Talk: Village pump

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

Current Discussions

extra planet only in netherstorm

Template:Wcpumpmove

Extension for WoWwiki?

If I had an idea regarding an extension for WoWwiki who should I contact?

--Kaos 1880 08:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Depends what you mean by extension (WoW addon? Mediawiki software extension? Content extension?). Best bet is to just suggest it here and see who replies. --Bobson 05:12, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Well it allows you to do this: Itemstats extension The first phase is a basic mediawiki extension that allows with little effort to display items with data pulled automatically from websites such as allakazham etc. Kaos 1880 14:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is another page showing off a pratical use for the extension[1]

Widespread format/style changes

As you might remember, I've started work on User:DuTempete/Warlock project, and now I've got one or two other people working with me, including SeiferTim. We were going through the Talents and Abilities articles and noticed that there is an extreme lack of unity between articles. We both agreed that we thought Boilerplate:Talents and Boilerplate:Single spell would be the current best format to use. What I'm worried about is that the changes would be so widespread and possibly extreme, it might ruffle some feathers.

Also, the talents articles were, at some point, filled using a template Template:WarlockTdh as in [Backlash], rather than a boilerplate. The template seems rather unecessary, dragging down the server, to do something rather simple. It's also looks like a pain to edit, and there are no directions on how to use it. Hurrah to those who created it, and implemented it. I'd rather have the articles the way they are, than have nothing at all. However, I think the template's time is over, and since this feels like a big deal, including the abilities changes, I wondered if I should put it to vote? --User:DuTempete/Signature 08:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

To my personal experience with the wiki, templates for things such as talents and abilites are shot down. I myself wouldn't put it up for vote. Just start redoing all pages with the guidelines from the Boilerplates. If it ruffles some feathers, then let it ruffle. I can just say to those persons "rufl" (pun intended >.>)

Boilerplates are there because the admins of this wiki WANT them to be used, with other words, pages not following the Boilerplate MUST be edited so that they follow the boilertplate. So, you MUST continue your project the way you are doing it! ;)

As a Senior Warlock (quitted playing now) all I can say is that you have been doing a great job, I highly support it. I'm even willing to help a hand, though, my experience might be lacking, just recently discovered Firestones were upgraded to Relics ^^ I have my wiki experience though.

Either way, continue as you were. Use the Boilerplates wherever possible and as soon as the template has nothing linking to it, put it up for Speedydelete. Once again, as long as the content doesn't change (unless if it's an update) the admins certainly want you to use the boilerplate over a template. DOn't worry, if you hit someone, the admins will probably be on your side :) Hope this helped ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 09:45, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Aye, that's what I figured the case was, but I wanted to remain on the cautious side. :) --DuTempete talk|contr 11:24, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

You guys need to fix your sigs >_<. Other than that, I have one concern with the two boilerplates, and so I'll be making edits to those. I'd see if you can find a pretty looking article about an ability, because that ranks table does not look pretty. --User:Sky2042/Sig 13:03, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

How about the table from [Flame Shock]? --Bobson 13:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Check out [Moonfire] for my own dabblings in this... I was trying to make the page cleaner and use the Darktable styling that's used a lot across the wiki. User:Tekkub/Sig 16:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you much Tekkub. :] That, I think, was the page I was thinking of. To Patrigan, you don't have your sig pages formatted correctly, which is my issue.--User:Sky2042/Sig 17:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Bleh to the Flame Shock table =P But I like the [Moonfire] one a lot. It's very neat, and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. What's wrong with my sig, anyway?! -- DuTempete talk|contr 17:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I dislike the moonfire table - I much prefer alternating colors for the rows. --Bobson 18:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Alternating colors are a bitch to maintain. User:Tekkub/Sig 20:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Alternating colors aren't so bad, but that particular table is not what I'd like to see. If I get some time, I'll try to put something together that might be the best of both worlds. --DuTempete talk|contr 21:38, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Ability/Talent Infobox

Hey, I'm kinda new here and decided to update the Slam ability page with my own guide on Slam (which is also posted here).

With this occasion, I noticed there is no infobox for abilities/spells, so I decided to go with the go bold thing and create one. Hope you like it and I also hope it can be protected against vandalism. Also, don't keep your criticism at bay :) Ability Infobox

Also, I will update the Slam article as soon as I have more time on my hands. --ALiEN 13:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

You edit wikipedia, don't you? :P Since I really like it, I'm moving this up to the discussion above about updating the spell and talents boilerplates.--User:Sky2042/Sig 18:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm totally digging this, too. -- DuTempete talk|contr 18:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I've also finished up the Talent Infobox. However, for talents that enable new abilities like Mortal Strike, Bloodthirst, the Ability Infobox should be used instead.--ALiEN 20:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sigs (slightly offtopic...)

I like my sig :( It's so treeish... ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I designed my sig with the guidelines from WoWWiki:Signature. I chose the format that didn't call the template every time someone looked at the page. <3 speedy servers! -- DuTempete talk|contr 17:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but your posts are doubled in length in source. ;-) User:Montag/sig1 11:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Welp, I'm not incredibly familiar with in-line CSS, so if you can find a way to make it shorter, please let me know. =P -- DuTempete talk|contr 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well still trying to make mine work, seems to break in half when used, but not on sig page, can someone look at it for me?? User:Sharlin/Sig

It's because you're trying to use CSS in a Wiki which formats line breaks. Take away all the linebreaks until all the CSS looks as though it's on one line (it can be hard to tell since the edit box will wrap everything). User:Kiltek/Sig 10:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I like my sig, too lazy to go look at that site. If anyone wants, he/she can design me a sig! ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 20:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

new sig created, I pwn and I have a great rollover! // Patrigan | ^Talk/ _Contr \\ 16:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

New Quests

Is there any group that is working on adding quests I could join?--Yelmurc 11:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

You're always welcome to add quests even without being part of a formal group for them. None of the Community teams is specifically about adding quests, although the Article Council is close. --Bobson 12:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been working on the ashenvale quests. The only reason I ask is because I only add one a day or so and its very slow going. I was hoping there was a group that added quests that I could join so that it seems like I am making more progress.--Yelmurc 13:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Thottbot, Allakhazam, AmpWoW, Wowhead elinks

Following the external links standardization and new policies, three votes have been put up:

• WoWWiki:Writing/ExternalLinks/Allakhazam removal vote
• WoWWiki:Writing/ExternalLinks/AmpWoW removal vote
• WoWWiki:Writing/ExternalLinks/Thottbot removal vote
• WoWWiki:Writing/ExternalLinks/Wowhead removal vote

These votes will upon their results decide on whether we keep Allakhazam, AmpWoW and Thottbot in the popular External links template. As precised in the votes, manually added links are fine.

Go vote! And don't forget to check out WW:EL --User:Adys/Sig 22:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I just wanted to question why manually added links are fine? It's quite stupid to do a vote then, because if there's one stubborn person who voted keep, while it got removed, he can still add it to all pages, or at least all prominent pages. Then the wiki will start looking like a mess, because some pages have more links while others have only one. Doesn't it look quite dull? ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 09:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Manually added links are only fine if they provide something otherwise unique. Mikk (T) 11:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Right but if they have a comments section, like Thott and WoWhead, and there are unique comments there than that is ok according to WW:EL. Right? User:Kitan/Sig 12:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Gray-zone. I'd rather just see the pertinent info added to the wiki myself. We're talking short shippets of info here. (No, I didn't say "copied", because that would be a copyright violation.) Mikk (T) 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Manual links are more than welcome, there's a LOT of pages covered by the elinks templates... that's a lot of editing there for manual links. User:Tekkub/Sig 20:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I just have to laugh at the reasons people give for dropping Thot. The biggest seems to be about inaccurate information and such or the trouble finding good information. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This wiki has horribly out of date information, inconsistent page layouts, horrid color schemes, and yet I'd bet if I didn't say it first someone would come back with "why don't you fix it".

Its not a matter of someone coming back with "Why don't you fix it", its simply the fact that here, we control it, we do have the ability to fix it. Personally, I see no reason to remove the thottbot links, I just happen to find information easier to obtain on wowhead. It comes down to preference, and that's why there's a voting system. If you have a problem with the layout and information on the wiki, you have the right to complain, you have the right to fix it if you'd like, but more importantly, you have the ability to change it. There's a big difference. Cladhaire -Talk · Contrib 09:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer we settle on two external sources and no more. Sharlin 06:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Theres a difference beetween a wiki and a data autocollecting website. --User:Adys/Sig 09:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused.. Why are we voting to remove sites? Shouldn't the template simply list all available resources and not be biased? Or is there some reason that this needs to be the 'best' or 'recommended' external databases. --AnduinLothar 14:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

We aren't a link farm. Simple as that. User:Kirkburn/Sig2 18:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

looks like our link template will just consist of WoWhead at this pointReskar

How constructive... and you're talking about it in the wrong discussion anyway. As to AnduinLothar's comment, we shouldn't have to link every single link because it'd just be pointless, how would users know which link to click in order to get the same level of information as they did from a previous article? How can we monitor that the links added are relevant and not complete rubbish. This is why we have to consolidate the amount of links we use. User:Kiltek/Sig 11:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

sorry thought this was a talk page with a subject about all 4 of them. I always thought that the links at the bottom were supposed to be a catch all for info missed on the wikki, and if one site can cover that that's great but honestly I skeptial. Reskar 12:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Clearly you've not read the whole of this discussion, and your useless post was talking about the WoWHead partnership discussion below - so don't try and cover your track, please. Did I say one link? No, in fact I didn't specifiy I simply said consolidate. Having over 4 links is just a waste of space in my opinion, I'm pretty sure most of the information would be covered in 4 links, as opposed to 10. User:Kiltek/Sig 12:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I DID read the discussion, and started a new section, as it's a new line of thought, I'm NOT talking about the WoWhead partnership but rather the result of the polls, So yeah way to go. Reskar 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

All votes have finished, Only wowhead is staying, alla, thott and ampwow were all voted to be removed.
If an admin could get that happening to the locked pages would be awsome --User:Psyker7/Sig 01:47, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome, WoWhead only! User:Colinstu/Sig 04:47, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I went WoW Head ages ago, it's such a nice easy site. User:Kiltek/Sig 04:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Wa-wait... it says those were declined. It said it was accepted to remove ampwow and was accepted to keep wowhead, but is says thott and alla are declined? huh? User:Colinstu/Sig 04:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Fixed. It should say accepted, as the page says 'vote to delete' so accepted means delete. wowhead should be declined. thott and alla should be accepted. I've changed thott and alla to reflect this. --User:Psyker7/Sig 05:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Cosmos on the Main Page

Should Cosmos get a link on the Main Page, under the Hosted AddOn Pages link? Discuss :) User:Kirkburn/Sig2 13:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Cosmos did a lot for the Wiki initially and a lot is still tied into the wiki directing traffic here. Seems fair to me to have something in return. GRYPHON^tc 13:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Cosmos has more pages then Macros even without the addon pages and contributes all but 18 of the addon pages (6/18 of which are mine).

Cosmos has 8 pages + 7 additional Cosmos Patcher pages and 100+ addon pages.

Cosmos FAQ is a very comprehensive FAQ of more than just Cosmos questions, even if it is a little dated. Perhaps there needs to be a general UI FAQ.

Even if only 75% of the addon are more than a small description that's still a lot. I have almost 50 addon pages here myself that have no other documentation, most of which aren't listed on the Hosted AddOn Pages

Cosmos even has two of its leading members listed as administration here on the wiki, AlexanderYoshi having helps found it.

Can that much exclusive content really NOT be linked from the front page? Just by pure volume it deserves a link so that users don't have to click through the hierarchy of multiple pages.

I don't believe volume should dictate history, and whether the link should be there for the good of the wiki, and for the good of the average users. The amount of pages being written is almost irrelevant, if no one is using the pages, or they are just directly linked. What is relevant is the amount of users who are clicking through to get to the pages in question. Exclusive content doesn't mean anything, when we have categories, which puts you one page back. Again, I'd need to be convinced that users are disadvantaged by not having the link on the front, since its out of place. Cladhaire 17:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Plus the Development Help AddOns & Function Libraries linsk that were removed further linked to 11 Cosmos addons out of the total 18 that were listed. Removing those links have made those Libs now require navigating through 4 or more pages to find reduced from just 1 sub page click.

--AnduinLothar 14:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If the main page is supposed to best represent what's inside the Wiki, subjects comprising large portions of the Wiki should have links on the main page. This is the case with CosmosUI. If other AddOn Suites wish to contribute a large chunk of unique content they should be allowed an evaluation for the addition of their own link on the main page.

--Kolth 14:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

As I mentioned on IRC, the links were removed because people should be using the Interface Cust. Portal for most of the interface stuff. The Dev Help and Func Libs links are prominently on the Hosted AddOn Pages page and on the Portal (which needs improvement, by-the-by). The question at hand is about whether or not Cosmos should have a link on the front page, an discussion which should not be based on past history or associations, only with the current state of the wiki. My main aim is to try and keep the number of links down, so as to make sure people go to the Portal when needed. Cosmos should have a (prominent) link on the Portal - if it doesn't, please add one. User:Kirkburn/Sig2 14:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Currently no one I know uses the portal. And no one who uses the dungeon guides or other content on the main page is going to bookmark both pages. Why is the main page soloing out one of its largest content areas to remove links? If you're trying to push authors away removing their links from the main page is a good way to do it. If you want to have more prominent sub pages then I suggest you drastically cut down on content on the front page and make many sub-section pages, perhaps removing all but the white header links. Most of the other white links are just summary pages. The reason the UI has more is because it has drastically more content. I would even go so far as to say it deserves at least 1/3 of the main content area based on amount of sub-content alone. I'd really like to see a site map of most commonly used pages and a map of pure content distribution among the main page links.

--AnduinLothar 14:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Does Ace get mainpage love too? And Dongle? I vote for a much much simpler homepage, and nice detailed "portals" for addons and API stuff (which should be totally seperate IMO). User:Tekkub/Sig 14:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ace and Dongle have no exclusive wowwiki content. --AnduinLothar 15:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ace has it's own wiki, yes, tho from time to time there are talks of pushing data over here. Dongle, however, hosts it's API docs here exclusively. User:Tekkub/Sig 17:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The Main Page links are not based solely on popularity (that's what we use the sidebar for), it's for detailing the different important sections of the wiki. The Interface section of the wiki is very, very large, and part of the reason why Mikk and I made the Main Page changes in the first place is that people should naturally be moving to the Portal (which I've now created a prominent explanatory link to) to get the detailed UI info. The Main Page will never be able to hold all the required info. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make more people look at the 'proper' Interface page and to promote it further. (In fact I feel I should point out the some of the links there were a conciliatory gesture by Mikk, a guy who is well involved in UI dealings as many well know, to those who complained in the UI community.)

These days, proportionally far more of the traffic to the wiki is for gameplay guides and info than previously (see the popular pages list for example). I certainly am not trying to downplay the Interface sections, however the other sections are now far more prominent than they previously were.

Now, what this comes down to is - how important and needed is the Cosmos link. I have seen various arguments for and against, but I want them to come up independently of me. This is not about favoritism. User:Kirkburn/Sig2 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

A slight aside: Is there a time stamped version of popular pages? Like one that shows what's popular in the past month? Granted that wont help my plea, since interface work has fallen to a new low since v2.0 and TBC, with more authors disgruntled or busy playing new content. It'd still be nice to see what used to be popular and what has grown in popularity. --AnduinLothar 17:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I came to WoWWiki for the API pages, nothing else. What follows is rambling on very little coffee first thing in the morning... That the Cosmos crew wrote a heck of a lot of the API stuff, even if it were just the original content and that's largely changed by users (though I don't think this is true) I think they should get credit in a fairly viewable spot. If, for example, some lore crew decided to contribute a similar volume of work, I can't see why they shouldn't get similarly creditted. I suspect there's some bias in this suggestion as it's the old 'who's mod is better' argument. You shouldn't get disatracted by that. This discussion should be about attribution for large contributors - particularly when that contributor is a large and well known project and have decided to promote WoWWiki by hosting their own essential content here. All in all, I see no problem in returning the favours that Cosmos has done for WoWWiki. To not do so would send the wrong message to other potential projects looking to host information here. Normal 17:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I also came to WoWWiki originally for the API and Macro documentation. However, I don't know that I agree that not putting them on the front page is sending the opinion that we don't appreciate them to others. There are plenty of other ways to do so. This is not by any means a don't put Cosmos on the main page vote but it is a lets not start the if I help the wiki enough my addon gets put on the front page mentality.
I completely appreciate the API pages as they have helped me tremendously.User:Kitan/Sig 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No it should not. It is not the entirety of addons, it also is not from Blizzard. So keep it on a child page. The main is already too cluttered with links as it is. Did you or anyone else see how often COSMOS is actually queried or used? Sharlin 08:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The addition or removal of a link to a certain page should never be based on how much how much someone has contributed as some of you seem to be suggesting... it should be based on necessity. Essentially, it sounds like many of you are saying "Because they helped by adding a lot of content, they deserve a prominent place of honor on the main page in recognition." This will open the door for a lot of other problems... While I do not discount the fact that they have done a lot for the Wiki, I also understand that it is completely voluntary. Give them a place on a "Special Thanks" page, or some such, but do not specifically place them on the front page because of their work. What if someone signed up, and started working on the Wiki, and in a month had completely re-written thousands of pages in a way that brought the entire site up to a new level of greatness. Then he says "You know, I feel as if I contributed way more than Cosmos ever did, how about putting my website on the Main page, right above theirs?" You have set a president, and you cannot really say "no" - even if his website has nothing to do with WoW, or worse, contains offensive material, which is now associated with this Wiki.

In the long run, it would not be wise to adopt this kind of mentality. If there is a particular website, or Wiki page that contains globally useful information that all can benefit from, place them on the front page, not because they have worked on other pages. In fact, it would be in the best interest of preserving this community if a policy was officially adopted that says in no way will such a thing ever happen, to prevent someone from coming here and editing pages just to get themselves on the Main Page... Well, I think I have rambled on enough... just my 2 ;) --User:SeiferTim/Sig 09:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean Template:C, right? :P --Colinstu 03:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

My oppinions of this has been said on the IRC before. Some of them have already been said, like the fact that it's not size that matters, it's content and wether or not it's valuable enough to be front page. I myself don't see Cosmos valuable enough.

The only reason why people need Cosmos is because of the faq and other assistance pages for the cosmos addon. As we all know, Cosmos links directly to those pages from their site, without passing the front page. In fact, in my search on the Cosmos webstie there has been only 1 (!) link to the WoWwiki frontpage. Even words regarding WoWwiki aren't as prominent as you'd expect. Considering they do use the servers for their faq, you'd expect to see a little bit more promotion, but no. This alone is reason enough for me to scrap it from our frontpage. People telling me they went to the cosmos pages through the frontpage should be shot, because the links are better on the Cosmos Website itself, so their stupidity isn't a reason to keep it frontpage either.

The only reason I see is because of the history, it would be a lie if I said Cosmos never added to our popularity, however, I do feel this is no longer the case. Cosmos itself is no longer what it used to be, there are many more addons which are in fact better than Cosmos. No offense intended Anduin, but the facts are right. Popularity of Cosmos is not what it used to be.

A bad reason to keep it, I have seen brought up here, is that the Cosmos writers did a lot of work on the API pages in general. Let me be clear about this, the day that this is a reason to have it on the front page, is the day that the wiki might aswell quit. I mean "oh hey I'll do a nice chunk of edits, let's say 5000, so that I can get on the frontpage of the WoWwiki with my website!" NO, NO, NO. That is the most stupid reason to be there. In fact it's disgusting that you even bring that up, as if you only care about your website and not about the wiki. People like that shouldn't even be around here posting.

There is a history, there has been quite some work on several pages. there is a certain amount of persons visiting those pages. HOWEVER, as I stated, none of these reasons qualify for Cosmos to be front page material. I would write more about this, but I hate to present a wall of text ;) ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 09:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The box we're talking about on the main page is titled "Selected Article Index"; it is an index by subject. As far as I know, it was never claimed to be a graphical representation of the content of this wiki. I suggest that the word "Selected" be removed, as it implies a possible bias. I also think the words "by subject" should be added, to more clearly say what is actually seen in this box.

Also, as I suggested in IRC, the IC section, and the Guides sections should be dropped to an icon, and a link to the portal. The icon will make it easy for people to see, and leaving at this will solve the problem of making sure that people use the portal. Community Info can be moved to the righthand section, as it does not have to do with game mechanics.

Doing these thigns will reduce the length of the box, assure that users find the portals, and even allow users with smaller resolutions to see part of the content of the Main Page underneath the index. -- DuTempete talk|contr 18:25, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok... so which definition of the front page is the real one? I've just read a bunch of different views, but no consensus. Is it for pure hierarchy? If so, then all of the portal page links should be linked and Very few of the sub pages, imo. Other options include some sort of 'selected' bunch of pages by some admin or vote. Or it could be based on popularity, in which case we need some way to determine which pages are most used over a time period, rather than since the wiki started. That way you'd be able to easily tell if a link is still popular or not. And another option is by site density, with some sort of site map that accurately shows either everything that is on the wiki or categories that have more of some reasonable quantification.

I have heard arguments against entitlement, but I also argue that there are no unbiassed interests. So how do we decide this?

Perhaps I'm just trying to escalate the problem out of spite, but I think if the main page is not to be governed by popularity or density then there should be an overall move towards expanding on portal pages. That way we only have some dozen links on the front page, encouraging people to bookmark the portal pages that interest them, rather than leaning on the main page to satisfy everyone. We might also encourage creation of personal link pages in the User:Name spaces that can serve as personal hubs.

--AnduinLothar 14:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Main Page is a navigational tool. I didn't see anyone above disagreeing with that. It's not based on popularity, though that does influence it slightly. Currently you're pretty much the only one complaining about the links on it, and that's mostly because it's missing 'your' link.

I like the idea of moving Community Links in place of the UI links, and changing the Guides and UI stuff into portal icons. User:Kirkburn/Sig2 18:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Image Clarification Questions

Like many others I have been noticing that there have been many armor/weapon/recipe images that are missing from WowWiki and would like to help contribute in adding said images. Hence the reason I made an account. However, I am a little unclear how to go about doing so, even with reading the faqs. Is there a template that we can follow to add the data for each? Or is it as simple as going to someplace like Thott/Allakhazam and saving those pictures? (And are they okay with that - I guess as long as we credit where we borrowed the picture? Or is it like the icons and it's from Blizzard in the first place, so no need?) Is there a naming guideline for things other than Icons (for the destination since the source should be the same as we downloaded it, right?)? And last, since most of the armor etc links end up at stubs, does it count as a reversion? I realize there's no text there in the first place, but it is editing a page that already exists. So just double checking before I start having fun trying to add all these pictures only to find out I'm violating the rule. =/ Know what I mean? =) --GirlieGirl 20:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Feel very free to add pictures where and when you will. If you do borrow a picture from wowhead/thott/alla for an item, you should definitely say something along the source of "Source: http://www.wowhead.com/rest of link" when uploading it to the server. After you've uploaded the picture, use something like [[Image:Ashbringer|thumb|<right or left>|<small blurb about item; what class is wielding it if known.>]] (eg, Thunderfury). No, there isn't a naming guideline; some people prefer to have something like "StaffofNaturalFury" and others will upload a picture like "Staff of Natural Fury". And I'm not sure what you mean by "reversion?" Not much is considered a reversion, unless you disagree with what someone else edited into a article (usually vandalism).
Does that help? :)--User:Sky2042/Sig 20:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you do decide to start adding images, then I really would suggest you add the image of just that item - use something like WoW Model Viewer to grab the item, screenshot it and away you go. Items look different on different models, and uploading 10 different shots for one item isn't really acceptable. Also, be sure to come up with a naming format to make sure all the images you upload are consistent in their file name, weapon_1hsword_thunderfury.jpg for example. User:Kiltek/Sig 04:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the feedback. And yes it did help. =) Kiltek, don't worry, I wasn't referring to adding screenshots of in-game weapons/armor and what not, but adding the data boxes for them. For example, the Worn Dagger is a One-Handed weapon, deals 1-2 damage, 0.9 dps, etc. That picture box. I think it's what most people are expecting when they click on a link like that. They want to see that thott/alla like picture. I'll throw up a couple when I have time, and try to match it to a page that was well laid out. I believe those pages also have a place to throw screenshots from other users up, otherwise they can be added if wanted. However, I don't have the time to be taking screenshots like that, so it won't be coming from me.  ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girliegirl (talk · contr).

If you are talking about the tooltips for items like you see in game then have a look at Boilerplate:Item. Also, sign your posts here with ~~~~ - it automatically appends your username and a timestamp. --User:Psyker7/Sig 07:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

That's exactly what I was talking about, actually. Didn't realize it was called a boilerplate, thanks for that. Didn't see that info in the faqs, perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough. Realized that there were tooltips when I was picking apart the Thunderfury page that Sky referenced. Was going to build pages off of that one, but now I don't have to now that I know where to look, thanks for the link. =) Also thanks for the tip in the sig. GirlieGirl 07:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep in mind that a bunch of item icons are on the wiki, and the link needs to be fixed to have ".png" at the end. So if you find a broken image link, that may fix it. --Bobson 16:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Double bosses enumeration

What is actually the point in having double bosses enumeration on raid instances' pages? I mean, take a look at Blackwing Lair for example: at the top of the page there is Template:Blackwing Lair with all the bosses listed and on the bottom of the page there are all bosses listed once again (above the trash mobs). As far as I see, the same goes for all raid instances. Isn't that redundant? If not, why? -- Vysogota T / C

Well, the reason I would say is simple:

There's 2 kinds of players accessing a page like that, those who want a quick overview from the instance and fast switching between the different bosses (click in the template boss nr1, read quickly, press back, click 2 and so on). The second group wants to read a bit about the instance, read it's lore behind it and just get to know the instance as a whole. The first group wants fast access to it, so they need a small list on top, while for the second group, it's more logical that they get some information about the bosses while they are scrolling down to read, so they get a more logical placement.

I do agree though, that just a list is stupid. A few small flags behind it like "dragon" and similar would be something nice to do. I think that's more a matter of taste :) Hope this was informative enough ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 14:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Violet Eye Rewards

Violet_Eye/Rewards is confusing as hell. I threw together User:Syzgyn/Sandbox#Violet_Eye_Rewards, but I don't like that it extends off the edge of the screen. Thoughts? Ideas? Also, there's got to be some intuitive way to have templates for all the different rings with the same name... --Syzgyn 06:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Tbh, I'd rather have the original one, except that it should show that the last items are seperate rewards. The reason is because humankind is used to reading from left to right first before moving down. That's also doable on your template, though I fear it will still stick of the screen. Try that perhaps: Top line repuation level, left side the paths. On a sidenote, why do those last rewards also appear on Violet Signet? Seems like someone is including templates in a bad way :) ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 14:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

WoW and Blizzcon news!

Template:Wcpumpmove

Prospects for new abilities and talents boilerplate

I'd like you to have a look at [Blink], [Slam], and [Blizzard]. I must thank whomever coded the Template:Tlink and Template:Tlink templates; they really aided in cleaning up the pages. For what the pages looked like before, see: Blink old, Slam old, and Blizzard old. The only real difference between Blink/Blizzard and Slam is the location of the ranks table; I personally prefer where I stuck it on the Blink and Blizzard pages. A few talents have had the infobox added, such as [Piercing Ice], however, they haven't been cleaned up to the same quality as the abilities aforementioned. Comments and questions are appreciated. :) --User:Sky2042/Sig 17:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I like the styling a lot there. Empty rows in the infobox shouldn't been shown though. I agree the rank table is better placed on Blink/Blizzard. User:Tekkub/Sig 05:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah the new boxes are nice actually.. they need some padding properties added to them though, to stop the text blending with the border, especially on small screens! (I could do this myself actually...) --User:Kiltek/Sig 06:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The empty rows wouldn't be there if we had parser functions (which is what the template descriptions say). I'm glad you agree with the placement of Blink/Blizzard. :)
As for padding properties, I'm pretty sure the boxes have those; might want to take a look at the coding yourself. Other than that, I think I'm going to be replacing the boilerplates with generic copies of those. And then, mes'a gonna' update some talentsa. :)--User:Sky2042/Sig 13:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

New ability boilerplate is now located at Boilerplate:Ability, with redirects from Boilerplate:Single spell and Boilerplate:Single ability! Next up will be a rehaul of Boilerplate:Talents! Leave your comments and questions at Talk:Boilerplate:Ability. --User:Sky2042/Sig 17:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been editing mage talents when I get a chance, since most were stubs. I'll take a look at the talents boilerplate too, and leave my comments on those talk pages. --Piumosso-Uldum 23:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Boilerplate:Talent is now in place to replace the old Boilerplate:Talents! Have a looksee and comment on the talk page there.--User:Sky2042/Sig 19:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Bot edits warning!

Be warned, we have found a bot that has been creating new accounts and editing single pages. Noticeable details:

• 6 character completely random user name
• One single edit
• Removal of '+' characters from an article or talk page
• Removal of much of the latter part of an article or talk page

If you see any of this, fully revert it and notify an admin via WoWWiki:Known vandals. Admins, if you notice one, roll it back and infinite block (admins only need not worry about adding to the Known Vandals list). Thanks! User:Kirkburn/Sig2 18:08, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Any idea of why a bot such as this would have been implemented? The edits are not even malicious, just pointless... User:Kiltek/Sig 07:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

You say that and soon after someone vandalizes the village pump... removing most of the latter part of the article... ^.^ --User:Psyker7/Sig 08:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

haha, yeah, Irony crit ftl! He got 5 minutes of fame before I noticed atleast. User:Kiltek/Sig 09:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd just hit save for the revert when it said you'd beaten me to it... /shrug --User:Psyker7/Sig 09:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Emote templates?

Are there and emote templates? If I did :P it'd look like a face with it's tongue out? I think there was something about this a long time ago on the pump. --Colinstu 20:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The only one that exists, I made - . If someone wants to create some, might be nice! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, if anyone wants to make some more, do so . I'll go take a look first. User:Colinstu/Sig 20:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

How'd I do? User:Colinstu/Sig 21:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

WTB transparency... i'll see what i can do. --User:Psyker7/Sig 00:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

done.... how you like it? --User:Psyker7/Sig 00:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Nice ty, I was thinking same thing. User:Colinstu/Sig 01:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If you wanted to be really clever you could create a template that would format a string given to it to add in smileys. Easy enough to do, but would imagine it could create a lot of other problems if you include templates within the template...? User:Kiltek/Sig 16:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe something like {{smiley|=P}} {{smiley|=)}} etc etc... I havn't mucked around with templates much, I could take a look. --User:Psyker7/Sig 21:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I mean something like {{addsmileys|Hi! ;) text goes here :) kkthnxbai}} and the template just returns to formatted string to include the Smiley HTML, is this only making sense to me? User:Kiltek/Sig 11:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Making sence, and that was what i first thought.... seems a bit over the top but. Imagine wrapping an entire page in that template :O (I need that emotion too --User:Psyker7/Sig 07:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that's the problem with the execution of it, I just think it'd slow pages down even more, so it's not viable. The same problem will occur, however, if we create to many smileys and call them repetitive times on one page. User:Kiltek/Sig 07:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

WoWWiki:Featured article

WoWWiki:Featured article needs you! Please improve and suggest, I don't want Garona to be up for too long :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 10:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

2.1.0 undocumented changes

See Patch 2.1.0 (Release Notes)#Undocumented changes for a huge list of undocumented changes! If you come across more in your online travels, please add them - links to the current sources are at the end of the page . User:Kirkburn/Sig3 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Say, Kirkburn, weren't you the one who pulled up the Warcraft Pump? :p ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a wiki article :( User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Damn you, the Warcraft pump was my idea :< --User:Adys/Sig 16:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You actually believe that yourself? :( ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 14:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ignoring Patrigranny, I have a question - should we rename all the patch pages without the (Release Notes) bit? It seems to serve no purpose. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, tbh, it's not even right. These aren't Release Notes, but Test Realm Notes... Not that it will change, but bleh... More serious answer, it's not needed. Not even the word "Patch" is needed. "2.1.0" is in my humble oppinion more than enough. But then again, i'm justa granny and we all ignore grannies :( ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 14:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't this be in Warcraft pump? User:Sharlin/Sig

Yep! I'll move it, and damn your sig is still bugged :( User:Kiltek/Sig 08:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

On second thought, this discussion contains content that goes across both pages - Kirks question about the naming for example. May as well keep it here! User:Kiltek/Sig 08:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Wowhead + WoWWiki

While I was browsing Wowhead, I noticed that there was quite some empty space on all the pages on items, NPCs and zones. The user comments are nice, I thought, but then I had a kinda crazy idea: What about mixing Wowhead and WoWWiki? I made up an image for fun, showing parts of the Karazhan article merged into the corresponding Karazhan page at Wowhead, to illustrate my idea, and in fact, most of the people I've shown it like the idea :)

Among them is Skosiris, one of Wowhead's developers, and he would love to implement something like that. The license that applies to the wiki articles allows them to be used outside the wiki (provided that credit is given) but Skosiris would like to do this with the consent of Wowwiki's users - he doesn't want to steal our content.

The important question is: Would the WoWWiki users agree with this - should we allow Wowhead to use our articles, or parts/summaries of them, inside the Wowhead database? They would be embedded into the pages at Wowhead.com, with a link back to the Wowwiki article and the usual user comments, drop rates etc. below them. It would look like this example page.

Since the articles at Wowhead would be relatively short, WoWWiki would get more hits from people wanting to read more about the subject or who want to contribute to the articles, and in exchange for this, Wowhead benefits from value added by the summaries.

We're still working out the details, but first we would like to have some feedback on whether such an integration is desired. Discuss! :) User:Teomyr/Sig 16:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not only that, but this could result in improved article quality. Pardon the language, but this is a fucking sweet idea. --User:Sky2042/Sig 17:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Why pardon? Don't appologize for yourself :P

I've been talking with Skos a bit on this subject as well... I guess I'll share my views with ya'alls. First and foremost, the wiki has a major issue with items, NPCs... all the stuff that can be created from WDB farming. In converse, Head does the WDB stuff very well, but it lacks on the user-created content. Mixing the two sites together seems like the perfect fix. Head can use snippets of articles to fill out their pages, with links to the wiki. In converse, the wiki could use their data feeds for item links and such, and maybe even give head a "Partner Link" in the elinks templates, slightly highlighted even. I would love if we could do item links like the ones here instead of transcluding in whole tooltips, which have to be manually edited any time they change and take up assloads of space.

Now here's the issue I see in implementing this... we need root support (vlad/Rustak and sancus) to get shit done on the wiki side. Skos seems more that willing to let in a few select wiki editors to spruce up the head pages. It only seems fair that if we're going to let them at our content, we actually start using the data feeds they have available to us. But how do we drum up vlad and sancus's interest? I've not found a way... User:Tekkub/Sig 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I will be brief as I should really go to bed :P I am generally positive to the ideas put forward. The WoW community's response to Wowhead has been incredibly positive, and for good reason. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I pretty much got nothing to add to what Tekkub said, it's exactly my opinion. A mix of the two websites would indeed be very neat. As for the possibility of having item tooltips and such provided directly, without having to put all this shitload of information + keeping it up to date on the wiki, it'd just be awesome, and not that hard to do. --User:Adys/Sig 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

WoWWiki+WoWhead=really good. User:Colinstu/Sig 23:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I talked to Skosiris about this in IRC, a little. It sounds to me like they just want permission to cite information in WoW Wiki's articles. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I just feel bad for the person who has to watch all the articles they're interested in and make updates on patch days.

The idea is definitely beneficial to Wowhead, and will speed them along the way to becoming The best DBsite out there for everything World of Warcraft. <silly>I just don't want to see the excellence that WoW Wiki is drawing away from Wowhead's userbase. =P</silly> Tekkub's ideas sound like a good way to form a real, well rounded partnership with this, rather than making it just from the wiki to Wowhead. With Tekkub's ideas, we can be sure there's a definite back and forth. Links just don't provide an explicit reason for users to follow them. -- DuTempete talk|contr 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT) edited 01:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds excellent to me. Embedded boss tactics anyone? Mikk (T) 07:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, love the idea - although I had to really read this whole damn post to get what you were going on about.. I hate reading, and for that I'll give this idea a 9/10 ! It also needs the ideas that Tek put in, in order for this to work. User:Kiltek/Sig 11:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm pro of the idea, but we shouldn't let people "abuse" us. In my humble oppinion, a COMPLETE merge would be the most positive, but also the most impossible. The rest seem like cheap spinoffs. But, we also shouldn't run ahead of ourselves. Realise that they should be either transcluding, which means more usage of our servers, or have someone do the updates 25/8 (which is somewhat the time the wiki gets updates). This last possibility is completely impossible and if it's the chosen solution, I see this idea meeting the toilet very quickly. The idea of having to update each and every page whenever the wiki gets an update sounds like impossible. Doing somehting once is even a worse idea, because things will slowly get outdated. I might be a DOOMthinker, but I really want a decision like this to be thought through. I don't like the idea of getting a jump forward, just to be set completely back, because the other side cuts the deal "due to too much work". Think twice. ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 16:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure the work "merge" was used appropriately here, Patrigan. When I asked Skosiris about this, I had the same confusion. What it sounds like they're really talking about is just a simple quote/summarize with citation. It would only be about 100 or so pages; just dungeons/raids and boss mobs is what I was told. Does that change things for you, Pat, or is it still DHOOM? -- DuTempete talk|contr 17:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You're right about your concerns, Patrigan. As you already said, a complete merge is something that is simply not going to happen; we will have to do a compromise.

Transcluding articles would eliminate the necessity to update everything by hand, but there are also issues with that approach. Most WoWWiki articles are simply not designed to be transcluded into a foreign website (with navboxes, tables, included templates etc.), and to be honest, Skosiris would like the articles on Wowhead to be relatively short. These things make automatic transcluding very hard, if not impossible.

One thing that should have been clarified right from the start (sorry): this was not supposed to happen to every single page in the Wowhead database, but rather at places where you need precise, structured, human-edited articles the most. That would be, for a start, 46 dungeons/raids, 53 factions and several important NPCs (like BC raid bosses and stuff), like DuTempete already said.

Skosiris doesn't expect the articles that are to be included to change dramatically (for example, an overview of the Deadmines is unlikely to have much new stuff added) and would leave the job of updating them to a handful of moderators (including him ;) ). Should any of them severely lack behind the WoWWiki version, you could use the "Report a bug" feature to call for the mods.

User:Teomyr/Sig 17:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

To clarify my discussion with Skos a tad, this is what I got out of it... First off, of course, is getting good item data (and maybe more later) into the wiki automatically. Screw this manually edited item templates and shit. Second off, is adding short summaries of some pages (bosses, instances?) into head. Enough to give a good overview without getting into specifics like strategy and such. The basic idea is to fill in some empty area and at the same time motivate people to visit the wiki for more information. A good example would be Aldor vs Scryer, we'd never put the full page on head, but use a small chunk or such to get people to look at the wiki. Lastly is to get some nice navigation boxes, like Template:Bullets and overview tables like the rep timeline on Cenarion Expedition scattered about on head. If an item nav box could have hover tooltips embedded, image how helpful that would be.

I'm well aware that a true "merge" wouldn't be possible. The whole idea here is to encourage traffic to head for the things they're good at (items, maps, all that WDB-mined data), and to encourage traffic to the wiki for the things we're good at (lore, strategy, overviews and user-created content). User:Tekkub/Sig 18:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the whole idea, I'm VERY pro. I'm just a bit afraid that the power is one-sided. For us, it would be stupid to cut off the deal, but for him, it woulnd't be such a bother. That's what I fear, gaining something great first, so we can then lose it afterwards. I must say, though, that I'm happy it's wowhead, because of all databases, I feel WoWhead to be the cleanest and most "fanbased" one. There's only one way to find out about my concern and that's to actually do this whole thing. I suppose the pros in this case surely outweigh the cons. As long as we don't get too depending on WoWhead, it's all nice and dandy. ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 00:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Discussions of game ideas

I was wondering how people felt regarding pages where we can pool ideas about how WoW could be improved, if its appropriate for the Wiki and if theres any guidlines that have been worked out. I'd like to be able to put my ideas down for improving AV, and I'd feel that the Wiki is a good atmosphere to do it in. --Talgar 03:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even if you do put them here, there is no way they would find their way in game unless you post on the wow suggestion forums is my feeling.

Bliz is hardly going to look at outside sites for ideas. --User:Psyker7/Sig 04:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

CMs monitor external fan sites as part of their job, so they would actually look. However, I do agree that it is not the place of wowwiki to pool these idea - Blizzard have a forum devoted to suggestions, so perhaps that should be your first port of call. User:Kiltek/Sig 04:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Aye, we do get blue visitors here... but we do try to encourage people to post discussions in the proper forums instead of starting topics in the wiki whenever possible. User:Tekkub/Sig 05:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's what I mean by the atmosphere here, and the general structure and operation of Wiki compared to the forums. Threads there have short lifespans and the forums are defined by quantity and not quality; a good place for discussions and arguments, not so good at the preservation of good ideas, or the evolution of them. I'd see the articule as a resource, not as a means of directly influening the CMs. Mainly I just want a serious disscusion, a wide audience and sounding a board. Any precedence for controversial subjects that still deserve articles? Thanks for the replies. --Talgar 06:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, the very least you can do is put up sub pages of your own user page if you want a semi-static place to put up your ideas. E.g. User:Talgar/My ideas for new zones or something like that. I could also see something like this getting linked from the village pump. But the drumming-up of support for this isn't going to come from e.g. wiki admins; it's you users that are actually interested in it that are actually going to have to do it. If there's a few interested, it might be a good idea to set up some sort of main page for all of this where ideas can be listed and discussion can be carried on in a more collected place.

I'm somewhat with Kiltek and Tekkub here; I'm still not sure that WoWWiki is the right place for you (from your perspective), but it's certainly on-topic for the wiki, so if you and others really want it up here, feel free to do so.

Mikk (T) 06:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Tbh, I don't think the idea is that bad. A suggestion portal. But we should take it one step further. Allow me to elaborate:

Often pages get stickied at the WoW-Forums with Wiki links. This is most often a page with extensive information abotu a class or about a realm. We could do something similar for the Suggestions forum in the form of a "Suggestion Portal". The special part about that portal is that people keep an eye on the suggestions forums and nearly litterally "Copy paste" All "decent" suggestions. This opens doors in the way of some "Suggestion Database" Allowing players who want to make a suggestion to first check the wiki to confirm this suggestion has already been made or not. It lessens the amount of "Ingame Housing" posts and similar aswell, so the CMs will also be grateful. Lastly it will be a lure for the CMs (or most specifically the persons who are in charge of this) to look at this Suggestion Portal to get a few ideas. There are already several Wiki Pages that could be thrown into this Portal (per example:[[2]]) There will be some extra additions needed, like maybe a new "Suggestion" namespace, making it clear that this is NOT REAL information. I believe there's also a template for this. Also a category should be created.

All in all, the idea has potential, but it should taken from the right approach, namely from Suggestion Forums to the Wiki and not the other way around. On the other hand, the Wiki has much beter lay-out possibilities than the forums, which is more often a pleasure to read for CMs and others, so it can be used as a writing base aswell. The discussion pages are a bit more lacking but there we have the Forums for Discussion (allowing also to easy bring up new Discussions). Lastly from my personal Wiki-Fan PoV, this is also a great way to lure more persons to the wikiand make it moer popular. If people know that untrue things are marked as untrue (in the sense of suggestion) people will actually take the wiki more seriously aswell. Consider these things. I'm pro of the idea, as long as it is a Forum to Wiki method and that we don't lure all persons from the forum to the wiki. ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 16:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

All these good ideas... crazy cool. --User:Sky2042/Sig 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

CrafterList - Desired Craftable Boiler

This pretty little template could really be utilized in a full fledged boiler and make all the server pages look good. Does anyone want to start a "rarely crafted BoEs that don't suck" article to work from? A list of the sort could even have the items icons by their names.

The epic-bugged-BoP goggles learned from the engineering trainer have no business being on this list, and I believe the complete list of

uncommon

gems that half the Jewelcrafters on the server can cut should be left out too. I don't want this to be the cleanup chore of every CrafterList, make it easy on us! With a collaborative article produced it would take someone about an hour to convert a servers crafters to the standard list and it would reduce all that clutter.

Also, the [edit] links for CrafterHeader don't work.

--Boblo-WW 09:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Boblo, I'm very lazy, and won't look at things unless you include links ;) User:Kiltek/Sig 10:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

silly me Boblo-WW 10:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Template:CrafterHeader

Template:CrafterList

Now does anyone want to see the horrible listings on my server, Server:Whisperwind_US? It's a lot nicer than some of the tables put together by other servers. Boblo-WW 10:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Removed the templates, it was cluttering up the layout and stuff; the links are just fine :).

Sounds like a job for me to do while I'm in the airport on Wednesday, so unless you have some sort of urgency on this, I'll have a look at it then. User:Kiltek/Sig 10:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Perfect, let me know what you do so we can help. Can I leave this here for other people to see or is it supposed to be moved/deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boblo-WW (talk · contr).

Should be in the Village Pump, if you want to move it do so.. but it's not urgent, unless Kirky gets all arsey about it! User:Kiltek/Sig 11:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Would someone move it? I meant to post it there and now I have no clue how.Boblo-WW 12:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Sources

What is Wowwiki's policy regarding sources? I know Wikipedia has become very strict on this – when I read articles on Wowwiki, there is a lot of material without any sources however. Time for a major clean-up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teabingh (talk · contr).

Always back up your arguements with sources... provide the evidence so we know what you're talking about? Source policy depends on the articles contents and context. User:Kiltek/Sig 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

It is extremely difficult to source information in a game. When the information is given in-game, the source is often given by the context of the article, so no link/source needs be given. When something is gleaned from one of the RPG books or novels, then the material should most certainly be sourced. Can you provide some examples of the type material you mean, Teabingh? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 16:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Set table template

I've noticed that the Settable template has gone through some modification, spliting up the w/ the BC only sets, then the whole name of the sets, and now back to the original. Whoever is doing this, just keep it at the original, kk? . It looks a lot cleaner and takes up a lot less room. User:Colinstu/Sig 00:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You'd get the message across a lot better by looking at the History of the template and pinpointing the person making the changes, not enough people read this page to get a personal message across! User:Kiltek/Sig 04:41, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Now why didn't I think of that? Problem solved User:Colinstu/Sig 20:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Maintenance over the next few days

I just started various long-standing maintenance tasks that should be done over the next few days, which should culminate in an upgrade to MW 1.9 by the end of next week. Let me know (preferably via irc or email) if there are any problems during this process! The wiki will be periodically unavailable or in read-only mode in the evenings starting at around 10PM PST. --Rustak 03:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Yay, woo, etc User:Kirkburn/Sig3 09:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Yatta! Are you planning on implementing the javascript includes ^Example like the CSS ones, so we can make some hover tooltip majicks too? User:Tekkub/Sig 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

the azure glade tower defence

Template:Wcpumpmove

Boilerplate:Template

I've added the above Boilerplate... is it clear or a complete mess to try and understand? User:Kiltek/Sig 07:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

No me gusta. --User:Sky2042/Sig 22:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

So are you saying that all templates should also have a description page? I don't think most of them, do, and I'm not sure how you want the template author to notify users that one exists. Perhaps a noincluded redirect? or a noincluded link on the code page? -- DuTempete talk|contr 01:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It's really very simple to tell users how a template works, look at Template:Questbox for example. It has a full page on how the template works... Authors don't need to alert people that a template exists, but it's very annoying when the need arises to go and change a templates design and be presented by a page of confusing code because the author hasn't put any comments; which by the way, is a very basic coding rule. User:Kiltek/Sig 03:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Right, I know what you mean. I think it may be a lot easier to include the description in the same page you put the code, just noinclude it out, unless like Questbox, it's really complicated. In which case, adding a description page might be a better choice. If that's the case, then perhaps a redirect or link should be added to the code page.

My point is that you may want to put some kind of message into the boilerplate that indicates the "best" way to make the description page easy to find for the user. They're not likely to assume that they can find it at Template/description, at least until such a time it becomes commonplace. Unless it already is, and I'm just stupid. =P --DuTempete talk|contr 04:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The description page is located on the actual template page - that is the point. Wrap the description section in noincludes and it doesn't mess with the template at all. Is this what you were talking about? User:Kiltek/Sig 06:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

But your boilerplate says, "To add in an example of what your template will look like when called, create a sub-page from the template." That was where I got confused/troubled. -- DuTempete talk|contr 16:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, perhaps a fully blown guide would be of more use - it's hard to get instructions across on a Boilerplate. By the above quote, I meant showing how the template will look when call - it's impossible to do this on the actual template page as it won't add any information in (look at the bottom of the Boilerplate, that's the raw Quest Box, not a good representation of what it looks like, right?) User:Kiltek/Sig 04:36, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Security Guide?

Is there a security guide on here? If not, would anyone like to venture into a little security guide project to protect people against keyloggers? User:Kiltek/Sig 09:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

My first contribution to said security guide would be "stop using patch mirrors you crazy, crazy kids". Like if someone thinks the Blizzard Downloader is too slow, they've probably got other problems. *cough*addiction*cough*. Word on the street is you can download a file from a patch mirror, and then not run it. Then, run the Blizzard Downloader like normal and it will do a hash check against the file. Odds are you've scored correctly. At least that's a little better than just blindly double-clicking things from the Interweb.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

If you have issues with the blizzy downloader and run your own Bittorrent client, you can extract the torrent from the downloader and "manually" download the patch. I personally found that to work well back in the day, but anymore the blizzy download works fine. And I might note, I have the BT ports forwarded to another computer, not the one I'm downloading the patch on. User:Tekkub/Sig 15:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

well i started one, Security Guide i am however not incredibly technicly savy and could use some help with it. I know we got some REAL smart people here when it comes to the internets.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reskar (talk · contr).

I vaguely rememeber there being a post on the tech support forums, could ask if its OK to rip the content of that to that page. --User:Psyker7/Sig 21:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I already linked one of those threads, added the others now.  Flotsam | (talk / contr)  11:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Email authentication now required to edit

This seems to be the easiest way to deal with vandals; unfortunately it's a bit of a pain, but hopefully not too much of one. So, a valid email address is required to now -- you may be prompted to authenticate your email address even if you've been a member for a while. Sorry for any inconvenience that this may cause!

--Rustak 19:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds great to me :D --GRYPHON^tc 19:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

This is me --> User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Another example of good server config reducing spam and vandalation :) User:Tekkub/Sig 21:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

May we also require it to vote? I think that both elink votes still in contention should require valid email addresses for voters User:Sharlin/Sig 06:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

To vote you must already be able to edit. --User:Psyker7/Sig 07:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Redundant rep info?

Simple proposal... on pages with a rep "timeline" table, shal we remove any redundant "guide" info that doesn't add to what's in the table? Take for example Consortium, the first two lines of "Neutral to Friendly" don't give any new info, but the last line does. I propose that info be removed. The Rep section below the table should give more hints and strategies on how to rep grind efficiently, it doesn't have to detail out every single option available, that's what the table's there for. User:Tekkub/Sig 01:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

• I completely agree. --Syzgyn 14:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild listings for server pages

Just made a few templates to help out with guild lists.
Template:Guild_list_horde
Template:Guild_list_ally
Template:Guild_list

They automatically create links to armory profiles for each guild, along with listing them, and linking to their wiki page if it exists.

See Server:Uther_US#Guild_Listing for an example.
Use {{subst:Guild_list_create}} to create one. --User:Psyker7/Sig 06:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Template talk:Guild list

Website url with characters like &, ? and = arent displayed correctly. Anybody knows a fix for this?

Example url with problems: http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=108421 Wiki pages where template is used Server:Uther_US --Njannink 07:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Hm. How do you mean? I'm not seeing the problem on my end. Mikk (T) 07:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Problem occurs in the template not in this village pump article. See Server:Uther_US alliance guild Blind Rage. There the website url is missing, but it is filled in the template. --Njannink 07:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverted your changes Njannick. While it looks ugly if there is no given url, all urls do work regardless of their characters.

Looking into a fix now. --User:Psyker7/Sig 10:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

And fixed --User:Psyker7/Sig 10:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Join the IRC channel, slackers

Kirkburn pokes random people like Varg, Ragestorm, and others (you know who you are!) who have yet to experience the delights of the (actually quite busy) IRC channel.

In somewhat related news, you may notice that the CSS of the site has been updated - e.g. you can read the preferences page at last! Rejoice. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 12:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

css working? posting in a legendary announcement!  Flotsam | (talk / contr)  12:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Admins can't edit the CSS yet, but the nasty prefs page got a bit of style love at least. User:Tekkub/Sig 16:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I can't get on because ircprox.emigratas.com seems to be down and I am behind a firewall. :'( User:Kitan/Sig 14:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Kitan, I can just about accept that excuse, even if it makes me very sad :( User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Try http://www.ircatwork.com or http://www.sarcastic-carrot.com/cgi-bin/irc5.6/irc.cgi. I've used those as well as emigratas when one of them either goes down or get blocked by chat.freenode.net - Clyde_Jr - tal_k - contri_b 16:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I will deign to respond when this firestorm of exams is over. Sometimes, I can't help but wonder if Kil'jaeden is secretly trying to sabotage us. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Finnall Goldensword

Template:Wcpumpmove

Featured article

We need some input on this - really I just need a list of articles people think should be featured. I don't think it needs be too formal, as that's just not fun.

See WoWWiki talk:Featured article! I nominate Illidan as the next FA for obvious reasons. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

How many edits?

Look here: [3]

Recognise that wiki at the top of the list? (yes, wikipedia isn't counted). 300,000,000 page views and counting! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:17, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I've updated lots of the special MediaWiki pages, so you should see a whole load of funky stuff around. Meanwhile, I just noticed the option for "Show edit toolbar (JavaScript)" in Preferences. I've wanted to turn that damn thing off for nearly a year and now I find it. Sheesh. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No way we got 5 times more views than en.wikipedia.. no way. --User:Adys/Sig 07:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Use Europe for naming of guild pages

I have noticed european guild articles being moved from Guild:Guildname_(Servername_EU) rather than Europe as the server pages use eg. Server:Trollbane Europe.

EU != Europe, and it looks better with Europe rather than EU especially because of the server articles

 D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  05:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

There isnt any policy on the naming of non-US realms, perhaps we should make that?

 D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  05:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Guild_pages says:

The guild pages should be in the Guild namespace, contain the complete name of the guild, and be followed by the guild's server and country code in parentheses.

To me country code means EU not Europe. --User:Psyker7/Sig 06:00, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

EU is not a country code for Europe (and ISO seems to agree with me), EU is an abbrivation(sp?) of the European Union which is a whole lot different. As an example Norway and (iirc) Switzerland are not part of the EU - but must certanly part of Europe.  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  06:50, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Generations of WoW players used to say/write "I'm playing on Arthas US/Arthas EU" and not Europe. Additionally, afaik also Blizzard named them EU-Aggramar, DE-Shattrath and FR-Eitrigg, not "Aggramar Europe", "Shattrath Germany" and "Eitrigg France" - plus it's shorter and I personally have used it after seeing it used as the standard here.  Flotsam | (talk / contr)  09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I have never seen that personally, and deffo not from Blizzard. If you can prrof this please do. Besides EU have never been the standard here - just look at the server aticles all are named Europe.

 D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  09:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

There was no US designation when the Europe server articles were being labeled. However, with the use of US, EU is a much more comparable modifier. --GRYPHON^tc 11:30, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no such thing as an abreviation for Europe, however concidering it's too much work to write it full, we use EU. The simple fact that it's not 100% apropriate because some egoistic countries decide not to join it, is not my problem, but theirs. I think noone is willing to give up the fact that they can write something in 2 letters just because some countries are offended by it. If you are in no way part of Norway or Switserland, (or any european country that hasn't joined YET), then I also don't feel like you have a say in it. Do not get me wrong, as I know you will be offended by these words, however I feel Norway and Switserland to NOT be a part of Europe, simply because they feel too good to join the Union. I also feel that I should not look at them when I want to use the most common used abreviation for Europe (namely EU). If you are offended by these very harsh words, be my guest, however if I can help it, it will stay EU. (on a side note, if you want to stretch your thinking. US isn't apropriate either, because Australia is also on the US servers.) ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 13:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Offtopic: Norway have a perfectly good reason for this as it would damage their economy, all other countries joined because they could gain from it. Besides Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland are members of Wikipedia:EFTA

 D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  16:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

http://blue.cardplace.com/newcache/forums.wow-europe.com/278658148.htm - random blue answer containing EU in normal speaking habits. And yeah, it doesn't have to be an official European Union abbrev, don't the Canadians also play on US servers?  Flotsam | (talk / contr)  13:48, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me counter that by saying its called Blizzard Europe, not Blizzard EU. But this part of the discussion will get us no where.  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  16:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

From the arena tournament rules (bolding mine, caps theirs): "(II) THE EUROPEAN UNION REGION MADE UP OF THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT ARE SERVED BY THE FRENCH, GERMAN, SPANISH AND UNITED KINGDOM ENGLISH EU WORLD OF WARCRAFT SERVERS;" --Karrion 21:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Think so yeah, but it doesn't really matter :)The point is, we're not a politics place and we're not gonna keep ourselves busy with wether or not EU applies to all players there. It's just a waste of our time // Patrigan | ^Talk/ _Contr \\ 14:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

That sig is horrific.

On topic, EU is a Blizzard used term and as such is why EU is used to name guilds playing on "European Servers", of which can be viewed at http://www.wow-europe.com - thus, if you have a problem with the EU tag, talk to Blizzard. EDIT: Why am I Italic?! User:Kiltek/Sig 06:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

verification

eh, silly question, but if entering your email is "optional" why am i suddenly being "forced" to have it verified? bug or new feature in the wiki? User:CrazyJack/Sig 05:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

See WoWWiki_talk:Village_pump#Email authentication now required to edit User:Kiltek/Sig 06:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah missed that one, could we change the email "optional" to required in the preferences then.? User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:11, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, technically it's optional for the account. Having the account just lets you set preferences for display, have watchlists, etc. It's only required for editing :-) Mikk (T) 08:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyway. I've edited some of the text to make it clearer that it's required for editing, now. Mikk (T) 08:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Hello

Hello I'm new to WoWwiki and I've noticed on alot of articles people are writing half elves instead of blood elves, and I was just curious : If they know so much lore, can't they refeer to blood elves by their name? I mean I know they were high elves, but that's changed now, and it gets very confusing reading about high elves when they're actualy blood elves.

--Pharoth 09:17, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This is in the wrong section, but I'll answer nonetheless. You're getting confused, High Elves are not Blood Elves. You might want to review my writing at Talk:Horde/Analysis#Blood_elves as well are reading High Elf