Forum:Hearthstone content on Wowpedia

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Village pump → Hearthstone content on Wowpedia

So, as I have started a discussion here, Hearthstone content on Wowpedia is very questionable at the moment. I personally am not really concerned about the art and articles related a lot of the creatures that are only found in Hearthstone, especially since some like Patches or an entire race like the Tortollans may find a way into World of Warcraft.

My concern is the "blogs", "animations", "books", etc., most of which can be found linked on the {{Hearthstone material}} template. We have an entire wiki for this kind of stuff. Most of the articles, such as the "Tale of the Fox", is already on the Hearthstone wiki so it wouldn't be a big hassle to just delete them and call it a day. Also, it isn't like it is leaving us since it is with the same family (Gamepedia; yes I am talking to you xporc). Another thing we can do, on the expansion pages or Hearthstone, include a new section for these kinds of material (Tales of the Fox being Kobolds & Catacombs).

What do you guys think? Should we move this kind of content over to the Hearthstone wiki or just keep unneeded duplicate information?

Actually, I just remembered... PCJ made it so we can redirect using interwiki prefixes. So for example, instead of deleting the article Tale of the Fox... just redirect it like #REDIRECT [[hswiki:Kobolds & Catacombs#Tale of the Fox]] and it should work like a charm.

--— Surafbrov T / C / P 09:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete/move it to the HS wiki, I say. I've talked at length about this in Forum:Hearthstone-exclusive characters and Talk:Tale of the Fox, and my opinions haven't changed much since then. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I can agree that characters, such as Nalaa the Redeemer, should not be created unless they make some sort of appearance in WoW like I have said about Patches, the Observer. — Surafbrov T / C / P 10:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Same. There is an entire wiki dedicated to that one purpose, and it does the same job much better and its content is much more complete. There really is no reason to have vastly inferior versions of these articles on Wowpedia when they already exist, and in a better form, on Hearthpedia. Only exception is probably if a Hearhtstone character appears in World of Warcraft, in which case it can have a page (or section on an existing page) here
Linking to the pages would also not be an issue in any way, we can just use {{hs|Character}} instead of [[Character (Hearthstone)]], and yeah Pcj allowed interwiki redirect pages as well for that purpose. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Anyone opposed to removing this kind of content (and possibly an extension to characters explicit to Hearthstone)? Speak up now, please. — Surafbrov T / C / P 07:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am, not like that's gonna change much to this situation Xporc (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Any reason why we shouldn't when we have an entire wiki dedicated to this game? — Surafbrov T / C / P 07:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I like having it here, but on the other hand I won't be working on adding any of it either way. PeterWind (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I can understand having some characters, especially those who have a significant chance to appear in World of Warcraft (like Patches the observer). Characters like Nalaa the Redeemer on the other hand, like DT pointed out on the other forum, don't really have a chance. My mindset about the characters is slim, but I agree with DT that they should not be included unless they have some sort of appearance in the MMO. The media stuff, on the other hand, (such as the blog post stories, books like that pop-up book) shouldn't be included and can just be linked as redirects from here to the Hearthstone Wiki article / section. This is just duplicate information and better yet just non-canon information. — Surafbrov T / C / P 07:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
When I want to have a list of all the orc pirates or of all the Gilnean soldiers in the Warcraft universe, I don't want to have to go and browse an extra wiki that may or may not have the categories I'm looking for. That's kinda it. Xporc (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, these characters can still be a redirect and can still exist in those such categories. And if such a character gets added into the MMO, the page can be adjusted and include information about the character like how Patches the observer is set up currently (although he could possibly use a layout cleanup). The thing is, we don't need to include all the Hearthstone-exclusive on Wowpedia as duplicate information, instead just create the article name and use the redirect as I stated above. #REDIRECT [[hswiki:Nalaa the Redeemer]] [[Category:Draenei characters]][[Category:Hearthstone characters]] We already have Category:Hearthstone characters that lists them all while some wouldn't be touched. — Surafbrov T / C / P 08:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You could just use the categories that are (or will be) on both Wowpedia and Hearthpedia (for example Category: Rogues on Wowpedia + Category: Rogues on Hearthpedia), instead of wanting to copy the entire content of Hearthpedia onto Wowpedia in an inferior manner just to fill Wowpedia categories. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said on Slack, I'm really not keen on the idea of creating a bunch of new lore categories on the Hearthstone wiki. IMO, Suraf's suggestion really seems to be the simplest and most straightforward way of handling it. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 13:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
To me, all HS content is Warcraft content, to the same extent as the trading card game, board game and similar. As such I don't see a reason to exclude. PeterWind (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, HS is Warcraft, but as has been stated elsewhere in these discussions, the difference between Hearthstone and the TCG, board game, RPG, etc. is that the latter don't have their own dedicated Gamepedia wiki. Hearthstone does, hence there's not really much reason to put HS lore on Wowpedia when it already has its own site entirely dedicated to it. IMO, of course. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If we had a wiki dedicated to the WoW TCG, I would start a discussion like this one to move the content over to the new wiki (The TCG article itself and full art of each card, however, can be canon and not be deleted). So information about each card would be found on the new wiki and if we ever need to link to them, on the appropriate page we could include a see also section with a link to the article on the new wiki and link back vice versa. If there are characters that are unique to the TCG, I think it is okay to include them on Wowpedia as an interwiki redirect rather than having an infobox template and including duplicate information which is already included on the new wiki. If a character was first introduced with the TCG, then it'll be handled like how Patches the Observer is for Hearthstone. He was first introduced as a character in Hearthstone but found his way into World of Warcraft with Battle for Azeroth; so including his WoW information along with some Hearthstone information shouldn't be an issue (although one could argue to not include the Hearthstone information and just include a see also section and link to the hearthstone wiki). — Surafbrov T / C / P 15:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Me too. Same reasoning as Peter. While Wowpedia can be about "just the appearance" of a card character, the HS wiki also details the gameplay of them. Mordecay (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but the HS wiki also details the lore of the cards, especially when it comes to HS-unique characters or characters whose HS depiction differs drastically from their canonical version. See the lore section for Kazakus, for instance. There's no point in copying those lore bits to Wowpedia as well. If someone wants to look up the lore of a HS character like Hagatha or Toki, they can just go to the lore sections on those characters' HS wiki articles. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 12:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The Hearthstone wiki already takes care of both aspects. -- MyMindWontQuiet 20:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Like I have said, we can create these characters "as redirects" on Wowpedia. — Surafbrov T / C / P 18:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


So pretty much straight forward. Hearthstone media, such as The Art of Hearthstone, Forest for the Weary and Tale of the Fox will not be deleted but turned into a interwiki redirect like so: #REDIRECT [[hswiki:Kobolds & Catacombs#Tale of the Fox]]

Hearthstone characters will also be applied in the same way: #REDIRECT [[hswiki:Nalaa the Redeemer]]

Articles that have a disambig shouldn't be converted into a redirect and should just be deleted, such as Goblins vs Gnomes (comic).

When redirecting Hearthstone characters, categories that they are related to can be added to the redirect (@xporc). Such as Nalaa the Redeemer will have the following categories on her article, just below the interwiki redirect: Category:Draenei characters and Category:Hearthstone characters

This vote does not affect Hearthstone art currently as that should be handled differently, especially a lot of this art is from the TCG. This also does not affect sections on existing articles in the RTS / MMO universe like Gadgetzan#In Hearthstone.

So in summary,

  • Most Hearthstone content will be a interwiki redirect such as the media and characters.
  • A new section on the Hearthstone article can be created to include these links to the media stuff.
  • Characters will have their race/class/whatever categories on their interwiki redirect article.
  • Hearthstone art related to characters and sections called "In Hearthstone" on articles like Gadgetzan are not affected by this vote.


