Quest Disambig pages

Currently User:Laurlybot makes quest dismbig pages that look like this B [15-30] Diplomatic Measures basically very simple and not much more info then the quest name and level. There have been a few people that have commented that maybe adding some more info would help people find the quests they are looking for. I have come up with this User:Laurly/Sandbox1 now when i showed some others this idea they said it was to much info. What I'm looking for is a consensus of opinion.

Do we need more info on quest disambig pages?
If Yes. How much more info do we need on quest dismabig pages?

Having the bot redo all the quest dismabig pages isn't a problem its just a question of how we want them to look the bot could probably recreate them all in a few hours. Laurly 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

H IconSmall Orc Male.gifIconSmall Orc Female.gif Warlock [11] Creature of the Void w/in the disambig template is perfect. Any more is a waste, any less is unhelpful. Having the parenthetical disamig is essential,though, as otherwise you have to mouse over the links to figure out which one to choose. That is, at best, a pain in the ass.
If you'll look at Tome of the Cabal (quest), you'll also see what I've done to a disambig that had sequential quests in it.--DuTempete talk|contr 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As usual.. got a bunch of opinions, most not held in common with the rest of the world. Take them for what they're worth :).
  1. Regardless of how they're organized, I'm against having a bunch of links that all look identical to each other until you mouse over them. (/agree DuTempete). If the links on the disambiguation page have the additional number, or zone, or faction, or whatever, it would be useful.
  2. Three or more, a disambig page is useful (to me) (Seeking_Strahad).
  3. If they're similar (like Gnome Engineering), something like the preface summary would be kind to the reader. This is probably not easily botted. Ah, well. There's still the old fashioned method...
  4. If not similar (like A [28] The Missing Diplomat, Tome of the Cabal), a summary doesn't make sense, but a quest chain link may. ... It does for these examples, but there are probably examples that are not chains.
  5. The first quest can also often serve as a disambig page for the chain. A [28] The Missing DiplomatThe Defias Brotherhood The user is going to type in the name of the quest, after all, not 'The Missing Diplomat (2)' or like that. And one (smaller) function of the Quest Chain page is disambiguation. This avoids creating names like "your ambiguous quest (1)" to provide space for a "your ambiguous quest" disambiguation page.
    • edit: haven't filled out The Missing Diplomat yet... bad example. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • ... I'd even be tempted to redirect Tome of the Cabal (quest) to a quest chain page, and sort out both chains there. (The 'things you do' are the same, so a unified quest chain page would make sense to me. And the 'summary' section of the quest chain page could hold both trees of quests, providing the necessary disambiguation.)
  6. If there's 1 horde, 1 alliance quest of the same name, and with nearly identical text etc, users are better off if there's only one page, that illustrates both quests. B [15-30] What Are These Things? Otherwise, you're creating 3 pages (disambig, horde, alliance), and any information particular to completing the quest has to go in at least 2 places, which is evil for updating. Easier to search for, what's not to like? This is almost certainly the exception, though, and I can't imagine it'd be an easy option for a bot to choose correctly.
As I said, just my opinions. Everybody has one. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, one of the other things I mentioned to Laurly is that I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary for just two quests. If there are only two, you can easily redirect straight to the only other possible option. --DuTempete talk|contr 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of reasons for not having disambig pages ... I listed a few myself. Would want to see how searches for the quest come out, first, before doing away with the disambig page for "just 2". --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the (shared?) opinion that a disambig isn't needed if there's only two pages which deal with the relevant item, regardless of location (, item, etc). My 2c. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, you mean a separate disambig page, not in-page disambiguation, yes? ;) --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... yeah. Yeah? --Sky (t · c · w) 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe Sky is talking about external disambigs being a waste for quest names than only have two versions.
Also, I don't agree with Eirik, when he says it's friendlier to readers to put two similarly named quests on the same page. I think it would make the page significantly harder to read, especially if the quests were very different from each other. Even if he was only talking about quests that are nearly identical, it would confuse the article. How many of those are there, anyway? The bot wouldn't even be able to differentiate, and the whole reason we have the bot is for saving people-energy.
Screw the bot? Well, I think it's in the community's best interest to keep the bots going. They have generated an unbelievable amount of new information on this wiki, helping us to be quickly catching up to the level of factual information one finds in the databases. It is definitely not worth sacrificing that.
--DuTempete talk|contr 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Bots will never be perfect they will always need humans to come in and tweak the data. Maybe its best to just consider the bot a starting point its easy to move a page to a new name once the bot has generated it. The way the bot creates distinct quest names needs to remain the way it is for the foreseeable future. If i was to change it now after the bot has created 2k+ pages would only cause problems if someone tryed to resubmit one that was already generated under the previous distinct name generation. So i suggest you merely move the page to a better name if you feel it should be there instead of where the bot put it. I will fix it so that when it creates the disambig pages it displays the full quest name to make it easer to figure out which quest you are after possibly also add zone info. Fixing it to put a disambig line in a page if theres only 2 with the same name will take a bit more work, im going to have to put that on hold until after the bot has generated the NPC pages. I am also concerned that this and might just cause problems in the future as more quests are added to wow. I like havening the disambig pages but would probably add a bit more info to them to make it easer to find the quest you are looking for. Laurly 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
For myself, I've assumed that neither you nor the bot have any ego invested in bot generated pages (for the most part, anyway), so have felt free to alter, rename, or make obsolete bot generated pages. Please do kick me where you feel I err... --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure understand what you mean by the last statement. Maybe its just how i am or maybe its because i'm a woman but i have no ego associated with the bot. All i want is for her to be able to help. If someone has a better idea of how to do something im more then happy to recode the bot to suit. I created her and continue to work on her only to help the wiki what she does is just create a large number of pages so that we don't have to. I have removed the code to create the disamb pages so she wont create them anymore. She is still going to continue to create district names as before but i have added a new irc command.

!questpage [id|name]
!questpage [8105|The Battle for Arathi Basin! (Alliance, 55)]

This will save quest id 8105 to The Battle for Arathi Basin! (Alliance, 55). This command also works with the quest command but will place it in the sandbox.

This way you can now supply the distinct name you wish. Laurly 10:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lore section in the class pages

This is a followup to find out what people think of the short lore section in Mage (reduced to general info about the class in general, to keep it from being bloated), and lore in Mage races as opposed to the old way of splitting lore from the main class pages onto its own lore page. An alternative suggestion was to make class lore be the primary class page, and have it list an in-page disambigation to the various gameplay pages, how to play a, how to kill a, "class" races, "class" spells, etc etc.

These ideas have been discussed with a few admins in IRC, and in talk pages, including, Ragestorm, Adys, and Kirkburn, and other fellow wikians, those who either liked it, or fairly neutral about it (or never commented), and those like Sky2042 who don't really like it. But mostly the discussion was positive, and idea of it only being a small lore section added to the main class page was even more positive than the idea of switching the articles.

The reason for this post, is to find out what others other than those in previous discussions think of these ideas. Should we do this to the rest of the pages, or revert it to the old style?--Baggins 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls this "summary style" when an article has short summary paragraph or two for sections that can be entire articles. The section starts with a tag like Main article: Mage lore and then a general summary of the highlights of mages in lore. Most class articles are already in this style, with a section on "Spells" for instance, then a link to the expanded spells page. So a lore summary is not out of line. --Piu (?!) 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, Mage lore is a redirect to mage!! --Piu (?!) 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I have for this is that some of the class articles are already long-winded. Otherwise it sounds like a fun, trivia-type thing to include in the article. I would definitely object, however, to swapping the page titles. The article most likely to be looked at by the average user is the page that should not have the disambiguation. I believe that the gameplay information is far more read than the lore article. --DuTempete talk|contr03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that generally the most of the Class lore pages have had a call to be trimmed down for being bloated, and including alot of lot information that could be included in other related articles (for example any rpg classes or organizations could be moved to their own pages, and class by race could be included within either each race's page, or the Class races pages). This is the thought behind doing away with Class lore pages altogether. In some cases perhaps for Shaman lore, it might work best to move some of the material to a name like shamanism to hightlight the religion rather than the class. Not all people who believe in shamanism are shamans for example.Baggins 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So any objections from others to converting a few more pages to this format?Baggins 08:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Finished a few more, paladin, priest, hunter, rogue, druid, warlock and warrior. These were fairly easy to convert as the lore pages were limited to begin with, or contained redundant information already found in other pages, and much of the stuff could be moved to individual class races pages to follow the concept originally started with mage races, or other individual class pages. Shamanism is the only one that may take a bit more work.--Baggins 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NPC pages

User:Laurlybot will be ready to run the npc pages soon. Note: Category:Laurlybot:NPC_requests.

There has been an objection to all the transcluded pages. But the good point of having the transcluded pages means that we can rerun the bot from time to time and update all these pages with current data without having to worry that the bot will clobber anything added to the main page. So what im looking for before i run the bot is opinions, questions, comments, gripes what ever so that we deal with any bugs or problems before the bot generates 2k+ npc pages. Laurly 08:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

yadda yadda
some more example
It just occurred to me that it would be possible for, whenever the bot parses {| (I don't know if it does), to look for the word "Drop", "Sells" etc. For example, use (one of) the examples on the right and have it stop looking for sells when it hits the table end. And yes, for all, I'm the sole objector. I hate the transcludable pages idea (I had to clean through them when we got rid of template:css). Would this be so hard? Anything in the tables would end up deleted the other way in any case, so this is why I'm wondering. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a bad idea if you could 100% guarantee that someone wouldn't change the table data sometime in the future. Which would be hard. Laurly 11:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We can't 100% guarantee that anyway without locking every page, and then the bot can't edit them Smiley.gif; I saw someone edit a /Drop or /Sell page yesterday (apparently, from rings -> necklaces; I have no idea if it was a correct change or not). Assume good faith. We've managed to make all the talents with tables work. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WoW Press Release

Hey Guys, Wikia just put out a press release announcing that WoW hit the 40K article milestone, and and is on of the top 1,500 sites on the internet according to Alexa. There is also a nice quote from Kirkburn :)

-- angies 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

/me looks embarassed, yet proud :P User:Kirkburn/Sig3 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Search Boxes

Is there a reason for the search boxes to be redirecting automatically to the google ads? As soon as you click on the search boxes that have google ads displayed above them, they will just start loading the page for that particular wiki. Quite annoying, and (to be blunt) a good reason to not be using wowiki as a warcraft tool. I love wowwiki and hate to see to see it forcing users to pages not requested, so please consider doing something about it. -- Innocentlysassy 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a recent bug. I click in the search box and it mistakes it for a click on the image ad. It worked fine a couple days ago, no idea why it does this now. Workaround is to bounce on the tab key until it lands in the search box. --Piu (?!) 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You can also click the "Search WoWWiki" link in the man navigation box, under "Random Page" until the box is fixed. --Piu (?!) 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I run Wowwiki on Safari browser and entering the search box automatically redirects me to the Google Ad currently displayed above. This totally makes the search function useless, I can't search.

I don't know if this is a wiki redesign, or a Google issue, but it totally invalidated Wowwiki for me. The search function is the key to finding anything at all in Wowwiki, and I might as well look to Allakhazam for my NPC and quest searching needs...

Anybody that can look into this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerala (talk · contr). 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported two posts above. --GRYPHONtc 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not a wiki redesign :/ Why on earth would we do that to the search box?? It really helps to know what people are running, rather than just saying "it doesn't work". Is it just Safari that's seeing the problem? I tested on both Firefox and IE7 and it's working fine for me. (edit: I have passed it on) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Safari for me too. --Piu (?!) 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be fixed now. --Piu (?!) 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not fixed as of 9:52am September 9 2007. I'm a Safari user. The entire left column is a link to the Google ad, not just the search box. Maybe someone didn't include a close-the-link tag? Seankreynolds 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the problem when I inspected the source. The link for the image wasn't closed, which was only affecting Safari apparently. Right now it's working fine for me on Safari. Try clearing your browser cache, or doing a shift-reload maybe? --Piu (?!) 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Dear WoWWiki, Someone has been deleting some of my "writings". If it was an administraotr, I have no problem with it, if it's not, is there a way you can stop it? Mr.X8 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.X8 (talk · contr).

Firstly, please stop spamming questions. Secondly, please try and do stuff yourself, rather than keep asking things that you can quite easily find out for yourself. I deleted this: [1]. I think it should be pretty obvious why (the guy you responded to was joking). This is a site for working together - insulting and shouting at other users is not allowed. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, I knew someone was going to delete that. I mean I asked some questions about the RPG and when I kept going back to see if anyone answered, nothing was there. I know I saved it because I know to save my stuff. Mr.X8 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that questions regarding the RPG probably belong on Wowpedia_talk:Warcraft pump because of the topic. You should probably ask again there. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


On Sylvanas' talk page, it says she has Rod of Undead Mastery that can re-animate the dead. It also says the Forsaken have no necrotic (or is it necromantic?) powers. On the Forsaken's article, it contradicts this saying they have necromancers in their ranks and I'm pretty sure I've seen other pieces of info that say the same thing. Which one should be changed, or should they both be left alone? Mr.X8 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Icon flagRSP2

I would like know how have the hidden icon to re-appear? My brother has added addon the icon but I only hidden it ,but i can't seem to figure out how to have the icon to come back. What should I do? I am terrible at computers. My brother is away.

-- Burningskyes 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

/RSP standby --Invin Dranoel 14:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagentbox vs Reagentlist

i got annoyed by the very ugly and bulky look of the {{reagentbox}}, and decided to create something similar to a list instead. the design is inspired by laurlybot's npc_drops, npc_sells etc. a short comparision:

  • Reagentbox is limited to 30 items
  • Reagentbox can have customized caption
  • Reagentlist can list virtually unlimited amount of items.
  • Reagentlist includes source for needed items
  • Reagentlist takes up less space
  • Reagentlist looks tidier


User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list header User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list row |}

You can take a look on the two pages User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list header and User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagent list row for example of how the info is input to create this list. any feedback? User:Taurmindo/sig 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like reagentbox better because it is closer to how the professions pane in-game displays it. --Pcj (TC) 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the list better personally, wish it was more like that in-game actually. Simple, to the point, and easy to follow. --User:Mucke/sig 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I like the fact that it's smaller, and less ugly, however, I like doing those lists w/ text because you can also include the sub-mats in a way that shows they're sub-mats. If you could include a way to do that in your template, that would be fantastic. --DuTempete talk|contr 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice. I also want to point out that the limitation of 30 reagents is hardly a basis for comparison, since I think we all agree Blizzard would be nuts to make an item require 30 individual reagents. --Pcj (TC) 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Of the two, I like Reagentlist better. Not enough to use it, though. (I like the even-less-bulky list better.) But don't mind me, you didn't make it for me. :)--Eirik Ratcatcher 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i understand the criticism of 30 reagents, and surely blizzard will not add something needing more than that. but for sub-reagents for an item, it may become possible. i messed around a little to fufil DuTempete's wish. this is the result: For [Goblin Rocket Boots]:

User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist header User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row User:Taurmindo/sandbox/Reagentlist row |}

including sub-reagents creates minor issues:

  • to create the item one doesn't actually need all the items in the reagent list. e.g. one does not need bolt of mageweave AND mageweave cloth. this is not clearly shown.
  • to make a reagentlist one has to go deep into what is made of what and who.
  • to make this advanced list one has to find out skinning and herbing levels etc, which means more work to provide such a list.
  • it may not be obvious what are subreagents and what are actual reagents.
  • more of variables has to be put into the {{reagentlist row}}
  • where to stop? at mithril bar or mithril ore? at bolt of cloth or cloth?

User:Taurmindo/sig 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the number of reagents you can store is practically meaningless - 30 is not set in stone, and the minute someone actually needs that, they can update reagentbox to include however many they need; so far, though, I don't think anything uses as much as 10. I don't really like {{fooheader}} {{foorow}} {{foofooter}}-style templates - might as well use an inline table (which'd probably be shorter, too!).
Use comparatively same-sized captions when comparing things - considering the Requires Tailoring (390) text usually appears before the table, a simple "Components required" caption would stop that line from wrapping, reducing the amount of space it uses.
I'd have to take issue with the "Reagentlist takes up less space" claim, which isn't actually true half of the time - you win a few pixels (~5) if you include an odd number of items, you lose by a few more pixels if you include an even number of items; horizontal space is free, no reason not to use it. The two-column layout allows {{reagentbox}} to use larger icons, and to make the text labels a bit more readable - while the lack of cell padding in reagentlist makes it a bit more difficult to skim through ("Reagentlist looks tidier" -- meh, "more compressed" is the phrase I'd use).
(indentation is implemented in a rather silly fashion in reagentlist, but that's fixable)
Overall, I don't think what you're proposing really it fixes the issues you're describing; sacrificing a bit of padding and readability to gain a few pixels of vertical space isn't worthwhile; inclusion of source information is of debatable value (appending to |itemx= is an option, if desired); sub-reagents are mildly interesting. -- Starlightblunder 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Abilities of enslaved demons

Hi. I was thinking of adding info about which abilities are avaiable when a warlock enslaves a demon (ie not one of their normal summoned minions). For example, Servant of Ilgalar comes with [Mana Burn] (rank 1), essentially identical to the priest spell. I don't want to add excessive info but I want it to be found easily.

