From WoWWiki

Archive

Older discussions :

• Talk:Patch_mirrors/Archive1 Dec 2005 - March 2007

Add and update guidelines

I updated the guideline for adding mirror sites and added new guidelines for updating. Any comments are appreciated. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:31 PM PST 31 Jan 2007

I didn't think the .xxx domains had come into effect yet ;)  Kirkburn talk contr 12:25, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Sm@rt@ss... I changed it. You know most of the domains are porn anyway... :-p --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:45 AM PST 1 Feb 2007

I've changed it to www.domain.tld --> tld = top level domain. I think that's the best or isn't it? K-3 13:52, 1 February 2007 (EST)

I've moved the section to below the mirrors and tried to condense the intro a bit; Ideally it would be even shorter. We are wasting a lot of screenspace with stuff that is not interesting at all for 99.95% of the visitors visiting that particular page. They want to find mirrors, not guidelines to adding/changing them. Those should be there too, of course, but not wasting all the first page. Ideally, the intro would fit right next to the image and use no more screenspace than that so that it's easy to see the mirrors without having to scroll :-) Possibly this means that one would have to add another section to the TOC though. Score 22:46, 1 February 2007 (EST)

The canonical example domain is www.example.com. ScratchMonkey 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You meant to say "one of the canonical example domains is". While example is reserved for this purpose, nowhere is it stated that no other placeholder may be used -- and let's face it, the likelihood of .tld becoming active any time in the next century are slim. Score 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I worked in tech support for 13 of the longest months of my life and let me tell you, it really makes no difference what you use as an example, those who need an example won't get it no matter what you put. Posted by: EGingell (talk | contribs) on 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sorting

Sorting seems to be gonig down the hole again.... our SI friend is neglecting it as well because the others are neglecting it also ;)  - CJ talk / cont  06:14, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Not really, sorting works for most mirrors (it did work for the first few). Some NEW users neglect it, but they can be educated. SI already is fully well aware of the rules and breaks them intentionally. They could claim "but I only added it" if they just put it at the top the first time, but they continually bump it there. Score 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

User:JamieSI and User:Philson need talking to, a slap on the fingers, if they continue to ignore the outlined rules at the top of the page,, perhaps a few weeks ban even ?  - CJ talk / cont  10:37, 16 February 2007 (EST)

philson:

Then make rules !!! other people also every time pumping!!

The rules are outlined at the top of the page... its not our fault that you neglect reading them ;)  - CJ talk / cont  10:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)

If you see somebody else putting anything in front regardless of the BOLD, CLEARLY STATED RULES AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, then reorder them to their proper place, don't do the same. They may be unaware, you are not. Score 11:06, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Reported him to the vandals page. as he's clearly url masking to further his goals... if anything the name should be kalimdors engelskrieger, he's had his chance though... and is clearly ignoring the requests to stop.  - CJ talk / cont  05:00, 20 February 2007 (EST)

wowsource / 4players

if you find a url that is : wowsource.4players.de , please replace it with wowsource.de , the site is the same, but seemingly the owner is using a secondary host to bump his name higher in the list for sorting.  - CJ talk / cont  09:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• • Moved his links to the bottom again. Sipifi

Reinstalling

My apologies if this is not the proper place for this.
In the event that you need to reinstall the game client, this "strategy" might save you tons of time and headaches.
Works for the Windows' game client, I imagine it will also work for the Mac's.
This could, potentially, save you days of updating.

Step 1

Copy the game client install directory (defaults to "c:\Program Files\World of Warcraft") to an alternate location such as a DVD-R or an external harddrive.

Step 2

Do what you gotta do (reinstall Windows, build the ultimate gaming machine, etc).

Step 3

If you want to have the WoW installation wizard create the registry key (not required for the game to function) and the shortcuts automatically, go to Step 3a. If not, then go to Step 4.

Step 3a

Reinstall the game client from the original disk.

Step 4

Copy the files from Step 1 and paste them in the desired location. If you did Step 3a, then put them where you told the wizard to put them and choose "Yes" when prompted to overwrite and go to Step 5. If you did not do Step 3a, then go to Step 4a.

Step 4a

Create a shortcut by dragging wow.exe to the desktop and drop it.

Step 5

Enjoy your fully updated game client (including BC if it was also included in Step 1).

Posted by: EGingell (talk | contribs) on 11:27 3 April 2007 (EST)

---

• Save some time and omit Step 3a, just copy your saved WoW Directory whereever you want it to run from, and start it.
• As we all know the installation takes a load of time.
• I did this myself, installed the game once, in Windows XP. Now it's running on Vista64 flawlessly, while additionally the exact same client runs from my laptop on Vista32 when I'm travelling (eSATA HDD) Slayman 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its cleanup day again.

Cleaned up a lot of old patches. 2.0.4-2.0.9 are fairly redundant. still available in the history in case people need them.

so, the page is a good bit shorter again.  - CJ talk / cont  09:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Mirror speeds

is it worth listing mirrors if they're like... 0.5 Kb/s, rather than most of them, who are 10 or 300 Kb/s ? i got my doubts...

reason i wonder is.. [1] : This thing is SO hellishly slow.. i doubt its worth listing it at all.. and im sure there are others with similar issues.  - CJ talk / cont  08:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Well ... Speeds vary by location. wowwiki.it might be hellishly fast in Italia. The German sites will generally be faster in Europe (though some deliver decent speeds to the US as well), while the US-sites will likely (but not necessarily) be slower in Europe. Score 06:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speed also varies depending on Load (popularity), hence why popular sites have mirrors. The "highway" (Information Super Highway) analogy is pretty much dead on. Peak server load causes the speed to slow to a crawl, just like rush hour on the freeway. Posted by: EGingell (talk | contribs) on 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

Planning a page redesign, to cut down on maintenance, and double editing. see [[WoWWiki:Sandbox/87]] for the initial concept.  - CJ talk / cont  05:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

• Less clutter, Cleaner look
• Less repeats of identical data (smaller page, faster loading)
• Easier to add mirrors, and much easier to maintain the page
• Faster alphabetizing by site name
• Sites with no direct link to a patch should not have the sublink. this should encourage them to setup more accurate links.

The parameters :

• name : main site name
• link : main site link
• note : part 1-2-3, or test server note, or restrictions
• ads : list whether the user may be confronted with spam popups, or banners.
• gb, us, fr, de  : Direct patch links
• gbm, usm, frm, dem : Mac links
• bt : set this to "1" if these are Bit torrent links

Todo:

• add link to md5 hash.

2.0.12 → 2.1.0
	PC						Mac
Name	enUS	enGB	deDE	frFR	esES	esMX	enUS	enGB	deDE	frFR	esES	esMX	Notes	Ads
4players [2]	-	-	DE	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	part 1	unknown
FilesForPlayers [3]	-	GB	DE	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Part 1	N/A
Ictus guild	-	GB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	part 1	unknown
NetLayer [4]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		Popup
Obscurus Guild [5]	-	GB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	part 1	unknown
PatchItBaby [6]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		banners+sidebar
Sipifi [7]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		unknown
WowPatches.de [8]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	part 1	unknown
Wow Source [9]	-	-	DE	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	part 1	unknown
wow-patches.info [10]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		unknown

This looks really great! I love it already. --Ragowit 06:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

i put up : 2.0.12 -> 2.1.0 : on the front page as the table, it'll take a lot ot work to make the table for the other older patches as well.. but all help is welcome obviously.  - CJ talk / cont  07:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Looking good. Do any of the sites require registration to download? May want that specified. --GRYPHON^tc 12:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Havent seen that yet, but that's what the note field can be used for as well.  - CJ talk / cont  13:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This does look nice :) I'll try to add esES later on tonight (we have the other 3 euro patch-locales). There is also zhTW and zhCN. Is it worth adding those to the table ?

"Sites with no direct link to a patch should not have the sublink. this should encourage them to setup more accurate links." Where would wirebrain.de rate for that ? I do have anchors on the pages leading to specific patches and compact tables for all versions thereof linked. (i.e. #p2.0.10 would go to 2.0.10, but not 2.0.10 deDE specifically). IMO it does not make sense to have a download-page for every single file, it just increases the amounts of click-throughs needed to finally get at the file (which is, IMO, the reason many download sites use this approach -- to generate more adviews).

Another thing that I will change on the page is the BitTorrent link saying "wirebrain". While the .torrent file is hosted on my server, it does use the Blizzard BitTorrent tracker exclusively, not a tracker of my own (which I'd assume if I saw the page in its current form).

Score 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will also replace "google" with "text" and the default for banners with "unknown"; Reasoning is simple, Google is not the only advertizing network using textbanners, and it really doesn't matter to the enduser which one it is from. Another thing one might consider is adding the number of blocks (i.e. something like 1xText, 5xText, etc.) Score 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I believe we should come up with a list of generic forms of advertisement and their intrusiveness. IMO it does not really matter whether the ad is in text-form or an image; if it's a square button on the side it's less annoying than a whole sidebar which is less annoying than banners which are less annoying than in-line ads (anything that's conspicuously close to the download links) which is less annoying than layers (those things that shift into the page) which are less annoying than popups. Anything I missed ? With those we'd be able to describe most forms concisely and descriptively.

I did/am doing that on the stuff that's currently on the page since it's a wiki, and on wikis you should be bold :-) Score 06:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

and it's all good! ;)  - CJ talk / cont  07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra comment: It seems that under MAC, the addresses it uses for the esES and frFR are the same. It's been like this for quite a while already and i wonder if you can update it? :) Rawh 17.42, 11 July May 2007 (CET)

Fixed. Hadn't seen that before; it was a typo in Patch_Mirrors/Row Score 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed Patch mirrors/VersionHeader earlier today; it now detects whether the versions being given have pages on WoWWiki attached; if yes, they are linked to (like "2.2.0"), if not, not (like "2.2.x"). This cuts down on the number of red links due do patches capable of updating multiple versions (such as 1.12.x -> 2.0.1, 2.x->2.2.0, etc.). If, instead of linking to 1.12.x one were to want to link to another page, one could add another parameter named version1link or version2link giving the name of the page to be linked to; currently that is not used, but there may be a use for it in the future.

Short version : less dead links, more magic. Score 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Added filesize into header, was trying to make it a seperate argument but it kept being pushed onto a second line, so i added it into the note field for now  - CJ talk / cont  07:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First impressions

ok, now that 2.0.3 > 2.0.12 has been added to the table. 1 thing becomes clear. a lot of sites dont bother with sub pages... the question then becomes... "should we" ?

If those sites cant be bothered to make subpages for those patches,, should they be listed individually at all? or would a simple link in the "general patch sites" be sufficient coverage?

i think so... But... the "latest patch" should be the only exception to this. so people can be aware where the latest patch can be downloaded from.

Older patches though.... if "empty links" could be moved to the general links section instead, it sure would cut down the clutter by a huge ammount.

anyone care to share some thoughts on this?  - CJ talk / cont  14:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The downside to cutting that clutter is that metadata is lost as well (checksums, torrents, patchnote links, etc.) for those patches. What's done currently is OK IMHO (i.e. provide a patch path from fresh install to current version (i.e. 2.0.1 -> 2.x.0 -> 2.x.y -> 2.x.y+1 -> 2.x.y+2, and removing 2.x - 2.x.y+n when the 2.0.1 -> 2.x+1.0 patch is released); The 1.x -> 1.12 is missing atm, though one could argue that fresh installs should be done from the 2.0.0/TBC installers, anyway.

