Why is it called the abyssal maw if there are no Abyssals here and no one speaks Abyssal?
Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Abyssal zone --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"Abyss" is a geographical term that describes the deepest part of an ocean, aside from hadal trenches. It is derived from the Greek word for "bottomless sea". The abyssal zone is never touched by the sun's light, and remains in perpetual darkness. Thus, the deepest part of Azeroth's ocean, and home to Neptulon the Tidehunter, is named the Abyssal Maw. --Mesethusela 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Neptulon in a 5 man[]
Where it was said that Neptulon would be in Abyssal Maw or in this 5man instance of ABM? I'm editing this page and I won't let Neptulon as a last boss of a 5man, he's more powerful than Ragnaros... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huhuhuhuf (talk • contr).
Frostland[]
Is it possible the Frostland will be part of Abyssal Maw in Cata. Hallowseve15 (talk) 12:57, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
- As of now we can only guess, but considering that the Abyssal Maw appears in Cataclysm in the form of to dungeons, it's possible that at least one of the dungeons is themed after the Frostlands. Aedror42 (talk) 15:13, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Instance[]
Because of this change I want to go ahead and get this topic started before it's too late. Given how we handled Icecrown Citadel... I don't think the Abyssal Maw one needs to be split, the article is small enough on its own... and if there's disagreements, I propose that the lore page be moved rather than the instance page, as the instance page will be the one more linked to and used.... That is what I'm sure we learned from doing ICC the way we did. User:Coobra/Sig4 21:44, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- We have both Icecrown Citadel and Icecrown Citadel (instance). What did we learn?--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 22:05, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- We learned that it is more annoying on the several.. several articles to put
[[Icecrown Citadel (instance)|Icecrown Citadel]]rather than just[[Icecrown Citadel]]. Or having to fix the incorrectly linked ones, cause some users didn't want to do the long one, or didn't know the difference. User:Coobra/Sig4 22:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- We learned that it is more annoying on the several.. several articles to put
- I generally prefer to disambig gameplay pages rather than lore pages, although I'll admit that's mostly personal preference. Given the choice, however, I would prefer to have both on one page rather than use a disambig at all. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Aye.. and considering how small of an article Abyssal Maw is, I see no reason to split them up. User:Coobra/Sig4 22:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Not splitting the lore and first wing would make it seem like the lore from Shadows & Light was just about the first of the two (or more) wings. The lore does not need to be the main page, but I do not think they should be merged. Should all "overall instance/first wing of the same name" pairs of pages be merged?--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 22:27, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- I am also against the split. Just keeping a Background section at the top of the article would be fine.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:47, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that the split is necessary, considering the size of the article.
- Matix22 (talk) 05:38, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the small size of the article, I don't consider it necessary, either. If during the first stages we get to know more about the place, consequently making the article bigger, then yes, we should split it.
- Until then, let's keep everything in a single place.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Just to put a spanner in the works, much assumption has taken place because this article acts as both a collective name of wings and the instances. The official article that most of this comes from is not about the instance, but the collective group of the two instances (The lore zone.). Almost all information -- including images -- about the instance obtained from official cataclysm sources is not about the instance of the same name, but the throne of tides. I've not seen the level banding cited from any official sources -- which goes for many more cataclysm instance pages too -- so i can't speak for that as i don't know of an official source or it. --
- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>
- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zealvurte</imagelink>
- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink>
- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>
- Just to put a spanner in the works, much assumption has taken place because this article acts as both a collective name of wings and the instances. The official article that most of this comes from is not about the instance, but the collective group of the two instances (The lore zone.). Almost all information -- including images -- about the instance obtained from official cataclysm sources is not about the instance of the same name, but the throne of tides. I've not seen the level banding cited from any official sources -- which goes for many more cataclysm instance pages too -- so i can't speak for that as i don't know of an official source or it. --
- I say keep the articles as one right now since there's so little information. But if more information comes available that warrants a split, I would say have the instance's article be
[[Abyssal Maw]]and have[[Abyssal Maw (Zone)]]for the area, as chances are, most linkage will be to the instance and not the zone. It did get a little annoying having to punch in[[Icecrown Citadel (instance)|Icecrown Citadel]]every time I wanted to refer to the instance and still have a pretty looking article. Tanooki1432 (talk) 22:51, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I say keep the articles as one right now since there's so little information. But if more information comes available that warrants a split, I would say have the instance's article be
Time to make this clear: All images and info released for the Abyssal Maw instance was actually for Throne of Tides and needs to be removed and this page split into zone and instance pages appropriately. The Abyssal Maw instance is currently not completed in the beta. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink> 15:39, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I am currently looking at the BlizzCon layout and comparing it with recently released map for Throne of the Tides. They look almost the same, and as far as I know there is no entrance to the second dungeon - which means that Blizzard probably scrapped it. Thoughts? Matix22 (talk) 15:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- There is an entrance for both, but one has no portal – which is common to even ones sure to exist atm. There also is no map – not world map – for an Abyssal Maw instance. Everything ever shown about Abyssal Maw the hub/instance was actually for Throne of Tides. The only reason we have to think there is two is because two were announced and listed at Blizzcon. It's fate is now unknown, and as i pointed out to some mmoc users, the exact same thing happened to the second wing of DTK in WotLK. -- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink><imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zealvurte</imagelink> 16:52, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I am currently looking at the BlizzCon layout and comparing it with recently released map for Throne of the Tides. They look almost the same, and as far as I know there is no entrance to the second dungeon - which means that Blizzard probably scrapped it. Thoughts? Matix22 (talk) 15:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC)