Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
Advertisement

Template:WoWWiki:Village pump/Please leave this line as it is thanks

Current Discussions


WoWWiki moving to Wikia!

Howdy folks.. Over the past few months, I've been thinking a lot about how to keep up with the needs of the WoWWiki community. I'm really proud of how WoWWiki has grown into a valuable resource for all World of Warcraft players, and want to make sure that it can continue to grow. As you've seen, I've had trouble keeping up with server issues, problems, and getting the upgrades and extensions that are needed to make WoWWiki better.

I've looked at a few options on how to solve this over the last month. When Jimmy Wales and Gil Penchina offered to let us move the wiki to Wikia, this seemed like a natural fit and I accepted. These guys have a record of treating communities well and running a great service, and I'm going to stay involved to help make sure that they deliver what our community needs.

Some of the benefits that WoWWiki will receive by moving to Wikia:

  • More servers and more uptime (and no 10 min template edits!)
  • Solid backups and multiple colos
  • Increased number of extensions so we can do more interesting stuff
  • Other gamer communities that we can share with
  • Last, but not least, Gil has said that Wikia wants to experiment with removing the pesky gold ads, and (hopefully!) remove them permanently if it works out.

Practically, what this means is that the site will continue to operate as is for the next few weeks. I'll complete the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.9 (was going to be tonight, will be tomorrow!), then in another few weeks, we'll migrate everything to MediaWiki 1.10 and move the content to new servers. From there, we'll be able to start feeling the benefits listed above.

I'm pretty happy with this match, and I hope that you're all as excited as I am about working with Wikia on WoWWiki!

--Rustak 03:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Just so long as the domain name doesn't change. Smiley --User:Sky2042/Sig 03:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
As per IRC chat, I've got an idea to toss out there. If Wikia is willing, I think splitting the wiki up into 2 or 3 seperate wikis might be a good idea. Put lore and in-game stuff (item pages, NPCs, zones) in one, servers and guilds in another, and API/hosted addon pages in another. Wowace might be willing to move over their API to the new wiki, I'm gonna toss the idea at them. These could be combined in namespaces, but if Wikia is willing it would probably be cleaner to seperate them out a bit. User:Tekkub/Sig 04:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Personally I don't see the point of so much separation at all. I know I used to tout a new "API" (or something) namespace but I've thought twice about that. I mean... wikipedia manages to put the whole world in one namespace. Mikk (T) 06:26, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, everything... except the mediawiki documentation, wiktionary, news, species, commons, quotes, library, learning materials, and textbooxs and manuals. I know it can all be done under one wiki, but why not split up for the general cleanliness of it all? the main wiki is akin to wikipedia in that it's a factual source of info on the game world, API/addons wiki would be akin to meta or the commons, and server/guild wiki would be it's own little community site. Get some proper intra-wiki links in each and it would feel like a single seamless wiki. User:Tekkub/Sig 17:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Mikk. I don't see the reason for splitting up the wiki. Having everything in one place concerning WoW has its advantages, too. No matter what u want to know, simply go to www.wowwiki.com and there it is. Beside, what would you gain from splitting the wiki into separate ones? I can't think of any, I'd like to have.--Luke1410 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
This is just a knee-jerk reaction, but... Wow, what a bad idea. I mean, obviously, I see the upsides. But there still has something to be said about running your own ship. None of the wikia sites I've seen look sexy. And we'd be under the rulership of some... Company. What if they go weird on us? And will we keep the domain name? It's invaluable. // This kinda announcement kinda makes me want to look into fork-wiki-ing again... No, sir, I don't like it.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 07:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
My slow computer is stuck processing something so I can't sign on to IRC right now. But... I'm still very, very suspicious of this. I don't trust it, at all. And yet I'm having a very difficult time finding any negative press about Wikia. Emot-argh--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Please dont go white... User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm :/ --GRYPHONtc 09:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't be any white-going; there are various Wikia wikis that aren't white (and some that are incredibly purple, even). The domain name will stay the same for the foreseeable future, though it will probably be accessible from both a wikia domain and wowwiki.com at some point. I'm not worried about them going "weird" on the community; they know how to work with wiki communities (after all, that's their business!), so I'm sure that they'll be a benefit. See how it goes for the next few months :) -- Rustak 13:39, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Will WoWWiki remain primarily under the GNU Free Documentation License? If so, and you retain ownership of the WoWWiki name (trademark) and the wowwiki.com DNS domain (where the domain points to does not depend on ownership, it can point to any server the domain owner wants), then I don't think we have anything to fear from Wikia. Make sure that you keep a regularly updated complete copy of the underlying data, then you can easily move the wiki to another host, should things change for the worse with Wikia (eg, if Wikia, Inc was to fall into the hands of someone who wants to exploit or change it to its detriment - hopefully unlikely, but better safe than sorry). I've had a quick look at the Wikia site, and it certainly does appear to me that they support the GFDL, are good guys, etc, just be careful what you sign or transfer to them... So, assuming this is a good thing, grats!!! :-) --Murph 16:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep, the content will remain under the GFDL, and the site should remain wowwiki.com. The GFDL is pretty core to what they do, so I don't think there's anythung to worry about on that front. --Rustak

