# Talk:Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne

Since when has Garithos been a Dark Knight??? It said so in the article  --Richielin 12:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

On one of the Undead campaign missions in TFT, you can use Garithos, and it specifies him as a "Dark Knight." (Note: not a 'death knight').
Yoda921 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Who the hell wrote that? That English is awful! Need fixing, badly (and I don't really have the time to do it, hench the posting of it here.) --ACE Spark 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, im just deleting it. It has nothing relvant to being on Wikipedia at all. Feel free to reverse this - but if you do - AT LEAST fix the broken Engrish! --ACE Spark 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Mojo StormStout's Warcraft III Strategy Guide, anti-spellcasters are designed to fight spellcasters (see Spell Basics page). Anti-spellcasters include the Spell Breaker, Spirit Walker, Dryad, Faeire Dragon and Destroyer. Recently, I've corrected the Spirit Walker's description from spellcaster to anti-spellcaster but it got reverted back to spellcaster. I can understand the reason.
If the description uses spellcaster, then it would be consistent with all the other descriptions of units (nowhere else does the article mention anti-spellcaster) and it would simplify all the spell units as spellcasters. If the description uses anti-spellcaster (which is more accurate), then it would be the only anti-spellcaster description, possibly confusing readers. To avoid confusion, perhaps the other descriptions of anti-spellcasters could be reworded, or a separate section could introduce anti-spellcasters as something new to the Frozen Throne. Any thoughts? Is it even necessary to make the distinction between spellcasters and anti-spellcasters? I won't change it back to anti-spellcaster unless someone suggests otherwise. --ToKnow 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Spirit Walker is not an anti-spellcaster at all, by definition the Spirit Walker is not "designed to fight spellcasters". Of the three spells that the Spirit Walker has, only one could be considered an anti-spellcaster spell (disenchant). This is the same as the human priest, three spells, one of which is a disenchant spell. The human priest is not an anti-spellcaster, and neither is the Spirit Walker. The orcs don't have a anti-spellcaster unit, becuase that is the nature of their race. --Spazm 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I know it's irrelevant now, but it can be argued both ways, given that Mojo StormStout's Warcraft III Strategy Guide is inconsistent. Of all the spellcasters listed (no one would argue that the priest is an anti-spellcaster), the Spirit Walker has different stats than the rest. In addition, they also list the Spirit Walker as an anti-spellcaster. So they're both? Whatever, of course, it doesn't really matter anymore. Thank you for correcting me. --ToKnow 03:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spirit Walkers are used as a source of some very decent dps against certain units by progamers and people who copy what progamers do(read:knowledgeable people), so they could be a dps unit? I'm just kidding. Of course it's a spellcaster.

Or maybe, like Human Priests, Forest Troll High Priests, and Mur'gul Casters, they are both a spellcaster and an anti-spellcaster? Wisps are also anti-spellcasters.  — Teelo

It should probably be noted that the name of the expansion is "Frozen Throne", not "The Frozen Throne".

If one carefully looks at the logo, one will see a very small "The" next to "Frozen Throne." But it is more interesting to visit Blizzard's Warcraft III: Frozen Throne product page. The title (referring to the HTML tag) of the webpage is "Warcraft III: Frozen Throne," but the product description bolds the title "Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne." Personally, I believe it is "The Frozen Throne." In addition, many gamers abbreviate it as TFT, implying that it contains "The." However, I'm not really sure. This is just a comment. --ToKnow 23:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I own the game and the word "The" is right next to "Frozen Throne". 76.110.82.251 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) on the start menu it is listed as the frozen throne.

He makes a noteable appearance in the game.

This sort of thing can be put into the List of pop culture references in Warcraft (I'll get my edit right yet...). Altair 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, where does he make an appearance? I haven't heard of this. Is he voicing one of the dwarves or something?

See Talk:Dark Deeds  JASpencer 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I say just delete the Dark Deeds article as non-notable clutter. There's no reason to merge. JimmyBlackwing 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Though, if it must be merged, it should be merged to the custom maps section in the Warcraft III article. Altair 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a recent edit by 194.250.20.206 to include a link to a website which is about advancing the AI in Warcraft. I'm not sure this merits inclusion. I'm not removing it, yet. Currently looking up policies about the threshold for external links.--Htmlism 20:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon review of the website in question, I've decided that the link should be kept. The website seems to be a valuable resource, albeit for a specific part of the game. Only the link text and description were cleaned up.--Htmlism 21:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Additions section, is it really necessary to list all the new units/buildings or just the player-controllable ones? --ToKnow 02:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is neccesary to differenticate this game from the game it expands apon by giving a brief detail of ALL the new units (not heroes or buildings). However, that's just my humble opinion, and generally "Units" sections are shot down because people say "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide". Hmm... I know it's an encyclopedia and all but more and more I'm starting to think Wikipedia is NOT a site worth going to. User:Radman622 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a strategy guide. For detailed game info, I recommend WoWWiki - despite its name, it is dedicated to covering all of the Warcraft games, not just World of Warcraft. Start with Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. --Stormie (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"However, many of the game's players preferred patch 1.14 or 1.17 and subsequently stopped playing the game once the game was changed." This claim in the Development section of the article is stated without reference and appears to violate NPOV. I'd like to advocate removing it unless anyone has a compelling reason to leave it in. Mathfreq 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
From what 
I hear the Beastmaster of 1.14 was so full of lame BS some people stopped playing until the next patch, so I reall doubt this info.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.129.238 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 

"Clicking on the character numerous times causes them to say "bah-weep-grahnah-weep-nini-bong! It`s the universal greeting." This is a reference to Transformers: The Movie. "
The character mentioned in this part of the Random Trivia is Illidan, or possibly the generic Demon Hunter. Could someone change this?
Mapmaster-1 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed Nikzbitz Talk Contribs 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

May be worth stating that the Alliance campaign contains a hidden minigame which supports one of the common-features of custom-maps, tower defence (No sources for what I'm about to say but I'm guessing that blizzard implemented it as a joke to show how they acknowledge that many players like tower defence.) Also by completing this, a brewmaster is available in the next map.
Its strange that its called the Alliance compaign anyway, esp. since it only follows the high elves, naga and draenei and illidin, seems more of an outland campaign.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 

The Bradygames guide that comes in the battlechest acknowledges this, but as it really doesn't advance the plot it probably isn't relevant. FusionMix 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT true by any means that Illidan was "mortally wounded" following the battle with Arthas. Blatantly false by all means. Feel free to read up on the reason(it exists, is out there, and most already know why) for the unintended confusion with that battle scene. - rock8591  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 

Then it's a good thing you fixed it, eh. FusionMix 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless some concrete reason can be provided to show why this is a game of Mid importance to the VG project, it's been downgraded to Low.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
esports scene

I say why this game should be on Mid Importance is because this game is a huge E-Sport, It's not every game that gets to be an E-sport. --Poohunter (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an european version of Wc3 tft but I can't find Sierra Entertainment anywhere. Sure that it's not published from Blizzard?--87.162.76.2 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Naga are the the coolest race in warcraft 3, but on the battle.net site there is no reference other than the naga sea witch info. In my opinion the Naga do not have enough units and they almost have one Hero the Naga sea witch. I'm trying to make the Naga a formidable force on the world editer but I'm having problems making Custom Heros. If anyone could help please post a site or the information i need to make custom heros, or just post about the Naga... whatever works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexco creator11 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 

This page needs a section on WC3s esports scene. It's the best micro based RTS played competitivly. It's also very popular in China and internationally.

