This is the archive of the WoWWiki Village Pump project

  • This page has been superseded by the new forums - please now visit Forum:Index!
  • This page is kept for historical purposes only.
Current Discussions

Products vs Recipes

I'm looking for a consensus before I start wholesale changes to how engineering items are categorized.

My thoughts:

  1. Category:Engineering: catch-all for anything that doesn't fall in one of the other categories
  2. Category:Engineering Products: all pages on engineered items that have uses other than as a component in another recipe (or quest objective).
  3. Category:Engineering Ingredients: all pages on items used by engineering recipes, including those that are a result of engineering (e.g. casings, bolts, tubes, etc)
  4. Category:Engineering Schematics: those objects that teach particular (engineering) recipes
  5. Category:Engineering Recipes: I am unsure if this represents "all items created by the engineering skill", or "all recipes learned from trainers", or "all schematics you can pick up" (the objects) or just what. I looked at Category:Alchemy Recipes for contrast, and find what for engineering is Schematics. By default, I am assuming the broadest interpretation: if you can engineer it, it goes there.

We've lots of items in "engineering" that should (now) be in Recipes and either Products or Ingredients. And we've lots of items that are in Products or Ingredients but not in Recipes, or vice versa.

I like the thought of a one-stop, self-maintaining list of all engineered items (like Engineering on Thottbot ). We have the lists, cut up, in places like Apprentice_Engineering_schematic, but these are not simple, or self-maintaining. And the latter is a killer.

I thought I'd float a balloon here before I started making changes that would require someone clean up after me if I was "wrong". Your thoughts, please? --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Engineering recipes refers to the recipes that you learn, not the ones you can buy straight from the trainer, eg, white items and such. --User:Sky2042/Sig 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
As a general note, the article on a category page should reflect what kind of articles the category contains and not some generic copy-paste article on a similar topic. In the rework of engineering categories, the category article should specifically describe what's in the category.
In the case of Category:Engineering Recipes, it should probably note the articles in the category are items created by recipes from an engineering trainer that -may- contain the actual recipe information. I would prefer the category be renamed Category:Engineering Trainer Recipes, to be more accurate.
The Field Repair Bot 74A actually is neither from a schematic item or a trainer, but a object on the floor in BRD, so I'm not sure where it should go. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:02 AM PDT 9 July 2007
My vote is in Category:Engineering Schematics for Field repair bot (etc), as "any engineering recipe that doesn't come from a trainer". The point being, "how do I get this particular recipe?"
I could live with "Engineering Trainer Recipes", I guess. I'd prefer to have a decision on how to handle Gnomish and Goblin specializations first, before going that route.
for instance, would Engineering Trainer Recipes (category) have subcategories for Apprentice/journeyman/expert/artisan/master/goblin/gnomish ?
--Eirik Ratcatcher 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles can be in more than one category at a time, so yes, I would definitely recommend apprentice/journeyman/expert/artisan/master/goblin/gnomish cats for browsing and sorting purposes. As an engineer, I would definitely find use in being able to browse that way. --DuTempete talk|contr 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes. We know. Go here Talk:Wowhead#Ownership. Kirkburn talk contr 05:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Ace

[1] - a little something I wrote for the Ace wiki to dispel some myths. :) Kirkburn talk contr 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a big fan of ACE2. I have a large number of the Fubar extensions installed and cannot imagine playing the game without them SharlinTalk / Did 12:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't call it "ACE", ckknight will strangle you :) It's "Ace". Kirkburn talk contr 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't know whether to put new creatures into the category:mob or category:creatures or start a new category for their zone. The mobs in question are the trash inside of Tempest Keep; such as Astromancer. --Ithar 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Put them in Mobs. Creatures is for different species, not differently non-unique named enemies.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 14:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GeeVee coming monday

Based on the largely positive feedback about putting the ad in the featured box, we went ahead and signed the geevee deal to advertise their site for 30 days with the ad I mentioned. Expect the ad we talked about here to replace the featured article section JUST on the home page for 30 days. Thanks again for the patience and support on this. Please let me know if you have any consensus on what to do with the freebie money we have now for a user contest.

--Penchina 14:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Freebie money? Hrm.... Honestly you know what would be cool? Buy a batch of WoW game cards and "raffle" them off to contributors. I can't think of a better way to encourage good editors to edit more than to give them free WoW time. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Not all contributors play anymore. ;). Nor are they all 18, which was my biggest issue with the last one (I do understand why though). --User:Sky2042/Sig 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The ad is now up. I'd appreciate any feedback. Angela (from Wikia). 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Totally useless placement. At 1024x768 I do not see it when the site loads. I will check 1600x1200 but right now I don't see why they would be happy. Actually for better use of the site I think we need to put the WikiNews/WikiSponsor section on top of the selected article index. Why? Because the selected article index never changes. As it stands now I bet most visitors to the site never see the news. We could also have a mini-banner to the selected article of the week there as well [My Main Page]SharlinTalk / Did 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I also don't think the ad placement is good. It should be far more at the top, like this experiment in the Sandbox. Though, I like Sharlin's main page design best so far, it integrates the ad far better than my draft :)
///Teomyr /// 12:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It's up to the community here if you want to move it up though I like Sharlin's new design a lot. Angela (from Wikia). 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy:Homophobia & The Sara Andrews Fiasco

Based on the overwhelming amount of homophobia found in-game, there should be an article in Wowwiki discussing it. Given what happened to Sara Andrews[[2]] at the hands of one of Blizzard's own homophobic Game Masters and the fact that it caused Blizzard to privately issue an apology to her for its stance, it deserves recognition in Wowwiki. You can't just have the good without the bad. WoW is an extremely homophobic game with built-in hetero-centric emotes (and in the case of Taurens and Blood Elves, homophobic emotes.) The game itself is encouraging young people to use hate speech and the vast majority of guilds are anti-GLBT and feature hate speech on their vent and teamspeak channels. This needs to be addressed. Malazoth 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how blood elves and tauren have homophobic emotes. Skipping to the point, if you can cook up a nice article (how does Homophobia in World of Warcraft sound for a title?)about ingame homophobia.. by all means be my guest.IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAPΘLLΘ(ZEUS) 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it belongs here. It would be subject to constant controversy and certainly doesn't abide by NPOV as it is purely based on personal views --GRYPHONtc 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Though controvertial, I do not see why it could not be added, but it would have to be written in a NPOV presenting facts and not overgeneralizations. you said 'Wow is an extremely homophobic game' but then you mentioned the homophobic emote options. It needs to focus equily on both sides of the issue. If people do not like it, then it will be deleted, but if is WoW related people can try...Nevermind. We do not need this.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering all businesses are like that, I don't see it as really being WoW Wiki worthy.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
An interesting topic that could be debated quite feverishly, but unfortunately I don't think the Wiki is the appropriate forum for it. Perhaps submit a question to something like WoW Insider where the focus is more on user opinions and debates. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At most stick it on a user page, it doesn't warrant an article. SharlinTalk / Did 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This most certainly does not warrant its own article. For one thing, "homophobic" is an extremely biased word used by the LGBT community that is far from true in many cases. Also, your so-called "homophobia" is prevalent in all of society, not simply within this game community. Posting an article addressing anti-LGBT language by players is like posting an article addressing all of the players that speak English in the game. Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof of emotes by Tauren and Blood Elves to be "homophobic". This, once again, is an extremely subjective opinion held by a vast minority of individuals. A wiki exists to post facts relevant to the subject matter. Not people's personal crusades. Putts 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am family; no, this doesn't belong here. And what are you smoking, tauren are homophobic? And blood elves? Puhlease sister, have you heard them speak? Fuh-lam-ing! ... okey now I feel all dirty... *snicker* TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have an article on this subject, but just make it clear that it violates NPOV and should be read as such. Most likely any article on something like this is hard to judge as NPOV. We aren't wikipedia, after all.
Also, the idea of a wiki posting facts is somewhat ludicrous. Wikis post information that is screened with a usual bias toward factuality. Have you ever read Uncyclopedia... ;-)
Anyway, I suspect this article won't be allowed, but I just want to add my vote, in case some people find a way to remove the branches from their backsides. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:00 PM PDT 6 July 2007

As a news item, covering the Sara Andrews deserves a page as much as any other notworthy event (such as the episode of Blizzard marking certain Linux users as breaking TOS for using... Cedega, was it?) and for the same reasons.
An article on Homophobia in WoW would best be first aired on a user page (IMO), pretty much for the reasons noted earlier: too many people -on both sides- would disagree with any factual rendering of the subject. On a user page, "non-NPOV" can be used to quiet some of that controversy long enough for an editorial consensus to emerge.
Looking at comments above, I have to add that I believe: (NPOV) != ("balanced account") in that "balanced account" attempts to provide as many loons on both sides, whether the facts justify that side or not. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A neutral point of view article stating all the facts would show Blizzard's action are not the result of homophobia, and that it has all been a silly over-reaction. I've yet to see any evidence showing otherwise. For example, a list of quotes from accused Blizzard GMS, pictures of offensive emotes, etc. I doubt the accusers can put together a convincing list. Let them try. Raze 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest I can see to a 'homophobic' Tauren emote is the male /silly "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies." And only barely, as it refers to the way milk is treated to keep it from seperating. The belf thing is just silly since at least some of the male ones are trying very hard to be... "Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?" and the scrunchie one in particular... During the 'Love is in the air' event, after using the cologne or perfume, you will see the little hearts floating over the head of NPCs of both sexes, and can give the 'love gifts' to either. The last time I messed with it, I offered tokens to both sexes to see what would happen; and was both accepted and rebuffed by both, randomly. Blizzard as a company doesn't seem homophobic to me.

Users, on the other hand, often seem to be violently so, to the extent of using 'gay' as a synonym for anything bad. Bad item, stupid person, poor instance design, etc. I can see individual GMs doing stupid things, but that happens in any company. I doubt it was policy. --Azaram 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Same with the xmas event... Every year I flirt with the other male dwarves to get my crappy [Mistletoe] TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a part of the LBGT community. That said, I think an article on the Sara Andrews issue is worth creating as long as it doesn't include the words "think" or "believe" in it. It is part of community lore, afterall. An article on LBGT relations in game, though, I'm not sure. WoW has definitely been a source of some debate about this, even stretching into RL issues such as use of the word "gay". I think an article that clearly stated arguments on both sides for every issue is NPOV, however, unless the OP did extensive research before creating it, I wouldn't like to see it. Even one author trying to be neutral will be biased in some way. It's not worth the end result to see that topic here, during a inevitably biased development. Perhaps the suggestion of placing it, first, on a user page can work. It can be edited thoroughly, to attain NPOV, then when there is a consensus of the neutrality of the content, it can be posted. But, where? --DuTempete talk|contr 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An article chronicling the event as it happened is totally acceptable to me. What was suggested, however, was not a historical article but more of a pro-gay propaganda piece. I'm against that, at least here on the wiki... keep that kinda stuff in "Out" magazine :P TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


--Gaskell 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Is there a progaram that I can get and make my own wow character just for display

Check out It should have what you are looking for. - ClydeJr - talk - contrib 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Also check out WowEquip. It may be something close to what you are looking for. -- Cisox (talk - contrib) 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Item Tooltip w/ Sets

Feedback requested Tooltip/Item Sets Integration --GRYPHONtc 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


New WoW item database is up: WoWDigger.

I thought I should make a page for it. Disclaimer: I've been somewhat involved with its development.Chriskl 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man, just can't beat teh Wowhead --User:Sky2042/Sig 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hardly :) Chriskl 09:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, can't beat teh Thottbot --GRYPHONtc 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wowhead > Thottbot. I thought you knew this Gryphen... at least, sub-consciously. --User:Sky2042/Sig 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Main Page

This is an extension of the discussion about the ad on the front page.

I suggest we change the front page layout, move the selected article index section to the middle bringing changing content to the top; like the news and ads. Its a simple change. As it stands now 1024x768 viewers don't see the ad and don't see the news.

See [Re-Ordered Main Page]

--SharlinTalk / Did 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with 1024 viewers, even at 2*1280x1024 I don't see it. On another note I haven't visited the frontpage for a year or so, only maybe because of boredom - but that may be my personal style of viewing, I always directly jump to /<target>...  Flotsam | talk | contr )  16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that people come for the content not the news, that is why the news is not at the top. We had this discussion before when designing the main page. The ad is going to be there for 30 days. There has been no word yet as to if it is going to be a permanent feature. --GRYPHONtc 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Whats the point of having a news section if no one ever sees it?
Second, can we delete the damn cat already? Its almost July
Third, I guess its preferable to see google ads for gold selling and account trading instead of an ad we can control. I guess we prefer the association with gold sellers!
I think changing the front page and navigation bar would help both with ads should they continue and navigation. Did anyone ever bother to determine if any of the links in the navigation bar get regular use?

SharlinTalk / Did 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would no-one ever see it? It's just a slight small scroll away. Why get rid of the cat - I would quite like to set up having several images there to spice up the Main Page. No, we do NOT prefer the gold selling ads, which is why they're mostly blocked. If you're still seeing them, tell us. And finally, yes, thank you, I did actually bother to check that the links get regular use. Kirkburn talk contr 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Because very few will scroll more than the first time here.
  • If we are going to allow ads shouldn't we give them their money's worth?
  • Main pages should relay changing information up front with older content below
  • If the news were a top level item we would not have to graft crap like "2.12 is live" at the top
  • Main page duplicates information about alternate language wikis with the left menu
  • The selected article index is a page unto itself! It needs to be tigtened up
  • More pictures would obscure the mission of the main page
  • Where can we, the casual contributors see relevant link usage stats?
SharlinTalk / Did 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The advertisers are already giving us the money, you want us to cover the Main Page with ads instead of content? Main Pages should give people easy access to the knowledge on the wiki - people do not enjoy having everything moved around all the time, because it is confusing. About the alt language wikis, you have a valid point - I shall look into that.
I have no plans to add more images to the front page, only to at some point set up a revolving set of cute images where the cat currently 'stands'.
Popular page stats (over the life of the wiki) can be found here - Special:Popularpages. Note the Main Page links are NOT supposed to be a reflection of that list, only influenced by it. What links do you feel can change? Kirkburn talk contr 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What part of my statement says to cover the main page with ads? Oh, none of it does, but for your argument to work you have to change what I said to fit. What part of my statement says to move everything around all of the time? Oh, none of it! I said put the news up front where it can be seen. Not only does it help make the page look timely we won't need to graft items like the "patch 2.12" is live at the top like some welt. I still think the "Selected Article Index" is excessive, what part of "selected" encompasses 53 (FIFTY THREE) links? SharlinTalk / Did 15:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
When you have 35,000 articles and a huge range of completely different topics, it's quite hard to reduce the number of links. Believe me, I've tried. Having the ad at the top of the page would mean it would cover a huge percentage of smaller screens. An advert is not website content, which is what the site is about. As for where do you say to move stuff around all the time, you said it in "Main pages should relay changing information up front with older content below". The wiki does not have changing information that can be picked out. Each page of the thousands are in flux, there are no projects to pick out, excellent edits to pinpoint, or much specific site news to report. That's why we don't list it. We're also not particularly a Warcraft news site, hence the lack of need for that. If you wish to reduce the number of links or change the Main Page design, create it (as I have seen you already start). It's hard for me to provide constructive feedback on your ideas when all I have is complaints - I need to see something to comment on it. Kirkburn talk contr 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The re-ordered page is an ugly hack imho. If the main page is going to be changed, it should be re-designed with the adspace as a design element, not something tossed in a space that wasn't designed for it and then shoved up to the top. When the main page was designed before it was decided then as well that news is not what people are here for, they are here for the content sections. --GRYPHONtc 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Note I'm definately not against updating the Main Page design, but I'm not sure what can change. Two other comparable wikis (with similar amounts of edits, judging from their RC lists) are and - from those, one thing that might be good is to get rid of the "Main Page" title section. We don't have the ability to do collapsible sections atm. Kirkburn talk contr 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Notice those wikia do not feature the ad. Is there any indication that this ad is going to be on WoWWiki beyond the 30 days that was mentioned? --GRYPHONtc 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
None that I know of. This started as a one off thing, so unless something else comes up, it'll return to normal. If it does come up again, we'll definately have to think about the revamp. Kirkburn talk contr 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia links

I think the wiki needs a page for Wikia-related links, such as for the various languages and for the various guild and realm wikis (something we should start promoting, especially as we're part of the wider Wikia community!)

The current wikis:

Anyone got good idea for a page name and how it could be fitted on the front page? Feel free to start something :) Kirkburn talk contr 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'Related wikis'? --Pcj (TC) 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Places you'll probably only go once, if ever?  :) SharlinTalk / Did 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sharlin, why are you being so abrasive? I'm asking for help, and if you check those wikis you'll see several are doing quite well :/ Kirkburn talk contr 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
What part of the :) didn't you get? SharlinTalk / Did 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if you add a smiley, it's still a little unfair to them :( Bah, maybe I just need chocolate. Chocolate is always good! Kirkburn talk contr 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely related to the above (in that it's to do with Wikia), we were mentioned in a recent Kotaku article - check out Smiley Kirkburn talk contr 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Talent trees

What is the correct term for the whole 'tab' of a class (which consists not only its respective talent tree, but also the spells)? --bfx 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question. This seems to be ignored most of the time. I've seen it called "type" or "category" (vague), "school" (usually misleading, see School), and "tree" (conflating with talents as you mention). I think the answer is, there isn't one. Harveydrone 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Armory uses references to "Specialization" in it's markup. --GRYPHONtc 00:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
But I think in the Armory, it is referring to talents and builds, not basic spells and abilities. FWIW, thottbot uses the terms "line" and "skill" to refer to this. Worldofwconline similarly uses "Skill Line".

Comments on set page design wanted

Check out Gloves of Malorne and Malorne Regalia - the set-bonus integration into item pages, as well as a slightly different layout for the set page are the two new features I'd like feedback on. If this is interesting, drop by Template talk: Tooltip and leave a comment about set integration as well. :) -- Starlightblunder 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They are as of now i know intergrated. W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 02:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1337 Hax! (?)

