Forum:Classic WoW pages

So, I was editing a bit when I got an idea. It's inspired from the current template tab as well as Wookieepedia's "Canon/Legends" template tab. Because of divergences in how certain characters and zones are, I thought there could be a tab at the top of a page that moved between the "Classic" and "Current" page. Obviously that would be for zones, but mobs could eventually be given the treatment.

Thoughts?

--Aeliren85 (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey there. The Classic WoW project kinda went nowhere due to lack of public interest. Current trend seems to have different pages for everything rather than tabs. Xporc (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Items for an example make use of the UsingData with the Versions2 template. See Reins of the Bengal Tiger as an example. 09:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about what exactly should be in the Classic pages. Definitely anything related to gameplay, but I don't think that info like Warcraft III custom maps and lore speculation need to be there. The pages that were created recently seem to be ancient revisions containing ood speculation or old wording of Warcraft III info, which is better covered on the main page. Another question would be the RPG info which is properly sorted and tagged on main pages. Mordecay (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RPG should just be removed entirely from the Classic articles. It isn't canon anyways, should be fine just on the main page. 23:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Classic pages should record gameplay related stuff like quests, ressource nodes, etc. Also describe the lore at the time of WoW Classic, like saying the Loch is still intact in Loch Modan, etc. RPG and Warcraft III map information are not necessary on classic pages Xporc (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, but I made two prototypes in sandboxes concerning how I conceptualized the idea. I think the way things should be recorded on those pages should reflect how the zone/area was pre-Cata. Obviously, NPC, resource and quest info is a given. A bit of relevant lore, though I'm unsure if retroactive info should be recorded or only what was relevant at the time of Classic (for example in Pyrewood and Ambermill's cases, their Gilnean ties). Warcraft III map information is unnecessary and can be restricted to the retail page, but concerning RPG information, although non-canon, most are obviously meant to be relevant to their pre-Cata states. For example, on the Pyrewood and Ambermill pages, the RPG info is irrelevant to and even contradicts their Forsaken-conquered states but is relevant to the Classic-era Alliance-aligned states. This is only a prototype to visualize it, I'm sure it could be worked on further. Aeliren85 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your use of tabs in the Moonrage/Pyrewood worgen pages is interesting, but personally I'm not a fan of using tabs for stuff like Pyrewood Village or Archmage Ataeric. Xporc (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is it about it you don't like? If it's the type of tab and how it appears on the page, I'm going to be honest, my first attempt at using wikia tabs... didn't work too well. By which I mean the tabs didn't show up at all. So I went with the next tab option I found, and though I don't really like how it's just two buttons hanging in the middle of the screen, it was more a proof of concept than anything else. Didn't really want to write a whole new template for it when it was still in planning/proofing stages. Personally, I think it would make for a fluid way to switch from one version to the other while still having the pages read well and not be written in past, making it more accessible and easy to navigate for people looking for Classic information. The "retail" version is the "baseline/default" and you can switch to the "Classic" version with the touch of a button. Aeliren85 (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Xporc, obviously, but I don't really like them either. I think it looks pretty strange and is also kind of unnecessary.
 * While it might make it easier to find what you're looking for if you're only interested in the Classic version, I think it runs the risk of needlessly splitting up information and making it more non-intuitive when you're interested in the whole history of something, both retail and Classic, since you'd have to switch over to a separate (and in most cases, much shorter) tab just to see what the NPC or location was like during the events of vanilla and what quests they were involved in and such. If the vanilla information is kept on both pages but the Classic tab just leaves out all non-Classic information (like in your Ambermill and Pyrewood examples), that would also seem a bit excessive to me since it's essentially making a separate subpage out of stuff that can just be summed up in a few sections on the existing page.
 * About accessibility: to me, as long as the Classic information about a subject is clearly visible on the page and marked with Classic only-section (like this), it feels like that should be enough for when people are looking for Classic information. Granted, this is from the perspective of someone who uses the wiki every day and isn't particularly interested in Classic; I don't know what it's like for someone who only plays Classic and isn't familiar with Wowpedia.
 * As for being written in past tense, IMO it's sort of an agreement you make when playing Classic that you're going to a version of the game that's frozen in the past and doesn't reflect the "current day" versions of characters and places anymore. Classic information should probably be written in present tense when it's about things that only exist in Classic and gameplay-related stuff like items and quests, yes, but not NPCs and locations that are still around in retail and have evolved since then, if you ask me. -- 15:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Basically what DT said. There's also the problem of keeping pages consistent. We have thousands of pages which are more or less written in chronological order, with the newest information "on top" (in infoboxes, etc.), and we almost don't use tabs outside of some exceptions like Warcraft III units (by the way, I like how the Pyrewood/Moonrage worgen are handled with tabs). I feel like starting to introduce tabs in NPC/location pages would break consistency with the older pages. Wowpedia is more of a "scroll down if you want more information" than a "click this tab for more information" kind of website, you know? I feel like the recent update to Archmage Ataeric is more fitting Xporc (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess one thing we could do better is to make Classic only-section a bit more visually distinct, like making the text bold to make it more consistent with the other section templates. -- 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Made it bold. 21:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)