Forum:Cataclysm info vs. old world

Many old world pages are in a state of mess right now. Look for example at Argent Dawn: quest progression, reputation grind, outdoor reputation pre-Cataclysm sections - each take at least a full screen on my x1600 resolution monitor. And only small portion is dedicated to Cataclysm-relevant reputation quests for them. Many other pages follow "lots of outdated info at top, small cataclysm section at bottom" format as well. I propose to move all non-lore/history pre-Cataclysm information (old quests, old grinds, etc.) on those pages to some sub-page with link from main, leaving only history/lore and Cataclysm-relevant gameplay data. If old gameplay info is small enough, it can be left on main page, but should be always shuffled to bottom, so new and relevant info is immediately accessible.

--Rowaasr13 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On that note cata-section template is somewhat misleading for old world zones. As of now the information is already relevant to anyone, not just those playing Cataclysm.

--Rowaasr13 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes the templates and stubs are somewhat misleading. There probably should have been templates that distinguish between the Shattering and Cataclysm. Wowpedia is less active than the glory days of WoWWiki, so more stuff falls through the cracks.
 * You can read a semblance of a plan at Forum:Old World Zones post-Cataclysm. I don't think we've gotten to the point where this is a policy issue, more of a guideline type of thing. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 10:11 AM PST 2 Dec 2010


 * I had the same thought, and created a modified version of the section tag. I'd kindof like to see it or something like it start being used to differentiate from the stuff you actually have to have the expansion to access.
 * --Bobson (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Bobson (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't really need to even use a sectional template. 21:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)