In WW:DNP it says not to post exploits, citing WoWWiki:Policy/Exploits. But on the specific exploits page it only mentions translational exploits. I noticed that this site doesn't have a page for Glider (or does it?). Does this mean we don't make pages about hax? If so, I think Multibox and Multiboxing need to be deleted. IconSmall Orc Male1336 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note: It's obvious when a software is agaisnt-TUA because of the hilarious way the authors/defenders of the software try to weasel around the issue. Well... I think it's funny anyway... IconSmall Orc Male1336
Uh, multiboxing isn't against against the ToS / EULA. There's even been someone out there who had 5 boxes running at one time... 1 Priest and 4 Mages. --User:Sky2042/Sig 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That takes talent.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really. One set of buttons for the Mages, and one for the Priest. --User:Sky2042/Sig 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I currently dual-box. The key behind it is having macros assigned to the tool bar that target and cast appropriate spells. They need to be similar across both characters to ensure that you don't have to think very much about what you are doing. Some of the 5-box solutions I have seen use one keyboard to control 5-pcs simulataneously. SharlinTalk / Did 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Me Again, I redirected Dual Box and Dual Boxing to Multiboxing since it was a larger and more complete article SharlinTalk / Did 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Well I'll be a orc's uncle, I guess you're right. I just asked on the General Help forum and they said multiboxing was legal! Toj does not approve... >:-( IconSmall Orc Male1336 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sky, Multiboxing is not against the ToS/EULA itself, however using applications to send keystrokes is another deal all-together. The person you mentioned did it through several computers with several input-devices. The program Multibox would fall under the category of Unattended Gameplay, Unapproved Third Party Software, and perhaps Data Stream Manipulation and Data Mining. Fiskert/c  18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Multiboxing is fine, as long as you don't use one account for it (there used to be a glitch where more than one person could be on an account) I wouldn't see why blizzard wouldn't mind you buying 5 accounts and playing =/ but then that would be a waste of money, unless your using some modification to give you an advantage to the game, multiboxing is still legal and doesn't go against the ToS/EULA but it is considered by some players wrong W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure but as i said i Multiboxing was ok, but the application Multibox is not. Fiskert/c  03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like if someone is really concerned they should get the word from Blizzard, since our opinions aren't what matters... its theirs. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:23 PM PDT 6 July 2007
I tagged Multibox with the Template:Tlink template, for future investigation. Please put your comments in Talk:Multibox. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:29 PM PDT 6 July 2007

User rumors/speculation

I know user pages are personal, but I have the idea to categorize theories based on topic, with like... an "Expansion Ideas" cat, and specific popular theories gioning in things like "Northrend" and "Great sea" Subcats and others going in the main cat. The speculation template is not welcome on user pages so this would make finding alike non-story fanfic easier. Thoughts?--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Provided you only tell people how to categorize their user pages. I certainly would not want someone grouping my pages with others. SharlinTalk / Did 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I never intended to do it without consent from each page's author, I just was proposeing that the cats be made.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "Cats" but if your grouping users, it would be better to keep the members as a whole and maybe seperate off the staff/admins and such... W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Cats = categories. I can not spell that without copying it from another page. I do not want to group users, there is already this for Users and this for Admins. I wanted to group their (and my) personal theories by subject. Such as mine: User:Sandwichman2448/Northrend Expansion (this is not an advertizement).--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it would seem as a good idea, as long as you have the user's consent i guess... but it seems pretty much cool ^^ W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my proposed system. It should clean up the rumored races/expansion pages. The bullets represent subcategories in whatever category is above it. Adding yours to these is optional, unlike putting it in the fan fiction category, as the 'Fanfic' template is required on ideas.

Fan fiction & Rumors

  • User ideas <--Ideas, not stories
    • User race ideas
      • (race with many user ideas) (if category clutters)
    • User expansion ideas
      • User Northrend ideas (if category clutters)
      • User Great Sea ideas (if category clutters)
      • (more popular Xpack ideas)

I need feedback. Small categories are ugly.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did Category:User ideas... I hope they do not stay empty. No one told me not to.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages

There are now a grand total of 'FOUR' uncategorized pages in this wiki! I've categorized about 100 or more articles and these are the last ones giving me/us trouble:

  1. /Tooltip buff (WTF is this???)
  2. Multibox
  3. Multiboxing
  4. WoW Model Viewer

Help! IconSmall Orc Male1336 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Addons?--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the hardest-to solve question comes from how to categorize a page which doesn't exist... --Pcj (TC) 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Game Terms for multiboxing SharlinTalk / Did 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
SmileyAlmost there! Can we get a sysadmin or something to kill whatever the hell /Tooltip buff is? IconSmall Orc Male1336 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
link to the dodgy page, as the slash is confusing the wiki links above --Karrion 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been taking care of the ones I see pop up, but it seems like a neverending battle... Tongueout —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syzgyn (talkcontr). 05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If this hasn't been answered I think Multibox and multiboxing should go in game terms, Wow Model Viwer and "tooltip buff?" should go into the Addon modifications for the wow interface :) W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Multibox should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to multiboxing, WoW Model Viewer should be replaced with a more generic model article, and Multiboxing might need a rewrite Fiskert/c  18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Multibox and multiboxing should stay seperate, and WoW Model Viewer is ok chaning it doesn't really make a diffrenece, but I think multiboxing does need a rewrite.... W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on multibox(ing) should continue here - Talk:Multibox. Kirkburn talk contr 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New Blizzard wiki

I draw your eye to - a new wiki one of our contributers has set up for Blizzard. I think with a little work it could fit quite well with WoWWiki. As a "central" area it could work well, for articles on each game, employees, etc. Thoughts? Kirkburn talk contr 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty unrefined to me. SharlinTalk / Did 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very very new! Kirkburn talk contr 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What sort of crossovers did you have in mind? Shall we also liase with the people at the Starcraft and Diablo wikias? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is very ugly too. Especially with all that crap bordering it. Oh, its THEIR not THEYR (look for it!) SharlinTalk / Did 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a good idea tbh. Certainly it would help the other wikis if they could build on what we've made. The main crossovers I'm thinking are anything Blizzard specific (employees, details on the other games), leaving use to be able to concentrate more on Warcraft. In my new capacity as someone working for Wikia, I should be able to help more in this area. /me adds looking at this to his todo list. Kirkburn talk contr 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

zomgwtfbbq... when did Kirkburn get hired? :O
On topic: I don't like the (de)centralizing of it, but it's cool. It definitely needs fleshing out, however. --User:Sky2042/Sig 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This looks pretty good other than (i think it may be just my browser or something) i see a LOT of ads around the page, is this normal? Other than that this page looks excellent! W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Worryingly it seems I have to remind people it's a wiki, just like this one. Please help out :) As for the ads, that's the normal Wikia setup - we haven't been converted over (I don't know if that will ever occur). Also, I got hired last week to help out with the Gaming.Wikia sections Smiley Kirkburn talk contr 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll try to help out... and congrats on getting hired =p

Windjungj talk / contr 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sig making.

Can anyone help me make a sig? I know wiki pretty good and I want to start making a good sig for once but i guess im going to need help on making it good. if your interested in helping me please go to my talk page and leave a message :) thanks :D --Windjungj 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, i think i might have got it this is my first test >.< W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do what I did. Copy parts of someone elses, mess it up to the point it annoys others, and they will fix it for you!!! SharlinTalk / Did 09:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, definately the way to go :) Kirkburn talk contr 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, and i spent the long way and probably took a few days figuring out how to make one =? Windjungj talk / contr 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talent builds

Right now, we have talent builds both on separate pages (for example, Heavy Destruction and MD/Ruin) and on a page for the whole class (e.g. Warlock builds). However, I'm not perfectly satisfied with this solution. As a result, we have a lot of redundancy, which consequently can lead to incomplete, out-dated or sometimes even contradictory information. These pages (especially for single builds) seem not to be updated a lot; therefore, I suggest keeping vulnerability at a minimum level, by either (1) redirecting single build pages to the class builds page, or (2) moving any detailed information from the class builds page to the build page it belongs to, while keeping only an overview of builds with short summaries and links to their respective pages on the class' page.

