Talk:Siege of Orgrimmar

Move

Prioritize lore over instances. Move lore to the main page while moving the instance over to the disambiguation page but make it easy for the common user by using the {{for}} template at the top. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 11:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Very much disagree. The raid is a far more prevalent article than the lore one, and we don't necessarily prioritize lore over instances anyway (Hellfire Citadel, in case you're using that as an example, was an example of prioritizing MU over AU). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a balance between the lore and the game. For example there are places that prioritize the in-game zone name rather than the most used lore name. In this case I also think it'd be better if we move the Siege to (instance) and keeping the lore page without the (battle) in it. --Ryon21 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't we prioritize lore over instances in most cases, actually? Xporc (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Orgrimmar is also a really odd one even in that regard, as rather than the dungeon being essentially a subset of the greater lore page, the lore page is just about what happens in the dungeon. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If the lore page is just explaining what happens in the dungeon, wouldn't it be best to just merge them? — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Plz no. --Mordecay (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Read below. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 23:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I did and I lean towards agreeing with u. --Mordecay (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not using Hellfire Citadel as an example for this as that was dealing with the main universe and the altnerate universe. Most articles, from what I've noticed, now are focusing more lore than the game itself placing the instances in the (instance) disambig. We also should think about What Wowpedia is and what wowpedia is not; Wowpedia is a encyclopedia on the Warcraft universe (also parts of Blizzard) but Wowpedia is not a database like Wowhead. We should be priotizing lore over in-game but making it easy by using the {{for}} template at the top of the page for easier navigation to the page the Wowpedia user may be looking for. For an example, for the case of many bosses; the way we deal with bosses is that we keep the main page such as Garrosh Hellscream for lore information while in-game information on the in-game boss are on a (tactics) type article. This should be applied to other kind of articles. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. For in-game mechanics we have (instance) and (tactics) so people can choose where to go. I mean it's only the title what we change it's not that of a big deal. Maybe we should do the same with the Black Temple then? --Ryon21 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In the case for Black Temple, it doesn't necessarily need it as the whole thing is just surrounded Black Temple / Temple of Karabor. Siege of Orgrimmar is different because it is a battle (a conflict) compared to a instance in the game. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 01:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Any more arguments for or against the move? Xporc (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Move 2

So what happened to prioritizing lore over instances, like literally all the other dungeons, raids and boss pages? Xporc (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this is something we should vote to make it clear. --Ryon21 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Siege of Orgrimmar does not have lore, it has a battle page that just recaps the events of the raid.--SWM2448 01:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning of this vote over at Talk:Seat of the Triumvirate (instance) § (instance) or not instance. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 10:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)