User talk:Sandwichman2448

Past yellings at/praisings of/comments to me are archived here:

Stone Lord
Thanks for updating this article--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Titanic watcher
Hmm i don't want to be rude but Auraya is part of the Ulduar group..., she doesn't have her own icon because nobody bothered to do it yet... I also think it's better if it's organized by which place they are assigned... than this way --Ashbear160 (talk) 16:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Stormcub12
i need help with my page...and how do i get my page to the class ideas page under the Necromancer?...plez help a noob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.

ya..and my page is in boxes...how do i get it to normal?

o...ok so how do i move it to the class ideas then?

thank you for helping me...when i go on other peorples wiki it dosnt look like mine...how do i change mine to make it look good to read? and did you read it?

Cannon
I've been browseing WoWWiki for the past few weeks and have noticed alot of articles containing references to the board games, novels, comics, and other related media not outlined in the Warcraft games' lore. I have been an avid follower of Blizzard and thier software releases for a very long time, and I've come to discover that alot of Lore holes outlined in the official games have been filled in by the books/comics/etc. Some of this has altered views of major participants in the Warcraft Universe. Are we to accept this as official cannon? And if not should we denote that when referenced it is plausible?

An Example: On one of the pages referencing Arthas in Northrend it is stated that he returned from the cavern of Frostmourne and slaughtered his troops, raising them into undeath, and bringing them back to Lorderan to purge the great kingdom. This is never fully explained in Warcraft III: The Reign of Chaos,(To my waning memory anyway.) isn't it possible that he left the troops back at his base alone? It is obvious he raised the Captain into undeath, but this could be explained by the troops he took with him into the waygate. Isn't it also possible that he just blantantly murdered the rest of his men, leaving them for dead? --Sir Tristram (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the practice of Wowpedia to document all sources of Warcraft lore, including but not limited to all of the sources that you have mentioned. As far as how it is specifically handled, you would probably want to read our avoidance of the word "canon", the Neutrality policy, and the Lore policy. I hope that helps.


 * As for the time between the "Frostmourne" mission and the "Arthas' Betrayal" cinematic, it is one of the sketchier areas in the plot. In Warcraft III, it is just said that he ran off into the frozen wastes of Northrend, and went insane due to Frostmourne. It is never revealed how he got home, just that he did. Arthas: Rise of the Lich King avoids the time period, only showing what Warcraft III did (plus a letter that Arthas wrote to his father somehow). In Lands of Mystery, it is said that survivors of Arthas' and Muradin's expeditions founded Valgarde, so some did survive (expanding on the known survivors shown in The Frozen Throne's undead campaign). However, the quest shows that Arthas did kill a great deal of his own men, who marched on Icecrown for unexplained reasons. Also, there are a lot of ghosts at the Forgotten Shore, and in the Halls of Reflection. Death Knight is probably the best depiction of these events, where it shows Arthas making his two captains (or just Falric) and Thassarian into death knights. The waygate (which Arthas: Rise of the Lich King exchanges for a magic non-teleporting lodestone that Muradin had) happened long before anyone became undead in all sources, meaning that the forces that killed Mal'Ganis were alive at the time. Anything you read about this period on Wowpedia is likely extrapolation from all of that, but it is likely that Arthas killed most of his men somewhere between the death of Mal'Ganis and his return home. I'll admit that I might be missing something... like a source that comes out and says that Arthas killed all of his men and sailed home... but I do not think so.-- 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Clarification . -- Sir Tristram (Speak, mortal. My Conquests.) 02:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to help.-- 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum; Does apply to the forces back at his base or the few he took with him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * I'm guessing you are differentiating between the force the player would take to kill Mal'Ganis, and the units and builds that were left at the base. Are you referring to something else? To anwser your question, I do not actually know where the 1st Legion came from, or what they are. They are in Icecrown, while Arthas' main base was (I'm guessing) at the Forgotten Shore. I have no idea what makes up the units displayed in that quest, and more importantly, what does not.-- 04:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I was refereing to. And atleast you're not the only one who doesn't know.-- Sir Tristram (Speak, mortal. My Conquests.) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you notice any information like this that is not cited, please either try and fix it or bring it to the attention of someone so that they can fix it. What passage started this conversation?-- 20:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know, I know I was reading WoWWiki so it might be fixed already.-- Sir Tristram (Speak, mortal. My Conquests.) 21:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

