- 1 Welcome
- 2 4.0.3a vers 4.0.1
- 3 Revision 3325528
- 4 Minor Edits
- 5 Razorfen Downs & Kraul
- 6 Delete tags
- 7 Linkable items in the Alpha.
- 8 Talkative achievement
- 9 Spirit
- 10 Image uploads and cropping
- 11 Kirin Tor
- 12 Sightless Eye
- 13 Renaming
- 14 Hunter pet abilities
- 15 Sockpuppetry or shared access?
- 16 Item restrictions shown ingame
- 17 Quests and stuff
- 18 Deleted community managers
- 19 Stylization in quest articles
- 20 Draenor depreciating reputation
- 21 Astral Recall
- 22 Pages
- 23 Merging the 'reconstructing fear and flesh' articles
- 24 Crossover between WoWWiki and Wowpedia
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! -- ( • ) 22:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
4.0.3a vers 4.0.1
Physical changes done to the world, including NPCs and items, took place in 4.0.3a whereas class, UI, and profession changes took place in 4.0.1. Please don't alter patch notes from the correct number. Thank you,08:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You reversed Revision 3325528 despite the description for the heading stating "...below is a listing of players, who have completed the entire questline and have the Scepter of the Shifting Sands in their possession" which I do. Please clarify your justification or revert your change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nekrimog (talk · contr).
Please only check the Minor Edit box if it truly is a minor edit, i.e. fixing a typo or a broken link. Adding two days' worth of hotfixes is not minor. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Razorfen Downs & Kraul
When adding delete or speedydelete tags, please add them to the top of the page rather than replacing the page content. This makes it easier for admins to see what's supposed to be deleted. Thanks! -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I normally don't. In the case of Molten Core (Warlock talent), I didn't want there to be a double-redirect when I moved Molten Core (warlock talent) to (and said as much in the tag note) because I didn't know when anyone would get around to deleting it. But whatever. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Linkable items in the Alpha.
Hey Alayea! Thanks for the offer. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I'm curious as to how many of the datamined items on wowhead are actually linkable in game, and thus "fair game" on wowpedia. I had previously made pages for the new legendary world drops and some of the artifacts. The pages were removed as there was no way, at the time, of telling whether they were strictly datamined or not. I'm ofcourse not gonna ask you to check the whole lot, but if you would check if a few of them were linkable in the alpha test with the link commands found on wowhead, that would be really swell! Maybe just the following 4. I'll just post the item IDs, since the e-link template takes up a good deal of space if I post more of those. 132442, 132411, 132443 and 133959. Even if those are linkable, I'll probably have to just arm myself with patience untill the beta is out though. I was on the cata alpha back then, but that was under NDA, so couldn't really make use of that PeterWind (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- All the IDs you provided are good to go. If you need a lot checked out, Aliok has suggested that you create a Google spreadsheet and we can help you there, rather than end up with a wall of text on Wowpedia. (If you don't have a Google account, we can try finding some other online resource.) -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 00:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nice! I haven't used google docs a lot, but I do have an account. I'll see about setting something up tomorrow. Thanks again. PeterWind (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, does this work? PeterWind (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- At last, the spreadsheet. Let me know if you have a question about anything in there, PeterWind. Aliok (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
IDK exactly what the deal is with spirit and regen, but it seems that spirit was still included on non-major armor pieces in WoD. So it wasn't removed in 6.0.2 (start of WoD). --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- You're confusing the healing spec passive ability for the attribute. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 23:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Image uploads and cropping
For whenever Kandooww should visit here: I'm not disagreeing on File:Windgore.jpg (it was meant as temporary until a better version could be uploaded), and while I feel the change for File:Lono'tai.jpg was unnecessary I'm not going to dispute it. I will, however, dispute with your cropping File:Lelyn Swiftshadow.jpg.
I want to make it clear to everyone here (not just to Kandooww) on Wowpedia that I do my best to contribute good screenshots while being mindful of the file size and how the image appears scaled down on the related article page. So when I go through all that trouble only to see people cropping my uploads, it's naturally going to ruffle my feathers.
So in regards to the Lelyn Swiftshadow matter, I uploaded that screenshot exactly as it's supposed to be. Yes, the dimensions are larger than what I would like, but that's how it is when you a) are taking a screenshot of a moving NPC and b) dealing with an annoying pseudo-mount that said NPC is riding on. Cropping the image will only serve to "un-center" Lelyn and cause the human eye to focus on that pseudo-mount instead of Lelyn. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- While I usually try to keep my screenshots as cropped as possible, I'm gonna agree with you on this one. The cropping, to me at least, makes more sence on stationary NPCs. For large or moving NPCs I think it makes sense to have larger pictures aswell. If a crop would make the subject uncentered, that's not optimal. There are many NPC screenshots on wowpedia that might benefit from crops or re-capturings, but I don't think Alayea's alpha screenshots are among those, except the Windgore one :) PeterWind (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Forum:Neutral Faction Icons about these icons, please make your opinion known, however, don't revert anymore until the discussion is over. 19:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I asked Coobra to add the nethershards to the cost template the other day and he added the other new ones aswell. He added the dalaran currency as just "Sightless Eye". I figure it's simpler this way, but perhaps it interferes with some other naming consistencies? -- PeterWind , 21 November 2010
- My understanding was that NPCs are prioritized first if there are multiple uses of the same name. Unfortunately, there is no existing guideline for us to refer to since Wowpedia:Disambiguation isn't of much help in this regard. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh yeah ok. I'll be honest and say I haven't really looked into the naming priority rulings if they exist. It's not something I have a strong opinion on either, but if you get Coobra to change the cost template to Sightless Eye (currency), we can just switch the articles around to fit that priority you mentioned. PeterWind (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- In any case, I try to name the pages I create in a way that makes sense, but my main focus is mostly on getting the pages made. Feel free to just move them if you think they aren't following the proper naming convention. PeterWind (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. I'm pretty good about updating all the links, but for whatever reason I thought that I only needed to update the profession quest template. Will fix them. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 19:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hunter pet abilities
While going through the list of pages of hunter pet ability pages with the petopia link, there were a whole bunch of the abilities, that seemed, to me at least, like they were no longer in game. I've never played hunter, so I feel this might be outside my area of expertise. One thing is if they are still there, another ofcourse, when they were removed if so. I was thinking of just making a forum post about this, as a to-do for those looking for a small project, but maybe this is something you want to have a go at? Again I don't know if petopia is completely up to date, but for close to, I think, half of the pages I went through, they no longer had a section on petopia, and the spell was removed acording to wowhead. A few of the spells available on wowhead were also removed on petopia though. PeterWind (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've gone through the list table for pet abilities and removed all the raid-buff related info. There were at least a couple of abilities mentioned that, unlike Wowhead, are considered uncategorized spells by WoWDB (and thus may have been removed). I don't know about their status because my hunter alt only has a very small number of pet families tamed. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 19:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I was doing some checking on the vote process for the recent WP:RFA and noticed you share an IP address and user agent with User:Aliok, this is often evidence of sockpuppetry, which is not allowed on Wowpedia. Can you please explain the situation? -- ( • ) 01:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- We share the same residence. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 05:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cool, carry on. :) -- ( • ) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Item restrictions shown ingame
Hey! While you are correct, that the "Warlock" restriction will not show ingame, for warlocks at least, that is also true for any other, to my knowledge, warlock items. And other class items for their respective classes. It's the same with level restrictions. They show up on linked items, but not on soulbound items. I'm not sure when this was changed, but I am thinking with Legion, although I'm not a 100% on that one. My druid no longer see the druid or level restriction on druid tier sets, but the restriction for items belonging to other classes still appear. PeterWind (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Quests and stuff
Hey! I just wanted to say thank you for all your work on quests and other articles in the last years. I noticed your big efforts about the 7.0 quest chains, and that you didn't received much praise for it, even though it's essential work... so at least, I wanted to do it once. Xporc (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted community managers
- How do you mean? There should be no issues because as far as I could tell, the redirects in question were created when Pcj moved their information to the appropriate section for Blizzard forum posters due the pages consisting of just one or two short sentences. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- The redirects were not pointless. Those short pages had things linking to them. The circular redirects were only circular from the Blizzard forum posters page. -- ( • ) 22:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Stylization in quest articles
Draenor depreciating reputation
Hi. I have found topics about bodyguard depreciating reputation outside 100-lvl zones for 100-110 characters. Could you hint some links about faction depreciating reputation for 100-110 chracters for more digging? Dihunter (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- There were threads on third-party websites (one of which was r/wow) about reputation from mob kills for Warlords factions depreciating once a player was higher than 100. I would not know anything regarding bodyguard reputation, however. This came up in the Slack channel, so I'll share it here:
Alayea [1:02 PM]
> Faction and bodyguard reputation gains from Warlords of Draenor mobs no longer depreciate for characters above level 110.
So is there a reason this was was changed from 100 to 110?
Because 100 was max level for WoD.
kaydeethree [1:06 PM]
when I finished grinding out bodyguard rep at the end of legion I was getting full rep. dunno when it actually changed
Suraf [1:06 PM]
I was getting reputation when I was max level (110) during legion; when BfA released and I hit 120, I was no longer getting reputation.
Alayea [1:07 PM]
I didn't think bodyguard rep was a problem, so I didn't mention it in the original undocumented note.
But mob kills for actual WoD factions was a problem.
Suraf [1:08 PM]
Yea, that's the only thing I really tested bodyguard; worked at level 110. No longer worked at 120. Not sure about the other faction reputations.
Alayea [1:08 PM]
OK, so the two should be split then.
Suraf [1:08 PM]
Aliok [1:14 PM]
I recall players complaining about bodyguard rep, tho I don't remember the specific details.
Hey, I was wondering if you could check and see if still shares a cooldown with the . Apparently the and its own article says that it doesn't share the cooldown. But according to this BlizzardWatch article, this was changed with patch 7.3.0. Thanks! (I'd check myself but I do not have a Shaman character at level 44 or higher) — Surafbrov 15:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hearthstone and Astral Recall have never shared a cooldown. If such were the case after patch 7.3.0's release, it would have had to have been a bug. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 06:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! — Surafbrov 22:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Templates containing big icons for world events and literature tend to be placed "under" the infobox in order to be aligned with it, not above it. There is also no need for three dots in infoboxes either. --Mordecay (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Merging the 'reconstructing fear and flesh' articles
Rather than having four separate pages, I've created a substitute that merges the content into one page at a Wowpedia:Sandbox/8. Do you think something like this could work for cases like this where the quests are similarly named? DDC (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is annoying for Blizzard to bring back that naming style from the original WoW, but I don't necessarily see a problem here. I've taken a look at that sandbox and while I appreciate the effort you've gone to, it looks to be more confusing than keeping things as they are currently. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Crossover between WoWWiki and Wowpedia
Placing this here myself in case it got munched on the Fandom forum thread:
Q u o t e:
I am Alayea over from Wowpedia, but for those unfamiliar I did do some casual editing prior to the Great Fork of 2010 (don't think I joined until late 2008 or early 2009). I knew little of editing beyond what was provided by the quick ref box sheet and I didn't really know anyone, so I was just... there. I went over to Wowpedia when the fork happened for two reasons at that time: Wikia design changes that left me somewhat unhappy and that most of the community was switching over as well to the new domain. I did a bit of editing on both Wowwiki and Wowpedia for awhile before deciding to focus my time and energies exclusively on the latter, though.
For what my two copper is worth on this matter: I think it would be better to move unique Wowwiki info over to Wowpedia, and then archive the former until such time is determined that it's no longer necessary to keep up for visitors. We're back together again regardless of our thoughts and feelings, so I think it would be harmful to our prospects in the long term to keep ourselves separated in such a manner. Goodness knows it's not easy finding and keeping new blood that is badly needed these days, and I know I wouldn't want potential newbies driven away.
I'm also against the suggestion that Wowwiki be turned into some sort of fan-related content website for mainly two reasons:
- Wowwiki is the more intuitive name of the two; that's just fact. My concern is people becoming confused upon seeing fan stuff rather than actual info they were trying to look up.
- The second is admittedly more about feels. It would feel a disservice to the memory of this place's history and community that did/does make it possible. I would rather it not become something it had never intended to be in the first place. (The whole "rather remember it as it once was, than what it now is" thing.)
I don't want to have to make a one-time account to vote on the matter and I'm not sure if I'm even eligible, but I support the proposal as it stands over at the talk page.