibly called |names or |designations to encompass everything. -- MyMindWontQuiet 01:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, but still, the title parameter has on every page using it the capitalized version, not the lower-case forms or the descriptive forms. If it would be merged then how would a reader know which form was used as a capitalized term and non-capitalized when the first letter after a comma is still capitalized by the wiki standard? I think we should show what titles Blizzard capitalizes and which not. --Mordecay (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no rule requiring a title to use capital letters. And why should it ? It's more to the user's best judgement, like if Bob says "I'm the best shoemaker around here" obviously "best shoemaker around here" is not a title, but when Rezan himself says "You speak to the loa of kings, god of the hunt", these are obviously titles, especially since he is explicitly called "Loa of Kings" in another quest. As long as we transcribe things correctly, right as they are (looks like some editors had used capital letters where none were used, and vice versa..), both editors and readers should be fine. Titles are in the end just a pompous (or official) way to refer to someone('s position), be it "Lady" or "god of wine" or whatever.
As for the first line thing, I have no issue with listing them as is done on many pages, i.e without the wiki capitallizing every new line (Like, for example in an infobox : "The Mighty,<br>god of thunder,<br>Destroyer")-- MyMindWontQuiet 01:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why should it not? It's nice to see what Blizzard capitalized and what not. Are there any wikis mixing those capitalized and not capitalized forms, or not capitalizing the first letter in new line? It would be best get more opinions also, so could this be moved somewhere else? --Mordecay (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
A title is a title. Well, there are "titles" and "Titles".. sometimes. It just seems a bit arbitrary to refuse titles just because they don't have capital letters. Rezan calling himself "loa of kings" and "god of the hunt" are very visibly titles (which the quest designer was apparently too lazy to keep consistent), so we need to show that information.
I'm perfectly fine with displaying "what Blizzard capitalized and what not", as I suggested above. Regarding the new line thing, I believe it's more when you list one item per line separately (without a comma-link), for example A<br>B<br>C. But with commas, A,<br>b,<br>C is possible. If it still bothers you we could also just do what is best for Wowpedia instead of trying to copy a minor punctuation thing which another Wiki decided to adopt and that none of our user would notice. :P If it fits them, great, but if it doesn't fit Wowpedia (because we "want to show what Blizzard capitalized and what not"), well we are not "bound" to do the same, and removing information just because it might not match the way another Wiki decided to style their items would be odd. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why you say an information was removed when it was not. It was literally moved to the main part of the loa articles, as has always been done without problems and with respect of the usage of the title parameter. If the wording of he was referred to as... bothers you, then it can still be reworded into let's say 'he is... ' the non-capitalized stuff from the source.
However, I've been thinking about the occupation parameter you initially mentioned. Why not use that for those non-capitalized terms? After all 'of graves' kind of specifices or points to the loa's area of occupation. This way, the title parameter would remain consistent, and its original usage would be preserved. The post comma case could technically be then changed on Wowpedia to contain lower case instead of upper case. This should probably be ok as well. Mordecay (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed from the infobox*, that is.
Because they're basically the same thing. So Occupation and Title will be merged into Designation, most likely, as was discussed before, since the two basically mean the same thing. Seems like the most fitting term ("an official description, position, title or name", "a designation is a description, name, occupation or title that is given to someone or something").
So there'll be no more redundancy (when someone wants to put the same thing in both title and occupation), and no more debates over what actually is a title and what is an occupation (again, since they're the vast majority of the time, the same thing, hell Wowpedia is [one of] the only wiki that separates the two because of an archaic edit from some guy from 12 years ago. For example "Warchief" is a title and an occupation, but we had to use "Warchief" as a title and "Ruler" or "Leader" as an occupation because of our own arbitrary restrictions). -- MyMindWontQuiet 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm hearing the Designation thing for the first time. If it is already decided, then it's done, I guess. Just a qq, if they will be merged how it will differentiate between the "only capitalized title" and the non-capitalized? The Bwonsamdi example? --Mordecay (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Blessed Banner

To clarify, it's a spell the Lightforged Dragoons and the paladins cast under turalyon, summons the Blessed Banner. I think Wowhead's having a hard time recognizing it because the Warfronts haven't been completed, but it's in the developer commentary, which is where the screenshot has been taken from, and was present throughout the entirety of the beta. --Berenal (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If it is present on live now, then it's ok. Thx. --Mordecay (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


So apparently either the user on Discord was impersonating RSG, or the picture was fake. The pic has been showing up on Reddit and MMO-C as well so not sure where it started. -- MyMindWontQuiet 10:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

To continue Forum:Red Shirt Guy, MyMindWontQuiet, yeah I wanted it discuss and help RSG so I chose the pump, but yeah, I should have gone here, silly me. As I've asked, where was the screenshot posted on reddit and mmo-champion? --Mordecay (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

World of Warcraft: Book One foreword

Heya, quick question since you seem knowledgeable about these things: Do you happen to know if the Chris Metzen foreword at the start of World of Warcraft: Book One was originally included in The Comic Volume 1 or if it's unique to the Book One republishing? I would imagine it's the former due to Metzen's retirement, but I'd like to make sure which one is the case before I add some trivia from the foreword to the wiki. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 08:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't confirm from my memory because it was a long time since I held the paperback version of The Comic Volume 1 in my hands and I no longer have it. Found some titled as being from 2008 and 2012 on Amazon here and this one. These have a Metzen foreword titled Chasing Thunder.
However, while it shows the old cover (not that of the recent reprint) but the preview has a "Book One" subtitle on its second page. I'm not sure if the "Book One" on the second page was always there in the old version. Unless this was always in, Amazon may have updated the preview, I guess. Could someone confirm this?
EDIT: I just also asked a colleague who was directly working with the books when she and her team were translating them into the Czech language several years ago. She says that in the English digital form of the book, there's no foreword. --Mordecay (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hm. In any case, that's the foreword I was looking for. I figured they were part of the original print as well, but it's nice to have semi-confirmation. Many thanks for the assistance.
Not sure about the Book One subtitle on the second page. I don't think it would've been out of place in the original print, but I only have the Book One reprint so I can't confirm if it was part of the original or not. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to the Atal'ai tribe article

Atal'ai Exile is friendly to players of all factions and gives quests such as this one. Putting the combat icon next to him in the Atal'ai tribe article isn't correct as he isn't a hostile NPC. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough about the icon. It was about his status. As he has been removed, we don't know if he is still alive. --Mordecay (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Hey. You wrote here that Zaela was missing her glowing eyes in only 1 instance (Blackrock).

Meanwhile Berenal wrote here that Zaela was missing her glowing eyes in "most" of her appearances.

Any idea which is true? Do you also know of other WoD Dragonmaws that are missing their glowing eyes, or is she the only exception ? -- MyMindWontQuiet 20:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Opened all Zaelas in wowhead model viewer, cata & mop appearances show the golden eyes. the wod ones, the blasted lands and the spire instance has the non-golden eyes. Dont know about the other Dragonmaws. However, Im not sure where this one fits. All WoD IDs are the non-golden eyed in the model viewer. --Mordecay (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Best to check in-game. I already checked her Upper Blackrock Spire two appearances, no glowing eyes. This file is out-of-date. — Surafbrov T / P / C 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you check this one? (should be standing next to Zaela). I presume that this is ood as well and theres a helm on his head.
Oh, heres confirmation: 602 PTR started on September 9 and the files were uploaded on the same day. --Mordecay (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Went ahead and took a look myself, she's got the non-golden eyes in the instance. --Berenal (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dire troll kiddos

So, second time you've slapped a fact tag onto Bucktooth Busta and Happy Jolta's statuses as children. I'm curious as to why. Here are my points just so you know why I tag them as children:

  1. All the Zandalari kids (Casteless Zandalari, Zandalari Child(ren) as well as all the named ones) are all level 5. Busta and Jolta are both also level 5.
    1. Additionally, all the kids have 59 hp. Busta and Jolta have 590 (10 times as much) because they're dire trolls, they're bigger and tougher, makes sense.
  2. They hang out with kids (allowing them to catch piggyback rides as well), Busta seems to be part of a "bully gang" that hangs out at the arena and watch fights. Jolta is standing in line with castless Zandalari to be tested.
  3. They're smaller than all the other dire trolls encountered in Battle for Azeroth.

Everything is literally pointing towards them being children so, how come you don't agree? –WarGodZajru (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time. @User:ReignTG, thoughts? --Mordecay (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, apologies, just double checked and well, my eyes played a trick on me and accused you of doing it twice. Sorry 'bout that. –WarGodZajru (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries. More context --Mordecay (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So, since it's been over a week now, can I go ahead and remove the fact tags, or? –WarGodZajru (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe? Maybe with the points you said here as well in Notes section? --Mordecay (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, can mention how level/health etc is related to the other kids in the expansion. Didn't really feel it was necessary because putting level 5 and 590 hp in the infobox was enough for me but I get some people may glance over that, so yeah, probably for the best. –WarGodZajru (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Shandris Feathermoon

It is expressly stated in the Novel Wolfheart, by Maiev Shadowsong, that Shandris is the greatest archer on Azeroth, rivaled only by Lady Vashj and the Sister's Windrunner. Please leave this revision alone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alishurr (talk · contr).

Could you please provide the page where that is stated? --Ryon21 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the Wolfheart novel (2011) gives zero results for "Vashj" and "Windrunner" and one result for "Sylvanas" which, however, deals with her killing Liam, there's another one: the sentence you are putting was originally added at the start of 2007 as seen here (and its previous version). As such, I believe it could have been mentioned in the RPG books. If not, then a fan fiction that remained here for a decade without a source till I removed it entirely in 2013. --Mordecay (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

War templates

A discussion is taking place at Template talk:Battle#Merge about the current three templates used for War/Battle/Conflict articles. I'm attempting to get opinions from editors like yourself about this issue, please make your opinion known. — Surafbrov T / P / C 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't work much with these templates, except maybe some occasional additions. Removing the armies parameter (which lists the units, right?) can be transformed into a section in pages, and some pages already have it like that. For simplicity, if two similar things become one, then, it's ok by me. --Mordecay (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you wouldn't mind giving your thoughts on the new template? Grin.pngSurafbrov T / P / C 12:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding pics without caption/comments

Hey man please stop doing that, it's annoying pretty much everyone. When you add a pic at least add a few words for context. Xporc (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. --Mordecay (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Xporc (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Seerspine and the Murloc Shoals

Hey, I made some changes to the Seerspine murloc page and their associated quests. From what I can gather, the Murloc Shoals may have been an early name for the Sundered Shoals. Now I am not 100% sure, but this is what made sense to me. N [100 - 110] Leying with Murlocs pointed to Stormheim, but as far as I could tell, all other pieces of "evidence" pointed to Suramar. What do you think? PeterWind (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No clue / evidence on the relation between the Murloc Shoals and Sundered Shoals from me (but due to the names, it's a possibility). What I can gather from unused triggers is that Saylanna Riverbreeze would be the quest giver for those quests I just added to her page. I presume that the "Stormheim" category in Leying with Murlocs is a mistake as its triggers & spells are for the Suramar's Murloc Shoals and the other quests are in that subzone as well, based on the unused trigger stuff. --Mordecay (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Alrighty! Thanks for taking a look. PeterWind (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

WC3 Human Campaign results

Hello. Was there a reason why you changed the result of most of the missions from "Alliance victory" to "Human victory", when the other campaigns use Scourge/Horde/Sentinels? I think Human only applies to Defense of Strahnbrad. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The campaigns in RoC are named Human, Undead, Orc, and Night elf campaigns. In the missions I changed it, the link was incorrect pointing to the modern Alliance instead of the Alliance of Lordaeron so based on the campaign names I changed them to the human link. It is only in The Frozen Throne that the campaign names are that of organizations instead of races.
Do you think the infoboxes here should point to the respective organizations rather than races? --Mordecay (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The factions are technically Human Alliance, Undead Scourge, Orcish Horde, and Night Elf Sentinels. I think the race over organization is a little confusing, since for example the Alliance and Horde are more than just humans and orcs. I don't think the campaign names are something to automatically go by, since Sentinels is at least half about the Watchers, blood elves eventually leave the Alliance, and Scourge has some Forsaken missions. Also, some missions like By Demons Be Driven and A New Power in Lordaeron are Orcs vs Orcs and Undead vs Undead, so it would be confusing to call it a race victory. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Changed them to faction. Feel free to further update them if you see something inaccurate. --Mordecay (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 [Whomper] & where Videos are placed in articles

Mordecay, consistency is important, I agree. The problem is that I feel that you are using your style of consistency rather than any policy set by Wowpedia (though to be fair, Wowpedia does not appear to have any for videos). I have checked the histories of a couple different pets where Blizzard published videos for them and noted that it is you who is moving Videos to beneath Notes/Trivia. I am feeling very frustrated because I checked the article for the last charity pet,  [Mischief]; Videos is above Notes. I checked articles like Archimonde (HFC appearance), where Videos also appears above Notes/Trivia. I even asked in the Wowpedia channel of Gamepedia Slack about it, only to receive an unclear answer from just one user. I am tired of tilting at the windmill of super-editors. Whatever, I am done with editing Wowpedia anyway until its fate vis-à-vis Fandom is announced. Aliok (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For the order of the sections see Wowpedia:MOS which is definitely not written by me, although I enforce that. --Mordecay (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is a guideline, not a policy. — Surafbrov T / P / C 12:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yet, it is still heavily used on lore pages, Ryon has been using that order on zone pages as well, so it is better to stick to it, for consistency, and fix the other few pages that have it out of that order. I feel like if we would ignore it and put sections out of that order, it would make pages unnecessarily messy and inconsistent. Plus, awhile ago, I was reverted by an admin because I put a See also section one section below its place and the reason was cited MoS. I will continue to reinforce that, nevertheless. --Mordecay (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, it is a guideline, not a policy. Everyone doesn't need to follow it. — Surafbrov T / P / C 13:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You guys are having a drama over the most trivial thing, take a deep breath and enjoy the new year, sheesh Xporc (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is just a conversation :) — Surafbrov T / P / C 17:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The majority of placements I've made was because that's how they were on other pages :O --Ryon21 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wet Work quest targets

Do the different targets only appear one place, or do they cycle? All the quests seem to list all those NPCs as targets, as seen here. PeterWind (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just watched three different videos on Wet Work: Arom's Stand and in all three only Field Marshal Yosk was the target, and only in Arom's Stand in Drustvar, which corresponds with her location on Wowhead. I presume that this quest listing other regions besides Arom's Stand is a bug. A Wowhead comment say that Yosk spawns in other locations, but those locations are all in Arom's Stand, based on the coords they wrote, not in Tiragarde or Vol'dun. Based on this, I don't think they cycle, but I might be wrong. Further confirmation would be appreciated! --Mordecay (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Well that's good enough for me! I'll keep it in mind when doing assault quests. PeterWind (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
On topic, are all faction assaults npcs seen by both factions? Would Field Marshal Yosk, the generic Purified, etc, be seen by Alliance, and Mortar Master Zapfritz by Horde? --Mordecay (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. — Surafbrov T / P / C 23:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
So if there's tendency to put those (seen by both factions) into the NPCs category then majority of Category:Faction Assaults mobs should be in the NPC equivalent? @xporc? --Mordecay (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If they are seen by both factions and friendly to one of them, yes Xporc (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Repair template

Would appreciate your opinion on the matter: Template talk:Repair. — Surafbrov T / P / C 17:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

|doc in removed pages

Yo, this is not necessary anymore Xporc (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Will try to remember that! --Mordecay (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Elder Crag Boar

heya, are you sure the elder crag boars had Rushing Charge? i didn't see it on the Wayback Machine and it didn't seem to be in any of the pre-cata revisions on our page. sadly i can't find any videos that aren't from private servers so i can't confirm one way or the other tho --Eithris (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Removed it. We shall see in classic. --Mordecay (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
:thumbsup: --Eithris (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

All The King's Men

Usually, sites like these, might not be the best source, but for the weapon stats, the ones listed here seem more likely. Think that'd be fine, now that neither WoWDB or the armory has the proper numbers. PeterWind (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should use Cataclysm's numbers, but I'm not well versed on item parameters... --Mordecay (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah no worries, I'll update them! It was just a matter of using an "unreputable" site like the one I linked. PeterWind (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

WC3 Arthas and Sylvanas

I was thinking it might be best to give Arthas and Sylvanas two different pages, since the paladin/death knight and ranger/dark ranger have different stats. The names could be "Arthas (Warcraft III Paladin)" and "Arthas (Warcraft III Death Knight)" or "Arthas (Warcraft III Human)" and "Arthas (Warcraft III Undead)" or something along those lines. Sylvanas's unit as a living Ranger is "Sylvanas Windrunner", while as a Dark Ranger she's just "Sylvanas" so that could also be one or the only difference in article names. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

If they have different stats that could warrant another page. Having both sets of the statistics in one infobox wouldn't look nice, I guess, so I'm leaning to a yes, if we want to be precise. However, would that mean that Kel'Thuzad should get a necromancer page and a lich page? What does @xporc think? --Mordecay (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, actually it should, because he has a unique necromancer model and Sylvanas already has a page for her banshee unit. Did you like any of my ideas for renaming the Arthas and Sylvanas pages or do you have any suggestions of your own? --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd pick the class one for Sylvanas and Arthas. And maybe the banshee-Sylvanas should be named "Sylvanas Windrunner (Warcraft III banshee)"? --Mordecay (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe there's no need to have several different pages. We could use the {{Cv}} template, like on  [Smite's Reaver], to have multiple infoboxes on the same page :) Xporc (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Origin of dark trolls

Hi Mordecay, it seems like we are at an impasse. You are right that Chronicle does compares the dark trolls to the forest and jungle trolls, but it does not logically follow that doing so specifically denies that dark trolls are an offshoot of the Amani. Being a separate race has very little influence on who their ancestors were. Night elves and blood elves are separate races as well and both still exist as of this current timeline, but that does not contradict the fact that the former is the ancestor to the latter, as I'm sure you would understand. On the other hand, we have another source that does explicitly state that the dark trolls come from the Amani/forest trolls. Madrenergic (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that Chronicle is presented as definite canon and clashes a bit with the in-game book, I think having the forest troll matter detailed in the notes section should be enough. --Mordecay (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Section order

heya, do you happen to have your preferred section orders for the various article types written down anywhere? i'm not always fond of how the boilerplates order the sections (argh, why the heck does the mob boilerplate put Quotes in between Strategies and Rewards? it seems totally out of place there!), and i know you're pretty big on this kind of thing so i figure you're a good person to ask P: --Eithris (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I don't follow the boilerplates, but I try to order the middle sections alphabetically. For mobs: Abilities, Drops, Objective of, Quotes. --Mordecay (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
ahh, i guess i was overthinking & didn't even notice you were doing it alphabetically! q: okey doke, i'll keep that in mind --Eithris (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


It seems to me that, the Hexer page uses "hexers" more often than "hexxers". PeterWind (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not counting the RPG, there are 9 "hexe" and 10 "hexxe" listed. Wowhead shows 8 "hexers" and 30 "hexxers". --Mordecay (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah well I was only going by our page. Just thought it seemed off, linking to "Hexer" as occupation, but "Hexxers" as category. PeterWind (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the page should be moved to hexxer. --Mordecay (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Auberdine / Ruins of Auberdine

Hi, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to outright join these two pages. We could keep all the info from the current Auberdine page (description, history, ex-NPCs, ex-travel) and add all new info regarding the current events at the ruins. I think it would make sense. What do you think? Thanks! Aardum (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude. Although this is not what we usually do, I wouldn't be completely against it, though maybe we should vote it in some way. Not all Cata pages can be merged, like for example Hillsbrad Fields and Sludge Fields, but others like Southshore or Auberdine might be okay. This could make things a little less confusing and in a way is like NPC pages that are found in different places in different expansions.--Ryon21 (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure what the exact words and reason for keeping them separated were back in Cata days, but I'd think being "separate / removed subzones" was a factor. "Different states and control" would be another, similar to how Capital City and Ruins of Lordaeron are handled. Best to ask admins if they think it's necessary to merge the Auberdine and Southshore pages with their ruined states, and maybe eventually even vote, yeah. --Mordecay (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good - how do you get the admins involved? I have no experience with them or voting. Aardum (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Either on Slack or asking here. --Mordecay (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Hey, could you stop using the "revert" function, if you're not actually gonna revert an edit? :-P PeterWind (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Shaman Stone

Hey, while adding pages for the quests involving the  [Shaman Stone], it seems to me that the quests were in fact added in 6.0.3. although the item was added in 6.0.1. I figure I'll mark the quests as removed from ptr for now, but do you have any opinion on this particular case? PeterWind (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't 603 be still beta testing, instead of ptr? --Mordecay (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the Public client builds, yes. — Surafbrov T / P / C 16:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
+ Wowhead --Mordecay (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on this, will you change the templates and parenthesis, @PeterWind? --Mordecay (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Huh... So 6.0.3 added stuff to live, to match what was going on at the beta. So even though the patch was on live, the quests added in 6.0.3 were actually just quests that were already removed again, but added after the prepatch. Got it! PeterWind (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WoD beta stuff

Hey, while digging around for info on some of these removed items, I found this list. Now it can be a bit dificult to verify 100%, since these quests have been removed from most databases it seems. But it may be worth looking into. A lot of the items that neither Wowhead not WoWDB have, can still be found on the armory, and sometimes some of the quest info can be found on the armory as well. Just a shame the armory doesn't display the whole quests, apart from those snippets that appear when hovering their links. PeterWind (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Neat, will have a look at it. --Mordecay (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't edit other users' comments on talk pages

Don't edit other users' comments on talk pages. I don't care if there are grammar mistakes/typos/etc - other editors' language is not yours to edit. --k_d3 22:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

ok xD --Mordecay (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


The WoWDB link shows them all, and the wowhead one will still display the one you linked at the top. PeterWind (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comp Stomp NPCs

If you are interested in adding the abilities, it seems that WoWDB has them all, seemingly, whereas they are not on Wowhead yet. If that site is compatible with your methods of course. PeterWind (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but later. Or you could try it :P --Mordecay (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah no rush! I plan on making a list of the Horde NPCs tomorrow, but after those pages are created I might give it a go then. PeterWind (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Vol'dun subzones

Just so you're aware, I'm planning on getting around to the Vol'dun subzones sometime soon (hopefully this week). I've been absent from the wiki this past week due to a surgery, so I haven't been able to work on anything. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The free weekend is almost over, so I won´t be adding much at this point anyways :D --Mordecay (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Affiliation with Kul Tiras

While I kinda get the assumption, is there really anything pinning them as being affiliated with the nation, other than them being located in the nation? It's a reasonable assumption, for most NPCs, but is the idea to also have other NPCs not part of a faction, to be listed as affiliates of local governments/nations/factions? Again I'm not really opposed to that, I'm just curious. PeterWind (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Voice. --Mordecay (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You mean the voicelines? So just all humans with any voice lines having "Kul tiran" in the name? Scrimshaw Thugs too? PeterWind (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yea, voicelines. The thugs say "Shoulda kept your nose clean, outsider." meaning they are from Kul Tiras, but they likely don't need the Kul Tiras kingdom affiliation because they are Scrimshaw criminals (but maybe faffiliation, if we wanna be pedant), as they are technically hostile to the kingdom. Friendly NPCs with the kul tiran voicelines should work. --Mordecay (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Right right, not gonna add a former affiliation to the bandits, just wanted to know the reasoning :) PeterWind (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Hey, could you please try to put the appropriate vendor categories instead of dropping NPCs into the generic one? Xporc (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can try, but I don´t promise it will be the correct ones. --Mordecay (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, they are not that hard :p Xporc (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Race quests

Hey, I found a list here stating that Malle Earnhard handled a bunch of those quests during testing. I don't know if this is 100% accurate though. The site has been fairly reliable I think though, on these topics. PeterWind (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yea, yea, it´s from there, I just forgot to include her name, it looks like xD --Mordecay (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough! :) PeterWind (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalized class names

Yeah, but why though? Shouldn't we adhere to the MOS? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like to me that infobox items are meant to be a "list", whose items are capitalized by default, but normally in text they would be written with lower case as per mos. Do you think the regular item spelling in boxes should be changed? --Mordecay (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, IMO it would look better and be more intuitive if infobox listings adhered to the same item spellings as regular text. Granted, I don't know what other people think, and it's not like readers are going to care either way. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 14:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I imagine it wouldn't just be the class parameter, but would probably be needed to apply for the race parameter (listing several races with commas) as well as the occupation one (for generic terms like leader, member, etc.). I thiiink something similar was discussed before (in regards with the title and occupation parameters and the end result would also be a change in capitalization... maybe... I can't find the discussion on my talk page atm), personally, I wasn't very keen on changing upper to lower case primarily because upper cases in generic terms in infoboxes are a thing on other wikis. It isn't like a mistake, especially if you think of the infobox items like a list. The same feeling is also now - I'm not convinced it's worth doing because it's just too much - there are many types of infoboxes, parameters, with various listings, and the number of pages is also pretty high, and going through that just to change upper case to lower seems like a waste of time, IMO, especially when there's so much else to do here, and it exist on other wikis. That's from me :D --Mordecay (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
But wasting everyone's time by changing stuff like {{npcbox}} to {{Npcbox}}, or "Notes & trivia" to "Notes and trivia", or removing spaces after a *, or reordering parameters is what you've been doing for months now... Heck, only in the last few days you edited hundreds of pages just for such trivial changes :/ Xporc (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly yeah, infobox listings should (in general) just be written how they are written, and (in general) get a capital letter if the original text gives it a capital letter: something being in the infobox does not necessarily mean it must be capitalized, that's a really random reasoning.
The occupation thing was with me, agreeing on capitalizing these titles and occupations was only a compromise from my part because you would not budge and insisted that all the words of a title should be capitallized or it wouldn't count as a title, so we settled on just the first one. :P -- — MyMindWontQuiet 08:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Come on now, request a friggin bot instead of clogging up the recent changes and wasting hours for everyone with pointless changes like a capitalized I Xporc (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's already done -_- --Mordecay (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
And yeeet that's exactly what you did with the invasion of outland Xporc (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

SS tags

Don't put them on stuff I'm obviously still working on. PeterWind (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You were inactive for 15 minutes. Instances of you don't uploading pics nor adding the tags happened. I'll continue adding them as I see fit. --Mordecay (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixing my mistakes is all dandy. You're wasting both our time with those tags however. PeterWind (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
K. --Mordecay (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Hey! Do you have antialiasing set to the max? Helps smooth out the jagged edges seen here File:High Society Entertainer.jpg. It's not a big problem, so there's no need to go and do reshots or anything. Just looks a bit nicer for future shots :) PeterWind (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I though I had it on, but it's not :-OOOO --Mordecay (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Think Blizz sometimes messes with settings after patches or some such maybe... PeterWind (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MoP Beta stuff

Hey, found this webiste here. It's in german, but it's got a good deal of screenshots of quests in at least the Jade Forest, from a quick look around. Maybe more. Might be useful in any case! PeterWind (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Neat! The pics are in English, definitely will have a look at it. Thx! --Mordecay (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


Hey! Just a note, you forgot the split the "~" in the vote here. PeterWind (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits

Could you please mark edits like updating a link on tens of pages as minor edits so it doesn't clog up my inbox? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not likely. --Mordecay (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
... Why not? Isn't that what the "This is a minor edit" checkbox is for? -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Could just have it checked by default and uncheck it if you think it is a "big" edit. — Surafbrov T / P / C 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't really want to spend any second on thinking if an edit is big or small and then clicking extra box. --Mordecay (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
In my head at least, knowing if an edit is minor or not doesn't exactly seem like something that'd require a lot of contemplation in most cases. If it isn't actually adding any content to a page and is just changing a link or fixing spelling, then it's obviously minor. I can't really imagine an editing scenario in which one would be in such a breakneck hurry where one can't take a split second to click a box, and IMO it's just a matter of being considerate to other editors. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 22:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Just throwing in my 2 cents. — Surafbrov T / P / C 22:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Mordy, I'm really sorry to say it, but you've become very disruptive and hard to work with in the last year :/ Xporc (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A question about spaces after the asterisks

