Talk: Village pump

Template:WoWWiki:Village pump/Intro

Current Discussions

Start a new discussion!

User friendliness

How can WoWWiki become more (new) user friendly? I'm talking about stuff like:

• Template changes
• MediaWiki text changes (e.g. the green talk page banner when editing)
• Main Page pointers
• Better/simpler guides for new users

Any suggestions are very useful :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

More extensive/comprehensive Help: namespace? Just a thought. --Pcj (T•C) 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, our help pages need some work. There are a lot of things we use that are hard to find out about in help. We need to document stuff in help, not here in the Village pump... ;-) -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:30 AM PDT 30 Oct 2007

Hehe :P Generally linking directly to wikipedia's specific help pages should work (for non-wowwiki specific stuff), as they are far more comprehensive than ours; however, what we do have needs better organising. Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Uniformity in tables and templates, too. I don't know how many times I've seen several different templates used for the same purpose. --Pcj (T•C) 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Clear page layout and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at and instantly knwos where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates.
2. Fix all issues with the wide aray of competeing and inconsistant top and section level template "boxes" and other headers while doing the above (this includes the ToC).
3. Remove superfluous and ugly nav boxes and provide navigation through categories with relationship defined naming.
4. Move all listing/type articles to where the belong, the category namespace, with redirects when appropriate.
5. Add portal articles with respective namespace based on user information access patterns.
6. Clean up existing policy articles and refine the rules for the policy process policy.
7. New semantically correct main page that reflects these changes.

I Think that's enough stuff that'll never be done. ;) -- Zeal ^(T/C)  19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well number three isn't happening, except for category renaming. Listing articles do not belong in the category namespace, because they aren't categories. Portals would be cool. How are the article message boxes inconsistent? They were all changed to be consistent. Policy articles have had some work (thanks to Sky), but yes, probably could have more done. Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A listing/grouping of types of things isn't a category? Sure whatever you say. ;p

There are still a few i've noticed that do not match the nice new ones you've made Kirkburn. They're also all competing for the same spot (along with tooltips, info boxes, tocs etc.), looks ugly and is inconsistant in how that get's resolved.. A number of them should also be split to section specific versions instead, a change i tried to champion before i left.

As to policies, i meant easier to find, with clearer applicable naming, organization of them collectively, then also making being easier to understand and flow well, especially where cross over occurs between them. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an article that lists something is not a category. A category is a specific thing for MediaWikis, and it isn't designed for carrying content - for one, they don't get flagged as articles. Redirects are also to be avoided.

Article message boxes are supposed to be above all other content, and thus not conflict with anything on either side. I know there's a few things still left over, especially the band-color templates, unfortunately.

Sky was asking about the names of the policy pages recently - it's a fair comment. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like MediaWiki to dictate logic, rather work around it's failings, but if you want to stick to it's limitations, so be it. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, but I think it would be more confusing without a recode, especially since the categories do not necessarily cover the same things as the lists. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Steering us a bit more back on topic, let's look at Zeal's list a bit (I did a little bit of editing):

1. Clear page layout and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at and instantly knows where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates. -Zeal
   • This sounds to me like we need new headers. Right now the user has to look at the tooltip or right side box to know what they're looking at.
   • We should also maybe put the stubs on a diet. They are consistent, but rather large and blaring. They overwhelm much informative content.
   • Make a list of bad templates/boilerplates and we'll discuss improving them on each of their pages and the list can have a summary status of how that's going.
2. Fix all issues with the wide array of competing and inconsistent top and section level template "boxes" and other headers while doing the above (this includes the ToC). -Zeal
   • Again, make a list of problem top and section boxes. We'll use the same review strategy as mentioned above.
3. Remove superfluous and ugly nav boxes and provide navigation through categories with relationship defined naming. -Zeal
   • Again, make a list of "superfluous and ugly" nav boxes. We'll use the same review strategy as mentioned above.
   • I'm not sure about using categories, though, as discussed above. Nav boxes exist to get around the limitations of categories.
4. Move all listing/type articles to where they belong, the category namespace, with redirects when appropriate. -Zeal
   • Yup, we need to aggregate listing/type articles, but maybe not the category namespace, as Kirkburn mentions above.
   • Once we think of how/where to aggregate them, it should be easy.
5. Add portal articles with respective namespace based on user information access patterns. -Zeal
   • Good idea, but I'm not sure how we will discover user information access patterns. Maybe Kirkburn knows or can find some better information gathering from the wiki.
6. Clean up existing policy articles and refine the rules for the policy process policy. -Zeal
   • I'll let Sky and others work on that. I don't want us to get too overloaded with policy and process though.
   • Some things we need to resolve in this area, though:
     • Fanfic, as has been discussed.
     • When to use subcategories vs. main categories.
     • What bots should and shouldn't do and how articles they interact with should be tagged.
     • More writing policy on things like ability pages, server pages, and user pages.
     • Maybe some more naming policy.
   • Maybe we should put a policy portal link on the sidebar. It could take the place of Search WoWWiki and that link could move down to "wiki search", since it is basically the same thing and not currently a link.
7. New semantically correct main page that reflects these changes. -Zeal
   • I'll admit I don't know what this means. So a more detailed explanation would help.

Some other ideas I had:

1. Get the Special:Search to show simpler output options:
   • List of articles only that have text matches without contents matching summaries below.
   • List of articles with text matches to article names only.
   • List of articles with text matches to contents only.
2. Move Google search down a slot unless we get paid more for it being higher. The wiki search works pretty well now and it's results aren't based on some past scan (or shouldn't be).
3. To reiterate, we really need a comprehensive redo of our help pages. They really are a mess.
4. Make the rework part of the new projects process and do a much better job of promoting and organizing the projects. Repeatedly promoting the projects in the Village pump might be good if it doesn't get to annoying.
5. Archive Village pump and Warcraft pump more often. Don't archive questions that haven't been answered.

Okay I'll stop now. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:11 PM PST 2 Dec 2007

What i meant with my last point about the main page, was that it should should reflect the following:

1. Portals becoming main access points for users, which means removal of the existing list of article links at the top of the page.
2. Top level categories listed to provide navigation entry points seperate from the more busy and limited scope portals.
3. A shift to ensuring sementically correct markup thoughout the wiki. Specifically that means no more tables, make use of list elements and create a float based layout for good degradation for all resolutions.
4. The design would also use a consistant scheme for it's varies areas (icons, colours, content styling) so they carry across to each namespace/article type and don't make the user feel they've ever stumbled off their intended path. This would ofc mean a greater tie in and consistancy with template design. (I haven't touched it in a while now, and have no idea how much it reflects to this anymore, butUser:Zeal/Sandbox/Main_Page was a pretty basic attempt at this.

-- Zeal ^(T/C)  23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear page layout... Hmm?

...and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at... Headers? As in, those items which I've seen on your sandbox pages, or actual == headers? If the former, that's only adding unneccessary styling and complication to the wiki. We already have the pagename in big fat letters at the top, so this shouldn't be an issue.

...and instantly knwos where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates. This is an issue of having a lot of pages on the wiki. We've been moving toward standardizing pages through the use of boilerplates, but if people aren't going to aid in boilerplating, we can't do much. I must say, mass templating won't really help either, but then, there have been efforts in this also. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fix all issues with the wide aray of competeing and inconsistant top and section level template "boxes" and other headers while doing the above (this includes the ToC). Me too. I would presume you're talking about boss and instance pages more than anything. Inconsistency, I can live with, more because the items can be used to identify what kind of page one is looking at. But when there's more than one box at the top of a page, that just doesn't work. As for the ToC, we've been moving away from the use of tocright (which, imo, is the main culprit) when the page already has at least one box on the right, but there are lingering pages that need it removed. Though, I would request clarification on that statement, incase I misinterpreted. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fanfic, as has been discussed. Discussing. ;) [The help pages] really are a mess. You mean, a non-existant mess? ;P. Maybe some more naming policy. Specify. Move Google search down. Agreed.

When to use subcategories vs. main categories. Subcategories are always preferred over main categories, as subcats link to the main categories anyway; what exactly are you referencing?

What bots should and shouldn't do and how articles they interact with should be tagged. Foxbot = love (well, sorta. I have my issues with it, but they can't be fixed). Laurlybot = hate. The subpages, are, quite frankly, unneeded, as the pages will be re-updated by bot again; Laurly's said it's possible to code for the bot to change the main page parts that need changing as opposed to the subpage, and overwriting the tables is going to happen anyway, whether manually or automatically, so why aren't we having Laurlybot just doing main pages? I'd like to link to WW:ITEMS, as that shows that the community would rather have all the informatio on one page than on subpages. I personally don't understand how we went from what's there to what Laurlybot is doing now. The policy doesn't regard npc pages, but it does leave comment on how we should be dealing with mainpages.

More writing policy on things like ability pages, server pages, and user pages. I don't know that ability pages need policy, as we have a boilerplate. But there probably should be something on server pages. As for user pages, anything goes. The only thing which is explicitly disallowed on user pages is WW:DNP.

Maybe we should put a policy portal link on the sidebar. I agree with the thought. Policy should be linked prominently (somewhere) if it isn't already.

Get the Special:Search to show simpler output options. That might be an inhibition of the engine, though good ideas.

Make the rework part of the new projects process and do a much better job of promoting and organizing the projects. Sure, but if you haven't noticed, the people who contribute... contribute. And then there are the people who don't. So the issue here is general community involvement, rather than telling people that already know about the projects again to participate.

Archive Village pump and Warcraft pump more often. Hmm... I'd disagree. But not a biggy. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeal, tables are the semantically correct method for showing data. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat what i said in IRC. Tabular data, certainly. Lists, layout, non-tabular data, headers, messages, certainly not! And they all exist on the wiki in various forms.

Sky, your replies are painfully hard to read, don't know what is and isn't a quote and what parts were directed to me :S But i'll see if i can comprehend it.

• Yes, the former. Wouldn't have to be the same as i preposed before, but that's the general idea. It's not unneccessary styling (hell it originally came about to fix a big flaw in the monobook skin which still exists both here and on wikipedia) and they're not complicated, in fact they simplify and solve the problems with all the complicated variations of headers which current exist and get placed before the content.
• The reason there is no standardized pages is sadly because there is no standards across the boilerplates themselves, they all vary too much and the onyl thing consistant between them is that they look bare and like any other article (as you said, only item pages are currently recognizable because {{tooltip}} and it's location on the page).
• You interpreted it fine. I actually hate the ToC period because you have no styling or formatting control over it and it really just gets creates problems rather than being helpful to navigating the article. Only solutions i can think to have the helpfulness of a ToC without the issues it causes is if the toc was a navigation drop down or it was located outside the article's bounds (above it horizontally or in sidebar vertically) It's more a failing of the mediawiki base of how the page is layed out (article and user links, side bar, content, footer). It's a bit of a mess.

Think that's the end of my points :S -- Zeal ^(T/C)  01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My 2cp:

Help Articles and Policies: (I'm bunching these because I consider them integral to each other) This is something I'm willing to work on after I move.

I think we need to reinvigorate the Help Team, though. It appears that no one is left from it to do the work and maintenance that should be done. I'm not volunteering for this, however, as I'm not sure I'll have the time. If I do, you'll be sure to hear from me. :P

More to come! I can't process this craziness all at the same time!

--DuTempete talk|contr 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine

Just a question to satiate my curiosity- Why is it that when I create a new page, it cannot be found using the Google search engine? For example, I recently created Gharsul the Remorseless, but when I use the search engine, there are no results for that exact query. Is there a large waiting period or something? I find it odd that when I create a page to try and aid players and users, there is no easy way for them to come across this page and to benefit from it. Maybe I've missed some nifty trick- After all, I'm very new to wiki sites. Any response would be splendid. Kallnohae 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Google search engine doesn't update immediately when pages are updated. Google has to crawl the site before those pages show. The built-in search engine does update immediately, however. --Pcj (T•C) 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The built-in search, of course, can be found at Special:Search or by clicking "Search WoWWiki" in the navigation sidebar. User:DarkRyder/Sig 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering...Is there an estimated amount of time it takes for the google search to be able to find it? Coobra 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Realm Boilerplate

I am considering getting to work on a Realm (Server) boilerplate so that the Realm pages can start to look somewhat alike, or at least have vague similarities. If there is anyone who wishes to criticize, aid in or speculate upon this idea, please let me know :) -- Kasyx 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

After looking into it a bit, I have come to the startling conclusion that I have absolutely no idea where to even start in terms of creating a new boilerplate. Anyone with the experience/knowledge to give me some pointers or help me out with it would be much appreciated ;) -- Kasyx 12:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we seem to have adopted the slightly inaccurate Server: namespace instead of Realm:.

Well, you could review Help:Starting a new page and WoWWiki:Boilerplates to see how other boilerplates are done. I sort of like the format of having something like a Help:Server articles page (like Help:Mob articles) that gives instructions to use a Help:Server articles/Preload page (which contains the actual server boilerplate).

You should also look at the various server-related templates also and maybe use them in your boilerplate: {{Realm}}, {{Server Nav}}, {{Server}}, {{Server EU}}, {{Server US}}, {{Battlegroup}}, guild list templates ({{Guild list ally}}, {{Guild list horde}}, {{Guild list}}, {{Guild list foot}})

Hopefully that's enough info to get you started. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:20 PM PST 23 Nov 2007

Realm pages differ greatly sometimes. How many parts of a community you are not a part of are you going to cut?--SWM2448 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend for this to be the be-all and end-all of Realm articles, but rather merely a guideline so that the base information on the realm is there. Thereafter, people can add to it as they see fit. Making a boilerplate for realm articles doesn't impose boundaries on realm articles, but rather gives them a solid foundation. -- Kasyx 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Kasyx, if you feel nervous about throwing up a new page, you can always start with Help:Server articles/Preload and make Help:Server articles later when you think its ready for prime time. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:28 PM PST 23 Nov 2007

Fanfic namespace

I do believe we need a namespace for fan fiction, especially given the talk on Talk:Great Sea expansion pack ideas#Fanfic is a no-no, and I can request it fairly simply.

However, do others agree, and if so, what should it be called? Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fanfic:
• Fiction:
• Fan Fiction:

One of those?--SWM2448 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but there should be still some sort of content filter. --Pcj (T•C) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If Pcj agrees to this it must be good. Filter out what?--SWM2448 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Fanfic or Fiction, keep it one word. What sort of filter did you have in mind? Addendum: We also need to change the name of that particular page- it's not so much an idea page for Great Sea expansions as it is one specific idea.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just some sort of ground rules about what's acceptable. I don't particularly want to see WoWWiki to become a repository of any old slash fiction or otherwise low-quality work, however Warcraft-related it may be. And, of course, general parameters of what exactly constitutes fan fiction. --Pcj (T•C) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, pcj. I certainly wouldn't want this to mean "anything goes". Kirkburn  talk  contr 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For that Addendum, I list all independant great sea ideas that are not here, here if it helps. I do not know if that was on topic... --SWM2448 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask, what's wrong with the current placement of fanfic, under a User sub page? :| Most of the fanfiction out there is already located under a User subpage; there are only a handful of articles which are not in such places. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WW:PA only permits one main contributor of fanfic not in the main namespace, this would move all the stuff in the main namespace, like the "...ideas" articles into their own namespace. --Pcj (T•C) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It also states that those who wish to surrender control of their works to the wiki can leave it in the main namespace, which is how it is done currently. PA supports both sides in this way. :) --Sky (talk | con | wh) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A separate namespace then helps to distinguish factual articles from fiction. --Pcj (T•C) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And so does the tag currently placed at the top of such fiction pages. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, I agree it sounds like a good idea, as long as we have certain standards.Baggins 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As i said in IRC depending on how you you intend to use the namespace, it may need some new rules put in place. How many depends on the usage too.

