Talk:Azkadellia

Credit for fair use image

The [possession scene image] is a reduced-resolution, cropped screen capture from Tin Man (2007). The green filter was added by babyfirefly666 (YouTube) for use in her video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPaEMhTVjeg). — Banazir (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Azkadellia-wicked witch-possession-scifi pulse-20071208.jpg

Image:Azkadellia-wicked witch-possession-scifi pulse-20071208.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This should be merged back into the main articled on the miniseries. I'm not sure why it was split off in the first place. It's 75% plot regurgitation, 25% real-world context (the reception section) which could nicely be discussed in the main article. When the main article itself is at best a start-class and consists of 60% plot summary, I see no need to split off individual character articles. This character has not appeared anywhere outside the 3-episode miniseries, and thus all discussion of the character can really only be made in the context of the series. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There will be no discussion. These character articles are not to be deleted as they are perfectly well-known and noteworthy. The series Tin Man has had an impact similar to Charmed or The 10th Kingdom in that not everyone knows about it but it has a broad fanbase who would like to read information about the characters whose backstories are too complicated to fit into the article in the case of a merge.

See my reply at Talk:Tin Man (TV miniseries)#Merger proposal. Let's keep the discussion there so it's all in one place. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; my response appears there as well. - Banazir (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Extensive details

IllaZilla has reverted a few of my edits describing them as "peacock terms." I have to disagree. A number of my edits were to restore this article to the beautifully written way it was before IllaZilla came along and trivialised it (no offence). I also installed categories Fictional characters with mental illness (as Kathleen Robertson who plays Azkadellia in Tin Man has stated that the character suffers from Multiple personality disorder, Narcissistic personality disorder and schizophrenia), Extraterrestrial supervillains (as she is a supervillain from another world, that being the OZ), Film supervillains (as being a miniseries, Tin Man is a film as a series) and Fictional mass murderers due to all the innocent people who were killed during her rise to power. I also added the Wicked Witch of the West upon whom Azkadellia was based to the See also section as well as two other similar characters, namely Christine White from The 10th Kingdom and Queen Redd from The Looking Glass Wars. Those last two are a bit ORish however so I don't mind too much you leaving them out. The Wicked Witch of the West definitely belongs in there though, as do the other details. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly, or your ideas challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them. The previous version being "beautifully written" is entirely your POV, and a biased one at that since you wrote a good deal of it. That said, I'd like to address the specifics. Here's the diff for reference:

1. Adding "None" and "Unknown (apparently human)" to fields in the infobox: This is unnecessary. If there are none, simply leave the field blank and it will not appear in the page view. Azkadellia's species is never discussed, so this field can be left blank (even if we assume her to be human...to throw in a little OR, she would at least be part human if she is descended from Dorothy Gale and her father is Ahamo, since both are from the USA...but that's neither here nor there since it's never discussed).
2. Changing the character's name in the lead from "Azkadellia" to "Azkadellia the Sorceress": Since when is that title part of her name? She's referred to throughout the miniseries mostly as just "Azkadellia", and that's how she's listed in the credits. Some of her followers call her "sorceress", "empress", etc., while some of the other characters call her "the sorceress Azkadellia". It's simply not part of her name. It would be the equivalent of changing Wyatt Cain to Wyatt Cain the Tin Man. A job title isn't part of someone's name. Even George W. Bush and Elizabeth II don't have their job titles emboldened as part of their names.
3. Changing "Plot summary" to "Fictional character history": That's not accurate, as that's not what this section is. It is a plot summary of the miniseries focusing on Azkadellia's parts. It's not a fictional history telling the events of her life in chronologicl order, compiling information from multiple works of fiction. It's simply a reiteration of her role in the plot, boiled down from the plot summary in the main article Tin Man (TV miniseries). After all, this is the only work in which the character has ever appeared.
4. Avoid "easter egg" links: "she rules with an [[Tyrant|iron fist]]." is an example of an easter egg link, because it requires the reader to follow it before understanding what's going on. It's simply not an intuitive link.
5. "In addition to her formidable magical powers and great intelligence...": "formidable" and "great intelligence" are peacock terms and are your own opinions. This section doesn't need fluffing up with such adjectives. There is simply no context by which to judge her intelligence. She's certainly not dumb, but she gets outsmarted several times and relies on her scientists and engineers quite a bit. It's not as if she's Lex Luthor who is explicitly depicted as a super-genius. The section doesn't discuss her intelligence at all, and there are certainly no third-party sources to support that claim.
6. The "see also"s: Wicked Witch of the West is unnecessary, as that comparison is made several times in the body of the article and the link is provided there (twice). Queen Redd and Christine White...how are these related to Azkadellia or the Oz works? Because they're similarly constructed charaters following similar conventions of fiction? I'm not sure, and as a reader just reading this article I have no context for why I should "see also" those articles. Without providing that explanation in the form of referenced prose there's no context for the reader to understand how these characters relate to the Azkadellia article at all. Are you trying to draw some comparisons between the characters? Because that would require secondary sources. The Wizard of Oz (adaptations) is directly related to the topic of this article, yet isn't already linked within the article's body. That's what a "see also" section is for.
7. The categories:

