Difference between revisions of "Forum:Adding Sigrie to external links"

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Broken link fix)
Line 24: Line 24:
{{vote|No|{{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 19:45, August 13, 2010 (UTC)}}
{{vote|No|{{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 19:45, August 13, 2010 (UTC)}}
{{vote|No|[[User:Aliok|Aliok]] ([[User talk:Aliok|talk]]) 21:33, September 6, 2010 (UTC)|see below, please}}
{{vote|No|[[User:Aliok|Aliok]] ([[User talk:Aliok|talk]]) 21:33, September 6, 2010 (UTC)|see below, please}}
{{vote|No|{{User:Gryphon/Sig}} 01:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)|Contains no unique information, in fact contains less than other sources with lack of comments, just a meta redirect for other sites.}}

Revision as of 01:02, 2 November 2010

Forums: Village pump → Adding Sigrie to external links

The MMO-Champion database, also called Sigrie, has a large number of spells, NPCs, quests etc., especially new ones with Cataclysm. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to add it, but I'd like to see if others think the same way. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:12, August 12, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Yes g0urra[T҂C] 12:12, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (Nominated)
  2. Yes Marlamin (talk) 12:19, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (Heck yes!)
  3. Yes Dinnerbone (talk) 12:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (Yes)
  4. Yes Ralth (talk) 13:03, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (Yes)
  5. Yes  Zeal (T/C)  13:50, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (It's updated quicker than wowhead, often contains info wowhead misses or gets wrong, and most importantly has a much better parser for variables in tooltips so they can actually make sense.)
  6. Yes Adys 14:50, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (Yes)
  7. Yes Xtek (talk) 15:40, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (Yes)
  8. Yes Warthok Talk Contribs 12:41, August 13, 2010 (UTC) - (no comment)
  9. Yes Fandyllic 05:27, August 15, 2010 (UTC) - (Should replace Allakhazam which as been lame for a long time now.)
  1. No PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:24, August 12, 2010 (UTC) - (It doesn't add any information to what is already linked besides that which is datamined.)
  2. No User:Frejya/Sig - (see below)
  3. No Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC) - (Agreeing with Pcj)
  4. No, per my argument below. Rather procedural in spirit, but that's what should happen for the meantime. --Sky (t · c) 16:18, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
  5. No Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:45, August 13, 2010 (UTC) - (no comment)
  6. No Aliok (talk) 21:33, September 6, 2010 (UTC) - (see below, please)
  7. No GRYPHONtc 01:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC) - (Contains no unique information, in fact contains less than other sources with lack of comments, just a meta redirect for other sites.)


Pretty sure Sigrie shows datamined data along with the in-game data. WP:DNP in conjunction with WP:EL mandates that we not link to datamined information. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:15, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, wowhead shows a lot more "datamined" information than mmoc db. Adys 12:23, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Really? All I see is things like http://db.mmo-champion.com/i/52320/elementium-moebius-band/ versus http://cata.wowhead.com/item=52320 and http://db.mmo-champion.com/i/55061/elementium-girdle-of-pain/ versus http://cata.wowhead.com/item=55061 --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:25, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Someone linked it in trade chat in orgrimmar, I took a screenshot and entered it manually. Adys 12:28, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
MMO-Champion itself is linked many times and contains much more content not officially announced than the database. This suggests the policies have no issue linking to sites that may contain datamined info, only against actually making an article on the datamined info. I see no issue linking to sigrie for ordinary items. --Dinnerbone (talk) 12:38, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
MMO-Champion should only be linked where it discusses non-datamined info, this has actually been enforced several times when datamined stuff was leaked through MMO-C and we had to control the posting of it before it was announced/released (per WP:EL#Allowed and forbidden links). I am fine with Sigrie when it comes to non-datamined stuff (and it has been pointed out to me that we wouldn't be making pages for datamined stuff anyway so no external links) but I am not sure of the benefits, I haven't seen anything that really sticks out to me over Wowhead besides having more items, spells, etc., particularly the datamined stuff. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:45, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
If it's about the case of it not adding anything that's already in Wowhead's database, then why not remove Thottbot and Allakhazam? What's the benefit from adding external links to those sites? --g0urra[T҂C] 12:58, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea why we still have Thottbot and Allakhazam (especially Allakhazam), some people seem to like Thottbot over Wowhead though - same as with Sigrie and Wowhead now. But Wowhead (and the rest) have drop information on items, and comments on everything, which are the main things Sigrie is lacking. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 13:02, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Thottbot has "progress" and 'conclusion' text for quests; Wowhead most often does not. As well, a second set of comments, different community, more information to draw from, esp when unstubbing. Allakhazam... very rarely has additional information. VERY rarely. No idea about wowDB or MMO-Champion, though what I recall of MMO-Champion, no additional comments on any links, and I apparently haven't found the entry point for item searching there. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:51, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Wowhead datamines too, Sigrie just does it quicker and usually more accurately.
Wowhead, Thott and Alla are alternatives, so there's no argument against offering more alternatives unless they're removed too and we show bias to Wowhead just because some people like it better.
Sigrie lacks comments, and that's its only draw back despite having advantages in other areas – as noted in my vote comment.
-- Zeal (T/C)  13:56, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Thottbot and Alla tend to get a lot of private server stuff. If we are looking at adding alternatives then why do we not add WOWDB (I don't care to - I'm just curious)? I would like to replace Alla with Sigrie if anything - I think Alla has outlived its usefulness. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 14:46, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Pcj on this one - in fact, he brought up the wowdb website I was just going to comment on. That was going to be my first point - do we start linking every db site we come across? It seems more helpful to link sites that players are already familiar with, and wowhead by far is the one mentioned the most often on the forums and in the game than even thott (I can't even remember the last time I heard alla mentioned). I heard about the mmodb in passing a while ago and haven't heard anything about it since. I think the point about datamined info still stands - both might contain datamined information, but only mmochamp actively advertises such information. Do we want to link to a db that then links to a site that posts such information? Does it have a significant effect on the number of people who might jump into the wiki who don't know about the DNP policy? Do we want to toe that line seeing as how the wiki is considered an official fan site?User:FrejyaFrejya 15:04, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
That's another point - Wowhead is an official fan site; MMO-C is not. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 15:11, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
MMOC is owned by Curse, Curse is an official fansite, etc.. Adys 15:16, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, indeed. So why don't we add WOWDB? --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 15:19, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
First it's "sites that players are already familiar with" and then "official fan site[s]" - what should the criteria be? Only that it's an official fansite? WOWDB is ugly with its screwed-up information about loot tables and mobs/NPCs, which leaves us with only Wowhead. Do you really only want to see Wowhead on external links? I sure don't. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:20, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how valid a point being an official fan site is, was never a concern before. Already pointed out why datamined concerns aren't really valid for any db site over another. As Adys pointed out in IRC, if there's datamined stuff, we don't have a page for it on the wiki, so we don't link to it anyway, so it's a non-issue. Private server stuff is a bad thing though, and i believe it's mostly thott that carries such info, as the others are new/more careful/have removed them when found.
I've no problem with WoWDB being added too. If we're going to have a vote to see how popular/desirable certain sites are – as has always been the case – as long as they meet the basic criteria in the WP:EL then there's not really an argument to be had, just a vote. If you want to apply extra cavets to policy and start weighing up good and bad points for eahc site so we only have ~2 linked, then make the policy proposal and apply it across the board. For now, this is merely about if Sigrie meets policy – which it does – and if it has support to exist.
-- Zeal (T/C)  15:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making the case that we should stick only with sites that are fansites. If that were the case, there would be a lot of resources we couldn't reference. I'm asking if there's going to be any impact on wowwiki (as a fansite), either because we're linking to a site that directly links to a site known for datamining or because there might be an increase in the number of well-meaning editors who forego reading the DNP policy and end up making more work over here. I'm not certain what impact it will have - I'm certainly not gazing into a crystal ball - but I think those points should be considered. (Not to mention the 'how many dbs' and player familiarity questions)User:FrejyaFrejya 16:30, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I left that open in my reply too. I was mostly trying to counter Pcj's arguments which seems to push for a policy change mid-vote at the time. -- Zeal (T/C)  16:59, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside (haven't "voted" yet), when was the last time WoWDB's been updated? [1] isn't showing anything... --k_d3 20:41, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
That's one of the things that makes me wonder if Curse is going to keep that updated now that they have MMO-C. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:42, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Just did a search on 'Halion' ... only two player profiles.. no weapon, no dragon. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

If MMO-C's database allowed for comments, I'd likely switch my vote to yes. Otherwise, I do not see what alternative usefulness it brings to the table. Allakhazam is useful for archival of items and spells, Thottbot has an old base that still fulfills contemporary needs, and WoWHead has a stream-lined UI that also serves the populace's needs. Sigrie only provides information without the ability for users to append their interpretations and/or experience for the benefit of new or unexperienced players. To use a metaphor: Allakhazam is a granny apple, Thottbot is a red apple, and WoWHead is a golden apple - MMO-C is an orange. (Oops, signature.) Aliok (talk) 21:49, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

The metaphor made me chuckle. --Sky (t · c) 22:48, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Shake up?

I saw it tossed around a little up there: It might be worthwhile to consider the current links we do include in general as well as Sigrie. Throw WoWDB in for shits and giggles, since I do not believe we've had an actual vote on it. The last time we had a full vote (ugh, how I hate that word on a wiki) on the set was a couple of years ago now.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a vote would see Thott and Alla both removed (though if we were to keep one, I suspect it would be Alla). I'm personally of the opinion that order should not be determined in this vote, but simply addition (but it's not a strong opinion). I think the fact that Sigrie suffers from what Wowhead suffered so long ago (comment lack) makes it slightly less valuable for the foreseeable future, and so it would be ever-so-slightly more inconvenient to have it placed at the top of the list of elinks, were we to consider order in the immediate rather than intermediate or further-out future. (Here, I am acknowledging that it appears to be a useful/popular db [though I'll note some slight conflict of interest], as evidenced by the 7 or 8 who sprang up today and promptly decided to set the vote to closing without it even having been 24h... /sigh. Something to go see about changing, because 24 hours is simply too small to decide the discussion is ending.) --Sky (t · c) 07:21, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

The voting hasn't ended, it's 3 days after the final deciding vote has been cast that the decision is in effect.
I'm inclined to keep Allakhazam, one reason being that they save the history of items and spells that has been changed, which is a function that no other database have. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:18, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
The fact remains that two of the voters are heavily involved in MMO-C and Sigrie and two are users whose only edit has been to vote here. I wonder if we need a minimum edit requirement on voting... Another point as far as WoWDB, is that still going to be maintained since Curse owns MMO-C (and Sigrie)? --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 12:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of minimum edit count put in place, even if such a count knocks me out of voting. Adding to what Pcj pointed out, it seems that two of those 'yes' voters haven't done any edits since '08 and '09, and the amount of editing they've done - minus this vote and their own user pages - is around 10 edits. I'm not sure there's much of a vested interest with that low of a count, personally. My opinions still stand that I've mentioned in the preceding section, but this adds another layer to the onion. User:FrejyaFrejya 15:31, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest to change the rules in the middle of a vote (not that the question being voted on is really a big deal for me) but I think this is a good indication that the voting policy could use some tweaking. Nor would I suggest a high edit count requirement, I just think people need to show some vested interest in the wiki before trying to jump on board in voting. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 15:34, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I think 10 edits would be a sufficient minimum, myself. I'd also like to see the 3 day barrier to closing set to 7 days: not everyone has the time to contribute in a 3 day period. But then, that's for WP:Voting policy. --Sky (t · c) 16:16, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Obviously that's neither here nor there as it relates to this particular vote :P If it did come down to a vote pertaining to edit count, I'd suggest at least 100 myself, which is really a drop in the bucket compared to what some of you guys have. But I agree - changes to that should take place at another time and not in the middle of this vote. User:FrejyaFrejya 16:21, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
No, 10 edits is what I was thinking myself. We don't want to block new people from voting; their opinions may be valuable. We just don't want people to simply vote and leave. That reeks of meatpuppetry. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 16:30, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Gourra, you missed the point. It's rather steam-rollish (rude, even) to say "we're going to do this with so few involved, with 2 of those with significant conflict of interest and two of the users a single edit to their name, on this page, when this is a change which will affect tens of thousands of pages" (a significant portion of the wiki). This should be a vote which is open for a number of days more than 4. Period. If you choose to say "by policy", I'm simply going to say "that's the letter and certainly not the spirit" of the policy. --Sky (t · c) 16:16, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Back on the "Shake up" topic, I'm actually in favor of leaving Thottbot and Allakhazam, simply because if you look at Wowhead you'll notice that almost every page says "added in patch 1.11.1." Thottbott and Allakhazam have been around a lot longer and contain a lot of very important information on the game before that patch, which was a good two years worth of content. It's especially helpful when trying to find information for NPCs, spells, and talents that were removed before that patch, which essentially don't exist on Wowhead. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:23, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need both, though? Are there explicit benefits to having both? I.e. does Alla have something Thott doesn't (specifically related to that time period), and vice versa? --Sky (t · c) 16:28, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Alla does have the change history stuff Gourra indicated; I'm not really sure how useful that is for day to day usage. Thott is possibly the least useful, though some people like it - it also has a lot of private server stuff which is a negative point for it. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 16:32, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where i fit in comments on the type of users voting, but in the spirit of being open and honest: I work at mmoc, and i had a small hand in helping to create Sigrie. You likely know my adversion to being involved in policy on the wiki anymore, so i'm merely defending Sigrie against anything i believe to be untrue, policy abuse, and because i believe it adds value to the wiki and it's readers despite it's early stages.
Having said all that, i generally agree that the policy needs a change and most of the suggestions made above seem fair.
-- Zeal (T/C)  17:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
The conflict of interest thing isn't really a big deal, you are certainly allowed to champion your own horse in this race, and you and Adys have been good contributors to WoWWiki in the past. I'm more concerned with the new users than anything. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:20, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

What does Sigrie add?

It seems to me the only benefit of Sigrie is that it updates faster than Wowhead. Further, the fact that they predominantly source their data from datamining has been countered by the fact that the external link will only show on pages that exist on the wiki. I am failing to see the value-add presented by Sigrie. Policy specifically says "If the website linked contains only information already present on the wiki (or you need to pay to access the extra content), the link should not be present." Since Sigrie does not support comments, I do not see any information which would not duplicate that which is on the wiki. Sigrie may be a good source from which to base yet-uncreated pages, but not a terribly good source for additional information of things which already exist on the wiki. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 16:26, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Dang it, Pcj, I was just going to say that. It seems the argument has come full circle back to your initial point, which hasn't really been addressed: seeing as how we have thott, alla, and wowhead, what benefits do we gain from adding another db that would merit thousands of edits? User:FrejyaFrejya 16:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Procedural note: It only requires 15 or so edits to the family of external links templates. --Sky (t · c) 16:30, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I just meant thousands of pages would be affected :P Should have been clearer, but the question still stands. User:FrejyaFrejya 16:37, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Except that i did address them... The big point about accuracy seems to be going ignored. The wiki also does not contain alot of the spell data for effect triggers and such, which all databases included and do often contain important additions to effects which are not described in the tooltips themselves, so saying any db doesn't add more than what the wiki has is untrue. -- Zeal (T/C)  17:07, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, the external links won't show on pages unless they're already on the wiki. So unless you are saying WoWWiki is inaccurate, I don't believe accuracy is a good reason to have Sigrie. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sigrie accuracy and ID differences

How is this accurate? I went over and compared both wowhead and sig and just pulled the very first Death Knight ability up. This is what happened: http://www.wowhead.com/spell=48266 as opposed to http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/48263/blood-presence/#tab=trainedspell_spell (For that matter, look at all the Presences)User:FrejyaFrejya 17:26, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Quick guess from my limited knowledge of Death knight Cataclysm changes: Sigrie already references Cataclysm spell effects. See http://cata.wowhead.com/spell=48263 --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:31, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
That's what it looks like to me, yeah. Note that they're actually pulling different spell IDs, too. Using the same spell ID in both URLs gives me Frost Presence on Wowhead instead of Blood Presence, and with the same text as MMO's Blood Presence entry. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:32, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing different IDs and comparing current (wh) to cata (sigrie). There's nothing wrong except the links. -- Zeal (T/C)  17:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

So how is the average user supposed to tell the difference? The plus with wowhead is that they actually split the database to 'live' and 'expansion', thereby avoiding any of that confusion. They 'merge' later when the expansion is released. I don't see sig making a similar distinction and, lacking a comments section, it looks like a user could get lost. In my above example I didn't seek out an error - all I did was use the handy drop-down menus on the front page and navigate my way to the spell list of Death Knights (Blood). I'm not saying the db is useless - don't get me wrong - I'm just addressing the point of accuracy that's been brought up. User:FrejyaFrejya 17:45, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Another point is that this means Sigrie is using a different ID for the spells until Cataclysm hits. This means the elinks template would require an additional parameter. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:52, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Technically, it means that Blizzard is taking the old Frost Presence and putting the new Blood Presence into its spell ID, and vice-versa. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:02, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense since Blizzard considers Blood to be the main death knight tanking tree in Cataclysm, thus switching the tanking benefits from Frost Presence to Blood Presence. I guess that's why they kept the "tanking" Presence in the same ID. --g0urra[T҂C] 18:08, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Right now, the templates already is in need of an extra parameter to specify to use the wowhead's cata db already, which they don't, and as such, it's misleading/useless.
The wiki operates on different data sets at the same time, so i would think having Sigrie that only displays the most up-to-date is just as valid as having thott, alla, and wowhead only showing live, regardless as to if that is accurate to the wiki page, and needing to add a argument to tell the templates to use cata for wowhead. Basically, it's not an issue specific to Sigrie, but a problem with the template and how the wiki uses different data sets. -- Zeal (T/C)  18:15, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Not using Wowhead's cata flag is less useless than linking to the wrong Cataclysm spell on Sigrie. Meaning we would have to actively change current uses of the template to be sure to reference the correct spell on Sigrie whereas current links to Wowhead, Thott, and Alla are at least current for the current live patch without further editing them. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:19, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Less useless than linking to thinks that don't exist? :S I'm refering to new cata-only content here. As i said, different data sets at once on wowwiki, so there's pluses and minuses to both sides. With the template updated to support an argument for it, wowhead would surely be the best implementation, where as the others including sigrie would be playing second fiddle as they're only relevent to one data set or the other. -- Zeal (T/C)  18:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I meant particularly in the case of the DK spells referenced above, where the ID of the Cataclysm spell specifically references another ability pre-Cata. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:52, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, for current content Sigrie would be displaying misleading cata info, but then it would be helpful to have the elinks for the cata changes talked about in the page too. As this is an example of the fact spells can swap their IDs -- from the perspective of the wiki --, it suggests that providing a second ID in the argument rather than a flag would probably be the best way to do it. Sadly, adding and removing them as time goes on makes that problematic.
It does present some dilemas. When there's no PTR/Beta active, Sigrie should be shown with the rest, but when there is, it shouldn't. There may be an argument to not include Sigrie in that, as it would require manual editing of templates everytime there is one. While we could simply have Sigrie only show for the PTR and expansion arguments, there's also a problem in that it the expansion builds tend to superseed PTRs so it may not even be relevent to the PTR anymore too.
Also, wowhead names their subdomains differently, so the template would have to be updated to change the subdomain each new expansion -- PTR remains the same afaik --, so that's not ideal of them either.
Hopefully someone can think of a way to work around those problems, cos i do believe the added information would be helpful. Perhaps simply linking to all version for wowhead and sigrie, and putting labels/disclaimers next to them, despite current state may be the best choice.
-- Zeal (T/C)  19:26, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Wowhead segregates PTR info to ptr.wowhead.com, updating the template every expansion isn't that big of a deal though, less work than editing IDs on pages individually for Sigrie for sure. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:31, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
The {{Elinks-item/wotlk}} template and other WotLK beta templates comes to mind, if we're going to add external links to Cataclysm content. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:38, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be for sigrie alone though, as wowhead would need the IDs too. Both would require editing the templates and all pages that use them each time an expansion db is added, and again when it goes live to remove them. Sigrie specifically would require the same for PTRs too, while wowhead would only need the "all pages that use them" part for PTRs. There's room within those edits to cover Sigrie's special case of needing to be removed from current/PTR and added to PTR/expansion outputs, so that's not too big of an issue. In total though, that seems like a ton of work, that is easy to say would be unreasonable, so i can only think of using the label/disclaimer idea. That way the template only needs to be updated when wowhead changes the expansion subdomain, use a flag across all pages for PTR and expansions, and only provide extra IDs when needed. That would require only changing a small subset of pages, and the flags can be disabled in the template alone until it needs to be active again. -- Zeal (T/C)  19:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Having seperate templates wouldn't really work in order to have Sigrie always display with a disclaimer/to prevent duplicated entries for Sigrie, so not sure about that, despite it actually being better for handling updates. I take that back, it would require all pages to have that those templates, so it would be worse. I'm against that idea in light of it solving nothing, but just shifting it around. -- Zeal (T/C)  19:47, August 13, 2010 (UTC)