 |
This is an archive of WoWWiki:Village pump.
|
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.
(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)
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)
- 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)
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
- Looks like Foxbot updated [Vindicator's Chain Bracers] and [Vindicator's Chain Girdle]. --
Chinese hax
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. --Pcj (T•C) 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)
- 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
- Doesn't happen to me. --Pcj (T•C) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you guys have it too? Or is it my PC? ----
- 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)
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 . 
(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. --Pcj (T•C) 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)
- Added RRQ versions:
- {{Queststart}} ⇒
- {{Questfinish}} ⇒
- {{Queststartrrq}} ⇒
- {{Questfinishrrq}} ⇒
- {{Queststart}} ⇒
- -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:48 PM PST 30 Dec 2007
- 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. --Pcj (T•C) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
[32] 
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... {T•C) 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).
- 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". --Pcj (T•C) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Manhwa" is misspelled...and you may want to use "Manga" instead. --Pcj (T•C) 01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "World of Warcraft Terminology" is misspelled. --Pcj (T•C) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "World of Warcraft Recipes" is misspelled. --Pcj (T•C) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Speculation" is misspelled. --Pcj (T•C) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "MOBs" should be title case, not upper. --Pcj (T•C) 01:33, 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)
- 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,
- 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.
- 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)
- Just to further add something for visualization. It's basically a cross section of the category tree.
- Ok, just reporting on some IRC convo. Basically what's being said is this..
- The categories are bloating article pages.
- The categories on articles are hard to read and find the one you want.
- Self catting and relationship catting is redundant.
- My replies to this is..
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Ok, just reporting on some IRC convo. Basically what's being said is this..
- 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 ;)