(added quote) Â |
Eirik Ratcatcher@legacy41591109 (talk | contribs) No edit summary  |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Forumheader|Wowpedia general}} |
||
| − | {{npcbox |
||
| + | <!-- Please put your content under this paragraph. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> |
||
| − | | name = Sailor Wills |
||
| − | | image = Sailor-wills.jpg |
||
| − | | title = The Bravery |
||
| − | | level = 26 |
||
| − | | faction = Neutral |
||
| − | | city = |
||
| − | | health = 750 |
||
| − | | race = Human |
||
| − | | creature = Humanoid |
||
| − | | sex = Male |
||
| − | | location = [[The Bravery]], [[Darkshore]] or [[Stormwind Harbor]] |
||
| − | }} |
||
| + | As one of those who revel in wiki architecture, I find myself needing outside opinions. |
||
| − | '''Sailor Wills''' is a member of the crew of [[the Bravery|the ''Bravery'']], the boat that runs between [[Stormwind Harbor]] and [[Auberdine]]. He's the oldest member of the crew, but does like to brag about being also the toughest. |
||
| + | Things found (solved) by Archaeology: If we call them artifacts, we have to disambiguate between them and the {{quality|Artifact}} item quality. But the Archaeology "completed artifacts" tab calls them artifacts. |
||
| − | ==Quote== |
||
| − | This greyin' seadog may be the oldest of the crew, but he's also the toughest of the lot! Eh? Eh? Arms like an ogre! |
||
| + | It gets better! "Completed Common Artifacts" are uniformly {{quality|poor}} quality items. "Completed Rare Artifacts" may include epic quality items, I do not know. |
||
| − | ==Patches and hotfixes== |
||
| − | {{Patch 2.3.0|note=Added}} |
||
| − | ==External links== |
||
| − | <!-- Read http://www.wowpedia.org/Wowpedia:External_links before posting your links here. |
||
| − | Links that do not conform to the rules will be DELETED. |
||
| − | Repeat violations may result in a BAN. |
||
| − | Have a nice day. :) --> |
||
| − | {{elinks-NPC|25016}} |
||
| + | Oh, and there's always the question: prefix the category with 'World of Warcraft' or not. |
||
| − | [[Category:Humans|Wills]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | [[Category:Boat crews]] |
||
| + | |||
| + | My current scheme has: |
||
| + | * Categories called [[:Category:Archaeology finds|Archaeology finds]] (no 'world of warcraft') |
||
| + | * Subcategories of "poor", "common", "rare", "epic" on item quality. |
||
| + | |||
| + | I am not heavily invested in 'finds', and could support "Archaeology artifacts". Also, I could throw in and support "common" and "rare" based on the archaeology dialog. I'd rather not add "World of Warcraft" to everything. |
||
| + | |||
| + | If someone has completed an epic item quality archaeology artifact (see how quickly that becomes cumbersome?), could they say if there's a "completed epic artifacts" section under completed artifacts? |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Also, I'm intending to put archaeology dig sites on individual pages, unless someone says "don't do that". |
||
| + | --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher|talk]]) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :Dig sites are basically just new subzones, right? If they're in existing subzones, I would suggest putting their info in the subzone article and having the dig site name just be a redirect. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] [[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 6:43 PM PST 10 Dec 2010 |
||
| + | |||
| + | ::Not subzones at all. Some occupy existing subzones (many of the "ruins of..." dig sites, for instance). Some occupy a portion of a subzone ("eastern ruins of..."), some are in "no specific subzone". While using some of the existing subzone pages can work, there are others that won't work so well. I'll consider it, though, when making new pages. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher|talk]]) 20:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:02, 14 December 2010
As one of those who revel in wiki architecture, I find myself needing outside opinions.
Things found (solved) by Archaeology: If we call them artifacts, we have to disambiguate between them and the Artifact item quality. But the Archaeology "completed artifacts" tab calls them artifacts.
It gets better! "Completed Common Artifacts" are uniformly poor quality items. "Completed Rare Artifacts" may include epic quality items, I do not know.
Oh, and there's always the question: prefix the category with 'World of Warcraft' or not.
My current scheme has:
- Categories called Archaeology finds (no 'world of warcraft')
- Subcategories of "poor", "common", "rare", "epic" on item quality.
I am not heavily invested in 'finds', and could support "Archaeology artifacts". Also, I could throw in and support "common" and "rare" based on the archaeology dialog. I'd rather not add "World of Warcraft" to everything.
If someone has completed an epic item quality archaeology artifact (see how quickly that becomes cumbersome?), could they say if there's a "completed epic artifacts" section under completed artifacts?
Also, I'm intending to put archaeology dig sites on individual pages, unless someone says "don't do that".
--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dig sites are basically just new subzones, right? If they're in existing subzones, I would suggest putting their info in the subzone article and having the dig site name just be a redirect. --
Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 6:43 PM PST 10 Dec 2010
- Not subzones at all. Some occupy existing subzones (many of the "ruins of..." dig sites, for instance). Some occupy a portion of a subzone ("eastern ruins of..."), some are in "no specific subzone". While using some of the existing subzone pages can work, there are others that won't work so well. I'll consider it, though, when making new pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)