Village pump

Line 1:

+

−

−

−

−

<div style="color: white; font-size: x-large; width: 100%; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;">Current Discussions</div>

−

== Getting rid of ugly templates ==

−

What do you folks think, is there anyone who agrees that templates like {{tl|BC}} and {{tl|TCGlore}} should go? In my honest opinion, these templates just clutter up the pages and, subsequently, make them uglier. Just a handwritten small note ("this is TCG-Lore" or "This item is not obtainable if the player does not own the Burning Crusade") in the lead section of the article would do. Why do we need big templates like that that screw the pages' layout immensely? I don't see the point in this overdone fanciness. '''[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]][[User:Apollozeus|''APΘLLΘ'']][[User talk:Apollozeus|(ZEUS)]]''' 15:45, 17 January 2007 (EST)

−

:I don't mind the TCG-lore one (maybe the picture could be a little smaller, though), but I definately think the BC one gets a little annoying, especially since so many pages that have it also have a BC-stub template AND another stub template, meaning you have to scroll down quite a bit just to see the first line of the article. However, I don't think removing it is an option. Just make it smaller, or better yet, move it up by the title of the page, like the links to Wikipedia or the non-english pages. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 15:50, 17 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Oh, Mikaka, such a sound voice of reason, exactly the sentiment I was planning to express. There's nothing wrong with the templates (or "badges" as I like to refer to them as) if they convey the necessary information. But there ''is'' something to be said of ones that just look ugly and take up space and what not. Although I haven't figured it out yet, I was thinking maybe pages could have actual badges or miniature icons linked to pages that explain what the icon means. Sort of like a key or legend. This is lore. This is Burning Crusade. This needs a screenshot. Something still visual, but infinitely more ninja than what we have now.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 17:22, 17 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::They do take up a bit too much real estate. Personally, I'd like all the stub templates shrunk too, but have the icon replaced with a bright red, cringe-inducing, stubbed toe. However, I'm no good with graphics. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 17:34, 17 January 2007 (EST)

−

Ideas to steal from Wikipedia: Wikipedia stub tags are placed on the bottom of the page instead of top of the page. In addition, Wikipedia stubs are all 1-line of text with a small icon. See [[Wikipedia:Template:Warcraft-stub]]. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 21:54, 17 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Categories would probably work as well. if needed. but i agree the BIG tags at the top of each page need to go {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 02:43, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:They need to go, they were always a bad idea. These things are what references are for, and that should have been the practice all along. Source headings and notes are never needed. Under my own proposal, this would be handled by categories and references, but for now references are certainly the better option --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 02:51, 18 January 2007 (EST).

−

:I agree that stub tags should be placed at the bottom of the page, especially since stubs will never be too long and the tag will be visible anyway. Things that warn users about text in the upcoming article (BC tag, TCG tag, etc.) belong at the top of the page; things that explain the attributes of the article itself belong at the bottom of the page. --[[User:Qhiiyr|qhiiyr]] | ([[User_talk:Qhiiyr|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Qhiiyr|contr]])  11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: I vote for single-line with an icon, placed relative to importance (stubs are not important, at the bottom... TBC is important, at the top). For example, TBC could look like this: {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::{| style="{{CSS Darktable}}"

−

|-

−

| {{bc-inline}} This content may not be available to players without [[World_of_Warcraft:_The_Burning_Crusade|The Burning Crusade]] installed.

−

|}

−

:::I like it! Can we do that to all the templates (stub and notes)?! :D --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::IMO, that works ''perfect''. I'm all for using that in place of the old one. --[[User:Qhiiyr|qhiiyr]] | ([[User_talk:Qhiiyr|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Qhiiyr|contr]])  11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::Switch to a div and i like it :P Also try this..

−

:::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 03:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: I like the first design - nice and clear. Stubs can't really be reduced as we need to be specific about their purpose and use for the general users. I think I agree that the stub tag should be at the bottom of a page, however. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 09:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: Or what about simply making a [[:Category:Exclusive TBC content]]? '''[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]][[User:Apollozeus|''APΘLLΘ'']][[User talk:Apollozeus|(ZEUS)]]''' 10:01, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: If the stub tag gets moved to the bottom, then section-stubbing needs to be adjusted. Otherwise, it won't be clear if the tag was intended for the whole article, or just the final section. You might get: "section1 stub/A section2 stub/B" Does stub/B apply to the whole article or just section2? --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 10:09, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: Beep raises a really good point to consider before making any changes. Sometimes you want to stub/BC the while article, sometimes you just want to mark a section of it. If we change the templates to automatically put themselves on the top/bottom of the page, then we lose the ability to mark individual sections. If we move them to the bottom of the page, it may be unclear if the final section has a stub, or if it applies to the whole page.

−

::::: I'd personally prefer to keep stub notes near the top of the page, but I wouldn't object to making them smaller and/or making some combined stub template which can compact the space needed. One graphic, one grey bar for the whole thing, text which says something like "This article has been marked as a BC stub and a quest stub. Here's info on BC, here's info on quests." Alternatively, we can make it policy to only put one stub (the most applicable) on any given page. After all, anything that's an item stub won't be a NPC stub, a Quest stub, or a location stub, but it may end up with an accuracy stub (Why? It's already a stub in need of revision) or a BC stub (Why? We already know it's a stub, and it '''should''' already be marked as BC with whatever indicator we're using for that), etc. Really, I'd suggest taking anything which is not truly a ''Stub'' (At the moment, that's just {{tlink|Stub/Accuracy}} and {{tlink|Stub/BC}}) and moving it out of the stub group. Then there won't be any question of which '''single''' stub is applicable to the page. --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 10:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: No inline template should ever categorize, stubs and pratically everything else already do that, screwing things up as you've described. Why i'm trying to push the use of correctly implemented inline and article templates, so they not only appear different for users, but follow some sensible guidelines --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:22, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::: As I recall, on Wikipedia, stub strictly refers to articles. If a sections needs to be expanded, there is the [[Wikipedia:Template:Expand|Template:Expand]]. Obviously, we need stub tags to encourage visitors to edit the article. But the stub tags we have now are larger than many of the article themselves. On some of the longer articles, we have issue w/"template real estate". We can only stack so many templates together before ruining the page layout. The whole issue is balancing between having good layout and asking people to contribute. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 11:08, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::: Good layout.. lol that gave me a chuckle. Long way away from that sadly (Seriously, kill off WoWBox ¬_¬) Oh, and yeah.. Stub and Expand co-existing together, as article and inline templates respecitvely makes good sense. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 11:11, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::::: The problem with a single expand template is that it's nice to specify what kind of expansion is needed. Does it need info on quests? Does it need info on loot? Does it need info on NPCs in the area? Sure, it's usually obvious from context, but when you're browsing the stuff-to-do pages, it won't be. Of course, we could then just come up with Expand/Quest, Expand/Item, Expand/NPC... --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 20:09, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: I prefer the first one, also. And I'm definitely for making it a div for better quality code. {{User:Montag/sig}} 23:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

So does someone want to go ahead and make the above template replacement? --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:14, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Already being arranged. [[Template_talk:Bc/content#New_templates|BC Template Talk->New templates]] --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 16:22, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Gallery background is gross.... ==

−

As evidenced by [[Mok'Nathal Village]] and the various image categories (like [http://www.wowwiki.com/Category:WoW_Icons:_Inventory WoW_Icons:_Inventory]), the <nowiki> <gallery></nowiki> function has an eye sore of a background that doesn't fit in at all with the rest of Wowwiki. I'm not sure who exactly can change this, but hopefully someone who can will agree with me and get this done. I would suggest a lighter or darker shade of the background grey prevalent throughout the rest of Wowwiki. Not the most pressing of issues, of course, but it would make a useful function much better. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 18:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

−

: /poke Rustak... CSS? {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Embedding Item tooltips on the Pages with the Mobs they drop off ==

−

Ok, long title, shorter question. What's with all the embedding of tooltips into articles about boss mobs (e.g. [[Vazruden]])? It appears to be a newer thing occurring, since mobs like [[Ragnaros]] don't use that template.

−

I can understand the usage in a page such as [[Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards]], but still... --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:05, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Having all the info on the page makes it much easier to see what exactly the boss drops. A name is just a bunch of words if it doesn't have any meaning behind it. In Warcraft, items get that meaning from the stats on that item. So, to get a better idea of what a boss drops, it makes sense to include those stats on the boss' page.

−

:Unfortunately, the method we currently use to do this doesn't work very well for bosses with a great deal of loot, like raid bosses. It also doesn't look particularly good when it gets out to 5 different items or so. If someone could come up with a better method, I'm all for it, but I think what we have now works much better then a simple list of items. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 00:21, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

I can't say I agree with that opinion. Hmm... how about a simple list with the type of item it is? eg {{llegendary|Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker}} - 1h [[Sword]], or {{lepic|Netherwind Robes}} - [[Mage]] [[Tier 2]] Chest? That way, the peruser gets an idea of the item without being bothered by all the various other items he might not need to see.

−

I raise this because of the fact that adding the full tooltip into the main article's page lengthens it considerably, even when you only have 1 or 2 on the list.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:40, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Actually, I kinda like that. One of the problems with using the embedded tooltips is that they don't convey drop percentage at all, and all that info isn't really necasary for a summary. I suggest that we create some sort of item template that includes the icon, name, quality, type of weapon or armor, and a drop percentage (optional, so we can use it for quests too), with room to note any other minor details like class or tier. Embedded tooltips have their place, but I agree that maybe the boss that drops them isn't it. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 01:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

It is possible from a development stand point to create a javascript that would automatically load another page (or portion of it) in wiki. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups]] for an example. However, as far as I know WoWWiki disabled javascript. This would allow people who wish to know the stats of an item to see it without going to another page. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 02:17, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Javascript tooltips are being worked on for the future, teomyr has made great success with them and using them with an item database. Me personally, i'm with Sky on the matter (really don't need this information in an non-item page statically), but if people so wish to include tooltips in a non-item page, then you can use {{tlink|tooltip}}. It will automatically scale down and drop non-default information when not used on the item's page. I'd gladly add drop percentages in the future, but the drop percentages from item db sites are inaccurate and only based on the info they've received, so i will not personally add them until we have our own database to gather drop rates ourselves. Drop rates are generally deceiving anyways. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 02:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: I'm half of the mind of not worrying about it until the javascript can be implemented, frankly. My idea liste would look limilar to a vendor pane, with hover-tooltips. Maybe show the droprate instead of price on mob drops in the second row. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::Hmm... I like that idea. We just have to have someone make the template...--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: And get the javascript installed ^^ {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Actually, as an interim, couldn't we use boxes like you described as general links to the items, and then when the javascript gets installed, convert it to {{lepic|Netherwind Robes}} like in in-game text? Hover over it, and you get it to pop up; click on it, and that takes you to the page.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:48, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::I'm for not using the tooltip at all, except on an item's page, until we get the javascript tooltips ready. Seems like more work to add them and then remove them again later, and also maintain them in the meanwhile, just for the sake of a user clicking a link to get the same info and more. But i have made {{tlink|tooltip}} available to be used outside an item's page incase people feel otherwise. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 04:03, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: I think he means can we use the vendor-style boxes, sans-tooltip. I'm for that, take a look at [[Quartermaster Davian Vaclav]], it's what I envision, just needs prettied up a tad. Mob drops could get a "fuzzy" droprate (see below) instead of a price in the second line. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 07:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::Yes, that is what I meant, and I was going to post something else, but I just argued myself out of it...--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 22:12, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Yeah, the vendor thing was kinda what I was envisioning, with maybe a very brief summary of the item, i.e., one-hand sword, plate helmet, etc. We could put three drop rates down, one for Thottbot, one for Allakazam, and one for Wowhead, but that'd probably just get confusing. Averaging out the three drop rates also doesn't make a lot of sense, so the fuzzy drop rates looks like the best, with a 0-1% Rare category included. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 23:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::Well let me just say i dislike tekkub's implementation of this. But i also dislike the idea period. Drop tables and vendor windows really aren't something i ever want to see on an NPC page, they're static, they need to be maintained seperately (Though Tekkeub is using a method to work around this, its a horrible method imo). It's why i proposed them as categories to express relationship. Anyways, to save room (would have been nice to use all real estate of the window, but css for dynamic content sucks as always), take a look at something simpler [[User:Zeal/Sandbox/Templates/vendorsheet|here]].. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 03:24, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::I have to say that adding a scrollbar works wonders. However, is is possible that you could make the box a little taller?--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:28, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: Scrolling frame certainly helps, but can you please fit as many items wide as will fit on the user's screen? I have a nice widescreen monitor, I'd much prefer a wide layout over a tall single-column one :) {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 09:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::: I like the scrolling frame idea, in the sense that it helps for keeping really big vendor/drop lists nice to look at. however, the frame must be taller than the current example. Also 2 next to eachother is also a must in my oppinion. Downside is that it's making comparing a whole lot harder, or a good list of what he sells/ drops isn't there either, because it's a scrolling thingy, only allowing you to see 1-2. Really, NOT favourable on bosspages, because as a GL/RL you want to have a clear and good list, where you don't have to go scrolling like a madman. For a normal player, looking there with lots of time, it's fine, but I as a GL would prefer to avoid the wiki at all costs then, as it just doesn't suit my needs. So you are excluding a group from the wiki, while the other possibility, does not exclude people.

−

:::::: A possible workaround, but probably hard to implement is the option o show the full frame or just the scroll frame (like with a +/- or an up and down arrow in the top right corner). This is the most preferable solution. (oh and I dislike the scrollbar colors for the wiki >.>) --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 11:17, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::::I really wanted to have the icons fill horizontally as floats, but naturally css is utter shite for anything dynamic as always. I refuse to except a 2 column design as it's an awful waste of space. I've increased the containers to be 2x item height. A scrollbar is actually better for comparing imo Pat, so i really don't follow your point. Either way, you're going to be scrolling a page. It's no different, and this way it doesn't effect the page for those who don't care about the drops, vendor items etc. yet those who do care can just as easily and quickly get what they want. Though i really don't want to see this stuff on an NPCs page period.. I want to see the individual info on the item's page only. ¬_¬ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 17:59, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Drop Percentages ==

−

How about : Dropchance: Very low (0-5%), Low(6-34%) Average(35-75%), High(75-99%) Guaranteed(100%), instead of exact numbers {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 02:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Because, when dealing with boss mobs, almost nothing as above a Low drop chance ;P. I could quote the hundred of pages of people whining about not having any [[Rejuvenating Gem]]s dropping for them... :P

−

:And yes, I have to agree with Zeal on droprates. They can and are misleading, and they ''are'' to some extent inaccurate (great for ballpark figures... usually in the realm of 3/100!). --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Oh, I like this. Maybe add "Rare (0-1%)" in there for things like the epic mounts or that "lightsabre" sword. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

::I don't have an opinion on the tooltip embedding, but as for drop percentages, I'd say they're almost unmaintainable. WoWWiki has a hard enough time keeping up with easily-verifiable facts. Drop percentages are based on... aggregate data from external sites that have differing numbers based on which patch they reset their counters and which random sampling of people bothered to input data.--[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 08:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

* Guaranteed = quest item usually.

−

* 0-1% for some legendaries

−

* Low - medium - high. for the rest ? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:27, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

::How about Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High, Guaranteed. I'd have to say, 0-1% for Very Low, 1.01-5% for Low, 5.01-12% for Medium, 12.01-22% for High, 22.01-99.99% for Very High, and obviously, 100% for Guaranteed. It's a little better than the original numbers you suggested, since most items have a low chance of dropping.

−

::Sound good?--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 21:00, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: Very High covers more than 3/4 of the range? That doesn't seem very useful to me... I'd split it into quarters, and add Rare and Guaranteed for the two endpoints. 0-2%, 2%-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75%-98%, 98-100%. Hell why not use the color names as well, Legendary, Epic, Rare, Uncommon, Common, Guaranteed. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 22:01, 20 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Almost nothing in WoW has >25% drop chance, unless you're dealing with quest items that are grinded out. And nobody needs to know the percentage of those, they just need to grind. That's why a graduated scale will fit it better.

−

::::And definitely do ''not'' use the colors. Consider the two items {{llegendary|Eye of Sulfuras}} and {{lepic|Talisman of Ephemeral Power}}: both are reported as having an approximate 3% chance to drop... Both putting them in the Epic category. Or, better yet, {{llegendary|Splinter of Atiesh}}; that has a 20% drop rate at least. You can't use the colors.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 01:42, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: Agree, the colors do not signal the actual droprate. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 06:04, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Categories and Botting ==

−

Ok, a little screwy. I was trying to use pywikipediabot to merge [[:Category:Paladin Spells]] into [[:Category:Paladin Abilities]]. However, I encountered problems, [[:Category:Paladin Spells]] is actually an inherited category of {{tlink|SpellFooter}} on some of the pages. What should I do about this? If I weren't supposed to merge the 2 categories or weren't supposed to bot, please do a rollback on my edits. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 17:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Ahh, I wouldn't worry about it too much... Just uhh, becareful of botting next time. It's like a double-edged sword. Very useful, and very dangerous.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 18:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: What the the standard category for abilities? is it "_(class)_ Abilities" or "_(class)_ Spells"? --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 06:59, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: I wouldn't worry about that either. I mean, I could briefly give you my take on it. Spells for casters and abilities for those without mana, but you might ask "what about hybrids and hunters!!!". I don't know. It is a mystery. --'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 14:08, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

::I would say Abilities would be easier to maintain; that way, you keep it standardized across all (spells are abilities, but not vice versa).--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 20:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Recent Changes: Talk All ==

−

I would really love to see all the talk categories put into one readily accessible link in the recent changes window. That way I don't first have to check talk, then user talk, then category talk, then wowwiki talk, then template talk, just to see what's being discussed! --{{User:Varghedin/Sig}} 06:14, 20 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Corrupt image ==

−

I just marked a junk image for speedy delete, but it's screwing up the rendering of [[:Category:Articles for speedy deletion]] on my Firefox v2. Here's a link to the file's history if that helps in destroying it [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Image:Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooongcat.JPG&action=history] --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 10:57, 20 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Taken care of. Thanks for letting us know.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 18:12, 20 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Don't you just HATE it when you can't figure out a quest??? ==

−

I'm undead, and I was doing Ulag the Cleaver, but I can't find him! It says he's in a mausoleom or something, but the only mausoleum I could find had only 1 door, and then a dead end!

−

The quest log should be WAAAAY more specific, and it should bring up the map to show where to go for the quest...

−

: Those are all things we're working on, but seeing we don't have automated ingame trackers (yet), like allakhazam and Thottbot, it all goes a bit slower. However, you can help out by posting the coordinates of the person once you find him! --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 06:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Feel free to take screenshots of the map and create guides for any quest or post the coordinates of important mobs, items or objects. However, at the moment, we do not have automated trackers. {{User:Montag/sig}} 23:56, 21 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Server Issue with Templates ==

−

It seems to me that whenever someone changes a template transcluded by a large number of pages, the server screws up for like a minute. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 10:35, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Yup, in that time it is updating all the pages that use that template. Fun, innit :) {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 10:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: i'm getting some odd error lately : "wowwiki has a problem", hidden behind the front page.. instead of loading another page. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 11:00, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::That's the server choking on the questlong change that Voidvector just made. :P --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 11:03, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: Yep. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 11:05, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Honestly, I think this is a deficiency in the engine... Why should editing one template bring down the entire site? Poor engineering, I think. I hope they come up with a better mechanism for updating pages, instead of saying one edit is equal to a thousand edits...--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 17:31, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

::If i'm not mistaken, the wiki caches pages including the template outcome, rather than simply retriving the cache for the template and displaying the outcome on the fly. Currently, it means if you edit a template, everypage using it has to recache because the template outcome could have changed. If they did it the latter way, it just means more overhead (which is rather small) on page load, but no impact to editing. So it would only be a slightly slower load per page at all times (think show preview loading time rather than live), not an extremely slow load for the whole wiki on every edit (minor or major) for popular templates.. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 18:22, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Village pump has 100.000 views ==

−

Well. almost anyway :P {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 11:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Actually it's 700+ 100,00 views. =D Good stuff.--[[User:Kwerty|Kwertz0r]] 09:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Template Class Table All ==

−

We have [[Template:Classtableall|this template]] that ranks all of the classes by how well they fit different roles... And I'm really getting frustrated at the people editing it. Like I'm really really close to blocking anyone who edits it and doesn't discuss their changes. Actually, since its a template, I'll add a big obnoxious noinclude warning to it, but seriously, if I see one more person edit that page w/o discussing their changes and defending why they think a number should be changed (or even discussing it first, maybe i should protect it), they're getting the ban hammer.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 09:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Image help ==

−

Time to prove my nubness: I'm trying to put an image of one of my characters on its page using {{tlink|Wowbox}} and {{tlink|Infobox Warcraft character}}. However, the uploaded image I'm using turns pink when it's squished down to size for the infobox. Any idea why this is happening?

−

The page is [[User:Montag/Nariana]] and the image is [[:Image:Montag-Nariana.png]]. {{User:Montag/sig}} 10:13, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

: PNGs do not always resize well - use a JPG :) {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 10:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Awesome, thanks. Fixed, and PNG deleted.. {{User:Montag/sig}} 10:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Template inconsistencies ==

−

So I've been poking around in the Template namespace, trying to determine the workings of things like {{tlink|Vv2}}. I noticed some inconsistencies in the "Lquality" series. Three of six are locked, and two of six have differing functionality. Personally, I'd like them (1) documented, and (2) changed so that there's a visual indicator of a broken link.

−

{|

−

|-

−

|Template ||Functionality ||Status

−

|-

−

|Lpoor ||Montag ||unlocked

−

|-

−

|Lcommon ||Tekkub ||locked

−

|-

−

|Luncommon ||Montag ||locked

−

|-

−

|Lrare ||Tekkub ||unlocked

−

|-

−

|Lepic ||Montag ||locked

−

|-

−

|Llegendary ||Montag ||unlocked

−

|}

−

--[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 10:57, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

: I think I'm the one guilty for half-locking some of them. Anyway, editing these templates really brings down the house... And showing a broken item link would require some sort of... Does Page Exist? functionality, which I'm pretty sure we have but never coded myself. Consider all templates locked as of the writing of this reply.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 11:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Well, I sandbox-tested adding the {{tlink|Exists}} function to Lpoor, and managed a version that gave output like: <nowiki>[</nowiki>Vendor Trash Broken-Link"<nowiki>]</nowiki>. However, I'm not sure if this is the ideal visual indicator. An alternative might be something like: <nowiki>[Vendor Trash Broken-Link]</nowiki>* I'm not committed to either version. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 11:31, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Here {{tlink|loot}}, been meaning to replace those with a single template for a while, enjoy! --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 11:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Well, your template doesn't capture the functionality of either Montag-style or Tekkub-style "Lquality". First, it doesn't take an alternative name (eg "Ravager (axe)|Ravager"), however, that shouldn't be too hard to add. Second, all broken links, regardless of quality, are red. So you'd have to fix that. Third, you'd have to bot the changeover. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 12:01, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::You missed alot of talk in the irc chan. First of all, there should never be disambig on an item (if it is, someone needs a smack and people need to get off their asses and get the Item namespace added and in use.), so i won't add alternative item name functionality. Second, the broken link functionality was how i (and some others) think it should be done, but after discussion a compramise was agreed upon, leave the brackets unstyled if the link is broken, but always style the text. I have now updated the template to do that. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Fair enough. However, I disagree on the claim that we should never need to provide an alternate name. First, there are items that may have disambiguations that are Blizzard's fault. Some items have identically-named differing versions. [[Royal Seal of Eldre'Thalas]], [[Atiesh, Greatstaff of the Guardian]], [[Scroll: Create Crest of Beckoning]], [[Scroll: Create Scepter of Beckoning]], [[Scroll: Create Signet of Beckoning]], [[Brazier of Beckoning]], etc. Sometimes WoWWiki rolls them into one page, and sometimes it doesn't. Second, there may be items that have invalid characters for an article name, although I can't think of any offhand. As for missing discussions on the IRC chan, the nice thing about talk pages is that they record opinions.--[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 13:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::And the nice thing about IRC, is we can discuss quicker and easier (especially when the wiki is as unstable as it is atm). :p

−

:::::There are no invalid characters as far as i know. Even if there were, they would more than likely just be url encoded anyways, so there is no problem (that is what url encoding was designed for really..). Items that have multiple versions with the same name should be in the same page imo, so i will not add such functionality to support anything different. If someone else wants to when people decide otherwise, then so be it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: So {{tlink|loot}} is a full replacement for {{tlink|lquality}}? If it is, you probably replace it on [[WoWWiki:Templates]]. I can probably bot replace all the previous usages. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:39, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::It is as far as i'm concerned, a bot would be handy to replace all of them if you would like, i'll leave it for one of the help team to add the template there or something :s Just make note, {{tlink|loot}} uses uppercase quality names, not lower (used to support both, but wanted to cut down on the amount of duplicate code). --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 16:47, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

I'm quite... Angered. Or disturbed. By the recent changes made by the bot to deprecate templates. I don't like the loot template in its current implementation, one, due to the fact that it adds a lot of unecessary links and templates to the page. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't like how it looks, right now. I'd like to see the changes reverted. Or, at least see the template re-evaluated, which I'm trying to do myself. Summary, I'm not happy.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

: What? I don't understand... what's wrong with it? It doesn't ''add'' anything to a page! It just adds the brackets found the side which are red is the link is dead. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 05:38, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Okay, here's the skinny, after I investigated a little more... The problem (as is my opinion) stems from the use of the exists template. The exists template tries to include pages that aren't really templates as its method of detection. What this does is cause an unnecessary amount of included templates on the page. Its a side effect of the exists template, which I don't agree with. So for that reason, I don't advocate the use of exists, nor do I advocate the use of loot in its current incarnation. A consolidated loot template (named "l", by the way), I'm all for. Brackets indicating dead articles, I'm all for. But that can be done in CSS, without changing any of the old templates, if and when we get CSS access. There. That's it. I dislike the new template, as it is now, and I think we should just wait for CSS.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 05:50, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

::There is no other way to do it, and even with css it would contain more unecessary code to acheieve than is needed. Broken includes do not harm anything, and are a perfectly exceptable side effect of {{tlink|exists}}. I also am strongely against naming it {{tlink|L}}, as that name is far too short, and shows no indication as to what the template is or does. It is already currently shortened from something like "Item Loot Link Template", there is no need (Loot is short enough for common use) to shorten it further, and certainly not at the cost of loosing any understanding of meaning of the template name. I'm sorry, but i think you're being rather silly on this one hob :/ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:10, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: A css-based solution is already supported by how all mediawiki installations work out of the box. The only thing preventing us from using it is our access to edit stylesheets. One line of css is vastly less than the amount of code used in the template. And I'm on the side of assuming that the broken links do harm something, I'm just not sure what yet; I don't like them being there. As for the name of the template, at least there should be an alias. For such an oft-used template, it would help if it was abbreviated to something convenient for experienced editors. A template's name need not describe its entire nature in the name alone.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|Hobinheim]]''' ([[User talk:Hobinheim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|contr]]) 10:37, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::An exist template is one line of code too. The css it would have to double up with spans. Clearly in your own words, the broken include issue is one of your preference with no good reason. As to the name, you say it should not contain it's entire nature in the name alone, it already doesn't. It is already abbreviated. Abbreviating a name past the point of recognition, where you then would need to tell someone what the abbreviation stands for is counter-productive for common use, it would alienate regular users. There is no need to reduce it to a single letter at all, and doing so would only bring problems. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:45, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Player character page policy ==

−

It's just been brought to my notice that this policy has never been ratified or discussed. Please check it out: [[WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Player character pages]]. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 11:23, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Item format ==

−

I'd like to see if we can get some sort of consensus on what format we want to use for items. I've always used the [[Boilerplate:Item]] page. I like it because it can handle most items, it keeps all the information on a single page, it's relatively easy for a user new to wikis to populate, and if included on another page, it turns into a tooltip. I've noticed a lot of the BC item stubs have been partially populated using a bunch of transcluded pages. See [[Anchorite's Robes]] for example. The source on the main page is the template [[Template:BC Itempage Placeholder]]. This then links into a bunch of tiny transcluded pages like [[Anchorite's Robes/Icon]], [[Anchorite's Robes/Price]], [[Anchorite's Robes/Quality]], and [[Anchorite's Robes/Tooltip]]. If I'm not mistaken, the reason why this was created was so you could pull bits of it and put it on another page (see [[Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards]]). I guess I'd just like to get a single standard to use, especially when I start to fill in stubs that have been started with the transcluded templates.

−

Personally, I like the single page style. I copy the entire boilerplate to a new page and start filling it out. Pretty much everything you need is right there. With this transcluded method, I have to create the main page, then I have to create a icon page, tooltip page, price page, thottbot page, alla page, more page, etc. It just seems a lot more confusing than it needs to be. Also what kind of performance hit does all these transcluded pages put on the wiki?

−

Comments? - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 12:50, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:I think there could be a middle ground somewhere (perhaps a hybrid boilerplate that allows for an initial entry and prepares for transclusion), but with the transcluded method ultimately being the standard. Items end up always being linked from various other articles (boss drops, stat comparisons, reward listings) and as such, having that information (most importantly, the tooltip, maybe the icon) be made available dynamically to articles will be a boon in the long run. I'd also be curious, however, as to the impact it would have on the site performance. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 13:00, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::We certainly do not need tooltips being transcluded.. And not with that ridiculous sub-page method which is a poor use of the wiki, and is no better than just repeating the info yourself. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::I heavily disagree with this. I cannot see how under any circumstances copying and pasting the same information into different articles is in any way, shape or form, easier than just referencing the article's /Tooltip transclusion. Let's say I wanted to write an article that compares two-handed weapons for DPS. I could a) go into each items article (or Thott or Alla entry) and copy and paste the information into my article. Back and forth, back and forth, pasting away until I've all this information in my article. Or, b) I could just include the itemname/Tooltip for each one and be done with it. What if the item stats changed? Now, I have to go into each and every single article that ever could have possibly mentioned that item and fix it, hoping I got them all. Or I could just change /Tooltip. The small amount of effort that goes into making a /Tooltip entry is definitely worth it. It also centralizes the information, heavily decreasing the chance of typos, mistakes and ultimately, what everyone wants to avoid, misinformation.

−

:::Unless there is some other method of being able to dynamically pull that into any article you want, the transclusions are quite clearly the way to go if we're going to talk standards. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 17:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:I'm personally strictly against the use of that boilerplate (namely because i'[ve made most of it redundant with the new tooltip) and that other method of item page creation (because it's bloody awful and not practical. i forget who started doing it). Also the tooltip transclusion method should not be used as discussed further up on this page. Most of the functionality that's being attempted (Transclusion of tooltips for example), is impractical, and can be done easier or not at all until we can incorperate certain javascript abilities, namespaces and better category structures. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: We might want to update the boilerplate with Zeal's item template. It is far superior than any other templates we have. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 14:18, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::I found a few minor issues with the [[Template:Tooltip|Tooltip]] (Equipped mispelled in BoE, switch the armor amount and the word "Armor" around, Armor row should come after DPS row, not taking advantage of the [[:Category:Spells by ID|Spell Effects]], no place for sockets), but what exactly makes this tooltip superior? I'll gladly switch to using the tooltip template if someone can explain to me why it's better than what is in the boilerplate. - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 15:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Will fix the typo, Armor should have been after DPS, apologies if it's not. It can use the spell effect template, there is a note in the description about how to use it, however hardly any of these spells currently exist, and things will be changing with the introduction of an item db, so i have not enforced the use of it. I had no final examples of sockets to work from, so i left them out until i could find them, someone is welcome to add them (may i suggest creating a template similar to {{tlink|cost}} for the purpose), but i'm too busy with other things atm.

−

::::As to what makes it superior. Well for one its more accesable because it does not incorrectly use a table to present the information. It also auto-scales (and drops non-default info) when used outside the page where it belongs, includes the item's icon, uses the correct colouring for certain things the other one has wrong, ensures item information is always in the correct order (so newbies can't screw up), and provides documentation for users to know what needs to be included in the tooltip. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: Gives a uniform format. Say in the future we want to change the layout of the item tooltips: With a template, we can do it easily. With the current method of copying tables, we can only change the CSS, which is very limited. In addition, template can make sorting easy, if we want to create a category of all the daggers in the wiki, just add a line in the template that checks if the item type is dagger, if it is, add it to a category to it. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:02, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::Sounds reasonable enough. I'll play around with the tooltip some more and see if I can find any other problems. Since most of my 5000+ edits has been adding items, I know most of the formats that tooltips can appear in. We can then move it into the boilerplate with some documentation. FYI: There are 3 socket templates ([[Template:Red Socket]], [[Template:Blue Socket]], [[Template:Yellow Socket]]) that we can possible incorporate/modify into the tooltip. - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 16:34, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::: My only issue with the tooltip, and this is incredibly minor I know, is that when the tooltip is used on an item page, the item icon no longer needs to be on the article in the place where it currently is, since the tooltip includes it. I really like the currently placement, as it gives the opening paragraph a nice indent, which most articles lack otherwise. However, that minor aestheitc aversion pales in comparison to the advantages afforded by its implimentation.

−

::::::: And there's also the meta gem slots, though there arn't very many of those. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 16:44, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::::Indeed. As to the icon in item pages, i disliked it personally as it's not nice running both left and right floats (nor is it nice to clear content to below either float). May i suggest moving further discussion on the tooltip template itself to it's talk page. I hadn't really thought about some of the advantages voidvector mentioned, nice. I'll give adding sockets a go in a sec. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 18:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::::Say hello to {{tlink|socket}} and the new socket and socket bonus parameters of {{tlink|tooltip}} :p --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 19:32, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

: To re-address this a bit, since there seems to be two seperate threads of discussion. 1) How tooltips are formatted and/or rendered and 2) How the said tooltips are embedded in the item page. As for the former, Zeal appears to have a pretty good start on nailing down the tooltip template and format. And as for the latter, I personally am of the mind of having a transcluded Tooltip sub-article (and only one sub-article, no others), so other articles (loot lists, item comparison, class lists, etc etc etc) could easily pull the tooltip (which could be considered the "meat" of the item information) without having to copy and paste and thusly, result in potential typos and misinformation. Considering how widely used this would/could be, I think there should be a healthy discussion and some sort of consensus reached before we start just all going in our own direction, especially since there has been some decent work done thusfar on it. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 15:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::A tooltip split (sub-page if you wish), i can live with :P Guessing you mean something like [[Conjured Bread/Tooltip]] yes? I never wanted to propose something like that as i know the item db would make it redundant, but if people want to do that in the time being, it's fine imo. What i don't think is a good idea is using tooltips in pages other than the item's page. Using space for something that is simply a click a way. I'd rather way for the javascript implementation to come around to handle that. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:19, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::Yes, having a /Tooltip sub-page for each item, which is already happening for new items, it seems. The idea behind including the /Tooltip in other articles, though is how useful it could be for comparison. Take the [[Comparison_of_Aldor_and_Scryer_rewards]] article. This is a perfect example of how included tooltip sub-pages perform well. Even though the tooltip is a click away, how does that help when used in comparisons? Having this as the standard would help build a structure for displaying data effeciently and effectively, I feel, any future javascript or item db aside. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 15:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::In this day and age people have tabbed browsers to do comparisons, no need to overload them with info they can click for ;) Plus that page does not show anything about the costs for the rewards. I beleive the earlier discussed vendor sheet to be a better solution for that. Also like to mention that those tooltips, for reciepe items, show the item they create in them. While this is nice for comparison, it is messy and hard to read (blizzard are retards for doing it this way imo), especially telling where it begins and ends. Mine, simply takes a link to the item, and unless someone wishes to push for the idea of including them in a way that doesnt suffer from the blizzard inherited issues (nesting tooltips perhaps), then i beleive this to be the best way, and slightly nullifiess the comparison argument.

−

::::Oh, and i don't seee the point in that page in it's current form. it's repeating information people can gather themselves. It needs some comments on the comparisons to justify it (thus the tooltips neeed not exist) imo.--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::Come now, the whole point of that page, and indeed, any page with nested tooltips, is to gather the info in one space so people ''don't'' have to find it themselves. It offers complete information on the subject in a single location, allowing immediate comparisons without even the need to change browser tabs. While I agree that the tooltips are quite bulky and a javascript rollover solution as seen on various database sites is optimal, we don't have that yet, and it doesn't look like we're getting it any time soon (correct me if I'm wrong on that, though). In the meanwhile, I suggest we either continue to use nested tooltips on articles that directly relate to the item, or at the very least provide some sort of summary of the item, like type, location, and primary use. But even the summary doesn't really work for items like trinkets, which usually have somewhat complex uses. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 16:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::The entire point of making articles like these is to make information easy to digest. Are you seriously saying that it's '''easier''' for people either used tabbed windows or find the information themselves than having to look at '''one''' page that shows all the information side by side? Especially with something as important as picking a faction? Articles such as this are incredibly helpful... what the heck is the point of having a Wiki if all you want to do is make people dig up the information themselves? It honestly sounds like you want to make a item database and that's it, without any flexibility for discussion or comparison. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 16:19, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::No no no no no.. I'm saying the tooltips are not needed for the comparison. Simply pulling in tooltips and displaying them on a page.. that's not worthy of an article, yes that makes it easier for a user to compare, but that's not something the wiki should be doing, otherwise we would have chaos with articles simply listing tooltips.. What i'm saying is, for that article to be justified, it needs to go through each item, comparing aspects of the items in a written format (so tooltips themselves would not be used), then it would be worthy of an article, as that is a proper comparison. Simply displaying tooltips with not comments as to why this might be better than that, and why that is so great.. thats not worthy of an article, that's just someone relisting stuff for the purpose of seeing the tooltips next to each other, something they should be doing manauly themselves. That's simply abuse of the wiki and i would nominate such an article for deletion, it has no place.

−

::::::Oh and just to avoid confusion. Embeded Tooltips = Tooltip in the page statically. Nested Tooltips = Tooltips inside each other. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 17:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::::"yes that makes it easier for a user to compare, but that's not something the wiki should be doing." I think you're outright wrong here. This is exactly what the Wiki should be doing, is doing and will continue to do. It doesn't make any sense to discuss items without using tooltips. Everyone who plays the game is used to seeing them and relates them to items to learn about them. In any article that is going to be discussing items and/or comparing them, they're going to want to display the characteristics of that item. Articles are not just going to have tooltips and nothing else, but they are needed to compare! I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of articles "relisting" items, they would obviously have discussion or comments along with them.

−

:::::::I'm curious... are you familiar with what that article I linked above is about? The entire point is to compare what the two factions offer side by side, to see which faction the player should pick. As you can see in the discussion page, there's a lot of debate about which faction is best for what. Tell me in this particular case, how exactly would you show the attributes of each item without using tooltips...paste the tooltips in? Simply say "this item's got +3 intellect and +5 strength and blah blah"? Everyone knows tooltips, it's how players look at items in game, it should be (and will be) how we look at them on the Wiki. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 19:59, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::::Well done on completely misunderstanding/ignoring what i said.. ¬_¬ The page makes no such comparisons (merely lists the outcomes in a format that is not helpful and lends nothing to the article, and none of the content below it lends to the comparison). It's like you've created a page to solve a math problem, and simply shown the problem and given the answer. That's not helpful in any way. You should not be displaying tooltips, you should be linking to items and discussing the item as if it was infront of you, comparing them. If people wish to have a visual display of what you're talking about, they then click the link provided. A tooltip in this case is no different from a contextual image, with a link to the tooltip being a thumbnail. All that page does is display a load of images, no captions, not explanation, no comments, no context, nothing. That is not helpful, and i could make an article based on that same premise for any and every two items in existance. It's utterly useless and ridiculous in it's current form.

−

::::::::For your exmaple, something like "The Scryers supply the [[Retainer's Blade]], which has a high amount of agility and stamina, and excellent dps for a dagger, so it is perfect for a dagger rogue, on the other hand, if you're sword rogue, you should consider the [[Vindicator's Brand]] instead, as it provides more AP and hit rating along with a slower dps" (Disclaimer: I know nothing about rogues, rogue builds, or items for rogues :p)

−

::::::::Oh, and btw, not everyone plays wow or understands the tooltips fully, that's why they're merely a summary and supplement to an article. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 20:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Sorry for taking a step back on this issue. I am totally lost on even where to begin using the new item formatting for adding new items. The "old" boilerplate as Clyde said was easy - copy paste edit done. Can someone post a "step-by-step" guide to how to add new items using the new format/lay-outs? Thank you --[[User:Dracomage|Dracomage]] 16:14, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Step 1: Use the old format. Step 2: Wait for whoever is least lazy to change it to the format ''du jour''. {{=)}} People can argue all they want, but whoever is willing to do the grunt work has the most leverage. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 16:29, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::As it currently stands, I think the best way to do it is, 1: Copy-paste-edit boilerplate, except for tooltip area, 2: go to Zeal's {{tlink|tooltip}} template, copy the format, and fill in what's necessary.

−

:::I haven't heard any real reason why we shouldn't be using Zeal's template on all the item pages, so I humbly suggest that the boilerplate be changed to include the template. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 17:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::Same as above, i just don't wish to touch the boileplate atm for fear of backlash, the fact it looks mess to read, and that i'd want to sneak in other changes if i do it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 17:50, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

I think it's time to start setting standards and policies before we get too far in creating articles and sub-articles for items in different ways. Vote and comment, please. [[WoWWiki:Policy/Item_Article_Standardization]] --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 16:26, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Patch today ==

−

Where would I find the patch notes from today? Would someone please post them and give me a link.

−

{{User:Fusk/sig}}13:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Take it you mean [http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_2.0.6_%28Release_Notes%29 2.0.6]? In future, you can find them under [[:Category:Patches]], or better yet, next time try searching, as you clearly didn't even bother to... ¬_¬ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

:If they haven't been added to the wiki, you can usually find them at the [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/ Patch Notes] page at worldofwarcraft.com. If they haven't been added there yet, they'll almost always have a sticky post with them on the General forum on the official boards (abandon all hope ye who enter...) - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 16:40, 23 January 2007 (EST)

−

== [[Sargeras]] and [[Burning Legion]] ==

−

See any problems with the two? {{c|1}} to the person who discovers it!--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:04, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

Oh yes, another {{c|1}} for the person who sees the issue with [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/story/chapter1.html this page] and those two.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:05, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

Instead of pointing things out >.> FIX THEM! (btw can't find it, but can I have {{c|1}} anyways? --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 05:42, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:If you're refering to the fact that the official site still says that the Erader corrupted Sargeras and not, as it was later retconned to be, the other way around, gimme my {{c|}}! Of course, that information has been outdated, so no need to change our own sites. If you're refering to some other inconsistency between the two pages, I admit I haven't bothered to read them. Trying to make heads or tails of Warcraft lore means battling your way through huge amounts of contradictory information and fending off legions of frothing fans, only to find at the end of the day you haven't gained any ground. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 06:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Neither of you earn your coppers. The first two pages are near exact copy paste jobs of the third. Yay for plagirizing?--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 15:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: Rewrite it if it bothers you. Originality is always preferred. {{User:Montag/sig}} 02:44, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

== More fun with templates and lurch ==

−

I'd like to document and categorize the many templates that we've got lurking around, but the server's going to get hurt. So I think I'll pass. However, many of the more insidious ones should probably be locked. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 12:08, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

: You add it to the talk page, and after you are all done, copy it over, so it only kill the server once. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 12:30, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Lol, well i've purposely left most of the ones i create in the main [[:Category:Templates]], partly because i hate the existing template categories, partly because i hate the existing category naming, and partly because it's easier for me when i'm producing so many templates. :p

−

::Feel free to change the cats on them if you wish. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:39, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Actually, it'd be preferable to make a one-tiem edit to the template pointing users to the talk page for documentation, that way docs can be changed any number of times. Make sure you use noinclude blocks so that pointer doesn't transclude into everything that uses the template. you might want to also put the template code in a includeonly block so that the messy details don't show up, especially if the template depends on parameters passed to it.

−

:: Perhaps a simple template is in order to drop onto the pages so that we have a consistent look? {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 12:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::I don't agree about putting documentation on the talk page. Documentation get updated less often than the template itself, and when it is updated, it updated at the same time the vast majority of the time. I've already created a template documentation template {{tlink|template}} for what you've described, and have been using and adapting it with all my templates. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: In that case, why not have the documentation code on a subpage which is pulled into the template page for viewing? Dare I say - this is how wikipedia often does it. [Template] has the code, [Template/Doc] has the documentation, and we can extend it to:

−

::::* [Template] pulls in [Template/Code] and [Template/Doc] and adds the categories.

−

::::* [Template/Doc] has the documentation.

−

::::* [Template/Code] has the raw code (this is used on the [[WoWWiki:Templates]] page)

−

::::Thoughts? {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 13:34, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::I find it rather superfluous and unecessary, not only that, but it's another page the wiki has to update and cache everytime, and may have to then purge to view the outcome (which would have the same effect as running an edit no?). The documentation doesn't need to be split up because it's only ever updated when the code is. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::: Or we can put all the documentations on [[WoWWiki:Templates]] like how we do it now, and just have the templates refer to it. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 14:15, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::: Why would editing a subpage affect all wiki pages using the template? Editing the doc would only affect the pages it's pulled into, which is the template page. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 14:28, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::::Did i suggest it would? no just the template's page. But now you touch on it, it would effect it (at least given how i've understood templates to work and expand and calculate on mediwiki), unless you're suggesting all template usage should now bypass the template and use template/code instead. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: I disagree with adding the code to a subpage, since pulling it in is redundant, but adding detailed documentation to the subpage (of the type Zeal's been using) seems fair. That way, quick usage notes can be put on the front page including a link to the full docs for more info. Currently, I find a lot of the documentation difficult to sift through because of how detailed they are. Quick usage notes allow people to quickly start using a template after they know about it and can learn its full power from the docs if they need to get more specific or powerful use out of it. ~

−

::::: The performance hit to the server should be minimal and shouldn't be the ''primary'' reason for our decision, although it should certainly factor in. Hopefully a PHP update (or a MediaWiki update) will help with all the errors we've been getting. {{User:Montag/sig}} 02:39, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Back to the idea of categorizing and documenting the multitude, I just did a quick count. There's currently 1712 items in the template namespace. Le fun! --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 14:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Heroic mode? ==

−

I have not been able to find anything besides loot tables for "Heroic mode" dungens. Does anyone know if the boss fights change at all? or is it gunna be the same fight, just different dmg numbers?

−

{{User:Fusk/sig}}12:10, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

:The only boss I've seen with a heroic strategy is [[Omor the Unscarred]] in the [[Hellfire Ramparts]]. The AOE debuff becomes unremovable, the fel hounds cast a mana burn as well as heal Omor, and it looks like he casts a shadowbolt as well. You probably won't see many strategies until more people get to a higher level and can start running in heroic mode. - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 14:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Yeah, I was just sorta wondering what to expect, meaning any changes to the fight. So it seems things are going to change pretty drastically. I'll try to write some when my group gets up there. {{User:Fusk/sig}}16:12, 24 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Looking to get rep in exodar ==

−

−

--[[User:Ssexxymidget13|Ssexxymidget13]] 14:22, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

Hello im new to the site and i was wondering if anyone could tell me What i can do to get rep in exodar? Now i understand i have to do quest and stuff to gain more rep but can anyone tell me where i can find more quest and what places i can go to that count for rep towards exodar.

−

Thanks for your help:)

−

: Donate cloth...? Why you want rep w/ em? The mount I guess you could get by getting BG tokens and giving em to the pvp mount vendor. --[[User:Colinstu|Colinstu]] 22:58, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Also, low-level quests now give the full amount of reputation, even when they're grey. You could do the Azuremyst and Bloodmyst Isle quests :) --[[User talk:Tinkerer|T]][[User:Tinkerer|inker]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|er]] 14:29, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

== The Priest's "How to Kill" page disappeared (works now!)==

−

I try going to the page Priest's How to Kill... page [http://www.wowwiki.com/Priest:_How_to_Kill_a...] and get nothing but a blank page. I tried the Hunter and Rogue pages, and they work fine, and the Priest page worked fairly recently. Any suggestions?

−

Thanks!

−

--[[User:Jacked|Jacked]] 17:05, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

: For some strange reason, the server does not render the page when user is not logged in. My guess is that the PHP on this server needs an update. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 17:38, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Icons ==

−

I noticed we are using some icons from an icon pack under gnu liscene, and also that we're using a wide array of varios icons (which are inconstantly sized and suck tbqh) along side them. So, i've gone through the icons from that icon pack, renamed them with wiki relevent names, and set the background colors to make wowwiki's default theme.

−

I'm gunna start uploading a few of them, and i would like some feedback on what people think of the icon naming.

−

[[:Category:WoWWiki Icons]] --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:21, 25 January 2007 (EST)

−

: I think you suck HAHAHAHAHAHA! I mean... oh yea good work. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 18:30, 26 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Awesome work. Looks good. At a quick glance, names look fine to me. {{User:Montag/sig}} 02:21, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Using return of ConsoleExec function ==

−

In the WoW-API is the command ConsoleExec listed, im new to WoW addons - and Lua, just coding in other languages - returns that function the value of the executed command?

−

greetings, --[[User:Schaelle|Schaelle]] 18:41, 27 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Frankly, I've never seen an addon that interacts with the console... there's very little one can do through the console beside adjust video settings. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 00:44, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Puh, than anyone has an idea how I can interacte with extern-programms? Because I have the idea to intigreate some InstangMessanger in WoW - first of all ICQ - so the User typesomething like <code>/icq Alfred Whatz up?</code> and the Lua Addon calls the external programm - that has etablished the connection to the ICQ server. Any raw idea? --[[User:Schaelle|Schaelle]] 07:31, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: You can't, and never will. Just run the game in windowed-maximized. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 11:19, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Loot Template ==

−

My bot have replaced all occurrence of <nowiki>{{lquality}}</nowiki> with {{tlink|loot}} where it only had 1 argument (the most commonly occurring usage). Less common usages such as disambiguated and renamed links would have to be fixed by hand. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 02:04, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Your bot didn't change the links on talk pages. Just wondering about whether that was intentional or not.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 02:33, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Yea. It only converted normal and template pages. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 12:03, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Burning Crusade templates update ==

−

−

<div style="border-top: 1px #666 solid; border-bottom: 1px #666 solid; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em; color: #EEE; background-color: #2c2c2c; font-size:85%">'''This article concerns content exclusive to [[World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade|The Burning Crusade]]''' [[Image:Bc_icon.gif]]{{clr}}</div>{{clr}}</div>

−

: Another revision of {{tlink|bc}} - ready to change? Note that when this change is made, some pages will need updating as it is intended to act as the top banner for that page. It is '''only''' to be used on major BC pages from now on, and is the only BC template that auto-categorises.

−

: For sections use {{tlink|bc-section}}:

−

: For sentences and minor headings, etc, use {{tlink|bc-inline}}.

−

: Having said the above, there is probably more changes to be made to the philosophy? E.g. continue to use the BC banner on all BC pages including items?{{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 13:07, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

::What about subzones and npcs that belong in BC-zones? Is it enough to put the tag on the zone, and thus surmise that everything in that zone also belongs in the expansion? I think most people will figure it out... :) --{{User:Varghedin/Sig}} 13:12, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: Indeed. I personally think that the most needed NPCs and items is the {{bc-inline}}, and no BC categorising. Pretty much everyone has BC, so there's no need to make a big deal out of the split. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 14:06, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Two things:

−

::::*i prefer your last revision on the [[Template_talk:Bc/content|BC content talk page]], with icons either side. I really feel that the there is no need for it to stay small, and it icons either side make it mover obvious at a quick glance. Otherwise you have to read across for the icon.

−

::::*As we've dicussed before, BC content that is accessable to player regardless of owning the expansion (most items) need not be marked. Zones, NPCs, Quests etc need to be marked either as completely existing in BC only with {{tlink|bc}} or sections containing information that only exists in BC {{tlink|bc-section}}. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:18, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::Definitly agreed about having the icons on both sides. I also kindof prefer the larger banner for the whole page header, but it's only a slight preference. --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 23:06, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Yard or Meter? ==

−

What is the unit of length used by British version of the game? Yard or meter? I am aware that French/German/Chinese/Korean versions of the game use meter instead. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 21:06, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:enGB is yards. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:20, 28 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: Sad, but true :( {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 04:40, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::I still hate those British for their stupidity in metrology! --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 05:25, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Eh? When does the game use lengths? --{{User:Varghedin/Sig}} 07:59, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::: Quite often actually.. most AOE spells use it to indicate the radius. and any ranged attacks show yards also. [http://www.thottbot.net/?sp=1725] {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 08:44, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: All British children have been taught exclusively in metric units for a while (and tbh, many couldn't tell you the length of a mile or yard). Most likely, enGB only uses yards because we use the same client as the US edition. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 09:31, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

I suggest we all go whine on the forums to create a Metric system in WoW, it alrdy exists. Then we will also get renames for the 70 Pound Catfish! (or whatever it is named) Well, at least I'm going to suggest it >.> --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 06:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

: It absolutely doesn't matter anyhow - as yards and meters are just used for the same length - in WoW 41 yards=41 meter.

−

: Pound is still 500 g. It's usual that use pounds to weigh food. However, meters are used at different times; for example, there are some quests in Nagrand who refer to "500 meters to the east", and no yards, even in the enGB version. Also, remember that the U.K. isn't the only country playing that version ;) --[[User talk:Tinkerer|T]][[User:Tinkerer|inker]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|er]] 07:37, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

Actually 1 pound is not 500g in england. 500g = 1 pound in the netherlands.

−

* 1 english "pound" actually appears to be 453.59 grams... "yes" those english are a silly lot... [http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/weight_conversion.php] {{User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 11:02, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

== Crit -> Crit Rating ==

−

Quite a few items still that show Crit% instead of Crit Rating, or hit % instead of hit rating.

−

just edited core hound tooth, kingsfall, and some others earlier. but still a lot to go. please keep an eye out for them ;) {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 08:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

== pet stats ==

−

[[Succubus]] [[Void walker]] etc. are these stats accurate anymore?

−

since hunters now give +bonusses to their pet based on their gear.. warlocks get this also? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 10:03, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Warlock pet's have always scaled with the level of the player, but not gear, don't beleive they recieved any similar changes as hunter's did. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:12, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: They have, Warlock pets do scale with Warlock's gear. This is btw very Favourable aswell, because a demonology lock, gets extra spelldmg, the more stats their pet has. So, it's kind of neat. (I went from 450 to nearly 600 spelldmg on patch 2.0.3, simply due to this change) --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 10:22, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

== ParserFunctions ==

−

Why isn't this server using [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions ParserFunctions] ([http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions_patch mediawiki link])? I am raising this question because all of the conditional templates are implemented using template syntax. Parser Functions are implemented using PHP, which should be robust than template processor. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 19:01, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Personally, no matter how much i might complain, i enjoy restrictive languages, so even with all of failings of the Wiki markup, i like using it, and the lack of parser functions is part of that. Throw them in, and and it's more chaos for a while, may eventually be for the better ofc.

−

:I raied this question before, but can't honestly remember the answer or who it was from. Definitely something about the server setup and config preventing it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:37, 29 January 2007 (EST)

−

== wiki error ==

−

this is getting pretty annoyingly frequent :

−

[[Image:Wikierror.png]]

−

{{clr}}. is this all related to the template conversions? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 04:46, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Admitting you have a problem is the first step... {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 05:02, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:: I am quite sure it is a template problem. It occurs almost every time someone changes a big template. It also happens often when my bot is converting a page to use a big template. The problem is less rampant when my bot is converting a page to use a small template or just doing simple text editing. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 05:12, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: This makes it very hard to use WoWwiki. I've had to start going to different sites, because to many pages are broken by this. This needs to get fixed, should be one of the top prioritys imo. {{User:Fusk/sig}}

−

::I'm not completely sure it's linked to template changes alone; my Internet comes off and on (I have Comcast too...), and it's usually decides to kaput when that error pops up. I don't know if it is coincidence, but I suspect there to be a correlation.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 17:07, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

I thought of something when I was at swimming that has to do with templates, and it might help solve the issue if that is what is causing it: Why aren't they locked after we're certain all the syntax and such is correct and it's a usable template? If someone needs to edit them, they can post on the talk page about it. A template (LOL!) should probably be posted at the top saying that if you want to edit the template, you need to post on the discussion page.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 22:51, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Locking would make no difference. The wiki is in an ever evolving state, those changes, big or small, would still have to be made, and i honestly hate the locking of articles, as exludes all users except a selec few from editing it, slowing down the process, and slowing down progress. Right now, many things are getting reviewed and changed, {{tlink|tooltip}} for example, was so needed, it didn't get a full test work out. Despite it's use is now in full swing, there are still several changes and corrections to be made to it, and likely some major changes needed to be made to it in the immediate future as new policies and practices come into play. If it was locked down, it's improvement's would be going at a much slower pace (namely as i personally couldn't edit it as often as needed), and harm the wiki through limitation because of it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 23:00, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:You do bring up the point about not liking locks; how do you feel about the template that has started circulating around [http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] that says "no new or unlogged in users will be able to edit this article?" You touch on your answer briefly, and I was wondering more than anything.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:32, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Oh no, I can't edit the page as much as possible regardless of the consequences for other users! Apocalypse is approaching! {{User:Jeoh/Signature}}

−

:::Well done Jeonh, you missed the point about the edit would still need to take place irregarless so the consequences will always occur. Too busy being a sarcastic arsehole huh? ¬_¬ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:44, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

::I think unregistered users (and those unlogged), should never be able to edit. If you don't have the time or balls to register your name and provide details, your contribution is probably not worth it, or you're up to no good anyways. That's one of the places where wowwiki does a good job. I do not care for wikipedia as a contributer, as i see far too much wrong, and no way to easily or timely change it (or prose changes) myself, so i don't really care what they do it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:44, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

: I'm also having the problem, but it looks different. http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/9812/wowwikimessedupty0.png Im logged in too.(or atleast I was... I came back to write this and I was logged in). Not to metion the gold ads... lol --[[User:Colinstu|Colinstu]] 01:01, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

TBH this is getting pretty frequent, and i never had the issue until like a few months ago. shouldn't there be a seperate server / background process that takes care of these updates, so that the main server can still supply pages normally? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 06:17, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

== Stop the signing and discussing please ==

−

Especially on boss and instance (and at that, especially TBC) articles, people often sign their strategy with theit signature, and put a lot of tactics up which are just a little different; referring to it as "this is how we did it". Please stop that. We need one clear tactic, and no discussion of it in the article itself - that's where talk pages are for.

−

--[[User talk:Tinkerer|T]][[User:Tinkerer|inker]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|er]] 07:43, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Agree. This shouldn't stop at just instance pages. While we are at it, we should delete all the "Documentation by" tags from API pages, rename those 10 million worship Iriel pages, and tell Zeal to stop putting "Zeal template" and "Author" in templates. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 12:20, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::How about no? There's a good reason and justification for it on template articles. Templates have no neutrality or perspective issues. The author lists is there for people to have quick access as to who to seek imediate help from when having issues with the template, as those people, who have made major contributions to the template, are best qualified to help with it. As to the category, that harms no one, and is used so i can keep track of the templates i've had a major hand in working on, and users can see other templates that may be relevent to them. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:36, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::Let me just list it, easier:

−

:::# That is what the history page is for. In fact, history page is even better, it tells the reader how long ago the contributions were done and who the latest maintainer is.

−

:::# There is a better way to keep track your own templates, it is called a user page.

−

:::# Where do you draw the line for "major contribution"?

−

:::# "Immediate help" concept becomes a meaningless when the listed author become inactive.

−

:::# The list becomes meaningless when it accumulates more than a few names. (gee, whom of the 15 authors should i contact?)

−

:::# The same idea gives legitimacy to all other forms of non-talk-page name signing. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 13:23, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::#No, the history page is not for that, and fails at achieving the same thing

−

::::#No, there is no better way, please explain.

−

::::#That's quite easy. Major = full redsigns, reformats, documentation, code changes etc. Minor = spelling, colour change, bug fixes etc, major contributions that are no longer in use.

−

::::#So you would rather i discredit an author who may become active again?

−

::::#I can't think of such a case, everytime you make a major revision, you're likely to drop off an author of soemthing that's no longer used.

−

::::#No, it doesn't, not at all.

−

::::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:38, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::#You have not demonstrated how history pages fail to tell visitors who the contributors were.

−

:::::#To use userpage for your own maintenance, simply create a list of links to your templates on a user page. It is superior than a category, because adding and removing items from this list doesn't involve crashing the server.

−

:::::#Authorship line failed to take into account other contributions to a template, such as testing and deployment. By the concept of crediting authors, authorship line fails to both credit those involved in testing/deployment and fails to tell who is responsible for testing/deployment.

−

:::::#I don't approve crediting authors on a wiki article in the first place, so the concept of discrediting does not apply.

−

:::::#All right, that's good method.

−

:::::#You have not demonstrated why it does not legitimatize other forms of signing. Saying "no" doesn't prove a case. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 14:27, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::::#Because the issue is not about contributers, it's about Authors. Contributers != authors, Author = Contrbuters. The history is a slower means, and does not show who it is that can actually help you.

−

::::::#No, that's not superior. It is very easy to loose track of templates that way, and lacks a navigational use for me and users alike.

−

::::::#Those people are credited, unless you have a different concept of testing/deployment. Exaplin.

−

::::::#It was applicable to your statement, there is nothing wrong with this is the point if you missed it.

−

::::::#Of course...

−

::::::#The onus is on you here, i can't refute an argument that has not even been made, has no basis, and has no been explained.

−

:::::::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::::::#Listing authors creates a convenience for visitors, however, history is better maintained, shows all authors, not just those who signed their name, and it shows recency of the edits. When all factors weighted together, it is better, less biased, and more comprehensive than listing authors on template page. (See premise 3 for contributor vs author)

−

:::::::#I respect your preference in using category instead of list for navigation, but putting an user category on public page for personal navigation is like graffiting public street so that you know how to get to places.

−

:::::::#The list currently states "Author" and only lists authors. It seems we both agree that if the list exists, it should list both authors and other contributors. Therefore, the list is inadequate in its current state.

−

:::::::#This premise is originally regarding the "immediate help" purpose you suggested by listing authors. If an author becomes inactive, he can no longer provide immediate help, so the list becomes meaningless for this purpose. You then brought up the point of discrediting. It is not directly related, but to your point, delisting would serve the purpose of updating the list, not discrediting author. My original premise is that it does not serve "immediate help" purpose because list is not expected to be updated based on user activity.

−

:::::::#(This premise is not contended assuming future editors making large edits sign their names and delist old authors)

−

:::::::#This premise assumes your perspective that listing authors on a template is overall beneficial. If this is the case, the same argument can be made regarding article pages. e.g. one might say "I contributed a lot on tactics for kill a boss, i should be listed on the article page like Zeal is listed on those template pages." --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]]

−

::::::::#Reread what i've said. It's not the same purpose, it does not fulfill the same needs. Bias is not an issue, the facts and proof are there, there is no argument for and against.

−

::::::::#As i said, it's not just for me. A self maintained list i would still link to (this is what i used to do) so there is no argument really. If you're suggesting i don't link to a list, then i consider that a wasted oppertunity to help users. I'd rather do it more discreately as a category. Either way, i can't keep them all maintained and i can't keep them all watched all the time. A category for them is needed so i ca get to them and check up on them at a moments notice. I swear i've already lost 1-2 i've forgotten about that were never added.

−

::::::::#No, we don't agree on that, i never said any such thing. I asked you to explain your definition of development/testing contributions.

−

::::::::#It still does serve that purpose, if you wish to say we remove authors based on their activity, something that is very hard to judge, then so be it. But i consider that a minefield i do not wish to walk through.

−

::::::::#There is only so much that can exist in a template, so only so many major edits can ever be done, and only so many authors would thus ever be listed.

−

::::::::#Articles are written from a neutral point of view are greatly adapted in small, yet major ways constantly. There is no authorship claims, as there can not be for such an article and in this case, the history does provide a better solution as what you really want is the full range of contributers, regardless of what you want. If you want immediate or expert help on the article, we already have teams of people who you can talk to and are documented to apply globally to the wiki. So no, i don't think the same arguement can be made.

−

--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

#I am not sure which sentence you want me to reread. My original premise is about history pages and you haven't mention much about history pages. If you are trying to demonstrate that they serve different purposes, you should just state what your understanding of those purposes are. My point in short, everything in the list of authors is already available on the history page.

−

#*Split: Since when is naming authors an unbiased issue? Unless you have an objective way of listing authors, you are always favoring one over the other. E.g. a template existed before, you gave it a makeover and only list your name, you failed to credit the person who created the template before you because the original idea was theirs.

−

#If your category is designed for the ease of navigation of other users, are you saying they can't visit your userpage to see the same list if you had created a userpage instead of the current category? Also, I am not sure what you mean by you cannot keep track. There is this "Related changes" function which works on articles, templates, and categories.

−

#My def of listing '''deployment'''/testing contributions is "the bulk of deployment for {{tlink|loot}} was done by my bot; therefore, I demand that my name to be mentioned in {{tlink|loot}}." (This is a figure of speech, as I don't condone signing in the first place)

−

#My original premise is "'Immediate help' concept becomes a meaningless when the listed author become inactive." I have no clue how (quoting you) "it still does serve that purpose" after author become inactive.

−

#(This premise is not contended assuming future editors making large edits sign their names and delist old authors)

−

# So template pages are exempt from the wiki rules you mentioned? I failed to see how templates and articles are different from a policy standpoint. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 23:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:#"Because the issue is not about contributers, it's about Authors. Contributers != authors, Author = Contrbuters. The history is a slower means, and does not show who it is that can actually help you." Reread that... ¬_¬ History provides a log all all conributers, not simply those who have performed major changes and can actually help you.

−

:#* Yes, there is an easily objective way, i've already described what qualifies as a major edit and thus an author. In the example you've provided, both would be credited. I do consider the original author, namely the purpose who decided on the idea and it's use should always be credited. Authors who have made changes, but those changes have since been made redundant and are no longer used, or the descision was to move away from those changes, would no longer receive credit (which you've already said was a good method).

−

:#Do please explain "Related changes"? I can not keep track, maintaining a static list when templates are being moved, renamed, or i am working on several simualtaneously, it's not easily managable, yet simply addding categories when adding documentation is. A category is easier to navigatable than a static list irregardless, and doesn't force people to go to my user space.

−

:#In which case, no i don't feel such contributions warrant being listed as an author, a bot is a bot, you put something into practice that several others could have done, and even then, could have also been done manually by people in time. Sure it's appreciated and i'm thankfull, but it doesn't neccesarily mean you have anything in the way of contribution to the template itself, just it's usage. It shows that you are skilled with bots, put your bot to good use, and you understood the documentation well, nothing in regards to the actual template.

−

:#Simply for the fact that they may be active, and activity is near impossible to judge. If you want further emphasis on activity, and idea might be to switch the order, so the newest is listed first, ensuring results earlier as a user chooses along the list. As i said, it's a minefield i do not wish to touch, so listed all.

−

:#Well yeah, they would need to delist. The rest is assured through the nature of templates.

−

:#Of course, templates have no neutrality and point of view to speak of, they have no issues with being speculative of factual, and the majority of policies have no impact on them, as they're not articles. They're simply code with documentation. So yes, they're exempt from typical article rules imo.

−

:--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 00:09, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

::#History page does show how much you contributed, you can click on the "diff" link, and see exactly what the changes were. This bring us back to my previous statement "Listing authors creates a convenience for visitors, however, history is better maintained, shows all authors, not just those who signed their name, and it shows recency of the edits."

−

::#* The whole concept of "major edit" is a subjective measure. Given the fact that most of your templates are for function rather than content, it is even more difficult to measure. Given the wiki code, a person can double the size of a template, while only adding 1 function to the template. The author would likely think it is a major edit, since coding in wiki isn't easy. Others might disagree.

−

::#The topic of contention is about posting a user template on a public page. Discussion on alternative methods is not the topic of this argument. There is currently no policy against using user template on public page; however, I have brought up an analogy to real-life which demonstrates the problem behind it.

−

::#I am rather offended by your comment. It demonstrates your biasness towards direct template contribution and bot contribution.

−

::#You suggestion further proved the fact that keeping the author list useful for the purpose of "immediate help" creates a maintenance nightmare.

−

::#(Uncontested, kept for numbering)

−

::#There is a huge loophole in what you just said. A template can be both for function and content, and it can be included in a page with no effort. If NPOV policy doesn't apply to a template, I can simply create a template to foil the policy on normal articles. Since the difference between template and article is so minute from wiki stand point, it brings us to the original point that same logic/policy should be applied to both template and article. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 02:20, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::You're gunna have to settle for one word answers in some cases, and you're wrong, and i can onyl restate the above to prove it.

−

:::#Yes, and that creates immediate help how? That easily shows what is major at a glance how? that is easily understandable to use for all users how? No, history does not fill the same purpose, and does not have the same effectiveness.

−

:::#*It's objective plain and simple, you can argue all the cases you want. it's obvious when someone has contributeded a major role to the creation of the template.

−

:::#I do not follow wtf you're talking about here i'm afraid, nor did you answer my question.

−

:::#Be offended, it's the truth. If there was a medel for the things i listed, you'd get it. But the case here, is creation of the template, not it's deployment and testing, it's nothing to do with bias towards bots and i resent the suggestion it is.

−

:::#No, what you're asking to be done is a maintenance nightmare. I've already suggested a way around it or simply not doing it. You don't get an answer, you contact the next person. Immediate help is not the only concern, there's expertise too.

−

:::#(moo)

−

:::#A template should never be for content, something i hope to see wiped out. The difference is not minute, it is very clear cut. Wording of templates is not really an issue to which i credit myself or a template author, that's something for anyone and everyone to sort out, as it's not part of the templates functionality or design, nor is it specific to templates and thus help would be needed. We're talking about the template itself, not it's written content or media, those will always fall under policies and would never need to be authored in such a way.

−

:::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:31, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: Sorry, we've been discussing this for like 2 days, I really hate rereading everything to pickup my train of thought. Once I figure out how to I am gonna submit a policy proposal on this topic. Given the other's responses here, I think more people are gonna vote "no signing". --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 17:30, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

::::Meh, i could care less what others think, i'd imagine that's often clear :P I welcome democratic voting, it just feel democracy fails when people are uninformed, missinformed, or just plain stupid. People tend not to think so deeply into things to the point of insanity like me, heh. The outcome would determine what is done, not what i beleive. I think the discussion on this (the template authorship that is) can be ended for now until you decide to arrange that policy or an admin wishes to see it resolved futher. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 19:29, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

::I personally would also like to see less "signing" on articles and have to agree with Voidvector on the "Template Author" nonsense. There are different ways of making a name for yourself than plastering your name on every template you happen to touch. The history works just fine, if someone who is using the template can't figure it out from the source, the history, or the talk page, they can start a discussion. Labeling templates or articles as "mine" or "yours" is ridiculous in a Wiki community. The moment you upload source to the Wiki, it's no longer yours. If you want to make a repository of Wiki template code, do it on your own site or your own Wiki. This also makes it difficult for people to modify templates if you act like you own it. Not really fostering a community mentality there, is it? --{{User:Tusva/Sig}} 17:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::First of all, this has nothing to do with making a name for myself, i'm not here and i don't do things to gain popularity or respect, my attitude should reflect that more than enough. There no labelling as mine/yours, just simply those who have has major contributions to the template and can help you if you need further or immediate advice/help.

−

:::I know the policy on ownership of wiki content, i don't claim to own it, merely that i can help as i've had a major hand in creating it. Someone people are fairly wiki illiterate, not knowing the meaning and use of the history. Others may know what they want, but don't know about how to get it/do it, so they don't touch the template. I've never said "oi, don't touch that, it's my template", people have made changes to templates i've worked on, people have discussed changes i've later made in accordance. Asking on the talk page will get a reaction from me soon enough, as you know tusva. But adding something on my talk page is going to always get immediate attention and action when it's needed. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::On a side note, if there was a template team of some sorts, those who could provide coding help and help with all existing templates, then i wouldn't see a need for template authorship, it's negated. The help team doesn't really cover this from what i can see, nor should it imo, as it's a more specialized and active focus. So yeah, there's something to consider. Naturally i'd want to be on such a team >_>; --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 23:19, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

I just wanted to say that there shouldn't be as much random user names around articles, not start a flame war. This is a wiki, an article should provide as much information on a topic as possible, and otherwise link to a detailed article on a similar topic. This is not a forum. --[[User talk:Tinkerer|T]][[User:Tinkerer|inker]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|er]] 15:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

=== Signing ===

−

i think there are 2 issues here. can we split these up for "easier" reading, this thread is getting HUGE. !!!! {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:42, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

==== Signing Project pages ====

−

Simple, its annoying and needs to stop, i delete them whenever i see them, any boss tactics need to be minimized into 1 tactic that "works" {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:42, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

Touching on the original subject (I think), or rather, [[User:Voidvector|Void]]'s first reply, I have to say that ''most'' articles shouldn't have a signature; not all though. I have to point to [[Server:Shadowmoon US|Shadowmoon US]] as an example of one that should have them; as I am the primary maintainer of the server page, I'd not like people to screw around with the page in a malicious matter. My sig is there just for the reminder that I ''do'' check it every day to make sure the article deserves to remain an article (not many others have touched it, but that's another story I believe).--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:01, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Well i don't agree with that. You do not need to mark that you watch it, nor that it is something you contribute to often and majorly. That in no way benefits the readers, and in fact misleads them into thinking the article is completely written by you and from your perspective (be it neutral or w/e). I've been the main (i think only too) contributer of [[Timeline (unofficial)]], but there is no sense in me applying my signature there, nor do i wish to. I want others to be contributing to it, and adding my signature would deter them from it, in beleif it is written as a peice of my work. I don't want them actively seeking me out on advice or questions, though i'm happy to offer my thoughts on the talk page just like any article. Of course i watch it, and of course i will continue to maintain it, but i would never dream of putting my signature on it, even if i am proud of it.--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 23:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Pretty much the only places where it's a no-no to mess with someone else's work is the User: space and someone's post on a talk page. Other than that, it's rather rude to mark something with a signature, since it discourage people from editing and basically declares it "your page." Nothing wrong with being the primary maintainer (I pay a lot of attention to the edits my server page gets), but there's always room for someone else's contributions on a wiki. A signature detracts from that. {{User:Montag/sig}} 00:44, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

Part of it is for simple identification: many people do not know what the History button leads to, nor do they use it (I didn't for a long time!). And I just realized that particular note isn't on the Wiki. ;P. Ah well.

−

I do have a question for you, however. How can you know that adding a signature will deter anyone from changing the article? I realize that the talk page is where a signature should be, and most will be there... Eh. Now I'm not making sense to myself. ;(.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:27, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:People don't know it's significance, you assume they would. The most logical conclusion of someone signing something is that they have said everything prior, it is their pov, and it's their work. Thus is would deter them from editing it, and possibly mark it for deletion. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 19:29, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

The only deviation i could see, is signing a page that's under construction. sometimes you start a pretty BIG page, and it can be destructive, or just plain annoying if somebody starts editing a page before you're "done" with a version that's ready for public editing. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 05:43, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

: Just had a fancy idea [[Template:Construction]], ofcourse the template needs some work. but you get the idea. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 06:12, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

:Er.. i do, and i would suggest overs do, develop pages with show preview and do not submit until done. If there are wiki limitations that require submitting to test (ie templates), then i develop in my sandbox and do not move it to public space until it's ready to be looked at and edited by everyone. I see no reason to personally develop pages in public space, so no reason for such a header or signing. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 11:58, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

==== Signing templates ====

−

Tbh, i dont see why anyone would sign a template.. i agree the history page shows who did anything, and in the comment part you can descript what you did. any discussion whether improvements are needed at all, or preview before commiting can also be put on the talk page {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:42, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

== WHAT MAKES A GOOD GUILD? ==

−

My two friends and myself have recently started a new guild: "Das Doom". This is our first guild that we have created. I am trying to get as much feedback as possible to make our guild fun and beneficial to be in. We have started a Ventrilo server, and have made a guild tabard that all guild members agreed on. We are looking to form our guild so that players can obtain good armor and weapons, can level quickly, and we are really wanting to be able to do raids. If you have suggestions on how we can better obtain this goal...please let me know via WoW:Soullswipper- Doomhammer, email:jl.hunt@yahoo.com, or this discussion board.

−

:Bring treats to raids. {{User:Fusk/sig}}14:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:#Hit 40.

−

:#Make sure everyone connects at least once every two days.

−

:#Avoid having IRL friends in your guild.

−

:#Try to get a TeamSpeak server.

−

:#If you reach 20 members, create a forum. If you get 30, create a blog. If you get more than 40, create a website.--[[User:Kirochi|'''K''' ''')''']] ([[User talk:Kirochi|talk]]) 15:46, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

Basically, you need to satisfy as many people as you possibly can. It's tough work. There are 5 major focuses for a guild: casual, raid, PvP, RP, and leveling. Leveling guilds most exist on new servers. RP guilds mostly exist on RP realms. While a guild can focus on any one of those, in order for it to be Good™, it needs to focus on raid because 1) it's hard for a player to PuG a raid, 2) raid is where the best equipments are. A player in a raiding guild can easily PuG casual and PvP content, but the reverse is far more difficult.

−

: Either get / construct a tight group of hardcore player (high attendance), or create a LARGE group of people, and always invite the ones who show up the most "first", eventually this will lead to a guild split however.. as we did :) {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:30, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

For organization, try to make sure your core group is self sufficient (healers + tanks), so you can always PuG if people don't show up. Also you need someone with experience to be raid leader who will organize raids and give instructions. Unless you are the leading guild on the server, minimize wipes at all cost (even if it involves stop and continue the next day), because a lot of people won't put up with wiping in MC if they can find a better guild. Unless you are the leading guild on the server, don't force people to do stuff (e.g. force someone to respec, force someone to heal if they indicated their discontent), because a lot of people won't put up with it. Don't let personality get in the way of guild progress (e.g. prevent disputes). --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:58, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

Take a look at the official Guild Relations forum. There are a number of guides there to help you, in particular Wytch's "So You Want to Be a Guild Leader." --[[User:Anaea|Anaea]] 10:10, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

== Gear lists ==

−

[[User:CrazyJack|CJ]] and I have been discussing on how to overhaul the list of resistance pages. He has already asked for comments at [[Template talk:Resistlinks|Resistlinks]] (and I have gladly obliged!). However, I came across [[Tanking equipment (Paladin)]] and though, "Wow, looks a lot like the resistance pages do." Quite naturally, I suspect that this is how the majority of such list pages look like (I don't think loot pages look quite like this, but are similar). I'm looking for comment here, because most of those articles need attention desperately, and I don't want to go about editing them when we could be using a template of some sort to make my/our lives easier.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 17:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

An idea for the template might be <nowiki>{{value (for resist items)|quality|itemname|area/profession|mob/level (of profession)|class}}</nowiki>. Just an idea, though. As I don't know how to write the template...--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 17:10, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Because this so closely follows with recent discussions on item standards (and the future possible inclusion use), i'm inclinded to say hold out for what happens with that, as it will probably address such use and the validity of such use.

−

:I didn't really follow what was going on with the template design on the talk page :S --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:10, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::Hehe, that's because CJ was editing the original table, rather than throwing together a new table each time. What discussion? Just wanna' know what I'm missing. :)--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 22:48, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Policy/Item_Article_Standardization --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 22:55, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

:::: This article has more effect on individual item pages i think ? e.g. "mighty warhammer of ogre bashing", rather than specific lookup listings such as cloth fire resist, plate nature resist, [[Jewels]]. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:27, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

:I just moved that page ([[Tanking equipment (Paladin)]]) yesterday to its current position. Its original title was "tankadin" something. Now, both that page and the druid tanking gear page are under the same name scheme. I don't think this is relevant to the discussion, but hey, just want to bring it up. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 23:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

::I'm fairly certain you did that right before I went to edit it; ;P. I random paged it, and then there it was in the recent changes log little after.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:52, 30 January 2007 (EST)

−

i'm working on a "method" to make table rows more easy. [[Talk:Hunter_weapon]], the method should be useable for the resistance gear lists as well.

−

: 1 thing at a time though, obviously.

−

: i think that 1 template could probably be used for all those tabled... 1 thing is for sure though the table row colors need to be standardized. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

== upper ==

−

[[Template:Upper]] : Generally "upper" is used in programming to ensure words are made into upper case letters, to make tests more simple. instead of having to test both upper and lower case variants.. would such a template be possible to make in the wiki? Reason i ask is because [[Template:Loot]] uses "Epic", so anything like EPIC, epic, ePiC will not give the expected results. while if the test was done with an "upper(epic) == EPIC" there would only need to be 1 test done to yield the expected result, no matter how its written on the calling page. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:20, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

: Yo could probably use <code>text-transform: uppercase;</code> CSS here. {{User:Montag/sig}} 10:14, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

::The CSS only changes the display of the text after the page is loaded, not the value of it before, so it would have no effect in the code. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:05, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

==Template help==

−

ok what [[WoWWiki:Sandbox/43]] am i doing wrong.... {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 15:15, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

:I had already told you not to use the method you tried.. I've fixed it. Though i've discovered i need to do some sandbox tests with loot as it's having trouble with null values when it shouldn't --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:48, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

: never hurts to experiment :P

−

: cheers for the fix tho. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 16:47, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

== wow account help ==

−

−

does anyone know what to do if you cancelled a wow account and need to get it back?if anyone can answer i would be very greatful.

−

--[[User:Valcarass|Valcarass]] 19:03, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

:Some things to try (assuming you are in the US):

−

:* You could start by visiting [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=abl01033p Recovering Your Password or Account Name] at the [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/ WoW Billing area] of the [[Blizz]]ard support site. This will at least give you some ideas about how to contact Blizzard and what info you might need to get your account back.

−

:* There is also [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=abl01034p Reactivating Your Account].

−

:* ...and [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=abl01922p Contacting Billing and Account Services].

−

:--[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] ([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]]) 5:28 PM PST 31 Jan 2007

−

:: Grr, if you still have your username and password, you can just log onto account management and type in your credit card/payment info, then the account would be activated immediately. You can still log in to account management after you canceled the account. I know cause I tried to quit many times =). --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 21:40, 31 January 2007 (EST)

−

::: Wowcaholics anonymous, man. We all know that page. [[Image:Icon-player.png]] {{User:Montag/sig}} 00:33, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

== Manual of Style ==

−

I think the [[WoWWiki:Manual of Style]] is ready for some review and voting once people have looked it over. {{User:Montag/sig}} 00:51, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

== How to signal a page that needs update ? ==

−

Often I read articles/pages and see some information is old, pre-BC most of the time, for example it refers to %hit while we now use score, or it claims Swipe is on 1.75 multiplier etc. I don't always have the time to fix it, but I wish to signal that this page needs fixing, at least for the next time I have sparetime for wowwiki, or for other people to check it out for me.

−

How best can I acheive that ?

−

--[[User:Gronyon|Gronyon]] 08:55, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

: [[Template:Cleanup]] ? i guess. though i think we should make a new template for it perhaps {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:03, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

: I Beleive there is {{tlink|ood}} you can use --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:09, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

== french stuff. ==

−

[[Tomato]] is a french page.. though this is an english wiki. anyone have thoughts on this? personally i'd prefer to see all pages in english, before there are even more non english pages created.. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:03, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

: It's a guildpage, can't really see the harm in it. It's kind of silly, that when you're cretaing a swedish only guild, per example, that you start recruiting people in another language. Highly inapropriate towards those who do not understand it, ofcourse, but you will attract only those that you want to attract. --[[User:Patrigan|'''Patrigan''']] - [[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]] - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 10:31, 1 February 2007 (EST)

−

:: I'm on it. I'm getting rather pissed off at'em since there's a French Warcraft wiki already.--[[User:Kirochi|'''K''' ''')''']] ([[User talk:Kirochi|talk]]) 11:15, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Wowpedia

Talk: Village pump

Revision as of 17:46, 1 February 2007

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{tocright}}
+{{You have been owned}}
-{{WoWWiki:Village pump/Please leave this line as it is thanks}}
-<!-- Please either start a new discussion with the link on the article -->
-<!-- or add a post to a new one with the corresponding [edit] button -->
-<!-- Actually, you shouldn't be seeing this at all - please click the 'Project Page' button/tab above! :-) -->
-<div style="color: white; font-size: x-large; width: 100%; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;">Current Discussions</div>
-== Getting rid of ugly templates ==
-What do you folks think, is there anyone who agrees that templates like {{tl|BC}} and {{tl|TCGlore}} should go? In my honest opinion, these templates just clutter up the pages and, subsequently, make them uglier. Just a handwritten small note ("this is TCG-Lore" or "This item is not obtainable if the player does not own the Burning Crusade") in the lead section of the article would do. Why do we need big templates like that that screw the pages' layout immensely? I don't see the point in this overdone fanciness. '''[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]][[User:Apollozeus|<span style="color:#FFDF21;">''APΘLLΘ''</span>]][[User talk:Apollozeus|<span style="color:#FDAE16;"><sup>(ZEUS)</sup></span>]]''' 15:45, 17 January 2007 (EST)
-:I don't mind the TCG-lore one (maybe the picture could be a little smaller, though), but I definately think the BC one gets a little annoying, especially since so many pages that have it also have a BC-stub template AND another stub template, meaning you have to scroll down quite a bit just to see the first line of the article. However, I don't think removing it is an option. Just make it smaller, or better yet, move it up by the title of the page, like the links to Wikipedia or the non-english pages. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 15:50, 17 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Oh, Mikaka, such a sound voice of reason, exactly the sentiment I was planning to express. There's nothing wrong with the templates (or "badges" as I like to refer to them as) if they convey the necessary information. But there ''is'' something to be said of ones that just look ugly and take up space and what not. Although I haven't figured it out yet, I was thinking maybe pages could have actual badges or miniature icons linked to pages that explain what the icon means. Sort of like a key or legend. This is lore. This is Burning Crusade. This needs a screenshot. Something still visual, but infinitely more ninja than what we have now.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;color:#33ffbb">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaffaa">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff99">contr</span>]])</small> 17:22, 17 January 2007 (EST)
-:::They do take up a bit too much real estate.  Personally, I'd like all the stub templates shrunk too, but have the icon replaced with a bright red, cringe-inducing, stubbed toe.  However, I'm no good with graphics. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 17:34, 17 January 2007 (EST)
-Ideas to steal from Wikipedia: Wikipedia stub tags are placed on the bottom of the page instead of top of the page. In addition, Wikipedia stubs are all 1-line of text with a small icon. See [[Wikipedia:Template:Warcraft-stub]]. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 21:54, 17 January 2007 (EST)
-: Categories would probably work as well. if needed.  but i agree the BIG tags at the top of each page need to go {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 02:43, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:They need to go, they were always a bad idea. These things are what references are for, and that should have been the practice all along. Source headings and notes are never needed. Under my own proposal, this would be handled by categories and references, but for now references are certainly the better option --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 02:51, 18 January 2007 (EST).
-:I agree that stub tags should be placed at the bottom of the page, especially since stubs will never be too long and the tag will be visible anyway. Things that warn users about text in the upcoming article (BC tag, TCG tag, etc.) belong at the top of the page; things that explain the attributes of the article itself belong at the bottom of the page. --<span style="background-color: #222222; border: 1px solid #3f3f3f; padding: 1px 3px 4px;">[[User:Qhiiyr|<span style="color: #00CF09; font-family: trebuchet ms; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold;">qhiiyr</span>]] | <span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 9px;">([[User_talk:Qhiiyr|<span style="color: #77BF81;">talk</span>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Qhiiyr|<span style="color: #B5DFBB;">contr</span>]])</span></span>&nbsp; 11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:: I vote for single-line with an icon, placed relative to importance (stubs are not important, at the bottom... TBC is important, at the top).  For example, TBC could look like this:  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::{| style="{{CSS Darktable}}"
-|-
-| {{bc-inline}} This content may not be available to players without [[World_of_Warcraft:_The_Burning_Crusade|The Burning Crusade]] installed.
-|}
-:::I like it! Can we do that to all the templates (stub and notes)?! :D --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::IMO, that works ''perfect''. I'm all for using that in place of the old one. --<span style="background-color: #222222; border: 1px solid #3f3f3f; padding: 1px 3px 4px;">[[User:Qhiiyr|<span style="color: #00CF09; font-family: trebuchet ms; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold;">qhiiyr</span>]] | <span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 9px;">([[User_talk:Qhiiyr|<span style="color: #77BF81;">talk</span>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Qhiiyr|<span style="color: #B5DFBB;">contr</span>]])</span></span>&nbsp; 11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::Switch to a div and i like it :P Also try this..
-{{User:Zeal/Sandbox/Templates/i-bc}}
-:::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 03:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: I like the first design - nice and clear. Stubs can't really be reduced as we need to be specific about their purpose and use for the general users. I think I agree that the stub tag should be at the bottom of a page, however. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 09:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: Or what about simply making a [[:Category:Exclusive TBC content]]? '''[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]][[User:Apollozeus|<span style="color:#FFDF21;">''APΘLLΘ''</span>]][[User talk:Apollozeus|<span style="color:#FDAE16;"><sup>(ZEUS)</sup></span>]]''' 10:01, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: If the stub tag gets moved to the bottom, then section-stubbing needs to be adjusted. Otherwise, it won't be clear if the tag was intended for the whole article, or just the final section.  You might get: "section1 stub/A section2 stub/B" Does stub/B apply to the whole article or just section2? --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 10:09, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: Beep raises a really good point to consider before making any changes.  Sometimes you want to stub/BC the while article, sometimes you just want to mark a section of it. If we change the templates to automatically put themselves on the top/bottom of the page, then we lose the ability to mark individual sections.  If we move them to the bottom of the page, it may be unclear if the final section has a stub, or if it applies to the whole page.
-::::: I'd personally prefer to keep stub notes near the top of the page, but I wouldn't object to making them smaller and/or making some combined stub template which can compact the space needed. One graphic, one grey bar for the whole thing, text which says something like "This article has been marked as a BC stub and a quest stub. Here's info on BC, here's info on quests."  Alternatively, we can make it policy to only put one stub (the most applicable) on any given page. After all, anything that's an item stub won't be a NPC stub, a Quest stub, or a location stub, but it may end up with an accuracy stub (Why? It's already a stub in need of revision) or a BC stub (Why? We already know it's a stub, and it '''should''' already be marked as BC with whatever indicator we're using for that), etc. Really, I'd suggest taking anything which is not truly a ''Stub'' (At the moment, that's just {{tlink|Stub/Accuracy}} and {{tlink|Stub/BC}}) and moving it out of the stub group.  Then there won't be any question of which '''single''' stub is applicable to the page. --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 10:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: No inline template should ever categorize, stubs and pratically everything else already do that, screwing things up as you've described. Why i'm trying to push the use of correctly implemented inline and article templates, so they not only appear different for users, but follow some sensible guidelines --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:22, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::: As I recall, on Wikipedia, stub strictly refers to articles. If a sections needs to be expanded, there is the [[Wikipedia:Template:Expand|Template:Expand]]. Obviously, we need stub tags to encourage visitors to edit the article. But the stub tags we have now are larger than many of the article themselves. On some of the longer articles, we have issue w/"template real estate". We can only stack so many templates together before ruining the page layout. The whole issue is balancing between having good layout and asking people to contribute. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 11:08, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::: Good layout.. lol that gave me a chuckle. Long way away from that sadly (Seriously, kill off WoWBox ¬_¬) Oh, and yeah.. Stub and Expand co-existing together, as article and inline templates respecitvely makes good sense. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 11:11, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::::: The problem with a single expand template is that it's nice to specify what kind of expansion is needed.  Does it need info on quests? Does it need info on loot? Does it need info on NPCs in the area?  Sure, it's usually obvious from context, but when you're browsing the stuff-to-do pages, it won't be.  Of course, we could then just come up with Expand/Quest, Expand/Item, Expand/NPC...  --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 20:09, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-::: I prefer the first one, also. And I'm definitely for making it a div for better quality code. {{User:Montag/sig}} 23:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-So does someone want to go ahead and make the above template replacement? --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:14, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-:Already being arranged. [[Template_talk:Bc/content#New_templates|BC Template Talk->New templates]] --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 16:22, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-== Gallery background is gross.... ==
-As evidenced by [[Mok'Nathal Village]] and the various image categories (like [http://www.wowwiki.com/Category:WoW_Icons:_Inventory WoW_Icons:_Inventory]), the <nowiki> <gallery></nowiki> function has an eye sore of a background that doesn't fit in at all with the rest of Wowwiki. I'm not sure who exactly can change this, but hopefully someone who can will agree with me and get this done. I would suggest a lighter or darker shade of the background grey prevalent throughout the rest of Wowwiki. Not the most pressing of issues, of course, but it would make a useful function much better. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 18:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)
-: /poke Rustak... CSS?  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-== Embedding Item tooltips on the Pages with the Mobs they drop off ==
-Ok, long title, shorter question. What's with all the embedding of tooltips into articles about boss mobs (e.g. [[Vazruden]])? It appears to be a newer thing occurring, since mobs like [[Ragnaros]] don't use that template.<br>
-I can understand the usage in a page such as [[Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards]], but still... --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:05, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:Having all the info on the page makes it much easier to see what exactly the boss drops. A name is just a bunch of words if it doesn't have any meaning behind it. In Warcraft, items get that meaning from the stats on that item. So, to get a better idea of what a boss drops, it makes sense to include those stats on the boss' page.
-:Unfortunately, the method we currently use to do this doesn't work very well for bosses with a great deal of loot, like raid bosses. It also doesn't look particularly good when it gets out to 5 different items or so. If someone could come up with a better method, I'm all for it, but I think what we have now works much better then a simple list of items. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 00:21, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-I can't say I agree with that opinion. Hmm... how about a simple list with the type of item it is? eg {{llegendary|Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker}} - 1h [[Sword]], or {{lepic|Netherwind Robes}} - [[Mage]] [[Tier 2]] Chest? That way, the peruser gets an idea of the item without being bothered by all the various other items he might not need to see.<br>
-I raise this because of the fact that adding the full tooltip into the main article's page lengthens it considerably, even when you only have 1 or 2 on the list.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:40, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:Actually, I kinda like that. One of the problems with using the embedded tooltips is that they don't convey drop percentage at all, and all that info isn't really necasary for a summary. I suggest that we create some sort of item template that includes the icon, name, quality, type of weapon or armor, and a drop percentage (optional, so we can use it for quests too), with room to note any other minor details like class or tier. Embedded tooltips have their place, but I agree that maybe the boss that drops them isn't it. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 01:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-It is possible from a development stand point to create a javascript that would automatically load another page (or portion of it) in wiki. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups]] for an example. However, as far as I know WoWWiki disabled javascript. This would allow people who wish to know the stats of an item to see it without going to another page. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 02:17, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:Javascript tooltips are being worked on for the future, teomyr has made great success with them and using them with an item database. Me personally, i'm with Sky on the matter (really don't need this information in an non-item page statically), but if people so wish to include tooltips in a non-item page, then you can use {{tlink|tooltip}}. It will automatically scale down and drop non-default information when not used on the item's page. I'd gladly add drop percentages in the future, but the drop percentages from item db sites are inaccurate and only based on the info they've received, so i will not personally add them until we have our own database to gather drop rates ourselves. Drop rates are generally deceiving anyways. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 02:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:: I'm half of the mind of not worrying about it until the javascript can be implemented, frankly.  My idea liste would look limilar to a vendor pane, with hover-tooltips.  Maybe show the droprate instead of price on mob drops in the second row. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::Hmm... I like that idea. We just have to have someone make the template...--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:27, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: And get the javascript installed ^^ {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::Actually, as an interim, couldn't we use boxes like you described as general links to the items, and then when the javascript gets installed, convert it to {{lepic|Netherwind Robes}} like in in-game text? Hover over it, and you get it to pop up; click on it, and that takes you to the page.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:48, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::I'm for not using the tooltip at all, except on an item's page, until we get the javascript tooltips ready. Seems like more work to add them and then remove them again later, and also maintain them in the meanwhile, just for the sake of a user clicking a link to get the same info and more. But i have made {{tlink|tooltip}} available to be used outside an item's page incase people feel otherwise. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 04:03, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: I think he means can we use the vendor-style boxes, sans-tooltip.  I'm for that, take a look at [[Quartermaster Davian Vaclav]], it's what I envision, just needs prettied up a tad.  Mob drops could get a "fuzzy" droprate (see below) instead of a price in the second line. {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 07:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::Yes, that is what I meant, and I was going to post something else, but I just argued myself out of it...--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 22:12, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Yeah, the vendor thing was kinda what I was envisioning, with maybe a very brief summary of the item, i.e., one-hand sword, plate helmet, etc. We could put three drop rates down, one for Thottbot, one for Allakazam, and one for Wowhead, but that'd probably just get confusing. Averaging out the three drop rates also doesn't make a lot of sense, so the fuzzy drop rates looks like the best, with a 0-1% Rare category included. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 23:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::Well let me just say i dislike tekkub's implementation of this. But i also dislike the idea period. Drop tables and vendor windows really aren't something i ever want to see on an NPC page, they're static, they need to be maintained seperately (Though Tekkeub is using a method to work around this, its a horrible method imo). It's why i proposed them as categories to express relationship. Anyways, to save room (would have been nice to use all real estate of the window, but css for dynamic content sucks as always), take a look at something simpler [[User:Zeal/Sandbox/Templates/vendorsheet|here]].. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 03:24, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-::::I have to say that adding a scrollbar works wonders. However, is is possible that you could make the box a little taller?--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:28, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: Scrolling frame certainly helps, but can you please fit as many items wide as will fit on the user's screen?  I have a nice widescreen monitor, I'd much prefer a wide layout over a tall single-column one :)  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 09:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::: I like the scrolling frame idea, in the sense that it helps for keeping really big vendor/drop lists nice to look at. however, the frame must be taller than the current example. Also 2 next to eachother is also a must in my oppinion. Downside is that it's making comparing a whole lot harder, or a good list of what he sells/ drops isn't there either, because it's a scrolling thingy, only allowing you to see 1-2. Really, NOT favourable on bosspages, because as a GL/RL you want to have a clear and good list, where you don't have to go scrolling like a madman. For a normal player, looking there with lots of time, it's fine, but I as a GL would prefer to avoid the wiki at all costs then, as it just doesn't suit my needs. So you are excluding a group from the wiki, while the other possibility, does not exclude people.
-:::::: A possible workaround, but probably hard to implement is the option o show the full frame or just the scroll frame (like with a +/- or an up and down arrow in the top right corner). This is the most preferable solution. (oh and I dislike the scrollbar colors for the wiki >.>) --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 11:17, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::::I really wanted to have the icons fill horizontally as floats, but naturally css is utter shite for anything dynamic as always. I refuse to except a 2 column design as it's an awful waste of space. I've increased the containers to be 2x item height. A scrollbar is actually better for comparing imo Pat, so i really don't follow your point. Either way, you're going to be scrolling a page. It's no different, and this way it doesn't effect the page for those who don't care about the drops, vendor items etc. yet those who do care can just as easily and quickly get what they want. Though i really don't want to see this stuff on an NPCs page period.. I want to see the individual info on the item's page only. ¬_¬ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 17:59, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-== Drop Percentages ==
-How about : Dropchance: Very low (0-5%), Low(6-34%) Average(35-75%), High(75-99%) Guaranteed(100%), instead of exact numbers {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 02:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:Because, when dealing with boss mobs, almost nothing as above a Low drop chance ;P. I could quote the hundred of pages of people whining about not having any [[Rejuvenating Gem]]s dropping for them... :P
-:And yes, I have to agree with Zeal on droprates. They can and are misleading, and they ''are'' to some extent inaccurate (great for ballpark figures... usually in the realm of 3/100!). --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 03:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-: Oh, I like this.  Maybe add "Rare (0-1%)" in there for things like the epic mounts or that "lightsabre" sword.  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 03:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-::I don't have an opinion on the tooltip embedding, but as for drop percentages, I'd say they're almost unmaintainable.  WoWWiki has a hard enough time keeping up with easily-verifiable facts.  Drop percentages are based on... aggregate data from external sites that have differing numbers based on which patch they reset their counters and which random sampling of people bothered to input data.--[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 08:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-* Guaranteed = quest item usually.
-* 0-1% for some legendaries
-* Low - medium - high. for the rest ? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:27, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-::How about Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High, Guaranteed. I'd have to say, 0-1% for Very Low, 1.01-5% for Low, 5.01-12% for Medium, 12.01-22% for High, 22.01-99.99% for Very High, and obviously, 100% for Guaranteed. It's a little better than the original numbers you suggested, since most items have a low chance of dropping.
-::Sound good?--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 21:00, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-::: Very High covers more than 3/4 of the range?  That doesn't seem very useful to me...  I'd split it into quarters, and add Rare and Guaranteed for the two endpoints. 0-2%, 2%-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75%-98%, 98-100%.  Hell why not use the color names as well, Legendary, Epic, Rare, Uncommon, Common, Guaranteed.  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 22:01, 20 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Almost nothing in WoW has >25% drop chance, unless you're dealing with quest items that are grinded out. And nobody needs to know the percentage of those, they just need to grind. That's why a graduated scale will fit it better.
-::::And definitely do ''not'' use the colors. Consider the two items {{llegendary|Eye of Sulfuras}} and {{lepic|Talisman of Ephemeral Power}}: both are reported as having an approximate 3% chance to drop... Both putting them in the Epic category. Or, better yet, {{llegendary|Splinter of Atiesh}}; that has a 20% drop rate at least. You can't use the colors.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 01:42, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: Agree, the colors do not signal the actual droprate. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 06:04, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-== Categories and Botting ==
-Ok, a little screwy. I was trying to use pywikipediabot to merge [[:Category:Paladin Spells]] into [[:Category:Paladin Abilities]]. However, I encountered problems, [[:Category:Paladin Spells]] is actually an inherited category of {{tlink|SpellFooter}} on some of the pages. What should I do about this? If I weren't supposed to merge the 2 categories or weren't supposed to bot, please do a rollback on my edits. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 17:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-: Ahh, I wouldn't worry about it too much... Just uhh, becareful of botting next time. It's like a double-edged sword. Very useful, and very dangerous.--'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;color:#33ffbb">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaffaa">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff99">contr</span>]])</small> 18:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)
-:: What the the standard category for abilities? is it "_(class)_ Abilities" or "_(class)_ Spells"? --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 06:59, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-::: I wouldn't worry about that either. I mean, I could briefly give you my take on it. Spells for casters and abilities for those without mana, but you might ask "what about hybrids and hunters!!!". I don't know. It is a mystery. --'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;color:#a3fe06">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ccff48">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff99">contr</span>]])</small> 14:08, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-::I would say Abilities would be easier to maintain; that way, you keep it standardized across all (spells are abilities, but not vice versa).--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 20:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)
-== Recent Changes: Talk All ==
-I would really love to see all the talk categories put into one readily accessible link in the recent changes window. That way I don't first have to check talk, then user talk, then category talk, then wowwiki talk, then template talk, just to see what's being discussed! --{{User:Varghedin/Sig}} 06:14, 20 January 2007 (EST)
-== Corrupt image ==
-I just marked a junk image for speedy delete, but it's screwing up the rendering of [[:Category:Articles for speedy deletion]] on my Firefox v2.  Here's a link to the file's history if that helps in destroying it [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Image:Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooongcat.JPG&action=history] --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 10:57, 20 January 2007 (EST)
-: Taken care of. Thanks for letting us know.--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 18:12, 20 January 2007 (EST)
-== Don't you just HATE it when you can't figure out a quest??? ==
-I'm undead, and I was doing Ulag the Cleaver, but I can't find him! It says he's in a mausoleom or something, but the only mausoleum I could find had only 1 door, and then a dead end!
-The quest log should be WAAAAY more specific, and it should bring up the map to show where to go for the quest...
-: Those are all things we're working on, but seeing we don't have automated ingame trackers (yet), like allakhazam and Thottbot, it all goes a bit slower. However, you can help out by posting the coordinates of the person once you find him! --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 06:52, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-: Feel free to take screenshots of the map and create guides for any quest or post the coordinates of important mobs, items or objects. However, at the moment, we do not have automated trackers. {{User:Montag/sig}} 23:56, 21 January 2007 (EST)
-== Server Issue with Templates ==
-It seems to me that whenever someone changes a template transcluded by a large number of pages, the server screws up for like a minute. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 10:35, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-: Yup, in that time it is updating all the pages that use that template. Fun, innit :) {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 10:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-:: i'm getting some odd error lately : "wowwiki has a problem", hidden behind the front page.. instead of loading another page. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 11:00, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-:::That's the server choking on the questlong change that Voidvector just made. :P --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 11:03, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: Yep. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 11:05, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-: Honestly, I think this is a deficiency in the engine... Why should editing one template bring down the entire site? Poor engineering, I think. I hope they come up with a better mechanism for updating pages, instead of saying one edit is equal to a thousand edits...--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em .3em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 17:31, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-::If i'm not mistaken, the wiki caches pages including the template outcome, rather than simply retriving the cache for the template and displaying the outcome on the fly. Currently, it means if you edit a template, everypage using it has to recache because the template outcome could have changed. If they did it the latter way, it just means more overhead (which is rather small) on page load, but no impact to editing. So it would only be a slightly slower load per page at all times (think show preview loading time rather than live), not an extremely slow load for the whole wiki on every edit (minor or major) for popular templates.. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 18:22, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-== Village pump has 100.000 views ==
-Well. almost anyway :P {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 11:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)
-::Actually it's 700+ 100,00 views. =D Good stuff.--[[User:Kwerty|Kwertz0r]] 09:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-== Template Class Table All ==
-We have [[Template:Classtableall|this template]] that ranks all of the classes by how well they fit different roles... And I'm really getting frustrated at the people editing it. Like I'm really really close to blocking anyone who edits it and doesn't discuss their changes. Actually, since its a template, I'll add a big obnoxious noinclude warning to it, but seriously, if I see one more person edit that page w/o discussing their changes and defending why they think a number should be changed (or even discussing it first, maybe i should protect it), they're getting the ban hammer.--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em .3em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 09:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-== Image help ==
-Time to prove my nubness: I'm trying to put an image of one of my characters on its page using {{tlink|Wowbox}} and {{tlink|Infobox Warcraft character}}. However, the uploaded image I'm using turns pink when it's squished down to size for the infobox. Any idea why this is happening?
-The page is [[User:Montag/Nariana]] and the image is [[:Image:Montag-Nariana.png]]. {{User:Montag/sig}} 10:13, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-: PNGs do not always resize well - use a JPG :) {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 10:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Awesome, thanks. Fixed, and PNG deleted.. {{User:Montag/sig}} 10:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-== Template inconsistencies ==
-So I've been poking around in the Template namespace, trying to determine the workings of things like {{tlink|Vv2}}.  I noticed some inconsistencies in the "Lquality" series.  Three of six are locked, and two of six have differing functionality. Personally, I'd like them (1) documented, and (2) changed so that there's a visual indicator of a broken link.
-{|
-|-
-|Template ||Functionality ||Status
-|-
-|Lpoor ||Montag ||unlocked
-|-
-|Lcommon ||Tekkub ||locked
-|-
-|Luncommon ||Montag ||locked
-|-
-|Lrare ||Tekkub ||unlocked
-|-
-|Lepic ||Montag ||locked
-|-
-|Llegendary ||Montag ||unlocked
-|}
---[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 10:57, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-: I think I'm the one guilty for half-locking some of them. Anyway, editing these templates really brings down the house... And showing a broken item link would require some sort of... Does Page Exist? functionality, which I'm pretty sure we have but never coded myself. Consider all templates locked as of the writing of this reply.--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em .3em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 11:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::Well, I sandbox-tested adding the {{tlink|Exists}} function to Lpoor, and managed a version that gave output like: <span style="color:red"><nowiki>[</nowiki></span><span style="color:{{qual-color-poor}};">Vendor Trash Broken-Link"</span><span style="color:red"><nowiki>]</nowiki></span>. However, I'm not sure if this is the ideal visual indicator.  An alternative might be something like: <span style="color:{{qual-color-poor}};"><nowiki>[Vendor Trash Broken-Link]</nowiki></span><span style="color:red">*</span> I'm not committed to either version. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 11:31, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:Here {{tlink|loot}}, been meaning to replace those with a single template for a while, enjoy! --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 11:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::Well, your template doesn't capture the functionality of either Montag-style or Tekkub-style "Lquality".  First, it doesn't take an alternative name (eg "Ravager (axe)|Ravager"), however, that shouldn't be too hard to add. Second, all broken links, regardless of quality, are red.  So you'd have to fix that.  Third, you'd have to bot the changeover. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 12:01, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:::You missed alot of talk in the irc chan. First of all, there should never be disambig on an item (if it is, someone needs a smack and people need to get off their asses and get the Item namespace added and in use.), so i won't add alternative item name functionality. Second, the broken link functionality was how i (and some others) think it should be done, but after discussion a compramise was agreed upon, leave the brackets unstyled if the link is broken, but always style the text. I have now updated the template to do that. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Fair enough. However, I disagree on the claim that we should never need to provide an alternate name. First, there are items that may have disambiguations that are Blizzard's fault.  Some items have identically-named differing versions. [[Royal Seal of Eldre'Thalas]], [[Atiesh, Greatstaff of the Guardian]], [[Scroll: Create Crest of Beckoning]], [[Scroll: Create Scepter of Beckoning]], [[Scroll: Create Signet of Beckoning]], [[Brazier of Beckoning]], etc.  Sometimes WoWWiki rolls them into one page, and sometimes it doesn't. Second, there may be items that have invalid characters for an article name, although I can't think of any offhand. As for missing discussions on the IRC chan, the nice thing about talk pages is that they record opinions.--[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 13:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::And the nice thing about IRC, is we can discuss quicker and easier (especially when the wiki is as unstable as it is atm). :p
-:::::There are no invalid characters as far as i know. Even if there were, they would more than likely just be url encoded anyways, so there is no problem (that is what url encoding was designed for really..). Items that have multiple versions with the same name should be in the same page imo, so i will not add such functionality to support anything different. If someone else wants to when people decide otherwise, then so be it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:: So {{tlink|loot}} is a full replacement for {{tlink|lquality}}? If it is, you probably replace it on [[WoWWiki:Templates]]. I can probably bot replace all the previous usages. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:39, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-:::It is as far as i'm concerned, a bot would be handy to replace all of them if you would like, i'll leave it for one of the help team to add the template there or something :s Just make note, {{tlink|loot}} uses uppercase quality names, not lower (used to support both, but wanted to cut down on the amount of duplicate code). --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 16:47, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-I'm quite... Angered. Or disturbed. By the recent changes made by the bot to deprecate templates. I don't like the loot template in its current implementation, one, due to the fact that it adds a lot of unecessary links and templates to the page. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't like how it looks, right now. I'd like to see the changes reverted. Or, at least see the template re-evaluated, which I'm trying to do myself. Summary, I'm not happy.--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em .3em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 04:52, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-: What? I don't understand... what's wrong with it? It doesn't ''add'' anything to a page! It just adds the brackets found the side which are red is the link is dead. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 05:38, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-: Okay, here's the skinny, after I investigated a little more... The problem (as is my opinion) stems from the use of the exists template. The exists template tries to include pages that aren't really templates as its method of detection. What this does is cause an unnecessary amount of included templates on the page. Its a side effect of the exists template, which I don't agree with. So for that reason, I don't advocate the use of exists, nor do I advocate the use of loot in its current incarnation. A consolidated loot template (named "l", by the way), I'm all for. Brackets indicating dead articles, I'm all for. But that can be done in CSS, without changing any of the old templates, if and when we get CSS access. There. That's it. I dislike the new template, as it is now, and I think we should just wait for CSS.--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em .3em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 05:50, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-::There is no other way to do it, and even with css it would contain more unecessary code to acheieve than is needed. Broken includes do not harm anything, and are a perfectly exceptable side effect of {{tlink|exists}}. I also am strongely against naming it {{tlink|L}}, as that name is far too short, and shows no indication as to what the template is or does. It is already currently shortened from something like "Item Loot Link Template", there is no need (Loot is short enough for common use) to shorten it further, and certainly not at the cost of loosing any understanding of meaning of the template name. I'm sorry, but i think you're being rather silly on this one hob :/ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:10, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-::: A css-based solution is already supported by how all mediawiki installations work out of the box. The only thing preventing us from using it is our access to edit stylesheets. One line of css is vastly less than the amount of code used in the template. And I'm on the side of assuming that the broken links do harm something, I'm just not sure what yet; I don't like them being there. As for the name of the template, at least there should be an alias. For such an oft-used template, it would help if it was abbreviated to something convenient for experienced editors. A template's name need not describe its entire nature in the name alone.--<span style="font-size: 0.85em; padding: .2em .3em; border-top: 1px #504c50 solid; border-bottom: 1px #504c50 solid; background-color: #2C2C2C">'''[[User:Hobinheim|<span style="cursor:help;color:#62fc00">Hobinheim</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Hobinheim|<span style="color:#aaff00">talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Hobinheim|<span style="color:#ffff00">contr</span>]])</small></span> 10:37, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-::::An exist template is one line of code too. The css it would have to double up with spans. Clearly in your own words, the broken include issue is one of your preference with no good reason. As to the name, you say it should not contain it's entire nature in the name alone, it already doesn't. It is already abbreviated. Abbreviating a name past the point of recognition, where you then would need to tell someone what the abbreviation stands for is counter-productive for common use, it would alienate regular users. There is no need to reduce it to a single letter at all, and doing so would only bring problems. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:45, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-== Player character page policy ==
-It's just been brought to my notice that this policy has never been ratified or discussed. Please check it out: [[WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Player character pages]]. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 11:23, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-== Item format ==
-I'd like to see if we can get some sort of consensus on what format we want to use for items. I've always used the [[Boilerplate:Item]] page. I like it because it can handle most items, it keeps all the information on a single page, it's relatively easy for a user new to wikis to populate, and if included on another page, it turns into a tooltip. I've noticed a lot of the BC item stubs have been partially populated using a bunch of transcluded pages. See [[Anchorite's Robes]] for example. The source on the main page is the template [[Template:BC Itempage Placeholder]]. This then links into a bunch of tiny transcluded pages like [[Anchorite's Robes/Icon]], [[Anchorite's Robes/Price]], [[Anchorite's Robes/Quality]], and [[Anchorite's Robes/Tooltip]]. If I'm not mistaken, the reason why this was created was so you could pull bits of it and put it on another page (see [[Comparison of Aldor and Scryer rewards]]). I guess I'd just like to get a single standard to use, especially when I start to fill in stubs that have been started with the transcluded templates.
-Personally, I like the single page style. I copy the entire boilerplate to a new page and start filling it out. Pretty much everything you need is right there. With this transcluded method, I have to create the main page, then I have to create a icon page, tooltip page, price page, thottbot page, alla page, more page, etc. It just seems a lot more confusing than it needs to be. Also what kind of performance hit does all these transcluded pages put on the wiki?
-Comments? - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 12:50, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:I think there could be a middle ground somewhere (perhaps a hybrid boilerplate that allows for an initial entry and prepares for transclusion), but with the transcluded method ultimately being the standard. Items end up always being linked from various other articles (boss drops, stat comparisons, reward listings) and as such, having that information (most importantly, the tooltip, maybe the icon) be made available dynamically to articles will be a boon in the long run. I'd also be curious, however, as to the impact it would have on the site performance. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 13:00, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::We certainly do not need tooltips being transcluded.. And not with that ridiculous sub-page method which is a poor use of the wiki, and is no better than just repeating the info yourself. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:::I heavily disagree with this. I cannot see how under any circumstances copying and pasting the same information into different articles is in any way, shape or form, easier than just referencing the article's /Tooltip transclusion. Let's say I wanted to write an article that compares two-handed weapons for DPS. I could a) go into each items article (or Thott or Alla entry) and copy and paste the information into my article. Back and forth, back and forth, pasting away until I've all this information in my article. Or, b) I could just include the itemname/Tooltip for each one and be done with it. What if the item stats changed? Now, I have to go into each and every single article that ever could have possibly mentioned that item and fix it, hoping I got them all. Or I could just change /Tooltip. The small amount of effort that goes into making a /Tooltip entry is definitely worth it. It also centralizes the information, heavily decreasing the chance of typos, mistakes and ultimately, what everyone wants to avoid, misinformation.
-:::Unless there is some other method of being able to dynamically pull that into any article you want, the transclusions are quite clearly the way to go if we're going to talk standards. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 17:39, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:I'm personally strictly against the use of that boilerplate (namely because i'[ve made most of it redundant with the new tooltip) and that other method of item page creation (because it's bloody awful and not practical. i forget who started doing it). Also the tooltip transclusion method should not be used as discussed further up on this page. Most of the functionality that's being attempted (Transclusion of tooltips for example), is impractical, and can be done easier or not at all until we can incorperate certain javascript abilities, namespaces and better category structures. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:05, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:: We might want to update the boilerplate with Zeal's item template. It is far superior than any other templates we have. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 14:18, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:::I found a few minor issues with the [[Template:Tooltip|Tooltip]] (Equipped mispelled in BoE, switch the armor amount and the word "Armor" around, Armor row should come after DPS row, not taking advantage of the [[:Category:Spells by ID|Spell Effects]], no place for sockets), but what exactly makes this tooltip superior? I'll gladly switch to using the tooltip template if someone can explain to me why it's better than what is in the boilerplate. - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 15:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Will fix the typo, Armor should have been after DPS, apologies if it's not. It can use the spell effect template, there is a note in the description about how to use it, however hardly any of these spells currently exist, and things will be changing with the introduction of an item db, so i have not enforced the use of it. I had no final examples of sockets to work from, so i left them out until i could find them, someone is welcome to add them (may i suggest creating a template similar to {{tlink|cost}} for the purpose), but i'm too busy with other things atm.
-::::As to what makes it superior. Well for one its more accesable because it does not incorrectly use a table to present the information. It also auto-scales (and drops non-default info) when used outside the page where it belongs, includes the item's icon, uses the correct colouring for certain things the other one has wrong, ensures item information is always in the correct order (so newbies can't screw up), and provides documentation for users to know what needs to be included in the tooltip. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:58, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: Gives a uniform format. Say in the future we want to change the layout of the item tooltips: With a template, we can do it easily. With the current method of copying tables, we can only change the CSS, which is very limited. In addition, template can make sorting easy, if we want to create a category of all the daggers in the wiki, just add a line in the template that checks if the item type is dagger, if it is, add it to a category to it. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:02, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::Sounds reasonable enough. I'll play around with the tooltip some more and see if I can find any other problems. Since most of my 5000+ edits has been adding items, I know most of the formats that tooltips can appear in. We can then move it into the boilerplate with some documentation. FYI: There are 3 socket templates ([[Template:Red Socket]], [[Template:Blue Socket]], [[Template:Yellow Socket]]) that we can possible incorporate/modify into the tooltip. - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 16:34, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::: My only issue with the tooltip, and this is incredibly minor I know, is that when the tooltip is used on an item page, the item icon no longer needs to be on the article in the place where it currently is, since the tooltip includes it. I really like the currently placement, as it gives the opening paragraph a nice indent, which most articles lack otherwise. However, that minor aestheitc aversion pales in comparison to the advantages afforded by its implimentation.
-::::::: And there's also the meta gem slots, though there arn't very many of those. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 16:44, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::::Indeed. As to the icon in item pages, i disliked it personally as it's not nice running both left and right floats (nor is it nice to clear content to below either float). May i suggest moving further discussion on the tooltip template itself to it's talk page. I hadn't really thought about some of the advantages voidvector mentioned, nice. I'll give adding sockets a go in a sec. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 18:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::::Say hello to {{tlink|socket}} and the new socket and socket bonus parameters of {{tlink|tooltip}} :p --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 19:32, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-: To re-address this a bit, since there seems to be two seperate threads of discussion. 1) How tooltips are formatted and/or rendered and 2) How the said tooltips are embedded in the item page. As for the former, Zeal appears to have a pretty good start on nailing down the tooltip template and format. And as for the latter, I personally am of the mind of having a transcluded Tooltip sub-article (and only one sub-article, no others), so other articles (loot lists, item comparison, class lists, etc etc etc) could easily pull the tooltip (which could be considered the "meat" of the item information) without having to copy and paste and thusly, result in potential typos and misinformation. Considering how widely used this would/could be, I think there should be a healthy discussion and some sort of consensus reached before we start just all going in our own direction, especially since there has been some decent work done thusfar on it. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 15:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::A tooltip split (sub-page if you wish), i can live with :P Guessing you mean something like [[Conjured Bread/Tooltip]] yes? I never wanted to propose something like that as i know the item db would make it redundant, but if people want to do that in the time being, it's fine imo. What i don't think is a good idea is using tooltips in pages other than the item's page. Using space for something that is simply a click a way. I'd rather way for the javascript implementation to come around to handle that. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:19, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::Yes, having a /Tooltip sub-page for each item, which is already happening for new items, it seems. The idea behind including the /Tooltip in other articles, though is how useful it could be for comparison. Take the [[Comparison_of_Aldor_and_Scryer_rewards]] article. This is a perfect example of how included tooltip sub-pages perform well. Even though the tooltip is a click away, how does that help when used in comparisons? Having this as the standard would help build a structure for displaying data effeciently and effectively, I feel, any future javascript or item db aside. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 15:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::::In this day and age people have tabbed browsers to do comparisons, no need to overload them with info they can click for ;) Plus that page does not show anything about the costs for the rewards. I beleive the earlier discussed vendor sheet to be a better solution for that. Also like to mention that those tooltips, for reciepe items, show the item they create in them. While this is nice for comparison, it is messy and hard to read (blizzard are retards for doing it this way imo), especially telling where it begins and ends. Mine, simply takes a link to the item, and unless someone wishes to push for the idea of including them in a way that doesnt suffer from the blizzard inherited issues (nesting tooltips perhaps), then i beleive this to be the best way, and slightly nullifiess the comparison argument.
-::::Oh, and i don't seee the point in that page in it's current form. it's repeating information people can gather themselves. It needs some comments on the comparisons to justify it (thus the tooltips neeed not exist) imo.--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::Come now, the whole point of that page, and indeed, any page with nested tooltips, is to gather the info in one space so people ''don't'' have to find it themselves. It offers complete information on the subject in a single location, allowing immediate comparisons without even the need to change browser tabs. While I agree that the tooltips are quite bulky and a javascript rollover solution as seen on various database sites is optimal, we don't have that yet, and it doesn't look like we're getting it any time soon (correct me if I'm wrong on that, though). In the meanwhile, I suggest we either continue to use nested tooltips on articles that directly relate to the item, or at the very least provide some sort of summary of the item, like type, location, and primary use. But even the summary doesn't really work for items like trinkets, which usually have somewhat complex uses. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 16:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::The entire point of making articles like these is to make information easy to digest. Are you seriously saying that it's '''easier''' for people either used tabbed windows or find the information themselves than having to look at '''one''' page that shows all the information side by side? Especially with something as important as picking a faction? Articles such as this are incredibly helpful... what the heck is the point of having a Wiki if all you want to do is make people dig up the information themselves? It honestly sounds like you want to make a item database and that's it, without any flexibility for discussion or comparison. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 16:19, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::No no no no no.. I'm saying the tooltips are not needed for the comparison. Simply pulling in tooltips and displaying them on a page.. that's not worthy of an article, yes that makes it easier for a user to compare, but that's not something the wiki should be doing, otherwise we would have chaos with articles simply listing tooltips.. What i'm saying is, for that article to be justified, it needs to go through each item, comparing aspects of the items in a written format (so tooltips themselves would not be used), then it would be worthy of an article, as that is a proper comparison. Simply displaying tooltips with not comments as to why this might be better than that, and why that is so great.. thats not worthy of an article, that's just someone relisting stuff for the purpose of seeing the tooltips next to each other, something they should be doing manauly themselves. That's simply abuse of the wiki and i would nominate such an article for deletion, it has no place.
-::::::Oh and just to avoid confusion. Embeded Tooltips = Tooltip in the page statically. Nested Tooltips = Tooltips inside each other. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 17:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::::"yes that makes it easier for a user to compare, but that's not something the wiki should be doing." I think you're outright wrong here. This is exactly what the Wiki should be doing, is doing and will continue to do. It doesn't make any sense to discuss items without using tooltips. Everyone who plays the game is used to seeing them and relates them to items to learn about them. In any article that is going to be discussing items and/or comparing them, they're going to want to display the characteristics of that item. Articles are not just going to have tooltips and nothing else, but they are needed to compare! I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of articles "relisting" items, they would obviously have discussion or comments along with them.
-:::::::I'm curious... are you familiar with what that article I linked above is about? The entire point is to compare what the two factions offer side by side, to see which faction the player should pick. As you can see in the discussion page, there's a lot of debate about which faction is best for what. Tell me in this particular case, how exactly would you show the attributes of each item without using tooltips...paste the tooltips in? Simply say "this item's got +3 intellect and +5 strength and blah blah"? Everyone knows tooltips, it's how players look at items in game, it should be (and will be) how we look at them on the Wiki. --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 19:59, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::::Well done on completely misunderstanding/ignoring what i said.. ¬_¬ The page makes no such comparisons (merely lists the outcomes in a format that is not helpful and lends nothing to the article, and none of the content below it lends to the comparison). It's like you've created a page to solve a math problem, and simply shown the problem and given the answer. That's not helpful in any way. You should not be displaying tooltips, you should be linking to items and discussing the item as if it was infront of you, comparing them. If people wish to have a visual display of what you're talking about, they then click the link provided. A tooltip in this case is no different from a contextual image, with a link to the tooltip being a thumbnail. All that page does is display a load of images, no captions, not explanation, no comments, no context, nothing. That is not helpful, and i could make an article based on that same premise for any and every two items in existance. It's utterly useless and ridiculous in it's current form.
-::::::::For your exmaple, something like "The Scryers supply the [[Retainer's Blade]], which has a high amount of agility and stamina, and excellent dps for a dagger, so it is perfect for a dagger rogue, on the other hand, if you're sword rogue, you should consider the [[Vindicator's Brand]] instead, as it provides more AP and hit rating along with a slower dps" (Disclaimer: I know nothing about rogues, rogue builds, or items for rogues :p)
-::::::::Oh, and btw, not everyone plays wow or understands the tooltips fully, that's why they're merely a summary and supplement to an article. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 20:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-: Sorry for taking a step back on this issue. I am totally lost on even where to begin using the new item formatting for adding new items. The "old" boilerplate as Clyde said was easy - copy paste edit done. Can someone post a "step-by-step" guide to how to add new items using the new format/lay-outs? Thank you --[[User:Dracomage|Dracomage]] 16:14, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::Step 1: Use the old format. Step 2: Wait for whoever is least lazy to change it to the format ''du jour''. {{=)}} People can argue all they want, but whoever is willing to do the grunt work has the most leverage. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 16:29, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::As it currently stands, I think the best way to do it is, 1: Copy-paste-edit boilerplate, except for tooltip area, 2: go to Zeal's {{tlink|tooltip}} template, copy the format, and fill in what's necessary.
-:::I haven't heard any real reason why we shouldn't be using Zeal's template on all the item pages, so I humbly suggest that the boilerplate be changed to include the template. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 17:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::Same as above, i just don't wish to touch the boileplate atm for fear of backlash, the fact it looks mess to read, and that i'd want to sneak in other changes if i do it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 17:50, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-I think it's time to start setting standards and policies before we get too far in creating articles and sub-articles for items in different ways. Vote and comment, please. [[WoWWiki:Policy/Item_Article_Standardization]] --[[User:Tusva|Tusva]] 16:26, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-== Patch today ==
-Where would I find the patch notes from today?  Would someone please post them and give me a link.
-{{User:Fusk/sig}}13:06, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:Take it you mean [http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_2.0.6_%28Release_Notes%29 2.0.6]? In future, you can find them under [[:Category:Patches]], or better yet, next time try searching, as you clearly didn't even bother to... ¬_¬ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:19, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-:If they haven't been added to the wiki, you can usually find them at the  [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/ Patch Notes] page at worldofwarcraft.com. If they haven't been added there yet, they'll almost always have a sticky post with them on the General forum on the official boards (abandon all hope ye who enter...) - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 16:40, 23 January 2007 (EST)
-== [[Sargeras]] and [[Burning Legion]] ==
-See any problems with the two? {{c|1}} to the person who discovers it!--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:04, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-Oh yes, another {{c|1}} for the person who sees the issue with [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/story/chapter1.html this page] and those two.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 00:05, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-Instead of pointing things out >.> FIX THEM! (btw can't find it, but can I have {{c|1}} anyways? --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 05:42, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:If you're refering to the fact that the official site still says that the Erader corrupted Sargeras and not, as it was later retconned to be, the other way around, gimme my {{c|}}! Of course, that information has been outdated, so no need to change our own sites. If you're refering to some other inconsistency between the two pages, I admit I haven't bothered to read them. Trying to make heads or tails of Warcraft lore means battling your way through huge amounts of contradictory information and fending off legions of frothing fans, only to find at the end of the day you haven't gained any ground. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 06:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::Neither of you earn your coppers. The first two pages are near exact copy paste jobs of the third. Yay for plagirizing?--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 15:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::: Rewrite it if it bothers you. Originality is always preferred. {{User:Montag/sig}} 02:44, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-== More fun with templates and lurch ==
-I'd like to document and categorize the many templates that we've got lurking around, but the server's going to get hurt.  So I think I'll pass.  However, many of the more insidious ones should probably be locked. --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 12:08, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-: You add it to the talk page, and after you are all done, copy it over, so it only kill the server once. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 12:30, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::Lol, well i've purposely left most of the ones i create in the main [[:Category:Templates]], partly because i hate the existing template categories, partly because i hate the existing category naming, and partly because it's easier for me when i'm producing so many templates. :p
-::Feel free to change the cats on them if you wish. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:39, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Actually, it'd be preferable to make a one-tiem edit to the template pointing users to the talk page for documentation, that way docs can be changed any number of times.  Make sure you use noinclude blocks so that pointer doesn't transclude into everything that uses the template.  you might want to also put the template code in a includeonly block so that the messy details don't show up, especially if the template depends on parameters passed to it.
-:: Perhaps a simple template is in order to drop onto the pages so that we have a consistent look?  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 12:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::I don't agree about putting documentation on the talk page. Documentation get updated less often than the template itself, and when it is updated, it updated at the same time the vast majority of the time. I've already created a template documentation template {{tlink|template}} for what you've described, and have been using and adapting it with all my templates. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: In that case, why not have the documentation code on a subpage which is pulled into the template page for viewing? Dare I say - this is how wikipedia often does it. [Template] has the code, [Template/Doc] has the documentation, and we can extend it to:
-::::* [Template] pulls in [Template/Code] and [Template/Doc] and adds the categories.
-::::* [Template/Doc] has the documentation.
-::::* [Template/Code] has the raw code (this is used on the [[WoWWiki:Templates]] page)
-::::Thoughts? {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 13:34, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::I find it rather superfluous and unecessary, not only that, but it's another page the wiki has to update and cache everytime, and may have to then purge to view the outcome (which would have the same effect as running an edit no?). The documentation doesn't need to be split up because it's only ever updated when the code is. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::: Or we can put all the documentations on [[WoWWiki:Templates]] like how we do it now, and just have the templates refer to it. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 14:15, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::: Why would editing a subpage affect all wiki pages using the template? Editing the doc would only affect the pages it's pulled into, which is the template page. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 14:28, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::::Did i suggest it would? no just the template's page. But now you touch on it, it would effect it (at least given how i've understood templates to work and expand and calculate on mediwiki), unless you're suggesting all template usage should now bypass the template and use template/code instead. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: I disagree with adding the code to a subpage, since pulling it in is redundant, but adding detailed documentation to the subpage (of the type Zeal's been using) seems fair. That way, quick usage notes can be put on the front page including a link to the full docs for more info. Currently, I find a lot of the documentation difficult to sift through because of how detailed they are. Quick usage notes allow people to quickly start using a template after they know about it and can learn its full power from the docs if they need to get more specific or powerful use out of it. ~
-::::: The performance hit to the server should be minimal and shouldn't be the ''primary'' reason for our decision, although it should certainly factor in. Hopefully a PHP update (or a MediaWiki update) will help with all the errors we've been getting. {{User:Montag/sig}} 02:39, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:Back to the idea of categorizing and documenting the multitude, I just did a quick count.  There's currently 1712 items in the template namespace. Le fun! --[[User:Beep2|Beep2]] 14:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-== Heroic mode? ==
-I have not been able to find anything besides loot tables for "Heroic mode" dungens.   Does anyone know if the boss fights change at all? or is it gunna be the same fight, just different dmg numbers?
-{{User:Fusk/sig}}12:10, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-:The only boss I've seen with a heroic strategy is [[Omor the Unscarred]] in the [[Hellfire Ramparts]]. The AOE debuff becomes unremovable, the fel hounds cast a mana burn as well as heal Omor, and it looks like he casts a shadowbolt as well. You probably won't see many strategies until more people get to a higher level and can start running in heroic mode. - [[User:ClydeJr|ClydeJr]] 14:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-::Yeah,  I was just sorta wondering what to expect,  meaning any changes to the fight.  So it seems things are going to change pretty drastically.  I'll try to write some when my group gets up there. {{User:Fusk/sig}}16:12, 24 January 2007 (EST)
-== Looking to get rep in exodar ==
-<!-- Put the topic in the box above, and leave the "--~~~~"s at the bottom. It automatically becomes a signature! You can delete this line.-->
---[[User:Ssexxymidget13|Ssexxymidget13]] 14:22, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-Hello im new to the site and i was wondering if anyone could tell me What i can do to get rep in exodar? Now i understand i have to do quest and stuff to gain more rep but can anyone tell me where i can find more quest and what places i can go to that count for rep towards exodar.
-Thanks for your help:)
-: Donate cloth...? Why you want rep w/ em? The mount I guess you could get by getting BG tokens and giving em to the pvp mount vendor. --[[User:Colinstu|Colinstu]] 22:58, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Also, low-level quests now give the full amount of reputation, even when they're grey. You could do the Azuremyst and Bloodmyst Isle quests :) --[[User talk:Tinkerer|<font color="green">T</font>]][[User:Tinkerer|<font color="green">inker</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|<small><font color="black">er</font></small>]] 14:29, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-== The Priest's "How to Kill" page disappeared (works now!)==
-I try going to the page Priest's How to Kill... page [http://www.wowwiki.com/Priest:_How_to_Kill_a...] and get nothing but a blank page.  I tried the Hunter and Rogue pages, and they work fine, and the Priest page worked fairly recently.  Any suggestions?
-Thanks!
---[[User:Jacked|Jacked]] 17:05, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-: For some strange reason, the server does not render the page when user is not logged in. My guess is that the PHP on this server needs an update. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 17:38, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-== Icons ==
-I noticed we are using some icons from an icon pack under gnu liscene, and also that we're using a wide array of varios icons (which are inconstantly sized and suck tbqh) along side them. So, i've gone through the icons from that icon pack, renamed them with wiki relevent names, and set the background colors to make wowwiki's default theme.
-I'm gunna start uploading a few of them, and i would like some feedback on what people think of the icon naming.
-[[:Category:WoWWiki Icons]] --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:21, 25 January 2007 (EST)
-: I think you suck HAHAHAHAHAHA!  I mean... oh yea good work.  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 18:30, 26 January 2007 (EST)
-: Awesome work. Looks good. At a quick glance, names look fine to me. {{User:Montag/sig}} 02:21, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-== Using return of ConsoleExec function ==
-In the WoW-API is the command ConsoleExec listed, im new to WoW addons - and Lua, just coding in other languages - returns that function the value of the executed command?
-greetings, --[[User:Schaelle|Schaelle]] 18:41, 27 January 2007 (EST)
-: Frankly, I've never seen an addon that interacts with the console... there's very little one can do through the console beside adjust video settings.  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 00:44, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Puh, than anyone has an idea how I can interacte with extern-programms? Because I have the idea to intigreate some InstangMessanger in WoW - first of all ICQ - so the User typesomething like <code>/icq Alfred Whatz up?</code> and the Lua Addon calls the external programm - that has etablished the connection to the ICQ server. Any raw idea? --[[User:Schaelle|Schaelle]] 07:31, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-::: You can't, and never will.  Just run the game in windowed-maximized.  {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 11:19, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-== Loot Template ==
-My bot have replaced all occurrence of <nowiki>{{lquality}}</nowiki> with {{tlink|loot}} where it only had 1 argument (the most commonly occurring usage). Less common usages such as disambiguated and renamed links would have to be fixed by hand. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 02:04, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:Your bot didn't change the links on talk pages. Just wondering about whether that was intentional or not.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 02:33, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Yea. It only converted normal and template pages. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 12:03, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-== Burning Crusade templates update ==
-<div style="width: 100%;">
-<div style="border-top: 1px #666 solid; border-bottom: 1px #666 solid; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em; color: #EEE; background-color: #2c2c2c; font-size:85%">'''This article concerns content exclusive to [[World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade|The Burning Crusade]]''' [[Image:Bc_icon.gif]]{{clr}}</div>{{clr}}</div>
-: Another revision of {{tlink|bc}} - ready to change? Note that when this change is made, some pages will need updating as it is intended to act as the top banner for that page. It is '''only''' to be used on major BC pages from now on, and is the only BC template that auto-categorises.
-: For sections use {{tlink|bc-section}}:
-{{bc-section}}
-: For sentences and minor headings, etc, use {{tlink|bc-inline}}.
-{{bc-inline}}
-: Having said the above, there is probably more changes to be made to the philosophy? E.g. continue to use the BC banner on all BC pages including items?{{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 13:07, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-::What about subzones and npcs that belong in BC-zones? Is it enough to put the tag on the zone, and thus surmise that everything in that zone also belongs in the expansion? I think most people will figure it out... :) --{{User:Varghedin/Sig}} 13:12, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-::: Indeed. I personally think that the most needed NPCs and items is the {{bc-inline}}, and no BC categorising. Pretty much everyone has BC, so there's no need to make a big deal out of the split. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 14:06, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Two things:
-::::*i prefer your last revision on the [[Template_talk:Bc/content|BC content talk page]], with icons either side. I really feel that the there is no need for it to stay small, and it icons either side make it mover obvious at a quick glance. Otherwise you have to read across for the icon.
-::::*As we've dicussed before, BC content that is accessable to player regardless of owning the expansion (most items) need not be marked. Zones, NPCs, Quests etc need to be marked either as completely existing in BC only with {{tlink|bc}} or sections containing information that only exists in BC {{tlink|bc-section}}. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 14:18, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::Definitly agreed about having the icons on both sides. I also kindof prefer the larger banner for the whole page header, but it's only a slight preference. --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 23:06, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-== Yard or Meter? ==
-What is the unit of length used by British version of the game? Yard or meter? I am aware that French/German/Chinese/Korean versions of the game use meter instead.  --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 21:06, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:enGB is yards. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:20, 28 January 2007 (EST)
-:: Sad, but true :( {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 04:40, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-:::I still hate those British for their stupidity in metrology! --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 05:25, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Eh? When does the game use lengths? --{{User:Varghedin/Sig}} 07:59, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-::::: Quite often actually.. most AOE spells use it to indicate the radius. and any ranged attacks show yards also. [http://www.thottbot.net/?sp=1725] {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 08:44, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: All British children have been taught exclusively in metric units for a while (and tbh, many couldn't tell you the length of a mile or yard). Most likely, enGB only uses yards because we use the same client as the US edition. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig}} 09:31, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-I suggest we all go whine on the forums to create a Metric system in WoW, it alrdy exists. Then we will also get renames for the 70 Pound Catfish! (or whatever it is named) Well, at least I'm going to suggest it >.> --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 06:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-: It absolutely doesn't matter anyhow - as yards and meters are just used for the same length - in WoW 41 yards=41 meter.
-: Pound is still 500 g. It's usual that use pounds to weigh food. However, meters are used at different times; for example, there are some quests in Nagrand who refer to "500 meters to the east", and no yards, even in the enGB version. Also, remember that the U.K. isn't the only country playing that version ;) --[[User talk:Tinkerer|<font color="green">T</font>]][[User:Tinkerer|<font color="green">inker</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|<small><font color="black">er</font></small>]] 07:37, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-Actually 1 pound is not 500g in england. 500g = 1 pound in the netherlands.
-* 1 english "pound" actually appears to be 453.59 grams... "yes" those english are a silly lot... [http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/weight_conversion.php] {{User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 11:02, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-== Crit -> Crit Rating ==
-Quite a few items still that show Crit% instead of Crit Rating, or hit % instead of hit rating.
-just edited core hound tooth, kingsfall, and some others earlier. but still a lot to go. please keep an eye out for them ;) {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 08:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-== pet stats ==
-[[Succubus]] [[Void walker]] etc. are these stats accurate anymore?
-since hunters now give +bonusses to their pet based on their gear.. warlocks get this also? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 10:03, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-:Warlock pet's have always scaled with the level of the player, but not gear, don't beleive they recieved any similar changes as hunter's did. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 10:12, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-:: They have, Warlock pets do scale with Warlock's gear. This is btw very Favourable aswell, because a demonology lock, gets extra spelldmg, the more stats their pet has. So, it's kind of neat. (I went from 450 to nearly 600 spelldmg on patch 2.0.3, simply due to this change) --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 10:22, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-== ParserFunctions ==
-Why isn't this server using [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions ParserFunctions] ([http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions_patch mediawiki link])? I am raising this question because all of the conditional templates are implemented using template syntax. Parser Functions are implemented using PHP, which should be robust than template processor. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 19:01, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-:Personally, no matter how much i might complain, i enjoy restrictive languages, so even with all of failings of the Wiki markup, i like using it, and the lack of parser functions is part of that. Throw them in, and and it's more chaos for a while, may eventually be for the better ofc.
-:I raied this question before, but can't honestly remember the answer or who it was from. Definitely something about the server setup and config preventing it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:37, 29 January 2007 (EST)
-== wiki error ==
-this is getting pretty annoyingly frequent :
-{{clr}}
-[[Image:Wikierror.png]]
-{{clr}}. is this all related to the template conversions? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 04:46, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-: Admitting you have a problem is the first step... {{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 05:02, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:: I am quite sure it is a template problem. It occurs almost every time someone changes a big template. It also happens often when my bot is converting a page to use a big template. The problem is less rampant when my bot is converting a page to use a small template or just doing simple text editing. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 05:12, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::: This makes it very hard to use WoWwiki.  I've had to start going to different sites, because to many pages are broken by this. This needs to get fixed, should be one of the top prioritys imo. {{User:Fusk/sig}}
-::I'm not completely sure it's linked to template changes alone; my Internet comes off and on (I have Comcast too...), and it's usually decides to kaput when that error pops up. I don't know if it is coincidence, but I suspect there to be a correlation.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 17:07, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-I thought of something when I was at swimming that has to do with templates, and it might help solve the issue if that is what is causing it: Why aren't they locked after we're certain all the syntax and such is correct and it's a usable template? If someone needs to edit them, they can post on the talk page about it. A template (LOL!) should probably be posted at the top saying that if you want to edit the template, you need to post on the discussion page.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 22:51, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::Locking would make no difference. The wiki is in an ever evolving state, those changes, big or small, would still have to be made, and i honestly hate the locking of articles, as exludes all users except a selec few from editing it, slowing down the process, and slowing down progress. Right now, many things are getting reviewed and changed, {{tlink|tooltip}} for example, was so needed, it didn't get a full test work out. Despite it's use is now in full swing, there are still several changes and corrections to be made to it, and likely some major changes needed to be made to it in the immediate future as new policies and practices come into play. If it was locked down, it's improvement's would be going at a much slower pace (namely as i personally couldn't edit it as often as needed), and harm the wiki through limitation because of it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 23:00, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:You do bring up the point about not liking locks; how do you feel about the template that has started circulating around [http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] that says "no new or unlogged in users will be able to edit this article?" You touch on your answer briefly, and I was wondering more than anything.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:32, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::Oh no, I can't edit the page as much as possible regardless of the consequences for other users! Apocalypse is approaching! {{User:Jeoh/Signature}}
-:::Well done Jeonh, you missed the point about the edit would still need to take place irregarless so the consequences will always occur. Too busy being a sarcastic arsehole huh? ¬_¬ --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:44, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-::I think unregistered users (and those unlogged), should never be able to edit. If you don't have the time or balls to register your name and provide details, your contribution is probably not worth it, or you're up to no good anyways. That's one of the places where wowwiki does a good job. I do not care for wikipedia as a contributer, as i see far too much wrong, and no way to easily or timely change it (or prose changes) myself, so i don't really care what they do it. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:44, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-: I'm also having the problem, but it looks different. http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/9812/wowwikimessedupty0.png Im logged in too.(or atleast I was... I came back to write this and I was logged in). Not to metion the gold ads... lol --[[User:Colinstu|Colinstu]] 01:01, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-TBH this is getting pretty frequent, and i never had the issue until like a few months ago. shouldn't there be a seperate server / background process that takes care of these updates, so that the main server can still supply pages normally? {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 06:17, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-== Stop the signing and discussing please ==
-Especially on boss and instance (and at that, especially TBC) articles, people often sign their strategy with theit signature, and put a lot of tactics up which are just a little different; referring to it as "this is how we did it". Please stop that. We need one clear tactic, and no discussion of it in the article itself - that's where talk pages are for.
---[[User talk:Tinkerer|<font color="green">T</font>]][[User:Tinkerer|<font color="green">inker</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|<small><font color="black">er</font></small>]] 07:43, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-: Agree. This shouldn't stop at just instance pages. While we are at it, we should delete all the "Documentation by" tags from API pages, rename those 10 million worship Iriel pages, and tell Zeal to stop putting "Zeal template" and "Author" in templates. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 12:20, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::How about no? There's a good reason and justification for it on template articles. Templates have no neutrality or perspective issues. The author lists is there for people to have quick access as to who to seek imediate help from when having issues with the template, as those people, who have made major contributions to the template, are best qualified to help with it. As to the category, that harms no one, and is used so i can keep track of the templates i've had a major hand in working on, and users can see other templates that may be relevent to them. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:36, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::Let me just list it, easier:
-:::# That is what the history page is for. In fact, history page is even better, it tells the reader how long ago the contributions were done and who the latest maintainer is.
-:::# There is a better way to keep track your own templates, it is called a user page.
-:::# Where do you draw the line for "major contribution"?
-:::# "Immediate help" concept becomes a meaningless when the listed author become inactive.
-:::# The list becomes meaningless when it accumulates more than a few names. (gee, whom of the 15 authors should i contact?)
-:::# The same idea gives legitimacy to all other forms of non-talk-page name signing. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 13:23, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::::#No, the history page is not for that, and fails at achieving the same thing
-::::#No, there is no better way, please explain.
-::::#That's quite easy. Major = full redsigns, reformats, documentation, code changes etc. Minor = spelling, colour change, bug fixes etc, major contributions that are no longer in use.
-::::#So you would rather i discredit an author who may become active again?
-::::#I can't think of such a case, everytime you make a major revision, you're likely to drop off an author of soemthing that's no longer used.
-::::#No, it doesn't, not at all.
-::::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 13:38, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::#You have not demonstrated how history pages fail to tell visitors who the contributors were.
-:::::#To use userpage for your own maintenance, simply create a list of links to your templates on a user page. It is superior than a category, because adding and removing items from this list doesn't involve crashing the server.
-:::::#Authorship line failed to take into account other contributions to a template, such as testing and deployment. By the concept of crediting authors, authorship line fails to both credit those involved in testing/deployment and fails to tell who is responsible for testing/deployment.
-:::::#I don't approve crediting authors on a wiki article in the first place, so the concept of discrediting does not apply.
-:::::#All right, that's good method.
-:::::#You have not demonstrated why it does not legitimatize other forms of signing. Saying "no" doesn't prove a case. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 14:27, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::::::#Because the issue is not about contributers, it's about Authors. Contributers != authors, Author = Contrbuters. The history is a slower means, and does not show who it is that can actually help you.
-::::::#No, that's not superior. It is very easy to loose track of templates that way, and lacks a navigational use for me and users alike.
-::::::#Those people are credited, unless you have a different concept of testing/deployment. Exaplin.
-::::::#It was applicable to your statement, there is nothing wrong with this is the point if you missed it.
-::::::#Of course...
-::::::#The onus is on you here, i can't refute an argument that has not even been made, has no basis, and has no been explained.
-:::::::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::::::#Listing authors creates a convenience for visitors, however, history is better maintained, shows all authors, not just those who signed their name, and it shows recency of the edits. When all factors weighted together, it is better, less biased, and more comprehensive than listing authors on template page. (See premise 3 for contributor vs author)
-:::::::#I respect your preference in using category instead of list for navigation, but putting an user category on public page for personal navigation is like graffiting public street so that you know how to get to places.
-:::::::#The list currently states "Author" and only lists authors. It seems we both agree that if the list exists, it should list both authors and other contributors. Therefore, the list is inadequate in its current state.
-:::::::#This premise is originally regarding the "immediate help" purpose you suggested by listing authors. If an author becomes inactive, he can no longer provide immediate help, so the list becomes meaningless for this purpose. You then brought up the point of discrediting. It is not directly related, but to your point, delisting would serve the purpose of updating the list, not discrediting author. My original premise is that it does not serve "immediate help" purpose because list is not expected to be updated based on user activity.
-:::::::#(This premise is not contended assuming future editors making large edits sign their names and delist old authors)
-:::::::#This premise assumes your perspective that listing authors on a template is overall beneficial. If this is the case, the same argument can be made regarding article pages. e.g. one might say "I contributed a lot on tactics for kill a boss, i should be listed on the article page like Zeal is listed on those template pages." --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]]
-::::::::#Reread what i've said. It's not the same purpose, it does not fulfill the same needs. Bias is not an issue, the facts and proof are there, there is no argument for and against.
-::::::::#As i said, it's not just for me. A self maintained list i would still link to (this is what i used to do) so there is no argument really. If you're suggesting i don't link to a list, then i consider that a wasted oppertunity to help users. I'd rather do it more discreately as a category. Either way, i can't keep them all maintained and i can't keep them all watched all the time. A category for them is needed so i ca get to them and check up on them at a moments notice. I swear i've already lost 1-2 i've forgotten about that were never added.
-::::::::#No, we don't agree on that, i never said any such thing. I asked you to explain your definition of development/testing contributions.
-::::::::#It still does serve that purpose, if you wish to say we remove authors based on their activity, something that is very hard to judge, then so be it. But i consider that a minefield i do not wish to walk through.
-::::::::#There is only so much that can exist in a template, so only so many major edits can ever be done, and only so many authors would thus ever be listed.
-::::::::#Articles are written from a neutral point of view are greatly adapted in small, yet major ways constantly. There is no authorship claims, as there can not be for such an article and in this case, the history does provide a better solution as what you really want is the full range of contributers, regardless of what you want. If you want immediate or expert help on the article, we already have teams of people who you can talk to and are documented to apply globally to the wiki. So no, i don't think the same arguement can be made.
---{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-#I am not sure which sentence you want me to reread. My original premise is about history pages and you haven't mention much about history pages. If you are trying to demonstrate that they serve different purposes, you should just state what your understanding of those purposes are. My point in short, everything in the list of authors is already available on the history page.
-#*Split: Since when is naming authors an unbiased issue? Unless you have an objective way of listing authors, you are always favoring one over the other. E.g. a template existed before, you gave it a makeover and only list your name, you failed to credit the person who created the template before you because the original idea was theirs.
-#If your category is designed for the ease of navigation of other users, are you saying they can't visit your userpage to see the same list if you had created a userpage instead of the current category? Also, I am not sure what you mean by you cannot keep track. There is this "Related changes" function which works on articles, templates, and categories.
-#My def of listing '''deployment'''/testing contributions is "the bulk of deployment for {{tlink|loot}} was done by my bot; therefore, I demand that my name to be mentioned in {{tlink|loot}}." (This is a figure of speech, as I don't condone signing in the first place)
-#My original premise is "'Immediate help' concept becomes a meaningless when the listed author become inactive." I have no clue how (quoting you) "it still does serve that purpose" after author become inactive.
-#(This premise is not contended assuming future editors making large edits sign their names and delist old authors)
-# So template pages are exempt from the wiki rules you mentioned? I failed to see how templates and articles are different from a policy standpoint. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 23:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:#"Because the issue is not about contributers, it's about Authors. Contributers != authors, Author = Contrbuters. The history is a slower means, and does not show who it is that can actually help you." Reread that... ¬_¬ History provides a log all all conributers, not simply those who have performed major changes and can actually help you.
-:#* Yes, there is an easily objective way, i've already described what qualifies as a major edit and thus an author. In the example you've provided, both would be credited. I do consider the original author, namely the purpose who decided on the idea and it's use should always be credited. Authors who have made changes, but those changes have since been made redundant and are no longer used, or the descision was to move away from those changes, would no longer receive credit (which you've already said was a good method).
-:#Do please explain "Related changes"? I can not keep track, maintaining a static list when templates are being moved, renamed, or i am working on several simualtaneously, it's not easily managable, yet simply addding categories when adding documentation is. A category is easier to navigatable than a static list irregardless, and doesn't force people to go to my user space.
-:#In which case, no i don't feel such contributions warrant being listed as an author, a bot is a bot, you put something into practice that several others could have done, and even then, could have also been done manually by people in time. Sure it's appreciated and i'm thankfull, but it doesn't neccesarily mean you have anything in the way of contribution to the template itself, just it's usage. It shows that you are skilled with bots, put your bot to good use, and you understood the documentation well, nothing in regards to the actual template.
-:#Simply for the fact that they may be active, and activity is near impossible to judge. If you want further emphasis on activity, and idea might be to switch the order, so the newest is listed first, ensuring results earlier as a user chooses along the list. As i said, it's a minefield i do not wish to touch, so listed all.
-:#Well yeah, they would need to delist. The rest is assured through the nature of templates.
-:#Of course, templates have no neutrality and point of view to speak of, they have no issues with being speculative of factual, and the majority of policies have no impact on them, as they're not articles. They're simply code with documentation. So yes, they're exempt from typical article rules imo.
-:--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 00:09, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-::#History page does show how much you contributed, you can click on the "diff" link, and see exactly what the changes were. This bring us back to my previous statement "Listing authors creates a convenience for visitors, however, history is better maintained, shows all authors, not just those who signed their name, and it shows recency of the edits."
-::#* The whole concept of "major edit" is a subjective measure. Given the fact that most of your templates are for function rather than content, it is even more difficult to measure. Given the wiki code, a person can double the size of a template, while only adding 1 function to the template. The author would likely think it is a major edit, since coding in wiki isn't easy. Others might disagree.
-::#The topic of contention is about posting a user template on a public page. Discussion on alternative methods is not the topic of this argument. There is currently no policy against using user template on public page; however, I have brought up an analogy to real-life which demonstrates the problem behind it.
-::#I am rather offended by your comment. It demonstrates your biasness towards direct template contribution and bot contribution.
-::#You suggestion further proved the fact that keeping the author list useful for the purpose of "immediate help" creates a maintenance nightmare.
-::#(Uncontested, kept for numbering)
-::#There is a huge loophole in what you just said. A template can be both for function and content, and it can be included in a page with no effort. If NPOV policy doesn't apply to a template, I can simply create a template to foil the policy on normal articles. Since the difference between template and article is so minute from wiki stand point, it brings us to the original point that same logic/policy should be applied to both template and article. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 02:20, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-:::You're gunna have to settle for one word answers in some cases, and you're wrong, and i can onyl restate the above to prove it.
-:::#Yes, and that creates immediate help how? That easily shows what is major at a glance how? that is easily understandable to use for all users how? No, history does not fill the same purpose, and does not have the same effectiveness.
-:::#*It's objective plain and simple, you can argue all the cases you want. it's obvious when someone has contributeded a major role to the creation of the template.
-:::#I do not follow wtf you're talking about here i'm afraid, nor did you answer my question.
-:::#Be offended, it's the truth. If there was a medel for the things i listed, you'd get it. But the case here, is creation of the template, not it's deployment and testing, it's nothing to do with bias towards bots and i resent the suggestion it is.
-:::#No, what you're asking to be done is a maintenance nightmare. I've already suggested a way around it or simply not doing it. You don't get an answer, you contact the next person. Immediate help is not the only concern, there's expertise too.
-:::#(moo)
-:::#A template should never be for content, something i hope to see wiped out. The difference is not minute, it is very clear cut. Wording of templates is not really an issue to which i credit myself or a template author, that's something for anyone and everyone to sort out, as it's not part of the templates functionality or design, nor is it specific to templates and thus help would be needed. We're talking about the template itself, not it's written content or media, those will always fall under policies and would never need to be authored in such a way.
-:::--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:31, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: Sorry, we've been discussing this for like 2 days, I really hate rereading everything to pickup my train of thought. Once I figure out how to I am gonna submit a policy proposal on this topic. Given the other's responses here, I think more people are gonna vote "no signing". --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 17:30, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-::::Meh, i could care less what others think, i'd imagine that's often clear :P I welcome democratic voting, it just feel democracy fails when people are uninformed, missinformed, or just plain stupid. People tend not to think so deeply into things to the point of insanity like me, heh. The outcome would determine what is done, not what i beleive. I think the discussion on this (the template authorship that is) can be ended for now until you decide to arrange that policy or an admin wishes to see it resolved futher. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 19:29, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-::I personally would also like to see less "signing" on articles and have to agree with Voidvector on the "Template Author" nonsense. There are different ways of making a name for yourself than plastering your name on every template you happen to touch. The history works just fine, if someone who is using the template can't figure it out from the source, the history, or the talk page, they can start a discussion. Labeling templates or articles as "mine" or "yours" is ridiculous in a Wiki community. The moment you upload source to the Wiki, it's no longer yours. If you want to make a repository of Wiki template code, do it on your own site or your own Wiki. This also makes it difficult for people to modify templates if you act like you own it. Not really fostering a community mentality there, is it? --{{User:Tusva/Sig}} 17:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::First of all, this has nothing to do with making a name for myself, i'm not here and i don't do things to gain popularity or respect, my attitude should reflect that more than enough. There no labelling as mine/yours, just simply those who have has major contributions to the template and can help you if you need further or immediate advice/help.
-:::I know the policy on ownership of wiki content, i don't claim to own it, merely that i can help as i've had a major hand in creating it. Someone people are fairly wiki illiterate, not knowing the meaning and use of the history. Others may know what they want, but don't know about how to get it/do it, so they don't touch the template. I've never said "oi, don't touch that, it's my template", people have made changes to templates i've worked on, people have discussed changes i've later made in accordance. Asking on the talk page will get a reaction from me soon enough, as you know tusva. But adding something on my talk page is going to always get immediate attention and action when it's needed. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::On a side note, if there was a template team of some sorts, those who could provide coding help and help with all existing templates, then i wouldn't see a need for template authorship, it's negated. The help team doesn't really cover this from what i can see, nor should it imo, as it's a more specialized and active focus. So yeah, there's something to consider. Naturally i'd want to be on such a team >_>; --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 23:19, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-I just wanted to say that there shouldn't be as much random user names around articles, not start a flame war. This is a wiki, an article should provide as much information on a topic as possible, and otherwise link to a detailed article on a similar topic. This is not a forum. --[[User talk:Tinkerer|<font color="green">T</font>]][[User:Tinkerer|<font color="green">inker</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Tinkerer|<small><font color="black">er</font></small>]] 15:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-=== Signing ===
-i think there are 2 issues here. can we split these up for "easier" reading, this thread is getting HUGE. !!!! {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:42, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-==== Signing Project pages ====
-Simple, its annoying and needs to stop, i delete them whenever i see them, any boss tactics need to be minimized into 1 tactic that "works" {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:42, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-Touching on the original subject (I think), or rather, [[User:Voidvector|Void]]'s first reply, I have to say that ''most'' articles shouldn't have a signature; not all though. I have to point to [[Server:Shadowmoon US|Shadowmoon US]] as an example of one that should have them; as I am the primary maintainer of the server page, I'd not like people to screw around with the page in a malicious matter. My sig is there just for the reminder that I ''do'' check it every day to make sure the article deserves to remain an article (not many others have touched it, but that's another story I believe).--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:01, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:Well i don't agree with that. You do not need to mark that you watch it, nor that it is something you contribute to often and majorly. That in no way benefits the readers, and in fact misleads them into thinking the article is completely written by you and from your perspective (be it neutral or w/e). I've been the main (i think only too) contributer of [[Timeline (unofficial)]], but there is no sense in me applying my signature there, nor do i wish to. I want others to be contributing to it, and adding my signature would deter them from it, in beleif it is written as a peice of my work. I don't want them actively seeking me out on advice or questions, though i'm happy to offer my thoughts on the talk page just like any article. Of course i watch it, and of course i will continue to maintain it, but i would never dream of putting my signature on it, even if i am proud of it.--{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 23:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-: Pretty much the only places where it's a no-no to mess with someone else's work is the User: space and someone's post on a talk page. Other than that, it's rather rude to mark something with a signature, since it discourage people from editing and basically declares it "your page." Nothing wrong with being the primary maintainer (I pay a lot of attention to the edits my server page gets), but there's always room for someone else's contributions on a wiki. A signature detracts from that. {{User:Montag/sig}} 00:44, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-Part of it is for simple identification: many people do not know what the History button leads to, nor do they use it (I didn't for a long time!). And I just realized that particular note isn't on the Wiki. ;P. Ah well.
-I do have a question for you, however. How can you know that adding a signature will deter anyone from changing the article? I realize that the talk page is where a signature should be, and most will be there... Eh. Now I'm not making sense to myself. ;(.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:27, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:People don't know it's significance, you assume they would. The most logical conclusion of someone signing something is that they have said everything prior, it is their pov, and it's their work. Thus is would deter them from editing it, and possibly mark it for deletion. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 19:29, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-The only deviation i could see, is signing a page that's under construction. sometimes you start a pretty BIG page, and it can be destructive, or just plain annoying if somebody starts editing a page before you're "done" with a version that's ready for public editing. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 05:43, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-: Just had a fancy idea [[Template:Construction]], ofcourse the template needs some work. but you get the idea. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 06:12, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-:Er.. i do, and i would suggest overs do, develop pages with show preview and do not submit until done. If there are wiki limitations that require submitting to test (ie templates), then i develop in my sandbox and do not move it to public space until it's ready to be looked at and edited by everyone. I see no reason to personally develop pages in public space, so no reason for such a header or signing. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 11:58, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-==== Signing templates ====
-Tbh, i dont see why anyone would sign a template.. i agree the history page shows who did anything, and in the comment part you can descript what you did.  any discussion whether improvements are needed at all, or preview before commiting can also be put on the talk page {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:42, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-== WHAT MAKES A GOOD GUILD? ==
-My two friends and myself have recently started a new guild: "Das Doom".  This is our first guild that we have created.  I am trying to get as much feedback as possible to make our guild fun and beneficial to be in.  We have started a Ventrilo server, and have made a guild tabard that all guild members agreed on.  We are looking to form our guild so that players can obtain good armor and weapons, can level quickly, and we are really wanting to be able to do raids.  If you have suggestions on how we can better obtain this goal...please let me know via WoW:Soullswipper- Doomhammer, email:jl.hunt@yahoo.com, or this discussion board.
-:Bring treats to raids. {{User:Fusk/sig}}14:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:#Hit 40.
-:#Make sure everyone connects at least once every two days.
-:#Avoid having IRL friends in your guild.
-:#Try to get a TeamSpeak server.
-:#If you reach 20 members, create a forum. If you get 30, create a blog. If you get more than 40, create a website.--[[User:Kirochi|<span style="border-bottom:2px; cursor:help" title="Kirochi is a WoWWiki Bookkeeper and AMA member"><font color="green">'''K'''</font> <font color="red">''')'''</font></span>]] <small>([[User talk:Kirochi|talk]])</small> 15:46, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-Basically, you need to satisfy as many people as you possibly can. It's tough work. There are 5 major focuses for a guild: casual, raid, PvP, RP, and leveling. Leveling guilds most exist on new servers. RP guilds mostly exist on RP realms. While a guild can focus on any one of those, in order for it to be Good™, it needs to focus on raid because 1) it's hard for a player to PuG a raid, 2) raid is where the best equipments are. A player in a raiding guild can easily PuG casual and PvP content, but the reverse is far more difficult.
-: Either get / construct a tight group of hardcore player (high attendance), or create a LARGE group of people, and always invite the ones who show up the most "first", eventually this will lead to a guild split however.. as we did :) {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:30, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-For organization, try to make sure your core group is self sufficient (healers + tanks), so you can always PuG if people don't show up. Also you need someone with experience to be raid leader who will organize raids and give instructions. Unless you are the leading guild on the server, minimize wipes at all cost (even if it involves stop and continue the next day), because a lot of people won't put up with wiping in MC if they can find a better guild. Unless you are the leading guild on the server, don't force people to do stuff (e.g. force someone to respec, force someone to heal if they indicated their discontent), because a lot of people won't put up with it. Don't let personality get in the way of guild progress (e.g. prevent disputes). --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 16:58, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-Take a look at the official Guild Relations forum.  There are a number of guides there to help you, in particular Wytch's "So You Want to Be a Guild Leader." --[[User:Anaea|Anaea]] 10:10, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-== Gear lists ==
-[[User:CrazyJack|CJ]] and I have been discussing on how to overhaul the list of resistance pages. He has already asked for comments at [[Template talk:Resistlinks|Resistlinks]] (and I have gladly obliged!). However, I came across [[Tanking equipment (Paladin)]] and though, "Wow, looks a lot like the resistance pages do." Quite naturally, I suspect that this is how the majority of such list pages look like (I don't think loot pages look quite like this, but are similar). I'm looking for comment here, because most of those articles need attention desperately, and I don't want to go about editing them when we could be using a template of some sort to make my/our lives easier.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 17:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)<br>
-An idea for the template might be <nowiki>{{value (for resist items)|quality|itemname|area/profession|mob/level (of profession)|class}}</nowiki>. Just an idea, though. As I don't know how to write the template...--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 17:10, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:Because this so closely follows with recent discussions on item standards (and the future possible inclusion use), i'm inclinded to say hold out for what happens with that, as it will probably address such use and the validity of such use.
-:I didn't really follow what was going on with the template design on the talk page :S --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 21:10, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::Hehe, that's because CJ was editing the original table, rather than throwing together a new table each time.<br>What discussion? Just wanna' know what I'm missing. :)--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 22:48, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Policy/Item_Article_Standardization --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 22:55, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-:::: This article has more effect on individual item pages i think ? e.g. "mighty warhammer of ogre bashing", rather than specific lookup listings such as cloth fire resist, plate nature resist, [[Jewels]]. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:27, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-:I just moved that page ([[Tanking equipment (Paladin)]]) yesterday to its current position. Its original title was "tankadin" something. Now, both that page and the druid tanking gear page are under the same name scheme. I don't think this is relevant to the discussion, but hey, just want to bring it up. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 23:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-::I'm fairly certain you did that right before I went to edit it; ;P. I random paged it, and then there it was in the recent changes log little after.--[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 23:52, 30 January 2007 (EST)
-i'm working on a "method" to make table rows more easy. [[Talk:Hunter_weapon]], the method should be useable for the resistance gear lists as well.
-: 1 thing at a time though, obviously.
-: i think that 1 template could probably be used for all those tabled... 1 thing is for sure though the table row colors need to be standardized. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-== upper ==
-[[Template:Upper]] : Generally "upper" is used in programming to ensure words are made into upper case letters, to make tests more simple. instead of having to test both upper and lower case variants.. would such a template be possible to make in the wiki? <br> Reason i ask is because [[Template:Loot]] uses "Epic", so anything like EPIC, epic, ePiC will not give the expected results. while if the test was done with an "upper(epic) == EPIC" there would only need to be 1 test done to yield the expected result, no matter how its written on the calling page.  {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:20, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-: Yo could probably use <code>text-transform: uppercase;</code> CSS here. {{User:Montag/sig}} 10:14, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-::The CSS only changes the display of the text after the page is loaded, not the value of it before, so it would have no effect in the code. --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:05, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-==Template help==
-ok what [[WoWWiki:Sandbox/43]] am i doing wrong.... {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 15:15, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-:I had already told you not to use the method you tried.. I've fixed it. Though i've discovered i need to do some sandbox tests with loot as it's having trouble with null values when it shouldn't --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 15:48, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-: never hurts to experiment :P
-: cheers for the fix tho. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 16:47, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-== wow account help ==
-<!-- Put the topic in the box above, and leave the "--~~~~"s at the bottom. It automatically becomes a signature! You can delete this line.-->
-does anyone know what to do if you cancelled a wow account and need to get it back?if anyone can answer i would be very greatful.
---[[User:Valcarass|Valcarass]] 19:03, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-:Some things to try (assuming you are in the US):
-:* You could start by visiting [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=abl01033p Recovering Your Password or Account Name] at the [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/ WoW Billing area] of the [[Blizz]]ard support site. This will at least give you some ideas about how to contact Blizzard and what info you might need to get your account back.
-:* There is also [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=abl01034p Reactivating Your Account].
-:* ...and [http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=abl01922p Contacting Billing and Account Services].
-:--[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Admin">Fandyllic</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 5:28 PM PST 31 Jan 2007
-:: Grr, if you still have your username and password, you can just log onto account management and type in your credit card/payment info, then the account would be activated immediately. You can still log in to account management after you canceled the account. I know cause I tried to quit many times =). --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] 21:40, 31 January 2007 (EST)
-::: Wowcaholics anonymous, man. We all know that page. [[Image:Icon-player.png]] {{User:Montag/sig}} 00:33, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-== Manual of Style ==
-I think the [[WoWWiki:Manual of Style]] is ready for some review and voting once people have looked it over. {{User:Montag/sig}} 00:51, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-== How to signal a page that needs update ? ==
-Often I read articles/pages and see some information is old, pre-BC most of the time, for example it refers to %hit while we now use score, or it claims Swipe is on 1.75 multiplier etc. I don't always have the time to fix it, but I wish to signal that this page needs fixing, at least for the next time I have sparetime for wowwiki, or for other people to check it out for me.
-How best can I acheive that ?
---[[User:Gronyon|Gronyon]] 08:55, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-: [[Template:Cleanup]] ? i guess.   though i think we should make a new template for it perhaps {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:03, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-: I Beleive there is {{tlink|ood}} you can use --{{User:Zeal/Sig}} 12:09, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-== french stuff. ==
-[[Tomato]] is a french page..   though this is an english wiki.    anyone have thoughts on this?  personally i'd prefer to see all pages in english, before there are even more non english pages created.. {{:User:CrazyJack/Sig}} 09:03, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-: It's a guildpage, can't really see the harm in it. It's kind of silly, that when you're cretaing a swedish only guild, per example, that you start recruiting people in another language. Highly inapropriate towards those who do not understand it, ofcourse, but you will attract only those that you want to attract. --[[User:Patrigan|<font color=#00CC33>'''Patrigan'''</font>]] - <small>[[User_talk:Patrigan|Talk]]</small> - [[Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe|''SH (EU)'']] 10:31, 1 February 2007 (EST)
-:: I'm on it. I'm getting rather pissed off at'em since there's a French Warcraft wiki already.--[[User:Kirochi|<span style="border-bottom:2px; cursor:help" title="Kirochi is a WoWWiki Bookkeeper and AMA member"><font color="green">'''K'''</font> <font color="red">''')'''</font></span>]] <small>([[User talk:Kirochi|talk]])</small> 11:15, 1 February 2007 (EST)