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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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 / C / P 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)