I personally prefer the second solution, as putting all information on one page certainly would overload it. Is there any rule how to do it? Any suggestions? --bfx 10:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Contain all basic build information to a single page. Allow for specialty builds to have their own page with link from the basic class build. If anything the speciality builds which are loaded down with text are tactics guides as much as talent builds. The Warlock pages are a great example of where we need to bring them up to date. ALL pre-TBC builds are invalid and should be deleted, even if they employ the correct talent trees. If anything they can be preserved on the talk page.
Hell, I might just rip that Warlock page to shreds today, those old school builds got to go SharlinTalk / Did 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What about those true non-BC players like me D= we should instead seperate the TBC builds and the non-BC builds (because the skills are somewhat varied) and put the basic builds in the appropriate place (like demonology TBC, demonology nonTBC, specail demonolgy+affilation TBC,. etc) because not all players in the WoW community have TBC, and you should at least let those players have a place for those non TBC players :D instead of ripping their pages (grr..)

Windjungj talk / contr 01:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They should be deleted regardless. Just because a few people don't buy TBC doesn't mean its rules don't apply. If they need preserving then get them off the page into some archive. I just don't see the justification in holding onto obsolete builds because some people are too cheap or cannot afford TBC (as if 25 bucks is anything when your already paying 12-15 a month to play). I will act on the Warlock pages by the weekend, its a cluttered mess now SharlinTalk / Did 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you on this point. Playing vanilla WoW is still possible and doesn't require one to be greedy; for some it may be more appealing than TBC, so no one should be forced to play it, and neither should this wiki exclusively provide information for TBC. Whereas some builds may not exist any more, many still do. And even if they don't, I see no reason for abandoning them, as they are clearly part of the WoW history. --bfx 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Still going to do it. The only difference is that the TBC builds use all 70 levels worth of talent points. They are also the VALID builds for WOW now. From what I can tell you can advance past 60 without TBC. I haven't tried but I don't why not. I already suggested that if anyone wants these builds they can put them on a separate page. By your logic we should clutter all class pages for people too cheap to buy TBC. Oh, sorry, but if a build no longer exist it has no place on any page here. SharlinTalk / Did 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't advance past 60 without TBC. Just wanted to point that out, agree with everything else you say. --Pcj (TC) 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Page to hold Level 60 builds is complete, Please see Warlock builds/Level 60 I will be removing these builds from the main warlock page. I modeled this on the rogue builds. I also am checking all the talent spec links to verify they still work, there are notes in the text which claim they are not 2.01 valid but none have failed so far SharlinTalk / Did 13:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. I have updated the Warlock page. It only shows TBC builds. All pre-TBC builds using current talent set are on Warlock builds/Level 60. I have yet to verify all these builds to see if they are valid; I am not going to determine if they are worthwhile, just valid point expenditures.
Nothing has been lost. Its just presented better SharlinTalk / Did 13:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. I feel this is the best solution--putting the focus on 70 builds, while keeping 60 builds alive. I might take a look at the old builds when I find time. --bfx 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Guess the only thing we need to do left is to make sure this applies to other pages. Windjungj talk / contr 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well not many of the other talent pages had this. Rogues did but someone cleaned it up long ago. Most of the other class build pages were either updates or replacements. I am quite willing to get the other pages if someone thinks any are necessary SharlinTalk / Did 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been away a bit, but had some thoughts on talent build pages. I mostly agree with your #2 and Sharlin's first post. I expanded the article Three-Minute Mage which is a build but also a tactic. Now, you could split that info up between the Mage builds page and the Mage tactics page, but it just works best all on one page. So, you would then describe the build briefly on the build page, along with a link to the expanded article, and do the same thing on the tactics page, with a brief description and link. I was working on the Frost Mage page in the same vein (and even that can be split into several specific areas), haven't finished, and was gonna clean up the builds and tactics pages. I also had a neato idea to make a template for encapsulating basic "talent build" info, along with external links to popular talent calculators (got scared a bit by the "external links policy" debate). I didn't find anything like this on existing build pages. I'll post an example for consideration if I get around to it. --Piumosso-Uldum 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PvP Spell Power/Fire Power
Mage - Requires level 70
Spell holy magicalsentry 33
Spell fire flamebolt 28
Spell frost frostbolt02 0

View this build: Icon-wowus-22x22[3] Icon-wowhead-22x22[4]

Something along these lines for a PvP Spell Power/Fire Power Mage build. It works as an infobox floating on the right or a handy inline illustration with standard elinks. Of course, this is just a mockup, I was going to make it into a proper template. It might be kinda big though, maybe someone can fiddle with it to make it smaller. --Piumosso-Uldum 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Made it smaller! --Piumosso-Uldum 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are their editing bots we can use?

As in text replacement type? --SharlinTalk / Did 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can make bot requests on WW:BR, or try and poke the owners on the IRC channel. Kirkburn talk contr 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fansites update

Fansites has had an overhaul, along with Wikis and Official site. However, the links still need work. I can't check them all, so I would appreciate if anyone could take a few minutes to check them. They need:

  • Alphabetising
  • Removal of old/fake links (old can probably mean anything not updated this year)
  • Removal of duplicate links
  • Moving any non-english links to Fansites/Other
  • Tidying

Any help is greatly appreciated! Kirkburn talk contr 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the guild section of the webpages should be removed =/ We already have guild pages and they can link their pages there/ we have some server pages that give a list of their realm's guilds & their webbies Windjungj talk / contr 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
They aren't links to guilds, they are links to guild related sites. --GRYPHONtc 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it be renamed "Guild Directories" or something? Cause that just doesn't sound right to me just to say "GUILDS" then I'll just be expecting a guild website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windjungj (talkcontr). 05:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
renamed to Guild-related, beacause you are absolutely right, not that hard to do it though ;)  Flotsam | talk | contr )  12:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
i just wanted to make sure haha Windjungj talk / contr 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The revamp is completed! Please add anything you think is missing and fix any mistakes you notice :) Kirkburn talk contr 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WoWWiki:Community teams

It's that time of year again! :) I have been doing more work on this today, and I think it is in good enough condition for the makeover to be deemed 'finished'. I have taken over and sorted the Watchdogs and Help Team (the latter needs applications), whilst the Article Council needs a leader and a direction. Please join in! Kirkburn talk contr 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this group is all about consistency, I would love to head it up. Goes right in line with templates, and bots, and all the other work I've been doing. /me loves consistency.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine by me! Kirkburn talk contr 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest Naming Policy

I'd like to get some clarification on the quest naming policy. It sounds like people talked about some changes in IRC and I just want to find out if the current policy has changed or not. Here's what I think the current policy is:

Standard quest: Quest:Quest Name
This should used when there's just a single quest with that name (Quest:Trouble at the Docks
This should also be used for quests where there's a separate Alliance/Horde or Aldor/Scyer version that are easy to combine: Quest:The Fall of Magtheridon
Faction quest: Quest:Quest Name (Alliance) or Quest:Quest Name (Aldor)
This should be used for quests that 2 different factions have which has the same name that don't combine well: Quest:An Earnest Proposition (Alliance), Quest:An Earnest Proposition (Horde)
Multiple quests with same name: Quest:Quest Name, Quest:Quest Name (2), Quest:Quest Name (3)
This should be used for quests that share a common name but are different: Quest:Talbuk Mastery, Quest:Talbuk Mastery (2), Quest:Talbuk Mastery (3)
I don't think the (#) should be added to quests in a quest chain if that quest is the only one with that name: (Correct: Quest:Hints of the Past, Incorrect: Quest:Hints of the Past (3)) (my opinion)

I heard mention of even adding the quest ID to the name title which seems a bit silly to me. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? - ClydeJr - talk - contrib 18:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the policy I've always used. I definately agree with your judgement on the Hints of the Past vs. Hints of the Past (3) silliness. If we were to go through and change every quest name to reflect it's place in the quest chain, we'd have a hell of a lot of work, and a lot of mess too. --Mikaka 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
i agree on both not using (#) for all quests in questchains. but quest with same name (which could be in quest chains of course) should have it to differ them from eachother. additionally, adding the id might be good in the few cases where there are two or more quests with the same name, in all other cases it'll be messy and harder to make links on articles being forced to check the id numbers all the time. Taurmindo | talk contr  21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this issue is a result of User:Laurlybot. As i have been working on it the last few weeks i and some of the other people on irc have talked about how best to name quests to avoid naming conflicts now and in the future when yet more expansions are added and more and more quests. the result was the Quest:Quest name (Faction) (#)

  • While i might agree that Quest:The Fall of Magtheridonlooks nice. Having the bot combine 2 quests into one programticly will not be that hard but and might just open the door to a hole bunch of bugs. I also feel that a Quest page relates to a single quest/quest id. ex: quest_id 11003 <> 11002 they may share the same name but they are not the same.
  • With the regard to moving all the quests to reflect the quest chain I'm testing a new function in the bot that will first move quest:quest name to quest:quest name (#) before it updates it. So the hell of a lot of work will be done by the bot and not by us.
  • i also think it looks nice to have each quest in a quest chain numbered in sequence
  • Quest:This quest
    • Quest:This and that Quest (2)
      • Quest:This that and the other quest
        • Quest:Yet a different quest (1)

In my opinion the above example will more then likely confuse people as to what quest comes next in the quest chain. Having them each named in order will prevent confusion. Ok thats my 2 cp worth what ever is decided i will change the bot to comply.Laurly 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming random quest-in-chain with an index on the off chance that some other quest with the same name will be created fails to consider the question of how to disambiguate that new name sensibly.
Examining the quest names as provided by database scavengers such as we provide links to seems to indicate that there are only two categories of quest disambiguating that currently occurs: factional (alliance, horde, neutral)and serial (elements in a single quest chain)
our current naming scheme seems to cope with both.
As for the 1 quest ID, 1 page idea, since we're providing information on how to complete the quest, if the quest is substantially the same for both factions (see many of the Terokkar Forest quests), I feel that having a single page with two instances of {{questbox}} better serves the people looking for information on the quest.
The fact that these pages create problems for bots doesn't seem that big to me ... pretty much any page created by a bot has to be re-examined by hand if more than a slap-dash page quality is to be provided. Laurlybot does do a good job of scraping Wowhead, but I've been following behind adding details that bots just couldn't. (And some formatting issues, but that's not at issue here.) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current naming policy is fine - there are (as of now) few duplicates where our (#) appending scheme would fail horribly - while one can imagine a situation where two aboslutely unrelated quests would be named the same thing (or even have multiple steps each) and share the same faction, it simply doesn't happen very often now. While this could get worse in the future, it isn't a major issue now. Appending IDs to quest titles themselves is rather silly, since it'd require everyone to look those up whenever they want to link a quest, which isn't good. What could be interesting is having separate Quest:(id) pages redirect to the proper, disambiguated Quest: Title (Faction) (#) page, just to provide an alternate linking mechanism that isn't subject to ambiguity -- but this is a rather plentiful amount of work, and I'm not sure if the benefits are worth the time spent on it.

Since {{questlong}} allows for custom captions, nobody should be confused by multiple numbers appearing in quest chain listings simply because those should not be a part of the link caption. -- Starlightblunder 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Every time I've run across a "disambiguation removed link" for quest listings (tooltips AND quest chain listings), it has given me a WTF moment. Just so ya know. I cannot tell -without mousing over the link- if it is the same item, or a different one. I just have to trust.. someone. And I'm not much a trusting sort. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact, i ran across one of those examples that the current naming policy doesn't have proper guidelines. the quest called "Return to the Marsh" from a CE quest chain in hellfire/zangarmarsh was from the CE/quest page earlier directed to Return to the Marsh. the former is actually two quests morphed together for their similarity (two lvl 40 quests, horde/alliance, starting a neutral quest chain). the latter however is a neutral quest.

if they would be named with (#) instead, the dustwallow marsh quest would be "Return to the Marsh (1)" and the zangarmarsh one would be "Return to the Marsh (3)" (as it's #3 in it's own quest chain), without beloning to the same quest.. (or even same level ranges).. and that would cause even more confusion than the current naming policy could do.

in the end, i named the CE one Return to the Marsh (Zangarmarsh). additionally, chainging to # on all quests involved in quest chains would make us have to take a stand for when quests that could be first part is to be named (1) despite not being needed, but "could be done" first, and not be done after the needed #1 is done.. complicated! Taurmindo | talk contr  17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with Quest line!

I was working on the quest lines Naaru Technology and Report to Spymaster Thalodien, and down the line I realized that the quest lines come together twords the end! Can someone clarify if theyre seperate quests, depending on Aldor or Scryer, if the end quests are one in the same?

--sǝƃuɐɥɔ - ʇɐɥɔuıɹɐɟɹɐʍ 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You might examine how I treated some of the Terokkar Forest quests (the mana bomb series). The Horde and Alliance quests are so similar (down to the bulk of the text) that I simply combined the pages, and put both questboxes on the page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that --sǝƃuɐɥɔ - ʇɐɥɔuıɹɐɟɹɐʍ 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia highlight

I would like to add links to one or two related Wikia wikis on the Main Page to give them a bit of exposure, and I have come up with this slight design alteration - User:Kirkburn/Dev2. Specifically see the bar at the bottom of the first box. Any views on that? Thanks for any suggestions :) Kirkburn talk contr 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks shiny to me. Not annoyingly obtrusive, but obvious enough to see. Only thing I can think of to change is possibly change the newspaper icon to the icon for the Wikia wiki (Why do I feel like a bad '80s TV show [5] when I type that?) to make it stand out a little more. --Azaram 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As long as that new Blizzard wikia doesn't show up there for 3+ months. Otherwise the change is just to convienent. Oh, 1024x768 WILL NOT see it unless they scroll, but then again who cares? No one needs more than the selected article index anyway. SharlinTalk / Did 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be making sure to switch them around - Wikia has a huge number of wikis. And yeah, do need to look for a different icon :) Kirkburn talk contr 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, change made. Enjoy :) Kirkburn talk contr 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So glad we get to debate this. Oh, we didn't. Sheesh. SharlinTalk / Did 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Really not sure how to answer that, especially given you already commented. Kirkburn talk contr 10:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that all changes to the main page were to be discussed on the main page's discussion page. I get the idea that admins don't have to follow the process but at least humor us SharlinTalk / Did 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
For other stuff certainly - but this involves the site owners, who take precedence (one of the rare cases). I thought you were essentially giving your blessing previously anyway :) Kirkburn talk contr 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Strength of the Clefthoof tooltips incorrect.

The tooltips for the Strength of the Clefthoof set (Heavy Clefthoof Boots, Heavy Clefthoof Vest, Heavy Clefthoof Leggings) show incorrect +defense values compared to what's in the game. What's in the game, as I'm looking at it right now, is the boots are +21, the leggings are +29, and the vest is +24. What the tooltips are showing is boots 21 (correct), leggings 34, and vest 28. I don't know how to fix tooltips, or I would...

I believe it could also benefit from a chart on the main Strength page showing all three tips showing the chart. I dunno how to do chartses, either. :-p --Azaram 11:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I think we were displaying the pre-2.1.0 version of those items previously. --Starlightblunder 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
yes we were, I created those manually some long time ago  Flotsam | talk | contr )  00:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay speedy fixes! Now, to put the other part of my sentence up there in English; "I believe it could also benefit from a chart on the main Strength page showing all three tips showing the chart." translates to "I believe a chart showing the benefits of the three pieces (armor, armor in bear form, 4 blue and 4 yellow sockets, and total stamina) would be helpful too... --Azaram 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really not trying to whine, but I've been looking at that page a lot lately as a druid, trying to figure out what I wanted to use for gems in it... The new set box is nice, but it's underlapping the 'pattern: heavy clefthoof vest' . I'm running at 1152x864 resolution, but have the window slightly smaller so I can see the first two rows of icons on the left side, so the window may be 1024x768 or so. If I maximize Firefox, it looks fine but kind of far off to the right, with the text 'Expedition in' spacing between the pattern and the new box. (Really, I'm not just complaining. If I know how to fix it, I would... I'd probably put a couple of linefeeds under the new box to move the old stuff down...) --Azaram 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paladin BC dungeon sets are not appearing

Why aren't the paladin dungeon sets 3a and 3b appearing in the armour table? Chopypopy 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They are here: Righteous Armor/Doomplate Battlegear - just settable seems to be not updated, I'm trying to fix it  Flotsam | talk | contr )  00:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia interwiki links

I quote from WoWWiki:Server requests:

You can now link to Central Wikia by using the w: or wikia: interwikis. To link to any other Wikia wiki use w:c:[name_of_wiki][:article_title] (works exactly like on other Wikia sites).

For example, SporeWiki and Zerg on StarCraft Wiki - aka [[w:c:sporewiki|SporeWiki]] and [[w:c:starcraft:zerg|Zerg on StarCraft Wiki]]! Kirkburn talk contr 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CSS and js access

A couple of updates from WoWWiki:Server requests:

I hope this comes as a pleasant surprise for you all :) Let's make the most of it! Kirkburn talk contr 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

omg.. who messed up the font? this looks horrible..  - CJ talk / cont  09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? Nothing should have changed yet! Kirkburn talk contr 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
All links have underlines, and the text looks a lot more squareish. Safari MacOSX  - CJ talk / cont  11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about the text thing, but for underlines go to Prefs --> Misc --> Second option. I've notified Wikia about it! Kirkburn talk contr 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Weird, tht was new.. looks more normal now.  - CJ talk / cont  11:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There was some problems with link colours too. Please do report anything else odd you may see! Oh, and one other major change occured, as a trial. Kirkburn talk contr 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: if every link is underlined, go to Prefs --> Misc --> Underline links (browser default is the normal setting)

A while back discussions were begun on what CSS we would use - I think it's high time we revisited it :) Check out WoWWiki:Styling! (To admins, by all means start testing CSS) Kirkburn talk contr 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If I have a moment (unlikely) I might be able to try to figure this out, but... slightly indented article text under the second level heading was a popular style for a while. Might we want to implement that automagically? // Montag (talk · contr) 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editing

I think this was a massive mistake. There is a massive flow of vandalism since it started. Registering to edit was never that hard.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a trial atm. I have to say, I'm really finding the item edits odd. Why the hell are some people so obessed with removing the "+"? Kirkburn talk contr 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that's the same person using a proxy or something.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 09:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've brought it to the attention of the techs, see if they can do anything about it. It's the same type of vandalism as we had before email authentication, plus I've also come across the second type - 'remove' vandalism [6]. Btw, thanks for the help! Kirkburn talk contr 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Email auth is being reenabled for now :/ Kirkburn talk contr 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Apart from that prat, I'd say the rest of the anon edits were good - hopefully we can reenable it in future with more safeguards. Kirkburn talk contr 10:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats good to hear, 1 more question though, what is that symbol up top next to my user name for? It was an exclamation earlier and is now a book.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's part of the wonders of CSS editing :P Previously it was the default monobook user icon, then I tested the CSS by switching it for the quest icon. Obviously this was a little confusing, so I had a look for something less ambiguous - the book icon from in-game :) Kirkburn talk contr 10:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
But what does it symbolize? I mean, if only I can see it what does it mean? Does it tell me I did something or need to do something? Heck I think using the space to indicate "You got Mail" or "You got flowers" would be cool.
Oh I think the anon idea is just like, asking for it. I know people can use rogue email addresses to do vandalism but just doing anon is like handing some people a loaded gun.
Hey, can I join watchdogs? I bark! I bite! and I have the silliest app yet! SharlinTalk / Did 10:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The icon is just that, an icon. No meaning :) Kirkburn talk contr 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Please disable it ASAP... and keep it that way. aside vandalism, its annoying to "forget" logging in, and having your IP address out for the world to see as well. Aside that, it looks silly to talk to numbers, just have people make an account if they wish to contribute, its more personal.  - CJ talk / cont  10:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you realise that pretty much every other wiki in the world allows anon editing? It's for good reason - a lot of people don't like to register just so they can help. Apart from that vandal, prety much all the edits made by anon users were good. Note that when unregistered you can't: edit semi-protected pages, upload images, move pages, create articles or customize the site design. Besides, that people might forget to log in is hardly a good reason to not have it :) Oh, the other reason is that it's completely against Wikia principles :P Kirkburn talk contr 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm certain you can guess my response, given that I wanted a five-stage examination for account creation. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you realise that no matter the safe guards, non-automated vandalism increases significantly with anon enabled. Safe guards, such as capcha and the like, help prevent automated vandalism but it does not stop manual. There are plenty of successful communities that require registration and even subscription, there is more to a wiki than just content contributions. --GRYPHONtc 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Naturally. But you do lose a lot of custom by making those who wish to help jump through hoops. If you took away the single vandal we had, the rest of the anon edits were excellent ... and numerous (even without an announcement)! Anyway, it is/was a trial, and to not try it out would surely be more foolish than to at least give it a chance. Only if more can be done to help prevent the vandalism we previously saw shall it be reenabled, I assure you. Kirkburn talk contr 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
An email-response registration is _NOT_ jumping thru hoops... in fact it's used on many many more sites than anything else, in my experience. The only other thing I see often are CAPTCHAs, which are nice for anony edits, but a rather hackjob solution in my opinion. Alking people to give us an email address so they can edit is not that horrible. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

talent templates

I've been creating templates for various shaman talents for use in drop in summary of a talent, E.g. Template:Concussion. There has been a request that I move these to a subsection of Shaman_talents e.g. Shaman_talents/Concussion to avoid cluttering the template name space. I want your view on the matter before I move them.--Subanark 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the main template namespace is mostly used for widely-used, unambiguous, and somewhat general purpose templates. A specific talent isn't really a template, it's just a transcluded page that doesn't see much use except inside Shaman articles (in this case). With your scheme, a bigger problem crops up if another class has a talent with the same name and you need to disambiguate it. For example, mages and priests both have talents named Wand Specialization. To include something that isn't in the Template namespace, stick a colon before it, e.g. {{:Shaman talents/Concussion}}. If you're already including it from the Shaman talents page, then it's {{/Concussion}} (I think that's how it works) --Piumosso-Uldum 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the template namespace generally isn't for single-use, imported pages. Move them to somewhere like Concussion/Summary or something. Shaman talents/Concussion is fine too, I guess. --Mikaka 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not however a single page import. I plan to use them in ability pages in the list of talents that improve the ability. Conflicts already exist for talents anyways, e.g. Eye of the Storm is the page for the BG, while Eye of the Storm (Talent) is the shaman talent.Subanark 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Then logically it should be at Shaman talents/Concussion. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Enchants -> formula pages?

I posed this question on IRC earlier this evening, but I was wondering about the general populace's opinion. Who would support merging enchants, which have formulas which are dropped or that can be purchased, onto the item page? As it is, many enchants (and their respective formula pages) right now are either stubs, or have duplicate information located at the formula's page. There was minor approval from the crew on IRC at the time, but again, I'm looking for other opinions. See list of possibilities below.

  1. Leave as is. Obvious cons listed, (I can't see) pros
  2. My suggestion. Pros: Duplicate information deleted. Cons: categorization of the wrong page. But the con can be fixed by adding a category to the redirect of a formula, I think.
  3. My suggestion, backwards . Not real sure of a pro, but a definite con would be that it would screw up (and this is an untested theory) templates such as {{lootbox}}. Another con would be the addition of |disambigpage= to all formula pages.
  4. some other choice that I can't remember :x

An example of a page that I've already applied this to is Formula:_Enchant_Weapon_-_Sunfire (see history of Enchant Weapon - Sunfire as well). Thoughts? --User:Sky2042/Sig 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think all tradeskill-made items should have the info about where to learn the recipe from in the item's page. I see no compelling reason to keep the recipe items in seperate pages. Redirect the recipe page to the item page and include all the pertinent info about the recipe (source, quality, requirements) on the item page. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 07:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with 'Leggings of Assassination' page's tooltip

On the page for Leggings of Assassination, everything is off the right side of the page. All the information on the page but the external Wowhead et al links seem to be in one gymungus tooltip and most of the stuff like the 'set' table and the individual item table are all crammed into it. To the right of the 'shoulderpads of assassination' individual tooltip are two links reading 'tooltip' themselves, and the external links section is repeated in the bottom of Tooltipzilla.

If it was HTML I'd say there was a missing 'close' tag somewhere, but I wasn't able to find it...--Azaram 07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is, it is the 'set' parameter. Since the page for it's set has no <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags it is trying to add all of Assassination Armor (its set name) to the tooltip. it should be taken care of now.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's like rubbing a genie's bottle. :-D --Azaram 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you see any more like that feel free to list them in my talk page and I will fix them up if you want.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Use Pages

I did a search of for user articles and personal articles, but am still not sure how to start them. Do I just have to start, for example, "User:Minionman/Types of Cheese", than add things to the article? Or is there more to it. (My user page is getting really long, and the automatic suggestion came to split, but I'm making sure of how the process works before starting anything.) Minionman 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Guild Management Best Practices

Fellow WoW-Wikians, I'm thinking about starting a Wiki page discussing Guild Management Best Practices, structuring out the things that "good" guild management should be, split out by hardcore vs. casual, PvP vs. PvE guilds, etc. Any thoughts on my proposed mini-project?

--Impian 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.