Forum:Inline expansion icons on zone templates

Looks like a bit of a disagreement is brewing over the use of inline expansion icons on zone templates - see for example

As it stands: on continent templates, the expansion zones are marked as such. On subzone templates, I started putting the cataclysm expansion icon in the title too as a quick way of saying "this subzone is exclusive to this expansion" (I don't recall if I saw others do it first). A'noob has been doing the same, but for WotLK and TBC - but Sky has rolled back these changes.

Put forth thy opinions! 15:30, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, this discussion is slightly related to Forum:Removal of T:RPG and T:Cat. 16:14, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've posted my thoughts on the related forum discussion - however, I have a slightly different opinion for this. I mentioned context for the section templates - in the case of the subzone templates, you don't really get much context. Especially on subzone articles, I don't think we want to exhaustively say "this is something you can only access in Cataclysm" to give people that context. By putting the icon in the subzone template header, it is fairly simply communicated, and is consistent with usage in the continent templates (where I don't think we really contest usage). 16:22, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the C-inline tags were to note that this is a forthcoming change, and that the tags would be removed when Cataclysm hits and the templates get fully updated. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:02, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * See something like Kalimdor for where it makes sense to keep the tags. (TBC markers are still shown there). 17:10, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the header of the subzone templates, but the original plan that had been decided was to place the Cata icon next to the new subzones on the already existing zones, then once Cataclysm is released to remove those icons once things have been verified and cleaned up. It was also decided to just strike out the subzones being removed for now and when released they too will be removed from the templates.
 * This issue seems to be about icon usage in the headers though in which it doesn't matter to me. Though it might help new players/users to understand you must have a certain expansion to see those places. 17:12, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

The articles the zone templates are placed on, by virtue of their nature, should warn users that the zones they're looking at might be implemented in a later expansion than the one they're currently using. An article about a subzone in Northrend is going to say "hi, I'm a zone in Northrend", which, if you follow through on clicking on the link, it's likely you'll find that Northrend was not implemented until WoW 3.0.

The original intent was indeed as Coobra described. The usage of C-inline was going to be removed when Cataclysm is released: because of the upheaval in classic Azeroth, we needed a way to say to users that certain zones will be removed but which are still implemented in-game currently. The best way to do this was to use c-inline to accompany the related links, as it is indeed a consistent method. Things are going BOOM in the next expansion, and that was the only reason C-inline was added.

I'm of the opinion now also that the use of such templates on Kalimdor and such should also be removed (tbh, the icons for faction should be moved or removed as well: icon overload!!!).

I also left in the templates for the zones which are coming soon. But really, these icons are of a transitory nature: Everyone will experience the Cataclysm, soon enough... --Sky (t · c) 17:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think I haven't seen that discussed. We plan to remove Barrens from the template entirely for example? I'm not sure that makes sense, because they would still contain archival-style information. Striking it out right now also seems extreme, since it's a current live zone. Say I'm at Stonewall Lift - I would have to go to Howling Fjord to know that it's something you only find in Wrath of the Lich King (even then it's not really said). Having said that I'm not strongly attached to it, because it's not very important info. 17:36, July 21, 2010 (UTC)