Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
Advertisement

--SWM2448 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Preview

I notice you have a number of small edits on Template:Hunter pets. If you're editing a lot of things on one page and want to see how it looks, you may wish to use the "Show preview" button before saving the page to see that. Thanks! --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 14:02, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Removing icons

I shouldn't have to. I did for the giants, but if you do everything in one edit, I'm just going to hit revert (if it involved added many icons). SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 21:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sighing wrecking what i wasted a few hours is painstakingly since i believe it helps significantly to everybody looking at it, and i don't see clutter anywhere in fact it removes the sense of clutter because it divides races more cleanly but i'll see what i can do--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Personnal advice: for such changes, work it aside on your name space, then show and talk it in the template talk page.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 21:31, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I still plan to do a example for the template:races so i can prove it doesn't look cluttered and actually looks less cluttered because it removes focus on words dividing it with images--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any complaints then for the creature template icons then A'NOOB?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

SoL

Likely due to their exclusive images from Blizzard HQ. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:19, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I also assumed that, managed to find a email of a admin we'll see what they say--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:21, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Well that was fast the admin is changing the host :P--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:22, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Ah. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:30, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Brasscannon icon

What do you think IconSmall CannonBrass or File:Brasscannon2.gif for the alliance gunship cannon icon? SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:21, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Put the two they are already uploaded, put one has alternate ,i think since we already have alternate for ogres and blood elfs--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:58, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd rather there not be an alternative image to this, when only 2 cannons actively use the model. But if you have a preference I'd love to know it, cause one of them will be deleted. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 00:17, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
The first looks cooler but the second reveals more but it misses a the front part, so it's kinda of a moot point, but i guess the first since it looks cooler and i'am able to associate it with a cannon faster

Your Cataclysm page creations

Some of the new articles that you made for creatures from Cataclysm based on this Wowhead blog post have some problems about them. Storm dragons are not mentioned on page 141 of Shadows & Light. Pygmies are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Jungle plants are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Barramunda, though concept art of them exists, are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Finally, Monkeys are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Am I missing a major section of the blog post, or is this an ill disguised attempt at using alpha information to complete your race listing templates?--SWM2448 22:30, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ergh no the shadow light was a accident while copying something, i thought i removed it, pygmies where shown in the cataclysm presentation at blizcon with the model of sand gnomes, monkeys, jungle plants, ettins are too mentioned in earlier previews, and barramunda is concept art but many things that are a concept art are also there, you're not missing any anything, what you're doing is dismissing earlier previews, and now i'm not doing any of that race listing template thing i was trying to fill the red links on the cataclysm page, because red links in articles look bad, especially main articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

If the pages are based on earlier legitimate previews, why not use those previews as citation in the stead of Wowhead?--SWM2448 00:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I just copy pasted most of it so i didn't discern differences sloppy job of me but i disliked the red links--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please do not create sloppy pages just to get rid of a red link. Also, please find the sources you mentioned for the pages you created, and add them to the pages.--SWM2448 01:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Titanic watchers and such

Auraya exists within Ulduar, and is therefore part of an "Ulduar group," but I am trying to classify the group of six "watchers/keepers" around Ulduar that each have their own temple separately from the others. Auraya seems weaker and less important. I am not sure what her not having her own icon on WoWWiki has to do with anything. As for organization, I want to avoid assumptions, but I also want to classify the "titanic watchers" based on their differences. "Watcher" and "keeper" are used as the label for several titanic things, and I am going to dig through some sources for some context. Some of the things listed on the page just might share models, but may have never been called a "watcher" or "keeper". What purpose does organizing them by location serve?--SWM2448 21:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better because then we don't so many without any type of description and some with a description that might apply to others and classifying by location seems to be the most correct at least until we get more on uldum dungeon, and I've checked each entry in there they are either responsible for something I'm pretty sure Ironaya and archaedas are from uldaman and are clearly titan constructs watching something, Myzrael was a corrupted by the old gods, Cretus job seemed to check on the watchers so technically he was watching the watchers, Nablya is a new titan, so she might no be considered a titanic watcher, maiden of grief and Jotun are unknown, but the location might hint that they are watching something, there also Algalon which is a titan construct trough a elemental one and has the job of observing practicably the same as watching, and Auraya is the Ulduar archivist, yes she looks less important but her "temple" was probably the archives inside Ulduar--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:37, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well then I will just have to try and add descriptions (with citation). Just because they watch something does not necessarily mean that they are "watchers," but it might... I am not sure. They have to be called watchers (or keepers, which seems to mean the same thing, or at least greatly overlap). The Uldum ones are called "constructs," so they are not likely titans, which the Ulduar ones still may be. Saying that Auraya's "temple" was probably the archives inside Ulduar is, in my opinion, much more unlikely then saying that the other six watchers are different than her. Why do you think this?--SWM2448 23:01, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be subcategorized at all... no other creature page does it... if anything they could have a "found in <location" statement after their name. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 23:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Are they a single type of creature, or different groups of things given a title?--SWM2448 23:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know anymore... they were said to be titans, but then changed because Metzan said we have yet to meet a titan? Personally, I think he meant one of the top titans, when he made that comment. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 23:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
Some of them are minor titans others are just titan constructs responsible for overseeing parts of azeroth, some are for guarding stuff, this is in the main description of the article--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:47, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
You are citing the article, with the article? I feel it is more important to properly define "watcher" and "keeper" than to heed the attempted definition as the criteria for the page.--SWM2448 17:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
To answer the Auraya question because she was the archivist, it would be probable that she should be in the "The Archivium", however she is crazy and have wondered off--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:51, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
That does not prove anything either way.--SWM2448 17:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
I also have a picture of the new quest npcs in uldaman calling ironaya or archaedas a titanic watcher,i'll check and post it later--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
I think the phrase "titanic watcher" was created by WoWWiki to differentiate between Maiev's Watchers, the bronze dragonflight's Watchers. It could be moved to "Watcher (titanic/titan)" if need be...--SWM2448 17:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes but the new Image shows a quest npc in Uldaman using Titanic watcher to reference one or two, the guy that posted the image has a annoying bandwith maximum reached and doesn't let you check older images, but i'll get it--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
So it might have been an official term before after all. Anyway, all that means is that Archaedas and/or Ironaya can stay on the page.--SWM2448 23:36, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Once i have the image i'll post it here--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:20, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
Have the picture:

http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae359/bumblebee515/Uldaman/WoWScrnShot_092310_224555.jpg

It's photobucket so i don't know how to make it bigger, there's also another quest that treats archaedas and Ironaya (calling them powerfull constructs left by the creator) as the same so i guess both can be counted as titanic watcher--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:48, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

oh this post automaticly the pictures, know a new something everyday

http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae359/bumblebee515/Uldaman/WoWScrnShot_092310_224614.jpg I'l have to ask if the powercores come from ironaya and archaedas trough--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired

Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to people that know more about the inner workings of wikipedia than me. Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
OK, just realize the web address may be changing - or rather people may be going to another site rather than keep this one up to date. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:48, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
But what's the problem with wikia?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:50, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
They're forcing changes on us that are unreasonable, you can see a list of them on the forum page above. Mainly, they're going to be adding more ads and reducing the content page further, in addition to a bunch of other things. You'll be able to turn on the new look for yourself tomorrow (and it becomes mandatory on Wikia in a month), if you need help figuring how to do it so you can see for yourself let me know then. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
I saw some pictures I agree that some changes are unreasonable, but i'm not a hypocrite as my support for unification of things is very strong, so i do not think dividing would be good, also in my opinion of unification is that you can change some things and influence on the inside rather than dividing itself out, but it's not like my opinion will change much anyway--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:59, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, definitely, not splitting would be best to retain as many people as possible (and we're trying to make sure as many people are aware as we can), but we've been trying to work with Wikia on this and other things before and it's not working out for us. They've budged maybe half an inch when they needed to have budged a mile, while we've given up a lot, of control and other things. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 23:18, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Can you complain that the right bar makes me read article painful? it's made in a way it gives me headaches to read--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:32, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I think it's already been reported though - and you can always switch to another skin for now. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:35, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i know i just checked the skin and i my head gave a headache turned it off right after--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:49, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hostility

You have been involved in edit wars on several pages of various kinds now, asserting your views as correct in a hostile manner. If this keeps up, you may be given a temporary ban to cool off. You are welcome to keep contributing, but do so in a better manner.--SWM2448 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not my fault he can't take a joke.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not only talking about the bias pages, nor am I sure that was the main problem on them.--SWM2448 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What else are you talking about them? the only thing i changed was bias pages and tried added jokes at the end which were constantly removed by him, if these weren't a silly page he would have reason, but since it's only a silly page he's the one that's wrong--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nearly every page you edit ends up as an edit war to some extent, with dominance in the stead of consensus being the goal.--SWM2448 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What other pages?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:Species comes to mind. As does pages related to it.--SWM2448 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
PCJ is the one that said that he didn't want us to pull that () crap in that template and to keep it simple--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Just tone it down.--SWM2448 19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine but can you at least add a joke to the end of both bias articles, it's kinda boring this way--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if it's boring, and I am not going to be drawn into any fights.--SWM2448 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice

For the safety of all, please remember the following advice:

Do not blindly reverse the edits that were undone. Instead, go to the talk page and discuss the changes with calm and choosen words.

This may seem "easy to say", but know that I was once like you, and if need be you will learn this rule with a ban juste like I did ;)

Keep up the good work Ashbear.

IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously this is not funny he's ruining everything, for basicly no reason--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that you enjoy classifying and organizing "races" very much. However, you are getting into several edit wars over details that are largely unnecessary, and then acting erratically. If you want to do some kind of massive overhaul of several things/templates, please discuss your overall plan beforehand in an organized fashion. Like the forums (and work collaboratively, with citation!). Continuing anger and edit wars, especially over trivial minutia, will result in a ban fairly soon if you keep it up.--SWM2448 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I already did it's in the main sapient races template dicussion and this has been accepted a long time ago, it's not my fault PCJ just named the templates wrong, It's normal that i become a little irrational i spent a long time on those templates and fitting them to every one complaints, so that one admin arrives and ruins it because the Article Names are not correct, I spent over a month listening to every complaint that everyone had--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, on Template talk:Species, a fairly large amount of adjustments are noted. However, there are obviously still some disagreements about your overall vision.--SWM2448 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried my best but you can't please everyone all of the time, and that kinda died after a while so i didn't have chances to explore these problems further, i'm pretty sure i dealt with all that problems till that point, i made a post in the forum anyway like you asked
Check the archives of that discussion Basicly the Template evolved from this

Into What you see the today(i can't show how it was before the division because the Template:race Dev article was deleted)--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

SWM can i change the name of the article to fit the purpose of the article?
This confuses me a bit. You largely decided the content of the ever-changing templates, and now you say that the names that Pcj chose do not match your vision. Giving you permission to move the templates might lead to more chaos.--SWM2448 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Is not the names that are the problem but the fact that Gourra takes the article names literally and deletes everything that doesn't correspond to it, for example The icon list a project page had Gourra delete all the mechanical icons because it was called "race list" and not "creature list", i had to undo the delete and ask him to change the name accordingly, also it wasn't i that decided this, i asked many people their opinions and tried to optimise it to best of everyone opinions, took me over a month, now he's changing it because the original names of the templates are not exactly defined.
Also there is already a demon template(with non-sapient demons), i need to change it to sapient demon template so at least it's not a duplication of articles that is justified.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it says something about an article if the content can be so changed that the name no longer matches, or if the name itself dictates the content. Consensus is the key. g0urra is just trying to keep things sane. Hmm... Okay, fine. Where did Pcj forbid you from doing whatever? If he did, keep not doing whatever. I will assume he had a reason, as I was not a participant in the original discussion. If he did not expressly forbid you from doing something, then I will give you my permission. If you do cause chaos, then you will be banned for a while (hopefully you will understand what the problem that caused you to be banned was, if it comes to that), and you will learn a valuable lesson about not causing wiki-strife. I am actually in the process of writing a detailed explanation of why you might aggravate people, for your benefit.--SWM2448 21:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
He didn't forbid me, he more kinda didn't let me start the templates because some of these he didn't considered needed, i told him that i couldn't use the templates as a alternative because it had thing like warlocks and non-sentient species, he accepted my argument, and made the templates, except dragonkin which really isn't needed because that template works just fine due to just having one Non-sapient species, i conceded on that, and i still agree with him dragonkin sapient template is still not needed, i'm also not causing chaos i'm just grabbing the name of the articles and substitute it with the name of the templates which are what is the original intent of the article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Specificly these two, tell me if you have any problem with these two changes:
-Template:Demons to Template:Sapient Demons
-Template:Eternal to Template:Sapient Nature, divine spirits and Eternals or Template:Sapient Other, which of these 2 do you think it's best for a template for those things that don't fit in the other templates?
I'm sorry if i sound aggravating but when i see someone ruining a template i took over a month to design, because the name of the article was done in a spurt of the moment and does not fit the purpose of the thread, it's normal to get a little angry, particularly since i had to heard so many opinions and a lot of brain bending to fit everything perfectly.
Correction i started on September 5 of 2009 and it was divided and ended around December, apparently took over a month is understating...--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"Template:Sapient Nature, divine spirits and Eternals" or "Template:Sapient Other"? Those are very odd names. Tell me, in you own clear words, what this template are actually (supposed to be) for? What goes on it? Besides sapience. Also, while you have obviously put a lot of work into these templates, and while the original version was not perfect, your versions are not perfect either.--SWM2448 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Last template, or all of the templates?, and i never believe in the perfection, only in constant improvement, but catering with everyone criticisms has left me with a almost complete templates, and i do not see much room for improvement.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The last template that you mentioned. As in, the one(?) that I mentioned. Let us focus on that.--SWM2448 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well essentially the original premise is that it's supposed to be about everything else that isn't the other templates, and due to the way the other templates are made, it only leaves Gods, Natures spirits(elementals and plant things) and divine spirits(Angels, guardians, naaru and spirit healers)--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not know what a good name would be. Those things seem unrelated (they are not all what would be considered "Eternals" as far as I know), so grouping them is pointless. What I think happened was that you felt the need to list everything, and it got to big, so what would just be smaller sections on a massive template became small sections on a strange template. Maybe you should wait for more feedback about your final product as a whole.--SWM2448 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that i have too much feedback, le sigh, anyway i now have 2 problems as someone criticised the demon template
-Instead of Sapient demons, i need to put that encompasses every fel corrupted race and demons, i though of Sapient Fel Species, or Sapient Fel-Touched Races i prefer the first but i'm going to wait his answer first, but please give me your opinion, on what the best name.
-The template Eternal stemmed from the problem that blizzard official method of classification is flawed in terms of lore where gameplay was more important, this one was evolved from the Uncategorized method of Classification, and now that you mention it, i could remove all the Eternal marks and link them to the religion template which has a more comprehensive list(which i also updated) and Just make it a Sapient Spirits Template
Until i reach a conclusion with these two last templates i'm not changing their names--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Managed to reduced the ancient stuff and put all sub-races

Ancient (Lore · Arcane · War · Wind · Wonder · Protector · Corrupted · Treant · Tree of Life)

What do you think, i need to list them because it's the purpose of the template--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You have more than two problems. I, personally, do not like either of those names for the demon template. If I HAD to pick something, perhaps something like "Demon(ic) and Fel"? Blaming Blizzard does not solve anything. Those are not all the (tree) ancient sub-"races" and, on that topic, I dislike the fact that you are mentioning/discussing the same problem on more than one talk page. Why do you need to list them?--SWM2448 01:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1-It needs to specify that they are sapient at least so Gourra doesn't have a problem, because there's already a template for all demon races including non-sapient and constructs, Do you think "Sapient Demonic and Fel Species" would work? if you think it's too large we could remove the Species, but even if the name was changed it would already redirect if you put{{Demons}} so it's not much of a hassle either
2-can you list any that are missing? i mean besides one that aren't variations of the same model with different names
3-Well that's because i want a answer from admin, and sincerely i'm not entirely trusting of gourra right now, he already had 3 problems with me on article names vs article purpose.
4-I need to list them because it was the purpose of the sub-template, to list subraces that couldn't be seen on the main template
5-Also what do you think of my suggestion to remove eternals from it and link them to the religion template instead and changing the template to sapient spirits or something similiar--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1 - No it does not. Take that up with g0urra. Seriously. Talk to him if you are shaping things around how much you dislike him. Maybe use "races" as that implies sapience to me.
2 - If you are going by model, I don't care.
3 - I am an admin. And there are other users on Wowpedia who count besides administrators... namely all of them. Seriously. Talk to g0urra if you have such a problem.
4 - If you say so.
5 - I think then you would add the religion template into this sort-of mess. Also, "Eternal" is not a race (I'm not sure if you think that), it is a 'template' (status-type-thing) that makes a creature in the Warcraft RPG a badass demigod (because the word 'demigod' did not feel right).
Yeah. Do you at least understand why people like g0urra disagree with you?--SWM2448 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement