Forum:Future of class builds, guides and others

With the new patch and the changes they brought, it's become (increasingly) apparent that some articles no longer have any use. This includes the class builds (Warrior builds, Paladin builds etc) as well as their PvE and PvP guides, and their tactics pages (Hunter tactics, Mage tactics etc). Some should be removed, and others belong at other places such as forums, websites dedicated to theorycrafting etc.

I suggest that these pages should be no longer linked from other articles, and removed from classnav.

What are your thoughts? -- 06:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Class quests pages should probably be removed from the template as well. -- 07:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would remove Starting guide, PVE guide, PVP guide, Tactics, Builds and maybe Macros.
 * 07:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm wary of eliminating those pages entirely -- I think that somewhere on this wiki, there should be an article that would tell you what playing a particular spec feels like, and give you a summary of what you should be doing. The "belong at other places" line of reasoning can also be applied to pretty much everything else we cover -- items should be in an item database, boss strategies should be on a boss strategy website, etc.
 * Having said that, I also don't think it's a good idea to keep clearly outdated content around on those pages. Useful class macros should probably just be cleared every expansion.
 * Looking at classnav, it might be interesting to merge Talents, Abilities, and Glyphs; PvE, PvP, and Tactics; Starting a Class and Class races into single pages; and drop Class trainers and Talent builds.
 * On an unrelated note, I think class articles need more screenshots and less TCG artwork. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a significant discussion, but one small thing I would say is that we need a place for Spec info too. We currently have that on the Talents pages, which would be a fine place for it to stay (although rather random as talents and spec now have nothing to do with each other), but I do believe that we need this info somewhere on the site, and although the main class page is fine for a brief synopsis, it really wants to be somewhere more specific and relevant (such as a combined Talents, Abilities, Glyphs page) because it represents one of the most important choices the player can make for his character. It's worthwhile to provide prospective players with an idea of the tactics, playstyle, strengths and abilities of each spec to aid them in their choices - or at least leave a space for editors with the time and enthusiasm to do so.
 * I would also agree with Foxlit that there is room for tactics, guides, etc. It's somewhat tragic how out of date most of them are, but there should still be a place for that info. I think there should be a distinction between pages that are currently OOD, and pages that are genuinely no longer needed. Mostly clearing certain extremely OOD pages might be preferable to leaving them filled with old info, leaving room for some new content to sprout.
 * Macros I definitely would not remove. If they're all out of date, wipe them as was done before, leaving a note, but imo it's a valuable resource to have on the site. It's also a natural part of the site, linked to from many pages with macro-able abilities, and would be missing if it was removed. Again, it might take some work, but it's still relevant, and a significant part of WoW itself, and is worth having.
 * A lot of the starting guides I've found to be fairly redundant, and very specific therefore requiring frequent updating. I've also found many of the 'starting a...' pages to repeat the same information (grouping, money/AH, professions), since so much of it is general starting advice. Perhaps most of that could be left to a general starting guide, and a section could be found on some class-specific page for any class-specific levelling tips.
 * I can't say I agree with the idea of merging the Starting Class and Class race pages; the former is patch-specific, practical WoW information and tips; the latter is pure lore. I think having the former link to the latter is about right.
 * As regards merging, Glyphs, Talents and Spec info represent the actual options available for a class. You could consider Abilities to be similar in listing details for the class; or separate in that there are no options or choices involved there. I'm not sure whether the pages need merging, but either way Spec info needs a home. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware this topic was here that would have spared me asking questions all over the place.
 * I'll say a few opinions on how to deal with this:


 * Talent Builds are no longer possible and as such should be deleted entirely
 * PVE and PVP guides should be either fused with tactics or have all three removed as they are all of them outdated or in some opinions wowpedia is not the proper place for this
 * Class quests should be kept for historical purposes, and because blizzard hasn't completely forsaken that theme with the Wrathion questline. Although they should be probably fused into a single page in my opinion.
 * I don't think we should fuse Talents, Glyphs and Abilities, because all 3 of them have different mechanics and would bloat the page with information.
 * With the separation of Spec Info from the Talent tree i don't agree that the Spec info should be located in the Talent article, in my opinion it should either be on the ability page(because specs are now all about abilities) or in a new spec page.
 * I also have a question. Should the Old talent tree info be stored in a historical page or simply deleted?
 * Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the Spec info would be better on either the abilities page (where all the relevant abilities are already listed) or arguably a new page. Although it seems strange to hide it in 'X abilities' it would save duplicating the list, since those abilities (passive and active) now represent the majority of the difference between specs (resource systems, etc, being another), so moving that info there seems reasonable. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So by reading your comments, I propose this: Obviously all of these articles should be cleaned up significantly, if not remove all content that's on there to make a fresh start. What do you think? --
 * Talents, Abilities, and Glyphs pages should be merged into " abilities" page, or keep them separate like they are now and rename " talents" to " specializations".
 * PvE, PvP, and Tactics should be merged into " tactics" page.


 * I think it would be better if we had the Specs page in the ability page, since that's what the specs directly influence, and you can't really fuse others 3 into one since they have essentially different mechanics.
 * Merge tactics definitely.
 * But that's just my opinion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's try to clarify this:
 * Talents will be a very short page, simply a list of the 18 talents for that class. Since builds are out and info for each talent will be on its own page, I'm assuming that's it.
 * Glpyhs page will be pretty much the same as it currently is, pretty short page.
 * Abilities has all the passive and active abilities for the entire class, and currently some commentary upon them, too.
 * Spec pages would be a description/commentary on each spec, plus a list of their specializations/abilities (would be good for clarity). Example: the Spec sections from Priest talents, but with ability lists instead of talents/spec bonuses.
 * I'm not really sure I see the need for the merger in the first place, except that Talents will be pretty empty. Having Abilities and Spec info share a page would save duplicating the abilities lists; it would also make sense in terms of combining the commentary on those pages. Since the first two are just lists, I guess you could merge them all, although this would make something of a monster page. If so I'd suggest the order on Priest abilities: All spec abilities, spec abilities, talents, glyphs, then commentary on specs.
 * One other thought: if we do merge them, I'd suggest not repeating the Glyph/Talent info on each page; just link to the main Glyph and Talent pages to save the repetition and the page length. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all for merging them into one page, though it might be a bit big because of the sections that some tend to add (purpose, types, costs etc) but they could be removed/reworked.
 * " talents" pages should redirect to " abilities" - that way it'll redirect to the correct section of the page where it has its specializations. -- 23:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me see if i'm understanding this.
 * Gourra wants the ability pages to include a very simplified and compact list of talents, glyphs, abilities and spec abilities. Am i correct?
 * If i'am, i'm going to say that while i don't agree i see where he's coming from. Altrough that doesn't exclude us from applying both (as in make the page about abilities a very simplified list of Talents, Glyphs and Spec abilties and a advanced Class abilities list and then make 3 more advanced articles for Talents, Specs and Glyphs(I'll try to make a example)).--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So here's my example: User:Ashbear160/Sandbox5. any opinions?--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's probably easier to keep "X abilities" as a collection of relatively simple lists of links to all abilities, talents and glyphs available to X -- differentiating by cost or purpose or cooldown or whatever else is probably overly complicated. In my view, it's better to keep that page be as low-maintenance as possible, which means minimizing the duplication of information (such as ability descriptions/costs/etc).
 * The actually useful observations about broad categories of spells, resource costs, glyph preferences, etc, would go on X tactics pages -- the purpose of which would be to explain how to actually play each specialization to some reasonable degree of competence.
 * Creating a multitude of "advanced" pages to link as "main articles" would be counter-productive in my view -- the reason for this entire exercise is that we can't really keep the current set of those "advanced" articles up to date. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with the low-maintainance approach. And I can see combining those pages into one page. Not copying/duplicating detailed information does seem to make sense in terms of maintenance. After looking at Ashbear's sandbox, I'm not worried about the length of the page, either; I was just worried that all the different features would get lost on the one page, but it works fine.
 * The question for me currently is just the exact division between this uber-Abilities page, and the Tactics page. At the moment I'm thinking we could just direct the Spec info and abilities commentary (if any) onto the main page. We already have a ton of stuff like that there (overview/abilities, tactics, specializations, end-game expectations...), it would be largely replacing that info instead of adding to or duplicating it, and it makes sense as a centralised place for all such info/analysis on the class (people seeking to get an impression of the class, specs, etc). More specific info on abilities, talents, etc (ie the lists) would go on the Abilities page - more specific info on tactics, rotations, etc would go on the Tactics page.
 * So would give an impression and overview; Abilities would give lists; and Tactics would give rotations and tips. How does that sound? -- Taohinton (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me - as long as people are wiling to undertake that monumental task. -- 21:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok i'll do the list parts in a while, so we'll choose to keep it simple into one list :D--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So i did that for the Paladin abilities page, i have two small problems, i'm not sure if the list of glyphs i correct since i used wowhead and i think i might try to make some of these lists less longer and more larger.
