Wowpedia talk:Village pump/Archive16

Products vs Recipes
I'm looking for a consensus before I start wholesale changes to how engineering items are categorized.

My thoughts:
 * Category:Engineering: catch-all for anything that doesn't fall in one of the other categories
 * Category:Engineering Products: all pages on engineered items that have uses other than as a component in another recipe (or quest objective).
 * Category:Engineering Ingredients: all pages on items used by engineering recipes, including those that are a result of engineering (e.g. casings, bolts, tubes, etc)
 * Category:World of Warcraft engineering schematic items: those objects that teach particular (engineering) recipes
 * Category:Engineering Recipes : I am unsure if this represents "all items created by the engineering skill", or "all recipes learned from trainers", or "all schematics you can pick up" (the objects) or just what. I looked at Category:Alchemy Recipes for contrast, and find what for engineering is Schematics.  By default, I am assuming the broadest interpretation: if you can engineer it, it goes there.

We've lots of items in "engineering" that should (now) be in Recipes and either Products or Ingredients. And we've lots of items that are in Products or Ingredients but not in Recipes, or vice versa.

I like the thought of a one-stop, self-maintaining list of all engineered items (like Engineering on Thottbot ). We have the lists, cut up, in places like Apprentice_Engineering_schematic, but these are not simple, or self-maintaining. And the latter is a killer.

I thought I'd float a balloon here before I started making changes that would require someone clean up after me if I was "wrong". Your thoughts, please? --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Engineering recipes refers to the recipes that you learn, not the ones you can buy straight from the trainer, eg, white items and such. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a general note, the article on a category page should reflect what kind of articles the category contains and not some generic copy-paste article on a similar topic. In the rework of engineering categories, the category article should specifically describe what's in the category.
 * In the case of Category:Engineering Recipes, it should probably note the articles in the category are items created by recipes from an engineering trainer that -may- contain the actual recipe information. I would prefer the category be renamed Category:Engineering Trainer Recipes, to be more accurate.
 * The Field Repair Bot 74A actually is neither from a schematic item or a trainer, but a object on the floor in BRD, so I'm not sure where it should go. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 11:02 AM PDT 9 July 2007
 * My vote is in Category:World of Warcraft engineering schematic items for Field repair bot (etc), as "any engineering recipe that doesn't come from a trainer". The point being, "how do I get this particular recipe?"
 * I could live with "Engineering Trainer Recipes", I guess. I'd prefer to have a decision on how to handle Gnomish and Goblin specializations first, before going that route.
 * for instance, would Engineering Trainer Recipes (category) have subcategories for Apprentice/journeyman/expert/artisan/master/goblin/gnomish ?
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles can be in more than one category at a time, so yes, I would definitely recommend apprentice/journeyman/expert/artisan/master/goblin/gnomish cats for browsing and sorting purposes. As an engineer, I would definitely find use in being able to browse that way. -- DuTempete   talk  |  contr  20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy:Homophobia & The Sara Andrews Fiasco
Based on the overwhelming amount of homophobia found in-game, there should be an article in Wowwiki discussing it. Given what happened to Sara Andrews[] at the hands of one of Blizzard's own homophobic Game Masters and the fact that it caused Blizzard to privately issue an apology to her for its stance, it deserves recognition in Wowwiki. You can't just have the good without the bad. WoW is an extremely homophobic game with built-in hetero-centric emotes (and in the case of Taurens and Blood Elves, homophobic emotes.) The game itself is encouraging young people to use hate speech and the vast majority of guilds are anti-GLBT and feature hate speech on their vent and teamspeak channels. This needs to be addressed. Malazoth 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how blood elves and tauren have homophobic emotes. Skipping to the point, if you can cook up a nice article (how does Homophobia in World of Warcraft sound for a title?)about ingame homophobia.. by all means be my guest.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] APΘLLΘ (ZEUS)  18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it belongs here. It would be subject to constant controversy and certainly doesn't abide by NPOV as it is purely based on personal views -- 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Though controvertial, I do not see why it could not be added, but it would have to be written in a NPOV presenting facts and not overgeneralizations. you said 'Wow is an extremely homophobic game' but then you mentioned the homophobic emote options. It needs to focus equily on both sides of the issue. If people do not like it, then it will be deleted, but if is WoW related people can try...Nevermind. We do not need this.-- 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering all businesses are like that, I don't see it as really being WoW Wiki worthy. 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed.-- 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting topic that could be debated quite feverishly, but unfortunately I don't think the Wiki is the appropriate forum for it. Perhaps submit a question to something like WoW Insider where the focus is more on user opinions and debates. -- T USVA  ~  T  |  C  19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At most stick it on a user page, it doesn't warrant an article. 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This most certainly does not warrant its own article. For one thing, "homophobic" is an extremely biased word used by the LGBT community that is far from true in many cases.  Also, your so-called "homophobia" is prevalent in all of society, not simply within this game community.  Posting an article addressing anti-LGBT language by players is like posting an article addressing all of the players that speak English in the game.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof of emotes by Tauren and Blood Elves to be "homophobic".  This, once again, is an extremely subjective opinion held by a vast minority of individuals.  A wiki exists to post facts relevant to the subject matter.  Not people's personal crusades. Putts 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am family; no, this doesn't belong here. And what are you smoking, tauren are homophobic?  And blood elves?  Puhlease sister, have you heard them speak? Fuh-lam-ing!  ... okey now I feel all dirty... *snicker*   08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should have an article on this subject, but just make it clear that it violates NPOV and should be read as such. Most likely any article on something like this is hard to judge as NPOV. We aren't wikipedia, after all.
 * Also, the idea of a wiki posting facts is somewhat ludicrous. Wikis post information that is screened with a usual bias toward factuality. Have you ever read Uncyclopedia... ;-)
 * Anyway, I suspect this article won't be allowed, but I just want to add my vote, in case some people find a way to remove the branches from their backsides. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 12:00 PM PDT 6 July 2007


 * As a news item, covering the Sara Andrews deserves a page as much as any other notworthy event (such as the episode of Blizzard marking certain Linux users as breaking TOS for using... Cedega, was it?) and for the same reasons.
 * An article on Homophobia in WoW would best be first aired on a user page (IMO), pretty much for the reasons noted earlier: too many people -on both sides- would disagree with any factual rendering of the subject.  On a user page, "non-NPOV" can be used to quiet some of that controversy long enough for an editorial consensus to emerge.
 * Looking at comments above, I have to add that I believe: (NPOV) != ("balanced account")  in that "balanced account" attempts to provide as many loons on both sides, whether the facts justify that side or not. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A neutral point of view article stating all the facts would show Blizzard's action are not the result of homophobia, and that it has all been a silly over-reaction. I've yet to see any evidence showing otherwise. For example, a list of quotes from accused Blizzard GMS, pictures of offensive emotes, etc. I doubt the accusers can put together a convincing list. Let them try. Raze 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest I can see to a 'homophobic' Tauren emote is the male /silly "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies." And only barely, as it refers to the way milk is treated to keep it from seperating. The belf thing is just silly since at least some of the male ones are trying very hard to be... "Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?" and the scrunchie one in particular... During the 'Love is in the air' event, after using the cologne or perfume, you will see the little hearts floating over the head of NPCs of both sexes, and can give the 'love gifts' to either. The last time I messed with it, I offered tokens to both sexes to see what would happen; and was both accepted and rebuffed by both, randomly. Blizzard as a company doesn't seem homophobic to me.

