Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Gaming
 
StarCraft Wiki
Super Smash Wiki
Halopedia
 Diablo Wiki
FFXIclopedia
Grand Theft Wiki
See more...

WoWWiki talk:Village pump/Archive12

From WoWWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Image:Icon-download-48x48.png 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

KasoBot and connected stuff

KasoBot

As some of you know i've been developing KasoBot for a while for the dual purpose of A. Replacing {{tooltipcss}} type tooltips with the new {{tooltip}} B. Mass adding new items. Tonight i ran a small test run of thirty edits, this included 4 tooltipcss replacements and 26 new item imports, Contributions also, i'm keeping a record of all grey and "random suffix" items i skip over on my page. I release that this bot is fairly wide-reaching, so i'd like to check that we think that this "right" before i start making hundreds and hundreds of pages.


Connected stuff

In relation to this, theres some proposals about {{tooltip}} which i'd like to get down on paper:

  • effect= and elink=
Please see the infomation i posted here following on from this infomation, my conclusion is that elink= in it's current form it pretty much superfluous, and it makes more sense to just do |effect=Use: {{spelllink|99999}} then use <br /> and the same on a new line if you want to do more than one effect with a link. In relation to this my bot is coded to do the above, so if you dont want this, speak now or forever hold your peace.
  • itemid=
With the old tooltipcss it was possible (at least in some flavors, god knows how many there were) to have τ ω α links on the bottom if the tooltip was included in another page, whilst im not sure about this, it does seem that the tooltip is lacking and itemid field which could be use for various different things in the future. Also it seems to me that when i am editing in all these tooltips, and i have the itemID in the code, it would be a waste to not include this into the tooltip incase it is needed in the future. To that end i have included a |itemid=99999 field in all the tooltips i have made thus far, as above, if you dont want this, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Thanks for reading, any ideas/suggestions/flames welcome. --Kaso 21:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Posted on Template:Tooltip as to what is the "correct" way to use the effect tag. (according to Zeal)
Does adding |itemid actually affect the current tooltip? If not then sounds fine to leave it there.
You also might want to leave set items be for the moment, there is no standard with the current tooltip to include them =( I've been using |comment but that doesn't look quite right... --Psyker7 21:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
While there isn't a full blown policy about external links, there's been a bit of a movement lately (at least by me) to keep external links on the subject's page only. Elinks for items belong on item pages, elinks to specific boss fight videos belong on boss fight pages not instance pages. There's too many WoW DBs out there (more thatn what's in elinks, even) to effectivly remain neutral when embedding external links in other wiki pages. Besides, we want people to open the item pages here, not just skip out to thott, that's probably the biggest reason so many item pages are just stubs. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 21:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Tekkub - the elink referred to by Kaso is actually standing for effect link, not external links on a tooltip =) {{Spelllink|1234}} goes to another wiki page. --Psyker7 22:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
He might be talking about my mentioning thottbot/wowhead/allka links on tooltips in relation to itemid= i'll clarify that i'm not suggesting these return i cant say im a huge fan either, but it does seem to me that itemid is a piece of infomation that has quite alot of use, and even though we dont use it now, it might be worth "future-proofing" incase we ever do need it. --Kaso

Copied from User_talk:Kaso

I was looking at some of the stub pages created by KasoBot and I have to wonder if we really need some of these items in WoWWiki? For example: Acolyte's Shoes. I think these are the initial shoes given to level 1 priest characters. They have no abilities, no stats, nothing. I personally don't think we need items like this in the wiki. My view on what items should go in here is this:
  1. All uncommon/green items or better.
  2. Common/white items that are actually used (not just stuff to sell to a vendor). That means quest items, quest rewards, crafting ingredients, crafting products, etc.
  3. Junk/grey items should be excluded.
What do you think? P.S. Nice job on the bot! - ClydeJr 16:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
This is one of the things that i've been most concerned about, i'm glad to have some opinion on it, It does seem a bit inappropriate for me to go adding thousands of items that people don't actually want :>
As far as i can see there's two possible takes on this
  • Add all items for sake of completeness, WoWWiki is "dedicated to cataloging [the] Warcraft Universe"
  • Add only "useful" items like you describe.
I also am leaning slightly towards the "less is more" point of view, i mean its alot easier to add more items than it is to remove existing items, then again this also introduces a slight difficulty on my side, telling items apart has different challenges on my end of things, I mean, quest items/quest starting items, i can tell easily, but crafting ingredients/products isnt easily detectable for me, perhaps it would be better if that in this first "sweep" i miss out white items all together and just focus on green/blue/purple, i can always go back and add the whites should it be needed. --Kaso 09:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Every "white" item (with a handful of exceptions, http://www.wowhead.com/?item=13159, http://www.wowhead.com/?item=23355, etc) have a purpose. Even those without a purpose are of note, because it is helpful to know something is useless and can be discarded. So, I would recommend including white items, as they are often the most confusing. Every one knows what to do with a Mercenary Blade of the Monkey. Ichor of Undeath is a little less obvious.--Mlucero 10:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Baggins, admin

Welcome him! :) Kirkburn talk contr 18:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Once on IRC, once on here, Welcome ! Image:smiley.gif --Adys 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Begone evil! ... Wha? in my society, this is a way of saying "Hi!" ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 18:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Welcome to the club! // Montagg (talk · contr) 22:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Grats! --◄ρςұκε®7► talk• contr 02:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I've got my welcome for you somewhere in my pants, lemme dig it out... TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 08:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
On a similar note, if anyone has suggestions for future admins, contact me on the IRC channel as I can now add new ones. Currently the main purpose of new admins is to help fight vandalism, so reasonably frequent contributers are preferred. Remember, anyone is welcome to join and idle on the IRC channel! Kirkburn talk contr 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Brothers, please join hands to complete the Summoning of the Doomguard in honor of our newest fellow... Remember, new guy gets his soul sacced! Image:smiley.gif--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 09:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, all.Baggins 16:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Cue the Infernal!--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guild naming policy needs resolution

If you have a moment, please go to the WoWWiki guild policy page and vote on the guild article naming policy. Currently there are three options: 1) All guilds are followed by their server name in parentheses, 2) All guilds are followed by their server and country code in parentheses with specific rules in case of conflicts, or 3) Guilds exist in the Guild: name space with clean disambigs and similar naming rules to option #2.

To warn you, there is a lot of discussion on the page. Please read if you are able. More importantly, we need votes to finalize the policy and get some relevant info on the main page for guild editors. // Montagg (talk · contr) 23:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest we move the older talk stuff from the previous proposal to an archive page, it's a bit confusing now -watchout 00:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
My god the discussion on Option 3 is massive. I'm about to fall asleep anyway, so I'm not even gonna try right now. I vote for 3, and put forth the following question without reading any of the discussion... *grin*
Why does it need to be so complex? "Guild: Name (Server US)" is simple, to the point, and avoids any collisions. "Guild: Name" can always be a disambig if people feel the need. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 01:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
That's actually discussion for all options. It just happens to be under the last one. I archived the previous discussion and the proposal text and separated the proposal from the vote and the votes from the comments. The most recent comments are still there with a link to the old discussion. Should be less unwieldy now. Edit: In addition to the guild namespace proposal (option 3), I drafted some full policy text for it. // Montagg (talk · contr) 16:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Tusva had made in the past a very interesting proposition, that has been repeated on the page, for Server:Servername US/Guildname. Any consideration about it? --Adys 21:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Hrm... quite like that idea actually. --◄ρςұκε®7► talk• contr 23:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I do remember some discussion of that. I don't recall the conclusions reached, but for me, making guild articles subpages of their server removes the autonomy from the guild. Generally, subpages support the main page, and a guild article is pretty independent. Guilds can move, split, or die, and the server/guild heirarchy doesn't quite reflect that. Sometimes longer guild articles also have their own subpages, creating an even more complex heirarchy. ~
The biggest reason for me was it's easier to link articles with namespaces and parentheses -- anything with a namespace or with a trailing parenthetical can be reduced to a plain link just by adding a pipe (|) character. Example: [[Guild:The Mighty Guild (Arthas US)|]] becomes simply "The Mighty Guild." // Montagg (talk · contr) 16:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The vote on WW:GUILD has concluded, and we now have a Guild namespace. However, we actually need to implement this policy, which means going through Category:Guilds and making sure all guilds follow the correct naming conventions by moving them to new homes with correct article names. The boilerplate should also be updated to reflect the new naming style. I'll help with this where I can, but I'm mad busy this week, so I'd really appreciate if some volunteers would do a little moving here, a little there, and we can eventually have it all done. // Montag (talk · contr) 23:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


Actually, we don't have a "Guild:" namespace. Check e.g. Special:Allpages. No "Guild" in the dropdown. We don't have a "Server" namespace either. The difference? "Guild talk:Foobar" (namespace) vs "Talk:Guild:Foobar" (fake namespace). Plus fake namespaces can't have unique settings applied to them (which there actually are a number of in mediawiki). Mikk (T) 12:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

WoWWiki Facebook Group

WoWWiki now has a Facebook group: WoWWiki Addicts

If you're on Facebook, feel free to join up. Admins, let me know who you are so I can give you officership. // Montagg (talk · contr) 17:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Joined, invited Hob too. :) Kirkburn talk contr 17:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, if everyone else is doing it.-_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Now everyone has to work out who is who :) Safe to say, I'm the one with the photo unbecoming of a bureaucrat. Kirkburn talk contr 20:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
No arguments here. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Spoons are dangerous, I tell you. Kirkburn talk contr 21:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You have been officered, Kirk. Not sure who else is who, so I made a discussion topic for posting aliases. Get to it! // Montagg (talk · contr) 00:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Server:Vashj

Could someone please assist on this server page? A couple of the more immature members of the server keep editing the page to make it basically full of insults and nasty comments. They are doing similar things on my guild page for Enigma. Tyka 08:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, will keep an eye on the page and user :) <Kiltek> blah / spam 10:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your help! It’s much appreciated. Any chance you (or anyone else) could possibly do the same on Enigma (Vashj) and the other pages that user has amended? Tyka 11:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Looks like mudkipz is at it again on Server:Vashj. :-( Tyka 11:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Please report vandalism on WoWWiki:Known Vandals in future! Thanks :) Kirkburn talk contr 13:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Image Categories

I've been the past few weeks working a bit on categorizing images, since it's something that we badly lack at the moment on the wiki. I usually divide them into big categories and we can eventually later on split them into smaller ones. A few examples: Category:Zone screenshots, Category:Adapted game screenshots, etc.

However, I was wondering what people would think of categorizing images with what they represent (not talking about item screenshots here though). Example, Image:Abomination.png would be categorized into Category:Abominations. Image:Aldrassil.jpg into Category:Teldrassil. Any objections about that? --Adys 20:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Cross-catting is not a bad thing, imo. It is what makes a wiki so effective. :)--Sky (t · c · w) 21:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Another example discussed on the IRC channel: Image:Anduinwrynn.jpg --Adys 22:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Elinks standardization (Rank 2)

So we've got our happy {{Elinks-item}} and the like that auto-create an external links list for sites that use a common ID (usually the game's), but what about those other screw sites like AmpWoW, who recently added their icon into the wiki? Here's my idea...

Each site gets a generic template, like I pushed AmpWoW's into {{Elink-ampwow}} (note that's NOT "elinks"). This is a fairly simple template as you can see. If we make one of these for each site we can enforce a consistant structure to the elinks. Now I also see that a lot of sites don't simply link, but try to add a description as well. So why not throw in an optional 2nd parameter. For example {{Elink-ampwow|http://somelink.goes.here/|This is a sample link}} would end up looking like this:

