Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EyeSerene (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 8 August 2007 (→[]: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Locations in the Warcraft universe

Locations in the Warcraft universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I am all for thoroughness, but this article is ridiculous. The stuff on here is what WoWWiki is for. Even if it isn't deleted, it needs to be toned way-way-way down – the page is 213 kilobytes long! Not only that, but some of the locations in this gargantuan unencyclopedic article each have their own articles (see Azeroth, Draenor, Darnassus, Ironforge, Stormwind, Orgrimmar, Thunder Bluff, Undercity). It also overlaps with the much smaller Warcraft universe article, which is supposed to be the "main" article, judging by the infobox. Sdornan 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. How is it possible to have a 213k encyclopedia article that has no sources? 213k of WP:OR World-of-Warcruft? The prose is unsuitable for a merge as it stands, being written 'in universe'; per nom, this belongs on WoWWiki, not WP. EyeSerene 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is what happens when you merge every little thing; the parent gets too large and is deleted. You all brought this on yourselves. —Xezbeth 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I really don't see how this is any different from most articles regarding fictitious characters that rely entirely upon the primary source material. They are notable as key elements of an unquestionably notable series of games. I will agree that this article really, really needs some sourcing and massive rewrite per WP:WAF but that's not quite a reason to delete. I hate to invoke something like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but let's be honest, there are many, many other articles similar to (or worse off than) this one that get kept along the lines of reasoning that "X is a notable part of Y, Y is unquestionably notable, article on Y is too big for X so a seperate article makes sense". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is that nearly all of the article is written from an in-universe perspective. In-universe material is not encyclopedic. I disagree with the notion that there should be large separate articles for in-universe material. There are probably encyclopedic things that could be said about the subject matter, but this article contains nothing of that sort. I would argue that everything in-universe should be removed, but what would we be left with? Leebo /C 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

perspective is a concern to rewrite, not a concern that mandates deletion. What exists in the page afterwards could be examined at the time. Mister.Manticore 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a rewrite from scratch though. Until someone does that, the value of the article is near nothing in encyclopedic terms. I'm just providing my opinion, I'm not currently saying "delete" or "keep." Leebo /C 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be how you would rewrite it, but I wouldn't rewrite it that way. I would make use of the existing material as appropriate, and in some cases, yes, I do believe that would be quite valid. Mister.Manticore 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The existing material is not encyclopedic though. It should be removed and replaced with encyclopedic material in any case. There isn't much of a difference between deleting the article and replacing it with a proper article (if no one is willing to rewrite it soon). Leebo /C 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it? What would make it encyclopedic? I can understand concerns about tone, I would certainly not say the page overall is well-written, but I am unable to comprehend the reasons for your statement that the page contains nothing encyclopedic. Frankly, I don't even have a clue what you mean by saying something isn't encyclopedic. Could you give examples of what is and what isn't so I understand where you're coming from? I'd understand maybe if this article were written in a perspective like that of a character in the universe, but that isn't the case. Mister.Manticore 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear, I do feel an extensive rewrite is appropriate, BUT I feel a rewrite from the existing material is the way to do things. This may just be a choice of editing styles. In this case, I would prefer to work with what's there, if you prefer another way of working, that's your choice. I am reluctant to do anything with this discussion going on, however. I don't want to waste work. Mister.Manticore 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that in-universe material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are going to write about the locations in the Warcraft universe in an encyclopedic manner, you would talk about how they were designed, what influenced their design, how they influenced other games, etc. We don't need to know what lands are adjacent to other ones or who lived where or other matters concerning the plot of the series. Also, this isn't List of locations in the Warcraft universe, even though it seems to be written that way. Do you better understand what I mean? An article concerning this subject should be about the real world significance of these locations, not the game-world significance. Leebo /C 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as most, if not all of the valid concerns would be addressable on clean-up, rather than through deletion. And Wowwiki actually provides a lot of things that shouldn't be on this article, as its focus is different. And if you want sources, you could just ask for them. would be the obvious choice. Now is there an actual policy based reason for deletion,or are you just using your personal opinion of the subject to guide your nomination? If so, then I suggest you reconsider as there are strong reasons not to delete things simply because you think they are ridiculous. Patent nonsense is one thing, this isn't that. Mister.Manticore 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And for those looking for third-party sources, many examples like exist. If you want something else, please do tell, but give some some examples through existing pages if you can. Mister.Manticore 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's the article editors' job to provide sources (preferably as it is being written), not the job of an AfD. An article can only stand or fall on its own merits at the time of nomination. No-one would realistically argue that sources don't exist, but the point is: there are none in the article. Add them in by all means, and I agree that failing WP:WAF is not a reason for deletion per se, but we have to get away from the idea that it's ok to defend unsourced articles because someone, someday, might find some. EyeSerene 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So, we don't provide sources in an AFD to address concerns expressed in said AFD about sources? I'm afraid I don't agree with that. It doesn't make sense to me, since it would imply that an article which is claimed not to have sources couldn't be refuted with an AFD. Nor do I agree with the implied idea that a person nominating a page for deletion has no responsibility to look for sources. I actually consider it essential that anyone nominating any page for deletion make at least a minimal effort to look for sources. To fail to do so and just throw it at the AFD chopping block may represent a person not acting in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. It's one thing to not find any, or to be doubtful about any you find establishing notability(I have experienced both myself), but it is highly important to at least try. Of course, it's probably worth noting that the initial nomination didn't even complain about a lack of references. Probably because in this case, it's pretty obvious that sources are not a worry of serious consequence. But still, I find myself in disagreement with what seems to be your position, as I am concerned that it may be inappropriately directed. Yes, it is a problem that many articles on Misplaced Pages are unsourced, or even just poorly sourced. But there are many options besides deletion, and I feel any deletion nomination should be an informed one, which at least entails looking for sources if that's your concern. If you can find some, you can add them, if you accept that they can be found, then you can add {{unreferenced}} to the page. That may not produce immediate results (and in this case, I think it'd be missing the real needs of this page), and you may need to work at it to get it results, but that's better than making an ill-chosen AFD. Like say, the recent one for Wikimedia Commons. Mister.Manticore 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have expressed myself badly above ;) Sources can of course be added into an article by anyone including those debating it on AfD - there have been recent examples (such as the AfD for Blackle.com here) where the discussion turned up WP:RS sources that meant the article survived. It's just that, in a case like this one, I don't think it's realistic for such a long article that loads of people have edited and not one has sourced, to expect AfD to provide the missing link. Maybe an {{unreferenced}} tag might have been better, along with other cleanup tags, but the article is here and has to be evaluated as it stands. My reading of deletion policy is that sourcing is the real issue - everything else would be down to a thorough copyedit (although Leebo raises a good point that if all the WP:WAF stuf was removed there would be precious little left). EyeSerene 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates