Forum:Problem of ambiguation

Forums: Village pump → Problem of ambiguation
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Problems of ambiguation: Place ≠ Faction ≠ Race ≠ Status

I'm here to make a denounce that I should have made several months ago or more than a year ago. Some people who know this wiki know about the history about the articles and its splits like Lordaeron and Stormwind. There is kingdoms and continents called Lordaeron and Azeroth. The need of a disambiguation led to an split. Never one article should talk about two different things and in the same way one thing should not have two or more different articles describing it. And because of this I have to propose split and merges. I hope no conservative views to my proposals as I consider conservative views a bad thing in general.

Place ≠ Faction

The issue of Nation or Kingdom different from land and pages of doubled faction speaking of the same thing applies in:

• The kingdom of Quel'thalas is the same thing as Silvermoon City (faction) (merge required) and is different from the land of Quel'thalas (move any possible section that talk about the kingdom to Quel'Thalas (kingdom)).
• The same for Gilneas peninsula and Kingdom of Gilneas; the faction and the kingdom are the same thing, but different of Gilneas (peninsula) that is chronologically represented in Gilneas and Ruins of Gilneas.
• Nation of Kul Tiras and the Isles of Kul Tiras are different things but they are NYI.
• Nation of Durotar is the same of Orgrimmar (faction) but different of the Land of Durotar.
• The Night elves of Kalimdor is the same of Darnassus (faction), but different from the place of Darnassus.
• The Kingdom of Gnomeregan is different from the city of Gnomeregan, but the same of Gnomeregan (faction).
• Kingdom of Khaz Modan and Ironforge (faction) are the same thing which led us to a merge
• The Draenei of Exodar is the most complete name to the Exodar (faction)
• The United Tauren of Mulgore/Confederated tribes of Thunder Bluff/High Chiefdom of Mulgore/Confederation of Mulgore/Thunder Bluff (faction)/Tauren of Mulgore is different from the Land of Mulgore.
• The Unofficial kingdom of Undercity/Kingdom of the Forsaken of Undercity/Forsaken of Undecity/Kingdom of Undercity/Kingdom of the Forsaken are possible official in-Azeroth names to the Undercity (faction).
• Ahn'Qiraj: There is a kingdom and a city/zone with the same name, but this is already fixed.
• Tol Barad island/peninsula is something different and the Tol Barad (nation). Maybe the official remains of the Nation of Tol Barad are represented by the Baradin's Wardens. Split Tol Barad.
• Zul'Aman: region of Zul'Aman and city of Zul'Aman.
• The Nation of Zul'Drak is different from region of Zul'Drak and both are different from the Drakkari tribe.
• As many disambiguation pages that should be created.

Race ≠ Status ≠ Faction

The Undead

Undead is a status not a race. Sometimes/Frequently I see Infoboxes with "Race: Undead" and yet more ridiculous: At the same time "Status: ALIVE". I propose the modification of the practice: "Status: Undead" and "Race: _____" (maybe an unknown race, but list biologically). Abominations, bone golems and artificially crafted undead in general like the Original death knights are special cases.

The Forsaken

Also I see sometimes "Race: Forsaken": Forsaken is de facto a faction, but is considered a race by Blizzard, despite Sylvanas have stated this when she talks with Garrosh; I follow the logical consideration that the race of a forsaken is the one of his born; biologically. Most of the Forsaken were humans of Lordaeron and I'm thinking about consider the most of the Forsaken as humans. But this should be accomplished with an special creature condition: As in-game the forsaken are classified as humanoid for game systems, they are in fact undead (and also the most still humanoids). SO my proposal: "Race: Human(Forsaken)" and "Status: Undead". This will solve the major problems of "in-game vs in-lore" classification of Forsaken.

Race ≠ Subrace

The Draenei and Eredar

There is an evolutionary line:

• Eredar (all eredar)
  
  • Original Eredar (the ones prior Sargeras apparition)
    • Draenei (all types of the ones that escaped from Argus whom consider themselves draenei and their descendants)
      • Unmutated Draenei/Original Draenei
      •  Lost one
      •  Broken
    • Man'ari eredar (the ones that followed Sargeras and their (if any) descendants).

This led me to suggest split Draenei into Draenei (all types) and Draenei (subrace) and split Eredar in Original Eredar, Man'ari Eredar and Eredar (all types) (representing the eredar as a whole, including their descendants).

Orcs

Orc (all types)

• Mag'har orcs
• / Green orcs
• / Gray orcs
• Chaos orcs
• Fel orcs

As you can see, from the Mag'har orcs to the Fel orcs, there are an level of corruption.

Azerothian Race ≠ Outland Race

Basilisks and Hydras are examples. Some can be crafted by the titans but in some cases is unlikely to be true.

Finished?

Probably not. May I am forgetting something; but the number of changes is to great that I claim that the possibility to move this to a different page is significant. And sorry if my English is not perfect; fell free to make mini-warnings about this, but try to focus on my semi-revolutionary issues. Gabrirt (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

First, stop making all these red links. Just stop. Second, I really don't think there needs to be that much disambiguation. The pages you are proposing will have speculative names and a lot of speculative content, all the while being very short. And you are proposing a lot of these pages. I just don't see it as worthwhile.--SWM2448 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is many of this pages talk about two or more different things. And this is, for me, a basic problem; an article should be clear what it is talking about. How could I make an article about two things? It very problematic. And actually, since the red links symbolizes pages that need to be created such as Twilight Elite. You don't explained what is the problem with them. Are you Daltonic?Gabrirt (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not colorblind. Red links symbolize pages that are not created yet. If red links symbolize pages that need to be created, I do not know why these are linked. I think that they do not need to be created. If there is a problem on specific pages, use the talk pages of specific pages. You are talking about a project that I do not see much of a use for. What you are proposing is a mess in its current state. You do not fix a mess with another mess.--SWM2448 02:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's a reason to split articles due to size or due to the difference in topics on the same article, that is fine, but to create a "set" practice where something has to be seems messy at best. There needs to be a good reason to split articles, otherwise it can get really confusing or annoying to deal with. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I never thought I'd miss TLA...until now. -- Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) 11:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will take a revamp to state this more clear and add The Kaldorei & Dragonflights problem. Just give me time.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 13:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The way this thread is currently written makes discussion practically impossible: the opening paragraph reads like pure gibberish, and what follows are very loosely related lists of changes, often without a clear description of what is actually being proposed. I don't see a coherent argument being made for any of the changes presented here being necessary or even desirable. — foxlit (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles with ambiguity on the matter should be split (maybe not necessarily merging them with in-game faction for the faction articles like I proposed above times ago). An article shouldn't talk about more than ONE matter (this I tried to exercise in Talk:Deathstalkers). An example of an article that was properly split in the past was Lordaeron (Kingdom and continent are not the same thing). Based in this example I believe that articles like Durotar, Theramore and Quel'Thalas should be split.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)