  • AmpWoW AmpWoW This is a sample link

Sound acceptable to everyone? Comments? TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me, it would clean up some of the links we have at the bottom of most boss pages too - AmpWoW is used a lot now, and iirc it's mostly for tactics? Therefore your optional description idea would be great, so the "clicker" knows exactly what they're going to be presented with. I might also be able to incorporate it into Template:Questbox Perhaps? <Kiltek> blah / spam 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Ampwow pages have tabs, like WoWHead... I've been removing the links to the tabs that I see, changing the links to point to the base page for the subject. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 09:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Use http://www.ampwow.com/wow/viewNewItems/16833-test2142456356456.php for AmpWow links. they seem to ignore anything after the item ID, but we should provide them a hint why there was a weird link, we should use something like http://www.ampwow.com/wow/viewNewItems/ItemID-fromWoWWiki.php
Use the same for mobs: http://www.ampwow.com/wow/viewNewCreatures/11502-weirdlinksorry.php -watchout 09:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT) (sorry, forgot the sig before)
Those need to go in the respective Elinks- templates, which would in turn use {{Elink-ampwow}}. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 12:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
why? -watchout 13:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Because I said so. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 15:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
ok dad :P -watchout 05:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
ah, now I understand what you mean with that template... well, but the list-markup "*" should be in the elinks-item template IMO -watchout 12:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering AmpWow was added, do you guys plan to add other great WoW database sites such as Warcry, Curse's DB, Goblin Workshop, or even WoWd.org to the template?</sarcasm>


I suggest that you keep a maximum of 2-3 links (the most relevant sites) in the template. Swarmie 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. 2-3 links is fine for repeated data. Once we start to push that number, we can remove links based on the quality of the information they lead to. // Montagg (talk · contr) 12:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
On the other hand, its "not fair" to the other datamining pages out there... -watchout 12:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, unless you plan on adding *all* databases to the template (Warcry, Curse's DB, Goblin Workshop, WoWd.org, Wowguru, and those other crappy ones), it's not going to be "fair" for them. In other words, it will never be "fair" as you can't list all of them. As I said, I suggest that you keep the 3 most relevant ones and they will deal with that. Swarmie 14:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The wiki is neutral and unbiased, remember? Picking and choosing who we link to is a very specific bias. If we *try* to put everyone in it will become a nightmare, yes. While I'm not entirely sure we should even keep using the elinks templates, I do want to put this idea out there...
Allow any edits done in the proper section (External Links only!), that is directly relevant to the page's topic (links to a boss strat belongs on the boss page, not on the instance's page). Basically, keep what we have, and allow anyone who plays by the rules to add their links. The existing stuff could be moved out of the elinks-* templates by a bot, so that no perticular bias is shown by the site's templates. An added bonus of doing this would be that a bot could also crawl pages and randomly shuffle the order of the elink items, since the sorting is another hot topic we can't seem to solve. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Added comment, for more clearity on my stance* ... We don't have to include every data site out there, what we should do is welcome the users and admins of those site to add their own elinks into the pages. AmpWoW's been doing this lately, and I welcome it even if that site isn't my personal first choice. I think what we should be doing is encouraging those people to earn their own links by making their own edits, instead of just getting "free advertising" from us just because they use the "proper" ids in their URLs. It is unfair to remove links which have already been established in pages... be it by user edits or by inclusion in the current template. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 15:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


Hello, hope i'm doing this ok, not familiar to Wikis. Clicking on AmpWow resulted in "disk checking" style adware for me. This type of advertisement is a nuisance and a risk ; links to AmpWow shouldn't be included, in my opinion.

Heavy Leather Ball...why?

I was just wondering what the purpose was for the Leatherworking item Heavy Leather Ball. Theres no entry in the wiki for it so I was going to create one then I realized...I really dont know what to say about it. Any thoughts would be good. PLus can horde leatherworkers make them?

I believe the Heavy Leather Ball is used for levelling your Leather Working skill and as a fun item. Some of my guild have fun trying to see how many balls they can pile into someone else's backpack. Tyka 03:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Also makes some humorous fake ballgames in the capitols. --Zedric 06:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Everyone loves playing with their balls TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 16:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Not everyone likes playing with other people's though, Tek :o Kirkburn talk contr 17:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
and then my food didn't taste good anymore /cry ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 17:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
What's wrong with a few extra balls in your sack? TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 17:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Other than the fact that they take a lot of bagspace and the fact that you'll probably want to empty your bag faster than normal, nothing I guess... ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 17:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Careful now, you don't want to empty your ball sack too fast. Um, that's enough of that conversation. Kirkburn talk contr 17:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Kirk's a premature leatherworker and he seems ashamed of it... TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 18:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

New navboxes

So, we all know navboxes are awesome ({{races}} and {{Burning Legion}} for example). But what else do people think should get them? A couple of suggestions of mine:

  • Warcraft III main characters
  • Prominent Alliance members, etc
  • Religions
  • Retcons?

I find they're much better than categories for most navigation, so I would love people's thoughts and ideas! Kirkburn talk contr 19:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Add {{War3mainchars}} to that list! :]--Sky (t · c · w) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
My personal policy for navboxes has always been any set group of things that's rigidly defined. That's why I've always stayed out of lore things. Subzones, weapons, spells, class thingies, etc. Sets that you know have an absolute definition of what stays in and what stays out. Other than that, it's just an aid to bind similar pages together. Pages that you know people would visit in rotation due to their relationship to one another. I.e. don't bother binding pages that don't have anything to do with one another.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I somewhat have to agree with hob, but on the other hand... If the nav doesn't take up the whole screen, I guess it might prove useful from time to time. ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 18:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The boxes always go at the very end of a page, and I find them an immense help when looking for further info on certain topics. Far, FAR better than category navigation in any case. Added {{Religions}}! Kirkburn talk contr 22:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Definately better than categories as the similar pages are listed right there. Go for it I say =) --◄ρςұκε®7► talk• contr 00:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Envenom

I reworked the Envenom page a bit. Since i'm a newb, i'd like some peer review on it. --Poposhka 17:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw the work you did, I must say, for a "newb" it's quite nice. Certain that you haven't done this before? Keep up the good work! ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 18:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
He he, thankee. Well, I basically just followed the Sinister Strike page, so not much thought involved. thanks though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poposhka (talk · contr).
I would say that 'doses' reads a bit strangely.... prehaps 'stacks' or something instead /shrug. No biggie.
Remember you can sign your comments with ~~~~ --◄ρςұκε®7► talk• contr 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Announcing the Warcraft pump!

Since this page was becoming unmaintainable with the deluge of off-topic discussions, we have created the funky new Warcraft pump.

  • All general discussions not specifically to do with WoWWiki or WoWWiki articles should go there.
  • Please move any such topics which appear here to there.
  • It is also linked on the left navbar (I have also given the sidebar links a bit of an update).
  • Remember, WoWWiki is not a forum. If you want to have a huge long-winded discussion about the relative merits of a Mr. Cheesewhipple's Mace of Smooshing (+3) compared to an Evil Steamroller, sometimes it's best just to go somewhere else.

Thanks! Kirkburn talk contr 00:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I must say, very good idea whoever's it was. --◄ρςұκε®7► talk• contr 00:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Second that. Good call. // Montagg (talk · contr) 11:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
why not move village pump off the main navigation bar or put it near the bottom of the list? Oh, someone should have cleaned up the comments before moving the WOW related stuff to warcraft pump Sharlin
How about just making a "forum" ? like [1] ace2, has done. This should have severely huge benefits for readability,, and topics. tbh 1 page full of stuff doesn't read very nicely.  - CJ talk / cont  07:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Would love to know why my section about me reworking the Tier 4/5 Images was move to the Warcraft Pump... <Kiltek> blah / spam 07:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Added it back below. Regarding a forum, it's been tried once before - it was too 'separate' from the wiki to be useful. We already have an IRC channel and talk pages. Kirkburn talk contr 15:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


Tier 4 & 5 Image Additions

As some of you may have noticed, I rolled out some images for a few classes in Tier 4 to replace some old, poor and (some) data mined images that were in place.

I've done this to match the images that display on the official website when displaying Armor Sets (although it isn't currently there) and ensured the name of the Set is in the image. I've made a point of NOT including any signatures or watermarks - because I don't need to prove to anyone that I created these images myself, and it's also simply not needed.

I'm going to go ahead and do the same for Tier 5. I'll eventually add in some Horde images too, thus having two images on each armor page showing each faction; it's only fair!

There are a few problems, however. The Warlock, Hunter and Druid Tier 4 seem to have items missing from within my files, which means I can't load them into WoW Model Viewer just yet, but I will work to try and resolve this.

If anyone has any more suggestions feel free to give them here, but would appreciate these images being left alone, and if you do add images of your own, please make them consistent with mine :) <Kiltek> blah / spam 06:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The images you submitted look nice, the pally T4 Draenei was a cap I did from the dressing frame, hence it was rather small. And screw fair, do everything in male tauren or male draenei, all the other races are ugly... Okey and male dorfs... TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 08:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Hehe, I'm only using models that show a fair representation of how the armor looks in game - So Night Elfs, Humans, Orcs and Blood Elfs will be my prefered choice - since none of them have Hoofs! And besides, if I wasn't fair it would be all Alliance... you damn Horde scum! Oh also, the Pally Armor cap looks crap because the Armor IS crap, I get to dress in crap while Rogues get to look like Comic book figures, so unfair! <Kiltek> blah / spam 09:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
If you're missing items from the list in WoW Model Viewer, check out this thread from their forum. It shows how to add data to the items.csv file using info from the XML data on Allakhazam's site. It was very useful when I found some items were missing from mine - ClydeJr 13:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Community teams!

I have restarted work on the WoWWiki:Community teams change. Any admins and helpers please go and discuss and help out! Pages to be updated, sections to be written, articles to be sorted, members to be chosen! Kirkburn talk contr 05:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

WC III Main Characters

I noticed the list on WC III Main characters (when looking at Antonidas' page) and I was wondering if we're not missing some names...Imo these names deserve some credit too:

Rexxar (he had an entire campaign of his own...)

Varimatras (prominent role in forsaken storyline)

Maybe Guldan? (being the reason for Illidan's "betrayal" and Sargeras' eye in TFT)

Maybe Lord Garitos (being featured in both human and undead campaigns)

Now we could ad balnazzar and Detheroc too, as well as Chen Stormstout and Rokhan, but I think that the list will drift off too much...

I'd like to hear your opinions, before rashingly editing the page (after I found out how to...) -- HEMA 16:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally, am against that list, because practically any lorestrong character which appeared in WC3 should be on that list. What's the reasoning behind "add" and "don't add". ==Patrigan-Talk/Contr-SH (EU) 16:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
{{War3mainchars}}. I made it partly on a whim to aid navigating around the lore articles. It does need updating and perhaps a change of direction. It could be changed to just be a general "main lore character" navbox. As for what belongs on it, common sense should dictate that - it just shouldn't be too big. Kirkburn talk contr 19:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I have reformatted it into factions, and for it to be suitable for WC chars from all ages. Obviously only the most important NPCs should make their way onto the template. Please suggest and/or add your own! Kirkburn talk contr 20:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Main page update!

I have been working on an update for the main page to:

  1. Incorporate a featured article section (weekly change, I reckon).
  2. Allow more news articles to be shown.
  3. Have a simpler design.
  4. Take up less space.

See it here - User:Kirkburn/Dev2. I need ideas and suggestions!! Kirkburn talk contr 19:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  1. Move the WoWWiki news and Featured Article to the top, above the selected article index.
  2. Warcraft news should be part of the navigation bar on the left.
  3. selecte article section needs to have items removed, its too cluttered. Suggest reducing to single link the UI/Customization, Community Info, and forum trackers.

Sharlin

More feedback can be found here - User talk:Kirkburn/Dev2. I've made several updates since the announcement, check them out! I'm not sure any links can be removed from the list, they're all very different areas of the wiki, and putting news and FA will just make the wiki harder to navigate for those on smaller monitors. Kirkburn talk contr 17:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
If you don't put the FA on top then whats the point? Those with smaller monitors may never see it, in other words you have the very same problem you describe of it being harder to navigate. the Navigation panel needs to change. Has anyone bothered to check to see how often each link is ever used? If not then whats the point of redesigning the front page?
In other words, unless ya'll have examined the link usage of what your putting up now the only thing your going to accomplish is just making the page even bigger with the FA. Sharlin
The links on the front page are not for listing the most popular pages on the wiki, they're for listing the different sections of the wiki. And, yes, we do look at how popular they are. I should also mention that the redesign is only a couple of pixels longer than the current design, with a hell of a lot more content. Anyway, how is a paragraph with a single link more useful than the small link farm? Kirkburn talk contr 11:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
So its only to make things prettier, not better, now I get it. Sharlin
Okay, let's not get confrontational now. Of course it's not "just" to make it prettier. The FA and news section is not for navigation - how would putting it on top help navigation? If you can suggest improvements to the nav, that would help. I can see about making the FA section better linked or something, but suggestions help. Kirkburn talk contr 19:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The background of each section should be the same.... preferably a dark color so as to provide contrast which is needed for people with vision problems. I think that red/maroon background should only be used for small areas the require much emphasis. Sharlin

The Black Morass

Can we please please please please consolidate all of these articles, or better yet delete a few.