Users, on the other hand, often seem to be violently so, to the extent of using 'gay' as a synonym for anything bad. Bad item, stupid person, poor instance design, etc. I can see individual GMs doing stupid things, but that happens in any company. I doubt it was policy. --Azaram 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Same with the xmas event... Every year I flirt with the other male dwarves to get my crappy  21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a part of the LBGT community. That said, I think an article on the Sara Andrews issue is worth creating as long as it doesn't include the words "think" or "believe" in it. It is part of community lore, afterall. An article on LBGT relations in game, though, I'm not sure. WoW has definitely been a source of some debate about this, even stretching into RL issues such as use of the word "gay". I think an article that clearly stated arguments on both sides for every issue is NPOV, however, unless the OP did extensive research before creating it, I wouldn't like to see it. Even one author trying to be neutral will be biased in some way. It's not worth the end result to see that topic here, during a inevitably biased development. Perhaps the suggestion of placing it, first, on a user page can work. It can be edited thoroughly, to attain NPOV, then when there is a consensus of the neutrality of the content, it can be posted. But, where? -- DuTempete  talk  |  contr  20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An article chronicling the event as it happened is totally acceptable to me. What was suggested, however, was not a historical article but more of a pro-gay propaganda piece.  I'm against that, at least here on the wiki... keep that kinda stuff in "Out" magazine :P  21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no harm in ever writing about something as it happened. However, I'd love to see an NPOV maintained on this one. Pzykotic 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

how about a page for alleged discrimination/offensive stereotyping in WoW overall? examples: Tauren/North American Tribespeople, Goblins/Antisemitism, Trolls/Caribbeans, female armor, etc. User:cheekyrabbit

Homophobia is such an overused and meaningless term. The very use of the term negates any conversation about sexual orientation, in the same way as using the Nazi appellation  in a conversation does. Why not try using terms of a more serious and solid nature such as “you doo-doos”, or the dreaded “You silly puddings?”

WoWDigger
New WoW item database is up: WoWDigger.

I thought I should make a page for it. Disclaimer: I've been somewhat involved with its development.Chriskl 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, just can't beat teh Wowhead --Sky (t · c · w) 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly :) Chriskl 09:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can't beat teh Thottbot -- 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowhead > Thottbot. I thought you knew this Gryphen... at least, sub-consciously. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial to my first: Thottbot...but starting to feel the pull of WoWHead =S 16:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just registered, my only worry would be a lack of information that is usually readily accessable. I'm going to recommend that my Guild register and start using. Also, will download client when I'm not on a Linux machine. Looks great, fast, and simple. 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I lurve me some Wowhead, but for those so inclined, I've added a user script example to the WoWDigger article which changes Wowhead links into WoWDigger ones. (For  &c.)

New Main Page
This is an extension of the discussion about the ad on the front page.

I suggest we change the front page layout, move the selected article index section to the middle bringing changing content to the top; like the news and ads. Its a simple change. As it stands now 1024x768 viewers don't see the ad and don't see the news.

See [Re-Ordered Main Page]

-- 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with 1024 viewers, even at 2*1280x1024 I don't see it. On another note I haven't visited the frontpage for a year or so, only maybe because of boredom - but that may be my personal style of viewing, I always directly jump to / ... Flotsam | (  talk  |  contr  )  16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that people come for the content not the news, that is why the news is not at the top. We had this discussion before when designing the main page. The ad is going to be there for 30 days. There has been no word yet as to if it is going to be a permanent feature. -- 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whats the point of having a news section if no one ever sees it?
 * Second, can we delete the damn cat already? Its almost July
 * Third, I guess its preferable to see google ads for gold selling and account trading instead of an ad we can control. I guess we prefer the association with gold sellers!
 * I think changing the front page and navigation bar would help both with ads should they continue and navigation. Did anyone ever bother to determine if any of the links in the navigation bar get regular use?

15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would no-one ever see it? It's just a slight small scroll away. Why get rid of the cat - I would quite like to set up having several images there to spice up the Main Page. No, we do NOT prefer the gold selling ads, which is why they're mostly blocked. If you're still seeing them, tell us. And finally, yes, thank you, I did actually bother to check that the links get regular use. 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because very few will scroll more than the first time here.
 * If we are going to allow ads shouldn't we give them their money's worth?
 * Main pages should relay changing information up front with older content below
 * If the news were a top level item we would not have to graft crap like "2.12 is live" at the top
 * Main page duplicates information about alternate language wikis with the left menu
 * The selected article index is a page unto itself! It needs to be tigtened up
 * More pictures would obscure the mission of the main page
 * Where can we, the casual contributors see relevant link usage stats?
 * 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The advertisers are already giving us the money, you want us to cover the Main Page with ads instead of content? Main Pages should give people easy access to the knowledge on the wiki - people do not enjoy having everything moved around all the time, because it is confusing. About the alt language wikis, you have a valid point - I shall look into that.


 * I have no plans to add more images to the front page, only to at some point set up a revolving set of cute images where the cat currently 'stands'.
 * Popular page stats (over the life of the wiki) can be found here - Special:Popularpages. Note the Main Page links are NOT supposed to be a reflection of that list, only influenced by it. What links do you feel can change? 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of my statement says to cover the main page with ads? Oh, none of it does, but for your argument to work you have to change what I said to fit.  What part of my statement says to move everything around all of the time?  Oh, none of it!  I said put the news up front where it can be seen.  Not only does it help make the page look timely we won't need to graft items like the "patch 2.12" is live at the top like some welt.  I still think the "Selected Article Index" is excessive, what part of "selected" encompasses 53 (FIFTY THREE) links?   15:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When you have 35,000 articles and a huge range of completely different topics, it's quite hard to reduce the number of links. Believe me, I've tried. Having the ad at the top of the page would mean it would cover a huge percentage of smaller screens. An advert is not website content, which is what the site is about. As for where do you say to move stuff around all the time, you said it in "Main pages should relay changing information up front with older content below". The wiki does not have changing information that can be picked out. Each page of the thousands are in flux, there are no projects to pick out, excellent edits to pinpoint, or much specific site news to report. That's why we don't list it. We're also not particularly a Warcraft news site, hence the lack of need for that. If you wish to reduce the number of links or change the Main Page design, create it (as I have seen you already start). It's hard for me to provide constructive feedback on your ideas when all I have is complaints - I need to see something to comment on it. 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The re-ordered page is an ugly hack imho. If the main page is going to be changed, it should be re-designed with the adspace as a design element, not something tossed in a space that wasn't designed for it and then shoved up to the top. When the main page was designed before it was decided then as well that news is not what people are here for, they are here for the content sections. -- 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note I'm definately not against updating the Main Page design, but I'm not sure what can change. Two other comparable wikis (with similar amounts of edits, judging from their RC lists) are http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page and http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page - from those, one thing that might be good is to get rid of the "Main Page" title section. We don't have the ability to do collapsible sections atm. 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice those wikia do not feature the ad. Is there any indication that this ad is going to be on WoWWiki beyond the 30 days that was mentioned? -- 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * None that I know of. This started as a one off thing, so unless something else comes up, it'll return to normal. If it does come up again, we'll definately have to think about the revamp. 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia links
I think the wiki needs a page for Wikia-related links, such as for the various languages and for the various guild and realm wikis (something we should start promoting, especially as we're part of the wider Wikia community!)

The current wikis:
 * http://scarshieldlegion.wikia.com (Scarshield Legion EU)
 * http://silvermoon.wikia.com (Silvermoon)
 * http://earthenring.wikia.com (Earthen Ring)
 * http://earthenringeu.wikia.com (Earthen Ring Europe - a separate server and set of players)
 * http://scarteleu.wikia.com (Steamwheedle Cartel Europe)
 * http://sentinels.wikia.com (Sentinels)
 * http://thoriumbrotherhood.wikia.com (Thorium Brotherhood)

Anyone got good idea for a page name and how it could be fitted on the front page? Feel free to start something :) 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe 'Related wikis'? --Pcj (T&bull;C) 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Places you'll probably only go once, if ever?  :)   15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sharlin, why are you being so abrasive? I'm asking for help, and if you check those wikis you'll see several are doing quite well :/ 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of the :) didn't you get? 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if you add a smiley, it's still a little unfair to them :( Bah, maybe I just need chocolate. Chocolate is always good! 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely related to the above (in that it's to do with Wikia), we were mentioned in a recent Kotaku article - check out http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/games-get-wikia-with-it-273397.php  17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is Other Wikia Warcraft Wikis not obvious enough? Or maybe Other wikia Warcraft sites (what to cap is not obvious to me here). I'm not sure wikis for individual servers or guilds really deserve front page status, though, even if they are on wikia. Perhaps they should just go in a Wikia page somewhere? -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 3:56 PM PDT 23 July 2007
 * Wikis -- 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Talent trees
What is the correct term for the whole 'tab' of a class (which consists not only its respective talent tree, but also the spells)? --bfx 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. This seems to be ignored most of the time. I've seen it called "type" or "category" (vague), "school" (usually misleading, see School), and "tree" (conflating with talents as you mention). I think the answer is, there isn't one. Harveydrone 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Armory uses references to "Specialization" in it's markup. -- 00:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But I think in the Armory, it is referring to talents and builds, not basic spells and abilities. FWIW, thottbot uses the terms "line" and "skill" to refer to this. Worldofwconline similarly uses "Skill Line". Harveydrone 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on set page design wanted
Check out Gloves of Malorne and Malorne Regalia - the set-bonus integration into item pages, as well as a slightly different layout for the set page are the two new features I'd like feedback on. If this is interesting, drop by Template talk: Tooltip and leave a comment about set integration as well. :) -- Starlightblunder 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are as of now i know intergrated. 02:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1337 Hax! (?)
In WP:DNP it says not to post exploits, citing WoWWiki:Policy/Exploits. But on the specific exploits page it only mentions translational exploits. I noticed that this site doesn't have a page for Glider (or does it?). Does this mean we don't make pages about hax? If so, I think Multibox and Multiboxing need to be deleted. 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note: It's obvious when a software is agaisnt-TUA because of the hilarious way the authors/defenders of the software try to weasel around the issue.  Well... I think it's funny anyway...
 * Uh, multiboxing isn't against against the ToS / EULA. There's even been someone out there who had 5 boxes running at one time... 1 Priest and 4 Mages. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That takes talent.-- 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. One set of buttons for the Mages, and one for the Priest. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I currently dual-box. The key behind it is having macros assigned to the tool bar that target and cast appropriate spells.  They need to be similar across both characters to ensure that you don't have to think very much about what you are doing.  Some of the 5-box solutions I have seen use one keyboard to control 5-pcs simulataneously.   10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Me Again, I redirected Dual Box and Dual Boxing to Multiboxing since it was a larger and more complete article 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Well I'll be a orc's uncle, I guess you're right.  I just asked on the General Help forum and they said multiboxing was legal!  Toj does not approve... >:-(  00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sky, Multiboxing is not against the ToS/EULA itself, however using applications to send keystrokes is another deal all-together. The person you mentioned did it through several computers with several input-devices. The program Multibox would fall under the category of Unattended Gameplay, Unapproved Third Party Software, and perhaps Data Stream Manipulation and Data Mining. 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Multiboxing is fine, as long as you don't use one account for it (there used to be a glitch where more than one person could be on an account) I wouldn't see why blizzard wouldn't mind you buying 5 accounts and playing =/ but then that would be a waste of money, unless your using some modification to give you an advantage to the game, multiboxing is still legal and doesn't go against the ToS/EULA but it is considered by some players wrong 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure but as i said i Multiboxing was ok, but the application Multibox is not. 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like if someone is really concerned they should get the word from Blizzard, since our opinions aren't what matters... its theirs. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 2:23 PM PDT 6 July 2007
 * I tagged Multibox with the Violation template, for future investigation. Please put your comments in Talk:Multibox. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 2:29 PM PDT 6 July 2007

User rumors/speculation
I know user pages are personal, but I have the idea to categorize theories based on topic, with like... an "Expansion Ideas" cat, and specific popular theories gioning in things like "Northrend" and "Great sea" Subcats and others going in the main cat. The speculation template is not welcome on user pages so this would make finding alike non-story fanfic easier. Thoughts?-- 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Provided you only tell people how to categorize their user pages. I certainly would not want someone grouping my pages with others.  16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I never intended to do it without consent from each page's author, I just was proposeing that the cats be made.-- 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean when you say "Cats" but if your grouping users, it would be better to keep the members as a whole and maybe seperate off the staff/admins and such... 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cats = categories. I can not spell that without copying it from another page. I do not want to group users, there is already this for Users and this for Admins. I wanted to group their (and my) personal theories by subject. Such as mine: User:Sandwichman2448/Northrend Expansion (this is not an advertizement).-- 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it would seem as a good idea, as long as you have the user's consent i guess... but it seems pretty much cool ^^ 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my proposed system. It should clean up the rumored races/expansion pages. The bullets represent subcategories in whatever category is above it. Adding yours to these is optional, unlike putting it in the fan fiction category, as the 'Fanfic' template is required on ideas.

Fan fiction & Rumors
 * User ideas <--Ideas, not stories
 * User race ideas
 * (race with many user ideas) (if category clutters)
 * User expansion ideas
 * User Northrend ideas (if category clutters)
 * User Great Sea ideas (if category clutters)
 * (more popular Xpack ideas)

I need feedback. Small categories are ugly.-- 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did Category:User ideas... I hope they do not stay empty. No one told me not to.-- 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages
There are now a grand total of 'FOUR' uncategorized pages in this wiki! I've categorized about 100 or more articles and these are the last ones giving me/us trouble:


 * 1) /Tooltip buff (WTF is this???)
 * 2) Multibox
 * 3) Multiboxing
 * 4) WoW Model Viewer

Help! 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Addons?-- 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the hardest-to solve question comes from how to categorize a page which doesn't exist... --Pcj (T&bull;C) 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Game Terms for multiboxing 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost there! Can we get a sysadmin or something to kill whatever the hell /Tooltip buff is?   00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * link to the dodgy page, as the slash is confusing the wiki links above --Karrion 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been taking care of the ones I see pop up, but it seems like a neverending battle...  05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If this hasn't been answered I think Multibox and multiboxing should go in game terms, Wow Model Viwer and "tooltip buff?" should go into the Addon modifications for the wow interface :) 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Multibox should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to multiboxing, WoW Model Viewer should be replaced with a more generic model article, and Multiboxing might need a rewrite 18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Multibox and multiboxing should stay seperate, and WoW Model Viewer is ok chaning it doesn't really make a diffrenece, but I think multiboxing does need a rewrite.... 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on multibox(ing) should continue here - Talk:Multibox. 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New Blizzard wiki
I draw your eye to http://blizzard.wikia.com - a new wiki one of our contributers has set up for Blizzard. I think with a little work it could fit quite well with WoWWiki. As a "central" area it could work well, for articles on each game, employees, etc. Thoughts? 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty unrefined to me. 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very very new! 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What sort of crossovers did you have in mind? Shall we also liase with the people at the Starcraft and Diablo wikias? -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very ugly too. Especially with all that crap bordering it.  Oh, its THEIR not THEYR (look for it!)  13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a good idea tbh. Certainly it would help the other wikis if they could build on what we've made. The main crossovers I'm thinking are anything Blizzard specific (employees, details on the other games), leaving use to be able to concentrate more on Warcraft. In my new capacity as someone working for Wikia, I should be able to help more in this area. /me adds looking at this to his todo list. 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On topic: I don't like the (de)centralizing of it, but it's cool. It definitely needs fleshing out, however. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * zomgwtfbbq... when did Kirkburn get hired? :O


 * This looks pretty good other than (i think it may be just my browser or something) i see a LOT of ads around the page, is this normal? Other than that this page looks excellent! 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Worryingly it seems I have to remind people it's a wiki, just like this one. Please help out :) As for the ads, that's the normal Wikia setup - we haven't been converted over (I don't know if that will ever occur). Also, I got hired last week to help out with the Gaming.Wikia sections  14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'll try to help out... and congrats on getting hired =p

01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sig making.
Can anyone help me make a sig? I know wiki pretty good and I want to start making a good sig for once but i guess im going to need help on making it good. if your interested in helping me please go to my talk page and leave a message :) thanks :D --Windjungj 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, i think i might have got it this is my first test >.< 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do what I did. Copy parts of someone elses, mess it up to the point it annoys others, and they will fix it for you!!!    09:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, definately the way to go :) 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, and i spent the long way and probably took a few days figuring out how to make one =? 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talent builds
Right now, we have talent builds both on separate pages (for example, Heavy Destruction and MD/Ruin) and on a page for the whole class (e.g. Warlock builds). However, I'm not perfectly satisfied with this solution. As a result, we have a lot of redundancy, which consequently can lead to incomplete, out-dated or sometimes even contradictory information. These pages (especially for single builds) seem not to be updated a lot; therefore, I suggest keeping vulnerability at a minimum level, by either (1) redirecting single build pages to the class builds page, or (2) moving any detailed information from the class builds page to the build page it belongs to, while keeping only an overview of builds with short summaries and links to their respective pages on the class' page.

I personally prefer the second solution, as putting all information on one page certainly would overload it. Is there any rule how to do it? Any suggestions? --bfx 10:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Contain all basic build information to a single page. Allow for specialty builds to have their own page with link from the basic class build.  If anything the speciality builds which are loaded down with text are tactics guides as much as talent builds.  The Warlock pages are a great example of where we need to bring them up to date.  ALL pre-TBC builds are invalid and should be deleted, even if they employ the correct talent trees.  If anything they can be preserved on the talk page.
 * Hell, I might just rip that Warlock page to shreds today, those old school builds got to go 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about those true non-BC players like me D= we should instead seperate the TBC builds and the non-BC builds (because the skills are somewhat varied) and put the basic builds in the appropriate place (like demonology TBC, demonology nonTBC, specail demonolgy+affilation TBC,. etc) because not all players in the WoW community have TBC, and you should at least let those players have a place for those non TBC players :D instead of ripping their pages (grr..)

01:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They should be deleted regardless. Just because a few people don't buy TBC doesn't mean its rules don't apply.  If they need preserving then get them off the page into some archive.  I just don't see the justification in holding onto obsolete builds because some people are too cheap or cannot afford TBC (as if 25 bucks is anything when your already paying 12-15 a month to play).  I will act on the Warlock pages by the weekend, its a cluttered mess now  10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you on this point. Playing vanilla WoW is still possible and doesn't require one to be greedy; for some it may be more appealing than TBC, so no one should be forced to play it, and neither should this wiki exclusively provide information for TBC. Whereas some builds may not exist any more, many still do. And even if they don't, I see no reason for abandoning them, as they are clearly part of the WoW history. --bfx 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Still going to do it. The only difference is that the TBC builds use all 70 levels worth of talent points.  They are also the VALID builds for WOW now.  From what I can tell you can advance past 60 without TBC.  I haven't tried but I don't why not. I already suggested that if anyone wants these builds they can put them on a separate page.  By your logic we should clutter all class pages for people too cheap to buy TBC.  Oh, sorry, but if a build no longer exist it has no place on any page here.   12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't advance past 60 without TBC. Just wanted to point that out, agree with everything else you say. --Pcj (T&bull;C) 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Page to hold Level 60 builds is complete, Please see Warlock builds/Level 60 I will be removing these builds from the main warlock page.  I modeled this on the rogue builds.  I also am checking all the talent spec links to verify they still work, there are notes in the text which claim they are not 2.01 valid but none have failed so far  13:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, done. I have updated the Warlock page. It only shows TBC builds.  All pre-TBC builds using current talent set are on Warlock builds/Level 60.  I have yet to verify all these builds to see if they are valid; I am not going to determine if they are worthwhile, just valid point expenditures.
 * Nothing has been lost. Its just presented better   13:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfect. I feel this is the best solution--putting the focus on 70 builds, while keeping 60 builds alive. I might take a look at the old builds when I find time. --bfx 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Guess the only thing we need to do left is to make sure this applies to other pages. 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well not many of the other talent pages had this. Rogues did but someone cleaned it up long ago.  Most of the other class build pages were either updates or replacements.  I am quite willing to get the other pages if someone thinks any are necessary  19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been away a bit, but had some thoughts on talent build pages. I mostly agree with your #2 and Sharlin's first post. I expanded the article Three-Minute Mage which is a build but also a tactic. Now, you could split that info up between the Mage builds page and the Mage tactics page, but it just works best all on one page. So, you would then describe the build briefly on the build page, along with a link to the expanded article, and do the same thing on the tactics page, with a brief description and link. I was working on the Frost Mage page in the same vein (and even that can be split into several specific areas), haven't finished, and was gonna clean up the builds and tactics pages. I also had a neato idea to make a template for encapsulating basic "talent build" info, along with external links to popular talent calculators (got scared a bit by the "external links policy" debate). I didn't find anything like this on existing build pages. I'll post an example for consideration if I get around to it. --Piumosso-Uldum 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Something along these lines for a PvP Spell Power/Fire Power Mage build. It works as an infobox floating on the right or a handy inline illustration with standard elinks. Of course, this is just a mockup, I was going to make it into a proper template. It might be kinda big though, maybe someone can fiddle with it to make it smaller. --Piumosso-Uldum 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Made it smaller! --Piumosso-Uldum 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I created a User page box as well that incorporates the build point calculation for a specific character. Jack it if you wish! (Its screwy with the float:left/right; scripts so I had to write a verbose bio for the toon so it didnt mess with the progression tables. =D 19:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are their editing bots we can use?
As in text replacement type? -- 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can make bot requests on WP:BR, or try and poke the owners on the IRC channel. 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fansites update
Fansites has had an overhaul, along with Wikis and Official site. However, the links still need work. I can't check them all, so I would appreciate if anyone could take a few minutes to check them. They need: Any help is greatly appreciated! 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alphabetising
 * Removal of old/fake links (old can probably mean anything not updated this year)
 * Removal of duplicate links
 * Moving any non-english links to Fansites/Other
 * Tidying


 * I suggest that the guild section of the webpages should be removed =/ We already have guild pages and they can link their pages there/ we have some server pages that give a list of their realm's guilds & their webbies 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They aren't links to guilds, they are links to guild related sites. -- 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't it be renamed "Guild Directories" or something? Cause that just doesn't sound right to me just to say "GUILDS" then I'll just be expecting a guild website. 05:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * renamed to Guild-related, beacause you are absolutely right, not that hard to do it though ;) Flotsam | (  talk  |  contr  )  12:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i just wanted to make sure haha 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The revamp is completed! Please add anything you think is missing and fix any mistakes you notice :) 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wowpedia:Community teams
It's that time of year again! :) I have been doing more work on this today, and I think it is in good enough condition for the makeover to be deemed 'finished'. I have taken over and sorted the Watchdogs and Help Team (the latter needs applications), whilst the Article Council needs a leader and a direction. Please join in!  23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this group is all about consistency, I would love to head it up. Goes right in line with templates, and bots, and all the other work I've been doing. /me loves consistency.-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be fine by me! 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest Naming Policy
I'd like to get some clarification on the quest naming policy. It sounds like people talked about some changes in IRC and I just want to find out if the current policy has changed or not. Here's what I think the current policy is:


 * Standard quest: Quest:Quest Name
 * This should used when there's just a single quest with that name (Quest:Trouble at the Docks
 * This should also be used for quests where there's a separate Alliance/Horde or Aldor/Scyer version that are easy to combine: Quest:The Fall of Magtheridon
 * Faction quest: Quest:Quest Name (Alliance) or Quest:Quest Name (Aldor)
 * This should be used for quests that 2 different factions have which has the same name that don't combine well: Quest:An Earnest Proposition (Alliance), Quest:An Earnest Proposition (Horde)
 * Multiple quests with same name: Quest:Quest Name, Quest:Quest Name (2), Quest:Quest Name (3)
 * This should be used for quests that share a common name but are different: Quest:Talbuk Mastery, Quest:Talbuk Mastery (2), Quest:Talbuk Mastery (3)
 * I don't think the (#) should be added to quests in a quest chain if that quest is the only one with that name: (Correct: Quest:Hints of the Past, Incorrect: Quest:Hints of the Past (3) ) (my opinion)

I heard mention of even adding the quest ID to the name title which seems a bit silly to me. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? - ClydeJr  -  talk  -  contrib  18:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the policy I've always used. I definately agree with your judgement on the vs.  silliness. If we were to go through and change every quest name to reflect it's place in the quest chain, we'd have a hell of a lot of work, and a lot of mess too. --Mikaka 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i agree on both not using (#) for all quests in questchains. but quest with same name (which could be in quest chains of course) should have it to differ them from eachother. additionally, adding the id might be good in the few cases where there are two or more quests with the same name, in all other cases it'll be messy and harder to make links on articles being forced to check the id numbers all the time.  21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this issue is a result of User:Laurlybot. As i have been working on it the last few weeks i and some of the other people on irc have talked about how best to name quests to avoid naming conflicts now and in the future when yet more expansions are added and more and more quests. the result was the Quest:Quest name (Faction) (#)
 * While i might agree that Quest:The Fall of Magtheridonlooks nice. Having the bot combine 2 quests into one programticly will not be that hard but and might just open the door to a hole bunch of bugs.  I also feel that a Quest page relates to a single quest/quest id. ex: quest_id 11003 <> 11002 they may share the same name but they are not the same.
 * With the regard to moving all the quests to reflect the quest chain I'm testing a new function in the bot that will first move quest:quest name to quest:quest name (#) before it updates it. So the hell of a lot of work will be done by the bot and not by us.
 * i also think it looks nice to have each quest in a quest chain numbered in sequence
 * example


 * Quest:This quest
 * Quest:This and that Quest (2)
 * Quest:This that and the other quest
 * Quest:Yet a different quest (1)

In my opinion the above example will more then likely confuse people as to what quest comes next in the quest chain. Having them each named in order will prevent confusion. Ok thats my 2 cp worth what ever is decided i will change the bot to comply.Laurly 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Naming random quest-in-chain with an index on the off chance that some other quest with the same name will be created fails to consider the question of how to disambiguate that new name sensibly.
 * Examining the quest names as provided by database scavengers such as we provide links to seems to indicate that there are only two categories of quest disambiguating that currently occurs: factional (alliance, horde, neutral)and serial (elements in a single quest chain)
 * our current naming scheme seems to cope with both.
 * As for the 1 quest ID, 1 page idea, since we're providing information on how to complete the quest, if the quest is substantially the same for both factions (see many of the Terokkar Forest quests), I feel that having a single page with two instances of better serves the people looking for information on the quest.
 * The fact that these pages create problems for bots doesn't seem that big to me ... pretty much any page created by a bot has to be re-examined by hand if more than a slap-dash page quality is to be provided. Laurlybot does do a good job of scraping Wowhead, but I've been following behind adding details that bots just couldn't.  (And some formatting issues, but that's not at issue here.) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that these pages create problems for bots doesn't seem that big to me ... pretty much any page created by a bot has to be re-examined by hand if more than a slap-dash page quality is to be provided. Laurlybot does do a good job of scraping Wowhead, but I've been following behind adding details that bots just couldn't.  (And some formatting issues, but that's not at issue here.) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current naming policy is fine - there are (as of now) few duplicates where our (#) appending scheme would fail horribly - while one can imagine a situation where two aboslutely unrelated quests would be named the same thing (or even have multiple steps each) and share the same faction, it simply doesn't happen very often now. While this could get worse in the future, it isn't a major issue now. Appending IDs to quest titles themselves is rather silly, since it'd require everyone to look those up whenever they want to link a quest, which isn't good. What could be interesting is having separate Quest:(id) pages redirect to the proper, disambiguated Quest: Title (Faction) (#) page, just to provide an alternate linking mechanism that isn't subject to ambiguity -- but this is a rather plentiful amount of work, and I'm not sure if the benefits are worth the time spent on it.

Since questlong allows for custom captions, nobody should be confused by multiple numbers appearing in quest chain listings simply because those should not be a part of the link caption. -- Starlightblunder 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Every time I've run across a "disambiguation removed link" for quest listings (tooltips AND quest chain listings), it has given me a WTF moment. Just so ya know. I cannot tell -without mousing over the link- if it is the same item, or a different one.  I just have to trust.. someone.  And I'm not much a trusting sort. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact, i ran across one of those examples that the current naming policy doesn't have proper guidelines. the quest called "Return to the Marsh" from a CE quest chain in hellfire/zangarmarsh was from the CE/quest page earlier directed to Return to the Marsh. the former is actually two quests morphed together for their similarity (two lvl 40 quests, horde/alliance, starting a neutral quest chain). the latter however is a neutral quest.

if they would be named with (#) instead, the dustwallow marsh quest would be "Return to the Marsh (1)" and the zangarmarsh one would be "Return to the Marsh (3)" (as it's #3 in it's own quest chain), without beloning to the same quest.. (or even same level ranges).. and that would cause even more confusion than the current naming policy could do.

in the end, i named the CE one Return to the Marsh (Zangarmarsh). additionally, chainging to # on all quests involved in quest chains would make us have to take a stand for when quests that could be first part is to be named (1) despite not being needed, but "could be done" first, and not be done after the needed #1 is done.. complicated! 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted a brief summary of the thoughts on this at Wowpedia talk:Naming policy. Please add to the discussion, there. I think it's important that we come to a conclusion, as User:Laurlybot is already creating pages with names that don't follow the current policy. -- DuTempete  talk  |  contr  05:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with Quest line!
I was working on the quest lines Naaru Technology and Report to Spymaster Thalodien, and down the line I realized that the quest lines come together twords the end! Can someone clarify if theyre seperate quests, depending on Aldor or Scryer, if the end quests are one in the same?

-- 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You might examine how I treated some of the Terokkar Forest quests (the mana bomb series). The Horde and Alliance quests are so similar (down to the bulk of the text) that I simply combined the pages, and put both questboxes on the page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that -- 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia highlight
I would like to add links to one or two related Wikia wikis on the Main Page to give them a bit of exposure, and I have come up with this slight design alteration - User:Kirkburn/Dev2. Specifically see the bar at the bottom of the first box. Any views on that? Thanks for any suggestions :) 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks shiny to me. Not annoyingly obtrusive, but obvious enough to see. Only thing I can think of to change is possibly change the newspaper icon to the icon for the Wikia wiki (Why do I feel like a bad '80s TV show when I type that?) to make it stand out a little more. --Azaram 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as that new Blizzard wikia doesn't show up there for 3+ months. Otherwise the change is just to convienent. Oh, 1024x768 WILL NOT see it unless they scroll, but then again who cares?  No one needs more than the selected article index anyway.   12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be making sure to switch them around - Wikia has a huge number of wikis. And yeah, do need to look for a different icon :) 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, change made. Enjoy :) 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So glad we get to debate this. Oh, we didn't.  Sheesh.  10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Really not sure how to answer that, especially given you already commented. 10:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that all changes to the main page were to be discussed on the main page's discussion page. I get the idea that admins don't have to follow the process but at least humor us  20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For other stuff certainly - but this involves the site owners, who take precedence (one of the rare cases). I thought you were essentially giving your blessing previously anyway :) 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although, I agree with Sharlin that more feedback could have been taken, it isn't that big a change. If a bunch of people complain (unlikely), it can be undone... -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 4:29 PM PDT 23 July 2007


 * Indeed. It is not my wish to antagonise people with such changes, but to both aid Wikia (our owner) and to provide our viewers with interesting links. I'm certainly not going to suggest adding links to completely unrelated wikis anyway. 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Strength of the Clefthoof tooltips incorrect.
The tooltips for the Strength of the Clefthoof set (Heavy Clefthoof Boots, Heavy Clefthoof Vest, Heavy Clefthoof Leggings) show incorrect +defense values compared to what's in the game. What's in the game, as I'm looking at it right now, is the boots are +21, the leggings are +29, and the vest is +24. What the tooltips are showing is boots 21 (correct), leggings 34, and vest 28. I don't know how to fix tooltips, or I would...

I believe it could also benefit from a chart on the main Strength page showing all three tips showing the chart. I dunno how to do chartses, either. :-p --Azaram 11:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. I think we were displaying the pre-2.1.0 version of those items previously. --Starlightblunder 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * yes we were, I created those manually some long time ago Flotsam | (  talk  |  contr  )  00:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay speedy fixes! Now, to put the other part of my sentence up there in English; "I believe it could also benefit from a chart on the main Strength page showing all three tips showing the chart." translates to "I believe a chart showing the benefits of the three pieces (armor, armor in bear form, 4 blue and 4 yellow sockets, and total stamina) would be helpful too... --Azaram 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really not trying to whine, but I've been looking at that page a lot lately as a druid, trying to figure out what I wanted to use for gems in it... The new set box is nice, but it's underlapping the 'pattern: heavy clefthoof vest'. I'm running at 1152x864 resolution, but have the window slightly smaller so I can see the first two rows of icons on the left side, so the window may be 1024x768 or so. If I maximize Firefox, it looks fine but kind of far off to the right, with the text 'Expedition in' spacing between the pattern and the new box. (Really, I'm not just complaining. If I know how to fix it, I would... I'd probably put a couple of linefeeds under the new box to move the old stuff down...) --Azaram 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paladin BC dungeon sets are not appearing
Why aren't the paladin dungeon sets 3a and 3b appearing in the armour table? Chopypopy 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are here: Righteous Armor/Doomplate Battlegear - just settable seems to be not updated, I'm trying to fix it Flotsam | (  talk  |  contr  )  00:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia interwiki links
I quote from Wowpedia:Server requests:

"You can now link to Central Wikia by using the w: or wikia: interwikis. To link to any other Wikia wiki use w:c:[name_of_wiki][:article_title] (works exactly like on other Wikia sites)."

For example, SporeWiki and Zerg on StarCraft Wiki - aka SporeWiki and Zerg on StarCraft Wiki ! 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CSS and js access
A couple of updates from Wowpedia:Server requests:


 * We can edit MediaWiki:Wowwiki.css, MediaWiki:Common.css, and MediaWiki:Monobook.css to add styles. Confirmed test here - User:Kirkburn/Dev3. It's active. Yes. Really! Now, what to add?
 * User styles are also added - see Help:User style for more info. See Wowpedia:Gallery of user styles!
 * We can edit MediaWiki:Wowwiki.js, MediaWiki:Common.js, MediaWiki:Monobook.js. Script time!

I hope this comes as a pleasant surprise for you all :) Let's make the most of it! 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * omg.. who messed up the font? this looks horrible.. 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm? Nothing should have changed yet! 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All links have underlines, and the text looks a lot more squareish. Safari MacOSX  11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the text thing, but for underlines go to Prefs --> Misc --> Second option. I've notified Wikia about it! 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weird, tht was new.. looks more normal now. 11:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was some problems with link colours too. Please do report anything else odd you may see! Oh, and one other major change occured, as a trial. 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: if every link is underlined, go to Prefs --> Misc --> Underline links (browser default is the normal setting)

A while back discussions were begun on what CSS we would use - I think it's high time we revisited it :) Check out Wowpedia:Styling! (To admins, by all means start testing CSS) 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, dude. Finally! Schmidt 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. It doesn't work quite yet, not for me anyways. Check an old Community portal CSS edit and see that it doesn't use the CSS according to mediawiki:common.css. If it works, let me know, but it wasn't when I did what I did. Schmidt 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you do a cache refresh? --Pcj (T&bull;C) 00:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, using Firefox, I did ctrl-F5, shift-clicked on reload, to no avail. Does the link that I posted earlier look fine to you? Does it have all the colors that Wowpedia:community portal has now? If so, then I guess it does work, just not on my computer. :( Schmidt 00:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I went through and checked your code. You can't use // to denote comments in CSS.  Use /* */ instead. --Pcj (T&bull;C) 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * O RLY? I could swear I had done that before. Oh well. I guess I'll fix it and try again. :( Schmidt 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I have a moment (unlikely) I might be able to try to figure this out, but... slightly indented article text under the second level heading was a popular style for a while. Might we want to implement that automagically? 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editing
I think this was a massive mistake. There is a massive flow of vandalism since it started. Registering to edit was never that hard. 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a trial atm. I have to say, I'm really finding the item edits odd. Why the hell are some people so obessed with removing the "+"? 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that's the same person using a proxy or something. 09:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've brought it to the attention of the techs, see if they can do anything about it. It's the same type of vandalism as we had before email authentication, plus I've also come across the second type - 'remove' vandalism . Btw, thanks for the help! 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Email auth is being reenabled for now :/ 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from that prat, I'd say the rest of the anon edits were good - hopefully we can reenable it in future with more safeguards. 10:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats good to hear, 1 more question though, what is that symbol up top next to my user name for? It was an exclamation earlier and is now a book. 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's part of the wonders of CSS editing :P Previously it was the default monobook user icon, then I tested the CSS by switching it for the quest icon. Obviously this was a little confusing, so I had a look for something less ambiguous - the book icon from in-game :) 10:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But what does it symbolize? I mean, if only I can see it what does it mean?  Does it tell me I did something or need to do something?  Heck I think using the space to indicate "You got Mail" or "You got flowers" would be cool.
 * Oh I think the anon idea is just like, asking for it. I know people can use rogue email addresses to do vandalism but just doing anon is like handing some people a loaded gun.
 * Hey, can I join watchdogs? I bark!  I bite!  and I have the silliest app yet!  10:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The icon is just that, an icon. No meaning :) 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please disable it ASAP... and keep it that way. aside vandalism, its annoying to "forget" logging in, and having your IP address out for the world to see as well. Aside that, it looks silly to talk to numbers, just have people make an account if they wish to contribute, its more personal. 10:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you realise that pretty much every other wiki in the world allows anon editing? It's for good reason - a lot of people don't like to register just so they can help. Apart from that vandal, prety much all the edits made by anon users were good. Note that when unregistered you can't: edit semi-protected pages, upload images, move pages, create articles or customize the site design. Besides, that people might forget to log in is hardly a good reason to not have it :) Oh, the other reason is that it's completely against Wikia principles :P 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm certain you can guess my response, given that I wanted a five-stage examination for account creation. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you realise that no matter the safe guards, non-automated vandalism increases significantly with anon enabled. Safe guards, such as capcha and the like, help prevent automated vandalism but it does not stop manual.  There are plenty of successful communities that require registration and even subscription, there is more to a wiki than just content contributions. -- 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Naturally. But you do lose a lot of custom by making those who wish to help jump through hoops. If you took away the single vandal we had, the rest of the anon edits were excellent ... and numerous (even without an announcement)! Anyway, it is/was a trial, and to not try it out would surely be more foolish than to at least give it a chance. Only if more can be done to help prevent the vandalism we previously saw shall it be reenabled, I assure you. 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An email-response registration is _NOT_ jumping thru hoops... in fact it's used on many many more sites than anything else, in my experience. The only other thing I see often are CAPTCHAs, which are nice for anony edits, but a rather hackjob solution in my opinion.  Alking people to give us an email address so they can edit is not that horrible.   07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well WoWInsider has a system where you pretty much sign up by making a comment, don't think we in some way could automate the user creation proces by some additional requirements to page editing? I'm thinking something along the lines with writing in a username and an e-mail, and you will get an email to confirm your change, and when you do that it also makes a user in that name and with that e-mail. 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Account creation redirection for a first attempted anonymous edit would be a great idea or a special edit page with account creation information added so you can submit your first edit and create an account at the same time.
 * Also, please don't invoke "spirit of wiki" to justify things. This is similar to the "wikipedia does it that way" argument. Protecting pages isn't really in "spirit of wiki", but we do that also. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 5:10 PM PDT 23 July 2007

talent templates
I've been creating templates for various shaman talents for use in drop in summary of a talent, E.g. Template:Concussion. There has been a request that I move these to a subsection of Shaman_talents e.g. Shaman_talents/Concussion to avoid cluttering the template name space. I want your view on the matter before I move them.--Subanark 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the main template namespace is mostly used for widely-used, unambiguous, and somewhat general purpose templates. A specific talent isn't really a template, it's just a transcluded page that doesn't see much use except inside Shaman articles (in this case). With your scheme, a bigger problem crops up if another class has a talent with the same name and you need to disambiguate it. For example, mages and priests both have talents named Wand Specialization. To include something that isn't in the Template namespace, stick a colon before it, e.g.  .  If you're already including it from the Shaman talents page, then it's  (I think that's how it works) --Piumosso-Uldum 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the template namespace generally isn't for single-use, imported pages. Move them to somewhere like Concussion/Summary or something. Shaman talents/Concussion is fine too, I guess. --Mikaka 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not however a single page import. I plan to use them in ability pages in the list of talents that improve the ability. Conflicts already exist for talents anyways, e.g. Eye of the Storm is the page for the BG, while Eye of the Storm (shaman talent) is the shaman talent.Subanark 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then logically it should be at Shaman talents/Concussion. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Enchants -> formula pages?
I posed this question on IRC earlier this evening, but I was wondering about the general populace's opinion. Who would support merging enchants, which have formulas which are dropped or that can be purchased, onto the item page? As it is, many enchants (and their respective formula pages) right now are either stubs, or have duplicate information located at the formula's page. There was minor approval from the crew on IRC at the time, but again, I'm looking for other opinions. See list of possibilities below. An example of a page that I've already applied this to is Formula:_Enchant_Weapon_-_Sunfire (see history of Enchant Weapon - Sunfire as well). Thoughts? --Sky (t · c · w) 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Leave as is. Obvious cons listed, (I can't see) pros
 * 2) My suggestion. Pros: Duplicate information deleted. Cons: categorization of the wrong page. But the con can be fixed by adding a category to the redirect of a formula, I think.
 * 3) My suggestion, backwards . Not real sure of a pro, but a definite con would be that it would screw up (and this is an untested theory) templates such as lootbox. Another con would be the addition of |disambigpage= to all formula pages.
 * 4) some other choice that I can't remember :x


