Talk:Main Page/Archive1

= Main Page discussion, Archive 1 =

Main Page bug descriptions
Put Main Page bug descriptions below...


 * The Events entry under the Interface Customization category used to point to the page that is now at Events (API). Now it points to a disambiguation page.  Could somebody fix it. -- Bytecrafter 01:00, 24 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * [ &radic; ] Fixed. Sorry about that. --Fandyllic 9:16 PM PST 25 Jan 2006

Minor Main Page change suggestions
Put minor Main Page change suggestions below...


 * Remove WoW UI Customization Guide from the main page please. It's horribly dated and factually inaccurate now. --Mikk 15:53, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Should I remove it or should we just push to have it updated? It seems like a good link unless you can suggest a good alternate. --Fandyllic 12:33 AM PDT 28 May 2006
 * Use UI Beginners Guide instead. --Mikk 04:22, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
 * [ &radic; ] Okay, I removed WoW UI Customization Guide and put UI Beginners Guide just under Interface Customization. Also moved Events under World of Warcraft API and Widget API under Events. --Fandyllic 2 PM PDT 12 Jun 2006
 * Works for me! Obtw, swing by Interface Customization now. I'm thinking that we can make space for other things in the future main page by, well, not linking to much more than that one from the main page :-)  --Mikk 15:13, 12 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Patches would be nice to have linked. --CrazyJack
 * [ &radic; ] Done. ;-)
 * Actually made the change on 14:31, 29 Dec 2005.
 * --Fandyllic 3:36 PM PST 29 Dec 2005


 * Is there a way you could add a link to the Lore section on the main page? It's such a huge part of the Wiki that I'm amazed that it isn't already on there.


 * Thanks, or aw shucks.
 * --Bevans (FeldmanSkitzoid) 22:33, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * lol Feldman. Good to see you're around again. Schmidt 00:37, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * [ &radic; ] Added Lore link to Category:Lore. --Fandyllic 9:16 PM PST 25 Jan 2006


 * It'd be nice to see some links to policies, so that newcomers will be able to know what's going on. Schmidt 00:37, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * [ &radic; ] Added WoWWiki Policies link after WoW Wiki FAQ link. --Fandyllic 9:16 PM PST 25 Jan 2006


 * Would be nice to have XML_User_Interface linked. Granted it is only an extra click away, just seems appropriate to have that here as well. --Tarog 00:48, 11 Apr 2006 (PST)


 * [ &radic; ] Added Talent Builds Guide, Realms, WoW UI Customization Guide, and XML User Interface. --Fandyllic 1:10 PM PDT 16 Apr 2006


 * The Community Addons List link (under addons) is of little use - perhaps it should be redirected to Category:Addons, where all the addon pages are listed? Kirkburn 09:53, 24 May 2006 (EDT)
 * [ √ ] Made main "AddOns" link to Category:AddOns and replaced "Community AddOns List" (which was really just a redirect to Modificaions anyway) with Development Help AddOns category link. --Fandyllic 11:30 AM PDT 24 May 2006


 * Capitalization on the link to the instance and quest guide page? should be all uppercase to fit capitalization on the rest of the links on the main page. --Nobutada 15:25 CST 31 May 2006
 * I would go further an suggest the page is renamed 'Instance Guide' as the current name is innaccurate in its description :) -- Kirkburn 14:30, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
 * [ √ ] Done and done. I change the "Instance and quest guide" to "Instance Guide" (I also moved the Instance and quest guide to Instance Guide). Reordered guides list. --Fandyllic 2:07 PM PDT 31 May 2006


 * The "Forumula and Game Mechanics" link goes to a simple redirect page. Should go to Category:Formulas and game mechanics instead of Formulas and Game Mechanics as it does now. --Rappjo 05:50, 20 June 2006 (EDT)


 * As this is the "Front Page" of the site shouldn't "What is a Wiki?" be moved under the links. The links are what most users are here for, not the definition of wiki's. Jebidiah 11:54, 20 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't think "What is a Wiki?" stuff on the main page is such a bad thing, but I may move it below the links if enough other people (at least a couple) think it's a good idea. --Fandyllic 12:36 AM PDT 28 May 2006


 * I suggest adding Category:Zones to the front page - the zone pages aren't really linked clearly from anywhere else. I also had a suggestion for the Quests page on Talk:Quests - with it instead becoming more like the Quest page. It's better to have information rather than empty, unfinished pages. -- Kirkburn 09:25, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Update the the Zones idea ... link to List of regions? -- Kirkburn 09:31, 29 May 2006 (EDT)


 * I'd like to suggest that Faction is placed on the front page. The walkthroughs for Cenarion Circle and Brood are well written and reputation grind is a huge part of end game at this point. Farlox 12:05, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I'll think about it. I'd really like to see the Faction category migrated to the Factions category, before I put Factions on the main page. --Fandyllic 4:15 PM PDT 24 Apr 2006
 * Factions has been moved to Factions category now, Faction page suitable for front page? -- Kirkburn 19:16, 12 June 2006 (EDT)


 * I suggest Lore links to Lore rather than Category:Lore as it looks far more professional. (I have added a proper link to the category on the Lore page). -- Kirkburn 16:46, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Thrice bitten:
 * The WoW Mods and AddOns section are essentially identical in scope, I suggest putting them together under the AddOns title, and resorting the list of links underneath.
 * Also, I'm re-poking you about linking to Lore rather than Category:Lore!
 * Finally, under Maps I suggest a sub-link of List of regions
 * Oh, and that vote for the proposed icon is seriously weighted now :) -- Kirkburn 16:51, 9 June 2006 (EDT)


 * formulas and game mechanics should link to Category:Formulas and game mechanics, as this is the location of the actual article (plus it breaks the category doing the redirect). -- Kirkburn 14:10, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Do you even read this any more? =) Fixxy broken links please! See WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3 for a reorganisation of the links until the new page is approved :P -- Kirkburn 13:58, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

Other comments
Since there is no discussion page for the discussion page... why is this necessary? Any bugs / changes should be fixed / made on the dev... No sense in this ^^/ -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 17:12, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * The Main Page Dev is so radically different from the current Main Page (and there is not much agreement that it should be the future Main Page), that it is perfectly reasonable to see changes on the current Main page without a total redesign.
 * --Fandyllic 2:13 PM PST 29 Dec 2005
 * Fandy see your talk page NOW! Wonderful idea! -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 23:06, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * I guess I didn't see any "wonderful" ideas there. Is there something specific you want to highlight? --Fandyllic 11:16 AM PST 26 Jan 2006

Move
I don't know how amenable to this people would be, but I thought I'd offer anyway. Over at enterwiki, I we have just upgraded to a blazing fast colocated server with unmetered bandwidth - I could move the entirety of the WoWWiki over to that server without a hitch. Advantages - easy move, I merely have to export the entire database and import over there; it would be running the latest version of mediawiki, actually, a highly modified version that the rest of the network uses. It would be spambot-free, with our captcha system (coming with 2.0), it would be a lot faster. The person(s) with root access would actually be around instead of forever inaccessible. We could actually CHANGE the icon, and there would be quite a few more sysops - everybody whom I can trust really, fandy of course, DFS, Kirochi, Xmuskrat, Hammersmith, Ragestorm, LAISREN, excetra. Rustak, if I could reach him, would be Administrator. Other than that not much would change really. I dunno, was just a kind of random idea, cause we have SO much bandwidth that it's absurd now. &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 02:56, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * Thanks for the offer, but as I mentioned the past few times you've mentioned it, bandwidth availability is not an issue, and I (finally!) took delivery of the replacement server box that will take over from the poor machine that the wiki's running on now. (There was another replacement box about two months ago, but it had stability issues; I eventually said screw it and just ordered a server from Dell.)  I'm working on setting up that box now.  As far as not reaching me, everyone who's emailed me has gotten a response; I'm not sure what I can do better there.  -- Rustak 18:47, 7 Mar 2006 (EST)

Guides
"Idea" how about a subcategory under the guides. "gear guides"
 * This could include: Resist gear, tanking gear, mana regen gear, high armor, life regen, crit chance gear, attack power gear, spell power gear builds. etc CJ 09:10, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * It is a fine idea, but I'm not going to add a link to the Main Page with nothing to go to. If you or someone creates a Category:Gear Guides, adds that category to the appropriate pages and links it to the Guides page, I'll consider it. --Fandyllic 11:16 AM PST 26 Jan 2006
 * First step taken, the Sets pages have been expanded. CJ 03:40, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * There should be a link to the Dungeon Set 2 somewhere in the guides section. I know it at least took me a while to find it. --Guillotine 16:13, 5 April 2006 (EDT)


 * Not sure how Dungeon Set 2 is a guide. Definitely doesn't rank for the main page. It maybe popular now, but not when Dungeon Set 3 comes out. Maybe there should be a page called Guide to getting Dungeon Sets with a link to Getting Dungeon Set 2 Guide? --Fandyllic 6:33 PM PDT 5 Apr 2006

Move
''Previous contents moved to Talk:Main Page/Archive1. --Fandyllic''

Web Icon missing
Many people like myself want to their most important links to have nice icons. Could we please add one to wowwiki? If you want i will make some, but the best would be a official contest. --Jonus 16:55, 4 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I assume you mean the mini .ico file that will show up to the left of the URL in most browsers? This would have to be done by the main admin, Rustak. If you make an icon for him to use, he might be persuaded to use it, but he's pretty lazy http://www.php-fusion.co.uk/images/smiley/wink.gif... We've had a vote for a different main icon (different from the Orc one) at Proposed icon for awhile and he doesn't like the ones most people have voted for. --Fandyllic 3:11 PM PDT 4 Apr 2006
 * To me it doesn't matter much how the mini ico. looks. I just want to have a logo.--Jonus 09:21, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
 * If you're using Firefox and just some favicon is all you want to show up, you might consider using the extension named Favicon Picker, which provides an appropriate function to the properties of any link in the bookmarks (including the 'Bookmarks Toolbar' of course). --harl 2006 July 5th 19:46 (UTC+1)

Heretical?
Call me a heretic if you wish, maybe even tie me to a stake and burn me ... but is it possible to make the front page a little more ... interesting? :) I dunno, get some colour into it somehow, maybe use one of the coloured banners for the "Welcome to the World of Warcraft Wiki!" bit? I know this is a wiki, but as it is, it's a bunch a of text. Wikipedia manages it :P

Oh, I notice that there's odd formatting on the bar, with the vandalism link italicised, unlike the others - intended?

-- Kirkburn 17:22, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Look, so easy, yet more interesting than a wall of text!

You could probably even do away with the toc too, because it's of no use whatsoever.

In fact, why not take a look at my example on my user page! User:Kirkburn

-- Kirkburn 17:03, 9 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Actually, there's work in progress here already. Fandyllic & Schmidt are just being lazy about starting the darn vote already! *prods admins sharply, ducks, runs, hides*   Check out Main Page Dev, WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 2. (fwiw, my vote is on 2. the first one seems to be a bit of a monster to me.) --Mikk 07:10, 10 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Me? For one thing, these pages were in development long before I became an admin. I can't speak for Fandyllic (and I don't want to step on his toes) but my guess is that he wouldn't mind either. It has to be competently done, and beyond that, I don't have a whole lot to say about it. BTW, I'm also partial to page 2, but I think a list should be made of links that are Main Page-worthy that would be common to all developmental pages. We would need to keep in mind the reader and the contributor together, and the pages for contributors which are not common with the reader could be found at the bottom of the main page. So maybe you all should work on that to summon up a list of such links. That list should be up to neither Fandyllic nor me (speaking at least of the bulk of the list), for at least one reason: We are admins, and as such we're not "readers." We don't see what readers see. Schmidt 13:54, 11 June 2006 (EDT)


 * (Obtw, nothing's stopping you from putting up WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3 :-) --Mikk 07:12, 10 June 2006 (EDT))


 * Then I shall make it, and see what I can do about incorporating stuff from the various ideas (thanks for pointing it out, btw). -- Kirkburn 09:16, 10 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Done, see WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3 :) -- Kirkburn 09:54, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

I'm still working on WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3, would like some input! -- Kirkburn 14:10, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3
I reckon it justifies its own section now :) Me and Mikk have been working on it quite a lot. It's got stuff from the current main page and the other two dev versions. -- Kirkburn 11:52, 17 June 2006 (EDT)


 * And it looks criiiiiiisp! --Mikk 12:19, 17 June 2006 (EDT)


 * This looks amazing. I was looking at it a couple minutes ago. Great job, Kirkburn. I wouldn't have imagined it looking any better. It might be able to look better, but I wouldn't be able to tell you how. Schmidt 17:14, 17 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Thanks =) I try my best! -- Kirkburn 15:30, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 4
My own version. I have a widescreen and really can't stand narrow pages in general. #4 is based it off #3 with some format modifications. I added another collumn so that links and UI are vissible without scrolling. I also modified the header a bit and changed up the UI links. -- AnduinLothar 16:39, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

= Main page redesign vote =

✅

Change the main page to one of the three proposed alternatives:
 * Main Page Dev (Note this one was created by SilverSide and not maintained for 8 months.)
 * WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 2 (First counter-proposal to SilverSide's proposal by Fandyllic.)
 * WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3 (Simplified proposal by Kirkburn.)
 * WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 4 Winner! (3-column proposal by KarlKFI (AnduinLothar). Note that this does not view well at resolutions below 1024 pixels wide, or if a visually impaired person has increased the font size.)

Obviously, there's a heap of work needed for alternative 1. Some minor additions needed for 2. Let's just make the vote about the design and layout shall we?

Votes

 * Keep the old one!:


 * Main Page Dev:


 * WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 2:


 * WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 3:


 * WoWWiki:Main Page Dev 4:

Design 3 and 4
Regarding the difference between design 3 and 4 - the essential difference is the 2 or 3 column layout and the header.

Personally, I would still stick to 2 column style - many users of the wiki will not have widescreen monitors, and the three column view may become very cramped for them.

On the header style, I am not completely decided - as long as it stands out, and has a reasonable semblance of a 'welcome' text. People like to be welcomed to a website, and not thrown in the 'deep end', as it were. -- Kirkburn 19:29, 2 August 2006 (EDT)


 * There isn't actually an issue with the 3-column layout. The "Interface Customization" header wraps at 800x600, but the content is still very much distinct and readable. At 1024x768, everything looks good. In comparison to design 3, 4 wastes less horizontal space and requires less vertical scrolling -- a good thing for index pages. Starlightblunder 04:51, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * It also slashes the "Useful Links" section in half because the layout requires that Interface Customization + Useful Links be no higher than the "Gameplay" section :-(  --Mikk 04:56, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * That's mostly an issue of the author using duplicate text; can be fixed by simply removing some duplicates. Useful links could be aranged like this:
 * Fansites
 * Official sites:
 * US: Website Forums
 * EU: Website Forums
 * Blizzard
 * Which hopefully shouldn't wrap even at 800x600px. Starlightblunder 05:05, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * That's 6 links. Where's the forum trackers? And what if we want to add more? It skews the page :-/  --Mikk 05:09, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
 * They weren't there until you added them. The links across all Dev pages aren't exactly the same; I do not see a problem with letting them be as they are. Personally, I find offsite links on front page iffy at best -- the visitor typed wowwiki, you'd presume it wasn't because they wanted a link to Blizzard's official site or forums (guess which is more famous?).
 * "What if we want to add more?" goes both ways -- it'll stretch either layout. Objections about wrapping are only valid for 20% of the visitor base. The amount of vertical stretching that table is subject to is nothing compared to the extra rows in Dev 3. Starlightblunder 05:41, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * References ftw. Note how the page you linked says "Web developers be aware: Many users still have only 800x600 display screens." :-P  --Mikk 05:50, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * So it does. It also lists the 800x600px resolution to be 20% in January 2006, and states "and most users are using a display with 1024x768 pixels or more,". Your point? Starlightblunder 07:01, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I expect that percentage is even lower in the WoW population. --Ralthor 08:00, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I really believe that we should look at *which* people are going to be look at WoWWiki. Likely, most of the people coming here will be playing WoW, or at least a gamer of some sort. It's highly unlikely that any gamer would be caught with a screen that could only display 800x600, nor would he want such a screen. This comp that I have is at least 6 years old, can only BARELY play WoW, and I have it cranked to 1024 minimum. The question is, does the site's main page NEED to cater to that 1 odd person that'll come across this site in his granny's comp?


 * To me, Dev 4 looks fine even at 1024, non-wide, so it should be ok. Plus it looks hawt(<3) like that. Oh and I just checked it at 800x600. It was a little scrunched I'd guess, but none of the words had to resort to wrapping, so it'd be fine under that, though maybe a little aesthetically unpleasing. Pzychotix 07:21, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Right, I'll put a plug in it for now. I'll still vote for Dev 3 though, simply because I think it looks better, extends better, and is less of a "Omg! A wall of text!" when presented with it. All in my own very personal opinion :-)  --Mikk 07:38, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

Idea
When this is all done, we should try and keep an 'official' dev version for people to play around with. It can be hard to describe suggested changes to the front page with only text (as has been the style so far), and you have to trust that the admin will do it 'correctly' (or do it at all, *cough cough*). This way people can more easily get aesthetic and organisational improvements onto the main page :) -- Kirkburn 19:58, 2 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Meh, you nabbed my idea. Darn mind readers :-P  --Mikk 04:57, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

3/4
1/2 are horrible. 3 is nice. but 4 is best.. "if" there is need for change.

imo the way it currently is, is fine. Just leave it CJ 07:39, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

"WoWWiki" link in design #4
I put in my vote for design 4 based on the layout, but I don't really like the big "Wowpedia" link on the left side of the header. I don't think the page is so critical that it needs to be in such a prominent position on the front page. Maybe this could be replaced with the Wowpedia:Proposed_icon once we get a new one? Any other ideas? --Rahskala 08:32, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I Agree. A link on the title is silly. In dev #4 I've moved the link down to the Help/Info section. --AnduinLothar 04:45, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

Design 4
I'm coming around to design 4, but only if the colouring/layout is sorted a bit better. 3 column will only be okay if it doesn't look so cramped. With the 'useful links' title there, it looks awful. -- Kirkburn 11:26, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I've fiddled with design 4 a little to make it a little less cramped. I'm close to switching the vote from my own original design :P -- Kirkburn 12:01, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Futher to this, me and Mikk have been tweaking the design 4 header a bit further ... see Main_Page_Dev_4/Dev. Feedback would be appreciated! It seems that the 3 column layout is the most popular option, however, the header is undecided upon. -- Kirkburn 17:49, 3 August 2006 (EDT)


 * The header and the float: right div ("started in 2004...") seem to overlap at low resolutions, to the extent of making some of the div unreadable (IE6, 800x600px). Starlightblunder 03:27, 4 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I'm not really a fan of the entire wiki block at the top of the page, or something ( for both design 4 and design 4/Dev ), rather something that doesn't take up as much of the top of the screen or possibly moved above the "What is a wiki" area, don't really need the font size to be that big for design 4/Dev. Shadow 12:44, 4 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I've improved Main_Page_Dev_4/Dev for lower resolutions, and lowered the size - improvement? -- Kirkburn 13:46, 4 August 2006 (EDT)


 * It's better, but the dashed border of the div still overlaps "can edit" below the header. Same resolution/browser as previously. Starlightblunder 05:41, 7 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Anduin's latest changes to Dev 4 have prompted me to swap my vote finally :) Good work everyone! -- Kirkburn 07:41, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

I like the design of Dev 4, especially that most links are above the scroll. However, section titles, associated links and list order could be improved. There is redundant use of the word 'Info' for General, Player, Game and Other. The 'Player Info' header should be titled 'Character' instead as those links pertain to characters rather than the players. The 'Play Guides' header should be titled 'Guides' as the title meaning is too narrow and doesn't quite properly describe all of the associated links. The 'Game Info' header should be titled 'Library' or something else entirely, as the title meaning is too broad and most all links in wowwiki thematically assocaiate to Game Info. The 'Other' header should be titled 'Community'. Add Roleplaying and reassociate links to section headers in this order; Column 1: Character - Classes, Races, Factions, Professions, Roleplaying, Honor System, Quests; Guides - Guides Main Menu, New Player Guide, Class Getting Started Guides, Instance Guide, Instance Grouping Guide, Talent Builds Guide, Travel Guides; Column 2: Library - Lore, News, Patches, Formulas & Game Mechanics, Glossary, Creatures, *Item List, ** Weapons & Armor, NPC List, *List of Regions, **Maps; Community - Realms (servers), Guilds, Fansites. Umbra 08:47, 10 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Those changes seem very reasonable to me - you can implement them yourself, btw :) I'm about to go out, so I might take a look at it when I get back later. -- Kirkburn 11:23, 10 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Looks nice Kirkburn! After looking more closely at the articles the links go to, I noticed a few more issues.  Guides section header followed by a masked link for Guides Main Menu and the use of the word 'Guide' in the links for the Guide section are redundant.  Since wowwiki guides do not have 'How to' or 'for dummies' in the title, articles with 'ing' in the title make good guide choices.  For example, the article  Choosing a class  is a better fit for the Guide section rather than repeating the same link twice as Character/Classes and as Guides/Class Getting Started Guides.  Some of the articles listed in the menu are in violation of WoWWiki:Policy/Naming and are in need of attention for various other reasons, but that's a separate issue we can all work on. I've made some minor changes to the section headers and article links and will cast my vote for design 4. Umbra 17:49, 10 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Nice work! ... I didn't want to do too much - felt you would make a better job of it :) I certainly think we're getting close to perfection now :P
 * I forsee but one problem - it's not obvious that the Guides and Char titles are links :/ -- Kirkburn 19:39, 10 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I see your point. I linked and bolded all section headers.  Some of the links are to newly created short articles that can be expanded.  Hopefully these changes address your concern. Umbra 23:07, 10 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Yeah, I think that works very well - the links are consistent now :) -- Kirkburn 07:13, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

Since this design is pending closure, my sense of urgency to correct many of the main menu articles that do not comply with WoWWiki:Policy/Naming has increased. I’ve already made a few changes to the article links in the design and I’ll be working on correcting the affected articles later this afternoon. Umbra 10:22, 11 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I'm not sure of the Guilds link - you've changed it to Guild (list), whereas the original link was to an article explaining what guilds are (which I think is preferred). -- Kirkburn 12:07, 11 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I changed Guild (list) to Guilds List and Realm (list) to Realms List. I also put a Guild link at the top of Realms List and a Realm link at the top of Guilds List. That should do for now. We can vote to change them to Guild and Realm directly later. --Fandyllic 9:54 AM PDT 15 Aug 2006

Proposal: "Instance" to "Dungeon"
I think we need to change our usage of the word "Instance". When you think about it, the title doesn't mean anything unless you already know what it means, and understand the whole concept of "instancing".

But "dungeon" already means something to people when they come here. Though the instanced areas of the game aren't necessarily always dungeons by the true definition of the word, it makes a lot more sense for the inexperienced than "instance" does. It makes sense to new people, and it makes sense to us veterans. Plus, it's the term that Blizzard uses.

So, short version: "Instance" should be changed to "Dungeon" or "Instanced Dungeon".

Thoughts? Should we do a vote? --Bevans (FeldmanSkitzoid) 13:53, 15 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Uh, yeah, instance makes plenty of sense. Its simply a copy of something, an instance of it. -- Deathnaut


 * Interesting point ... I'm not sure what I would vote for though :/ -- Kirkburn 19:45, 24 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I think that there should be no change, the usage of the term Dungeon, while more understandable to those new or never have played World of Warcraft, the vast majority of our denizens will be familiar enough with the term "instance" that there is no need to differentiate the two. Additonaly, there are cases in which a dungeon might not always also be an instance, such as extended caverns that exist within the world but are not "instanced" as it were, and vice versa: an "instance" is not always a "dungeon" such as the Troll areas in Tanaris or Zul'Gurub.  At the very most if it came to a vote, the term "Instanced Dungeon" might be passable, as long as it had a decent template explanation with it, such as the guild or player templates.  -- Erobus 23:49 MST 24 August 2006

Main Page bug descriptions
Put Main Page bug descriptions below...

Some Pages To Delete
→ Moved to village pump  -- Mikk  (T) 06:50, 3 November 2006 (EST)

Text colour

 * Text color issue with monobook skin - not all text has been set to white. I've rectified this on the Main Page Dev page. The colourful title on the dev page isn't mine though ;) -- Kirkburn 07:27, 26 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Replicated changes that were made on Main Page Dev page. --Fandyllic 12:35 AM PDT 27 Aug 2006


 * Personally, I tried every skin. Hated them all, mostly due to the colors involved.  Really, anyone ever heard of using contrasting colors?  I use the lastest version of Firefox, and the pages show up with dark blue text on a dark gray background.  Extremely hard to read.  The "skins" seem to only change the tabs and menus.  The actual wiki part is all but unreadable. --Rukhan 10:23, 19 September 2006
 * I would say it sounds like your monitor is too dark - I have absolutely no problem reading the text, even on a laptop monitor. Unvisited links should be quite a light blue, and visited links are a slightly darker blue, but certainly doesn't appear unreadable for me. Due to various techinical issues, it isn't easy for us to design the wiki for all skins, so, for most cases, the primary design is based on the default wowwiki skin. I will bring it to other admin's attention though ... -- Kirkburn  (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
 * OKay, just spoke to Mikk - it might be a setting you have on in firefox? Something along the lines of " "Allow web site to style links"? This is how it should look: [] -- Kirkburn  (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I went and changed various settings including allowing the web site to use specified colors and fonts, versus ones that I've chosen as default for my browser. If I don't allow websites to specify colors, I get black on white background, my default. Unfortunately, this is a global setting, meaning all websites will universally show black text on white background.  I have a screenshot, but, am not sure how to upload it to this site. --Rukhan 07:55, 26 September 2006

Alignment

 * The recent 'fix' to the vertical alignment does the opposite for me. It's now below the centre. Fandyllic, what browser/settings was this on? The text is vertically aligned to the centre in the code already :/ -- Kirkburn 07:58, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Okay, I got rid of it. I'm using Safari and it looks fine, but I have a Mac (which are historically known to handle type better than PCs). --Fandyllic 6:47 PM PDT 27 Aug 2006

Creatures link

 * The Creatures link points to the "Creature" page, not the "Creatures" page. The former is a manual disambiguation page, the latter is probably the intended target for the link on the front page of the wiki. --Flick 1:36 PM PDT 28 Sep 2006


 * [&radic;] I'd agree. I changed it.  -- Mikk  (T) 18:02, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

NDA link

 * The NDA link in the Important News line leads to a disambiguation page on wikipedia, we really should link to Non-disclosure_agreement. --Starlightblunder 06:13, 12 November 2006 (EST)


 * &#91; √ &#93; Done! -- Kirkburn  (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Minor Main Page change suggestions
Put minor Main Page change suggestions below...

Spacing

 * Removing the newline between _NOTOC_ and _NOEDITSECTION_ should get you rid of the blank space on top, instead increase the distance to the "what is a wiki" part a bit -watchout 03:46, 26 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Moved _NOTOC_ and _NOEDITSECTION_ to the bottom which should do roughly the same thing. --Fandyllic 12:35 AM PDT 27 Aug 2006

API links

 * Please re-add links to Widget_API and to Events_(API) to the main page (as it was in the previous front page) --MentalPower 18:58, 26 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Done. --Fandyllic 12:35 AM PDT 27 Aug 2006
 * Please add a link to the XML User Interface page as presently you have to dig to get there and it's a major part of addon programming. --Arandmoor 10:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Policy heading

 * I think that the WoWWiki Policies heading should be a link to Policies, as there isn't actually a link to this page yet and it seems to be higher in the hierarchy the the policy pages themselves. --Ted 04:20, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Made heading link to Policies. --Fandyllic 7:04 PM PDT 27 Aug 2006


 * Make the contents a list (*-rred) too, because now this breaks the style a bit - IMO -watchout 05:12, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * We can't star the the policy list at the moment. The same template is used in the policy TOC boxes and a number of other places. It may be doable when we get CSS access though. --Mikk 06:35, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Ok, bulleted policy lists. --Fandyllic 7:04 PM PDT 27 Aug 2006


 * Meh. Now the policy toc box is bulleted too. Ohwell, I suppose that works too.  --Mikk (T) 12:57, 29 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Actually I think it (the box) looks quite good -watchout 08:03, 30 August 2006 (EDT)

Interface menu title

 * It's got a bit bogged down in other discussions, but one change I suggest is bolding the Interface menu title, and making the rest of the interface sections part of that - similar in style to the rest of the Main Page links -- Kirkburn 15:09, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Like so :) -- Kirkburn 09:40, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

External EU links

 * I propose that the EU forum/website links are simplified, since this is an english language wiki, to:
 * EU: Website / Forums
 * The former links the the english language site, and the latter links to the list choice of four forum languages, which I think is perfect. -- Kirkburn 10:28, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Discussion suggests this is a good idea -- Kirkburn (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Guilds

 * Guilds List should be changed to either Guilds (disambiguation) or just plain Guild. The Guilds List page is useless. -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree, the Guilds List has nothing to do with guilds, and it is outdated compared to Realms List  --Mikk (T) 18:36, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Switched link to Guilds (disambiguation) -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Editing tip

 * How about adding the editing tip of the day to the bottom of the Main Page - see Main_Page_Dev for the example. -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Also added "tip of the day" to the bottom of the page. -- Kirkburn  (talk &middot; contr) 16:15, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
 * &#91; √ &#93; Highlighted the tip-of-the-day as it is in latest Main Page Dev. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:20 PM PDT 19 Sep 2006

Guides

 * I don't think the Guides link is promiment enough, so I suggest adding a More guides... link to the bottom just to show it more obviously -- Kirkburn (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2006 (EDT)


 * It's the same for every section, the change makes no sense to me, sorry -watchout 15:24, 31 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Unlike the other section titles, Guides has lots of content behind it. It is not immediately obvious that the white titles are linked pages, and articles themselves. For people new to the wiki it would appear as if we only have 5 guides available and wouldn't think to click the guides title (especially if they have tried the others and seen there's not much content behind them. That's my reasoning anyway ... -- Kirkburn (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Your reasoning seems good, but lacks the next step. If youre adding this link to only ONE section, youre implicitly telling the users that no other section has a link under the white bolded title because, of course, the 'more X' is more obvious. You're suggesting to the user that only the guides section has "more" content than listed on the mainpage. So, give all sections a 'more X' link or none. Thats my 'Tip of the day' for you -watchout 15:58, 31 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Ok, there's another thing you can do: Remove one of the other links in Guides, change the "more Guides" link to "... All Guides" and have it point to the category, *not* Guides. This way you make the section "normal length", preventing it from being too eye-catching and by the usage of all guides youre suggesting just a list of all guides, not a selection of that list and thus a more authored type of content. -watchout 16:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Please see my change to to Main Page Dev that adds arrows (&rArr;) to white headings and makes it more obvious they are links. Also, I'm not a big fan of the More guides... link. --Fandyllic 9:49 PM PDT 31 Aug 2006


 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Kirkburn (talk) added More guides... link. --Fandyllic 9:52 PM PDT 31 Aug 2006


 * And he's starting to regret it :) I much prefer the arrows idea, the 'more...' link was just a temp. measure. -- Kirkburn (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2006 (EDT)


 * &#91; x &#93; Okay, I've removed the link I added. See below for more info. -- Kirkburn (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Latest updates (02/09/2006, 12/09/2006)

 * Spaced out sections a little, added arrows to title links, changed 'Guides' title to 'Guides Menu' to better explain it, minor updates to Interface Customization section. -- Kirkburn (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Updated code to validate better, removed deprecated code. Fix for main title (title not in middle) and table width (not constant) problems, removed link to WoWWiki Reference desk as this is being shut down. Also added "tip of the day" to the bottom of the page. -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

French and German Wikis
I think we should have links to the other language wikis on the front page.


 * WikiWoW.com - A World of Warcraft wiki in French
 * WoW-Wiki.net - A World of Warcraft wiki in German

We can't cope with multiple languages on this wiki, and it would be in the community's interest to help out these alternative language wikis - we can't cope with german and french articles on here, and since we are the best known wiki, this is where the french and germans come first :/ We should help redirect them to sites in their own language -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Hm, yeah, that sounds like a reasonable idea. But not in the main link list. Somewhere else, I think.  --Mikk (T) 11:57, 6 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I've incorporated the other language wiki links into my redesign - see User:Kirkburn/Dev -- Kirkburn  (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2006 (EDT)


 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Now on the Main Page! -- Kirkburn  (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

Useful banner
Can I add a giant pink and green banner that shouts "This is not wikipedia!" ... Please? You know you want to ;) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2006 (EDT)


 * On second thoughts, something along those lines really could go on the 'What is a Wiki?' section. Views? Comments? Analysis? Beanie babies? -- Kirkburn  (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Hm. Hmmm. Any particular reason you want it in there? Are you worrying that we're scaring people off from contributing for some reason? (On a sidenote, I've put something along those lines in About.)  -- Mikk  (T) 10:28, 29 September 2006 (EDT)


 * It's just from recent 'experience', some users don't realise this isn't a professional encyclopaedia - since you mention that though, I'll point people to there if needs be. -- Kirkburn  (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2006 (EDT)


 * A good compromise would be to make a link called "WoWWiki is not Wikipedia". -- Fandyllic (talk) 11:22 AM PDT 29 Sep 2006


 * I've added a sentence along those lines to the dev page. -- Kirkburn  (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2006 (EDT)


 * &#91; &radic; &#93; Added to the Main Page -- Kirkburn  (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

Latest updates (1 Oct 2006)

 * Moved in design from Main Page Dev, including Mikk's text logo. I've done the latter as it's a huge improvement on the previous version, and because it uses the WoW font, which is only natural for a WoW wiki :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2006 (EDT)

Search link
&#91; √ &#93; Added Search link at top right from Main Page Dev -- Kirkburn  (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

Google Ads
I have to admit i dont know how exactly those google links work, but is there any way to make sure no gold selling ads appear there? personally, seeing those ads is majorly depressing... -- Artaka Chrest 07:45, 18 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I know, it's annoying for us as well, but not something we can control easily at the moment :/ -- Kirkburn  (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

Latest updates (22 Oct 2006)

 * Moved in design from Main Page Dev. Minor links grammar updates and a new 'Latest News' bar. -- Kirkburn  (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

Other comments

 * Previous contents moved to Talk:Main Page/Archive1. --Fandyllic
 * For recent vote to change the Main Page, see Talk:Main Page/Archive1 --Fandyllic

