Talk: Village pump

Template:WoWWiki:Village pump/Intro

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.

--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.

--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Please dont go white... User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm :/ --GRYPHON^tc 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

It is in a template, he uses solution two. --GRYPHON^tc 12:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

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)

concurrention, is that even a word? competition perhaps? User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

It's not just other WoW wikis there we'd have to look at merging, perhaps. I know several servers also have Wikia wikis, my own, Sentinels (US), being one of them. I'd love to see either some cross-wiki referencing to content here in WoWwiki, or just merge what little info is in the Sentinels wiki with what's here in the server and guild profiles in WoWwiki. --Corwin MacGregor 16:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I hope this move means that none of the admins will be changing. You guys help guide the Wiki to great lengths! If everything will be the same, but better servers and support, I say woot! --TUSVA ~ T | C

Nope, no changes in adminship :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 18:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Great! Can't believe I didn't timestamp my last comment. I'm all rusty. No matter, time to resume work around these parts :D --TUSVA ~ T | C 02:21, 9 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. --GRYPHON^tc 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)

Yeah, found a problem Rustak: have a look here. It should be fairly obvious. This happens any time an image is near the bottom of the section I happen to be editing. I don't use the bar, but it's still rather annoying. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:58, 12 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.

Number of characters added / removed in the recent changes list. useful. User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

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 ;) --GRYPHON^tc

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 ;) --GRYPHON^tc 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. - Clyde_Jr - tal_k - contri_b 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) = 4 50, (4 silver, 50 copper) = 4 50
Using Cost: (4 gold 50 silver) = 4 50, (4 silver, 50 copper) = 4 50

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!!!!!

--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

User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

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

// Patrigan | ^Talk/_Contr \\ 04:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

How can you have sa emoticons without :awesome: --Kaso 07:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

!!!--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. --GRYPHON^tc 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)

To clarify:

There is nothing in WoWWiki policy that "strictly prohibits" edits to a page that is disputed. If the situation is that dire, page an admin and have them lock the page -- they're there to make judgement calls.

There is nothing in WoWWiki policy supporting the "consensus has been reached" banner. In my opinion, it is a horrible idea. If you need an enforceable result, make a vote.

Mikk (T) 08:01, 9 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)

Progress

Anyway, how's it looking in it's current form, what improvements would you recommend etc. User:CrazyJack/Sig 04:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I just did a bit of simplifying to the template and ... I like it! I think it works very well now :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 00:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I like the changes made, but I -still- don't like the idea of this template. The pages that need it most were (or should be) split into pages such as Kel'Thuzad and Kel'Thuzad (tactics). We really don't need it still. It is, for all purposes, a Table of Contents, just to different pages. If anything, we can change it from <pagename (tactics)> to <pagename (WoW)>, which makes a little more sense. I personally hate having all the information so separated. --User:Sky2042/Sig 01:17, 12 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)

i remvoed a TON of them that contained nothing but the loot taht was already on the page. This was yesterday when they added them all. I liked the new policy on EVERY edit and he didn't stop. Compliancy needs to be enforced here. User:Reskar/Sig 12:53, 9 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 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

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 [Polymorph], [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 [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)

I personally really do not want to use Template:Tlink in this way. Maybe the coding behind it, but not the actual template. Which means the coding needs to be included in Template:Tlink, rather than from the usage of another template. This is what we're trying to do with the infobox. --User:Sky2042/Sig 21:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Nested templates don't bug me. I took a look at Template:Tlink and even stole some code from it (somewhat sad that the rounded corners are a non-standard mozilla thing, Safari still shows square). I was trying to get it to resemble in-game tooltips with the yellow text. Is Template:Tlink designed to accomodate every possible tooltip? --Piumosso-Uldum 00:20, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

CSS fixes and updates

This is only for discussion of simple fixes and changes to the wiki's CSS. Please don't derail the topic!

The CSS has had a few updates, including:

Galleries now have nice non-white backgrounds - e.g. Category:WoW Icons: Inventory Elemental
Thumbnails no longer have coloured borders around them - you can use them in coloured tables without being sick! e.g. WoWWiki:Sandbox/8
Heading H2 now has padding above them to induce section spacing
- ^ Some pages will need to be updated to take this into account. NO MORE DOUBLE SPACING SECTIONS!
Preformatted text no longer in a blinding white box - e.g. WoWWiki:Sandbox/8
Fixed spacing between the end of the article and the categories box.

Please list any more changes you would like below! I will pass them on and list them above when/if they're implemented. Most things can be changed. One thing we would like to do is make the design more 'interesting', less bland! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Feeback and suggestions

Migrate darktable into 'real CSS' ... MediaWiki:Wowwiki.css. I'll look at the right navbars and infoboxes here in a few. User:Tekkub/Sig 21:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me like you went a little overboard on the <h2> change. Other than that, nice changes. --User:Sky2042/Sig 21:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Overboard? it looks fine to me. User:Tekkub/Sig 22:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe add some real text classes for item qualities so we can get rid of the template tokens. <span class="legendary"> etc.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

That's the kind of stuff that needs to go into the site CSS, once that becomes enabled when we switch over to Wikia's servers. I'm just looking to fix that are flat out broken in the current template; stuff like item-legendary etc. should be wiki-global, and not tied to a particular skin... --Rustak 00:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

So you're gonna want us to put that stuff in via the wiki CSS pages eh? Sweets. User:Tekkub/Sig 04:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Galleries

Seeing as we now have fixed (and frankly, gorgeous) galleries, I suggest we start using them more frequently - a good example of its usage is Exodar#Gallery. Add more wherever you see fit :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Header lines and pictures

Here's another ugly effect I'd like to be fixed: You know when you have a picture close to a header - the line underneath the header caption runs right through the picture; if there would be some way you could make some space before that line and picture, that'd be great!

-- Shandris talk / contribs 08:06, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Doesnt bother me much, it'd look better though. i'm more annoyed by "edit" links getting pushed down by the tocright template, when combined with pictures on the same page... really odd stuff happens then. User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hellfire Peninsula - Database error

The Hellfire Peninsula page reads the following:

Database error

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "SiteStatsUpdate::doUpdate". MySQL returned error "1213: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction (localhost)".

At first I thought it might just be a temporary glitch, but it's been doing this for over 24 hours now.

--Chocobochicken 09:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Clear your cache and reload. It is indeed temporary but the page gets cached and it doesnt get invalid =/ --User:Adys/Sig 09:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I guess it's only happening for anonymous/logged out users, then. I had to create this account to report the issue, and after reading your comment I checked the page again and it was working fine. So figuring I didn't need to be logged in anymore, I logged out and reloaded the page and got the same error again. Clearing the cache didn't fix it, and I'm easily recreating this error in both Firefox 2.0 and IE7.

Now that I've created an account, I have a way of viewing the information on this page. But an admin may want to take a peek at the problem and see if it's fixable for anonymous viewers.

--Chocobochicken 09:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

We're very sorry for the inconvenience. The faulty pages are sometimes generated as a result of a big template edit where the system is under heavy load, and the HTTP proxy in front of the wiki unfortunately caches this bad result for quite a while. There is nothing we can do about it at the moment :(

Logging in avoids this problem: since the pages are slightly different for each user (because of user name, user settings etc.) they are not cached and can be reloaded at any time, should this error occur.

I hope that the move to Wikia will fix this problem soon. User:Teomyr/Sig 12:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The way to fix it for now is to do a dummy edit to the page. This makes the caching proxy realize there's something new there that should be re-fetched. And, yeah, I'd just wait for the move to Wikia too. Mikk (T) 12:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Yep, dummy edits should clear it up. Sorry about this -- moving to Wikia's servers will basically take care of this issue, and I don't want to fiddle with anything on the server just now when it'll all be changing soon. --Rustak 00:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Question about eviscerate article

Hi all, Im new to wowwiki as a registered user but have been using it for a long time. Im currently searching rogue data trying to understand the mechanics behind combat and dps to create a kind of dps guide. I was very surprised to discover the data on the eviscerate damage per rank in WoWWiki is different from the one in WoWHead. Correct me if im wrong, but I saw that the WoWWiki page was last edited in 2006 too. I tried to acess the talk page but sadly I didnt found any way to start this discussion there too.

I have a rogue level 70 and my eviscerate damage per ranks are different from the WoWWiki tables too. I then started a level 1 rogue, made the math and found its ok with WoWHead data BUT you find that for 1 combo point it adds +1dmg, for 2 and 3 it adds +2dmg, for 4 it adds +3dmg and 5cp adds +4dmg, while for my rogue combo points it adds 37dmg, 74dmg, 111dmg, 147dmg and 184dmg respectively at Rank 10 Evis.

The WoWWiki table have an incongruency were the rank 2 data is almost the same as rank 1.

With that I found that the equation for evis damage in WoWWiki dont shows the same numbers I find in the tooltips while the rogue lvl 1 and my lvl 70 tooltips makes me think theres something scaling the equation. Im not sure what to do about that right now and would like to hear some ideas.

Thanks for your time.

Andre

--Andrecxavier 20:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

So fix the information to the information displayed on wowhead, silly! The beauty of a wiki... :) --User:Sky2042/Sig 00:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny...

I updated the table with the new values but it shows the last time it was updated was in 2006. Another thing is that the update isnt listed in the page's history. Is this right?

Andre

Official-ish WoWWiki EU server

It's sort of been unofficial for a little while, so I thought I'd advertise it here :)

WoWWikians, come to Stormrage EU, Alliance side! At the moment Adys (Adys - 70), Apollozeus (Amberrock - 70), myself (Chekov - 36), Teomyr (Teomyr - 12) and Kaso (Kazo - 9) have chars on the realm. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 04:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

and... theres a wowwiki guild? or just friendlist?

HJT (t/c) 05:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

created a character there some time ago, but a weird lvl 1 Gnome Mage circled around me for 5minutes until I went /afk. Strange persons... Flotsam | ( talk | contr ) 05:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Nah, no guild set up, though there is a chat channel which we're all on (the name of which I forget atm). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

EU bastards. I declare Area 52 (US) the really official WoWWiki US realm. Come roll a sexy Draenei (males only!) and have fun with me! User:Tekkub/Sig 05:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah yes, I've "remembered" the name of the channel. It's called ... WoWWiki. Crazy! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 08:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm surprised you didn't make it a male druid gimmick guild. And I have this thing about being Alliance... Not happening.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 14:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ew. Dirty Euros. ;-) User:Montag/sig1 08:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Things like this make me want to restart playing! HATE YOU ALL *goes cry in the corner* // Patrigan | ^Talk/_Contr \\ 14:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Now that we have an official server -- we need an anthem!

I think Wowwiki needs an anthem. Discuss! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjærleik (talk · contr).

"Na, na, na, naaa ... we rock"? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 03:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What about: http://youtube.com/watch?v=n4TyqYsC26g# or http://youtube.com/watch?v=R8xqvfKxh5s&mode=related&search= ? Kjærleik 03:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know, i kinda like http://youtube.com/watch?v=vqO7zEWu0W0
∙ Zurr Talk ∙ Contr 03:37, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Allready taken by the magi on the EU forums. :( Kjærleik 03:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The BC template

Yes, it's been/being removed from pages - but the plan is to replace it on the pages that really need it. Afaik, the reasoning is mainly that it's almost impossible to maintain a template like that over so many articles, it can interfere with the article design, and there's little restriction as to what it can be placed on.

Back in February I very quickly knocked up a table of the types of places I thought it would actually be appropriate for:

Template:Tlink	Template:Tlink	Template:Tlink
Zones, cities, instances, playable races, professions, flying mounts	Major character BC sections, etc	Templates, section titles/headings

Do these seem fair? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 07:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Template:Tlink is extremely handy in summary tables, like a list of recipes or factions or NPCS. I think it should be considered a kinda generic tag for use in lots of places where normal and BC content are summarized in the same place. As for Template:Tlink, I saw a lil div template that threw a "This is BC blah blah" note in the title line to the right, instead of the full page width divider we had before. I quite liked that corner thingy. User:Tekkub/Sig 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

That was Template:Tlink. Check the undelete. --User:Adys/Sig 10:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

The less obtrusive we can make whatever it is that we make to denote "expansion only" information the better. I think that Template:Tlink would suffice 90% of the time. There should also be very specific guidelines for which one is used, how, and where... --User:SeiferTim/Sig 12:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocking Gold Selling Ads

Hi All,

My names's Gil and I'm the CEO of Wikia. I wanted welcome you to Wikia and see what we can do to help. In the short term, I had an idea to work with you on creating a list of sites that sell gold, so we can experiment with blocking them and see how much it reduces revenue. I know it will hurt some, but as a fan of the game, I believe it's the right thing to do. Is there any public list of these sorts of sites, or do I need help from you figuring it out?

Thanks,

--Penchina 20:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is a list I started about a year ago when I attempted to block them on my own sites. The problem with adsense is that you reach the maximum entries before you can block all the vendors unless it is possible to can make arrangements with google. --GRYPHON^tc 21:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

There's one vaguely maintained list on the wiki at WoWWiki talk:Google ads on WoWWiki#Bad Ads, but it's in no way complete. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 22:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

We get a little extra love from google because of Jimmy Wales (wikipedia founder) being our founder and inspiration, but it's true - we may run out of blocking power too. The alternative is to move to a graphical ad network that gives us more control. We did this with Dofus.wikia.com at their request and a couple others. How annoying is it that google lets them get away with this?? I've had 4 gold selling sites call me already... I try to let them down easy Penchina 22:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Let em down easy? Bah! We'd prefer ya got nasty with them ^^ User:Tekkub/Sig 22:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Bad Admin! /spank

Nasty? You know, selling gold is these people's lifeblood. Imagine how you might feel if you were the (ever annoying) poor Phone-baker’s salesman who sold bread, biscuits and cakes by telephone – whilst almost everyone you called began insulting you and telling how much they hated you and your way of living? Kjærleik 04:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Can I have some of what you're smoking/sniffing? That way you might actually start making sense to me.... Or, wait, I have a better idea... you can go away and come back when you start making sense to everyone at large? Deal? Mikk (T) 07:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll remember to be nicer the next time a telemarketer tries to sell me BREAD. User:Tekkub/Sig 09:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Trust me, they sell all kinds of stuff. Bread too. Kjærleik 15:11, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Gold sellers are more related to the guys on the street trying to sell Folexs and Timexx watches.
∙ Zurr Talk ∙ Contr 15:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

