Previous discussions archived:

A New Beginning

As I stated to A'Noob, I will try to explain myself more frequently this time. So, to restart, I believe that my talk page need to be cleaned. Can anyone archive the conversations of my talk page from 2009 to 2013?

Done. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Despite I have requested to archive the previous talk, I still want to hear answers to my comments.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 23:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I moved that one back, then. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I still don't get answers to my comments. I'm thinking about moving back to the archieve and take out this blot/stain of my talk page.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 13:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


why undoing simple beneficial wikifing, Mr. Food-man? — on Barov

You asked why I as undoing your "simple beneficial wikifing" on the Barov page. You know the reason. You have been scolded in the past for your love of {{NPC}}. If was decided, with some reluctance, that you can add one link per each individual name per page. It is still silly. As you have not actually broken this arbitrary rule, I will let you continue. I would still rather that you did not.--SWM2448 01:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the Manual of Style to reflect that this style of {{NPC}} usage is not appropriate. Please only use the template when the discussion concerns an actual NPC acting in its NPC capacity.
Furthermore, I see that you've once again reverted SWM without prior discussion, and appear to have ignored his comment here. This behaviour isn't appropriate, and will result in further blocks of it continues. Please use the Talk: and User talk: pages to discuss your changes prior to reverting other users. — foxlit (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you have against the NPC Template. It's a facility that let you view data and image of the character beyond the link, not an obstacle. Still, I have not read to this day Forum:Abuse of Template:Npc on links. I will read it to try understand what is wrong with the template. For me this template should be a pattern to all pages and characters.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Largely, it's about having the wiki interface do what the reader expects it to do. For things like item links, this means displaying the tooltip -- it's the primary (and often the only) bit of information presented on the linked page, and showing it on a link avoids navigation. For things like character names, especially those appearing in prose and otherwise indistinguishable from normal wiki links, this does not mean displaying a picture of the character, which isn't the primary bit of information presented on the linked page. — foxlit (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not understand the reason to not link characters with the NPC template. Can you both list the reason to not put this facility even in lists like this? Avoiding of navigation is a good thing since saves time. And I aways expect at links an possible NPC format.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Lists are fine, but doubling up with using it in the lists and in the paragraph is not. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 22:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The causal link of entries in that list is not that they're all NPCs, but rather related characters, so {{NPC}}'s tooltip doesn't contribute useful information in that context (and should generally not be used as a surrogate thumbnail). {{NPC}} would be more appropriate on e.g. Stormwind City NPCs, which is indeed a list of NPCs. — foxlit (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The template always give good information and, as I already said, spares time on navigation. Don't use the template just because of the name or just because of it's initial propose being different from what an normal editor but a Template:NPC-lover like me expects from the template' is a nonsense and/or a conservative delay. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

← In my opinion, the template neither provides appropriate information, nor spares any navigation when used inappropriately. Ultimately, you're welcome to suggest changes to WP:MOS, but given the opinions expressed in Forum:Abuse of Template:Npc on links, I think the current guideline reflects consensus on the appropriate use of the template -- please adhere to it. — foxlit (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Faction article infoboxes

Note that the faction articles like Gnomeregan (faction), Darnassus (faction), etc, concern the in-game factions. Their names and contents should reflect those of the in-game factions; so "Kingdom of Gnomeregan," "Night elves of Kalimdor," etc, are not appropriate. — foxlit (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I made this edits basing in the Gilneas faction disscus.Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 18:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
To me, the prevailing opinion on that page is that the page should be about the in-game faction, and the general history of Gilneas should be split back out of there. Nothing in that discussion says "we should change infoboxes!" — foxlit (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I put the wrong link to the discuss that I was talking about. I was not talking about the Gilneas faction discuss, but yes to the Durotar split discuss. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Mm, so "anywhere but here!" from both directions. I'm not convinced that Orgrimmar (faction) is more appropriate than Durotar (nation) for a retelling of the history of the nation entity, but that's really a separate issue -- as long as Orgrimmar (faction) claims to be about the in-game faction (listing faction rewards, starting with {{faction links}}, etc), the infobox title should reflect that of the in-game faction, not the title of whatever is using the page to host its history section. — foxlit (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


I've blocked you for three days for these reverts. Per prior warnings, you should achieve consensus prior to re-instating changes reverted by others; edit summaries are not an appropriate location for discussion of whether your changes were correct or beneficial.

Please use the Talk: and User talk: pages, and actually achieve consensus before re-instating your reverted changes. Failing to do so would be interpreted as continued disruptive editing. — foxlit (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And why me and not you that have to open a discussion page? Isn't the one that remove information that have to talk? I was also trying to say that my edits here were beneficial. Why I can't discuss in edit notes as open an discussion page is far more slowly? In this reverts you apparently did not have even read my edits before undone; Jarod is indeed the leader of the Watchers and Shandris is indeed the leader of the Sentinels, leading me to think that you are arbitrary and blindly persecuting my edits. Also I did not have read about the faction articles issue prior my block and I WAS at a discuss on Forum:Problem of ambiguation page. I was, after a little revamp, putting in particle the merging the faction pages with the Azerothian name of the page. And why you block me for all pages, blocking me to discuss the block on talk pages? Don't I have the right to defend myself?Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll reiterate: edit summaries are not an appropriate location for discussion of your changes; you should use the relevant talk pages instead. This is indeed slower than what is essentially an edit war; which is precisely the point.
In general, you're subject to extra requirements regarding achieving consensus because you've made a large number of changes that were objectionable to a large number of editors. The intention is to reduce the amount of annoyance you cause for others. Ideally, this would happen because you'd discuss potentially contentious changes prior to making them, eventually learning which types of changes are undesirable. Requiring you to discuss reversions on talk pages serves the same purpose, though is less tenable in the long term. Beyond that, we're essentially down to blocks of increasing length, which give you time to consider what you're doing wrong, while also giving the other editors a brief reprieve.
If you'd like to discuss your block while you're blocked, you're welcome to contact the administrators by following the instructions on User:WowpediaAdmins. — foxlit (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My All-conflict project

On the past I tried to instigate the creation of all unwritten conflict pages, starting by order of lore chronology. Even me couldn't did it, maybe because of the lack of support and by not having time to explain and to ampliate the project. Doing it alone is too toilsome/laborious, so, I will at least list the wars and battles here, give a reference of chronology and events of what I'm talking about and hope someone to take on at least some of the project's work. I also believe that all wars in the Template:Wars deserves a warbox. This ease the navigation between the articles through the "|next", "|conc" and "|prev" lines. I have already created some pages like Demonic-titanic wars, Plaguelands civil war and Ascension of the Lich King, but I must ask for help because takes a lot of time to complete the project and it's articles.

List of wars and battles:

Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 22:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NPC tags

Hello Gabrirt. Glad to see you back because I actually think that you usually do a good work. But please, stop adding NPC tags where they don't belong. We discussed this on the village pump recently and no one wants those. As I said in my edit comments this time it was okay to keep your work and to remove the NPC tags, but I won't do that if you keep using the NPC tags. Xporc (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a thing that I have never understand in this site: Why many times people undo all the work, instead of selecting content that they agree and removing what they don't? For the example, Gourra unnecessarily removed the shade icon (IconSmall Shade.gif) here instead of revising all changes. This is not even the tip of the iceberg and it has happened to me many times since I joined this site. In my head, this was figuring a great lack of sense of community (that was angering me) since undo all the edits and leave to the initial editor all the work of revising instead of adjusting the article by yourself isn't exactly team work. Also, SWM charged me once of not being "the initial bold editor here", but what's the difference? Why me and not the reviser or anyone else have to start the discuss?Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 13:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"Why many times people undo all the work" Well what do you think? Because you're unnecessary adding things that no one wants. First you are wasting your own time by adding these tags, and people don't want to waste their own time sorting the good and the bad when they see your updates. The reason people are picking on you and you alone is because you're literally the only editor adding these NPC tags. You are not even using them right, "per WP:MOS this template should only be used when discussing in-game NPCs acting in their NPC capacity" Xporc (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking just about NPC tags. You didn't discussed all the argues I have exposed. And also, I have, in the past, argued we should'nt use the Template:NPC just to link NPCs in WoW because the template is useful to recognize some information about characters (specially their appearance) without having to open their articles and that is redundant create another template to fulfill this purpose. If people don't agree in using it as a pattern to link characters as I suggested in the past, I suggest use it as a pattern at least in lists and infoboxes (including Warboxes). Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't discussed at all your other arguments because they are unrelated to me. I'm only here for the NPC tags. Last time the topic was discussed on wowpedia, in this thread, literally no one argued in favour of the NPC tags. There are also discussions to have the appearance popup removed from the tag entirely. Xporc (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

So I'm not sure if you're aware of that but replacing npc links with the {npctag} markup makes it impossible to edit those through the live editor. You can only delete them, or change the npc to which they link, but that's it. You can't make stuff like that : (this is a link that redirects to the Titan page), instead all you have is Titan, and you can't even click them, so if you're in the middle of editing and you want to click the link to see something? Can't. You have to open a whole new tab and go to the desired page to find what you were looking for.

With normal links however, you can click them, and there you can edit them or go to the linked page and everything. So please try to don't use those anymore. At least not in the main pages themselves, in the npcboxes it's debatable but not in the middle of paragraphs or whatever...

Edit: looks like you still can edit the links with npctag but it's very tedious, it opens a new window and you need to go into the options, add a new option line, then fill the new case and finally close the window, instead of just straight up clicking the link and writing. And the other point still stands.

Edit2: And it's still not working, having a hard time finding out how it works with the live edit. Just stop using them everywhere, they don't belong to the pages themselves from a narrative point of view. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I'll quote Foxlit here: : since {{npc||name}} and [[name]] now produce functionally identical output, Foxlit wants us to only use plain links unless the rest of {{npc}}'s formatting (inline level, title, icons, etc) is desired. Xporc (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. Though they're a bit everywhere now and it's a pain to deal with. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictures on the left

Your edits are creating this kind of situation, which is extremely disruptive for the flow of a page. Xporc (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I did not knew it. But why the display for diferent people is diferent? And, for situations like this, I would suggest to change templates to let them flow properly like text and images. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 23:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Coz of monitor resolutions and browser zoom levels, for example. --Mordecay (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, how I can see if realign the image would eventually brake the article for other people? Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 00:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Best solution would be trying to stop forcing pictures to the left. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I could be mistaken on this, but to me it seems that format-breaking is a lot more prevalent when images are forced to the left of pages. PeterWind (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It is as Mordecay and Pete says. Mostly everyone on this site will use a different monitor size/resolution/browser/zoom level combination than you, Gabrirt. So by trying to make things better for you, you will actually make them worse for other people. AFAIK there's no easy way to do what you want to do, so IMO you should just accept that you're not a web designer, stick to the manual of style of wowpedia and keep pictures on the right, like every single editor but you does. I'm honestly tired of reverting your changes ad infinitum and I'd rather have you as a productive member of the community. Xporc (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I say AGAIN: No one have tell to me why should anyone align images on the right. Also, are you sure that is likely impossible change templates to allow it flow naturally or that we have no man for the job? It's not just to align images on the leftt, but mainly to avoid breaking the article in any situation. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 19:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I imagine it would be possible to add line clears, but that would just cause the article to take up more space. Besides, while it may not be against any rule, that I know of, I think you are the only one preferring leftside images. PeterWind (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
As Peter said, line clears are not to be used like toys, and no it's not a rule to have pics on the right but this is the convention for reading. You can open most magazines, books, or even wikipedia articles and the pics will be on the right because it is more natural for the huge majority of readers. Example : You don't see pics being placed randomly to the left and disrupting the flow of the page. The main reason is that we read, and write, from left, to right. -- MyMindWontQuiet 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As I have understood, I’m not putting pictures on the left when it seems to break the article but there are two situations that I’m still doing it:
1 – When the image get unaligned from were it has been inserted, eventually getting out of context and entering in spacial problem with others images and infoboxes.
2 – When the article gets its scroll unnecessarily large thanks a wrongly positioned image and wastes space with it.
For me, I'm doing by right. What does everyone minds? -- Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 22:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You're not doing it right. -- MyMindWontQuiet 22:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
For me these are good reasons to be exceptions. Could you elaborate and comment the caveats? Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 12:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have the feeling that each time we will say you "this looks ugly", or "this isn't how it's done anywhere else on the planet", you will just refute it with "but I think I am doing good, can you explain what I am doing wrong?" Xporc (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Literally everybody else on this wiki disagrees with your moving pictures to the left. We have also explained why, multiple times, so I won't "elaborate" again. At this point it would be better if you just stopped doing this altogether. Even when you think it might look better, just don't do it. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Example of situation II

I believe that "ugly" is a very subjective argue. Also, AFAIK just because the image is aligned on the left, you still reading from left to right, so it's because for me makes basically no difference where the image is aligned, making the caveats, IMO, priority than the usual alignment. I have also an scanning way of viewing and reading and I can refrag memories when organizing them making images fit very well on left also, making align images on just one side an unnecessary limitation. And for informing, there are languages that flow from right to left. I'm willing to basically follow the rule, but I'm still asking for, at least, you guys discuss the caveats, specially the "situation two": When the article gets its scroll unnecessarily large or wastes spaces thanks a wrongly positioned image, align it properly. Gabrirt (talk · contributions) 14:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the scrolling issue will be relevant on any semi-modern monitor. I also think you're kinda proving Xporc's point. PeterWind (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)