Talk: Coobra

Leaving a question/comment in the middle of the page and not at the bottom will be ignored.

Past discussions archived to...

...User talk:Coobra/Archive01 Archived Nov 2007 to May 2008
...User talk:Coobra/Archive02 Archived June 2008 to May 2009
...User talk:Coobra/Archive03 Archived June 2009 to August 2009
...User talk:Coobra/Archive04 Archived September 2009 to November 2009
...User talk:Coobra/Archive05 Archived November 2009 to March 2010
...User talk:Coobra/Archive06 Archived March 2010 to July 2010
...User talk:Coobra/Archive07 Archived August 2010 to January 2012

Training

Hey Coobra :) I'm really liking |train in the Infobox ability template, and I was thinking we might want to add the trained-at level in there somewhere as well. At present this info (e.g. This ability is learnt at level 36 for 6 30) is on almost every ability page, and since the training cost itself is now in the infobox, it seems like putting something like "Training: Level 36, 6 30" in there, rather than just the cost, would enable us to remove this often less than critical line from the top of the ability pages. It's always seemed a little in the way to me, and for 85s is almost completely redundant information. Since it's still important to present, it seems perfectly suited for the infobox. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought about doing that after adding the training cost to a couple of pages, but then I remembered, didn't Blizz say that spells and abilities at their correct levels would automatically be taught to the player in MoP? So I decided to hold off for right now on that to see if that is the case.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 14:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A good point, which I'd forgotten ;) However, since you currently get an on-screen notice when you become able to learn a new ability, I wouldn't think there's much of a difference; players already don't 'need' to know this info, since the game tells them as and when abilities become trainable. I'd also assume the level to still be considered worth mentioning, if only so that players have a way of finding out at what level they'll get that cool ability they've been waiting for. I wonder whether they'll remove the cost too, or whether the act of levelling will automatically empty your wallet? So if anything I'd think that the level would be more important than the cost, and an even better candidate for the infobox, since with MoP it will as you say be even less critical info. However, since the levels for most abilities are set to change with MoP, it certainly doesn't seem worth changing the pages themselves just yet ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's possible that even though you won't need to visit a trainer, to learn the ability would probably still cost money. Though I wouldn't say it would automatically take it from you, players would probably need to click the ability in their spell book to learn it for the appropriate amount of gold... if that's how they'll handle it. Course, if they do that, so much for the rep discount. I'll add the level parameter, that is at least something that can be added right away, while the cost should probably be held off till we have more info... since the system is being completely reworked and prices (if still existing) would likely change anyway.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Art and In-Game photos.

I notice you replaced the Vol'jin image, this is standard and that is fine but it brings up and issue and why I've replaced a lot of that type of art with in-game images. Let me give you a few reasons.

Art, being drawn by different artists doesn't always show the proper design of a character, with in-game images we always know what they properly look like, or at least in most cases.
Art, such as that with Vol'jin is commonly very blurry. Even on my screen I can't really define what everything exactly looks like unless I leave the page to zoom in.
This is probably the third main reason, With Sylvanas, Vol'jin, Mal'ganis you can see them in their home, environment, or in combat as opposed to in a white background and such.
Lore characters, such as Grom with small appearances should remain with art.

Keeping in mind im just bringing up the subject, just like to hear your opinions since I cant get much from anyone else around.

High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 03:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, policy has always been art of screenshots, and I personally think artwork is what the artists can truly show what they look like, rather than the limitations provided from in-game models.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, with Thrall that is true, but sometimes with others it is not. Usually because a model was updated and no new art has been made for that particular model.

High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 04:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Tyrande model is just slightly different than the art...--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Navigation Bar Question

Our guild runs a wiki for our website and just recently the navigation bar started showing up at the bottom of text on each page, no longer remaining in the upper left as it once did. Do you know the code to add to the server to force the navigation panel to remain at the top of the page, or even scroll with the page, remaining on the screen? I have been unable to locate a MediaWiki article that definitively answers this. My thanks in advance. Ariule (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My knowledge on that subject is lacking, sorry.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

DMF Quests/Items

I'm sorry it seems I've reverted a few of your changes on the pages I created recently. Please do clean them up accordingly. I was just annoyed that pages didn't exist yet. :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kunzite1 (talk · contr).

Gabrirt

Do you have any thoughts on the edits of Gabrirt? I noticed that you have discussed things with him before.--SWM24 48 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear your opinion.

High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like half of them, and I've tried communicating as much as I could with him, but I've mostly given up on that, and simply fix things he might mess up.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)'

You're dedicated Coobra, I can respect that, but doesn't it bother you to feel like a maid?

High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 03:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Often times I do find myself cleaning up with the time that I have, rather than creating new articles or updating and preforming my own projects to better the site... but I'd rather make sure the articles that are created are up to our standards, and try to communicate those standards to the new users that come here to help, before I do what I need to do.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

People can not be banned for reasons of quality control (poor editing skills, poor spelling/grammar/English, poor comprehension, useless/unnecessary edits, changing uncited statements to other uncited statements that are even more questionable, rewording to promote a bias, unnecessary reorganization, general idiocy, and so on...). I really want these this to be rules, but they can not be. It is too subjective and ad hominem. You just have to care enough to follow them around revert their ~~diarrhea~~ edits. I want to maintain this project, but I don't have that kind of time, especially if they want justification for each and every reversion. Wowpedia:Disruptive editing policy, an admin's ace in the hole, was supposed to be used to prevent another Rolandius, but I don't know what actual actions fall under it. I can not and will not ban someone for not liking them.--SWM24 48 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I really don't want to go through that again, so while I also don't have the time to follow him (or some others), if I notice edits in the recent changes log, I might take a quick glance and see the quality, but there's some articles I'll let others maintain... like the war articles, in which seem to deal with several edits a day.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to request a promotion to chief of making infoboxes pretty.

High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to assist. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a question, when do we consider something vandalism.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the best way would be to say, if the edits done are intent on harming the site, rather than attempting to aid it.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We keep telling him ways to improve, but he will not take a hint. He has probably violated Wowpedia:Three revert rule at some point, but I'm not sure. I want him gone for the best interest of the wiki, much like Ashbear, but I can't really justify it.--SWM24 48 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another pedantic, self-absorbed elitist. Dear God, I thought we'd gotten past that after The last Alterac. --

Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) 11:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, seems I'm missing all the fun. TherasTaneel (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I miss The Last Alterac!

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Korean/Japanese Answers

[1] In this thread are a lot of translations of lore answers from the asian communities. How do you think these answers should be used?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see too many useful lore questions answered there... truthfully, I only found the last question useful, the one about the Dragon Aspects.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think we should archive them...--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably should.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Where should we?--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Aspect Page?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thought you meant all the questions should be placed somewhere here. Anywhoo, the dragon aspect answer had already been placed on that article.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there's also that... I think we should at least include them somewhere? Also thanks for adding that info--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cdev transfusion

Well i've been adding questions from the EU cdev thread to this article(if you didn't know), However i'm into the last few, and i'm having a hard time with these ones (i already removed most of the other). Any help on how to pass them to the other article would be helpful User:Ashbear160/CDev Questions.

Your opinion is wanted.

Please if you could give any opinion or comment on this forum topic. Forum:How is character neutrality determined? I've had enough arguing. The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 04:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I currently don't have the time to read through all that and make a comment, I will try sometime tomorrow, or monday.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thrall

Considering your statement on the what makes neutrality forum thing what is Thrall then? I mean most of his work was for the Horde, but Cataclysm and Twilight of the Aspects was all about him becoming more than the Horde. Granted someone else did change it from neutral to Horde, but I don't want to jump the gun and mess with the page. So should Thrall be Horde or neutral? --Sairez (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thrall is neutral, since he became part of the Earthen Ring.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fojar38

He has obvious bias. His goal for nearly every one of his edits is (I think) to give back to the Alliance, and devalue the Horde. He is very sure about obscure faction details, and will not rest until he tweaks every bit of controversy to fit his views. He wants to tell everyone his definition of Lordaeron (and Alliance, and so on...). He is on every major fansite doing the same, but Wowpedia is supposed to be objective and neutral. I tried reasoning with him on his talk page, but he came back with imaginary support and non sequiturs, or rather, he said something that was partially true but largely off-topic, citing discussions that had not ended yet to support his views. I decided to just back off until he started up again. I would ban him on a major NPOV violation, but he claims he is fixing bias and inaccuracies. Any opinions on him? Is he fixing errors that he just happens to take personal offense to, or is he just changing things to fit his personal views?--SWM24 48 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandwhichman, I couldn' agree more. I was wrong about Khadgar. But he just seemed so very ignorant about the idea instead of being neutral, I just saw it in his way of speech. Im certainly not perfect but I like to think im accepting.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the pattern of your edits, Moneygruber, you've essentially just been sitting on my contributions page and following my edits around, changing any that you don't like, forcing me to constantly make new talk pages and tweak articles more subtly as a result. Furthermore, @Sandwichman, I wouldn't call anything that you said on my page "reasoning." You essentially posted on my page that you'll ban me if I make edits that you don't like. In addition, my conduct off-site should have absolutely no bearing on what occurs on this site, and acting as such is overstepping your authority grievously. Fojar38 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I look around recent contributions to make sure the wiki makes sense. You think what you do is right, I don't change every edit you do, I act on errors I see, could I be wrong? I could be and many times I am, however I can also be right and using discussion I help the wiki by gathering opinions and making a conclusion. I keep my eye on you for a reason but your not singled out here.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 03:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to overstep my authority, I would ban people for not liking them. I think about it, but I would never do that. I threatened to ban you if you continued to make edits in a way that disrupted the peaceful operation of this wiki. It was not because I disagreed with you.--SWM24 48 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is, regarding this particular discussion, I have no violated the rules in any way, including the NPOV rules. In your attempt to "reason" with me on my talk page, not once did he provide an example of the sorts of edits that he objected to even when he was prompted to. I have cited edits when prompted to on the occasions when it is deemed that a citation is needed. Furthermore, at the time that I linked those discussions to you, the discussion had concluded, and even now the discussion has only recently been reopened by someone who doesn't seem to know any better. The fact is, me making lots of edits about Lordaeron does not violate the rules, as I have not seen any rule that prohibits editors from specializing in a particular subject. Again, if I have violated the rules in such a way that you believe warrants a ban on NPOV grounds, then please point out where I violated these rules and why it is justified to ban me immediately rather than sorting the problem out. Fojar38 (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No specific edit made by you has been unspeakably horrendous. However, nearly everything in the disruptive editing policy applies to you. You are belligerent, prone to argument, and prone to edit wars. I also feel that you do often violate the neutrality policy, rewording pages to fit you views under the guise of making them more neutral. Your claim that "none of my recent edits have been reverted" was wrong then and it is wrong now. I appreciate your attempt to justify your actions with those two links, but those discussions had not concluded in any consensus at that time, they merely stalled. We will sort this out. The question is how.--SWM24 48 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that much of what's in the Disruptive Editing policy is very vague and, in the case of lore, is prone to controversy and very colored by bias, what you've been saying about me is untrue in my opinion. I don't think I've been belligerent on this wiki at all, and arguments are going to happen, especially within the controversial bounds of where my edits are most concentrated. Furthermore the only edit war that I can think of that I was involved in occurred over a year ago, and as of late I have not made more than two or three edits on a subject before opening a discussion regarding the change, which as I understand it is what the rules state you should do when opinions clash. In addition, I can't exactly defend myself against the accusations of me rewording pages or which edits have or have not been reverted if you won't specify any examples of this occurring. As far as the discussions are concerned, if your criteria for a concluded discussion is 100% community consensus within the thread then you're never going to get a consensus. The majority of the people who posted in those threads reached the conclusion that with regards to Lordaeron the subject should be treated in a "pre-Third War" manner. Finally, when I said "none of my recent edits have been reverted" it was true at the time, since my primary focus at that time was on the Capital City and Ruins of Lordaeron pages, which everyone seems to be content with at this point. Barring heavy and selective interpretation of the "disruptive editing" policy, I don't see how I've violated any rules beyond making edits that disagree with your opinion. Fojar38 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think im against you, I'd like you to know we, well I, atleast am not. We don't have any reason to hate you or be biased against you. Try to discuss more and be less hostile is all im asking of you.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 03:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is as a side note, but the edit that you just tried to make to the Kingdom of Lordaeron page was highly inappropriate, as you KNOW that it would be an controversial change that's still undergoing heavy debate on this very forum. Quite frankly, that page 'ought to be locked until further notice. Fojar38 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question posed to me... I currently have no opinion about it... I'll remain neutral on this subject for the time, however, I'll start watching future edits.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's very professional of you, I wouldn't have done the same, your a better person then me in that regard it seems.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 05:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Im questioning my ability to work with him properly. He completely turns down any of my logic. Im wasting precious time I could you making this wiki better. Im not angry but I need a professional opinion on this.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 20:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Transmog

Hi Coobra :) With regard to my recent edit of the Transmogrification page: the rules currently state

Using an item for transmogrify makes it soulbound.

However, transmogging an heirloom item does NOT make it soulbound. I know that heirlooms are already bind to account, but this is not the same as soulbound. BoA items can be traded between characters, while soulbound items cannot. The rules suggest that by mogging my heirlooms, they would become soulbound, and I would therefore be unable to pass them down to subsequent alts; this is most definitely not true. Since the rules listed on this page don't mention this, and it's a fairly pertinent piece of information (essentially an unmentioned exception to the usual rules), I thought I'd add it. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right.. although I would have considered that info common sense stuff, it should probably be noted for those that might ask.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-inserted an edited note. I agree it's not exactly a game-changing detail, but it came in handy for me to know, not wanting to waste many an hour of honor grinding, and noting it should allow ppl to enjoy mogging their alts without hesitation. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Desired opinion recruitment

Can you say something to User:Gabrirt/Illidan's forces campaign to the Frozen Throne#Turn_Official? Thanks to paying attention!Gabrirt (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

MoneygruberTheGoblin´ edits

Hi, i have something to say about it. I like his jobs what he has done here, however, I do not agree with some of his edits and when I was trying to discuss but it did not helped. First of all, before making some conclusions... Can you explain me what exactly the Horde Icon next to the name of a character in infobox means and is refering to? I take it as the Horde created by Thrall (and Orgrimm) I will continue when an answer comes to me. Thanks for your help! --TheMordecay (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a question about "when is the Horde not the Horde?" Same for the Alliance while we are at it. It is fuss over an icon. Why so much edit warring? I don't know. A small subset of fans really want to complain about and define these things. Coobra, sorry for making your talk page a complaint thread. That should have never happened.--SWM24 48 00:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, for eons there was not this icon and know it will be just put and makes no sense in lore. Coz for instance, Horde of Draenor nor their leaders have nothing to do with the current Horde. Just because it has name "Horde" it has that icon? It´s nonsense.--TheMordecay (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Qiraji Battle Tank revert

How exactly is Qiraji#Origin speculation? It uses 2 in-game sources and one official blizzard post. The mounts are clearly labelled as Qiraji, and we already know that Qiraji were made in the image of Silithids, but are not Silithids and are instead a construct of the old gods. Therefore, including the Qiraji mounts on the Silithid page is incorrect. Marluxia.Kyoshu (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, all silithid and qiraji are the same. That is not the case. They are rideable silithids, belonging to the qiraji.--SWM24 48 20:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If one to read that paragraph you linked it states:

The Old God created avatars from the silithid in its own image. These avatars were to be known as the qiraji. Sapient and with purpose, the qiraji worked feverishly to build a force capable of laying waste to the world that would betray their god, with the silithid as their minions.

You're correct that silithid are not qiraji, they are their minions, as such those mounts are minions.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The qiraji battle tanks are no more qiraji than the Quel'Dorei steed is a high elf. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Im most cases ground mounts. (But not always flying) are most certainly sentient.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to correct Coobra The magazine issue 5 retconned the fact that the qiraji came from the silithid .--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okie doke, thanks for the correction. Maybe make it more clear on the Silithid page that they are being forced to serve the Qiraji, and maybe mention it in the battle tank section. Marluxia.Kyoshu (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Silithid article does, see history section for one. And the mount section does not need to make mention of lore.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue 5 clarified conflicting sources (that you would never know about with the current "race origins" page), but yes, the silithid somehow came from the qiraji. I don't know if they are being forced to serve. Lands of Mystery implies that, but that was rendered non-canon. Silithus quests just show them being commanded, if I recall.--SWM24 48 02:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Old wowwiki links

This is one example, perhaps someone with the ability to do those bot things should let one loose. TherasTaneel (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe bots are occasionally sent out to change those... I'm not sure if categories are being ignored by the bot or if its just missing the image requests links though.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mag'har orcs

Im sorry to bother you, snake god. But I have a question. It was decided Mag'har be treated as a separate race in the Horde article. Would you like to to work on a race box and article for the race? The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 04:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind them sharing the orc article. But if you want to make one for them, I'll look over it at some point, otherwise, busy busy busy. =P

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright i'll work on it. Best of luck, Snake God.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 04:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I sort of split it with the faction and added some other racial info. You can see it here whenever your ready, Snake God.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 05:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What mag'har orcs are not grouped under the mag'har? Garrosh? Is this just an excuse to make a new infobox?--SWM24 48 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Earthen Ring. Also they are a separate race. Fel orcs are as well correct? Same logic really.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thought on Race templates

The shape of Template:Humans and Template:Orcs are making troubles.

Please voice your opinion here.

Thanks.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 08:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Icon

Could you change the name of this icon to something more lore correct please?

Check the Model/Skin name or just use the name you think it's most lore correct.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

SpiritCat ?

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a Spirit Beast and neither of the examples are called a Spirit, since it seems to be composed of Rocks/Gems/Metal, it's most probably a construct but that's guessing(altrough in two cases they are directly connected to the titans)--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

TitanicCat ?

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 22:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Try but there's one in the firelands that's unrelated to the titans, also there are some new mobs in pandaria that use the same model but with a different skin(jade)--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The icon's name is arbitrary anyway.--SWM24 48 20:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

ConstructCat?

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best name... since there's the whole pandaren witch making them in jade forest, together with the other two having origin in a construct building prone race.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yay.

The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I decided to rename the icon to GemstoneCat.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That cool trough there a metal and stone, but it's not like it's that important.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct2category

I noticed that a while back, you tagged a number of categories with the {{c2c}} without providing any additional information as to what the correct category might be, e.g. Category:The Barrens mobs, Category:Draenei quest givers. Could you clarify what the intended fate of those categories is? — foxlit (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If I didn't mark where they should go, it's probably cause they're supposed to be split. Last time I put {{c2c}} with both locations a bot that was used got confused and tossed them in both categories I believe.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It would probably do that, yes. Perhaps {{split}} is a better match than {{c2c}} for the "selectively put articles into one of these two categories" case. — foxlit (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Spirits

What i should call the race that is composed of Wugou, Shu, Huo and Dafeng? As i can't find a name for them, at first i thought of calling them Elemental spirits, but that might cause confusion then i saw their titles and thought of Ancient spirits?

What do you think? and if not what do you suggest?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Elemental spirits appears to be the RPG term used described in Dark Factions, on pandarens... Unless we're given a different name for them, I'll continue to follow the more recent RPGs (canon or not).

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What i mean is that it might cause confusion between the general all powerful elemental spirits shamans talk to (which is what the RPGs mention) and these new playful versions of elementals.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They have designed multiple colors of the same models, indicating they'll continue to use those models on Pandaria. Let's wait to see if they give a more offical name when those quests open up.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I kinda wanted to start designing the article and then move if the name was changed :P --Ashbear160 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you decided on any name?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Elemental spirits seems to be the best answer. I have not found any other name.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 18:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Since we already have a article about another thing, should we do it like this Elemental spirit (creature)?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just make a section on the elemental spirit about them. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that okay? besides the article about the Elemental spirits being already confusing enough, it would only creature further confusion because they are not the same thing.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Minion & Warlock Summons Templates

There are these templates that are a bit redundant that they both exist, since they only have slightly different functions(grimoire of supremacy screws with them too), couldn't we just fuse them?

--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

They probably should.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestion? we have to keep both the abilities and non-combat summons, while adding the new abilities from pandaria--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've tries my best but the code doesn't let me either two lines of columns or groups

Can you see if you can fix it? or suggest a alternative--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Solved, but now it's too big :(... is there anyway to fix this?--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing the sidebar and hiding the summons links allows it to fit width-wise; unless you can add individual show/hide options for each minion, I can't see how to reduce the length any further, although my removal of

[Avoidance] has helped a little; it's now known by all minions. While I've simply hidden the minion summons, while this template is being revised I'd like to suggest linking to the minion pages themselves (eg Felhunter rather than

[Summon Felhunter]). The summons pages are now empty, with all relevant info on the minion's page, so anyone wondering what the related minion does simply has an additional page to load in order to find that information. The summons info is largely obtainable via the tooltip from the minion pages anyway. I think the Eye/Mount cols could be shortened/improved, but I don't know how ;) I've also added some of the more obvious Grimoire upgrades, sourced from wowhead. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm i think the one you made fits right. removed the old one so we could appropriately check the size

I also think we should revise or split each minion article. there seems to be a bit of confusion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean... we need to revise the felhunter article..., It's the only one that is stupidly designed.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed the links accordying to your suggestion, and also added the grimoire of supremacy to the below section, i feel it's important enought--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the Felhunter link in the above. I've been revising the minion pages, but they're still a little rough. Nonetheless the setup seems about right, assuming we're to have separate summon/minion articles for each in the first place. For the MoP minions I suggest the same format; basic info on the Summons itself on the summon page, and the rest of the info, abilities, tactics, etc, on the minion page itself, which doesn't ofc exist yet for any of the new ones. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually i was suggesting we should move the Felhunter article into Felhunter (warlock minion), to keep it consistent.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Felhunter seems alright to me. The other minions are specific versions of the demon with the same name; Felhunters are named differently to the non-warlock-minion Fel stalkers. You could argue it either way. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, i just wanted it to be consistent since fel hunter will be the only one to not have that tag in fron of it

On another note the Felhound and Fel stalker articles should'v been merged years ago...--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this template is good to replace the other 2 templates?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since nobody answered it i'm going to replace it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixing!

Fixed most of the images, I apologize for the inconvenience. Had to delete the .png of General ul'zurel since I apparently couldn't replace it with a jpg version

Alcatraz (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Alcatraz

Engineering parts

Hey, could I have you take a look at this? It's made from ilvl, but it seems abit strange, any ideas? TherasTaneel (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me... although many items under the tubes section aren't tubes =P

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, seems a section didn't make it...sec. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now?

Looks good, I added the Cobalt Bolts, it was the only thing I noticed off-hand that was missing.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is still something wrong, Hardened Adamantite Tubes are made before Froststeel Tubes... TherasTaneel (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Error found, perhaps there is more, but I dont see them, guess more skilled engineers can modify it later on. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Added a few more, I think it's ready to be used.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How did you make the spider collection picture?

Just wondering what software you used to make the spider group-shot, since it seems it would be handy in the continued updating of the beast articles. Ijffdrie (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WMV and photoshop, very handy tools. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironforge museum

You merged the museum article into the Ironforge Library. I understand your argument that it's not a subzone, but as it's called a museum by some NPC's (Prospector Drugan and Grimnur Stonebrand for example), has a big exhibition and a curator, I'd say it's a different thing than the library itself (which hosts books, not bones, special fishes and Uldaman Relics). So with your consent, I'd like to recreate the page, this time marked as a subzone of the library, or no subzone at all. Sincerely DeSatyr (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Though libraries are also known to host exhibits as well. I can see the redirect existing (it's why I didn't delete it), but both articles are fairly small, I believe it would be best if they just shared an article.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Template Bags

Here is the example: User:Ashbear160/Templates(still not finished with normal bags since there are so many)

Just have two problems with it

Do we need to add (slots) to the front of every bag? because if we hover the mouse over the link it already shows the number of slots that bag has.
Too many normal bags :S

What do you think coobra?--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the current bag template is fine. It doesn't display the slot numbers by each bag and I don't think we really need to list anything under 18 slots. As for the profession bags, I'd rather not see it become a footer like the mounts and companions. They're fine as is.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:S It's just there are too many and they go by a different shape each :S I just think footers in this case would be simpler--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Online Sources

I was checking my userpage and noticed this

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25626575587&sid=1 - ???
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/gadgetzan/mainindex.xml Gadgetzan Times
World of Warcraft Lore: The Murlocs - http://www.wow-europe.com/en/info/story/murlocs.html
World of Warcraft Lore: The Undead Plague - http://www.wow-europe.com/en/info/story/undeadplague.html

Is there a way to recover these bits or are they hopelessly lost?--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine is great way to find old stuff... though forums pages you're not likely to find again... unless MMO-champion has it logged somewhere (at least if a blue responded to the post)

Murloc one - http://web.archive.org/web/20110718063132/http://www.wow-europe.com/en/info/story/murlocs.html

Undead plauge - http://web.archive.org/web/20100923213626/http://www.wow-europe.com/en/info/story/undeadplague.html

--

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So those 2 are not currently in wowpedia?--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Creature Icon List

I get a error message everytime i try to access the creature icon list maybe the list has grown too big? if it did can you do the same the achievements lists are done so we can choose what to load at a time.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the race icon list, I keep getting an error too every time I try to load it, it has been like that for around a week and a half now. It tells me that the page is under maitenence.--

DoomeЯ T

C 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because the page has got big enough that most computers can't load it properly--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it seems it is time to split it.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The actual problem is that the size of Template:RaceIcon/link is proving problematic for the wiki -- too many inclusions on a page, and it simply cannot generate the HTML output within allotted time. Eventually, you're going to have to fix or get rid of that template. — foxlit (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for not having the images link to race pages, it also was easier getting to the icon file's page by clicking the icon rather than have to manually type it in the url.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh the pages are loading fine now.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one smart solution to the ordeal coobra :D--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle Pet Template

I'm trying to make a Battle Pet Template with the information i already have User:Ashbear160/Templates#Battle Pets Template, and i wanted to ask what's your opinion on it?--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than making it a footer and displaying the skills associated with the type, I'd think I'd rather see all the pets listed together in this format.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aren't there a few hundred companions? Listing them all in one table could get a bit... long. — foxlit (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes and Blizzard are going to make a lot more, also the skills are also grouped by pet type, so it would work better in a footer i think--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, there are more companions than mounts aren't there... or about even. I guess the current mount style we have going would be best for this as well.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

At least with pets we have official categories, still think we should add abilities in it because i'm 99% sure someone is going to end up doing a new unnecessary template about it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Might as well. Since we're going with this more compact style.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sample

Here is a sample of the first template using all know information from wowhead

Template:BattlePetfooter/Aquatic

Tell me if there's any problems before i make the rest of the footers--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay i put up the rest of the templates, but they are still using a older build as the model, i'll update them tomorrow. I must know your opinion on the following trough:

I put the Passive Pet ability first before any other skill, because i figured they are far more important than the rest.
When the pet shares the name with a already existing mob critter article(which i assume are the capturable pets) i added a (Pet) to the end.
I didn't add the Animal category because it seems to have been erased from the game.

I'll add the core of the footer, now--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Abilities should probably just be in alphabetical order instead of passive first active second.

As for the naming conventions... It should likely be <Ability> (<type> ability). Stampede for example would be Stampede (critter ability).

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

i just think the passive is more important because there is only one of those per type and everyone in that type has it.

Hmm ok that's a good idea.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Question: Are you going to design a new Infobox for battle pets with their abilities and types(and other stuff that might appear)?--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not... we will see.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Do you think it would be a good idea to include religion on a npc infobox such as titles and class? The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's something probably left for a notes section or something like that. As is the NPCbox has no more room for stuff, it's reached that allowed limited to it's parameter.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it would add anything, either, and in most cases would be speculation anyway. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Windrocs a different species

I'm intrigued to hear the proof, as I always found it annoying that rocs appear to use three different models. I read the quest description, and all the proof I could get from it was that all the windrocs descend from a single female, which still doesn't disprove anything as that female probably had an ancestry as well. --Ijffdrie (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me your own reason for having them as rocs is due to having "roc" within their name. Rocs haven't used the owl model, and all rocs tend to have the word "roc" as a second part of their name, not part of the first word. All the Quest:Windroc Mastery quests refer to them as windrocs, even the named Gutripper. So that's more proof then the reasons you're using.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Still seems weird to me, as that could just imply windroc is a subspecies of roc, like storm crows, or dawnsabers. There does not seem to be an exact taxonomy system at work within WoW, so calling them a seperate species because their name consists of one word rather than two seems a bit weird. Still, this doesn't really seem like something that can be resolved through a discussion so imma go edit the roc page and add windroc to the beast listings.--Ijffdrie (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Then what if i go with this: Rocs are birds native to Azeroth, Windrocs are native to the Outlands. They are different species becausse they were never connected in the first place?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NPC article titles : RECALL

Hello.

Your opinion is required here, on a policy concerning NPC article titles.

Thanks you.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User Edit Count List

I do remember that we had http://www.wowwiki.com/api.php?action=query&list=wkedituser&wklimit=300 long ago when we were with wikia

Do we have it for Wowpedia?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 09:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides Special:Editcount, I don't think we do.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have the technology?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 08:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wars timeline

Any thoughts on War/Conflict/Battle and their Prev/Conc/Next?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue

Hi,Can you gimme a Hand?I've updated the article about Nexus quest.4.3.0 made several of the Nexus quest(previously given by Transitus Shield Npcs,like Quest:Prisoner of War)alvariable inside the instace.I've updated and added a page about the new npcs(Warmage Kaitlyn and her Images) who gives the quest.I've done it Fine.Now i've updated the Quest progression sections of several npcs to remove those quests.My editions were great till I removed the quest Prisoner of War from Raelorasz's Quest section(since that npc no longer gives that quest),but something weird happened.Now its like almost every quest display the name of the quest:Puzzling... inside Raelorasz page,what happened?.Fer seba 12 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is because the Puzzling article missed a </onlyinclude> to mark the end of the quest line :)

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 06:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I Didnt noticed that.Thanks a lot :D.Fer seba 12 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Highborne and troll ghosts

Hello! Some days ago I started moving the pages from Category:Ghost characters to the proper category in Category:Ghosts (after seeing one of yours edit like this one; because I suppose that the latter must be emptied and deleted, as is a copy of the former), but I had a doubt with trolls, Dark Iron dwarves and highborne, so I didn't move them:

Troll ghosts all belong to specific subrace categories (es. Category:Jungle trolls), while Category:Troll ghosts is generic, and moving them there would "remove" the subrace categorization. It's ok? The same for Dark Iron dwarves: should the be put in Category:Dwarf ghosts?
There is not a Category:Highborne ghosts: should it be created or the can be moved in Category:High elf ghosts?

Also, the characters that don't belong to any of the existing categories should be moved in the generic Category:Ghosts (that already contains some of them)? Thanks, -- Forco sussura agli abissi 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I never got around to setting up everything, if you find more than lets say 5 ghosts of a race that doesn't have a subcategory, you can go ahead and create one.

As for the Highborne, I've been throwing them into the night elf ghosts category. With the trolls and dwarves, they can have both categories (their subtype and <type> ghosts) otherwise, we could make subcats for them like I did for the elves too.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now Category:Ghost characters is empty. I created the categories for centaur, animal and dragon and jungle troll ghosts; I put Dark Iron and sand trolls with dwarves and trolls (there were 1 for each, I thought a whole category would have been excessive). I also put mag'har and fel orcs with orcs, kvaldir with vrykul and Highborne with night elves (but in this case I think an Highborne category would fit better). That should be all, if I'm not forgetting anything. -- Forco sussura agli abissi 11:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for completing that project.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

:) -- Forco sussura agli abissi 19:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pet Journal

Well here's a sample of the Pet journal User:Ashbear160/Sandbox2.

Notes:

I pretty much copied the list from a MMO Champion thread and removed the writer notes, blizzard still left a lot of entries unfinished or with bugs and typos.
I divided it into alphabetic order because the list was already organized that way, but it should probably be divided by type(Elemental, Dragonkin, Etc.) but i think i should wait for somebody else opinion.(this list is quite big)
I didn't link the names of the pets because most would probably link to critter pages which share the same name, and it yet to be decided if the critter page will also be the pet page to or there should be two pages one for the pet the other for the critter so i'm also awaiting you decision.

Thanks.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that is a big list, lol. I think it's probably best to keep it alphabetical order. As for there types, just made {{PetIcon}}, we could place next to them.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was actually suggesting it splitting it into different lists for each pet type, like: Pet Journal Dragonkin pets, just to make it generally more easier to read and load, and still keep the alphabetic system for each list.

I still need to know where i should link each pet name to :S--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm thinking it would just be easier to keep on one page just because there's not that much info given with each one. You can probably just link them as is, and we'll play around with the individual pet articles later on.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok finished adding a link to each one. Can we take it from my sandbox and put it in a article or is there any further change that needs to be done? User:Ashbear160/Sandbox2 --Ashbear160 (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle pet footer

I was thinking of restarting the battlepet footer i was doing before i was temporarily banned, and i want your opinion on a few things.

I think the ability section was a terrible idea of mine in retrospect and just increases the size of the template unnecessarily, so maybe it should be removed.

Although it should have a little more creature type information (weak against, passive ability, strong against) just to be a little more instructive.(maybe i should do a sample)

What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sample Here:User:Ashbear160/Sandbox2, tell me what do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Having the weak against and strong against is a good idea to have among the mix, but I'm not sure about having the passive ability if no other abilities are going to be shown either.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm only insisting on the passive ability because it's a characteristic of that creature type, which i mean is that all creatures of type will have it independently of it's currently chosen abilities. It's just one of the 3 mechanics(Weakness,Strenght,Passive ability) that actually make each creature type different.

But if you want i'll remove it, it's just that, the passive ability feels like it's very important to the creature type.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It can stay, though later down the road we might make another template just for their abilities.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok i finished the footers with ever pet in the wowhead list, i've gotta say that a lot of beast and critters pets. i'll transfer them to the footer soon tell me if there are any problems.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm where should i put the battle pet footers? in the category pages?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I figured there would go on the individual pet articles once we get them all situated.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle Pets Page Design

I'm trying to come up with a design that could be used for all battle pet pages.

Here's the first sample User:Ashbear160/Sandbox2

I'm thinking of adding stats per level(from what i understand they do exist, but i'll need to check)

I had to use that infobox otherwise i couldn't put certain stuff in it.

Tell me your opinion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all of the battle pets will either have an NPC associated with them or an item, so we'll have to keep that in mind.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah i know that. I think it's best if we separate/split them, i mean have articles for each battlepet/companions and then other articles for items/critter, otherwise we'll have critters/item articles mixed with companion abilities and pet types and it could potentially get very confusing, confusion which i would like to avoid.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to say that those battle pet articles would have "(pet)" or "(companion)" after the article name.--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that idea, I'd hate to have 2 articles for every pet, just for some battle pet info.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's the problem that the pet name doesn't always correspond to the item name(ex:

[Banana Charm] teachs the ability to summon Bananas), so i think those should be separate

And i wouldn't like to mix up pet statistics with mob statistics, so i also think those should be separate.

There's these 2 issues, so tell me what's your opinion on those 2 issues, so i can make the design more appropriate.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's usually the case with mount items too, I say we bring this topic to the forums, I'm sure others would be interested.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but mounts, like companions before Mop, didn't have any extra factors(stats, creature type, battle-stuff), now they do so it's probably best if we don't mix them.

I'll do as you say and post it on the forums.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Let's continue this discussion there.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Racial Titles

I've already tried to make a point of this but to little response. Looking through the race pages of this site I see alot of titles I've never heard in lore before. Worgen is a good example. Some are alright like with the blood elves. But others... One Giant Angry Badger (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, nearly all of those titles were made up and seem to be changed by multiple users all the time. It's best to bring the subject up our forums so a consensus can be made.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Companion Type Articles

Well i have to study for a exam so i will continue this tomorrow after the exam.

Someone decided to put a giant list on the pet battle system article, which in my opinion is wrong (a article about the system is 70% occupied by a list pets), so i decided to start our previous agreement(at least i think we agreed on this) on making a article for each battle pet type.

It has 5 characteristics (according to wowhead), part of the list involving aquatic pets that someone made on the pet battle system article.

So i wanna know what you would add or change to this article:Aquatic companions, so i could use it as a basis for the rest of the articles.

The list is not entirely complete due to the previously mentioned lack of time.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved the giant list to List of companions, it might be redundant to have so many pages dedicated to this though... Companion, Pet Battle System, List of companions, Aquatic companions (plus other types), Pet Journal.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should remove the list on the Companion article and just link it to the other type lists.

I think we should split List of companions into the smaller articles (like Aquatic companions) for 3 reasons: List is still too big to be easy to read; We still have to make the articles on each type (because of the passive abilities, strenghts and weaknesses); It works with the template(i don't want the work i did on the template to go to waste).

There are 2 reasons why i'm suggesting to keep Pet Journal separate from the other lists: they are mainly about lore, much like the dungeon journal as articles for lore; and adding them to any of the lists would force big columns to become smaller and harder to read.

Anyway it's your call.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people may prefer the huge list, but I agree, it's rather big (500 pets), so the load times would be long... and the list isn't even complete, so the smaller lists would be preferred (at least by me)... Now then, reviewing the layout being used for Aquatic companions, I don't think expansion column is completely needed, maybe instead a column to note if they battle or not.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Though because of companions by expansion, we could leave the expansion column, so we can delete the other list.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I made the Expansion column precisely to delete that article, we don't need that many lists.

I also thought of how to deal with the fact that some pets that can't battle, the guy who made the big list just removed the pet type from them(even trough they have a pet type even if they can't battle). My suggestion is much simpler, add a note to the bottom (or top) of the list and put an asterisk (or a similar symbol) on the pets that can't battle.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also thanks for agreeing with me :D--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That would work.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do after the exam tomorrow. We could also try apply the same treatment to non-tradeable pets(with a different symbol) and maybe manage to stuff the lore entries in there(One column for another), but i'm not entirely sure on that one. What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to show how it would look here's an attempt.

Critter companions
Name	Expansion	Lore Entry	Source
Squirrel		Most people do not know the difference between a squirrel and a chipmunk. Most don't care.	Pet Battle: Ashenvale, Azshara, Azuremyst Isle, Blade's Edge Mountains, Crystalsong Forest, Darkshore, Dun Morogh, Duskwood, Dustwallow Marsh, Elwynn Forest, Feralas, Gilneas, Hillsbrad Foothills, Howling Fjord, Loch Modan, Magisters' Terrace, Moonglade, Mount Hyjal, Nagrand, Ruins of Gilneas, Sholazar Basin, Silverpine Forest, Stormwind City, Teldrassil, Terokkar Forest, Tol Barad Peninsula, Well of Eternity, Western Plaguelands, Wetlands, Zul'Aman

This is one using the biggest piece of text. What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That should be good.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Then what remains to be decided are the two different symbols to represent non-tradeablity and non-combatability (:P) and i'll do it tomorrow (can you decide this? i don't know many of these kinda hanging symbols besides *).--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I like it too! --LemonBaby (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitary Break

Aquatic companions - Here's the most updated first list, i wanna know if everything is okay before i jump to the next.

Notes:

I used the information i have on List of companions, so some sources and untradeable * are missing.
The Pets which have ??? on the expansion column means they are listed on wowhead but i don't know anything else
I don't have lore entries so those will appear as '
You kinda surprised me with the combat icon so i don't know if i should apply to every pet or just the non-combat ones? tell me what you think it's best.
Once the method to apply tag is decided i need to write better notes at the end of the article.
Same thing with characteristics
Add a summary...

Any Help and Opinion would be great.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of making an icon for non-tradable pets too, so we should probably just make another column we could label as 'Status' and place the two icons in there that would mark the pets as combat, non-combat, tradeable, non-tradeable.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see how that works

Critter companions
Name	Status	Expansion	Lore Entry	Source
Squirrel			Most people do not know the difference between a squirrel and a chipmunk. Most don't care.	Pet Battle: Ashenvale, Azshara, Azuremyst Isle, Blade's Edge Mountains, Crystalsong Forest, Darkshore, Dun Morogh, Duskwood, Dustwallow Marsh, Elwynn Forest, Feralas, Gilneas, Hillsbrad Foothills, Howling Fjord, Loch Modan, Magisters' Terrace, Moonglade, Mount Hyjal, Nagrand, Ruins of Gilneas, Sholazar Basin, Silverpine Forest, Stormwind City, Teldrassil, Terokkar Forest, Tol Barad Peninsula, Well of Eternity, Western Plaguelands, Wetlands, Zul'Aman

--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm a bit squashed unfortunately... let's see if it works if we remove the sortable option(it isn't necessary either)

Critter companions
Name	Status	Expansion	Lore Entry	Source
Squirrel			Most people do not know the difference between a squirrel and a chipmunk. Most don't care.	Pet Battle: Ashenvale, Azshara, Azuremyst Isle, Blade's Edge Mountains, Crystalsong Forest, Darkshore, Dun Morogh, Duskwood, Dustwallow Marsh, Elwynn Forest, Feralas, Gilneas, Hillsbrad Foothills, Howling Fjord, Loch Modan, Magisters' Terrace, Moonglade, Mount Hyjal, Nagrand, Ruins of Gilneas, Sholazar Basin, Silverpine Forest, Stormwind City, Teldrassil, Terokkar Forest, Tol Barad Peninsula, Well of Eternity, Western Plaguelands, Wetlands, Zul'Aman

Ok looks like if we remove the sortable option (which isn't really necessary in this template...) it works and isn't as squashed.--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay! This should be the final design(according to the info we have on the wowpedia and wowhead) of the Aquatic companions article. Do you want to do any further design or structural changes to the article or can i start making the rest of the lists?--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, the expansion column is for when it was added? or requires the expansion to acquire?

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was using the pet by expansion lists as a example, so i was going for "when it was added" (added as a companion, since these are list about companions not mobs), of course we can change for "required expansion" if you want to, but that requires quite a bit of research that frankly seems to be too much work :S.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to renamed the column to "Added" or "Added in" instead of "Expansion" then, just so its more clear. And even though many of the critters have been in the game since release, but only became companions in MoP, I guess its ok to give them the MoP icon.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But yea, it looks great, the rest are ready to be made. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

May want to also include <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags as well, that way for the people that would rather have them all on one page we can make them all appear at list of companions.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that change :D

I'll start making the basis for the articles, will start tomorrow, it's 4 am in here T.T

Could you do that last part, i never understood that piece of code and where to put it, i usually just copy it's position from other places :S.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Two more notes: Used "Added" because it fits with the expansion tags more neatly; Could you check the code of Template:Companions/Aquatic, i'm having uncertanities about it's stability (because of the Div thing in the middle and it links to a red template that was renamed to the current), even trough it seems to work fine.

Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The div will always appear on the template pages like that, just because its using the child navbox to start rather than a normal starting navbox. It will be fine.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I love it! But do we realy need the "Added" column? I think that is an information for the pets article and is not one of the major information you want to see in a table with 100 other pets.--LemonBaby (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh it's small enough and we just put that so we can get rid of list of companions by expansion article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitary Break 2

Well i finished the Dragonkin companions article and template with the information i have, but there are still a lot of holes...--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They'll eventually get filled I'm sure.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh this is far more work than i realized, thankfully i finished transcluding information from List of companions for the smaller pet types, now it misses the 3 big ones (Beast(111), Critter(115) and Flying (73)). Still need to transclude information from the expansion list and lore list for the smaller groupings.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i have put every info from List of companions into the other smaller lists, you can now delete the current list and transclude the other templates into that page.

I still have put the information from the other two lists (lore entries and expansion pack).

If anybody could provide a list of "Untradeable" and "Cannot Battle" pets, it would help significantly

--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it will be a short list, more or less, since wild pets won't be tradeable, anything exclusive wont' be either, so it seems only thing that will be tradeable will be vendor purchased pets.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the whole pet battles won't be tradeable also surprised me :S

--Ashbear160 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a small change to the Humanoid companions, to deal with pets that had the exact same name but 2 versions(Moonkin Hatchling, Guild Herald and Guild Page). What do you think?

--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks better.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle Companions update

Since you've been working on the Pet Battle System, I'd like to inform you that I did an update on Forum:Battle Companions. Please voice your opinion about my changes. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharktacular

Regarding the shark pages. I'm fine with classical sharks not being a separate page (just a small experiment). However, reverting the old page was a huge overkill, as now all the short descriptions have been deleted, the RPG info is again listed as lore and the RPG infobox is back (classifying sharks as cold aquatic creatures contradicts WoW). Is there any way to access deleted pages to restore the short descriptions? --Ijffdrie (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Launching problem

Hi, I hope you can help.Forum:Launching problem I was waiting and hoping that it will be gone, but no, the problem persists. Even now wowpedia is not working correctly to me and i do not see those icons... ya know signing and so. Those few edits what i just did where done by hitting F5... the page was not launching correctly. (still i do not see the icons! :D )

I do not encounter this issue, so my first guess would be it might a browser problem and I can only suggest clearing out your cache, and deleting your cookies.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did so and it did not helped. It is doing on Firefox and Chrome. Now I am using opera, it is little bit better (icons are here! :D) though it still shows me that pages are not loading. --TheMordecay (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

World Maps

Hi Coobra,

Thanks for informing me about the world map list, however three of those maps (The Jade Forest, Wandering Isle and Veiled Stair) are outdated, and have been replaced in the beta with new versions. That is why I was trying to change them, how should I go about correcting this? Insane Guy of Doom (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We usually have someone that pulls the maps directly from the game files, he is however on vacation right now, I would say not to worry about it since when he comes back it will be updated soon after. However, if you want to anyway, just click on the file and click the Upload a new version of this file link located at the bottom of the file history section to upload an updated map. Just make sure it is 1,002 x 668 pixels so it works correctly with the {{coords}} template.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Elements or Elemental spirits

I need your opinion on something.

I have a problem with the "Elemental spirits" page, there is a common problem with people confusing normal elementals and the spirits that the shaman call.

I think this problem is derived from the name itself, elemental spirit, which i've tried to look for a source and couldn't find it. From what i can gather Baggins originally named the article and i assume the name comes from the RPG. I have looked at "Unbroken" and there it neither calls them spirits or elementals or both, they go by Elements the entire way.

So i need your opinion on what to do in this case. Do i leave the article as it is? Or do i split the article with the information from the Elements going to the Elements page? (The information from elements page is already on the Magic schools (WoW) article and all the links that link to this page are linking to the elements shamans call) Or you could have a better suggestion to this problem?

Thanks!--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The rest of this conversation has been moved to Talk:Elemental spirit. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quilen image

http://www.wowpedia.org/File:Quilen.png

The model for this has changed a lot since this file was added. It's a lot more upright, a lot less like an old lion. Since you took the original did you want to take the new one? If not I can see if I can get a shot. Cheers :) --W.woods (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Serpent's Swiftness etc

I saw that you moved [Serpent's Swiftness] to [Serpent's Swiftness], I guess that means you're working on the pet abilities? --g0urra[T҂C] 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Eventually I will, unless someone beats me to it.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RPG info in infoboxes

Regarding the tallstrider article (and later others), I think that having the rpg info and the canonical info in the same infobox without a clear way to distinguish them is a mistake, as it makes all facts appear equally canon. For the tallstrider, for example, there are multiple contradictions in world of warcraft versus the RPG: Tallstriders are often taller than 6 feet and many species would apply for the large animal category (and some probably for beasts or magical beasts). Tallstriders are also found in more areas, like swamps and however you would describe the area where the lost torranches live. Finally, the pair organization has no presence in any canon source at all. However, removing some of these would make the RPG-related info incomplete, which is why I think it'd be best to make that a seperate infobox.--Ijffdrie (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The infobox information can be expanded on, climates and zones can be added, there will always be creatures of any species taller or shorter than the normal sized ones, that doesn't mean the average height is wrong. For the most part the general creatures in the RPG are canon whether people want to say it is or is not, a good 95% of the info given is correct, while the remaining is new info discovered or changed in WoW. Having 2 infoboxes for creature information would just be confusing to some users, and is really unnecessary.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I would still propose to get rid of the RPG types (Animal, beast, magical beast) and replace them with the appropriate world of warcraft term. The RPG types are mostly game mechanisms and don't really resemble lore (for instance, there doesn't seem to be any canonical difference between animals and beasts). In places where it does influence lore, the types have already been seperated in-game (giant, dragonkin, fey).--Ijffdrie (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Since nobody answered could you give me your opinion on the last post of Template talk:Classnav

Thanks!--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Class Glyph Lists

I'm trying to complete each of the Class Glyphs sections in the abilities pages but i don't have a direct list(wowhead has repeats and other junk, the official calculator doesn't tell the exact name of the glyph), and since you are the one that updated the glyphs for MoP could you check the following pages(still updating the rest) and see if the list is right or has any mistakes(or at least point out a place where i can see a complete list).

Thanks!--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cross-realm zone in some cities

I have read initial Bliz explanation too. I have rechecked my assumption after your correction: so I can invite cr-players and there is no error "Player is in group already" (or smth like this, because I'm playing on non-English realm). Moreover there are too many cr-players, I don't think that all of them were in somebody party - for example I'm at Darnauss AH now: I am from my real only and 7 players are from other realms. Neia Pique (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well that did say the cross-realming is a little glitchy still, it's also possible when they said the faction cities that they might have only meant the main 2 (Orgrimmar and Stormwind).

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume, that Brawler's Guild Arenas are Cross-Realm Zones, though Orgri/Storm are not. Neia Pique (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dungeon Journal icons

Like they do seem okay and could work out for this but the only thing is where to put them. What do you think?

File:Ui-ej-boss-ghamoo-ra.png

From the Dungeon journal.

The thumbed, File:Ui-ej-boss-ghamoo-ra.png, or none at all. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 08:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say that is really cool, i would suggest [[File:ui-ej-boss-ghamoo-ra.png|right]]--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Coobra, please check Ghamoo-Ra to see how it is set up i used [[File:ui-ej-boss-ghamoo-ra.png|left]] and it came out awesome, thanks to Ashbear160. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 17:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to add them to this page too:Dungeon Journal Classic dungeons--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna upload them all and edit each boss first before i do those. But yea thanks for telling me. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure I like them in the boss articles, however, they might make a good addition to the Dungeon Journal Classic dungeons type articles as Ashbear suggested. This way it adds a little something more than just walls of text.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could get used to it. You should add {{clear|<left>}} to the bottom of the Dungeon Journal sections, just so the image doesn't throw the next section off for some of them too.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do my best, right now i'm just worrying on uploading them. Once this process is done by me, we will see how it turns out. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 00:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing it completed. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Encounter names

Where can I find the "canonical" names for boss encounters? To be honest, I had no idea how to properly call the Durand/Whitemane one in the template box, hence the confusion. Dungeon Journal? - LucidFox (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dungeon Journal at this point is the best location.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Dungeon Journal #2

I removed all the icons from the creature pages that i added the boss icon, for example, Pyromancer Loregrain. These boss icons from the Dungeon Journal looks better here, and the other ones. Just letting you know, it looked horrible on them especially High Interrogator Gerstahn. Rawr! <3 Loremaster zdroid, Lord of Azerothaka Zeta Droid (^TalkTrouble?/_{SpecialWhat did Droid do?}) 23:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumed deceased characters

Hello! I was wondering if the characters presumed deceased (like this one) should be put in Category:Deceased characters or not. -- Forco sussura agli abissi 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, only ones that have been confirmed deceased get placed into that category.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth making a new category for presumed dead and MIA characters? --Deepred (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends. How many characters are genuinely presumed deceased and not just "missing but dead is a possibility"? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Aberration: New Creature Type?

So i heard in Scrolls of lore that there's a new creature type that covers flesh beasts, oozes and old god tentacles. What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First time I'm hearing of this. If it's true, then Blizzard is likely doing this so later down the road they can use the creature "Aberration" for some abilities that normally wouldn't mess with uncategorized ones.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can confirm it here [2], Check in Paladin(Turn Evil) or Warlock(Banish).

Well, removing those mentioned leaves the Uncategorized creatures section pretty much as bare-boned as it gets leaving only Aqir-related creatures and deities. I guess Wisps and Saronite Animus trough i think the first are Undead and the second elementals maybe.

Anubisaths, Guardian of the Ancient Kings, Reliquary of Souls if the icon list is checked.

Wish they added a plant creature type too :P--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a new type, then there is a new type.--SWM24 48 23:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes... Hum, I'm asking his opinion about it :D--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deadmines Original

On page Deadmines_(original), why have the {{removedwithcataclysm|patch=4.0.3a}} below {{for|the post-Cataclysm instance and associated lore|Deadmines}}? All the others are not like this. Rawr! <3 Loremaster zdroid, Lord of Azerothaka Zeta Droid (^TalkTrouble?/_{SpecialWhat did Droid do?}) 12:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That change was not meant to be reverted only the {{NPC}} being placed throughout the article.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay but wouldn't the tooltips give more information about the creature instead of going to the page? (The picture.)

Loremaster zdroid, Lord of Azeroth (^TalkTrouble?/_{SpecialWhat did Droid do?}) 00:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe but it also interferes with load time, it's just best for them to be used in lists, and not throughout paragraphs.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay i see your point, just trying help updating this wiki out because its fun in a way. ^^

Loremaster zdroid, Lord of Azeroth (^TalkTrouble?/_{SpecialWhat did Droid do?}) 00:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aye, so much work, so little time. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aberrations

So with the addition of the new creature type i'm trying to update wiki with this new information.

In some of these i need your opinion on it, first there's these cases:

As far i can gather there aren't any missing types, but i might be wrong.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be in order.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So Anubisaths are now giants? That's cool, but it bring my next problems

What should we keep listed in these articles?

I think that the entire Aqir, Anubisaths, and Aberrations should be removed, leaving Bursters(aren't they beasts?), non-old god divine being, Fleshbeasts, of Souls, Saronite Animus, Wisps and Arachnathids. Any opinions?--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Aqir can officially be removed. Not sure if faceless ones or oozes should be yet though, cause it seems a good majority of them are still uncategorized. Bursters are still uncategorized, though likely will become beasts sooner or later. Seems I'll have to update the image for that article soon.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest for you to wait a bit longer on the image, we don't know what further changes might come in the following days. :)

The problem with Faceless Ones and Oozes is the same reason why i don't add Humans, turrets and other stuff like that, because it looks like blizzard just forgot to add it(in this case forgot to change it) as uncategorized is treated as the default a lot of stuck gets stuck in this category with no reason for such, also making listing every uncategorized creature a oxymoron and nearly impossible due to sheer size.

So my suggestion for this case is really only put those that aren't listed in other categories or there's problems with their categorization(like there was with anubisaths a few years back).

We'll do however you prefer.--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Daily Quests

Well i'm trying to make a list of daily quests but I didn't recieve more feedback besides the initial one, so can you please check this design and tell me what you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's cleaner... I think though with the new attitude towards daily quests Blizzard has, articles like daily quest are going to get massive. It might be best to just keep the daily quest for factions on their faction articles and point to them from the daily quest article... of course professions will likely have to remain that article, unless we decide to place them on the already large profession articles.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well those articles being massive(and also heavily incomplete due to that too) is part of the reason why i'm trying to create these lists(to functionally work much like the list of companions does). Well i'm going to divide the notes and requirement section, since there's still free space and abuse of <br/> code.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

PvP daily quests Here's the first one.(I was going to call this PvP dailies but dailies sounds horrible)--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking good. And I agree on the naming, it matches the first article.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So far I think I completed PvP daily quests, Dungeon daily quests, Profession daily quests and Event daily quests. Do you know of any that are missing from there?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe any are missing.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. There's still another problem. In PvP daily quests the automatic system isn't making a correct link like the others for Quest:Hellfire Fortifications. I did a small workaround so the icon still appears(but not the rest since i don't know what to put there), and it seems that the problem is caused by a disambiguation page. Is there any way to solve this problem?(I've never worked with quest pages so I have no idea.)--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All BC quests that I know are on the list.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That should be all dailies till Cataclysm... Can you check?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Also what do you think of these notes/legend?

All quests in the same line share the same the reset time and only one can be done per day.
The quest in the line can be at your choice or is shared by everyone on the server, or both.
Unless stated otherwise by the line's notes.

--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, great job.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think most of these articles are complete (as far as I'm aware) so i removed the "contruction" tag in most of them. Left it in the Faction list because i still have to go with two expansions in that one.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding a new Mirror webpage

Hello,

I want to add a new mirror website on the patch_mirror section but it says I'm not allowed to add external urls when i try to edit the page. What should I do?

Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catalin.chivulescu90 (talk · contr).

Looks like you didn't have an issue adding them.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oozes

Oozes are considered a Elemental instead of a Aberration? From what i read, Mists of Pandaria made Oozes subjected: Aberrations. Rawr! <3 Loremaster zdroid, Lord of Azerothaka Zeta Droid (^TalkTrouble?/_{SpecialWhat did Droid do?}) 01:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen them given anything as of yet, but that individual one that I changed is classified as an Elemental.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I remember that the true oozes are aberrations, but ones that form from elemental creatures tend to be elemental as well.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mind Control-Alt-Delete

Hey Coobra. With 5.0.4, the priest ability [Mind Control] was renamed [Dominate Mind], and changed to a talent. A couple of details changed - it now works against anything except mechanicals, attack speed is no longer reduced - but in every other respect it is exactly the same spell. Wowhead has not even created a new page for it, so all the old comments, tips, strategies, etc, are still listed there. However, on here a separate page got created for it. It seems to me that it would be better if the new page (which is a bare stub) were deleted and the old Mind Control page moved to Dominate Mind. This would preserve in an accessible format the long and interesting history of the ability (and the page), improve the current situation of a lot of broken links, and generally be a better way of maintaining the continuity of the ability's history, as is usually the case on Wowpedia. I spent quite a while researching and detailing tips, strategies and notes, 99% of which are still relevant and useful info for the ability, and I'll be happy to get the old-new page up to scratch if you can delete the current Dominate Mind page. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox pet ability

The Infobox pet ability template doesn't seem to be displaying cooldowns properly. [Spell Lock], Sacrifice and Last Stand (pet) are all examples with specific cooldowns that should be (but aren't) displayed in the box. I don't really know enough to fix the template, so I thought I'd point it your way ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete this

Delete this. -WrathOfDeathfrost (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 100000 Club!

Enjoy your stay, and don't mind the insanity - you'll get used to it. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to add my own small congratulations to the pile ;) Gratz on your 100,000th edit... I'm at about 5k after 2 years... so I guess if I keep editing for the next 40 years I'll have caught up to where you are now? :P Thanks for all your help. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even realize I was close to that insane number... thank you.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Mountfooter

I was looking at the update you did to the mountfooter, and i'm going to suggest that we should fuse the raptor and direhorn sections into a Dinosaur section.
Although i'm starting to think we should also redesign the whole mount thing to be more similar to the companion list, but that'll be something to decide at another time.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say raptors should be grouped with raptors, and direhorns with direhorns. A direhorn isn't a color of raptor.--SWM24 48 19:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Troll Golems

Well you said you hating creating another article, so I suggest fusing the Drakkari Golem and Zandalari Golem articles into one and call it Troll Golem(with the differences clearly shown)--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad, if we'd only get some lore info on them. I guess we could merge them into a more general article like that.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving pages

When moving pages, check that what links to the page get changed to the new page. Thank you! --g0urra[T҂C] 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why undo?

I'm just wondering why you undid my fix on the [Encrypted Tablet] page.

Removed or not, this is a readable item from the game and can be considered a small bit of lore. Therefore it belongs in the category along with the other readable items (like the old Gnome Memorandums).

If the purpose of an edit I have done is unclear, please send me a message first, before undoing it - I will gladly explain my motives :)

Best wishes, Vorknkx (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Our policy here, is that if the item is removed from the game, that it is longer thrown into categories, even if some players may still have said item in their bags. Any and all items that no longer exist in the game should contain |doc= in their tooltip to prevent the categories.

If this is something you disagree with, feel free to bring it up in the forums.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is the case, it would have still been very nice to simply tell me that - I was left with the impression that you didn't understand my edits and undid them by mistake.

Okay then, removed items will be out of that category. Thank you for clarifying this. -- Vorknkx (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Genn's and Velen's involvement in the Attack on Theramore Isle

I'd like to know your opinion on this particular subject.

Thank you for checking! --Cemotucu (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cmborghardt

Dear Coobra, I have come to the conclusion that it is YOU who has undermined & ruined my work. Is this assumption correct? What right do you have to undo the work of others? Please reply! Cmborghardt (talk · contr) 09:26PM, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you the reason, several times over, and anyone has the right to undo another person's edits if they find them disruptive, harmful, or inappropriate. Your "work" has disrupted links, altered cited material, removed noted content, and you have not been following the Manual of Style.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 07:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright then I will completely read the Manual, and proceed according to it's requirements. I was unaware that there was any guidelines at all. I also didn't know that anyone could undo anothers "work". Thank you Coobra for bring this material, and information to my attention. Cmborghardt (talk · contr) 08:48AM, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Icons for the mount list

I'm trying to help someone with making a mount list article much like the companion list article, but I need a few icons. Could you help me by doing icons (or finding appropriate ones) that can be used to represent: Land, Underwater, Flying, Apprentice, Journeyman, Expert, Artisan and Master. Thanks.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to annoy you but have you found any adequate ones?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not found anything that would work to represent between Apprentice to Master.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Land/Aquatic/Flying? Also it only needs to be from Apprentice to Artisan since there are no longer master mounts--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I found some that could be used... but when reduced to 18px, they mostly became blobs... so I opted for just color changes instead of armor looks

Land / Apprentice 60%
Land / Journeyman 100%
Flying / Expert 150%
Flying / Artisan 280%
Aquatic

Would these work?

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm I think so. Do all Aquatic Mounts require the same riding level? I'm not sure.--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Really only 2 aquatic mounts a sea turtle and a seahorse. One is apprentice and the other expert.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok the list is almost completed so I posted it over at List of mounts. I still need 3 types of icons(or at least the decision to use other as them). Artisan Land mounts, Apprentice Flying mounts and Discontinued mounts (a red cross?).--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Soul Shards page move

Hi Coobra. I'm trying to move Soul Shard (Soul Shard) to Soul Shards, but have been unable to do so due to the presence of a page-history on the [Soul Shards] redirect page. I'm moving it because what used to be an item (a [Soul Shard]) was replaced in MoP with the Soul Shards passive (the item no longer exists and also has its own page). Can you help? -- Taohinton (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Done.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fan made videos

Hi, I would like to ask if Tankingmage's fan-made videos can be in articles. You know... if it does not matter that they are not official blizz-made but just user-made. --TheMordecay (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are borderline... yes its fan-made, but it only contains the same lore summarized from the articles (sometimes word for word)... I've watched a few of them and while the quality isn't the best he does an ok job at bringing the lore to life using the in-game models and such (sometimes)... I don't like the way he's placing his videos above all others that may currently exist and using the old format that we're trying to get away from. I'd rather hear more opinions on this topic, cause I don't want to prevent someone's work to make lore come to life to reach all audiences that visit wowpedia.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a (crude word ahead) lame video of each History of Warcraft in every and each article referenced in the up-mentioned text. I'm for a total removal

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 14:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see why one would want them gone, but they do not deviate too much from the articles, so they might actually add something instead of just being a fan shoving his lame videos on our site. To me it comes down to "Are they 'lame' in quality?"--SWM24 48 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was reviewing more of his videos... started falling asleep, I think its just his voice.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just remove then, they really don't bring anything

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 08:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg you to stop this madness, do dryad and nymph need to have an History of Warcraft video because the term is used once ? Does old Daelin needs a video on the Seven Kingdoms because he ruled one ?

THIS IS MADNESS!

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it was on the line before, and it has gotten to the point that we knew was inevitable (removal). Despite my previous leniency, I think that the videos have gone from improvement to cancer.--SWM24 48 17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think allowing them also sets a rather shaky precedent as far as fanworks go, which we should really try to avoid. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I have noticed he's been putting the vids into several articles, which may have very little to do with the actual video. I won't mind him keeping his videos on WoW Pro Lore, but he expanded his linkage far beyond. Agreed with removal.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Need more Saddles needs Correct Icon

The icon presented on the page for [We're Going to Need More Saddles] is incorrect. I am unsure where to datamine what the correct image is and could use some assistance in tracking it down. Please let me know if you need an in-game screen shot of what the shown image is in order to locate it. Ariule (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now fixed this. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, my thanks. Can you share where you acquired the icon? Ariule (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wowhead is often a good source of finding out what the icon file name is for most achievements/items. Simply click the icon and a popup window should appear with the file name highlighted.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Thirty-three

Reign recently added The Thirty-three to the site, which is great, but has also added the group as affiliation for all the involved characters (Vol'jin, Chen Stormstout, Taran Zhu, etc). Since the group appears to be entirely from a novel, and is stated to now be 'disbanded' (also apparently simply a rushed alliance to defend the monastery, which event is now over) I would question whether it should be listed in the info-box on each of these pages. My feeling is that since it's novel-only and appears unlikely to ever be reformed or probably even ever referenced again, it probably shouldn't be listed so prominently alongside affiliations such as 'Horde' and 'Shado-Pan'. Information regarding the group should perhaps instead be added to the currently empty sections for that novel on those pages. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree, a section noted it or just having that they were part of the thirty three in the notes section would be better.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Stubs that fit

After witnessing this kind of thing for the thousandth time (there are some far worse examples), I am considering once again the possibility of making these full-size stubs a little slimmer to leave room for infoboxes. I understand that they are meant to place a big band across the screen, but when they meet infoboxes, etc, and we get those big blocks of empty page... it certainly doesn't look good. It happens all over the place, disrupts pages and is a genuine deterrent against using the correct stubs.

I don't know whether it's possible to make the stubs auto-shrink to fill the remaining space only (the ideal solution), or perhaps to pass a width parameter down to the Stub/Box template underneath. Otherwise, it presumably is possible to just width-shrink all of those stubs by ~10% so that this doesn't happen.

Some sort of solution to make our pages look slightly less clunky would be good. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple: We stop doing that, only add stubs to the top of pages, only add sections if they are going to be filled in immediately, and ban TheMordecay for making the mess this big.--SWM24 48 00:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of that except the last bit, though I'm definitely irritated at him for precisely that reason. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what those stubs were designed for... for being at the top of pages. Though placing them in sections is seen ok, so long as the article is quite large, allowing editors to see what areas actually need work.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Creating a section with no content and a stub tag, though, is about as annoying as creating an article with just a stub tag and no content. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What gap? On Mozilla and Chrome in Kil'ruk I don't see any gaps, all is fine. If I had known that Stub/Lore broke the pages I would have used another stub, Stub-sectiom, maybe? And to filling the stub... sorry but i havent got that much time for creating summaries. I like to wait for someone else to do it and do it better. Sometimes I add a little content but that's all :) --TheMordecay (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the disruption obviously is down to window size (and perhaps browser too) but I run in 1280 x 1024 and even with a max-size window it's still creating a gap. I would also imagine that a lot of readers are running in lower resolutions (smaller monitors) and/or not maxing the size of their browser windows.

We could go either way with the stubs. There are plenty of examples of them being used mid-page without causing problems - pretty much anywhere except directly across from an infobox. We have plenty of sections stubs like {{ood-section}}, {{accuracy-section}}, {{novel-section}}, etc, which are literally made for this purpose. It wouldn't be hard to make some for stubs like {{Stub/Lore}} too, if necessary. Then editors can use their judgement to use a full-sized stub mid-page when it helps emphasise the problem, or a little one when a big one would either get in the way, or simply be excessive.

In terms of creating empty sections, I have to say I think it's quite helpful at times (especially when not causing the above kinds of problems) to inform other editors that there's a big chunk of relevant information that's currently missing from the page. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

I frequently encounter dead links - mostly references, such as to official WoW site pages that no longer exist. I think the links should (usually) be left, if they were referencing something completely real that has since simply been removed, as many interesting pages were following the big overhaul of the official site. However, I tend to favour marking them as dead links, if only to save everyone else the time that I regularly waste clicking on them ;) My thought was that rather than simply typing ^{dead link} inside the reference, it might be useful to create a simple template which does this and adds the page to a 'dead links' category; dead links could then be searched out either through the category or through the list of pages transcluding the template, which might be handy. I'll make the template either way, but I thought I'd ask before adding the category. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not actually that familiar with categories - should I just add something like "<includeonly>{{{doc|[[Category:Dead links]]}}}</includeonly>" to the template, or simply "<includeonly>[[Category:Dead links]]</includeonly>"? -- Taohinton (talk)

"<includeonly>{{{doc|[[Category:Dead links]]}}}</includeonly>" would be best, just in case we use it on a Help page or guideline page and not have it show up in the category.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Links in section headings

Sorry to be bugging you with questions so frequently over the last couple of days, but I have one more ;) I long ago read in the manual of style not to use section headings themselves as links, and have always abided by this rule. However, upon re-reading the manual of style I discovered that the reason given for not placing links in section heading is because "when edited, these sections become confusing in the edit history because of the link code. " Having just edited a linked section heading on Nazgrel, this no longer appears to be true; no link code is included in the summary, and all appears to be well.

If the above problem is indeed no longer existent, and that was the prime reason for not linking section headings, turning a select few headings into links would in fact be quite convenient and efficient. I'm thinking specifically of novel headings such as 'Shadow of the Horde' and 'The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm', which really need a link to their respective pages, but which terms don't tend to crop up in the following text whereby to conveniently provide one. While this could be provided by use of a {{for}} or similar (albeit a little messily), if the above problem is solved, this would be a much neater solution. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Related to this, and what I said above, there is an increasing rise of sections where 1) the work that is being cited is the section title, 2) a tag is included before the text saying what kind of thing the source is, 3) the text includes a mention if the source (such as "In [[X]],..."), and 4) the source is cited at the end of the section. Or at least a few of those. There was an April Fool's Day joke about this because all we can do is laugh instead of fixing it. As I pointed out on Talk:Archmage Modera, pages are not bound to be organized by a subject's appearance in sources. When did a scrapped project become our manual of style? This fine for some sections, but it is not a rule. Instead of adapting to these changes, such as allowing links in section headings to eliminate redundancy that should not be there in the first place, just cut it out. More on topic, the functionality change that Taohinton pointed out may allow us to change that guideline (it used to complicate the url and the section title in edit summaries), but I think that links in section headings usually look stupid. It can be debated.--SWM24 48 18:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I do find it somewhat annoying and redundant, especially when the section is like one line long.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

On topic first: I'm on the fence myself as to whether it's such a good look. I've always refrained from doing so from that uncertainty and critically because of the manual of style. However, the reason the question occurred to me is that the practice is of course actually found quite often on pages, which is what made me realise how convenient it could be.

Relating to the overall tendency to recount history by source (if that's what you're referring to), it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me; when there's a clear and crucial chronological order involved, it seems reasonable enough to add a few headers, although not strictly necessary, I agree. You're quite right that there's no reason to do things that way for it's own sake. When there is a fair bit of info listed though (and not merely empty sections), I think I'd prefer it to be broken up with ==Wrath of the Lich King== and ==Dawn of the Aspects==, rather than all just put in a single huge, unmarked section. This is also useful when you're dealing with 'real' in-game sources, versus a variety of writers' individual takes on a character - the novels were described as being "pretty much considered canon", although "some things [in the novels] are less canon". Of course, I understand how this may change if you have only a sentence or two in each section...

Regarding multiple statements of source and overkill, including 1), 2), 3) and 4) does seem a little OTT, yes. However, my issue is that in some sections, where they have 1) the title of the source in the section heading, and 2) a tag such as {{novel-section}}, there is no 3) text link and no 4) sources/references and no 5) section heading link either. Even the massive 7-paragraph 'Jaina Proudmoore: Tides of War' section on Voljin is entirely devoid of either link or reference (as is the even larger 'Shadows of the Horde' section). It's not the end of the world or anything, but it seems quite a basic failure of a wiki not to provide a single clickable link to the source, somewhere within that screen-and-a-half of text. Having an in-text link would be quite enough (but where to put it?), and I suppose a reference would suffice (although you may have to scroll down a screen and a half to find it, and it's not the most intuitive way of linking). A {{for}} would work, but I fear would only add to the bulk of tags and the like. At any rate, it sounds like we're being annoyed by the opposite kinds of situation ;)

As for the ongoing stubs/headers/empty sections matter... I think that for pages like Voljin which have plenty of detail, separate sections is the right way to go. For pages with several almost entirely empty sections... I guess you could simply put it all under a 'History' heading (or such), and reference each paragraph. The main problem of course is caused not by the stubs themselves, but by the function they are attempting to achieve: to draw the attention of editors (if not lay-readers) to the fact there is a big gap in the article's content which A) should be filled as soon as possible, and B) may contain critical missing pieces. When a single sentence suffices to describe a character's fleeting involvement in a novel, I don't think we need headers for each, not at all. But when there is a huge amount to say, but little if any of it has been added yet (as was the case a few days ago on Voljin before Jon Irenicus started fleshing it out) I think the stubs are quite useful.

That's my four and a half pence's worth, anyway. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Stub/Lore-section

The new version is much better (I wanted to make it stand out more myself, but gave up trying to think of a good way to do so), however it has acquired the following slightly problematic behaviour with regard to the text following it: [3]. I've tried leaving spaces, adding <br> and playing around with the template itself, but haven't been able to find how to stop it from centralising and clinging to the following text. This is apparently the case for {{Stub/PTR-section}}, too, though that template doesn't seem to get used. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Need some files moved

When you have the time, could you please move the following files? I thought I had changed all the capital letters out for lowercase, but ended up missing the ones near the end of the file name.

And silly me, I remember to put in my signature until I've already hit the submit button. /palm --Alayea (talk / contrib) 04:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. =D -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 04:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Zandalar Tribe Sets.png

There was previously a long message here pertaining to the image named above, turns out I was none-to-bright and didn't notice the blatant "Image too large" note you left -_- Disregard my stupidity! :)

--BannanaWaffles (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WoW Icons: Achievement Boss

Just so you know, I was going along with the other sub-categories that there are under "Achievement Boss" (and their file names definitely don't have the instance in their name). -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't see A'noob did that... well... I don't plan to undo all of that, so I suppose that's ok for this particular category.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How to make character pages?

I think the title explains it all :] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheKaldorei1 (talk · contr).

Like personal character pages? Lore character pages? Or, NPC pages?

Personal character see WP:PC. Lore and NPCs see Help:NPC articles.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Achievement links

I've noticed that Zdroid has been replacing regular links to achievements (pretty much everywhere) with {{Achievement}}, turning [Raiding with Leashes] into Raiding with Leashes, and changing pages like this into pages like this; infobox changes impact those pages' tooltips too, of course.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily the wrong way to go, but I do feel that it should be discussed.

My personal preference at present is for the normal links. They're a lot more colourful, display their related icon, and make for more interesting lists than the uniform icon. More importantly, they also match the display in-game (eg. for achievements such as [Khan]), as well as on wowhead and the official wow site. I'm not sure why we'd choose to change these from matching the way they actually look in-game, and I can't see a reason to in this case. While I can see the appeal of a nicely uniform list, I think the regular links are the better way to go. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. The achievement template (as well as the quest and spell templates) have become obsolete due to the interworkings we currently have. Trading one icon for another is basically all that is happening as I see it.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot who but I did hear that the Achievementlink was being removed so I was changing them to {{Achievement}}. If an achievement, for an example,

''Example'' is a general achievement for placing an example on example. Required for achievement [[Raiding with Leashes]].

. Then for the See also, I decided to change it up and use {{Achievement}} and also for the achievements listed under the criteria of the tooltip. I hope you understand why I did this now :P User:Zdroid9770/Sig 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is indeed a valid technical reason for this, that needs to be confirmed by someone who knows for certain; possible rumours of elements being removed is not really good enough. I'm sure one of the admins will be able to confirm or deny the above? In the meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop converting the achievement links, until the matter is settled. Thanks. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC) [post edited 20:53, 10 October 2013]

Okay, I will pause on the converting. I will also take time to find the comment about my statement. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 21:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Kaydeethree#Achievementlong is the conversation I saw that I decided to help. And yes, Taohinton, you were involved. :) User:Zdroid9770/Sig 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Kd3 is saying {{Achievementlong}} links are becoming [[<achievement>]] not {{Achievement}}.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean, for the achievements listed on meta-achievements in the criteria could use the {{Achievement}} template while the ones that are, for an example, in a description or patch notes could be [[<achievement>]]. I'm triyng to make use of the {{Achievement}} template for this purpose and it turned out great on my point-of-view. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As Coobra explains, the removal of {{Achievementlong}} doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing here. It most certainly doesn't justify or in any way relate to changing [[<achievement>]] to {{Achievement}}. The meta-achievement criteria you're converting are not {{Achievementlong}}, and that template's eventual removal has no relation to your conversions. In addition, the discussion on Kaydeethree's talk page specifically says to remove the template, not replace it with {{Achievement}}.

With that out of the way, this just comes down to a matter of style. As I've explained above, I think that the current system of using [[<achievement>]] for achievements, is better than using {{Achievement}}. The icons are individualised, and achievement lists such as meta-achievements are more interesting, and the same as the ones in game. I can't see any reason to justify going to great lengths to make the achievements less like the real thing, and less colourful and interesting. Do you have an argument for that? -- Taohinton (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well surely in-game does not have a small icon beside each achievement for the achievement name but alright then, I think this is settled. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 01:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see any issue why {{Achievement}} is less like the real thing when just using [[<achievement>]] is less like the real thing :P for the tooltip of the criteria. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 01:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the in-game achievement metas do have the icons next to the achievements apart of them.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page

Howdy. I'm not sure if you have my talk page on your watchlist, but I replied to you there.--Rockfang (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Opinion is desired.

I would greatly appreciate your opinion on how to handle the character in Warlords of Draenor from the alternative timeline. Please see Forum:Warlords of Draenor Characters. --X59 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: Your message

Thanks for the heads-up! I'm getting used to this, and I didn't notice this so I'll edit them accordingly in the morning/afternoon. : ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fellowlon (talk · contr).

Thanks Coobra!

Thank you for the cleanup on the Garadar NPC list. Not sure why you removed Thrall... If it's because he's not there canonically, then shouldn't Garrosh be removed too? Also, if Orgrimmar considers Ethereals as a race inhabiting the place, even though there's just 3 (soon to be 2 once WoD hits, as Reforging will be removed), shouldn't Ohlorn and Kroghan be counted there as well? Especially since it's a relatively small town compared to Shattrath or Orgrimmar. Just a few thoughts. Westin318 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thrall is only there for a short scene, he doesn't actively stay there, as for the other 2, I don't consider 1 person of a different race notable in the infobox. Etereals may be removed from the infobox later on, we'll see how things go.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Frostmourne

You do know there is two verisons of frostmounrne. ;) I'm thinking could use the {{Versions/Item}} template... for this situation.

http://www.wowhead.com/item=33475
http://www.wowhead.com/item=36942 User:Zdroid9770/Sig 19:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No reason or point to have 4 articles of Frostmourne. Technically its all datamined info, so in reality it should be deleted, but I'm ok with one of them staying.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a point an leaving one here and the other no where. ;p Why should there be just one of the two? User:Zdroid9770/Sig 02:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello Coobra, will you please respond to my question here? Thank you. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your rudeness

I have been noticing that from the moment I began editing here, whenever I had come into contact with you, I had always been interested and open-minded in contributing to wowpedia, and you have always been an asshole. By what logic did you have to block me when the discussion on the talk page was settled in my favor? Do you not understand how the talk page works? I should revert it back to my edit, but I wouldn't be surprised if you abused your powers again. It is a shame that despite years of being here beforehand, it seems I have more knowledge of Wiki-etiquette than you. You should acknowledge that my edits are correct, as well as review the template recommendations I previously mentioned. For an admin, you are awfully unsociable and rude, and I would like an explanation or an apology for the treatment I have received. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You were edit warring and in violation of Wowpedia:Three revert rule, talk pages had nothing to do with your 3 day block. Anyone acting the way you have been would have been given the same treatment. Have you been reading the same talk pages that you've been making comments on? cause I don't see anyone agreeing with you or settling issues in your favor. What I see is you pushing your opinion, everyone else disagreeing, and you making the changes anyway.

And to be honest, I gave you a lot of slack. Coming to my talk page and personally attacking me will not get you very far here.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the three undo's I made within 24 hours. And will you plan on banning Morde for his three undo's here? How will I be compensated for being wrongly blocked for three days? Or will you lose Adminship for doing that? ShadowShade81413 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. You may spread out your reverts over a few days, but you continuously do them to the same article. You don't get compensated for time loss for a wrong you committed. And no I don't lose Adminship for your blockage. I have done nothing wrong, however, I see you trying the patience of many other editors here. I suggest sticking to simple fixes and not so much on trying to make the UVG non-canon.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hearthstone images

We're getting a slow trickle of image files taken from Hearthstone and its promotional art, a lot of which is getting incorrectly tagged as TCG (which in most cases it definitely isn't). Would it be worth creating a new copyright option for Hearthstone? Otherwise I'm guessing people just need to learn to use one of the miscellaneous licences, but I can see why they're going for TCG out of the current options. I can only imagine Hearthstone's presence on the wiki will continue to grow. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the license and TCG part but I myself wouldn't want to see Hearthstone's presence to grow on this wiki as already on the gamepedia network is a Hearthstone wiki. You can simply visit hearthstone.gamepedia.com for most of the up-to-date information of that game.

User:Zdroid9770/Sig 05:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting hosting Hearthstone info on this site, just pointing out that images from Hearthstone are being used here, and incorrectly tagged. I don't think creating a new copyright option should be taken as portent of an imminent wiki-invasion ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Knew what you meant, I just said to be sure. ;) But the whole idea basically, I don't really understand why the Hearthstone images are considered TCG... It just does not seem right. User:Zdroid9770/Sig 06:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, one reason is that Hearthstone is the spiritual successor to the TCG; the other is that Hearthstone uses a huge amount of TCG art for its cards. However, using a picture of Hearthstone art should be tagged as such, even if that art was used for or even originally created for the TCG. Overall, no, it isn't right ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll probably not make another license option for that, as we have so many, {{c-blizz}} will work.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Monster items

For an example, Monster - Staff, Velen TEMP. I have read the items article policy to be clear about but no information about monster items are there. I looked over toward the DNP policy but nothing else did not answer my question. My question is, are these articles allowed to be created? I'm predicting the answer is that these are forbidden because its really not important in some way. Else, if they are allowed I will continue and create these articles along with the many other Warlords item articles I've created and soon to create. I just don't want to proceed without knowing about, especially with the mistakes I've made in the past... Other than that, thanks Coobra for taking your time to answer this! User:Zdroid9770/Sig 06:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine that they would fall under DNP rules due to being items that are only accessible via datamining. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea that seems more accurate, especially sense its only accessible through datamining. Anyways, thanks DarkTZeratal! User:Zdroid9770/Sig 07:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, DarkTZeratul be correct, anything marked as temp should just be avoided.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreleased content

MMO-Champion just released the whole batch of WoD screen shot of the day pictures (from the official site). However, I'm guessing they've kind of been datamined from server, since they're not apparently accessible through normal browsing, and are intended to only be revealed day by day. My question is, where does this fall in terms of unreleased content? They've already been uploaded, so in a sense they're released; but in another they're obviously being cheekily stolen and shown ahead of time. To my knowledge, they're the first good batch of in-game screenshots, the like of which are currently missing from the site. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Because they're from the official site, even though gathered from unofficial means, I'll say its ok, cause they'll make an appearance soon enough, plus people with alpha access could easily take the same images.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So, the inevitable follow-up question. I recently overhauled Garrison, mostly using info found on MMO-Champion. However, I was very careful to limit what I presented in the article to the information officially released by Blizzard, and did not include the more extensive apparently data-mined info on offer. According to the DNP policy, this seemed to be the right thing to do. However, another editor has now expanded/updated the page with the data-mined info. This improves the page, but according to my understanding shouldn't be done. However, I'm not well-acquainted with where Wowpedia draws the line (the subject has been thoroughly announced, but these new details have not), so I thought I'd put it to you. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If garrisons are available in the alpha, and given how much they're involved with the storyline like they said, I will say the info is okay to keep.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Character Articles

Heyo, Coobra. Nice to talk to you again. I saw a number of your characters all have their own pages, under names such as "User:Coobra/Coobra". I was wondering if this was the only way to make a character page. For example, if I were to create a page under the name "Iloe" for my character, but clearly specified at the top with the "PC" template that it was player created only, would that be acceptable? I'm only asking you because you seem to be the guru of Wowpedia and I haven't been able to find a guide talking about this. Thanks in advance! :) --Westin318 (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No, all personal character articles must be located under your userspace. This way all lore and personal pages remain separate and less confusing, plus with the amount of people that have the same character name, that could lead to major issues.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh. Of course. Hadn't thought about multiple names. Thank you for the response, Coobra. Appreciate it. :) --Westin318 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic 100: Draenor page move

The Draenor article was recently moved to Draenor (Warlords of Draenor), in order to separate the new and old versions of the area. Almost all info about the old version was deleted from the page, and an equivalent old-version text was copy-pasted into a new page at Draenor. The consequence of this is that the entire edit history for the page is now available for the new page, but not the old page. Since the new page features almost entirely recent content (with a very recent history), and almost all the edit history relates to what is now the old page's content, it seems to me that it should probably be the other way round; the current setup will make reading back through the history very difficult. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I shall fix this.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

TCG Cards

Hello once more Coobra. I tried finding a forum about this, but couldn't get anything concrete, so I decided to ask you. What are the rules or restrictions for making pages for TCG characters? Thanks! Cannibeans (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the general practice has been to redirect their name to their card number and display given information there, otherwise there is really not much else to say about them.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks again Coobra! Cannibeans (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Forum posters

Is there a reason why CMs like Lore (CM) and Bashiok aren't in Category:Blizzard Entertainment employees? -- Taohinton (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a parent category of one that they are already in.--SWM24 48 03:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that could be a little confusing. Maybe we should categorize the employees a little more, since any of them could technically post on the forums.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

D'oh - I was sure I'd checked that already, but I guess I was pretty tired at the time ;)

Regarding the diffusion and clarity of those categories, it does seem a little mixed up. Membership with Category:Former Blizzard Entertainment employees‎ should clearly be mutually exclusive with Category:Blizzard Entertainment employees. The others seem to have a less obvious relationship: all artists/voice actors/forum posters are listed in the relevant categories, instead of being listed in the main category - unless they also perform another role. So an artist who also designs is in both artists and employees categories, while an artist who also does voice acting would be in artists and voice actors, but not employees. Only employees who perform a non-sub-category role are actually listed as employees.

I'm not sure whether this is standard use of categories, but in theory it does work, since there is overlap between all these categories. However, it's definitely not clear to newcomers. Adding further sub-categories, even if they're very general, could solve the problem, so no-one needs to be in both the parent and child categories.

As a related question, should former employees, e.g., Greg Street still be listed in sub-categories? I'm thinking not. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seriously tired. Clearly that's what Category:Former Blizzard forum posters is for. I've moved him over. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Timelines

I'm wondering specifically about War Crimes, but the question goes in general: when a source such as a novel is published, do the events contained therein immediately become current/past tense (for the purposes of the wiki)? For example, following its release, are the events of War Crimes considered to have already taken place? I ask because of the relationship to the build-up to WoD. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe when something is released, be it a novel or game, that its considered present and past at the same time, until something else newer is released then the previous item is considered only past. It can get a little weird, but yea often times it's just easier to write in the past tense for articles on released content, just so the tense doesn't have to be updated a few weeks/months down the raod.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassing

Dear Coobra. This is my terribly awkward apology for my hot-headed and irrational behavior. Clearly you were only trying to do your job and I reacted in a manner that was both unruly and unreasonable. Seeing the images being removed from the article I've worked so hard on felt like a personal blow when clearly it was not as such as you were just going about business as usual. I should have never acted so childish and even gone so far as to lie about my actions and yet you still listened to and were helpful towards me in the end. Seriously, thank you.

It happens, no worries, I've been there and done this myself. =)

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Move item page Glyph of One With Nature

Glyph of One With Nature is the correct capitalization as seen in the game. May it please be moved back to that namespace (currently occupies [Glyph of One with Nature])? Thank you. Aliok (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not. It is currently in the correct location.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about the Dragonmaw Clan

So I was looking at the Iron Horde page and I noticed that under the clan section it states that the Dragonmaw Clan did not exist during rise of the Iron Horde. So I checked at the Dragonmaw Clan page and it's says the clan existed during the time of Rise of the Horde. So I'm wondering is which page is correct and since your into Lore I figured you might know. Zoey586 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a retcon from the last BlizzCon.--SWM24 48 20:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Zone races

Is it intended for a zone to list in its infobox every single race that's represented there? For instance in Ashran we have members of pretty much every Alliance and Horde race. Should we list them all, or just mention the ones that are predominate? -- Taohinton (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it only contained the most dominate races in the zone and not the "invaders", but often times it ends up having all the races because of major cities and such. As for Ashran, I'm ok with all the races being represented in the box (for the NPCs, not players) cause in the end someone will add them all anyway.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it seems a shame especially when most playable zones have almost all player races in there somewhere, even if only one NPC. It would be nice to have a list of native species, but I guess at some point the invaders become inhabitants. On the brighter-ish side, since population numbers are usually supposed to be exponentially higher than depicted in-game, we can probably assume that for every lone goblin NPC there are actually meant to be dozens in the area. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Very possible.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Warcraft builds

Hey Coobra, could you please take a moment to read this question and give an opinion of what you think about it? Thank you! User:Zdroid9770/Sig 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Image licences

I'm trying my best to select the right licences for the screenshots I'm uploading, but with multiple fitting options, there's very little to guide me in doing so. They're all "personal screenshots" taken by me, but of course some are of NPCs, some of mobs, some of zones… should I mark them for the subject, or just as "personal"? Also, some shots have multiple subjects, such as NPCs, mobs and also landscape. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To their subject, or the closest one. Unless the screenshots of are your personal characters, then you use the personal ones.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please...

Can you attend my two requests here and fix the following part of the infobox overwriting the actual stretch with the following stretch:
"|label1 = Main leaders |data1 = King Varian Wrynn
Council of Three Hammers
Tyrande Whisperwind
Malfurion Stormrage
Gelbin Mekkatorque
Prophet Velen
Genn Greymane
Aysa Cloudsinger"
Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

All infobox changes should be placed on Template_talk:Infobox_Alliance, its the only way I'll notice requests, for future reference.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you have seen my last requests? Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Goren/s

The plural seems to be 'goren', not 'gorens'. There are several quest text references: [4] [5] [6] The category should therefore be Category:Goren, rather than Category:Gorens, as with tauren. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 07:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation?

Yesterday I did some minor edits which you have all undone. Why? They were perfectly legit, including the ones in the Blasted Lands (as of patch 6.0.2). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dajax02 (talk · contr).

They were not legit. The icons were ugly when reduced from a large image to a 15px. Also doing that leads to a slippery slope of having icons for all the hostile factions, next thing you know we'll have a Scourge icon, a Burning Legion icon, which will lead to individual faction icons. If a group is not with the Alliance or Horde please use Neutral.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. But the icon is already in use - and not by me - and has been for a long time. Regarding the 'ugly icon', I know very well that it was 'ugly' but I at least hoped someone would notice and instead of completely removing it, replace it with something that looked decent. And regarding the changes in Blasted Lands, they are legit as of 6.0.2. Nethergarde Keep is now Ruins of Nethergarde and Dreadmaul Hold has been renamed. So yes, they were legit, maybe not the best, but still legit.

I do not see a use for the Iron Horde icons unless they become playable.--SWM24 48 19:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Attunements

I was about to create pages for all the new secondary stat passives (one per spec), but it turns out they are almost all using the names and icons of previously removed abilities/talents/passives. I can't remember the preferred approach in these cases: do we simply change the page to reflect the new and entirely different form, or move the page and create a new one? -- Taohinton (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article is of something that has been removed go ahead of move the old page and create the new article under that name. Unless the new ability is simply an updated version of the old then go ahead of just update the article.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Swipe

With the removal of [Swipe], [Swipe] is now the only Swipe in the game. It therefore makes sense to me to move that page to Swipe, which is currently a disambig page split between the 1 current ability and 2 former abilities. I've added links to both of the latter to the top of the Cat Form page, but can't delete the disambig page myself. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Guild Website Change Blocked by Filter

Your Grace, I am unable to make an adjustment the following page: http://wowpedia.org/Server:Arathor_US

It currently reads: http: //factanonverba.servegame. ORG /index.php/Main_Page
The change requested would be: http ://factanonverba.servegame. COM /index.php/Main_Page

This change was necessary due to the Free DNS service I was using has closed and we had to change.

The link filter appears to be blocking this change. If you could advise how I can make this change, I would greatly appreciate it.

Ariule (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Grace? LOL. Anywhoo... Fixed.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ability change

For the protected {{Infobox ability}} template: the level for Draenor Perks was changed to 92-98 (from 91-99) quite a while ago. An edit request was posted on the template's talk page 6 weeks ago, but no-one's made the change yet. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On the same subject, we need some modifications to allow us to display number of charges and recharge time. Rune Tap is a good example. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. As for changes if we want that to appear in the tooltip {{Abilitytip}} has to changed. Which I better not touch, cause I'm sure I'll mess it up.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 03:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)