WoWWiki talk:Village pump/Archive10

From WoWWiki

This is an archive of WoWWiki talk:Village pump. Please do not edit this page! If needed, direct any comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Getting rid of ugly templates 2 Gallery background is gross.... 3 Embedding Item tooltips on the Pages with the Mobs they drop off 4 Drop Percentages 5 Categories and Botting 6 Recent Changes: Talk All 7 Corrupt image 8 Don't you just HATE it when you can't figure out a quest??? 9 Server Issue with Templates 10 Village pump has 100.000 views 11 Template Class Table All 12 Image help 13 Template inconsistencies 14 Player character page policy 15 Item format 16 Patch today 17 Sargeras and Burning Legion 18 More fun with templates and lurch 19 Heroic mode? 20 Looking to get rep in exodar 21 The Priest's "How to Kill" page disappeared (works now!) 22 Icons 23 Using return of ConsoleExec function 24 Loot Template 25 Burning Crusade templates update 26 Yard or Meter? 27 Crit -> Crit Rating 28 pet stats 29 ParserFunctions 30 wiki error 31 Stop the signing and discussing please 31.1 Signing 31.1.1 Signing Project pages 31.1.2 Signing templates 32 WHAT MAKES A GOOD GUILD? 33 Gear lists 34 upper 35 Template help 36 wow account help 37 Manual of Style 38 How to signal a page that needs update ? 39 french stuff. 40 "Written by: xxx" in articles 41 Tactics stub? 42 Need recruits - Horde guild 43 How to add guild to listing? 44 Bot activity and reactive blocks 45 Mass movement of server pages 46 io wanna play the game 47 Quests. 48 Question about gear 49 wowamp 50 Good article tags 51 Wikisquatting / advertisement? 52 NPC classification and Lore 53 Lookin 'round 54 Item pictures on WoWWiki? 55 Italics and quotations 56 Site Problems? 57 Equipment Analysis Articles? 58 Cooking recipes page of death 59 Gold Selling adverts from Google.

Getting rid of ugly templates

What do you folks think, is there anyone who agrees that templates like {{BC}} and {{TCGlore}} should go? In my honest opinion, these templates just clutter up the pages and, subsequently, make them uglier. Just a handwritten small note ("this is TCG-Lore" or "This item is not obtainable if the player does not own the Burning Crusade") in the lead section of the article would do. Why do we need big templates like that that screw the pages' layout immensely? I don't see the point in this overdone fanciness. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 15:45, 17 January 2007 (EST)

I don't mind the TCG-lore one (maybe the picture could be a little smaller, though), but I definately think the BC one gets a little annoying, especially since so many pages that have it also have a BC-stub template AND another stub template, meaning you have to scroll down quite a bit just to see the first line of the article. However, I don't think removing it is an option. Just make it smaller, or better yet, move it up by the title of the page, like the links to Wikipedia or the non-english pages. --Mikaka 15:50, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Oh, Mikaka, such a sound voice of reason, exactly the sentiment I was planning to express. There's nothing wrong with the templates (or "badges" as I like to refer to them as) if they convey the necessary information. But there is something to be said of ones that just look ugly and take up space and what not. Although I haven't figured it out yet, I was thinking maybe pages could have actual badges or miniature icons linked to pages that explain what the icon means. Sort of like a key or legend. This is lore. This is Burning Crusade. This needs a screenshot. Something still visual, but infinitely more ninja than what we have now.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 17:22, 17 January 2007 (EST)

They do take up a bit too much real estate. Personally, I'd like all the stub templates shrunk too, but have the icon replaced with a bright red, cringe-inducing, stubbed toe. However, I'm no good with graphics. --Beep2 17:34, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Ideas to steal from Wikipedia: Wikipedia stub tags are placed on the bottom of the page instead of top of the page. In addition, Wikipedia stubs are all 1-line of text with a small icon. See Wikipedia:Template:Warcraft-stub. --Voidvector 21:54, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Categories would probably work as well. if needed. but i agree the BIG tags at the top of each page need to go  - CJ talk / cont  02:43, 18 January 2007 (EST)

They need to go, they were always a bad idea. These things are what references are for, and that should have been the practice all along. Source headings and notes are never needed. Under my own proposal, this would be handled by categories and references, but for now references are certainly the better option --Zealtalkcontrweb 02:51, 18 January 2007 (EST).

I agree that stub tags should be placed at the bottom of the page, especially since stubs will never be too long and the tag will be visible anyway. Things that warn users about text in the upcoming article (BC tag, TCG tag, etc.) belong at the top of the page; things that explain the attributes of the article itself belong at the bottom of the page. --qhiiyr | (talk / contr)  11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I vote for single-line with an icon, placed relative to importance (stubs are not important, at the bottom... TBC is important, at the top). For example, TBC could look like this: TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

This content may not be available to players without The Burning Crusade installed.

I like it! Can we do that to all the templates (stub and notes)?! :D --Sky 03:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

IMO, that works perfect. I'm all for using that in place of the old one. --qhiiyr | (talk / contr)  11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Switch to a div and i like it :P Also try this..

--Zealtalkcontrweb 03:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I like the first design - nice and clear. Stubs can't really be reduced as we need to be specific about their purpose and use for the general users. I think I agree that the stub tag should be at the bottom of a page, however.  Kirkburn talk contr 09:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Or what about simply making a Category:Exclusive TBC content? APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 10:01, 18 January 2007 (EST)

If the stub tag gets moved to the bottom, then section-stubbing needs to be adjusted. Otherwise, it won't be clear if the tag was intended for the whole article, or just the final section. You might get: "section1 stub/A section2 stub/B" Does stub/B apply to the whole article or just section2? --Beep2 10:09, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Beep raises a really good point to consider before making any changes. Sometimes you want to stub/BC the while article, sometimes you just want to mark a section of it. If we change the templates to automatically put themselves on the top/bottom of the page, then we lose the ability to mark individual sections. If we move them to the bottom of the page, it may be unclear if the final section has a stub, or if it applies to the whole page.

I'd personally prefer to keep stub notes near the top of the page, but I wouldn't object to making them smaller and/or making some combined stub template which can compact the space needed. One graphic, one grey bar for the whole thing, text which says something like "This article has been marked as a BC stub and a quest stub. Here's info on BC, here's info on quests." Alternatively, we can make it policy to only put one stub (the most applicable) on any given page. After all, anything that's an item stub won't be a NPC stub, a Quest stub, or a location stub, but it may end up with an accuracy stub (Why? It's already a stub in need of revision) or a BC stub (Why? We already know it's a stub, and it should already be marked as BC with whatever indicator we're using for that), etc. Really, I'd suggest taking anything which is not truly a Stub (At the moment, that's just {{Stub/Accuracy}} and {{Stub/BC}}) and moving it out of the stub group. Then there won't be any question of which single stub is applicable to the page. --Bobson 10:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)

No inline template should ever categorize, stubs and pratically everything else already do that, screwing things up as you've described. Why i'm trying to push the use of correctly implemented inline and article templates, so they not only appear different for users, but follow some sensible guidelines --Zealtalkcontrweb 10:22, 18 January 2007 (EST)

As I recall, on Wikipedia, stub strictly refers to articles. If a sections needs to be expanded, there is the Template:Expand. Obviously, we need stub tags to encourage visitors to edit the article. But the stub tags we have now are larger than many of the article themselves. On some of the longer articles, we have issue w/"template real estate". We can only stack so many templates together before ruining the page layout. The whole issue is balancing between having good layout and asking people to contribute. --Voidvector 11:08, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Good layout.. lol that gave me a chuckle. Long way away from that sadly (Seriously, kill off WoWBox ¬_¬) Oh, and yeah.. Stub and Expand co-existing together, as article and inline templates respecitvely makes good sense. --Zealtalkcontrweb 11:11, 18 January 2007 (EST)

The problem with a single expand template is that it's nice to specify what kind of expansion is needed. Does it need info on quests? Does it need info on loot? Does it need info on NPCs in the area? Sure, it's usually obvious from context, but when you're browsing the stuff-to-do pages, it won't be. Of course, we could then just come up with Expand/Quest, Expand/Item, Expand/NPC... --Bobson 20:09, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I prefer the first one, also. And I'm definitely for making it a div for better quality code. // Montagg (talk · contr) 23:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)

So does someone want to go ahead and make the above template replacement? --Voidvector 16:14, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Already being arranged. BC Template Talk->New templates --Zealtalkcontrweb 16:22, 25 January 2007 (EST)

I'm not a fan of the new BC tag - it's pretty ugly and ruins formatting on a few pages. I also think there sould be some sort of white space between the bottom of the tag and the page content. Kiltek 08:19, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Doesn't ruin formatting (if there are any issues, it's with the fact the wowbox is god damn awful and that is what ruins formatting, or it just hasn't been used correctly) at all. It's not ugly in any way shape or form, it's perhaps the best looking banner template in use. White space shouldn't be needed when used correctly (one again, the lack of it is probably from how crap WoWbox is), but can be arranged if more than default line spacing is needed. --Zealtalkcontrweb 08:25, 14 February 2007 (EST)

{{bc}} should be used before WoWBox. Jeoh talk · stalk 

Gallery background is gross....

As evidenced by Mok'Nathal Village and the various image categories (like WoW_Icons:_Inventory), the <gallery> function has an eye sore of a background that doesn't fit in at all with the rest of Wowwiki. I'm not sure who exactly can change this, but hopefully someone who can will agree with me and get this done. I would suggest a lighter or darker shade of the background grey prevalent throughout the rest of Wowwiki. Not the most pressing of issues, of course, but it would make a useful function much better. --Mikaka 18:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

/poke Rustak... CSS? TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Embedding Item tooltips on the Pages with the Mobs they drop off

Ok, long title, shorter question. What's with all the embedding of tooltips into articles about boss mobs (e.g. Vazruden)? It appears to be a newer thing occurring, since mobs like Ragnaros don't use that template.
I can understand the usage in a page such as Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards, but still... --Sky 00:05, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Having all the info on the page makes it much easier to see what exactly the boss drops. A name is just a bunch of words if it doesn't have any meaning behind it. In Warcraft, items get that meaning from the stats on that item. So, to get a better idea of what a boss drops, it makes sense to include those stats on the boss' page.

Unfortunately, the method we currently use to do this doesn't work very well for bosses with a great deal of loot, like raid bosses. It also doesn't look particularly good when it gets out to 5 different items or so. If someone could come up with a better method, I'm all for it, but I think what we have now works much better then a simple list of items. --Mikaka 00:21, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I can't say I agree with that opinion. Hmm... how about a simple list with the type of item it is? eg [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker] - 1h Sword, or [Netherwind Robes] - Mage Tier 2 Chest? That way, the peruser gets an idea of the item without being bothered by all the various other items he might not need to see.
I raise this because of the fact that adding the full tooltip into the main article's page lengthens it considerably, even when you only have 1 or 2 on the list.--Sky 00:40, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Actually, I kinda like that. One of the problems with using the embedded tooltips is that they don't convey drop percentage at all, and all that info isn't really necasary for a summary. I suggest that we create some sort of item template that includes the icon, name, quality, type of weapon or armor, and a drop percentage (optional, so we can use it for quests too), with room to note any other minor details like class or tier. Embedded tooltips have their place, but I agree that maybe the boss that drops them isn't it. --Mikaka 01:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

It is possible from a development stand point to create a javascript that would automatically load another page (or portion of it) in wiki. See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups for an example. However, as far as I know WoWWiki disabled javascript. This would allow people who wish to know the stats of an item to see it without going to another page. --Voidvector 02:17, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Javascript tooltips are being worked on for the future, teomyr has made great success with them and using them with an item database. Me personally, i'm with Sky on the matter (really don't need this information in an non-item page statically), but if people so wish to include tooltips in a non-item page, then you can use {{tooltip}}. It will automatically scale down and drop non-default information when not used on the item's page. I'd gladly add drop percentages in the future, but the drop percentages from item db sites are inaccurate and only based on the info they've received, so i will not personally add them until we have our own database to gather drop rates ourselves. Drop rates are generally deceiving anyways. --Zealtalkcontrweb 02:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I'm half of the mind of not worrying about it until the javascript can be implemented, frankly. My idea liste would look limilar to a vendor pane, with hover-tooltips. Maybe show the droprate instead of price on mob drops in the second row. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Hmm... I like that idea. We just have to have someone make the template...--Sky 03:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)

And get the javascript installed ^^ TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Actually, as an interim, couldn't we use boxes like you described as general links to the items, and then when the javascript gets installed, convert it to [Netherwind Robes] like in in-game text? Hover over it, and you get it to pop up; click on it, and that takes you to the page.--Sky 03:48, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I'm for not using the tooltip at all, except on an item's page, until we get the javascript tooltips ready. Seems like more work to add them and then remove them again later, and also maintain them in the meanwhile, just for the sake of a user clicking a link to get the same info and more. But i have made {{tooltip}} available to be used outside an item's page incase people feel otherwise. --Zealtalkcontrweb 04:03, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I think he means can we use the vendor-style boxes, sans-tooltip. I'm for that, take a look at Quartermaster Davian Vaclav, it's what I envision, just needs prettied up a tad. Mob drops could get a "fuzzy" droprate (see below) instead of a price in the second line. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 07:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, that is what I meant, and I was going to post something else, but I just argued myself out of it...--Sky 22:12, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, the vendor thing was kinda what I was envisioning, with maybe a very brief summary of the item, i.e., one-hand sword, plate helmet, etc. We could put three drop rates down, one for Thottbot, one for Allakazam, and one for Wowhead, but that'd probably just get confusing. Averaging out the three drop rates also doesn't make a lot of sense, so the fuzzy drop rates looks like the best, with a 0-1% Rare category included. --Mikaka 23:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Well let me just say i dislike tekkub's implementation of this. But i also dislike the idea period. Drop tables and vendor windows really aren't something i ever want to see on an NPC page, they're static, they need to be maintained seperately (Though Tekkeub is using a method to work around this, its a horrible method imo). It's why i proposed them as categories to express relationship. Anyways, to save room (would have been nice to use all real estate of the window, but css for dynamic content sucks as always), take a look at something simpler here.. --Zealtalkcontrweb 03:24, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I have to say that adding a scrollbar works wonders. However, is is possible that you could make the box a little taller?--Sky 03:28, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Scrolling frame certainly helps, but can you please fit as many items wide as will fit on the user's screen? I have a nice widescreen monitor, I'd much prefer a wide layout over a tall single-column one :) TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 09:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I like the scrolling frame idea, in the sense that it helps for keeping really big vendor/drop lists nice to look at. however, the frame must be taller than the current example. Also 2 next to eachother is also a must in my oppinion. Downside is that it's making comparing a whole lot harder, or a good list of what he sells/ drops isn't there either, because it's a scrolling thingy, only allowing you to see 1-2. Really, NOT favourable on bosspages, because as a GL/RL you want to have a clear and good list, where you don't have to go scrolling like a madman. For a normal player, looking there with lots of time, it's fine, but I as a GL would prefer to avoid the wiki at all costs then, as it just doesn't suit my needs. So you are excluding a group from the wiki, while the other possibility, does not exclude people.

A possible workaround, but probably hard to implement is the option o show the full frame or just the scroll frame (like with a +/- or an up and down arrow in the top right corner). This is the most preferable solution. (oh and I dislike the scrollbar colors for the wiki >.>) --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 11:17, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I really wanted to have the icons fill horizontally as floats, but naturally css is utter shite for anything dynamic as always. I refuse to except a 2 column design as it's an awful waste of space. I've increased the containers to be 2x item height. A scrollbar is actually better for comparing imo Pat, so i really don't follow your point. Either way, you're going to be scrolling a page. It's no different, and this way it doesn't effect the page for those who don't care about the drops, vendor items etc. yet those who do care can just as easily and quickly get what they want. Though i really don't want to see this stuff on an NPCs page period.. I want to see the individual info on the item's page only. ¬_¬ --Zealtalkcontrweb 17:59, 22 January 2007 (EST)

The JavaScript tooltip extension is actually quite usable - without the WDB integration, that is. You can check it out here on my test wiki. If you have any questions or if you're interested in the source code, leave a message on my talk page or contact me on IRC. --Teomyr 15:31, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Drop Percentages

How about : Dropchance: Very low (0-5%), Low(6-34%) Average(35-75%), High(75-99%) Guaranteed(100%), instead of exact numbers  - CJ talk / cont  02:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Because, when dealing with boss mobs, almost nothing as above a Low drop chance ;P. I could quote the hundred of pages of people whining about not having any Rejuvenating Gems dropping for them... :P

And yes, I have to agree with Zeal on droprates. They can and are misleading, and they are to some extent inaccurate (great for ballpark figures... usually in the realm of 3/100!). --Sky 03:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Oh, I like this. Maybe add "Rare (0-1%)" in there for things like the epic mounts or that "lightsabre" sword. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I don't have an opinion on the tooltip embedding, but as for drop percentages, I'd say they're almost unmaintainable. WoWWiki has a hard enough time keeping up with easily-verifiable facts. Drop percentages are based on... aggregate data from external sites that have differing numbers based on which patch they reset their counters and which random sampling of people bothered to input data.--Beep2 08:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

• Guaranteed = quest item usually.
• 0-1% for some legendaries
• Low - medium - high. for the rest ?  - CJ talk / cont  09:27, 19 January 2007 (EST)

How about Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High, Guaranteed. I'd have to say, 0-1% for Very Low, 1.01-5% for Low, 5.01-12% for Medium, 12.01-22% for High, 22.01-99.99% for Very High, and obviously, 100% for Guaranteed. It's a little better than the original numbers you suggested, since most items have a low chance of dropping.

Sound good?--Sky 21:00, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Very High covers more than 3/4 of the range? That doesn't seem very useful to me... I'd split it into quarters, and add Rare and Guaranteed for the two endpoints. 0-2%, 2%-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75%-98%, 98-100%. Hell why not use the color names as well, Legendary, Epic, Rare, Uncommon, Common, Guaranteed. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 22:01, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Almost nothing in WoW has >25% drop chance, unless you're dealing with quest items that are grinded out. And nobody needs to know the percentage of those, they just need to grind. That's why a graduated scale will fit it better.

And definitely do not use the colors. Consider the two items [Eye of Sulfuras] and [Talisman of Ephemeral Power]: both are reported as having an approximate 3% chance to drop... Both putting them in the Epic category. Or, better yet, [Splinter of Atiesh]; that has a 20% drop rate at least. You can't use the colors.--Sky 01:42, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Agree, the colors do not signal the actual droprate.  - CJ talk / cont  06:04, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Categories and Botting

Ok, a little screwy. I was trying to use pywikipediabot to merge [[:Category:Paladin Spells]] into [[:Category:Paladin Abilities]]. However, I encountered problems, [[:Category:Paladin Spells]] is actually an inherited category of {{SpellFooter}} on some of the pages. What should I do about this? If I weren't supposed to merge the 2 categories or weren't supposed to bot, please do a rollback on my edits. --Voidvector 17:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Ahh, I wouldn't worry about it too much... Just uhh, becareful of botting next time. It's like a double-edged sword. Very useful, and very dangerous.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 18:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

What the the standard category for abilities? is it "_(class)_ Abilities" or "_(class)_ Spells"? --Voidvector 06:59, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I wouldn't worry about that either. I mean, I could briefly give you my take on it. Spells for casters and abilities for those without mana, but you might ask "what about hybrids and hunters!!!". I don't know. It is a mystery. --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 14:08, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I would say Abilities would be easier to maintain; that way, you keep it standardized across all (spells are abilities, but not vice versa).--Sky 20:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Recent Changes: Talk All

I would really love to see all the talk categories put into one readily accessible link in the recent changes window. That way I don't first have to check talk, then user talk, then category talk, then wowwiki talk, then template talk, just to see what's being discussed! ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 06:14, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Corrupt image

I just marked a junk image for speedy delete, but it's screwing up the rendering of Category:Articles for speedy deletion on my Firefox v2. Here's a link to the file's history if that helps in destroying it [1] --Beep2 10:57, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Taken care of. Thanks for letting us know.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 18:12, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Don't you just HATE it when you can't figure out a quest???

I'm undead, and I was doing Ulag the Cleaver, but I can't find him! It says he's in a mausoleom or something, but the only mausoleum I could find had only 1 door, and then a dead end!

The quest log should be WAAAAY more specific, and it should bring up the map to show where to go for the quest...

Those are all things we're working on, but seeing we don't have automated ingame trackers (yet), like allakhazam and Thottbot, it all goes a bit slower. However, you can help out by posting the coordinates of the person once you find him! --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 06:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Feel free to take screenshots of the map and create guides for any quest or post the coordinates of important mobs, items or objects. However, at the moment, we do not have automated trackers. // Montagg (talk · contr) 23:56, 21 January 2007 (EST)

...Or you can't remember where the quest giver was??? The thing that frustrates me the most is when I've completed an old quest that I've been holding onto, but I can't remember where the quest giver was to complete the quest. Sometimes the Quest Log tells you where to return, but many times it doesn't! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thormonger (talk · contr).

Server Issue with Templates

It seems to me that whenever someone changes a template transcluded by a large number of pages, the server screws up for like a minute. --Voidvector 10:35, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Yup, in that time it is updating all the pages that use that template. Fun, innit :)  Kirkburn talk contr 10:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

i'm getting some odd error lately : "wowwiki has a problem", hidden behind the front page.. instead of loading another page.  - CJ talk / cont  11:00, 22 January 2007 (EST)

That's the server choking on the questlong change that Voidvector just made. :P --Beep2 11:03, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Yep. --Voidvector 11:05, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Honestly, I think this is a deficiency in the engine... Why should editing one template bring down the entire site? Poor engineering, I think. I hope they come up with a better mechanism for updating pages, instead of saying one edit is equal to a thousand edits...--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 17:31, 22 January 2007 (EST)

If i'm not mistaken, the wiki caches pages including the template outcome, rather than simply retriving the cache for the template and displaying the outcome on the fly. Currently, it means if you edit a template, everypage using it has to recache because the template outcome could have changed. If they did it the latter way, it just means more overhead (which is rather small) on page load, but no impact to editing. So it would only be a slightly slower load per page at all times (think show preview loading time rather than live), not an extremely slow load for the whole wiki on every edit (minor or major) for popular templates.. --Zealtalkcontrweb 18:22, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Village pump has 100.000 views

Well. almost anyway :P  - CJ talk / cont  11:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Actually it's 700+ 100,00 views. =D Good stuff.--Kwertz0r 09:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Template Class Table All

We have this template that ranks all of the classes by how well they fit different roles... And I'm really getting frustrated at the people editing it. Like I'm really really close to blocking anyone who edits it and doesn't discuss their changes. Actually, since its a template, I'll add a big obnoxious noinclude warning to it, but seriously, if I see one more person edit that page w/o discussing their changes and defending why they think a number should be changed (or even discussing it first, maybe i should protect it), they're getting the ban hammer.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 09:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Image help

Time to prove my nubness: I'm trying to put an image of one of my characters on its page using {{Wowbox}} and T:Infobox Warcraft character. However, the uploaded image I'm using turns pink when it's squished down to size for the infobox. Any idea why this is happening?

