Eirik Ratcatcher@legacy41591109 (talk | contribs) |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | '''Character''' refers to an interactive humanoid representation of a game persona. Characters controlled by a [[player]] are most often referred to as a character and sometimes as [[avatar]] or [[toon]]. Characters controlled by the game are usually referred to as Non-Player Characters or [[NPC]]s. The maximum number of characters per user [[account]] is 50, with no more than 10 per [[realm]].<ref>{{ref web |
||
− | :''Previous discussions archived: |
||
+ | |url=http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/characters.html |
||
− | :* [[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive1]] |
||
+ | |title=Characters F.A.Q. |
||
− | :* [[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive2]] |
||
+ | |publisher={{Blizz}} Blizzard |
||
− | :* [[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive3]] |
||
+ | |accessdate=2009-06-12}}</ref> |
||
− | :* [[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive4]] |
||
− | :* [[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive5]] |
||
+ | Characteristics include: [[class]], [[race]], [[faction]], [[talent]]s, [[profession]], and [[equipment]]. |
||
+ | {{AlsoSee|[[Wowpedia:Fan fiction guidelines#Player character|Player character biography pages]]}} |
||
− | == Achievement categories == |
||
+ | {{clr}} |
||
+ | == Moving Characters == |
||
− | Instead of adding a second category, just go ahead and replace type= with '''Love is in the Air'''. No sense in have the achievement in both cats right? =P {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 00:02, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | The following text is from the Worldofwarcraft.com Changing Realms/Character Move page (part of "Account Management"): |
||
+ | :"''Below you will see a listing of all characters associated with your account, across all realms. If one or more of your characters are eligible to move, this page will allow you to move those characters to a predetermined low population realm. Please note that only characters on high population realms are eligible for transfer. To see what realms are currently high population, check the [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/serverstatus/ Realm Status] page. Also '''note that you will not be able to explicitly choose which realm you'd like to move to.''' Instead, the new realm is determined automatically and displayed in the "Destination Realm" column below. For answers to common questions, please check out our [https://www.worldofwarcraft.com/account/charactermove-faq.html Character Move F.A.Q.]''" |
||
− | :Sure, that works. I was reluctant to change the existing category structure; "folks had worked so hard on it"... :) --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | ::Nah, by all means.. expand it.. I did with the dungeon/raid section, the more precise the categories, the better I always say... well... first time I've said that, but yea... {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 00:06, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | :::This is another one of those ballooning changes, I'm thinking... Ah, well. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:07, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | === "Character Migration" in the Terms of Use === |
||
− | Yea the doc-ness is only needed for articles you wish not to have a category, I don't remember why it was allowed to transfer from the boilerplates... but it's not needed. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 00:24, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | The following text is from the Blizzard [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html Terms of Use] for [[WoW]] (WoW_TOU_enNA_20050505, May 5, 2005 version): |
||
+ | :'''4. Character Migration.''' |
||
− | :I think it affects transclusion, possibly involving {{t|Achievement}} and {{t|Achievementlong}}. In any case, it didn't eat much, so I have been adding it. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:27, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | :: /smirk, you didn't spell either template correctly. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 00:28, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | :::At least I misspelled them uniquely! --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:29, February 12, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | :Blizzard may, in its sole and absolute discretion, offer certain users the opportunity to move characters from a heavily populated "Character Migration" server to a server designated by Blizzard as a "Target Server." If you are offered the opportunity to migrate a character, please note the following: |
||
− | == Class sets -> Class armor sets == |
||
+ | :* A character that is a "guild master" cannot be migrated to a Target Server. |
||
− | Could you provide a reason as to why you're changing the categories from "<class> sets" to "<class> ''armor'' sets"? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 00:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | :* You must have less than ten (10) characters on the Target Server in order to migrate a character to the Target Server. |
||
+ | :* Character migrations can only occur when the account that you utilize to play World of Warcraft is not in use. |
||
+ | :* You cannot migrate a character to a Target Server if the name of the character is already in use on the Target Server. |
||
+ | :If a character of the same name already exists on the Target Server, you will be given an opportunity to rename character as part of the Character Migration process. As always, the name must adhere to the naming conventions stated herein. |
||
+ | :* In-game mail sent by or in transit to the character that you intend to migrate will not be migrated to a Target Server. |
||
+ | :* All player auctions involving the character that you intend to migrate will be canceled and the item, deposit, and the high bid returned to the bidder upon character migration. The item you placed for sale, or your "high bid," will appear in that character's mail when it reaches the Target Server. Note that Blizzard will not be responsible for the loss of in-game funds or items due to the character migration of either a "buyer" or "seller" to an auction house transaction. |
||
+ | :* A target character's friends list will not transfer to a Target Server. |
||
+ | :* A target character's guild affiliation will not transfer to a Target Server. |
||
+ | :* A target character's ignore list will not transfer to a Target Server. |
||
+ | == References == |
||
− | :Sure. 1) Specificity. There could well be sets of other items for a given class. If not now, then in the future. I know of several If we're talking armor, then we should '''say''' armor, imo. |
||
+ | {{Reflist}} |
||
− | :2) it permits a rational "<class> armor set ''items''" class structure. Armor sets are collections; armor set items are specific items. Separating armor set items out allows people to use the categories to actually find the armor sets themselves. The "armor set" categories were getting an unhelpfully large number of items "at the top". I didn't feel that putting "armor set items" inside a category named "<class> sets" was as useful. |
||
− | :--[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | ::I don't see why there should be a "<class> armor sets" category and a hypothetic "<class> weapon sets" category, when it can be used in just one "<class> sets" category. Likewise it is perfectly fine with "<class> set items", while "<class> armor set items". It looks unnecessary to me, and most people who browse the wiki are more used to "<class> sets". --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 00:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | :::Okies, let's set the wayback machine for "before I started this whole mess". I was looking at the T9 and T10 warrior armor, and looking to add the latter as needed. What I found was a mess: "<class> set" with enough articles piled '''at the top''' to make complete categories in their own right. Items pushed into the same categories as the sets - some times, and not others. Sets, too, being irregular. |
||
− | :::So I decided to "burn it all down and start over". I looked for a rationale for the class being named "<class> set" instead of "<class> armor set". I found no non-armor items in the categories. So, no rationale. |
||
− | :::I found a useful boilerplate for item sets, under one of the T9 or perhaps T8 pages, that allowed for the categories to be renamed almost trivially - by changing the name in the <code><class> set</code> template (for set pages), or in the set page (for component items). |
||
− | :::If you believe that "<class> armor set" categories should '''not''' replace the current "<class> set" categories, then I encourage you to... |
||
− | :::a) ask more widely (ie on the forums) before taking unilateral action |
||
− | :::b) if such action is called for (one way or another) wait until I've had a chance to finish the "set reduction strategy" changes, using the <class> set categories as lists of work-to-do. ... or use AWB or something to either do the work for me, or mark such pages in some other fashion. |
||
+ | [[da:Karakter]] |
||
− | :::For my own part, a) I don't think users will care much, once everything is one way or the other, using the category links at the bottom to navigate or using the Search functionality, instead of directly entering a category name like you and I. b) Changing the lot should be nigh trivial by the time I'm done, one way or the other. |
||
+ | [[ru:Персонаж]] |
||
− | :::--[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:47, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | [[Category:Game terms]] |
||
− | |||
+ | [[Category:Characters| Character]] |
||
− | ::::I find it strange though that you are trying to enforce this "<class> armor set" change when we have always used "<class> sets", and then you tell me to ask people that we should ''not'' follow this change that you are doing. You should be the one to ask that. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 00:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | [[Category:Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game]] |
||
− | |||
− | :::::In this, I am [[WW:BOLD]]. I've put a fair bit of work into this already. It's taken you a couple of months to notice the change. Therefore it can't have been drastic. Further, as I said above, I've been engineering it so that it can be reverted, if people disagree. I'll go ahead and put it forth on the forums, but I insist you not revert my changes until we have more consensus. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:55, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::I counter your WW:BOLD with [[WW:BOLD#...but don't be reckless!]] and [[WW:BOLD#Actions and edits with widespread effects]]. Your actions haven't been approved by anyone. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 01:02, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::Nor were Zeal's. Now we've both been slapped down. So. Settle down. I'm writing the history of this and a description of my roadmap for the forums. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 01:08, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::::Zeal's actions are way back in the past, and I wasn't an active editor back then. Nevertheless it shouldn't be used as an argument for this. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 01:18, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::::I did say, "settle down". I've already got a category arrangement argument scheduled. If you want to continue the BOLD argument, take a number and wait in line, please. Thank you. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 01:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == [[:Category:Stalker's Chain Battlegear set items]] == |
||
− | |||