As for bothering with subpages; If possible, yes, we should. Direct Download links (utwente, for instance, or rapidshare/megaupload/oxedion/divshare/etc.) are not doable if the subpage-link-per-version format is abandoned; and while not all sites are user-friendly in that respect (and some site-owners intentionally link to their main page in order to maximize the number of clicks a user has to do to get to the patches -- ad revenue, you see, is more important than user experience), some do have proper links to proper subpages and keep them updated, as it should be :-) Score 06:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

a few Macintosh sites

Noticed the page was a bit short on Mac updates so did a 'lil search. Macgamefiles (v1.12 - 2.0.12 enUS/GB/GR/FR/K/SP), Apple has the current (2.0.12) only I think, Macupdate appears to host the current 2.0.12 patch but links to Macgamefiles for previous. /.\ Kwaz 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

yep, added the option so people can add the mac links,, so far it's been pretty much ignored. but i hope to see more mac mirrors showing up soon as well. (as i'm a mac user half the time as well ;))  - CJ talk / cont  07:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to carry the Mac patches on wirebrain as well and do so when I get the chance ... But it's hard to get the required data. While it's easy for me to install all 7 locales of WoW/TBC for XP (I did) and get the patches as they hit their distribution system, the same cannot be said for the Mac-patches. All that is really needed are the .torrent files from the .dmg (they are in the Resources folder of the downloader App), but those are not usually found anywhere on the net, least of all at the time the patch hits WoW. I can sometimes get a .torrent from Mac-gamers in the guild, but then it's really only for one locale and one upgrade path, not for all locales and both upgrade paths. Score 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we could persuade blizzard to list the torrents. surely that cant take much bandwidth from them?  - CJ talk / cont  14:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can get SOME of the torrents from their update system. More specifically, you can use http://us.version.worldofwarcraft.com/update/PatchSequenceFile.txt (replace us by eu or kr or such for other locales) to find out what the current version is, and, for instance, http://us.version.worldofwarcraft.com/update/WoW-2.0.12.6546-2.1.0.6692-PPC-OSX-enUS (x86-Win would be used instead of PPC-OSX for the Windows versions) to get the wow-patch.MPQ file the game and/or launcher get when they discover that a new version is out. That MPQ-file can be extracted with MPQEditor or some such tool and contains a .torrent file in the Resources subdirectory (or the downloader .exe in the case of Windows). You can then use THAT file to get the incremental patch update for MacOS, as well, even if you do not have a Mac (or the local version of WoW) handy. I have as yet not been able to find a similar method for the cumulative patcher, however. Score 12:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Although i'm not really a WoW'r anymore myself (to much time goes into my study atm), i'm still trying to keep the mirror files going, also since we've got quite a few people here on the University of Twente, The Netherlands, that play WoW, on a MAC or just a PC. To bad blizzard doesn't offer .torrent files and sticks to those .exe downloaders they got... it kinda prevents me from attaining the data. -- Rawh, SNT FTPcom 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The .exe files contain the .torrent files (there is a blurb on that further down on the article page), so getting those is not too hard once you know how to get the .MPQ file. I usually try to get http://a.wirebrain.de/wow/ updated as soon as possible, and to provide the Blizzard tracker .torrents for them as well; feel free to grab them there; I haven't figured out yet how to make .torrent files for the cumulative Mac patches (haven't spent time on figuring out what ordering they use for the files in the torrent, let alone tweak a metafile generator to use the same), though, and don't know how to get the MPQ or downloader apps. For the Windows patches, if you can source them from elsewhere, you can create a .torrent file of them (the piece size is ALWAYS 256 kbyte); if the Blizzard tracker accepts your torrent, you did it right :) Score 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Macintosh link error

Seems as there's an error in the site regarding the linking of the MAC esES link. It seems to be using the same link from the frFR release as url. Second to that i'm a bit confused of what i should use. Our ftp can support both the http:// and ftp:// protocol, regarding linking to files we host. We prefer the ftp:// method, since this doesn't stress our machine to much regarding apache resources... Any thoughts about both these 'problems'? -- Rawh, SNT FTPcom 10:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As third i'd like to point out that the Mac links for the patch 2.0.3 → 2.1.0 for "MacGameFiles" site points towards their _FULL_ release, and not to the update. Is this allowed? Since i can then put my ftp links there aswell *gg* -- Rawh, SNT FTPcom 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be moved to the 2.0.1->2.1.0 section instead then.  - CJ talk / cont  12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a _FULL_ release, so far as I can tell. You still need at least 2.0.x, though you are right, I made a mistake, 2.0.3 is not 2.0.x. I'll fix that. It is still an update, albeit a cumulative one from 2.0.x instead of 2.0.3 (which we had with the 2.0.4-2.0.12 patchers).

