Forum:Cataclysm changes

With all the changes in Cataclysm - and they are major - we need to work out our plan of action. It's been discussed before, but I don't believe we've got anything much concrete.

There are a couple of main areas we'll have to deal with: zones, NPCs, quests and items.

I believe we already have a method to deal with stuff removed from the game - Removedwithcataclysm - but that could still be a problem with the sheer volume of stuff that might be tagged that way (e.g. quests category where half of them aren't in game). However, it's the stuff that changes that may be the biggest headache. Do we relegate old stuff to a section of the page (and in some cases slim down the detail), or create a secondary article like "Article (pre-Catalysm)".

What are people's thoughts? Or indeed, are there discussions I've missed?

Thanks 19:56, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep one article, with the new stuff at the top and the old stuff in a pre-Cataclysm section at the bottom. The only one I can think of that might need a separate article would be Western Plaguelands given the name change, although even that could just be a redirect. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:00, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I really think think it depends on the type of article, and overall changes...


 * For random (unimportant) mobs, I'd say, just update it.
 * For subzones, since they are so small any way, just make a section of pre-cata info (if changes) and put more current info as the intro. However, even this might vary depending on the subzone... like towns, villages, cities, we might handle a completely different way.
 * For zones, If everything or mostly everything changes, I would just move the article to (original) and when making the new article add (original) with a brief description in a Background section.


 * You may wish to see FAQ to updating for Cataclysm help page as well, if you haven't already.-- 20:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a spoiler alert template should be added to any article regarding some of the changes that are coming in Cataclysm. I don't much care for spoiling gameplay updates but lore freaks such as myself would appreciate if any major lore changes were identified as spoilers (at least until the game itself is launched).AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 21:29, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Coobra and Zeratul above. I'd like to add, though...

For lore pages, (and pages with lore content) I think: Either or both might be appropriate to any given page. A corollary of this is that some pages, such as Blackrock Mountain, and lore pages based on it, should continue to be categorized. Just because the mountain got Blown Up (sir!) doesn't mean that it never DID exist. OTOH, I think most of the quests that get removed will simply disappear into (Quests removed with cataclysm) or get rewritten with no more than cursory notice. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:49, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * a post cataclysm section would be appropriate to describe the changes the cataclysm wrought upon the topic.
 * a pre cataclysm section would be appropriate where lore has been retconed to fit the Cataclysm expansion. This would be a special (new) variant of rfg-section.
 * Yeah, the only pages that are really subject to major "changes" are going to be zones and NPCs; quests and items will just get RFG'd as usual. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:02, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that with Cataclysm, there'll be a LOT of them. Might as well give them a category of their own...  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:45, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, well, I suppose Help:Updating for Cataclysm answers most of what I said. Definitely will want to put that in the sitenotice for start of beta. 13:40, May 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * My stance on gameplay articles follows the help guide: Current (as in: post-cataclysm content) comes first. The old stuff goes near the end of the article in a "History" or "Pre-Cataclysm" section. Lists (like Westfall quests) should be updated to have the post-cata quest list and not focus itself on the wiped-out stuff. Nothing should get deleted entirely, as keeping a history of how things were is an important part of what we're doing too. Articles focusing on lore (and not gameplay) should probably follow Elrik's suggestion.
 * Exceptions would be for complete zone revamps: Azshara, WPL, Barrens/Southern Barrens, 1KN? and so on. Those cases we echo Naxx (original)/Onyxia (original) with the primary articles being the current stuff and a for pointer to the classic version.
 * The biggest thing I ask is that people put patch 4.0.3a in on every article. That's going to be on a lot of articles, but it's something we should've been doing for 2.0 and 3.0-level additions too. Context worked for BC/Wrath stuff (new continents!), but that's not going to happen since most of the old-world is getting redone. -- k_d3 04:59, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm.. KD3, you may have wanted to mention in this necro-post that Kirkburn is not an admin of Wowpedia and ironically, he couldn't even post a site notice for WoWWiki now, since they did away with them in the new Oasis skin at Wikia. Also, you should start a new forum thread for Cataclysm issues. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 10:44 PM PST 17 Nov 2010