Wowpedia talk:Village pump/Archive22

Need Some Help (Im New)

Hi im new here and i need some help. I have been a member on several sites, including Heroescommunity.com where i created "factions" for that game. People thougt i was creative and im a huge fan of the Warcraft universe. Recenlty i started to create an Emerald Dream expansion. But when i search for it i get no results :S And if no one sees it then its not fun to create the expansion. Its called "The Emerald Corruption" (i suck at names) and adds the Priest (ess) of the Moon hero class along with the first "neutral race" in World of Warcraft. Maybe this is spam so i will just link it, http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Nerox/Expansion_Idea:_The_Emerald_Corruption

Anyway, the question was: Why doesnt my idea/speculation show up when i search for it?

-- Nerox 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The search needs time to update, if it is a new page. I can put it on the Expansion ideas page to show it to people. --SWM2448 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okey thanks, thats what i wanted to know. Yes, you can put my expansion pack there. Im really exicited about it. -- Nerox 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... we should put Special:Search on the sidebar for everyone. I found Emerald Dream Expansion Ideas right away. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:45 PM PST 6 Jan 2008

should wow end?

does anyone think wow should end, i mean they cant keep it goin forever right?

-- douglas rosen 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course WoW will end one day. ONE day. It could last another 20years (doubt that long), but everything comes to an end. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I played Asheron's Call for years before WoW came out, and surprisingly enough, that's still around. Actually logged back into it recently to see the changes. Yes, they are still adding patches and new content too. If that's any indication, then WoW will be around for a very long time. Mordsith - (talk|contr) 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of apostraphes in links

Which is preferred:

Jaina Proudmoore's book or

Jaina Proudmoore's book?

I personally find the latter more aesthetically pleasing. -- Tyrsenus t c 04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jaina Proudmoore's book" would be correct both technically and as expected link behaviour, aesthetics shouldn't come into it. Including a "'s" in the link would only make sense for "Jaina Proudmoore's" or "Jaina Proudmoore's book" -- Zeal ^(T/C)  04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the second, so as not to make part of the word a link and part not. FWIW, from [1]: "Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source, though either form is acceptable for possessive forms of links such as [[George Washington]]'s or [[George Washington|George Washington's]]." -- Harveydrone 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for that on Wikipedia. --Tyrsenus t c 03:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Server upgrade

We just got moved to a new, better server! Apparently we've got lots of room to grow, so ... use it up ;) No code changes (yet), but if anyone spots any problems, say so here, and I'll pass them on! Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:31, 9 January 2008 (EST)

How many megs of RAM, Carmine? --Tyrsenus t c 19:47, 9 January 2008 (EST)

A lot :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely over nine thousand. -- Foxlit 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Things you stumble across...

...when you click the wrong diff link in Recent Changes:

Currently researching if there are any {{fair use}} violations on this one. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:12 PM PST 9 Jan 2008

Its the same image on Wikipedia.Baggins 20:15, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Did you say that with a straight face? I couldn't tell. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:40 PM PST 9 Jan 2008

Unresolved Item Links

I recently came to contribute to a page and add some Item Links that would be relevant and found that 2 of the 3 items did not resolve. The Items are "Vindicator's Chain Sabatons", "Vindicator's Chain Bracers", and "Vindicator's Chain Girdle".

As you can see the first resolves just fine [Vindicator's Chain Sabatons]. The other two items definitely exist in the game with those names and are referenced on certain other well-known websites (eg. thottbot).

How can this be amended? I'm happy to do the work if shown how.

-- Wyntermute 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They're relatively new items, that's probably why. Apparently no one's been interested in them really. I'd never even heard of new level 70 epic PvP gear introduced with season 3, just the Arena season 1 becoming PvP gear. Seems odd to have both, but then i don't exactly follow PvP closely so i might be mising out as to why exactly what purpose their addition is supposed to fulfill.

Anyways, you can create a basic item page by clicking the "This article is for: ... an item" link, which preloads the boilerplate for item pages, and just fill out the info listed in the edit box. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Foxbot updated [Vindicator's Chain Bracers] and [Vindicator's Chain Girdle]. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:30 AM PST 12 Jan 2008

Chinese hax

File:WTF Chinese.jpg

Chinese haxx

Ok, this is insanely annoying... a bar full of chinese crap that moves my summary and submit buttons way down... is wowwiki haxxed, or is it just me?? ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is just the effect a of a huge wad of characters without any spaces or breaks. Not a hack specifically. Maybe trying to take advantage of a buffer overrun or something, though. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:53 PM PST 12 Jan 2008

It's the standard summaries drop down bugging in a craptacular way for some weird reason. Should put wikia on it. ;) -- Zeal ^(T/C)  23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys have it too? Or is it my PC? ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't happen to me. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Same, fine for me. A possible idea is to check what encoding you've got set for the page. Should be unicode, but may have accidentally switched it to an chinese encoding. :S -- Zeal ^(T/C)  00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have no idea why it was there, but it's gone now. I hope it stays gone. I didn't touch the encoding but I'll check that if it reappars. ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, some chinese hacker may have gotten access to your machine and changed something. Make sure your anti-virus, malware detection is up-to-date. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:33 AM PST 13 Jan 2008

Quest Start / Finish templates

Isn't it kind of redundant to place and , in front of the quests, on the NPC's page that starts the quest, when also if you hover over the quest it gives a small info box on who starts it and where it ends... a few examples of pages already done on are Maggran Earthbinder and Tsunaman . Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like quest hover tooltips shouldn't be displaying only the same info already there. Gotta think about those who don't use the tooltips first, then just add extra info, not the same info, in a hover tooltip. If there's nothing else to display than that info, then no point in having the hover tooltip. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Quest tooltips still show more data than what is just seen on a given NPC page; for instance, if the same NPC does not start and end the quest, the tooltip still shows both. The tooltip also shows XP gained and any monetary or item rewards. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then theres no issue here as far as i'm concerned. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The templates, in addition, were added today. Not several weeks ago. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added RRQ versions:

• {{Queststart}} ⇒
• {{Questfinish}} ⇒
• {{Queststartrrq}} ⇒
• {{Questfinishrrq}} ⇒

-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:48 PM PST 30 Dec 2007

Since I'm seeing these added to NPC pages anyway... how about we make a standard place for them. Lets say at the end of the questline, instead of the front. Looks better that way.

Example:

•  [32] Leads to Example
•  [34] Just an Example
  •  [36] Just an Example (2)

That doesn't look nice at all, where as:

•  [32] Leads to Example
•  [34] Just an Example
  •  [36] Just an Example (2)

does look good. Hmm... maybe I should have used real quests for examples... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Top level categories

I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but our root categories need a bit of work. You should be able to browse from one part of the wiki to any other via categories, but this isn't really possible atm.

If you take a look at Category:Browse on the Wikia Starter wiki, you can see what I am roughly suggesting. Category:Organisation would correspond to our Category:WoWWiki, but the Content (or Browse) category doesn't really exist.

Anyone got suggestions for names, or want to have a fiddle? It should mainly be a case of recategorising categories, so not taxing on the wiki (or user ;) ) in any way. Kirkburn  talk  contr 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes please ;) Personaly i think it makes more sense for Category:WoWWiki to be the top level, don't particularly like the name "Organization" either for the non-content parts, perhaps something more like "Meta" or "Meta-Pages"?. *shrug* -- Zeal ^(T/C)  14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with meta is that few people really understand it - it came up during the Starter change, and the general view there was that it will probably confuse more than help. I do agree WoWWiki could make sense as a top-level category, but the articles within it would have to be better organised - can't have the main content hidden in a single category, swamped by the organisation categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirkburn (talk · contr).

Certainly, does need to be cleaned up first. And while you're probably right about "Meta", "Organization" still doesn't seem fitting to me. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I used "Organisation" ;) Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American, honest ;) Point still stands :p -- Zeal ^(T/C)  17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to use that category name, I suggest using the American spelling, since the majority of the site's visitors are American according to Alexa. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think WoWWiki suffices as that category name. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer it to vague alternatives. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:21 PM PST 5 Jan 2008

Ok, so seeing as i was extremely bored and had plenty better to do (:p), i decided to start work on this, quickly running into naming issues and messes of cats criss crossing and doubling up all over the place. With wikia going down, i decided to hit notepad and write up a tree to help myself visualize it better and get some feedback on the direction it's going and the naming.

So, here's a very rough idea User:Zeal/Sandbox/WoWWiki:Category_Tree. Some of you who know of my push for how cats should be done might easily notice how much restraint that idea shows ;). As i said, very rough, the names are not set in stone, but i alot of disambig was needed. For the most part, cat's should not be double cat'd unless it's to provide an alternative entry point, it provides no benefit for the article and creates confusing navigation otherswise.

Would love some feedback, here or there, before i take it any further. Cat's are stupidly annoying to rename once made : / -- Zeal ^(T/C)  00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rumours" should be "Rumors". --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Manhwa" is misspelled...and you may want to use "Manga" instead. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Manhwa is the correct term here. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"World of Warcraft Terminology" is misspelled. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And "Terminology". --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"World of Warcraft Recipes" is misspelled. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Speculation" is misspelled. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Spelt correctly :S -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, under Category:Root > Category:Content > Category:Community > Category:Original. Which also points out you've duplicated a category name. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Supposed to be duplicated, multiple entry points. But yeah, somehow my find didn't find that typo, ty, fixed. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"MOBs" should be title case, not upper. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To save any argument, seeing as the true etymology will never be known, changed to title case to match WW's usage. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some initial changes. For reference, i'm moving existing cats to where they are in the proposed structure, irregardless of how they're currently being used, simply because moving cats frustratiningly isn't possible. After they're in place, i can go through and restablish their purpose and move out the contents of them that no longer fit, and create their new cats and place them in the structure. This will screw up the cats for now, but considering they couldn't be navigated properly and many screw ups already when i started, no problem.

