Quantcast WoWWiki talk:Village pump/Archive19 - WoWWiki - Your guide to the World of Warcraft
Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Gaming
 
StarCraft Wiki
Super Smash Wiki
Halopedia
 Diablo Wiki
FFXIclopedia
Grand Theft Wiki
See more...

WoWWiki talk:Village pump/Archive19

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

Quest Disambig pages

Currently User:Laurlybot makes quest dismbig pages that look like this Quest:Diplomatic_Measures basically very simple and not much more info then the quest name and level. There have been a few people that have commented that maybe adding some more info would help people find the quests they are looking for. I have come up with this User:Laurly/Sandbox1 now when i showed some others this idea they said it was to much info. What I'm looking for is a consensus of opinion.

Do we need more info on quest disambig pages?
If Yes. How much more info do we need on quest dismabig pages?

Having the bot redo all the quest dismabig pages isn't a problem its just a question of how we want them to look the bot could probably recreate them all in a few hours. Laurly 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Horde Crest [20] Creature of the Void (Orgrimmar) w/in the disambig template is perfect. Any more is a waste, any less is unhelpful. Having the parenthetical disamig is essential,though, as otherwise you have to mouse over the links to figure out which one to choose. That is, at best, a pain in the ass.
If you'll look at Quest:Tome of the Cabal, you'll also see what I've done to a disambig that had sequential quests in it.--DuTempete talk|contr 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As usual.. got a bunch of opinions, most not held in common with the rest of the world. Take them for what they're worth :).
  1. Regardless of how they're organized, I'm against having a bunch of links that all look identical to each other until you mouse over them. (/agree DuTempete). If the links on the disambiguation page have the additional number, or zone, or faction, or whatever, it would be useful.
  2. Three or more, a disambig page is useful (to me) (Quest:Seeking_Strahad).
  3. If they're similar (like Gnome Engineering), something like the preface summary would be kind to the reader. This is probably not easily botted. Ah, well. There's still the old fashioned method...
  4. If not similar (like The Missing Diplomat, Tome of the Cabal), a summary doesn't make sense, but a quest chain link may. ... It does for these examples, but there are probably examples that are not chains.
  5. The first quest can also often serve as a disambig page for the chain. The Missing DiplomatThe Defias Brotherhood The user is going to type in the name of the quest, after all, not 'The Missing Diplomat (2)' or like that. And one (smaller) function of the Quest Chain page is disambiguation. This avoids creating names like "your ambiguous quest (1)" to provide space for a "your ambiguous quest" disambiguation page.
    • edit: haven't filled out The Missing Diplomat yet... bad example. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • ... I'd even be tempted to redirect Quest:Tome of the Cabal to a quest chain page, and sort out both chains there. (The 'things you do' are the same, so a unified quest chain page would make sense to me. And the 'summary' section of the quest chain page could hold both trees of quests, providing the necessary disambiguation.)
  6. If there's 1 horde, 1 alliance quest of the same name, and with nearly identical text etc, users are better off if there's only one page, that illustrates both quests. What Are These Things? Otherwise, you're creating 3 pages (disambig, horde, alliance), and any information particular to completing the quest has to go in at least 2 places, which is evil for updating. Easier to search for, what's not to like? This is almost certainly the exception, though, and I can't imagine it'd be an easy option for a bot to choose correctly.
As I said, just my opinions. Everybody has one. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, one of the other things I mentioned to Laurly is that I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary for just two quests. If there are only two, you can easily redirect straight to the only other possible option. --DuTempete talk|contr 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of reasons for not having disambig pages ... I listed a few myself. Would want to see how searches for the quest come out, first, before doing away with the disambig page for "just 2". --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the (shared?) opinion that a disambig isn't needed if there's only two pages which deal with the relevant item, regardless of location (quest:, item, etc). My 2c . --Sky (t · c · w) 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, you mean a separate disambig page, not in-page disambiguation, yes? ;) --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... yeah. Yeah? --Sky (t · c · w) 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe Sky is talking about external disambigs being a waste for quest names than only have two versions.
Also, I don't agree with Eirik, when he says it's friendlier to readers to put two similarly named quests on the same page. I think it would make the page significantly harder to read, especially if the quests were very different from each other. Even if he was only talking about quests that are nearly identical, it would confuse the article. How many of those are there, anyway? The bot wouldn't even be able to differentiate, and the whole reason we have the bot is for saving people-energy.
Screw the bot? Well, I think it's in the community's best interest to keep the bots going. They have generated an unbelievable amount of new information on this wiki, helping us to be quickly catching up to the level of factual information one finds in the databases. It is definitely not worth sacrificing that.
--DuTempete talk|contr 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Bots will never be perfect they will always need humans to come in and tweak the data. Maybe its best to just consider the bot a starting point its easy to move a page to a new name once the bot has generated it. The way the bot creates distinct quest names needs to remain the way it is for the foreseeable future. If i was to change it now after the bot has created 2k+ pages would only cause problems if someone tryed to resubmit one that was already generated under the previous distinct name generation. So i suggest you merely move the page to a better name if you feel it should be there instead of where the bot put it. I will fix it so that when it creates the disambig pages it displays the full quest name to make it easer to figure out which quest you are after possibly also add zone info. Fixing it to put a disambig line in a page if theres only 2 with the same name will take a bit more work, im going to have to put that on hold until after the bot has generated the NPC pages. I am also concerned that this and might just cause problems in the future as more quests are added to wow. I like havening the disambig pages but would probably add a bit more info to them to make it easer to find the quest you are looking for. Laurly 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
For myself, I've assumed that neither you nor the bot have any ego invested in bot generated pages (for the most part, anyway), so have felt free to alter, rename, or make obsolete bot generated pages. Please do kick me where you feel I err... --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure understand what you mean by the last statement. Maybe its just how i am or maybe its because i'm a woman but i have no ego associated with the bot. All i want is for her to be able to help. If someone has a better idea of how to do something im more then happy to recode the bot to suit. I created her and continue to work on her only to help the wiki what she does is just create a large number of pages so that we don't have to. I have removed the code to create the disamb pages so she wont create them anymore. She is still going to continue to create district names as before but i have added a new irc command.

!questpage [id|name]
!questpage [8105|The Battle for Arathi Basin! (Alliance, 55)]

This will save quest id 8105 to Quest:The Battle for Arathi Basin! (Alliance, 55). This command also works with the quest command but will place it in the sandbox.

This way you can now supply the distinct name you wish. Laurly 10:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lore section in the class pages

This is a followup to find out what people think of the short lore section in Mage (reduced to general info about the class in general, to keep it from being bloated), and lore in Mage races as opposed to the old way of splitting lore from the main class pages onto its own lore page. An alternative suggestion was to make class lore be the primary class page, and have it list an in-page disambigation to the various gameplay pages, how to play a, how to kill a, "class" races, "class" spells, etc etc.

These ideas have been discussed with a few admins in IRC, and in talk pages, including, Ragestorm, Adys, and Kirkburn, and other fellow wikians, those who either liked it, or fairly neutral about it (or never commented), and those like Sky2042 who don't really like it. But mostly the discussion was positive, and idea of it only being a small lore section added to the main class page was even more positive than the idea of switching the articles.

The reason for this post, is to find out what others other than those in previous discussions think of these ideas. Should we do this to the rest of the pages, or revert it to the old style?--Baggins 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls this "summary style" when an article has short summary paragraph or two for sections that can be entire articles. The section starts with a tag like Main article: Mage lore and then a general summary of the highlights of mages in lore. Most class articles are already in this style, with a section on "Spells" for instance, then a link to the expanded spells page. So a lore summary is not out of line. --Piu (?!) 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, Mage lore is a redirect to mage!! --Piu (?!) 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I have for this is that some of the class articles are already long-winded. Otherwise it sounds like a fun, trivia-type thing to include in the article. I would definitely object, however, to swapping the page titles. The article most likely to be looked at by the average user is the page that should not have the disambiguation. I believe that the gameplay information is far more read than the lore article. --DuTempete talk|contr03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that generally the most of the Class lore pages have had a call to be trimmed down for being bloated, and including alot of lot information that could be included in other related articles (for example any rpg classes or organizations could be moved to their own pages, and class by race could be included within either each race's page, or the Class races pages). This is the thought behind doing away with Class lore pages altogether. In some cases perhaps for Shaman lore, it might work best to move some of the material to a name like shamanism to hightlight the religion rather than the class. Not all people who believe in shamanism are shamans for example.Baggins 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So any objections from others to converting a few more pages to this format?Baggins 08:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Finished a few more, paladin, priest, hunter, rogue, druid, warlock and warrior. These were fairly easy to convert as the lore pages were limited to begin with, or contained redundant information already found in other pages, and much of the stuff could be moved to individual class races pages to follow the concept originally started with mage races, or other individual class pages. Shamanism is the only one that may take a bit more work.--Baggins 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NPC pages

User:Laurlybot will be ready to run the npc pages soon. Note: Category:Laurlybot:NPC_requests.

There has been an objection to all the transcluded pages. But the good point of having the transcluded pages means that we can rerun the bot from time to time and update all these pages with current data without having to worry that the bot will clobber anything added to the main page. So what im looking for before i run the bot is opinions, questions, comments, gripes what ever so that we deal with any bugs or problems before the bot generates 2k+ npc pages. Laurly 08:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sells
yadda yadda
some more example
Sells
stuff
It just occurred to me that it would be possible for, whenever the bot parses {| (I don't know if it does), to look for the word "Drop", "Sells" etc. For example, use (one of) the examples on the right and have it stop looking for sells when it hits the table end. And yes, for all, I'm the sole objector. I hate the transcludable pages idea (I had to clean through them when we got rid of template:css). Would this be so hard? Anything in the tables would end up deleted the other way in any case, so this is why I'm wondering. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a bad idea if you could 100% guarantee that someone wouldn't change the table data sometime in the future. Which would be hard. Laurly 11:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We can't 100% guarantee that anyway without locking every page, and then the bot can't edit them Image:smiley.gif; I saw someone edit a /Drop or /Sell page yesterday (apparently, from rings -> necklaces; I have no idea if it was a correct change or not). Assume good faith. We've managed to make all the talents with tables work. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WoW Press Release

Hey Guys, Wikia just put out a press release announcing that WoW hit the 40K article milestone, and and is on of the top 1,500 sites on the internet according to Alexa. There is also a nice quote from Kirkburn :) http://www.wikia.com/wiki/WOWrelease

-- angies 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

/me looks embarassed, yet proud :P Kirkburn talk contr 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Search Boxes

Is there a reason for the search boxes to be redirecting automatically to the google ads? As soon as you click on the search boxes that have google ads displayed above them, they will just start loading the page for that particular wiki. Quite annoying, and (to be blunt) a good reason to not be using wowiki as a warcraft tool. I love wowwiki and hate to see to see it forcing users to pages not requested, so please consider doing something about it. -- Innocentlysassy 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a recent bug. I click in the search box and it mistakes it for a click on the image ad. It worked fine a couple days ago, no idea why it does this now. Workaround is to bounce on the tab key until it lands in the search box. --Piu (?!) 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You can also click the "Search WoWWiki" link in the man navigation box, under "Random Page" until the box is fixed. --Piu (?!) 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I run Wowwiki on Safari browser and entering the search box automatically redirects me to the Google Ad currently displayed above. This totally makes the search function useless, I can't search.

I don't know if this is a wiki redesign, or a Google issue, but it totally invalidated Wowwiki for me. The search function is the key to finding anything at all in Wowwiki, and I might as well look to Allakhazam for my NPC and quest searching needs...

Anybody that can look into this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerala (talk · contr). 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported two posts above. --GRYPHONtc 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not a wiki redesign :/ Why on earth would we do that to the search box?? It really helps to know what people are running, rather than just saying "it doesn't work". Is it just Safari that's seeing the problem? I tested on both Firefox and IE7 and it's working fine for me. (edit: I have passed it on) Kirkburn talk contr 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Safari for me too. --Piu (?!) 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be fixed now. --Piu (?!) 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not fixed as of 9:52am September 9 2007. I'm a Safari user. The entire left column is a link to the Google ad, not just the search box. Maybe someone didn't include a close-the-link tag? Seankreynolds 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the problem when I inspected the source. The link for the image wasn't closed, which was only affecting Safari apparently. Right now it's working fine for me on Safari. Try clearing your browser cache, or doing a shift-reload maybe? --Piu (?!) 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Dear WoWWiki, Someone has been deleting some of my "writings". If it was an administraotr, I have no problem with it, if it's not, is there a way you can stop it? Mr.X8 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.X8 (talk · contr).