 * Any Problems so far?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The only problem I see is to do with the TOC. At present it's obscured by the all-specs abilities list on the right, and also prevents the Retribution abilities from sliding into place. However, when/if we do as I suggested and remove all the commentary from the bottom half of the page, Voila! the problem is solved. This allows everything to fit in 3 columns, and looks pretty nice. The classnav was getting in the way in my Sandbox so I've made these changes to the Paladin abilities page to demonstrate. Of course, the page still gets jostled a little whenever someone opens the classnav up.
 * The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the all-specs abilities is best in 3 columns, or a single one. I find the 3 columns approach a little confusing (even if we remove the headings), while the single column just looks a little empty, but is clearer and avoids jostling from the classnav. I've put the long version in User:Taohinton/Sandbox.
 * That small detail aside, I think either version looks great. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the topic of cleaning up the various class pages, I take it we can remove the "Changes with Cataclysm" sections (and videos) from Class pages now? And if we're removing them, it seems like we might as well pull the WotLK ones too... they're all now completely out of date and aside from a lengthy and insanely detailed history lesson are completely irrelevant to the classes as they now exist; half of the 'new' abilities have now been removed again or changed substantially. They're also only present on a few of the class pages. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm the opening the Classnav doesn't touch the columns by me.
 * I think one Column is best because it can be read without scrolling all over the page and it also keeps the article from being unnecessarily bigger and emptier, keeping it compact and with little blanks.
 * I think they should be removed.
 * Question: is this template needed it just looks like a copy of classnav --Ashbear160 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Official Talent Calculator seems to have fused the Swipe and Stampeding Roar druid abilities with two each depending on Forms into a single one. Should these articles be fused too into one(one for swipe and one for stampending roar instead of two for swipe and two for stampeding roar)?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess the classnav thing is to do with resolution (potentially browser too). On my 15" monitor it causes those problems, but on my 19" one it's down to the size of the window I choose to create.
 * On a separate note, the talent ability page is now completely OOD, but given the changes with MoP, I can't see much need for it anymore. I can't see the benefit of distinguishing between active and passive talents, due to the way talents have changed, and all talents on a given tier are (in theory) fairly potent and comparable in terms of importance. Stressing the existence of Mindbender while ignoring From Darkness, Comes Light just seems silly. So while I guess the page can remain, it doesn't seem worth updating or linking to from other pages. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, primary ability is probably in a similar position. The concept of a spec having a primary ability was introduced with Cataclysm, and no longer truly exists. Mortal Strike is probably still the key Arms ability, but alongside Slam, Overpower, Colossus Smash... it seems arbitrary to decide for ourselves what each spec's primary ability is, and more importantly I can't see any benefit to it. I can't therefore see the point of maintaining the page in the wake of MoP.
 * This also affects Specialization. Since each spec now has somewhere between 8 and 25 (?) spec abilities, it seems we could either port the spec lists onto Specialization like we currently do the new talents to the abilities pages (assuming that's possible?), or simply remove that section from Specialization and replace it with a simple list of the specializations for each class (with a link to the corresponding abilities page for details). Manually duplicating the lists seems very unwise.
 * So, any thoughts? -- Taohinton (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ability lists should be (made portable and) ported onto the Specialization page. Making it portable would mean that updating it would be much easier.GolanTrevize (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no real reason to include a list of all specialization abilities on Specialization -- that page could simply explain what specializations are, and provide a list of specialization names/roles for each class, linking to &lt;Class> abilities for further detail. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Minimising duplication and centralising information seems like the right direction to go in; people can get more specific information (if they want it) by clicking on the links. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if there's no longer a primary ability it should be removed. Or at least have the page marked as a historical page
 * Does anyone know the answer to my druid questions ability?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be fused together. Cat form and Bear form versions are separate abilities after all.GolanTrevize (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking if they should be fused together, i'm asking if in game they have been fuse together. Because in the Wow Talent Calculator and in Wowhead there are 3 Swipe druid abilities and one of them says "Requires Cat Form, Bear Form"--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are three separate swipe abilities in the game. Your spell book shows whichever one is relevant to you depending on what form you're in at the time. Fundamentally, we should do whatever makes the most sense for the wiki articles about those abilities, regardless of what the spell book actually does. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Extra stuff in ability pages

