Forum:Subzones and policy

Forums: Village pump → Subzones and policy

Wowpedia's bureaucracy is pretty much dead. There has not been a policy discussion in recent memory, and there are two few active administrators for some kind of dispassionate, objective, and all-encompassing enforcement of the policies that we do have. Since we have multiple users working on documenting subzones again, I think that it might be time to discuss some issues regarding zones and subzones in a more casual manner.

To clarify a few points, any of which can be altered via consensus

• Zones have their own chat channels, maps, and (usually) subzones. They display their names on the minimap in bold.
• "Official" zones also can be found in a drop-down menu in WoW's map. Our continent templates should match these menus.
  • Legion adds several Class Halls and scenarios that cannot be found by clicking. They should go somewhere that is not arbitrary.
• Subzones that display on the minimap (usually under the bold zone name) go in the subzones navigation templates, while locations that exist in other sources (including mentions) go in a separate section the darktables on the zone pages. The darktable should otherwise be identical in content to the zone template. Pages for mentioned areas in the game can have the navigation box for the category it gives, but not be featured on it. See Crystalbrook River and Za'Tual boneyard.

Outstanding issues

• As seen at Wowpedia talk:Naming policy/Archive03#.22The ....22 articles.3B vote start and Wowpedia talk:Naming policy#Articles starting with The, we omit articles from zone pages for several reasons. Still, this is unpopular with some and does not match the game. This is becoming increasingly ignored.
• We put subzones and zones in parentheses when an area is completely surrounded by another area. However, in the game some subzones are subzones of other subzones (or just written in the font of zones themselves while within them) with little rhyme or reason that does not match our logic.
  • "Angrathar the Wrathgate" is a subzone of Dragonblight while "Angrathar the Wrath Gate" displays as (but is not) its own zone directly above the gate. Small discrepancies like this appear occasionally.
  • See Ruins of Uldum#Notes for a strange example of a location that is poorly labeled.
  • A zone can be a subzone of itself.
  • The above can change based on where your character is standing.
  • Emerald Nightmare and Tomb of Sargeras have instanced copies of actual zones with no terrain alteration inside of them. Those do not have pages due to being massively redundant.
  • Nighthold (subzone) should (in theory) be the main area of the instance and not have a page separate from Nighthold, but in the instance it is just part of the outdoor segment (and Trilliax's room), so it is its own thing with a bad name. I do not know if similar cases were missed.
• There are a few subzones that display or can be discovered, but do not display on the minimap. See the door of every TBC instance (for old LFG privileges), Dalaran Floating Rocks, and Dalaran Island.
• Instance and cave maps have names separate from the subzones within them. If they share their names with a subzone, that subzone in no way has to be the biggest or most overall area.
• "The Twisting Nether" is a zone around Outland. It is also a subzone of the Tomb of Sargeras. It is also a scenario where you fight Raest Magespear. "Twisting Nether" is a subzone of Mardum.
• I may think of more eventually.

Thoughts?--SWM2448 20:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's getting late in Europe here, will answer tomorrow! Still, thank you for typing this, and on the subject of bureaucracy ... I'm honestly a bit sad that the current admin team doesn't post as often anymore. Maybe it's time to empower more users? Xporc (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Heya! I agree with alot of these policies. Although I do believe if an area has "The" before it in the game, that "The" should be included in the page title. But if an area does not have a "the" but requires one, that "the" should not be in the title and only used when talking about it. I'm not sure if there are any specific opinions you want from me. But I think all these subzone policies work!--Dperrea (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There was an implied "How do we address..." (if we do) before each of the outstanding bullets. The article one might change, though each subzone in every zone would need to be checked to confirm it. Though if the name displays both with and without an article, then stupid stuff must be made to be avoided.--SWM2448 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'm a bit late. So, I agree with the "clarify a few points" section, nothing wrong to me there.

Personally disagree with adding articles to page names, even if in-game the zones feature them. If the debate is reopened I will be on this side of the debate.

Subzones inside subzones: I agree that it's kinda annoying to have parentheses inside parentheses, but I don't see how to do it differently. In the examples, I'd keep a single page for Angrathar and leave Ruins of Uldum as it is.

The "zone can be a subzone of itself" is kinda annoying, but I don't see the true problem with it. When you're going around Westfall killing Defias, any place not noteworthy enough to have its own subzone can probably be described in the main page of the zone? However, it gets bothersome when we have zones named after planets or continents, like recently with Argus and Argus (zone). Not sure how to handle that, guess we'll have to keep being cautious, like how you spotted Nighthold (subzone).

OK for not creating pages for instanced copies with no terrain alteration.

For these rares subzones that display or can be discovered, but do not display on the minimap, maybe they could be put into the "X area subzones" category even if they do not feature in the main template? Xporc (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)