Firstly, please stop spamming questions. Secondly, please try and do stuff yourself, rather than keep asking things that you can quite easily find out for yourself. I deleted this: [1]. I think it should be pretty obvious why (the guy you responded to was joking). This is a site for working together - insulting and shouting at other users is not allowed. Kirkburn talk contr 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, I knew someone was going to delete that. I mean I asked some questions about the RPG and when I kept going back to see if anyone answered, nothing was there. I know I saved it because I know to save my stuff. Mr.X8 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that questions regarding the RPG probably belong on WoWWiki_talk:Warcraft pump because of the topic. You should probably ask again there. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sylvanas

On Sylvanas' talk page, it says she has Rod of Undead Mastery that can re-animate the dead. It also says the Forsaken have no necrotic (or is it necromantic?) powers. On the Forsaken's article, it contradicts this saying they have necromancers in their ranks and I'm pretty sure I've seen other pieces of info that say the same thing. Which one should be changed, or should they both be left alone? Mr.X8 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Icon flagRSP2

I would like know how have the hidden icon to re-appear? My brother has added addon the icon but I only hidden it ,but i can't seem to figure out how to have the icon to come back. What should I do? I am terrible at computers. My brother is away.


-- Burningskyes 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

/RSP standby --Invin Dranoel 14:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagentbox vs Reagentlist

i got annoyed by the very ugly and bulky look of the {{reagentbox}}, and decided to create something similar to a list instead. the design is inspired by laurlybot's npc_drops, npc_sells etc. a short comparision:

  • Reagentbox is limited to 30 items
  • Reagentbox can have customized caption
  • Reagentlist can list virtually unlimited amount of items.
  • Reagentlist includes source for needed items
  • Reagentlist takes up less space
  • Reagentlist looks tidier


Requires Tailoring (375) and the following reagents:
19x [Bolt of Soulcloth]
12x [Rune Thread]
6x [Knothide Leather]
Tailoring (375) Source
19x [Bolt of Soulcloth]Created
12x [Rune Thread]Vendor
6x [Knothide Leather]Created

You can take a look on the two pages User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list header and User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list row for example of how the info is input to create this list. any feedback? Taurmindo | talk contr  13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like reagentbox better because it is closer to how the professions pane in-game displays it. --Pcj (T•C) 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the list better personally, wish it was more like that in-game actually. Simple, to the point, and easy to follow. --BlameMe→ Mucke ←talkTo 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I like the fact that it's smaller, and less ugly, however, I like doing those lists w/ text because you can also include the sub-mats in a way that shows they're sub-mats. If you could include a way to do that in your template, that would be fantastic. --DuTempete talk|contr 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice. I also want to point out that the limitation of 30 reagents is hardly a basis for comparison, since I think we all agree Blizzard would be nuts to make an item require 30 individual reagents. --Pcj (T•C) 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Of the two, I like Reagentlist better. Not enough to use it, though. (I like the even-less-bulky list better.) But don't mind me, you didn't make it for me. :)--Eirik Ratcatcher 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i understand the criticism of 30 reagents, and surely blizzard will not add something needing more than that. but for sub-reagents for an item, it may become possible. i messed around a little to fufil DuTempete's wish. this is the result: For [Goblin Rocket Boots]:

Engineering (225) Source
1x [Black Mageweave Boots]Tailoring(230)
    3x [Bolt of Mageweave]Tailoring(175)
       15x [Mageweave Cloth]Drop
    2x [Heavy Silken Thread]Vendor
    2x [Thick Leather]Skinning(175)
2x [Mithril Tube]Engineering(195)
    6x [Mithril Bar]Mining(175)
       6x [Mithril Ore]Mining(175)
4x [Heavy Leather]Skinning(125)
2x [Goblin Rocket Fuel]Alchemy(210)
    2x [Firebloom]Herbalism(205)
    2x [Volatile Rum]Drop
    2x [Leaded Vial]Vendor

including sub-reagents creates minor issues:

  • to create the item one doesn't actually need all the items in the reagent list. e.g. one does not need bolt of mageweave AND mageweave cloth. this is not clearly shown.
  • to make a reagentlist one has to go deep into what is made of what and who.
  • to make this advanced list one has to find out skinning and herbing levels etc, which means more work to provide such a list.
  • it may not be obvious what are subreagents and what are actual reagents.
  • more of variables has to be put into the {{reagentlist row}}
  • where to stop? at mithril bar or mithril ore? at bolt of cloth or cloth?