At the very least, on the Servant of Ilgalar page, I plan to add this info in the "Attacks and abilities" section (if Laurly bot doesn't do it first). Then, on the [Mana Burn] page, I might note "rank 1 is also available when enslaving Servant of Ilgalar". This seems like it could get out of hand, and may be confusing to any priest simply wanting to learn about their ability. Last, I could see a reason to add the info in a big list on the Enslave Demon, with all enslavable demons and their abilities (similar to the huge [Mind Control] page). But that seems needless. Thoughts? -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The [Spellsteal] page has similar issues, where it's turning into a big list of what mobs have what ability (buffs to steal in this case). Maybe things like this should be split out into separate articles due to the potential size? --Piu (?!) 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, as if Mages didn't have enough stuff in their goodie bag, they now get Spellsteal. :-P
--Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:08 PM PDT 12 Sep 2007
I once stole Innervate off a moonkin. Best spell ever --Piu (?!) 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fandyllic, we've had spellsteal since BC came out. Where have you been? >_< --Sky (t · c · w) 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Spellsteal has convinced me not to add this info to the Enslave Demon page, as a general rule. Still wondering whether this is appropriate info for the individual ability pages. -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 18:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may make a "simple" suggestion or two... Why not make pages expressly for the listing of these things? Like List of Stealable Spells or List of Enslaved Demon Abilities? That way the clutter won't tarnish the information and the information won't be on a "clutter" page. ~ Doc Lithius [U|T|C] 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Questrace - better late than never.

Having known of {{t|questclass}} for some time, I only recently discovered that there are in fact some tauren-only quests in Mulgore. I'd know of the Draenai-only quests in Bloodmyst Isle for a while, but "why make a template if there's only one instance of it?". A matter of moments, then, to bend questclass to my ways for {{questrace}}. See if you find it useful. It should at least ease the suffering of the Mulgore quests page... --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have a smarter wiki, is there a way to make your template smarter and have it pick the faction (Horde for Orce, Tauren, etc. and Alliance for Draenei, Night Elf, etc.) automatically based on the chosen race? --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:05 PM PDT 12 Sep 2007
Yes, there is. --Pcj (TC) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle articles

Feedback requested about Battle article naming at WW:NAME by Gonzalo84. --GRYPHONtc 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fanfiction Feedback?

Whew, say that three times fast. Anyways, I was wondering if any RP'ers (or just plain ol' readers for that matter) might want to give me some feedback on my fan fiction? Specifically the Fall of Azjol'Nerub, I just finished the prologue and parts one and two and I want to know what y'all think. ~Peregrine

Infobox instance, infobox zone and more

Infobox update time:

  • {{Infobox zone}} is needs adding to all main zone pages, along with other updates, in the style of Teldrassil. This is mostly complete - Northrend is the main ones left, and others continents need a quick check to make sure they're all done. Useful for checking links - [2]
  • {{Infobox instance}} has been created for all instances, and needs adding to all main instance pages. See Molten Core for usage.
  • {{Patchbox}} needs adding to patch articles from Patch 0.6 to Patch 1.9.4, along with adding {{patches}} and cleaning up the article start. See later patches, such as Patch 1.11, for usage.

There's a fair few more articles to update ... Help out if you wish! More infobox templates can be found in Category:Infobox templates User:Kirkburn/Sig3 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Small update - infobox zone is done, just the other tidying bits are needed on all zones (maps, dungeons, etc). Also, I have given all the stubs a revamp - see Category:Stubs! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 03:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Resistance pages

So, started the conversion on the resistance equipment pages n all. you can see the first example on : Resistance equipment (head). It's a lot.. and i mean "LOT" of work to properly convert all the pages... If anyone is "really" bored and looking for something useful to do.. feel free to help out. User:CrazyJack/Sig 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of having it all in one list. I much prefered it split by armor type like it was. I messed with the idea of transcluding pages into customizable lists, so you could see just what you wanted to see. The little bit I messed with is at User:Syzgyn/Resist. I dont know if that much transclusion would slow down the server at all, but if it wasnt a problem, you could have it all branched out in individual pages, then combined back in whatever way you wanted. For example, User:Syzgyn/Resist/Fire/Plate, without any extra work.--Syzgyn 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Style the tables with css per WP:MOS, this method is compatible with other site themes --GRYPHONtc 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Moved to Warcraft Pump under Help! section.

Standardizing the spelling of "Judgment."

I have seen judgment spelled "judgment" and "judgement" on WoWWiki. The correct spelling is "judgment." I know that "judgement" is a (usually frowned upon) variant, but regardless of the way the word is spelled, it should be spelled the same way throughout the site.

I was about to edit some pages to help, but in some cases the page names themselves are misspelled. I am fairly new to Wiki editing, so how does changing URLs (for instance: Judgement of Righteousness ) work?

Great site, though, and thanks for the help and comments

-- Dirkbronze 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You click the Move tab, HOWEVER, in this case it is properly spelled. We use Blizzards names whether they are controversial or not and that is how they spell it. I also see that you have changed the capitalization of the race names, as per policy and previous lengthy discussions, this has been covered. --GRYPHONtc 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
And regardless, both spellings are correct. Please see judgement at Judgement is typically British, judgment is typically American. One is not a variant of the other. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In a similar vein, Americans usually spell it defenSe whereas the British and Canadians spell it defenCe as well as color vs. colour. This is an English language wiki, so both variations would be acceptable. However, unless there is a controversy, we typically use the American spellings. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:10 PM PDT 17 Sep 2007
Weird. I've never seen 'judgment' (it was actually difficult to type that...), and I'm an American...--Azaram 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Report a problem"

Hi All. Wikia have made a new feature that may be useful to you. It's a link/tab on each article to "report a problem". This leads to a small form that can be used to give information on what's wrong. Admins then have a special page that allows them to mark each as fixed, not a problem, or to flag it for Wikia staff. The idea is to catch all the people that don't know enough about wikis yet to fix things themselves, or how to find admins to help them. At the moment, we get email from people with problems that would much better be addressed by local admins, maybe this will help fix that!

So, this will be enabled shortly and is on Inside Wikia now. Please have a look at it, try it out, and let us know whether it's something you want. The reports page is at Special:ProblemReports and the link/tab is on each article page. If this won't be helpful to you, we can disable it for your wiki. All feedback gratefully received! Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor question that doesn't influence anything in particular: Is the text of the message (if you need help... blah blah blah) editable? --Sky (t · c · w) 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds excellent to me! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sky, yep, it's a mediwiki message so can be altered by any admin. The version on Inside at the moment is too long I think, something very simple would be better -- sannse (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool cool. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking forward to it. Hopefully we can use it in conjunction with Wowpedia:Server requests. I'm assuming these problem reports are for wiki-specific problems and not content problems. We might want to make this distinction more clearly when it gets enabled for WoWWiki. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:58 PM PDT 17 Sep 2007
Personally, to me it seems that it will be used as a content problem reporter, tbh. Different meanings to different people. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


For some reason, in all of the NPC boxes I've seen so far, next to the image in the box is the word "Cap". What is this? --Joshmaul 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by Raze. My mistake :( Oh btw, all templates of that (wowbox) design now allow a "caption" arguement for the images. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace "lvl 70" by "level cap"

In my recent edits, I found quite a lot of references to "level 60" or "lvl 70", where the authors actually meant the level cap. I'm not sure where to put that, but think it would help to have this hint somewhere in the policies - authors, please use "level cap" when that is what you mean, not some absolute number which may be obsolete next year (most probably I'll get now teached where in the guidelines this hint already exists :). --Batox 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace the level number with {{levelcap}}  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know, if the gold-equivalent quest reward values changed, when the level cap changed? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to guess that they did, but no, unless you feel like digging through the archives. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
At 60 the rate was "5 gold per 8000 experience" source. At 70 it appears to be 4.8 gold per 8000 EXP... I'm betting the old number was rounded and they didn't change the rate. User:Tekkub/Sig 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

questions about swtiching main hand and off hand.

-- I want to know how can I make this macro.

first, to judge the main hand or off hand taking a dagger.(Example:main hand holding a dagger and off hand a sword.) then swap main hand with off hand and cast the Sinister Strike.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by S007 (talk · contr).

This is not the right place to ask the question, this is for discussion about the wiki itself - not WoW.  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  09:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Various Casters

Is here any articles, maybe even just sentences about what a sage, heirophant, or hydromancer is in the Warcraft Lore? Mr.X8 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you what they are before. To recap, Sages know things, heirophants are... this, and hydromancers are water mages.--SWM2448 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No articles currently for hierophant, hydromancer, or sage. Maybe you can start them! It would be best if you could cite some sources when you make the articles. Thinking about it, I can start some articles. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:10 AM PDT 18 Sep 2007

Changing the Search Box

Frankly, I hate the google search box and would like to change to the standard wiki search box. I tried inserting the javascript code as specified on Wowpedia:Searching, but when I do that the search box does not terminate (seems to run off the end of the column), there is no "Go" or "Search" button visible, and press enter simply redirects me to Special:Search. Is there a solution to this? Honestly I can't understand why the google search is even the default in the first place. --Divisortheory 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Check User:Gryphon/wowwiki.css and/or User:Gryphon/wowwiki.js. They should have what you need to get rid of the google box.
Personally, I use both, which can be found on my wowwiki.css and js pages. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Google search is the default because internal search was too much of a strain on the server, this is no longer such an issue. My js as linked provides both. --GRYPHONtc 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Minerals, Gems, Jewels, Cut Gems

I hate to bring this up again, but it's still not settled. Or, it unsettled itself spontaneously...

We've currently made a dog's breakfast of the categories of

  • stuff that isn't stone, what you take out of mineral veins ('category 1')
  • stuff you put into sockets ('category 2')
  • Items from category 1 that can be turned into items of category 2 ('category 3')

If memory serves: (please edit this section to correct the history where I've got it wrong)

  • before BC, we only had Gems (category 1), and everyone was happy.
  • when BC came out, we started stuffing the new category 1 and 3 items into 'Gems', and called category 2 'Jewels'.
  • Someone noticed "Blizzard doesn't say 'Jewels'", and category 1 got renamed 'minerals', category 2 got renamed 'gems'.
  • Somehow, we've now ended up again with "Gems" and "Jewels".

I wouldn't have brought this up if not for the templates {{gems}} and {{minerals}} floating around. And the dozen or so pages titled "gems of type XXXX". And most of the Gems page talking about things that are currently in Category:Jewels. And...

Once you look under the carpet, you are forever tainted by the knowledge of the what you found.

I've found at least one person who believes 'Cut Gems' is the correct name for category 2. I'm not convinced, but at least it's a break from the gems/jewels debate. But it's another opinion.

I'd like to see us regain some consensus on this. This really belongs in a pre-vote discussion, but I couldn't decide where to put the vote... --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'Cut Gems' works for me as category 2. I wish Blizzard hadn't confused the gems/jewels naming thing, but we are where we are. We could also consider 'Cuttable Gems' as category 3. Unfortunately category 1 wouldn't strictly be non-cuttable gems, as it includes such oddities as  [Black Vitriol] and  [Tainted Vitriol].
I think we can all agree the {{gems}} template, which currently lists only cuttable gems, is completely misnamed. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:07 PM 19 Sep 2007
I was thinking that items in category 3 would also be in category 1, regardless of names, given how I defined the categories. Thus no worries there. OTOH, how would items like  [Pristine Black Diamond] be categorized? They're distinctly gem-like, but not a mining product. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "Gems" and "Socketable Gems". Having cuttable gems on the gems page link to the section of socketable gems where their various cuts can be found. --User:Mucke/sig 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the thought: "Gems", "Cuttable Gems", "Socketable Gems". I'm reluctant to take this on myself, as I have absolutely no facility with bots. And that's a mightly lot of pages to recategorize. And probably should wait another day or two for more opinions, anyway. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a few of my thoughts. Blizzard doesn't call socket gems jewels in any context, so if we need a more specific category to describe these items, it should be a different form of "gem" not a completely different phrase. The "Jewel" category needs to be replaced with something more descriptive than "Gem" but not radically different, as Jewel is. "Socket Gem" seems to me to be something much more fitting.
The term Jewel isn't mentioned anywhere in the game, so why should we use it in this context? The Jewelcrafting section on the WoW main site guide clearly refers to socket gems as "gems" not "jewels." The auction house search function searches for "gems" and comes up with a list of all these different types of gems that Eirik described above. If the AH system classifies the different types of gems as Red, Blue, Yellow, Purple, Green, Orange, Meta, Simple, and Prismatic. This is a resource for the game, so I believe we should use a system similar to this...the system that is used in the game. It may fit to make an intermediary category for socket gems, which seems to be what we're leaning towards, but "Jewel" in this wiki does need to be done away with. --ShardeeDetheroc 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How about a main page Gems, that shows a quick list of the pre BC gems (pristine black diamond, jade, etc) and a quick list of the jewelcraftable gems (nightseye, star of elune, etc), with links to the in-depth pages such as the current Gem? That page has a box that pretty much is what I was talking about, called 'Socket gems', showing each type of uncut gem by color. So, 'socket gems' as a blanket for cuttable and cut gems used for enhancement of armor and weapons, and maybe... Well, 'crafting gems' is all I can think of for the ones used only as parts of engineering, blacksmithing etc items, but I know that'd be confusing... Maybe 'Component gems'? Ingredient? --Azaram 11:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 1 Arena rewards : delete tag.

The season 1 arena rewards page ( was delete flagged. I went out on a limb, since It's been almost 2 months and there was neither a delete:talk tag or even a discussion tag, and added a willkeep to the nonexistant discussion page. I cannot, however, find the delete tag in the actual article. Anyone have any insights?

-- Hecuba 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be gone now User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

cant find the color bubbels for chat

need help, i install cosmos and it great but i make a mistake ( i think 0 i can not find anymore the color bubels that allow me to fast change chats maby its become behind the wow screen i dont now . i reinstall cosmos and delete all files of comos and reinstall but it seemnot to work. strange is its only by i character not the res of my character list.

thank for any help

centau -- Centauronix 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Cosmos website - visit User:Kirkburn/Sig3 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I quickly knocked this up from Wikipedia:Template:Talkheader. It's for use on all talk pages, just add it with {{Talkheader}} as and when you visit talk pages. It can also be used on Use talk pages, with modified text - see User talk:Kirkburn.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wowpedia:Village pump/Archive19 article.

It could probably do with some more links, but I think it's a good start. Example of use on Talk:World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky just brought up {{Analysis}}. That should probably be brought under this template using an extra parameter. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the NPCs Articles?

I know theres prolly some sort of bulletin about this somewhere, but for the life of me I cant find it. Please, I miss my NPC articles. Where are they, and maby you can leave the old articles in their place while you do whatever you did? -- Cormundo 13:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I cant acess all of the NPC articles, or all of the enemy articles. It just says some sort of error message. Cormundo 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And the error message is? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

NVM figured it out sorry Cormundo 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Useless continent boxes

Why do the continents have zone boxes? They are far too big to summerize like that IMO. --SWM2448 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 00:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Northrend infobox.

Sorry to spam but how is one picture going to capture a diverce continent? The races are repeat info, too numerous, and require a lot of those little race pictures. The level info is obvious. A fourth of the game can not fit into a little box.--SWM2448 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You really didn't need to post the entire infobox! It's a summarization, why should it need to be long? That infobox is hardly huge. The races should only be native races, and I do think the continents have "typical" views. Kalimdor is purple, EK is green and Northrend is white. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My point was it is not a good or needed summary. All important info on a continent can not fit into a little box, if it can we need to choose more carefully on the info, like races with a large capital or something. I think just the main text on the page would suffice.--SWM2448 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
All they need show is a picture, the native races, the level range and the location. What's wrong with that? That it can be used to show more, doesn't mean it will or should. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I still think it is over simplifying too large of a thing.--SWM2448 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quest Info

I'm new to WoW in general and was going through doing a lot of low level quests, and I'm finding that WoWWiki contains little to no information on most of these quests. I wanted to add a "walkthrough" to each quest, but I wanted to ask if this is ok first. I see all the links to Alla, Thottbot, etc which usually contains walkthroughs, but it would be nice if everything were on one site. Here are my questions:

1) Is it ok if I go through and add walkthroughs as I do low level quests?
2) Lots of quest pages say things like "Level 20 (15)". What does this mean? Can it be reformatted to be more clear?
3) Some quest pages actually lead to disambiguation pages, particularly when the quest is a chain where each link has the same name. In front of these are always weird numbers. What do they mean?
4) On the actual quest pages, sometimes it's completely blank and only says something about Laurlybot. What is the deal with that, and is it safe to edit those pages if I want to add info?