I believe this Article needs some added references because it doesn't have many and there are many things that can be referenced in this article so i added the reference banner, if anyone disagrees with me please reply to this and tell me why you disagree and maybe then we can remove the banner, meanwhile I will continue adding references. --Poohunter (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628231701/http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warcraft3thefrozenthrone/similar.html?mode=universe to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warcraft3thefrozenthrone/similar.html?mode=universe
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415070812/http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?articleId=21180 to http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?articleId=21180
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I noticed you nominated this for GA. I don't have enough time right now to dedicate myself to a full review, but I'll quickly note that per WP:VG/CONTENT, a plot section should be around 700 words. Right now, (not including synopsis), it's coming in at around 800 words. Also, it's very "x did y" which makes reading it a tad unenjoyable. My other comment is regarding the legacy. Hearthstone released an expansion last year entitled "Knights of the Frozen Throne" and features The Lich King and other characters from this [1] [2] [3]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Darn, I remembered 800, not 700. I'll go fix that later. Also, thanks for the links, I'll work it in. Regards SoWhy 09:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I played this :) Look for a review posted here by the end of the week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
After review, I'm placing the article on hold. The basic structure of the article is fine, but it needs a lot of work.

Prose:
While keeping the gameplay of the main game, The Frozen Throne adds a number of tweaks to improve player experience. You have to assume readers aren't going to be familiar with either the article subject or the base game, and you shouldn't have info that's only in the lead. What kind of game is The Frozen Throne?
Clarified. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Likewise, there's issues with details that I don't think make any sense in this article when they're divorced of context, and this is a huge problem for the gameplay and plot sections. You haven't explained what the food limit is, so The food limit has been increased from 90 to 100, and the upkeep requirements have been relaxed by 10 food units each means nothing (it barely means anything to me and I played the game constantly.)
Expanded. Hopefully I caught everything. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it Warcraft III or Warcraft 3? Be consistent.
Sorry, I missed that one. It was only one instance which I changed. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In addition, The Frozen Throne re-introduces naval battles—reintroduces from where? I know it's Warcraft II, but readers won't.
Added. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Two new auxiliary races, the Naga and Draenei, have also been added.[6][4] The Naga feature in all four campaigns, and as playable units, allies, and enemies; while the Draenei, which are actually more sophisticated creeps, are found only in the Blood Elf missions. What is an auxiliary race? What are creeps? You haven't mentioned the Blood Elves yet.
Yeah, that is I think one of the last parts I did not rewrite. Changed. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the World Editor, etc. etc.
See above, should all be addressed now. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Not explained or introduced in the setting: who the Night Elves are, who Illidan Stormrage is, who the Blood Elves are, who the Alliance is, who Arthas is, who the Lich King is,  who Sylvanas Windrunner is, who the Demon Legion is, etc. etc. The Setting and characters should have much more of an introduction to the universe and setting up characters rather than just listing them off.
Expanded. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
References:
All the citations that are just to the game itself (such as current ref 4) need a better citation, whether to the game manual or a secondary source. Citing the game itself is really only acceptable for the game's plot where it's clear where the details are coming from, and even then it's not ideal.
Okay... WP:PSTS says you can use primary sources if you don't rely too much on it and gameplay can be reliably sourced to the game. Nevertheless, I removed this ref and parts that I could not source otherwise (and were not really that important). SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What makes Gamestar.de, Gamer.nl, and Blizzplanet reliable sources?
GameStar is a leading German PC gaming magazine. Gamer.nl is included in the WP:VG custom search engine for reliable sources and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Other reliable. I changed the third one. SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Images:
File:Orc minicampaign.png has no compelling fair use rationale detailing why it should be in the article. It either needs to be beefed up or removed (it's pretty much impossible to tell what is going on in the shot anyhow.)
Replace with a better image. SoWhy 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Misc.
The development section is rather thin. I don't think that's a significant issue for GA, but it lacks much insightful detail into the actual creation of the expansion and would probably leave readers wanting. Blizzard didn't release dev diaries, there were no previews, etc?
I dug into the web archives and added some more. SoWhy 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I added some comments above and made some changes to the article. I'll look at the rest tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to review this! Regards SoWhy 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Again, thanks for the review. I think I addressed everything above. Please check and see what else needs to be done. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Overall the article is better, although the changes have introduced some more issues, both in sourcing (you have long statements that are no longer adequately sourced to the original citations, for example the food and upkeep mentions in gameplay) and in length. Rather than adding a lot of details for who characters are, I think a better option is removing details that are extraneous to the main thrust of the story; the more details and verbose plot summaries are, generally the less comprehensible they are for readers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Thanks for the response and I hope everything is good with you.  I'll recheck the sourcing later but I'm unsure about the other comment. On the one hand you say The Setting and characters should have much more of an introduction to the universe and setting up characters rather than just listing them off.  but on the other hand you think it's now too many details? Can you elaborate a bit further because I cannot really reconcile both statements. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Plot summaries should have enough info that readers can figure out what's going on without having to link away from the article; they should not have more info than necessary to understand the plot. So for example, the details about how the Blood Elves are the guys left from the destruction of the sunwell; likewise, you front a lot of details from the first game and give the reader place names and people that don't come up for paragraphs, so they're hard to keep track of. If Illidian's initial imprisonment isn't important enough to remark on, I'm not sure why the detail about him consuming the demon relic matters, since it doesn't change the status quo. Likewise the exact details about the Orc, human, and elf alliance to defeat the burning legion doesn't seem very relevant beyond the fact that it sets up some action in this game, so it can be glossed over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I think I got it and I trimmed the plot by 1K+ characters. Better now? As for sourcing, I checked and removed some bits but the rest seems still correct. Anything I missed? Regards SoWhy 15:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Sorry to bother you again but maybe you missed my last message. I'd really like to work further on the article if needed but I would need some pointers what is left to do.  Regards  SoWhy 13:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: --PresN 15:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
< Apologies for the lack of response, there was a family situation which took up my time. I regret that your GAN had to be left in the lurch. I've gone through the plot section and made some revisions to try and reduce repeated linking and introductions; I also removed a few proper names and characters who weren't referenced again—if you can summarize characters rather than telling them to readers to shorten things and it doesn't materially affect the outline of the plot, it's a good thing to do. I have just a few remaining issues:
* File:Warcraft III - The Frozen Throne - Naga base.jpg is better than the previous image, but it's still lacking in terms of a solid custom fair use rationale (it looks like it belongs to a cover or box art rather than a gameplay screenshot.) The rationale doesn't have to be something really long, but it should directly tie into specific critical or development content that's in the article. For example, File:Oxenfree overworld.png's justification for inclusion is illustrating the core 'walk and talk' mechanic of the game, which has a lot of coverage in the parent article, as well as illustrating the game's overall look, which is covered in both development and the reception. You need something similar. In terms of a better FUR that would support content in the article, the reception section talks about the look of the new units and buildings, as well as the Naga being cool but reviewers being disappointed they weren't a playable race in multiplayer—could you get a screenshot showing the Naga buildings and units more close up? (we don't really need the gameplay chrome as much.)
*You have a remaining stray sentence that don't really have paragraphs attached to them (the final line in the reception section.) This should either get cut, merged somewhere else (in with other gameplay comments in the reception) or ideally expanded out a bit more. (I'd also suggest fleshing out multiplayer reception and this line would be best above the paragraph about the campaign rather than after, because the previous parts of the section were mostly talking about gameplay specifically before moving into details about the plot.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries, David Fuchs. I hope everything is better now but if you still need some time, by all means, take all the time you need. I really don't mind (and GA reviews are going slowly anyway considering the backlog at GAN). I exchanged the image to one that shows the new units and buildings in detail and beefed up the section a bit as well as the NFUR template. I also expanded the stray sentence with some more info about multiplayer but left it behind the plot section as one review explicitly compares multiplayer to single-player and it would make no sense otherwise.  Regards SoWhy 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Great. Struck the above, they look better. I'll take another look at the article soon and see if there's anything else, if not I'll pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)