Well, firstly, awesome. Secondly, more shades of awesome. Jimbo Wales and Gil are incredibly well-respected people in the wiki community (Jimbo founded wikipedia, for example). Regarding separation, I reckon it would be very sensible to have all UI stuff in a ui. subdomain, and everything else in the normal domain. There's little need to split up lots of little things, it'll be too complicated. Hobinheim, there's no need to worry :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 09:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. I don't see any downside to moving to Wikia, but I'm not so sure about separating everything. Putting the UI stuff by itself makes sense, but the rest should stay together. --Amro 09:39, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
It appears that the average users won't even feel the change, right? Just a cleaner and faster wiki? Looks will barely change? If that's true, then hey, I'm up for it, AS LONG as you have enough precautions. don't want them to go wild on us... // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 09:19, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep, there should be very little change to the wiki users. Btw, Patrigan, do put your sig into a template :) --Rustak

existing content

I just fear we'll need a lot more spam protection, and such.. User:CrazyJack/Sig 09:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I was just looking at Wikia earlier today and wondering if it wouldn't be better to combine the two communities; you see, there is already a WoW Wikia, several actually: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/World_of_Warcraft What will happen to the English one that already occupies the worldofwarcraft.wikia.com namespace (or the German one that occupies wow.wikia.com)? Has anyone given any thought about how to merge these two communities? It seems to me that there shouldn't need to be two same-language wikis on the same network about the same topic. Asciident 05:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
That would be a question better put to the Wikia guys, as I really can't say atm. I have to say, I think it's pretty likely this wiki will supercede the other - but I certainly wouldn't wish to destroy that community. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 06:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
You're right, but I haven't yet found a good place or way to ask the Wikia guys about it. Asciident 22:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
We're talking to them about it, don't worry :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
As long as the domain is the same and nothing else is changed besides the host, then that's cool ^^ User:Meko/Sig 03:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Move wowwiki, then integrate whatever they already have. and take over their domain i suppose. It doesnt look like they have a great lot there currently,, so it's probably redundant information that we "already" have. User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to note that worldofwarcraft.wikia.com has approximately 70 pages of content, links to powerleveling services on the main page, and has google's WoW-Gold ads in their ad box. The content can certainly be mergable if we don't already have it. The powerleveling links would have to go (they may not want to get rid of them). The gold-ads are a matter for concern, since part of the point of moving would be to get rid of those ads... --Bobson 14:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I think we'll talk to those guys and merge in any content that's not present on wowwiki. The powerlevelling links would go as well. They have google adsense ads, just as wowwiki, and most people who advertise for wow-related keywords are gold sellers. This is why it's kind of like playing whack-a-mole with the ads, as long as google adsense is still in play -- like I said, Wikia wants to explore alternatives, but that'll take some time. --Rustak
Tbh, I wouldn't even bother with them if they happen to do annoying. you know, even if they want to attempt to fight our concurrention, they'll be slaughtered and vanish in the shadows ^^ // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 15:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Upgrade to 1.9.3 Complete

I've just finished off the upgrade to MW 1.9.3, as well as installed the ParserFunctions extension. I didn't install CheckUser, since the latest version requires 1.10 and it requires database modifications... the db is under heavy enough load as it is, though that will be fixed soon. Same goes for site CSS -- I'll take a look at that shortly. Let me know if you run into any problems! --Rustak 04:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

We <4 you. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
It was longer-due than me hitting 60 (still havn't hit 70...) All I can say is, DING! Fries are done! User:Tekkub/Sig 04:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Nub lvl up faster (Btw. 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0)  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  04:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I am getting a javascript error on every page. I am using IE6 as I write this. The site seems to be working fine anyway though. User:Kitan/Sig 09:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Yup, wgBreakFrames not defined, this is in FF and IE7 as well. --GRYPHONtc 12:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I can't hold in the excitement! I love it! Thank you so much! But ahh yes back to practical matters... The edit links for every heading have changed. The CSS used to move that over to the side needs to be updated. Do I smell CSS access? Oh and boo I don't see the wiki code bar anymore...--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Refresh your cache if the [edit] links are on the left, Ctrl+F5 :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 12:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Yea, the CSS got updated and Firefox had it cached for me. Ctrl+F5 worked like a charm. (Edit: I also do not see the code bar anymore.) --User:Tecnobrat/Sig 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)


What's changed?

Add what you've noticed has changed below! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Undo links on most revisions (will undo only that revision's change) - anyone can now rollback. Please do not abuse this. More info here - [1]
  • Watchlist and RC list byte changes listed for post-upgrade changes.
  • Addition of ParserFunctions.
  • Auto-block functions of the ban list were upgraded (it now blocks new IPs of the same user much more reliably)
  • Allow minor edits by bots to skip new message notification on user talk pages.
  • "Templates used on this page" changes during preview to reflect any added or removed templates, and works as expected for section edits.
    Not entirely sure what is "expected." If I open a section for edit, the templates are not listed until I do a preview User:Tekkub/Sig 07:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Added redirect to section feature. Use it wisely.
  • When creating a new page and no comment is added, the contents of the new page are automatically added as the comment.

Wowwiki search engine

I've just uploaded a FireFox search engine for Wowwiki.com under the name "WoWWiki Special Search" on mycroft.mozdev.org. The old wowwiki search engine went through google, this one uses the search engine integrated into MediaWiki to search. This search engine utilizes the Sherlock standard, and therefore IE7 won't work with it. Please test and let me know how it works, this is the first search I've created! --Telda 08:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If you wish to create an IE7 search plugin, visit this page [2], and follow the instructions for "Create Your Own". Extremely simple to make :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
The issue with WoWWiki's OpenSearch still stands, if it worked, you wouldn't have to do that ;) --GRYPHONtc
Which issue is this? -Telda 20:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
IE7 won't add WoWWiki to the search list properly - it shows up on the drop-down list, but can't be added. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
IE doesn't work? I think I'm feeling a ping of sympathy... wait... no... it was just gas :) User:Tekkub/Sig 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Doesn't work in FF either ;) --GRYPHONtc 21:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I didn't say the issue was with IE7 :) The search box is based upon the OpenSearch standard, dontchaknow. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Making a new guide page for Corpse Hopping

Hello WoWWiki Community! I've been using WoWWiki a lot lately to help me in the game. I have done one or two minor revisions to some existing pages and I also have some experience writing guides in guild forums and relating to non Warcraft help. I was looking for a guide on the art of: Corpse Hopping. My searches turned up only minor mentions of this tactic so I decided I might try to start a new page for this and divulge my tactics to help others.