• Fictional mass murderers — When exactly does she mass murder anyone? You say this is "due to all the innocent people who were killed during her rise to power", but very few details about this are given and even if many people were killed she certainly didn't kill them all herself. Her soldiers carried them out, and it was part of a civil war. She just doesn't fit in that category, since we only ever see or hear of her killing a handful of people over the span of 15 years. Plenty of people were killed during Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro's rises to power, yet neither of them is categorized on Wikipedia as a mass murderer. This description simply doesn't fit Azkadellia, especially since the category itself defines mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single incident", and off the top of my head I can only think of 3 characters in the miniseries who get killed (the Mystic Man, Lonot, and Cain's wife whose death isn't shown).
• Fictional characters with mental illness — Robertson mentioning that she played the character as though she had personality disorders does not mean that the character, in the context of the fiction, suffers from those mental illnesses. It's not as though she sits down and gets psychoanalyzed. She's not Monk or Two-Face, who in the context of their fictional works have actual diagnosed mental disorders. Besides, she's possessed by a witch. That's the source of all her personality issues, not a mental illness (unless magical possession is considered a mental illness, which I highly doubt).
• Extraterrestrial supervillains — Again, we don't know what race she is, so she can't be considered extraterrestrial. Look at the category; it's all characters who are explicitly from other planets and alien races. Is the O.Z. another planet? That's a matter of opinion. I'm not sure if being from a magical realm makes one "extraterrestrial". Is Loki extraterrestrial? He's not listed such, even though he's not quite from Earth. Besides, as pointed out Azkadellia is probably at least partially human. If a human is born on another world or in a magical realm, does that make them "extraterrestrial"? This is simply too ambiguous and she doesn't fit in the category. Even the Wicked Witch of the West isn't in that category.
• Film supervillains — Tin Man isn't a film, it's a TV miniseries. It's not even a made-for-TV film as it's episodic in nature, in much the same vein as the Battlestar Galactica miniseries or Clone Wars, whereas Battlestar Galactica: Razor represents a TV film. She's already in Category:Television supervillains, which is the appropriate category. Since she only appears in one work of fiction, she can't logically fall into 2 subcategories of Category:Supervillains by medium. Category:Film supervillains defines its criteria as "Fictional supervillain characters originating in motion pictures". Tin Man is not a motion picture in this sense (ie. not a feature film), especially when "Television supervillians" exists as a separate category.

