Talk: Village pump

Template:WoWWiki:Village pump/Please leave this line as it is thanks

Current Discussions

Stub/Category

Anyone think we need a new Stub type: Category? It would be put onto categories which needed to have more things tagged into that category. Category:Nature Spells, for instance. (For the moment, I have a Other stub on the Category:Spells page, which covers all the sub pages, but I'd rather have a specific stub for it.) --Bobson 15:03, 20 December 2006 (EST)

While we are at it, we might make a Stub/AddOn too

--dotted 08:37, 3 January 2007 (EST)

This seems as good a place as any, but could someone update the Burning Crusade content stub and remove the reference to beta testers? Thanks. Qii 15:29, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Reverting malicious page moves

I noticed a lot of these happening. For future reference, is there a quick way to revert a malicious page move, or do you have to copy and paste manually? User:Montag/sig 03:07, 21 December 2006 (EST)

For a move, you should be able to just move it back. For an in-place edit, you should be able to load a previous version from the history, then click "Edit" and "save". There may be a better way, but I don't know it. --Bobson 07:06, 21 December 2006 (EST)

New vandalism tool

To help fix with malicious moves, I've created the Template:Tlink template. It works the same way as the Template:Tlink template. Its use is as follows:

{{malmove|DestinationPage}} where DestinationPage = the page's home.

It puts maliciously moved pages into Category:Maliciously moved pages where they can be moved back to their destinations by users or admins. If someone copied and pasted the contents back to the home page and then added new edits, be sure to merge those edits with the older version before you move it. This helps preserve the history of each page. User:Montag/sig 13:10, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Official WoWWiki IRC Channel

For all talk WoWWiki, visit the new official IRC channel, set up solely for your WoW + Wiki needs :P Several of the admin frequent the channel, and you are invited to discuss issues with us or notify us of important developments there!

Visit: irc.freenode.net, #wowwiki

-- Kirkburn (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

New admins!

I cordially invite you to congratulate the new wave of admins! (who had better behave or so face my wrath =)

Promoted this very evening, they have been added to the ranks to aid to wiki as it grows and grows and goes from strength to strength. If you feel left out and deserving of adminship, do not despair. We certainly are not ignoring your efforts, but we can't induct too many at once. Too many cooks and all that :P

Admins, I expect you to do your best and always think before doing! -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2006 (EST)

/doom User:Tekkub/Sig 20:25, 21 December 2006 (EST)

rm -rf wiki --Gryphon 21:38, 21 December 2006 (EST)

/cast [target=wowwiki] Inferno --Hobinheim 21:58, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I really don't want to deal with the controversy surrounding your retcons. ;-)--Ragestorm 22:00, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Cool; "OMG!!1!11!1oneone!1 gz! u mde lvl 60!!11!!!one!! h4x lol" that's all I can say. User:Bull3t/Signature08:57, 23 December 2006 (GMT)

Hahaha! ::Drunk with power.:: ...Hic! User:Montag/sig 16:10, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Good job all! Now I feel bad that I couldn't be active for the last weeks :]> --Tinker er 16:12, 23 December 2006 (EST)

We're doomed ! :P User:CrazyJack/Sig 10:12, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Small note concerning the Guild article page

Atm, I'm trying to work on my Server page Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe to use it as a representative for the PR. For this I wanted to force some guilds on my server to make a guild page, but while writing an assistance post on how to do this, something vital struck me. Help:Guild_article has no information whatsoever on the name you should use for the page of your guild. You can't just allow guilds to just take a page like any other page. Eventually that would create problems for guilds with the same names...

So do we have any policy on how to name the page of your guild? If we don't, shouldn't we urgently create one? I can see many guilds using the wowwiki as an easy way to get a guild Homepage, a lack of a naming policy can become devastational (especially now that I'm writing on a PR post to get more players and guilds to do this)

So your thoughts on this?

--Patrigan 20:25, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I suggest taking a cue from [[User:<name>/<page name>]], Something like

[[Server:<Server name>/<Guild Name>]]. Baggins 20:28, 23 December 2006 (EST)

So I can take it that there isn't a policy yet? It is quite important that this policy gets set in stone. --Patrigan 20:37, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I've made an example here;

Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe/Order_Of_The_HammerBaggins 20:40, 23 December 2006 (EST)

That brings up the problem that http://www.wowwiki.com/Category:Shattered_Hand_Europe_Guilds got completely fucked up... which is something that should be avoided. Any solutions? --Patrigan 08:46, 24 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think there is any hard fix for that issue. However, the guild name should still be alphabatized so its still fairly clear to see the name of the guild.

I suppose another alternative is reverse it to Order Of The Hammer/Server:Shattered Hand Europe. But yes we would have to put that kind of change to a vote I think. We could ask which of the two forms that people prefer.Baggins 11:59, 24 December 2006 (EST)

That might actually work for the Guilds and then make Order_Of_The_Hammer a disambiguation(? Spelling XD) page, where a link can be made to the right realm. It solves the sorting problem, the guilds with the same name problem and it just works in general! So still put a vote up for it? If yes, then can we speed it up a bit, because my PR post is nearly fully written >.> :p --Patrigan 15:51, 24 December 2006 (EST)

This discussion should probably be held on the WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Guild_pages talk page because the pump gets archived and the discussion starts over in another couple months, this has been brought up numerous times before. The problem with using servername/guildname or some other combination of server and guild name is that not all guilds are confined to a single server. --Gryphon 16:40, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Just making sure it doesn't get forgotten, made a note on the talk page as well. We REALLY Must make it a rule in stone that a guild should ALWAYS be followed by it's server. At the moment, people just need to do that when it collides with another article. That can just give us extra work in the occasions that Blizzard decides toi do something with that word. Per example, Storm has been brought up. Those guilds have been changed and the page is now a disambithingy page, with the server between brackets behind it. Imagine that this disamthingy wasn't done, then we would most probably be facing a problem, seeing that the BC brings quite a lot of "Storm"s. So we have to change the Guild Policy article into saying that ALL Guildpages must be followed by a Servername in Brackets (what the guild policy page tells us to do now WHEN it collides). No more vague thingy aboutwhen colliding this and colliding that. No, it's simple to me. EVERYTHING must follow the Guildname (Servername) rule. Sorry, if I sounded harsh btw, but it's getting quite important now --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 19:11, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Write a policy proposal. I'd certainly vote for the Guildname (Server) style. User:Montag/sig 11:02, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Patrigan has appended a vote to WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Writing/Guild_pages. Some more discussion there. Vote early and often, as they say! Luci 03:36, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Featured article

WoWWiki:Featured articles. Are we going to do anything with it anytime soon? Personally, I think it would be a great idea because it motivates many people to increase the quality of their articles. That could in turn earn WoWWiki a reputation for being a high quality WoW resource. APʘLLʘ^(ZEUS) 11:08, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Fantastic idea! I totally support this. We should first come up with a rubrick, similiar to Wikipedia's, about what makes a good-ish article. Or even just bullet points that have to be satisfied before being a featured article. I'm totally down. --Hobinheim 11:46, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Fantastic, but will anyone maintain it. If we have someone actually keeping it up to date, then yes. If that's not guaranteed, it'll just fail again :/ -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Update what? The featured article? Bot that. Besides, it doesn't have to be like... Weekly or daily or anything. Let the bot sort all that crap out given a pool of articles. =) --Hobinheim 18:20, 25 December 2006 (EST)

In preperation for this project, I've made some reference/citation-related templates. Details on how to use them to follow one day... --Hobinheim 18:20, 25 December 2006 (EST)

I'm glad you like it. We still need to figure out how articles would be able to obtain this 'featured' status. Are we going to entertain a nomination process similar to Wikipedia's or will a board consisting of a few members handpick articles? APʘLLʘ^(ZEUS) 04:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Too early/slow to worry about a committee like that... How about something really low barrier like 1. must pass the rubrick for a featured article. 2. must be nominated for featured article status. 3. must be approved of by five positive votes within a week without major contention (just an example) --Hobinheim 11:18, 26 December 2006 (EST)

I like that idea. So the procedure you're suggesting should actually be identical to the deletion process? APʘLLʘ^(ZEUS) 11:26, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Similar, not identical. I dunno, just perused through it really quickly. Maybe something pruned down and easier to grasp. --Hobinheim 11:33, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Why picking something which would be easier to grasp? I'm fairly confident the system you proposed will do fine; your system lets people judge articles individually, but is still pretty basic. And if we are going to pick articles which could be considered Wowwiki's finest, we should do so carefully. I think we could pull this off. And to address Kirkburn's Christmas concerns; if you guys need a person to 'worry about' the featured articles, I'd be more than happy to become that person...but I'm aware that honour would probably be better off in some admin's hands.APʘLLʘ^(ZEUS) 02:52, 27 December 2006 (EST)

To all the users participating to the Burning Crusade Beta Test

Feel free to add yourself to the Category:Expansion Beta Testers. This should help updates on BC content and users wishing to work on this stuff. --Adys 13:22, 25 December 2006 (EST)

That should be Category:Lucky bastards. ;) APʘLLʘ^(ZEUS) 04:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Being Beta tester does have it's downsides... --Patrigan - Talk 13:15, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Yea it does.. kinda ruins the whole new feeling... --Asphyxiate 10:04, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Mmm, Navigation Bars

Hey all. Just wanted to make a short announcement... Been a long time coming. But, according to Mikaka, there are now navigation bars for all pre-Burning Crusade zones and subzones! I just want to thank everyone for being supportive of the project, and to those who have helped out, especially Mikaka, who would just go nuts and do lots of pages. I encourage everyone to check out the bars, jump from zone to zone, and really get a feel for how much detail there is in the Warcraft Universe. And, if you feel like other collections of pages should be bound together using a nav, be bold and create one! Again, thanks to everyone and Mikaka. Bar Boy Project a success! --Hobinheim 20:14, 26 December 2006 (EST)

Commercial external links in Wiki articles?

While reading the article about Alterac Valley, I read a recently added section about joining an AV game as a raid. In itself, this could be an exploit, so I clicked the external link at the end of the section to find out more. Turned out I couldn't verify the source, since the link pointed to a commercial website (www.multiplayerstrategies.com or www.mpsgames.com). A subscription is needed to read the content there.

I checked who added the section and when, and found it was user 'Sqren' (link to contributions) on December 25th. I then checked his list of contributions, and found that he has been very active. Randomly clicking some of his contributions revealed that all of his contributions include a link to this commercial website.

I'm adding this to the village pump because I'm irritated by this behaviour, as I feel it doesn't belong on a Wiki. Linking to a commercial website in each and every one of your contributions makes it highly likely that you are the person benefiting from that website.

However, I couldn't really find a policy about commercial content. I did find information on how to flag someone as a Vandal, but I'm not experienced enough with wikis to be confident to do that. Who knows how to proceed with this? You can respond here, or on my user page. Many thanks in advance.

--Grudgebearer 05:55, 27 December 2006 (EST)

To be honest, I'm not sure the policy on linking to commercial sites either, but in the general spirit of "free information" I doubt many here will approve. However I did notice that every one of those links are to the same URL. Looking at "?acode=2028" I got a sneaky suspicion that he's trying to generate affiliate linking revenue for himself. A quick 2 min of detective work proved to we that he was (I signed up for my own affiliate and got a similar link, different number to use). On the other hand, he has posted some useful info from the histories... so I guess we'll be nice and ask him to remove every one of those links. If he won't, ban and revert :) That is unless another admin wants to step up and take harsher actions, that's fine by me. User:Tekkub/Sig 06:36, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Remove the link and put Template:Tlink next to it, if there's no citation for it. That should help get some real citations for the information, if needed. User:Montag/sig 10:57, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Unless the info points to an accurate, important and relevant source about the page it is linked from, I am against such links. The WoWWiki is not for making money or gaining free hits from. :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Thank you very much for dealing with this in such a swift manner! Grudgebearer 12:01, 27 December 2006 (EST)

If the wiki staff want me to remove links to my source, I will indeed do so. I have no intentions on pissing anyone off.

I do need to get an answer on a few things though. If my source was a online newspaper or any other source form the net , that requires a signup fee to use, Will that also being seen as an act of vandalism.

I am seriously trying to post information regarding different articles on this page, and it is by no means my intention to post spam. According to all known rules, its good behaviour to post your source of your information.

All my contributions will be removed within 48 hours.

--Sqren 12:38, 27 December 2006 (EST)sqren

Go Vote!

Just a reminder to everyone to go vote! --Bobson 08:31, 27 December 2006 (EST)

How is Illidan alive? He was killed by Arthas

How is Illidan alive? He was killed by Arthas --Colinstu 18:17, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Queries to the Lore department should be referred to the WoWWiki:Bookkeepers or the specific page involved. --Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 18:20, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Permanent or Indefinite?

What's the difference between Category:Permanently Blocked Users and Category:Indefinitely Blocked Users? User:Montag/sig 03:38, 28 December 2006 (EST)

If my translations are good: Permanent = Forever and indefinitely means for unknown time. With other words, the first group can't be unblocked, the other still can... Considering this is just a translation, don't take my word for it! --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 07:39, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Hm... I think thats more a community management and procedure stuff, maybe right restrictions too (eg. only true admins can perma-ban and buerocrats can only indef-ban) - but afaik all banned users can be unbanned for obvious reasons (e.g. the typical "oops") -watchout 09:23, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Legendary two handed axes

Well ya see i am a lv.27 warrior and i use two handedaxes and my freinds told me that no legendary weapon is a two handed axe this warrior i hav i know I can get him to lv.60 in lik a year and i was wondering if it is true that no orange weapons are two handed axes? Please answer with links to the weapon (if it is true)?

--Lilolah 13:37, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Take a look at Category:Legendary Items - no 2H axes listed. But what you use at 27 has very little to do with what you'll use at 60 (you can't even consider using a Polearm at the moment, for instance), and a year is a long time - they may add one by then. Plus, most 60 warriors have at least two, sometimes three sets of weapons, one for each stance (2H for Battle stance, Dual wield for fury, 1H+Shield for Defensive, from what I've seen). --Bobson 14:52, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Comment your changes!

Not for the first time, I just stepped on someone's mass editing because they removed something from a page I happened to be watching without putting in a comment about the change. It's not hard to paste the same "Consolidated on page X" line onto every change, but without that comment, there's no easy way to know why you're doing it. --Bobson 08:36, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Usually I coimment everything, but the changes on my server pages~and user pages... -Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 08:48, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Commenting on every change if you are editing a few hundred pages gets very annoying. Jeoh 14:12, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Well yeah, but if it's the same change on each page, and it doesn't involve any copy/pasting, then it's easy to just paste the same line in on each page. If that's not feasible, putting in a comment can be an issue, I'll agree. --Bobson 20:37, 30 December 2006 (EST)

I feel if the diff speaks for itself (small changes), it's not really worth the comment. If it's a big change, or something I feel I need to justify my reasons, I'll comment. User:Tekkub/Sig 23:41, 30 December 2006 (EST)

As long as you're not removing information, then yeah, the diff can speak for itself. If you're removing any significant chunk of information, without replacing it with a link to it's new home, then it still needs to be commented, I think. --Bobson 06:04, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Best Duo

What is the best Alliance Duo (class combination) for pvp, my friend and I want to play pvp together with possible a third person what are the best class combinations and why. Thanks Hayliam

--Hayliam 19:37, 29 December 2006 (EST)

pally + mage. Pally with BoSacrifice can't be crowd controlled. Mage has the best crowd control in the game. Replace pally for priest is fine if the enemy doesn't have sheep. Replace mage with lock is fine too. Locks can't crowd control and blink, but otherwise is better against certain combos. --Voidvector 21:13, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Locks can crowd control better than mages... Fear, Seduce... oO Locks > mages also in damage nowadays and they have SoulLlink if they go for real PvP --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 05:55, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Preferences page style problems

The Preferences Page has some severe visual style problems that make it difficult to use. Backgrounds are white with white text, tabs are poorly styled. It looks like the correct stylesheet isn't being applied here. --Ziana 18:01, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Known, and we're working on sorting it out. For now, select the text to see it :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Sorting it out? We CAN'T fix it, we don't have access to the CSS and Rustak is MIA. User:Tekkub/Sig 23:52, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Perhaps some other(s) should have full administrative access to the server? I saw the delay in updating the logo mentioned elsewhere too. --Ziana 15:30, 1 January 2007 (EST)

It's kind of a cyclical problem, since we'd need Rustak in order to do that, too. Although I certainly agree. User:Montag/sig 15:32, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I don't mean to sound alarmist, but hearing about this just worries me a bit. WoWWiki has developed into a fantastic resource. I'm concerned about issues like are backups being made regularly, is the ISP bill being paid, should there be an attack on the server can anyone respond, etc. The domain name expires in 2010, so that at least isn't an immediate concern. --Ziana 15:40, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Community teams suggestion

Check out WoWWiki talk:Community teams#Rehash.21 please! -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Template:Screenshot

I was thinking of a new Todo template the other day... Something like Template:Screenshot. "Hey, you know what this article/section needs! A screenshot of the content in question! You can help WoWWiki out by taking a screenshot, converting it to JPG/PNG, uploading it, and including it in the article! See guidelines for taking screenshots for more information." // What do you think? I think... A lot of articles could be improved with a screenshot of an object or an NPC or a sub-zone or whatever. A template or todo tag like this could help us zero in on what articles need help. --Hobinheim 11:37, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Template:Elinksmob and Template:Elinksitem

As a matter of style, shouldn't the L in the word 'Links' be written in lowercase? APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 11:42, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Yes, yes it should... --Hobinheim 12:23, 31 December 2006 (EST)

The templates have since been updated. --Hobinheim 12:37, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Template:Elinksquest still has the uppercase L. --Beep2 12:46, 31 December 2006 (EST)

The template has since been updated, and I feel like testing out my new signature. --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 12:57, 31 December 2006 (EST)

So do I, but I have nothing to add to the conversation. As ever. -- [[KB|User:Kirkburn/Sig/K]] ^{< [[KB:T|User:Kirkburn/Sig/T]] · [[KB:C|User:Kirkburn/Sig/C]] >} 15:26, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Thanks for the update guys :) and on a sidenote: happy new year :). Hobinheim, I like the signature, by the way. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 16:11, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Up yours, Apollo! =) Actually, no I do like his sig's colours more, but he got them first, so I can't copy :( Happy New Year!

-- User:Kirkburn/Sig 17:35, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Template:Elinksspell. Just spotted that :P APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 06:30, 2 January 2007 (EST)

More templates!

In the spirit of making as much as possible follow the same style, I was wondering if we should turn disambig notices into a template like I did with Template:Tlink.

For example, from the Kel'Thuzad page, there's the following (emphasis added):

For information on how to defeat Kel'Thuzad in World of Warcraft, see Kel'Thuzad (tactics).

Are you looking for Kel'Thuzad's Warcraft III statistics? See Warcraft III Units.

You'll notice that the italicised parts can be interchanged easily. I've seen other formats for these in-page disambigs around, though I don't remember where. If we wanted to standarize them, we could add one of two templates (or both, to give a choice):

Template:disambig1
- ::''For information on {{{1}}}, see [[{{{2}}}]].''
- {{disambig1|how to defeat Kel'Thuzad in [[World of Warcraft]]|Kel'Thuzad (tactics)}}
Template:disambig2
- ::''Are you looking for {{{1}}}? See [[{{{2}}}]].''
- {{disambig2|Kel'Thuzad's [[Warcraft III]] statistics|Warcraft III Units}}

They'd be useful on individual pages as well as on real disambiguation pages, but it may be template-overkill. Thoughts? --Bobson 15:57, 31 December 2006 (EST)

I recently made Template:Tlink which is copying Wikipedia:Template:For. I haven't got the time to use it yet. But it is a disambiguation template as you described. --Voidvector 16:42, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Good work! -- User:Kirkburn/Sig 17:38, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Cool! --Bobson 16:21, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I think I drank too much... hic!

Shorry guysh... at leasht I didn't throw up all over the wiki... hic! User:Tekkub/Sig 01:04, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Don't make me set the dogs on you. Off with ye!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:11, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Wiikkiiii goooonneee craaaazeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ...hic! --Tinker er 06:48, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Format For Zones...

I just started to edit here in WoWwiki and noticed that the Quest area's in the Zones had differnt formats Mulgore and Durotar seem to be in a Quest guide type format but Ashenvale (what I've been working on) just has a List of quests. Basically I'm just wondering which way is the standard method I personally just like the Quests to be listed and wouldn't mind a link to a area guide at the top of the Quest list. My Thought is the Guide just makes the Page look to crowded. Anyway.. Just wonder what is the standard format. --Yelmurc 18:08, 1 January 2007 (EST)

I'm probably most at fault for that. I like writing quest guides, mainly because I hate walking around. Sometimes two quests can be done at the same time, and you'd never know that without the aid of a guide. I favor an annotated list versus a straight up list lik the one in Ashenvale, but I realize my format makes it look crowded. I've thought of forking out all my quest guide contributes into seperate pages, especially since they're very POV; maybe you disagree with my play style. I'm completely open to suggestions, leaning towards whatever makes the zone articles look cleaner.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 20:07, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Well Personally I'm not sure if its just me but I do think there is a need for a walkthrough style guide thats easy to find I just don't think it should be on the main page for the Zone. I'd rather just see a List there. But I do think we need walkthrough type guides and I won't have a problem if the Guide is the first link on the quest section. But thats just me.

--Yelmurc 1 January 2007 (EST)

I've been going over some zones lately and "improving" the quest listings by adding missing quests and providing links to thottbot. When looking at a zone, I really just want a list of which quests are available there, to make sure I haven't missed any. A very quick line about what the quest needs you to do is also handy, and I've added it on some quests, but it can quickly get cluttered on smaller display sizes so not quite sure if I should keep doing it. As for walkthrough format on quests, maybe have a separate article called "Questing in Zonename" linked from the start of the Quests section for that zone? --Tarkeel 05:44, 12 January 2007 (EST)

I'd ask that we not at TB links via the questtb template... Like... We should emphasize the fact that we have our own articles. And TB links should only be included inside the quest article itself, not in links to the article on other pages. --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 07:09, 12 January 2007 (EST)

I would agree, but many quests don't have an article here, and those that do usually don't say much more then the in-game questlog. I personally like the elegant way that allakhazam and thottbot links are handled in the links. If i want nice and elegant data, I use the wiki, but if what I'm interested in is the raw stats behind it, I go to tb. Thats my opinion atleast :) --Tarkeel 02:35, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Spelling mistake on front page

There are two spelling mistakes on the front page of WoWwiki.

Shtarted in 2004, WoWWiki.com now hash over 21,002 articlesh.

    ^                                                   ^
  Here                                               and here

--Thrax 20:42, 1 January 2007 (EST)

AGI=1% crit at level 70

How much agi do you need to get 1% crit at level 70? 20 is needed at level 60... --Colinstu 22:49, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Best place to ask would be on the Attributes talk page. Could also be incorporated into the article. User:Montag/sig 20:41, 2 January 2007 (EST)

I posted a response there; mathheads please review. Luci 09:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Swords v Daggers

My character recently obtained the dual wield capability. I can't decide whether to have two swords or a dagger in off-hand and a sword in main.

I have noticed that the amount of DPS done by swords and daggers is roughly the same and this begs the question 'why should I bother with a sword'? Someone once told me that although a sword and a dagger might have exactly the same stat's, the sword will do more damage due to extra bonuses that swords get. Is this true?

P.s. I'm aware that daggers have a greater speed than swords but that's not why I'm asking this question. Fundamentally I'm asking whether swords have a different formula or different bonuses than daggers.

--Cdfreelancer 02:19, 2 January 2007 (EST)

I don't claim to know all the advantages of one over the other, but there's a few I know of off hand, and they're mostly concerned with instant attacks. Since there's very few abilities which give you an instant attack with the off hand (

[Stormstrike] and

[Mutilate] are the only two I know of), it's less of an issue for the offhand weapon than the main hand.

Daggers use a 1.7 speed multiplier for instant attacks, swords use a 2.4
Daggers are usually faster for the same DPS, and thus have less base damage for instant attack calculations (conversely, a +damage enchant might help them more)
My impression is that swords usually have better stats and/or procs

Anyone else want to chime in? Is there enough material to make a whole page? --Bobson 07:59, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Unless swords use a different formula then surely daggers must be the better choice as they are faster? I've been checking in the auction house and both daggers and swords of a comparable level appear to have roughly the same stats. --Cdfreelancer 21:59, 2 January 2007 (EST)

I think the general rule of thumb is daggers are faster and have more even damage output; swords are slow but hit big so have burstier damage. It may also depend on your class; for example, Rogues have a whole bunch of skills that are dagger-specific. Swords vs daggers is one of the great Rogue debates (though itemization and talents seem to be swinging the pendulum back towards Daggers at the moment) Luci 09:21, 3 January 2007 (EST)

That's always the question - speed vs. damage. A crit from a sword will hurt more than a crit from a dagger, but the dagger will crit more often (more attacks -> more crits). If you have on-crit abilities, like

[Flurry] and

[Unleashed Rage], or on-hit abilites like

[Shamanistic Rage] or

[Windfury], you may want to go with more hits/crits. If you have instant attack abilities like

[Windfury] and

[Stormstrike], you may want a weapon which does more on those hits. I don't think rogues have any on-crit abilities, but their poisons are all on-hit. They have a lot of instant attacks too, including

[Sinister Strike]. Best thing to do would probably be to get a fight DPS meter and a sword and a dagger that are roughly equivalent, then go see how it works for you. --Bobson 10:21, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I know a lot of rogues will go swords while leveling up. The reason for this is that there are a lot more good swords out there in the mid levels than daggers. Once rogues hit the cap, they'll often switch to daggers since there are quite a few good high level daggers plus they can use more of their abilities. - ClydeJr 12:17, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Its a big debate among rogues. Swords V.S. Daggers!! From my in game experience, they both have their uses. Swords is DEFFINATLY the better lvling spec, seeing has how you don't get a good dagger move unless you stealth every time, or are behind your target. When I lvl rogues, I don't bother with steathing until 20-22. (Minus sneaking for a quick quest) Daggers is the stronger PvP spec, 2-3k ambush on clothies seems to have a bigger impact rather than a 4sec CS stun. When Raiding, Either is a viable spec, both bring dif things to the table, and both put out huge dmg. Whatever you feel comfortable with at a raiding lvl is the best spec for you. If your happy with your spec, and can remain attentive/have fun during raids, You'll do more dmg than the bored rogue who doesn't want to be there. Thats why guilds requiring classes to spec a certain way is SOO stupid!!!!!(Minus the MT of the guild, sorry bro you MUST be prot)

MediaWiki Markup

Does anyone know of an editor with MediaWiki Markup syntax highlighting? Kate's seems to trip up on some symbols. --Amro 03:59, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Discussion on featured articles

WoWWiki talk:Featured articles. Please share your thoughts.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 06:22, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Icon!

Yup, it's changed. Three cheers for Rustak!

See people, this is why the IRC channel rocks! He's back from a holiday and says he'll try and do some other stuff soon. -- User:Kirkburn/Sig 20:30, 2 January 2007 (EST)

I think getting the CSS wiki pages working is his next priority *grin* User:Tekkub/Sig 21:00, 2 January 2007 (EST)

If he does, consider this temporary category: Category:Pages needing margin removal. Along with maybe Template:Tlink. User:Montag/sig 21:02, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Stub/NPC vs. Stub/Mob

Link to my unanswered stub-policy question: WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Stub#Stub/NPC vs. Stub/Mob. --Beep2 10:12, 3 January 2007 (EST)

What would you like botted?

One day, soon, maybe... I'll be launching a bot to roam unassisted to demote all instances of the first level heading (the one that looks = Like This = ) in articles, as per an earlier discussion we had about the fact that we shouldn't use them. The bot won't touch guild and fan site articles, unless you want it to... Anyway, my question was, did you have any other requests for really, really common tasks you feel you want botted. Don't mention converting honor token templates, that's already on my list. --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 16:25, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Double redirects, misspellings, links to Thottbot/Alla/Wowhead when internal links available, category merges. --Voidvector 16:52, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Item/Quest link formating. --Voidvector 17:29, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Auto-correcting Category assignments? Example, if the Weaponpage is a Mace, check is Category Waepons & Maces are tagged? --Dracomage 16:54, 3 January 2007 (EST)

If the Weapon is a mace, is should not be in Category:Weapons since Category:Maces is a subcategory of Weapons. --Adys (talk · contr) 19:39, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Aye. it'd be silly to stick items in 1000 categories, just because they fit in all of them. while. a dagger is a weapon as well as a one handed weapon. doesn't mean it should fit go in all 3 of those categories ( as sometimes happens ). User:CrazyJack/Sig 02:52, 4 January 2007 (EST)

If you do demote any = = headers, make sure to check to see if there's any 2nd level (or lower) headers on the page and demote them all equally. Otherwise, it could mess up the TOC boxes. --Bobson 07:11, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Your bot broke any headings which had "<font color=" in them. I'm about to fix Warcraft II Units, but you might want to check to see what other pages got affected. --Bobson 14:01, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Jennala, Elunaia and Hanalee

Can anyone tell me about Jennala, Elunaia and Hanalee? They are relate to the High Elves. The key of three moons is made from them. --0998042 02:17, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Class Quests

I just wanted to know if there is a reason the class pages do not have a link on them to lead you to their class quests.--Yelmurc 11:31, 4 January 2007 (EST)

No reason. Add it if you like. User:Montag/sig 11:40, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Manual of Style

I've put a Manual of Style up for discussion as a proposed guideline. I'd like to emphasize that I'm not suggesting that the content as it is now be adopted; it's just my individual opinions on what makes an article look good. Rather, what exists now can be used as a starting point for community discussion and the development of a style guide through consensus.--Aeleas 15:32, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I love it! Would be greated to have this linked in both the editing help, and maybe right from the edit pages. --Ziana 17:55, 4 January 2007 (EST)

'Special' page beautifying!

You may have notice several mediawiki/special pages getting a bit of a facelift recently. It's me :)

Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements or know of other pages to fix up? Tell me here! -- User:Kirkburn/Sig 15:37, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Subpages Guideline?

Wondering if one of the admins or someone who's been here a while could add some info to WoWWiki:Subpages? Currently in a discussion with someone else regarding the Server:Silver_Hand page, and whether it's better to have content on one main page, or break it into subpages. --Ziana 17:56, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I put my comments on [[Talk:Server:Silver Hand#One page or subpages|Talk:Server:Silver Hand]]. Edit: Going to work on WoWWiki:Subpages sometime in the future. User:Montag/sig 12:29, 5 January 2007 (EST)

I've put a little work into WoWWiki:Subpages, but more is needed :) -- User:Kirkburn/Sig 17:32, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Hunters Mend Pet

How much does +healing gear effect the Hunter spell Mend Pet? I know it does, but haven't been able test it very well. I use my Boar to tank 5 mans, and wanna get my Mend Pet ticking for like 5-600 (I've gotten it up to about 300) User:Fusk/sig16:53, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Unless you are plan to tank in a raid, it is not worth it. I haven't done any research but I can bet with fair certainty that any healer class would be able to have better mana efficiency or time efficiency with their heals than Mend Pet. In addition, you won't be able to shoot while mending pet, in a 5-man group, that would be a huge loss of damage output.

That said, you can calculate how much more heal you are getting from +heal equipments. Remove all equipment, see what is the base heal per tick for Mend Pet. Then put on your equipments, see how much you have improved. Count all the +heal you have from your equipments. Divide the improvement over the +heal you have, and you would get the Mend Pet coefficient. --Voidvector 22:37, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Anyway, to answer your question, since Mend Pet is a channelled spell that lasts 5 seconds, it will receive a 42.86% (rounded up) bonus. So if you have +100 healing, your heals would tick for (1225+42,86)/5=253,57 per tick :) (Double check requested ;)) --Jeoh 03:46, 7 January 2007 (EST)

My cat tanked Broodlord for about 6 sec, only cuz he didn't get healz. And with my Boar, I've been able to tank MC trash fairly easy. Just the constant stream from Mend Pet helps the healers. Thanks for the info, I'll have to test it out. User:Fusk/sig15:41, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Renaming a page?

I'm rusty, sorry. I managed to categorize Raid/LootRow but realize it should be named "Template:" and I've forgotten how to change page names / don't trust myself to do so without screwing something up. In addition, there may already be an existing template which will serve better, but this is not something in which I'm wildly expert so I thought I'd kick it up to all y'all smart people. The template is used exclusively in Karazhan Loot. Luci 20:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Use a redirect? I did that w/ some of my T4 pages. --Colinstu 01:35, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Would that work with included templates? I assumed not, but then again what do I know. Luci 02:30, 6 January 2007 (EST)

I did manage to move Thorm Skywatcher to User:TheMonkeyKing/Thorm Skywatcher, citing the WW:NAME policy, so I have at least figured that one out. Templates are... just not something I'm comfortable with slinging around as easily. Luci 03:18, 6 January 2007 (EST)

There are several solutions to your problem. The first would be to write a ":" in your template link. (Behind the {{ but before the actual link) This will have the same effect as a normal template, but due to the ":" it will not put template: in front of it. Other way is to use the move button on top of the article and move it to the new page. Make sure that there isn't already an existing template on the page you want it to be. Hope this helped --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 05:46, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Nice looking server articles

I know you guys were looking for nice looking server articles for PR, or something like that. Server:Mal'Ganis US is a nice one. Beautification work done by Gryphon. It's more complex than most server articles should be, but it's damn pretty. User:Montag/sig 22:27, 6 January 2007 (EST)

It is damn pretty :) --Colinstu 11:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Myeah, I'm probably going to take that one for the looks, though it just has the most basic of all content, that's what saddens me a bit ^^ But, I'll just work with several Server pages I guess. --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 12:13, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I could see incorperating some elements into many server articles, but certainly not all. I'd certainly rather see a wiki page rather than a full table-defined structure. User:Montag/sig 17:12, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Where do Book items in game go?

Before I go off on a cat tangent, which is not my job and I'm notorious for doing it wrong lol, I'd like to bring up the question of where In-Game books that cannot be read should be placed? For example, I'm currently adding wowbox templates to novels and written sources, and going through the Books category I keep running into books such as [Garona: A Study on Stealth and Treachery] which aren't quite in-game books as it cannot be read, but they're not real books either.

So I was just wondering what the qualification of the Book category is, whether its real life books or any book relating to Warcraft that doesn't qualify as an In-Game book. Thanks in advance! --Magnus 16:03, 7 January 2007 (EST)

is 2.0 considered BC?

2.0 included a lot of stuff that was initially promised for BC, such as the reworked honor system, redone talents, etc. Is that content considered "BC"? I mean, you don't have to have bought the expansion to have the new talents. Just wondering whether there is a general rule of thumb on whether things like [Combat Potency] should be included in Category:Burning Crusade. Obviously things like Blood elf are definitively on the BC side, but there is kind of a middle area of things that are in-game now. --Luci 20:36, 7 January 2007 (EST)

By my books, talents are not BC content, since it is already available. However, some stuff are borderline, e.g. Arena, which is already available but its ranking and reward system are not. --Voidvector 20:55, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Only major content that is exclusively available to those with TBC should get the Template:Tlink template. -- User:Kirkburn/Sig 22:19, 7 January 2007 (EST)

This brings up two interesting questions. If an item is found in Outland, can it be traded to someone without a Burning Crusade account? And two, if a treant falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 23:17, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Regarding your first question, this should answer it. Regarding the 2nd question, because no one is there, the server won't even populate the treant. =) --Voidvector 23:51, 7 January 2007 (EST)

And for practical purposes, anything that someone could not go and get or do by themselves without purchasing BC should get the BC tag, even if it can be traded to people who don't have BC. User:Montag/sig 01:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Just saw this, and dicussed it in the chat briefly before. If it is viewable and usuable by a non-BC player, it is not BC only content. The article would still have relevance and great importance to those without BC and still accesable by them. Theoreticall, no article is ever BC only, but parts of an article can be. This was part of a dicussion on the difference between article and inline templates. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 21:45, 10 January 2007 (EST)

This is why I suggest it is only used for (major) articles like Zangarmarsh, Shattrath, etc... User:Kirkburn/Sig 22:04, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Realms (Server) page out dated

The last update to the pasge was August 2006. Since then a load of new servers have been added to the Realm list. Could I ask that the people that perform the maintenance on this page update it? Thank you. --Dracomage 06:52, 8 January 2007 (EST)

You could always, you know, update it yourself...

--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 07:31, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I would, but had limited time to devote to helping the Wiki past couple of weeks. I hope to return soon. --Dracomage 10:00, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Speculation

Can we make sure that all speculation is clearly marked with Template:Tlink. I've just had several high-profile instances pointed out to me (on the radio!) where speculation was not clearly marked and had become part of the main article. This will not do. If we are to be respected as a good source of info, opinions must be marked as such with no exceptions. Do not forget to use Template:Tlink as well! Thanks, User:Kirkburn/Sig 21:34, 8 January 2007 (EST)

It is not an easy line to draw. For example in Origin of the Races, it is a known fact that most if not all trolls descended from the Zandalar trolls. While the theory elves descended from trolls is a speculation that was created by Blizzard[1]. --Voidvector 22:16, 8 January 2007 (EST)

And while most inspiration sections in lore articles have a certain amount of ambiguity in them, others don't. You can't mark the Wyvern or Naga inspiration sections as speculation, because those are either discussed or directly copied, but you can apply the tag to dwarves and elves. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:47, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I disagree one that point. The word "inspiration" indicates that the one is inspired from the other. Since the comparison is with real life counterpart, it is obviously the text is trying to say real-life element inspired Warcraft element.

I agree with the resemblance in most cases. However, unless Metzen/Blizzard come out and say "I thought about (insert real-life stuff) when I created (insert Warcraft race)." We have no way of proofing the inspiration (hence by definition it's speculation on part of the fans). The best we can do is show the similarities. If we were to keep that section, I recommended changing the name on the ground that the word "inspiration" is misleading. --Voidvector 00:18, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I don't think it's that hard of a line to draw, if we develop some standards. To me the question is, "What can I cite this claim to?" If the answer is, "Nothing," it's speculation.

I wouldn't consider discussing uncertain lore to be speculation. There are various competing theories expressed in the lore regarding racial origins, but those theories can simply be described and cited. "According to night elf beliefs, they are descended from EluneTemplate:Cite, while certain sources suggest they evolved from trollsTemplate:Cite." A chart merely needs to clarify which theory it is illustrating.

Speculation comes into the picture where we have theories that have no official source, for example (as far as I know) "gnomes may be descended from mountain giants". To me, in a complex article like Origin of the Races, the competing official versions are complex enough without any fan-made theories.

I'd consider Old Gods and Old Gods speculation an example of where the practice of separating speculation from official lore is working well. We have a strong, clean article on a complex topic. Where the lore is contradictory, the various sources are described. All speculation is relegated to a single line in the "See also" section. (The fact that Old Gods speculation is something of a mess just demonstrates how unmanageable speculative articles inherently are, IMO. On what basis do you judge the likeliness of someone else's theory?)

WW:LORE recommends that speculation be placed in a separate article, but allows it in separate sections of the main article. That could probably be strengthened, to disallow all speculation in main articles. It tends to creep from it's section into the intro, into the infobox, and before you know it, it's a full-blown infestation.[2]

Of course, there is no way to separate the chaff from the wheat, the speculation from the official information, without just about everything in an article being cited.--Aeleas 00:13, 9 January 2007 (EST)

There is no problem with speculation being in the main article when correctly displayed under a seperate heading (no you don;t need to go round citing every thing to show it as fact, it's all fact except when otherwise noted). This is lacking in many articles, and recent realization brought to his attention is why Kirkburn he has brought this up. Speculation has been slipping into history sections etc. It's very easy to draw the line between official lore (with in-universe and official speculation), and speculation from fans. There is never a reason for this to become blurred. Any place where speculation is not clearly marked is essentially false information and should be treated as such. Speculation details however do need to be moved off page where needed. Preferablly a sub-page about the theory itself, and the talk page used to discuss it's validity, is what should be aimed for. Origin of the Races, as i've pointed out in its talk page, is an awful article. It should not be used as an example of speculation gone awry, but wiki articles gone very wrong. Old God Speculation is an article that's taking the road of Origin of the Races fast.. there are so many conflicting theories going on there and random peices of lore, that it's a complete mess. Those theories need their own pages and properly explained so the page is understandable and has a reason for existing. What's the point of stating theory if you're not going to explain it for people to understand it? --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 04:54, 9 January 2007 (EST)

We were on the radio? Cool! --Bobson 08:35, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Yes and I was (unfairly) insulted live on air. Not best pleased was I, hence my above comment. Zeal has the right of it - when people scan-read articles, anything that's in a 'factual' area will be taken to be true because of where it was. This has lead to people believing that we're a bad source for info ... despite all the examples I was pointed to already saying they were speculation! User:Kirkburn/Sig 09:50, 9 January 2007 (EST)

The only way that a wiki can generate any sort of confidence in the reader is by making extensive use of citation in every article. Unless I can see where the info in an article came from to confirm it, I am going to disregard it as unreliable, as should anyone reading a wiki.

In practical terms, without extensive citation, unless an editor has a perfect and complete recall of the content of all official sources, he or she isn't going to be able to distinguish between situations like "night elves evolved from trolls" and "gnomes evolved from mountain giants" unless one is cited and the other isn't.

As I said earlier I agree that Old Gods speculation is in a terrible state. Revise it, add subpages, but personally I think speculation articles and sections naturally devolve into that sort of chaos, with theories, counter-theories, and objections constantly being added. I think a lot of editors are turned off by the prospect of trying to regulate someone else's opinions, and readers by reading them. Keeping a main article completely speculation-free sets a clear, higher standard, and improves the likelihood someone will be encouraged to both read and improve an article.--Aeleas 11:01, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Citation is honestly the worst idea ever imo (especially as most of it is paraphased, taken out of context or misinterpreted so you're not actually citing true information). Yes all sources for what is said in the article should be listed, but citaing every quote and peice of information in an article is not only imposible, but messy. When you get to that level, you'll find you're breaking copyright laws with the amount of information you're having to quote directly just for "confidence", which is ridiculous. The reverse, is no citation, no sources, no quotes, so people consider it false information and unrelialbe. Neither are desirable.

It's better to simply have the most obvious approach for the reader. Everything factual on the page except under the speuclation section, sources (as categories imo) given for the entire page, and speculation with off links under it's own section on the page. I don't agree speculation should be removed from articles, it's clear enough to just say they exist under a speculation header. It's the theories themselves that belong on other pages, they should be linked to. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 22:34, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I agree that speculation should definitely be contained as much as possible. Articles are resources and should be kept up-to-date and tidy. However, I also agree with Aeleas that it's nearly impossible to regulate the multitude of theories and opinions that crop up -- not just with giving each opinion its own equal voice, but also in regulating the emotions that go along with it. (People hold pretty tightly do their pet theories.) I think most, if not all, additions to speculation pages should go on the talk page first. Theories are only ever useful if they're well developed. I'd rather not have any hard and fast rules for that sort of thing, like requiring an okay from an admin or something ridiculous, but I'd definitely suggest a guideline that substantive additions to speculative pages require a discussion first. P.S. I like citations, personally. Primary sources ftw. User:Montag/sig 00:40, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Just to clarify myself, Talk:Origin_of_the_Races#Purpose were i've talked about how speculation should really be handled. It means they're managed easily and without effecting the relevent articles intergrity. If someone feels strongly about a theory, they should be able to write up and article on to explain their theory. Let the community then decide if it's valid. Linking to it as speculation doesn't damage the main article in any way, but allows such theorizing and speculation to still take place. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 00:51, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Copyright hasn't been much of an issue on this wiki, though perhaps it should be. Since our entire content consists of information from Blizzard sources, good citation would be a critical component of establishing fair use. (I'm assuming the wiki servers fall under US law).

Citation is not the same as quotation. Citation is giving the source of a piece of information, like so.Template:Cite To the extent that we do use verbatim quotes from official material, citation is obviously required to avoid plagiarism. But even where we are not using the original wording, the reproduction of specific aspects of Blizzard's works, such as character descriptions and storylines, should still be well-cited.--Aeleas 02:33, 10 January 2007 (EST)

I know it's not. Thing i was trying to get through, is citation doesn't work, and why quotation is better, but not posible. It's more common than you think, to cite something which actually is an interpretation of what is said, not what is actually said (which can usually only be maintained by a direct quote). That is providing false information as fact, and it has the potential to change things greatly. Why i favour 'sourcing' over citation, and why i hate copyright laws.. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 02:50, 10 January 2007 (EST)

What you describe is, in my experience, a problem with the lack of citation, not the use of it. Without citation, loose interpretation and faulty information remains in the article, but is harder to identify, and it is extremely difficult to find the original source to correct it. With long and complex articles pulling from half a dozen different sources, editors lose the ability to identify and correct errors, misleading statements, speculation, and editor POV. It's only if a statement is cited that an editor can verify that the statement is a correct and accurate reflection of what is stated in the source.

I think this is a problem that becomes more apparent the longer one spends here, and watches the way some articles evolve, a few devolve, and some stagnate.--Aeleas 11:00, 10 January 2007 (EST)

I can only assume you misunderstand me, i can't exaplin it much better. Citation gets plonked on the end of interpretation resulting in false information. Eventually this gets checked and you see quotes used instead, to make sure terms and other things are accurate. Then you realize, the page looks like an overly cited mess of quotes. That's how i've seen it evolve on the wiki, and that is how citation always ends up. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 18:57, 10 January 2007 (EST)

But without citation, how does the false information get checked at all? How could I, for example, verify whether or not Garona's last name really is "Halforcen" if it isn't cited?--Aeleas 22:36, 10 January 2007 (EST)

I've talked this through with Kirkburn after recent events i wasn't happy about being sparks from poor citations. He understood where i was coming form and i beleive agreed with me on the matter. Basically, only quotes should be cited. Any paraphasing or interpretations should be refrenced (i was calling it sourced if it helps clear up everything i said previous). Ideally, in the future, this will be through the refrencing module, but for now, a refrence section with a list of the sources used on the page. Only important and key things should ever need cited this way and they must be 100% correct and be a quote to receive a citation. Where as refrences should strive to be as accurate as they can, without neeeding quotes, and provide a source for users to check the finer details themselves. Generally any web source would be more easily refrenced than cited, where as products would be best cited where needed and refrenced where not. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 22:46, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Google ads and wow hacks

Google ads selling gold, power leveling and hack software. Is this something you intended to be advertised here?

I was just reading some pages in here as was quite disapointed to see links to WoW Hacks exploits and WoW Glider.

If you are not indending displaying these kinds of ads suggest you filter them out of your google adsense. --Mehuge 11:06, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Gernally this is why Blizzard don't accept fan-sites with Google ads, you can filter them out, but there are new ones you miss added constantly. Can't really do much about it other than continue to retroactively filter them out when they appear. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 22:21, 9 January 2007 (EST)

User Page Allowed Content?

I did some searching, but did not find anything which answers my question, so here you go. What is allowed/not allowed on our own USER page. Can I list things which I find useful, such as my preferred talent trees, strategies, etc? A (non-wiki-linked) list of the characters I have? Would I basically give an overview on the User page and add that type of content to my User Talk page? Just wanted to verify what's proper before I did anything. Thanks.

--Recluse 07:36, 10 January 2007 (EST)

You can put anything you want that doesn't violate policy (i.e. links to gold sellers, links you get paid for, datamined images, bug exploits...) onto your own user page. The talk page is more for people to discuss changes you've made or want to make, or for getting in touch with you. My impression is that it's bad form to edit someone else's user page, but their talk page is fair game (and generates a notice on the top of every page they load until you go look at it). --Bobson 08:03, 10 January 2007 (EST)

As for editing others' user pages, I don't think you even can - Haven't tried, of course, but on Wikipedia, for example, you don't get the option to - but that could be in the MediaWiki's config files, not sure. Thanks for the other info there about what content I can have.--Recluse 08:50, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Nope, not protected here. I just "defaced" your user page ;) --Bobson 09:01, 10 January 2007 (EST)

A lot of the user pages have move locks so you can't move them to something else (helps in cases of vandalism). I'm pretty sure my user page can't be moved by anyone but an admin. I think most of the admins (like Kirkburn) have their pages edit locked as well. - ClydeJr 11:02, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Copyright policy

I've put a draft policy for discussion (another one!) at WoWWiki:Policy/Copyright. The above discussion on speculation in articles got me thinking about the subject, and the more I thought, the more concerned I became, since this isn't a topic in which we want to attract Blizzard's attention. Have a look, and after some discussion, it can be put up for a vote.--Aeleas 13:55, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Post-patch updating

I had a thought - whenever Blizzard releases a big patch that changes a bunch of things (any 2.x patch, and this most recent 2.0.3 patch, for examples), a lot of information goes out of date, and it takes a little while until it's cought up. Maybe we should have a banner we can add to pages quickly to say they have information invalidated by the newest patch and are awaiting updating? Sure, it'd be better to just make the changes, but the changes aren't always easy and/or fast and/or obvious at first. Adding a little "See the patch notes for changes" banner could be useful. --Bobson 15:30, 10 January 2007 (EST)

You would suggest using Template:Tlink, though the template may require some editing to make it 'fit' better. Good idea, however. Too many templates spoils the broth. User:Kirkburn/Sig 20:52, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Raiding

Welp, the cap is rising to 70. I dunno if this is the right place to ask, but what's going to happen to onyxia and naxx? All that good stuff. Is it all gonna be BoE and will be farmed easily once a week? Or are they just going to be abandoned? Personally I'll still want Dreadnaught, if only for looks. :) --Kwertz0r 01:54, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Since the Village Pump is more for discussion about the wiki, this isn't the best place to ask. I'd suggest doing some research on the forums or posting on the general forum. However, your best bet might just be to ask friends whose opinions you respect, because everyone's going to have a different answer to that. User:Montag/sig 02:27, 11 January 2007 (EST)

From what I've read, tier 1 items will start being replaced right away in level 61-62. Tier 2 gear can last until around the mid-60s. Tier 3 can last all the way up until 70. We might even see an increase of raiding in places like Blackwing Lair and Naxxramas due to the fact that a lot of smaller, less hardcore guilds can tackle them with higher level characters. Speaking from personal experience, my guild has only made it halfway through the Molten Core due to the fact that we have problems filling out an entire 40 man raid. I can't wait to get to higher levels so we won't need as many people. - ClydeJr 10:11, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Of course, if you've spent all the time to aquire all of a given set (especially 0.5), you may want to hold onto it for the set bonuses even if something marginally better individually comes along. And keeping in mind the usual difference between green and blue items, there shouldn't be anyone replacing any Tier gear with random greens until they hit 64 or so. Quest rewards and new instance drops are a different story, of course. On the other hand, I haven't looked at any of the items so it's quite possible that a 61-green is equivalent to a 59-blue (instead of a 50-blue). --Bobson 11:00, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Blizzard clearly stated that they do not want to see the current raid dungeons to become farming places for 10-man grps, so they made the bosses match their level to the level of the highest player in the raid.--FallingDown 11:09, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Source it and I believe you. Otherwise to me your information is false, as Blizzard stated otherwise last time I've checked. Current instances will NOT be touched. --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 14:18, 12 January 2007 (EST)

I don't have a source, but Blizzard has stated that current instances will be left alone. They're planning on using the Heroic difficulty level to encourage players at 70 to go back to old raids and get 70-level epics. User:Montag/sig 15:56, 12 January 2007 (EST)

I'm pretty sure about that. I either read it on one of the news-sites or the blizz forums. I'm searching for it right now, unfortunately blizz disabled the text search for their forums so it might take a while. --FallingDown 00:26, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Sorry about posting this at the top, and thanks for the input. I'll ask around and see what others will be doing as well. Seems as if some would do it with 60's still if only for nostalgia. :) But I dunno. --Kwertz0r 04:18, 13 January 2007 (EST)

From what I understand, raid bosses act as (player level)+3 for the purposes of hit table generation. That means that regardless of your level, the hit/crit/miss/glancing/cruching and spell resist rates will be the same (eg you won't avoid crushing blows or spells just by being higher level). However the bosses will still have the same number of hitpoints as they do now, and hit for the same amount, whereas you'll have significantly more hitpoints and hit much harder, making the bosses easier. --Karrion 18:15, 14 January 2007 (EST)

If anyone has any blue/official links for this information I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. Karrion's info seems to be the general consensus on the Raids & Dungeons forum, but I've yet to see where it comes from? --Anaea 09:24, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I see the new armor sets, but missed on

I see that someone added the new dungeon sets and the rest of T5, but one is still missing... Grand Marshal armor (or High warlord for you horde I guess). It is not the arena armor.... arena and gm is different specs. BCspy's site has the gm specs, they also had the gm armor vendor in SW for like a day on the PTR. --Colinstu 18:13, 11 January 2007 (EST)

We know, however, if you feel like it, try making a similar page to what we made (with the right information, posting false information will most likely get you banned) If you do that, we'll make sure it looks nice. The wowwiki supports on everyone visiting it, if you make 1 small change once in a while, then everyone is already happy ^^ Either way, we'll get to it :) --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 05:03, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Is there a way to me to make copies of multiple pages and change some things (names)? Who ever made the T5 pages just copied all the info from T4 and changed the names (stats not yet). Is there a way I can do that with a couple clicks vs, make a new page, new window, ctrl+a, ctrl+c, back to new page, ctrl+v? It takes forever to do that. --Colinstu 16:22, 12 January 2007 (EST)

You could do your editing off-line and copy a text-file as a model for the pages you want to create. Then you can just paste the contents into each new page. Not sure if that's exactly what you're going for. User:Montag/sig 19:02, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Article move

I am trying to move all the Blizzard employee articles to their real name (if known). However, there are a few which I can't because the destination pages had prior content but was later converted into a redirect. (Shane Dabiri and Tom Chilton) Need admin help on those. --Voidvector 23:25, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Sorted! User:Kirkburn/Sig 11:48, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Much thanks --Voidvector 17:10, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Should I go with Fire, Frost, or Arcane?

I'm a mage and I have been saving my talent points so I can go with just one talent. So, the question I am asking is which talent should I go with Fire, Frost, or Arcane? --Candris 11:57, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Official Mage Forums. They can help you. --Sky2042 00:27, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Alliance Arcane Magic Use: In the context of the Blood Elves

With the addition of the Blood Elves to the Horde, there has been an intense focus, which stems an intense hatred for the Blood Elves on the basis of their use of Arcane Magics. While its been well documented that the Blood Elves are extremely interested in Arcane Magic, and some would say completely addicted, the reaction to the Blood Elves seems a little off base when the other races using Arcane Magic are looked at.

Specifically I am talking about the relationship between the Night Elves and Humans (Gnomes would fit in with Humans as well). I do not understand, from a lore basis, why the Night Elves don't explicitly look down upon Humans for their reckless use of Arcane Magic, which in the past has drawn the Burning Legion back to Azeroth. Everyone picks on the Blood Elves because they are "reckless" with their Arcane Magic, but it seems to me that there are other races belonging to the Alliance that are not looked down upon.

If anyone would have anything to add as to why this is such, I would greatly be appreciative of hearing about it. I'm new to the in-depth lore discussions, and only recently have been completely enthralled with the Blood Elves. Personally I'm trying to form the basis of why the Blood Elves are merely the "picked on" race, the downtrodden member of the greater Azerothian "family", that are necessary sometimes but normally deemed unworthy, just as Illidan is in my opinion.

--CodyJ1286 06:36, 14 January 2007 (EST)

The depth of the hatred stems from when Night Elf elitist Highborne, led by Azshara, were the first to become careless with their use of magic. Azshara's high councilor Xavius, directed them in tapping into the Well of Eternity and thus attracting the attention of the Burning Legion; thus bring wrath and devistation upon the Night Elves. The Highborne had already created a rift between themselves and the common Night Elves, but their hand in the Legion's invasion sealed that divide; their deep addiction to the magic that nearly detroyed thier world was a final staw that the rest of the Night Elves could not tollerate. The surviving Highborne left the Night Elves, migrating to Lordaeron, and over time became the High Elves.

Years of change seem to have increased the Night Elves tolerances, but that memory of what the High Elves once were, and what they did cannot be forgiven. They essentially see Human's and Gnome's use of the arcane arts, as just that, a use; but the High Elves are additcted and viewed as a danger because of the things they are willing to do for that addiction.

Also keep in mind that Blizzard is trying to wrap the lore around game functionality and playability.

--Bao 09:00, 14 January 2007 (MST)

I think the difference really stems from their use of magic. Just like any other tool (... that can potentially attract horrible demons) magic can be used or abused. Humans use magic to protect themselves, that's a very noble cause. But the Blood Elves go too far, they're downright addicted. Nothing embodies the abuse more than a quick run around their city. There's magic brooms and floating bookshelves everywhere, that's a total inappropriate use for such a dangerous power, if you ask me.

Magic is a lot like morphine, it's powerful and can be used for good... but if you take it too far it becomes harmfully addictive. It seems to me that to the Night Elves, Blood Elves are just that grandparent who is addicted to perscription drugs that noone in the family really likes. User:Tekkub/Sig 22:37, 16 January 2007 (EST)

I'm mostly with you on this, it's why Warlocks should never have been allowed for most races imo. As a race, Orcs, Humans and Gnomes do not except warlock practice (screw the weak atempt of justifying this by RFC quests, it fails to). Blood Elves and Forsaken do however, and with the Blood Elves they are very reckless even in their basic arcane use. This is why both of those races are generally considered evil races, as despite the hows and whys they became that way, they continue to follow that path. It makes very little sense for the Night Elves to condone the use of arcane from their allies, and the same goes with Horde races, it's simply ignored in WoW, some cases for the sake of allowing people to have a class availalbe to RP or for game mechanics. Basically reckless arcance use bad, good use accepted but still frowned upon by non-arance users. --User:Zeal/Sig 03:14, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Interesting pictures from WoW alpha days

I found this blog by someone who posted some pictures from WoW alpha days. Have a look. I am not gonna bother uploading them, since some of the pictures are borderline data mining or whatever. --Voidvector 21:31, 14 January 2007 (EST)

The Noggaholic team is not something WoWWiki wants to be affiliated with i'm sure, Blizzard has enough hatred towards then as it is, and i'm sure anyone who considers themselves a legitimate explorer does too. And yes, they are datamined and/or from private servers. --User:Zeal/Sig 21:45, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, please do not upload these pictures. However, despite Noggaholic's negative comments, they're actually quite interesting to look over, since old farts like me might remember the changes they mention. User:Montag/sig 09:30, 15 January 2007 (EST)

New policy vote

This one is on the lore policy, and how to handle such source as D&D creatures used in the RPG. It's located here.--Aeleas 12:14, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Resistance gear update

Template_talk:Resistlinks : posted a concept, and planning. User:CrazyJack/Sig 05:50, 17 January 2007 (EST)
- WTB Feedback some more User:CrazyJack/Sig 09:29, 19 January 2007 (EST)

What did you think?

So now that BC is out, what are everyones thoughts?

Suprizingly enough my server was stable for 80% of the day, then EVERYONE logged into Outlands and it went down hill from there.

Also, what did you do the first day? I Cleared

From questing and selling stuff I made 250g and managed to hit 62. (Was on for a strait 22 1/2 hours :) )

Also 90% of the boss fight strats on the Wiki are only partially right, some leave out MAJOR fight componets!! I plan on fixing those as more testing with my 5 man group goes on. User:Fusk/sig14:05, 17 January 2007 (EST)

What do I think? I think we have too many Draenei Shaman Jewelcrafters! *hides own draenei shaman jewelcrafter under a rock* Also, don't bother questing in Hellfire, it's too damn clusterfu**... hit Zangar or run Hellfire instances (3-4 runs and you get a level, and shots at some nice gear. User:Tekkub/Sig 03:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Getting rid of ugly templates

What do you folks think, is there anyone who agrees that templates like {{BC}} and {{TCGlore}} should go? In my honest opinion, these templates just clutter up the pages and, subsequently, make them uglier. Just a handwritten small note ("this is TCG-Lore" or "This item is not obtainable if the player does not own the Burning Crusade") in the lead section of the article would do. Why do we need big templates like that that screw the pages' layout immensely? I don't see the point in this overdone fanciness. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 15:45, 17 January 2007 (EST)

I don't mind the TCG-lore one (maybe the picture could be a little smaller, though), but I definately think the BC one gets a little annoying, especially since so many pages that have it also have a BC-stub template AND another stub template, meaning you have to scroll down quite a bit just to see the first line of the article. However, I don't think removing it is an option. Just make it smaller, or better yet, move it up by the title of the page, like the links to Wikipedia or the non-english pages. --Mikaka 15:50, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Oh, Mikaka, such a sound voice of reason, exactly the sentiment I was planning to express. There's nothing wrong with the templates (or "badges" as I like to refer to them as) if they convey the necessary information. But there is something to be said of ones that just look ugly and take up space and what not. Although I haven't figured it out yet, I was thinking maybe pages could have actual badges or miniature icons linked to pages that explain what the icon means. Sort of like a key or legend. This is lore. This is Burning Crusade. This needs a screenshot. Something still visual, but infinitely more ninja than what we have now.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 17:22, 17 January 2007 (EST)

They do take up a bit too much real estate. Personally, I'd like all the stub templates shrunk too, but have the icon replaced with a bright red, cringe-inducing, stubbed toe. However, I'm no good with graphics. --Beep2 17:34, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Ideas to steal from Wikipedia: Wikipedia stub tags are placed on the bottom of the page instead of top of the page. In addition, Wikipedia stubs are all 1-line of text with a small icon. See Wikipedia:Template:Warcraft-stub. --Voidvector 21:54, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Categories would probably work as well. if needed. but i agree the BIG tags at the top of each page need to go User:CrazyJack/Sig 02:43, 18 January 2007 (EST)

They need to go, they were always a bad idea. These things are what references are for, and that should have been the practice all along. Source headings and notes are never needed. Under my own proposal, this would be handled by categories and references, but for now references are certainly the better option --User:Zeal/Sig 02:51, 18 January 2007 (EST).

I vote for single-line with an icon, placed relative to importance (stubs are not important, at the bottom... TBC is important, at the top). For example, TBC could look like this: User:Tekkub/Sig 03:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

This content may not be available to players without The Burning Crusade installed.

I like it! Can we do that to all the templates (stub and notes)?! :D --Sky 03:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Switch to a div and i like it :P Also try this..

Note: This section concerns content exlusive to The Burning Crusade

.

--User:Zeal/Sig 03:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I like the first design - nice and clear. Stubs can't really be reduced as we need to be specific about their purpose and use for the general users. I think I agree that the stub tag should be at the bottom of a page, however. User:Kirkburn/Sig 09:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Or what about simply making a Category:Exclusive TBC content? APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 10:01, 18 January 2007 (EST)

If the stub tag gets moved to the bottom, then section-stubbing needs to be adjusted. Otherwise, it won't be clear if the tag was intended for the whole article, or just the final section. You might get: "section1 stub/A section2 stub/B" Does stub/B apply to the whole article or just section2? --Beep2 10:09, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Beep raises a really good point to consider before making any changes. Sometimes you want to stub/BC the while article, sometimes you just want to mark a section of it. If we change the templates to automatically put themselves on the top/bottom of the page, then we lose the ability to mark individual sections. If we move them to the bottom of the page, it may be unclear if the final section has a stub, or if it applies to the whole page.

I'd personally prefer to keep stub notes near the top of the page, but I wouldn't object to making them smaller and/or making some combined stub template which can compact the space needed. One graphic, one grey bar for the whole thing, text which says something like "This article has been marked as a BC stub and a quest stub. Here's info on BC, here's info on quests." Alternatively, we can make it policy to only put one stub (the most applicable) on any given page. After all, anything that's an item stub won't be a NPC stub, a Quest stub, or a location stub, but it may end up with an accuracy stub (Why? It's already a stub in need of revision) or a BC stub (Why? We already know it's a stub, and it should already be marked as BC with whatever indicator we're using for that), etc. Really, I'd suggest taking anything which is not truly a Stub (At the moment, that's just Template:Tlink and Template:Tlink) and moving it out of the stub group. Then there won't be any question of which single stub is applicable to the page. --Bobson 10:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)

No inline template should ever categorize, stubs and pratically everything else already do that, screwing things up as you've described. Why i'm trying to push the use of correctly implemented inline and article templates, so they not only appear different for users, but follow some sensible guidelines --User:Zeal/Sig 10:22, 18 January 2007 (EST)

As I recall, on Wikipedia, stub strictly refers to articles. If a sections needs to be expanded, there is the Template:Expand. Obviously, we need stub tags to encourage visitors to edit the article. But the stub tags we have now are larger than many of the article themselves. On some of the longer articles, we have issue w/"template real estate". We can only stack so many templates together before ruining the page layout. The whole issue is balancing between having good layout and asking people to contribute. --Voidvector 11:08, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Good layout.. lol that gave me a chuckle. Long way away from that sadly (Seriously, kill off WoWBox ¬_¬) Oh, and yeah.. Stub and Expand co-existing together, as article and inline templates respecitvely makes good sense. --User:Zeal/Sig 11:11, 18 January 2007 (EST)

The problem with a single expand template is that it's nice to specify what kind of expansion is needed. Does it need info on quests? Does it need info on loot? Does it need info on NPCs in the area? Sure, it's usually obvious from context, but when you're browsing the stuff-to-do pages, it won't be. Of course, we could then just come up with Expand/Quest, Expand/Item, Expand/NPC... --Bobson 20:09, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I prefer the first one, also. And I'm definitely for making it a div for better quality code. User:Montag/sig 23:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Gallery background is gross....

As evidenced by Mok'Nathal Village and the various image categories (like WoW_Icons:_Inventory), the <gallery> function has an eye sore of a background that doesn't fit in at all with the rest of Wowwiki. I'm not sure who exactly can change this, but hopefully someone who can will agree with me and get this done. I would suggest a lighter or darker shade of the background grey prevalent throughout the rest of Wowwiki. Not the most pressing of issues, of course, but it would make a useful function much better. --Mikaka 18:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

/poke Rustak... CSS? User:Tekkub/Sig 03:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Embedding Item tooltips on the Pages with the Mobs they drop off

Ok, long title, shorter question. What's with all the embedding of tooltips into articles about boss mobs (e.g. Vazruden)? It appears to be a newer thing occurring, since mobs like Ragnaros don't use that template.
I can understand the usage in a page such as Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards, but still... --Sky 00:05, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Having all the info on the page makes it much easier to see what exactly the boss drops. A name is just a bunch of words if it doesn't have any meaning behind it. In Warcraft, items get that meaning from the stats on that item. So, to get a better idea of what a boss drops, it makes sense to include those stats on the boss' page.

Unfortunately, the method we currently use to do this doesn't work very well for bosses with a great deal of loot, like raid bosses. It also doesn't look particularly good when it gets out to 5 different items or so. If someone could come up with a better method, I'm all for it, but I think what we have now works much better then a simple list of items. --Mikaka 00:21, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I can't say I agree with that opinion. Hmm... how about a simple list with the type of item it is? eg Template:Llegendary - 1h Sword, or Template:Lepic - Mage Tier 2 Chest? That way, the peruser gets an idea of the item without being bothered by all the various other items he might not need to see.
I raise this because of the fact that adding the full tooltip into the main article's page lengthens it considerably, even when you only have 1 or 2 on the list.--Sky 00:40, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Actually, I kinda like that. One of the problems with using the embedded tooltips is that they don't convey drop percentage at all, and all that info isn't really necasary for a summary. I suggest that we create some sort of item template that includes the icon, name, quality, type of weapon or armor, and a drop percentage (optional, so we can use it for quests too), with room to note any other minor details like class or tier. Embedded tooltips have their place, but I agree that maybe the boss that drops them isn't it. --Mikaka 01:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

It is possible from a development stand point to create a javascript that would automatically load another page (or portion of it) in wiki. See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups for an example. However, as far as I know WoWWiki disabled javascript. This would allow people who wish to know the stats of an item to see it without going to another page. --Voidvector 02:17, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Javascript tooltips are being worked on for the future, teomyr has made great success with them and using them with an item database. Me personally, i'm with Sky on the matter (really don't need this information in an non-item page statically), but if people so wish to include tooltips in a non-item page, then you can use Template:Tlink. It will automatically scale down and drop non-default information when not used on the item's page. I'd gladly add drop percentages in the future, but the drop percentages from item db sites are inaccurate and only based on the info they've received, so i will not personally add them until we have our own database to gather drop rates ourselves. Drop rates are generally deceiving anyways. --User:Zeal/Sig 02:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I'm half of the mind of not worrying about it until the javascript can be implemented, frankly. My idea liste would look limilar to a vendor pane, with hover-tooltips. Maybe show the droprate instead of price on mob drops in the second row. User:Tekkub/Sig 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Hmm... I like that idea. We just have to have someone make the template...--Sky 03:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)

And get the javascript installed ^^ User:Tekkub/Sig 03:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Actually, as an interim, couldn't we use boxes like you described as general links to the items, and then when the javascript gets installed, convert it to Template:Lepic like in in-game text? Hover over it, and you get it to pop up; click on it, and that takes you to the page.--Sky 03:48, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I'm for not using the tooltip at all, except on an item's page, until we get the javascript tooltips ready. Seems like more work to add them and then remove them again later, and also maintain them in the meanwhile, just for the sake of a user clicking a link to get the same info and more. But i have made Template:Tlink available to be used outside an item's page incase people feel otherwise. --User:Zeal/Sig 04:03, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I think he means can we use the vendor-style boxes, sans-tooltip. I'm for that, take a look at Quartermaster Davian Vaclav, it's what I envision, just needs prettied up a tad. Mob drops could get a "fuzzy" droprate (see below) instead of a price in the second line. User:Tekkub/Sig 07:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, that is what I meant, and I was going to post something else, but I just argued myself out of it...--Sky 22:12, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, the vendor thing was kinda what I was envisioning, with maybe a very brief summary of the item, i.e., one-hand sword, plate helmet, etc. We could put three drop rates down, one for Thottbot, one for Allakazam, and one for Wowhead, but that'd probably just get confusing. Averaging out the three drop rates also doesn't make a lot of sense, so the fuzzy drop rates looks like the best, with a 0-1% Rare category included. --Mikaka 23:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Well let me just say i dislike tekkub's implementation of this. But i also dislike the idea period. Drop tables and vendor windows really aren't something i ever want to see on an NPC page, they're static, they need to be maintained seperately (Though Tekkeub is using a method to work around this, its a horrible method imo). It's why i proposed them as categories to express relationship. Anyways, to save room (would have been nice to use all real estate of the window, but css for dynamic content sucks as always), take a look at something simpler here.. --User:Zeal/Sig 03:24, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I have to say that adding a scrollbar works wonders. However, is is possible that you could make the box a little taller?--Sky 03:28, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Scrolling frame certainly helps, but can you please fit as many items wide as will fit on the user's screen? I have a nice widescreen monitor, I'd much prefer a wide layout over a tall single-column one :) User:Tekkub/Sig 09:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I like the scrolling frame idea, in the sense that it helps for keeping really big vendor/drop lists nice to look at. however, the frame must be taller than the current example. Also 2 next to eachother is also a must in my oppinion. Downside is that it's making comparing a whole lot harder, or a good list of what he sells/ drops isn't there either, because it's a scrolling thingy, only allowing you to see 1-2. Really, NOT favourable on bosspages, because as a GL/RL you want to have a clear and good list, where you don't have to go scrolling like a madman. For a normal player, looking there with lots of time, it's fine, but I as a GL would prefer to avoid the wiki at all costs then, as it just doesn't suit my needs. So you are excluding a group from the wiki, while the other possibility, does not exclude people.

A possible workaround, but probably hard to implement is the option o show the full frame or just the scroll frame (like with a +/- or an up and down arrow in the top right corner). This is the most preferable solution. (oh and I dislike the scrollbar colors for the wiki >.>) --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 11:17, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I really wanted to have the icons fill horizontally as floats, but naturally css is utter shite for anything dynamic as always. I refuse to except a 2 column design as it's an awful waste of space. I've increased the containers to be 2x item height. A scrollbar is actually better for comparing imo Pat, so i really don't follow your point. Either way, you're going to be scrolling a page. It's no different, and this way it doesn't effect the page for those who don't care about the drops, vendor items etc. yet those who do care can just as easily and quickly get what they want. Though i really don't want to see this stuff on an NPCs page period.. I want to see the individual info on the item's page only. ¬_¬ --User:Zeal/Sig 17:59, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Drop Percentages

How about : Dropchance: Very low (0-5%), Low(6-34%) Average(35-75%), High(75-99%) Guaranteed(100%), instead of exact numbers User:CrazyJack/Sig 02:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Because, when dealing with boss mobs, almost nothing as above a Low drop chance ;P. I could quote the hundred of pages of people whining about not having any Rejuvenating Gems dropping for them... :P

And yes, I have to agree with Zeal on droprates. They can and are misleading, and they are to some extent inaccurate (great for ballpark figures... usually in the realm of 3/100!). --Sky 03:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Oh, I like this. Maybe add "Rare (0-1%)" in there for things like the epic mounts or that "lightsabre" sword. User:Tekkub/Sig 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I don't have an opinion on the tooltip embedding, but as for drop percentages, I'd say they're almost unmaintainable. WoWWiki has a hard enough time keeping up with easily-verifiable facts. Drop percentages are based on... aggregate data from external sites that have differing numbers based on which patch they reset their counters and which random sampling of people bothered to input data.--Beep2 08:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Guaranteed = quest item usually.
0-1% for some legendaries
Low - medium - high. for the rest ? User:CrazyJack/Sig 09:27, 19 January 2007 (EST)

How about Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High, Guaranteed. I'd have to say, 0-1% for Very Low, 1.01-5% for Low, 5.01-12% for Medium, 12.01-22% for High, 22.01-99.99% for Very High, and obviously, 100% for Guaranteed. It's a little better than the original numbers you suggested, since most items have a low chance of dropping.

Sound good?--Sky 21:00, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Very High covers more than 3/4 of the range? That doesn't seem very useful to me... I'd split it into quarters, and add Rare and Guaranteed for the two endpoints. 0-2%, 2%-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75%-98%, 98-100%. Hell why not use the color names as well, Legendary, Epic, Rare, Uncommon, Common, Guaranteed. User:Tekkub/Sig 22:01, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Almost nothing in WoW has >25% drop chance, unless you're dealing with quest items that are grinded out. And nobody needs to know the percentage of those, they just need to grind. That's why a graduated scale will fit it better.

And definitely do not use the colors. Consider the two items Template:Llegendary and Template:Lepic: both are reported as having an approximate 3% chance to drop... Both putting them in the Epic category. Or, better yet, Template:Llegendary; that has a 20% drop rate at least. You can't use the colors.--Sky 01:42, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Agree, the colors do not signal the actual droprate. User:CrazyJack/Sig 06:04, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Categories and Botting

Ok, a little screwy. I was trying to use pywikipediabot to merge Category:Paladin Spells into Category:Paladin Abilities. However, I encountered problems, Category:Paladin Spells is actually an inherited category of Template:Tlink on some of the pages. What should I do about this? If I weren't supposed to merge the 2 categories or weren't supposed to bot, please do a rollback on my edits. --Voidvector 17:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Ahh, I wouldn't worry about it too much... Just uhh, becareful of botting next time. It's like a double-edged sword. Very useful, and very dangerous.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 18:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

What the the standard category for abilities? is it "_(class)_ Abilities" or "_(class)_ Spells"? --Voidvector 06:59, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I wouldn't worry about that either. I mean, I could briefly give you my take on it. Spells for casters and abilities for those without mana, but you might ask "what about hybrids and hunters!!!". I don't know. It is a mystery. --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 14:08, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I would say Abilities would be easier to maintain; that way, you keep it standardized across all (spells are abilities, but not vice versa).--Sky 20:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Recent Changes: Talk All

I would really love to see all the talk categories put into one readily accessible link in the recent changes window. That way I don't first have to check talk, then user talk, then category talk, then wowwiki talk, then template talk, just to see what's being discussed! ---- Varghedin talk / contribs 06:14, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Corrupt image

I just marked a junk image for speedy delete, but it's screwing up the rendering of Category:Articles for speedy deletion on my Firefox v2. Here's a link to the file's history if that helps in destroying it [3] --Beep2 10:57, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Taken care of. Thanks for letting us know.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 18:12, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Don't you just HATE it when you can't figure out a quest???

I'm undead, and I was doing Ulag the Cleaver, but I can't find him! It says he's in a mausoleom or something, but the only mausoleum I could find had only 1 door, and then a dead end!

The quest log should be WAAAAY more specific, and it should bring up the map to show where to go for the quest...

Those are all things we're working on, but seeing we don't have automated ingame trackers (yet), like allakhazam and Thottbot, it all goes a bit slower. However, you can help out by posting the coordinates of the person once you find him! --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 06:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Feel free to take screenshots of the map and create guides for any quest or post the coordinates of important mobs, items or objects. However, at the moment, we do not have automated trackers. User:Montag/sig 23:56, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Server Issue with Templates

It seems to me that whenever someone changes a template transcluded by a large number of pages, the server screws up for like a minute. --Voidvector 10:35, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Yup, in that time it is updating all the pages that use that template. Fun, innit :) User:Kirkburn/Sig 10:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

i'm getting some odd error lately : "wowwiki has a problem", hidden behind the front page.. instead of loading another page. User:CrazyJack/Sig 11:00, 22 January 2007 (EST)

That's the server choking on the questlong change that Voidvector just made. :P --Beep2 11:03, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Yep. --Voidvector 11:05, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Honestly, I think this is a deficiency in the engine... Why should editing one template bring down the entire site? Poor engineering, I think. I hope they come up with a better mechanism for updating pages, instead of saying one edit is equal to a thousand edits...--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 17:31, 22 January 2007 (EST)

If i'm not mistaken, the wiki caches pages including the template outcome, rather than simply retriving the cache for the template and displaying the outcome on the fly. Currently, it means if you edit a template, everypage using it has to recache because the template outcome could have changed. If they did it the latter way, it just means more overhead (which is rather small) on page load, but no impact to editing. So it would only be a slightly slower load per page at all times (think show preview loading time rather than live), not an extremely slow load for the whole wiki on every edit (minor or major) for popular templates.. --User:Zeal/Sig 18:22, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Village pump has 100.000 views

Well. almost anyway :P User:CrazyJack/Sig 11:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Actually it's 700+ 100,00 views. =D Good stuff.--Kwertz0r 09:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Template Class Table All

We have this template that ranks all of the classes by how well they fit different roles... And I'm really getting frustrated at the people editing it. Like I'm really really close to blocking anyone who edits it and doesn't discuss their changes. Actually, since its a template, I'll add a big obnoxious noinclude warning to it, but seriously, if I see one more person edit that page w/o discussing their changes and defending why they think a number should be changed (or even discussing it first, maybe i should protect it), they're getting the ban hammer.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 09:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Image help

Time to prove my nubness: I'm trying to put an image of one of my characters on its page using Template:Tlink and Template:Tlink. However, the uploaded image I'm using turns pink when it's squished down to size for the infobox. Any idea why this is happening?

The page is User:Montag/Nariana and the image is Image:Montag-Nariana.png. User:Montag/sig 10:13, 23 January 2007 (EST)

PNGs do not always resize well - use a JPG :) User:Kirkburn/Sig 10:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Awesome, thanks. Fixed, and PNG deleted.. User:Montag/sig 10:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Template inconsistencies

So I've been poking around in the Template namespace, trying to determine the workings of things like Template:Tlink. I noticed some inconsistencies in the "Lquality" series. Three of six are locked, and two of six have differing functionality. Personally, I'd like them (1) documented, and (2) changed so that there's a visual indicator of a broken link.

Template	Functionality	Status
Lpoor	Montag	unlocked
Lcommon	Tekkub	locked
Luncommon	Montag	locked
Lrare	Tekkub	unlocked
Lepic	Montag	locked
Llegendary	Montag	unlocked

--Beep2 10:57, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I think I'm the one guilty for half-locking some of them. Anyway, editing these templates really brings down the house... And showing a broken item link would require some sort of... Does Page Exist? functionality, which I'm pretty sure we have but never coded myself. Consider all templates locked as of the writing of this reply.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 11:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Well, I sandbox-tested adding the Template:Tlink function to Lpoor, and managed a version that gave output like: [Vendor Trash Broken-Link"]. However, I'm not sure if this is the ideal visual indicator. An alternative might be something like: [Vendor Trash Broken-Link]* I'm not committed to either version. --Beep2 11:31, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Here Template:Tlink, been meaning to replace those with a single template for a while, enjoy! --User:Zeal/Sig 11:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Well, your template doesn't capture the functionality of either Montag-style or Tekkub-style "Lquality". First, it doesn't take an alternative name (eg "Ravager (axe)|Ravager"), however, that shouldn't be too hard to add. Second, all broken links, regardless of quality, are red. So you'd have to fix that. Third, you'd have to bot the changeover. --Beep2 12:01, 23 January 2007 (EST)

You missed alot of talk in the irc chan. First of all, there should never be disambig on an item (if it is, someone needs a smack and people need to get off their asses and get the Item namespace added and in use.), so i won't add alternative item name functionality. Second, the broken link functionality was how i (and some others) think it should be done, but after discussion a compramise was agreed upon, leave the brackets unstyled if the link is broken, but always style the text. I have now updated the template to do that. --User:Zeal/Sig 12:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Fair enough. However, I disagree on the claim that we should never need to provide an alternate name. First, there are items that may have disambiguations that are Blizzard's fault. Some items have identically-named differing versions.

[Royal Seal of Eldre'Thalas], Atiesh, Greatstaff of the Guardian, Scroll: Create Crest of Beckoning, Scroll: Create Scepter of Beckoning, Scroll: Create Signet of Beckoning, Brazier of Beckoning, etc. Sometimes WoWWiki rolls them into one page, and sometimes it doesn't. Second, there may be items that have invalid characters for an article name, although I can't think of any offhand. As for missing discussions on the IRC chan, the nice thing about talk pages is that they record opinions.--Beep2 13:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

And the nice thing about IRC, is we can discuss quicker and easier (especially when the wiki is as unstable as it is atm). :p

There are no invalid characters as far as i know. Even if there were, they would more than likely just be url encoded anyways, so there is no problem (that is what url encoding was designed for really..). Items that have multiple versions with the same name should be in the same page imo, so i will not add such functionality to support anything different. If someone else wants to when people decide otherwise, then so be it. --User:Zeal/Sig 14:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Player character page policy

It's just been brought to my notice that this policy has never been ratified or discussed. Please check it out: WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Player character pages. User:Kirkburn/Sig 11:23, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Item format

I'd like to see if we can get some sort of consensus on what format we want to use for items. I've always used the Boilerplate:Item page. I like it because it can handle most items, it keeps all the information on a single page, it's relatively easy for a user new to wikis to populate, and if included on another page, it turns into a tooltip. I've noticed a lot of the BC item stubs have been partially populated using a bunch of transcluded pages. See [Anchorite's Robes] for example. The source on the main page is the template Template:BC Itempage Placeholder. This then links into a bunch of tiny transcluded pages like Anchorite's Robes/Icon, Anchorite's Robes/Price, Anchorite's Robes/Quality, and Anchorite's Robes/Tooltip. If I'm not mistaken, the reason why this was created was so you could pull bits of it and put it on another page (see Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards). I guess I'd just like to get a single standard to use, especially when I start to fill in stubs that have been started with the transcluded templates.

Personally, I like the single page style. I copy the entire boilerplate to a new page and start filling it out. Pretty much everything you need is right there. With this transcluded method, I have to create the main page, then I have to create a icon page, tooltip page, price page, thottbot page, alla page, more page, etc. It just seems a lot more confusing than it needs to be. Also what kind of performance hit does all these transcluded pages put on the wiki?

Comments? - ClydeJr 12:50, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I think there could be a middle ground somewhere (perhaps a hybrid boilerplate that allows for an initial entry and prepares for transclusion), but with the transcluded method ultimately being the standard. Items end up always being linked from various other articles (boss drops, stat comparisons, reward listings) and as such, having that information (most importantly, the tooltip, maybe the icon) be made available dynamically to articles will be a boon in the long run. I'd also be curious, however, as to the impact it would have on the site performance. --Tusva 13:00, 23 January 2007 (EST)

We certainly do not need tooltips being transcluded.. And not with that ridiculous sub-page method which is a poor use of the wiki, and is no better than just repeating the info yourself. --User:Zeal/Sig 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I heavily disagree with this. I cannot see how under any circumstances copying and pasting the same information into different articles is in any way, shape or form, easier than just referencing the article's /Tooltip transclusion. Let's say I wanted to write an article that compares two-handed weapons for DPS. I could a) go into each items article (or Thott or Alla entry) and copy and paste the information into my article. Back and forth, back and forth, pasting away until I've all this information in my article. Or, b) I could just include the itemname/Tooltip for each one and be done with it. What if the item stats changed? Now, I have to go into each and every single article that ever could have possibly mentioned that item and fix it, hoping I got them all. Or I could just change /Tooltip. The small amount of effort that goes into making a /Tooltip entry is definitely worth it. It also centralizes the information, heavily decreasing the chance of typos, mistakes and ultimately, what everyone wants to avoid, misinformation.