The page is User:Montag/Nariana and the image is Image:Montag-Nariana.png. // Montagg (talk · contr) 10:13, 23 January 2007 (EST)

PNGs do not always resize well - use a JPG :)  Kirkburn talk contr 10:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Awesome, thanks. Fixed, and PNG deleted.. // Montagg (talk · contr) 10:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Template inconsistencies

So I've been poking around in the Template namespace, trying to determine the workings of things like {{Vv2}}. I noticed some inconsistencies in the "Lquality" series. Three of six are locked, and two of six have differing functionality. Personally, I'd like them (1) documented, and (2) changed so that there's a visual indicator of a broken link.

Template	Functionality	Status
Lpoor	Montag	unlocked
Lcommon	Tekkub	locked
Luncommon	Montag	locked
Lrare	Tekkub	unlocked
Lepic	Montag	locked
Llegendary	Montag	unlocked

--Beep2 10:57, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I think I'm the one guilty for half-locking some of them. Anyway, editing these templates really brings down the house... And showing a broken item link would require some sort of... Does Page Exist? functionality, which I'm pretty sure we have but never coded myself. Consider all templates locked as of the writing of this reply.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 11:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Well, I sandbox-tested adding the {{Exists}} function to Lpoor, and managed a version that gave output like: [Vendor Trash Broken-Link"]. However, I'm not sure if this is the ideal visual indicator. An alternative might be something like: [Vendor Trash Broken-Link]* I'm not committed to either version. --Beep2 11:31, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Here {{loot}}, been meaning to replace those with a single template for a while, enjoy! --Zealtalkcontrweb 11:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Well, your template doesn't capture the functionality of either Montag-style or Tekkub-style "Lquality". First, it doesn't take an alternative name (eg "Ravager (axe)|Ravager"), however, that shouldn't be too hard to add. Second, all broken links, regardless of quality, are red. So you'd have to fix that. Third, you'd have to bot the changeover. --Beep2 12:01, 23 January 2007 (EST)

You missed alot of talk in the irc chan. First of all, there should never be disambig on an item (if it is, someone needs a smack and people need to get off their asses and get the Item namespace added and in use.), so i won't add alternative item name functionality. Second, the broken link functionality was how i (and some others) think it should be done, but after discussion a compramise was agreed upon, leave the brackets unstyled if the link is broken, but always style the text. I have now updated the template to do that. --Zealtalkcontrweb 12:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Fair enough. However, I disagree on the claim that we should never need to provide an alternate name. First, there are items that may have disambiguations that are Blizzard's fault. Some items have identically-named differing versions. Royal Seal of Eldre'Thalas, Atiesh, Greatstaff of the Guardian, Scroll: Create Crest of Beckoning, Scroll: Create Scepter of Beckoning, Scroll: Create Signet of Beckoning, Brazier of Beckoning, etc. Sometimes WoWWiki rolls them into one page, and sometimes it doesn't. Second, there may be items that have invalid characters for an article name, although I can't think of any offhand. As for missing discussions on the IRC chan, the nice thing about talk pages is that they record opinions.--Beep2 13:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

And the nice thing about IRC, is we can discuss quicker and easier (especially when the wiki is as unstable as it is atm). :p

There are no invalid characters as far as i know. Even if there were, they would more than likely just be url encoded anyways, so there is no problem (that is what url encoding was designed for really..). Items that have multiple versions with the same name should be in the same page imo, so i will not add such functionality to support anything different. If someone else wants to when people decide otherwise, then so be it. --Zealtalkcontrweb 14:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)

So {{loot}} is a full replacement for {{lquality}}? If it is, you probably replace it on WoWWiki:Templates. I can probably bot replace all the previous usages. --Voidvector 16:39, 25 January 2007 (EST)

It is as far as i'm concerned, a bot would be handy to replace all of them if you would like, i'll leave it for one of the help team to add the template there or something :s Just make note, {{loot}} uses uppercase quality names, not lower (used to support both, but wanted to cut down on the amount of duplicate code). --Zealtalkcontrweb 16:47, 25 January 2007 (EST)

I'm quite... Angered. Or disturbed. By the recent changes made by the bot to deprecate templates. I don't like the loot template in its current implementation, one, due to the fact that it adds a lot of unecessary links and templates to the page. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't like how it looks, right now. I'd like to see the changes reverted. Or, at least see the template re-evaluated, which I'm trying to do myself. Summary, I'm not happy.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (EST)

What? I don't understand... what's wrong with it? It doesn't add anything to a page! It just adds the brackets found the side which are red is the link is dead.  Kirkburn talk contr 05:38, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Okay, here's the skinny, after I investigated a little more... The problem (as is my opinion) stems from the use of the exists template. The exists template tries to include pages that aren't really templates as its method of detection. What this does is cause an unnecessary amount of included templates on the page. Its a side effect of the exists template, which I don't agree with. So for that reason, I don't advocate the use of exists, nor do I advocate the use of loot in its current incarnation. A consolidated loot template (named "l", by the way), I'm all for. Brackets indicating dead articles, I'm all for. But that can be done in CSS, without changing any of the old templates, if and when we get CSS access. There. That's it. I dislike the new template, as it is now, and I think we should just wait for CSS.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 05:50, 26 January 2007 (EST)

There is no other way to do it, and even with css it would contain more unecessary code to acheieve than is needed. Broken includes do not harm anything, and are a perfectly exceptable side effect of {{Exists}}. I also am strongely against naming it template:L, as that name is far too short, and shows no indication as to what the template is or does. It is already currently shortened from something like "Item Loot Link Template", there is no need (Loot is short enough for common use) to shorten it further, and certainly not at the cost of loosing any understanding of meaning of the template name. I'm sorry, but i think you're being rather silly on this one hob :/ --Zealtalkcontrweb 10:10, 26 January 2007 (EST)

A css-based solution is already supported by how all mediawiki installations work out of the box. The only thing preventing us from using it is our access to edit stylesheets. One line of css is vastly less than the amount of code used in the template. And I'm on the side of assuming that the broken links do harm something, I'm just not sure what yet; I don't like them being there. As for the name of the template, at least there should be an alias. For such an oft-used template, it would help if it was abbreviated to something convenient for experienced editors. A template's name need not describe its entire nature in the name alone.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:37, 26 January 2007 (EST)

An exist template is one line of code too. The css it would have to double up with spans. Clearly in your own words, the broken include issue is one of your preference with no good reason. As to the name, you say it should not contain it's entire nature in the name alone, it already doesn't. It is already abbreviated. Abbreviating a name past the point of recognition, where you then would need to tell someone what the abbreviation stands for is counter-productive for common use, it would alienate regular users. There is no need to reduce it to a single letter at all, and doing so would only bring problems. --Zealtalkcontrweb 10:45, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Player character page policy

It's just been brought to my notice that this policy has never been ratified or discussed. Please check it out: WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Player character pages.  Kirkburn talk contr 11:23, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Item format

I'd like to see if we can get some sort of consensus on what format we want to use for items. I've always used the Boilerplate:Item page. I like it because it can handle most items, it keeps all the information on a single page, it's relatively easy for a user new to wikis to populate, and if included on another page, it turns into a tooltip. I've noticed a lot of the BC item stubs have been partially populated using a bunch of transcluded pages. See Anchorite's Robes for example. The source on the main page is the template Template:BC Itempage Placeholder. This then links into a bunch of tiny transcluded pages like Anchorite's Robes/Icon, Anchorite's Robes/Price, Anchorite's Robes/Quality, and Anchorite's Robes/Tooltip. If I'm not mistaken, the reason why this was created was so you could pull bits of it and put it on another page (see Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards). I guess I'd just like to get a single standard to use, especially when I start to fill in stubs that have been started with the transcluded templates.

Personally, I like the single page style. I copy the entire boilerplate to a new page and start filling it out. Pretty much everything you need is right there. With this transcluded method, I have to create the main page, then I have to create a icon page, tooltip page, price page, thottbot page, alla page, more page, etc. It just seems a lot more confusing than it needs to be. Also what kind of performance hit does all these transcluded pages put on the wiki?

Comments? - ClydeJr 12:50, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I think there could be a middle ground somewhere (perhaps a hybrid boilerplate that allows for an initial entry and prepares for transclusion), but with the transcluded method ultimately being the standard. Items end up always being linked from various other articles (boss drops, stat comparisons, reward listings) and as such, having that information (most importantly, the tooltip, maybe the icon) be made available dynamically to articles will be a boon in the long run. I'd also be curious, however, as to the impact it would have on the site performance. --Tusva 13:00, 23 January 2007 (EST)

We certainly do not need tooltips being transcluded.. And not with that ridiculous sub-page method which is a poor use of the wiki, and is no better than just repeating the info yourself. --Zealtalkcontrweb 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I heavily disagree with this. I cannot see how under any circumstances copying and pasting the same information into different articles is in any way, shape or form, easier than just referencing the article's /Tooltip transclusion. Let's say I wanted to write an article that compares two-handed weapons for DPS. I could a) go into each items article (or Thott or Alla entry) and copy and paste the information into my article. Back and forth, back and forth, pasting away until I've all this information in my article. Or, b) I could just include the itemname/Tooltip for each one and be done with it. What if the item stats changed? Now, I have to go into each and every single article that ever could have possibly mentioned that item and fix it, hoping I got them all. Or I could just change /Tooltip. The small amount of effort that goes into making a /Tooltip entry is definitely worth it. It also centralizes the information, heavily decreasing the chance of typos, mistakes and ultimately, what everyone wants to avoid, misinformation.

Unless there is some other method of being able to dynamically pull that into any article you want, the transclusions are quite clearly the way to go if we're going to talk standards. --Tusva 17:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I'm personally strictly against the use of that boilerplate (namely because i'[ve made most of it redundant with the new tooltip) and that other method of item page creation (because it's bloody awful and not practical. i forget who started doing it). Also the tooltip transclusion method should not be used as discussed further up on this page. Most of the functionality that's being attempted (Transclusion of tooltips for example), is impractical, and can be done easier or not at all until we can incorperate certain javascript abilities, namespaces and better category structures. --Zealtalkcontrweb 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

We might want to update the boilerplate with Zeal's item template. It is far superior than any other templates we have. --Voidvector 14:18, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I found a few minor issues with the Tooltip (Equipped mispelled in BoE, switch the armor amount and the word "Armor" around, Armor row should come after DPS row, not taking advantage of the Spell Effects, no place for sockets), but what exactly makes this tooltip superior? I'll gladly switch to using the tooltip template if someone can explain to me why it's better than what is in the boilerplate. - ClydeJr 15:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Will fix the typo, Armor should have been after DPS, apologies if it's not. It can use the spell effect template, there is a note in the description about how to use it, however hardly any of these spells currently exist, and things will be changing with the introduction of an item db, so i have not enforced the use of it. I had no final examples of sockets to work from, so i left them out until i could find them, someone is welcome to add them (may i suggest creating a template similar to {{cost}} for the purpose), but i'm too busy with other things atm.

As to what makes it superior. Well for one its more accesable because it does not incorrectly use a table to present the information. It also auto-scales (and drops non-default info) when used outside the page where it belongs, includes the item's icon, uses the correct colouring for certain things the other one has wrong, ensures item information is always in the correct order (so newbies can't screw up), and provides documentation for users to know what needs to be included in the tooltip. --Zealtalkcontrweb 15:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Gives a uniform format. Say in the future we want to change the layout of the item tooltips: With a template, we can do it easily. With the current method of copying tables, we can only change the CSS, which is very limited. In addition, template can make sorting easy, if we want to create a category of all the daggers in the wiki, just add a line in the template that checks if the item type is dagger, if it is, add it to a category to it. --Voidvector 16:02, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Sounds reasonable enough. I'll play around with the tooltip some more and see if I can find any other problems. Since most of my 5000+ edits has been adding items, I know most of the formats that tooltips can appear in. We can then move it into the boilerplate with some documentation. FYI: There are 3 socket templates (Template:Red Socket, Template:Blue Socket, Template:Yellow Socket) that we can possible incorporate/modify into the tooltip. - ClydeJr 16:34, 23 January 2007 (EST)

My only issue with the tooltip, and this is incredibly minor I know, is that when the tooltip is used on an item page, the item icon no longer needs to be on the article in the place where it currently is, since the tooltip includes it. I really like the currently placement, as it gives the opening paragraph a nice indent, which most articles lack otherwise. However, that minor aestheitc aversion pales in comparison to the advantages afforded by its implimentation.

And there's also the meta gem slots, though there arn't very many of those. --Mikaka 16:44, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Indeed. As to the icon in item pages, i disliked it personally as it's not nice running both left and right floats (nor is it nice to clear content to below either float). May i suggest moving further discussion on the tooltip template itself to it's talk page. I hadn't really thought about some of the advantages voidvector mentioned, nice. I'll give adding sockets a go in a sec. --Zealtalkcontrweb 18:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Say hello to {{socket}} and the new socket and socket bonus parameters of {{tooltip}} :p --Zealtalkcontr