Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
Advertisement

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[3][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]" 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)

Colloquial usage

While I will secede that Azeroth does not technically mean the combination of Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor, it seems like this keeps coming up, because Northrend and Outland already have names. Classic WoW just doesn't have the same ring to it. It seems like noting this usage of the term would be a good idea. /chomp‎ Howbizr(t·c) 10:31 PM, 7 Aug 2009 (EDT)

I'm against that, firstly because I have done a research of all the most important sources of information and decifrated all the uses of Azeroth and I didn't find that as a use. Secondly because you don't have a source that supports you. Thirdly because I'm trying to cleanup all the links to Azeroth and redirect it to their actual use, not to the disambiguation; and if you start making this it would complicate more that work. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
By definition of colloquial, you won't have any citations. The best examples I can think of (ironically) is the wiki itself, without trying to find examples on the forums, although I'm sure there are. Many pages have "Azeroth" in opposition to Northrend and Outland, as I'm sure you've found. The mere fact that they've been that way for years suggests to me that many people use Azeroth interchangebly with "Classic WoW" even if that is technically not correct. /chomp‎ Howbizr(t·c) 7:08 AM, 8 Aug 2009 (EDT)
That's why that I'm saying I'm trying to clean up all this uses of Azeroth and you are making it harder, if Blizzard doesn't use the term then we shouldn't. This sounds like a term used by some fans and so it would be like a fan term used in the wiki, going against the WW:NPOV, it says: "Writing articles at WoWWiki with a neutral point of view helps remove conflicts that may occur from conflicting fan opinions stated in articles.". For me, saying that WoW classic is also called Azeroth is just a fan opinion.
Also many pages have Azeroth in opposition to Northrend and Outland because before Wrath of the Lich King the term Azeroth, when talking about World of Warcraft items or gameplay, didn't included Northrend because it wasn't playable (i.e. if you said befor WotLK that you can't fly on Azeroth it was correct, but after WotLK when you say that it is not correct as you can now fly in Northrend). The problem is that no one actuallized that. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize this discussion was here and started Forum:Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor to discuss this. Not sure which is a better place. One point, people have not "for years" been using "Azeroth" to be distinct from "Northrend". That's only been happening since WotLK came out less than one year ago, and in many cases was done by mistake, not intentionally. -- Harveydrone 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The term "Azeroth" meaning Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms has been going on for longer than before Wrath came out because it was used to mean those lands all during Burning Crusades ( so 2 years minimum ), thus it bacame an Incorrect term only since Northrend came out, since Northrend is on the world Azeroth and far north of the continent Azeroth. As I mentioned on the forum page we have been using the term to mean the World Azeroth (that only had Eastern Kingdomes and Kalimdor for so long) that is is going to be hard to break that habit over night. Although, I do agree we need to get away from it because of Northrend. Newer players that came in after Wrath's release could easily be confused with us using the term in that maner. So, I agree we need to get away from it but and pre-warning that it is not going to be a easy road to travel because of all the Years (plural) in using the term now deemed "Wrongly". -- (M o r p hJames E. Rooks, Jr. aka: Morph
Morphgnome & Morphdraenei
| C | TLeave me a message on my Discussion/Talk Page) IconSmall Gnome MaleMorphgnomeIconSmall Draenei MaleMorphdraenei 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Advertisement