Unless there is some other method of being able to dynamically pull that into any article you want, the transclusions are quite clearly the way to go if we're going to talk standards. --Tusva 17:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I'm personally strictly against the use of that boilerplate (namely because i'[ve made most of it redundant with the new tooltip) and that other method of item page creation (because it's bloody awful and not practical. i forget who started doing it). Also the tooltip transclusion method should not be used as discussed further up on this page. Most of the functionality that's being attempted (Transclusion of tooltips for example), is impractical, and can be done easier or not at all until we can incorperate certain javascript abilities, namespaces and better category structures. --User:Zeal/Sig 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

We might want to update the boilerplate with Zeal's item template. It is far superior than any other templates we have. --Voidvector 14:18, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I found a few minor issues with the Tooltip (Equipped mispelled in BoE, switch the armor amount and the word "Armor" around, Armor row should come after DPS row, not taking advantage of the Spell Effects, no place for sockets), but what exactly makes this tooltip superior? I'll gladly switch to using the tooltip template if someone can explain to me why it's better than what is in the boilerplate. - ClydeJr 15:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Will fix the typo, Armor should have been after DPS, apologies if it's not. It can use the spell effect template, there is a note in the description about how to use it, however hardly any of these spells currently exist, and things will be changing with the introduction of an item db, so i have not enforced the use of it. I had no final examples of sockets to work from, so i left them out until i could find them, someone is welcome to add them (may i suggest creating a template similar to Template:Tlink for the purpose), but i'm too busy with other things atm.

As to what makes it superior. Well for one its more accesable because it does not incorrectly use a table to present the information. It also auto-scales (and drops non-default info) when used outside the page where it belongs, includes the item's icon, uses the correct colouring for certain things the other one has wrong, ensures item information is always in the correct order (so newbies can't screw up), and provides documentation for users to know what needs to be included in the tooltip. --User:Zeal/Sig 15:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Gives a uniform format. Say in the future we want to change the layout of the item tooltips: With a template, we can do it easily. With the current method of copying tables, we can only change the CSS, which is very limited. In addition, template can make sorting easy, if we want to create a category of all the daggers in the wiki, just add a line in the template that checks if the item type is dagger, if it is, add it to a category to it. --Voidvector 16:02, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Sounds reasonable enough. I'll play around with the tooltip some more and see if I can find any other problems. Since most of my 5000+ edits has been adding items, I know most of the formats that tooltips can appear in. We can then move it into the boilerplate with some documentation. FYI: There are 3 socket templates (Template:Red Socket, Template:Blue Socket, Template:Yellow Socket) that we can possible incorporate/modify into the tooltip. - ClydeJr 16:34, 23 January 2007 (EST)

My only issue with the tooltip, and this is incredibly minor I know, is that when the tooltip is used on an item page, the item icon no longer needs to be on the article in the place where it currently is, since the tooltip includes it. I really like the currently placement, as it gives the opening paragraph a nice indent, which most articles lack otherwise. However, that minor aestheitc aversion pales in comparison to the advantages afforded by its implimentation.

And there's also the meta gem slots, though there arn't very many of those. --Mikaka 16:44, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Indeed. As to the icon in item pages, i disliked it personally as it's not nice running both left and right floats (nor is it nice to clear content to below either float). May i suggest moving further discussion on the tooltip template itself to it's talk page. I hadn't really thought about some of the advantages voidvector mentioned, nice. I'll give adding sockets a go in a sec. --User:Zeal/Sig 18:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Say hello to Template:Tlink and the new socket and socket bonus parameters of Template:Tlink :p --User:Zeal/Sig 19:32, 23 January 2007 (EST)

To re-address this a bit, since there seems to be two seperate threads of discussion. 1) How tooltips are formatted and/or rendered and 2) How the said tooltips are embedded in the item page. As for the former, Zeal appears to have a pretty good start on nailing down the tooltip template and format. And as for the latter, I personally am of the mind of having a transcluded Tooltip sub-article (and only one sub-article, no others), so other articles (loot lists, item comparison, class lists, etc etc etc) could easily pull the tooltip (which could be considered the "meat" of the item information) without having to copy and paste and thusly, result in potential typos and misinformation. Considering how widely used this would/could be, I think there should be a healthy discussion and some sort of consensus reached before we start just all going in our own direction, especially since there has been some decent work done thusfar on it. --Tusva 15:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

A tooltip split (sub-page if you wish), i can live with :P Guessing you mean something like Conjured Bread/Tooltip yes? I never wanted to propose something like that as i know the item db would make it redundant, but if people want to do that in the time being, it's fine imo. What i don't think is a good idea is using tooltips in pages other than the item's page. Using space for something that is simply a click a way. I'd rather way for the javascript implementation to come around to handle that. --User:Zeal/Sig 15:19, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, having a /Tooltip sub-page for each item, which is already happening for new items, it seems. The idea behind including the /Tooltip in other articles, though is how useful it could be for comparison. Take the Comparison_of_Aldor_and_Scryer_rewards article. This is a perfect example of how included tooltip sub-pages perform well. Even though the tooltip is a click away, how does that help when used in comparisons? Having this as the standard would help build a structure for displaying data effeciently and effectively, I feel, any future javascript or item db aside. --Tusva 15:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)

In this day and age people have tabbed browsers to do comparisons, no need to overload them with info they can click for ;) Plus that page does not show anything about the costs for the rewards. I beleive the earlier discussed vendor sheet to be a better solution for that. Also like to mention that those tooltips, for reciepe items, show the item they create in them. While this is nice for comparison, it is messy and hard to read (blizzard are retards for doing it this way imo), especially telling where it begins and ends. Mine, simply takes a link to the item, and unless someone wishes to push for the idea of including them in a way that doesnt suffer from the blizzard inherited issues (nesting tooltips perhaps), then i beleive this to be the best way, and slightly nullifiess the comparison argument.

Oh, and i don't seee the point in that page in it's current form. it's repeating information people can gather themselves. It needs some comments on the comparisons to justify it (thus the tooltips neeed not exist) imo.--User:Zeal/Sig 15:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Come now, the whole point of that page, and indeed, any page with nested tooltips, is to gather the info in one space so people don't have to find it themselves. It offers complete information on the subject in a single location, allowing immediate comparisons without even the need to change browser tabs. While I agree that the tooltips are quite bulky and a javascript rollover solution as seen on various database sites is optimal, we don't have that yet, and it doesn't look like we're getting it any time soon (correct me if I'm wrong on that, though). In the meanwhile, I suggest we either continue to use nested tooltips on articles that directly relate to the item, or at the very least provide some sort of summary of the item, like type, location, and primary use. But even the summary doesn't really work for items like trinkets, which usually have somewhat complex uses. --Mikaka 16:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Sorry for taking a step back on this issue. I am totally lost on even where to begin using the new item formatting for adding new items. The "old" boilerplate as Clyde said was easy - copy paste edit done. Can someone post a "step-by-step" guide to how to add new items using the new format/lay-outs? Thank you --Dracomage 16:14, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Patch today

Where would I find the patch notes from today? Would someone please post them and give me a link. User:Fusk/sig13:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Take it you mean 2.0.6? In future, you can find them under Category:Patches, or better yet, next time try searching, as you clearly didn't even bother to... ¬_¬ --User:Zeal/Sig 13:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)

If they haven't been added to the wiki, you can usually find them at the Patch Notes page at worldofwarcraft.com. If they haven't been added there yet, they'll almost always have a sticky post with them on the General forum on the official boards (abandon all hope ye who enter...) - ClydeJr 16:40, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Sargeras and Burning Legion

See any problems with the two? Template:C to the person who discovers it!--Sky 00:04, 24 January 2007 (EST) Oh yes, another Template:C for the person who sees the issue with this page and those two.--Sky 00:05, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Instead of pointing things out >.> FIX THEM! (btw can't find it, but can I have Template:C anyways? --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 05:42, 24 January 2007 (EST)

If you're refering to the fact that the official site still says that the Erader corrupted Sargeras and not, as it was later retconned to be, the other way around, gimme my Template:C! Of course, that information has been outdated, so no need to change our own sites. If you're refering to some other inconsistency between the two pages, I admit I haven't bothered to read them. Trying to make heads or tails of Warcraft lore means battling your way through huge amounts of contradictory information and fending off legions of frothing fans, only to find at the end of the day you haven't gained any ground. --Mikaka 06:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Neither of you earn your coppers. The first two pages are near exact copy paste jobs of the third. Yay for plagirizing?--Sky 15:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)

More fun with templates and lurch

I'd like to document and categorize the many templates that we've got lurking around, but the server's going to get hurt. So I think I'll pass. However, many of the more insidious ones should probably be locked. --Beep2 12:08, 24 January 2007 (EST)

You add it to the talk page, and after you are all done, copy it over, so it only kill the server once. --Voidvector 12:30, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Lol, well i've purposely left most of the ones i create in the main Category:Templates, partly because i hate the existing template categories, partly because i hate the existing category naming, and partly because it's easier for me when i'm producing so many templates. :p

Feel free to change the cats on them if you wish. --User:Zeal/Sig 12:39, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Actually, it'd be preferable to make a one-tiem edit to the template pointing users to the talk page for documentation, that way docs can be changed any number of times. Make sure you use noinclude blocks so that pointer doesn't transclude into everything that uses the template. you might want to also put the template code in a includeonly block so that the messy details don't show up, especially if the template depends on parameters passed to it.

Perhaps a simple template is in order to drop onto the pages so that we have a consistent look? User:Tekkub/Sig 12:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I don't agree about putting documentation on the talk page. Documentation get updated less often than the template itself, and when it is updated, it updated at the same time the vast majority of the time. I've already created a template documentation template Template:Tlink for what you've described, and have been using and adapting it with all my templates. --User:Zeal/Sig 13:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)

In that case, why not have the documentation code on a subpage which is pulled into the template page for viewing? Dare I say - this is how wikipedia often does it. [Template] has the code, [Template/Doc] has the documentation, and we can extend it to:

[Template] pulls in [Template/Code] and [Template/Doc] and adds the categories.
[Template/Doc] has the documentation.
[Template/Code] has the raw code (this is used on the WoWWiki:Templates page)

Thoughts? User:Kirkburn/Sig 13:34, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I find it rather superfluous and unecessary, not only that, but it's another page the wiki has to update and cache everytime, and may have to then purge to view the outcome (which would have the same effect as running an edit no?). The documentation doesn't need to be split up because it's only ever updated when the code is. --User:Zeal/Sig 14:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Or we can put all the documentations on WoWWiki:Templates like how we do it now, and just have the templates refer to it. --Voidvector 14:15, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Why would editing a subpage affect all wiki pages using the template? Editing the doc would only affect the pages it's pulled into, which is the template page. User:Kirkburn/Sig 14:28, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Did i suggest it would? no just the template's page. But now you touch on it, it would effect it (at least given how i've understood templates to work and expand and calculate on mediwiki), unless you're suggesting all template usage should now bypass the template and use template/code instead. --User:Zeal/Sig 14:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Back to the idea of categorizing and documenting the multitude, I just did a quick count. There's currently 1712 items in the template namespace. Le fun! --Beep2 14:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Heroic mode?

I have not been able to find anything besides loot tables for "Heroic mode" dungens. Does anyone know if the boss fights change at all? or is it gunna be the same fight, just different dmg numbers? User:Fusk/sig12:10, 24 January 2007 (EST)

The only boss I've seen with a heroic strategy is Omor the Unscarred in the Hellfire Ramparts. The AOE debuff becomes unremovable, the fel hounds cast a mana burn as well as heal Omor, and it looks like he casts a shadowbolt as well. You probably won't see many strategies until more people get to a higher level and can start running in heroic mode. - ClydeJr 14:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I was just sorta wondering what to expect, meaning any changes to the fight. So it seems things are going to change pretty drastically. I'll try to write some when my group gets up there. User:Fusk/sig16:12, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Wowpedia