From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"I" iconAs per the recent race names vote at Wowpedia talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "tauren" and not "Tauren"

Don't put fan fiction in WoW info pages

Please don't put fan fiction in WoW info pages. Please see Help:Fan fiction for advice on how to add fan fiction into Wowpedia. --Fandyllic 5:47 PM PDT 21 Jun 2006

Speaking of fan fiction - what is this "Shadowhoof Tribe" anyways? Aside from the one NPC, where I don't see a connection to any tribe, I only found two tauren player characters by the names of the other two survivors as mentioned in the Shadowhoof "tribe" article. Both on the same realm (US The Scryers) and both in the same guild. Coincidence? Anyone has a real source on whether this tribe exists in the lore for real or not? --Tulon 11:00, 24 Mar 2008

Tauren as Minotaurs

I can't help but always refer to the Tauren as the Minotaurs. They're so alike in appearence that Blizzard should've reconsidered before naming them. "Tauren" just doesn't fully define these powerful beasts of the Warcraft Universe. -- TheOneCalledRed - 2nd of December 06'

Yes I agree they look like them but Tauren is an anagram of Nature, so maybe that was why Lord loss210 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you maintain that the Tauren aren't based on the Minotaur? I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what do you suggest?--Ragestorm 16:06, 2 December 2006 (EST)
No i do agree that they are based on Minotaur, but that's maybe why they called it that, because Tauren are so close to nature.

The name "Tauren" is obviously derived from the term "Minotaur". Blizzard just didn't want to completely blatent about it. But they certainly mention that hte race was inspired by minotaurs in various places.Baggins 16:09, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I'm aware that the Tauren are based on the Mythical Minotaur, thats not at all what I meant to say. I was just suggesting that Blizzard should've just went ahead and named them so...maybe even come up with another name? -- TheOnecalledRed - 2nd of December 06'

Um, well I personally wouldn't mind the use of the term minotaur thrown around occasionally, and who knows it could be used a nickname for them in a future source (I wouldn't mind). However, going by the name minotaur which means[1], Minos King of Crete, and Taur "Bull", so in reality it wouldn't fit into lore entirely as there is no King Minos in Azeroth. By just calling them tauren they avoid an earth legend refrenceBaggins 16:42, 2 December 2006 (EST)
I highly disagree on calling taurens as minotaurus, for basic reasons. 1. The taurens are humanoids, meaning they have mroe humanoidic than the beastiary in them. 2. They are also lawfull good as a genre. Minotaurs instead are demonic beasts that has humanoid in them, but mostly they resamble the beast. Theyr int is also much lower by standard. So taurens are humanoids and minotaurs are demonic. This arguement was taken 3 years back on blizzard forums and blue posters stated that taurens are not minotaurs.JHawx (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you talking about D&D minotaurs now? It basically comes down to this: the name ultimately stems from the Greek word taurus, meaning bull. The myth of the minotaur helped to bequeath that term to modern times, either the actual term for a car, or the myth for a fantasy creature. While all those might contribute to Blizzard's tauren, I think the importance increases with age. So they wanted a bull/cow race, its name comes from the Greek word, while the appearance is probably more inspired by newer interpretations of the minotaur. But in the end, they created a new and unique race with its own traits. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Errm kinda, The minotaur by the greek epos is a creature cursed by god, not a race of taurens. As the game goes on, we got also little diffirent race of taurens, the taunka. They have more human facesand little more beast to lower parts, again theyr diffirent type of "kinda tauren", yet humanoid. In the D&D, wich somewhat also wow takes a rules but with modified stems to it, the minotaurus is more of the evil than the race of people. And by the naming of Tauren, i think blizzard intended clear separation of minotaurs, kinda like Tau-(bull) -Ren(people)...JHawx (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I put this up a while ago on some page but couldn't find a source. I found one of my sources in the game on Elder rise in Thuder bluff. It says that tauren and anouther race were the first to be drawn from the water by the earth mother. The other race obey and they were called the dark ones. The Dark ones turned into night elves and took cenarious's blessing. I interpreted it as the tauren and trolls were the first race to appear on Azeroth.

Eh, thats true, I haven't really given that thought. I was just saying I liked the name better than tauren for all the matter it means. -- TheOneCalled - 2nd of December 06'

Actually i do believe that what you saw was mere folk lore/religious to the Tauren. The Dwarves and the mountain/sea giants were one of the first. Just look up Titan and read through it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milcon (talk · contr).

"Minotaur" is a singular, not a race name. There was only one Minotaur. A similar thing is calling all women with snakes for hair that turn people to stone by looking at them 'medusas'. "Medusa" is an individual name, the racial name was 'Gorgon', sort of. Calling Tauren 'minotaurs' would be like making the racial name of humans 'George'. As in "That stupid George paladin just bubblehearthed again". Besides, Tauren is a lot cooler. --Azaram 23:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really. It's an annoying misconception that people assume, because the Minotaur's given name is Asterion, and the ancient sources are unclear as to whether Minotaur is used as a species name or as a given name. Other fantasy whole races of Minotaurs and Medusae. You're right about Medusa, that is blatantly incorrect, but it's not the same thing as callings humans "the georges." --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
From Wikipedia ""Minotaur" is Greek for "Bull of Minos". The bull was known in Crete as Asterion, a name shared with Minos's foster father." Everything with a bull's head on a human's body isn't a 'Minotaur', as Minos doesn't even exist in Azeroth, likewise Crete...Just because it was misused other places doesn't make it correct. And Tauren is still cooler. :-p --Azaram 01:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not saying they should be called minotaurs, I'm just saying that they're allowed to do so given the conventions set by previous fantasy. The name "Minotaur" doesn't work with the image of the Tauren, so a more harmonious name was developed. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I think it would be wholly inappropriate to call the Tauren by the name of Minotaur. For one thing, a Tauren really isn't "part man and part bull" [2]. A Tauren is really more like bipedally favoring cow/bull humanoid. By the classical definition, a Minotaur is a human body, with a bull head and tail, whereas a Tauren has human-like hands (albeit with only 3 or four thick "fingers"), but otherwise shares only a hairy, human-like body with a human. Tauren have cloven hooves for "feet", unlike the Minotaur (as far as is described in myth). While they are similar, similar doesn't equate same. If you were to call a Tauren a Minotaur, you might as well call a Night Elf a Troll. They share about the same amount of features. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:33 PM PST 13 Mar 2007
I agree it still wouldn't be proper to call them minotaur... However the artwork, statuary, etc, for minotaur made throughout the centuries have interpreted the minotaur in different ways. Some are more tauren like than others, that is having cloven feet, and fuzzy bodies. I've seen some that gave minotaur a bull lower body, and a torso like a centaur coming from the 4 legged body, with a bull's head. Not only that I've read at least three greek versions of the minotaur story, and the minotaur isn't always described exactly the same in each one. The tauren design is actually quite unoriginal in design, its a minotaur concept design that predates warcraft by many years. Back in warcraft 3, tauren are called "bull-men" by ingame characters that didn't know who their proper name, as races see them as having elements of human and bull physical nature. Plus, its been stated by the designers that tauren are based on the minotaur design, although as far as culture they went their own direction.Baggins
That's True. My only point was that you can't cite Earth-specific origins as a reason for naming something; if that were the case, then high fantasy wouldn't exist. That Asterion was the core inspiration cannot be questioned, however. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree, completely.Baggins 21:57, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I am surprised nobody considered the fact that the word tauren is closer to the 'Taurus' than the word 'Minotaur' , you might (might) also consider that the ancient Greeks were pagans like the tauren, although it is obvious tauren beliefs are more representative of Native Americans. C00n3y

idk if im wrong here i may be but the tauren are fully covered in fur, but as far as i know (which isnt that far) dont the minatur only have a bull head?

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but Minotauros in Greek myth was a wild beast, slaying everything/one that got in his way, while tauren in WoW are more peacefull spiritual creatures. Stopa 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Blizzard did that on purpose. They made these huge monsterish things that resemble a generic idea of the Minotaur (I know it's not the true representation, but many people picture it that way from briefly reading about the Minotaur and not going into details) and to top it off, they make them Horde. People are expecting them to be murderous killing machines, right? Then they make them spiritual, shamanistic peace-pipe smokers (no offence) in order to surprise people. Blizzard likes to do unexpected things. ;)

Oh, and as the "User Page"-less (ahem) user C00n3y stated, Tauren culture does bear an uncanny resemblence to that of many Native American tribes. Interesting. Gotta think about that one and write some big theory about it now. :P

Wakata 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Wakata

tauren could also be derived from the star sign 'Taurus' (no idea if i spelt that right) which is also depicted as a bull. Minotaur is a single beast, if you think it would be a cool name for a tauren, then just make a tauren named minotaur (if it isnt already taken). If you want to be really pedantic, you could always call a tauren 'Bovine Erectus' which yould be the scientific name for a biped cow (at least that is my guess). Of course, these are all my own opinion. so it is of no relevence whether you accept these statements or not.

Graham Thunderhammer- professional nutter.

Double History

There are currently two sub chapters called history which have a lot in common. I'll try to rework it into one story. -- Sander 12:27, 27 December 2006 (CET)

Bulls or Bison

Do you think that the Tauren are more like Buffulo or Bulls. I know that there is a bunch of cow jokes, but them being bison fits in with the "native american" thing. So I think they are Buffulo-People, not Man-Cows. What do you think? ~Nicholas

Yeah, they are probably supposed to represent buffalos. They certainly doesn't look like tame cattle at least :P --Odolwa 00:50, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Does the word Minotaur mean anything to you?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:16, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Indeed Minotaurs are the main-source of inspiration for the Tauren-race, but that doesn't mean Tauren can't have other sources (such as buffalos of North America).--Odolwa 02:30, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Fair enough, but I don;t think it matters, since neither species has any culture to speak of, and they're both bovine.
Actually, Knaak uses the word "bullish" instead of "bovine", though most other sources use the latter.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:03, 31 December 2006 (EST)
Maybe they're more like water buffalo or zebu? They're all bovine, I guess. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:47 AM PST 1 Jan 2007
I would describe Tauren as bull-people with society based on native american (obvious). But their looks (head, and especially horns) show that they're more bulls (or african buffalo) than bison. --Sul'jin 14:58, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Both/either. If you look at their horn selection it could be either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milcon (talk · contr).

The term "Bull-man" gets thrown around in WC3 by various characters.Baggins 21:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
It has been officially confirmed that Tauren represent bulls, and Taunka represent buffalos. Stopa 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Native American Influence

The Native American influence comes from more than just the plains tribes of the United States and Canada. The dreamcatchers and some of the rug weavings are influenced from tribes of the Southwestern United States; the longhouses and totem poles come from tribes of the Northwestern United States/Southwestern Canada. I have edited the More Info section of the article to reflect this. Mingonashoba 13:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Cool. :P Wakata 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Wakata

Size and measurements

The article says 'six and a half to nine feet tall'...Tauren females, maybe, but tauren males seem to be twice the height of Forsaken or human males (assuming their heights as 6 feet...Forsaken may be somewhat smaller, from the process of going from beefcake to beef jerky...) and around 8-12 times the volume at a rough estimate (= S.W-A.G.).

Trolls are just about the same height as Tauren males, but spend most of their time hunched over; if you stand one next to the other, though, when the troll does his idle animation of standing up straight, you can see he's about the same height, but much thinner than the tauren.

Measurements of length/distance seem to be odd in the game...there's no way a human wielding a normal sword has a reach of 15 feet (5 yard melee range) while standing in one place, much less so a pink-haired football. Conversely, a Tauren, whose arms are each easily as long or longer than a George (see above) is tall, should have a much longer melee range. (and yes, I understand that it's done for reasons of fairness and ease of coding in the game...) --Azaram 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Haha "pink-haired football" gotta save that one Wakata 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Wakata

Hi, I'm Hoofu, and my measurements are 68FF-48-68... Hoofu, tauren shaman, Argent Dawn (EU)

Tauren and guns?

I think its really weird the tuaren start out with guns. We can all tell theyre based of the Native Americans and though they used them, they hated guns. What Im saying is its weird a nature loving race would use guns tools of expansion. But I realize just like the Alliance used to have one race with a bow and one with a gun, the Horde needed a race that starts with a gun and the orcs and trolls dont really "look" like theyd use guns either. Mr.X8 00:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually its a bit stranger from the fact that lore pegs tauren to be actually the least likely members of the horde to use technology (well perhaps with exception of trolls). And that the full extent of their technology know how is in the pully system used for the elevator systems in their cities, but they have no interest to pursue technology further. In some cases seeing it as affront to nature.Baggins 07:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bounty hunter dude in orgrimmar says no tauren would be caught dead using a flimsy bow (except me maybe). Do you notice how they don't shoot a bow right? Maybe tauren are afraid they'll break the bow, and it's just a weak piece of wood and string. That or they don't like to cut down trees.Midgardsormr
In the end I think they did it just because it "looks" better. Think about it. Big hulking people carrying big noisy weapons. Mingonashoba 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the horde player's guide the Tauren are more accepting of technology then Orcs and Trolls, they just dislike how goblins and dwarves and such use technology. Hordesupporter 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i beleve even the native americans used guns that they got through trade. they may not like how they work but they can still use them Stormrage1313666

No, no most Western Tribes of the Native Americans used guns since they traded with the "cowboys" of the west. Also someone said they don't use bows because they need trees to make them. Night Elves always use them in lore and they love nature as mush if not more then the Tauren and guns are also made out of wood and metal, which needs to be mined. Mr.X8 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What made you think American Indians hated guns? It's not even correct by stereotype. The Plains Indians and the Iroquois Nation made ample use of firearms -- they just didn't have the resources or developed sedentary society to produce their own. Indians were using guns as far back as the French and Indian Wars. Just because someone loves nature doesn't mean they hold technology in contempt. Tools are part of nature too. Wood, steel, sulfur, etc. These all come from nature. --- Zexx 05:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said the Iriquouis didn't like guns? Mr.X8 21:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You said in the first part "We can all tell theyre based of the Native Americans and though they used them, they hated guns." the Iroquois are Native Americans so in other words you said they didn't.

It doesn't matter if the Native Americans used guns, it's still not part of their original culture (which is what the Tauren-culture is based on). On our world, there are still some tribes living in the South American rainforest who has never encountered civilization. If we would visit them, and give them bazookas and machine guns, would that make the weapons part of their culture? No. --Odolwa 13:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How are weapons predisposed to people's cultures? If you gave someone deep in the Amazon a rifle, it doesn't suddenly revert the culture he's from. Also, this isn't about cultural disposition for weapons. It was about firearms being considered unnatural. --- Zexx 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant when the Brits came to the New World for the first time and started maiing Jamestown, the Iroqouis were afraid of them, and it doesn't make too much sense if someone's afraid of something, but not hate it.  IconSmall HighElf Male.gif Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The HPG says straight out that Tauren + gun = no. --Xavius 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Three words: Cows with guns. --Rct3twins 18:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mostly the absurdity of a nature-bound race using a technology-based ranged weapon (kinda backed up by the Tauren Marine prank) and the mentioned "flimsiness" of bows - larger ones might not work in practice, or a Tauren might prefer a javelin or other thrown weapon. Another reason might be, they already associated orcs with axes (can only be learned in Orgrimmar) so also giving them guns (based on the horde-affiliated goblins living in Orgrimmar) was out of the question. Might also be a reference to another (occasionally) 'biped' - ok, that is the wrong word, let's call it "upright walking" - and hooved creature with a gun: Thirty-Thirty. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In the end it comes down to this: What looks right with a tauren? Bows would break and add to the "Native American" base, which blizzard doesn't like to get too close too in anything really. Axes are more of a troll based ranged weapon, javelins are as well. Crossbows are still alot of technology and are mainly human based. Throwing knives are left for assasins, and that's alot of metal to waste in a stone and wood based culture. Warcraft's "Boomsticks" look clunky, but fit, sort-of. A better idea would be some sort of tauren based glaive. But really, Tauren aren't really ranged based, even when hunting they choose to get within melee range.--IconSmall Falric.gif Sir Tristram (Speak, mortal. My Conquests.) 08:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tauren and Forsaken.

Though I really hate to bring this up. Some tauren seen in World of Warcraft do wish to cure the Forsaken. Thinking of them like leper victims. Others think their allying is a good chance to cure undeath,the guards reflect this too. A big example being Mani Winterhoof,elder council,they have a small spot in Thunder bluff as well.

Not all tauren like Forsaken,a major example is Sage Truthseeker who feels the Forsaken are exploiting the tauren's sympathy for them. Zarnks 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"have a small spot in Thunder bluff as well."
Not because the "tauren want them there", however it is said that they are "grudingly allowed there", according to Brann and Cairne in Lands of Mystery.Baggins 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously not all want them but some do. The tauren guards speak of them with pity rather then disdain. Obviously though,their presence is controversial. Zarnks 05:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are few, even the grimtotem mutually need them.Baggins 05:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well theres powerful higher ups who pity them. Most of the Tauren elder council(Minus Magatha,who has her bad reasons) seem to generally want to help the forsaken. I'd say we should say that the Elder council,some alchemists support it,but many of the regulars aren't too fond of it. Zarnks 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a moment here, just think what you would think of a rotting dead human walking around in your town. Dunno about you, but i wouldn't really welcome then =/ Stopa 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


The article states the tauren are nomadic, though the game world and commentator for the character creation of the tauren says they 'were' nomads. Maybe this could be changed? To anyone who doesn't know... nomads are people who do not settle or create towns. (pas les chomeurs...)

well if they were still nomads during a time of war like thisthen it would be much harder to organise an army and fight. think if everyone wer allways moving it would suck. also i think they were nomads when they were fighting the centaur before the orcs were ever on kalimdor. that war was much less organised as far as i know (which again is not to far) because they were kinda loseing before the orcs steped in. Stormrage1313666

The taurens of the Thunder Bluff Nation, who are the tribes that chose to consolidate and live together in Mulgore under the leadership of Cairne Bloodhoof, are no longer nomadic. This does not necessarily apply to the other independent tribes, but since the article is basically about Mulgore taurens anyway, I don't see a reason why this change cannot be made. --- Zexx 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well actually they are still semi-nomadic;
"Mulgore is the tauren’s ancestral homeland. Centaur often send raiding parties into Mulgore, and the tauren, now with the help of their Horde allies, beat them back. Tauren are naturally a nomadic people, and their tent cities are scattered across the landscape and change with the seasons and the weather. Now that they are members of the Horde, the tauren have constructed several permanent settlements."[1]
Unfortuantely the world in WoW is not to scale and is static, and doesn't allow the ability to see the towns that are moved from location to location.Baggins 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they were nomads before they met the Orcs, because then they could not beat the Centaur, who would lay siege on their settlements all the time, but now, when they don't have to fear the Centaur anymore, they've settled. Stopa 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tauren were merely nomads because the centaurs harassed them. Now however, they have built a city though most keep their nomadic tradicion. Baldr 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Taurens worships Cenarius?

Why Taurens are apart of Horde, but worships Cenarius, a Night Elf that belongs to the Alliance? You can see Tauren questgivers talking good about Cenarius. Why is this?

Cenarius is a demi-god, not a night elf. Specifically, he's the demi-god that taught druidism to Malfurion and is thus indirectly responsible for tauren druids. -- Dark T Zeratul 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening title

Where does "guided by the Earthmother" come from? It seems to just be made up. Saimdusan 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is made up, just fun 'flavour text'.--SWM2448 02:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Most infobox titles are like that. They're all researched and considered. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

History (game-wise)

Did Tauren appear in any of the other Warcraft games?

