User talk:Surafbrov

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I don't think having a new picture of a new ID which is also a different due to opened eyes on a 2005 picture is ok. The old one should be deleted as it is very weird with players and has nothing to do with the new one. --Mordecay (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Then feel free to request to delete the file history on that one. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And why can't the new one stay?
Regarding the other ones, they should be uploaded anew, under a new name as well, since they are on locked locations, and the current ones may not represent the areas they are now on. --Mordecay (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ysondre's open eyes is an important enough detail to warrant a separate file. I have no strong feelings regarding the rest. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The images that are currently on the anniversary encounters were removed from the original encounter's article because they already have a pic of them in the infobox. There is no need to have multiple images of the same thing unless it can be visually different in terms of the model. Just upload a new, modern picture, over the old ones and (if needed), ask an admin to delete the previous versions of the file. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of uploading bfa pics over old ones. Take into consideration also graphics. --Mordecay (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The one that looks bad can be replaced and used for the anniversary one.
There is no need to keep one or the other. And the old pics revisions can be deleted without an issue, they're badly taken anyways. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Casually deleting history is not something I would ever encourage. Old images exist. Let's not send them down the memory hole just because. --k_d3 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course don't be casual about it but these just don't have a purpose, especially the Ysondre's "fight" picture. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my earlier position, I don't care one way or another about uploading new files for the anniversary versions of the bosses. I really don't see a need to delete or overwrite the old images just because you don't think they're necessary. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not we upload separate images for the anniversary, I would actually like to cleanup these images. Can't really do anything with moving files if they exist. Like for an example, the Emerissportal pic looks better than the Emeriss.jpg file. Okay? Instead of taking Emerissportal and uploading it to Emeriss.jpg just to rename the file, it'd be best to delete the bad file (in this case, Emeriss.jpg) and move the Emerissportal.jpg to Emeriss.jpg. Same thing with Ysondre. If the disambig has to stay, so be it, but the Ysondre "fight" pic (for an example) is not needed while also keeping the file names simple and straight forward. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


Okay, I know in an edit war you're going to win, but seriously, with the constant re-linking to the Diablo and StarCraft Gamepedias (the former of which is practically dead, the latter of which is literally dead), you realize that you're linking to pages that don't even exist, right? Not even touching on how that yes, a lot of Starpedia is simply copy-pasted from the StarCraft Wikia (and a no. of articles on the Diablo Gamepedia have similarly been copy-pasted), and as someone who actually put in the legwork in creating the original articles, seeing plagarism isn't the most pleasant feeling in the world.

Maybe this is some overarching loyalty to Gamepedia, maybe you genuinely believe the wikis can be revived, but seriously, if it's a choice between pages that don't exist and pages that do, I think it should be an easy choice.--Hawki (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

In an edit war, no one wins. These wikis exist for a reason, why not use them? (And yes I am aware that the pages linked are not created) Not sure what you're implying but nearly 90% of all articles on Starpedia are stubs and original content (look at the patches for an example), while there are some cases of some articles being copied from the StarCraft wiki on Fandom (look at Terran). If they're copied, then they are forced to have a Wikia credit template in the references section although it is highly advised to avoid this kind of stuff. The Diablo wiki, on the other hand, is a complete mess. Don't assume that I may have loyalty for anything, because I don't. It is just that we have these wikis sitting here, doing nothing. Why not make something of it instead of leaving it in the dust? And yes, I would like to see the Diablo wiki to be revived while the StarCraft wiki was only actually created at the end of 2017 with only a few people actually contributing it; It is a fairly new and an inactive wiki at the moment. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
While those wikis might be sitting here, doing nothing, they have neither relevant content nor an active community to write it, so replacing links to actual content with links to Gamepedia "There is currently no text in this page" 404s is making our articles objectively worse. This is putting the cart before the horse: we should be linking to good content, not places that we one day hope would develop to have good content.
For Matt Burns' bibliography, linking the Wikia pages, or even the Blizzard-published short stories directly would obviously be better for our readers than the "no text" or minimal stubs at Gamepedia. — foxlit (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I hope you know that you have every right to revert my edit anyways and that you could provide these reasons as such to defend your case. But these wikis won't get any contributes unless people, like yourself, do come and actually start helping instead of linking to other sources. Like Hawki did with the Incubation article. I'm already creating these articles on the other wikis as stubs so we, at the very least, have a foundation for them to get them started. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that we should link to good and complete wikia content rather than empty gamepedia stubs, willingly making user experience worse in the hope of baiting potential contributors for these sites. I understand the need for these wikis to get more people involved, but I think our job at wowpedia is to make sure our site and linkage is good, it's the gamepedia staff that could try helping by doing a bit more of publicity :/ Xporc (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It is something that I, myself, would love to do and help give life to these other wikis, but this task alone will take a long time. I'm willing to put effort into them. Starting with gameplay first. — Surafbrov T / C / P 15:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Half-empty glass

From stylistics PoV: we have situation when half of all were removed, not all except 3. This is enough different situation, when in Cata it was remover all except 1. Dihunter (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


The wording of Old Ironforge#Patch changes implies that Aegrim's Study has its own map. Could u check datafiles if it's there and upload it? Lol, nvm, read it wrong :-D --Mordecay (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Something Warcraft 2 seekers would find helpful added to your website

Hi Surafbrov,

I noticed that your website has no information on active Warcraft communities who still play in 2018/2019 that I'm certain people who land on your page would really find helpful.

There are two communities of Warcraft 2 fans, the American ( and the Russian (, made up of fans of this game who still play with and talk to each other online, as well as older strategy guides (that may already be included on your site and I just didn't see it, but perhaps not) by a guy called Axolotl who covered a wide range of Warcraft II related strategy in detail that any person inclined to play Warcraft 2 would find most useful:

I would highly recommend these be added to the Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness section since they are some of the links that will be the most useful to people looking for Warcraft 2 to play. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W2BabyShark (talk · contr).

I'm not sure how notable is but I've created Warcraft II: Combat Edition about the War2 "remake" version from as that one is pretty notable. — Surafbrov T / C / P 17:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Public Builds

Question for you.. How is a build which is only on PTR, a 'Retail' Phase exactly? Resa1983 (talk)

The patch has been released to retail since March 12, meaning it is no longer in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Its a brand new build for 8.1.5, which isn't on retail. Resa1983 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Except the patch has been released to retail, therefore it isn't in a testing phase. If the patch hasn't been released yet, it'd still be in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
So apparently separate builds don't matter at all? Why bother tracking them then. Resa1983 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The phase column is more about the patch itself, not the build. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Which doesn't really make sense. Phase is describing the major patch but isn't sitting next to the major patch number its supposedly describing. And the individual lines are SUPPOSED to be about the individual builds. Phase should just be removed altogether. All you're doing with the Phase thing is confusing people unnecessarily. Resa1983 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
How does it not make sense? Look at other patches like 1.13.0 in Classic; those patches are during the phase for the "demo" while they were on the classic server. Look at patch 8.0.1 at the beginning and slowly go up; started from a demo on a BlizzCon server, went up to alpha phase which is located on the Alpha/Beta server. The phase then continued on to beta, which is still the Alpha/Beta server. Eventually, the patch came to the PTR so the testing phase started. They were still pushing these builds to the Alpha/Beta server even though it was finally the testing phase for the patch. Finally, patch 8.0.1 was released and now it retail. They still pushed some of those builds to the Alpha/Beta and/or the Test servers. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It makes no sense because when you look at "Phase", its beside the build number, and not the major patch number. It makes it look like 'Phase' is describing the build number, and not the major patch number that it really is describing. If you really have to keep it, switch the build number and the Phase, so it actually makes sense and LOOKS like Phase is describing the major patch, and not the build number its directly beside and has NOTHING to do with. Resa1983 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It is possible some of the columns could be rearranged, but best not to jump the guns just yet. I have messaged MMWQ to see what opinion he has on this since him and I originally had a conversation about this on Slack when there was an overhaul to that page during the BfA alpha. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The build number is a descriptive of the "patch". You read it from left to right, so no it wouldn't make sense to switch the columns. For example, build was pushed during the Beta phase on the Alpha/Beta servers on June 4, 2018.
All the 8.1.5 builds that were pushed after 8.1.5 was pushed to the Retail servers are part of the Retail phase, they are no longer in Testing (that was before it was released). Essentially, Phases are periods. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 15:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


