Template talk:Factions

I think this is a bit wide for every faction page. Could someone put a button like on the Table of Contents that can hide the factions that don't belong to the same category and that will show them on clicking ? This is kinda optional but would suit better the human eye (ask Ragestorm).-- K )  (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Not a Stub
This page is a navigation template for factions, not a stubbed article.--Hobinheim 15:36, 12 November 2006 (EST)
 * I stubbed it because I know horde factions from Outland are lacking. --Adys 17:18, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Removal of Alliance/Horde Forces
I know it's sort of deceptive, since the battlegrounds forces are separate from the main factions. But. WoWWiki does not have seperate articles for either the Alliance Forces nor the Horde Forces. Both redirect to just Alliance/Horde. And the navigation bar just works better if it's coded the old way.--Hobinheim 15:45, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Use Faction Template for New Factions
Simple. Be sure to add at the bottom of new faction pages.--Hobinheim 15:51, 12 November 2006 (EST)

How a Navigation Template Should Work
Make sure the place where the ilnk is pointing to is where the page finally resolves (no redirects). It makes the navigation bar look nicer when you actually look at the page.--Hobinheim 16:18, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Some Alliance, Some Horde
Some of the miscellaneous factions actually favor the one faction over the other. Maybe they shouldn't be listed under outland or miscellaneous then? I dunno. I guess it depends on how pivotal they are in the burning crusade, or how familiar their names will sound to each faction. They probably will be merged in some day, resulting in the removal of their individual faction badges and relocation to the appropriate faction.--Hobinheim 21:15, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Scale of Sands
Starts with an S. The 'The' isn't that important.--Hobinheim 15:38, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Mudsprocket?
Should we add Mudsprocket to Steamwheedle Cartel, even if it is a very small town?-- 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's part of the Gagdetzan faction. 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Exact faction names
In response to Sky2042's undo of my edit:

I guess your reason is avoiding redirections. May I suggest renaming all faction's pages to their official names (those that appear in reputations tab)? TAP3AH 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting policy is fun, so ... WP:NAME should help:
 * These articles should also not include definite or indefinite articles ("the" and "a/an") at the beginning of the page name. For example, use First War to refer to the event, not The First War. There is an important exception to this rule: "the", "a" or "an" is included when it would be capitalized if it appeared in text. This applies to, quest articles, guild articles, titles of books, games, and similar works.
 * If any of the factions are written with a capitalised indefinite article, certainly. Off the top of my head, I don't know which (if any) do. 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Class Icons
I added icons to three factions: Ravenholdt, Cenarion Circle, and Knights of the Ebon Blade, for which classes they respectively apply. If you think they shouldn't be there, go ahead and revert, I just thought they might help navigation for those classes a little. Omniferous (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should, if anyone has them, add the icons from the Armory to this template. They have different icons for "Alliance", "Alliance Forces", "Shattrath City", "Steamwheedle Cartel", and "Other". Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 11:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

About frequent editing
OK people this is going nowhere! Reverting the page 10 time a day wont do any good.

Please write here yours and read other people's arguments before making any changes.

I think this template should look exactly like like in-game reputation window. We can argue about Blizzard's choices for reputation tree but I still think this is the most reasonable solution.

I removed "Other" because there is no such subcategory. Personally, I don't think we need those empty cells but I left them because people seems to be sensitive about cell alignment. TAP3AH (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the whole template could use a major overhaul... Classic section contains a BC rep, the Other section really should be merged into classic... yes it could be more like how its done by Blizzard, but we don't have to go their route. 04:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the way it is now is similiar to what it looks like in-game. There is one "Other" category in-game and on the website, which has 2 factions within it. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Other" category even has its own icon. I have no idea why it only has two factions in it. I guess they don't fit elsewhere according to Blizzard? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I said there is no SUBcategory "Other".
 * Coobra, you can add to Exodar and Silvermoon City to notify they are from BC. TAP3AH (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is that the template has three cells in it. So some of the categories like "Other" are hard to fit in there because they only need two cells, while others need three cells. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get technical on how it should match the in-game one, then this is how it should look... doesn't that look unpleasant, but like I said, we don't have to go their route. 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we have three ways to do it.

1.) This is how it looks in-game as I am now in-game looking at my character (Alliance). Reputation Pane:


 * Classic
 * The Burning Crusade
 * Wrath of the Lich King
 * Other

If you click Classic you will get around 13 individual factions plus subcat Alliance, subcat Alliance Forces, and subcat Steamwheedle Cartel.

If you click The Burning Crusade you will get around 10 individual factions plus subcat Shattrath City.

If you click Wrath of the Lich King you will get 5 (I have not met all the factions yet) or more individual factions plus subcat Alliance Vanguard and subcat Sholazar Basin.

If you click Other you will get 2 individual factions.

As you can see, some need two cells while others need three cells.

2.) The one on the website is similiar but they put it in alphabetical order with Other at the end also. It goes:


 * Alliance
 * Alliance Forces
 * Alliance Vanguard
 * Classic
 * Shattrath City
 * Sholazar Basin
 * Steamwheedle Cartel
 * The Burning Crusade
 * Wrath of the Lich King
 * Other

Alliance has 5 individual factions.

Alliance Forces has 3 individual factions.

Alliance Vanguard has 4 individual factions.

Classic has around 13 individual factions.

Shattrath City has 6 individual factions.

Sholazar Basin has 2 individual factions.

Steamwheedle Cartel has 4 individual factions.

The Burning Crusade has around 10 individual factions.

Wrath of the Lich King has 5 or more individual factions.

Other has 2 individual factions individual factions.

They all use 2 cells only.

3.) Some other way.

The End Rolandius ( talk  -  contr ) 05:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to have it look a different way, please create it in a sandbox and link it here. If you can make it look good and functional at the same time, then changes can be made in one swoop rather than small edits that will cause a large job queue and maybe get reverted in the process. I'm all for change, this navbox is bulky and will only get bigger as more expansions are released, it needs to be reduced in some manner. 08:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a proposal for an overhaul would be good, but it looks clean enough for me (personally) the way it is now. -Howbizr (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning
Well, since I see the template is protected, I request someone to use  at the first column. This template wastes too much space on the left when the links right could use it. Examples: This way the space isn't wasted and it's easier to read the information on the template. --Lon-ami (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  The Burning Crusade to The Burning Crusade 
 *  Wrath of the Lich King to  Wrath of the Lich King


 * Done. Thanks Gourra ;).--Lon-ami (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ashen Verdict
Could someone with editing permission add 3.3's Ashen Verdict faction? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I never bothered with downloading the PTR, but is it a true faction you can gain rep with, or just an organization? 04:24, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actual faction. --Joshmaul (talk) 23:58, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ashen Verdict must be sorted under T ("The..."), not under A ("Ashen...") because other factions, starting with "The" are sorted under T. Or the other way around: Ignore "The" when sorting faction names in the template. Hans Kamp (talk) 10:10, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody wants to answer this question? Must "the" be ignored while sorting alphabetically or not? Hans Kamp (talk) 15:13, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Form
Look here for a proposition of re-modeling

21:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Edited. Say if you like it or not. -- 07:54, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it :)
 * 10:28, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of Hyjal
Since this faction has been confirmed, should we create a Cataclysm section for the template and add the Guardians of Hyjal to it? Or should we wait until the Beta begins? --Sairez (talk)

Earthen Ring
With the Cataclysm event happening, it seems the Earthen Ring has stepped into the fray. I once saw a beta video from WoW.com's Youtube page of when a player talked to Thrall to complete a quest in the Maelstrom that guided them to Deepholm and that the player was awarded reputation points with the Earthen Ring as a result. Isn't it time that the Earthen Ring faction was added to the template as a Neutral Cataclysm faction? If so, I'd appreciate if someone able to edit it does so.

--JARIITX (talk) 06:03, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Burning Crusade Section
Why don't we have Silvermoon City and the Exodar in the Burning Crusade section of the template? --Sairez (talk) 06:14, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because of the look of this template is supposed to try and match how it appears in-game. Right now though things are just kept in the new Cataclysm section till everything has been discovered and the dust has settled. By the end the new Alliance/Horde factions will be merged into the classic section. 18:03, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Silvermoon/Exodar factions should be moved to the Burning Crusade section because who do not has the BC expansion should not gain reputation with these factions. --N&#39;Nanz (talk) 11:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, someone in Orgrimmar or Undercity can speak to the Emissary of Silvermoon (mage and paladin trainer) and will thus have the faction listed in the Reputation tab.
 * Same thing can be done with the draenei emissaries.
 * 12:13, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus the factions did come before the actual expansion, and you could earn rep with them as well. Some people actually managed to get exalted (at least with the exodar) to get the elekk mount on expansion release day. 18:48, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a very small handful of Silvermoon and Exodar quests throughout the rest of the world, and with spillover rep from the other Alliance factions, it's not hard, just very time-consuming. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:08, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * True.. but when you had an older toon that has done every single quest in the game available and only the newly added ones to gain rep with them... it was doubtful. 19:12, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, spillover rep. Just do repeatable quests like in Alterac Valley, or the cloth turn-ins. Easy, just very, very long. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:13, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Additions Needed
Hi everyone. I tried to update this but I can't. You're missing the Dragonmaw Clan and Wildhammer Clan on the lists of Alliance/Horde reputations for Cataclysm. They're officially factions from the Twilight Highlands. Their stuff is in-game and their reputations are parts of achievements now in wide circulation. Thanks! --Damonskye (talk) 18:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, someone edited just as I was about to. They're now in, but the articles haven't had much in the way of updates with regard to the in-game faction bit. Perhaps a split like Explorers' League (in-game) / Explorers' Guild (lore)? -- k_d3 21:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Exodar and Silvermoon are at classic, while Gilneas and Bilgewater are at Cataclysm. TBC should be at TBC, or else Cataclysm should be at classic.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're displaying them by how they appear in game right? Then you are correct they should be moved. 05:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Zandalar
The Zandalar should be moved to Zandalar Tribe (faction) --LemonBaby (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Little fix
Can be "Houjin Pandaren" fixed to Huojin? --Mordecay (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, but just so you know, this template is not protected, feel free to make additional additions/changes in the future. 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay but... I can not edit it: "You do not have permission to edit this page: This page has been protected to prevent editing. You can view and copy the source of this page:" --Mordecay (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, it is protected... wasn't showing me that it was. 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Darkspear Rebellion
Should the faction be included in this list? I'm leaning towards "no" because while I originally added it to the template in the earlier days of the 5.3 PTR, it has become obvious now that DR is not a true rep faction. There's no reputation to be gained and it doesn't even appear in the in-game reputation pane (last I checked).

Would appreciate a second opinion. Alayea (talk / contrib) 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Like you said yourself, it shouldn't really be in the template since it's not a reputation faction. -- 11:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Template is too big and not relevant
I think this template has gotten to the point its just too big. I was looking over the bottom section of the Valarjar page, and out of the 9 template boxes, this had 6 template boxes which had no relevance at all to the article in question. Being a rep faction, does not mean that someone reading this article is interested in the Classic factions. And even if one was interested in those factions, this still wouldn't be the place to search for them. The template itself has a link to the pages for "Reputation" and "Faction" so it would be possible to reach those pages at ease.

I'm proposing in this template being split into expansion-specific templates and placing only the relevant expansion-template on the relevant page.--Celellach (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, too big. We'll have to do various tries in how best to fix the situation. Xporc (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the sections are expandable I personally don't think this is really necessary? --Mordecay (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From a user perspective, when you open it, you still get 8 collapsible lines, of which only 1 is needed. The % amount of whats not even relevent amazes me. From an editer's perspective, when I check "what links here" to see what links to an article, I get so many useless links cluttering the page which makes it very useless. This issue will get worse and worse as times goes on and more expansions release. Its bad now, no need to wait for it later. Also, if you think its ok, can you give a rational as to why? I really can't find even one. --Celellach (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are collapsible lines which are opened based on what is needed. It's not like they are opening all at the same time and stretching on the whole monitor (although when they are opened all at the same time, it is long, true). On the other hand, the editor's perspective u pointed out has some weight. I mean, ultimately, I don't really care about the template, and if u have any ideas, feel free to product them! :D --Mordecay (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those 8 lines are when they are collapsible (instead of 1). My idea is very simple Template: factions. Split the current data into each template. On the relevant pages, switch to the new template. That's it. --Celellach (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with separating this template at all. But I'll give my opinion if this does need to happen: having them on different templates isn't what I would agree to but rather use this as the main template and just separate them like how Mountfooter or even bookfooter separates. Use the reputation to have them all linked, but only link relevant expansion on each article. Using Corbyn as an example, just link the Legion reputations like this: Legion. 03:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)