Proposed guidelineEdit

I think it would be good to develop in one place a standard article format. At the moment, this issue keeps cropping up in various different places, and I think a single page which can be referred to would help improve the overall look of the wiki and settle any disputes. Obviously what is posted now is just my opinions on what makes an article look good, and any adopted guideline will need to be the result of lengthy community discussion.--Aeleas 15:21, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I like it so far. It's beautiful. Brings me to tears. Pretty much exactly what I envisioned. =) --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 15:59, 4 January 2007 (EST)
Yeah, i've already been trying to work on this, yet all i get is "too much work" or "i don't like the styling" comments, when that's changable and beside the point. Whole idea is it's less work, better structured, and familiar for users. You don't need to understand the boilerplates/templates used, just fill in the info. You can see the sort of thing i aim to propose and been working on in my pages listed here. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 16:03, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I love this page and I think it will be immensely helpful. Might I suggest adding a "Category" recommendation, e.g., "Categorize pages so they can easily be found from similar pages. You may find the Special:Categories list helpful." I would add this myself except if this becomes a formal proposal I don't want to mess with the page content during a voting or some similar action. Also, you may be construing "style" more narrowly than I am. Luci 15:04, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Added a Sidebar link to here under the "development" box. Excellent idea! Everyone, help fill it out a bit more and it shall become an official guideline :) --  Kirkburn talk contr 15:16, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I think a category recommendation in the Manual of Style would definitely be helpful. It seems to fall more under WoWWiki:Category policy and WoWWiki:Categories, and I don't see any established guidelines for how many categories an article should have. Perhaps it could be decided within the context of those pages, then referenced in the Guide.--Aeleas 15:50, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Are you talking about a guideline for creating categories, or a guideline for what categories to tag an article with? // Montagg (talk · contr) 15:05, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Well, I was suggesting reminding people to use them at all, since categorization is often forgotten by new Wiki editors, and then we have to go back and categorize. But you're right, and both of the examples you mention are probably more pressing organizational issues - after all, it doesn't take much time to add a category to a page if the author forgot to, but it can take some time to unwind mis-categorization or merge several similar categories. Luci 22:49, 10 January 2007 (EST)
If it gets written, information related to categorization would go best in the Writing section. Specifically: a quick explanation of categories, why readers and editors think they're cool, caution against creating random categories, and a couple links to more detailed info (policies/guidelines) on creating and managing categories. // Montagg (talk · contr) 02:31, 11 January 2007 (EST)


One area of the Guide as it is now that I think could use some additional refinement is the Image section. Right now it suggests no left-aligned images, but I think that might be a little too restrictive. Where left-aligned images really make an article look awkward to me is:

Where I like left-aligned images, though, is within a section 3 or more paragraphs long, to break it up and provide balance to the article.--Aeleas 15:50, 5 January 2007 (EST)

*gumblegrumble* Left floated images should not be used next to lists either. Limitation of lists and floats. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 19:51, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I just realized that on my last example[1], when viewed at my normal 1400x900 resolution, spills over into the next category, knocking that title out of place. I'm back to thinking all images and infoboxes should be right-aligned.--Aeleas 20:07, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Well i hope people realize there is a difference between positioning and floating. A float is going to move about and impact the content at random, and look differently based on it's surrounding and screen size. They're not what you use when you want to restrict the layout of the page. The float behavour is desirable, even on the left. You should be adding clearing elements ({{clr}}, {{clrl}}, {{clrr}}) where you want to enforce something to not be effected by the floats. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 20:20, 5 January 2007 (EST)
A guideline on images would be extremely helpful. I would suggest keeping the discussion in the Manual more aesthetic (left vs right, thumb vs not thumb) and less about the mechanics. The details of advanced image styling are more appropriate for WoWWiki:Image guidelines. // Montagg (talk · contr) 15:15, 6 January 2007 (EST)
It's attitudes like that, that have made people ignorant to the fact left and right options aren't magically going to do everything for you, that you need to be aware of when and how to use them effectively. All i did was explain what they do, why they do it, and what you should be aware of and be doing to make them work. It's not advanced, it's needed. Clearing and Floating go hand in hand, and just because people are ignorant to that fact, doesn't mean left floats should not be used or recommended, it means we/you need to explain the correct way of using them within an article. If you think that too advanced, then image guidelines don't belong in this article period. You don't have right/left without talking about clearing. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 05:42, 7 January 2007 (EST)
You're right that the "left" and "right" options are quite limited. I only suggested keeping the use of float and absolute image placement to the image guidelines page because most wiki editors won't be writing HTML; they'll stick to wiki code using Image:, the "thumb" option and left and right. This takes care of a majority of image handling needs. When rewriting the image section, I did create a link to WoWWiki:Image guidelines and the master MetaWiki article so people interested in learning about the details can do so, but I wouldn't want to force them to since I know for some it can be a confusing concept. // Montagg (talk · contr) 11:20, 8 January 2007 (EST)

My view is, no left-aligned images except for in special circumstances. And yes, something should be mentioned about images breaking text flow if you spread them out badly through an article. Perhaps a sentence about checking image placement for several screen sizes (i.e. check it doesn't look stupid when you change the window size. --  Kirkburn talk contr 10:12, 7 January 2007 (EST)

article titles Edit

It's recommended to bolden titles and their alternatives. Well, [[<title>]] does this automatically and is shorter. How about recommending that instead? alternative titles sohuld be redirects anyways. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 19:51, 5 January 2007 (EST)

It breaks if a page is moved. --  Kirkburn talk contr 19:52, 5 January 2007 (EST)
It also doesn't work for redirects. In Blood elf, putting brackets around blood elves and sin'dorei in the introductory sentence would cause both to show up as links.--Aeleas 20:03, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Probably came across wrong, i meant to imply i didn't see the point in alternative/redirct titles being boldened. Also, welcome back to the issue of why using lowercase race names in articles isn't pratical. Anyways, you can do [[Blood elf|blood elf]] and [[Blood elf|sin'dorei]] easy enough. I really don't see the point of purposely ignoring wiki functionality for the sake of something that isn't really needed, better off using the wiki functionality and working around it (sigh for being unnecessarily anal). Moving is irrelevant, as if it's being moved, the title in the text, under most circumstances, would need to be changed too. If it doesn't need chaning, it's not worth it being boldened. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 20:13, 5 January 2007 (EST)
That ([[Blood elf|blood elf]] and [[Blood elf|sin'dorei]]) would still break if the page was moved. --  Kirkburn talk contr 20:52, 5 January 2007 (EST)
As i said, moving is irrelevant, and alt titles shouldn't be used (accept in the case of race names). Also questioning the usefulness and point of it period. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 21:05, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I should read more closely, sorry :P I think it looks nice, and quickly shows the focus of an article in the text (rather than in the title alone). --  Kirkburn talk contr 21:08, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I'm not quite sure I follow your initial suggestion, Zeal. Are you saying that " The [[Blood elf|blood elves]] are..." is preferable to " The '''blood elves''' are..."?
As for alternative titles, I think it's helpful to see the term you were looking for prominently displayed, to make it clear why you have arrived at Deathwing when you are looking for Neltharion. Of course, we could use "Sin'dorei redirects here" as a banner at the top, but having the name prominent and bold in the lead section seems a more elegant solution to me.--Aeleas 21:22, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Technically, I'm pretty sure [[blood elf]] and [[Blood elf]] would both be bold in the blood elf article, since the server automatically capitalizes the first letter of any link, and piping would be unnecessary. Regardless, I agree with you that for simple article titles, linking is probably more appropriate; it's like linking any important word in an article, except this happens to be its own article. However, for more complex titles with parentheses or subpages the '''bold''' quote marks are more helpful. // Montagg (talk · contr) 15:24, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Yes, sorry i forgot to captilize "Elf" too. that's where the problem is. Subpages, the argument should be for using links and not just bolding, fail to see your logic there. Redirects already display where you were redirected from anyways, so any linkage of the real article is boldened. It was merely the reverse, when you link redircts, they will not. That to me is the desirable behaviour if you're intending to use multiple terms for the same title, for backup, and for (what really should be done with alternatives but not respelling) explaining the difference and why. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 05:42, 7 January 2007 (EST)
For subpages such as User:Montag/Bio, the only link that would be automatically set in bold by the server would be [[User:Montag/Bio]]. However, since this isn't a decent title to put in the intro, I might say, "This is my '''biography'''" to produce the bold title where "This is my [[User:Montag/Bio|biography]]" would prove too cumbersome to type out. So, one should strive to use links to bold an article title but can certainly forsake that when things get more complicated. Generally, I don't think it's a good idea to link to redirects within the target article too often since this can create a neverending loop for search engines. // Montagg (talk · contr) 11:09, 8 January 2007 (EST)
I'm not clear on the advantage of using [[ ]] to bold some titles and ''' ''' to bold all of the many exceptions where the article name is slightly different than it appears in text. Isn't it much simpler just to recommend using the second option in all cases?
Regarding redirect links, should they ever be linked in the article they redirect to? I'm can't think why we would want them to be; personally I find it annoying to be redirected back to the article I was reading.--Aeleas 11:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)
Well that was my point, most of the time those shouldn't be redirects, and when they should be, shouldn't be written as in the article anyways, or don't need bolding. Alternative titles or spelling due to retcon's or other languages (basically any that can be explained from a lroe standpoint), shouldn't be redirecting but linking to. They should be linked in an article when used. eg. Kargath, Kargoth. Sin'Dorei, Blood Elf. Alternative spelling or titles that are not from lore, should redirect, and not be linked in the article. eg. Warchief Karagath Bladefist, Kargath Bladefist, Kargath. Blood elves, Blood elven, Blood elf, Blood Elf, Blood Elves, Blood Elf. That way the titles would never need to be made bold manually.