So here's a few things to consider:

• If you keep fan fiction limited to a single author, then the namespace isn't needed, as it's easier to manage in the userspace alone.
• If you go ahead with the namespace then the naming policy should prevent people from choosing generic names and actually choose an appropriate title (eg. Fanfic:Pandaren vs Fanfic:A Story About a Pandaren) so that there is no arguments over common Wow terms.
• If you go with the multiple authors (which to me is the only reason i can see why anyone would want to write a fanfic on WW and the only reason a namespace would be needed), who controls the fanfic? Is it released to the public for anyone to edit as is the standard for a wiki and thus "policing" the articles is done by the wikians (which is going to require awhole new rule set written up)? Or alternatively do you allow the author/authors to retain ownership and control and thus "police" their own articles and can be left to their own devices?

I personally don't believe the namespace is needed, but if you want to support multiple authors, then let them retain ownership, otherwise you're walking into a minefield with regulating the namespace. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All content submitted to WoWWiki is released under the GNU FDL. WW:PA isn't so much about ownership as attribution. Since a wiki is essentially editable by anyone, it makes sense to allow an area for multiple people to contribute (and keep the speculation out of the main namespace). --Pcj (T•C) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that, as Sky mentioned, as long as it is okay with the user who's name it is under, a page CAN be edited by other users. So I really don't see any need for a seperate namespace, except that the user whose name the article is under would have ultimate control of the article. This could be a problem for controversial articles such as the expansion ideas. -Jiyambi t || c 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, expansion ideas needs cleanup more than anything, which is the page that sparked this. It should be maintained like race ideas is, with lore to support the next expansion, rather than just ideas about races to go with each expansion. What is there in WoW that we don't have a complete understanding yet?
And I'd like to mention Airiph and X8. They've taken wonderfully to the idea of collaboration, and yet the pages are on one or the other's pages. Such collaboration is still possible with the User namespace. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like people are generally in agreement that a fan fiction namespace is a good idea, but needs some rules to keep it under control. Does anyone want to make up a rule page proposal and put it on WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing/FanFiction? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:54 PM PST 29 Nov 2007

I made a Rough draft. What 'Airiph and X8' are doing somewhat makes this, unneeded unless stories go out of just being written by small groups. This will work for idea pages though. Read what I wrote.--SWM2448 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses! I'd would like to see opposition to the points I and Jiyambi bring up. And Zeal, now that I've reread what he wrote. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 07:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting further input from me? Sure you want to do that? ;) Lol.

The collaboration could be done in the userspace as is being done now, sure. Right now, afaik, that is a case of the authors retaining ownership and control and avoids any naming policy issues too, which is probably why it's working fine. But, i feel they're harder to track in the userspace. If that's a good or a bad thing is really up to how much limelight you intend to give fanfics on what is really an information wiki (for which i'm still unsure as to what the general consensus is).

If you want to give them as much focus as the rest of the articles on the wiki, then give them a namespace. But i strongly believe the safest and easiest root for all is to let authors retain ownership and manage their own articles and only use a naming policy specific to the namespace as i suggested (might even want to extend that to enforcing the use of sub articles and breadcrumbs for over arcing story lines / chapters). Otherwise Imo there'll be far too much argument over the content of articles in the namespace to reasonably handle.

Also worth considering is what constitutes as fan fiction appropriate for WW. You might need to lay down some rules to ensure the basis of the stories maintain their roots in Warcraft (ie. Everything that gets added needs a reasonable back story and stay in keeping with the Warcraft universe. So that means no adding traditional Vampires, Werewolves and spacecraft etc.). Depending how far you go with that, you could also say something like "No introduction of new races or planets", as they surely exist, but there is nothing to base them on in Warcraft and what an author could create thus has nothing to do with Warcraft anymore.

One last thing to mention, there's no need to talk about the article that spawned this here, as it's been decided that it will be reverted back to it's speculation only existance. A new fanfiction one could exist, but it shouldn't follow the same naming policy to avoid any issues. -- Zeal ^(T/C)  19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said, Zeal. --Jiyambi t || c 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose the 'idea' section of what I wrote be used to clean up articles like the Great Sea one...--SWM2448 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether you decide on a fanfic namespace or keep things in user pages, a page where fanfic authors can show off and talk about their creativity works just the same. If you make it attractive to writers, it's a great way to get good writers to come to the wiki, thereby increasing the quality of the content if they decide to participate. Think of a page full of snippets or synopses of the latest fan-fiction added to the site (or simply linked from another site) and a pump-style discussion page. Communities can spring out of that alone without creating a fanfiction namespace. Others could post full reviews as well (the organization of which I won't even bother going into).

P.S. Nice to see you guys, btw. User:Montag/sig

Here's some comments (hi Montag!):

• Keeping fanfic restricted to one author is a nice idea, but not feasible outside a user's subpages. This breaks the spirit of wiki tremendously and I don't bring that up very often.
• Discoverability in user's subpage is non-optimal. Right now the fanfic category is just a huge unsorted mess.
• Although you can edit other people's user pages by strict definition, there is an unspoken understanding that editing other people's user pages is usually restricted primarily to talk pages. Most other edits are usually only to correct obvious mistakes (bad links, mis-use of paramters in templates, etc.) and by explicit request of the user.
• Great Sea expansion pack ideas is a great example of something that cries out for a Fanfic: or Speculation: namespace. It is a shared work and so can't really go in a user page, but should not really be in the main namespace.
• The fanfic policy already has provisions for keeping fanfic Warcraft based.
• As Baggins as stated in other places, a fanfic tag sometimes is not enough to prevent confusion with genuine lore.