 * I think all the stuff about abilities that are not part of the lists should be removed. I think it twists the intent of turning that page into a simplistic list, and is heavily outdated.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the plan. It's already been removed from priest- and paladin-abilities pages. My suggestion was to place any (up to date) commentary of that kind on the page itself, since that seems a better place for people searching for that kind of overview. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok i removed that stuff from the pages and did a large amount of small upgrades (show edits was marginally useless and usefull （￣ _ゝ￣）), tell me what you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Things left to do

 * Death Knight article(which i've been delaying because it's a mess)
 * Create a small introduction for each class(the first line in each page)
 * Complete glyph lists in Death Knight, Hunter, Monk, Rogue, Shaman, Warrior.
 * --Ashbear160 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Future of talents and glyphs pages
I'm unclear as to the intended future for these pages. With the exception of a very small amount of basic info (which could easy be added to the abilities pages), all information to be found on the talents and glyph pages has now been added to the abilities pages. Since the intention was to 'merge' these pages, I assumed this would involve turning those pages into redirects, as was done for the PvE/PvP/Tactics merger. I'm quite happy for the pages to remain (though unclear as to why to we would then have bothered to combine them), but suggest we need to be clear of their role one way or the other.

If they are to remain, the glyphs pages all need updating to match the info on the abilities pages. Also, this would make them the perfect place to add analysis on talents and glyphs, rather than a section on the tactics pages, saving duplication. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, it may be preferable to create a " glyphs" template like the " talents" template to save having to edit both lists every time the glyph list is changed, although I shouldn't imagine that would happen too often. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there's Druid glyphs for example, but that's a navbox... Maybe something like Glyphbox druid or Druid glyph table? -- 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, why was it necessary to merge the glyph table onto the " abilities" pages? There's already " glyphs" articles for that. -- 14:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You, taohinton and foxlit suggested that, behind the whole keep "all of it in a simple list so there is only one page that needs to be updated instead of various that are always outdated" thing.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the merger was suggested by Foxlit, and proposed by Gourra. Adding the talent and glyph lists to the ability pages is not necessary at all if we're keeping those separate articles, hence the confusion on my part. It could be considered handy to have them all in one place, but I assumed the reason for the merger was to pare down on articles considered unnecessary. As I said, I never really saw the need myself.


 * Either way, I think it would be a good idea to know where we're going with the overall design. If we keep the separate pages, a glyphs template (eg Druid glyphbox ?) seems neater, if a little extra work. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now redirected the talent articles to ability articles, and removed the classnav links to them. My view is that as long as the glyph article is only going to contain a list of glyphs, it might as well redirect to a table on the abilities page instead (where it'd still be somewhat relevant, since glyphs modify available abilities, or even introduce new ones). Once each class' abilities page lists the glyphs, we can remove the glyphs row from classnav. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the term 'abilities' does not usually (and hasn't on wowpedia til now) refer to all talents and glyphs (especially those which modify abilities rather than granting entirely new ones) I'm wondering whether it would be better to leave the Talents and Glyphs links in the classnav, and just have those links redirect to the relevant sections of abilities. Although related, abilities, talents and glyphs are quite separate, and this might make it a little easier for people to find what they're looking for through the classnav. If I were looking for a list of glyphs, I probably wouldn't think to click 'abilities'. Just an idea.


 * Regarding the glyphs pages, every single page was out of date or massively incomplete, so there was no reason to hold off; the new lists don't need any info from there, and they held no value (only misleading info). I've redirected them to the Glyphs sections of the relevant abilities pages. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I added to that line, which might reduce the potential confusion somewhat. I'm slightly hesitant to include three sets of links to the essentially same page. The other option would probably be to include all three names in the row header -- but that would result in a row that stands out due to vertical spacing. Not sure which of those I like better, really. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's a perfect solution here, but I'd say probably not the last option there. The current solution is good, although it looks a little odd, stands out a bit and isn't 100% apparent. Leaving all 3 links in is, I agree, a little odd (with them all linking to different areas of the same page)... on the other hand it makes it easier for people to find what they're looking for, makes it possible for people to jump straight to the appropriate section, and looks perfectly regular. However it also takes up a little extra space.


 * At present I find myself leaning toward the latter option, for its regularity and added clarity and function; the slight redundancy doesn't seem to much to ask for that. But that's just my opinion. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)