No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Forumheader|Wowpedia policy}} |
||
| − | I totaly agre with this merger of {{t|Alliance Icon Small}}, {{t|Horde Icon Small}} and {{t|Neutral Icon Small}} as well as the larger versions {{t|Alliance Icon}}, {{t|Horde Icon}} and {{t|Neutral Icon}} - but to take some of the work load off -- I think we should change the redirects on {{t|Alliance}} and {{t|Horde}} template to be {{t|FactionIcon|Alliance|small}} for {{t|Alliance}} and {{t|FactionIcon|Horde|small}} for {{t|Horde}} and make <nowiki>{{Neutral}}</nowiki> be {{t|FactionIcon|Neutral|small}} ((After the old <nowiki>{{Neutral}}</nowiki> template has been changed to its proper {{t|Reputation|neutral}} format)) -- that way we can still use the {{t|Alliance}} and {{t|Horde}} templates and not have to replace them all ( my opinion). -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | <!-- Please put your content under this paragraph. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> |
||
| − | :I was personally thinking more the other way around. {{t|alliance}} and {{t|horde}} is terribly convenient. Put parameters on these for the (less frequent) need for the other icons. But that assumption may be in correct, which is why I put it up for discussion. {{User:Howbizr/sign}} 10:57 PM, 26 Jul 2009 (EDT) |
||
| − | ::At the moment {{t|Alliance}} and {{t|Horde}} both redirect to {{t|Alliance Icon Small}} and {{t|Horde Icon Small}} - going with your idea of merging the individual Icon template {{t|Alliance Icon}}, {{t|Alliance Icon Small}}, {{t|Horde Icon}}, {{t|Horde Icon Small}}, {{t|Neutral Icon}}, and {{t|Neutral Icon Small}} could be all merged into the template {{t|FactionIcon}} since it does both sized for all 3 factions - 1 main template -- and we can change {{t|Alliance}} and {{t|Horde}} to no longer be redirects but become shortcuts to <nowiki>{{FactionIcon|Alliance|small}} and {{FactionIcon|Horde|small}}</nowiki>. We can then keep {{t|Alliance}} and {{t|Horde}} on all pages as they are -- and just change the pages that use teh Large and Neutral icons -- or better yet since {{t|Neutral}} no longer is used as a Reputation template it can be the <nowiki>{{FactionIcon|Neutral|Small}}</nowiki> counterpart? -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 03:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::That's fine. Side note, maybe it's {{t|FactionIcon}} that's missing combat support that was the problem with {{t|NPC}}. {{User:Howbizr/sign}} 12:00 AM, 27 Jul 2009 (EDT) |
||
| + | I checked around and didn't find anything about the last news about the RPG, and how to proceed. As you know, CDev questions 2 said the RPG was not canon. Before WP becomes a complete mess with people removing, people tagging or people making new sections, I think we need a policy. |
||
| − | I would think to make things easier and have to type out less, that small would be the default instead of the large versions. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 04:56, September 12, 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | This is my take on it: |
||
| − | == Sort order == |
||
| + | *Small lines integrated into something bigger: references should be enough. |
||
| − | {| class="darktable sortable" style="float:right" |
||
| + | *Small lines not integrated into something bigger: moved to trivia: "In the RPG blablabla, although it may not be canon". |
||
| − | |+ style="width: 5em" | Sort test |
||
| + | *Medium texts that can act as standalone: Moved to a "In the RPG" section with a RPG-section tag. |
||
| − | ! Dev |
||
| + | *Articles that are 90% RPG: bring back the RPG tag in the first line of the article, so people know it's from the RPG without needing to check sources one by one. |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon/dev|Alliance|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon/dev|Combat|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon/dev|Horde|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon/dev|Neutral|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon/dev|Aldor|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon/dev|Scryers|sort=}} |
||
| − | |} |
||
| + | Well, that's my suggestion. Waiting for general consensus before everyone starts to do what they want. Would be nice if this was linked as a sitenotice, so everyone is aware.--[[User:Lon-ami|Lon-ami]] ([[User talk:Lon-ami|talk]]) 11:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | {| class="darktable sortable" style="float:right; margin-left:1em" |
||
| − | |+ style="width: 5em" | Sort test |
||
| − | ! Live |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon|Alliance|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon|Horde|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon|Neutral|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon|Combat|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon|Aldor|sort=}} |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | |{{FactionIcon|Scryers|sort=}} |
||
| − | |} |
||
| + | :I already modified [[:Template:RPG-section]] to clarify. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | I think this is a more reasonable sort order ({{t|FactionIcon/dev}}). Does anyone disagree? {{User:Howbizr/sign}} 6:31 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT) |
||
| + | ::I don't think that's enough to handle the problem. I'd call for community discussion.--[[User:Lon-ami|Lon-ami]] ([[User talk:Lon-ami|talk]]) 12:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :I figured that [[File:Alliance 32.gif]], [[File:Horde 32.gif]] and {{factionIcon|neutral}} were more impotant factions thant {{factionIcon|Aldor}} and {{factionIcon|Scryers}} so did not put the latter 2 in perfect alpha order with the primaries. So I choose the way the Live version is (personaly). -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
| − | :: |
+ | :::I'm well aware of that, but it's a start. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 12:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
| ⚫ | |||
| − | :::I agree it is not perfect Aldor, Alliance, Combat, Horde, Neutral, Scryers order but so far I have never see anyone use Aldor up against any other faction other than Scryers, or use Alliance with any other faction other than Horde or Neutral -- in this case it is in Alpha order Alliance will always be before Horde before Neutral and Aldor is always before Scryers. Primaries and then Secondaries, then yes it is in perfect alpha order. -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | :::::Should Appendix 3 be back to the mainspace? I thought we banished it, and that wouldn't change no matter the new stance. |
||
| − | ::::Going with what you just said, no need to architect for a situation that isn't happening yet. So I'm putting in the alpha sort, so that the template is easier to maintain. If any other icons are added, no changes will be needed to support them. If in the future this "natural order" sorting is a problem, we'll override it. {{User:Howbizr/sign}} 8:52 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT) |
||
| + | :::::As for that small information, I'd just leave it in a "trivia" section. Not worth tdo what you ask, considering it's not canon anymore.--[[User:Lon-ami|Lon-ami]] ([[User talk:Lon-ami|talk]]) 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::::That works for me. '''Easy''' is better (most of the time) -- {{:User:Jrooksjr/SigX}} 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::::::No, Appendix 3 should be forever banished from the mainspace. |
||
| − | == Enemy factions== |
||
| + | ::::::As for the Deepholm denizens (and other areas) that are only in the RPG, they should be abolished overall from the lists. The last thing we need is '''even ''more''''' icons. --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 12:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | Could anyone make icons for the big villain factions please |
||
| − | *Illidian's forces |
||
| − | *Burning Legion |
||
| − | *Scourge |
||
| − | *Twilight Hammer |
||
| − | thanks--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :The current ones are reflective of the gameplay aspect. Why subdivide the combat icon?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 04:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
| + | :::::::Well, most of those don't have icons anyway. I'd move them to trivia in list form, something like: "In the RPG, these creatures were denizens of this realm: a, b, c and d, but it's not canon". |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | :::::::As for Appendix 3, I asked because I saw someone moving the information: [[Ettin]].--[[User:Lon-ami|Lon-ami]] ([[User talk:Lon-ami|talk]]) 12:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::::::::i don't know if you misunderstood me or not, but what i meant was adding a icon like the one in the [[Template:RPG-section]] but without the text to the list from those that were from the RPG--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::Those icons represent how things react to the player.--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 17:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
| + | :::::::::I suggest creating a huge category of RPG, containing all things RPG and inside create RPG characters category inside to include RPG characters and move them over from the Lore Characters category. And also, sorry about the ettin article, didn't know the source was banished, I thought it's just another RPG book... [[Image:IconSmall_HighElf_Male.gif]] '''[[User:Sl2059|Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin]]''' ([[User talk:Sl2059|Leave a Message]]) 15:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | == New icons == |
||
| − | {{comment}} |
||
| − | It seems we are getting some new icons... What do people think of [http://www.wowwiki.com/Template:FactionIcon2 this]?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 21:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| + | :I'm going to try the separate the rpg information from he official information in the elemental hierarchy article.--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Possibly.. I haven't completed decided if we all want to add more, a vote can be had... however, I'd like to use the new Horde and Alliance icons, change to a PNG format (rather than GIF) and add the capability of xlarge icons to this template. Unless there is any disagreements to that. Of course, have to wait till [[File:Neutral 15.png]] fixes itself from having a white background, before I do that. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::I |
+ | :: I think i've managed.--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 14:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
| − | |||
| − | Okay, the new Alliance/Horde icons have be switched over and many templates that used the old ones have been switched over as well. We'll probably keep {{t|Alliance Icon}} and {{t|Horde Icon}} for the ones that want to use the older icons... otherwise everything should be switched from them to {{t|FactionIcon|Alliance/Horde}}. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 05:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :"Getting some new icons"? What did I miss? Where are those icons from? From an official source, or are they just created by Fandyllic? --{{User:Gourra/Sig2}} 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::Well, Fandyllic likely took the images from tabards or banners from game files to make them... so they're official. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 08:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:04, 26 June 2011
Forums: Village pump → The RPG dilemma
I checked around and didn't find anything about the last news about the RPG, and how to proceed. As you know, CDev questions 2 said the RPG was not canon. Before WP becomes a complete mess with people removing, people tagging or people making new sections, I think we need a policy.
This is my take on it:
- Small lines integrated into something bigger: references should be enough.
- Small lines not integrated into something bigger: moved to trivia: "In the RPG blablabla, although it may not be canon".
- Medium texts that can act as standalone: Moved to a "In the RPG" section with a RPG-section tag.
- Articles that are 90% RPG: bring back the RPG tag in the first line of the article, so people know it's from the RPG without needing to check sources one by one.
Well, that's my suggestion. Waiting for general consensus before everyone starts to do what they want. Would be nice if this was linked as a sitenotice, so everyone is aware.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I already modified Template:RPG-section to clarify. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need a smaller icon for certain situations(example denizens of deepholm that are only on the RPG)something like the icons on expansions.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, most of those don't have icons anyway. I'd move them to trivia in list form, something like: "In the RPG, these creatures were denizens of this realm: a, b, c and d, but it's not canon".
- As for Appendix 3, I asked because I saw someone moving the information: Ettin.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- i don't know if you misunderstood me or not, but what i meant was adding a icon like the one in the Template:RPG-section but without the text to the list from those that were from the RPG--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest creating a huge category of RPG, containing all things RPG and inside create RPG characters category inside to include RPG characters and move them over from the Lore Characters category. And also, sorry about the ettin article, didn't know the source was banished, I thought it's just another RPG book...
Aesindor, The Celestial Paladin (Leave a Message) 15:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest creating a huge category of RPG, containing all things RPG and inside create RPG characters category inside to include RPG characters and move them over from the Lore Characters category. And also, sorry about the ettin article, didn't know the source was banished, I thought it's just another RPG book...
- I'm going to try the separate the rpg information from he official information in the elemental hierarchy article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think i've managed.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)