Heya what's your source for those lines being Completion texts? What I can see from old databases is that it's a line for tracking. Mordecay (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about WoW Freakz? My source: QuestCache.wdb from older builds; two issues 1) that is part of the cache which is obtained as you play the game; retail wow is far beyond that. 2) the quests and items were removed entirely with 5.2.0 (as players reported that the quest was no longer in their quest log) so the quests are impossible to obtain or to view in the current game. — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
yep. What they list as the 'completion quest log' header is very short tracking info and different from just 'completion' which is actual completion text. quests there have both of these at the same time so it can't be both all completion text.
plus if you think about it, the quest ender Suraf in desolace wouldn't tell you to go to Suraf in desolate when you are already ending the quest with suraf in desolace. Those short one liners are tracking lines, and they have been OK at showing this kind of data.
How does the build thing work tho? Does it directly tell you it's the completion text or is it just a line without any indication of what type of text it is? Mordecay (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yea that would make sense for that info to appear in the tracking info. I guess it is safe to say that it is "tracking info". The cache is structured to have the information such as the quest ID, the recommended level to complete the quest, the description, etc. The structure for these changed over the years, it is completely different when comparing BfA to Wotlk. Also, pretty sure this is what the Wowhead client looks for to upload to their servers to keep their database updated. — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Pages based on Blizzard's descriptive terms don't have the bettername tags - should pages like Nightfallen rebellion or ogre girl have it? What about the pages created by Shammies to create a "lore" version of the Legion Assaults and Faction Assaults, like the assault on Stormheim and assault on Tiragarde Sound? --Mordecay (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Bettername}} - "This is because no official name is available for the subject of this article. We use a descriptive name instead." — Surafbrov T / C / P 19:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't know if those names are "official" like the Nightfallen rebellion may simply mean the rebellion of the Nightfallen elves and it wouldn't be the official name of the event.
Some races don't have official names either and their page name is based on their appearance, like the honey in honey elemental or bones in skeletal wind serpent, so if those "X of Azshara" are made from storm and arcane which is also in the term provided by Blizzard wouldn't it be the same case? --Mordecay (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
They're descriptive names. You're over exaggerating on a simple thing. — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You said to discuss the template which I'm doing. We are having a discussion about the use of a template and potential pages that should have it, don't know where you see the over exaggeration. You are saying that the tag should be on descriptive name pages, and that the pages mentioned here are descriptive, but they don't have them. I think we should continue to differentiate between fan-made and Blizzard-made names, whether they be descriptive or "official", and apply the tag only on fan-made. So elemental of storm and arcana‎ shouldn't need that, just like the Nightfallen rebellion or the ogre girl don't have them since the terms are used by Blizz. --Mordecay (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I said discuss the name on the article's talk page on how/why it is an official name and not a descriptive name.
Obviously, there is a conflict between descriptive names using the template or not; some are using it and some are not. Crystal dryad, are dryads made of crystal. Sparks, literally a spark. Zandalari golem, a golem related to the Zandalari. Uldum watcher, a watcher found in Uldum. Crystal satyr, a satyr made of crystal. Nerubian spiderling, a spiderling related to the Nerubians. All these examples I just gave you are descriptive names marked with the {{bettername}} template.
The template states this: "This is because no official name is available for the subject of this article. We use a descriptive name instead." The "Elemental of storm and arcana" article is simply a descriptive name: "X, forged by storm and arcana, is an elemental." They're a type of water elemental that was forged by storm and arcana. Descriptive names are not official and should be marked with {{bettername}} unless a discussion on the article's talk page gave an exceptional reasoning as to why such a descriptive name doesn't need a {{bettername}} and that majority have agreed with. Skeletal wind serpents don't need it because they're literally wind serpents made of bones; dead wind serpents brought back to life. They're a Skeleton; skeleton is an actual official name. A skeleton can be anything from a fish, to a humanoid, to a wind serpent. The page is just extending it out from the main article. Why the other articles are just redirects like "Skeletal draenei", "Skeletal human"? One would argue that they're very much the base "skeleton" I'd say. — Surafbrov T / C / P 21:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
If we wanted to be pedantic, I think basically all the examples listed in this thread could have a Bettername template, because they're not official terms. But still, let's not pretend that "Skeletal [animal]" is the same as "Azshara forged into being an elemental of storm and arcana".. [Animal] is literally an official race name, it just has a qualificative adjective in front of it (whether it's "skeletal", "crystal" or whatever), but "an elemental of storm and arcana" is not a race name at all.
If we are not deleting this page (which has no reason for existence by the way, we can just put [Elemental] in their infobox race description), it should get a Bettername. As for other pages listed as examples, depends how pedantic we want to be. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 21:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks like that these "in conflict" are examples of "fan-made" while not being "Blizzard-made terms" - all those listed with bettername tag have been created by fans, and Blizzard hasn't used the terms, that's why they got it. Also, keep in mind the box's description was changed "only" last year so this may be the reason the box seems to be "in conflict" with pages created before that. However, they may not necessarily be in conflict due to the fan-made vs. Blizzard-made terms (whether they are descriptive or "official"). --Mordecay (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"fan-made" or "Blizzard-made terms", it isn't a name. It is a descriptive name and not an official name for such thing. MMWQ and Xporc is right at this point. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The pedantry of you people is so depressing T_T Xporc (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Elinks-faction template