Unfortunately, not only could I not find a topic on this but none of the Boilerplates or even existing pages seemed relevant to this topic. Does anyone know of a good example page or Boilerplate that I could use for this? I imagine it would be somewhat similar to one of the travel guides and maybe even be referenced in some of them, but I'm not sure where to start. If I make a page for this, will it show up under a search for Corpse Hop? How do I make it also show up when you search for variants like corpse hopping, naked exploring or whatever? Will it automatically link from pages that have the words corpse hop in it?

This might even be too big of a task for someone so new to WoWWiki to take on, are there any good suggestions for things I could do to make it easier or get some experience first because I don't want to jump in and do it all wrong or make my page totally different than every other page?

Thanks, --Kollins 09:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Not to be a bother, but wtf is Corpse Hopping? ^^ If you explain that, I might get you started. // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 14:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
my guess is when evil undead spirit jump from one dead body to another, possessing and animating each for a time. User:Reskar/Sig
Corpse farming? Grinding? oh, pat, your sig is is showing all it's info back here, (like that html looking stuff), I think you need to fix that. User:Colinstu/Sig 16:19, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Say you create a really obnoxius looking gnome with bright pink hair and you want to annoy the bejeebers out of the Horde with /dance and /train on top of the Orgrimmar auction house. Unfortunately there are all those pesky guards that are going to one-shot you. So you corpse hop there. You run through the front gate and get smashed into paste by the gate guards. Run back from the graveyard, go as far as you can past your corpse until you reach the maximum Release range. Release, run 10 feet, and get instagibbed again. Keep doing that over and over leaving little skeletons all over place until you make it on top of the Orgrimmar auction house where the guards won't instantly aggro you. You've now corpse hopped your way on top of the building.
Another use for corpse hopping is getting to Winterspring for the first time. The only way into Winterspring without the Everlook flight path or a warlock summon is through Timbermaw Hold. If you can't stealth through there, don't want to grind your reputation up to unfriendly, and don't want to drop your reputation by killing them, you can corpse hop through the hold. Unequip all your gear with durability and run as far as you can through the Hold until you die. Run back to your corpse, go to maximum Release range, release, run, and die again. Keep doing that until you make it through the Hold. Equip your gear again, go to Everlook, and grab the flightpath so you don't ever have to do that again. - ClydeJr - talk - contrib 15:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
And we don't have a guide for that? Good lord... (I know Colinstu, but it's currently a rather tricky point. There are severals not fan of the oh so great use of templates and there are others who hate the long list of text. I myself am bothered about the lack of Title if I attempt to fix that and it pisses me off :( )// Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 17:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Think that post qualifies for a guide right there. On a side note, Orgy's getting roof guards in patch 2.1.0. On another side note, if you level in Felwood and do quests there, it's very easy to get to Template:Unfriendly with Timbermaw, and thus can run thru without aggro. User:Tekkub/Sig 07:28, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Aside from doing annoying things like taking a gnome into Orgrimar, there are useful things you can get to by corpse hopping, like vendors and flightpaths that someone your level could not normally get to. Felwood Tunnel is a good example, a low level can corpse hop through and then be able to pick up useful recipes in Everlook. You can also corpse hop a lower level character to Booty Bay for access to the neutral AH or from (being mage portaled to) Shattrath to one of the other Outlands locations to train at level 50. --Kollins

Problem loading a page (Maybe server issue)

When I try to go to Quest:Call of Earth (Mulgore) I get a WoWWiki had a problem page. All the other ones around it work, Like Quest:Call of Earth (Mulgore 2). I did not make the pages, but I was editing the failing one when I got the problem at save. --User:Dparvin/Sig 19:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Now that I have posted this, it is working.  :) --User:Dparvin/Sig 19:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Was it some sort of database transaction error? Those have been happening randomly from time to time. User:Tekkub/Sig 20:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It sometimes happens to me too, but if you re-load the page it usualy works. Teabingh 04:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


Coinage!

Something is up with the Template:Tlink template. It doesn't hide zero-values now, and looks funny. Also, if you don't specify all fields you get something funny: see Flying mounts section in Burning Crusade. I've been using the Template:Tlink template, which seems more intuitive anyways.

  • Using gsc: (4 gold 50 silver) = 4g 50s, (4 silver, 50 copper) = 4s 50c
  • Using Cost: (4 gold 50 silver) = 4g 50s, (4 silver, 50 copper) = 4s 50c

Having two seems redundant anyways, so does anyone object to standardizing on one and mass-bot-converting all coinage? --Piumosso-Uldum 13:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

It was edited recently which I'm trying to sort out. Anyway, we're getting rid of it very soon and it is just a temporary placeholder due to some server problems we were having later last month.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 13:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm guessing with the conditionals in that template, having that included on a lot of pages generated a lot of server load? Does the wowwiki setup work the same as wikipedia, where html pages are cached and then only re-generated if the article is updated or a transcluded page is updated? Anyways it loots good now. --Piumosso-Uldum 16:13, 5 May 2007 (EDT) EDIT - well holy crap, I just noticed how extensive Template:Tlink really is. I can see why it would bog down the server if it appeared too often. --Piumosso-Uldum 16:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
We didn't have the parser functions until a few days ago. Cost has already been edited to use them, which should help a ton. More and more templates are getting moved over as well. User:Tekkub/Sig 00:30, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Only a couple of templates left and then the last few inclusions will be sorted by KasoBot (talk · contr). 1500 ish if inclusions left now. --User:Adys/Sig 04:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

YAAAAAAAAAYYY!!!!!

Emot-neckbeard--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 23:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

If you hadn't left IRC, I was going to say no, how dare you use a GIF, you cheeky bugg... by all means! It looks awesome Smiley User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Huh? What?! Teabingh 04:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Emot-neckbeard// Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 04:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
How can you have sa emoticons without :awesome: --Kaso 07:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Emot-awesome!!!--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 09:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Do any of your realize how garish this it? Thank the gods I have ADHD and not epilepsy...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Changes regarding the Disputed Template.

File:Circle-question-red.jpg This article or section is disputed on the discussion page. Making changes regarding this/these part(s) of the article is strictly prohibited till consensus is reached.

I've made a change to the Disputed Template. I've also made a template which marks the end of a discussion: Template:Band-blue


What do you think? Teabingh 04:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Damn Brits. That's big and ugly, get a more subtle color... and why does consensus need tagged? Once a consensus is reached all evidence of the dispute should be removed from the article... User:Tekkub/Sig 05:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

It's not meant for the article, it's meant to mark the end of a discussion on the discussion page. Besides, Britannia is a symbol for both peace and war. Therefore, I think it fits perfectly. (Besides, no one has the copyright)

I think the disbuted template needs to be alittle higher, you can easily miss it now. As the the second template, i dont see any reason for it as mentioned by Tekkub  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  06:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Template:Band-blue


Better now? Teabingh 06:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

That's crazier than a gnome in a tallest warlock contest.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 06:15, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Hrmph... make some suggestions yourself then 06:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Making changes regarding this/these part(s) of the article is strictly prohibited till consensus is reached." Sounds very wrong - "prohibited" is just a no-no in most contexts, we do not want to stop people from editing based on some silly tag. Rather, "Content of this section is currently being disputed. Please be sure to check the Talk Page before making changes". There's virtually no point in a "concensus has been reached" template - that should merely be evident from the talk page itself (and "immediately cease to exist" sounds like a joke). -- Starlightblunder 07:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I was a inspired by a TV programme (^^), Starlightblue. Perhaps the text was a little harsh, so I'll change it to your version. However, it's not always evident that a matter is settled – although it should be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teabingh (talk · contr).

The "disputed" template, I'm okay with (with phrasing changes) ... but I do think the consensus template is really overdoing it. You are pretty much the first person to have decided we need it, and that's mostly because you didn't listen to those disagreeing with you. The Mages/Magi problem wasn't because you didn't know we'd reached consensus, it was because you were completely ignoring what everyone else was saying. A consensus template wouldn't have made a difference because the consensus wasn't 'formally' reached when you made your ninja edits! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 12:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Maybe that's cause no one ever reaches consensus and therefore never felt the need for a template. Maybe he's just trying to be optimistic... sad isn't it? ^^ User:Tekkub/Sig 17:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
When consensus is reached and a discussion is over, the discussion is archived on the talk page. --Piumosso-Uldum 17:30, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Just,, dont use that on any article pages... damn ugly. keep it to talk pages then. User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

My intent with the Inline was was that it was to be used inline. that seems pretty long for an inline tag, also telling people they can't change vs. asking them to participate in the disscussion i'm a little wary of. Up to you guys though, if we could find a way to trim down text i think it would serve it's purpose better to be honest. User:Reskar/Sig
edit: you killed my bottom line in the tag :( User:Reskar/Sig
doh, anyway if you can align the image to the left, then file in the text ont he right side of that. would reduce the size significantly.. a smaller image will also help User:CrazyJack/Sig 10:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I was talking about the little one with the ? which was edited, and seems to be fine on second look, bottom line still there and text reduced.User:Reskar/Sig
The images are ugly and don't fit well with current WW images. --GRYPHONtc 11:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
also i think it's important to realize that concensous may NEVER be acheived, which does not mean that either side is wrong. There can be 2 or more valid sides of an argument hence chocolate and vanilla ice cream. The DisputedIL template allows people to be notified of that and go to the discussion about it without it being in the middle of an article imo, Tea you have alot of great ideas and alot of enthusiam which is great, things here just change slowly and you seem to be hitting a string of bad luck meshing wise, i hope this doesn't prevent you from continuing to contribute. User:Reskar/Sig
i think the concession reached should be more like the disputed template., just with a blue dot (and diff text) instead of a red dot?User:CrazyJack/Sig 11:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
would that hinder discussion though? it is a talk page, who can decide when a topic is closed for discussion? Just seems to final and handed down from aboveish for a talk page. Once again just imho. I could certainly be wrong User:Reskar/Sig
The end of a voting round where a clear majority is reached could be considered an ending. User:CrazyJack/Sig 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Personal info

It has come up that the rules about disseminating personal information about Blizzard employees (and others) aren't clear:

  • We do NOT list the locations of Blizzard employees.
  • We can list their names, but only if those employees has explicitly listed it somewhere (such as in an interview). This should be cited.
  • Article names should be under their public persona - generally for developers this is their real name, and for CMs, this is their forum name.
  • We do not post personal information about their lives outside of Blizzard/Warcraft.

Is there more to add/discuss? Edit: an aside note - please do not resort to personal insults in discussions, it helps no-one User:Kirkburn/Sig3 16:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Just wondering, where did this suddenly come from? I always took those points for granted, so I guess someone must have wronged :p // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 18:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

One can never know... Teabingh 01:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

PvP Rewards needs update

PvP rewards still needs an update for BC. I have the info listed and set up, but I can't get the info to go in correctly for some reason. Talk:PvP_Rewards
Telda 23:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

something broken.

[3], [4], [5]. looks like somebody has been playing with templates.. and messed something up. no idea what... but. green text is not showing on any of the items. User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

could be Template:Spelllink User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
No. Somebody eliminated |elink=. Just use |effect=. --User:Sky2042/Sig 07:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
ah i see.. that bug been in there a while then. User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't know why it was put into place, as it was Zeal's baby. :o. We discovered the functionality to be essentially the same. To the end of fixing the links, I would just let Vyso's bot deal with it. --User:Sky2042/Sig 07:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep, posted him. no response yet.. but i'm in no hurry ^^ . im sure he'll get around to it. User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Boss template

Template:Boss. made it in the hopes of making boss pages more "standard", currently boss pages are "HUGE" blocks of text, which distracts from the actual idea of boss pages.. currently its an ugly unfinished little template, with room for improvement obviously. See Lady_Vashj for its for implementation.

i'd like to

  • align it to the left, give it a better color, better border, etc, its ugly atm.
  • implement this on all bosses
  • have it autoimplement it's own page name. e.g. just add Template:Boss , instead of pagename

Comments, feed back etc are welcome ofcourse.. im sure it'll be a big change,, and possibly for some it'll take some "getting used to", but i think it has potential. User:CrazyJack/Sig 10:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I like the template as an idea, and the subpages feel it gives it pretty neat, however as you can see with lady vash it leaves the main page pretty barebones. you have a page for abilities and put abilites on that pages, I think removing one or 2 of the sub pages, (maybe quotes as they will rarely get clicked one) and bringing them to the main page will help it look a little less.... sparce. don't get me wrong though i do like it. User:Reskar/Sig

I personally would put anything not fight related in the main page, this includes, but is not limited to, lore, quotes, External Links and First Kills. This are the general stuff, things that anyone could want to know. The abilities and the bugs and the loots are mostly specific only to those planning to fight the boss or mob. Also, consistency with this is going to be hard, as there are A LOT of mobs that will require this update and not many players that will do it. Remember, even the pre-BC content should recieve this upgrade. Consistency is everything!
Also the main page should sport the mob infobox... as seen on Ragnaros That is currently even lacking on that page... // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 12:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
try this,, i'm not sure about those infoboxes.. they're way big.. i moved the combat info to the abilities page, where it should be, added a bit of an introduction from the lore page.. all other info should best be on the subpages. User:CrazyJack/Sig 12:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Split external links and merged it into the loot page, and stratety page.
moved known bugs to strategy page User:CrazyJack/Sig 12:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
To be frank, in it's current form, I dislike it. If it can be reduced to fewer pages, it would really help, as people do not like having to make several clicks to see all the info. The idea is good, but it needs to be simplified and developed, imo. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Click power reduced now, added the template to the related pages for easier navigation, however ragestorm reverted the first page while it was stil in progress.... so ill have to re revert that later...
There is a lot of room for screenshots now, the loot is seperate, nice and clean. User:CrazyJack/Sig 17:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I really, really, do not like it. We're just now getting finished with deleting all the item transcludable pages. I really don't think these pages needs to be split up. The boilerplate should probably be changed for better readability, as well as the individual pages. I really see no reason to change it so that there is so much... externalness, to put it a strange way. --User:Sky2042/Sig 18:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I hate these changes too. I agree that the boilerplate should be adjusted a bit and individual pages need some cleanup as well, but this splitting up makes no sense to me. Now there is a lot of clicking instead having complex look at the boss. I liked the old template much, MUCH more. -- Vysogota T / C
Once the wowhead stuff happens the loot sections will be reduced to small table with hover tips... so it wouldn't have to have it's own page. User:Tekkub/Sig 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Definitely keep it on one page, scrolling is SOO much better than clicking. -- Flotsam | talk | contr )  21:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Speaking for the Bookkeeping and Lore end of things, it bodes better for linkage and writing/editing to have <character name> as the main biography, regardless of what other info is included. Addendum: This of course, in cases where the boss is a major lore character. Sorry if I messed up the test eariler; next time, tell me when one of my department's articles is being used for overhaul testing.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Meh dont worry, after further consideration i was planning to make the lore page the first page anyway.
I Further compacted the pages, removed lore and abilities links, merged these into the other articles. Getting pretty small again :p . also see Ragnaros, this guy has a lot more beef on his strategy and loot pages.
The boss template will need either a BcBoss template mirror, or a parameter that allows modification of the guild progress link. User:CrazyJack/Sig 01:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Can we stick to one article for trying out this kind of stuff - certainly please do not start changing more pages until there is general agreement about the state of play. In fact, this should really have been sandboxed first - especially since it's a popular article. That said, the general idea is reasonable - I think lore/strat/loot/quotes/first kill is okay, but the nav template has to fit in better. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:51, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
been trying to stick it to the lefthand side of the page, but it was not cooperating.
got it now, toc / image on the strategy page acting weird though. User:CrazyJack/Sig 03:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