Afraid i don't really understand that last sentence of you.. -- Rawh, SNT FTPcom 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FTP is fine to link to; every browser that matters understands FTP, as well. (Apache itself should not really cause much load though, if set up right (i.e. threaded apache, sendfile(), and no "fat" mods :) Score 12:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we changed it to lighttpd, hoping that will help. Most people like using apache, since it also shows a bar of how much mbit is currently in use. Apache also has about 3x more logins then ftp :) -- Rawh, SNT FTPcom 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

lighttpd is nice, though I still prefer the flexibility of Apache. If you use the server-status handler to gauge mbps though, be very careful when using the 2.2.x branch; it is currently broken and makes bad assumptions on that page (not sure whether 2.0.x is affected as well). Basically it will count each static file hit as having been fully served even when Content-Range: or such were specified, or the connection aborted. (I had a couple gbyte/s displayed on a 100mbit/s link at some point when several thousand connections were in use, most of which content-range ones :) In any case though, with 2.2, the mpm_worker model, and the right settings, you can easily service several thousand connections from a single apache, even if the machine is not that beefy. The disk subsystem and cache better be smokin' though :) Another thing you might institute is soem kind of one-IP-per-client block; Some downloaders are really, really annoying and open up to 50-100 connections to the server (in bad cases), but even 10 is quite rude. I just give em 503's whenever they use more than one connection in specific directories. --Score 15:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't using any module from apache/lighttpd that generates the bar. To my info we are using a Bandwidth bar (bwbar in short) that shows us fancy data. Its part of every index file because of an include. Works like a charm in my opinion :) -- Rawh, SNT FTPcom 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, ye olde bwbar from kernel.org (though they switched to something different a couple years back ;) Yeah, that is nifty. I use the same (without a bar) on the wb mainpage, just a nifty thing to have, if you have SSI compiled into your server :) Some FTP servers have a similar feature, but I guess it isn't as pretty :-) Score 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

part 1,, 2.. and.. ?

What use is having part 1+2, if nobody is hosting part 3 ? :s  - CJ talk / cont  17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Part 3 is around 7mbyte, the downloader SHOULD be able to get that quickly :) Score 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Incremental and Full Patch ??

I have found two types of patch for 2.1 today. The first is the 2.0.12 > 2.1.0 type patch, such as the GamersHell mirrors I added earlier today. These are typically 344Mb. I have since found a 2.1.0 Full which is around 530Mb. Is there a section of the Patch Mirrors page that would be suitable to place this type of patch file? My guess is this is a 2.0.1 > 2.1.0 Installer for people that do fresh installs of TBC. Link to the file I mean: http://www.gamershell.com/download_19254.shtml CremeEgg 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "full" patch is actually just a patch from 2.0.3-12 to 2.1.0 (i.e. 2.0.0 or even 1.x would not be enough to use as a base); it is still an incremental patch, and listed in a second section of the same table. (technically there are 3 Windows and 2 OSX versions of the 2.1 patch : The partial+full patch that gets downloaded by the game if you have 2.0.12 and try to log in (consists of 4 files for Windows), the update from 2.0.12 to 2.1.0 distributed via file mirrors (one exe file, the smaller one), and the "full" update (one exe file, distributed via file mirrors and BitTorrent). The 2 OSX versions of the patch are the partial-one and the "full" patch (I have not yet seen a version similar to the Windows single .exe file). Score 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

cleaned up again

Did some cleaning up again, in preparation for the "patch rush" 2.1.2

Latest 2 patches i keep full lists, 2 older patches i'll clean up mirrors with only 1-2 links, and even older patches will be deleted if they have no alternatives.  - CJ talk / cont  07:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

wondering

hi guys i am new here...i wonder if we can upload patches to Rapidshare and put the links as mirrors...if that is so i will upload them in no time...ty all and respect...skoosha 18:44, 25 June 2007

