Talk: Source-article

Revision as of 18:22, 18 June 2011

I want to make this template more like the alliance and horde template if nobody minds--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am against the formerly and Presumably

It would be better to have it in the actual state, not past mixed with present

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Ula-Tek should be listed alongside C'Thun, N'Zoth and Yogg-Saron --LemonBaby (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ok no formerly or presumably.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Old gods' forces

I think the template should be renamed it reflects more on the nature of their forces than the old gods itself--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to like that term. You have also modified this template many, many times. This caused me to wonder if the template has shifted to become more in-line with your views. So, I disagree. The actual specific name of a template is unimportant anyway, unless disambiguation is needed, which it is not.--SWM24 48 03:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, the intent was there since the beginning, i checked the first edit, and it contained the old gods, minions and territories, i think the original name template represented the informal name of the "faction"(however it's incorrect since the Naga and the Qiraji are not old gods, but their minions.) Old gods' forces is just a more technically correct name.

And when i mean changing the name i mean the first link that appears on the template from:

[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]]

to something like:

[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]] and [[Old Gods' forces|their minions]]

or

[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]] and [[Old Gods' forces|their forces]]

Which is a much better solution now that i think about it--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody have any problem with putting this sas the name of the template?

[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]] and [[Old Gods' forces|their minions]]

--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I wonder if this template should be upgraded and get used on pages like the three Bestiarys, which currently use their own non-templated warning. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 05:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
+I want to make this template more like the alliance and horde template if nobody minds--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 14:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
-:It probably should... this template is not being used currently anyway. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
+:I am against the '''formerly''' and '''Presumably'''
-::Is there any way to see which pages use this template?--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 03:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
+:It would be better to have it in the actual state, not past mixed with present
-:::The [http://www.wowpedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Source-article What Links here] link. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
+:{{User:A'noob/sig}} 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
-::::So Pcj is deleting the articles with this tag, what do we do? We kind of need them.--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
-:::::They were copyright violations. Please see the [[Wowpedia:Copyright policy|copyright policy]].--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
+::I don't think [[Ula-Tek]] should be listed alongside C'Thun, N'Zoth and Yogg-Saron --[[User:LemonBaby|LemonBaby]] ([[User talk:LemonBaby|talk]]) 10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
+:::ok no formerly or presumably.--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
+== Old gods' forces ==
+I think the template should be renamed it reflects more on the nature of their forces than the old gods itself--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
+:You seem to like that term. You have also modified this template many, many times. This caused me to wonder if the template has shifted to become more in-line with your views. So, I disagree. The actual specific name of a template is unimportant anyway, unless disambiguation is needed, which it is not.--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 03:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
+::Actually no, the intent was there since the beginning, i checked the first edit, and it contained the old gods, minions and territories, i think the original name template represented the informal name of the "faction"(however it's incorrect since the Naga and the Qiraji are not old gods, but their minions.) Old gods' forces is just a more technically correct name.
+::And when i mean changing the name i mean the first link that appears on the template from:
+*<nowiki>[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]]</nowiki>
+::to something like:
+*<nowiki>[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]] and [[Old Gods' forces|their minions]]</nowiki>
+::or
+*<nowiki>[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]] and [[Old Gods' forces|their forces]]</nowiki>
+::Which is a much better solution now that i think about it--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
+:::Does anybody have any problem with putting this sas the name of the template?
+*<nowiki>[[Old Gods|The Old Gods]] and [[Old Gods' forces|their minions]]</nowiki>
+:::--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 18:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)