Forum:Obsolete Mechanics

How should articles that deal primarily with obsolete game mechanics be fixed?

The Druid talent Eclipse can proc a pair of buffs, called Lunar Eclipse and Solar Eclipse. Prior to 3.2 the two buffs were on a shared cooldown, so Moonkin were interested in repeatedly getting the stronger buff and not wasting a cooldown on the weaker buff. A Moonkin who preferred Lunar Eclipse would use what was called a Lunar Rotation.

The Lunar/Solar pages describe the buffs and the associated play styles.

In 3.2, the buffs are on separate cooldowns (and one buff can't proc while the other is active). PvE rotations will focus on getting the most use out of both buffs.

The bulk of the Lunar/Solar pages is now obsolete, or of only historic interest. The portion of those two pages that is not obsolete is covered as a one-liner in the main Eclipse article:

"The Eclipse procced by Wrath is called a Lunar Eclipse, whereas using Starfire to proc Eclipse is called a Solar Eclipse."

What is the procedure for fixing this?

Should the pages just be deleted (and links to them cleaned up)?

--Erdluf (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, I think information about obsolete spells/talents/play styles can either go into a "Historical notes" -type section, or be removed completely, since the information is still preserved in the page history. In this case, it doesn't look like the Lunar/Solar eclipse concepts have gone away completely, so the pages don't need to be removed. Although, the content probably belongs on the Eclipse page itself, but that's a separate question. -- Harveydrone 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd generally agree with Harveydrone. Just make the articles up to date. If you feel historical notes are still of interest, you can put them down. I usually stick with a one sentence comment in the "Patch changes" section (see patched if you're unfamiliar). 11:09 PM, 14 Aug 2009 (EDT)