User talk:Montag


Quest point Ask questions, rant and rave, or leave your message after the beep.
Post your questions, comments, concerns, and scathing criticisms here and I will respond as soon as possible. Remember:
  • If I post on your talk page and you post here, continue the discussion here.
  • If I post on your talk page and you reply there, I'll continue the discussion there.


  Icon-edit-22x22 Start a new discussion!    

Realm History

Thanks for your indications Montag, My intention was not to spam wowwiki so please let me explain myself. Realm History is more guild and player oriented than realm. It's main role is to track guilds progression in different instances. This guilds have to be categorized somehow so to arrange them by their realm was the best solution I found.

There is a section called "Guild Ranking" where players can easily see the guilds that cleared any instance and in what order they did. So I though it is natural that people that are browsing the Karazhan wowwiki page for example will also want to see the first guilds that cleared it, when they did it, and in which order. --FaithRaven 03:44, 9 February 2007 (EST)

That's certainly not a bad thing. As you can see, in one edit I did not remove the area where it mentioned the first guild to complete the instance and the citation for Realm History. I would suggest doing this for other articles if you're interested in generating popularity for the site while also contributing to the instance articles themselves. This should avoid any claims of wikisquatting. // Montagg (talk · contr) 09:58, 9 February 2007 (EST)


So sayeth the Head Bookkeeper:

Hopefully the final word: Of the reasons given, only the M'uru point can be accepted as a reason for the naaru to dislike the Horde. Given that no viable in-game evidence has been put forward, and only a single viable lore reason given, this "theory" shall not be posted on any articles even loosely classified as lore- any attempt to do so shall be reverted with the scope of my powers as Head Bookkeeper. Repeat violation, in the unlikely event of occuring, shall be classed as vandalism and treated as such.
In the terms of adding this theory to the lore articles, this discussion is over. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)
I'll take that into consideration when dealing with infractions. // Montagg (talk · contr) 23:12, 12 February 2007 (EST)
Not if I get there first. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Hellscream Wiki

Hello! I'm in the process of updating the Hellscream server entry. You did a lot of work on this and want to thank you for getting it started. That said if you see anything that could use improvement beyond the initial edit, feel free to shout about it ;) --Kite 13:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Sure. I take a look at it from time to time. I'll be sure to keep my vigil. // Montagg (talk · contr) 14:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Howdy, just a quick note saying I'd like to help out with the Hellscream page as well. I welcome any and all guidance/feedback along the way. --CharismaHoC 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Montag/Master Plan

Maybe you should add that to the "discussion box". You know, it was your idea. ;P--Sky 14:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Heh... Yeah, that would be smart of me, wouldn't it? // Montagg (talk · contr) 14:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Medivh, Previously human`

Err... have you read something I haven't? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:38, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Shouldn't have. Aegwynn was human and so was Nielas, which would make him fully human. When he comes back in Reign of Chaos, Thrall calls him human, and he says, "Human? I left my humanity behind long ago. I am something... different now." Someone edited it to say "Race=nobody knows..." so I changed it to something a little more appropriate. // Montagg (talk · contr) 09:50, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Ahh. No problem then, though I'm not certain he literally meant that he was now another race. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)
True. He does say "humanity." But it's certainly intended to call into question the nature of his existence. I think originally he was supposed to be a ghost but ultimately that would appear ambiguous. Still, with the release of the first WoW book, it seems there's some more evidence of him being fully human again. // Montagg (talk · contr) 10:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Also true. Still, if he's been in the planes, or the afterlife, etc., then he has left humanity behind as an identity. Biologically, there's probably no difference, except during the raven shapeshifty thingy. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

guid policy discussion

You still haven't voted for one of the options ;P. might be a good idea to choose one (I'm guessing the 3rd... but what do I know?).Sky (t · c · w) 15:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Just noticed that myself when I removed the NO votes. // Montagg (talk · contr) 15:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

implementation of new guild policy

Now, these are my thoughts on it; we can kill two birds with one stone. Other than the fact that I disagree with the idea that {{guild}} should be eliminated (it shouldn't, but it also shouldn't auto-categorize into Category:Guilds, which I think is the deeper issue), I think we should (before moving the articles):

  1. Check the history page to see if they have been updated since the beginning of February (date is arbitrary, so I figured just after TBC was released is the best date)
    1. If the article has been updated recently, we move it to Guild: and the proper parenthetical suffix
    2. If the article has been updated between 3 to 6 months ago, we tag it with {{Stub/Guild}} and wait out the appropriate 30 days.
    3. If the article has not been updated within the past 6 months (November?), we tag it with a {{speedydelete}}
  2. If we move it to Guild:, we must fix the categories; eg [[Category:Guilds]] must become [[Category:Guilds|<guild name>]]. Else we'll have a lot of articles in the "G" section of the page. :)

This way, we both get the job done of moving guild articles to the new namespace, and we also end up cleaning Category:Guilds at the same time.

The {{guild}} issue also somewhat concerns me; tbh, I hate the fact that all the guilds are in that one category, when they should be in the appropriate subcategories (PvE, EST, etc). If we end up decatting a bunch of pages, that's fine; they were technically in violation of WW:GUILD anyway. We can probably fix those.

Your thoughts? I'm leaving this here on your page, because the Guild: namespace was largely driven through by you. If you would prefer this go to the Village Pump, be my guest. :)--Sky (t · c · w) 01:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I definitely agree that we purge old guilds from Category:Guilds when we do the move. Certainly a good idea, and your guidelines on that are fine by me. I believe that {{guild}} already places articles in [[Category:Guilds|{{PAGENAME}}]], which essentially does the same as what you have above, and keeps them sorted correctly in the category. ~
On removing the guild tag: After thinking it through a bit, I decide the {{guild}} tag was probably not a bad thing -- as such, I had removed it from the policy text and made it an optional element to the proposal. As you or someone else mentioned, Server: has its own tag as well as its own namespace. {{guild}} could also be edited to include a link to the guild's Armory page or to generate proper category structure if we decide to change it. So it's useful as a quick way of implementing any policy changes as well as a nice visual banner. ~
I also agree that guilds should be in fewer, more specific categories (Category:Guild might be good as a node for PvE, PvP, etc, as well as server cats). However, before we start talking about new category structures, I would want the move to the Guild namespace done with so we have a place to work it out. {{guild}} would be the place to mess with things like that. // Montag (talk · contr) 11:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
{{guild}} does not place guilds in the correct category, as I discovered with a few last night. [[Category:Guilds|<guildname>]] must be edited in manually. Blgh. However, {{server}} seems to automatically alphabetize servers (Possibly because of the template that is usually added to server page, but which I do not know the name... {{server US}} and the like?).
As to keeping the guild tag, that makes me happy. :) As to the guild's armor page, that is already provided for in Boilerplate:Guild. But I can see the armory page working.
Okie dokie. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Alternatively, whenever you come back, we can just require {{DEFAULTSORT:<guildname>}} of the guild. :). I still see issues with getting rid of the guild category atm, but other than that... --Sky (t · c · w) 07:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


We can edit it :) WoWWiki talk:Village pump#CSS and js access. Would love your input if you're around any time :) We miss you! Kirkburn talk contr 08:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey montag Im a new user and would be happy if you can answer my question in warlock lore section! Keep up the good work!- Reth

Long time...

Great to see you! Glad to to see you like the state of site - it's only going to get better. So, no ETA on your return? ;) Kirkburn  talk  contr 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! (Early)--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Regretfully, job search and other projects have kept me away from games in general, so I haven't had much time to devote to wiki editing. But I'm really proud with what you guys have done so far, and I wish you the best of luck. If I find myself with an abundance of free time, you'll be the first to know. // Montag (talk · contr) 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.