I realize these are long explanations, but I wanted to address each point individually. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, I enjoy a good read. I shall address each of your points in turn. I admit that adding "None" and "Unknown (apparently human)" to the infobox was unnecessary. With regards to changing the lead in to "Azkadellia the Sorceress", I was of the impression that that was her full title, like Emperor Ming's full title is "Ming the Merciless". Clearly I was mistaken. I changed "Plot Summary" to Fictional character history because the aim of that section is to describe the character's role in the story. As for the Tyrant/Iron fist link, we can leave that out. I've always had a fondness for Easter Egg links, they make things more interesting so that was a tad self-indulgent on my part. Furthermore, I think her magical powers could accurately be described as "formidable" as we know that Lavender-Eyes was an immensely powerful sorceress even after giving up "The Light" and she was no match for Azkadellia. As regards her intelligence, she does exhibit expertise in military tactics and manipulating people. Her intellect is more socio-political and psychological, like that of Palpatine. I would further add that few "evil geniuses" actually do the dirty work in person, instead hiring mad scientists and other such henchmen to do it for them. Adding Christine White and Queen Redd to the See also section on my part was because they are similar characters to Azkadellia. Christine from The 10th Kingdom is similar to Az for reasons which I've explained further up the page. Queen Redd meanwhile, like Az, is a somewhat deranged evil queen who is a relative of the main protagonist and shares an animosity with her mother and father. Both overthrew said mother and father and took over their respective worlds. However, as I have stated, this isn't entirely necessary and we can leave them out. I personally would recommend removing that entire section. Now for the categories. Fictional mass murderers we can dispense with. Fictional characters with mental illness should definitely remain however. Kathleen Robertson has played a pretty definitive part in establishing the personality of Azkadellia and so should have an authoratitive say on her psychological profile. Whether or not, Az's mental infirmaties are as the result of being possessed by The Witch, she still has them and so should be categorised as such. Also how do you know she suffers from those psychological maladies as a result of The Witch's possession? Maybe she suffered from them already and that's what made her susceptible to The Witch's influence. Extraterrestrial supervillains should also remain. The O.Z has been established as "a parallel universe" and since Az is from it then regardless of whether or not she's human she's an extraterrestrial because she's from another world. If you and I were to go to Mars (God forbid, what would I do on the journey?) then when we arrived, we would be extraterrestrials. Finally, a miniseries is a film broken up into parts for television, so I think Film supervillains should remain too. That is all. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the application of the word "extraterrestrial" here. According to Webster's, it means "originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere". According to Wiktionary, the adjectival form means "Originating from outside of the Earth's atmosphere, from space, or from another planet; alien to Earth or its environment", while the noun form means "A being originating from outside of the Earth's atmosphere, from space, or from another planet; an alien". So the idea of Azkadellia, or anyone else from the O.Z., being an extraterrestrial depends entirely on how you personally interpret the fictional world of the O.Z., which is never really established in the miniseries. If it's a "parallel world", then isn't it just an alternate Earth (ie. the parallel worlds in Sliders)? Is some sort of multiverse being suggested? Or maybe it's a mystical realm, like Asgard. This is all speculation on our own parts as viewers, so it isn't appropriate to add things to the article that explicitly suggest that the O.Z. is a location outside of Earth. In the original Oz works the Land of Oz is portrayed as a fantasy world, existing as part of the real world, albeit protected from civilization by natural barriers such as an impassable desert (see Land of Oz#Location). This was an idea already used in previous works of fiction and fantasy such as Gulliver's Travels (see Lilliput and Blefuscu), Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and Through the Looking-Glass. The human characters like Dorothy, the Wizard, etc. arrive at it via external means which carry them across these barriers (tornado, hot air balloon, flood, etc.). In the 1939 film Oz is suggested to be a dream of Dorothy's. In either case it's certainly not a different planet. Of course the relevant question is "how does Tin Man present it?" and the answer is "ambiguously". Tin Man gives absolutely no clues about the location of the O.Z. in relation to Earth, so drawing any conclusions of our own as viewers, and imposing these conclusions on the articles, constitutes original research. Observe how none of the Oz characters are categorized as extraterrestrials either. Would you call the Lilliputians extraterrestrials? Or the White Rabbit? How about any of the magical characters in The Flight of Dragons (another work of fiction in which human characters traverse between the "real" world and a fantasy realm)? I wouldn't, and anyway our own opinions and interpretations of the fiction are irrelevant to an encyclopedia article.