Could I ask why you reverted my edit? I think, there should be spaces after the asterisks. I won't go on a crusade to add them, but I saw that you had removed them a few months before, so I chose to re-add them. And you re-removed them.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it seemed weird that nothing was edited and only space was added. AFAIK, spaces after asterisks don't do anything on the reading version of pages, so I tend to use the replace function to get rid of it; it just became a habit and a preference in editing over the years. I guess you adding them would be yours or is there another reason when you say "there should be spaces"? --Mordecay (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization in the WC3 campaign mission articles

Why did you remove the capitalization of a section name (Unit Quotes > Unit quotes) in Misconceptions?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOS - "Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading and leave all of the other letters in lower-case. Use "Founding and history", not "Founding and History"." --Mordecay (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Then should all the other section titles in those articles be amended? Also, what do you think of the inconsistencies I listed on Talk:Warcraft III campaigns?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, probably yeah, at least if MoS is to be followed.
My guess would be that the initial plan was to copy the headers as they appear in the game, meaning "Main Quests" & "Optional Quests" are spelled that way in the game. But as you pointed out, the sections and their headers are inconsistent and having a consistent layout is preferred. I'm torn on how the layout should look from the two missions you linked since both have pluses and minuses.
Since we tend to do transcript of quotes for WoW quests in the Notes section instead of the Description and Completion section, Blackrock and Roll makes sense. However, if there are two main quests and two optional quests like in Rise of the Naga, it is just a plain transcript with no indication what part belongs to what quest, so a header pointing that would be needed, and thus Ravages of the Plague is a bit clearer. Maybe it could be the Blackrock and Roll version with a name of the quest in that respective part of the transcript.
Then I would drop the "cinematic" and "mission" since they are called quests and not missios. For the beginning and ending, while both variants sound ok, "intro" / "outro" feels somewhat better for me than "prologue" / "epilogue". --Mordecay (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
And then there's the Orc campaign (Landfall (WC3 Orc)) where they separate different parts of the mission with horizontal lines.
The main problems with that non-traditional approach are its expansiveness and subjectivity - it would require a lot of labour to spell out the happenings in each mission, and those "spellings" would be anything but reliable. I'd vote to remove all those that already are, they're so unprofessional, amateurish. Yet at the same, they're a cute relic from the old times.
I like the bigger quest icons from that non-traditional layout, however. But currently, that big icon eats a part of the text to the write (namely, the points * in the beginning).--Adûnâi (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The happenings, you mean these? "The orcs' ships lie scattered and wrecked along the coast of the Barrens. Thrall is seen standing on the nearby shore with some Grunts and Headhunters." I don't really mind those that are present; it is a thing we still do for wow quests as well.
"Bigger icons" is a yes from me as well, but I can't think of anything how to make it that they would not eat the asterisks. Moving the bullet-point objectives below would make a hole on the right from the icon.
Plus, the quotes and quest description contain italics that don't need to be there. --Mordecay (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Late reply, but I really don't see why the event descriptions like the one on Landfall should be considered "unprofessional, amateurish" and worthy of removal. They're used all the time on WoW quest pages and I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to do the same on WC3 mission articles, the reason being that (in many cases) they provide context that's necessary to understanding what is actually happening in the cutscene.
To use an example, see the middle cutscene of Misconceptions. If we remove the descriptive lines, the quotes wouldn't make sense and the characters would just appear to be saying random words for no reason. Maybe in some cases they're a bit overly flowery or superfluous, but removing them altogether because they're editor-written and therefore "unreliable" seems very unnecessary to me.
As for the quests and general layout: in my opinion, pages like Chasing Visions and Ravages of the Plague should ideally be the standard for all mission pages, but when adding the quest descriptions a while back I couldn't really be bothered to put in that amount of work. I mostly just wanted to put up the quest text without caring too much about formatting, since I found it silly that we didn't have most of the quest descriptions recorded anywhere on the wiki. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Water elementals

Why did you change my link to Water Elemental (Warcraft III)? As far as I can tell, the standard is to link to the lore article - such as Banshee. Those infoboxes decribe it in lore terms. Yes, there is an inconsistency - they tend to capitalize all the words such as Crypt Fiend, and I wonder whether such capitalization should be removed. But I agree with treating it as a lore ground.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A while back, I started changing the links into the corresponding Warcraft III pages. You can see it on that page and on the previous missions. Looking at my to-do list, I have it there, but now I longer remember the reason why it's there, but probably, there was a discussion about it somewhere. --Mordecay (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I would prefer it linking to the lore pages because the entire idea of such an infobox is inspired by lore.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we could link to the lore in the infoboxes, and then have a section in the page which has a list of the WC3 units found in the map? --Ryon21 (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
That sounds ok. Will do that to the first missions I already edited, and maybe continue it with other pages later. --Mordecay (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Conch of Wa'mundi

Would be it be better to put this to a vote? Seeing as we obviously have to different points of view on the way to handle these cases? PeterWind (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. I did that due to what Zeratul says: "Typical practice is to flag this when it's actually added to the game, not just when an unused ID technically exists in the DB. That's what the note is for." --Mordecay (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Fair enough then, although I can't say I fully agree. As a compromise, would you be alright with it under the patch changes if the wording was changed to "Added to game files" instead of simply "added". It's not to say it isn't worthy of a note. I just personally think it's unnecesarry to create a whole section for something that can be fitted in elsewhere, similar to how things in the infoboxes rarely need mentions, unless there's something to really elaborate on. PeterWind (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If that were to happen, I would want that too, hence [1]. What about Zeratul? --Mordecay (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, I'll link to this little exchange on the Discord and see if anyone else cares :) PeterWind (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree though, to keep it in notes where we actually know something about the original circumstance of the item/NPC, such as with the Bile Toad. But yeah let's see if anyone else has any input apart from what we know Zeratul said. PeterWind (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not both? Detail anything known, if known, and have also the patch note line? --Mordecay (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