Anyway those are the related things I could think of off the top of my head. I will try to give this topic more deep consideration over the weekend. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:15 PM PST 30 Nov 2007

External links style consistancy

Currently the external links style is inconsistent, Links formed with [http://link.com linkie] have the darker blue colour plus the external link icon, while links formed with [[w:stuff]] or [[wikipedia:stuff]] only have the slightly darkened text. Not a huge issue but it makes it a pain to pick out all external links at a glance is inconsistant. -- Kaso 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's intentional. Varying degrees of external-ness. Kirkburn  talk  contr 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All external links are the same color for me, might be firefox.   Zurr  T ∙ C 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All the external links are the same color for me, and I'm using Firefox. There is a difference between the internal and the external coloration, but that's probably just one of those subtle cues built into the MediaWiki engine. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing the first as unvisted colour, the rest are all visited colour (but they're not visited) so i'd imagine the css styling is wrong for external unvisted links (cba to look). As to the lack of external image icon, it would be nice to have specific to each type (so a little wp globe and a yellow wikia "w" for those). -- Zeal ^(T/C)  22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Defend WOW!

Hi, I am doing an ethnographic study of WOW, and am having a hard time getting direct feedback from real players. I know people bash WOW and WOW players, but my hypothesis is that this sort of online gaming is a replacement for social institutions which are no longer popular (scouts, elks lodge, stamp clubs, church...)

Anyway, this is your chance to let me know why you think WOW is a good thing, and I will put it all in my study. Let me know what it means to you, how you play, memorable moments, etc., etc.

Post it here, or email to:

worldofwarcraftsurvey@gmail.com

Thanks -- Friendo 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed think that WoW and other MMOGs are definitely a replacement for those sort of activities, however it does need to be taken in moderation. The reason WoW has such a bad name amongst some is due to its "addictiveness". People get addicted to alcohol but you don't see the rest of the world refusing to drink it just in case. WoW is an excellent game and is, in a way, revolutionary, however I feel that the negative stigma surrounding it is more the fault of those die-hard ignoring-family-and-personal-wellbeing-in-order-to-play fans than anything else. -- Kasyx 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Science has shown that some people are simply more prone to addiction than others, due to their chemical balance. This is true of smoking, drinking, gambling... and playing WoW. And actually it's been postulated that gambling and playing WoW have a lot in common: long stretches between "wins" which trigger a sense of euphoria - in gambling, winning money; in WoW, leveling or getting new gear or somesuch - that quickly fades, leaving the gambler/player to obsessively keep going for another win. Even if that is detrimental. It's a sad fact. The vast majority of players, however, use WoW as a constructive social tool and play in moderation. Just like how some people can drink socially without being alcoholics, or can go to Atlantic City for a weekend without blowing their life savings. Hekirou 11:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WoW replaced being in a bowling league for me and my husband. Much cheaper (especially when you compare cost per hour of entertainment). User:Tekkub/Sig 11:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the idea is laudable, it would be nice to have a few more details on the background of the study. We live in a cruel world and this could just be an attempt to collect e-mail addresses from WoWWikians. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:33 PM PST 28 Nov 2007

I think WoW is addictive to some people because it allows them to do things they never could in real life. I'm not just talking about the fantasy and gaming aspect here - yes its true to watch your character kick monster butt, but really I think the appeal is primarily social. In WoW you can gain special and rare items and high levels and others will look at your character and think, "wow, he's cool!" People with low self esteem or those who have a need for an ego boost find this incredibly addicting. Unfortunately, the game world becomes more important to these people than the real world, and they can loose touch with reality.

As long as players keep their priorities straight, WoW can be a fun place to spend a few hours and a way to make new friends. People just need to remember their real friends and real life, and that WoW is only a game. --Jiyambi t || c 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy!

Is there anything I can do? I'm fairly bored. -- Treener 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you want WoWWiki:Community portal :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With the village pump now archived, this looks a lot better, Thankyou Coobra 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WoWWiki slow as heck

Uhh. Why is wowwiki running like it's on a 386 with 64MB of ram? Is ther enot enough hardware? What can be done? How can I help?

-- Bane 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

was running just fine yesterday, seems to only be slow today Coobra 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be DNS related. I seem to have WoWWiki name lookup problems at least once a day. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:53 PM PST 29 Nov 2007

It's not. I see the title come up right away, meaning the connection is made and some data is downloading. The slowness is waiting for the server to generate the page, indicating the we server itself, or the DB backend being queried for data. Bane 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There were server issues yesterday - don't worry, as soon as this kind of trouble starts, be assured there are techs working on it :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my comment about DNS issues turned out to be on my side. I added some more DNS servers (thank you, OpenDNS) and it seems to be more reliable. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:34 AM PST 30 Nov 2007

Edit summaries

I just added a little bit of code from Wookiepedia that gives you standard edit summaries. Unfortunately due to server problems I can't access the site to look up more about it (currently I'm also seeing it above the headline box as I make a new section for some reason). Apart from that, look good to others? You may need to force-reload. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: the header thing can't be changed, but could probably be used to our advantage anyway. Kirkburn  talk  contr 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The summary menu will fill in section header names when you use  Comment . Kinda odd, but not so bad. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:23 PM PST 1 Dec 2007

Broken tooltip in loot

Can anyone figure out why the tooltip doesn't work for [The Twin Blades of Azzinoth]? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:21 PM PST 1 Dec 2007

The script takes the tooltip from the page located at the displayed text, not the actual page. [The Twin Blades of Azzinoth (GM)] should work.

