Made Changes — What do you think? Edit

Okay, I made alot of changes to WoWWiki:Main Page Dev in the mold of what I'm looking for in a main page. I tried to make the changes as easily undo-able as possible. Any comments appreciated.

Some highlights:

  • Brought back topics list
    • Removed alot of mod information that appears on current main page, though.
  • Removed the colors, but very open to putting some colors back.
  • Filled in some section templates.
  • Removed some sections (Browse and Useful Internal Links).
  • Added some external links.
--Fandyllic 17:13 PST, 15 Dec 2005

Who likes the proposed new Main Page design? Edit

To be honest, if it were up for a vote, I'd vote against it as it looks now.

Why I don't like it:

  1. Colors unnecessary. Don't make things easier to find, just seem like they are there to make it more colorful.
  2. Too much bureaucratic stuff. The people who are interested in this kind of stuff should see one link like Admiistration and Policies and go there.
  3. Too many external links. 'Nuff said.
  4. Too busy (see colors comment). Simplicity seems to be a virtue that is hard learned.
  5. Too many boxes. See "Too busy comment".
  6. Doesn't actually say what WoWWiki is. Saying "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" sort of applies to all wikis.
  7. Too SilverSide! ;-)
    What I mean by this is that it has a big tag on top saying "Do not edit this page" which seems anti-wiki, but clearly –someone– had to create it and one would think with such a commanding statement it would be an admin, but no, it's SilverSide.

What I do like:

  1. The symmetry of the upper part is kind of nice.
  2. Info about when it started and article count is nice.
  3. Having A - Z is good.

--Fandyllic 00:25-8hrs (PST) 14 December 2005

  • ROFL its a work in progress - if you don't like something, then change it! This is not a protected page obviously - unlike the main page, you can change it as you like (-: I dont care if you erase the whole thing and place a link saying 'go to the other wowwiki name wikiwow it's better' go ahead! (although I'd probably revert it lol) - it's a wiki! Make changes, and others (namely me) will complain if they don't like them! Sorry for style of answer i'm in a hurry had to type this note quickly lol --  ℑilver§ℑide 00:05, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)
P.S. No need to vote - it's not a 'proposed main page' it is a development main page, just change it till you like it. I do, however, ask you to think before you act - what is there now is there for a reason... and PLEASE do not change the introduction template, I really like it as it is - at least comment here before you change that part. Also, removing the colors now, tell me what you think! --  ℑilver§ℑide
  • Why would you put...

Template:Main Page/Banner

  • ...on the top of the page and encourage people to change it if they don't like it at the same time?
  • Anyway, I'll start making changes since you removed the obnoxious banner. I should have just removed it rather than editing it with my own obnoxious banner, but what I did seemed more fun at the time.
  • Hopefully other folks will take up your invitation to change things they don't like.
--Fandyllic 01:20-8hrs (PST) 17 October 2005

Archive this?Edit

I'm certain this page is quite long enough. Would anyone be willing to archive it to Talk:Main Page/Archive 1 or similarly named page?

Schmidt 09:08, 29 Nov 2005 (EST)
Done! Also set up a system to do it - just leave a 'archive again please' post or something like that when this page gets too long and I can have it archive in about half a second (-:
-- Silver\Side - 16:01, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)


Somebody moved this to 'Wow 1.82 patch' god knows why... this has nothing to do with that ^^/ I moved it back.

 Silver 12:38, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

Talent Tree Tactical/End-Game Feel SectionsEdit

I wanted to start adding a portion to the classes' sections about the differences (tactical and endgame play-feel) between builds specializing in different trees.

Example:Warlocks who specialize in the Destruction tree have insane burst damage, kill everything fastfastfast, suck down mana like it's nobody's business, will never be able to again use their Voidwalkers...ever, and if anything survives to get close to them they fold like a cheap suit. Their polar opposites are Warlocks who specialize in the Affliction tree. These Warlocks couldn't kill a rat fast if their lives depended on it, spend more time in combat resting than they do casting spells, shun every pet but their Voidwalker, and might as well lie down if their VW loses aggro or dies. In-between these two trees lies the Warlocks who specialize in demonoligy. They simply will...not...die easily and usually have the proper key to winning any given situation tucked away somewhere. They do, however, tend to suck down more soulstones than both of the other two builds put together as they swap out, resummon, and sacrifice their pets constantly.

Something like this only more in-depth. Where would it go? I was thinking either at the bottom of each classes' talent page or in their respective Tactics pages. I know that we've got listings of each classes' most popular builds but I feel that this is a sufficiently different topic that it can warrent its own section. --Arandmoor 13:46, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

Sounds more like something that belongs in the talent page. Something concerning end-game tactics would probably talk more about what kind of roles a warlock would play in end-game raids or pvp.
{--Fandyllic 3:32 PM PST 6 December 2005
Left a message at your user talk page 'bout that (-:
 Silver 18:56, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

Unarchived ongoing conversations Edit

Please do not archive conversations that are still ongoing, usually those that have had posts within the last 7 days. --Powerlord 14:31, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.