Shouldn't this article be called Gilneas (kingdom)? (Luxor (tce) 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC))
- No it's game mechanics.
The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yet the kingdom was shoved here.--SWM2448 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a second page be redundant?
The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 16:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- It would be like Stormwind, Stormwind (faction), and Stormwind (kingdom)... so yea, the more pages, the more confusing it could be. (Sssss/Slithered) 18:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- If two pages and not three, why not just keep it with the zone? I don't see this move as needed. Current links about the kingdom point to the zone, and the zone has the page history of the kingdom's information.--SWM2448 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to hold any type of consistency I think we should leave it and then merge the Stormwind faction with the kingdom. We don't link all links to Stormwind City, do we? The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 20:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- It can be fixed, and links can be changed, but I don't see the point. Merging the playable race rep factions with their political lore seems unnecessary to me. There have already been "hiccups" related to this. Stormwind (disambiguation) is fine.--SWM2448 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then what purpose do these faction pages serve? Existing? The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 21:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- They exist because they are reputation factions in-game. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I vote to split the article back apart. The faction pages are used to show how to gain reputation and what the faction's rewards are. In other words, a pure gameplay perspective. They're not meant for the lore behind the political entity. Keep the (faction) page for the faction's rewards, and revert the zone page to how it was, ie every other zone page. - Hugo (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- They exist because they are reputation factions in-game. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then what purpose do these faction pages serve? Existing?
- It can be fixed, and links can be changed, but I don't see the point. Merging the playable race rep factions with their political lore seems unnecessary to me. There have already been "hiccups" related to this. Stormwind (disambiguation) is fine.--SWM2448 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to hold any type of consistency I think we should leave it and then merge the Stormwind faction with the kingdom. We don't link all links to Stormwind City, do we?
- If two pages and not three, why not just keep it with the zone? I don't see this move as needed. Current links about the kingdom point to the zone, and the zone has the page history of the kingdom's information.--SWM2448 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- It would be like Stormwind, Stormwind (faction), and Stormwind (kingdom)... so yea, the more pages, the more confusing it could be.
- Wouldn't a second page be redundant?
- Yet the kingdom was shoved here.--SWM2448 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- For me this is completely necessary, one page can and should talk about its affairs inside both in lore and in-game and the wiki should not have different pages talking about the same thing. This is one of the reasons that I tried to create the page Problem of ambiguation. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 18:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Split to Gilneas (kingdom) for lore, Gilneas (faction) for reputation and Gilneas for the land? Yay/nay? Xporc (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)