Thanks --Divisortheory 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For each point:

  1. No problemo.
  2. The first number is the recommended level, the second is the level needed to get the quest.
  3. The names of the quests are constant, but the links go to the different chain steps (we try and use the proper names as much as possible, though I do agree that could be clearer).
  4. You can replace such pages, but only if they add everything that Help:Quest articles requires.

Hope that helps! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you can use thottbot or a similar database to find the quest level and required level if you don't know them, and also other details about the quest. There is also an addon available for download that will display the recommended quest level in your quest log. And, check out the Help:Quest articles for more information about writing quest articles if needed. --Jiyambi t || c 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Coughwowheadcoughcoughcough. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Third person versus second person in articles

As a self-avowed WoWWiki neophyte, I haven't really dabbled much in articles outside of those relating to my server. That said, I made a momentous first step today in editing a class article (yay me) to clear up some issues, get rid of the use of first person personal comments, and remove a little bit of bias. Prior to doing so, I reviewed the Manual of Style for quick and easy guidance. Having done so, I do have a question. The MoS states:

Write from an impersonal perspective. Do not use "I." For example, do not write, "Hellscream was a fervent member of the Horde. He served both the Old and New Horde, As far as I know." Avoid drawing attention to the author (yourself) as much as possible.

However, it makes no mention of drawing attention to the reader by use of the pronoun "you." A lot of the associated articles are written referencing third person voice (for which I do have my own personal bias), while others state that "you" should be doing or should not be doing something. What's the generally accepted opinion on this? Or does it even matter? It doesn't irk me enough that I'm going to go out of my way to change it when I see it, but I want to be sure that I don't incorrectly change something that's accepted when I clean up an article or two while I'm there. Thanks! User:Cynra/Sig 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

History and background should never reference the reader. Strategies and related game-info can, but it should still be avoided, if possible. (Articles that contain both types of content can still use both). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sir. I guessed as much. It's more a matter of preference, to be honest; seeing "you" repeatedly (especially when it's a list of suggestions and appears over and over and over...) makes me cringe! I won't go out of my way to edit pages, but I'll clean things up when I stumble across it during other edits. Thanks again! User:Cynra/Sig 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about this a lot when editing mage articles. I mostly try to use the third person as much as possible, but there are just some times when it's too clunky and makes no sense in the context of a particular section. My general rule is that if the reader is most likely reading the section to get advice on his own play, then second person is acceptable. Imagine if I had written Frost AoE Grinding in the third person (At this point, the mage will dismount and cast frost nova. Then, then mage will move far away and cast Blizzard.) - it sounds like Steve Irwin narrating his documentary on crustacean mating rituals. I feel the same way about the over use of "you" - it's possible to write in the second person without saying "you" every sentence. --Piu (?!) 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it appropriate for directions - again, when its use is not superfluous. However, this arose originally because of how I viewed character classes as being described. As a priest, your main job is healing, could easily be rewritten in a way that gets the point across without using the word "you." A priest's main job is healing. Yays? (Please note: facetious example done referencing the article. Not actual text! Not my opinion! <ducks>) User:Cynra/Sig 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed second to third person in some articles. The only time second person really makes sense to me is in tips & strategies sections, and then only when it's unambiguous who "you" might be. As in the AoE Grinding article, assuming the reader is a mage makes sense. But in some of the "how to help a ..." articles, it's not always clear whether which class "you" refers to. I also prefer using the imperative if possible, and avoiding the word "you". And, please please, use "your" and "you're" correctly. Yes, I'm a nitpicker. :-) -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Engineering Profession

I'd like to completely redo/delete/recreate the engineering pages. They are cluttered, most don't make entire sense, and they are formatted with double, even triple links to the same items. Notice how Proficiency leads to items, while on the same page "ingredients", "Recipes", "Economical Training", and "schematics" on the side all lead to a differently formatted list of the same items. This lack of direction is on every page. Still there are schematics that are not recognized, like the health and mana potion injectors. In light of this I would like to erase these pages and rebuild them from the ground up.

-- Ithar 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. The only request I would have is that you not remove any helpful info while you're redoing stuff. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:18 PM PDT 24 Sep 2007
Nah, I'm going to keep the important information. I just want to reformat how it's written and how the pages are done. --Ithar 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the engineering tracks as a whole either. I did try to reorganize the categories, and did a little maintenance work on the existing pages, but lacked the imagination to burn it all to the ground and start over. --Eirik Ratcatcher 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be glad to lend some assistance with this project. Thott and Allakh have some nice databases that I'm sure we can help merge into a nice tidy article, especially in the areas of 'what schematic/item you can learn at what level from where and how', especially in the arena of those schematics that you need to quest for. We can link their quests to the items if necessary. As a steadfast Engineer on at least 2 toons-the most irritating thing about a database for this profession is the lack of one stating all the BOE, vendor drop or mob dropped items. Then again-your project. I'll be glad to lend a hand where I can. Evankimori 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PVE Badge Template

I want to create a template badge for people who prefer PVE play. Similar to

Spell unused2.png This user prefers to RP.


The trouble I am having is deciding on an icon. Anyone have any suggestions of an icon that exemplifies PVE players? -- User:Mucke/sig 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there one that says "EZ MOAD"? (Please note: RP server) Joking aside, check through image lists like this for some icons. At the moment, I'm partial to this. Make sure to go through User templates when you make it. User:Cynra/Sig 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your first "this" gives me an error. --User:Mucke/sig 16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Silly me. Corrected. It's just the special page for the most linked images on this site. User:Cynra/Sig 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I went with this

Inv misc head dragon black.png This user prefers to PvE.

similar to the pvp one, but different. --User:Mucke/sig 16:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that your suggestion was bad, but it was used for the alt-itis badge. --User:Mucke/sig 16:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, very silly me - I have that damned badge on my own page! Blame my love of priests for the desire to use a priestly icon? Looks good, sir. User:Cynra/Sig 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I knew it was on your page cause thats where I stole the idea from ;). Thaks for helping me narrow it down though. --User:Mucke/sig 17:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How about one of the following for {{User PvE}} instead?
Spell nature natureguardian.pngAbility townwatch.png
Having similar swords crossed for PvE is too similar to the PvP one. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:31 AM PDT 25 Sep 2007
The problem I have with those is they seem too tranquil. Some may consider PVE to be easy mode but its not a walk in the park either. I would totally go for something that represents the 'environment' portion and still represents a player as well. --User:Mucke/sig 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest: Inv misc head dragon 01.png --Piu (?!) 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it the dragon head would be much better. What I really wanted was to find some icon with a player and a beast or something, but I couldn't. I'm too lazy to fire up Photoshop at the moment, but maybe I'll get inspired. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:01 PM PDT 26 Sep 2007
Changed to the Dragon Head for now. If anyone does find a player vs. beast type icon then feel free to plug it in as that was my original mental image as well. --User:Mucke/sig 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Question moved from the Help_talk:Contents. --Fandyllic (talk · contr)

Do you add contents to your page, because i just finished my page Morpheus but I dont know how you add the contents.

--Melean 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at User:Melean/Morpheus you seemed to have figured out how to fill it in. Soory no one saw your question right away. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:43 PM PDT 26 Sep 2007

ParserFunctions info needed in Help

I noticed the cool new WoWWiki engine supports ParserFunctions extension, but we have no help info on it. Do we have a learned and enterprising person to add this info or at least some pointers to it? I would, but I'm not remotely qualified.

I'm assuming it would show up under Help:Contents/Editing WoWWiki (advanced) --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:40 PM PDT 26 Sep 2007

Wiki-wide In-Progress Page?

Not sure if there's anything like this already (and if there is, someone point me in the right direction). I'd like to see an In Progress page for the whole wiki where people can list the things that are currently in progress. This should only be used for larger "project" type stuff. Things like "Currently cleaning up the Engineering profession pages" or "Reworking the category structure for zones". This would help prevent bumbling (but well-intentioned) people from mucking everything up. It would also be useful to have some documentation on what you're doing, especially if most of the discussion occurred in IRC. - User:ClydeJr/Sig 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea! And if you don't mind me hanging onto your coattails, could I also propose implementing something akin to WikiProjects that may have comparable results? Similar articles or actions being done on articles are grouped together; on the official project page work being done, standards for consistency, and reviews are listed. This documents changes being done across numerous articles for standardization while giving people a place to join in the process without causing a large Charlie Foxtrot. I tried to find something similar on this site to see where and how I could contribute without messing up people's WIPs, but couldn't and so was hesitant to make any significant changes. User:Cynra/Sig 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This definitely sounds like a good idea. Now that school has started, I am probably going to be to busy to help out with the creation of such a page, but I support it wholeheartedly and will certainly use if it is implemented. --Jiyambi t || c 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

New to wiki editing. Template:Imagelink. Where to get it sources?

Hello everyone! I'm trying to create russian translation of your wonderful (really, i mean it) wiki. Of course, only main pages for beginning. And I'm stuck right there - at beginning. I'm trying to create a copy of, found this stuff in it's source -

! style="padding: 0 0.2em;" | {{Class|Druid|notext}}

What the heck is <imagelink>? does not have source for it. How to create such "wiki tag" (it's a my name for this feature)??

--Vlad2135 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

<imagelink> appears to be precisely what the link you provided say it is: it's a hack that allows the Wikimedia software to display images that link to somewhere other than the image's page. It uses the following format:


Size is the desired size of the image you want to use as a link;
Height and Width are other parameters that can be used instead of Size to set the size of the image;
Link is where you want the link to direct to; and
Title is the title displayed for the image.

In the example you provided, <imagelink> would direct people to the Druid article instead of the page for IconSmall_Druid.gif. For a translated site, it's basically a template that you would probably move over into a similar space and then apply as needed. User:Cynra/Sig 12:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's all wonderful, but you did not understand my question (or may be my lack of english played a bad joke with me). I was asking how to add this tag to wiki, I mean, in global! In the default Wiki there is no <imagelink> tag!!! That's the point! How to install it into wiki for further use? --Vlad2135 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note you did ask what it is and I did reply exactly to that question. In addition, I did answer your second question as well! Do exactly as what has been done on this site: create a template called Template:Imagelink and then reference it through the <imagelink> tag. Template:Imagelink is the code for the tag, correct? Unless I completely misread the purpose of the template and how to apply it, As the template page explains, a similar code called Template:Click-Inline is used instead. User:Cynra/Sig 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you didn't answer his question (er, at least, correctly). Imagelink is this mediawiki extension... note that the one on that page is much newer than the one we've been running. I put in a request for an upgrade some time back (before the wikia move I think)... but I think it got lost in the administrative mess. User:Tekkub/Sig 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Right! That's what I need (I was googling for <imagelink> but found nothing useful...). Now, last question - can I edit LocalSettings.php (that's required for Imagelink installation) on Wiki or do I need my own hosting? If I can, then how? --Vlad2135 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)