SportsXTRM is not reliable

He is well known on MMO-Champion for claiming that General Twinbraid wiping out the entire Stonespire tribe is not a warcrime, but claims Gann Stonespire, a survivor of the aforementioned massacre, blowing up Bael'dun Keep, a fortress built around giant cannon solely populated by military personel like Bael'Dun Rifleman, Bael'Dun Soldier, and Bael'dun Pfficer, who were all complicit in attacks on the tauren, is somehow "dwarven genocide." Anyhow both the story of the Stonespire and quests given in Cata show Twinbraid very much attacks civilians. Gann Stonespire (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"Despite himself attacking civilians" means that he personally walked up to civilians and killed them but looking at the two quests you linked, no such thing is said. That needs such source. However, the Twinbraid page does say in the World of Warcraft section the following: "General Twinbraid had his forces of the Bael'dun group, destroy the Stonespire tribe of tauren due to their protests against dwarven digging." Wouldn't that more accurate instead of saying that Twinbraid personally killed some? --Mordecay (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Would you prefer "despite himself ordering attacks on civilians?" As those quests show he has no problem with sending his soldiers to kill Horde civilians. Gann Stonespire (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter anyway, it's already notified above that he sends adventurer to kill random goblins. History sections are not really where you point out hypocrisy or similar situations. Xporc (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Note all the goblins are miners, waitresses and other non combatants, definitely civilians. I've moved his views to the personality section. Gann Stonespire (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The new intro section is also wrong about the tauren disrupting the dwarves dig. Both Gann's testimony and  [Khazgorm's Journal] say the dwarves immediately kicked the tauren, did "Disruptive work" that hurt the "Comfort of the local inhabitants" and that the tauren merely were a minor nuisance to the dwarves, as opposed to the tauren actively sabotaging as the new intro claims. Gann Stonespire (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Ryon keeps editing Stonespire tribe to go from the are considered a lost tribe to "Gain considers them a lost tribe", insinuating Gann's word is dishonest when pages here only phrase things like that when there is actual evidence against the NPC's words. Everything supports Gann's story, so simply saying they are considered a lost tribe and giving Gann's quest as a source, works perfectly. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The "Gann refers to them as lost tribe" bit was actually edited by me, not Ryon. I think it is a bit more accurate to say since they are actually Gann's words and sourced with the quest where he says it, so we reflect that. Stating only "They are considered a lost tribe", without the agent "by Gann", kinda denotes an in-universe world-view (which we don't know because there is nobody except Gann to confirm that (and we know there are supposed to be some survivors and there are also other named tauren)) or a point taken from an external source like a book. --Mordecay (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The only other survivors are one of Gann's relatives, who states he's glad Gann did what he did, and a Tauren who states his people were persecuted and killed by many enemies. Both these tauren support Gann's words about the tribe being lost, so "considered a lost tribe" works as everything supports Gann and nothing contradicts unlike say what happened to the Thistlefur tribe. Do you understand what I mean now? Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you link the quests that the two survivors refer to their tribe? --Mordecay (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Auld Stonespire in H [27D] A Vengeful Fate says "But I cannot forgive those who drove us from our ancestral lands as easily as some. My people inhabited the southern Barrens for decades. The land was holy to us. But we were driven off by numerous foes" which supports Gann's story. Note there are only three living Stonespire NPCs, which also supports them being a lost tribe. Basically everything supports them being a lost tribe and remember two or three survivors of a large group of people or organization don't make them still around. Hence why the Drakakri are considered lost as early as Cataclysm, despite having survivors. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. All of this is already in the intro of the Stonespire page. Adding who said the words "lost tribe" doesn't invalidate the previous claim, it only adds the author of the words. + my first response. --Mordecay (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The author of the line is already given in the reference for the "considered a lost tribe" quote. Saying "according to Gann" like that implies his word is somehow unreliable. We don't do that for other pages, so why do that for the Stonespire tribe? Gann Stonespire (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, don't think it is unreliable since the previous part of the sentence corroborates to what Gann says. --Mordecay (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind if I changed it back to "is considered lost" or similar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gann Stonespire (talk · contr).
Would be happy if it stayed like it is due to the reasons I told today. --Mordecay (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
And as said before, I don't feel that works due to the reasons I've stated. Would you appreciate if it said "the tribe is said to be a lost tribe by a survivor." Gann Stonespire (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Funny because that's not true. That relative says Gann was reckless and that would kill him one day. And that he is thankful as at least Gann was gifted with vengeance. Nothing else. And Auld talks about vengeance because they were driven out of their home. Nothing else. Anything else is your own interpretation. --Ryon21 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Alto specifically says he is thankfully Gann did what he did and if the Alliance is allowed to continue their actions in Dustwallow, all you and Gain did in the barrens will be for naught. Auld says his people were driven out of their ancestral land by numerous foes, referring to the dwarves and Quilboar. Again, they all support Gann's story. Your claims of two other Stonespire NPCs who support Gann's story negating his words are entirely wrong. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing that you say changes anything. At that time Alliance and Horde are at war, of course Alto will say that. He is thankful because we helped his relative to die in peace after achieving his vengeance which tbh, Gann himself says "you have avenged Taurajo and avenged the Tauren people. The invaders will not soon recover from that blow. Thank you." and nothing else. So if we read these words his vengeance would only be about Taurajo and the tauren in general. And as I said, I don't care anymore if you want to put "are considered a lost tribe". --Ryon21 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Alto saying that because the Alliance have attacked the tauren and his problem with Gann was his method of attacking was reckless, but he also makes it clear he had no problems with Gann's actions given what the Alliance forces in the barrens had done. Gann Stonespire (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the the other members of his tribe are not unhappy with the dwarves getting killed... What is that supposed to prove? PeterWind (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Alto says Gann's actions helped the tauren and if we're not careful here, the Alliance will do similar in Dustwallow. Basically Alto doesn't want another attack on the tauren to occur and his existence along with Auld(who talks about how his tribe was persecuted and forced off their lands) in no way disproves the words of the tribe being lost as is claimed. Gann Stonespire (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is disputing that Gann describes the tribe as "lost". PeterWind (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Earlier Ryon was claiming because two other members exist, the tribe isn't lost and Gann's word is incorrect. Gann Stonespire (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's why I'm asking what "lost" even means here. We don't know the numbers or the fates of the "majority" of the tribe. Were most killed, or did most give up and leave? Was the tribe mostly just disbanded? In cases where we don't know for sure, the best thing to do is simply stick to what we know. We know that Gann considers the tribe "lost". We don't know what that means, since obviously not all members are dead. Guessing and extrapolating doesn't really help here. As such, it is better to simply have the quote very clearly attributed to Gann. PeterWind (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Most of the members are killed or exiled, and they can't rebuild yet. That is what I'd consider lost and based on WoW's treatment of tribes, I think that is accurate. Skychaser tribe is also considered lost, they have two survivors. By the logic that the Stonespire isn't lost, then the Skychaser tribe should be considered still around too. Gann Stonespire (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Zul'Gurub Protector Stone

The ID for the Zul'Gurub Protector Stone doesn't look entirely valid to me. Copy paste error, or am I missing something? PeterWind (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Wowhead & wowdb sometimes don't have entries for non-interactive objects but other databases have them. This is one of them. However, there was an error, instead of "object" I typed "zone" :-D Maybe it doesn't have to be on the page since it shows no result? --Mordecay (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah well in that case I don't mind in any case! I've added IDs before for similar cases. I figured it miiiight be intended as an object ID but wasn't sure :) PeterWind (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Tier videos

Greetings, I noticed you've (user Pcj) reverted all my changes with Tier 1 - 3 videos. Was something wrong or you dont want me to post them here? If so, just let me know, so I won't waste my time. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Navarone007 (talk · contr).

Hello. Pcj is actually another user than Mordecay, but from what I gather from our discord server your videos were removed because they were thought to be unnecessary Xporc (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. Fair enough, I won't spam with them. And sorry to Mordecay, I realized later, they are not same person :-) Navarone007 (Navarone007) 07:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No problem! --Mordecay (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Pamela Redpath quote

Regarding , if I remember what "gossip text" means, then yes? :) It's the text in her main interaction window when you right click on her. Sorry wasn't sure how to label it, in the past I've been more descriptive but that line just kinda...speaks for itself. Jerodasst (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, thx. --Mordecay (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Can licensing be added after the fact?