As for the "mental illness" category, saying "Maybe she suffered from them already and that's what made her susceptible to The Witch's influence" is, again, entirely your own analysis. There's nothing in the work itself to suggest such a thing. She and DG are fine & dandy until the witch enters the scene. She's succeptible to the witch because DG leaves her, breaking their magical bond of protection. The witch then possesses her almost immediately; she's unable to resist because she's a child & isn't strong enough on her own, and from that point on her personality is dramatically different. We see nothing that would indicate that the young Azkadellia had any "mental illnesses", and anyway we can't draw our own conclusions about it for Wikipedia purposes. I'm pretty certain that possession (either spiritual or demonic) is not considered a mental illness, as it involves the person being maniuplated by an external tormentor who takes control of their body. Again, Roberston saying she played the character as though she had personality disorders does not mean that, in the context of the work itself, Azkadellia has these conditions. The category is filled mostly with characters who, in their fictional works, have been psychoanalyzed and diagnosed with mental illnesses (ie. the Riddler, Carnage, or Blanche DuBois). Robertson saying that she perceives Azkadellia as being "very schizophrenic in her view of the world" does not mean that "in the story of Tin Man, Azkadellia is a diagnosed schizophrenic." She may demonstrate certain symptoms of mental illness, but this is due to her being possessed by a witch, not an actual mental illness. It would be akin to saying that Regan MacNeil suffers from DID. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so but the film specifies that OZ exists in a parallel universe and is therefore not Earth and since Azkadellia originates from it, she is therefore extraterrestiral. With regards to the Mental illness category, my point was that we don't know she didn't suffer from those conditions already and therefore to put them down to demonic possession counts as original research. The fact is that she suffers from them as is therefore a fictional character with a mental illness. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

When does the miniseries specify that the O.Z. is in a parallel universe? I didn't see or hear anyone in it specify that, and I just watched it last week. I'm going to call on that one. Even if it was, a parallel Earth would still be Earth (the Sliders comparison again). As for "we don't know she didn't suffer from those conditions already and therefore to put them down to demonic possession counts as original research", my response is that it's impossible to prove a negative. Of course we can't prove that she didn't have any mental conditions as a child. Negative proof is a logical fallacy. However, neither can you prove that she did suffer from mental illness as a child. There's no evidence in the story to suggest that, nor any sources to support the claim. And I'm not conducting original research, since I'm not claiming in the article that the character does or doesn't have mental illnesses. I'm simply presenting the plot points of the story: She gets possessed by a witch, then she does a lot of evil things. I make no claims about mental illnesses either way. Take Robertson's remarks for what they are: her opinion of the character and how she chose to play it. Leave your own further analysis out. Suggesting that the character has underlying mental illnesses beyond being possessed is original research not supported by the work itself nor the other source material. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to Hell with Extraterrestrial supervillains but I still think we should keep characters with mental illness. My basic point is that whether they were the result of demonic possession or not, she still suffered from various mental illnesses and so should be in the category. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. You're bascially attempting to force real-world psychoanalytical diagnoses on a fictional character. It's the equivalent of saying "Glitch can't remember his past because he suffers from memory inhibition." Well, no...he can't remember his past because Azkadellia removed his brain. Another example would be saying that "DG's memories are obscured because she has a dissociative disorder." Well, no...her memories were purposefully obscured by her mother using magic. These are plot points that are explicitly described in the miniseries itself, and there is nothing in the miniseries to suggest that the fictional characters suffer from these real-world mental illnesses. Maybe the actors knew of these illnesses and used them to inform their portrayals of the characters, or maybe (like Robertson) they compare the characters' personalities to these disorders, but that doesn't mean that the fictional characters, in the context of the fiction itself, suffer from these illnesses. Similarly, saying that "Azkadellia is evil and conflicted because she has narcissistic personality disorder and schizophrenia" is misleading, and using Robertson's quote to draw that conclusion does not seem right to me; it seems like your interpretation. I read the quote and focus on where she says "I played her internal and psychological". This means that she played Azkadellia as though she had certain disorders, but it doesn't mean that, in Tin Man itself, Azkadellia has specific real-world mental illnesses. Rather, as is explicitly depicted in the miniseries itself, Azkadellia is evil and conflicted because she is possessed by an evil witch. There is nothing to suggest that, in the absence of the witch, Azkadellia had or would have had mental illnesses. Once she is possessed by the witch, her personality changes, but demonic possession is not a personality disorder. She is being influenced/controlled by an external force (the witch); her behavior is not the result of mental illness. I'm just not comfortable slapping real-world psychoanalytical labels onto a fictional fantasy character like this. Characters like the Batman villains...sure, you can put them in Category:Fictional characters with mental illness because over the years the comic books and other media have shown them in Arkham Asylum being analyzed by psychiatrists and diagnosed with specific disorders. So they fit, because in the fiction itself they are explicitly stated to have mental illnesses. You can't say the same for Azkadellia. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I convinced. The character Dexter Morgan is in the category in question despite the fact that his psychological infirmaties are as the result of being possessed by the demon Moloch. It's pretty much the same case with Azkadellia. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading that article, I'm not sure if the Dexter character really belongs in the category or not. On the one hand I'd say he doesn't, since his deviance is the result of supernatural influence rather than mental illness. On the other hand the article doesn't indicate at what point Moloch began to inhabit him, and he was killing things since he was a child and it was at that point that his father labeled him as a sociopath...so maybe he does fit. Another unclear point is whether the TV version of the character yet recognizes the Moloch influence; the article seems to indicate that so far the Moloch explanation has only been presented in the novels, so maybe Dexter in the novels doesn't fit, but Dexter in the TV show does. At any rate I think what we have here is a larger problem than just our disagreement, that larger problem being that Category:Fictional characters with mental illness has rather vague inclusion criteria, only stating that "the character's article must contain at least one section describing the character's mental pathology." It does, however, link to the mental disorder article which seems to go by the ICD and DSM criteria. Anyway, as I see you're aware the category itself is grounds for disagreement amongst editors, with a "no consensus" CfD not long ago. I tend to agree with FordMF's assesment that "The category essentially puts editors in the place of psychiatric diagnosers", and disagree with your comment that "You either have a mental illness or you don't." A mental illness as defined by whom? Diagnosed by whom? In what context? Apparently we sometimes can't "decide on talk pages whether or not a character should be categorised as such." Perhaps the inclusion criteria should be addressed on the category's talk page before we bother debating this any further. Otherwise one could justify placing almost every fictional villain in the category, as long as one added a section in their article saying "so-and-so is a narcissit/megalomaniac/psychopath". --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the only reason relatively simple disagreements can't be resolved is because of people like you who feel a need to make a mountain out of a molehill. As you're obviously adamant that Azkadellia remain out of the category, I won't re-add it though personally I still think she belongs in it. In my experience all evil people are insane in some way or other which is not to say all insane people are evil. This is however my opinion so I shall not impose it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Linked concepts in quotes

IllaZilla has resorbed some of the plot material from this article into the main Tin Man article, which is certainly fine with me. However, in doing so, she seems to have deleted text such as the following:

`"... Everything is in the image of that power," said Joy, who describes the costumes of the Longcoats as "stormtrooper-meets-leather bar" (though the coats' design more closely resembles the Nazi SS uniform) and the interior decor of Azkadellia's palace as "`futuristic for 1930s' fascist realist".'

