Crown of the Twilight Queen

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wowpedia article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If you're new to the wiki, please take a look at our Talk page guidelines.	Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Important information

• Portal:Main is a protected page and can only be edited by admins.
• Portal:World of Warcraft is a semi-protected page and can only be edited by established editors.
• Every other portal should be editable!

If you came here to discuss the wiki in general, please visit the Forums.

Previous discussions regarding the homepage can be found on Wowpedia talk:Main Page Dev.

• Portal:Main/User News - User news (anyone can edit this!)
• Portal:Main/Help - Help

And three Wowpedia:Featured article templates (FA/FM/FC).

Start a new discussion!

page title

The old page had a title of "World of Warcraft universe guide - WoWWiki" which was much more search engine friendly. Can that be changed here? Portal:main just doesn't have the same feel. -=-  Drazisil [^t/_c] 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Style guides

I have yet to find something resembling a style guide for articles and information is doubled all over the place. If they do exist, they are very hard to find and very badly reinforced. For example on Priest there's a description of the talent trees, Priest talents has another description, Priest builds has yet another one... Pages like Priest talent analysis seem very hard to maintain and also very biased, is this Wiki supposed to have theory crafting? Wikis tend to be more factual and even if that article was up to date, the whole article would still be one big opinion. This problem isn't limited only to the Priest class. We should set a definite style guide for these articles and sub-articles and also decide on the ones that are worth keeping and delete the others that merely repeat the same information or give unnecessary details. If it is decided to keep things like Priest talent analysis, then someone needs to actively maintain it. I think some people aren't even aware that something like that exists, because you need to follow so many links to get to it.

To summarize:

• Set up style guides for pages that contain similar information, like the class pages.
• Reevaluate the usefulness and necessity of all the class related pages.
• Ensure that articles are properly linked and easy to get to.

This is hardly a one-man job and because it affects a lot of pages and information, I would like some community input on the matter. With Cataclysm being on its way and a lot of people editing the class data, things will only get worse if there's no style guide. If all these similar pages follow a similar layout, they will be easier to navigate and there will be no repeated information. I am confident this will greatly increase the Wiki's formality and coherence and hopefully set an example for other articles as well. These style guides can easily be expanded to other forms of articles, for example abilities/spells.

I am willing to write some of these style guides (which will basically just be a template of what goes where, allowing you to follow a pre-defined layout), but I can't do them all and I certainly can't enforce them on my own. The name "style guide" might not be entirely correct, it's more like a format guide of sorts. This will also make future updates in WoW much easier to integrate on the Wiki, because at the moment we need to change the same thing 10 times, because everything is duplicated somewhere, or scattered over a page. Zilana (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree some pages should be consolidated. I never understood the need for, for example, Priest tactics, when all the tactics should be covered in Priest PvE guide or Priest PvP guide. I do, however, see the need to keep separate Priest talents from Priest talent analysis (and same pages for other classes). The first should be a very brief listing with links to all the talents, with in-depth info kept separate for those who want it. --Grynd (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Defias brotherhood

-- Arugal (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Link for new players?

While I realize that most of your community are established players interested in the latest changes, I think a link to the newbie guide would be a good edition for the main page. This would help new players a lot and might expand your community.

And perhaps call the link something more friendly than "Newbie Guide". Perhaps something like, "For new players".

Tulonsae (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how 'newbie guide' is unfriendly. If it was called 'noobs guide' then maybe, but newbie isn't an offensive term :P But I do agree a link there would be nice for newer peeps. Also, what happened to the featured article section? The homepage looks quite bare right now with lack of images. :c --Grynd (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramkahen Missing from Cataclysm Factions

Ramkahen are missing from the cataclysm faction list on the main page. -- --Dingobloo (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; fixed that — foxlit (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lost City of the Tol'vir listed levels

Currently Lost City of the Tol'vir is listed on the Main portal as being 82-84 and being similar to The Stonecore and Vortex Pinnacle. It is actually a level 85 dungeon and has a minimum level requirement of 84. It's similar to Grim Batol and Halls of Origination. Loop not defined (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. How'd we all miss that? Thanks. --k_d³ 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I found out yesterday that the last three dungeons require an average ilvl of 305. So 85: 305? Loop not defined (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Professions

Professions is missing Archeology -FunOnABun 2:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Link

A rather important link (in my opinion) is missing from the Main Page, it's the link to the Instances by Level page. Melrian (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Warcraft universe

I think the portal for the Warcraft universe needs to be slightly redesigned--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm going to do some edits hope there is no problem with this--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox first, unless it's very minor things of course. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hum already finished it did it, if there's any problem tell me and i'l redo it in a sandbox.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again Gourra why did you revert it?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As Coobra said, Sandbox it FIRST. Don't make direct edits to the portal. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Warcraft Universe/Sandbox there any problems?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So hum can i change it to my version???--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Alliance and Horde should take priority over the section of Organizations, you replaced them with. I'm ok with what you did to the left side of the box, but I'm not completely sure of the right side change. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They have priority, they are the two first factions on the list exactly because of that, however i don't think we should have a list for each race in the alliance and the horde(since you know you can click the respective link and see a better more complete list with icons), the creatures i put the creatures that way because it's sorta like a Bestiary and that one of the biggest thing a entry about the universe should have, i removed RPG classes because you can follow the class link to get there, added elemental planes because they became far more relevant than minor noted worlds and realms/planes in this expansion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is my justification ok? or do you thik we need to change something?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Any comments before i change it back tomorrow?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dutch

There is also a Dutch WoWWiki on this page. Could it be added to the language links? (Luxor (t•c) 11:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Done; the nl interwiki prefix now forwards to the right place: nl:World of Warcraft Wiki; it should also show up in the "in other languages" section on the front page. For bonus points, do you think they could link to us somewhere? — foxlit (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably. I think that's just for admins. It's currently linking to WoWWiki. (Luxor (t•c) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC))