(Created page with "{{Forumheader|Village pump}} Hi, we had a discussion with some of the other users about Auberdine and the Ruins of Auberdine. I made a larger update for the first arti...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
What do you think? Thanks, [[User:Aardum|Aardum]] ([[User talk:Aardum|talk]]) 14:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
What do you think? Thanks, [[User:Aardum|Aardum]] ([[User talk:Aardum|talk]]) 14:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :I am personally against it for several reasons. With Classic coming back, these will be two separate areas that you will be visit in two different games. If it's a common History section you need, we should just have something like "Main|Ruins of Southshore#History" or something [[User:Xporc|Xporc]] ([[User talk:Xporc|talk]]) 15:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:31, 28 January 2019
Forums: Village pump → Auberdine + Ruins of Auberdine
Hi, we had a discussion with some of the other users about Auberdine and the Ruins of Auberdine. I made a larger update for the first article, fleshing out the available lore. However, as per currently, lore beyond the Cataclysm expansion is added to the second article only. I think it creates unnecessary confusion and does not serve a purpose to keep the two separated.
In some cases, it's clearly important to keep two "versions" of the same place separately - i.e. Capital City and Ruins of Lordaeron. However, in some cases, such as Southshore/Ruins of Southshore or Auberdine/Ruins of Auberdine, I think a merge would be for the best.
What do you think? Thanks, Aardum (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am personally against it for several reasons. With Classic coming back, these will be two separate areas that you will be visit in two different games. If it's a common History section you need, we should just have something like "Main|Ruins of Southshore#History" or something Xporc (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)