NIWA Affiliation
Greetings! I'm Xizor, and I represent the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance. I am the NIWA Coordinator, and as such, I've been made aware of your guys' split from Wikia, and also WoWwiki. While obviously World of Warcraft is not part of Nintendo's franchises, NIWA is very open to affiliating with non-Nintendo Wikis, even if they do not become members. As such, I would love it if you guys would like to affiliate with NIWA. You can find more information, including my email address on that site. Let me know if you have any questions! If there is some other Administrator I should contact, please point me in that direction, also. =P Hope to hear back soon! --Xizor (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired
Hello.

I just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether Instancefooter should replace Dungeons} or not.

Thanks.

06:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Firelands
Here's link to a video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqDZcMD5m4Q, 8.40 is when he starts talking about Firelands, and said artwork is at 9.05... Now I think Blizzcon is actually a verfiable source... Add ref in the article too Encaitar (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See Gourra's talk page
User_talk:Gourra. Notifying you, in case Gourra doesn't check his talk page. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 5:26 PM PST 9 Dec 2010

Cape of Stranglethorn's categories
Just a minor issue: Since The Barrens get the "The", I believe all the categories with Cape of Stranglethorn should have that same "The" added since that's the name of the "zone". Renkien (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The actual zone may be known as "The Barrens" on the map and minimap but Wowpedia policy dictates (unless something changed without my knowledge) that articles such as "The" be omitted from page titles, due to the often-reinforced assumption that you will find the phrases "Barrens" and "the Barrens" just as much as "The Barrens". You can vote to change or enforce this policy here (yes, the vote has been going on for two and a half years).-- 02:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong uploads
I forgot completely that I should be uploading new versions of the old npc photos instead of uploading into a new file. I'd have to ask for you to track them (they're from two hours ago untill now) and delete them. Renkien (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Even the ones that are currently being used?-- 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The ones I uploaded are named [NPC's name] + "(cata)".jpg
 * Those are the ones you should delete. I'll upload them as an update to the old ones shortly after that, don't worry about it. Renkien (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll also create a list of those files here:
 * Kizz Bluntstrike (cata).jpg
 * Rickle Goldgrubber (cata).jpg
 * Crank Fizzlebub (cata).jpg
 * Fin Fizracket (cata).jpg
 * Nixxrax Fillamug (cata).jpg
 * First Mate Crazz (cata).jpg
 * Jaxin Chong (cata).jpg
 * Glyx Brewright (cata).jpg
 * Isn't there a way for me (the actual uploader) to delete or transfer those files? Renkien (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll delete them if you are going to replace them. As a normal editor, you can not delete images.-- 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see... I uploaded them in their right places and replaced the name in the respective npcs' pages.
 * Are you going to do anything about the Cape of Stranglethorn? (the above topic) Renkien (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Image
That's funny... they didn't even bother getting the image you uploaded right from the source... just took from here. . 05:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Brain fart... How can you tell? Not that I do not believe you. The "400px-" taken from here?-- 05:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The file name and it's size. When you right click to save the image as it appears on the file's page, it will try to rename the images to how they have it named at wowwiki. Actual size is 550 × 825 while displayed its 400 × 600, the exact size of theres =P 05:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "they" but the uploader edited on both wikis. Damn Trade Princess fan bias...-- 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh... well, just noting, cause I found it interesting... when the direct source is just a few clicks away. 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish someone would take WoWWiki out behind the shed and shoot it. I didn't know about the new site until today, and suddenly it made sense why everything on there said "When Cataclysm comes out..." Zanmen (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there are many articles to update, I'm sure many still say that here as well... probably not as much, but some. 06:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Zanmen, I welcome your help and input.-- 06:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more of a reader than an editor (like most people). While I'm here I guess I might as well say keep it up though. Wowhead has its place, but you won't find write-ups on important characters/events on a database site. Zanmen (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. Many of the NPCs on the Bilgewater Harbour article appear in multiple places. Should there be a Bamm Megabomb and Bamm Megabomb (Azshara) or something? He goes from level 6, to 10, to 25... Zanmen (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Sorry about that. I'm not sure. If they are very different NPCs, then I would suggest multiple pages. If they are the same except for quests and locations, then perhaps there should only be one page. I do not know.-- 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll let more experienced users take care of such things. (Although I don't feel bad if even you aren't sure how to handle it.) Thanks anyway. Zanmen (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It was never said that undead were unable to use the light
The Cited pages from the page infact mentioned nothing of it. It was just fanfiction presented as fact.