− | I thought you said that you were going to create the set categories if there were several items that would satisfy the set bonus, but now you've created this one? What's your reasoning behind this? ---{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 21:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | : There are two separate item pages (Thrallmar/Honor Hold) for one of the items here. Only reason I did it. Could go either way, specific set, or "(class) armor set items". |
||
− | |||
− | :A question you didn't ask, was my reasoning on Tier 6 armors. That was more a matter of inertia: If there are categories for Tier 10 armors, why not Tier 6? The same argument can be made for Dungeon Set 1. I have no good answer. Likely, I have erred re Tier 6, at least as far as the "multiple items" rationale goes. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 21:23, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::The "<set> items" categories should be used for sets that has set items that satisfies the same set bonuses. That's the way for the tier 10 sets (unless I'm mistaken). That's not the way for tier 6, as there is only one set of items that fills out for set bonuses. |
||
− | |||
− | ::I'd also like to refer to [[WW:CAT]], as it's a very small category, not used for subcategories, and will never be filled with more items. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 21:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::Same also goes for [[:Category:Tempest Regalia set items]]—an unnecessary category, just used to list the set items. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 21:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::Contrarily: small categories are allowed even with a few members for consistency within the wiki structure. This is a much more interesting subject for a forum discussion than "X sets" vs "X armor sets". You don't deny that the T10/gladiator categories would be useful. We both agree that it's kind of silly to have 5-item set categories. But what level of inconsistency should we live with? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 21:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::I could live with: level 60 PvP sets; Tier 9 & 10 sets (both tiers has items that satisfies set bonus? I'm not sure); Arena sets. Do you have any other suggestions? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 21:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::Are there more than one per class, 60 pvp sets? Arena/70 and Arena/80 are different set bonuses, but compatable within. Tiers 7 and 8 both have 10/25 variants, IMO deserving of categories. You've already noted the specialization branches for T10; they continue down to T4, but may not need categories lower than Glad/70. |
||
− | |||
− | ::::Another problem to think about: individual item set cats can include the main set page in "top sort" fashion. Can't do that with eg "generic armor set items" or "class armor set items". So do they get excluded from the generic cats but not from the specific ones? They're already in the "class sets" and "type sets" cats. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::I was thinking of the PvP-Rare and PvP-Epic sets, the items share the same set bonuses, right? Arena/70 and Arena/80 should have different categories, as they aren't compatible with each other. If tier 7 and 8 share set bonuses, then sure, they could have categories on their own. |
||
− | :::::Why not do it like <code><nowiki>[[Category:<type> set items| {{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki></code>? Or did you think of something else? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 22:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::That's a method of top sorting. Top sorting works well only when there are a small number of items to be top sorted. [[:Category:Dungeon Set 1 armor sets]] was okay, but all of the Class sets categories overdid it. IE it only works if the count of <nowiki><type></nowiki> is small. It's what led to my rampage in the first place. Unless I missed what you meant? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::I'm still not sure what you mean, can you give me an example? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 22:44, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::::[[:Category:Death_knight_sets]] stands out as an egregious example of top sorting gone wild. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::::That's because there's DEFAULTSORT conflicts in both {{t|Death knight sets}} and the article itself. There isn't supposed to be a <nowiki>[[Category:Death knight sets]]</nowiki> on the article itself—the template should take care of the categorization of the sets. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 23:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::::::Um... the cause is not what I'm pointing at. The sheer number of top-sorted articles is, however they get that way. The code insert you provided above has the space character that causes top-sorting. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:11, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::::::If the "<class> set" template is correctly categorizing, and the set isn't categorized under the class, they shouldn't be top sorted... --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 23:22, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | (Picture that this paragraph is shifted to the right 12 times.) Back to <code><nowiki>[[Category:<type> set items| {{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki></code> then. |
||
− | |||
− | I guess I'm left with "what would you do with your code piece that isn't already being done?" For {{t|Mage sets}} et al, we've already gone around, above, on "don't top load that many pages"; so I can't see you changing those templates in this way. I think we will still have too many "limited collection" sets that toploading would be bad organized by class. And while I haven't used that code as a boilerplate, it would only save me one cut-and-paste for the more "''this type'' set items". |
||
− | |||
− | And if you organize by set type, then (if I understand correctly), you end up with what [[:Category:Tier 3 armor sets]] looks like currently vs [[:Category:Dungeon Set 1 armor sets]]. Which might be fine for those categories, but breaks down when you get to Tier 10. Again, a consistency issue. |
||
− | |||
− | I'm talking entirely ahead of your explanation of what you were planning, though. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:43, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :I like how [[:Category:Dungeon Set 1 armor sets]] looks, that is what every set category should look like—only the sets, never the set pieces. The "<set> set pieces" (tier 10 for example) should have the respective set pieces in it categorized as usual, and the sets they are in are at the top. That's at least what I think of. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 01:06, February 20, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::The problem is... I created the "(this) armor set items" categories for the T10 armor essentially in the image of the OLD dungeon set 1 (et al) category image: set page top sorted, items normal-sorted. Which works, if the category type is "all items that match this set bonus", but not for "all items of (this tier)", like [[:Category:Dungeon set 1 armor set items]] (which we don't have) or [[:Category:Warrior set items]] which we do (but without the armor set pages in it). |
||
− | |||
− | ::So as things stand, if the set has its own category (eg [[:Category:Wrynn's Battlegear set items]]), the set page(s) are in the set items category. If the set doesn't, then the set page isn't included in the category where the items themselves appear. An inconsistency either way, if the unambiguous sets don't have their own categories. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:48, February 22, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ---- |
||
− | |||
− | And Battlegear sets are another mass of inconsistencies. Re these bi-factional items, so far I've run across: |
||
− | * bare disambigpage, 2 item pages |
||
− | * no disambig page, second item missing |
||
− | * no disambig page, both items described on the same page |
||
− | * disambig page listing both items via transclusion, 2 item pages |
||
− | That being out of 4 sets I've looked at so far. *sigh* Any thoughts? Given my druthers, I'd weld both items onto one page, leave the faction requirement out of the tooltip, have bifactional external link. But I've been knocked down repeatedly for welding pages. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 21:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :I'm not sure which sets you are talking about, could you link? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 21:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :: in the "(class) sets" templates as Level 70 faction sets (Battlegear). --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::It should be: disambigpage, both items link ([<item> (Thrallmar)], [<item> (Honor Hold)]), stealth tooltip. It shouldn't be more than that. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 22:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::My opinion differs, but it's not my current area of focus, and I've long since given up that fight anyway. I'm uninterested in modifying any variant disambigpages, and I've very little interest in splitting bi- pages into mono pages. |
||
− | |||
− | ::::... but I don't know what you mean by "stealth tooltip". --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::A "stealth tooltip" is one that is inside both <nowiki><includeonly> and <onlyinclude></nowiki>. That way there will still be a tooltip associated with the article, both when used {{t|loot}} and {{t|item}}, but it won't be visible on the article itself. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 22:44, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::And that on the disambig article itself? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::Exactly. See [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Evoker%27s_Silk_Amice&action=edit here] what I mean. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 23:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::::At the risk of sounding bitter, the tooltip thus generated shows no sign of the faction requirement. The faction requirement was the "reason" I was given that bi-factional items of that sort should not be combined onto one page. In what significant way is providing a stealth tooltip on a disambiguation page more appropriate than having a single page in the first place? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:11, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::::Is there any reason they can't be combined with "Requires Honor Hold/Thrallmar - Revered" in the tooltip? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 23:17, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::::::Not really, not what I can think of. It just need to have <code>|rfactions=</code> instead of <code>|rfaction=</code>. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 23:22, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::::::Which is to say, you agree we can replace the disambigs with bi-faction pages? If so, then all the battlegear sets devolve down to single-collection sets, and whatever solution we decide on those. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:43, February 19, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | ::::::::::::Assuming same item name and stats, anyway; I know most of the early PvP sets actually had different names and I think those should stay separate. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 00:06, February 20, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | :::::::::::::Agreed. However, the same principle covers the faction-locked recipes (and resulting items) from ToC. Is {{t|tooltip}} Up To The Challenge? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:12, February 20, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::::::::::We've already been through this with an item being sold by both factions, and that it has been to make separate item pages for both. Please try not to revert it. |
||
− | ::::::::::::::What I was talking about was to have these "stealth tooltips" have both reputation factions in it, not having the two items merged into one article. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 01:01, February 20, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::::::::::::You have yet to say why having a stealth tooltip is valid, but having a single page is not. A single page would describe the items in question. Accepting a stealth tooltip accepts the propriety of using a single link to refer to the item in question. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 22:38, February 22, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Thanks for the advice == |
||
− | |||
− | Thank you for the advice on [[Skeleton keys]]. To ensure they were displaying correctly, I previewed the page, and when a tooltip for "Silver Skeleton Key" showed up, I thought [[Skeleton keys]] was a redirect to [[Silver Skeleton Key]]. However, that was a by-product of the including system: as [[Skeleton keys]] page transcludes several other pages, just the first set of <nowiki><includeonly></includeonly></nowiki> was being recognized by Mediawiki software, thus forcing this behavior. I'll keep that in mind to avoid future errors when linking to pages about a certain ''type'' of items. [[User:Scarbrow|Scarbrow]]<sup>[[User_talk:Scarbrow|talk]]</sup> 14:13, March 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :No stress. "Let he who is without flaws cast the first snide remark." --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 18:51, March 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Hey == |
||
− | |||
− | I'll probably do that sooner or later, or at least make it more specific, like mail with agi on it I could put as Phys. DPS. [[User:KWSN|KWSN]] ([[User talk:KWSN|talk]]) 21:56, March 29, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Vendor [[Template:Emblem of Triumph items|thingie]] == |
||
− | |||
− | Yay, nice and clean. I was wondering if you could do the same with poor old [[Rutherford Twing]]...and [[Samuel Hawke]]? Just at some point in the future. [[User:TherasTaneel|TherasTaneel]] ([[User talk:TherasTaneel|talk]]) 23:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :Sure, at some point in the future. Would want to look at the vendors first-hand, given the change in pricing and all. What a mess. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 00:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Poke == |
||
− | |||
− | See [[user talk:thumperward]]. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [http://www.wowhead.com/?user=Skyfire w]) 23:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Riding Horses == |
||
− | |||
− | The text of the article: |
||
− | <blockquote><p>From: Perascamin</p> |
||
− | <p>Subject: Learn to Ride in the Eversong Woods</p> |
||
− | |||
− | <p>Good [name],</p> |
||
− | |||
− | <p>I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to make you aware of my services as a riding trainer. Should you wish to learn, you need only visit me at Thuron's Livery, found southeast of the Shepherd's Gate leaving Silvermoon City. My fee is a modest four gold coins.</p> |
||
− | |||
− | <p>If you'd care to purchase a mount upon learning how to ride, the hawkstrider breeder Winaestra offers a number of noble steeds, each no more than a gold coin.</p> |
||
− | |||
− | <p>Safe travels, Perascamin</p> |
||
− | </blockquote> |
||
− | So it looks like it was the actual letter that was posted rather than the text of the quest. It would be good, however, to place it in the article on the quest were such a quest page were to be generated. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [http://www.wowhead.com/?user=Skyfire w]) 23:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :Just the letter, then. Okies. I have the text of that myself; when I get to making the quest page, I'll put it in. Thankee. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 18:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Hey you == |
||
− | |||
− | [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Rune_of_Infinite_Power&diff=2244629&oldid=2244623 Add a name] to item pages. [[WW:MOS|The gods]] demand it. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 19:15, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :*sigh* I hear and obey, your worshipfulness... --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 19:16, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::And [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Quest%3AYou_Can%27t_Miss_Him&diff=2244663&oldid=2244661 those types] of pages too. The gods are angry... --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 19:38, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::You're talking about retrofiting a lot of pages, not just the ones in this chain. You might want to have caught/decided this a couple years ago. Perhaps Chromie can help? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 19:40, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::Don't worry about a retrofit. I'm just trying to stop you from ignoring the naming issue on the pages you go forth to edit. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 19:46, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::''I'm just trying to'' make you aware there is a ''naming issue...'' - there, fixed that for you. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 19:48, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::"Meh". I only got 2.5 hours of sleep this morning after writing a case study worth 20% of my final grade in on of my classes. I get some slack, I say. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 21:46, April 27, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :I am guessing that a practical reason for the naming issue is to ensure the name appears in the TEXT of the page (and possibly more than once) to increase the ranking for searching on the name. Do you know? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 20:30, April 28, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Spot spotting == |
||
− | |||
− | Thanks for spotting the missing spot, would probably have missed it otherwise. [[User:TherasTaneel|TherasTaneel]] ([[User talk:TherasTaneel|talk]]) 18:41, April 30, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == RE: Armor sets == |
||
− | |||
− | I do not make edit changes on this wiki anymore because of staff members. I just sometimes make replies on some topics but I will not edit anything on WoWwiki again. -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 19:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :'s'okay, your option. ... But I do value your opinion on those changes I've made. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 19:39, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::I like the new categories from what I can remember of the old. P.S if you look inside [[:Category:Class_sets]] at the Tier # armor - # 6 is out of order (it should have 1 more space between tier and 6 <code>Tier 6</code> and not <code>Tier 6</code> in the category sorting on the [[Tier 6]] page. Otherwise, looks great to me. -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 20:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Bot? == |
||
− | |||
− | I think you need a bot [account]. :P --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 23:41, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :I think I need a computer I can use a bot on. :P --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:42, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | ::They use less resources than a typical browser... --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 23:43, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | :::Probably true, but I'm limited in what I can install on a work computer, which is my limitation. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:48, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | ::::Actually, [[wikipedia:WP:AWB|AutoWikiBrowser]] is fairly portable, you just extract the ZIP and run. And I imagine you could use something like [http://www.portablepython.com/ Portable Python] to get [[metawikipedia:Pywikipediabot|Pywikipediabot]] running. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 23:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | Will have to look at it for my home computer. Most of my editing isn't done at home, atm. If I can automate it, I might well do some of that at home. ... while waiting for the raid to start... {{=)}} --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 23:55, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ==Revenge== |
||
− | [[User talk:Howbizr#Could need some help|This]] is not a proper revenge, please try again. |
||
− | |||
− | Or have some cake. |
||
− | |||
− | {{User:A'noob/sig}} 06:35, May 11, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :Last I checked, the cake was fraudulent. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 18:04, May 11, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::Lies! |
||
− | ::It is real. |
||
− | ::{{User:A'noob/sig}} 15:22, May 14, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::Ah, but where does it lie? Allow me to sample it and determine if it is real. I'll get a report back to you in 4 or 5 slices, I'm sure. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 17:34, May 14, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :[http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5272/cubecakefull.jpg Enjoy yourself with my big friend] |
||
− | :{{User:A'noob/sig}} 18:38, May 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::If those are your friends, man, your friends are SQUARE! They oughta loosen up some. Groove, you know? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 18:40, May 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Confirmed: The teddy bears still maul you == |
||
− | |||
− | Just double-checked with my newly-made DK over on Medivh (well, re-made, heh - I've made and deleted DKs here six times since WotLK, lol). Timbermaw Hold is still quite hostile. --[[User:Joshmaul|Joshmaul]] ([[User talk:Joshmaul|talk]]) 02:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :But...but... it's Pooh! I TRUSTED him! Dang it, I should never have let him have that one last jar of honey for the road! --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 17:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | ::Ungrateful little bastids, ain't they? --[[User:Joshmaul|Joshmaul]] ([[User talk:Joshmaul|talk]]) 17:59, May 25, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == SoH == |
||
− | |||
− | I'm kind of starting to lean toward moving the whole inclusionary part into templates (I even made a handy category at [[:Category:Quest templates]]). But at the least, you should point them all to a consolidated page. :) --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 00:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Disambig reverts == |
||
− | |||