If there is some guideline against linking specialized terminology to articles in Wikipedia for definitional purposes, I would appreciate a link to it. Otherwise, I do not see why links should be removed, or a relevant original quotation should be truncated. Banazir (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant manual of style guidelines are:

• WP:MOSQUOTE: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."
• WP:CONTEXT#Quotations: "Generally avoid linking items within quotations; instead, place links in the surrounding text of the article wherever possible."
• MOS:LINK#Piped links: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on."

The general idea is to present the quote as clearly and as unaltered as possible. Links from within quotes give the impression that these topics are being stressed by the person who gave the quote, which they may in fact not be. They can also mislead or confuse the reader, ie. with "easter egg" links that are not intuitive. For example, in the bit above, there are 3 piped link problems:

1. [[fascism|fascist]] [[Nazi heroic realism|realist]] is too complex as it links 2 side-by-side terms. It would better be presented as just [[Nazi heroic realism|fascist realist]].
2. How do we know that Joy is in fact referring specifically to the concept of Nazi heroic realism? We don't. He could just be referring to a general trend of realism during the fascist era. Since we don't know if he's referring to the specific Nazi art movement, we shouldn't alter the quote in this way to imply that, yes, that's what he means.
3. There isn't even an article on Nazi heroic realism. It redirects to Art of the Third Reich. So the link is misleading to begin with.

The other problem I had with this segment was the bit "though the coats' design more closely resembles the Nazi SS uniform)". This isn't part of a quote, and it's not referenced to any source. That means it's the opinion of whoever wrote it, making it original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is "the evil whitch of the dark???"

So much discussion about minor things, how about this? I would like to know who she really is? Can she have been the wicked whitch of the west? Because when they go to the cave they say there was a battle between evil and good and the light prevailed something like that.. could it have been doroty against the which and somehow her spirit survived? Do you guys know anything about this..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.176.166 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The miniseries does not reveal who she "really is". Without such explanation, it's left up to your own interpretation. I suppose it could be the wicked witch of the west, if you really want it to be, and I think that's the general idea that the writers meant to imply. But again, it's a matter of how you choose to interpret it. That said, please remember that article talk pages are not general discussion forums; they are for discussing improvements to the article only. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate her rule?

I question the statement that Azkadellia intended to use the Emerald to consolidate her rule. My impression was that she simply wanted to destroy the OZ which she would have done had she succeeded in her mad plan to blot out the suns as it would do away with photosynthesis, not to mention warmth and light. The Mystic Man himself states that the purpose of the Anti Sun Seeder is 'the complete destruction of the OZ.' --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't recall the Mystic Man saying that, but it's been a while since I last watched it. These are Banazir's words, so maybe you should ask him what he meant by it. My impression was that covering the O.Z. in darkness would increase her magical powers (since she's posessed by the "Evil Witch of the Dark"...I assume the witch's powers are in some way related to darnkess; there's a whole "light vs. dark" thing going on throughout the story). I'm relatively certain that "do[ing] away with photosynthesis" wasn't her main goal, though of course scientifically speaking that would have been one of the effects of a permanent eclipse. I mean, what would she have had to gain by completely destroying the O.Z.? Then she wouldn't be the ruler of anything. I think the idea was that permanent darkness would banish the "light", leaving the witch the supreme power, thus "consolidating her rule" because she doesn't at the moment have complete control over the O.Z. (ie. the Eastern Guild who still oppose her, & the various other forces & locales not under her control). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought at first. With regards to the destruction of the OZ, my impression was that Azkadellia was insane, therefore there probably wouldn't be much logic to her actions. After all Morgoth from The Silmarillion ultimately wanted to destroy every creature in Arda despite the fact that he didn't have much to gain from it. Nevertheless your theory is probably more likely than mine, I just wanted to make sure the article was accurate. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)