Profession Edit

Quite the expansion. Would you mind removing the first person tone I noted in the new section for me, as well as correcting the links from [[Burning Crusade]] to (possibly) ''[[World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade|The Burning Crusade]]''? That would be kind of you to do so. =) --Sky (t · c · w) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Profession Requests Edit

"Would you mind removing the first person tone I noted in the new section for me"

Not at all, but could you be more specific what you would like changed? Me second guessing your expectations is probably going to be frustrating for both of us. I will make an attempt, but I suggest that if you still have a problem with it, you edit it.

"as well as correcting the links from [[Burning Crusade]] to (possibly) ''[[World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade|The Burning Crusade]]''?"

Again, no problem, but I did not generate that link, I copied it off another page, (and it is a valid link that links to a page in WoWWiki) so applying a global fix might make more sense. (but I will make the change)

Your request suggests the need for a style guide tab at the top of the edit frame that would address this sort of standard.

"That would be kind of you to do so. =)"

No problem; I am a bit curious why you didn't just do the edits yourself.

Madkaugh (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Lady Thanks you! Edit

Hey mad!

You made some excellent changes on the fishing section. I'd been looking at that for a bit trying to figure out how to make it look more organized after making some changes myself! As a fisher - THANKS! Trilless (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cost/DMF tickets Edit

Perhaps a more direct question would help: What pages do you want to rewrite, that you would want to use DMF tickets (or some particular other item) as an element of the {{cost}} template? And in what way would you be redesigning said page(s)? In the answers to those questions lies the strength of the need to change the template.

A side benefit to having several such templates is that you can change the template without breaking the entire world. As it is, yeah, we have a unified template used for everything... and changing it is costly. The down side of a single standard is a single point of failure. :( I do not argue that your request would not have utility, just that the cost of making the change to one of the most widely used templates on the wiki is not small.

As for "combining templates into one", I feel no such pressure. I would be as pleased, for instance, if PvP marks were in one template (say, "mark"), 'actual money' in another ("cost"), PvE badges in yet another. I almost never use the template except for money, myself. But then, that's also largely a result of the pages where it would have been used, have been written already, and my interests laying elsewhere. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

loot Edit

Quite simply, I have contested that "policy" (which it is not). My reasons have been left elsewhere, but in short, T:Item is, however convenient, not needed as a template when T:Loot works just as well. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you edit to provide a little more context, Sky? ... or perhaps reorganize those sentences a bit? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Edit: - for me, nevermind, looked over on YOUR user page for the answer... And as commentary on this, I dislike {{Reagentbox}} much more than I dislike {{Item}}, so to satisfy those who desire pictures along with the reagents, I replace the former with use of the later (with icon parameter). Without the icon, {{Item}} performs essentially the same as {{Loot}}, and so here too I replace the former with the latter when an image is not called for. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, {{item}} does not work exactly the same as {{loot}} at the moment. Take for example the instance where multiple items have tooltips on one page (and all of them inside <onlyinclude>, you can't link to one of them using item, but there are plans on the table to fix this. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!

C58,976 contributions and counting) 19:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "policy" (which it is not) - without beating the semantics of 'policy' to death, if what y'all are saying is correct, and either {{loot}} is preferred to {{item}} or at least there are good reasons for preferring it, why have none of you commented on the Template talk:Item page and contradicted the statement "In most situations you should use {{item}}. There are a few exceptions - code within {{settip}} and {{tooltip}} tags on pages should use {{loot}}. -- Starlightblunder 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)" in the 'Is this {{loot}}?' section? Nothing in the Template talk:Loot page contradicts this either. So consider that a editor (like me, for instance) reads the documentation to see which one to use, and the only statement of preference in any of the documentation (not your personal pages) says to use {{Item}}. Dispute that it is 'policy' if you will, but please take an ounce of responsibility for the guidance provided that you have contributed to.
Which still leaves me hanging; why (if indeed you believe) is {{Loot}} better? I like that {{Item}} pulls the quality data from the item's tooltip data, so if the quality is changed by Blizzard (which happens) it only has to be updated in one place. With {{Loot}}, you have to find all instances of the item reference. Granted, you have to know when not to use {{Item}}, because it breaks, but that's not a big deal, is it? Madkaugh (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. "Why have none of you commented..." - fixed.
  2. "Why is {{loot}} better?" - simpler (thus faster loading). Also, recently changed to omit some of the #if clauses that were causing some pages to stop processing templates (overloading the preprocessor).
  3. "pulls quality data from tooltip..." - Between the infrequency of quality changes, and the small number of affected links, quality changes don't cause me any great concern.
  4. More emotionally, a) I am more accustomed to 'Loot', and b) I dislike the icon proliferation.

