I've restored the content of this page, which was changed to a redirect to Timeline (wow.com). While there is considerable overlap in terms of the links provided, History of Warcraft is an important source of lore, and we should have an article on it.--Aeleas 03:16, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- There is no overlap, it's entirely the same (except chapter headings are removed as they aren't needed for the purpose of the wiki), thats why this page has become redundant as i summarized. Please don't revert it again.. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 03:42, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- Perhaps explaining the history and function of this page would be helpful. The various chapters of the History of Warcraft were copied to WoWWiki to make it easier to cite directly to a local mirror of this official source. If you take a look at what links here, you will find that this page is used as a reference on dozens of others. Many of the links are the chapters of the History of Warcraft themselves, and many others are works that are citing the History of Warcraft as an official source of lore. When clicking on the link to History of Warcraft, readers are given a description of what the History of Warcraft is and can see exactly what it contains.
- While Timeline (wow.com) is very useful, the fact that it is summarized and reorganized means it is no longer a mirror of an official source, and therefore no longer appropriate to cite to. It also doesn't explicitly state what the History of Warcraft is, as this article does.
- If a consensus can be shown that History of Warcraft isn't useful in it's current state, then I will concede that it should be deleted and redirected, but there is generally a presumption here against the deletion of an article when someone objects to it.--Aeleas 04:21, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- So glad i'm going away this weekened.. There is never any reason to replicate an official and public source for the purpose of citation. Period. This article's previous state was flawed to begin with. It was a list of the events and linking to the articles. This is the same as a category. The linked pages are not using this page as an efficient citation, and WoWWiki should never be cited itself, only used a citation referance as all other citations are. It isn't a mirror of a source, it's a complete reformat, listing and disambiguation of the original source, something that isn't needed. The pages should all be citing the real source when citing. When linking, the Timeline provides the exact same resource, but better, than the existing page. The only thing that i would be willing to except as worthwhile content in relation to this article is an explanation of what it is and a link to the source, throw in a link to the category of the events too if desired. However, i don't feel it deserves this as it's so simplistic and the mere citation of it and looking at the source shows it already, which is what exists in the timeline.
- I removed it, and redirected. I purposely left the talk page incase people felt otherwise. It really should be an opt-in article, not op-out. I find the concept of voting to remove it ridiculous. You don't see an article explaning what each section of the WoW official site is now do you? no, that's right, it's not what the wiki is for. If anything this should merely be in the citation index with a brief one sentenace explanation and source link, not an article itself. *breathe* --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 04:45, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- We have several reproductions of official sources here, and have found them quite useful in the past. If you want to change that, then the relevant policy which endorses and encourages it, WoWWiki:Lore policy#Concise Articles and Source Text, will need to be voted on and revised. Until then, the 75 or so pages that link here are following the recommended policy.
- Certainly not all sections of the WoW website have articles, but the ones that form important sources of lore, like Warcraft_Encyclopedia and History of Warcraft, do. --Aeleas 12:48, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- I wasn't part of it being redirected, but I know the administrator Adys told him to get rid of the older topic due to redundant information.Baggins 13:12, 6 January 2007 (EST)