Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Bookfooter

100,556pages on
this wiki

Back to template

Revision as of 00:29, June 14, 2010 by TherasTaneel (Talk | contribs)

Types

Legends

Warcraft Legends has appeared at Amazon.com source. Should it still say "likely" in the template? Kimera757 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Split?

It is getting to the time when the template should be split into types (with an overall one linking the main "type" pages)? Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's getting way too big with all the books, comics etc. --User:Gourra/Sig2 08:52, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Replace by Template:Bookfooter.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 11:53, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Update?

How long does it take for a change on this template to start showing up on articles that have this template in them? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 04:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Others

Should this template only include books under the Blizzard Franchise / Roadmap? There quite a few WoW programming books out there. And others non-official books like The Battle for Azeroth: Adventure, Alliance, and Addiction in the World of Warcraft --Ramu50 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft / World of Warcraft tags

I think it's pretty unnecessary to divide the sources depending on their license name (Warcraft/World of Warcraft). This includes the RPG. If you insist on labeling the RGP, you should label the novels, too, nope?

And, for god's sake. There's something called preview. If you realize your latest editions fuck the template up, leaving tons of blank space that before were properly used, fix your edition.

And i miss group 5, too.

--Lon-ami (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

  • First do not threat people with banning.

Sorry I didn't sum up the info. My point being is that should we just reduce the template down to this:

I mean seriously this is most messiest template in Warcraft considering they are still other franchise Template:Games. I am thinking if the contents really need to be kept, create a footer template instead. The MMO stuff was just pure commenting. I went somewhat overboard on the D&D stuff, but seriously if it is a fork D&D form, then some of information should be indicated, either in footnotes, title or the "dash" as shown below.

--Ramu50 (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


{{Books}} is reserved for official books.
Hacking World of Warcraft (book) is not an official publication.
Persisting in this way might lead you to a provisory or permanent ban.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 16:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit: No one is threatened, you are being explained the why.
Ramu you aren't being threated, you are just being told what may happen if you try and add that book again. Now i'm having trouble understanding what the point of that long disjointed post is. Is it that the RPGs are a DnD format? We know that, but that's irrelevant. The are official blizzard licenced products.Warthok Talk Contribs 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If 11 million players isn't "massively multi-player" and "internet connection required" isn't "online" I'm not sure what what an MMO would be. Just Alerting You Small Howbizr(t·c) 5:21 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Ramu50 i disagree on all counts. I don't think the template is too messy, i can read it just fine. And none of the books on there are another franchise, they may follow a format based on another game, but they are all as "warcraft" as the MMO itself. "hacking world of warcraft" is not. It has nothing to do with the nature of the matierial or the contents within. It has everything to do with blizzards stamp of approval. I'm pushing for the template to be left as is.Warthok Talk Contribs 06:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that Hacking World of Warcraft is on WoWWiki may be a problem. If it is on here then some people will want it to be in the book template. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 07:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Aye i agree. Let me take back something i said. The template could use some clean-up. But not in the form of removing items, maybe just shortening names.Warthok Talk Contribs 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sort of like Template:Games? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 07:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The template is fine as it is. It includes all the official books that can be bought, and their main group in case of anthologies, trilogies and series. It's fine as it is, IMO.
If I had to remove something, it would be the game guides, cause there are like 15 or more of them, and are just about gameplay.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WoW comic cancellation

Now that the WoW comic has been canceled/converted into graphic novels, shouldn't those changes be reflected on the template?

See source here: http://comics.ign.com/articles/105/1055759p1.html PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 14:57, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

It's not cancelled, they are just releasing the compilations directly instead of going issue by issue. The announced issues will still be there once the graphic novel goes on sale. The difference is we won't be able to buy the issues separately.
I would leave it as it is, until we get more information on the format of those graphic novels. After all, these issues are the only information we have.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:43, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Online Shortstories

Shouldn't the online short stories (Unbroken, Road to Damanation etc.) be added? Aedror42 (talk) 14:47, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed for an "Online shortstories"
Unbroken, Road to Damnation, War of the Shifting Sands, can't remember of another
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 15:01, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Let me see... there is the 3 you mentioned... then there is The War Effort (On the Official Site), Glory (On the Official site), and then there is the short stories of the World of Warcraft Official Strategy Guide/World of Warcraft Master Guide, Second Edition (Although they aren't online short stories) which doesn't appear on the list. Aedror42 (talk) 15:10, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I think only the "published book" were to be added to this template.
If not, we should add the Legends stories and a lot of other stuff.
In my opinion, the template is fine without the unpublished short stories. Just lick "short stories" to see them.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:24, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Move to Template:Books

{{Books}} has been deleted, so I'd suggest moving this there, and ask a bot to re-edit everything again. --Lon-ami (talk) 20:04, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Moved, but what is the bot supposed to edit? ^^
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 06:45, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
I think he means move Bookfooter to Books, then have a bot change all of them from Bookfooter to Books. Doesn't matter though, as Books redirects to Bookfooter anyway. User:Coobra/Sig4 19:17, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
IMO, we keep Bookfooter, to match Mountfooter, Creaturefooter and friends.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:00, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
I missed the deletion of {{Books}}; why was it deleted? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
It was split, due to its increasing size. User:Coobra/Sig4 00:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think "Book" is simpler than "Bookfooter". As for those other templates, I would move them, too. Creaturefooter? Move to Creatures. Mountfooter? Move to Mounts. After all, the pages we are moving them to are empty and unused.
Bu that's other topic, so for now, let's just discuss about moving this to Book.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki