Recent changes Random page

Gaming
 
StarCraft Wiki
Super Smash Wiki
Halopedia
 Diablo Wiki
FFXIclopedia
Grand Theft Wiki
See more...

WoWWiki talk:Village pump/Archive16

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

Products vs Recipes

I'm looking for a consensus before I start wholesale changes to how engineering items are categorized.

My thoughts:

  1. Category:Engineering: catch-all for anything that doesn't fall in one of the other categories
  2. Category:Engineering Products: all pages on engineered items that have uses other than as a component in another recipe (or quest objective).
  3. Category:Engineering Ingredients: all pages on items used by engineering recipes, including those that are a result of engineering (e.g. casings, bolts, tubes, etc)
  4. Category:Engineering Schematics: those objects that teach particular (engineering) recipes
  5. Category:Engineering Recipes: I am unsure if this represents "all items created by the engineering skill", or "all recipes learned from trainers", or "all schematics you can pick up" (the objects) or just what. I looked at Category:Alchemy Recipes for contrast, and find what for engineering is Schematics. By default, I am assuming the broadest interpretation: if you can engineer it, it goes there.

We've lots of items in "engineering" that should (now) be in Recipes and either Products or Ingredients. And we've lots of items that are in Products or Ingredients but not in Recipes, or vice versa.

I like the thought of a one-stop, self-maintaining list of all engineered items (like Engineering on Thottbot ). We have the lists, cut up, in places like Apprentice_Engineering_schematic, but these are not simple, or self-maintaining. And the latter is a killer.

I thought I'd float a balloon here before I started making changes that would require someone clean up after me if I was "wrong". Your thoughts, please? --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Engineering recipes refers to the recipes that you learn, not the ones you can buy straight from the trainer, eg, white items and such. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
As a general note, the article on a category page should reflect what kind of articles the category contains and not some generic copy-paste article on a similar topic. In the rework of engineering categories, the category article should specifically describe what's in the category.
In the case of Category:Engineering Recipes, it should probably note the articles in the category are items created by recipes from an engineering trainer that -may- contain the actual recipe information. I would prefer the category be renamed Category:Engineering Trainer Recipes, to be more accurate.
The Field Repair Bot 74A actually is neither from a schematic item or a trainer, but a object on the floor in BRD, so I'm not sure where it should go. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:02 AM PDT 9 July 2007
My vote is in Category:Engineering Schematics for Field repair bot (etc), as "any engineering recipe that doesn't come from a trainer". The point being, "how do I get this particular recipe?"
I could live with "Engineering Trainer Recipes", I guess. I'd prefer to have a decision on how to handle Gnomish and Goblin specializations first, before going that route.
for instance, would Engineering Trainer Recipes (category) have subcategories for Apprentice/journeyman/expert/artisan/master/goblin/gnomish ?
--Eirik Ratcatcher 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles can be in more than one category at a time, so yes, I would definitely recommend apprentice/journeyman/expert/artisan/master/goblin/gnomish cats for browsing and sorting purposes. As an engineer, I would definitely find use in being able to browse that way. --DuTempete talk|contr 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy:Homophobia & The Sara Andrews Fiasco

Based on the overwhelming amount of homophobia found in-game, there should be an article in Wowwiki discussing it. Given what happened to Sara Andrews[[1]] at the hands of one of Blizzard's own homophobic Game Masters and the fact that it caused Blizzard to privately issue an apology to her for its stance, it deserves recognition in Wowwiki. You can't just have the good without the bad. WoW is an extremely homophobic game with built-in hetero-centric emotes (and in the case of Taurens and Blood Elves, homophobic emotes.) The game itself is encouraging young people to use hate speech and the vast majority of guilds are anti-GLBT and feature hate speech on their vent and teamspeak channels. This needs to be addressed. Malazoth 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how blood elves and tauren have homophobic emotes. Skipping to the point, if you can cook up a nice article (how does Homophobia in World of Warcraft sound for a title?)about ingame homophobia.. by all means be my guest.Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gifAPΘLLΘ(ZEUS) 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it belongs here. It would be subject to constant controversy and certainly doesn't abide by NPOV as it is purely based on personal views --GRYPHONtc 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Though controvertial, I do not see why it could not be added, but it would have to be written in a NPOV presenting facts and not overgeneralizations. you said 'Wow is an extremely homophobic game' but then you mentioned the homophobic emote options. It needs to focus equily on both sides of the issue. If people do not like it, then it will be deleted, but if is WoW related people can try...Nevermind. We do not need this.--SWM2448 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering all businesses are like that, I don't see it as really being WoW Wiki worthy.
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--SWM2448 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
An interesting topic that could be debated quite feverishly, but unfortunately I don't think the Wiki is the appropriate forum for it. Perhaps submit a question to something like WoW Insider where the focus is more on user opinions and debates. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At most stick it on a user page, it doesn't warrant an article. SharlinTalk / Did 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This most certainly does not warrant its own article. For one thing, "homophobic" is an extremely biased word used by the LGBT community that is far from true in many cases. Also, your so-called "homophobia" is prevalent in all of society, not simply within this game community. Posting an article addressing anti-LGBT language by players is like posting an article addressing all of the players that speak English in the game. Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof of emotes by Tauren and Blood Elves to be "homophobic". This, once again, is an extremely subjective opinion held by a vast minority of individuals. A wiki exists to post facts relevant to the subject matter. Not people's personal crusades. Putts 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am family; no, this doesn't belong here. And what are you smoking, tauren are homophobic? And blood elves? Puhlease sister, have you heard them speak? Fuh-lam-ing! ... okey now I feel all dirty... *snicker* TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have an article on this subject, but just make it clear that it violates NPOV and should be read as such. Most likely any article on something like this is hard to judge as NPOV. We aren't wikipedia, after all.
Also, the idea of a wiki posting facts is somewhat ludicrous. Wikis post information that is screened with a usual bias toward factuality. Have you ever read Uncyclopedia... ;-)
Anyway, I suspect this article won't be allowed, but I just want to add my vote, in case some people find a way to remove the branches from their backsides. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:00 PM PDT 6 July 2007


As a news item, covering the Sara Andrews deserves a page as much as any other notworthy event (such as the episode of Blizzard marking certain Linux users as breaking TOS for using... Cedega, was it?) and for the same reasons.
An article on Homophobia in WoW would best be first aired on a user page (IMO), pretty much for the reasons noted earlier: too many people -on both sides- would disagree with any factual rendering of the subject. On a user page, "non-NPOV" can be used to quiet some of that controversy long enough for an editorial consensus to emerge.
Looking at comments above, I have to add that I believe: (NPOV) != ("balanced account") in that "balanced account" attempts to provide as many loons on both sides, whether the facts justify that side or not. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A neutral point of view article stating all the facts would show Blizzard's action are not the result of homophobia, and that it has all been a silly over-reaction. I've yet to see any evidence showing otherwise. For example, a list of quotes from accused Blizzard GMS, pictures of offensive emotes, etc. I doubt the accusers can put together a convincing list. Let them try. Raze 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest I can see to a 'homophobic' Tauren emote is the male /silly "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies." And only barely, as it refers to the way milk is treated to keep it from seperating. The belf thing is just silly since at least some of the male ones are trying very hard to be... "Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?" and the scrunchie one in particular... During the 'Love is in the air' event, after using the cologne or perfume, you will see the little hearts floating over the head of NPCs of both sexes, and can give the 'love gifts' to either. The last time I messed with it, I offered tokens to both sexes to see what would happen; and was both accepted and rebuffed by both, randomly. Blizzard as a company doesn't seem homophobic to me.

Users, on the other hand, often seem to be violently so, to the extent of using 'gay' as a synonym for anything bad. Bad item, stupid person, poor instance design, etc. I can see individual GMs doing stupid things, but that happens in any company. I doubt it was policy. --Azaram 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Same with the xmas event... Every year I flirt with the other male dwarves to get my crappy [Mistletoe] TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a part of the LBGT community. That said, I think an article on the Sara Andrews issue is worth creating as long as it doesn't include the words "think" or "believe" in it. It is part of community lore, afterall. An article on LBGT relations in game, though, I'm not sure. WoW has definitely been a source of some debate about this, even stretching into RL issues such as use of the word "gay". I think an article that clearly stated arguments on both sides for every issue is NPOV, however, unless the OP did extensive research before creating it, I wouldn't like to see it. Even one author trying to be neutral will be biased in some way. It's not worth the end result to see that topic here, during a inevitably biased development. Perhaps the suggestion of placing it, first, on a user page can work. It can be edited thoroughly, to attain NPOV, then when there is a consensus of the neutrality of the content, it can be posted. But, where? --DuTempete talk|contr 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An article chronicling the event as it happened is totally acceptable to me. What was suggested, however, was not a historical article but more of a pro-gay propaganda piece. I'm against that, at least here on the wiki... keep that kinda stuff in "Out" magazine :P TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no harm in ever writing about something as it happened. However, I'd love to see an NPOV maintained on this one. Pzykotic 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

how about a page for alleged discrimination/offensive stereotyping in WoW overall? examples: Tauren/North American Tribespeople, Goblins/Antisemitism, Trolls/Caribbeans, female armor, etc. User:cheekyrabbit

Homophobia is such an overused and meaningless term. The very use of the term negates any conversation about sexual orientation, in the same way as using the Nazi appellation in a conversation does. Why not try using terms of a more serious and solid nature such as “you doo-doos”, or the dreaded “You silly puddings?”

WoWDigger

New WoW item database is up: WoWDigger.

I thought I should make a page for it. Disclaimer: I've been somewhat involved with its development.Chriskl 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man, just can't beat teh Wowhead --Sky (t · c · w) 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hardly :) Chriskl 09:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, can't beat teh Thottbot --GRYPHONtc 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wowhead > Thottbot. I thought you knew this Gryphen... at least, sub-consciously. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Partial to my first: Thottbot...but starting to feel the pull of WoWHead =S  ItsNuursFaulttalk&contr 16:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just registered, my only worry would be a lack of information that is usually readily accessable. I'm going to recommend that my Guild register and start using. Also, will download client when I'm not on a Linux machine. Looks great, fast, and simple.  ItsNuursFaulttalk&contr 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I lurve me some Wowhead, but for those so inclined, I've added a user script example to the WoWDigger article which changes Wowhead links into WoWDigger ones. (For {{elinks-*}} &c.)

New Main Page

This is an extension of the discussion about the ad on the front page.

I suggest we change the front page layout, move the selected article index section to the middle bringing changing content to the top; like the news and ads. Its a simple change. As it stands now 1024x768 viewers don't see the ad and don't see the news.

See [Re-Ordered Main Page]

--SharlinTalk / Did 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with 1024 viewers, even at 2*1280x1024 I don't see it. On another note I haven't visited the frontpage for a year or so, only maybe because of boredom - but that may be my personal style of viewing, I always directly jump to /<target>...  Flotsam | ( talk | contr )  16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that people come for the content not the news, that is why the news is not at the top. We had this discussion before when designing the main page. The ad is going to be there for 30 days. There has been no word yet as to if it is going to be a permanent feature. --GRYPHONtc 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Whats the point of having a news section if no one ever sees it?
Second, can we delete the damn cat already? Its almost July
Third, I guess its preferable to see google ads for gold selling and account trading instead of an ad we can control. I guess we prefer the association with gold sellers!
I think changing the front page and navigation bar would help both with ads should they continue and navigation. Did anyone ever bother to determine if any of the links in the navigation bar get regular use?

SharlinTalk / Did 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would no-one ever see it? It's just a slight small scroll away. Why get rid of the cat - I would quite like to set up having several images there to spice up the Main Page. No, we do NOT prefer the gold selling ads, which is why they're mostly blocked. If you're still seeing them, tell us. And finally, yes, thank you, I did actually bother to check that the links get regular use. Kirkburn talk contr 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Because very few will scroll more than the first time here.
  • If we are going to allow ads shouldn't we give them their money's worth?
  • Main pages should relay changing information up front with older content below
  • If the news were a top level item we would not have to graft crap like "2.12 is live" at the top
  • Main page duplicates information about alternate language wikis with the left menu
  • The selected article index is a page unto itself! It needs to be tigtened up
  • More pictures would obscure the mission of the main page
  • Where can we, the casual contributors see relevant link usage stats?
SharlinTalk / Did 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The advertisers are already giving us the money, you want us to cover the Main Page with ads instead of content? Main Pages should give people easy access to the knowledge on the wiki - people do not enjoy having everything moved around all the time, because it is confusing. About the alt language wikis, you have a valid point - I shall look into that.
I have no plans to add more images to the front page, only to at some point set up a revolving set of cute images where the cat currently 'stands'.
Popular page stats (over the life of the wiki) can be found here - Special:Popularpages. Note the Main Page links are NOT supposed to be a reflection of that list, only influenced by it. What links do you feel can change? Kirkburn talk contr 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What part of my statement says to cover the main page with ads? Oh, none of it does, but for your argument to work you have to change what I said to fit. What part of my statement says to move everything around all of the time? Oh, none of it! I said put the news up front where it can be seen. Not only does it help make the page look timely we won't need to graft items like the "patch 2.12" is live at the top like some welt. I still think the "Selected Article Index" is excessive, what part of "selected" encompasses 53 (FIFTY THREE) links? SharlinTalk / Did 15:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
When you have 35,000 articles and a huge range of completely different topics, it's quite hard to reduce the number of links. Believe me, I've tried. Having the ad at the top of the page would mean it would cover a huge percentage of smaller screens. An advert is not website content, which is what the site is about. As for where do you say to move stuff around all the time, you said it in "Main pages should relay changing information up front with older content below". The wiki does not have changing information that can be picked out. Each page of the thousands are in flux, there are no projects to pick out, excellent edits to pinpoint, or much specific site news to report. That's why we don't list it. We're also not particularly a Warcraft news site, hence the lack of need for that. If you wish to reduce the number of links or change the Main Page design, create it (as I have seen you already start). It's hard for me to provide constructive feedback on your ideas when all I have is complaints - I need to see something to comment on it. Kirkburn talk contr 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The re-ordered page is an ugly hack imho. If the main page is going to be changed, it should be re-designed with the adspace as a design element, not something tossed in a space that wasn't designed for it and then shoved up to the top. When the main page was designed before it was decided then as well that news is not what people are here for, they are here for the content sections. --GRYPHONtc 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Note I'm definately not against updating the Main Page design, but I'm not sure what can change. Two other comparable wikis (with similar amounts of edits, judging from their RC lists) are http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page and http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page - from those, one thing that might be good is to get rid of the "Main Page" title section. We don't have the ability to do collapsible sections atm. Kirkburn talk contr 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Notice those wikia do not feature the ad. Is there any indication that this ad is going to be on WoWWiki beyond the 30 days that was mentioned? --GRYPHONtc 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
None that I know of. This started as a one off thing, so unless something else comes up, it'll return to normal. If it does come up again, we'll definately have to think about the revamp. Kirkburn talk contr 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia links

