Talk:Azora

I've just edited the page to fix the misunderstanding about who (or rather what) Azora is but it was reverted back at lack of a discussion.

I don't quite understand...why does it require discussing on this page if the current entry is incorrect all together? Granted, I'm not very experienced with Wiki but what is there to discuss? Azora is the name of Theocritus' mage tower in Eastern Elwynn. Hence "Mage of Tower Azora", the "Eye of Azora", servants of Azora and so on.

--LordMerlock (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, Lord Merlock, we appreciate discussion before any major change, no matter how correct or incorrect the present version may seem to be. If after a discussion your idea is accepted by the majority to be correct, then the page will be changed. :)
 * Now, onto the subject of Azora. Whilst I find your theory intriguing, the actual name of the tower in Elwynn Forest is the "Tower of Azora". Thus, the tower itself is probably not called Azora (as the Tower of Arathor is not named "Arathor"), but rather more likely named after a being designated "Azora". This idea is further reinforced through personifying attributes: "Azora's Will", "Eye of Azora" and "Servants of Azora" (why would the tower itself need to be served?). I'm sure we can open this to further debate, but surely now you recognize that there are different points of view as well as your own.
 * Oh, and welcome to the wiki! :D -- 13:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I addressed in the latter paragraph, which I added onto the page. Theocritus is "Mage of Tower Azora", which implies that "Azora" is the name of the tower. The name is much like the name of any steadfast domain. Take Stormwind, for example. The guards are called "Stormwind Guard" and "Stormwind Patroller". A city needs guards because it is a social location, political point, etc. A mage tower however is a secluded domain for a mage. As such, the Servants of Azora are in fact servants to Theocritus, under the sovereignty of the tower. Hence, "Servants of Azora", because while the tower is in Elwynn and under Stormwind's rule, it is also a separate domain of its own, much like any town and while most towns have guards, workers and all such ("Eastvale Lumberjack", etc.), the mage tower has servants.

Azora's Will doesn't have to imply the will of a conscious being. It implies the will of the Tower of Azora, which entails the will of Theocritus, the mage ruler of said tower. Same with the Eye of Azora. It is the "eye" of the tower, a scrying device belonging to the tower, under Theocritus' rule and use.

So, of course, I understand the original point of view and thus clarified its error by adding a third paragraph to the page.

--LordMerlock (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to agree with you, were it not for the personification of the apparent figure of Azora. Nevertheless, I suppose that there may be room to accommodate your point of view on the page; as we have little evidence pointing absolutely to either interpretation, only our individual opinions on the pragmatic meanings. -- 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's just it, there is personification, just not for a living being. Theocritus is Mage of Tower Azora; the key phrase being Tower Azora. His title reveals the true essence of the word. And more so, it's called "The Tower of Azora" just like Stormwind is called "The Kingdom of Stormwind". Stormwind isn't an entity, it's the name of the kingdom. Same here. The "of something-something" affix doesn't always imply personification of a living being; a domain can be personified in speech just as well.

As such, there is indeed no evidence at all pointing to Azora being a being/persona of any sort, and yet all evidence pointing to it being the tower. That's why I'm so steadfast in this edit. I've tried my best to explain my view, since it's from my literary experience and skills that I gathered what "Azora" really means.

I have a "feel" for written/spoken phraseology, being a creative writer and all, so I've tried my best to relay my understanding here. But I guess if it's not up to me, there's little I can do about it.

Oh, and in reply to: "...but surely now you recognize that there are different points of view as well as your own", I don't recognise that. I don't do something head on unless I'm certain that I'm correct. In that case, I don't care what anyone else thinks because I know I'm right. But if even fully certain decisions must be discussed... *shrug*

--LordMerlock (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lord Merlock, you can argue for years; yet all you have proven to me is that your argument is a personal interpretation of meaning. I too am a creative writer and have studied the English language to an advanced degree, and what "Tower Azora" means to you obviously does not mean entirely the same to me. *My* feel of the phraseology is simply weighted differently.
 * I recognize your point of view, and am willing to accept it as an alternative as it is a very good and well thought out one. Nevertheless, I cannot accept that your theory - and your theory alone - is entirely correct without conclusive evidence. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics if you cannot possibly be persuaded that there is a chance you are incorrect. As the proverb goes: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". If you insist further I suggest you direct your enquiries to Ragestorm or Baggins, who will consider your position from a position of greater authority. It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to reach a compromise, though I'm sure we will be able to at some point in the future. -- 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)