Talk:Old Gods' forces

Heeeey, wait
I'm sorry, but making faction page for every Elemental lord doesn't make sense to me. Therazane has it's page because it's playable faction, while other are not. If you really want to create pages like Ragnaros' minions abd so on, you should also do it for Tgerazane, because she doesn't have this page either. Just my opinion ;) Neutralion (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't need to be done too since the Elemenetal plane could be considered their kingdom or faction--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hystory section
I'm having problems with the hystory section i know something but i don't know how to write them in Pre-wow history Could Anybody help?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Before the titans there were the old gods and the elementals
 * they were imprisoned by the titans
 * they influenced the war of the ancients to weaken their prisons
 * C'thun caused the war of the shifting sands
 * Nobody?--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the history section neither the alliance or the horde article have it--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can count with me. I am almost a lore-master. Ask as you want.Gabrirt (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't a need for a hystory section the organization and former member section covers it up--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is spelled "history" and I do not think that Gabrirt is a "lore-master". Luckily, Ashbear160 has decided that there isn't a need to add more to the article (at least this time).-- 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinda Finished
The article is currently kinda finished the rest i think it's just correct small errors, add some image and i think it's very similiar to the horde and alliance articles, I anybody has any problem tell me, meawhile i'm going to put this uder scrutinity of the guys at sol--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the Article name grammatically correct the ' seems to be in the wrong place
 * Anyway the Hystory section and disorganized text are saved at User:Ashbear160/Old god force's in case someone needs it--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The name is grammatically correct. An apostrophe is used to denote possession; in this case, the forces belonging to the Old Gods. Your page name is wrong, because you are using an apostrophe to denote pluralization, which is absolutely wrong all the time ever. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, someone needs to rewrite the opening two paragraphs, because I can barely make sense of that. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's really a mess. This page is going to have the Construction tag for a LONG time. -- 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for rewritting the first paragraph i rewrote the second paragraph, is this more to your standards--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit, but it's still one big, long, run-on sentence. And as Gourra pointed out, the rest of the article's not much better. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tried Changing it again i think it's better except for my abuse of the words old gods, i'm thinking of trasfering the second paragraph to another section, but what do you think of the first 2 paragraphs now?--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not like this page. I have not liked it since this project began, and it has only improved slightly. I would have deleted the page a while ago if not for 1) the concept existing, and 2) the chance that it could improve. Making Ashbear160, Gabrirt, and anyone else who contributed to this page not feel bad was part of my inaction, but in retrospect that is slightly stupid. This page exists, and I fail any fan who reads this at face value and gets the wrong impression.

This is a little personal against Ashbear, but only because I feel that what is on the page now is the best that he can do, but factoring him in or not, this page is still lacking. However, personal attacks are immature on my part, and Ashbear asked for criticism, so I will give it and assume that this will become better. Having something that you put your heart into dashed down (even if the reason may have been debatably justified) is one of the worst things that can happen to a person, so I do feel a bit bad for writing this.

Now, the criticism: The opening paragraph was a bit off, so I rewrote it. I feel that it is better this way. The icon-tastic (a word, so says me) list often takes liberties, trying to classify things in definitive ways, such as "race" name and function, based on circumstantial (or less) evidence. The list also seems to go out of its way to try to list every race of every faction that the Old Gods have somehow influenced. Whoever made the Kevin Bacon game might be proud, but some trimming could be justified. It also seems to make up names for sub-factions that are implied to be going to be filled in at a later date. This list itself loves icons (much like its creator), and is one of the most expansive bullet-pointed lists that I have ever seen. Paragraphs might be better, but I am not sure, or sure how to fit them in.

The paragraphs at the bottom are a welcome, but seemingly out of place, break. However, they are riddled with minor factual, and grammatical errors (like the list is) that just build up over time. The "Notable Leaders" section seems redundant with some sections of the bullet-pointed list (while being another list itself), and just seems like an excuse to attempt to add a table. Also, of course the Old Gods lead them. I notice that the reference section is existent, but blank. The infobox itself seems to make quite a bit of this page more or less redundant, especially the leader section. Finally, you have a template that also seems to make quite a bit of this page more or less redundant. Also, the Old Gods are behind a lot, and their minions are only united really in that fact. That is my criticism.-- 03:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you've written. I also feel (and have felt for some time) that many of those same points apply to the Burning Legion page, and the list at the end of every single member of the Burning Legion ever and everyone who's ever allied with them. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Like i said writing articles isn't my best and i'll continue to try to improve it, but at least i'll try to make some justifications
 * I like icon yes, they make the list overall easier to read, and other people have told me the same, when the icons were removed from the horde article.
 * The race name is more or less decided on the Icon list page so i'm only applying the same rules there as i apply them here.
 * About trying to fill the list with everyone that served the old gods, the same thing that happened to the alliance and the horde articles.
 * I assume that complaint is about the Iron Army or the Loken Force's, i only name them such because i have no idea what to call them officially
 * I plan to add the reference list when i get the rest of article right.
 * I asked for help with the paragraphs at the bottom, for now i seem to have been ignored.
 * Notable leaders is just like the alliance and horde article it's useless because of the membership section, and if you think it's just about listing the leaders, but it's a timeline that show the leadership of those factions.
 * Doesn't the infobox in the alliance and horde page make those pages more or less redundant? the infobox is a list for quick reading.
 * But the Old gods are there and they are forcing their various minion to cooperate


 * I'll admit it needs a lot of trimming, and i'm trying to make it very similar to the horde and alliance article, and the old gods are behind a lot so it's going to be big work, i already have some ideas where to trim, when i mentioned kinda finished is that i finished adding information(except the references i forgot about those initially), the list is complete(needs a trim a grammatical and factual check), the paragraphs are complete(needs a grammatical and factual check), and the notable leaders section is complete(or am i touching that one in fear of breaking the code).--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Minor grammar note: "Old Gods force's" would mean "Old Gods force is" since the apostrophe is way off. "Old Gods' Forces" is correct. This also goes for "Loken Force's" which would mean "Loken Force is". -- 13:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those small things escape me a lot, i removed the word Loken forces.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Many of the names on the icon list are just guesswork (partially by you, Ashbear) so using those names does not 'justify' anything. You are just spreading possibly false information. Making this page like the Alliance and Horde articles keeps coming up, so I want it to be asked if those articles are good enough to be templates for other pages. Just because something got on those pages does not make it alright. Also, this group is not in the same mold as the two playable factions at all. If you have no idea what to call something officially, my advice is that you should not act like you are giving it a name. References would be nice... The paragraphs can be rewritten, but other users are not at your beck and call.-- 17:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tell me which names/icons you think are dubious, and i will see if there's a better solution or not.
 * In my opinion the alliance and the Horde articles are good examples of a faction article, the others i don't know
 * The problem is that blizzard didn't gave it official names but gave lot of other names (Iron Army or Stormforged or Stormforged Iron Army)
 * I think all Factions should share the same mold wherever they are playable or not, when it comes to lore articles we should neutral in how we treat them(with a little exceptions like categorising the major(playable) and minor(NPC) races in the playable factions)
 * I'll start adding references.
 * I'm asking for help, not demanding, users are free to do whatever they want, i'm asking for help because i'm fallible and i missed some factusal mistakes that i might take for truth that arent.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh it's becoming hard to find viable references, i can't seem to find any viable reference on silithids, anubisaths, horusaths or obsidian destroyers since most of the references used in the article are dead.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs have become slightly more readable, and citations have been added, but not much has improved beyond that in my opinion.-- 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know it's a rather extensive list the only part that i've truly completed is Emerald Nightmare section(paragraph rewritten and all references found), i have a to do list in my userpage--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you trying to source?-- 00:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything? wasn't that what you asked for?--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little confused on your overall design philosophy, and what you are trying to prove with each reference.-- 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The overall design philosophy is much like the alliance and horde articles because this like the alliance and the horde article, it's a article about a union of nations/cult/corruption on a dreamland, that serves the old gods and i'm trying to source everything so i can prove that everything is right, isn't that what sourcing is about?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Arakkoa, summoned old god and Harbinger Skyriss
Should they be included they are not exactly a force when this article focus on azeroth, they are more of hints that the old gods exit beyond azeroth?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe i should add a small sub-faction on the organization section called Beyond Azeroth? what do you think--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are Old Gods beyound azeroth, source: Ask CDev. But they might not necessarily afflicted with "our" Old Gods. After all, the Old Gods love chaos ;-) --LemonBaby (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Twilight hammer
The current description of the twilight hammer is really crappy(my fault) could anybody else, make a better description?--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gladly. [[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male Alt.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gallywix.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gazlowe.gif]][[Image:IconSmall GoblinDeathKnight Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall UndeadGoblin.gif]] [[Image:IconSmall Gilgoblin.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Hobgoblin.gif]] MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 05:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant the one in the organization section.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done[[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male Alt.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gallywix.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gazlowe.gif]][[Image:IconSmall GoblinDeathKnight Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall UndeadGoblin.gif]] [[Image:IconSmall Gilgoblin.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Hobgoblin.gif]] MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 20:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ula-Tek
Should we list the Troll god Ula-Tek in old gods and say it is speculation? MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should be removing RPG only information soon from here anyway, but i'm gonna wait until the "rpg isn't canon" rule stabilises in wowpedia before getting back at this article, since ula-tek was only from the rpg i say no... unless it's speculation then you can do it--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

RPG removal
I'm removing any information that i find about the RPG, but i will be carefully substituting sources with non-rpg ones.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think i did it RPG sources fully removed.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)