Tauren first appeared in Warcraft III, and thus also it's expansion.Warthok Talk Contribs 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tauren and Blood elves

Whats a taurens relation to blood elves? it isnt mentioned on the info page, and its bugging me, do they mistrust each other, do they hug and kiss when they meet, or do they stick a spear in each others faces?

Graham Thunderhammer- professional nutter.

They're both members of the horde, so they probably work together quite easily. This is not a forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, blood elves do think of the tauren as food. Just a joke, you say? Suuure it is... Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
To the Blood elves, Forsaken are dead humans, but at least lead by a (albeit also dead) high elf of noble origin, orcs are suspicious because they ravaged through Azeroth not that long ago, especially for an elf, but they probably have a better understanding of demons and their ways of corruption, so they might not see the orcs as responsible for those wars, but rather as "tools" used by the opposite side, as they "cultivated" the humans. Those two races easily fit into the official statement of the Sin'dorei seeing the Horde as necessary ally. But they always had troubles with trolls, and the Tauren are too foreign, non-humanoid/elfoid to accept them as "intelligent beings with feelings". So while there won't be outright animosities, most Blood elfs (paladins, mages, warlocks) will probably be pretty arrogant lore-wise (the similarity to cows might surely inspire jokes like that ingame /silly) but might warm up after a few adventures (hunters might have experience with other 'bestial' races, and a generally more open mind for nature-related things) ~ Nathanyel (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Primary languages, common"?

Tauren don't speak Common, at least in WoW. I dunno if that came from the RPG or whatever, but the in-WoW languages are Taurahe and Orcish... --Azaram (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Came from the rpg, where most races get common as a primary language. In wow; well that doesn't count as lore.Tweak the Whacked (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, if you were to go by WoW languages, orcish would be primary language, and tauren would be secondary. Which makes little sense.Baggins (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reason for Racial Abilities"

I suspect these "reasons for racial abilities" are pure fanon, but they are generally nautral enough. However, the "reason" for War Stomp sounds weird, I've always assumed they could do that because of their massive build, not their connection with the spirits. Inv misc orb 04.pngXavius, the Satyr Lord 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for "Confederated Tribes of the Tauren"?