I don't want to leave it in this state, but i'm shattered. So i'll face the music tomorrow and get back to work on it then.

To add soem extra reasoning before i go. Double categorizing cats easily becomes overkill when using them uneccessarily. They will cause user confusion, bloat (and because of how MW splits cat lists) make cats difficult to navigate, ultimately causing users to loose their way and not find the article they need, i've used them sparingly so far, in places where there is good logical reason for them to exist in multiple cats. The worst case of this was with Category:Lore, which i've undone now, but the second problem is with the abuse of the cat's purpose, creating a difficult cat to navigate with a huge list of articles in it, which belong elsewhere.

Other aspects were more simply things, like consistant and instantly obvious cat naming. I do need to switch to sentance case for them, but it'll do that as i go, much easier. Things like WoW spells and Spells, so that non-wow people are not forced to understand the mechanics and terminology of WoW in order to find and access the generic and source-neutral information. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for those who wish to help out with this in regards to the wow item restructing may do so via {{Cat/wow item}}. Simply provide it with a quality, slot name (though often uneccessary) and a type as listed on the linked pages, and the cats will be filled out the best they can. Any extra cats you believe are needed can be added manually for now. You can overide the sorting of all cats by providing the first unamed parameter, and you can also specify the category to be used for the item's own category (for relationship catting, eg. related quests, npcs, items, zones etc.) I've quickly done the first random item,  [Crul'shorukh, Edge of Chaos], as an example. I'll be adding the missing pieces of the structure as articles get catted, to find out what still needs to be done, so no worries about dead cats. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That template, is, quite simply, gross. I view the mixing of templates, with the express purposed of categorizing, to be mildly retarded and obviously unneeded; it also prevents ease of category sort-keys. And why on earth is it in every category under category items? The idea was to subdivide categories so far that navigating to a specific item through the use of categorization would be made easy, not difficult. The template, while promoting navigation by the fact that all the parent cats are there, also makes it difficult to find the most pertinent categories. If this is where every item page was going, I must disagree with the style implemented and, in general, with the number of categories found on the page. It overly bloats the parent cats at all levels; I was under the presumption that Template:C and other such categories would be a category only-categories, thus enhancing navigation, not detracting from it. --Sky (t | c | w) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The template is a tempoary measure to be implemented better and differently in other templates later. It is very much needed and it allows a single custom category key.

Not having the item's categorised in all their correct categories actually makes it so you can't navigate, as you have to dig down through several categories just to get what you want. Without it, navigation of the cat tree would be extremely long winded and pointless for users, as doing so would be faster by simply searching or even trying multiple guesses at the names. Finding at which point you wish to re-enter the category tree from an article is as easy as any other navigation method that's been in used on here. There is no such thing as "most pepertinent" categories, they all existing as equal. Why the user is browsing that page and where the user wishes to continue browsing via the categories is completely unknown and up to them, thats why all possible ones are there. If you think sifting through roughly 10 empty categories to find an article and then continue browsing by going into a cat that is extremely removed from why you and how you arrived at the article just to browse back up and around another 10 empty cats, is good navigation then i'm extremely concerned.

If this is the concensus, then i'm not going to bother continuing with anything, as a navigational cat tree is impossible to implement any other way than this. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not consensus (yet! :P). It's a general concern, part of which stems from the fact that we then have more templates which need protecting, because of transclusion to over half the wiki (or more). I'm fine with "temporary," but such a template could turn into not so temporary quite quickly, based partially on concerns I listed last night on IRC (that we'd end up having to edit tooltip to change the categories, and then every category would have to be refreshed every time tooltip was edited, etc.)

"A single custom category key" is what I was concerned with, as well. Certain categories (Ie, c:wow engineering schematics items) should have their items sorted by what comes after "Schematic:". To force this category choice on the other categories would be inappropriate in context; they are, after all, just more items. Part of this, is again, the fact that the template includes the items into every "correct" category, and which I view as incorrect and unnecessarily including items in the category.

I would disagree that it makes navigation useless not to include the categories. It merely takes more time, as all the user must do is click on the category button, then click on parent category (and or child) buttons to move around the main super category. It surely takes longer, but also decreases the chance that the user misclicks, or can't find the category that they want (on the item's page) without taking 20 minutes (hyperbole). Think also on maintenance of this navigation system of yours, and specifically on changing the categories in some way or form; it would quite literally require the bot that you detest (or, the template I detest) to eradicate any vestiges of this issue. Perhaps this is really just a call for something other than the category system, such as DPL or perhaps SemanticWiki. --Sky (t | c | w) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody edit conflicts..

It's supposed to become permenant, and as i said in reply to you on IRC, it would no be implemented on a large scale until the structure and categories are completely. Don't confuse the silly constant creation of new categories and new naming with a need for categories to change often, they're not supposed to. When it's complete, it can be implemented on a large scale. Then only if the structure/policy is rewritten would there need to be a change. If you're not satisfied with that, {{subst:}} is your friend.

The single category key is a concern, one which i too have considered, but it's one without a plausable work around until we get string functions for example.

It is useless, i don't understand how you can think otherwise. If it takes more time, it becomes an non-desirable browsing method, no one uses it, it's pointless. Part of the reason why the previous structure was useless. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to misclick. A user will be looking for the key words that they are browsing by and relvent to their browsing history. Having to navigate through multiple empty categories is a series flaw and will take alot longer and loose users in the process.

I don't know why you think maintenance of the category structure will be harder with this, it's a hell of alot easier. No one will ever have to go through this all again once it's finished. A search and replace on the relevent templates, create the new cats, delete the old ones, done.

Just to further add something for visualization. It's basically a cross section of the category tree.

• Article
• Category
• Category Link
• Article Link
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/cat_nav.gif%7Chttp://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/cat_nav.gif</imagelink>

As you can see, articles are linked at more each level of accurancy until the category tree reachs the conclusion of the article itself (at which point relationships to other articles are direct, not shown here though.), and there are also links out back to the category at the levle of accuracy the user was browsing by, so that they can continue navigating with the same critera without being forced to take long routes back to where they started. Only the very top level cats, which are that far removed and obscure contain categories links only (and the few very specific related articles eg. Lore for Category:Lore). If Category:Items becomes overloaded, it would be sensible to remove articles from that level and change the category description to reflect the new restriction, rather than to leave it to the auto-page splitting of the wiki, which annoying effects cats too, preventing easy navigation. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just reporting on some IRC convo. Basically what's being said is this..

1. The categories are bloating article pages.
2. The categories on articles are hard to read and find the one you want.
3. Self catting and relationship catting is redundant.

My replies to this is..

1. They're at the bottom of the article, it doesn't harm anyone who isn't using them to navigate, and those who do will be forgiving.
2. The display is ugly, yes. Finding the one you want is more difficult yes. But people can find them, and those who use it will appreciate that.
3. I've created a basic example, with awful naming (simply because the naming that would work well that i proposed never got anywhere). Category:Primal Might

Because of MW being it's awful self, this is how it must be. Yes it's far from perfect, but it's acceptable, simply because the alternative is a category namespace that can't be navigated completely.

A little theoretical walkthrough of how this works out, is that people may choose to browse the cat tree, simply because there's less info to process for the user, no images and potentionally unwated content to load and it's more direct while allowing a complete picture of the wiki's content.

Let's say i wanted to find what items i can make with Primal Might, avoding articles a much as possible.

Category:Root>Category:Content>Category:World of Warcraft>Category:World of Warcraft items>

At this point, i could jump into primal might directly at any stage if i browse the cat's pages or if there's few enough for me to quickly scan, or i can choose to dig further and further, following any number of paths. Without the multi catting, i wouldn be able to do this. I'll pick path to traverse at random.

Category:World of Warcraft profession items>Category:World of Warcraft ingredient items>Category:World of Warcraft elemental items

Now depending on how accurate we wish to take the wiki, Category:Primal Might could be placed here, but it's not for now, as it's a bit of a leap. The article is, so lets click it now it's obvious enough.

The article could easily contain a list of related links to follow, one of them being Category:Primal Might World of Warcraft created items, to allow me immediately jump into a dynamic list of all the items i can create from Primal Mights, but once again it's not (yet another reference to my failed proposal). So instead, for now, it'll mean jumping into the most specific category for this article, it's self. So next step..

Category:Primal Might>Category:Primal Might World of Warcraft created items

And i'm there. I've just successfully found the information i want, in a slimmed down and dynamic version, and can then just off link and view the items i want. I've minimized myself to one article load (which is purely by current nessecity) and i also have access to get back any point along my path which had specific enough criteria from the article.

Now ofc, i could have gone simply typed Primal Might into the WW search or url, and skipped out all this, but the point was i wanted to view everything along the way without the load, and possibly divert to something else for viewing later, along similar lines as Primal Might, it could have been as simply as Primal Nether. I can't get there easily via any article links, it would require typing in, but with the cat structure i've implemented, it's a two click job.

So to summaries once again, it's not pretty, it's not perfect, but it's functional, it works, and it's helpful. The alternative is to not offer fully browsable nav tree, in which case i should have stayed in bed ;)

Oh, and with the introduction of the cat tree exenstion, things will get even easier and faster for cat navigation. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting vertical templates to horizontal templates

I'd like to propose converting most of the vertical templates which link to related pages (not the Infobox templates which provide a succinct summary of the current article) to horizontal templates and move them to the bottom of the page, where most of the "See also" content already is (or should be). I know Foxlit and Baggins both have mentioned this in the IRC channel, and wanted more input. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to this idea, it definitely needs to happen. I've looked at various pages from different monitor sizes and found that at some resolutions too many template at the top of the page squish the actual article content. Page related infoboxes are awesome but anything more than that just looks cluttered.Baggins 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree too, the verticals ones always look out of place... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How would we deal with instances? Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about templates like {{Blackrock Depths}}? I don't see what would be wrong with putting them at the bottom as horizontal templates... --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Baggins 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it can get pretty squashed, and the templates should be moved to the bottom. That said, I'd also like to get a new type of bottom-box implemented, that I'd be stealing from wp. I think I might have a go at it in monobook tonight. --Sky (t | c | w) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I hate having to scroll to the bottom of the page for navigation aids. For some cases, horizontal navigation templates work, but not universally. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:23 PM PST 5 Jan 2008

