Wowpedia talk:Manual of Style

Handling variable level quests
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 questboxes. 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
Could we get a section on article naming conventions? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:21, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I didn't notice Wowpedia:Naming policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:03, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization Objections
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. 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)


 * It's been less than four years, this doesn't count as a necro, right!?


 * When someone says "I've looked for this discussion but couldn't find it", it would be helpful to actually link them to the discussion rather than saying "it's been discussed to death". When someone says "I don't understand why this is so", it would be helpful to explain why the thing is so, or even better, make that explanation part of the style guide so it is self-evident to all readers. Ignoring these two points of helpfulness simply leads others to repeat the same questions.


 * Anyway. Let's talk capitalization of race and class names. The fact is that some subjects on this wiki sit on the rather blurry divide between in- and out-of-universe topics. Classes and races do exist as distinct, sometimes-trademarked concepts on Earth. However, they also exist as common words on Azeroth. Rather than trying to make hairline distinctions like "am I talking about rogues' contributions to the fight against Deathwing in a game context or a lore context?", we've chosen to treat them as the same, and err on the side of the in-universe perspective when it comes to grammar conventions. On Azeroth, "warrior" isn't a copyrighted game class, it's just a thing some guys are, like "lawyer". Same goes for "dwarf" - just another species. No cap.


 * I don't know why section titles are the way they are. On the one hand, I don't particularly care. On the other, whoever wrote "note that our usage is inconsistent with everyone else's" without giving a reason should know that they sound a little ridiculous. - jerodast (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bonus: The title of this article conforms to traditional capitalization guidelines, and not WoWpedia's arbitrary one :P - jerodast (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I don't know much about proper nouns, a question: should the sentence be "the priest is a spell-casting class" or "the Priest is a spell-casting class"? My uncertainty is regarding the use of 'the', and due to seeing the latter version quite frequently. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ambox colors and their meaning
Please see Template_talk:Ambox. --Петър Петров (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Italicized ship names
Alright, Mondoblasto and me have been having a conversation lately about the use of italics for the name of ships. It is proper use of the English language, yes, but I do believe that for quest articles we should stick to the exact same text and presentation used in-game by Blizzard rather than adding italics. You can see our discussion here. Any more input by other editors? Xporc (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Use the in-game styling and use sic. -- (•) 12:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That'd mean adding a sic each single time the Exodar is mentioned. Same thing for the Vindicaar. That'd make the quest pages about Argus exhausting quickly. Xporc (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then italicize the ship names. -- (•) 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You could also just use sic on the first incidence on a page, if that would make it easier. Also remember that WP:MOS is a guideline not policy. -- (•) 13:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The italicization of ship names should not be done on quest article pages. I share Xporc's sentiment that the text as presented in the game should be maintained.


 * I do not think it necessary to use the "sic" template, whether in the first incidence or for every mention, either. In all the quests I have ever done (pre-Cataclysm lore master, as well as for every subsequent expansion), I cannot think of any where Blizzard has used italics in their quest text (or even NPC dialogue). At this point in the game's life, I would be utterly amazed if they started doing so. Simply put, Blizzard will do what it does regardless of what proper English dictates.


 * Where quest article pages are concerned, I think we should match Blizzard's style since the pages do serve as historical records. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 18:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Alayea and Xporc about leaving quest pages as-is.. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that, while I think we should stick to the exact same text when it comes to quotes, emotes and quest details, I don't mind ships names being italicized for meta context, like an "and then Illidan points to the Xenedar" description that we add ourselves between two official quotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by on 13 September 2017‎.
 * Agreed. What about italics in infoboxes?--Mordecay (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Blizzard can't use italics in quest text, so this is less of a "we hate italics, and nobody should use those ever!" choice and more of a technical limitation on their part. As we already deviate from the exact in-game presentation by adding wiki links to quest text quotes (see e.g. In Dreams), I don't think the absence of italicized text in-game is a very compelling reason to avoid italicizing names if we decide that convention makes sense generally. — foxlit (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * TIL. But all we do is link them, and if the destination link doesn't match the text exactly... Well that's why there's the | split, to maintain the text as it is shown in the game. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 04:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, applying italics seems about as problematic as rendering the text in a different font compared to the game (i.e. not at all). The original is also easily recoverable by disregarding any fancy formatting (links, italics) as being applied by the website rather then the game, so I don't see any particular reason this couldn't go either way. — foxlit (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Italicizing NPC chat
So, I'm willing to tolerate italicizing gossip dialogue (much as I don't like it), but NPC chat is where I'm putting my foot down. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 01:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? -- (•) 02:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Kind of relating to the prior section, so read it if you need a refresher. But I will say that it's ridiculous we're only now deciding to add italics where none exist in the game after all these years that the wiki has been around. Pardon me for thinking we should stick with consistency. /s -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 04:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Plus, emphasizes are subjective, no? Xporc (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm putting my foot down as well. I don't want to see such edit war going on. Xporc (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Italicizing all gossip dialogue and altering text to match spoken emphasis are very different things.-- 02:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So now we are gonna have edit wars about who thinks what words are emphasized in dialogs? when some of the time the only way to hear the voice clip is to do the quest, and then you're done forever unless you want to shelve out an alt and do the quest again? No, this makes no sense. Xporc (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * For quest text I don't really mind italicizing when it comes to names, but I'm still not a fan of it when it comes to NPC dialogue or gossip. The italicizing of emphasis in dialogue sounds much too subjective to me. PeterWind (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Certainly edit wars shouldn't exist to needlessly revert back and forth on this as a matter of preference. -- (•) 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peter, sometimes it may be too subjective to choose which words are emphasized and which are not. --Mordecay (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I would say it's subjective; if it's obvious, then sure, I think it's an excellent addition for one or two words. At other times it's not so clear, and some back-and-forth by editors can have one really consider if the italicizing would be just lost in the rest of the sentence. An excellent example is many of Illidan's lines; most of the time he is really intense and if you were to apply it to where he stresses, you would end up italicizing the whole thing. At that point you should just leave it be. One could also describe the the character's 'verbal mood' above the line. (Although again with Illidan... yeah.)--Mondoblasto (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Genders
"Only need to use gender to specify if its one or the other, if its both, just leave blank"

I'd like to make a proposal about not doing that because when there's a NPC that shows up as male and female and there's only one pic without the "both" genders parameter, then visitors will never know about that. If there are two pictures, then, I guess, it can be blank. Also, as I understand it, PCJ's nopics also work with "both". And looking at today's Azuremyst Isles NPCs, they also use these and they were created way before... me. --Mordecay (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, for the same reasons. Xporc (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes some users when creating NPC articles used the gender parameter for both, but it was always only meant for either Female or Male. I'd say if the NPC had a actual name and switched between the genders then Both should be used and noted in the notes section. As for nameless NPCs/mobs they are randomized generally when they spawn with genders (if models exist for both) and appearance (not armor usually). 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the nopics doesn't require Both, its defaulted to both unless a gender is specified. 22:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because a rule is old doesn't mean it can't be challenged IMO. I think the "Both" can bring information about a randomized NPC. Xporc (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel its redundant. Feel free to bring it to a vote, but I'll be removing Both whenever I see it. 23:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coobra on this. I feel its redundant for four reasons -- 00:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) ) the default nopic includes both therefore both isn't needed
 * 2) ) if the NPC can be both then it being empty would pretty much represent both; this especially applies to City Guards, always varieties,
 * 3) ) it's just pointless and
 * 4) ) if only one picture is shown, well the other model should be shown as well but I only see this applying to few NPCs, most being just city guards.


 * I don't really mind either way, but I will say that it applies to a great many NPCs/mobs. Having a screenshot of a male NPC but not the female counterpart, leaving the gender out because both are possible, might prompt editors no simply add the "|sex=Male" line, because how would they know that the depicted npc can also be female? Screenshot of each variation might be nice but it's also a lot of extra work. How will the layout look if every race/gender combination an npc might have needs a screenshot? I've added "|sex=both" to some pages, simply because I found it to be the easiest solution, or because it was incorrectly labeled as one or the other, perhaps based on the screenshot, who knows. I won't be adding "both" to anymore pages untill this is settled, and I don't feel to strongly for or against, but I do think that removing all the "both" lines is gonna add a lot of extra work. PeterWind (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that WP:MOS is only a guideline, and so any decision made based on this does not require prompt enforcement, such as trying to add/remove the parameter as indicated to/from all relevant articles. -- (•) 01:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest there may be examples - though I can't think of any off-hand - where an unnamed NPC, such as a city guard, is represented in-game by only males, but there is nothing precluding them from being female (other than game design concerns). In terms of a dataset, a NULL value (no entry) would be preferable in this example. I would suggest that this parameter be left off for unnamed NPCs (regardless of whether or not you can find both genders in-game). -- (•) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I read all of your arguments, but I still don't understand why you would willingly leave out (or even outright remove) information that is accurate to the game :( Let's take the Bloodsail Elder Magus for example. The mob can be male or female, but if we stick only to the current wowpedia page, people not paying attention to the lack of |gender parameter could easily assume they are only male. So what's wrong with adding the information that it can be male or female? Xporc (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a weighted scale on this discussion. Maybe a vote would need to take action to decide between having the parameter or not for the Manual of Style. After all, it is only a guideline and not a policy. I see the picture that is trying to be explained here: some NPCs (generic ones like city guards) will only have a picture of one of the two genders so whatever picture it is, viewers would assume that gender (or if it is some how understandable that NPC is both w/o parameter and two images) is the only one available to that NPC; it'll be just more work to upload another image and shorter pages will have format issues in such cases and just look awful. The parameter for both would make sense. I'd say start a vote and call it a day. 12:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Quotations
Would the wording of "The titles of articles, chapters, and other short works are not italicized but are enclosed in double quotation marks" (with the "Arathor and the Troll Wars" example) apply for in-game book / texts, as well, or only for RL articles? If yes, or in case of the transcribed articles, should its name be in quotation marks in reference lists, similar to how we italicize book titles in reference lists? There's a voice that not, but given we link to Wikipedia's MoS at the beginning of the article which includes the quotation marks in reference lists for articles, I think it's ok. --Mordecay (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd personally use the same thing as wikipedia, but that's a thing for people who speak better English than me Xporc (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just like we italicize ship names, spaceship names, etc.; in-game books and the what-not should be okay as well. However, not really sure about having wanted posters themselves italicized. 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)