Welcome to Wowpedia!
Hello, Bannanawaffles, and welcome to Wowpedia, the Warcraft wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we heartily encourage you to continue contributing!
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!
Great work on those patch notes! PeterWind (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks. Don't entirely know why I chose that as a place to start contributing but it just kind of happened haha.--Bannanawaffles (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I concur, thanks for expanding the patch notes sections of all those articles! There certainly are areas that have never been updated over time (for example, Infernal/
[Summon Infernal] got a new model in Legion), and I never had you vigour to change them in one sweeping strike :)--Adûnâi (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
New NPC pages[]
Hey, you're doing a good job since you joined. Glad you're here. If you don't mind a little advice: it's easier when you don't already have a screenshot to not use a picture at all for new NPCs, that way when someone wants to upload a screenshot he only have to click on the empty space on the page. Xporc (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heh thanks :D I'll keep that in mind, I figured since placeholder images were present I'd might as well use them but that makes sense.--Bannanawaffles (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heyo. Another advice. I often see you giving the wrong categories to mobs. For example you'll tag a mob as a "Category: Halls of Valor NPCs" when it should be "Category: Halls of Valor mobs" instead. Also, sometimes you misspell the plural form of some categories. For example you tried to give a "Category: Vrykuls" to some mobs when it is "Category: Vrykul" instead. Keep up the good work Xporc (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- For categories, I was trying to follow the format given using the article templates provided for the site but I guess those aren't 100% foolproof. I'll try to double-check if the correct categories exist before I add mobs to it. Thanks :) --Bannanawaffles (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heyo. Another advice. I often see you giving the wrong categories to mobs. For example you'll tag a mob as a "Category: Halls of Valor NPCs" when it should be "Category: Halls of Valor mobs" instead. Also, sometimes you misspell the plural form of some categories. For example you tried to give a "Category: Vrykuls" to some mobs when it is "Category: Vrykul" instead. Keep up the good work Xporc (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heh thanks :D I'll keep that in mind, I figured since placeholder images were present I'd might as well use them but that makes sense.--Bannanawaffles (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Pre-squish stats[]
There's really very little need to add the pre-squish stats to item pages. It's an enormous amount of work for very little payoff. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit of a archiving whore when it comes to things like this, so as long as there isn't actually any objection to keeping them besides the amount of work (Tedious yes, but satisfying for me in a way), I'll probably keep working on it for now. Especially when you consider the conversion of stats like hit and spirit, I think it's interesting. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- It also pains me to see even sites with very little direct user input (ie, Wowhead) neglected to keep a pre-squish databse for archival purposes (similiar to the now defunct old.wowhead, perhaps?), so I'd like Wowpedia to be a source of reference in this way (outside of viewing the stats using the page history, a feature not every wiki user is going to access). --Bannanawaffles (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure looks like a lot of work, but I personally have no problem with these edits. One thing though, when adding a version where the quality or type is different than the current, please add a "|doc=" in the itembox to keep from adding it from more categories than the item should. PeterWind (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure thing :) Thanks --Bannanawaffles (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- After a look through some of your changes, I have a few extra pointers. I noticed you added patch sections which I think is great! :) Just remember to call the section ==Patch changes== instead of notes, for consistency. The second thing, is perhaps just a preferability issue, so feel free to disregard if you don't wanna bother with this one. In the patch section where you note that the item has been upgraded in quality, could you note from what? As an "Upgraded to Rare quality up from Common" or something along those lines. Even if you can see it in the versions you're adding, I think it's nice to be able to see it just from the patch changes. Good luck with this project :) PeterWind (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- For my part, I don't think it adds anything and for items that have had a lot of changes adds a lot of unnecessary clutter to the page. Listing what changed when is also what the patch changes sections is for. I'm not going to say stop just because I don't like it, but it does create one big problem in that all of the versions of the tooltip show up when you link the item instead of just the current one:
[Impaling Harpoon]. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yeah that's annoying... Xporc (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh darn, that's a pretty big problem... Perhaps a solution to both the page clutter and linking issue would be to make a subpage? I'll look into it later when I'm not busy. :) Would be a compromise for preserving the information in an accessible format but also eliminating those concerns, and I certainly wouldn't mind redoing my prior edits into that format and moving forward with it, I don't mind spending the time. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps something along the lines of this? User:Bannanawaffles/TestPage. With a bit of cleaning up, certainly. Let me know what you guys think is the best course of action. :) --Bannanawaffles (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rather than to stick the "Legacy tooltips" link in the middle of the patch changes I'd add it to a "see also" section in the page IMO Xporc (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- A sound idea, I wasn't sure if I should've done that or if it would've fit better in the patch changes section. If that looks solid enough, I'll work on changing my existing edits over to that format tomorrow~!--Bannanawaffles (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rather than to stick the "Legacy tooltips" link in the middle of the patch changes I'd add it to a "see also" section in the page IMO Xporc (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps something along the lines of this? User:Bannanawaffles/TestPage. With a bit of cleaning up, certainly. Let me know what you guys think is the best course of action. :) --Bannanawaffles (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh darn, that's a pretty big problem... Perhaps a solution to both the page clutter and linking issue would be to make a subpage? I'll look into it later when I'm not busy. :) Would be a compromise for preserving the information in an accessible format but also eliminating those concerns, and I certainly wouldn't mind redoing my prior edits into that format and moving forward with it, I don't mind spending the time. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yeah that's annoying... Xporc (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- For my part, I don't think it adds anything and for items that have had a lot of changes adds a lot of unnecessary clutter to the page. Listing what changed when is also what the patch changes sections is for. I'm not going to say stop just because I don't like it, but it does create one big problem in that all of the versions of the tooltip show up when you link the item instead of just the current one:
- After a look through some of your changes, I have a few extra pointers. I noticed you added patch sections which I think is great! :) Just remember to call the section ==Patch changes== instead of notes, for consistency. The second thing, is perhaps just a preferability issue, so feel free to disregard if you don't wanna bother with this one. In the patch section where you note that the item has been upgraded in quality, could you note from what? As an "Upgraded to Rare quality up from Common" or something along those lines. Even if you can see it in the versions you're adding, I think it's nice to be able to see it just from the patch changes. Good luck with this project :) PeterWind (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure thing :) Thanks --Bannanawaffles (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure looks like a lot of work, but I personally have no problem with these edits. One thing though, when adding a version where the quality or type is different than the current, please add a "|doc=" in the itembox to keep from adding it from more categories than the item should. PeterWind (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- It also pains me to see even sites with very little direct user input (ie, Wowhead) neglected to keep a pre-squish databse for archival purposes (similiar to the now defunct old.wowhead, perhaps?), so I'd like Wowpedia to be a source of reference in this way (outside of viewing the stats using the page history, a feature not every wiki user is going to access). --Bannanawaffles (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit of a archiving whore when it comes to things like this, so as long as there isn't actually any objection to keeping them besides the amount of work (Tedious yes, but satisfying for me in a way), I'll probably keep working on it for now. Especially when you consider the conversion of stats like hit and spirit, I think it's interesting. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, Spirit was replaced with Versatility in 7.0.3, not 6.0.2. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh darn is that so, woops~ Thanks haha. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Cleaning trivia from old weapons[]
Hello. I have see that when you worked on the 
[Flame Wrath], you removed the trivia about the boss holding the weapon himself. If I remember well I added that bit of trivia a few weeks ago, and I also did it for other weapons. I think it's kinda interesting as an information considering not many bosses actually use the loot they drop, so did you remove any bit of similar trivia with other weapons? Xporc (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, looks like that got wiped by accident when I was redoing the description of the item, apologies. I don't believe I have removed any others, but I will do a quick check to make sure! --Bannanawaffles (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorcerous Dagger[]
Hey Bannanawaffles and welcome back! 
[Sorcerous Dagger] has two "5.2.0". I assume one of them is a typo? PeterWind (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hey :D Thanks for pointing that out, I'm just trying to get back into the swing of things. Thanks for the welcoming back! -Bannanawaffles (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
TCG cards[]
Nice job with them! I don't know if you've noticed, but you are removing many entries of the Special:WantedPages category by doing them, so thank you ;) Xporc (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, good work! :) PeterWind (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, haha! Looked like a boring repetitive task nobody wanted to do so I figured I'd get right on it.--Bannanawaffles (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey thanks to you we're able to do this now :D Xporc (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey! Amazing job on the TCG cards! I'm leaving this little message to say that we're starting to have duplicate pages though, like how Emek/Emek the Equalizer, Kileana Darkblaze/Kileana the Inferno and Sepirion/Sepirion the Poised are treated as different characters. Maybe keep going for now, and when all the TCG pages are done we'll do a big focus on managing everything that belongs together? Xporc (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah that's what I had in mind, I've made sure to keep characters consistent when I remember, but it's mostly memory I have to go on if a character is being reused while I'm adding the pages as efficiently as I can.
Also real quick, I just want to say thank you to the staff here for supporting the TCG expansion, many of the databases have already gone down for the cards and I'm scared of us losing the resources we have, that's what motivated me to begin expanding our coverage here, so that we have a more reliable longer-lasting database of this information to reference :). --Bannanawaffles (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Another TCG set well done! Xporc (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Delightful updates on the artist pages :D Xporc (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Always looking for ways to improve things here and there! :) --Bannanawaffles (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Ironfoe talk page[]
I noticed that you were the one who did a specific patch change on the article of Ironfoe, I've posted a message on it's talk page: Ironfoe talk page, I'm hoping you can answer my question on the page itself. Junkerd (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
TCG naming policy proposal alert[]
Since you're a prodigious editor of TCG articles, thought I'd give you a heads-up about the naming policy change I just proposed. --Pcj (T•C) 20:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. The policy is now in effect. I'm working on moving all the old pages, just keep the new format in mind when you create new ones. Thanks! --Pcj (T•C) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hey. Please, don't forget with the new system to add Category:TCG abilities, Category:TCG characters and other categories to the cards since these previously went on the redirect. Xporc (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hearthstone content on Wowpedia[]
A vote is taking place at Forum:Hearthstone content on Wowpedia#Voting about Hearthstone content on Wowpedia. I'm attempting to get editors like yourself to make give their opinion on whether this content should be redirected or be kept, please make your opinion known. — Surafbrov T / C 18:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)