Template talk:For

Purpose
Wait, I don't get it. What's the purpose of this template? --Hobinheim 10:41, 29 December 2006 (EST)
 * Template used to add links to disambiguation page or disambiguated pages. I came from Wikipedia background, and it's a natural there. If WoWWiki doesn't do that kind of stuff, feel free to delete it. --Voidvector 10:57, 29 December 2006 (EST)


 * It's useful. It's basically a single line that acts as a disambiguation page, or a link to the actual disambiguation page. Great example are when a boss and his lore are on separate pages, you would use for to say:


 * Yes, you can type it out, but templates are good for tracking this type of link usage (as opposed to regular ole wikified links within articles) and maintaining consistent formatting.
 * - Jerodast (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Name
Stupid wikipedia. When I saw "for" I was like "wait, there are For Loop templates?" This should really be called "forsee" :) - Jerodast (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternate timeline / Main timeline inconsistent formatting
It seems there is inconsistent formatting in articles dealing with main/alt pages. Some pages use the "For" template and phrase it differently.

Main:
 * For the original character, see Orgrim Doomhammer.
 * For the main timeline counterpart, see Talonpriest Ishaal.
 * For the original mob, see Maggoc.
 * For his Outland appearance, see Skulloc Soulgrinder.

Alt:
 * For his past alternate timeline self in Warlords of Draenor, see Skulloc.
 * For the Warlords of Draenor character, see Blackhand (Warlords of Draenor).
 * "Gruul" redirects here. For the Warlords of Draenor encounter, see Gruul (Warlords of Draenor).

In addition, there is another template used which is forwod and this has another phrasing version (when used with "|2=" the default name can be changed when the alt name is different, such as in the case of Teron'gor):
 * For the Warlords of Draenor version, see Garona Halforcen (Warlords of Draenor).

I'm hoping we can find 1 main and 1 alt style and stick with it. --Celellach (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is mainly why I created forwod because every editor has their own way of wording redirects, but this only helps from the main characters to the WoD one. Sometimes redirects can be situtional as well, like the Gruul one. It can be messy and inconsistent at times, but in the end it points readers to the correct article for their needs. 22:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on your examples:
 * Saying "original" seems flat out wrong to me, since "alternate versions of the same character" is very different from "an original character, and then a distinct new one". The versions exist in parallel. I believe the only time we used "original" before WoD was for replaced instances. Let's discourage this term for timeline alternates.
 * "Past alternate timeline self in Warlords of Draenor" is too wordy. It's like it's trying to incorporate every one of these variations :)
 * It's always been tricky on NPC pages deciding whether to treat them more as "characters" (individuals in the lore who may appear in the game multiple times, once, or not at all) or "mobs" (enemies to fight with little backstory), and "friendly NPCs" (quest and vending machines). As bosses have gotten more complex, we also now have "encounters", which are basically mobs that come with specific locations and secondary enemies.
 * For full-fledged characters, I prefer "main timeline" and "alternate timeline" over the name of the expansion. These characters exist in short stories and novels, not just Warlords. They may even interact with other alternate timeline characters that aren't even in the game. The terminology shouldn't be dependent on the game context, it should reflect the lore distinction.
 * Typically the emphasis with game-oriented NPCs is where they appear, not the lore. I believe you could find examples on this wiki variously using expansion, continent, zone, and instance for that. Personally I would've named the page "Gruul (Blackrock Foundry)", but in terms of disambiguation it does the job.


 * Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki, had a similar question when the JJ Abrams reboot created a huge alternate timeline. They use "alternate" vs. "prime", with "reality", "timeline" or "universe", to distinguish versions. Of course, they don't have to deal with in-game entities where the lore distinction is far less relevant than gameplay context.


 * In conclusion, I'd standardize on two forms:
 * For the main/alternate timeline version, see Blackhand/Blackhand (alternate timeline).
 * For the main timeline version, see Gruul the Dragonkiller. (That page has a reasonably long backstory section.)
 * "Gruul" redirects here. For his appearance in Blackrock Foundry, see Gruul (Blackrock Foundry). (That page is almost entirely on the boss fight.)
 * For his appearance in Outland/Iron Docks, see Skulloc Soulgrinder/Skulloc.
 * Instead of "version", "counterpart" is also fine. I wouldn't say "character" since that does nothing to imply the strong connection between the two.
 * &#32;- jerodast (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't completely address the issue jerodast, as it still has different versions. I think we should have 1 forwod template which is used for the WoD version and 1 template (maybe "forprime"?) used for main one. The wording can be the ones you suggested as I agree that these characters can (and do) appear in places other than the WoD expansion (short stories for example).
 * forwod : For the alternate timeline version, see [NPC NAME]
 * forprime: For the prime timeline version, see [NPC NAME]


 * This way we take out the different way to say "character" (mob, npc, self, boss, encounter). As an added bonus, this way if a need rises to see all the pages which use the main/past template it will be much easier (or if we need to change the wording).--Celellach (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that even if you force all the WoD instances into using the same format, there will STILL be differences between the formats of different NPCs on this wiki. The character vs. mob issue has been around since the dawn of this wiki, and probably always will be. That is the nature of a game where some characters are highly developed and others are relevant only for gameplay (and some are in between). The issue you're trying to "address" is not unique to Warlords. Nor is it even an issue in all cases: The terminology and format for different entities SHOULD reflect their relevance to the readers, and sometimes that means they don't all share the same format.
 * The strategy should not be to try to force all the differently shaped pegs into the same round hole, but instead should be to identify classes of pegs (entries) for which each hole (format) is a good fit. Some may fit into more than one, and that's fine, as long as the total number is not excessive. I have suggested two different classes of NPC pages in this case; someone else may point out others. Consistency is a good default, but there's nothing wrong with differences as long as there is a REASON for them.
 * (I believe I explained the reasons, but just to reiterate:
 * Lore characters have relevance beyond simply the location they appear, so location is not a good identifier.
 * Game NPCs are referenced primarily for strategy and other in-game information, so it's a disservice making readers worry about timelines when all they wanted to do was find the abilities for the mob they're standing in front of.
 * There is a reason Garrosh Hellscream and Garrosh Hellscream (tactics) are different pages with different formats and templates despite being about the same character.)
 * This doesn't mean we can't use templates, just that the templates should be flexible enough to address the differences between different kinds of entries.
 * &#32;- jerodast (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your example isn't part of the discussion though. Both Garrosh pages you gave are from the prime universe. That's what the "for" template is for (other meanings). I was saying that we should have a specific for template used from alt to prime like coobra added (forwod) from prime to alt so the wordings are always the same (see the wikipedia for template page to see how they handle different for options so the hatnote won't be different on each page).--Celellach (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As for the naming scheme, I agree, I would have preferred  (alternate) instead of Warlords of Draenor, but I was out voted. Same with wanting Nagrand and Shadowmoon Valley as (Draenor) not (Warlords of Draenor). /shrug. 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)