Welcome to Wowpedia!
Some links you may find useful:
- The things to do category has lots of things to keep you busy!
- Check out the Community portal for some useful editors' links.
- Many Wowpedians frequent our IRC Channel, on chat.freenode.net, #wowpedia.
- Finally, please check out the site guidelines and policies!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (
~~~~) as this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, or need help, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the site forums. Again, welcome! --Coobra (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem ^_^ I had nothing better to do but scroll through the recent changes... saw you'd been rather busy in the wee hours of the morning - assuming those are the wee hours in your time-zone, ofc ^^ -- Taohinton (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
RE: Mind Control-Alt-Delete
Deleted.03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
<vplayer /> at the start of the section makes the video play on the page instead of opening the video in a new tab/window. -- 14:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. It wasn't performing any function in my browser when I tested it, due it not working when Flash is disabled. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typo :)
Re: Warlords of Draenor
Articles should be written from a third person point of view. A lot of the text you added was in first person (As in "We're adding so-and-so new feature"), and reads like it was copy-pasted off of official Blizzard materials. For example:
- "We’re making a number of improvements to the inventory system and adding features to remove some of the clutter."
- "We're updating the quest UI to make it easier to know just where to go and what to do."
Wowpedia is not an official Blizzard website, so ALL use of first person should be eliminated. Furthermore, the writing style is too conversational; it directly addresses the reader far too frequently. It should be more formal, cutting down on the use of the word "you". MaverickHunter40245 (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like it was copy-pasted from official Blizzard materials because it was copy-pasted from official Blizzard materials. Most of the content of the page is essentially collecting information that Blizzard has put out in the various blogs and articles. We could highlight sections as such, but the whole page would just end up in italics.
- I agree that the writing style used by Blizzard is not ideal for the wiki. In time most of the content of the page will be replaced anyway, and the rest will be adjusted to fit the wiki. In the meantime, if you'd like to go line for line through the page adjusting the writing style and rewriting grammar to make sure it still makes sense - without losing any of the details and content, including subtle hints and inferences - please feel free to do so. As it stands things are moving quickly, and having the information presented is far more important than the lack of complete integration into the style of the wiki. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Molten Core section
Ack, stupid sentence casing, thanks. That little quirk of wikis will never stop nailing me...
The present is simply the current endpoint of history, so I'd say your title still works :) You could also go with "Importance" or "Role", since throughout the section the focus seems to be "what the raid means to players, and why they might run it", aka its role or meaning in the game (which is what I was trying to get across with my wordy title). But that is less standard and more vague than than "History", so probably best to just leave it as you did. - jerodast (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was just about to agree, then noticed there was already a History section ;) I've therefore moved the battle pet info to a sub-section of Loot, and named that section "Raid history" since that gives some kind of distinction between the lore history and the history of the raid itself. Without the battle pet info "history" is now pretty accurate, and yes it's more standard which is preferable. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Undoing my edit on Character Boost
From the Wowpedia:MOS#Section_headings(emph. mine): "Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading and leave all of the other letters in lower-case." Death Knight is the proper capitalization of the class name. (See Death Knight information on WoW's class page.) I have changed the heading to Death Knight again. Aliok (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- On WoWpedia we actually consider the class names not to be proper names, despite Blizzard's use of them this way. For instance, simply look at the page for death knights themselves - lowercase k, and later in the text the entire term is lowercase. The reasoning has a certain amount of history and probably has to do with "lore perspective" vs "gameplay perspective". It's probably something that should be added to the official naming policy - if you look there you will see that a similar decision is in place regarding race names. In any case, treating them as lowercase, non-proper names best matches the convention in the rest of the wiki, so Tao was correct. - jerodast (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wowpedia is not citing itself on this. Look at the running text on Death Knight. That is what we are going by.-- 02:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the correction that Blizzard has used de-capitalized terms as well, and that our policy has a clearer basis than I thought, I would really, REALLY appreciate if you did not change my talk page comments, including the links. For one thing, where I said "lowercase k", my point was to look at the TITLE of the death knight page, which was analogous to the section title that started this whole conversation - the page that you changed my link to is NOT analogous and does not use the lowercase k, which makes my next clause sound quite odd indeed. But mainly, I was demonstrating that in cases like this it can be instructive to look at other WoWpedia pages and follow their example. Your changing my link therefore changed a major point of my post.
- As has already been explained, it is the wiki-wide convention not to capitalise class names; while there may be arguments both ways, that is our policy until/unless it should be changed for the whole site. As far as Blizzard goes, the less convenient truth is they simply aren't too concerned with grammar, or consistency. Their use of capitalisation for race names and class names, pluralising shaman (shaman vs shamans) and other conventions both in-game and in promotional material handles almost all such issues both ways, at different times; they therefore cannot be relied upon to provide a standard for the site. That said, the class pages seem to be fairly consistent in treating class names as common nouns. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Going through the Patch 6.0.2 notes for Shaman and making edits to some, I came across . When I clicked on the page to add the patch note that it had been removed in 6.0.2, I saw that it had been edited by you back in 2012 to indicate its removal in Patch 5.0.4. Which patch should be cited here? -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Investigation makes it look likely that my earlier edit was correct; Wowhead and Icy Veins both have articles from Mists launch saying that Primal Wisdom was 'brewed into' .
The addition of Primal Wisdom's effect to Mental Quickness is mentioned in the 5.0.4 patch notes, but it doesn't actually state that the former was removed.[Correction: almost no class change specifics were mentioned in the patch notes, so this one not being mentioned is to be expected; a ton of other abilities were also removed without mention.]
- Meanwhile, according to the official talent calculator (beta is currently offline), Mental Quickness is no longer in the game. Since that was the passive with the ability attributed to Primal Wisdom in the 6.0.2 notes, it seems likely to me that Rygarius has made a typo and stated Primal Wisdom instead of Mental Quickness. At any rate I've tweeted him; hopefully he'll get back to us! -- Taohinton (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, well no reply from Rygarius, but the evidence is pretty clear. Mental Quickness is definitely no longer in the game. Primal Wisdom was already removed with 5.0.4, and its effects given to Mental Quickness. A typo seems extremely likely.