Because I recently revamped the entire article for [8] but it didn't update [9] for some reason, and now there is an updated and non-updated for each page and it's driving me insane.

But doesn't my article look better? --Ithar 17:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess someone updated the last article, thank you. --Ithar 18:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  1. This belonged on the Village pump, not the Warcraft pump.
  2. According to this edit [10], you removed an entire article and thus caused half the problems.
  3. I've now gone over it all and sorted out what I can. Kirkburn talk contr 19:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Gems or Jewels?

Okey, this has been brought up before, but a recent edit to Jewel has brought the issue back to my attention, so I'm gonna complain. We've got this nice page about all the new socketable gems that were added in the expansion. It's full of wonderful useful data to help people pick what gems they want to buy. However the page says, near the top... "The term "gem" is often used interchangeably (and improperly) with "jewel"." This statement in it's self is wrong. "Gem" and "jewel" are interchangeable, in fact what we are stating is that "gem" means an uncut stone, which is not true. According to Wikipedia, a gemstone may be polished or faceted. Cutting a stone does not mean it is no longer a gemstone. Also, the definition of 'jewel' is "A precious stone; a gem."

So now, what is my point? We're very inconsistent with our nomenclature with regards to the shiny socketables. Blizzard has been very consistent with the new items, they call things that go into sockets gems and give them icons of cut stones. I have only seen them use the word "jewel" in regards to a socketable stone once: [Bag of Jewels], which can hold cut and uncut stones. All the new raw minerals are given rough stone icons, not faceted. Yes, the old pre-BC icons for raw gems show facets, and that's probably why we tried to make a distinction.

So considering the consistent nomenclature Blizzard has used for these new items, I propose we adopt it as well. It will help reduce any confusion between what we say and what the game says, and we will stop imposing an incorrect idea on our visitors. We should edit all pages to refer to socketable items as gems, and raw trade goods as minerals or uncut gems. Only use the term "jewel" for items in the game that specifically use the word, like [The Queen's Jewel], or in reference to "jewelry" like rings and necklaces. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 19:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree. Kirkburn talk contr 19:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm assuming this means we move the current Gem to either Uncut gems or Minerals and move Jewel to Gem. Also it looks like Gem needs to be updated to include prospecting as a source, and mob-mining (minable mobs appear to only drop minerals, no metal ore) TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 20:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Pages have been moved and tagged for cleanup. I can't edit them right now, in the middle of moving back to Denver. If noone else gets to it I'll do it when I can. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
While I agree there is some confusion over the terminology, I think that most, if not all, of it comes from the fact that blizz calls the profession "Jewelcrafting". This would insinuate that most of what a jewelcrafter crafts are, in fact, jewels. I think the best solution is for Blizz to rename the profession to gemcrafter, but since that won't happen, I truly beleive that this confusion will persist, regardless of how you sort things, or reference the only other item with the name Jewel. FWIW. Sorcen 16:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Featured articles!

Another project! In conjuction with the previously mentioned proposed Main Page update, we need to start up the FA project. I need input and help in getting it off the ground! Any help is appreciated :)

See WoWWiki:Featured article. Kirkburn talk contr 22:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Not sure where to ask this, but model change rules.

Blizzard's EULA says I can't edit their game files, but what if I'm doing it for looks? I'm not doing this to move walls, or make nodes bigger, just change what a weapon looks like to another... is this safe? And how do they figure it out anyway? If I'm going to get banned, I'm copying back the backup file asap. I just changed it w/ a hex program. I just want my weapons look more cool >:( --Colinstu 00:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

WoWWiki talk:Warcraft pump.--Sky (t · c ·