--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I can see your points.
I'll say though that I basically like the 'icon proliferation'. For items, they prompt a recall for when I've seen the item, in what context, or what should I look for in my inventory. (I like that the size fits the text, but as a prompt, I'd prefer if they were the same size as the inventory icon. I wish I could have both. The reagents boxes with full size icons are a bit annoying, though.)
I don't think a Web page should have to read exactly like text. If that were the case, why aren't we all using Lynx? I'm not knocking text systems, I'm a fan and think they are underused, but Wikis benefit from a richer style.
In a more general sense, I often don't read a whole page (like this one), I skim to an indicator that highlights the section I'm interested in. The icons (especially the topical ones) help with that. If I want more detail on a fishing topic, I'll look for the El's link. The gnome face is the first part I spot.
OTOH, I could live with all of WoWWiki being text only.
Do the ubiquitous user name icons fall within the disliked icon proliferation? Madkaugh (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Icon proliferation: it is for folks like you that I stay my hand... :) Lessee here... {{Reagentbox}} must die. :) {{Lootbox}} is overused, particularly with tooltip popups now available. I generally don't stop and edit a page just to remove it, though, and I don't always remove it. I vastly prefer simpler sigs, but I don't edit other folk's sigs. I will gripe, though, if their sig takes 5 lines of text when I'm adding comments. I'm not against ALL icons everywhere, by any means. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Pools Edit

Still waiting on that rationale reason... You keep saying look to the discussion... so it'd be wise to make the discussion before doing all the changes. User:Coobra/Sig3 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are rather prone to hyperbole. 'Keep saying' is inappropriate for durations best measured in minutes. Look again.

The discussion link appears after you save the original article. Given the timeliness of the posting of the discussion, which should suit any normal person, forcing the existence of a discussion for a non-existent article did not seem warranted. I'll leave my assessment of the merits of your assessment of 'wisdom' to your imagination. Madkaugh (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You made the page Fishing pool at 16:19, at 17:01 you made changes to Schools of Fish. I'm still waiting on your rationale reason... You could have used the talk page for Schools of Fish for your reason, but you didn't, instead you say see fishing pools discussion (as I'm now looking at recent changes) you finally created over an hour after doing what you did. And insulting me doesn't help your cause. User:Coobra/Sig3 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you can see that I am actively editing the page you are griping about; all within the hour. You sound like a little kid griping to mom about when dinner is going to be ready.
What makes you think I give a rat's @$$ about 'helping my cause' with you? I edit here because I care about the topics. I know I am contributing, and do not need or care for Coobra's personal approval. If you have something to say that pertains to the topic and format, I will hear you out. If you want to play top dog in a social club, I have better things to do, don't waste my time. Madkaugh (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well aren't you an Ass, yes you are, yes you are. /me scratches behind your ears. User:Coobra/Sig3 22:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just discovered mirrors? Madkaugh (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I bet you troll the suggestion forums. You seem the type to insult someone over nothing. All I said was you should have stated your reasons in a talk page that you were pointing everyone to look at for your 'rationale' reason. You don't need to finish all your edits before adding a reason... I wasn't critiquing your edit style, nor did I begin off insuvlting you, like you tend to do. User:Coobra/Sig3 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: 'I bet you troll the suggestion forums.' - How much? I'd take that bet. First, disambiguation; I assume you mean the Blizzard suggestion forums? I read them (past tense), contributed a couple of times, found them largely a waste, now ignore them. As you say, too many trolls. And not the good kind.
Re: 'You seem the type to insult someone over nothing.' - Really? You are not in touch with yourself then, or maybe you are projecting. Because being pedantic and questioning someone's wisdom and exaggerating ('You keep saying' rather than 'said') seems to fit the mold you are using. In other words, Pot/Kettle/Black?
Re:'All I said was you should have stated your reasons in a talk page that you were pointing everyone to look at for your 'rationale' reason' - Uhm, no, you said quite a bit more. But in case you missed it, the gist is that 'School of Fish' describes a graphic element that can be either a kind of 'Fishing Pool', a targetable critter that has nothing to do with fishing, and a non-targetable critter that is for ambiance only. 'Fishing Pool' is a functional object that can be things other than a 'School of Fish', floating debris, for instance. Set wise, they are two distinct sets with some members in common. Hence, two articles.
Re:'You don't need to finish all your edits before adding a reason...' - I am fairly new to this, please explain. Madkaugh (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what to do about School of Fish, I was only following WW:MOS. CogHammer Ose talk/3721 09:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A few unsolicited comments, if I may... It seems evident that "Fishing pool" is intended for the purpose "School of fish" had before. To that end, hind sight would indicate that sandboxing the new "School of Fish" page until it was mostly complete, then renaming the existing page to "Fishing pool" and copying in the new content over the redirect would have made for a smoother transition. This is, though, hindsight, and therefore useless now. As useless, perhaps, as suggesting the {{construction}} template...