(Yes) Delete/Redirect
  1. YesSurafbrov T / C / P 18:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (Nominated)
  2. Yes -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (See above.)
  3. Yes MyMindWontQuiet 20:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (As stated above, there already is an entire wiki dedicated to Hearthstone content, it is pointless and redundant to try to do the same thing on another wiki (Wowpedia), especially when the first wiki has already done practically all of the work and its pages are vastly superior to, more numerous, and better made than ours.)
  4. Yes DarkTZeratul (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (no comment)
  5. Yes PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 21:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC) - (no comment)
  6. Yes SWM2448 22:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC) - (If it has lore, we can add it. Minutia is unneeded.)
  7. Yes Eithris (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC) - (keeping two separate versions of each page seems like unnecessary extra work when we don't have anything unique to add on our side (as we do for things that become canon))
  8. Yes Alayea (talk / contrib) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC) - (I share in MMWQ's and DTZ's sentiments. Furthermore it is my opinion that Hearthstone should be viewed as an entirely separate entity, and not an extension of WoW like the old TCG was.)
  9. Yes Aliok (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC) - (Hearthstone is its own game and has its own wiki. Interwiki redirects is just fine. If something from Hearthstone gets introduced to WoW, then let's make articles/categories.)
  10. Yesfoxlit (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC) - (no comment)
(No) Keep Content on Wowpedia
  1. No PeterWind (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (I prefer having relevant info here, with gameplay elements removed.)
  2. No Mordecay (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (Same as Peter.)
  3. No Shammiesgun (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - ()
  4. No Xporc (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC) - (Not everything deserves to be on wowpedia, but I don't get why it's such an issue to have pages about people like Nalaa the Redemeer or that Hearthstone girl. Just a short blurb, a pic and a link to the relevant wiki for more relevant gameplay/lore information.)
  5. No Mrforesttroll (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC) - (Hearthstone material (Comics, Books, Videos and Short stories/Articles) shouldn't be excluded from this wiki even if they exist in the same web family of gamepedia.)
  1. Abstain Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 21:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC) - (While the game is considered non-canon, the developers love taking characters and even races from Hearthstone to create in Warcraft. We don't need to have every card made, since we have the other wiki for it, I feel notablenamed characters are ok to have here. The redirect can always be turned into an article should we find it necessary. So I'm fine with either outcome.)
  2. Abstain Ryon21 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC) - (I prefer to stay out of this since I don't have any major pros and cons about it. Although if I have to say something I'll say the same as Coobra.)


Yeah, what about HS-sections on pages like Gadgetzan? Xporc (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Can't speak for anyone else, but I have no issue with making/keeping "In Hearthstone" sections for subjects that are depicted in a noteworthy way in Hearthstone, such as being the main focus or setting for a card set (like Old God, murloc, or Gilneas). Note that this does not mean I agree with making entire "In Hearthstone" sections for each and every individual character and generic NPC that shows up as a Hearthstone card, and maybe it would be better to only ever note this stuff in Trivia sections instead of making standalone sections for it, just for the sake of consistency. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 23:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, my feeling on the matter is that this discussion and vote is really only concerned with Hearthstone-exclusive material. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah this is only about Hearthstone-only pages. Hearthstone sections stay. -- MyMindWontQuiet 16:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Updated proposal; This vote does not affect Hearthstone artwork and sections such as the "In Hearthstone" on Gadgetzan. When I say Hearthstone artwork, this is towards character artwork. This vote does affect media artwork like the images on the Tale of the Fox article or the book cover on The Art of Hearthstone. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
What about HS characters and places like Ava or the Hearthstone inn that seem to be lorewise in the WoW world? Ryon21 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Heathstone characters will be a interwiki redirect as said in the proposal. Hearthstone is non-canon. — Surafbrov T / C / P 17:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought these characters were somewhat "canon" while the HS expansions are stories that happen in the Warcraft taverns. :/ Ryon21 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
None of the Hearthstone content is considered canon. Especially not Hearthstone-exclusive stuff like, say, Marin the Fox. Hearthstone characters and places that have also appeared in Warcraft do get "In Hearthstone" sections, for example Morgl the Oracle#In Hearthstone or Gadgetzan#In Hearthstone. -- MyMindWontQuiet 18:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Not really, characters like Nalaa the Redeemer definitely have no chance to become canon in WoW like how Patches the observer did. I don't really care much about Ava and the Hearthstone inn, as an inn is part of the culture or whatever to the Hearthstone game (which the Hearthstone game itself is canon to WoW, you can see games being played in Zandalar, Kul Tiras, and Pandaria). Ava is from a cinematic, which I could care less about. I'm more talking about characters as playable cards. But for this vote, that Hearthstone inn can be a section on a Inn page and not its own page. — Surafbrov T / C / P 18:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI and to make it clear, I don't want to copypaste the entirety of the hearthstone wiki unto wowpedia. Igaf about random cards like Chupacabran, Crystalsmith Kangor, Grum, Black King, or other unknown stuff, but I believe cards of races/classes/occupations more familiar to us like Arch-Thief Rafaam, Astromancer Arwyn and Aya Blackpaw belong on wowpedia. Xporc (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we can really distinguish between those two types of characters, because in such a case I think it would get fairly arbitrary deciding on who is notable enough to get a Wowpedia page or not. Easier to just have a default solution that applies to any and all Hearthstone content. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not that hard: Rafaam is an ethereal (existing WoW race) that plunders Ironforge's museum (existing WoW place), including several artifacts, some of which are actually depicted in WoW like The Steel Sentinel. He's also from a time where Hearthstone cared more about being in continuity with WoW. It's a complete different type of character than Sir Annoy-O, that is an annoyotron (doesn't exist in wow) that is a paladin (wtf) and was introduced in an expansion pack depicting events and locations not appearing in WoW. Xporc (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but taking your example of the Black King, no character of that name exists in WoW, but he's still part of a boss encounter that's distinctly based on the Karazhan chess event, so from that perspective I would argue that he's more firmly rooted in existing lore than someone like Astromancer Arwyn. IMO, trying to distinguish between which Hearthstone characters are "close enough" to WoW and which ones aren't would just lead to disagreements. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, that seems rather random honestly, there isn't a clear difference between some of the cards you said shouldn't be on Wowpedia and some that you said should be, it sounds more like a gut feeling and that's not a good rule to go by. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Then if the only two alternatives are "keep everything" or "delete everything" with no middle ground, I'll maintain my vote for "keep everything" Xporc (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Huh? Not everything is getting deleted. — Surafbrov T / C / P 21:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't that what is being suggested? Things only appearing in HS (even when based on Warcraft lore) to be removed? I suppose you can always argue what constitutes a real connection, but I only care about things that are related to the regular warcraft universe. Pages like "Nalaa the Redeemer" is close to ideal for me, but as Xporc also said, I have no interest in characters like "Grum". PeterWind (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Everything being deleted/redirected is certainly what is currently suggested Xporc (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There's something I don't understand about this situation:

  • From DeludedTroll's admittance, he hates Hearthstone now, while also being the only remaining Hearthpedia admin. He also admitted to not watching their RC anymore, so as far as I know you guys are asking to delete 200 wowpedia pages because another unprotected wiki exists, where random people can just go and add bad lore or fanfiction there. Though that might have been an exaggeration on his part under stress (I do that often but whatever), AFAIK that's still the current state of things.
  • Each Hearthstone card on wowpedia already links to Hearthpedia. It's not like we're trying to compete with them. I personally see each of our Hearthstone card as "okay, here's a short lore blurb about this character and a picture, if you want to see more, you can go read the main thing on Hearthpedia". Not exaggerating, I really don't understand why this is so problematic. This is like any war article, where we give a short battle blurb and link to the full page for those willing to read more. This is like the RTS articles, were we copypaste the briefings and also link to each mission for a more complete description.
  • Hearthpedia also includes short lore blurbs before linking to wowpedia, as is the case with Kazakus' potions. Heck, some pages like the Wolrider just copypaste lore information that are completely unrelated to Hearthstone as a whole. I certainly hope you guys intend to purge Hearthpedia of any such external lore if this vote passes? Wouldn't want a wiki to feature duplicate information because another more complete one exists, after all.
Completely unrelated to my argument, but the wolfrider lore on that page is also unsourced and even wrong on a point .

Still, I'm seeing where this vote is going, and I'll try to give more compromises when I have the time. Xporc (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's completely accurate to say I hate Hearthstone now; I said I "kind of" hate it. There are periods where I care for it less and periods where I pay somewhat more attention to it. I do try and keep somewhat of an eye on the recent changes around the time of major news (like card reveal seasons), not that those happen often.
As for your second and third points, the way I look at it is more that things that exist in both WoW and Hearthstone naturally share lore (hence the interlinking between Wowpedia and Hearthstone, with Hearthstone wiki pages having Lore sections that pull summaries from Wowpedia and Wowpedia pages having "X appears as a card in this and this Hearthstone expansion" sections), whereas HS- and WoW-exclusive things are separate. Hence I don't think we should have Wowpedia document things from Hearthstone that don't appear elsewhere, just as it wouldn't make sense to make a Hearthstone wiki page about something from WoW that doesn't appear in Hearthstone. Put another way, when a character from WoW shows up in Hearthstone, they get a Hearthstone wiki page with a Lore section that explains their history in WoW and which links back to their Wowpedia article. Similarly, when Blizzard pulls a character or concept from Hearthstone and canonizes them by putting them in to WoW, we could make a Wowpedia page about them with a section explaining how they were originally depicted in Hearthstone and which links back to their Hearthstone article. Until such happens, they remain separate (or, in this case, their Wowpedia pages remain redirects to their Hearthstone articles).
(Also, the Wolfrider lore section was created in 2013, so it pulled from the 2013 version of our raider page. I updated it to reflect the current version of the raider page.) -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 10:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Xporc, what you said has absolutely, literally, nothing to do with this vote. You used as examples to back up your argument, Hearthpedia pages of things that exist in both Hearthstone and WoW. So of course their page links to Wowpedia in Lore sections, just like we have "In Hearthstone" sections on pages of WoW things that appear in Hearthstone... - MyMindWontQuiet 11:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We have the choice between sending users to a complete Hearthpedia page about a certain card, or sending them to a 3-lines long incomplete Wowpedia page that only serves as a redirect to Hearthpedia. I can't find one reason why we should do the latter.
It's telling that not one person so far has managed to find an actual reason to keep Hearthstone-only pages on Wowpedia beyond "I like having it here", or "It's kind of related to WoW so it should stay here" (even though there's already a whole wiki for it). There is literally no reason to keep Hearthstone-only characters on Wowpedia: if we want to talk about them and link to them, we can just use {{hs|Character}} instead of [[Character (Hearthstone)]]. If we want to put them in Wowpedia categories, Pcj tweaked a thing that allows us to do so. And that's it, there is no other purpose for Hearthstone-only character pages on Wowpedia.
We literally only have them to fill categories or to redirect to Hearthpedia. Might as well cut the middleman and directly link to Hearthpedia (and as said earlier, Pcj made it so categories are possible too). -- MyMindWontQuiet 11:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this was asked already, but: the art that are being used on the characters template, like N'Zoth, Nazgrim, are gonna be removed or kept? And in the future, we are gonna keep using the Hearthstone art in the template? Maykzinho 15:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, HS art will continue to be used. This vote is purely about if we should have Wowpedia pages about characters that only exist in Hearthstone lore. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Implementing the vote