I think the wiki needs a page for Wikia-related links, such as for the various languages and for the various guild and realm wikis (something we should start promoting, especially as we're part of the wider Wikia community!)

The current wikis:

Anyone got good idea for a page name and how it could be fitted on the front page? Feel free to start something :) Kirkburn talk contr 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'Related wikis'? --Pcj (T•C) 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Places you'll probably only go once, if ever?  :) SharlinTalk / Did 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sharlin, why are you being so abrasive? I'm asking for help, and if you check those wikis you'll see several are doing quite well :/ Kirkburn talk contr 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
What part of the :) didn't you get? SharlinTalk / Did 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if you add a smiley, it's still a little unfair to them :( Bah, maybe I just need chocolate. Chocolate is always good! Kirkburn talk contr 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely related to the above (in that it's to do with Wikia), we were mentioned in a recent Kotaku article - check out http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/games-get-wikia-with-it-273397.php Image:smiley.gif Kirkburn talk contr 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Other Wikia Warcraft Wikis not obvious enough? Or maybe Other wikia Warcraft sites (what to cap is not obvious to me here). I'm not sure wikis for individual servers or guilds really deserve front page status, though, even if they are on wikia. Perhaps they should just go in a Wikia page somewhere? --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:56 PM PDT 23 July 2007
Wikis --GRYPHONtc 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Talent trees

What is the correct term for the whole 'tab' of a class (which consists not only its respective talent tree, but also the spells)? --bfx 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question. This seems to be ignored most of the time. I've seen it called "type" or "category" (vague), "school" (usually misleading, see School), and "tree" (conflating with talents as you mention). I think the answer is, there isn't one. Harveydrone 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Armory uses references to "Specialization" in it's markup. --GRYPHONtc 00:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
But I think in the Armory, it is referring to talents and builds, not basic spells and abilities. FWIW, thottbot uses the terms "line" and "skill" to refer to this. Worldofwconline similarly uses "Skill Line". Harveydrone 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on set page design wanted

Check out Gloves of Malorne and Malorne Regalia - the set-bonus integration into item pages, as well as a slightly different layout for the set page are the two new features I'd like feedback on. If this is interesting, drop by Template talk: Tooltip and leave a comment about set integration as well. :) -- Starlightblunder 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They are as of now i know intergrated. W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 02:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1337 Hax! (?)

In WW:DNP it says not to post exploits, citing WoWWiki:Policy/Exploits. But on the specific exploits page it only mentions translational exploits. I noticed that this site doesn't have a page for Glider (or does it?). Does this mean we don't make pages about hax? If so, I think Multibox and Multiboxing need to be deleted. User:Lessthan13371336 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note: It's obvious when a software is agaisnt-TUA because of the hilarious way the authors/defenders of the software try to weasel around the issue. Well... I think it's funny anyway... User:Lessthan13371336
Uh, multiboxing isn't against against the ToS / EULA. There's even been someone out there who had 5 boxes running at one time... 1 Priest and 4 Mages. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That takes talent.--SWM2448 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really. One set of buttons for the Mages, and one for the Priest. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I currently dual-box. The key behind it is having macros assigned to the tool bar that target and cast appropriate spells. They need to be similar across both characters to ensure that you don't have to think very much about what you are doing. Some of the 5-box solutions I have seen use one keyboard to control 5-pcs simulataneously. SharlinTalk / Did 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Me Again, I redirected Dual Box and Dual Boxing to Multiboxing since it was a larger and more complete article SharlinTalk / Did 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Well I'll be a orc's uncle, I guess you're right. I just asked on the General Help forum and they said multiboxing was legal! Toj does not approve... >:-( User:Lessthan13371336 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sky, Multiboxing is not against the ToS/EULA itself, however using applications to send keystrokes is another deal all-together. The person you mentioned did it through several computers with several input-devices. The program Multibox would fall under the category of Unattended Gameplay, Unapproved Third Party Software, and perhaps Data Stream Manipulation and Data Mining. └Fisker┘┌t/c┐  18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Multiboxing is fine, as long as you don't use one account for it (there used to be a glitch where more than one person could be on an account) I wouldn't see why blizzard wouldn't mind you buying 5 accounts and playing =/ but then that would be a waste of money, unless your using some modification to give you an advantage to the game, multiboxing is still legal and doesn't go against the ToS/EULA but it is considered by some players wrong W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure but as i said i Multiboxing was ok, but the application Multibox is not. └Fisker┘┌t/c┐  03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like if someone is really concerned they should get the word from Blizzard, since our opinions aren't what matters... its theirs. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:23 PM PDT 6 July 2007
I tagged Multibox with the {{Violation}} template, for future investigation. Please put your comments in Talk:Multibox. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:29 PM PDT 6 July 2007

User rumors/speculation

I know user pages are personal, but I have the idea to categorize theories based on topic, with like... an "Expansion Ideas" cat, and specific popular theories gioning in things like "Northrend" and "Great sea" Subcats and others going in the main cat. The speculation template is not welcome on user pages so this would make finding alike non-story fanfic easier. Thoughts?--SWM2448 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Provided you only tell people how to categorize their user pages. I certainly would not want someone grouping my pages with others. SharlinTalk / Did 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I never intended to do it without consent from each page's author, I just was proposeing that the cats be made.--SWM2448 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "Cats" but if your grouping users, it would be better to keep the members as a whole and maybe seperate off the staff/admins and such... W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Cats = categories. I can not spell that without copying it from another page. I do not want to group users, there is already this for Users and this for Admins. I wanted to group their (and my) personal theories by subject. Such as mine: User:Sandwichman2448/Northrend Expansion (this is not an advertizement).--SWM2448 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it would seem as a good idea, as long as you have the user's consent i guess... but it seems pretty much cool ^^ W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my proposed system. It should clean up the rumored races/expansion pages. The bullets represent subcategories in whatever category is above it. Adding yours to these is optional, unlike putting it in the fan fiction category, as the 'Fanfic' template is required on ideas.

Fan fiction & Rumors

  • User ideas <--Ideas, not stories
    • User race ideas
      • (race with many user ideas) (if category clutters)
    • User expansion ideas
      • User Northrend ideas (if category clutters)
      • User Great Sea ideas (if category clutters)
      • (more popular Xpack ideas)

I need feedback. Small categories are ugly.--SWM2448 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did Category:User ideas... I hope they do not stay empty. No one told me not to.--SWM2448 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages

There are now a grand total of 'FOUR' uncategorized pages in this wiki! I've categorized about 100 or more articles and these are the last ones giving me/us trouble:

  1. /Tooltip buff (WTF is this???)
  2. Multibox
  3. Multiboxing
  4. WoW Model Viewer

Help! User:Lessthan13371336 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Addons?--SWM2448 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the hardest-to solve question comes from how to categorize a page which doesn't exist... --Pcj (T•C) 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Game Terms for multiboxing SharlinTalk / Did 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:smiley.gifAlmost there! Can we get a sysadmin or something to kill whatever the hell /Tooltip buff is? User:Lessthan13371336 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
link to the dodgy page, as the slash is confusing the wiki links above --Karrion 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been taking care of the ones I see pop up, but it seems like a neverending battle... Image:Tongueout.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syzgyn (talk · contr). 05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If this hasn't been answered I think Multibox and multiboxing should go in game terms, Wow Model Viwer and "tooltip buff?" should go into the Addon modifications for the wow interface :) W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Multibox should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to multiboxing, WoW Model Viewer should be replaced with a more generic model article, and Multiboxing might need a rewrite └Fisker┘┌t/c┐  18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Multibox and multiboxing should stay seperate, and WoW Model Viewer is ok chaning it doesn't really make a diffrenece, but I think multiboxing does need a rewrite.... W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on multibox(ing) should continue here - Talk:Multibox. Kirkburn talk contr 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New Blizzard wiki

I draw your eye to http://blizzard.wikia.com - a new wiki one of our contributers has set up for Blizzard. I think with a little work it could fit quite well with WoWWiki. As a "central" area it could work well, for articles on each game, employees, etc. Thoughts? Kirkburn talk contr 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty unrefined to me. SharlinTalk / Did 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very very new! Kirkburn talk contr 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What sort of crossovers did you have in mind? Shall we also liase with the people at the Starcraft and Diablo wikias? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is very ugly too. Especially with all that crap bordering it. Oh, its THEIR not THEYR (look for it!) SharlinTalk / Did 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a good idea tbh. Certainly it would help the other wikis if they could build on what we've made. The main crossovers I'm thinking are anything Blizzard specific (employees, details on the other games), leaving use to be able to concentrate more on Warcraft. In my new capacity as someone working for Wikia, I should be able to help more in this area. /me adds looking at this to his todo list. Kirkburn talk contr 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

zomgwtfbbq... when did Kirkburn get hired? :O
On topic: I don't like the (de)centralizing of it, but it's cool. It definitely needs fleshing out, however. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This looks pretty good other than (i think it may be just my browser or something) i see a LOT of ads around the page, is this normal? Other than that this page looks excellent! W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Worryingly it seems I have to remind people it's a wiki, just like this one. Please help out :) As for the ads, that's the normal Wikia setup - we haven't been converted over (I don't know if that will ever occur). Also, I got hired last week to help out with the Gaming.Wikia sections Image:smiley.gif Kirkburn talk contr 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll try to help out... and congrats on getting hired =p

Windjungj talk / contr 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sig making.

Can anyone help me make a sig? I know wiki pretty good and I want to start making a good sig for once but i guess im going to need help on making it good. if your interested in helping me please go to my talk page and leave a message :) thanks :D --Windjungj 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Nvm, i think i might have got it this is my first test >.< W i n d j u n g j talk / contr 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do what I did. Copy parts of someone elses, mess it up to the point it annoys others, and they will fix it for you!!! SharlinTalk / Did 09:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, definately the way to go :) Kirkburn talk contr 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, and i spent the long way and probably took a few days figuring out how to make one =? Windjungj talk / contr 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talent builds

Right now, we have talent builds both on separate pages (for example, Heavy Destruction and MD/Ruin) and on a page for the whole class (e.g. Warlock builds). However, I'm not perfectly satisfied with this solution. As a result, we have a lot of redundancy, which consequently can lead to incomplete, out-dated or sometimes even contradictory information. These pages (especially for single builds) seem not to be updated a lot; therefore, I suggest keeping vulnerability at a minimum level, by either (1) redirecting single build pages to the class builds page, or (2) moving any detailed information from the class builds page to the build page it belongs to, while keeping only an overview of builds with short summaries and links to their respective pages on the class' page.

I personally prefer the second solution, as putting all information on one page certainly would overload it. Is there any rule how to do it? Any suggestions? --bfx 10:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Contain all basic build information to a single page. Allow for specialty builds to have their own page with link from the basic class build. If anything the speciality builds which are loaded down with text are tactics guides as much as talent builds. The Warlock pages are a great example of where we need to bring them up to date. ALL pre-TBC builds are invalid and should be deleted, even if they employ the correct talent trees. If anything they can be preserved on the talk page.
Hell, I might just rip that Warlock page to shreds today, those old school builds got to go SharlinTalk / Did 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What about those true non-BC players like me D= we should instead seperate the TBC builds and the non-BC builds (because the skills are somewhat varied) and put the basic builds in the appropriate place (like demonology TBC, demonology nonTBC, specail demonolgy+affilation TBC,. etc) because not all players in the WoW community have TBC, and you should at least let those players have a place for those non TBC players :D instead of ripping their pages (grr..)

Windju