...If you're reading the page for content as most people are, you don't need navigation until you're done with the page. Which means you're at the end of the page already and it's scrolling back up that's the chore. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya. People generally go to a page to read the page not to instantly navigate to another. If there was something truly important that directly had something to do with the topic they were reading beyond six degrees of seperation its going to be linked within the text rather than just the navbox, so they click on those instead. Most stuff stuff in navboxes have little to do with each other beyond some extremely limited connection generally.Baggins 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must be unusual, in that I fairly often go to a page (eg, category, zone, instance) specifically to navigate to another; often for spelling/capitalization reasons, often simply for association reasons. Admittedly, this is still a small portion of my total page views, but a nontrivial portion of my use of the wiki. --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think scrolling is a chore either way, thats why theres a Home and End key on the keyboard...But perhaps for the instances, a horizontal top bar. A bar that contains the instances' bosses at the top of the page rather than the side or bottom, that way it doesn't squash the page, and still remains at the top for better access. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As an almost exclusive laptop user, expecting people to have Home/End buttons with a single press is just presumption. However, modest horizontal navigation aids at the top might not be so bad. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:07 PM PST 5 Jan 2008

To be honest I'm not into top bars either, especially thick ones. They can dominate shorter articles even more so than if put at the bottom. Most people go into a page to see what's in that page, not to see links to what's on other pages.Baggins 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, vertical templates close together with other templates such as npcbox makes some pages look unprofessional. Example [2]--g0urra[T҂C] 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that two or more vertical boxes on the right side generally look bad, so one or more of the navigation boxes could be made horizontal. I just don't want everything to go to the bottom of the page. There are a few situation I can think of where people do not intend to read through the whole page before moving on to related information. Class, profession, and zone pages are places where I often find myself jumping around for info and not wanting to scroll or jump to the bottom of the page to look for navigation aids. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:16 PM PST 5 Jan 2008

Point of note zone navigation boxes are generally found at the bottom and middle (geography section) of zone pages already. Not at the top (I haven't seen any other complaints). We have been trying to avoid too many class navigation type templates, but the one that exists is for WoW content only. It is usually at the bottom of the page, with the exception for the square infobox at the top. Profession already has the nav bar at the bottom rather than the top (and I haven't heard any complaints).Baggins 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding professions, I think Fandyllic was referring to {{Blacksmithing}}, which is at the top, and I agree that it's much more useful at the top than at the bottom.

I don't think all nav bars should be at the bottom, but I do agree that some pages get cluttered. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought he meant the general professions template at the bottom. That one would be too much for the top. The little tiny boxtype profession at the top isn't too bad. Since its into being forced next to any other templates, its by itself.Baggins 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Anything else i have to say in regard to this would require a reworking/removal or all nav boxes or redesign of all pages, all ideas to solve a multitude of issues you guys keep complaing about but have been/will be shot down. So i won't bother -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they wouldn't solve them? Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to respond to the bait. In the same way, no need to bait. In either case, wrong topic to be doing so in. Be nice, gentlemen. --Sky (t | c | w) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies :) Anyway, I do agree more standardisation is useful, but recall why people visit instance pages in the first place - as a guide. Think of them as pages of a strategy guide, and it becomes apparent the navigation is very important, and especially that it is in order of appearance - which works better as a list. Kirkburn  talk  contr 03:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on converting vertical templates to horizontal, starting with the category Instance Navigation Templates, you can see my work here. Feedback would be appreciated.g0urra[T҂C] 03:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They look fine, but the appearance of the template isn't the issue; it's how the page looks and the position of the template on the page which is in question. What I think we should do is either:

1. Integrate the vertical templates into an existing infobox on the page, or
2. Make the vertical templates as minimalistic as possible, and maybe link to an anchor at the bottom of the page with more detail. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Make the vertical templates as minimalistic... Which would look something like this.--g0urra[T҂C] 06:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That would work, but why not incorporate it into the navboxes we already have? eg, {{infobox instance}} and the like? --Sky (t | c | w) 07:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could work if two templates in an article merge into one, for example boss and NPC list together with instance information (see Razorfen Downs). I am not sure though how it's possible to do that and at the same time keep it minimalistic. (or I might be completely off the hook here)--g0urra[T҂C] 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gourra, the work you've done is appreciated, but the Razorfen Downs example still makes it so I have to scroll to the bottom to get to the navigation aid and having to navigate to a navigation aid seems like it defeats some of the purpose. The top navbox is pretty much pointless, might as well just use the TOC. I don't want to see WoWWiki re-designed to suit one small group of vocal and influential people who use the site. Everyone needs to be patient. There are many holes in WoWWiki that would be better filled than re-organized. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:42 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