 * I personally think all tradeskill-made items should have the info about where to learn the recipe from in the item's page. I see no compelling reason to keep the recipe items in seperate pages.  Redirect the recipe page to the item page and include all the pertinent info about the recipe (source, quality, requirements) on the item page.   07:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with 'Leggings of Assassination' page's tooltip
On the page for Leggings of Assassination, everything is off the right side of the page. All the information on the page but the external Wowhead et al links seem to be in one gymungus tooltip and most of the stuff like the 'set' table and the individual item table are all crammed into it. To the right of the 'shoulderpads of assassination' individual tooltip are two links reading 'tooltip' themselves, and the external links section is repeated in the bottom of Tooltipzilla.

If it was HTML I'd say there was a missing 'close' tag somewhere, but I wasn't able to find it...--Azaram 07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is, it is the 'set' parameter. Since the page for it's set has no tags it is trying to add all of Assassination Armor (its set name) to the tooltip. it should be taken care of now. 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's like rubbing a genie's bottle. :-D --Azaram 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you see any more like that feel free to list them in my talk page and I will fix them up if you want. 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User Pages
I did a search of for user articles and personal articles, but am still not sure how to start them. Do I just have to start, for example, "User:Minionman/Types of Cheese", than add things to the article? Or is there more to it. (My user page is getting really long, and the automatic suggestion came to split, but I'm making sure of how the process works before starting anything.) Minionman 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, so you'd have User:Minionman/Types of Cheese. 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Guild Management Best Practices
Fellow WoW-Wikians, I'm thinking about starting a Wiki page discussing Guild Management Best Practices, structuring out the things that "good" guild management should be, split out by hardcore vs. casual, PvP vs. PvE guilds, etc. Any thoughts on my proposed mini-project?

--Impian 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not going to be very NPOV by it's very nature. What you like, I may not, and vice versa. Frex, I think DKP was a bloody stupid idea from the very beginning, and after having had it inflicted on me in the past, will never belong to a guild that uses it again. But a lot of people think it's good. Guidelines ok, but avoid a lot of 'this is how a good guild does it'. (sorry, didn't mean to rant. :-p) --Azaram 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * /nod. Maybe I'll phrase it as "Guild Management: A Compendium of Guidelines", split by hardcore, casual, PvP and PvE guilds. And for potentially contentious issues such as DKP, leave it to the reader to decide, but only provide pointers to other WoWWiki pages with more information. Impian 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then just name it Guild management. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 06:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * /nod. /facepalm. Short & Sweet ... why didn't I think of that before? Impian 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, how to make and maintain your own guild :P my guild leader could use one of those haha. 03:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. Sometimes it takes someone else to point out silly things; I never thought of 'guild management' either. --Azaram 02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Guild Management Best Practices
I think it would be a great and useful resource to NEW GUILD LEADER who are truely interested in making their Guild a more enjoyable and productive experience for everyone. I for one have been in many Guilds where there was no direction or focus from the Guild Officers. It was extremely frustrating to say the least especially when you have limited time to play and you want your playing time to be as productive as possible. In my opinion I think there are several categories that should be addressed and discussed for all Guild Leaders to learn and observe.
 * Guild Structure and Chain of Command
 * Recruitement and Retainment
 * Player Development (experience and skill)
 * Character Development (equipment, talent tree, weapons, armor, etc)
 * Guild Promotions & Demotions
 * Raid Management
 * Roles and Responsibilities of Guild Officers
 * Dragon Kill Point (DKP) System

ArCaNe FiGhTeRz Guild Leader --Gurkha 18:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Foxlit as Administrator!
Just like, Foxlit has been doing some amazing work in WoWWiki's background. Beetween some other stuff, Foxbot has been a deeply coded bot controllable from the IRC channel. I'm personally sure he will be a great addition to the current team. Please welcome him ! -- 05:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I almost knew it would happen :D Hello Foxlit, welcome to the group of admins :) 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome Foxlit, aka Starlightblunder! 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto! :) -- 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * h00t -- 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Time to confuse you all with my alias change. :) -- Foxlit 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * yay new admin :) 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The infernals command it! Welcome!-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * welcome! 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite extension now active!
As you can now see on Special:Version, the cite extension is now available! See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php for more information! 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the redirect arrow is now beautified :) For an example see  14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * well done! *pats the underlings* 15:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Roohoo! Not to tweak ref, I think. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A good example of its usage can be found here - http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Medivh&curid=15096&diff=757293&oldid=747509  12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just ref book. ref is the easy to use version of the other ref templates I plan on importing from wikipedia. These are -not- meant to replace cite, which can also be used as a shorthand until someone takes the time to insert the proper ref tags with the appropriate template. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also now added ref web. Still planning on adding a ref encyclopedia, and maybe a ref-game template. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to showcase Tseric as the first real usage of ref web. I would like to request of an admin (Adys is/was going to do it as of this writing) to import the lower half of my css page for the pertinent materials for referencing. This should begin with "make the list of refs smaller" and continue to the end. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with my sig
Anyone who happens by help me fix this? Its for my sig

This is how I want it to be.
 * Blame Me =>  Mucke   <=talk To

This is how it is now.
 * BlameMe  ==>  Mucke

This is the error I am getting.
 * "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags."

--&lt;span style=&quot;color:#996600&quot;&gt;Blame&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#880000&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Me&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#880000&quot;&gt;=&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span style=&quot;color:#996600&quot;&gt;Mucke&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span style=&quot;color:#880000&quot;&gt;&lt;=&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#996600&quot;&gt;To&lt;/span&gt; 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I got something to work. It's a bit long though, how would I shorten it without losing the look? -- Blame Me &rarr;   Mucke   &larr;talk To  03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it in a page, like User:Mucke/sig, and create another page called User:Mucke/sig2, with content, and in the signature field in Preferences, put  . --Pcj (T&bull;C) 03:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * brain is exploding, but I;m getting there with your help :) -- Blame Me &rarr;   Mucke   &larr;talk To  04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, to create a new page I type User:Mucke/sig then click it and edit the page. Then I want another page called User:Mucke/sig2 and put  in it.-- 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks again!-- 04:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I too am having trouble getting this working. Hmmm... Reacheround 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Got it working. Fat fingers ftl 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

External wiki editing
I am seeing an option in the Special:Preferences for using an external editor as default. I tried searching for an external wiki editor and haven't found anything that worked. What is a good tool for this? I am using Mozilla Firefox 2.0. 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Help:External editors 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Void
Why is this a disambig page with no category??? Confusion runs rampant in my brains!!! 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

because it is using the which doesn't come with   04:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How many times can I say 'My bad'?!-- 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blizzcon and WoWWikians
So, who's going from here? :) 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not. It sold out too soon.-- 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too far and expensive for me to travel atm. -- 05:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Kirkburn, are you going?-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read his user page. :)-- 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Those that I know are going (officially) are myself, Kaydeethree and Tusva. :) 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. I just bought a digicam just for the occasion. Sweet 8.1MP, 5x optical zoom. If you've got any questions you want me to ask while I'm out there, post on Kaydeethree/BlizzCon. -- 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I encourage anyone going to BlizzCon to add the achievement badge I just created to their user page. (Oh, and if anyone objects to the background colors I used, go ahead and fix them &mdash; I has a colorblind.) 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Making a big BIG Page!
I am thinking about making a huge page that lists all of the rare pets (combat and small alike) in the game including how and where to get them. It would include respawn times and such with links to thottbot and petopia. What do you think? BTW i will update all the pages of the rare monsters and flesh them out more. Aka Paradox 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a Pet page already and at the bottom it has a small, unfinished, rare pets section. I can't speak for those already working on that page, but my guess is you could go there and start building it up.  They even have the page linked, they just haven't put anything on it yet.  I would just use their layout and take it from there.  -- 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol thats the person who made this chapter! Aka Paradox 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. Start small and keep adding to it, is my suggestion. If there's redundant/obsolete information or any other problems, I'm sure someone will let you know then. Raze 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would put together a general list (like on Pet), and add the information you're talking about to the item/mob pages where they will be the most useful to users who aren't looking specifically at your list. Make sure you follow WP:EL if you add external links.  09:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see you add the information on specific rare pets (at least the hunter ones) to their page specifically instead of making one big page with all of it. --Ilublawn 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Page edit number
Just quickly where do you find out how many pages you have edited? IKT 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to count your contributions, you have made about 70 edits. -- 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers IKT 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a quicker and easier way of doing it than just counting the number of the page - especially if you're like me and have it so that it displays more than 100 or 200 to a page. Open the contributions page, highlight all of your contributions, open up Excel, paste it in, and the number of rows that come up should be the number of contributions you've made.  I typically have 500 contributions showing per page and so I just do this every time instead.   14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if you want to count more than 500 at a time you can edit the url to specify an amount. -- 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It only takes half an hour to load if you have as many as... some people here. 07:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest:Veil Rhaze: = Veil Lithic
The page for Quest:Veil Rhaze: Unliving Evil is a copy of the text for the quest following it, Quest:Veil Lithic: Preemptive Strike, including quest rewards and mention of 'Break the eggs in Veil Lithic'. I've already done the quests so I can't nab the quest text from there, and didn't know what the guidelines on 'borrowing' from other sites are...--Azaram 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do it. There's a reason that questbox has an external links parameter. See also Boilerplate:Quest :) --Sky (t · c · w) 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. (hides behind something heavy) --Azaram 08:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Finished!!
If you go a couple sections up you will see the big big page section. Well I am here officially to say that it is finished. Go and see the full glory of Rare pets !!!!
 * Why rare minipets and rare pets on the same page? Besides, what's up with "Being the only one in your server to have one.", that's just never true...
 * The page looks very messy and far from done to me. -- 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And the drop information for the Oozeling was completely wrong. I fixed that, though. I agree, though, hunter pets and small pets are different enough that this should be divided into two different pages. Oh, and sign your posts pls.--Mikaka 06:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this should be divided into two seperate pages: Combat Pets and Minipets. A nice bit of compilation though. :-) Tyka 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to see some of the spawn information rolled into the page for the mob (as far as hunter pets go), and these are not all of the rare hunter pets. --Ilublawn 19:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Armor Sets
I was adding the new token templates when I noticed that the armor pages are all over the place w/ regards to format. Would anyone object to me using the format found on the Onslaught Armor page on other armor pages? Any suggested changes?--Scyth02 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not me. This is what Foxlit came up with when he developed settip for usage in tooltip. Have a look at that. The overall page for the Druid t4 is at Malorne Armor, which I'd also suggest you have a look at. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I love Malorne Regalia, that's what a set tooltip (and page) should be, short and sweet but gives you all the info. Throw in the cool include majicks and you don't get the whole tip when you transclude the page, just the set effects :)  The only thing I'd add to that page is a note that it's a hybrid class set, so it's targeted at a specific spec, and links to the other spec's sets.   20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the new format as well, even though some of the old format was done by me. The Onslaught Armor page covers both the Protection spec armor (called Onslaught Armor) and the DPS spec armor (Onslaught Battlegear). I would probably split them up onto separate pages and give the collective sets its own name (like Malorne Armor is made of Malorne Regalia, Malorne Harness, and Malorne Raiment). Not sure of a good collective name for Onslaught since most of the other warrior sets use either Armor or Battlegear in the name. Maybe just call it Onslaught Plate. - 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The old format has started to grow on me actually. Your right about the armor collection (ex. tiers 4-6) vurses armor sets, and I will set it up that way. Hmm . . . collections, that sounds good. Guess that solves the warrior problem, I'll use Onslaught Armor Collection then Onslaught Armor and Onslaught Battlegear. Keep the input coming!--Scyth02 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, if we did go w/ the table format I would like to use a slightly different one I made using the older one at User:Scyth02/Sandbox01.--Scyth02 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Real namespaces
Content moved to Wowpedia:Namespaces and WoWWiki talk:Namespaces. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Site stats update
I have good news, and very good news. First the good news:

Check out the graph of the site (entry) stats on the right. This should be a good guide of what is popular on the wiki at the moment, and where we need to improve - for example, people spend very little time on the profession and faction page, but our instance, mobs and actual faction pages are huge. The "popular links" box on the sidebar could possibly be changed if anyone has any good ideas, or perhaps a new section for the main page is in order?

One cool idea is to have small banners across these pages (as they are where most people come into the wiki), to point people to useful stuff like welcoming things, useful links, and, of course, other Wikia Gaming wikis (yes).

Now the very good news: check out our latest Alexa stats - ! We're doing great ... YOU'RE doing great :) The community is what makes the website, and we have a great one here! There's lots more updates and extensions coming to the wiki to make it even better, and some other "little" announcements to be made.

So anyway, I just want to take a moment to thank absolutely everyone who contributes to the site. Don't forget we have an IRC channel, open to contributers and, indeed, everyone else. Here's to the future, and to Blizzcon ;) 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, pages like profession and faction are going to get used, for the most part, as navigation aides. Yes, profession has a lot of info on it, but just glancing over it it's all info useful to new players.  Seasoned players are only going to go there for specific little bites of info ("what level do I need to train up Artisan?") or as a stepping stone to the page they're really after.  Faction, IMO, could drop most of the page content.  It's all just links to each facton, which are all covered in the footer navbox.  Give a good summary of what a faction is and that navbox and we're all good to go.   02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gem and Enchants by Slot are two of the pages I find the most useful and I'm always giving them out as links to other people. Possibly keep/include those in the "Popular" links? Tyka 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Zone sub-categories
Just thought I'd mention that I've been starting to make more sub-categories for various zones. For example, I've started for several zones a mob category that aims to be a list of all mobs in the zone, serving the duel purpose of reducing the size and scope of the enormous Mobs category, as well as providing a concise and easily updated list of the killable inhabitants of the zone. I plan on later creating an NPC category for each zone, as well as a Subzone category. Quest subcategories should already be underway for many zones.

If there's a good reason why I should try and reduce the size of the zone categories by dividing the articles into more appropriate areas, speak now or forever hold your peace. --Mikaka 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't name them like you've been naming them (see WP:BR). Instead of Cat:Mobs:Zone, have them at "Category: mobs", eg, Category:Eastern Plaguelands mobs. Please. NPCs would be "Category: NPCs", and subzones would be "Category: subzones". As for catting those cats, they should have the categories "Category:<Zone>" and "Category: ". I know this isn't how it is currently set up for most categories, but it is, I feel, as it should be. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * K. I'm renaming the categories I've already done. I'll be spamming recent changes for a while, but it shouldn't take long. --Mikaka 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Starting talk pages
How do you start off a talk page properly? Asharath 12:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just start making comments on it. --Pcj (T&bull;C) 12:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to see our talk page guidelines (WP:TALK) and talk page help (Help:Talk page), but, as pcj says, just start a new section and type! 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing a pages name
The quest: Cenarius' Legacy has a gap before the first letter of the name I'd like to get rid of the gap but not sure how to fix it. Feel free to reply to my talk page and just delete this. Thanks --Yelmurc 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be moved to rename it (from Quest: Cenarius' Legacy to Quest:Cenarius' Legacy), though renaming an article has to be done cautiously. --Raze 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)