And it doesn't... :| --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary linebreaks in the tooltip, the regular expression fails weirdly when there are multiple lines to match. --Pcj (T•C) 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pcj fixed it. I had too many linebreaks. My loot link was good. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:04 PM PST 1 Dec 2007

What's wrong with [Thunderfury]? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:22 PM PST 1 Dec 2007

[Thunderfury]? I don't think the tooltip .js handles redirect pages. Linking directly to it works fine.--User:Kaydeethree/Sig 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Line break in the linked spell. The JS handles redirects and differently-named items fine. --Pcj (T•C) 02:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, I didn't realize it was a redirect. I'm such a dope. --- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:33 PM PST 1 Dec 2007

Mob Drops

Moved from Mob Drops in Warcraft pump. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr)

When going about updating the mob information pages, one thing I've noticed is the differences in styles to present the same information, and realised the better ones are much harder to keep up to date and to update.

The list I like the best is that found through the automated process, Bloodpetal Flayer for example being

Bloodpetal Flayer/NPCs Drops

However, updating that list is exceptionally problematic. So, my question, now directed at those with the knowhow is to maybe have a template that is easier to update. Maybe to have a key at the beginning, like {{drop and to then list each item dropped, and allow that to bring in the level, type, icon etc. The only thing this doesn't resolve is the drop chances, but unless you rely on other sites such as Thottbot, would we be able to give a definative percentage?

So, is something like that possible?

-- Sanderdolphin 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets take a look at the row template usage, since that's where the problems mostly occur:

{{:Template:NPC drops row |item=[[Image:INV_Misc_Dust_02.png|20px|Un'Goro Soil]] {{loot|Common|Un'Goro Soil}}|level=1|type=[[Junk]]|droprate=25.72%}}

Analysis:

• Well you can change {{:Template to just <nowi

ki>{{</nowiki>, so that would save some space at least.

• Parameters can be in any order if they have names so maybe reorder it to:

{{NPC drops row|droprate=25.72%|type=[[Junk]]|item=[[Image:INV_Misc_Dust_02.png|20px|Un'Goro Soil]] {{loot|Common|Un'Goro Soil}}|level=1}}

• A problem is the manually entered mini-icon. Seems like a pain to look that up for every item. In the least the template could be changed to take a new icon= parameter like other templates and just require the image name without the [[Image: and .png so the line would look more like:

{{NPC drops row|droprate=25.72%|type=[[Junk]]|item= Un'Goro Soil|quality=Common|icon=INV_Misc_Dust_02|level=1}}

That's about the most I can think of at the moment. I may try to make the changes, if I get up the initiative.

However, to answer the question of looking up item info from an article, I don't think WoWWiki can handle that currently. It might be possible with some fancy javascript.-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:48 PM PST 1 Dec 2007

As for the pic, see {{lootpic}} --Jiyambi t || c 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It can look up via good use of categories, but no one wants to do that ;) -- Zeal ^(T/C)  02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They're designed to be updated by bot, User:Laurlybot in fact. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Laurlybot created the tables, and uses Wowhead to reference drop rates. According to User talk:Laurlybot#botting, still, Laurly intends to update them once a month or so. So you shouldn't have to worry about it. --DuTempete talk|contr 14:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Laurlybot only update the drop tables? How does it know what mobs to update? Any drop tables updated by the bot should probably have some kind of tag in the article that warns about this. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:18 AM PST 1 Dec 2007

Last time I talked to Laurly about it, Laurlybot still replaces the entire page. Maintaining Laurlybot's old information will "take a little more coding" and will be "stage two" when she reruns it updating everything. --Pcj (T•C) 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, replacing the whole page is a bad thing if players have added notes and strategies. This defeats the advantage of WoWWiki over just being a DB with a forum thread attached. So, using Laurlybot on an article to update drop info could be a mistake. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:11 PM PST 3 Dec 2007

The whole point of them being subpages was that they can be updated independently of the article. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular table brings up a problem though... Savage Fronds,  [Un'Goro Soil] and  [A Mangled Journal] are not junk, they're quest items. Porfus the Gem Gorger has the same problem with its table, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. An easy way to fix the category for an item included in the table would be nice. --Azaram 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the difficulty in fixing problems, that's why I was wondering if we could change the way these pages are constructed. Is the wiki suitable for automated updates? I've managed to update a couple of those pages and feel at pain to think those updates will be overwritten if the source of the data isn't up-to-date. It's good having Laurybot to get the ball rolling, but at that point I think the automation should stop and let us go in an update it from there. We could drop the drop percentage since that is not known to us without the use of external database collection sites, and then the information is fraught with mechanical anomolies - one such example is a quest drop that is a 100% drop shown as 1% since people are taking out the mob without the quest.

Help page on gold farming?