Remember, please do not start changing stuff except as examples (sandboxing preferred) before a consensus has been made. Merging into infobxoes is a problem because it is not consistent between the main instance page and the individual boss pages. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That didn't come out quite correctly when I typed it. Give me a second to sandbox it up. --Sky (t | c | w) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the template on the right. It would mean a change or two two to instance infobox, but it's the concept of what I meant. --Sky (t | c | w) 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the WW:MOS already states how to use templates at the top of the page. The infobox is rightmost, then templates are further in. If that was stuck to, I don't really see a problem with how the instance pages are already set up. The instance page itself will have an instance infobox, whilst the bosses with have an NPC infobox - thus the navigation template should be in the same position. They should, however, be thin. Edit: updated the relevant MoS info Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You should have at the very least a more precise definition of "thin" because of the various screen resolutions people have. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Being precise is difficult, but how about less than half the width of an infobox (i.e. < 10em)? Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, make that "about 10em", wider if required. Kirkburn  talk  contr 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference

This box is 10 em wide.

Seems a little narrow to me. Perhaps 12em:

This box is 12 em wide.

-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:43 PM PST 6 Jan 2008

For purposes of the MOS, do {{tooltip}}s qualify as infoboxes? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Following Sky's example, I made a suggestion to how a combination of instance infobox and navigation aid could look here. I'm not entirely sure that's what he meant, but that's my interpretation.--g0urra[T҂C] 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not having read this discussion, I edited a few dungeon templates to be 15em wide in order to not make the names squeezed over too many lines. If we're trying to make the templates take less room, may I suggest at least keeping them at about 12em? The thinner a bar is, the longer it is, which in a sense actually makes it take up MORE room than if it were slightly fatter. Not to mention that reading names that span two or three lines can be annoying at length. ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, when I suggested 10em, it was a rough guess - bigger is indeed better. I wasn't expecting someone to change the templates immediately :P Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:14, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Agreed, I'd like to see "fatter" instance templates, or have them replaced with horizontal templates (at the top of the page). Around 12em at least. I don't mind two vertical templates so much as the huge "empty space" that long thin templates cause when a thumbnail image is placed on the page. For example see Four_Dragons, or Archimonde (tactics), or Coilfang Reservoir, or Ysondre, or Prince Thunderaan, or ... -- Adonran 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote?

Are we holding off or rescinding a vote on this while we define the issues and solutions, then? --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the decision was already made... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What was the decision? -- Adonran 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just re-read all of it...a decision as to turning vertical templates to horizontal never occurred. But The vertical templates were decided to be skinner...as they were supposed to be already (according to policy) me thinks. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting quests

Well, here's a curious question, that I'm sure would leave an interesting answer from everyone else.

Recently, we have had people working on quest pages (there's a project floating around here somewhere), as well as "parent" quest chain pages. Would it not be prudent for the individual pages to be redirected to the quest chain pages? I realize, we lose the quest text in the process, as well as the direct elinks-quest, but I was just wondering. What would everyone think of this? This eliminates a little of the overgrowth we've seen with the bots chewing at the bits, and centralizes the information to be centralized. Thoughts? --Sky (t | c | w) 07:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you some reasons not to make quests redirects:

• It will break toolips.
• It will make some chain articles gigantic and unwieldy. Missing Diplomat, for example.
• All the notes about individual quests will have to be migrated, otherwise the whole point of quests in WoWWiki will be lost.

Also, I'm not sure why concern for overgrowth is a compelling reason to make quests redirects. It also smacks of the horrible Warcraft and WoW situation at Wikipedia which is insanely confusing because alot of the redirects have become nonsensical. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:30 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

See, this is why I ask people about it. =) --Sky (t | c | w) 08:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

... I miss the whole "Warcraft" vs "World of Warcraft" distinction". Could someone explain? It seems to be the root of Zeal's category renaming effort.

That having been said, I agree with the "making chain articles unwieldy". The "breaks tooltips", and "migrate data" arguments, while valid practically, are things that could be worked around.

OTOH, the mind boggles at trying to keep individual quest notes on such a page both associated with the individual quest and not breaking up the description of the chain itself. Perhaps you've something in mind?

I will add, though, that the point of the chain articles (that I created) is mostly to provide a narrative for the series, not serve as a replacement for the individual pages. Not every series of quests has an interesting narrative, and only a sub-set of the remainder have any need for a page describing the link between quests. Thus, I expect many series of quests to remain with the simple quest chain transclusion page, without having an overarching chain page. ... or at least I will be unlikely to add them myself. (Boooo-ring.)  :)--Eirik Ratcatcher 23:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image dimensions?

