Template talk:Classic only

Would a section version be wanted or nah? --Mordecay (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Any other opinion? Xporc (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Might be fine yeah. PeterWind (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to Template:Classic only-section. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Optional Replacement Parameter

I propose adding replacement=_____ as an optional parameter, to look like this:

For an example of use, consider QueryAuctionItems that will be dropped in 8.3.0 but remains part of 1.13.3. I should rightly be adding classic-only at the top of the article, but it would be helfpul to let people know about the new C_AuctionHouse.ReplicateItems interface. DDC (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Though, there is still some naming to choose to differentiate Classic and BfA. For an example, your example template above and the template itself references BfA as "main" whereas items like  [Reins of the Bengal Tiger] references BfA as Retail. Which one should it be: "Main" or "Retail"? — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I prefer "Retail". I can show many examples from Wowpedia or the official wow forums that it is in wide usage; though to be honest I've never seen a blue post making official this popular term. DDC (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Retail" does seem like the one to go. Also, thanks for updating the documentation! — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 17:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Category Text

While we are at it, is it possible to make the second line (about categories) appear only to logged-in users? I think it is unapproachable for non-editors who are presumably less likely to be logged in. DDC (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential parameter change

so i've been contemplating making a change to how the switch functions in this template work. while the current setup was fine with 3 options, adding cata made the switches way more unwieldy and a pain to edit, and it'll get exponentially worse if/when any more need to be added.

the plan i've got is to merge the different expac parameters (tbc, wotlk, and cata) into a single one. the question is: how would you guys prefer i do this?

current formats: {{Classic only|cata=|patch=4.0.3a}} OR {{Classic only|cata=|4.0.3a}}

option 1 is to make it a named parameter--expac or maybe an abbreviation like exp. so you'd write |expac=cata rather than |cata=

option 2 is to make it the first unnamed parameter. so you'd write |cata rather than |cata=.

however, since the first unnamed param is currently an alias with patch, option 2 would also mean the patch always needs to be written as |patch=4.0.3a rather than |4.0.3a. there are about 400 pages that currently use the unnamed first parameter for patch, so it seems like that format isn't very widespread but still sees some use.

personally i favor option 2, but i figure i should ask opinions before going ahead either way.

thanks, Eithris (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

All for Option 2. As for the patch, best to keep the name parameter to keep it consistent with other similar templates while the expac names are specific to this template. (e.g. {{Removed}}, {{SeasonContent}}) — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Either would work for me, though I think I also prefer option 2. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. Option 2 is ok. -- Mordecay (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I like option two, too. SirWeltschmerz (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Either is fine by me. PeterWind (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

okey dokey then, looks like i'll be going ahead with 2. thanks everybody! Eithris (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)