− | ''Nothing wrong with the existing Disambig page.'' I'm sure we've been through this before - disambiguation templates on quest articles. It's not a neutral quest and the information is already on the respective quest articles, so what's wrong with a single disambiguation? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 17:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :Yes, we have been through it before. I maintain that it is effectively a neutral quest regardless. The text for the quest is identical, only the particular NPC (bonfire, whatever) giving it changes between factions. The disambigs specifically point to the factionated pages. To turn your question around, what's wrong with a more descriptive disambiguation, esp given they've been there for two years without complaint? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 17:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :Just hopping in to say: Are the texts substantially the same (aside from NPCs and locations and such)? I don't see why the couldn't be combined on the quest pages ''in favor'' of having two separate 'horde' and 'alliance' pages, such as what I did at {{quest|A Show of Good Faith}} and related pages. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 17:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::Both of you know that I am generally in favor of that solution. So... I'm not the one you have to convince. {{=)}} --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 17:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | == Torch Catching == |
||
− | ''Moved to [[User talk:A'noob#Torch catching guide]]'' |
||
− | |||
− | == Twink Edits == |
||
− | |||
− | Thank You for not immediately deleting the twink category and allowing us to discuss it beforehand. Part of the reason that I put Whirlwind in the category in the first place was that even when it was an active BG for the 19s there were a lot of people from Ruin declaiming it and stating that Ruin was the only place for twinks. As you can imagine this created a lot of dismay. However, it seems that even the Whirlwind battlegroup has died off in the twink non-exp community, hence my willingness to delete my (own addmittedly) inaccurate information. {{unsigned|Fluentinjapanese}} |
||
− | |||
− | == Quest chains and such == |
||
− | |||
− | What I'm really doing is prepping to move all the quests out of their pseudonamespace (ambitious, I know), and I'd like to do it without leaving links behind, i.e., move with [redirect suppressed]. The problem with <nowiki>{{:Quest:<some name>}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{:Quest:<some name>/Chain}}</nowiki> (and variants) is that I'd break the transclusions if I did so with redirect suppressed. |
||
− | |||
− | To correct the second type of case, I've been moving those [[:Category:Quest chains|chains]] with 5+ quests to the new category and naming. To correct the first type of case, you just saw what I did (5+ rule here applies as well). The others I've been substing as appropriate. |
||
− | |||
− | As for <nowiki>{{:<quest chain name>}}</nowiki>, I'm just moving the quests/summary part of each to the space. It makes it easier to categorize. |
||
− | |||
− | To do so, I'm running [[User:WoWWiki-Skyfire|my bot account]] using AWB. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 20:31, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :There are occasional chains of fewer than 5 quests that are still noteworthy. Not many, but some. Perhaps more with Cataclysm. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 20:37, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::Name collisions: Almost the entirety are either related to bosses or items or items (I'd estimate the number of possible collisions at a mere 10%), so it seems sensible to append (quest) to those pages. The others will be rare, and are likely already disambiguated because there are other related quest names. This actually removes a good deal of disambiguation, because there are a ton of quests that don't need "Quest:".<br />As for lines, it's because I was more properly formatting it as a definition list (";" and ":"), without the line breaks between each, otherwise MediaWiki creates a new list for each item (which isn't proper by any means!). There's probably a better way to do it overall.<br />Some, I'm sure. The few which you've already written quest chain pages for I'll keep together. The others you're going to need to hunt down for yourself. :P --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 20:40, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::In as much as it was intended as a formatting shortcut rather than a list, I'm not particularly adhering to the ";"/":" list recreation. If you think different markup would achieve an aesthetically pleasing format, please suggest it. TBH, I have done without the one-level indentation on many quest chain pages. Do you have a preference for either style? |
||
− | |||
− | :::... and really, the concept of looking up a quest in the main namespace is something that would take me some getting used to, after all this time. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 20:46, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::It's the (most) technically correct markup. That said, I'm definitely not wedded to it either. I just don't like all that whitespace, to be honest.<br />:O :P --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 20:58, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :::::Whitespace in the markup, or in the page itself? Without at least one (additional) line break, the description turns into the aforementioned "wall of text". But that leaves the "break before the next quest" indistinct IMO. Maybe someone will suggest something, or something will suggest itself. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 21:01, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::::::Both. Grab me a link so that I can see how you've done it "the other way".<br />Hmm, that last quest chain move: Should have moved it to template space and recatted it. I have no problem with keeping chains you mark as needing keeping, but the chains themselves should be template spaced. Feel free to move any other quest chains that you feel need keeping with <5 quests, or to simply recat the ones in [[:Category:Quest chains]]/[[:Category:Transcludable pages]], or to make up a list here or elsewhere so I can avoid killing those quest chains off. It would be easier for me if you did the one of the two former. That said, you've got some time to consider which ones, as I'm working through all the quest chains that gourra screwed around with. And that's 1500 quests. D: --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 21:12, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | <Indent normalization concluded> [[The Great Masquerade quest chain]] for an alternate quest chain format that avoided the indent and space issues. Looking at that, I think I prefer it to the indent-and-space method, though paragraph spacing still needs to be retained. Problem with ":" for paragraphing is that **it isn't paragraph indenting**; that is, it isn't "first line indenting". *sigh* From my PoV: moving from Q:name/chain to "name quest chain" is the same as from "Tpt:name" to "name quest chain", no? From yours: duplicates work. Problem: I can only convert so fast, and dangling quest chain pages are an offense against nature. :P |
||
− | |||
− | Small chains... I'm not *entirely* convinced I should even bother transcluding in the chain page, if all it contributes is the quest list. Esp with Cataclysm bearing down on us. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 21:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | :Not duplicates per se, more like separating repeatable content (template) and non-repeatable (rest of quest chain page). Think of the quest chain templates as the equivalent of Navboxes and the quest chain pages as the main topic page (e.g., [[Template:Stormwind City]] and [[Stormwind City]]).<br />Lol, offense. You don't need to convert every page. I just need to distinguish 'generic quest chain' from 'ER Approved Quest Chain'. So either recat, move to template space, make me a list, something...<br />As for ":" not being paragraph indenting: It's not supposed to be. Heh. I've been using it on the quest chain pages because that's what it's used for (or should be used for) on the Internetz. That other format of quest chain pages, for example, would more correctly use ; and :... Hmm... --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 21:43, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
− | ::Sorry... "duplicates" as in "I did work I didn't have to". I'll do what I can. Um... "More correctly?" In that both are layout styles, I'm hard pressed to call either "correct". Especially as my standard is solely "does it look good, and link usefully?" Just because most of the internet uses crap for formatting doesn't mean we have to. "Well, you wouldn't jump off a bridge just because someone told you to, would you?" "Not again!" --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] ([[User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher#top|talk]]) 21:48, July 8, 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 19 October 2010
Character refers to an interactive humanoid representation of a game persona. Characters controlled by a player are most often referred to as a character and sometimes as avatar or toon. Characters controlled by the game are usually referred to as Non-Player Characters or NPCs. The maximum number of characters per user account is 50, with no more than 10 per realm.[1]
Characteristics include: class, race, faction, talents, profession, and equipment.
- See also: Player character biography pages
Moving Characters
The following text is from the Worldofwarcraft.com Changing Realms/Character Move page (part of "Account Management"):
- "Below you will see a listing of all characters associated with your account, across all realms. If one or more of your characters are eligible to move, this page will allow you to move those characters to a predetermined low population realm. Please note that only characters on high population realms are eligible for transfer. To see what realms are currently high population, check the Realm Status page. Also note that you will not be able to explicitly choose which realm you'd like to move to. Instead, the new realm is determined automatically and displayed in the "Destination Realm" column below. For answers to common questions, please check out our Character Move F.A.Q."
"Character Migration" in the Terms of Use
The following text is from the Blizzard Terms of Use for WoW (WoW_TOU_enNA_20050505, May 5, 2005 version):
- 4. Character Migration.
- Blizzard may, in its sole and absolute discretion, offer certain users the opportunity to move characters from a heavily populated "Character Migration" server to a server designated by Blizzard as a "Target Server." If you are offered the opportunity to migrate a character, please note the following:
- A character that is a "guild master" cannot be migrated to a Target Server.
- You must have less than ten (10) characters on the Target Server in order to migrate a character to the Target Server.
- Character migrations can only occur when the account that you utilize to play World of Warcraft is not in use.
- You cannot migrate a character to a Target Server if the name of the character is already in use on the Target Server.
- If a character of the same name already exists on the Target Server, you will be given an opportunity to rename character as part of the Character Migration process. As always, the name must adhere to the naming conventions stated herein.
- In-game mail sent by or in transit to the character that you intend to migrate will not be migrated to a Target Server.
- All player auctions involving the character that you intend to migrate will be canceled and the item, deposit, and the high bid returned to the bidder upon character migration. The item you placed for sale, or your "high bid," will appear in that character's mail when it reaches the Target Server. Note that Blizzard will not be responsible for the loss of in-game funds or items due to the character migration of either a "buyer" or "seller" to an auction house transaction.
- A target character's friends list will not transfer to a Target Server.
- A target character's guild affiliation will not transfer to a Target Server.
- A target character's ignore list will not transfer to a Target Server.
References
- ^ Characters F.A.Q.. Blizzard. Retrieved on 2009-06-12.
da:Karakter ru:Персонаж