Talk:Ancient Guardian

Old discussion
Its an interesting note that the RPG distinguishes between Ancients(capitalization), and ancients(non-capitalization) to differentiate between the "demi-gods" and the "trees".Baggins 11:27, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * Is it really true that the Alliance Player's Guide distinguishes them by capitalization? We are basing a lot off of that.-- 06:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Language
Don't Ancients have their own language? I think this was mentoined in War of the Ancients. --Ramming pure 07:43, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


 * If so we need to add the information to the article, with the citations. The currently listed languages are the ones that the RPG says they speak.Baggins 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I read the book and it does say something about that on page 262. "The demigod — Cenarius — he taught you to speak with the trees, to cast such spells?" This is Rhonin speaking to Malfurion who could understand the language. As for the language they don't mention even what the trees say just that "The leaves of the trees began to rustle even though Rhonin could feel no wind".   Rolandius (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Err... I think they're speaking figuratively. Malfurion and other druids are communicating via their empathy for the land. Remember that Furion has also been seen "talking" to animals, stones, and the weather. I'm not saying that trees and such don't have their own language (depending on your definition), just that that sentence isn't really evidence of such.
 * I think we've already discussed that Ancients probably speak in humanoid languages, just slower and more Entish. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Split?
This article is the explanation for what should be placed in Category:Ancients, but it's very ambiguous to me. Do Ironbark Protector and Agamaggan really belong in the same category? I would make the category refer only to the tree-like ancients and put all the famous Ancients in category:Demigods, but then where should fox and stick bug go? Looking for advice from those more familiar with lore on what this category should contain. -- 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fox and stick bug would be be demigods, too, by that split. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Then unless there's any dissent, when I get back around to this category I'm going to clarify that it's for the tree-like ancients and move all of the Ancients to Category:Demigods. -- 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds acceptable to me. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So are we going to split this article? Something like "Ancients (race)" and "Ancients (demigods)"? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. To be honest the article is fine as it is. -- 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With a little "cleanup" I think it looks okay now. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bringing this up again, is the split still a no go?-- 22:18, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Sethria
Ashbear, what is your reasoning for this edit? You say that just because Sethria keeps Aviana's egg that it doesn't make her a dark version of Aviana, while I say that she is a "Dark Ancient", just not one made from scratch. The implication is that she is the dark ancient. My citation, like the others, is her entire quest chain. She is the primary target of the quest chain, and no other being is ever mentioned. In Quest:A Bird in Hand, Marion Wormwing calls Sethria "She of the skies, but also of darkness." and says that "Sethria will soon be the master of the skies". In Quest:A Prayer and a Wing, Vision of Sethria says "Soon we will possess the skies." Why does she need citation, and the other do not? Because her nature is slightly different? Also, why did you remove the land-sea-air thing?-- 04:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in that entire quest chain, at all, that even remotely implies that Sethria is anything other than a twilight dragon. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is. Perhaps she was just going to rule the skies in Aviana's absence, but the implication is there. If not, then what Twilight ancient(s) would give then power over the sky?-- 04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read all of those as simple references to her being a very powerful twilight broodmother. Their power over the sky would be a result of their possession of the twilight dragonflight as well as the removal of Aviana as a potential threat to their presence. It also seems likely that they intended to corrupt Aviana somehow. Either way, the other dark ancients were created from the ancients themselves, while I saw nothing to suggest that Sethria's birth was any different from the rest of her flight. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Her nature is clearly different then the others, yet her goal was clearly to replace Aviana. Perhaps she needed the egg to empower herself, along with finishing off Aviana. In Quest:Finish Nemesis, it is said that "Twilight's Hammer dreamed of creating their own pantheon of twisted ancients to rule over the land, sea, and air." Lycanthoth is clearly land-based. Nemesis is made of magma and should not be in water, but Tortolla and his children are shown swimming and being fine underwater, making Nemesis sea-based. As the focus of the quest chains was saving three Ancients, it is reasonable to think that Aviana would have an air-based counterpart. That role is filled by Sethria, even if there is nothing distinctly air-based about her, beyond that she can fly. What sets Ancients apart anyway? Perhaps the "Dark Ancient" label does not exist at all.-- 04:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with dark, Lycanthoth and Nemesis are said to be made from goldrinn and tortolla and dark powers, Sethria is just a twilight dragon, whetever she was going to become something later she did not become it, and after she's killed she's called just a minor dragon--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And Sethria contrary to Lycanthoth and Nemesiss looks nothing like the one made from--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that she was planning to become the new air Ancient, and that not including her on the list would make it incomplete.-- 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible she needed the egg to create a dark ancient, not become one herself, since they need a piece of the original ancient to do so. 20:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lycanthoth and Nemesis are explicitly stated in quest text as being twisted gods summoned by the Twilight's Hammer. Sehtria, meanwhile, is only ever said to be a dragon (Thisalee Crow at one point even calls her a minor dragon). Marion Wormwing even calls her "Brood of the Earth Warden," which seems pretty clear. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The other two dark Ancients did not have a direct superior. Sethria claims that she will be the master of the skies, not that she will make a master that she controls. Yes, she is a minor twilight dragon, but then where is the evil bird Ancient? Even a mention of such intent?-- 20:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. They may have intended to use Aviana's egg to create one, but it never happened. The fact that Aviana was dead (unlike Tortolla and Goldrinn) might also have something to do with it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why not allude to such a summoning ritual? Sethria seems fairly intent on having the role herself. Also, I think Goldrinn was dead, but in the Emerald Dream. Aviana was in a similar situation, and her egg was key to her resurrection. The Twilight's Hammer repressed them both.-- 20:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if she intended, she did not become one, while Lycanthoth and Nemesis were already "dark" Ancients since the beginning, and even if sethria intended to take that role and power she failed to get what she needed, the egg, so no i don't think she was a "dark" ancient.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * She could be marked as the intended air ancient, for completeness.-- 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep insisting she be on this page for "completeness," yet I don't see why there has to be an "air ancient" at all. There's no suggestion whatsoever that there was or would have been one; the only Dark Ancients that are ever mentioned are Nemesis and Tortolla, so I don't see why you're so adamant that there must be a third. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about this "Twilight's Hammer dreamed of creating their own pantheon of twisted ancients to rule over the land, sea, and air." but i think that was just a generic "they will try to rule us all" rather than they only intended to make only three, the feeling i get when reading the quests is that they eventually intended to replace everyone of the ancients, and not just 3.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, they dreamed of it. But without any references to Sethria being or potentially becoming a dark ancient, claiming she is would be pure speculation and I don't see why it should be listed on this page. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if nobody has problems with it anymore i'll remove it in the next hour.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sethria claims that she would take the role of Aviana. Even if she never got any special powers, the intent should be noted, or at least the lack of an air ancient should be noted. I do not think that the aforementioned statement was just a generic "they will try to rule us all" statement. I really think that they only intended to make three, as the other two match land and sea (even if on fire).-- 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well my opinion differs, so we'll have to agree that we disagree, and leave it to the majority, which for now is "Sethria is not a dark ancient". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.
 * I don't care that we disagree, I only care about what makes it on the page. The "majority" is Dark T Zeratul. I will accept that Sethria is not a dark ancient, but I still feel that she was trying to be, and should be listed, based on the implication that there was going to be three.-- 17:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely; with no specific mention of an "air ancient," or any dark ancient in relation to Aviana, the implication is so vague as to be more like speculation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also disagree they said that the twilight hammer had the dream of creating a pantheon that could control the seas the land and the sky, it never specified a number, and Sethria doesn't fit the definition that the other two dark ancients set.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that it can be interpreted that they intended to create more dark ancients, and that there was not a dark version of Aviana, but while that may be a noteworthy addition I don't see any reason to mention Sethria in connection with it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will agree to the current wording.-- 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to bring the argument back, but I must agree with Zeratul. Seriously, marking Sethria as dark ancient just because there is a free seat and no one to take it seems like something good for third-grade speculation websites that present their ideas as serious facts.Neutralion (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Vashj'ir Ancients
As far as i know they are called demigods and not ancients, there are sources but unfortunately i can't check them, can anybody tell me what those sources say?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not lying or wrong here. Unlike the Sethria thing, both are identified by the word "ancient". It is gossip text. Wowhead does not copy that. Several quests by Erunak Stonespeaker at Promontory Point also mention L'ghorek's ancient status. If you have no way of checking, then why doubt it so much? Phasing would make getting a screenshot hard.-- 17:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to confirm it nothing else, i heard it being called demigod never ancients, i'll you believe anyway.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Coming from here: User talk:Lon-ami
 * They aren't mentioned as "Ancients" (upper case) anywhere, so they don't match the definition. Feel free to revert the change if you find any mention of him as "Ancients" or "Ancient Guardians".--Lon-ami (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish we had screenshots that would be far more easier.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They are mentioned as "Ancients" (upper case): Quest:Communing with the Ancient --LemonBaby (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be in the sources too then?--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Parallel discussion

 * Coming from here: User talk:Lon-ami

You asked for someone to give proper source for the Vashj'ir demigods before putting them back on the Ancient Guardian page. I put them back because I am not wrong. Please see Talk:Ancient_Guardian. Nespirah is only mentioned to be one is gossip text, which gets removed in phasing (do I have to get an alt that high right now?). L'ghorek is mentioned to be such in similar gossip text, and in at least three quests: here, here, and here. Your thoughts?-- 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My main problem is that they aren't called ancient guardians, they're called simply ancients (not Ancients) or ancient ones :S.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I remember right, most of the Ancient Guardians are referred to simply as ancients in most places. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aessina, Aviana and Tortolla are called simply ancients, too. I don't think the source for the Vashj'ir demigods should be any problem. --LemonBaby (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude Lon-ami Ancient Guardian is just a secondary name we found(somewhere no sure where) to clearly separate between the Ancient(trees) and the Ancient(demigods), if they are called ancients are something like deities, they are ancient guardians, don't take the name of the article too much in consideration, it's just technicality, and that can be clearly seen on the first line of text of the article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ancient =/= ancient. I though only "Ancient" referred to our beloved demigods.
 * I don't see the "ancient ones" being called "Ancients" anywhere, only "ancients". And no, quest text isn't valid because it always has nouns in upper case.
 * Also, Ancient Guardian is a valid name. Just check the article's sources.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are they called ancient as old? or Ancient as being Demigod? ps: Did you check what they saids? some screenshoots of what they said would be nice,
 * and i know Ancient Guardian is a valid name that's why we use it, i'm just saying that the article refers to all beings called ancients that are demigods, and the list is supposed to contain that, and not just beings that are called ancient guardians--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is called "Ancient Guardian", not "Ancient". It includes "Ancient Guardians", and nothing else.
 * You have WoWHead to check the quests twice and see the word "Ancient" doesn't appear anywhere in upper case.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the first line of the article(i think this is the case where we influenced blizzard decision, by calling them that to avoid confusion, would ot be the first time apparently)


 * "Ancient Guardians[1][2] (also known as Ancients or ancients) are demigods of Azeroth."
 * the article is called that way to avoid confusion with the ancients tree article(they were separated because it got too confusing), this article was created for demigods called ancients, as long it is a demigod and carries the title of Ancient or Ancient Guardian it goes into this article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I also don't think the the vasjir demigods are ever called ancients, i'm just trying to clarify some confusion i think i was picking up from you, also i don't have the ability to check the source.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as pointed out by Sandwichman: Quest:Unplug L'ghorek: L'ghorek is the ancient that rests upon the shelf across from us. and Quest:Communing with the Ancient: Enter L'ghorek. Commune with the ancient. --LemonBaby (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The lack of capital letter and the use of "ancient ones" later pretty much invalidates that, imo.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't cite an article with itself, and with the RPG as non-canon, the capitalization rule is moot. If it is called an "ancient" and is not a tree, then it is an "Ancient Guardian". Why is this doubted?-- 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a load of things called "ancients" without being trees, should we include all of them? I thought the page was mostly for Ancient Guardians, not ancients in general. I think it¡s pretty clear what the article is for, and Vashj'ir demigods don't match the group formed by Cenarius and co. that fought at the WotA. Also, since "Ancient Guardian" is in-game, I'm not sure if that "ancient is ancient guardian" argument is valid anymore.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ancient Guardian" is on the game once. Therefore, the only ancients are Cenarius, Aviana, and Goldrinn. I doubt this.-- 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The first time "ancient guardian" appeared as canon was during a quest in Cataclysm. So by your logic the therm is new and there should be a valid source that says that "ancient guardians" are the same as non-tree "ancients" --LemonBaby (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The intent of the article is listing Ancient (demigods), as much as i dislike it, the Vasjir demigods fit that role so they must be in it.
 * That would be stupid since i think we(wowpedia members), influenced blizzard to call them that to avoid confusion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was in Warcraft III's manual too, and is cited as such on the page. The terms are used interchangeably because they refer to the same individuals. The Vashj'ir demigods fit that role because they are called ancients!-- 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * However there's a blurry line that must be carefully examined, if the being as a ancient a type of demigod, or if it's ancient a really old thing, that's why i said a screen shot or the quotes would be useful.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave you three quests about the one.-- 17:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that :D, however now out of curiosity i still wanna see screen shots of others.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good for you. Maybe someone will post it.-- 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What were the ones that are confirmed to be ancients only in the RPG? Azshara, Xavious and Elune right? i think we should post a rpg list in the rpg section at least--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the paragraphs.-- 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed thanks anyway added a small list at the bottom--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Elune is a ancient?
The only source i found on wowpedia is ^ Arthaus. Shadows & Light, 67. ISBN 9781588469731. , it's from the RPG and i can't cofirm it--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anybody confirm if this is the only source we have for elune being a ancient?--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ursol and Ursoc
Are they ancients in the books about the war of the ancients?--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? you can't be serious, if you don't have the sources, you can check them in this very wiki. I won't answer to that, when you only need to see the article about the books to find the answer. Seriously.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The wiki isn't the source and when you go source hunting you usually go for the source, i've checked the article and it seems ursol and ursoc appear under the group of demigod/ancient, but that doesn't tell me if they are ancients or not, that's why i'm asking for someone with the source...--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the War of the Ancients trilogy. Possibly the Grizzly Hills quests. MAYBE the Warcraft 3 manual, just in case it references them (though I doubt it). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've checked the grizzly hills quests, only demigod and god, no ursoc being a ancient and other variants of that there.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the Vashj'ir demigods' sources are invalid
Needs to be more concrete. "the dying ancient one in front of us" =/= Ancient. If something, we get an alternate name "Ancient one". "ancient" there screams adjective, not noun. If all mentions to ancients were Ancient Guardians, we'd have a list of 40 weirdos. Same as above (quest name isn't valid, because nouns and adjectives are always upper case in them). Put that gossip text in the wiki and we talk later.
 * Statements by individuals at Promontory Point
 * It Will Come
 * Unplug L'ghorek
 * Communing with the Ancient
 * Wavespeaker Valoren's gossip text while she is still in Nespirah

That's all. I'm waiting for your counter arguments :).--Lon-ami (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Argh the constant corrections you're making me do is driving me nuts,decide already or go to a bigger forum and ask for more opinion there--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok i divided this page with a term blizzard responds to it all can work out *twich --Ashbear160 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lon-ami, it is not an adjective in Quest:Unplug L'ghorek. I don't see how you see it, unless you just don't like it. While the note about Wavespeaker Valoren is not good citation, I can not stress enough that it does exist. EDIT: Here it is. Ashbear160, stop the craziness and obsessiveness.-- 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ancient is also very inconsistently capitalized across multiple sources; Matoclaw, for instance, refers to "ancients" when discussing the War of the Ancients. If something is called an ancient (not ancient one, because that it IS being used as an adjective), and it's not a tree, it's an ancient guardian. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally thank you, now we can put that issue to rest,now we just need to find the actual citatio on ursol and ursoc.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, if you apply the laws applied to ancients (trees), then why don't vashj'ir demigods get the same treatment and be moved to a new category? I don't think they are Ancient Guardians, so I don't think they belong here. I would, at least, demand a citation where they are called "Ancients", and not just "ancients". Every single demigod in this page is called "Ancient" or "Ancient Guardian" somewhere, except the shell demigods.
 * We need more people to get a consensus.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lon-ami just let it go, we'll try to ask blizzard and hope we get a answer--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single demigod on this page has been around long enough to GET multiple references over the past several years. The trees were also explicitly mentioned as being different things when they were introduced in Warcraft 3. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on the use of a lowercase letter, which we've already demonstrated has been used for the other demigod ancients. There are times to fight, and times to concede. I think this is one the latter. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides like the dark ancients they've been given their own section so less confusion is caused.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
The trees may be a subset of these guys. The Warcraft III manual might imply it. The first book of the WotA trilogy has them as actual trees with some powers... I'll have to check if they are ever really connected besides name.-- 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Plz don't add references to the tree in this article it's already confusing as it is.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe to you. Why not?-- 20:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because:


 * 1 - Because it avoid confusion.
 * 2 - The articles were separated to avoid confusion.
 * 3 - There is a clear distinction between both.
 * 4 - There is already a link to the trees on top of this page.
 * 4 reasons why--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I can cite that they are a subset, then they should be added.-- 21:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Put that in the link in the top then, just be careful on what you do, it would eventually get messy again if you "fuse the articles"--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandwhich got my point: if shells are, trees are, too.
 * But I'm not giving up that ancients means more than Ancient Guardians, like what happened with Watchers.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the articles separate, add a note about the trees if you must but for pity sake, don't fuse the articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why not separate Vashj'ir demigods into other article? Stop contradicting.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can separate if you feel like it but you would have to separate the dark ancients too you would still have to call them something like Vash'jr Ancients and this article would need to be linked to both articles, just please don't fuse the articles the Ancient and the Ancient guardian articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lon-ami, I did not "get your point". I am not using any criteria beside the use of the term "ancient" to classify them. The tree ones might be included in this group, but are also a group in themselves, with enough of their own lore to warrant their own page. The Vashj'ir demigods as a group do not have that much lore.-- 18:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they have it, there's a whole zone and a scrapped instance around them O_O.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather, a third one was going to appear in either the cut northern Vashj'ir area or in the cut second Abyssal Maw instance. Still, they don't even have a race name, or origins, or their powers spelled out. Just that they are ancients. Quest:Don't be Shellfish gives some kind of a description, but the shaman (oddly) does not seem to even know what it is at that point.-- 20:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We have race pages for guys that appear once in-game, and that they have no lore at all. I don't see why 2 guys with lore can't get the same treatment.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You could try and make a race page for them, but they should stay here too.-- 16:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am german and in the german version of the game the tree-like ancients are called "Urtume" and the ancient guardians are called "Ahnen". In german you only write nouns with capital letters. In the quest text of Mit dem Ahnen reden (comm..with the ancient) it says: "Betretet L'ghorek. Kommuniziert mit dem Ahnen." clearly calling him an "Ahnen" (=ancient guardian) --LemonBaby (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, ok that is incredibly useful.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is.-- 14:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like german language but i gotta admit, that clarifies a lot--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Translations are pretty relative. Spanish version has it as "ancestro" which has double meaning (noun and adjective).
 * Still, I don't see them references as Ancient Guardians. There's a lot of stuff called Ancients out there, should we include them all?--Lon-ami (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want an example, mentioning "elves" is a clear one.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A few years ago Blizzard decided to translate all in-game names (Deathwing -> Todesschinge and so on). A lot of fans didn't like the chances. So a Blue clarified that the translation process is a directly linked to the lore departmend since words like Ironforge could change their meaning during the process. English words don't destinguish between, adjectives or even gender. So looking into differnt languages might not be as useless as some of you think. In fact on the show Lost the german translation helped a lot. In one scene a character said as he died "you are next...". In the english version it was not clear wheter he meant all the other people or just the single one he was talking to. In fact he was refering to all of them...--LemonBaby (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: Two years ago I said the same thing about Dark elves.... --LemonBaby (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, what I'm asking for is a mention to them in quest text as "Ancients". German isn't useful for that case, since nouns are always upper case. In the Spanish version, they're mentioned in lower case, like in the english one.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit wars
Many minor details have gone back and forth long enough. They should be talked about before any more changes are done. The edit comments are not a good place for arguments. For starters, Quest:Return to Nordrassil is being used to cite Aessina, Aviana, Cenarius, Goldrinn, Malorne, and Tortolla as being ancients, while that source only confirms Cenarius, Aviana, Goldrinn, and Tortolla. Aessina and Malorne, are in the conversation, but not said to be ancients there. "Ancient Guardians" was removed from the dark ancient text because, while it is a valid name, it is not the one used in the conversations being cited. I keep putting "Arch Druid" because that is the name of the NPC that gives the exposition. Matoclaw does indeed mention Malorne in her gossip. -- 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article name is Hamuul Runetotem. If you want to include the name of the NPC, then use Arch Druid Hamuul Runetotem. I still think we don't need it, since we're citing another article of the wiki, not an external source not represented inside our list of articles.
 * Return to Nordrassil has more text down, where it mentions those other ancients, implying they are ancients, too (at least, that's how I see it, they're talking about ancients and they mention Aessina? obvious).
 * I don't see the name Malorne on the entire article of Matoclaw.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone told me that Matoclaw mentions Malorne after the molten front but i can't be sure.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were to actually click the link Sandwichman provided, you would see exactly where she says it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't check every single talk page ¬_¬. If she mentions him, why wasn't that in her main page to start with? If you quote a source, I open that source and see no mention of Malorne at all, what do you want me to think? Seriously.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that because it is not transcribed on this wiki it is less valid?-- 16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that I see wrong sourcing, and I remove it. If you link an article where the content isn't transcribed, then how do I know you're not making it up? It isn't correct, anyway, to reference empty sources.
 * Until it isn't in the article, no citing. It's not a about being more or less valid, is about "being". If there's no mention of Malorne at all, you can't use it as a reference for something about Malorne. Use an external link to WoWHead or any other place that has it transcribed instead, or put "text said by X in Y during Z moment" instead of a link. Something that you can actually check.
 * I think it's common sense, but well.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So rather than add a tag or checking her yourself in-game, you're breaking the "assume good faith" rule and calling him a liar? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is not done yet don't remove it'll only create unnecessary edits
 * Also the reason i'm adding a space between sources inside the sources is because, sources should be read like sources and not like wiki code.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the references be Matoclaw instead of Matoclaw?I though references had to be "raw" and direct, and not modified like that.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They don't have to be anything but correct and a reference.-- 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I'm reverting them to the original format (less kb).--Lon-ami (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A few more characters does not hurt anything. Favoring either way is pointless.-- 20:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like i said sources should look like sources and not like code, tell me does wikipedia use code to represent their sources?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia often cite things with local copies of transcriptions of things?-- 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but they frequently go out of their way to make sources look like sources instead of just a webpage, it's supposed to be easy to read to people that don't understand wiki code(even trough it's easy).
 * This is a example from the official wikipedia


 * Sources should look like we're telling where it comes from and not what link they should follow to see a transcription of the source.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact i think i'm gonna add where do these npcs says these gossips.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're pointless, and you're derailing the sources. The source should be the place where it is, period. Modifying it to "look nice" forces people to actually check the link to see where it goes. It should be raw to where it directs. Also, location and other stuff is-just-pointless. We're directing to a section in another article, not to whatever is said by someone in a place. That's noted on that article itself, not on this one. Also, wtf wikicode? you don't need to be an expert to know what "#" means.
 * I'm still convinced that they were fine as they were. Don't change anything else anywhere else until we get a decision on to leave it simple or leave it complex. Maybe we should move it to the policy forum, seeing how you'll probably start spamming and edit-warfaring the rest of the articles.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources are were information comes from, not link to other places, it should point where to find information, not link to other articles that do, this is how it's done in wikipedia and others wikis.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and that's why what you're doing is-not-correct. You should be able to know where it directs without needing to scroll over it.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A reader when looking at the source(in this page), should be able to see where source is from without going to another article it points out, it should be direct, the link is just to help.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gotten very far off the original topic. Please do as Lon-ami asked and take it to a more relevant talk page, or a forum. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Be welcomed here: Forum:Sourcing between articles.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After that, I think we should go through this page line by line or issue by issue and pick something. I'm not sure why this is dragging on. Lon-ami and Ashbear, you two need to agree on something (preferably something that I also agree with) and then leave it.-- 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)