gsdkp

that stuff is on almost every boss page,, it needs to be either incorporated into the default template, or simply not listed anymore.. if thott, alahkazam, and wowhead are not enough to list the loot,, then what is ? i dont think we should list half a dozen links to the same thing, and then add half a dozen more. the 3 mainstream ones should be fine enough imo. User:CrazyJack/Sig 12:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

We voted in a new policy for external links recently - WW:EL. Certainly the links need to be checked for compliancy! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 12:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I have edited a number of their submissions to conform to the policy. I don't think they're using Template:Tlink on pages that havn't been updated to the policy, but they seem to be complying on pages that have. We need to get more people converting the sections over as they submit links or something... User:Tekkub/Sig 18:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Welcome Teomyr as Admin!

Teomyr (talk · contr) has been doing quite a lot of work the past weeks for the wiki, even though most was indirect. He's been developing the <tooltip> and {{#wowhead:}} extensions [6] and contributed alot to everything concerning this. Also active a lot on IRC, I'm personally sure he'll be a very good addition to the current admins Smiley Please welcome him! --User:Adys/Sig 14:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean he wasn't an admin already? Lol, I always looked at him as if he was one of the major players here on the wiki, which led me to believe he's an admin :p // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 14:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
May your upcoming rite by Infernal fire be a bright one! Good luck and have fun!--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 15:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you very much for this nice welcome among the Administrator ranks Smiley
It was a nice surprise when you told me that you'd like to make me an admin, and I'll be glad to do the best I can :) User:Teomyr/Sig 18:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Pft. I just think they made him admin for his sweet sig. :P. Congrats, man. --User:Sky2042/Sig 18:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
It's true. His sig is sweet. It's the least messy way into adminship, that's for sure.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
His talk page needs more clutter! :P User:CrazyJack/Sig 11:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
His sig is made of win, it's his sig that I based mine of! ^^ // Patrigan | Talk/ Contr \\ 15:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Need Input on templates and parser functions

Hello all. A while back user ALiEN posted a nifty infobox for abilities - Template:Tlink, and I've been using it while updating various mage ability articles (see Spell nature polymorph [Polymorph], Spell frost glacier [Cone of Cold] for a couple). Now that parser functions are available I thought I'd take a crack at making some items in the box appear conditionally. I have a copy of it in a sandbox template at User:Piumosso-Uldum/Sandbox1 which conditionally shows two thing: First, the stuff for abilities that are talents are excluded for normal trained abilities. At Sky2042's suggestion I added a "related buff" section that incorporates an awkwardly-floating tooltip template (see Spell nature polymorph [Polymorph] again). Eventually, there are some other lines in that template I'd like to hide if unused. To get the parser functions to work with the table pipe code, I had to make sub-templates for those parts. This is my first crack at making a complicated template, so I am looking for the input of other gurus if the technique is sound or there are other ways to do it. Or, if too many sub-templates makes the server cry. This particular template only appears once on a page. --Piumosso-Uldum 01:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I can help but think that the Releated Buff could easily be generated using the existing Template:Tlink rather than having to make yet another tooltip releated template, but perhaps that is just me, take a look at: User:Kaso/DebuffTooltip --Kaso 05:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Advertisement