Wowpedia
Wowpedia
229,768
pages
m
m
Line 14: Line 14:
 
:RPG should just be removed entirely from the Classic articles. It isn't canon anyways, should be fine just on the main page. {{User:Surafbrov/Sig}} 23:31, 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. {{User:Surafbrov/Sig}} 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 [[User:Xporc|Xporc]] ([[User talk:Xporc|talk]]) 10:50, 7 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 [[User:Xporc|Xporc]] ([[User talk:Xporc|talk]]) 10:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::It's been a while, but I [https://wow.gamepedia.com/User:Aeliren85/Sandbox two] [https://wow.gamepedia.com/User:Aeliren85/Sandbox1 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. [[User:Aeliren85|Aeliren85]] ([[User talk:Aeliren85|talk]]) 03:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:26, 26 March 2020

Forums: Village pump → Classic WoW pages

So, I was editing a bit when I got an idea. It's inspired from the current {{Faction disambiguation}} 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. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 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. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 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 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)