WoWWiki talk:Village pump/Archive21
From WoWWiki
| This is an archive of WoWWiki:Village pump.
|
User friendliness
How can WoWWiki become more (new) user friendly? I'm talking about stuff like:
- Template changes
- MediaWiki text changes (e.g. the green talk page banner when editing)
- Main Page pointers
- Better/simpler guides for new users
Any suggestions are very useful :) Kirkburn talk contr 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- More extensive/comprehensive Help: namespace? Just a thought. --Pcj (T•C) 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uniformity in tables and templates, too. I don't know how many times I've seen several different templates used for the same purpose. --Pcj (T•C) 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Clear page layout and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at and instantly knwos where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates.
- Fix all issues with the wide aray of competeing and inconsistant top and section level template "boxes" and other headers while doing the above (this includes the ToC).
- Remove superfluous and ugly nav boxes and provide navigation through categories with relationship defined naming.
- Move all listing/type articles to where the belong, the category namespace, with redirects when appropriate.
- Add portal articles with respective namespace based on user information access patterns.
- Clean up existing policy articles and refine the rules for the policy process policy.
- New semantically correct main page that reflects these changes.
- I Think that's enough stuff that'll never be done. ;) --
- Well number three isn't happening, except for category renaming. Listing articles do not belong in the category namespace, because they aren't categories. Portals would be cool. How are the article message boxes inconsistent? They were all changed to be consistent. Policy articles have had some work (thanks to Sky), but yes, probably could have more done. Kirkburn talk contr 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- A listing/grouping of types of things isn't a category? Sure whatever you say. ;p
- There are still a few i've noticed that do not match the nice new ones you've made Kirkburn. They're also all competing for the same spot (along with tooltips, info boxes, tocs etc.), looks ugly and is inconsistant in how that get's resolved.. A number of them should also be split to section specific versions instead, a change i tried to champion before i left.
- As to policies, i meant easier to find, with clearer applicable naming, organization of them collectively, then also making being easier to understand and flow well, especially where cross over occurs between them. --
- Yes, an article that lists something is not a category. A category is a specific thing for MediaWikis, and it isn't designed for carrying content - for one, they don't get flagged as articles. Redirects are also to be avoided.
- Article message boxes are supposed to be above all other content, and thus not conflict with anything on either side. I know there's a few things still left over, especially the band-color templates, unfortunately.
- Sky was asking about the names of the policy pages recently - it's a fair comment. Kirkburn talk contr 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like MediaWiki to dictate logic, rather work around it's failings, but if you want to stick to it's limitations, so be it. --
- I don't like MediaWiki to dictate logic, rather work around it's failings, but if you want to stick to it's limitations, so be it. --
- Steering us a bit more back on topic, let's look at Zeal's list a bit (I did a little bit of editing):
- Clear page layout and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at and instantly knows where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates. -Zeal
- This sounds to me like we need new headers. Right now the user has to look at the tooltip or right side box to know what they're looking at.
- We should also maybe put the stubs on a diet. They are consistent, but rather large and blaring. They overwhelm much informative content.
- Make a list of bad templates/boilerplates and we'll discuss improving them on each of their pages and the list can have a summary status of how that's going.
- Fix all issues with the wide array of competing and inconsistent top and section level template "boxes" and other headers while doing the above (this includes the ToC). -Zeal
- Again, make a list of problem top and section boxes. We'll use the same review strategy as mentioned above.
- Remove superfluous and ugly nav boxes and provide navigation through categories with relationship defined naming. -Zeal
- Again, make a list of "superfluous and ugly" nav boxes. We'll use the same review strategy as mentioned above.
- I'm not sure about using categories, though, as discussed above. Nav boxes exist to get around the limitations of categories.
- Move all listing/type articles to where they belong, the category namespace, with redirects when appropriate. -Zeal
- Yup, we need to aggregate listing/type articles, but maybe not the category namespace, as Kirkburn mentions above.
- Once we think of how/where to aggregate them, it should be easy.
- Add portal articles with respective namespace based on user information access patterns. -Zeal
- Good idea, but I'm not sure how we will discover user information access patterns. Maybe Kirkburn knows or can find some better information gathering from the wiki.
- Clean up existing policy articles and refine the rules for the policy process policy. -Zeal
- I'll let Sky and others work on that. I don't want us to get too overloaded with policy and process though.
- Some things we need to resolve in this area, though:
- Fanfic, as has been discussed.
- When to use subcategories vs. main categories.
- What bots should and shouldn't do and how articles they interact with should be tagged.
- More writing policy on things like ability pages, server pages, and user pages.
- Maybe some more naming policy.
- Maybe we should put a policy portal link on the sidebar. It could take the place of Search WoWWiki and that link could move down to "wiki search", since it is basically the same thing and not currently a link.
- New semantically correct main page that reflects these changes. -Zeal
- I'll admit I don't know what this means. So a more detailed explanation would help.
- Clear page layout and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at and instantly knows where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates. -Zeal
- Some other ideas I had:
- Get the Special:Search to show simpler output options:
- List of articles only that have text matches without contents matching summaries below.
- List of articles with text matches to article names only.
- List of articles with text matches to contents only.
- Move Google search down a slot unless we get paid more for it being higher. The wiki search works pretty well now and it's results aren't based on some past scan (or shouldn't be).
- To reiterate, we really need a comprehensive redo of our help pages. They really are a mess.
- Make the rework part of the new projects process and do a much better job of promoting and organizing the projects. Repeatedly promoting the projects in the Village pump might be good if it doesn't get to annoying.
- Archive Village pump and Warcraft pump more often. Don't archive questions that haven't been answered.
- Get the Special:Search to show simpler output options:
- Okay I'll stop now. --
Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:11 PM PST 2 Dec 2007
- What i meant with my last point about the main page, was that it should should reflect the following:
- Portals becoming main access points for users, which means removal of the existing list of article links at the top of the page.
- Top level categories listed to provide navigation entry points seperate from the more busy and limited scope portals.
- A shift to ensuring sementically correct markup thoughout the wiki. Specifically that means no more tables, make use of list elements and create a float based layout for good degradation for all resolutions.
- The design would also use a consistant scheme for it's varies areas (icons, colours, content styling) so they carry across to each namespace/article type and don't make the user feel they've ever stumbled off their intended path. This would ofc mean a greater tie in and consistancy with template design. (I haven't touched it in a while now, and have no idea how much it reflects to this anymore, butUser:Zeal/Sandbox/Main_Page was a pretty basic attempt at this.
- --
- Clear page layout... Hmm?
- ...and headers so the user can see what recogize what type of article/namespace he/she is looking at... Headers? As in, those items which I've seen on your sandbox pages, or actual == headers? If the former, that's only adding unneccessary styling and complication to the wiki. We already have the pagename in big fat letters at the top, so this shouldn't be an issue.
- ...and instantly knwos where to look for the information they need. Implement via better templates/boilerplates. This is an issue of having a lot of pages on the wiki. We've been moving toward standardizing pages through the use of boilerplates, but if people aren't going to aid in boilerplating, we can't do much. I must say, mass templating won't really help either, but then, there have been efforts in this also. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fix all issues with the wide aray of competeing and inconsistant top and section level template "boxes" and other headers while doing the above (this includes the ToC). Me too. I would presume you're talking about boss and instance pages more than anything. Inconsistency, I can live with, more because the items can be used to identify what kind of page one is looking at. But when there's more than one box at the top of a page, that just doesn't work. As for the ToC, we've been moving away from the use of tocright (which, imo, is the main culprit) when the page already has at least one box on the right, but there are lingering pages that need it removed. Though, I would request clarification on that statement, incase I misinterpreted. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fanfic, as has been discussed. Discussing. ;) [The help pages] really are a mess. You mean, a non-existant mess? ;P. Maybe some more naming policy. Specify. Move Google search down. Agreed.
- When to use subcategories vs. main categories. Subcategories are always preferred over main categories, as subcats link to the main categories anyway; what exactly are you referencing?
- What bots should and shouldn't do and how articles they interact with should be tagged. Foxbot = love (well, sorta. I have my issues with it, but they can't be fixed). Laurlybot = hate. The subpages, are, quite frankly, unneeded, as the pages will be re-updated by bot again; Laurly's said it's possible to code for the bot to change the main page parts that need changing as opposed to the subpage, and overwriting the tables is going to happen anyway, whether manually or automatically, so why aren't we having Laurlybot just doing main pages? I'd like to link to WW:ITEMS, as that shows that the community would rather have all the informatio on one page than on subpages. I personally don't understand how we went from what's there to what Laurlybot is doing now. The policy doesn't regard npc pages, but it does leave comment on how we should be dealing with mainpages.
- More writing policy on things like ability pages, server pages, and user pages. I don't know that ability pages need policy, as we have a boilerplate. But there probably should be something on server pages. As for user pages, anything goes. The only thing which is explicitly disallowed on user pages is WW:DNP.
- Maybe we should put a policy portal link on the sidebar. I agree with the thought. Policy should be linked prominently (somewhere) if it isn't already.
- Get the Special:Search to show simpler output options. That might be an inhibition of the engine, though good ideas.
- Make the rework part of the new projects process and do a much better job of promoting and organizing the projects. Sure, but if you haven't noticed, the people who contribute... contribute. And then there are the people who don't. So the issue here is general community involvement, rather than telling people that already know about the projects again to participate.
- Archive Village pump and Warcraft pump more often. Hmm... I'd disagree. But not a biggy. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- What i meant with my last point about the main page, was that it should should reflect the following:
Zeal, tables are the semantically correct method for showing data. Kirkburn talk contr 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Repeat what i said in IRC. Tabular data, certainly. Lists, layout, non-tabular data, headers, messages, certainly not! And they all exist on the wiki in various forms.
- Sky, your replies are painfully hard to read, don't know what is and isn't a quote and what parts were directed to me :S But i'll see if i can comprehend it.
- Yes, the former. Wouldn't have to be the same as i preposed before, but that's the general idea. It's not unneccessary styling (hell it originally came about to fix a big flaw in the monobook skin which still exists both here and on wikipedia) and they're not complicated, in fact they simplify and solve the problems with all the complicated variations of headers which current exist and get placed before the content.
- The reason there is no standardized pages is sadly because there is no standards across the boilerplates themselves, they all vary too much and the onyl thing consistant between them is that they look bare and like any other article (as you said, only item pages are currently recognizable because {{tooltip}} and it's location on the page).
- You interpreted it fine. I actually hate the ToC period because you have no styling or formatting control over it and it really just gets creates problems rather than being helpful to navigating the article. Only solutions i can think to have the helpfulness of a ToC without the issues it causes is if the toc was a navigation drop down or it was located outside the article's bounds (above it horizontally or in sidebar vertically) It's more a failing of the mediawiki base of how the page is layed out (article and user links, side bar, content, footer). It's a bit of a mess.
- Think that's the end of my points :S --
- My 2cp:
- Help Articles and Policies: (I'm bunching these because I consider them integral to each other) This is something I'm willing to work on after I move.
- I think we need to reinvigorate the Help Team, though. It appears that no one is left from it to do the work and maintenance that should be done. I'm not volunteering for this, however, as I'm not sure I'll have the time. If I do, you'll be sure to hear from me. :P
- More to come! I can't process this craziness all at the same time!
- --DuTempete talk|contr 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox should be linked in the navi bar for the convenience of newbies. -SpoiltCheese 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Loot links
Sometimes it can get a little hard to get the desired result, which means a lot of work for a little return. For example, let's say I want to show something simple like Sweet Nectar with an icon to boot. At the moment, to get it to display
[Sweet Nectar], we need [[Image:INV_Drink_12.png|20px|Sweet Nectar]] {{loot|Common|Sweet Nectar}} which involves a little research since we need to know (a) the icon image and (b) it's rarity status (ok, common's easy but it could've been poor, uncommon etc). Now, to me, an easier way to do this would be to have {{Sweet Nectar}} - much easier to remember and implement. Start small and all that. 
- That idea isn't very practical. {{:Sweet Nectar}} currently renders the tooltip. --Pcj (T•C) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to mention the fact that items are not supposed to be linked with an icon like that, as was decided when i was writing {{loot}}. What you're after is a loot table/vendor display type template, which i had been writing before i left but never finished. It seems that's the same direction {{item}} is going in, though poorly imo. The reason why mine never went anywhere, and why no future version will take off? Because everyone other than me (seemingly at the time) thought in such cases, the tooltip should be included instead (though this was prior to adding mouse over tooltips to negate that). Hence why no such linking template as you've described exists. --
- Not to mention the fact that items are not supposed to be linked with an icon like that, as was decided when i was writing {{loot}}. What you're after is a loot table/vendor display type template, which i had been writing before i left but never finished. It seems that's the same direction {{item}} is going in, though poorly imo. The reason why mine never went anywhere, and why no future version will take off? Because everyone other than me (seemingly at the time) thought in such cases, the tooltip should be included instead (though this was prior to adding mouse over tooltips to negate that). Hence why no such linking template as you've described exists. --
- The way item pages currently work doesn't allow you to get anything other than the full tooltip out of them, hence {{loot}} et. al. requiring you to pass on additional information which should already be discoverable once you provide the item name. This can (and probably should) be rectified in the future, but, for now, you'll have the choice of either using loot or arcane image syntax. -- Starlightblunder 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- As a follow up, check out {{item}} (name pending) for easy icon embedding:
[Lieutenant Commander's Crown]. --Starlightblunder 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- As a follow up, check out {{item}} (name pending) for easy icon embedding:
- Perfect, that's exactly what I'm looking for.
{{item|Sweet Nectar|icon=}}generates exactly what I was looking for,
[Sweet Nectar], without the need to research the colour or icon. More like this would be great. I may tend to use this one instead of loot, as with loot one has to get the quality to get {{loot|common|Sweet Nectar}}gets me [Sweet Nectar] whereas item{{item|Sweet Nectar}}doesn't need the entry quality to get the same result [Sweet Nectar].
- Perfect, that's exactly what I'm looking for.
- Just don't go overboard with it, because the way in which it works, it can very easily break the page you're using it on the more of them you add.--
- Just don't go overboard with it, because the way in which it works, it can very easily break the page you're using it on the more of them you add.--
Search Engine
Just a question to satiate my curiosity- Why is it that when I create a new page, it cannot be found using the Google search engine? For example, I recently created Gharsul the Remorseless, but when I use the search engine, there are no results for that exact query. Is there a large waiting period or something? I find it odd that when I create a page to try and aid players and users, there is no easy way for them to come across this page and to benefit from it. Maybe I've missed some nifty trick- After all, I'm very new to wiki sites. Any response would be splendid. Kallnohae 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Google search engine doesn't update immediately when pages are updated. Google has to crawl the site before those pages show. The built-in search engine does update immediately, however. --Pcj (T•C) 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The built-in search, of course, can be found at Special:Search or by clicking "Search WoWWiki" in the navigation sidebar. // DarkRyder /
/ 
// 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The built-in search, of course, can be found at Special:Search or by clicking "Search WoWWiki" in the navigation sidebar. // DarkRyder /
- Just wondering...Is there an estimated amount of time it takes for the google search to be able to find it? Coobra 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Realm Boilerplate
I am considering getting to work on a Realm (Server) boilerplate so that the Realm pages can start to look somewhat alike, or at least have vague similarities. If there is anyone who wishes to criticize, aid in or speculate upon this idea, please let me know :) -- Kasyx 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- After looking into it a bit, I have come to the startling conclusion that I have absolutely no idea where to even start in terms of creating a new boilerplate. Anyone with the experience/knowledge to give me some pointers or help me out with it would be much appreciated ;) -- Kasyx 12:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we seem to have adopted the slightly inaccurate Server: namespace instead of Realm:.
- Well, you could review Help:Starting a new page and WoWWiki:Boilerplates to see how other boilerplates are done. I sort of like the format of having something like a Help:Server articles page (like Help:Mob articles) that gives instructions to use a Help:Server articles/Preload page (which contains the actual server boilerplate).
- You should also look at the various server-related templates also and maybe use them in your boilerplate: {{Realm}}, {{Server Nav}}, {{Server}}, {{Server EU}}, {{Server US}}, {{Battlegroup}}, guild list templates ({{Guild list ally}}, {{Guild list horde}}, {{Guild list}}, {{Guild list foot}})
- Hopefully that's enough info to get you started. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:20 PM PST 23 Nov 2007
- I do not intend for this to be the be-all and end-all of Realm articles, but rather merely a guideline so that the base information on the realm is there. Thereafter, people can add to it as they see fit. Making a boilerplate for realm articles doesn't impose boundaries on realm articles, but rather gives them a solid foundation. -- Kasyx 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Kasyx, if you feel nervous about throwing up a new page, you can always start with Help:Server articles/Preload and make Help:Server articles later when you think its ready for prime time. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:28 PM PST 23 Nov 2007
- Exactly. Kasyx, if you feel nervous about throwing up a new page, you can always start with Help:Server articles/Preload and make Help:Server articles later when you think its ready for prime time. --
The two largest sections of most realm articles seem to be guild progression and rare craftables. Creating a standard layout for those would be a good place to start. We should probably discuss making those two subpages as some articles become overly long. --Tyrsenus t c 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tyrsenus, please continue your comments on the latest section of the Village pump. I moved the one above to there already. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:48 AM PST 10 Jan 2008
Fanfic namespace
I do believe we need a namespace for fan fiction, especially given the talk on Talk:Great Sea expansion pack ideas#Fanfic is a no-no, and I can request it fairly simply.
However, do others agree, and if so, what should it be called? Kirkburn talk contr 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fanfic:
- Fiction:
- Fan Fiction:
- Sounds good, but there should be still some sort of content filter. --Pcj (T•C) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just some sort of ground rules about what's acceptable. I don't particularly want to see WoWWiki to become a repository of any old slash fiction or otherwise low-quality work, however Warcraft-related it may be. And, of course, general parameters of what exactly constitutes fan fiction. --Pcj (T•C) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It also states that those who wish to surrender control of their works to the wiki can leave it in the main namespace, which is how it is done currently. PA supports both sides in this way. :) --Sky (talk | con | wh) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- A separate namespace then helps to distinguish factual articles from fiction. --Pcj (T•C) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- yes, I agree it sounds like a good idea, as long as we have certain standards.Baggins 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- As i said in IRC depending on how you you intend to use the namespace, it may need some new rules put in place. How many depends on the usage too.
- So here's a few things to consider:
- If you keep fan fiction limited to a single author, then the namespace isn't needed, as it's easier to manage in the userspace alone.
- If you go ahead with the namespace then the naming policy should prevent people from choosing generic names and actually choose an appropriate title (eg. Fanfic:Pandaren vs Fanfic:A Story About a Pandaren) so that there is no arguments over common Wow terms.
- If you go with the multiple authors (which to me is the only reason i can see why anyone would want to write a fanfic on WW and the only reason a namespace would be needed), who controls the fanfic? Is it released to the public for anyone to edit as is the standard for a wiki and thus "policing" the articles is done by the wikians (which is going to require awhole new rule set written up)? Or alternatively do you allow the author/authors to retain ownership and control and thus "police" their own articles and can be left to their own devices?
- I personally don't believe the namespace is needed, but if you want to support multiple authors, then let them retain ownership, otherwise you're walking into a minefield with regulating the namespace. --
- All content submitted to WoWWiki is released under the GNU FDL. WW:PA isn't so much about ownership as attribution. Since a wiki is essentially editable by anyone, it makes sense to allow an area for multiple people to contribute (and keep the speculation out of the main namespace). --Pcj (T•C) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to note that, as Sky mentioned, as long as it is okay with the user who's name it is under, a page CAN be edited by other users. So I really don't see any need for a seperate namespace, except that the user whose name the article is under would have ultimate control of the article. This could be a problem for controversial articles such as the expansion ideas. -Jiyambi t || c 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tbh, expansion ideas needs cleanup more than anything, which is the page that sparked this. It should be maintained like race ideas is, with lore to support the next expansion, rather than just ideas about races to go with each expansion. What is there in WoW that we don't have a complete understanding yet?
And I'd like to mention Airiph and X8. They've taken wonderfully to the idea of collaboration, and yet the pages are on one or the other's pages. Such collaboration is still possible with the User namespace. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tbh, expansion ideas needs cleanup more than anything, which is the page that sparked this. It should be maintained like race ideas is, with lore to support the next expansion, rather than just ideas about races to go with each expansion. What is there in WoW that we don't have a complete understanding yet?
- I would like to note that, as Sky mentioned, as long as it is okay with the user who's name it is under, a page CAN be edited by other users. So I really don't see any need for a seperate namespace, except that the user whose name the article is under would have ultimate control of the article. This could be a problem for controversial articles such as the expansion ideas. -Jiyambi t || c 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like people are generally in agreement that a fan fiction namespace is a good idea, but needs some rules to keep it under control. Does anyone want to make up a rule page proposal and put it on WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing/FanFiction?
-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:54 PM PST 29 Nov 2007
- It sounds like people are generally in agreement that a fan fiction namespace is a good idea, but needs some rules to keep it under control. Does anyone want to make up a rule page proposal and put it on WoWWiki talk:Policy/Writing/FanFiction?
- I made a Rough draft. What 'Airiph and X8' are doing somewhat makes this, unneeded unless stories go out of just being written by small groups. This will work for idea pages though. Read what I wrote.--SWM2448 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hold your horses! I'd would like to see opposition to the points I and Jiyambi bring up. And Zeal, now that I've reread what he wrote. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 07:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Requesting further input from me? Sure you want to do that? ;) Lol.
- The collaboration could be done in the userspace as is being done now, sure. Right now, afaik, that is a case of the authors retaining ownership and control and avoids any naming policy issues too, which is probably why it's working fine. But, i feel they're harder to track in the userspace. If that's a good or a bad thing is really up to how much limelight you intend to give fanfics on what is really an information wiki (for which i'm still unsure as to what the general consensus is).
- If you want to give them as much focus as the rest of the articles on the wiki, then give them a namespace. But i strongly believe the safest and easiest root for all is to let authors retain ownership and manage their own articles and only use a naming policy specific to the namespace as i suggested (might even want to extend that to enforcing the use of sub articles and breadcrumbs for over arcing story lines / chapters). Otherwise Imo there'll be far too much argument over the content of articles in the namespace to reasonably handle.
- Also worth considering is what constitutes as fan fiction appropriate for WW. You might need to lay down some rules to ensure the basis of the stories maintain their roots in Warcraft (ie. Everything that gets added needs a reasonable back story and stay in keeping with the Warcraft universe. So that means no adding traditional Vampires, Werewolves and spacecraft etc.). Depending how far you go with that, you could also say something like "No introduction of new races or planets", as they surely exist, but there is nothing to base them on in Warcraft and what an author could create thus has nothing to do with Warcraft anymore.
- One last thing to mention, there's no need to talk about the article that spawned this here, as it's been decided that it will be reverted back to it's speculation only existance. A new fanfiction one could exist, but it shouldn't follow the same naming policy to avoid any issues. --
I would like to propose the 'idea' section of what I wrote be used to clean up articles like the Great Sea one...--SWM2448 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether you decide on a fanfic namespace or keep things in user pages, a page where fanfic authors can show off and talk about their creativity works just the same. If you make it attractive to writers, it's a great way to get good writers to come to the wiki, thereby increasing the quality of the content if they decide to participate. Think of a page full of snippets or synopses of the latest fan-fiction added to the site (or simply linked from another site) and a pump-style discussion page. Communities can spring out of that alone without creating a fanfiction namespace. Others could post full reviews as well (the organization of which I won't even bother going into).
P.S. Nice to see you guys, btw. // Montagg (talk · contr)
- Here's some comments (hi Montag!):
- Keeping fanfic restricted to one author is a nice idea, but not feasible outside a user's subpages. This breaks the spirit of wiki tremendously and I don't bring that up very often.
- Discoverability in user's subpage is non-optimal. Right now the fanfic category is just a huge unsorted mess.
- Although you can edit other people's user pages by strict definition, there is an unspoken understanding that editing other people's user pages is usually restricted primarily to talk pages. Most other edits are usually only to correct obvious mistakes (bad links, mis-use of paramters in templates, etc.) and by explicit request of the user.
- Great Sea expansion pack ideas is a great example of something that cries out for a Fanfic: or Speculation: namespace. It is a shared work and so can't really go in a user page, but should not really be in the main namespace.
- The fanfic policy already has provisions for keeping fanfic Warcraft based.
- As Baggins as stated in other places, a fanfic tag sometimes is not enough to prevent confusion with genuine lore.
- Anyway those are the related things I could think of off the top of my head. I will try to give this topic more deep consideration over the weekend. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:15 PM PST 30 Nov 2007
External links style consistancy
Currently the external links style is inconsistent, Links formed with [http://link.com linkie] have the darker blue colour plus the external link icon, while links formed with [[w:stuff]] or [[wikipedia:stuff]] only have the slightly darkened text. Not a huge issue but it makes it a pain to pick out all external links at a glance is inconsistant. -- Kaso 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's intentional. Varying degrees of external-ness. Kirkburn talk contr 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm seeing the first as unvisted colour, the rest are all visited colour (but they're not visited) so i'd imagine the css styling is wrong for external unvisted links (cba to look). As to the lack of external image icon, it would be nice to have specific to each type (so a little wp globe and a yellow wikia "w" for those). --
Defend WOW!
Hi, I am doing an ethnographic study of WOW, and am having a hard time getting direct feedback from real players. I know people bash WOW and WOW players, but my hypothesis is that this sort of online gaming is a replacement for social institutions which are no longer popular (scouts, elks lodge, stamp clubs, church...)
Anyway, this is your chance to let me know why you think WOW is a good thing, and I will put it all in my study. Let me know what it means to you, how you play, memorable moments, etc., etc.
Post it here, or email to:
worldofwarcraftsurvey@gmail.com
Thanks -- Friendo 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do indeed think that WoW and other MMOGs are definitely a replacement for those sort of activities, however it does need to be taken in moderation. The reason WoW has such a bad name amongst some is due to its "addictiveness". People get addicted to alcohol but you don't see the rest of the world refusing to drink it just in case. WoW is an excellent game and is, in a way, revolutionary, however I feel that the negative stigma surrounding it is more the fault of those die-hard ignoring-family-and-personal-wellbeing-in-order-to-play fans than anything else. -- Kasyx 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Science has shown that some people are simply more prone to addiction than others, due to their chemical balance. This is true of smoking, drinking, gambling... and playing WoW. And actually it's been postulated that gambling and playing WoW have a lot in common: long stretches between "wins" which trigger a sense of euphoria - in gambling, winning money; in WoW, leveling or getting new gear or somesuch - that quickly fades, leaving the gambler/player to obsessively keep going for another win. Even if that is detrimental. It's a sad fact. The vast majority of players, however, use WoW as a constructive social tool and play in moderation. Just like how some people can drink socially without being alcoholics, or can go to Atlantic City for a weekend without blowing their life savings. Hekirou 11:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- WoW replaced being in a bowling league for me and my husband. Much cheaper (especially when you compare cost per hour of entertainment). TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 11:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Although the idea is laudable, it would be nice to have a few more details on the background of the study. We live in a cruel world and this could just be an attempt to collect e-mail addresses from WoWWikians. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:33 PM PST 28 Nov 2007
- Although the idea is laudable, it would be nice to have a few more details on the background of the study. We live in a cruel world and this could just be an attempt to collect e-mail addresses from WoWWikians. --
- I think WoW is addictive to some people because it allows them to do things they never could in real life. I'm not just talking about the fantasy and gaming aspect here - yes its true to watch your character kick monster butt, but really I think the appeal is primarily social. In WoW you can gain special and rare items and high levels and others will look at your character and think, "wow, he's cool!" People with low self esteem or those who have a need for an ego boost find this incredibly addicting. Unfortunately, the game world becomes more important to these people than the real world, and they can loose touch with reality.
- As long as players keep their priorities straight, WoW can be a fun place to spend a few hours and a way to make new friends. People just need to remember their real friends and real life, and that WoW is only a game. --Jiyambi t || c 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Me and my wife both play WOW with a group of people that we met back when Earth and Beyond came out. Not only is it a very cheap form of entertainment, we also enjoy the company of friends we have made through online MMORPG games. This social form of gameplay has replaced the time I would usually spend doing other useless activities, such as watching TV, reading books, etc. Davidstillson 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Howdy!
Is there anything I can do? I'm fairly bored. -- Treener 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you want WoWWiki:Community portal :) Kirkburn talk contr 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
With the village pump now archived, this looks a lot better, Thankyou Coobra 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
WoWWiki slow as heck
Uhh. Why is wowwiki running like it's on a 386 with 64MB of ram? Is ther enot enough hardware? What can be done? How can I help?
-- Bane 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- was running just fine yesterday, seems to only be slow today Coobra 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. I see the title come up right away, meaning the connection is made and some data is downloading. The slowness is waiting for the server to generate the page, indicating the we server itself, or the DB backend being queried for data. Bane 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There were server issues yesterday - don't worry, as soon as this kind of trouble starts, be assured there are techs working on it :) Kirkburn talk contr 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, my comment about DNS issues turned out to be on my side. I added some more DNS servers (thank you, OpenDNS) and it seems to be more reliable. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:34 AM PST 30 Nov 2007
Edit summaries
I just added a little bit of code from Wookiepedia that gives you standard edit summaries. Unfortunately due to server problems I can't access the site to look up more about it (currently I'm also seeing it above the headline box as I make a new section for some reason). Apart from that, look good to others? You may need to force-reload. Kirkburn talk contr 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update: the header thing can't be changed, but could probably be used to our advantage anyway. Kirkburn talk contr 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Broken tooltip in loot
Can anyone figure out why the tooltip doesn't work for [The Twin Blades of Azzinoth]? --
Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:21 PM PST 1 Dec 2007
- The script takes the tooltip from the page located at the displayed text, not the actual page. [The Twin Blades of Azzinoth (GM)] should work.
- And it doesn't... :| --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Mob Drops
Moved from Mob Drops in Warcraft pump. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr)
When going about updating the mob information pages, one thing I've noticed is the differences in styles to present the same information, and realised the better ones are much harder to keep up to date and to update.
The list I like the best is that found through the automated process, Bloodpetal Flayer for example being
{{:Bloodpetal Flayer/NPCs_Drops}}
However, updating that list is exceptionally problematic. So, my question, now directed at those with the knowhow is to maybe have a template that is easier to update. Maybe to have a key at the beginning, like {{drop and to then list each item dropped, and allow that to bring in the level, type, icon etc. The only thing this doesn't resolve is the drop chances, but unless you rely on other sites such as Thottbot, would we be able to give a definative percentage?
So, is something like that possible?
-- Sanderdolphin 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Lets take a look at the row template usage, since that's where the problems mostly occur:
- {{:Template:NPC drops row |item=[[Image:INV_Misc_Dust_02.png|20px|Un'Goro Soil]] {{loot|Common|Un'Goro Soil}}|level=1|type=[[Junk]]|droprate=25.72%}}
- Analysis:
- Well you can change {{:Template to just {{, so that would save some space at least.
- Parameters can be in any order if they have names so maybe reorder it to:
- {{NPC drops row|droprate=25.72%|type=[[Junk]]|item=[[Image:INV_Misc_Dust_02.png|20px|Un'Goro Soil]] {{loot|Common|Un'Goro Soil}}|level=1}}
- A problem is the manually entered mini-icon. Seems like a pain to look that up for every item. In the least the template could be changed to take a new icon= parameter like other templates and just require the image name without the [[Image: and .png so the line would look more like:
- {{NPC drops row|droprate=25.72%|type=[[Junk]]|item= Un'Goro Soil|quality=Common|icon=INV_Misc_Dust_02|level=1}}
- That's about the most I can think of at the moment. I may try to make the changes, if I get up the initiative.
- However, to answer the question of looking up item info from an article, I don't think WoWWiki can handle that currently. It might be possible with some fancy javascript.-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:48 PM PST 1 Dec 2007
- It can look up via good use of categories, but no one wants to do that ;) --
- It can look up via good use of categories, but no one wants to do that ;) --
- They're designed to be updated by bot, User:Laurlybot in fact. Kirkburn talk contr 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Laurlybot created the tables, and uses Wowhead to reference drop rates. According to User talk:Laurlybot#botting, still, Laurly intends to update them once a month or so. So you shouldn't have to worry about it. --DuTempete talk|contr 14:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Does Laurlybot only update the drop tables? How does it know what mobs to update? Any drop tables updated by the bot should probably have some kind of tag in the article that warns about this. --