I've seen the term "Confederated Tribes of the Tauren" pop up in half a dozen articles, all of them in boxes of some sort of another, and never referenced. Is this a real term? "United Tauren Tribes" is at least referenced in this article, and as far as in-game lore, only the terms "the Tribes" (Tauren in W3) and I suppose "the Tauren" exist. It strikes me as a fan-made term - for one, I doubt the tauren even have a taur-ahe word for "confederated", expetially seeing as the tribes even under Cairne were never very confederated at all in the lore - take the Grimtotem tribe or the Cliffwalker for example, mostly operating out of tribe camps by themselves.--Weasel (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Noticed those too, along with some other name for that "nation" which was reverted, however. I'd rather put some generic description (possibly lowercase to not imply an official title) of what the Tauren tribes are, while "confederation" is technically fitting, it sounds too unlike the Tauren or even (most of) the Warcraft universe. The only other fitting synonym I found (not a native speaker) was "alliance", and that forbids itself.
I doubt the Tauren tribes have a written "constitution", they're still living by their old laws. My impression is, Mulgore and Thunder Bluff are technically Bloodhoof territory, but all Tauren are welcomed, and several other tribes have made it their "capital" as well. Cairne and now Baine as the chieftains of the Bloodhoof are the leader of the Tauren when it came to "foreign affairs" (even still inside the Horde) but within the tribes the respective chieftains were rather equal, discussing matters among each others. The latter is not much more than speculation, as hardly any other chieftains have played a prominent role in WoW so far.
To sum: at least it should be lowercase "confederated tribes..." but I'd prefer "the Tauren tribes" or simply "the Tauren". ~ Nathanyel (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It is fan fiction that will not die. However, as listed in Cairne Bloodhoof's infobox, "United Tauren Tribes" has been used at least twice. It is seemingly redundant with the "Thunder Bluff" faction.--SWM2448 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"Thunder Bluff" is not necessarily the tauren faction in lore. Take "Undercity" for example - the faction of playable undead in WoW is not "Undercity", it's "The Forsaken". Undercity is only the capital, and is barely used in-game, and only rarely and unimportantly, to refer to the Forsaken as a whole (eg. generic npcs like Undercity Valiant). Silvermoon City is the same - it is an in-game faction for simplicity's sake; the lore faction would be Quel'Thalas. Orgrimmar would be Durotar, Echo Isles the Darkspear Tribe. Goodness knows why Blizzard decided to dumb it down for WoW. The tauren faction wouldn't be Mulgore either, as the tauren are still primarily a nomadic people - only Thunder Bluff is permenant for security reasons. United Tauren Tribes at least makes sense in regards to all the lore - the tauren (even excluding the Grimtotem) are not one faction at all, but many unique tribes.--Weasel (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
However, it's the only official term we have. Comparisons to other factions, whose territories and cities evolved in a different way, are moot. But I'd agree with "united tauren tribes" for use on Wowpedia, however only lowercase, it's not an official term. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"United Tauren Tribes" is used in the Horde Player's Guide, so yes, I'd go with it too. Any objections to me scourging "Confederated Tribes of the Tauren" from WoWpedia?--Weasel (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I already went ahead and replaced that with "Thunder Bluff" ;) (see my recent contribs) but if the HPG mentions that term, it's ok to put it there. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tauren height discrepancy

I had previously copied the info from the World of Warcraft: Official Beginner's Guide p. 45 that said they were 7-8 feet tall. However, Copeland tweeted that they are 9-10 feet tall on average, conflicting with the Beginner's Guide. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since The Beginner's Guide isn't an official publication, having not been published by Blizzard (and let me assure you, strategy guides are almost entirely the work of the publisher and not the company whose game they're about), I don't think it should be used as a source for anything. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
How is it not an official publication? It says it's official right in the title. It was released with 2013 Battle Chest and is available for digital download directly from Blizzard's site, right next to where you download the game client. Besides, the original WoW Manual also shows they only go up to 8 feet tall. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's officially licensed, but that doesn't mean Blizzard wrote or even approved its exact contents. Kind of like the RPG. The WoW manual, on the other hand, is a much better source to point out the contradiction. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Since I have you here, is my browser broken? I uploaded a new version from the TBC manual. It thumbs correctly and shows correctly in the preview, but when I click on it for full sized version, it displays the old pic. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Read more of the tweets in the thread, Copeland addressed the discrepancy with the WoW/TBC manual chart. He said he was going by their internal chart, meaning the game manual is inaccurate. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though the internal chart isn't published, it is still the most up-to-date info on race heights. And just because it wasn't published doesn't discount Loreology's tweet. Statements by Blizzard employees override published material all the time. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who you're directing that comment at, but my only issues were with using the BradyGames strategy guide as a source. Even so, when Blizzard tweets conflict with existing lore, that doesn't mean the one trumps the other unless they specifically state otherwise (this is Wowpedia's policy regarding all conflicting sources).
As to your image question, that's a browser cache issue. Ctrl+F5 will generally force your browser to display the correct version of the image. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The tweets part is @ Levi26. Loreology's response to the discrepancy is:

That info should be in the TBC manual. :)
The chart puts tauren at 8 feet. Are they the only model size inaccurate to lore?
We're doing what we can to make our internal chart a public resource. Please stay tuned! :)

Indicating that their internal bible contains different values for tauren (and orc) heights and they intend to publish the new values. It's just that they haven't gotten around to making that info publicly available—outside of Copeland relaying it via tweet. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
...Ah, yeah, he really should be discussing this here instead of engaging in an edit war. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Arthaus. World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, 19. ISBN 9781588467812.