Taurmindo | talk contr  10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the number of reagents you can store is practically meaningless - 30 is not set in stone, and the minute someone actually needs that, they can update reagentbox to include however many they need; so far, though, I don't think anything uses as much as 10. I don't really like {{fooheader}} {{foorow}} {{foofooter}}-style templates - might as well use an inline table (which'd probably be shorter, too!).
Use comparatively same-sized captions when comparing things - considering the Requires Tailoring (390) text usually appears before the table, a simple "Components required" caption would stop that line from wrapping, reducing the amount of space it uses.
I'd have to take issue with the "Reagentlist takes up less space" claim, which isn't actually true half of the time - you win a few pixels (~5) if you include an odd number of items, you lose by a few more pixels if you include an even number of items; horizontal space is free, no reason not to use it. The two-column layout allows {{reagentbox}} to use larger icons, and to make the text labels a bit more readable - while the lack of cell padding in reagentlist makes it a bit more difficult to skim through ("Reagentlist looks tidier" -- meh, "more compressed" is the phrase I'd use).
(indentation is implemented in a rather silly fashion in reagentlist, but that's fixable)
Overall, I don't think what you're proposing really it fixes the issues you're describing; sacrificing a bit of padding and readability to gain a few pixels of vertical space isn't worthwhile; inclusion of source information is of debatable value (appending to |itemx= is an option, if desired); sub-reagents are mildly interesting. -- Starlightblunder 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Abilities of enslaved demons

Hi. I was thinking of adding info about which abilities are avaiable when a warlock enslaves a demon (ie not one of their normal summoned minions). For example, Servant of Ilgalar comes with Mana Burn (rank 1), essentially identical to the priest spell. I don't want to add excessive info but I want it to be found easily.

At the very least, on the Servant of Ilgalar page, I plan to add this info in the "Attacks and abilities" section (if Laurly bot doesn't do it first). Then, on the Mana Burn page, I might note "rank 1 is also available when enslaving Servant of Ilgalar". This seems like it could get out of hand, and may be confusing to any priest simply wanting to learn about their ability. Last, I could see a reason to add the info in a big list on the Enslave Demon, with all enslavable demons and their abilities (similar to the huge Mind Control page). But that seems needless. Thoughts? -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spellsteal page has similar issues, where it's turning into a big list of what mobs have what ability (buffs to steal in this case). Maybe things like this should be split out into separate articles due to the potential size? --Piu (?!) 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, as if Mages didn't have enough stuff in their goodie bag, they now get Spellsteal. :-P
--Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:08 PM PDT 12 Sep 2007
I once stole Innervate off a moonkin. Best spell ever --Piu (?!) 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fandyllic, we've had spellsteal since BC came out. Where have you been? >_< --Sky (t · c · w) 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Spellsteal has convinced me not to add this info to the Enslave Demon page, as a general rule. Still wondering whether this is appropriate info for the individual ability pages. -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 18:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may make a "simple" suggestion or two... Why not make pages expressly for the listing of these things? Like List of Stealable Spells or List of Enslaved Demon Abilities? That way the clutter won't tarnish the information and the information won't be on a "clutter" page. ~ Doc Lithius [U|T|C] 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Questrace - better late than never.

Having known of {{questclass}} for some time, I only recently discovered that there are in fact some tauren-only quests in Mulgore. I'd know of the Draenai-only quests in Bloodmyst Isle for a while, but "why make a template if there's only one instance of it?". A matter of moments, then, to bend questclass to my ways for {{questrace}}. See if you find it useful. It should at least ease the suffering of the Mulgore quests page... --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have a smarter wiki, is there a way to make your template smarter and have it pick the faction (Horde for Orce, Tauren, etc. and Alliance for Draenei, Night Elf, etc.) automatically based on the chosen race? --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:05 PM PDT 12 Sep 2007
Yes, there is. --Pcj (T•C) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle articles

Feedback requested about Battle article naming at WW:NAME by Gonzalo84. --GRYPHONtc 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fanfiction Feedback?

Whew, say that three times fast. Anyways, I was wondering if any RP'ers (or just plain ol' readers for that matter) might want to give me some feedback on my fan fiction? Specifically the Fall of Azjol'Nerub, I just finished the prologue and parts one and two and I want to know what y'all think. ~Peregrine

Infobox instance, infobox zone and more

Infobox update time:

  • {{Infobox zone}} is needs adding to all main zone pages, along with other updates, in the style of Teldrassil. This is mostly complete - Northrend is the main ones left, and others continents need a quick check to make sure they're all done. Useful for checking links - [2]
  • {{Infobox instance}} has been created for all instances, and needs adding to all main instance pages. See Molten Core for usage.
  • {{Patchbox}} needs adding to patch articles from Patch 0.6 to Patch 1.9.4, along with adding {{patches}} and cleaning up the article start. See later patches, such as Patch 1.11, for usage.

There's a fair few more articles to update ... Help out if you wish! More infobox templates can be found in Category:Infobox templates Kirkburn talk contr 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Small update - infobox zone is done, just the other tidying bits are needed on all zones (maps, dungeons, etc). Also, I have given all the stubs a revamp - see Category:Stubs! Kirkburn talk contr 03:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Resistance pages

So, started the conversion on the resistance equipment pages n all. you can see the first example on : Resistance equipment (head). It's a lot.. and i mean "LOT" of work to properly convert all the pages... If anyone is "really" bored and looking for something useful to do.. feel free to help out.  - CJ talk / cont  12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of having it all in one list. I much prefered it split by armor type like it was. I messed with the idea of transcluding pages into customizable lists, so you could see just what you wanted to see. The little bit I messed with is at User:Syzgyn/Resist. I dont know if that much transclusion would slow down the server at all, but if it wasnt a problem, you could have it all branched out in individual pages, then combined back in whatever way you wanted. For example, User:Syzgyn/Resist/Fire/Plate, without any extra work.--Syzgyn 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Style the tables with css per WW:MOS, this method is compatible with other site themes --GRYPHONtc 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Moved to Warcraft Pump under Help! section.

Standardizing the spelling of "Judgment."

I have seen judgment spelled "judgment" and "judgement" on WoWWiki. The correct spelling is "judgment." I know that "judgement" is a (usually frowned upon) variant, but regardless of the way the word is spelled, it should be spelled the same way throughout the site.

I was about to edit some pages to help, but in some cases the page names themselves are misspelled. I am fairly new to Wiki editing, so how does changing URLs (for instance: Judgement of Righteousness ) work?

Great site, though, and thanks for the help and comments

-- Dirkbronze 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You click the Move tab, HOWEVER, in this case it is properly spelled. We use Blizzards names whether they are controversial or not and that is how they spell it. I also see that you have changed the capitalization of the race names, as per policy and previous lengthy discussions, this has been covered. --GRYPHONtc 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
And regardless, both spellings are correct. Please see judgement at dictionary.com. Judgement is typically British, judgment is typically American. One is not a variant of the other. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In a similar vein, Americans usually spell it defenSe whereas the British and Canadians spell it defenCe as well as color vs. colour. This is an English language wiki, so both variations would be acceptable. However, unless there is a controversy, we typically use the American spellings. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:10 PM PDT 17 Sep 2007
Weird. I've never seen 'judgment' (it was actually difficult to type that...), and I'm an American...--Azaram 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Report a problem"

Hi All. Wikia have made a new feature that may be useful to you. It's a link/tab on each article to "report a problem". This leads to a small form that can be used to give information on what's wrong. Admins then have a special page that allows them to mark each as fixed, not a problem, or to flag it for Wikia staff. The idea is to catch all the people that don't know enough about wikis yet to fix things themselves, or how to find admins to help them. At the moment, we get email from people with problems that would much better be addressed by local admins, maybe this will help fix that!

So, this will be enabled shortly and is on Inside Wikia now. Please have a look at it, try it out, and let us know whether it's something you want. The reports page is at Special:ProblemReports and the link/tab is on each article page. If this won't be helpful to you, we can disable it for your wiki. All feedback gratefully received! Thanks -- sannse@Wikia (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor question that doesn't influence anything in particular: Is the text of the message (if you need help... blah blah blah) editable? --Sky (t · c · w) 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds excellent to me! Kirkburn talk contr 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sky, yep, it's a mediwiki message so can be altered by any admin. The version on Inside at the moment is too long I think, something very simple would be better -- sannse@Wikia (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool cool. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking forward to it. Hopefully we can use it in conjunction with WoWWiki:Server requests. I'm assuming these problem reports are for wiki-specific problems and not content problems. We might want to make this distinction more clearly when it gets enabled for WoWWiki. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:58 PM PDT 17 Sep 2007
Personally, to me it seems that it will be used as a content problem reporter, tbh. Different meanings to different people. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cap"?

For some reason, in all of the NPC boxes I've seen so far, next to the image in the box is the word "Cap". What is this? --Joshmaul 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by Raze. My mistake :( Oh btw, all templates of that (wowbox) design now allow a "caption" arguement for the images. Kirkburn talk contr 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace "lvl 70" by "level cap"

In my recent edits, I found quite a lot of references to "level 60" or "lvl 70", where the authors actually meant the level cap. I'm not sure where to put that, but think it would help to have this hint somewhere in the policies - authors, please use "level cap" when that is what you mean, not some absolute number which may be obsolete next year (most probably I'll get now teached where in the guidelines this hint already exists :). --Batox 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace the level number with {{levelcap}}  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know, if the gold-equivalent quest reward values changed, when the level cap changed? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to guess that they did, but no, unless you feel like digging through the archives. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
At 60 the rate was "5 gold per 8000 experience" source. At 70 it appears to be 4.8 gold per 8000 EXP... I'm betting the old number was rounded and they didn't change the rate. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

questions about swtiching main hand and off hand.

-- I want to know how can I make this macro.

first, to judge the main hand or off hand taking a dagger.(Example:main hand holding a dagger and off hand a sword.) then swap main hand with off hand and cast the Sinister Strike.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by S007 (talk · contr).

This is not the right place to ask the question, this is for discussion about the wiki itself - not WoW.  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  09:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Various Casters

Is here any articles, maybe even just sentences about what a sage, heirophant, or hydromancer is in the Warcraft Lore? Mr.X8 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you what they are before. To recap, Sages know things, heirophants are... this, and hydromancers are water mages.--SWM2448 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No articles currently for hierophant, hydromancer, or sage. Maybe you can start them! It would be best if you could cite some sources when you make the articles. Thinking about it, I can start some articles. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:10 AM PDT 18 Sep 2007

Changing the Search Box

Frankly, I hate the google search box and would like to change to the standard wiki search box. I tried inserting the javascript code as specified on WoWWiki:Searching, but when I do that the search box does not terminate (seems to run off the end of the column), there is no "Go" or "Search" button visible, and press enter simply redirects me to Special:Search. Is there a solution to this? Honestly I can't understand why the google search is even the default in the first place. --Divisortheory 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Check User:Gryphon/wowwiki.css and/or User:Gryphon/wowwiki.js. They should have what you need to get rid of the google box.
Personally, I use both, which can be found on my wowwiki.css and js pages. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Google search is the default because internal search was too much of a strain on the server, this is no longer such an issue. My js as linked provides both. --GRYPHONtc 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Minerals, Gems, Jewels, Cut Gems

I hate to bring this up again, but it's still not settled. Or, it unsettled itself spontaneously...

We've currently made a dog's breakfast of the categories of

  • stuff that isn't stone, what you take out of mineral veins ('category 1')
  • stuff you put into sockets ('category 2')
  • Items from category 1 that can be turned into items of category 2 ('category 3')

If memory serves: (please edit this section to correct the history where I've got it wrong)

  • before BC, we only had Gems (category 1), and everyone was happy.
  • when BC came out, we started stuffing the new category 1 and 3 items into 'Gems', and called category 2 'Jewels'.
  • Someone noticed "Blizzard doesn't say 'Jewels'", and category 1 got renamed 'minerals', category 2 got renamed 'gems'.
  • Somehow, we've now ended up again with "Gems" and "Jewels".

I wouldn't have brought this up if not for the templates {{gems}} and {{minerals}} floating around. And the dozen or so pages titled "gems of type XXXX". And most of the Gems page talking about things that are currently in Category:Jewels. And...

Once you look under the carpet, you are forever tainted by the knowledge of the what you found.

