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)
Thank you for your opinion. I'm wondering if there's a policy for places heavily changed by Cataclysm (for example) with the incoming classic. For example, Orgrimmar or Menethil Harbor. Will there be a separate page for pre- and post-Cata, will they be on the same page with different sections etc? I feel that Auberdine should perhaps be handled just like these locations will be. Aardum (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
On wowpedia the current trend since WoD is that editors don't generally work on location-related pages, so most probably nothing will be "handled" :/ Xporc (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)