WoW Wiki search plugin

I keep seeing a button in the drop-down menu for a WoW Wiki search plugin for Firefox. however, whenever I try to install it I get a download error saying Firefox is unable to download it. I would really like a search plugin for this site too. anyone know of a way to fix this?
∙ Zurr Talk ∙ Contr 23:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

This was discussed up top, there are several solutions here in the meantime. --GRYPHON^tc 00:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Does Wowwiki have an objects clause?

Do we? --Kjærleik 10:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

A what? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

An objects clause Kjærleik 12:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

/me imagines this could turn into quite the circular discussion. From what I can work out on the net, an objects clause appears to be an English term (I'm British, coincidentally) to do with companies. Well, firstly the site is based in the US, and it isn't/wasn't a company. So I'm still at a loss for what you're asking. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

No, an objects clause does need to have anything to do with a company. I'm not sure how to explain it properly, but I'll try. It's a rule or a slogan that describes what a company/organisation is and what their goal is. Ex: "Wowwiki is bla-bla-bla. Its goal is to be [...] and to [...]. Kjærleik 02:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd suggest starting here: WoWWiki:About, there's a section on the very front page titled "What is WoWWiki?" that sounds like what you're looking for. Also, the policies and guidelines articles might prove useful. --TUSVA ~ T | C02:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I was about to post that same thing, Tusva.
∙ Zurr Talk ∙ Contr 02:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The English translation is mission statement (vision statement is relevant as well, but that isn't exactly a summary of objectives). -- Starlightblunder 05:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Kjærleik, this edit [7] was not appreciated. What are more people going to understand, some obscure (and mostly irrelevant) legal term, or "About WoWWiki"? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I didn't know it was obscure -- the Norwegian counterpart, formålsparagraf is used all the time. I thought that this was also the case with objects clause. Kjærleik 07:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The fact we didn't know what an "objects clause" was should have been a big hint. User:Tekkub/Sig 09:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When did Kirkburn turn into 'we'? Kjærleik 14:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

It should be easier to create new articles.

Why not put a link on the frontpage that people can click in order to make new articles? --Kjærleik 10:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Example? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:35, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It cant be much easier than just type the address in your browser and click edit, like: http://www.wowwiki.com/My_new_article D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ 11:49, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a suggestion Kjærleik 12:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

What type of link do you suggest though? The main version I have come across is an input box where you type in the article's name. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Usually, editors shouldn't create articles that aren't linked to by existing articles. What proposals for new articles did you have? The best way to go about this would be to make a blurb on an existing article, and have it link to the article you want, which doesn't exist. Then click that new link and begin editing.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 22:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Just find somewhere (like your userpage or a page relevent to the new article) to put a internal link, save the page, fill out the new page, and then delete the link if it was temperary. That is not hard.--SWM24 48 21:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is to put a link under the navigation section. When you click it, you get a page somewhat similar to the add-new-discussion-page on the discussion sites. Kjærleik 02:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you have an example to show us? We can't just recode Mediawiki to our whims, unfortunately. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:28, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

No :( I have very little experience in editing HTML-pages. However, inspired by Dotted -- why not create a script that could, similar to the redirect template, send you to the page with the name you want to create? Like this: http://www.wowwiki.com/Kjærleik#criticism

I seem to recall not 10 minutes ago you were telling us not to make things personal ... mind changing that URL? Atm we don't have the ability to create input boxes, but it could possibly be introduced at some point in the future. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 07:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I didnt say anything like that. And why did you choose that link exactly? Its uncalled for and doesnt exist in the wiki, sigh. D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ 07:10, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Just took a page and used it as an example. :) Kjærleik 07:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Right... D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ 07:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Hrmph... Kjærleik 07:28, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

We don't need edit the MediaWiki system. It could be a link from a pure page... Kjærleik 07:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

OKay, I vaguely see what you're saying ... a generic page with an input like [8], where the title is the page title, not a section title. Does anyone know of an example of this? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 10:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

/cheer ^^Kjærleik 10:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my god, dont add that kirk - if you cant grap the idea of typing the title on the browsers arss bar, you have nothing to do on a wiki anyway. It only serve to purpose of vandals that dont wanna read up on how to create a new article. D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ 12:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

As sky said: Have you ever heard of assuming good faith? Ever? Kjærleik 14:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

No need to sass an admin. Watch it.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 15:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not back-talking anyone. I'm just explaining to Dotted what a Wiki is:) Kjærleik 15:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)