User talk:ShadowShade81413

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wowpedia!

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

Some links you may find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) as this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, or need help, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the site forums. Again, welcome! --SWM2448 00:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Preview

I notice you have a number of small edits. If you're editing a lot of things on one page and want to see how it looks, you may wish to use the "Show preview" button before saving the page to see that. Thanks! Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Citing your comments

I think that you mean well, but can you add more citations to your edits? I noticed that you are adding background without saying from where. It is bad form to cite Wowpedia itself, even if correct. The only exceptions to this should be things that can be (more or less) immediately gleaned from an NPC in World of Warcraft.--SWM2448 03:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to do a better at that. Most of what I add in the header is already cited in the body though. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
My comment could have been friendlier than it was. It is fine if you are making an effort to improve. The lack of citations in the header is more of a Wikipedia thing. I don't know how to feel about that. More sources is better. I am admittedly holding you to a slightly higher standard due to the volume of your recent edits.--SWM2448 03:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I don't want to sound like a dick, but you use too much citations in your comic-related edits. There's simply no need to cite each single individual page of such a long comic. You completely wrecked Varian's references table by overwhelming it with kinda pointless references :o Xporc (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
^^
That's why I removed a few. --Mordecay (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Gilneas Brigade

Please take your time to read and comment here. Thank you. — Surafbrov T / C / P 01:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Gilneas Civil War

Where is it capitalized? --Mordecay (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's always capitalized in real life examples, being a proper noun and all. But if it wasn't capitalized in a source I'm not opposed to changing it back. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't count much on real life examples here. While yes, it was a civil war, I think it shouldn't be capitalized, unless it is written like that somewhere. --Mordecay (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleria in the Troll Wars

I have no idea if she actually fought during the wars but it is written in her article : " Alleria Windrunner first earned renown due to the sheer number of trolls that she slew in order to defend her people's homeland, Quel'Thalas, during the Troll Wars." Xporc (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Galen

Is it specifically stated in Legion that he was feigning loyalty to Sylvanas? Because that would be contradictory with the UVG.

Also while it's possible that it was just game mechanics, the Arathor League is associated with Stormwind so I think his Stormwind faction was correct. --Mordecay (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What does the UVG specifically say? In Legion Galen says that because he has Trol'kalar, Sylvanas can't dispute his claim to Stromgarde. Seems to explain why he was acting so weirdly loyal during the quests. I'm not sure how much weight can be put on what the UVG says about him, since it was probably a minor detail and Blizzard might not have been sure what to do with him next at the time. So Legion could be a retcon at worst. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
UVG: "He committed himself wholly to serving the Banshee Queen". But after reading the words, it really looks like a contradiction of his loyalty. So maybe it could be noted that the previous sources (UVG and quests) depicted him as a loyal subject but Legion changed that? --Mordecay (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe he was intending to secede after getting Stromgarde back? The line "But we have much more work to do... for Sylvanas" in one of his quests seems to indicate his loyalty wasn't true. The sneaky and underhanded personality Legion gives him actually matches what the RPG says about him. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Warcraft III

Hey, nice updates on the campaigns! Xporc (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
And thank you for the continued work! Xporc (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help! --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yo, a word: there's no need to add all the creeps on Warcraft III units because they are already listed in, well, Creep. Xporc (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. I realized pretty quickly there were too many to list. Do you just want to add something like see Creeps then? --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Message

For what I've seen, your editcount is not working fine. Try copy-paste this one:

Special:Editcount/ShadowShade81413 This user employs peasants to count his contributions.


Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 03:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss soon

Start discussing the matter exposed here about your long-cross style. Xporc have already agreed with me, and I have left a message here. If you don't, I will understand that I can remove the long-cross style from the articles as you gave no response at all. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 16:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ping

There is no such thing as the ping function. We do not currently have Reply to. I have to notice a discussion on my own. To get someone's attention, leave a note on their talk page.--SWM2448 20:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

but ... that's weird? Because when I write User:Sandwichman2448, it seems to leave them an alert. It works on WarGodZajru and it worked when someone talked about me once. Xporc (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hm... It seems to be an optional thing in the Preferences menu that I did not know about. Talk page message are on by default and can not be turned off. I'll turn mine on for you.--SWM2448 20:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Losses

Hey, just wanted to know why you put Moderate instead of Light for the demons' side at the battle for the Broken Shore. Because they literally didn't lose anything, they kept the island, they kept all regions of it, they kept the Tomb, and at the very last moment instead of suffering some major blow or whatever like in usually all battles, their forces got literally doubled, and every single powerful demon that we ever fought, heard of or seen, arrived. They ended up more powerful at the end of the battle than when it started. They started with random minions and ended with every single high ranking demon in existence.

All I can think of is the Black City but it's technically still there and now divided into more subregions. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, most of the Light/Moderate/Heavy/Very Heavy/Massive values are complete asspulls :D Xporc (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I already said they lost a lot of demons and had a lot of structures destroyed. By the same logic, we should replace every Burning Legion casualties with Light since demons basically cannot die anymore. The fact they had to call reinforcements says something. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whose logic you're referring to but it was not mine. They started with nameless minions, with some aadied, and ended up with every single one of the most powerful demons that have ever existed summoned to the Tomb. Plus the countless minions that were already there. The ending dialogues were literally about how the Alliance and Horde had accomplished nothing that day. I'm not going to argue over this for days but, here. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we can still make rough estimates. If the Legion had at least lost something, like the Black City, or perhaps some piece of land or really anything, then we could maybe consider that Moderate but we barely scratched them. They ended up more powerful at the end of the battle than at the beginning. While we got absolutely demolished. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I tried my best to make a consistent system, with Light being where practically nothing was lost typically when few forces to lose), Moderate where take standard casualties to win but still come out on top with everything fought for and still be able to fight, Heavy where a base or settlement was lost or a victory is considered costly, Very Heavy where lots of important positions and/or forces are lost but faction still maintains a presence, and Massive where casualties were so great that it becomes an important catastrophe in the factions history and said faction was forced to be inactive for awhile. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so there's actually logic behind the names. I apologize then. Xporc (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think these shouldn't be there at all in the first place. They are hardly supported by lore. There are no Warcraft definitions, and they are... fans' assumptions? --Mordecay (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right.--ShadowShade81413 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I would definitely vote in favor of removing them. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

David Wayne

You wot mate? Outland didn't exist in vanilla either, and yet Fairbanks mention the area. The Ashbringer questline was released when Burning Crusade was in development. Xporc (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Turalyon did exist in WoW though. And there's nothing to imply the questline was going to be revived throughout TBC. Wayne sees to just be a pop culture joke. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
"there's nothing to imply the questline was going to be revived throughout TBC" you mean, besides Fairbanks telling you to go to Outland, the setting of TBC?
Turalyon didn't exist in WoW until Legion... Honestly, I am not that familiar with american pop culture, but David Wayne never struck me as intended to be a joke NPC. Does he tell any joke or something? Or is his name merely close to the one of a "celebrity"? :/ He's a blacksmith that is able to reforge magical blades, he's younger than all the other Sons of Lothar which would make him match with being a potential son of Mograine, and unlike Turalyon he was actually implemented in-game a few months after the Ashbringer questline. I mean, I'm not telling that he was supposed to be the son of Mograine, I just say there are enough hints for it to be possible. The reasoning for Turalyon possibly being Mograine's son is just "well he went to Outland". Unlike Wayne there are no bases for the Turalyon speculation... Xporc (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Terenas vs. Turalyon

How it is not a retcon when one source says that it was Terenas (+ even Varian????) who sent the Expedition to Draenor and the other two say that it was Turalyon? --Mordecay (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the original source just says they just sent their armies, which is consistent with BtDP and C2. Also Battle of Blackrock Spire may have a redirect now but it's not the same event as in the alternate timeline so it shouldn't be linked. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Define they. --Mordecay (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
All the kings at Nethergarde. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I think u are misunderstanding something here. When the kings visited Nethergarde, they didn't even mention an invasion to Draenor at that point. Khadgar asked them for army to defend Nethergarde. --Mordecay (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
They were discussing the rift opening, and agreed to "rally the Alliance army and make ready for war". --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Not the invasion to Draenor. --Mordecay (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The idea seemed to be "whatever happens"; which was the invasion of Draenor. I changed the wording to better fit this too. Also I still think the Valiance Expedition and Alliance Vanguard articles should be left in their WotLK state. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you just going to ignore me and keep reverting now? --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"Seemed". Then to a speculation section it should go. All active organizations have had their leadership changed when a change occurred. And probably yes, if needed. --Mordecay (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This shouldn't even be an issue anymore because I changed the text so it doesn't say invading Draenor was Terenas' idea, please stop looking for a fight. For the rest on Terenas' page, it's just a matter of not leaving the story hanging. For Daelin, he have trivia for things with much less evidence. There is no source anywhere about what he thought about the camps, so I moved it to trivia. Several sources say he stayed loyal to the Alliance even when leaders who wanted to kill all the orcs left, which seems like something he would've supported. It's not saying he supported the camps anymore, it's just noting the inconsistency know.
"Active" well the thing is it's not active because we haven't seen or heard from it since. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I re-read Beyond the Dark Portal this morning so I'm all yours. I updated Terenas' page according to the book. So, once more, the problems: "Terenas and Varian decreed" - This is far from true, when they all met in Nethergarde they discussed the soil and rift (a sentence u reverted but it doesn't really hurt as it a bit above the problematic part) and Khadgar asked them to rally the army "to prepare for war" are the words used there. Not to invade Draenor. Period. Then I detailed the part where the idea of invasion came from - from Khadgar and Turalyon - who then had the kings informed. They responded by sending supplies and more troops. That's what happens in the book.
Regarding Daelin, I rephrased Daelin's sentence and looking at it yours doesn't add much with comparison to my sentence so I smell here a revenge instead of clearing the page. And u also reverted in-between edits where I added a source for a title...?
And regarding the factions, I just want a consistency. Several other pages have been changed to reflect changes in leaderships. Why is even cross bad? --Mordecay (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Varian proposes rallying the Alliance army and Terenas says agreed. There is no real difference between "prepare for war" and "invade Draenor" that you are trying to find. I'm disputing there was any retcon of Turalyon being behind the invasion instead of Terenas because all sources are consistent in that Terenas sent his armies. I think you are reading too hard into this.
Your change is pretty vague, it makes it look like every other king disagreed with Terenas. Also Thoras was a good friend of Terenas but still left so that was noteworthy. Daelin is called Admiral of the Alliance fleet in later sources, the WC2 mission is outdated. And Lothar has been called his friend long before CV2, it was also said in the WC2 manual, the in-game book, ToD, and maybe more.
I want consistency too, like with other defunct factions like Alliance of Lordaeron and Old Horde. They have several leaders who died later but no cross. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yea, no, look a few lines above - It is Khadgar who first asks for the army, then Varian re-affirms Khadgar's words and Terenas agrees - in order to prepare for war. Sry, but there is a difference and a real one in the book's narrative because the idea of invasion came much later and from Khadgar and Turalyon, not from Terenas, which is a contradiction of Terenas sending them to Draenor. Also, when I Varian's page as "Varian was present at Nethergarde Keep along with the other Alliance kings when Khadgar proposed rallying the Alliance army." You added "that would undertake the Invasion of Draenor. And now tell me that u aren't biased, mate :D
Hmm, yes, word "several" would do. Unless it is in speculation section, it should be ok. Even if it was outdated, we should note it somewhere. It doesn't hurt to have the CV2 ref as the previous reference is old. It is similar to the Aedelas succeeding Danath thing which was in CV2 and in an old account of something.
Well, I don't care about that much. I just remembered that when Garrosh died the changes in some pages happened. I'm not sure how the cross works, then. --Mordecay (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Well that part wasn't my part of my additions anyway and I'll rewrite it if you accept the parts I added. I just wanted to provide a brief summary of BtDP because it looked like it stopped on a cliffhanger. And the Varian change is 100% true, in case you didn't noticed I changed "proposed to undertake" into "proposed rallying the Alliance army that would undertake" to solve your issue.
Actually your version also makes it sound like Daelin supported the camps. Mine just notes he was still a close ally afterwards. Ironically yours is more needing of a source. A lot of major characters don't have sources for their companions. Since Lothar and Daelin are confirmed friends in several sources, I thought it unnecessary. And there was never any source about Aedelas succeeding Danath, it's something someone assumed and was leftover from the Wowwiki days. I was thinking of removing it but luckily CV2 decided to make it canon.
I took The Shattering showed him giving up command to be warchief or his quests were given to Saurfang or someone else instead after he became warchief, because it was only one expansion later. In Varian's case though it's several expansions later without hearing anything from the expedition. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
that would undertake >>>>>the invasion to Draenor<<<<< is the part I'm referring to. U provided a summary which is a bit incorrect, that's all.
Them being friends was only mentioned in the War2 manual so having a second, most recent source doesn't hurt. --Mordecay (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with saying what the army did instead of leaving it on a cliff hanger?
It would probably be better to cite in the biography where it says they were long time friends instead. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
IDK, r u trolling me, mate? :D As I have said, the plan to invade Draenor came later and in a different situation. It wasn't decided to invade Draenor when the kings were in Nethergarde. --Mordecay (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
But my version doesn't say otherwise.. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for you and don't want to fight about anything this stupid. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Likewise! U added the incorrect info again, tho. I am sad. --Mordecay (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer if neither of you guys got banned. Can't you just chill down about this for like a day? Xporc (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe stop edit warring until it's settled -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle for Blackrock Spire

Both, Thrall and Taretha used the name so it is not exclusive to an alternate timeline. --Mordecay (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been blocked before for counter-productive edit warring. Why is it Mordecay's fault this time?--SWM2448 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't replying to me here but kept reverting my edits. He claimed I was doing the same thing but you can see above that wasn't the case. And that was 4 years ago.. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't replaying because I explained the Terenas thing (and the same thing I'm repeating above). And when I replied he doesn't seem to take everything what I write into consideration. Now that u mentioned there was an edit war with Galen Trollbane. Is this what u are referring to? Mordecay (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

Edit war

Hi, I don't agree with the reasoning you are using to change the order of paladins. It seems extremely arbitrary (so what Turalyon was SAC 30 years ago ?). It's a minor thing but listing them in order of "importance"/notability makes the most sense. There was art of the paladins posted on every media from Twitter to Reddit a few days ago, which is actually why these edits were made, and absolutely nobody knew who the hell "Saidan" or "Gavinrad" were. Maybe like 3 people on Twitter among the hundreds and about 10 on Reddit among the thousands of upvotes & comments.

So when we list the paladins, it makes sense to start with known names such as Tirion Fordring or Uther the Lightbringer, not with literally nobodies such as Gavinrad (it's a shame, but he is just a name and nothing else in lore, compared to these other massively famous guys). Order of importance/notability is just better for the readers no matter the subject. For example when we think of Horde leaders, we'll always think about Sylvanas or Thrall before Ji Firepaw. For the Alliance you'll always list Jaina or Anduin before Su'ura Swiftarrow. So there's a reasoning behind that. I can't understand any behind your actions, or rather it seems more like personal preference than editing for the readers' sake. It's the equivalent of, as explained, listing Su'ura before Jaina or Anduin, or Ji before Sylvanas. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

W3 & Chronicle

Chronicle V3 specifically says that when Thrall was sailing through the Great Sea to Kalimdor, it was when Arthas returned to Lordaeron and murdered his father. Before that a chapter details Medivh visiting Terenas and Antonidas and after this, he went to Thrall. --Mordecay (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

Yo. Please discuss with MWWQ on Kul Tiras' talk page before continuing the edit war. Xporc (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)