We were fooled for years.

http://www.wowpedia.org/Talk:Forsaken#.22While_they_can_no_longer_use_the_Holy_Light.22

Also Bornakk says the undead can use the holy light and the fact that it feels painful does not change that he says it heals them. Copperblast (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I know about both parts. However, those pages should not be, in my opinion, for lore discussion.-- 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of information on reasons for policies / DNP policy in specific
Hi, found you via Special:Listusers/sysop, I am new here but not new to wikis :)

I would be interested in hearing any feedback admins have to this: Wowpedia_talk:DNP_policy (figured it's probably not a page that is read/used much so I'm messaging you all, I couldn't find a noticeboard page though I found what looks like a rather out-of-date list of admins hehe) --Kittymew (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired
Hey, just wanted to get your opinion on Talk:Archbishop Benedictus about whether or not the "he staged a coup" note from patch 1.4.1 should be considered lore or not. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding my 2 cents. Sandwichman could you vote in Category talk:Patch templates, regarding the change of icon in Cataclysm Patch templates. I would be very grateful:) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandwichman we need your help again:), the Alliance-Horde War article is constantly changed to include Malfurion as an Alliance commander, while he actually doesn't take part in the conflict similar to Lady Liadrin, Hamuul Runetotem, Varok Saurfang or even Thrall who are not listed. Could you please visit Talk:Alliance–Horde War and discuss. I really think he doesn't fit there, as he is more neutral as leader of Cenarion Circle (just like the 4 Horde commanders who simply do not take part in the war eventhough they're in the Horde). Thanks in advance 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Gallywix citations
All of those things were important events in the starting zone. They're a huge part of the goblin starting zone, please play thourhg the goblin starting zone or watch a video of it before you star making accusations of bias. Copperblast (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then it should be easy to cite.-- 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Ty very much for welcoming me :). --Forsakenlord (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we list kil'jaedan as lich king enemy?
hey should we list kil'jaeden as one of lich king enemies since he was the creator and ner'zhul back stabbed him by telling illldan About skull of gul'dan also merging with arthas.--Forsakenlord (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * List him where?-- 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lich king page?--Forsakenlord (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Where on the Lich King page? The infobox? Isn't Kil'jaedan already mentioned somewhere on the page? You do not really have to ask...-- 01:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On "enemies" section along with Tiron sylvannas and players....--Forsakenlord (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. That section is lacking anyway.-- 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for giving me access to User:SamRosenfeld/Change_In_Money. I have copied the code and you may redelete the page. Do you know if there are any free program that let me compile HTML so that I can write files in HTML but do not have to publish them online in order to view them? Sam613 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * HTML-Kit?-- 18:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Users in categories?
Why is the User:mylork in the artifact category are users allowed to do that?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was an error that came about due to the splitting of the "The Skull of Gul'dan" article. The entire lore page, and its categories, was transcluded in the stead of the item's information.-- 01:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Warcraft Adventures
Please, don't tell too much people, at least not until the entire game has been recorded, don't want anyone to step in and delete the videos :P.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ...What? They will (or at least might) get removed if someone from Blizzard sees them regardless of whether or not I tell a lot of people... which I was apparently going to do...-- 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)-- 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Elemental Spirits
Someone told me the information on the pandaren culture in elemental spirits page is wrong, i'm also going to try make a article about the one in the deeps with the information i was given--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that. I have Dark Factions too you know. I'm not sure what the problem is, as they are not necessarily worshiped (they might be), but they are called "spirit of [some element]" and seem to be elemental spirits (which are... something).-- 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents of what a "Race' is
In my opinion a race is a species that exists in-game or lore. They should have a leader, faction information and other basic information. A racebox can make an article easier to understand such as the image which can show you what they look like and if they have classes tells you more about the race's culture. Hallowseve15 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Creep Project
I've been trying to make a complete list/database of creeps for awhile now, and I ran across your sandbox page while I was looking for info on ones that the Battle.net guide missed. I really liked your idea of doing a gameplay stats and lore page for each unit in Warcraft III. I'm not that familiar with wiki-editing, but I'd be happy to do legwork putting together stats in a uniform format if it's still something you're working on. Eman ruse (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fairly sure that my list is complete. A few things on it are not creeps, just notes about what I found while playing through the game (mostly locations). I will make all those pages... eventually (really!). Feel free to help. As for a uniform format, I feel that being similar to Benitoperezgaldos' Dark Troll (Warcraft III) is a good idea for an ideal. Two pages may not be needed for all of them, as they do not all have much lore, unlike the multiplayer units and the greater creep types and races, but we shall see.-- 03:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian destroyer
In my opinion the history section should be cleaned up. The whole Tol'vir story is a condradiction to the qiraji and the obsidian statue story... also the order of the content is a littly messy.. first a paragraph about how they look like and how they are created, then another paragraph about their Appearance, then Warcraft III, then history of their creation, then another history of their creation ... I don't know - it just didn't feel perfect ;-) If you think otherwise then feel free to remove the template :-) Sry for my english btw ;-) --LemonBaby (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your English is fine. What I meant was that everything there has been said by Blizzard. I suppose it may need a bit of reconciling... but I am not sure what to say.-- 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know - it smells a little bit like retcon ;-) Either way, I thought with all the new information about the tol'vir the article about the destroyers should be a little bit polished. I don't even get the difference between a obsidian destroyer and a Neferset.. shouldn't they look the same? --LemonBaby (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ask CDev answer specifically said "enslaved" and "tol'vir slaves" which indeed implies that there should be no difference between the stone tol'vir and the obsidian destroyers beyond affiliation. However, there is. Just look at their faces and wing position. It may be updated models, but I do not know. I would have said "reverse engineered" or "reworked" to make it fit, but I am not sure if that is the case, and in fact strongly doubt it. I do not know how to fix this. Was the old lore expanded or thrown out? I lean towards the latter...-- 23:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated models, i assume, anyway since the tol'vir answer is more recent than the older built by the twin emperor this it's sligthly more canon--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So it should be at least be mentioned that the two accounts contradict each other...--LemonBaby (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Slightly, i can interpret it as C'thun tricking the twin emperors or something similar, but the "OD are Tol'vir" answer is more canon do to being more recent--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole Uldum zone support the OD answer, but it is realy annoying that they chanced their background. The infobox would now be wrong too: They are no longer Magical beasts, they are no longer neutral evil and their capital should be Uldum.. it's realy confusing --LemonBaby (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What Ashbear said is still only an interpretation. The "more canon" this is only a good idea, and talking it too far violates the neutrality policy.-- 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's like a "canon law" the recent always more canon than the old information.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about doing it like on the Draenei page with old and new lore? --LemonBaby (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a law, it is just likely true. The old lore still needs to be presented, and I am not completely sure that it contradicts. It likely does, but by how much? What if I ordered the sections from most-recent to least-recent?-- 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it must be removed i'm saying that's the "general rule of canon"--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not help.-- 00:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It does contradict very much: In the first account the qiraji built them long after the split of their empire during the war of the shifting sands as a ultimate weapona against the dragons. In the secound account the the tol'vir were in Uldum and Ahn'Qiraj. The Aqir splited into Nerubian and Qiraji, settled down in Ahn'Qiraj, enslaved the tol'vir and had the destroyer at the beginning of the war of the shifting sands already. The same problem with the Anubisath. They now seem to be corrupted titanic watchers instead of made by the qiraji. --LemonBaby (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it does contradict when taking everything at face value with no speculation. Besides reordering sections and adding the note about Moam, what has been done?-- 15:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just reordered the section to the "typical" foramat: History, descritopn, members. Instead of: Descriton, another section of description, history, members, another section of history. I added the info about Moam because it seems to be noteworthy that a special destroyer exists and that he was created by the qiraji after the wall was sealed. Feel free to change it if you think the former order was better :-) --LemonBaby (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that solve the contradiction? In order to do that, we much choose what to throw out or make up. I was fine with just a note or disclaimer once we figured out the extent of the contradiction.-- 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't solve the contradiction but still needed to be done. I wanted to work on the format of the article a little until we make a desicion. I found a post on the official forum from a user who is also a little annoyed by the change: "Previously, you assured us that Uldum and the Tol'vir would solve any issues concerning Obsidian Destroyers from Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, but there are several unanswered points. Are you just retconning that the Scourge ever had them entirely?  The actual Tol'vir can't fly (even the few stone ones who have wings).  They show no attraction/ability to destroy/interaction with mana like Obsidian Destroyers.  There is no reason why the ones in Ahn'Qiraj were still stones when they were loyal to an Old God (whose brothers made the Curse of Flesh).  There is just so much left empty in regards to their origins and later activity." "and even a whole threat about the change:  --LemonBaby (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless a blue posts, which they do not in the story forums except for praising members, then the thread does not do much. The thread seems to have been derailed into a thread about Egyptian influences in general.-- 16:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The thread does show that the whole tol'vir retcon isn't something I made up - it is something that is known to many users. That was my point. And it is also something that isn't mentioned neither on the tol'vir nor on the destroyer page. --LemonBaby (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said you made it up. I'm sorry for dragging this out, but I do not think that I am looking to much into this. I'll just add a note or something.-- 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is why I suggested to make it like in the Draenei article. Keeping both - but with a note --LemonBaby (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions for the wording? I was thinking like "this source contradicts previous statements, but is the most recent official lore".-- 17:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me --LemonBaby (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that? Did I mess up your stuff?-- 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I like it and it is much better than a few days ago! Thank you! --LemonBaby (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Said the tinder to the spark...
Come on baby, light my fire! In days to come, I expect I won't need to remind you that you led me to that discussion. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will comment if I have any comments. You did factor in both discussions, right?-- 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to Guild pages
I am new to editing wiki's but reviewed the guidelines and policies before adding a redirect to a guild page which I thought would be ok. I see those edits have now be reverted so obviously that isn't ok. Is there an article, policy or guidelines that more clearly describes when it is and is not ok to use redirects? Weldrock (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Techbot
It's gnomish mechanical robot and it was created by a gnome Quest:Save Techbot's Brain!. How would that not be a gnomish mech? (Sports72Xtrm (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC))

Horde article
I am informing all recent contributors of the Horde article that it has been locked for cleanup. We welcome any and all discussion on the Horde talk page once cleanup has begun. This is to insure everyone who has been editing the article will be happy with it, or at least meet a compromise on certain subjects, so the edit warring can be put to an end. Thank you, 19:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Encounter Journal
I will add reference to Encounter Journal page from now on, Okie? Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 22:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bestiary
The Burning Crusade Bestiary, it liiives! What does not live, however, is The Wrath of the Lich King Bestiary. I was trying to create it, but keep getting the message "The page you wanted to save was blocked by our filter". Can it be fixed? WrathOfDeathfrost (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to work just fine. I created the page, so feel free to fill it =). 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Greater slime
It is, the name however is taken from the model name here's a example you can check the rest on the same model section http://www.wowhead.com/npc=47534 --Ashbear160 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that is what you meant. I asked if greater slimes were even a new type of thing, and you answered. Thanks for doing that. I do not know if they are a new subtype/race/whatever of oozes or if they are just a new look for them.-- 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just a new model... greater slime is not a good name for it, when other creatures of the same type exist.. its why I named the icon Sludge, cause ya just don't know... especially since the models are used for everything, ooze, blood, elemental, gas... etc. 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is on of the reasons why I do not like this sudden focus on icons... it pretends to give everything an official name, and forces pages to use that name.-- 02:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Would like to interview you
Hi SWM2448,

I’m continuing my research (on WoWWiki and WoWPedia) this summer and hope to interview several of the core contributors about their experiences. Would you be available for an interview at some point this summer?

I also wanted to share an article of mine about WoWWiki that was recently published; you can find it linked to from my user page (happy to send you pdf, if you like). For the most part it talks about the writing processes of the community and how members work well together because of shared attitudes and beliefs about writing on a wiki. If you have any questions or feedback, I’d love to hear it.

Thanks for considering this. If you're interested in participating, you can contact me here via email . Dakhma (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Template: Source
I've been thinking a bit about Template:Source-article. To be frank, I personally believe it should look a bit more "template like". I've noticed that the current version, although somewhat outstanding with those warning signs, can be slightly hard to differ from nearby text. Its usage on Cut Short is a decent example. Moreover, I believe it'd also be good if it looked more alike to "common" templates like those seen on Wowpedia:Templates (not to mention Wikipedia-templates in general). As such, I've come up with two ideas I'd like you to have a look at.

In the first I've made it look more like a template simply by adding a frame around it. This should be enough to properly distinguish it from surrounding elements on an article.

In the second I've attempted to style it just like other templates. The icon can of course be swapped out with another, I just though something like this would fit. While I like the appearance, it's much less outstanding than the other version - this is possibly a loss, given how important this template is.

What do you think?

Also, although it's rather trivial, I feel I should apologize for trying to repair one of your user templates. Turns out the problem I was trying to fix somehow fixed itself anyway (which technically means my action was even more trivial). I'll be more considerate when it comes to the privacy of user pages in the future. WrathOfDeathfrost (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I remain undecided. You can change it if you want. If someone does not like it, more discussion will occur. Also, the template thing is fine.-- 02:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to make articles with this tag given automaticly this categoryCategory:Source-articles? i've seen it done before.--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes...-- 02:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Either one is fine with me, however, I changed the category to Category:Online sources to be more specific. Cause that category could imply any article about source information could be in there, such as RPGs ... even though non-canon, it's still a source. 19:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Flying machines
And now for something completely else... I noticed that, according to Wowhead, the Flying Machine Control is now simply named "Flying Machine". I guess the change must've occurred somewhere between 4.0.6a and 4.2 (possibly in one of them). As Flying Machine is already used as a redirect-page, could you please remove it and then move Flying Machine Control to it? WrathOfDeathfrost (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. 21:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah.-- 21:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired
Your opinion is desired on this topic.

Thank you.

07:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Sourcing between articles
Since nobody answered, i'm going to ask if we should start applying 4 to all known examples?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer if there was no actual rule, and things just make sense. Very little should be applied to everything. I'm not sure why you're asking this on more than one page.-- 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)