User talk:Beep2

Beep
So you managed to forget your password? >.< -- Kirkburn  (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah, and I was foolish enough that I never input my email address, so the password recover system won't work. Oh well, que sera sera. --Beep2 12:54, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Thanks for your help, Beep, still learning this stuff. Seankreynolds 14:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

AB Mark
Use (x = number of Marks). Will work with AV and WSG marks in a min. :) -- Adys (talk · contr) 13:04, 31 December 2006 (EST)


 * Cool. I didn't actually care about the template, but when it got deleted, 51 links suddenly got broken. --Beep2 13:06, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Pet trainers
I noticed you had edited the article while I was doing my revamp. I hope I didn't step on any toes, but I wanted the class trainers to have a unified look, and I thought the old pet trainers table was quite messy. -- Varghedin (talk · contr) 13:05, 3 January 2007 (EST)
 * Nah, it's fine. The old table was messy, so I just tried to slap together a nicer one. The one you made has even more information. --Beep2 13:27, 3 January 2007 (EST)

The silly purge
Thanks for reminding me of that. I've copied Baggins' description from Template talk:Silly, that should do.  APΘLLΘ (ZEUS)  11:21, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Moving of pet to pet containers
While I agree its a good idea, as item pages are more important. Try to be careful not to move things that are both pets and critters. Because an article of the critter is obviously not about the pet.Baggins 10:04, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 * Yeah, that's why I haven't touched Prairie Dog yet. I'm going to split it with "for|the small pet", "for|the critter". --Beep2 10:05, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Well technically its "brown prairie dog" for the pet. So not much of an issue there. The main page can discuss prairie dogs in general and have inpage ambig, so we don't have to have 3 pages total just about prairie dogs LOL. Its a bit more difficult for things like cats where we have same types of cats as critters and pets.Baggins 10:09, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Alright you just hit on a good example of what I mean. Worg Pup is a term used in more than just the vanity pet, but also some mobs.Baggins 10:17, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 * Well, the mobs themselves are Bloodaxe Worg Pups, unless there's some other one that I'm missing. --Beep2 10:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Right my point was, that there needs to be more diambiguation, as we know of two types of Worg Pups.Baggins 10:20, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 * Getting there, slowly. --Beep2 10:20, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 * Ya that will work fine for now. Unless we get even more types of Worg Pups, or a huge biological report on "worg pups" in some source, in which case we might need to opt for a main worg pup page LOL.Baggins

See I see someone redirected Cornish rex into the cat carrier article, only problem is cornish rex are also critters... Thus the reason why critter name was always redirected to housecats.Baggins 10:37, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 * Well, there's only one Cornish Rex in-game, and it's a "sample" next to the cat lady. This could either be explained in a "Cornish Rex" article, or as a subsection of the cat carrier article. --Beep2 10:40, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Still it is its own critter, and as the point of the "housecat" article, which is a disambig in its own right. In anycase the cornish rex and other one of a kind critter/mobs, either diserves its own page, or at least redirect to the housecat disambig page. As they are not the item.Baggins 10:42, 16 January 2007 (EST)

I by the way I discussed it with the person that originaly moved it. He said he only moved them as he didn't know about the critters, and no one mentioned the critters.Baggins 10:52, 16 January 2007 (EST)


 * I did NOT say that I didn't know about the critter. Anyway, I think the 'samples' deserve to be mentioned in both articles. In the pet articles however, the section where this short point is made should not be called 'beast', but 'notes'. [[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] APΘLLΘ (ZEUS)  11:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks for clarifying.Baggins 11:20, 16 January 2007 (EST)

DYWYPI?
Nice Nethack reference on your user page. :D --Flyspeck 10:23, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Reverting CCG? Why?
http://www.wowwiki.com/CCG

As you can see, you now added the page again. Explain me, what is the relevance of this page to World of Warcraft? the initial plan was to add those few lines to the WoW-TCG main page. I don't want to go in an edit war here, but remember, we are the WoWwiki.

I do not mean any offense here, but adding irrelevant pages to WoW is pointless, hence why it's better to redirect to the main TCG page. The explanation might be nice, but if people, want the term explained, they can visit Wikipedia. People searching for CCG or TCG on the WoWwiki are looking for the TCG page and NOT for an explanation of what it is. In general, these people already know. Those that don't, will get the point when seeing the main page. After all, a few pictures say so much ore than just a simple definition.

As an added point, WoW TCG isn't even a CCG so the page in itself is pointless in first place.

I will most likely revert them myself to redirect pages (and make things slightly clearer on the main page. They shouldn't have been redirected to TCG in first place, but TCG used to be a redirect >.>) If you want to take it upon yourself to do these changes, be my guest, after all, we are a free wiki. I don't want to start an edit war, allow me to make that clear. My point has been brought across :) --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 14:25, 20 January 2007 (EST)
 * I reverted your redirect because there was no explanation at the end page for why CCG redirected there. You slapped a redirect over a simple explanation and it left unanswered questions. As for WoW:TCG not being a CCG, I'm no expert, but it is listed under Wikipedia's list of CCGs.  Let me just add that there are many, many things that need editing in WoWWiki, and the CCG page while possibly being of low relevance is also very low on the cleanup list. --Beep2 14:37, 20 January 2007 (EST)


 * Then it should just be deleted, I made it a redirect, because I don't have the power to move and Kirkburn adviced me to make it a redirect. People who come to the WoWwiki and search for CCG are looking for the TCG. There's noone that will visit that page to discover what a CCG is. Wikipedia is wrong on that one, as a mmatter of facts, the difference is small, but it exists. CCG don't promote trading like a TCG does. However, again, the whole discussion is irrelevant, both TCG and CCG shouldn't be on the wiki, seeing that they are not WoW related. Clean-up list is only needed for things with an actual WoWsubstance. We shouldn't put time in things which are irrelevant. Again, if people look at the general WoWTCG Page, they will find out what it is all about. A game with cards. No need to explain it on a seperate page. --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 06:46, 21 January 2007 (EST)