Just something I was wondering: Places to farm is an excellent (yet expandable) collection of suggestions on where to farm certain items. But how about people who are just looking for gold, such as those farming gold to get their enchants or an epic flying mount, or just people with nothing better to do? I thought it would be nice to have. Obviously you could take the other guide and farm the items so you can sell them, but this doesn't really tell anything about the fficienty concerning the gold earned (hourly, for example). Or does this already exist and I am just too dumb to find it? - - 'tws'talk'cont' 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To farm gold, Daily Quests, the end. --User:Mucke/sig 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure daily quests are 'the' best way to make money. I tend to do better flying around and mining, on average. Bane 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

considering some of the daily quests require little to no effort and you get 10-20g from them, yea, dailys are the best way to make money.--Coobra 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Doing Dailies while in the 10-per-day limit is the fastest way to make money. (Having access to the Netherwing quests helps to fill this limit with 11 99 quests, as not all of them reward that much) After that, of course other, farming activities become more lucrative. ~ ŋɑϑ 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually so much asking for help here (i would have asked that in the Warcraft pump), I was really more thinking about a page to list a) ways to get money (such as daily quests, etc.) and b) places to farm that have a good gold per hour ratio. Literally, a small gold farming "guide" or reference. - - 'tws'talk'cont' 07:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dated Pages

Is there a policy on information being dated? In my opinion any article should present the current state of the game, without any 'as of patch blah blah'. There could be a section refering to old mechanics, but all the places in articles I see 'as of blah blah' seems distracting. Eventually everything with be 'as of blah blah', given enough patching. Then what do we have but lots of noise? Bane 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a way of fixing this? It would just change to 'as of insertdatehere'.--SWM2448 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You lost me. I'm saying for example, the Alterac Valley page. if you do a search for 'patch', it's all over the place. There's lots of sentences with 'as of patch 2.3', or 'In 2.3, it was changed to...' My point is, shouldn't statements like that be removed, or at least moved to a single section? If people are wanting info about AV, or any other topic, I think it's safe to assume that in general they want the current info, and they don't care which patch or when it changed. If they DO want that info, it's better to have it confined to a single section rather than spread throughout. --Bane 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes its good to know when things have changed, or reasons why its different than what it used to be. Records are kept of all the patches on wowwiki, and I'd rather not have to review the patch notes, if something I didn't know changed was directly on the page of what I what to see is different.--Coobra 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know what's changed, ya can go to the Recent Changes section, rather than having 'as of patch 2.3' peppered all over. --Bane 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AV was not in 1.1.--SWM2448 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes is one thing, and with pages being updated all the time, looking at the recent change page doesn't help very much at all. Lets say, for example, I played the game back in its early days, quit for a year and came back finding certain things are completely different and I go to look it up. I would like to see what has changed, not just what it currently is. So having it the way you suggested with removing 'as of' all over the placing and making a new section on the page for it would be a good idea. As its right there on the page, and you don't have to go all over the place to see changes.--Coobra 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's my example: http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Battlegrounds&diff=prev&oldid=1018801. I changed a sentence, and while I was there, removed a (as of patch 2.3), since it doesn't seem pertinent to the actual information being presented there. This made me wonder if I should have removed the 'as of' or not. --Bane 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. That is fine as long a the info on changes is kept in another section like you said.--SWM2448 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're opinion is that such information is outdated, or merely unnecessary. "As of patch [yada-yada]" generally means that the information mentioned was not in game until the patch mentioned. So, that information should be up to date.

One of the things I plan on working on with the Warlock pages is populating the patches and hotfixes lists. Such a list is included on most boilerplates, and should be eventually be filled out. It is a new addition to the boilerplates, so one cannot expect them to fill themselves out.

Even so, the patches and hotfixes list does not need to be the only place where that information is located. I don't see any issues with "as of patch..." being a part of the main article, as it is definitely an attractive bit of information to some people. I'd say you're welcome to remove it, as long as you make sure to replace it with an entry in the patches and hotfixes section should it not already exist. But, please, do consider that others, such as the returning-from-hiatus player that Coobra mention, may enjoy seeing that in the article. --DuTempete talk|contr 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Ability articles for how we (meaning people who put the page together) dealt with this. We decided to stuff all the old information into a changes section at the end. Feel free to be inspired for a different naming scheme for other articles, but I would find that appropriate on any page, personally. A lot of things have been changed, so having sections like that doesn't seem a bad thing. :)
As for the use in pages, it's helpful when a new patch hits, as it immediately informs the browser that the information may be incorrect. Again, not a bad thing. You do make a good point about the "noise" factor; I would personally deal with it by having only the last patch, if that, inline with the rest of the information. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So here are some problems with the idea of dated pages vs. piecemeal update info:

• The date only helps if the entire article has been reviewed and ensured to be up to date to the date listed. This is almost never true. People usually only update what they happen to know is wrong.
• A date is only useful if it is associated with a particular reference. If an article has multiple references because one reference can't cover all the info, then how does a single date reflect the date of multiple references?
• The piecemeal info is useful to some people who want to know the trend of patch changes on particular area. This helps people predict where something might be going and plan accordingly.

