Talk:Void

Split?

Why the split? Because of my note? The word is used Interchangeably.--SWM2448 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation with Twisting Nether and Void (race)?--SWM2448 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Isnt the void the place you go to when you get kicked from a channel?--The last Alterac 08:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Edge of Night

How do we know that the Darkness mentioned in the short story is the Void, the force? It could be the Twisting Nether or the Spirit world, no?--Mordecay (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Since we know from Muffinus that the Void is not the realm of the dead, it seems more likely that it's the spirit world or something similar ("Hell") rather than the Void. Maybe it's best to move it to the Notes section. -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Retcon

How does WoWpedia work? The Void was referred to as the Twisting Nether after Dave Kosak made his statement. Does new lore supersede old lore? If that's the case, why is Fel magic not considered Death magic? (you don't have to answer this) Also, why isn't this page merged with the Twisting Nether?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Or maybe they just did a mistake. I would wait for Chronicles for clarification. Latest lore also says the Void is realm of the Old Gods.Elveonora (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge

In the same way as for the Holy and Light pages, I would like to merge the Shadow (magic) and Void pages, as the only difference between the two pages is "Shadow is Void but in the physical plane". If for Holy/Light it was really very obvious (the Holy page being empty), I thought it might be less the case for Shadow/Void, so I took the time to prepare an update for the Void page on my sandbox, in order to give an idea of what I have planned, if that can convince/reassure about it. Do not hesitate to tell me what you think, or what I should change and/or improve! WardsJames (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it Void, as both charts that we do have on Cosmic Forces call this cosmic force Shadow. The only time Void comes up in these charts is between parenthesis after Shadow magic, which implies that it's a sub-type of Shadow Magic and not the other way around. I think we should aim for consistency and use the official names for the Cosmic Forces for the article names rather than have 3 articles named after the Cosmic Forces and 3 articles named after the Magic Type(especially considering that Necromantic magic has been retconned into not being exclusively Death Magic). I would also like to suggest an Infobox for each Cosmic Force containing the following information: Name, Name in First One Language, Counterpart, Type (as stated by Saezurah), Magic Types, Plane, Zereth, Pantheon and Members, Lesser Races and perhaps Related Classes?--Ashendant160 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't really fit my current topic, it just deserves another section on its own. My current question is only about the transfer of Shadow magic information to the Void page, because just like Holy magic with Light, there is no difference strictly speaking between the Cosmic force and the magic except the term "Shadow", which is interchangeable and just confuses things. Obviously, in the future, if we realize that there is indeed a difference through new lore, example like Necromancy and the cosmology of Death since SL (which are linked but diverge on many points), we can always reseparate the pages. Ah and regarding your proposal, I think it's better to leave "Void" which is used in-game, in the lore, and especially in A Thousand Years of War. Regarding the infobox, I disagree, we should wait until we know more about each Zereth, each cosmology, each "Pantheon" behind, before starting to do that. The infobox about it on the Magic page already does the job well for now. WardsJames (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If your goal is to just fuse one form of Magic with the Cosmic Force page, then I think we'll have problems in the future that necessitate its reseparation of this and the other pages. The Death Magic situation makes it obvious that each Force has more than one type of magic associated with it, with Domination Magic and seemingly each Realm of the Shadowlands having its own form of magic. There's also Blood Magic which is a form of Life Magic that stands out, and I could make a few guesses for non-Fel Disorder magic. Either way I guess there's no clear solution. And to be entirely honest I feel like Wowpedia is kinda hurting itself by not having pages dedicated to each of the Cosmic Forces and instead has this weird in-between where they are sometimes a Magic Type article, sometimes a Game mechanic, all mixed in together. As for Void/Shadow I would disagree as we have 3 data points that calls it the Cosmic force of Shadow(I forgot that Saezurah calls it Umbra and not the latin name for Void). We know what the name of the Cosmic Force and that is Shadow. We don't know what the Void is, it could be a Faction within the Shadow Force, a type of Shadow magic (which is what the chart says) or even the name of the Plane of Shadows. We only know that it isn't the name of the Cosmic Force. I don't think I have anything else to add on this issue so I'll just let you make you decision and not continue to bother about it. On the Infobox, I would agree if people didn't remove information from the table I made in the Magic page. Because of those removals there's no easy way to see all this information either next to each other or summarized on each of the Cosmic Force page, which is the entire point of Infoboxes.--Ashendant160 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My current goal is simply to avoid unnecessary duplicate pages, and to allow the Void page to be updated correctly. Just like Light and Holy magic, Void and Shadow magic are, for now, the same thing in any way. If in the future we have the same situation as Shadowlands (Death / death magic / necromancy, domination etc ...), we will shift the information and make an update with the necessary. This is indeed a concern, but it is being worked here and there; and it will adapt to the situation, as always. For the moment, to let Void and Shadow magic on separate page is useless and confusing as much as it was for Light and Holy magic, they are the same. About the Cosmic force, Void is the name of it, interchangeably with Shadow yes, but in the end Wowpedia chose it because Danuser and co, the lore, and the characters talk about the "Void", and i know from discord that the page will stay name like this. In any case, thank you for giving your opinion, it helps me! WardsJames (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That's your decision, so I'll respect it. I don't want to get too in-depth with wiki arguments since I already administrate an wiki of a setting with even worse unreliable narrators. I just come occasionally here to fix things that annoy me.

I should add that the reasons why I want the Infoboxes so much in the current iterations of the Cosmic Force pages. There are quite a few pain points for me, so even if you disagree with adding Infoboxes template to them, you can atleast try and solve some of my pain points/annoyances with these pages.

• There doesn't seem to be a mention of the names of the Forces in the language of the First Ones in any of these pages, which I do feel they should at least be there somewhere. (I searched Life, Death and Void for it and found nothing)
• Similarly to the above point, there is no place to speculate on what the name of the Zereths are (which to be honest is quite obvious).
• The Pantheons do not have a section in the Cosmic Force and are often mixed together with lesser beings, like in the Void and Death Page.
• Similarly to the above point, there is no list for beings that we know belong to Pantheons in their respective Cosmic Force pages, outside of the Eternal Ones and Titans. Like Elune for Life or Dimensius for Shadow.
• Same thing for Languages, since we know a few Cosmic Forces have their own Languages, even through we don't know all of them.

Those are just a few of my issues that I can come up with at the top of my head, that I hope you can address in future edits.--Ashendant160 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)