Deep development links in Main Page
When Kirkburn and I redesigned the Interface Customization section for the new front page, we deliberately kept the link count down. Interface Customization is now a usable menu, which it never was earlier. Doing too much deep linking from the Main Page hides the Interface Customization menu, which imo detracts from its value. --Mikk 05:55, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I thought that too, but on the other hand there are some useless links to the official forums and homepages in all languages, I tried to work around that because I think widget and event links are really worth it. take a look at User:Watchout/My Main Page -watchout 06:15, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * The Interface Customization main menu is where all the important links should be, rather than on the front page, as there would be far too many links on it. I've made a minor edit on the Main Page Dev page, and written a note on the talk page - opinions?
 * Regarding the website/forum links - I do agree that I think the selection is a bit over the top. I feel the EU list should be restricted to the main addresses.
 * EU website redirects to the english homepage (which I do not see a problem with as this is an english wiki).
 * EU forums redirects to the forum language list, which is perfect.
 * Thoughts? -- Kirkburn 07:56, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Agree with both. --Mikk 08:34, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Actually, the hierarchy-thing is a really good idea since it looks like the other links in the left and middle areas. The reason for splitting up the "Hosted AddOn Pages" escapes me though, I'd rather have Event (API) and Widget API links. --watchout 09:49, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Because there's nothing much else linking to the Hosted AddOn Pages section, while there's a nice big very complete menu that we've put quite a bit of energy into getting usable that's pointing at events/widgets?  --Mikk 13:48, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Well... thats leading nowhere, and I don't want to have an argument with you that may escalate about... what... 2 words on the main page. -watchout 15:01, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I also changed the order of the links in Main Page Dev, see WoWWiki_Talk:Main Page Dev --watchout 09:49, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Some discussion continues on WoWWiki_Talk:Main Page Dev -- Kirkburn 10:23, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Search
We need a better search engine, like the one used in Wikipedia. I can't go to the page I want with this one, and it's less effective especially because newly made pages can't be searched until after some time.--Bookinvestor 14:58, 6 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Oh, we have one, and it works ... but we're still sorting out getting it back as the search box (it was broken for a while, hence the Google search).
 * See Special:Search for the proper wiki search box :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

Why is the search box (Google or other) located so far down on the main page? It's the most important and first item many people look for on the page, and I don't think it's a good idea to force users to scroll down to find it. --Jueskin 16:50, 6 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I have plans to alleviate this, even though I cannot affect the position of the search box directly :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I present to you a solution - minor changes to the links on the left, plus the addition of a link to the Internal search page! Enjoy :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Thank you so much for the link Internal Search! I really appreciate it, as well as many other people obsessed with WoWWiki. --Bookinvestor 03:16, 8 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Glad to hear it! And it's also now linked on the top right of the Main Page, too :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Agreed with Bookinvestor, it's one of the best changes ever. Navigation has neer been so nice! --Tinkerer 16:19, 8 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Smiley smiley smiley grin -- Kirkburn  (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2006 (EDT)


 * It's a good change, but it's not enough. There absolutely needs to be *some* search box available on the main page without scrolling.  I would recommend putting the search box already on the left between the navigation and the google ads boxes.  Our main page is a lot of links, but how many people really come here intending to browse?  Search is the main function, and it should have center stage.  Look at wikipedia.  That's a well set up wiki front page.  Ours looks good, and it has useful links, but not having a search box on the main page, without scrolling (for most users), is a critical failure.  Perhaps, can we put a text entry box up where the search link is now that automatically uses the default search options on that page, and then a link to "advanced search" that actually goes to that page?  --Maldian 12:12, 15 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Unfortunately we can't do this easily right now. We need to dig up some wiki plugins to do that. I'll start looking though.  -- Mikk  (T) 14:16, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Google Ads
Front page : Quote:
 * Ads by Google
 * Cheap WoW Gold
 * 24/7 Instant Delivery, Cheap Prices 24/7 Live Chat and Customer Service
 * ((Filtered))
 * Advertise on this site

or


 * World of Warcraft Cheats
 * The Latest Guides, Exploits, Cheats Only $24.77 for a 1yr Subscription!


 * Is it me, or ... eh.. does anyone else think that goldsellers and other crap like this should be filtered form the google ads ? I'm never very positive about seeing goldsellers pop up anywhere, especially since it's against Blizzard's ToS. CJ 09:36, 30 October 2006 (EST)


 * I've got a mail out to Rustak asking if there is anything we can do about this. Hopefully he replies soon. -- Fandyllic (talk) 8:12 AM 30 Oct 2006
 * i'm pretty sure the advertisements can largely be controlled / filtered clientside. (according to the google settings) CJ 15:32, 30 October 2006 (EST)

Professions Link
Please correct the Professions link. It Currently links to "Profession" instead of "Professions". --Dracomage 15:58, 21 November 2006 (EST)
 * Uhm both links are the same, Professions is a redirect. Where is the problem? --Adys 17:08, 21 November 2006 (EST)
 * I do not get the redirct?? My link takes me to a "Profession/" page?? --Dracomage 12:52, 22 November 2006 (EST)
 * Profession is the actual article page, Professions is a redirect to Profession. Either way, they get to the same page so it doesn't really matter which is used. --Gryphon 13:02, 22 November 2006 (EST)
 * Still not working for me. I tried to put in a redirect on the blank page but now just made a looping redirect. For some reason, when I click on the "Professions" link it takes me to /Profession/ that does not exist or is blank.--Dracomage 17:02, 22 November 2006 (EST)
 * Profession/ is different than Profession. There should be no reason why clicking on Profession is ending up at the page with a trailing slash, it is just like every other article on the Wiki. --Gryphon 18:23, 22 November 2006 (EST)