Forums: Village pump → Classic WoW

Alright, since Blizzard announced World of Warcraft: Classic servers, I wanted to open a discussion about it. Sure, the servers won't be released for years, but since Blizzard is committed to release them eventually, we need to start thinking about how we'll handle it.


For this discussion, I created a few example pages and categories:

These pages were created by, in the "Elwynn Forest (classic)" case, taking the original 2010 version of Elwynn Forest, cleaning it up, and carving out lore and information that are identical to the modern Elwynn Forest page. For the "Defias Ambusher" I did about the same thing, taking the original version of the Ambusher page back before the Defias were dissolved and the mob was renamed. I think the Defias Ambusher is a good example because a lot of mobs were similarly renamed in Elwynn Forest and Stratholme. Note that currently "Elwynn Forest" and "Ambusher" do not have links to their classic pages, because these are only test pages for now.

I also created the matching categories to contain my pages.

  • Category:Elwynn Forest (classic)
  • Category:Elwynn Forest (classic) mobs
  • Category:Elwynn Forest (classic) objects

First, what do you think about the pages and categories I created? Several questions are coming to my mind right now:

  • Should we destroy the "(original)" namespace entirely, replacing it with "(classic)"?
  • Should we create classic pages and categories for every single zone, dungeon and raid of vanilla?
  • Should entities that exists since vanilla and were never removed exist both in modern and classic categories?
  • For dungeons and zones it makes sense to create a "classic" page, but for mobs and NPCs like Foreman Jerris who kept the same name, should we just update the page instead of splitting it in two?

The reason I want to launch this discussion ASAP is that, if Classic servers are coming back, I want people to stop doing the whole {{removedfromgame}} + "|doc in template" + "remove from all categories" dance. I'd rather have them put a {{classic only}} template and move the page to classic categories instead ;)

Note that we already categorize removed content for some dungeons such as Stratholme and Naxxramas. In that case the only change would be to replace the "(original)" namespace with "(classic)".

--Xporc (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Until we know more about Classic servers, put removed entities in categories like Category:Westfall (original) mobs instead of leaving them orphans. Whether the Classic servers are released or not, it's still information that is valid today, and it'll make it much easier to switch them out if they are actually released someday. Xporc (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing this retroactively, but I don't mind doing this going forward. If the categories are scrapped later on, it'll be easy to find and remove either way. PeterWind (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
For categories I'd honestly rather, instead of (classic) or (original), use Category:Classic: <zone> <types>. I just dislike seeing words in parenthesis between other words for categories. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 22:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't really mind, but it would be inconsistent with already existing categories like Category:Shadowmoon Valley (alternate universe), no? Xporc (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't like doing that either, but since its done to only a few categories, I can deal with it. Whereas classic realms will involve a hundred or so categories and maybe doing it a different way would also show that its not part of the "main world" accessible through normal ways. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You guys can't stop me now :^)


Well for certain, how exactly is it going to be close to the vanilla experience? (Like everything before TBC will be there) I'm also assuming they'll be doing the latest patch before TBC. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 04:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
No idea. Whatever they end up doing, however, it's fairly certain that the vanilla zones and dungeons will be back, including original Stratholme, original Deadmines... Xporc (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Well if they're going to try to do exactly like it was on patch 1.12.4, but also of course include balancing and fixes over time, Junkerd will have another source for vanilla content, although would still be hard to tell what patch such thing was added.
As with the "(original)" and "(classic)" classic would mean directly to this new server option while (original) would retain to World of Warcraft before anything such replaced it, like Scarlet Monastery replaced in MoP and Blackfathom Deeps in WoD. Honestly, it'd be best to keep as is... but it would be also wise to just vote on any changes for content related to vanilla. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Even Blizzard doesn't actually know the answer to what point in Vanilla these servers will be. During one of the interviews they said that's something they need to figure out (using the specific example of whether UBRS will be a 10 or 15-man raid). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've thought about this for a little bit... we're a mostly a source for lore, the zones have history sections and have moved forward in the story. We're not a database site like wowhead. Things that existed have had their time and while we like to document all things Warcraft/Blizzard I don't feel we should rekt ourselves trying to get classic articles to work. Classic items with Vanilla stats and scaled stats from 2 item squishes.
Listening to interviews, sounds like this will be at least a few years from now, so at least we'll have plenty of time to discuss this. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 01:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Coobra. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think for lore articles there's really no issue, since they already have Classic accounted for in their history. For articles concerning quests, items, and other things that may have changed since Classic, perhaps an approach like wookiepedia's canon/legends tabs might be a good solution. Amaranth Sparrow (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I too agree with Coobra. I feel there are too many unknowns to really prepare for this effectively. We still don't know if it will be all vanilla at once, rolling patches, or even a "new" mashup with modern graphics and bugfixes/tunings. They said they wanted it to be a polished Blizzard product. I don't imagine they'll introduce the server with old exploits/known bugs active. PeterWind (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
They said they didn't even know what engine will they run Classic with - 8.0 engine or 1.21 -, whether account-wide will be a thing (what happens if you raid AQ40 or Naxxramas and get the Black Qiraji mount or corrupted Ashbringer ?), what patch will Vanilla be, if they're even going to add content/patches, if they'll progress to or create TBC servers, they don't know anything yet. This was simply them announcing that they have finally decided to go through with the idea of legacy servers, it was a promise that they will do them. I think we should wait before doing anything. For all we know it's possible they might even abandon the concept. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Wew, didn't expected you guys to have such non-enthusiastic reactions. Do you guys at least agree to put pages in an "(original)" category instead of removing them from everything? Even if classic is never released, it doesn't hurt anybody to do that. 12:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Xporc (talk)
I Think it'll be a simple matter to link to the appropriate pages, ones we know what "source material" we're dealing with, in terms of mobs/NPCs/quests/items etc. PeterWind (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposed categories don’t seem reasonable: there’s no single "original" version, so the suffix is mostly meaningless, failing on content that has been patched more than once. While having parallel category structures for removed-from-game content might (or might not) be a good idea, adding a bunch of "(original)" categories doesn't seem useful. — foxlit (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If we go with those categories, maybe just "Category:Zone (removed)" then? PeterWind (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer (Classic), since if we make such categories they would explicitly be for the versions that are present on Classic servers. That aside, I think we'd be getting way too far out ahead of ourselves if we tried to do this now based on our assumptions about what we'll get that may or may not turn out to be true. I think we'd be far better served by continuing as things are and then pulling out Classic pages where/if necessary once we have details on what they will entail. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This is why I proposed to use "(original)" (or heck, "removed" would be fine too for such categories). Even if the classic servers are never released, the information would still be right since it would present things how they were in vanilla. Xporc (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up, for those of you not following the Recent changes list: I've started creating many "(original) mobs" and "(original) NPCs" category. I've also repopulated Category:Alterac Mountains mobs and Category:Alterac Mountains NPCs. Technically the "(original)" namespace is awkward for some entries, like with Sergeant Kien not actually being a vanilla Orgrimmar NPC, but no consensus was reached on the right name to use and I want to start creating categories that will help/let us use bots easily when Blizzard gives more information on Classic servers in a few years and we decide what name to actually use. Xporc (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean those should've been there in the first place. So kudos. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 02:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)