Talk: PeterWind

Hey, I love what you're doing with all the NPCs. I know I don't have the energy to look up all that stuff. One request though: could you label your edits as minor? Looking through the recent changes combing for big edits would be easier if I could hide your edits (I trust that all your edits are great additions to WoWwiki). Pzychotix 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

hehe sure i can :) just didnt notice the minor edit button, i haven't been on wowwiki for very long :) Elrox 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So if i add text i should just post normal but if i only corrct spelling mistakes and add the npc info stuff i just mark them as minor? :) Elrox 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just about. Think that anything that doesn't require any thought is minor. Keep up the good work! Pzychotix 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ok thx ^^ Elrox 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gunman

Is there a specific unit called a goblin gunmen? Otherwise I wouldn't say the ones in gadgetzan are specifically "gunmen", they could be any number of gun firing classes...Baggins 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm dont know if they are called gunmen. I think they are called Snipers. should i just remove that part agian then? :) Elrox 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, remove it.Baggins 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ok done :) Elrox 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But here's hoping we can find a specific gunman in the future in the game :).Baggins 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

^^ Elrox 19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gems, not Jewels

I've seen this issue a few times from a few different people, but Jewels are gems. An uncut raw Gem does change when it is cut, it's a refining process. The things you put in pieces of gear are CUT gems, not jewels. With this line of reasoning, if you want a separate category for raw gems and cut gems, I'd say a sub-category for RAW gems is required for a distinction. The term Gem is much more widely used than Jewel, and there is no Blizzard documentation that I have come across that suggests that they should be considered Jewels. The profession is Jewelcrafting because it sounds better than gemccrafting, and the jewel factor comes into play with the JEWELRY that is made as part of the profession (rings and necklaces). So, again, cut gems are NOT jewels, and this category is broken in my opinion, so please don't change and Gem category items to Jewel category as these two categories are redundant. Jewel categories needs to be replaced by Gem categories, not the other way around. There doesn't seem to be an official authority on the category issue, but if you contact an admin that shares similar views as you, please put me in contact with this person so we can get this straight. --ShardeeDetheroc 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok sorry :P

I will change the cut Jewels to gems instead then :) or am i wrong again? :P Elrox 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you're not exactly wrong and it's kind of an opinion thing. I just thought I'd share my opinion and see what you thought. I haven't referred it to any "higher up" people yet, so I'm still pretty up in the air about it all.

but like I said above, I believe that the only "Jewels" in Jewelcrafting are the rings and necklaces. The uncut gems and cut gems to be used for sockets are, in my opinion, just "gems." So if you want to agree with what I said, yes, cut Jewels would be in the Category:Gems division.

I'd love to hear a different perspective on this, however, but it seems to me that you were simply changing things to match something else (which may have been an incorrect thing to match to depending on your perspective). --ShardeeDetheroc 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Please try to keep images under 800KB as per WP:IMG, especially since you're going to be using PNG. Thank you and keep up the great work. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the heads up, i will! I've been rather inactive on wowwiki/wowpedia for a few years and can see now that I've forgotten a few general things since then, only halfway through my screenshotting did i remember that most npc pics were usually just the npc and not names and surroundings. For the large pics i took, i could put up new and smaller files instead. PeterWind (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Beta changes

An item's page should reflect what its current state is on live, not the beta / PTR. It's sometimes OK to add a future patch note to the patch sub-section if there's official confirmation and looks to be set in stone, but it's usually better to wait until everything is finalized.

This especially applies where the Toy Box is concerned, as various items have been added and removed between beta builds. For now, please do not edit the eligible items' page to include the "Toy" tag. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I get what you're saying even if I don't entirely agree. I will hoever abide. There is no point in spending hours chaning stuff that people will just change back. If i may ask, what is your opinion of the Toy Box page as it is now? A lot of the items listed, are not currently in the toy box as of the current beta build, i did not remove them however, as changes were not final.

Do you think that page should simply remain a mess untill thhe pre-patch? With that in mind, what areas would it be worthwhile, in your opinion, to pursue on the beta, in terms of adding stuff to the wiki? PeterWind (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps.. If i merely add the items from the beta to the toy box page, without changing the pages of the items themselves, that would be an agreeable middleroad wouldn't it? That way, when the pre-patch hits, a paragraph on the toy box page can be made with the items that didn't make the cut, as to record the early history of this new feature. PeterWind (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. That way when something changes between beta builds, there'll only be the list to deal with rather than needing to go back and forth on an item page. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 03:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Patch changes and Wowhead

Thanks for adding all those missing patch notes. However, there is one critical thing you should understand regarding Wowhead: sometimes, their "added" version is wrong. This is most often the case regarding a) anything added before patch 1.11.0 (it will show as having been added in that patch, since that's when Wowhead came online), and b) stuff that was added in the Burning Crusade expansion. For some reason I'm not sure of, most things that were added in patch 2.0.3 will actually show as having been added in patch 2.1.0 or patch 2.2.0. There really is no good way to determine the actual added version in these cases without just plain knowing what was in the game, but keep this in mind when you see those versions and try to figure it out. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I thought something was off with the vanilla items, as i knew a lot of the items were in before 1.11.1 as most items are listed as on wowhead, which is why i mostly steered clear of the vanilla items for now. I did not notice this with the TBC items, I might skip the dodgey tbc ones aswell. I'll be mindful of this at least. Thanks again! PeterWind (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also one quick suggestion; what I'm gonna do to all the articles that I plan to do for NPCs and items is that, follow this format like I've done here. If there are no hotfixes for that specific item or NPC it should be ==Patch changes== else it should be just like you've done it (if there's a hotfix present). ==Patches and hotfixes==, and thanks for those great contributions. Adding the patch changes was my plan to do and you've helped me out, I appreciate that.

— SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh yeah ok i see, that makes sense! I will keep this in mind and do that from now on! I'll see to it that i look through and fix the ones i went over, when i've run through the quest items, unless someone beats me to it!

PeterWind (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed Draenor Perks

I feel that the removed Draenor Perks from the beta should not be kept here for "history's" sake. They are removed, with no way to show them in game, many of the spell IDs are empty and give errors on the various sites, some of them were given to other perks. If we keep them, then they should have elinks removed as well, since they link to error pages or completely different spells. I opted to set them all for speedy delete, since they are not linked to from anywhere on the site, and see no reason to keep them if they aren't even in the game anymore and were only in the beta for a very short period of time. Sdkphoenix (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was probably wrong of me to change them all without consulting you first. I disagree with the history part, I find that they should be kept. You are right about the web links part though. I had a look after you mentioned that, many of the spells have been removed, i see that now. Some still exist on wowhead. The way i see it, WoWpedia should stirve to doccument changes in the changes in WoW, even the brief ones. Ofcourse this is just my own opinion, I don't know what the general consensus on that topic is. Would there be a way to make a deletion vote for all those removed perks at once instead of one at a time? To me, it's interesting to sometimes browse removed features, but not everyone might think so. It would be nice to get some more opinions on this topic, but making a vote for every removed perk would be tedious. I could be wrong, but I also don't think the removed perks articles qualify for the "Qualifications" part of Wowpedia:Speedy deletion policy. PeterWind (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, so thank you. An admin's opinion on this would be great for a more official stance so we could have something to go off of. To me, they were in the game for so little time and hardly saw any info about them before they were removed/cut back. They don't have a whole ton of history to them. I do enjoy looking at things that were removed, but usually if it's been in the game for a lot longer with some history to them and can be found easily. Most or all of the removed perks have nothing linking to them (minus my to do user page), so unless you accidentally come across the pages, you won't ever see them. And how exciting is it seeing "Increases x ability by y%" a number of times, since that is what most of the perks were. I personally feel that deleting them would just be better. Sdkphoenix (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if I don't entirely agree, I think that's a fair opinion. And yes, an admin's opinion would be nice. How about you mark one of them again for normal deletion and explain that the vote on that page is meant for all the perks that were removed in that build. That way we can vote on that page and hopefully an admin can provide some clarification on the subject. PeterWind (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As SDKPhoenix says they weren't around long and there isn't much information on them. If we do keep them, I suggest it be only as a one-page list of the removed perks, not separate pages for each one. --Pcj (T•C) 12:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright that sounds reasonable. Would "List of Removed Draenor Perks" be a fitting name for the page? or just "Removed Draenor Perks"? PeterWind (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would do Removed Draenor Perks. --Pcj (T•C) 12:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll compile the removed perks into a new page by that name then. Afterwards I could have no objection to the deletion of the singular pages. PeterWind (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Saberon

You've possibly taken the example from many other pages which used the form 'saberons', but the correct plural for the race is 'saberon', a bit like 'tauren'. Quest text examples: [1] [2]. I've therefore changed the category calls for all the saberon pages. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh! Sorry and thanks! I was looking through categories in order to sort that out a bit, and found there were two seperate categories for the saberon. I can see now that i merged them the wrong way. Cheers for fixing that! :) PeterWind (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) Seems to be happening a lot right now with all the new -en/-on races. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Conjured food level req

The 2014-10-30 hotfix[3] removed the level restrictions on using conjured food. Should their respective pages reflect wowhead's non-updated tooltips or should they reflect their actual state?

I just checked in-game. Conjured Mana Pudding, at least, doesn't show a level req. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Well my bad then! Didn't check the hotfix note when looking through those articles! I'd say the articles should probably display the items as they are ingame, wowhead will probably be updated soon. We can see if it's updated tomorrow, else the level requirements should probably be removed yeah. PeterWind (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Empty lead sections

Thanks for all that you're doing to keep everything standardized. I really appreciate it, and please keep up the good work. One thing though, if adding a == Source == section to an article (like in this edit) means there's no text in the body (what's called the "lead section"), the article doesn't need to have that first section heading. This is an issue because on mobile, viewers only see the content above the first section heading by default and have to interact with the page to see anything else. For instance, look at Frightened Bush Chicken in mobile mode. You can click the "Desktop mode" at the bottom of any page or click the previous link again to unset the mobile-mode cookie to get back to desktop mode.

We do actually have this listed in our item articles policy, but please don't treat this as me beating you over the head with it. The policy only exists because we use it for 55K articles and need to have a standard to point to.

Anyways, thanks as always and please don't let this scare you off. In the absence of bot edits to maintain all of the pages, it's editors like you that keep Wowpedia the excellent resource it is. Thanks again. --k_d³ 04:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for letting me know, I must have missed the "If all the relevant information is presented in a few sentences this is preferred, as it reduces unnecessary whitespace." part that I assume you're refering to. I can see it might be a bother for mobile users to have to click alle the different headers. Does this mean that the == Source == part should be left out in any case where description and acquisition can be reduced to a sentance or two? Or is simply adding a small description above when adding the == Source == header enough? In any case I appreciate you pointing this out :) While we are at it, I might as well ask. I see headers like ==Source== and == Source ==. Which is "best"? In another example I was given about patch changes some time ago, the header was without spaces so I've been applying that to other headers I've added since then, but as I see both a lot I was never quite sure. PeterWind (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add enough of a description to justify adding the == Source ==, feel free, as actual prose talking about the topic of the article is what distinguishes us from databases. If you find you're just restating the same thing in the lead and source sections, feel free to just toss the source header.

As for spacing in section titles? It doesn't really matter to me and to my knowledge we don't have a specific rule either way. If you're making other edits to the article and want to change the spacing at the same time, feel free. Don't feel the need to make an edit just to add or remove spaces, though. I use either style == Source == or ==Source== depending on how much of a hurry I'm in.

Thanks again! --k_d³ 19:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I'll keep this in mind! PeterWind (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain your edits?

You have just edited two pages. In one you changed "Patches and hotfixes" to "Patch changes", and in another - the other way around. Why?--Adûnâi (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, now I see it. Still, as far as I am concerned, I'd like to see this section called "Patch changes on every page, no matter if hotfixes have been present.--Adûnâi (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Adunaii, initially I was puting a ==Patches and hotfixes== on everything, untill a while back, zdroid9770 pointed this out and suggested I put the "and hotfixes" only on articles with hotfixes. I have since been adding the ==Patch changes== on anything without hotfixes. You can check the conversation a bit further up this page. PeterWind (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, nice work, keep it up! I understand the idea. Not really by the way, but could you explain why is leaderboard a bit "off the board"? For example, on your user page you have rank 7 when the leaderboard says it's 10.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll admit I don't entirely agree with all the of the ways things are handled here, but I try to stick to the format in any case. For the few areas where I outright disagree, I just leave the things be and focus my atention on other areas. Don't know much about the leaderboard thing I'm afraid. I was away from the whole wowwiki/wowpedia thing for a few years and I don't remember a leaderboard from back then so I figure it's something reeelatively new perhaps? There are users from back then I don't see on the leaderboard aswell, but yeah.. In any case I don't know why the two don't add up. PeterWind (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The leaderboard thing is new with Gamepedia and is applied to all wikis under it. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification!--Adûnâi (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

PTR items etc

When adding something that is currently on the PTR, add {{Stub/PTR}} instead of {{Stub/Item}}, {{Stub/NPC}} etc. In the case of the 6.1.0 PTR, add {{Stub/PTR|6.1.0}}. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright! Will do that from now on. PeterWind (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

April Fools' items

Just a heads-up, the April Fools' items were created by Wowhead and don't actually exist. Just like we can create fake items, so can they. --k_d³ 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh alright then! :) PeterWind (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Patch 3.0.1

There was no patch 3.0.1, any item, NPC etc. that is marked as added with patch 3.0.1 on Wowhead is incorrect. The proper patch is 3.0.2. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The same also goes with 6.0.1/6.0.2. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Well thanks for letting me know, I'll remember that. I guess the .1 just signifies that it was added on the testing servers in a previous build then. Whch would mean the .1 was only relevant during testing. PeterWind (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There's still patch 2.0.1 and patch 4.0.1 though, so keep that in mind. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, got it! I try to stay clear of the earlier tbc stuff, at least patch-wise, as wowhead isn't always too reliable with those patches. Many npcs show up as being added in 2.2 for instance. PeterWind (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh also while we're at the subject. 2.0.1, Before the Storm, was the pre-expansion patch, whereas 2.0.3 was the expansion itself. On wowpedia I see item pages with both patches as the "added in" patch. I've so far assumed that the items made available with 2.0.3 was in fact added in the prepatch, but I could be mistaken. So my question here would be, when regarding the items of early burning crusade, should I be using 2.0.1 or 2.0.3? PeterWind (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just my 2 copper: I've been using 2.0.3 because it seems to be the patch number that was settled on at wowwiki at the time. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 23:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

New NPC models

I noticed you updated a bunch of Howling Fjord NPC screenshots. Do you mind if I add you to the NPC screenshot project page? -- DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Not at all, that would be neat! Hadn't seen there was a project page like that. PeterWind (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Datamined Legion content

Just a quick reminder: since the Legion beta hasn't started, any datamined information is against the DNP policy and will be deleted. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh! My bad then. I thought it had already started, after seeing those posts on wowhead and mmo-champion. PeterWind (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Since wowhead, who are endorsed by Blizzard much in the same way as wowpedia, were posting the mined beta data, I figured the NDA had been lifted. I'll wait with adding anymore Legion stuff till after the beta has really started. PeterWind (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Factional Icons

A discussion is taking place at Forum:Neutral Faction Icons about these icons, I'm attempting to get opinions from editors like yourself about this issue, please make your opinion known. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. PeterWind (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerist and cleric

Hi,

Lady Mara Fordragon is also tagged as a cleric. According to her statue she was the High Clerist of Stormwind and the Patron of the Refugees who fled to Lordaeron after the First War. Since the Abbot of Northshire was leading his own abbey, maybe Mara was the leader of the religious community in Stormwind City?

I have not read Dragonlance so I don't have the full context here. Xporc (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Well in that case I think you're probably right about the scarlet high clerist :) I'll just add the category back. PeterWind (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well they did update her statue to look more like a knight than a cleric though... And according to this link : https://dl-war-of-the-lance.obsidianportal.com/wikis/clerist-knight-of-the-sword-archetype in Dragonlance lore a clerist is a knight who through worship was given "the ability to cast divine spells much as a cleric does"... So essentially, maybe she was supposed to be a paladin before knights of the silver hand actually existed? A cleric who wore plate armor? Xporc (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any mention of this class outside of the dragonlance world either, and judging from the two clerists in the warcraft universe that sounds about right. PeterWind (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving a page or template

When you move a page or template, please be mindful that there may be other pages that use it. I came across an old template reference on the Skyreach article page while adding a hotfix note. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 17:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Right. I don't think I'd really noticed the "what links here" tool untill sometimes last year or so. I might have messed up in that regards in some of my older edits from before then. I'll be mindfull of this. PeterWind (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

RE: Typo account

I do not have the ability to merge account contributions, and I am unsure if it is possible. You would have to ask Kaydeethree.--SWM24 48 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I'll ask him, if that is possible or what is the best option in this case. PeterWind (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Champion's Treadblade

[Champion's Treadblade]

Why did you move the Patch changes section back above the See also, a vast majority of articles on Wowpedia have it the other way. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 19:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is key, but in in my experience/memory I've seen the See also section typically as the last thing before external links. Sometimes the ref links are under the see also, but those are, from my memory, the two last. It seemed reasonable to me, as the patch notes relate directly to the subject of the article, whereas the see also is more indirectly related. In my opinion at least. I'm not sure if there is an actual guideline on this however. I can't see it in any of the boilerplates for item/NPC/mob pages. PeterWind (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally do Main content > Trivia > Speculation > Patch changes > See also > External references Xporc (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah for items, I generally go with, from the top: intro (if needed), source, use (if needed), as a quest objective, as an ingredient, notes, trivia, speculation, patch changes, see also, ref list, external links. PeterWind (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good to me. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 12:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Bound/Unbound elemental

I get where you're coming from, but on this wiki elemental refers to old elemental models and unbound elemental is for the newer elemental models, even when wearing bracers of binding. Bound elemental only refers to newer elemental models encased in elementium armor. That said, I have no idea what to do with mobs like Bound Fire Elementals, which use old elemental models... I don't mind seeing the bound elemental page updated either. It's just that right now "bound elemental" equals elementium armor. Xporc (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I don't wholy agree with that view, but I'll let it slide because frankly, this is just one of those cases where Blizzard doesn't give us anything clear to work with, in my view. As you point out with the bound fire elemental, "regular" elementals, have their bracelets, which we refer to as bindings. But for the "bound" term, As I can see after actually reading through the page again, it refers to the armor/cage, made by tthe twilights hammer. Meaning that every time we see bound elementals = Twilight Hammer influence. So yeah I guess while I don't think we can really call those two unbound, you are correct in saying that they are not bound either. It's the same deal with Consular Celestos and Grand Vizier Ertan alrhough those two don't actually have the bracelet bindings. As I understood it, the bracers was what connected elementals to the physical realm. Attack the elemental, and the bracers shatter, sending them back. Kiiinda like with demons and the twisting nether.. Sort of. As such it never made a lot of sense to me, what the unbound elementals were doing in Azeroth in the first place. I guess the bracers deal might be from old and "inaccurate" lore, or was there some good reason? I'd rather just put those two in question in their associated elemental group instead, but I guess I don't really have enough to go on with this one afterall :) PeterWind (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'm open with changing my stance. It's just that right now I am working within the scope of the current "unbound elemental" and "bound elemental" pages. It's like when I tag creatures as mad scientists even if they are neither mad or scientists, I just follow the name of current page. Xporc (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

7.3.0 is live...please stop using {{Stub/PTR}} for it. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know, that was a simple copy/paste error. PeterWind (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Riddle of the Lucid Nightmare

If you want the images removed, then why do we still have the {{Stub/Other}} tag? What other editing is requried? Ariule (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I would considder the page to still be a stub, as the pages for the Deep Cavern and the Endless Halls still have not been made. PeterWind (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will see what I can do. Tanks. Ariule (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Just in mind when creating the Endless Halls article, could it be a reference to the Lost Woods in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time???! Just putting it out there. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 04:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many games using areas like that. I don't knowwho was first, but I'll admit that was the first game I thought of aswell. Definitely worth a mention I'd think. PeterWind (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Asterix and Curly Brackets

Hey Peter, when editing Patch notes of various articles, I've noticed that some of the asterixs and curly brackets have a space in between them, seen here while some have no space between them, seen here. Can you clarify which one is the correct way to type the patch notes or if it even matters? (Junkerd (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC))

I prefer no space, but honestly, I don't know if there's any real effect. I don't think it matters :) PeterWind (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been buggin me forever. I prefer no space but I've seen someone changing them to with space and ima like waaat. --Mordecay (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It just boils down to stylistic choices of individual editors. There's no difference in how it's displayed on the page. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Love is in the air

Hey Peter, I see that you made some edits to a couple of articles (a couple of years ago) which involve items that are part of the old Love is in the air, event. The edits that you've made say that and here's one: Box was added in 2.0.1 and not 1.9.3, when the event itself was added. From what I've been able to gather, some of the items that are part of the event, have itemIDs that match 1.9.3, while some of the itemIDs match 1.10.0 (now of course ItemID doesn't necessarily correlate to a certain patch(which is why I'm suggesting that nearly all of the old items were added in 1.9.3)) , but what I haven't been able to find, is any that go beyond 1.12.0 and I just wanted to hear your thoughts on this, since you were the one to have edited them. Junkerd (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe by now you probably have a more in-depth grasp of the situation revolving around this event and how it was initially added. As I recall I added the patch notes, purely on what was readily available. Wowhead says 2.0.0. Now they aren't always completely reliable, and the "2.0.0" is not one I've seen many times. I did not really do any research beyond checking wowhead. In this case I would assume that this item was added back with the rest, although I can't say for sure. Looking at the dates for certain events, the Love is in the Air patch was released "February 7, 2006". Wowhead was launched later the same year on "June 26, 2006". The TBC prepatch, known as 2.0.1, was launched late that same year on "December 5, 2006". Now it would go to stand that Wowhead does not have entirely reliable info on matters before their launch. Now many of the vanila items are, on Wowhead, simply listed as having been added in "patch 1.11.1". I assume the reason being that this was that "Patch 1.11.0" was the current one at the time of launch of Wowhead. I can't say for sure either way, but I think you're right about this. PeterWind (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's something I found while looking around:

the first time it was uploaded was 23 September 2006 and the item which the Icon was first used for (I'm assuming and it looks like it is) was Gift of Friendship and the many variations of it. The items that Wowhead says are from 2.0.1, comes from these packages, which are presumably very much probably added during 1.9.3, so I'd say that settles it. Junkerd (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah :) PeterWind (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Zandalari

I think the Zandalari troll should be capitalized as it is always capitalized in the Chronicle, for example like the Forsaken are. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mordecay (talk · contr).

I have no strong opinion on this. You mean in the description part like such "bla bla bla is a Zandalari troll" right? I don't mind doing that from now on :) PeterWind (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep that. --Mordecay (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Frogmonia

Hey, any idea you can confirm which one is the real one and which one is the culprit? File:Krag'wa.jpg vs File:Kra'gwa.jpg — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Krag'wa is the correct spelling. PeterWind (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thorns

Like I said to Zeratul, could you, please, hold off with creating new NPC & mob pages for the Thorns? I'd like to create them myself. Thanks. --Mordecay (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mordecay, this is a wiki. Requesting other people not do edits is indicative of disruptive editing. You have no right to "dibs". --Pcj (T•C) 13:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that he (or they) can't edit tho. Since I did the questlines, I just wanted catch the chronology in the NPC articles and finish the event pages nicely, but if it is really a big problem then ignore my ramblings, I guess... --Mordecay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you're gonna have to speed up or just fix the mess I might leave behind. I'm not gonna progress past undocumented content with my main, which is the only Alliance char I play. I'll hold off untill tomorrow, focus elsewhere till then, but that's it :) PeterWind (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Objective

Hey, qq, I noticed u add "as a quest objective". Is it from somewhere or is it rather a personal preference? I double-checked the preload mob article and it has "Objective of". --Mordecay (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm so it seems! The item preload still has the option I usually go with. I "prefer" the one I use, but that's mostly just an old habbit. I don't mind switching to "objective of" for mobs. Perhaps we should see about aligning the different preloads on this line, If this is something we want to look into? It's not something I would prioritize personally, but I wouldn't really oppose it either :) PeterWind (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the item preload has "As a quest objective" I don't mind unifying but keeping them separated should be ok as well (objective of for mobs and As a quest objective for items). Take mobs for instance, they can now be objectives of missions as well so putting it "As a quest objective" would not be entirely really correct. --Mordecay (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, keeping seperate is a lot less work, so that's what I would prefer. I'll use "Objective of" for mobs from now on at least. PeterWind (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

War templates

A discussion is taking place at Template talk:Battle#Merge about the current three templates used for War/Battle/Conflict articles. I'm attempting to get opinions from editors like yourself about this issue, please make your opinion known. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll sit this one out as I have little interest/expertise in that area :) PeterWind (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Superfluous field rearrangement

Any particular reason? It appears you're only doing it to pad your edit count. --Mondoblasto (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate. I'm not sure what you're referring to. PeterWind (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's edits like these you mean, you can check the "This is a minor edit" button just above "Save changes". PeterWind (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry for long response, was busy.) Like this. --Mondoblasto (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't really argue with Peter on this as you've done something totally similar (like the one Peter linked). It's not really padding one's edit count; it's more of a "clean up". I personally think these edits are unnecessary but it really isn't a bother. There are even other editors who have done similar edits. Honestly, these kinds of discussions should just be avoided. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 06:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Well edits like the one you linked aren't done 100% manually either, but with the Itembox generator gadget, that I recommended you check out in a previous discussion. PeterWind (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

it's more of a "clean up" What was there to clean up? It was perfectly fine as it was. As long as either system is used (of which I thought there was only one), it's fine and there's no need to rearrange it. the one you linked aren't done 100% manually either, but with the Itembox generator gadget This I don't get. The Item boilerplate was used to make it, and.... then you replaced it by using the Itembox generator gadget? ¯\_(°﹃°)_/¯ --Mondoblasto (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is really no need to have an argument over this. — SurafbrovWowpedia administrator T / C 22:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, feel free to check out the discussion for the Many-Pocketed Leather Pants in which I described the exact procedure. PeterWind (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Distinguish

Distinguish templates go on top, above infobox, as per general wiki usages. --Mordecay (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That way it pushes down the infoboxes, making pages longer though. PeterWind (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say "general wiki usages" is that just your opinion or is there some guidelines from which this can be gleamed? The location of the hatnote remains the same, but when placed after the infobox, it doesn't move any of the actual formatting. PeterWind (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wowpedia's guidelines don't cover placement AFAIK, so I tend to turn to wikipedia and as per wiki:hatnote they are placed on top. When I brought it to Gourra, he agreed with the general usage. Hard majority of users put them there too. My personal view is that it makes sense to put a disambig note above so that it's not aligned with the infobox since it offers links like additional or even not-related to the page it's on. And I thiiiiiink u are the only one here putting them like that, so I'm for consistency with the other users & pages --Mordecay (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I see. As far as I could gather, people I brought this up with on slack were mostly agreeing with me. PeterWind (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Parrot (NPC)

You remember seeing these as friendly to Alliance? --Mordecay (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. All the NPCs I edited in there, was how they appeared as an Alliance player. I think it's the same NPCs whether you are Horde or Alliance probably? PeterWind (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wowhead is probably wrong then :p Or maybe the Horde officers have parrots too Xporc (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I have only checked Alliance side. The scenario bugged out. If attackable Horde parrots exist, I did not reach that part. PeterWind (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Kezan (starting zone)

What is the reason behind the removal of all its links? Given the fact that Gilneas (starting zone) was proposed to be a thing, and eventually linked, I think that its counterpart, Kezan (starting zone) should be kept as well. As far I can tell, it just wasn't finished properly. --Mordecay (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Well dang! I did not see any move petition, and didn't know about/couldn't remember that discussion. PeterWind (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hehe, it was discussed here. --Mordecay (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Someday the moves will be done, hopefully. Luckily Kezan has not as links many as Gilneas :kevinhypers: --Ryon21 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, I see now! Well I'll be happy to help, changing those links in whatever way is decided on, when that time comes anyway! PeterWind (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Hey, you are apparently watching the recent page so could you hold your horses when you see that I'm making pages and their related pages? We were doing the same page at the same time and I got the edit warning. It is unnecessarily wasting our times and it has happened like three or four times in past two days, so don't :P --Mordecay (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Eehh well, I get your point, and generally try to wait, but still, I think that's just a risk of working on a wiki with many active editors. In the case of editing conflicts, you can scroll down to se your edit, so nothing is immediately lost. With the item creation tool, most of those pages take something like 20 seconds to whip together, so it'll probably be fine, even with a few hiccups here and there. PeterWind (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Names

Just checked Fargo cave and the name Lower Mines is present on the world map upper left corner when switching between the cave areas. Same with the Master´s Cellar. --Mordecay (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh! Alright then I'll change the wording, and keep this in mind for other areas. When I went there, I must have missed it, while checking the map. PeterWind (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah right yes I see what you mean now! PeterWind (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cartel

Steamwheedle Cartel#World of Warcraft. --Mordecay (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)