I've found at least one person who believes 'Cut Gems' is the correct name for category 2. I'm not convinced, but at least it's a break from the gems/jewels debate. But it's another opinion.

I'd like to see us regain some consensus on this. This really belongs in a pre-vote discussion, but I couldn't decide where to put the vote... --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'Cut Gems' works for me as category 2. I wish Blizzard hadn't confused the gems/jewels naming thing, but we are where we are. We could also consider 'Cuttable Gems' as category 3. Unfortunately category 1 wouldn't strictly be non-cuttable gems, as it includes such oddities as Black Vitriol and Tainted Vitriol.
I think we can all agree the {{gems}} template, which currently lists only cuttable gems, is completely misnamed. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:07 PM 19 Sep 2007
I was thinking that items in category 3 would also be in category 1, regardless of names, given how I defined the categories. Thus no worries there. OTOH, how would items like Pristine Black Diamond be categorized? They're distinctly gem-like, but not a mining product. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "Gems" and "Socketable Gems". Having cuttable gems on the gems page link to the section of socketable gems where their various cuts can be found. --BlameMe→ Mucke ←talkTo 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the thought: "Gems", "Cuttable Gems", "Socketable Gems". I'm reluctant to take this on myself, as I have absolutely no facility with bots. And that's a mightly lot of pages to recategorize. And probably should wait another day or two for more opinions, anyway. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a few of my thoughts. Blizzard doesn't call socket gems jewels in any context, so if we need a more specific category to describe these items, it should be a different form of "gem" not a completely different phrase. The "Jewel" category needs to be replaced with something more descriptive than "Gem" but not radically different, as Jewel is. "Socket Gem" seems to me to be something much more fitting.
The term Jewel isn't mentioned anywhere in the game, so why should we use it in this context? The Jewelcrafting section on the WoW main site guide clearly refers to socket gems as "gems" not "jewels." The auction house search function searches for "gems" and comes up with a list of all these different types of gems that Eirik described above. If the AH system classifies the different types of gems as Red, Blue, Yellow, Purple, Green, Orange, Meta, Simple, and Prismatic. This is a resource for the game, so I believe we should use a system similar to this...the system that is used in the game. It may fit to make an intermediary category for socket gems, which seems to be what we're leaning towards, but "Jewel" in this wiki does need to be done away with. --ShardeeDetheroc 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How about a main page Gems, that shows a quick list of the pre BC gems (pristine black diamond, jade, etc) and a quick list of the jewelcraftable gems (nightseye, star of elune, etc), with links to the in-depth pages such as the current Gem? That page has a box that pretty much is what I was talking about, called 'Socket gems', showing each type of uncut gem by color. So, 'socket gems' as a blanket for cuttable and cut gems used for enhancement of armor and weapons, and maybe... Well, 'crafting gems' is all I can think of for the ones used only as parts of engineering, blacksmithing etc items, but I know that'd be confusing... Maybe 'Component gems'? Ingredient? --Azaram 11:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 1 Arena rewards : delete tag.

The season 1 arena rewards page (http://www.wowwiki.com/Arena_Rewards/Season_1) was delete flagged. I went out on a limb, since It's been almost 2 months and there was neither a delete:talk tag or even a discussion tag, and added a willkeep to the nonexistant discussion page. I cannot, however, find the delete tag in the actual article. Anyone have any insights?

-- Hecuba 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be gone now  - CJ talk / cont  08:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

cant find the color bubbels for chat

need help, i install cosmos and it great but i make a mistake ( i think 0 i can not find anymore the color bubels that allow me to fast change chats maby its become behind the wow screen i dont now . i reinstall cosmos and delete all files of comos and reinstall but it seemnot to work. strange is its only by i character not the res of my character list.

thank for any help

centau -- Centauronix 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Cosmos website - visit http://www.cosmosui.org/ Kirkburn talk contr 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Talkheader

I quickly knocked this up from Wikipedia:Template:Talkheader. It's for use on all talk pages, just add it with {{Talkheader}} as and when you visit talk pages. It can also be used on Use talk pages, with modified text - see User talk:Kirkburn.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WoWWiki:Village pump/Archive19 article.

It could probably do with some more links, but I think it's a good start. Example of use on Talk:World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King. Kirkburn talk contr 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky just brought up {{Analysis}}. That should probably be brought under this template using an extra parameter.