If you really want to do that, go ahead. Rapidshare's ads and waiting periods are extremely annoying though. Score 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

0daypatch.com

The 0daypatch.com entries were links to general patch pages (one set was to the root directory, the other was to /downloads). As of the second rule (Links should link to the download page for that patch, not to a general website page.) i have moved 0daypatch.com to General Mirror Sites list at the bottom. Should the owner wish to re-enter these links to the main patch mirror list, please provide links to the patch for which the section referes and not a general page. --Kaso 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my view on User talk:Redzac, and am changing his site name to wowpatches.de. Kirkburn talk contr 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A change, as it turns out, he doesn't really care about at all (see recent listings ;-) Score 06:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replacement Files

I am in the process of making a site that provides direct replacements of all the important files in the WoW folder (DLL's, EXE's, and MPQ's). They're not patches, they are just files. Say you open your common.mpq archive and accidentally (*cough* purposely *cough*) change one of the files contained therein, but now the archive is broken. You can reinstall the whole game, redownload all the patches (if you didn't save them), and reinstall them or you can just redownload the archive you nerfed. Anywho, is this a good place to link it? Posted by: EGingell (talk | contribs) on 13:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations sir, you just reinvented Repair.exe that comes with every installation of World of Warcraft. Besides, if you don't make backups and screw around with your game files, you're better off reinstalling anyway -- as it is rather hard to check those files against known-good checksums (and it would be a monstrous undertaking to collect and check checksums for every file of every release of WoW thus far, considering there are dozens of thousands of files inside those MPQs :) Score 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind anyway, it takes way too long to update after a patch. Posted by: EGingell (talk | contribs) on 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

updating clean install

Isn't there a 2.x > 2.13, or 2.x > 2.2 patch coming up or available.. would cut down the excess links on this page a good bit  - CJ talk / cont  12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Once they BECOME available, they are usually linked. Can't help it when Blizzard doesn't release packaged patches for every patch ;) Score 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

zhCN, zhTW links

The tables are getting too cluttered -- especially consideirng that the zhTW mac patches are not listed (there is no zhCN mac patch). We may need to rethink some of the table design in order to add those two locales without breaking the page in 1024x768 (which many, many people surf at). Ideas ? {{unsigned|Score]}

Not sure why we should even carry those languages - this site is US and EU based, and steadfastedly english-language. Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Same thought here, it's nice that there are mirrors that can offer the additional languages,, but i think we should restrict ourselves to the 5 main types.. the "koKR,zhCN, zhTW" have no real use here. Removed them for now, no doubt those languages have their own wiki or mirror site.  - CJ talk / cont  06:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

zhCN has their own mirrors smack-dab on front of their mainpage on wowchina.com, not sure what the "place to be" for zhTW is. While this site is in English, it is probably the most definitive source on most things WoW, so I'd expect Koreans and Chinese people to come here as well (unless it's blocked by the great firewall) -- and don't forget, deDE, esES, frFR are also not used by English-speaking people :)

Maybe we'll find a way to do this aesthetically pleasing in the future -- possibly by having just one column for both MAC and PC patches and letting the links reflect what they lead to (i.e. instead of repeating the locale-information in every cell, have text-links stating MAC and/or PC). I may fiddle around with a layout like that in the sandbox in a day or two. Score 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blizz EU is English-speaking, and is closely tied to Blizz US. However, the KR,CN and TW sites are entirely another world, who have never really had any presence on this site, and I have come across pretty much no people who have identified as being from that region on here. We don't even carry their patch info, since we cannot read their languages. I guess this sounds rather nationalistic, and I don't mean it as such, but there is a limit to how much we can carry, and I don't see value in having those links as well. Kirkburn  talk  contr 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in here... I tend to agree about the US/EU focus of WoWWiki (mostly because those pesky EU folks learn english and send their actors to play Americans better than most Americans... but I digress). If we want to list non-US/EU patch mirrors, someone should create another page like Non-EU/US Patch mirrors (with the appropriate disclaimer) and put them there. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 PM PDT 11 Oct 2007

ELP Mirrors

I have searched wowwiki and did not find an entry to 'ELP' or 'European Language Pack'. So i am not sure where those belongs to and if there are any external ELP mirrors ? -- Essmene 12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bump the official torrents to the top/maybe separate section ?