I am currently occasionally going through img requests. Question: Look at this page: Enraged Crusher. If you click on the image to go to the Image:Enraged crusher.jpg page, you will see that the image is in very decent quality. The thumbed version however, which you see in the article, looks very crappy. What would be the best choice here? I assume, if I uploaded smaller images instead, they would not be "destroyed" like that in the process of making thumbnails, but that would also mean no good-quality picture when you click on it to see the larger version. Opinions plz! ·  tws  T C  · 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to WoWWiki:Image guidelines. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you describe how the image got destroyed, other than it just being resized? --Piu ^(?!) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I also note that I think the empty image requests category is a very bad idea? Because things in there get image requests added to them, and don't get moved. Any other thoughts? --Jiyambi t || c 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Why wouldn't they get moved? When the image desired is added, the editor should remove the {{screenshot}} and the request should go away. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:45 PM PST 7 Jan 2008

What I mean is this: someone created Category:Empty image requests categories and put all the image request categories which were empty at the time into that category. This is a very bad idea because people have added new image requests using the {{screenshot}} tag, and suddenly these "empty" categories are no longer empty. However, they are still in Category:Empty image requests categories. So in fact this subcategory does not simplify things, it simply creates more work, causing people to constantly look through these "empty" categories anyway to check if new image requests have been added, and move them back and forth from the main image request category. Unless there is a good reason to keep it, I would like to get rid of it and just put all the image request categories back in the main Category:Image requests. --Jiyambi t || c 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me to get rid of them. I don't really see any point to categorize like that. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Having subcategories helps make the lists look less daunting, but extra work to navigate through. Go ahead and nuke them, but make the {{screenshot}} template stop pointing to the sub-categories first. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:22 PM PST 7 Jan 2008

Wait wait wait. That's not quite what I meant. I meant to simply get rid of Category:Empty image requests categories and put those categories back in the main image request category. There was a specific reason I went through and categorized all those images by zone - it was so people who were in a specific zone could fill image requests for that zone. Unless you have a good counter-argument to that, *please* don't undue that hour or more of work. --Jiyambi t || c 08:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I followed what you said Jiyambi, and i'm in agreement with you. The empty cat should be removed, and keep all the region subcats in the main category for the requests. Slap Kirochi for making it ;) -- Zeal ^(T/C)  14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> How about subcategories based on continent, then? It makes the category a little less clustered. --Sky (t | c | w) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. And thanks, Zeal :) I apparently fail at explaining things this week :P --Jiyambi t || c 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took everything out of the Category:Empty image requests categories category and sorted them by continent. I also put instance image requests in a separate subcategory for now, since their parent zone is sometimes confusing (Old Hillsbrad Foothills, for example). Any comments on this? --Jiyambi t || c 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use Redux

Although there is another issue no one has brought up... Fair use. We really probably shouldn't be hosting these verbatim.Baggins 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to fair use, the pages from these imaginary books are no different than the game text that goes with every single quest and item in this site. If one did claim that one of these imaginary books was somehow its own separate work, than we are still only quoting the select pages shown in game. So either way, a small part of the whole, germane to our discussion of the game, —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was about to say... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, all the quest pages if they are verbatim copy and pastes, are of questionable as standards of fair use goes. ...and there have been complaints and several discussions on what we should do to rectify that problem, and how to paraphrase things so they aren't direct quotes. As for the arguement, "a small part of the whole" while I think that's a logical way to look at it (and the way I practiced things in the past), however some people don't buy that explanation (seeing that if its illegal, then it simply shouldn't be done at all). They would also say that, sure you are only copying a page here and a page there, but they'd then point out that once you have copied all the the pages, you have copied the entire book. I've said it before and I'll say it again "fair use" is a tricky subject. Sometimes 1% of the original source will be viewed as breaking the law, and sometimes 100% will be allowed to be copied (usually fiction vs. factual sources however). See previous discussion in village pump history on fair use, WoWWiki_talk:Village_pump/Archive20#Fair_Use_Issues. So the trick comes down how do we balance between content and keeping to fair use, that people want us to stick to? ...and if we are going to enforce the fair use, it needs to be used across all materials, no mater its type, otherwise we might as well not have the clause at all.Baggins 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While one could argue that quoting on-line game text verbatim on a site for players of said game is borderline, I would conclude that it is fair use in that context. (The published RPG books are a whole different issue unrelated to the topic at hand.) Regardless, as was discussed the last time fair-use came up here, Blizzard has specifically given permission to quote any and all game text shown on screen, which includes all of the "books" this would be used for. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Our policy as it is currently written and was intended to be enforced, is that its for all sources, not the game alone, This policy covers all articles which describe or discuss the content of Blizzard's computer games, novels, RPG books, manga, and other works. While articles containing direct quotes and images are obviously included, all articles which describe Blizzard's storylines, characters, and other creative expressions are also covered by Blizzard's copyright, despite being written in our own words.) You may have also missed the website's mission (in that its to cover all sources);

WoWWiki is a wiki dedicated to cataloguing Blizzard Entertainment's Warcraft Universe (with a focus, though not priority, on World of Warcraft), covering the entire Warcraft series of games, RPG reference books, strategy guides, novels and other sources. However, this is not Wikipedia, and we have slightly different ways of doing things.

Its a bit unclear from the statement but the point of that statement is that WoWWiki is going to contain alot of strategy content for the MMO (we allow less of the previous games game strategy content, and do not allow RPG statistics information). However, for lore matters, lore falls under another policy all together, in which we give all sources equal merit.

Also as far as the law is concerned if a source is copyrighted it doesn't matter if its a game, a novel, a movie, a cartoon, a song, or even architecture, whatever the medium. The law sees them all as the same thing, an "intellectual property"[3]. Again we either enforce the policy, or we don't at all (I.E. strike it from the policies altogether). As for the RPG, to quote your idea above, you said, "if you seperate them into different pages" then you aren't copying the "entire work". I can guerentee no one has copied an entire rpg book in wiki, even if one takes the individual pages together. Nor has anyone copied the entire articles from books either (as there are alot of rpg game rules/statistics sections that are simply not permitted). It is entirely analogous to copying individual portions of the various computer games onto various pages. So if that is the policy you think we should follow, I suggest you bring it up as its own village discussion, and see what others think. I'm going to have to remain neutral on this issue however, and abstain from voting, because as an admin I have to hear the complaints from both viewpoints...

Finally let it be noted that whatever policy the editors choose to implement, as far as concerning lore material, its going to be enforced across all forms of intellectual property, no source will be given special treatment over other kinds. Baggins 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think copying quest text and/or in game books verbatim here on wowwiki falls under fair use. They are such a small part of the whole game, and I don't think anyone could ever argue that having the text here could impact the sale of the game (which is basically what copyright comes down to, isn't it?) As MJBurrage said, the RL books are another story. Copying those here could impact the book sales since a book mostly consists of text. Besides, if you're going to argue fair use about this, what about the tooltips for every item? Blizzard allows those aspects of the game to be reproduced here because it enhances gameplay - it doesn't replace it.

From another perspective, Blizzard allows screenshots, and as far as I know, they don't limit what can be in those screenshots. We could host a screenshot of each page of the in game books/quest text. But typing the text into wowwiki would be more practical.

I hope that all made sense... I've never been very good at debating, and copyright law can get pretty blurry when you get down to the details. But it seems to me that quest text and in game book text falls within fair use on this site dedicated to the game, when the game itself is so much more than text. Mordsith - (talk|contr) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First off no one has actually copied the entire books (or copied anything that is the main reason for owning the books). Its not likely to hurt the book sells because they are already out of print, usually going out of print a month or two after being released. The company sells out their entire stock, and then don't even bother to make reprints. Even if they had plenty of stock (so that used books didn't sell for a hundred dollers or more), the portions that we have given access too would probably lead people to want to read the original source.

What has been copied from the book has only been a "small part of the whole source". Also I'm no lawyer, but there are aspects of the terms of service in the RPG books that mirror the terms of service in WoW although just like WoW's TOS its sort of nebulous as well. But seems to give some permissions to distribute portions of the whole as long as the entire work isn't distributed (although there is some lawyer speak loopholes that I'm still trying to figure out).

As for screenshots being allowed, then we should probably host the screenshot rather than "copy and pasting" the work, if that how Blizzard has allowed things.

In anycase i'm not a lawyer, but the point of our policy as far as lore material is concerned to treat all things equally. I won't go into mechanics stuff like tootips as that's not a part of the policy that I have any part of enforcing and barely understand it. But as a book keeper and admin my work is more in the lore department issues.Baggins 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In anycase, whatever policy is in effect. Its the duty of the admin staff to enforce it. Even if that steps on the toes of others, on how they want to do things.Baggins 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blizzard has different policies for how their intellectual property may be quoted based on the source. They treat the paper RPG differently than the MMORPG, and as a result there is no question that we may reproduce an in-game "book", shown on-screen verbatim if we choose to. Published (paper, PDF, what have you) books are treated differently by Blizzard, and so we cannot copy significant sections from those books. So while you could argue whether quoting these in-game "books" is clearly fair-use or borderline fair-use, we do not have to since Blizzard has given permission to quote any in-game text (which includes these "books".

Since the in-game "books" are text we may quote them without needing to use screen shots, which are harder to read and waste resources compared to text.

Of course what we choose to do within those legal limits, would be based on our own usage policy, but I do not see anything there that would prohibit quoting an in-game "book". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read blizzard's terms of use, and while it has permissions, it also has listed 'restrictions' and 'limits' written into it as well. Although they way they word things makes it unclear what is restricted exactly. The only way to know for sure is to ask blizzard what they mean exactly. Until permission is given, we will be enforcing WoWWiki's policy to the letter. We won't be taking fan interpretations of the laws, and will only accept an explananation by Blizzard themselves. The staff is currently working on a letter asking for permissions, and clarifications on what is permitted. Thank you.Baggins 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As was said on IRC previously when this was brought up, an open dialog with Blizzard maintained through the fan site program, so we can be informed if/when we step over any line is really all that is needed. Other copyright holders should be treated differently. Logos, fan art, fan fiction from other sites etc. Should all require permission and meet fair use requirements. Currently this really isn't done as far as i can see. My personal views on copyright differ completely, but that's irrelevent. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  10:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)