More usefully: the current "School of fish" content seems unfinished. I'm willing to let you play with it for a few days more before I begin to carp. I suggest, though, that the fishing template should now point to "Fishing pool" instead, as "School of fish" is a "Meaty Disambiguation" page. (Not that it matters, but I approve of this variety of disambiguation.)

As well: I typically find Coobra a reasonable person, but I think you each rose to the bait of the other here. You might find it more helpful to shrug off, uncommented, such things. They don't particularly advance your causes, or at least those that improve the wiki, and as you've seen, are prone to escalation.

I hope these have been of some service. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I have not sandboxed new construction, and until now have not been faced with the need; I'll consider using it. I'm not at all familiar with the {{construction}} template, and will investigate that as well. Do most of you sandbox your edits first, then post them? I've only seen it used/used it for tests and demos. An hour turn-around on a page edit does not seem unreasonable to me. Am I missing something?
"School of Fish"/"School of fish" - it's been "School of Fish" for some time. I thought about a rename yesterday, but, there's an object in the game named "School of Fish". The article is not about that object, but it discusses that object. I could see a redirect from "School of Fish" to a renamed page "School of fish", but the redirect is subject to being overwritten if someone takes a notion to write a page about the object (which is a kind of collective critter). A similar situation exists with "Fishing Pole" and "Fishing pole", but that one seems well managed.
'fishing template should now point to "Fishing pool"' - I agree; I hesitated to make the change, wanting the dust to clear from the existence of the new page. I'll change it now, if it isn't already done by someone else.
'(Not that it matters, but I approve of this variety of disambiguation.)' - Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm shooting for clarity.
'I typically find Coobra a reasonable person' - I haven't seen it yet; have seen evidence to the contrary. From my admittedly limited interactions with him he seems to fit the archetypical troll he alludes to. Check the timestamps, he is quick to retort, but has not responded to an appeal for information. Seems like 'being genuinely helpful' is not on the ole' agenda, eh? This is not the first time I've had this experience with him, but I only have a small sample of interactions. So I'll hold out hope that perhaps this is an anomaly.
'... but I think you each rose to the bait of the other here.' - No doubt. It takes two to continue a fight.
'finished' - I take another look at it, just for the halibut. If you have a specific thing you would like me to address, give me a clue. Other than that, 'y know, feel free to have at it. Madkaugh (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the {{Fishing}} template now points to "Fishing pool" rather than "Schools of Fish". The label still says 'Schools'. Seems clearer than 'Pools' and (maybe I'm reading to much into the existing tags) I'm gathering that short and terse is better; 'Schools' says enough.
I reread "School of Fish" and it says all I think it should say, focusing on the appearance of the objects in the game and how they are used in a broad sense (disambiguation) without the obscuring details. It refers to the "Fishing pool" article for details about how to fish the school pools and for the list of types of schools of fish - what fish primarily can be caught in the pool. As far as appearance, I could be wrong about this, but the type of school mostly does not matter. They share the same model. The School of Red Snapper has a different skin, and so is briefly mentioned. (I'm not sure any of the other ones don't - the Red Snapper stands out, so I noticed it.) The ambiance schools of fish section has links to "critter"s for more detail.
FWIW, I've noticed that a lot of the fish objects in the game are the same model with a re-skin. The off-hand fish - size does not matter - grossly different weights are the same size object. The color of the off-hand fish varies by type, with obviously the same model; same gills, eyes and scales, just re-tinted. You can see this by getting a couple of different ones and switching between them. Madkaugh (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I typically use {{construction}}/not-sandboxing when I'm constructing a new page out of whole cloth and have to leave it for a bit. I typically sandbox when I'm doing a substantial re-edit to an existing page - and again can't finish in one go. (Sometimes I edit/save the source locally, as the mood strikes me.) Leaves less breakage laying around, or flags to folks to 'keep watching this space'. Your own mileage may vary.
Did not want to give specifics on my complaints on "school of fish", since you were likely to have seen them as well. I'll take another look at School of Fish in a bit. As you say you're pretty much done, I'll stick my oar in if I am truly dissatisfied. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Item pages Edit

For pages that don't match the items name, like Sergeant's Cape (level 30), use the |disambigpage=<PAGENAME> parameter rather than float. This way all the info shows. User:Coobra/Sig3 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, I know how it is to forget some of the parameters with so many templates out there... made myself a cheat sheet so I don't have to visit the template's talk page to find what I'm looking for all the time. User:Coobra/Sig3 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


I believe you about the model name. However, do you know what the concept artwork called them in the artbook? I don't have my copy and can't check. If you don't have the artbook labeled them as, we'll have to ask someone who does.Baggins (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, don't have the artbook. The comment referred to the biological archetype (hence the wiki links for reference). Suggest that if you do want to revert this, you leave it in, expand it, and change the sense of it so that it covers both the artbook terminology and the biological terminology. Would putting it under 'Inspiration' rather than 'Trivia' have been more appropriate? Madkaugh (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Just went through the WoW and WoW:TBC artbooks, theres no artwork for wasps or fireflies in them, closes thing is a Silithid Wasp Boss, but thats off subject. User:Coobra/Sig3 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?Edit

I wrote my first major overhaul article, Brewmaster. If you don't mind, I'm asking both you and User:Coobra/Sig3 to check it out, if you don't mind. I'm still earning my wings so there might be some cleanups, especially with styling that you guys can help with. In particular, I found the "Hints" columns to be difficult. I tried to make the page look fairly reasonable in 1024 resolution, even though I (and I think most gamers) use higher. Howbizr (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Howbizr (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cat Figurine Edit

It's the same thing in the essence that the object is a container which contains the item. If the object was a completely different thing compared to the item, they would have been separated; however they are not, so they should be on the same page. User:Gourra/Sig2 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sane? Edit

You do realize that the mob/critter Cow (mob) is different to the general definition of Cow, right? The Cat Figurine object contains the Cat Figurine item, so they are two completely different things. User:Gourra/Sig2 10:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Achievement Tooltip Edit

Inv ammo arrow 02

Inv valentinescard02

  • Fool For Love
  • Complete the Love is in the Air achievements listed below.
  • Criteria:
    • Spell brokenheart Heartmender
    • Inv ammo arrow 02 Shafted!
    • Inv valentineperfumebottle Flirt with Disaster
    • Inv misc basket 01 Lonely?
    • Inv misc cauldron fire Nearest and Dearest
    • Inv valentinepinkrocket The Rockets Pink Glare
    • Inv valentinesboxofchocolates02 Nation of Adoration
    • Inv misc dust 04 Fistfull of Love
    • Inv ammo arrow 02 Perma-Peddle
    • Inv valentineschocolate02 Sweet Tooth
    • Inv valentinescandy Be Mine
    • Inv rosebouquet01 My Love is Like a Red, Red Rose
    • Inv crate 03 I Pitied the Fool
  • Rewards:
    • Title Reward: <The Love Fool>

What do you think about this concept for an achievement tooltip? I've got an example of a regular achievement, and an achievement made of other achievements. -Howbizr (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate zone map note Edit

I've seen pages where there are multiple notes to illustrate a mob path. I only removed the extra note in this case because the path was so short and I didn't think it justified the extra web bandwidth. I've visited that vendor and he's very easy to spot in a small camp of NPCs in a cul de sac. If he does start wandering farther away, I'd have no problem seeing more points added. Thanks for adding the map and coords. -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Trophy FishEdit

Sorry it wasn't in the edit history - I put it right on the {{ood}} tag reason. Here it is again: "Reason: Baby coralshell turtle and the trophy swordfish were in the beta but were not released to live. There might be other discrepancies." One of those pages I only had a minute to look at and didn't get back to fixing.... -Howbizr (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It still might be worth it to review the rest of the article to see if anyone else is outdated. Wowhead doesn't list either fish, and there's some old discussions about it being removed from beta. -Howbizr (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alliance Ram Route Edit

You claim 26 runs with the ram on alliance on Brewfest. Either you're saying "26 tokens", or you're getting twice the number of runs I ever did. Could you clarify? If you got 26 run (52 tokens), would you share your secret? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:47, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is desiredEdit

Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C58,976 contributions and counting) 22:25, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.