Hey I was wondering if you knew if it was possible to add the licensing to images after they've already been posted to the site. I accidentally uploaded two image files without a licensing selected and I'm unsure if a licensing can be added after they've been posted or if they have to deleted and then properly posted with the licensing.--X59 (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

They can be manually updated after upload, no problem Xporc (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know and giving an example of how it can do be done.--X59 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

War campaign dialogs

Hey thanks for fixing them Xporc (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Np. Still WiP :P --Mordecay (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Shadowlands content

Hey, please tag the pages properly. It's not necessary to put {{Shadowlands}} for each minor NPC. Xporc (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Slowing down

Hey man, you've been breaking more stuff than usual lately, please consider slowing down a bit and checking your own edits before pushing that Save changes button Xporc (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure. --Mordecay (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
bruh. don't make me force you to slow down please Xporc (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Daamn! Sry! --Mordecay (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I recommend this, when I'm not doing this I sound like an illiterate. Silviu200530 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You broke the gallery here. You've been warned three times already ... Xporc (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I should have double-checked that. --Mordecay (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

For your information, due to forgetting two characters, you accidentally removed the entire "World of Warcraft" section. Once again, validating your own edits is not optional. Xporc (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yo man, I'm gonna be the bad evil admin again, but if you're really gonna make hundreds of edits just for the sake of hounding other editors, the least you could do would be to actually take a look at their potential errors. This wiki is devolving more and more into a game of who can make the most edits in a single day Xporc (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay man, you've been doing a lot of typos and errors these days, and you've been warned plenty of times already. No one really wants this situation to go down like it did for shammiesgun, so please slow down and double-check your edits. Xporc (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
As before, I do check my edits, but you have to understand that small typos may indeed go unnoticed. You shouldn't feel burdened by correcting them either when there are tons of them being corrected almost every day, and not only by you. If you happen to see one, correct it and move on as I do plenty of times with mistakes. Or do you want me to call on every single mistake you make too :P? --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that I don't personally make 400 edits a day because of my limited time, and that I always reread my own edits the day after I make them. So essentially when I make mistakes I tend to find them the day after if no one fixed them before. Like, obviously you have more time than before to work on wowpedia because of the quarantine, okay, but if you have time to make several hundreds of edits per day, I'd rather have you make like 300 good edits instead of 400 with typos and wrong categories :/ You are making noticeably more errors than before so that's obvious you are trying to rush things, and make it seem like you are just focused on doing as much edits as possible
Also please be aware that by spending so much time working on your computer you are hurting your body. For now you probably feel like it doesn't matter, but in a few years it'll catch up to you. I know it certainly did with me, and this is why I completely changed my editing habits compared to my first years on the website. Xporc (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I hear ya and understand, but it also seems to me that you are exaggerating. How can you compare, approximately +-5 small typos per day you find (most of which are letters mistype) to what shammies was doing both times?
Anyway, What about categories? Which were wrong? Because that can be improved; however, again, don't expect that every single page will have every related category. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Well for some examples, since you bothered to revamp a lot of pages related to technicians, you forgot to add the proper category on several of them ("Flight" Technician Wumble, Technician Halmaha), wrong categories on Icy Barrier and Magistrix Aldessia, categories missing on several of the gan'arg pages you created the other day ... it's not as bad as shammiesgun, but it's kinda exhausting and even infuriating to see you sometimes reaching 500 edits per day and yet missing some stuff that should be obvious Xporc (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that not adding enough to an existing page can fairly be counted as an error. Wrong categories are more unfortunate but even so, it's not a hard fix either (in most cases). We all try our best, but still mistakes can happen. Still if an error is introduced on this level, I feel that they're more anoying than actually consequencial. A typo, may in cases go unnoticed for years.. This is unfortunate, but doesn't really change much. It can be fixed by anyone who notices it now or in time, in a moment. It's not in the same league as unsubstantiated claims or assumptions outside speculation areas. While those two can be easily deleted, you'll likely want to research the topic to some degree first, when coming upon lines like that just to be sure. Fewer mistakes is always something to strive for, but on the other hand.. We aren't really in a hurry. PeterWind (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah well if we aren't in a hurry, I don't see why there's this need from you guys to make as much edits as possible Xporc (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


Hey, I suggest you to join Wowpedia Discord . We talk there alot and bring up suggestions and feedbacks.((Yuvyuv111 (talk))

Maybe later. --Mordecay (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Great! I Hope it will be sooner rather later. ((Yuvyuv111 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)))
That's Mordecay for "no"..! -- — MyMindWontQuiet 23:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


Moved to Forum:In Hearthstone sections


Hey Mordecay! Your opinion would be greatly appreciated on Template talk:Battle#Hiatus. Thanks! — Surafbrov T / P / C 16:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Object boilerplate

Hey there morde :D . I just wanted to say that there is new boilerplate short cut in new page creation for object. I hope it will be helpful for you too . (Yuvalal (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC))

Yeah I saw it. At this point, I don´t use any boilerplates. I hope it will be helpful for you, tho! --Mordecay (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It is! I do use it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuvyuv111 (talk · contr).

Talk:Wowpedia#Races and #Profession

Hey there Morde! May I ask your opinion on and ?(Yuvalal (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC))

More divisions where it makes sense and is as close as possible to WoW system is okay. Bear in mind, also, that the race page is currently flagged to be split. --Mordecay (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

External links question

Sadly i dont know how to do so but I would like to suggest you instead of changing each page with one with https by yourself on each page. I would recommand to make a request on bot page for changing to If you can guide me to how to do so I would do so. But as you are more experianced than me you may know if it should be done or not. Thanks (Yuvalal (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)). PS. Mayhaps it shall be done for npc to Npc too at npcboxes.

You can write a request here in the request section. It is up to admins (pcj, mostly) to decide if they run it tho. --Mordecay (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Bot 2

Hey there. Happy new year. I'm trying to create a bot in order to make it easier and safer to clean up some type of pages. Could you take a look at User:Xporc/Edit automation and suggest the stuff you edit yourself on pages? Xporc (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too!
Maybe, when a page starts with two stubs underneath each other, move them both to be in one line. Also, there's "city = Bilgewater Cartel" that should be "affiliation = Bilgewater Cartel". A small number of "city = Orgrimmar" may also be there. --Mordecay (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'm good enough at bot scripting yet in order to solve the stub thing, but Bilgewater Cartel and Orgrimmar would be easy. Anyway, over time feel free to suggest more and more edits, and categories on which I could unleash the bot on. It'll make everyone's lives easier Xporc (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I just saw the au link change, maybe add the fu equivalent if it's not there. --Mordecay (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Faction Assaults capitalization

I was under the impression that the "assault" in names like Assault on Tiragarde Sound should be written with an uppercase "A" due to being short for "(Faction) Assault on Tiragarde Sound". I also feel like "Assault" is more appropriate since most of the time it's talking about the assaults as in-game quest events and not historical lore conflicts. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, the names of the pages were put together by Shammies, and they haven't been used as proper names anywhere in the in-game feature of the Faction Assaults or in "lore" mentions. Based on that, I don't think they should be capitalized. Same goes with Legion ones, however, the content of those was written a tad better and it looks like to me that the idea was to have "lore" summaries alongside a list of quests accompanying them. Having "Faction Assaults" is ok because that's the name of the feature, but the "Assault on Tiragarde" seems like just our attempt at filling the void in adding names.
On the other hand, there is a source for the Assault in Uldum and Assault in the Vale of Eternal Blossoms where the main Assault quests have them written like that, so I don't mind capitalizing these two. However, thinking about it, even that usage may be dubious given it is present in the objective sentence. --Mordecay (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I sort of get that, but I'm generally of the opinion that they should be treated mainly as a gameplay feature and not a lore subject (I'd hazard a guess that most people who look up the Assault on Tiragarde Sound page will be more interested in the rewards, the available world quests, the end scenario, etc. than a story write-up of "the battle in 33 ADP when a Horde airship laid siege to Boralus"). (Obviously there are some exceptions, like on the overarching Fourth War page or when an assault quest's target is a pre-existing character.) Since the gameplay feature as a whole is titled "Faction Assaults", it seems overly pedantic to me to insist on spelling each subpage (that is, each individual assault) in lowercase just because Blizzard haven't given an official lore designation for each specific one. The way I see it, writing "Assault on Tiragarde Sound" is just shorthand for "the Faction Assault event that takes place in Tiragarde Sound", so retaining the same capitalization as the full name makes sense in my book.
On the other hand, I guess we could move all the pages to "Faction Assault on <Zone>". I think it'd be a little bit pedantic (for the reasons I already stated, I think "Assault on <Zone>" is fine and conveys the same thing as "Faction Assault on <Zone>"), but it would remove any ambiguity and potential fanon from the name. It doesn't seem like they're very widely linked to (since most of the related NPC and object pages currently just link to Faction Assaults in general and not the specific zone event they're part of), so having a bot go through and change all the links wouldn't take a ton of work, I imagine. EDIT: After thinking about it, I think I would actually prefer doing this. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 21:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
If the assault pages are to be treated as gameplay feature, what would happen to the lore summaries like in Assault on Drustvar (quite literary lore, since there is stuff like Genn judging the Horde) or Assault on Stormheim?
Lists of quests are already present there which is fine there, but I'm thinking now about the other "gameplay" info of the assaults. Any info would be on the quest page (like A [110 - 120] Ritual Rampage) since the quest is what drives you through the feature - rewards (IIRC, they are the same - action caches, currency, and reputation) and the "end scenario" are (or will be because the quest pages lack info) on the quest pages. Should it be repeated again in the assault page? Or how would the end scenario be covered? Since rewards are quite simple, couldn't they just be on the Faction Assaults?
The proposed name change sounds fine. --Mordecay (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Eh, I guess. I don't think the Assault on Drustvar is a good example since a lot of its current text was written by Qintus, who has the habit of wanting to give everything an excessively detailed lore description, no matter how little information there actually is about it.
Anyway, I'll look into moving the pages. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 09:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Classic only

Yo. Please, when changing a template from {{removed}} to {{classic only}}, please make sure that the relevant categories are present on the page. Thanks Xporc (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

will try --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted images

Those images you uploaded are considered DNP due to being leaked by someone breaking an NDA, and we are not uploading them to Wowpedia. Do not upload them again. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Was not planning on adding them to mainspace but keeping them on under my page. Is that not ok as well? --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
That is not. DNP files aren't any less DNP just because you put them on your userpage. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Understood. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed rewards

In this edit you removed a few recipes that has in time been removed. Just a lil' reminder to be careful with vendors that have been around since vanilla. I'm honestly not sure what the best approach is on this "vendor now and in classic" topic. Maybe a tabber solution? Seeing as there are many vendors that have very different good available now and then. PeterWind (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh and also when updating vendor pages that use onlyinclude, take a look at where they're linked, as updating the vendor page without fixing links on faction pages as an example will give some funky results like so where the entire NPC page is transcluded. PeterWind (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered what made those NPC pages transcluded on the page and others. lol :D For vendor stuff, there's lots of items removed over the course of xpacks, especially Cataclysm. I like the tabber idea or maybe simply a second table with the classic section template below the retail table. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I think I've mostly just added a second table in the cases where I've even done anything on that topic. It'll take up more space, but it's also simpler! PeterWind (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Toy Articles

Heya! I'd like to overhaul or rewrite many of the Toy Box articles on the wiki. This would involve adding information about the toy, what it does, certain quirks it has, and so on. The main reason for this is many of the toys in World of Warcraft have descriptions that, to me, hardly explain what the toy even does or some of the quirks it may have. I started a few and I noticed you changed them, and also that you're a very prolific editor, so I have a couple of questions about their formatting.

  • I kept the Source section because, when looking at examples, I noticed several other item pages have or had the section included. Is that something that should just be snipped or left out? Would you think that the page looks better without the source section, so that it's the opening paragraph?
  • I think having the toy's effects and other information kept in a Notes section would keep the page from being hard to read or parse, because otherwise, in my opinion, it would just end up being an overly long paragraph. As an example, the  [Frenzyheart Brew] page - the main information about the toy is kept in the Notes section, while how to obtain the toy is the opening paragraph. Take that and apply it to some other toy article, like  [Barrel of Bandanas]. Do you think it would keep the page looking nice and readable?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, and thank-you. Moofmoof (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about it and talking with others, a better solution might be thus:
  • Keeping the Source section, but making the opening paragraph instead describe the toy and what it does.
  • Having the Notes section be for miscellaneous information such as pop culture references, typos, or other such information like notable shared cooldowns.Moofmoof (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,some months ago it was decided that item pages should start with an intro sentence instead of a section header. That's why lots of item pages still have a header, mostly source at the beginning, but I and others have slowly been changing it to the new way.
it's very good that you want to update the pages, some definitely need more info. Regarding the layout, both options seem OK to me, but I lean more towards the second variant you described (the intro sentence being the main effect description, then source section, then notes if any) that would be more consistent with other pages and logical when reading. HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is about wow classic europe realms timeline

Hi Mordecay, would you be able to add a wow classic timeline for europe realms? like the one we have about retail wow, thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xeexeegg (talk · contr).

Hi, I don't really follow such stuff. What is the page you refer to in "like the one we have about retail wow", tho? --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


The purpose of stubs, as per the Stub policy is to designate a page as a very unfinished page. Stubbing pages where the only thing left to include is the subzone isn't very useful, it just diminishes the value of actually adding a stub tag. PeterWind (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing stubs and adding nothing to pages when it lacks other stuff besides subzones like categories, stats, and quotes is not helpful either. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to propose a policy change. PeterWind (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Stubs

Hey there! Thanks for the feedback. Another patroller on the discord suggested I tag my uploads as such because the screenshots were taken from the PTR client as opposed to the retail client. If it's not required, I'll refrain from adding it to my future uploads. Thank you for the advice! Zmario (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the tags are just to let other users know, that as the shots were taken on the PTR server, it "might" not match the live appearance of the areas. In this case there would likely not be any changes between the two. Now, as soon as someone had taken a look at the areas on live realms and verified that the areas do indeed look like that, the tags can then be removed. PeterWind (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh shoot, didn't realise that! I'm going to return them, and Zmario, disregard my comment on your talk page. --HordeRace bloodelf male.jpg Mordecay (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired

Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on about an interview with Madeleine Roux serving as confirmation of Mayla Highmountain being on the Horde Council. Thanks.--X59 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)