I created this infobox to use it in the Slam article. Feel free to use it on any ability --(ALiEN 12:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT))

Also, reason the history is so big is because Show preview doesn't show changes done to an infobox (might be something I did) --(ALiEN 13:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT))
I LOVE IT! We'll see if we can get this incorporated into the abilities/spells boilerplate first off. Could you code a {{Infobox talent}} too? I'm not sure what would need to go in it, but then, there it is.--Sky (t · c · w) 18:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I've modified the template so it includes abilities that are activated by talents.--ALiEN 20:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

"Next melee sec cast"

This phrase appears in the displayed infobox whenever cast_time=Next melee. I am currently investigating how to prevent that, but I don't understand template parameters and how they're processed yet. User:JIM the Inventor/Sig1 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It lies in {{abilitytip}}, I fixed it. g0urra[T҂C] 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Talent sub-box

This template really shines amongst all those that we have on WoWWiki. I remember seeing it for the first time and thinking, "WOW. All ability pages should be this way." Of course, it was just getting started then. In my application of the template, and the related boilerplate, I've made small revisions to cut down on the amount of data that needed to be duplicated to complete the box (e.g.: buff_image & image used to be independent fields, but buff_image now feeds from image if no other data is supplied).

Which gets me to my main point: cutting down duplicate data. There is still some improvement to be done there, and I'd like to spearhead the effort - but first I'd appreciate a second opinion.

Talented field -- I believe this can be wiped out completely. It's only ever Yes when "Talent Tree" is going to have something. "Talent Tree", as written, only has something if Talented is Yes! If it is stated that "Tree of Life" is Restoration, Tier 9, then people have all the info they need in that regard.

Talent Improvements field -- I have a number of issues with this one, but they have less easy solutions.

  1. This field has the potential to bloat the infobox immensely (consider almost any Shadow Priest ability). I feel the spirit of an infobox is to provide "at a glance" info, and if you have to scroll it at most resolutions, it is a failure.
  2. When there are a lot of talents listed, people have a tendency to put "see below" (or more accurately, see left). We have a Talent Improvement section in the boilerplate ... sooooo, why does the info reside in two places? Though not inherently Wrong, any duplication - especially for such a detailed set of data - creates an opportunity for lost data.
  3. Mind you, as things stand, there's going to be a lot of lost data. We have hundreds of ability pages, and at least tens of talents to consider in relation to them. Nobody really wants to do these kinds of logistics x1000.

Taking that all together, I am forefront advising that Talent Improvements be removed from the infobox and left to the content of the article. I also propose that our template engineers, at their own initiative, think about ways to make more of the talent information automated: Some way or the other, templates should be able to bundle common talent info into these abilities.

E.G.: if school=Shadow, class=Priest, and the spell deals damage, then improvements=(at least) Blackout, Shadow Affinity, Shadow Focus, Shadow Weaving, Darkness, (Shadowform)*, (Vampiric Embrace)*, and (Vampiric Touch)*.

E.G.: if school=Nature, class=Druid, and cast_time~=instant, then improvements=(at least) (Nature's Swiftness)*.

  • These spells are in parentheses since they don't actually improve any ability just by taking the talent. You need to debuff the target or buff yourself before their full power is brought to bear.

User:JIM the Inventor/Sig1 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's too much automation for a template. We're trying to make it so people can present information accurately, not so they can play the game on the wiki. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Daugh! Pcj, why the dismissive attitude? That's two for two now. I swear you look at something, feel it clashes with your style, and say "no. reverse it." Of course I'm not proposing a recreation of the game. Please re-read the numbered points again. I am saying that, with some good template ideas, accuracy of information improves. You do NOT get accurate information through repetition. You do NOT get accurate information through omission. This infobox proved that through its lifespan. I will thank you, sir, if you do not agree with an idea, to try to offer revisionary criticism, rather than nay-say. User:JIM the Inventor/Sig1 05:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Since talent improvements (for now at least) have a spot in this box, what about glyphs? I don't have a clean idea, but figured it was worth bringing up. -- Harveydrone 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I concur, a possible idea would be to add "Related Glyphs" under "Other Information"

Buff Consolidation Box

I have the suggestion to add a field like bcb (=Buff Consolidation Box) that can have the following value:

  • Yes or 1: The buff will be stored there if the player uses it (depending on the interface settings). [Arcane Intellect] and [Frost Armor] would have the value yes or 1;
  • No, 0 or missing (omitted): The buff will never be stored there, regardless if the player uses it or not. [Seal of Righteousness] would have the value no or 0, or the field is even omitted;

Hans Kamp (talk) 17:19, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

[Soulburn] info in Infobox ability

With [Soulburn] you can affect Warlock abilities. They are not listed in the tooltips yet. The color code to be used is #FF00FF (100 % red, 100 % blue). Hans Kamp (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Added the Soulburn benefits to the related articles. --g0urra[T҂C] 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Passing requirements to Abilitytip

Can the field Requirements be passed to {{Abilitytip}}? Hans Kamp (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of an ability that has "Requires X" in it? --g0urra[T҂C] 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
[Mutilate] requires Daggers. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is one such example. The other (which lead to my suggestion) is [Tiger's Fury]. That requires Cat Form. Hans Kamp (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed the template so that it shows "Requires Daggers" on Mutilate, however the tooltip isn't being updated. Pcj probably have a better understanding of why it's like that. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Pcj fixed it now. Add req= to any abilities that has "Requires" in the tooltip (like Tiger's Fury and Mutilate). --g0urra[T҂C] 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And use {{Infobox ability/sandbox}} instead of {{Infobox ability}}. Hans Kamp (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would you ever use a sandbox version of a template on a non-sandbox page? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It's now imported to the main template. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Draenor Perks levels

Beta build 18689 had removed a good number of perks, and the levels perks are gained were changed to 92-98, if someone could change the |level text for them. Sdkphoenix (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've posted about this on Coobra's talk page, hopefully they or another admin will pick it up.
Regarding the display, I'd suggest adding '92-98' or something similar to the tooltip itself. At present it just says for example "Blood death knight Draenor Perk" which for many players will mean nothing at all in terms of which level it's granted at. Even those vaguely familiar with the details might need a reminder.
I'm not entirely sure of the best and most aesthetically pleasing way to add the '92-98', however. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Need additional class/spec fields

[Riposte] was made available to prot paladin in 6.0.2. However, since the template only supports listing two class/spec fields, this has caused prot warrior to no longer be displayed. Please fix this. :) -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 18:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


can i get the magic school link changed from [[Magic schools (WoW)#{{{school}}}]] to [[Magic schools#{{{school}}}]]? thanks <3 —Eithris (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

School 2

what would y'all think of hiding the "school" line when an ability is both passive and physical? it doesn't seem like particularly useful information to have on 'em, especially since the vast majority of passive abilities are marked as physical. looking through intersections, i'm seeing fewer than 20 that aren't.

side note: initially i was thinking of hiding it for all passive abilities, but i suppose for some like [Shadow Embrace], it... probably makes sense? maybe shadow resistance could affect a spell like that. i'm honestly not sure. Eithris (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's neat to have it shown in cases where the passives have "actual" schools other than physical, but for the ones that are just physical, I wouldn't mind hiding that line. PeterWind (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yea, hide it for passives that have it as physical. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 20:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't really think of a any cases in which a passive's school would ever matter. Even with Shadow Embrace, all it's doing is adding shadow damage to spells that are already shadow. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)