Okay, the vote is finished. Can't say I'm happy about it, but I can't say either it's the first time I heavily disagree with some decisions here. It's now time to start negotiating how the vote will be actually implemented. I've suggested several times we should create a page that would serve as a list of links to Hearthpedia, so here's what I did as an experiment: Hearthstone lore. The point is to be concise, eventually add a couple of links relevant to warcraft lore, and to display the various pictures that will be left behind after all the current Hearthstone pages are deleted. Thoughts? Xporc (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's really necessary. Hearthstone lore and original cards in Hearthstone are already pages that exist on the Hearthstone wiki and fill a similar purpose. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This already exists on Hearthpedia : Hearthstone lore, we can just link to it. -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The vote is applied to pages such as this one, it isn't needed. It is essentially copying information from the Hearthstone Wiki over to this wiki. Also by the looks of it, it seems to be going to be dump of all the pages from Category:Hearthstone characters which pretty much defeats the purpose of the category. These kind of pages can be included on Hearthstone (game) under a see also section (or something else) and linked using the {{hs}} template. — Surafbrov T / C / P 18:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The vote wasn't about deleting every single Hearthstone-related pages on wowpedia. We're keeping pages such as Hearthstone (game) and Hearthstone: Rastakhan's Rumble. And no, once again I'm not attempting to try dumping every single Hearthstone card / copy pasting the Hearthstone wiki, enough with these accusations.
I am merely attempting two things:
1) keeping a concise, informative description of a few characters/organizations/places, along with some links relevant to the greater Warcraft universe, like a link toward the Alchemy page for Kazakus, or Astromancy for Astromancer Arwyn.
2) trying to put somewhere some of the Hearthstone artwork that is gonna end up orphan after the purge.
All of this on a single page, which can also be used to link to various related pages on the Hearthstone wiki, such as their lore ones.
You've already won. We are already deleting 206 pages. Is saving a single page too much to ask? Xporc (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
First and foremost, I am not placing any accusations on anyone and there is no "winning" or "losing", this was all simply a vote about Hearthstone content where the community came together, expressed their opinion on the matter and that was it. It doesn't matter whether the vote was approved or declined. This vote was brought up to confirm whether the majority prefers to have the content on Wowpedia or not, I wouldn't care of either outcome; at least the vote happened and we understand whether it should stop or not. Second, the expansions and the game articles are staying. They way I see it, IMO, is that Hearthstone lore is looking to be a category dump of Hearthstone characters or a direct copy of the same article from Hearthpedia. If this article be can defined, I don't see a reason to delete it such as the possibility that having this page to include related lore and connections between Warcraft and Hearthstone. Just as you said: "All of this on a single page, which can also be used to link to various related pages on the Hearthstone wiki, such as their lore ones." with the two bulleted points you provided. I can see a reason for it to exist for that very reason, but what do the others think? — Surafbrov T / C / P 19:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve Xporc. There literally already is a page called Hearthstone lore, so I don't see what the point of creating Hearthstone lore is. This already exists. And we can link to it. The Wowpedia version can at best be a redirect. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI, due to the Gamepedia and Fandom announcement, it'd probably be best to hold off on this project until further notice.Surafbrov T / C / P 17:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)