From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

page title

The old page had a title of "World of Warcraft universe guide - WoWWiki" which was much more search engine friendly. Can that be changed here? Portal:main just doesn't have the same feel. -=- IconSmall DrakeAzure.gif Drazisil [t/c] 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Style guides

I have yet to find something resembling a style guide for articles and information is doubled all over the place. If they do exist, they are very hard to find and very badly reinforced. For example on Priest there's a description of the talent trees, Priest talents has another description, Priest builds has yet another one... Pages like Priest talent analysis seem very hard to maintain and also very biased, is this Wiki supposed to have theory crafting? Wikis tend to be more factual and even if that article was up to date, the whole article would still be one big opinion. This problem isn't limited only to the Priest class. We should set a definite style guide for these articles and sub-articles and also decide on the ones that are worth keeping and delete the others that merely repeat the same information or give unnecessary details. If it is decided to keep things like Priest talent analysis, then someone needs to actively maintain it. I think some people aren't even aware that something like that exists, because you need to follow so many links to get to it.

To summarize:

  • Set up style guides for pages that contain similar information, like the class pages.
  • Reevaluate the usefulness and necessity of all the class related pages.
  • Ensure that articles are properly linked and easy to get to.

This is hardly a one-man job and because it affects a lot of pages and information, I would like some community input on the matter. With Cataclysm being on its way and a lot of people editing the class data, things will only get worse if there's no style guide. If all these similar pages follow a similar layout, they will be easier to navigate and there will be no repeated information. I am confident this will greatly increase the Wiki's formality and coherence and hopefully set an example for other articles as well. These style guides can easily be expanded to other forms of articles, for example abilities/spells.

I am willing to write some of these style guides (which will basically just be a template of what goes where, allowing you to follow a pre-defined layout), but I can't do them all and I certainly can't enforce them on my own. The name "style guide" might not be entirely correct, it's more like a format guide of sorts. This will also make future updates in WoW much easier to integrate on the Wiki, because at the moment we need to change the same thing 10 times, because everything is duplicated somewhere, or scattered over a page. Zilana (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree some pages should be consolidated. I never understood the need for, for example, Priest tactics, when all the tactics should be covered in Priest PvE guide or Priest PvP guide. I do, however, see the need to keep separate Priest talents from Priest talent analysis (and same pages for other classes). The first should be a very brief listing with links to all the talents, with in-depth info kept separate for those who want it. --Grynd (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Defias brotherhood

-- Arugal (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Link for new players?

While I realize that most of your community are established players interested in the latest changes, I think a link to the newbie guide would be a good edition for the main page. This would help new players a lot and might expand your community.

And perhaps call the link something more friendly than "Newbie Guide". Perhaps something like, "For new players".

Tulonsae (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how 'newbie guide' is unfriendly. If it was called 'noobs guide' then maybe, but newbie isn't an offensive term :P But I do agree a link there would be nice for newer peeps. Also, what happened to the featured article section? The homepage looks quite bare right now with lack of images. :c --Grynd (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramkahen Missing from Cataclysm Factions

Ramkahen are missing from the cataclysm faction list on the main page. -- --Dingobloo (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; fixed that — foxlit (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lost City of the Tol'vir listed levels

Currently Lost City of the Tol'vir is listed on the Main portal as being 82-84 and being similar to The Stonecore and Vortex Pinnacle. It is actually a level 85 dungeon and has a minimum level requirement of 84. It's similar to Grim Batol and Halls of Origination. Loop not defined (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. How'd we all miss that? Thanks. --k_d3 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I found out yesterday that the last three dungeons require an average ilvl of 305. So 85: 305? Loop not defined (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Professions is missing Archeology -FunOnABun 2:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Professions is missing Skinning - User:Stampeder 9:20am, 5 Oct 2012 Checked on Oct 10th, 2012 9:40am. Skinning is still not added User:stampeder

Missing Link

A rather important link (in my opinion) is missing from the Main Page, it's the link to the Instances by Level page. Melrian (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The link to the Dragon Soul Raid is also missing from the main page. It hasn't been added and the raid has been in the game for months now. Griffmstr (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. — foxlit (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It must have JUST been added after I posed that because it was not there, which was the reason for my posting. The second group of my guild was needing strategies, and it was annoying to get to dragon soul because at the time it was NOT on the front page. It is now though, so that's great. Griffmstr (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Warcraft universe

I think the portal for the Warcraft universe needs to be slightly redesigned--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm going to do some edits hope there is no problem with this--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandbox first, unless it's very minor things of course. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hum already finished it did it, if there's any problem tell me and i'l redo it in a sandbox.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Again Gourra why did you revert it?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As Coobra said, Sandbox it FIRST. Don't make direct edits to the portal. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Warcraft Universe/Sandbox there any problems?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
So hum can i change it to my version???--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the Alliance and Horde should take priority over the section of Organizations, you replaced them with. I'm ok with what you did to the left side of the box, but I'm not completely sure of the right side change. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
They have priority, they are the two first factions on the list exactly because of that, however i don't think we should have a list for each race in the alliance and the horde(since you know you can click the respective link and see a better more complete list with icons), the creatures i put the creatures that way because it's sorta like a Bestiary and that one of the biggest thing a entry about the universe should have, i removed RPG classes because you can follow the class link to get there, added elemental planes because they became far more relevant than minor noted worlds and realms/planes in this expansion.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is my justification ok? or do you thik we need to change something?--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Any comments before i change it back tomorrow?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm i think Illidian force's are important to the list since they had a entire expansion dedicated to them(or 90% of a expansion)--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


There is also a Dutch WoWWiki on this page. Could it be added to the language links? (Luxor (tc) 11:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Done; the nl interwiki prefix now forwards to the right place: nl:World of Warcraft Wiki; it should also show up in the "in other languages" section on the front page. For bonus points, do you think they could link to us somewhere? — foxlit (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably. I think that's just for admins. It's currently linking to WoWWiki. (Luxor (tc) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Patch Notes

Could an admin please add the 4.1.0 undocumented patch changes link to the main page, under the Patch 4.1.0 heading that currently has a link to the official patch notes?

Done. --Sky (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Gem pages

Hi, all.

Are there any revisions planned for the Gem pages, as some of the stat. colours are still showing as their Wrath ones; for example, +Hit is now on Blue gems, but it still shows here as being on Yellow ones.

Not sure if this is where I'm supposed to raise this issue and I apologise in advance for 'rocking the boat'.

-- Jaghine (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a wiki. If you see something is incorrect, fix it. I started updating some myself but it's quite a mammoth task :( --Grynd (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

French links

Now that we have the French Wowpedia, is it the intention that we remove all the defect French links? (Luxor (tc) 10:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

You mean changing the fr: interwiki links? --g0urra[T҂C] 11:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Guess so. I mean, right now there's a lot of pages with a French link, but since the link goes to French Wowpedia, a lot of links are going to a not existing page, so do we have to remove those? (Luxor (tc) 11:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC))
Yes, those need to be removed manually. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Zandalari dungeons

Patch 4.1 added reworked versions of Zul'Aman and Zul'Gurub which are heroics a step above the plain Cataclysm heroics. These probably deserve a mention next to Shadowfang Keep and Deadmines. Delete this section once they have been added (or important enough people decide they are unworthy of mention) -- Thoth (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

More language links

The Spanish Wowpedia has a lot more links which you could add. (Luxor (tc) 09:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

They would have to be manually added by users. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


On the old title page, there was a section for a featured article. I think this would be a good thing to bring back, though with some changes over how it used to work.

1.The article chosen would stay as featured until the end of the day; 12:00 A.M. PST or around there.

2.The article type would rotate in a set order-Person, Location, Quest, Item, Misc.

These two changes would, in my opinion, make the featured article a better system.

Please post your thoughts on this.

Endertj (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Endertj that a Featured Article section should be added again. In fact, I think the Main Page could use a major overhaul as it is, since right now it feels rather bland with mostly Cataclysm links and practically no images except icons. Adding some more images and reintroducing the Featured Article and Featured Media sections that the old Wowwiki site had would definitely improve the look of the Main Page, especially for new and old users coming to the site from Wowwiki. Tycerius (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Wowpedia could use some more colorfulness and community.--SWM2448 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Changes for Portal:Main Page

Please see User:Tycerius/Sandbox.

The most noticeable changes you will see are the addition of the "Featured Article" and "Featured Media" sections to the Main Page. Among other various changes, I added some shiny icons to the "Wowpedia content portals" section, as well as included the statistics for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} and {{NUMBEROFFILES}} under the "Welcome to Wowpedia!" section.

Any questions, comments or feedback on these proposed changes are welcome. Tycerius (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I really like the way you set up the page in your example. I hope the changes will be put in, and it will make the main page look much nicer.--Endertj (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Boss Gold Drops

Is there any plan to add the amount of gold a boss drops to his/her table? If so, how can I go about helping to fill it out, and if not, how do I go about adding it in to the tables so I can fill it out at later dates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greekgamma (talk · contr). 15:52, 28 December 2011

I'm not exactly sure to what tables you mean, since this talk page has nothing to do with bosses... but if you mean on boss articles, the npcbox template has a cost parameter for that. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 22:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know where to ask the question, so I figured the main page would be a great place to start with. The cost currently just has Valor/Justice/Ect drops, wanted to make sure I could add the bosses info with out causing an uproar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greekgamma (talk · contr).
Ah, well I noticed you found where to add them, instead of adding the icons manually you could use the {{cost}} template and those additions to the articles would be greatly appreciated. If you have an future questions, you can use the forums. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wowpedia in PT

How can be created a portuguese-speaking version of WoWpedia?
(In portuguese: Wowpédia lusófona)
If, for the example, an individual like me would like to create a new verion of WOWpedia, ho should he proceed?
Also the WoWwiki PT-BR have a significant structure and (maybe almost) every article that WoWwiki PT-EU have. At the same way that Wowpedia forked from WoWwiki, it's possible that someone can transfer the actual data from Wowwiki BR to the new Wowpedia PT? After all, out the technical issue, the only thing that the WoWWiki BR has that WoWpedia hasn't is an small option that I'm about to request to be added. This can be the final point to I put more dedication into creating a (even initially weak) WoWpedia lúsofona. After all the WoW has came to Brazil! Also I'm thinking about if the U. S. servers are missing the BRazooka presence. Is that truth?Gabrirt (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Spanish Wowpedia, we couldn't do that and had to copy&paste the old articles, cleaning the old wikia templates. It's (actually do) a hard task but we made a copy of the wiki DB and the main articles are now finished. If you are going to start an empty wiki, the process is simple, just talk with an admin and ask them to get a .pt subdomain. You can find them in the IRC or via PM. --Petrovic (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal question to all.

Curse Client is a site of addon based correct? Does anyone that works on this site is an author of a addon, or is it just people that just made Wowpedia? -- Darksora110 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

MoP Portal

Is there any way someone on the admin staff can add a link to the Mists of Pandaria portal page? THere's no mention of MoP on the front page at all! --Damonskye (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is the searching algorithm horribly broken? 90% of my searches have the Night Elf page as their first result, even if my search is for 'tauren tribe'. Similarly, horde, alliance, patch 4.0.3a (world changes) and any of the other racial pages often get on the first page of a search, probably because of the length of the pages. --Ijffdrie (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not asking for Battle Net email

When i go to add other players in Wow all it ask is for there name. Iv noticed on my friends accoutns when they go to add friends or other players it asked them for there battle net email or wow name. Why does my account not asked that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnsons Yeti (talk · contr).

You're looking for the World of Warcraft forums, this is just a fansite. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 04:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Updating class tactics pages for MoP

I've added some details on post-5.0.x rotations to the class tactics page, but they still need info on healing rotations, and they could use a pass from theorycrafters with firsthand MoP / 5.0.x experience to correct any errors and omissions and provide more specific information on rotational priorities. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

new patch 5.0.5

Patch 5.0.5

Launched 11:00 ST (server time) on all EU - Realms. Someone might already doing the page, if so, im sorry for "jumping the fray" or what's it's called, but this might be good to add aswell.

World of Warcraft Patch 5.0.5

The latest patch notes can always be found at


Many tooltips have been corrected to account for recent class balance adjustments. Druid

The 25% speed increase granted by Cat Form should no longer stack with the speed increase of Dash.


All hunter aspects have been removed from the global cooldown, and they again share a 1 second category cooldown


Holy Shock’s base damage has been reduced, and its spellpower coefficient has been increased.


Havoc’s cooldown has been reduced from 45 to 25 seconds. The missile effect of Chaos Wave should no longer display erratically when cast on a moving target.

Bug Fixes

Well of Eternity

The spell graphic for Arcane Bomb during the Queen Azshara encounter has been reduced to a reasonable size.


The Silence and Pacify effects from Conservator's Grip are now removed from players once they step within the appropriate area radius of a Healthy Spore mushroom.

Dragon Soul

Player pets should no longer experience pathing issues when attacking Deathwing's Arm Tentacles. Congealing Bloods now move at slower base speed.

Master Looters can again assign loot to players in other groups within a raid. The Refer-A-Friend Summon should again function as expected. Worgen players on pre-Cataclysm accounts should be able to accept and complete all Gilneas quests. Players should again be able to teleport out of the Firelands Hatchery in Hyjal if they have completed Aessina's Miracle. Players should be able to use the new Fishing spell where appropriate. Crossing coalesced zone boundaries should not duplicate profession recipes. Players should no longer inappropriately receive the "Requires master riding skill" or "Requires artisan riding skill" errors when attempting to mount certain mounts. Items in the Auction House UI should no longer display in reverse order when sorted. The PvP node capture bar should be back in expected locations such as Wintergrasp, Tol Barad and Venture Bay. Players should no longer be placed into battlegrounds that they have downvoted while queueing for a Random battleground. Flying over Wintergrasp when no battle is active should no longer cause a forced dismount. Accepting a quest that flags you for PvP combat should no longer prevent you from accepting further quests. As he deserves, Crithto should now be attackable by both Alliance and Horde players. Resolved a Mac issue related to CPU usage. [Taiwan and China only] Fixed an issue that was preventing the white Murloc pet Terky from appearing in the Pet Journal.


Aquril (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

New Links

Can Pet Battle System, Black Market Auction House and Cross-realm zones also be added to the portal? --Grynd (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Listed as Harmful

Google seems to have listed Wowpedia as potentially harmful. Anyone know why? Could someone petition them to reverse it?Bobobo (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

MMO champ got it too :D --Mordecay (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
A Curse-wide ad provider got flagged. We're just caught up in it. Sorry! It should be getting reversed in short order, though I have no idea how long that'll actually take.
There's a forum post too. --k_d3 21:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Shieldwall / Dominance not in faction list

On the factions list on the main page, Operation Shieldwall and Dominance Offensive are not in the list. They should be added. MaverickHunter40245 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Scholomance is also missing.--Mordecay (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Throne of Thunder

Would anyone mind adding in the new raid to the front page? Helps people navigate while we're in PTR - DDGuides (talk · contr)

UPDATE: Thank you very much! - DDGuides (talk · contr)

Main Page icon broken

Anyone going to fix that? --Darksora110 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To what icon are you referring to, everything looks to be in working order. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 04:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Darksora110 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Information Portal

Should the Tiger's Peak, Deepwind Gorge, Siege of Orgrimmar and all the scenarios from 5.3 be added to the Mists of Pandaria information portal? I noticed the 5.2 content has been added. Insane Guy of Doom (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

TBC and WotLK

I am creating TBC and WotLK portals to be added; They are not done but just informing and want to take any ideas on this and I want to know if possible it will be added when its done.

  • User:Surafbrov/Sandbox02 - Burning Crusade
  • User:Surafbrov/Sandbox01 - Wrath of the Lich King — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Portal:WotLK already exists, and links to it were removed intentionally. In general, I don't think attempting to apply the "here's a dump of links to all the new stuff" formula for each expansion makes for particularly good hub pages. You should instead look into highlighting the interesting bits of those expansions on Portal:World of Warcraft, the expansion articles (i.e. World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade), and on articles already linked to as part of the main portal. — foxlit (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty neat idea. I'll go with that, thanks! — Surafbrov T / C / P 19:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)