We do need to reduce the "noise", but dating pages doesn't really help. I agree with Sky that having the last patch info inline and older patches moved down is probably the best course. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 PM PST 3 Dec 2007

A quick response to DuTempete: unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing - and what Bane is bringing up - is "<much declaration about how such and such works>. As of Patch X, this is no longer true." Alterac Valley is littered with crap like that. You read long stretches of text about how something works, only to find out it isn't true anymore. So it isn't just used for "As of Patch 2.3, this was added to the game." That wouldn't be problematic. It's the other kind that drives me up a wall. Hekirou 14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I said 'dated', I never meant literally. I meant more like saying 'The president of the United States is Bill Clinton' is a dated statement. I am not saying we should put dates instead of patches. I'm talking about information that is inherently dated information. One could argue everything is dated, by virtue of the fact it could change at any time. But saying 'As of patch 2.3....' just adds another level of dating to individual statements that is for the most part redundant. I'm all for a seperate section on recent changes, but I think the articles themselves should strive to represent the current state of the game, without filling it with noise of 'as of patch blah'. For those interested on when certain changs happened, they could refer to a seperate section. I play with a fairly novice gamer, and sending her here to read about things, it's one of her complaints. She gets confused about what is current, what isn't, etc. She just wants to know the facts right now. She doesn't care what patch it happened in, and in fact it just confuses the issue for her. I hope my position is more clear now. --Bane 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my voice in favor of a policy (or at least practice) of keeping the main article applicable to the current game version, with historical changes in their own section, and to some small degree also in the main section. On a related note, I've found it redundant (and thus unhelpful) for the main article to have qualifiers like with "Now, ...." or "Currently, ...". -- Harveydrone 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, sometimes it gets really confusing. A special changes section for historical purposes would be nice though. --Amro 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanking armor

Could someone please address the question I rose at Template_talk:Tooltip regarding gear with green armor values? The current system for this is largely unused from what I've seen, and has very strange effects that I can't imagine are intended. Hekirou 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Settip bug?

Can anyone tell me why I see [Whitemend Hood] as the tooltip for [Whitemend Wisdom]? I checked the Whitemend Wisdom page, and it onlyincludes the {{settip}} template, which creates a tooltip for the set as a whole. For some reason though, that isn't the tip that gets passed through to {{loot}}, and I'm pretty certain that isn't how it's meant to work. Hekirou 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't link to sets using {{loot}}. They're not linked that way in-game, and they shouldn't be here. --Pcj (T•C) 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Whyever not? I don't particularly care if they're linked that way in game; by its very nature, the wiki is more flexible than the game. And it can be helpful to have a tooltip appear for a set. For example, the Whitemend Wisdom and Primal Mooncloth sets both reference each other. Why can't we have a floating tooltip à la {{loot}}? Hekirou 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We can, but I don't see what purpose it would serve. --Pcj (T•C) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

{{set}} is now working. Example: Whitemend Wisdom. The set page must have {{settip}} not inside <includeonly>. --Pcj (T•C) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask: Why not includeonly? Surely changing the script to account for that wouldn't kill it, would it? --Sky (talk | con | wh) 05:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What the JS sees is based on what is rendered on the page. It doesn't include it via the wiki. --Pcj (T•C) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Darktable and related classes

I have a question, and I don't know any other place to ask. I'm trying to learn how to use tables, and I'm wondering if there is a list of related classes? I know there's class="darktable" for the basic table class, and class="title" to have a centered, bold text on a lighter background [notably meant for the first cell in a row]. Are there any other classes? For example, is there a way to center data in a cell without the bold text or light background of the title class? What if I want to center everything in a table? To make things easier, is there maybe a list of classes somewhere? It's not like there's a template where I can just go to {{darktable}} or something and look up the documentation ^_^

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Hekirou 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WW:MOS may have some answers for you, but if this is regarding an article, sticking to darktable is much preferred. To center an entire table, I think {| style="text-align:center;" would work. Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the table in most immediate question is for a page in the user space [a list of my characters, to be specific], but I'm sort of using the page as a sandbox to figure out how tables work on here. I'm still pretty nubbish on darktable itself, so I'm practicing with my own stuff before I even try to work on article tables. Hekirou 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

building up reputation around 50 - need or greed ?

need or greed ? when reading Cenarion_Circle_reputation_guide i wondered. could a simple line be added to all the factions whether or not getting the rep for them is even needed post tbc ..

for instance , i have a paladin lvl 56 and i dont have any crafting professions (just trying to make a bit of cash with skinning and herbing (at least , for the time being)) with my current gear i probably can make it into outland and from what i've read everything people had pre-tbc was pretty much replaced in their early 60's. and this faction seems to be really good for getting nice patterns , but i cant find any other use so far.

however .. when around 70 it turns out i need to be <something> to these guys to do <something> like entering a instance ill likely be *bleeped* if i dont start building up rep early (which of course goes for this and other factions) , basically .. is there a certain preferable route to get the most rep which makes the most sense to every class/prof ?

-- CoZ 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most reps pre-tbc where either for nothing, or for patterns/recipestrinkets. And placing greed or need reasons would be mainly opinions, its up to the person to decided whether or not it's worth it to them. If you don't have a crafting profession, earning most reps would be a waste of time, unless they have something you feel would be worth while.

-- Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DNP policy and Talk page guidelines

I just made some updates to WW:DNP and WW:TALK regarding personal attacks, since I noticed it wasn't exactly explicit previously. Hopefully nothing controversial :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As expected, incidents of discrimination or personal atttacks should be reported in WoWWiki:Violations. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:39 PM PST 7 Dec 2007

Ta for adding the decreed notes! Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with patrolled status on Recent changes?

The red bar next to unpatrolled pages seems to have disappeared from my Recent changes page. Is anyone else (who is a patroller, mostly) seeing this? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:28 PM PST 7 Dec 2007

leper gnome faction

On thottbot, it says that by killing some dragon (they recently deleted the post that said who),you gain 4 rep with the lepers and if you get revered, you can buy the ashbringer for 20s. If anyone knows for sure, please let me know.

-- Gnomez 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)