They're the safest of the links, and at least i'm downloading right now with half a megabyte per second. I don't know why the default Blizzard downloader is not as fast or reliable, but anyway i think everyone is best advised to use them unless you have some firewall issues or something.

Not everybody has a BitTorrent client, none of these torrents are "official" (they do not originate from worldofwarcraft.com web servers, but rather from my wirebrain.de server -- while they originate from the downloaders and announce to the Blizzard tracker, they are not an official distribution method). Were I an evil SOB, I could replace those torrents with something more sinister (and most people would not notice since they rarely look at tracker announce URLs). Everyone is best advised to use the Blizzard downloader they get from their own Launcher.exe or from starting Warcraft, if possible. That is the only official distribution method via BitTorrent (and some, usually late, official mirrors of some patches). While it's true that you can get great speeds with BT (and usually better speeds than you'd get from the Blizzard downloader), that does not hold true for people whose network admins have blocked BitTorrent, who have certain bandwidth/traffic restriction, etc. -- That's what these mirrors are for.

(and just to drive the point home -- what you just said is akin to putting the wirebrain mirror at the top as the most trustworthy source of patches. It can't be since it's not official, even though I do my best to ensure the validity of those files ;) Score 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Or those who refuse to install file-sharing software. Posted by: EGingell (talk | contribs) on 07:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, support pushing these to the top. Although using a different client is not the supported means of getting the patch, using bittorrent is. As everyone who uses BT knows, keeping people seeding keeps the torrent alive and fast, I see no downside to encouraging people to use a real BT client if they have issues with Blizzard's downloader BEFORE they resort to a patch mirror. I tend to get better speeds off uTorrent than from Blizzard's downloader, because I have my network specifically configured for the box running uTorrent. However, it rarely matters to me the speed, the official downloader brings down most patches fast enough.

If hosting is an issue, the torrent files could be hosted here and protected to prevent foul play. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 09:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That would not make them any more official. Hosting them on wirebrain hasn't been an issue for me, and I'm the only one with access to that site. If you really want to mirror them locally on WoWWiki have fun (it's a decent amount of work if you don't automate it, but probably only really becomes worth it if I go over to the dark side :P Score 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Engb

Can someone post the last ptr patch as an engb mirror?--Gurluas 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Mirror

This is just a small query, i would like to add a link to a download directory i have on My Domain , the only problem i can forsee though is my DNS has not yet been resolved, yet this does not of course restrict people from downloading the patches. If the website is acceptable in it's current state please advise me, or add it to the table

• When resolved the website address is files.peterlockett.net and the website contains absolutely no banners, adds or scripts --TheItchyOne 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Domain Fully resolved

0.4.0.8016 Mirror

I added mirrors to the newest PTR build (0.4.0.8016). However, the guidelines to adding mirrors say that "Links should link to the download page for that patch". The only download page for the two patches I posted (enUS and enGB) that I know of is a thread asking for someone to upload a mirror. An MMO-Champion Administrator uploaded the files to their own domain and then posted a response that included links directly to them. The link to the thread is http://www.mmo-champion.com/index.php?topic=4958.0 --Melkortopia 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2.4 part1 is distributed by background downloader

The distribution of the first part, about 260MB, is starting as I type.

Allvatar Mirrors Patch 2.4 Part 2 NOT working

Hi The Allvatar Mirrors form patch 2.4 part 2 are not working. You don't get access to that link

Numeric abuse

A valid point was raised recently on IRC, the abuse of numerical first-letter (intended or not, 0daypatch comes to mind). I propose we start treating the first character as a word, if it's a digit => One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Zero. A site named www.24-7.com would be treated as www.twofourseven.com.

Thoughts? Ady_s 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

see User_talk:Redzac and User_talk:Philson (and their contribs) to see some past history on that particular site. I don't think "intended or not" is accurate, it's quite definitely intended. Writing-out may be a somewhat convoluted rule, but it would disperse this particular instance of the site to the end. What happens when we see aaawowpatch.com tomorrow ? Score 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on IRC, aaawowpatch.com would get removed. Really obvious abuse will get you nowhere. Ady_s 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You crashed the whole patch mirrors site. On first place are mirrors that don’t work anymore. You changed links to wrong categories. Why you deleted 2 of 3 mirrors for client None → 2.3.0 (~3500 Mb)? Everything is broken. Nice work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimension (talk · contr).

I did a well needed cleanup, the sites I removed were broken/linkdead. Nothing is broken right now, what are you on about? Ady_s 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I have just tried first link on you new list and the download is not working. Don`t know what you have been looking for. And why do you delete all 4Fansites links? They are all working well 4Fansites is not confusing. It is almost the same list like here with direct downloads. No Popups, no registrations, no waiting times. Don`t know why you like broken links better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimension (talk · contr).

I didn't delete them, I moved them. Did you read what is just above these lines? Ady_s 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you change links from one version to another, then your work is useless. Most of the links are wrong now, because the versions are wrong, due to your changes. You can’t just change a link from version 2.3 to 2.0. And then you bump broken links. If you want to help then make it correct next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimension (talk · contr).

What the heck are you on about? Ady_s 21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bumping broken links and deleting working links and now you send warnings. Why do you move v2.3 client links to the 2.0 client list? Is this fun sending peoples to wrong sites? I dont know how many times I have to say that. Your moves are wrong. You can not just move links from 1 patch (or client) version to another patch version. The patch list is useless, if the links are at the wrong category. Still dont know why you do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimension (talk · contr).

And I still dont know what you're on about. Links are fine here. Ady_s 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG and peoples like you are admin. Check this link. http://www.4fansites.de/world_of_warcraft_client.php You know what it mean WoW Client None -> 2.3 ? It means that this is the client version 2.3 and not version 2.0. And now explain please why you moved this link from the WoW Client None -> 2.3 list to the None -> 2.0.0 list And this is not the only wrong move you made today. And please explain why you have deleted 4fansites at the 2.4.0 → 2.4.1 Incremental (~5Mb) list. You are deleting and moving links just for fun? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimension (talk · contr).

OMG and you are still not banned. I have not deleted it, I've MOVED it. Once again, read up a few lines above, we won't be using 0123456789abc...z numbering, and instead counting the first digit as a word (zero one two three four...). Go ahead and move it, I'm honestly too lazy to check AGAIN what's going on; errors happen and the patch mirror page code is not one I mess with every day. But moving it to the TOP again will get you banned - it should get alphabetized as "fourfansites"... Ady_s 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL this is too funny. Maybe you should ask one of your fellows what`s the difference between version numbers. Why don’t you make only 1 big list with all links, then you can chance links how you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimension (talk · contr).

Both of you, get off each other's backs. Adys was correct in his moving, though he accidently removed one or two links that should have stayed. Is there any problem with the page as it is? And Dimension, please sign your posts. Kirkburn  talk  contr 07:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy it up further, and have unblocked Dimension. You both made mistakes. Kirkburn  talk  contr 08:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Dimension 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

hi, can you please post the reason about the new sorting of Mirrors?? --Philson 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In a word ? You. Score (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No filefront mirror?

The filefront mirrors contain nearly all the patches and are usually quite fast. Where downloading from blizzard and normal mirrors would net me around 100-200 k/s, I was hitting 700-800 k/s here. I'll reserve editing the main page to add them to another wiki-user who has a clue about what they are doing... Draeath 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add them. It's easier than you'd think. Score (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Arakkoa.com mirrors removed due to viruses

I removed the Arakkoa.com mirrors as they or their adverts contain viruses. Mytob Reverted this, so I'll remove Arakkoa.com again as the site is still riddled with viruses. Elijahg 10:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mytob has removed the virus-ads from Arakkoa.com, so I have added the mirrors back to the page. Thanks Mytob ;)