As to montag's example, that would make sense to shorten, and it's the only time i can think to do it. But i question the likelyhood (well, correctness) or need of ever having your bio off your user page, and even if it was, why it wouldn't be included and therefore you either would not want to make that bold as it's no longer the title, or you would want it to be a link to send a user to the split article's origin. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 16:12, 8 January 2007 (EST)
"Not from lore"? That makes no sense, I hope you realise. Those 'alternative' names aren't fan fiction, they are proper titles. And people can do whatever they like with their user pages, it's not for you to tell him it's 'wrong'. I think you misunderstand him. If the article's name is User:Montag/Bio, why on earth should one use a complicated link instead of just boldening the 'proper' article name? Where's the benefit?  Kirkburn talk contr 16:32, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I just used my user page as an example of subpages. It could be a server's guild progression page or anything involving a backslash in the title somewhere. But we're straying from the point. If the outcome is the same and the effort is nearly the same, the method is arbitrary and should be left to the editor's discretion. I'll always prefer brackets since I think of the bold article titles as just another link, but I'll use quote marks just as often. // Montagg (talk · contr) 17:36, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Well i think you misunderstand me Kirkburn. "Not from lore" makes perfect sense, they are titles for the same article. Where as titles "from lore" are titles deseriving of new articles, as they have soemthing to explain about how that title differs, why, usage etc. and then link to the common term used on the wiki for the full article. The first would never be made bold, the second would be linked. Thus there is never a need for it to be ever made bold. As to the user page, as far as i know, you said a similar thing elsewhere.. belive it was when you wrote the sub-page guidline. Here you have misunderstood me again, as if the page is going to be included and have the possibility of inclusion, and you wish to boldend it's title, then it should be a link. That way, on it's own article page it is bold, when included, it provides a link to its article. That, i would imagine, is why the behavour of wiki links is the way it is. Bolding it would undermine that, and you would then have a bold article title, which is not the title of article where it is displayed. If it's never going to be included, then fine. I would suggest clarifying the sub-page policy on that matter if that was the wrong interpretation of it.
Basically, in conlusion, there is a great deal of difference, the method matters and is implied by the wiki software itself which one should be used, and there is never a need to manually bolden an article title itself. So i disagree with the guideline. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 17:50, 8 January 2007 (EST)
I don't agree that we should create new articles for every alternate name just to explain the term. If I was looking up Sin'dorei, I'd much rather immediately see the full article on the subject. If separated out from Blood elf, Sin'dorei would be limited to a single sentence: "Sin'dorei is the Thalassian name for blood elves, meaning Children of Blood." That content fits quite concisely into the first sentence of Blood elf. And it wouldn't be too long before someone came along to start expanding Sin'dorei into a full article, creating duplication with Blood elf. With some topics, like Deathwing/Neltharion/Daval Prestor, the split between names would seem to force a split in the article itself, while the content makes more sense as a unified article.
Aside from alternate names, it's not hard to find many examples where the title in the text does not quite match the title of the article, for which [[ ]] is not a convenient method of making the title bold.
--Aeleas 18:29, 8 January 2007 (EST)
"From lore" - there is no such thing as a "from lore" name. Archmage Jaina Proudmoore is as much a "from lore" name as "Jaina". Anyway, the bold thing is generally for navigation templates. Think about it.  Kirkburn talk contr 18:44, 8 January 2007 (EST)
I have thought about it. Anyways, explaning the definition of Sin'dorei is not about Blood Elves is it? So why would they be in the same article. No people wouldn't come along and start filling in information, that's what the link is for. I didn't want to suggest it before, because it doesn't fit into my idea for the future, but it makes plenty of sense to include the article itself into Sin'dorei while the talk pages are left seperate. Perhaps it's only clear to me because i'm seeing Race:Blood Elf, Race:Blood Elves etc and Term:Sin'dorei, because they are two different things. --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 19:02, 8 January 2007 (EST)
That would be something very specific to the blood elf article and blood elf-related articles. Since a wiki is decentralized, specifics are handled by the people who are involved and interested in those articles. That sort of thing would be handled on the blood elf talk page and wouldn't appear in a guideline like the Manual. However, the idea that one should post on a talk page before making huge organizational changes is certainly worth noting in the Manual. // Montagg (talk · contr) 11:40, 9 January 2007 (EST)
You'll rarely find an entire article included as a template, so linking versus bolding code isn't terribly important here. You do find this to be a problem in things like navigation templates, but the coders who make these understand that and code it correctly. This article is more about writing articles than coding templates. // Montagg (talk · contr) 11:40, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Level 1 Headers Edit

Section headings: [...] Do not use a single =.

The guideline makes no attempt at explaining this, and no explanation is apparent. If someone simply despises the look of H1, what should be changed is the CSS, not a wiki-spanning policy. If there is another reason, it should probably be evident from the guideline. -- Starlightblunder 08:58, 6 January 2007 (EST)

A single = creates an <h1> header, which is bad coding. The primary header is the article title - here it is WoWWiki talk:Manual of Style. I hope that makes sense? --  Kirkburn talk contr 10:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)
A php-level solution that would automatically transform =text= into a level 2 header would've perhaps been better, but the reason you've provided is certainly valid. --Starlightblunder 10:31, 6 January 2007 (EST)
I think the reasoning behind allowing level one headers to exist in MediaWiki is to give the wiki editors the freedom to choose whether to use it, since there could be a situation where it's appropriate. Like Kirkburn said, it's bad coding, but sometimes you have to break the rules. However, having said that, there are very few situations where it's appropriate to break the rules, especially in the average article. // Montagg (talk · contr) 15:28, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Section indents Edit

On thing the MoS really should address the <div style="margin-left:3%;"> used in some articles, like Retcon. I like the look of it, but I think formatting of that complexity really needs to be handled in the CSS, both for consistency and the simplicity of articles.--Aeleas 13:05, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I on the other hand think is isn't needed. For example, that page in question should be using a block quote, and the easy solution is for all <p>'s to have an indentation. For now if indentation is desired (probably where it really isn't needed), it should simply use :. I see Kirkburn has been adding some of these, shame on him imo :p --Zeal (talk - contr - web) 14:03, 7 January 2007 (EST)
The CSS solution for margins was proposed a while back, and we agreed that was the best option. However, we didn't have access to the servers at the time. We should be able to do that now. At some point, we should be removing all manual margins from articles. // Montagg (talk · contr) 17:21, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Table of contentsEdit

I think what is currently in the MoS regarding Tables of Contents will need to be expanded. We've got a lot of styles currently in use in a lot of various situations. Here's some examples for consideration varying in the length of the ToC, the alignment of the ToC, whether it occurs in or following the lead section, and whether there is an image or infobox in the top-right corner of the article.

  1. Short, left-aligned, image/infobox: War of the Ancients Trilogy
  2. Short, left-aligned, no image/infobox: Horde (pre-Thrall)
  3. Short, right-aligned, image/infobox: Tempest Keep
  4. Short, right-aligned, no image: Exodar
  5. Short, left-aligned (displacing text), image/infobox: Cooking
  6. Long, right-aligned, small image: Battles of the First War
  7. Long, right-aligned, no image: Burning Steppes
  8. Long, left-aligned (displacing text), image/infobox: Profession

Food for thought.--Aeleas 01:52, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Ooo. Thanks for compiling this list. This is a nice reference. One of the harder problems I've had to deal with when it comes to layout, though. // Montagg (talk · contr) 02:26, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Two new sections: Grammar and Writing Edit

I'd like to add two new sections to the article, Grammar and Writing. The Grammar section can have Capitalization and Titles of works as subsections and can be expanded to include more guidelines on correct grammatical style. The Writing section should include information on how to improve tone, clarity, how to avoid copyright infringement and plagiarism (i.e., citation), a suggestion (but not a requirement) to use American English, and other guidelines on how to write well. I'm not sure if I'll have time to add these myself, so please feel free to add them yourselves and expand on them as necessary. // Montagg (talk · contr) 16:19, 10 January 2007 (EST)

American English vs others Edit

Do we prefer any particular flavor of English when writing articles, or is it up to the writer? // Montagg (talk · contr) 18:39, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Hmm, do the EU-English servers use American English? The North American version certainly constrains writers. "Armor Vendor", "Devilsaur Armor", "Colorful Kilt", "The Color of Blood", etc. Regardless, the audience is worldwide, and so are the writers. As long as it's English, and correct, I say let there be freedom. --Beep2 19:07, 12 January 2007 (EST)
The enGB version of the game is essentially identical to the US version in all aspects, including text. So, for article names and important nouns, etc, American English is best. However, for the rest of the article text, I would rather either way was allowed. It's no fun to be told your spelling is incorrect when you've grown up using it :) Therefore a 'suggestion' to use US english would be good, but in no way should it be required :)  Kirkburn talk contr 19:20, 12 January 2007 (EST)
Sounds good to me. // Montagg (talk · contr) 22:32, 13 January 2007 (EST)
I'd like to add in to that, both styles should be allowed as long as there is consistency within one article. It's simply unprofessional to have an article its content switching back and forth between British and American.IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleAPΘLLΘ(ZEUS) 05:27, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Implementation Edit

Assuming no objections (which looks reasonable atm), I would have no problem with making this official very soon. Any points which are debated or unfinished? It could possibly do with some more examples and perhaps a little spacing out - it has to be easily read, naturally :)  Kirkburn talk contr 08:06, 22 January 2007 (EST)

I hate it all, hows that? :P lol --Zealtalkcontrweb 08:45, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Kirkburn is ignoring Zeal. Smiley  Kirkburn talk contr 09:09, 23 January 2007 (EST)
I think it needs to be expanded a bit more before it can be officially submitted. I can still see some unanswered questions. // Montagg (talk · contr) 23:14, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Almost finished Edit

I just finished writing the Writing and Conclusion sections. I'm willing to consider this a finished product now. However, I wouldn't mind someone going through and adding a bit more to these sections since they're quite short. They don't necessarily have to be longer, but I wouldn't mind knowing someone else perused them for glaring deficiencies. // Montagg (talk · contr) 14:30, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I'm planning on expanding this article to be more in line with Wikipedia's, although certainly not to the same degree of specificity. Too much to list here, but if you look over the external link at the bottom you'll get an idea of what else needs to be here that isn't. // Montagg (talk · contr) 09:43, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Graphics Edit

This page could use some custom-tailored graphics for those so inclined. I'm not particularly artistic myself, but if someone's interested, I'd love to see some writing/wiking-centric WoW stuff where the WoWWiki logo is now. // Montagg (talk · contr) 00:55, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Italics and quotations Edit

We have a pretty standard usage of italics with quotations. I especially see this occurring with quotes from an official piece of Blizzard lore. Does anyone have any qualms with this practice? And, if not, should we put it in the Manaul? // Montagg (talk · contr) 10:52, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Ideally, quotations would be properly marked up with the Q element but I'm not sure if the mediawiki parser supports that. Either way, consistency is great, especially for bots. So yes, anything is good. Consistency is good.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 11:42, 7 February 2007 (EST)
use ''"Quote"'' for short quotes, and <blockquote>Long quote block</blockquote> for long quotes. Simple. Don't beleive the blockquote is being styled too well in the css (ie, no colouring, no italics, only an indent), something to look at later. --Zealtalkcontrweb 13:57, 7 February 2007 (EST)
The blockquote style would require a lot of rewriting of our longer quotes, which are usually just a single indent and manual italics. However, I like the idea, since it allows us to do cooler things with blockquotes later. Any objections? // Montagg (talk · contr) 18:34, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Implementation Redux Edit

Ready yet? Smiley  Kirkburn talk contr 14:40, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Never! mwuahahaha! >_>; --Zealtalkcontrweb 15:02, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Could use some work, in my opinion, but let's publish it anyway. We can add to it later. (Too bad Aeleas isn't around to give it a look over.) // Montagg (talk · contr) 21:14, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Official it is! This does not mean it cannot be edited further however. Kirkburn talk contr 18:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Impersonal style Edit

I put a short paragraph in the writing section on using an impersonal style to write. This is a pretty well traveled practice already, so I didn't put it to vote. // Montagg (talk · contr) 11:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

multiple links per page Edit

Something I distinctly notice as a difference between wowwiki and wikipedia is that on wikipedia, once you have linked something in the text, you do not relink it later on the page. Obviously, we have numerous occasions where the opposite occurs; Medivh is one I just had a look at. I was wondering if this (the idea of multi links per page to a certain page) could be added; whether in the "keep it how it is right now," or "alter it to be more like wikipedia." --Sky (t · c · w) 21:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I feel a once per page limit would be too restrictive (especially given the way most articles on the wiki are probably read), but yes, excessive linking is to be avoided. Once per page view-ish (at a reasonable resolution) as a recommended limit or suchlike? Kirkburn talk contr 06:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Nav bar column vs Info Box Edit

A rigorous application of "put columnar nav bar to the left of info box" leads to such abominations as this. For a small info box compared to a tall nav bar, the obvious solutions are to have the nav bar either to the RIGHT of the info box, or below it. If this is not sufficiently obvious, or if bureaucracy requires, I'll put it to a vote. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done last night, in the same annoyed state as you are in atm. Check the relevant section out. =) --Sky (t | c | w) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I said as much on my talk page, but this problem could be solved by converting the vertical templates to horizontal, as demonstrated in a recent VP discussion. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,926 contributions and counting) 20:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And as mentioned there, the number of links in a navbar template may make that solution even less appealing. I see in that discussion a lot of "let's make a global solution that works in every case". And to paraphrase what I said elsewhere on that page, global solutions fit as well as a one-size-fits-all shoe would.
One thing is true, that applying the current rules and current templates to the pages I found must not stand. Beyond that, all is chaos. --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Things like that shouldn't be vertical in the first place - they're essentially leftovers from a previous age. Kirkburn  talk  contr 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vertical updateEdit

Since, as far as I know, all vertical templates are now horizontal, I have removed that suggestion from the MoS. Only horizontal or infoboxes from now on :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's one for world raid encounters iirc. Omen? --Sky (t · c · w) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some other stuff to note Edit

As I go around with WW:AWB, I've noticing a few things:

  • Stop using <font> tags. They're evil. Use <span> instead.
  • Get into the habit of typing <br />, not <br>.
  • Don't use a break (<br />) when you can use a line space.
  • Don't use double breaks (<br /><br />) when you can use a double line space.
  • Don't put underscores in article links, or image links.

I'm sure there's more, but the font one annoys me most :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox width Edit

Just noticed that there's somewhat of a disparity in infobox widths around the site - I'm seeing some 25em, some 23em, some 20em (npcbox - Lich King is way too thin). I think it would be a good idea to get them all standardized. Personally I'm a fan of bigger sizes, so I think it might be a good idea to use 25em as a base. Kirkburn  talk  contr 10:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Videos and more Edit

I just added a section to the layout to show where videos should go (since we didn't really specify where before, just had an unspoken consensus). End of an article, before appearances/see also/etc. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also adding gallery. Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, should there be a quotes section described? Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed clarification in "Capitalization" Edit

The "Warlock, go be evil" section is confusing. The word "Warlock" in this case is capitalized not because it is a proper noun as a form of address, but because it is coming at the beginning of the sentence (compare to the following sentence, "That warlock is quite evil"). I had to re-read this section several times before I got the gist of the example. I propose a change of the first sentence to something that is a) less casual and b) has an additional word preceding the word "Warlock" so that the example is clear. Alternative sentence: "You are quite evil, Warlock." --Avemorielle (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Handling variable level quests Edit

For variable level quests, I think we should use something such as "current level" or "variable", or use the minimum level with a plus next to it, instead of listing them as level 80 quest like we currently do in most articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:41, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yah... I'm still trying to decide what makes the most sense for this too.
Part of me wants to take the easy way out and use "-1" like the database sites... the rest of me is sticking with "[1-80]" (as appropriate, see the Southshore quests) on links via {{questlong}} and "80 (Min level 1)" in {{questbox}}es. This is how I'm currently editing holiday quests as I get around to them.
For the time being, (not that I expect this to change), the only reason we need to change the upper bound is with new expansions, and even then, the only quests that are part of this are holiday quests, so it's a pretty limited workload. --k_d3 02:35, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
Using the minimum with a plus conveys the most information in the least space, and thus gets my vote. This is not as critical when you are on the quest page and can see the minimum along with "Variable" or "Current level"; but looking at a quest chain, the minimum-with-a-plus format becomes dramatically more useful. Keyesc (talk) 22:43, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Article naming conventions Edit

Could we get a section on article naming conventions? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:21, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't notice WoWWiki:Naming policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:03, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization Objections Edit

I fear I must take strong exception to two of the capitalization policies: page titles/headings and class names. If this has already been exhaustively debated elsewhere, please advise; but I have been able to find very little discussion about it. If these topics are open to discussion, I would be happy to draft replacement policies.

Page Titles/Headings: As far as I can tell, in every other case, the policy is to go with the standard rules of English grammar; yet we have chosen to do the exact opposite in this case. The policy actually notes this: "Note that this is different from most section title rules you'll encounter elsewhere." I can find very little explanation for this, but I would like to address the reasons I have seen:
  • Sentence case better follows grammar rules. To propose that using sentence case for titles better follows grammar rules than using title case for titles is, well, perplexing, to say the least, not to mention quite incorrect.
  • Sentence case is easier. First, for those of us raised on the rules, it is actually more difficult to reverse a lifetime habit. Second, if being easier is a valid argument, then it follows that we can chuck all the other rules of grammar, and let everyone write in whatever fashion is easiest for them. I would be happy to include the title-case rules in my proposed draft, to assist the less-familiar of us.
Class Names: In the context of WoW, class names are actually proper nouns: when we write about a warrior, we are not referring to the common meaning of the word, someone who engages in war or combat. In that generic sense, all (or at a minimum, all melee classes) are warriors. No, a Warrior in this context refers to a very specific (undoubtedly copyrighted) character class created by Blizzard with unique abilities and attributes. As a "Warcraft warrior", I am referring to myself as a person playing Warcraft and engaging in combat, regardless of class. However, as a "Warcraft Warrior", I am referring to a specific toon of the Warrior class. I won't waste space with the multitudinous examples that can be made with all the class names.
The best example of the definition of these proper nouns I've found so far is "...provides a name to an instance of a general type when the instance is unique within an implicit context" from Wikipedia. An excellent real-world example is "catholic": Episcopalians are a catholic ("of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church") church, but they are not a Catholic church.
It might be prudent to note in the policy, however, that quotations (either from lore or in-game text) should not be changed from the original.

In closing, I would like to make a case (hopefully without sounding arrogant) for my belief that, since these are rules of grammar, they should not be subject to the same voting process as other topics. If these rules of grammar are subject to vote, then what is to prevent the rest of the language from being put to vote and (*shudder*) the apocalyptic approval of the use of "u" instead of "you"?  ;-) --Keyesc (talk) 19:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

It has been argued to death already and besides going grammatically correct, we're also following how Blizzard does it. And sorry, I didn't feel like reading the wall. User:Coobra/Sig4 19:36, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
lol, well, 1) my way IS the grammatically correct way, and 2) if we're following Blizzard, does that mean we're going to start spelling "separate" as "seperate", and every other error they make? --Keyesc (talk) 22:41, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
At least in quest text, where we copy the text verbatim, yes. I've been known to add sic to such misspellings, particularly to suppress people "correcting" the text. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:46, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

On expansions and other new stuff Edit

I don’t know whether this is addressed somewhere and I just couldn’t find it, but how should new canon (e.g. WoW expansions) be handled in articles? For instance, there are articles with the lead describing the subject pre-Shattering, and then a section devoted to its most recent state in Cataclysm. (There are even articles implying that Cataclysm hasn’t been released yet, like [2].) It really should be made clear where the main focus should be—the most recent playable content? The chronologically-latest lore? A past expansion? —Frungi (talk) 06:50, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

We have a help article detailing how to help update for the expansion. Hopefully that will help answer the majority of your questions. If you'd like some zone examples that have been mostly reworked, check out Ashenvale and Azshara both, as those (especially the latter) were substantially changed with the expansion. NPCs, mobs, etc that are linked to those zones have all been updated, so you can click through for some examples. Let me know if have any other questions! Raylan13@fandom (talk) 14:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, it didn’t really answer my questions… Those two articles seem to do the opposite of what that help article says. Should the wiki still primarily focus on how things were pre-Cataclysm (relegating Cata material to its own section) even after it’s been released? Is this how new content should generally be handled, or is Cata a special case? And at what point should new information be integrated into articles as a whole? —Frungi (talk) 16:45, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
If you look at Help:Location articles, the Cataclysm information should be incorporated into the article in the appropriate heading in its own section, like the aforementioned zones. So you might have the Geography section, but then have a Cataclysm subsection within. That works best for large articles such as zones, major NPCs, and lore.
For smaller articles, it's helpful just to put a blurb in there about what happened - NPC articles come to mind when the only thing that's really changed about them is their location/appearance. There's no need to set aside an entire subsection for that; just put the old information in past tense, and then incorporate the new information into the page. Cranky Benj is a good example of this for small articles. If you run across pages, like Moonglade that you mentioned, swap the Cataclysm information over to present tense where it makes sense - so any speculation sections about what "might happen" when the expansion is released obviously need to be updated.
I just wanted to add that its pretty intuitive. If you see a page that starts with "<NPC> is the leader of <Faction/City>", and it's not true now, you would make a change to reflect that, while keeping the information intact. So it would be "<NPC> was the leader of <Faction/City> before the Cataclysm..." For zones, major lore, and NPCs, those pages tend to have an historical progression that weaves through the article, and that's why it's most appropriate to put the Cataclysm subsections in those to follow that trend throughout. The intro paragraphs to those pages would be changed to reflect Cataclysm, then the additional information inserted into its own section/subsection. Raylan13@fandom (talk) 16:53, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

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.