From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestion: Extend table to include all ammo, not just vendor ammo, and add a column for source. This allows one to tell at a glance what the best ammo for a given level will be, and where to get it. ScratchMonkey 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I also suggest to separate the list between bullets and arrows. Each list will be about 20 items long. In fact, I'll get on it right away. Hops Splurt (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Or better still: just point to the Arrow and Bullet articles which already exist :-). Thank you Coobra. Hops Splurt (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


I propose to merge the Arrow and Bullet articles into this article.

Arrow and Bullet are clearly related, and their setup and table layout is (or should be) identical. However, an editor working on e.g. Arrow may not be aware of this relation, and make significant changes to this page without making similar changes to Bullet. Similarly an editor working on Bullet may not notice the need to adjust Arrow.

Putting both together in the Ammunition article will make it obvious to future editors that the two sections benefit from having similar layouts.

After the merge, the Arrow and Bullet articles can be made to redirect to Ammunition, so all other redirects (such as Shot and Pellet and other links still work.

--Hops Splurt (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ammunition is a general term, it reflects to both Bullets and Arrows. The articles are split off so the page doesn't become too huge, that and it's nice to keep things organized in there own article.
I Vote No to the merge. User:CoobraSssssssssssssssssssssssss User:CoobraFor Pony! {TDon't hiss at me.CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.) 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The combined page will not be very big. As a demo see the mock-up page ammo combi. As for keeping things organised: the Arrow and Bullet pages are too closely related to keep them separate. They are more aspects of the same thing than two separate things.--Hops Splurt (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Mock-up pages, or example pages, go under your username fyi -- See User:Hops Splurt/Ammo combi. User:CoobraSssssssssssssssssssssssss User:CoobraFor Pony! {TDon't hiss at me.CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you most kindly. One learns every day. I was slightly worried about putting in the main namespace.--Hops Splurt (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I vote No too, by the same reason as above.--g0urra[T҂C] 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about the problem of the two pages going out of step in the future? With separate pages, editors who change e.g. the layout of the table on one page will not automatically get the idea that the other page needs adjusting too.--Hops Splurt (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If they need to be changed under a certain format then go to the individual pages and do that. It's not more complicated than that. I also vote No by the same reason as Coobra.--g0urra[T҂C] 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, not complicated. And the need to edit both pages is obvious. That is, obvious to you, me, Coobra, and others who have taken a closer look at these pages. The problem lies with new editors who take it upon themselves to change one of the pages. The need to change the other page may not be obvious to them. The idea that there is a similar page that needs editing simply may not come into their heads. Keeping both Arrows and Bullets on a single page will make it obvious.--Hops Splurt (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(indent) They are both linked to each other, showing that each kind of ammunition requires a different kind of weapon. Now any editor who would think to maintain the table would think of that, in my opinion, so if you like to call people dumb then be my guest. I'm still saying no.--g0urra[T҂C] 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that despite the supposed obvious connection and the ease with which both pages can be edited, there are currently some jarring differences between the two tables. This is clearly shown in the mockup page--Hops Splurt (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reopening this topic, with the announcement of them removing ammo from the game, I'm ok with the merge now. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 17:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Special Ammunition

Is there a seperate page for all the special ammo types? Or could we add them here? Example: Acid bomb, Beehive bomb, Boomshell, Gas bomb, Sunstone, etc.  Rolandius Wc3Knight.gif (talk - contr) 14:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? (and please do not subst: User:Rolandius/Sig2, subst: User:Rolandius/Sig g0urra[T҂C] 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't do anything to my sig, you guys are.  Rolandius Wc3Knight.gif (talk - contr) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet Implemented

Could somebody please clarify, exaclty what does this part mean? I am trying to understand but the text is confusing and unclear. --Grynd (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard originally planned with the 3.1.0 patch to change completely how the ammo was used, but later stated it would be changed in a later patch as what they wanted to do would not be finished in time for release, so instead they changed the stack limit in 3.1. In otherwords, a known change is coming that will dramatically change how arrows/bullets work, but is unknown when. Hence NYI in a section labeled after 3.1.0. Hope this helps. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)