Talk:Nighthold (instance)

Uninstanced Nighhold
As the uninstanced version is now repopulated and is set to be the playable nightborne capital, split to raid and subzone area, yay or nay? --Mordecay (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All the links will have to be updated ;_; Xporc (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone opposed to this move? Xporc (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Or maybe if the links are too much / bot can't handle, just create Nighthold (subzone)? Otherwise I'm ok with with Nighthold (instance) apparently :D --Mordecay (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd go with Nighthold (subzone). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that'd definitively be less work :D I don't think there's too much links to update, it's just that we just need to know if it's worth it. Xporc (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already a Nighthold (subzone), part of the instance. I will regret it but... I volunteer to change the links from Nighthold to Nighthold (instance). Just give the word ;) --Ryon21 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, Nighthold (subzone)|The Nighthold (subzone) already exists. This is why WP:NOA is important, folks. Xporc (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So I'd like to separate the instance with the Nightborne hub, especially since the Nighthold (subzone), which is currently used as the Nightborne hub page, is just a part of the whole Nighthold. I can change all the links, no problem. What do you say? --Ryon21 (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. U want to create another Nighthold page? Is the instanced subzone different spatially from that of the uninstanced (aka the allied race hub)? I thought the uninstanced Nighthold subzone is the whole Nighthold... if that makes sense :D
 * Edit: I mean, uhm, even the uninstanced Nighthold area, lorewise, has several different sections which are currently closed in the uninstanced zone but open and visited in the raid. --Mordecay (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the suggestion is to have a Nighthold (lore) and Nighthold (instance) page. Xporc (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, basically what Xporc said. I think the subzone is just made for the raid, but you as you say it is probably the whole place. What I suggest is just change the instance page to Nighthold (instance) and use the Nighthold as the lore page. The subzone, we can keep it or merge it with the new page, whatever you prefer. So, good to go? --Ryon21 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd personally be okay with it, Ryon has proved he's dedicated enough to update all the links that a bot would leave behind. Xporc (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the trust! I'll do it then, sometime in the near future :) --Ryon21 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After a bot request, though. No need to work yourself to death when the bot can fix 80% of the links to begin with. Xporc (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After dealing with Quel'Thalas and other pages, this one doesn't have so many links. Also, I found this page Mordecay, about the Nighthold subzone, don't know how to proceed when I finish everything: Forum:Subzones and policy. Look for the Nighthold (subzone). --Ryon21 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done :D Only the subzone left. Mordecay read the upper message. --Ryon21 (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job! :) PeterWind (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever u decide, I won't object :D --Mordecay (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then the subzone and the Nighthold go the same page. I think it's better. Also, you want to keep the Nightwell (subzone) or merge it with the Nightwell? Since the page has so little. --Ryon21 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the Nightwell and its subzone split please. Xporc (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ^^--Mordecay (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)