Moved from Talk:Azeroth (subcontinent)
I don't know much non-WoW lore, but it looks like Azeroth the subcontinent (this page) refers to the same thing as Azeroth (continent). Is there any difference? -- Harveydrone 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that both articles have been given the same info instead of being treated as two articles. There are a few things contrasting Azeroth (continent) versus Azeroth (subcontinent). It can get confusing because Blizzard calls supercontinents, continents, and subcontinents just continents. Also, "some" users think a subcontinent or continent is anything they see on a map using a large font on it or they change a source saying "continent" into their own wording of "island continent" and/or "micro continent" which adds even more vague terms. Okay, on the one hand you have this page which should be about the Azeroth that is part of the Eastern Kingdoms continent. So technically it is a subcontinent of the Eastern Kingdoms, although it is called a continent too. On the other hand, in the early stages of World of Warcraft, Azeroth was used as the name of the entire eastern continent of the world, which is now called the Eastern Kingdoms. In lore, the entire eastern continent was also known as Azeroth and was named this by the Arathi. I hope that helps a bit. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. It sounds like there should be one page about the smaller version, what is usually meant by "subcontinent", ie what is currently described on both this page and Azeroth (continent). Then the Eastern Kingdoms page can have a note about how Azeroth was once the name for that whole continent. I'd propose keeping this page named Azeroth (subcontinent) as is, since it's the least ambiguous. Then the Azeroth (continent) page could either a) redirect to the subcontinent page, b) redirect to Eastern Kingdoms, or c) not exist at all. I'd guess most people would expect a), but I'm not going to make that change yet. -- Harveydrone 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Citations a bit much?
I'm astounded as to why there are more than eighty citations on a disambig page, many of which are just multiple citations for the same piece of info, and in many cases from the same source. Of particular note is this little gem: "In Warcraft: Orcs & Humans the term Azeroth refers to the kingdom in most cases" Do we honestly need *NINE* citations for *ANYTHING*, let alone a piece of information that explicitly refers to a single source? Six of those citations are from consecutive pages of the WC1 manual. Two are from the SAME page! Can anyone honestly tell me that this isn't going overboard even a tiny bit? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well I know that there are many citations but I have a very good reason to put all of them. Baggins didn't wanted to separate the several terms used for Azeroth, he just merged everything in two articles when there are five different uses of Azeroth, and so I'd decided to make a sandbox to prove that there are more uses. Many are the same citations from the same source, but I just used them as notes for my sandbox, I think I'll remove the quotes and just put the page if you think that is a bit much of the same citations. Lastly, I also think that this much citations may be a little drastic, but Baggins wasn't pleased with four or five citations that I and Rolandius gave him, so I came here with all citations of the most important sources. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Moved to Forum:Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor 7:31 PM, 9 Aug 2009 (EDT)