Regarding Elinks-faction: Since it is protected, could you correct the spelling used for WoWDB so that it's consistent with the spelling used by the other Elinks templates? (The second 'w' is currently lower-case instead of upper-case.) -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Addon question

Hey, let's say I just finished a quest jb the game that has say, yell, or whisper dialogues. Do you know if there's an addon that would allow me to copy those from the chat box? --Mordecay (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think EasyCopy might be the one you're looking for (although, it hasn't been updated and seems to be having issues with patch 8.1.5). You could use /chatlog to tell the client to save the chat log (from the time you enable this macro and going forward as you play through the game) to <WoW Install>/Logs/WoWChatLog.txt. — Surafbrov T / C / P 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I use one called "Chatter". Has an option to copy chat logs. PeterWind (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh nice suggestion (thanks Peter!), here is a link to that one. Also seems to be up-to-date. — Surafbrov T / C / P 12:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks y'all, will have a look those. --Mordecay (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Dawn of Man Wiki

Hi, I'm going to translate the wiki davn of Man into Russian. Homepage is ready. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pugemoon (talk · contr).

Editing Spells

Hello chris i was hoping that you would give an advice in editing spells.My problem is that i want replace some old information in warlock spells such as [Demonbolt] but i dont know what I should add to patch changes since i dont know that the new information is patch change or a hotfix.I would be very happy if you give an advice.thank you.Thenewbee1 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If the spell received a change via a patch, they'll be found on the patch articles. If a hotfix was applied to the spell, it would be found on the hotfix articles. — Surafbrov T / C / P 04:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


Could you remove the first versions of File:Worthless Totem 2.jpg, File:Worthless Totem 3.jpg, and File:Worthless Totem 4.jpg? Thx. --Mordecay (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


Health on max level scales too, so I see 329K, you see 335K, and a stronger character sees 339K. I'd rather it be the highest known instead of a random middle number. --Mordecay (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Or a range from the lowest to the highest. — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the best. Is it possible to know the range for 120 numbers somehow externally, without being the weakest and the strongest (ilevel, likely) observing it in the game? --Mordecay (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that I know of, best to just go off what we know. — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)