Talk:Legendary items

Trivia : I don't see this being amazingly relevant to the article. i vote remove. User:CrazyJack/Sig 11:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Better sorting

As a player new to high end content, I would like to say this page could perhaps better be sorted by bracket (60, 70, 80). I cannot see a pattern in the current sort (Shadowmourne should be top or bottom).

Unless I am missing something quite obvious?

Also, perhaps items that can no longer be obtained are better off in a separate, lower section to avoid confusion from a game perspective. There is little Lore here anyway, so the data is more for nostalgia. Francis2559 (talk) 20:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

The current sort is alphabetical. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:10, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you very much. I think alphabetical sorting helps if you know what you are looking for by name. But then a user would just search for the item and miss this page. If they are not sure how to spell it, this would help.

I only found the page because I wanted to know what legendaries are available for 80's. Few users are going for lower level gear at all anyway, though it's possible. This would keep relevant data more accessible. I think that this is a more common need for this page, and so a (80, 70, 60, unavailable) bracketing makes more sense. Francis2559 (talk) 17:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Shard of the Defiler

Is in the wowhead database but not the armoury. Should it be added under 'unavailable'? --Grynd (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Other than Legendary being used for explanation of a game term, it and this article are redundant (although I like the layout of the latter more). I suggest that Legendary items either be merged into the former or, alternatively, strip the item list from the Legendary page. I don't understand the point in needing to do upkeep for two article pages where one should suffice. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 05:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not really against keeping both myself, I do agree with your point that the "legendary" page probably shouldn't have a list, because if it did, the "legendary items" page would be kinda redundant. A few legendaries might deserve an honorable mention on the "legendary" page, but overall, I don't think the individual items should be listed there, seeing as it also breaks with how the pages for the lower qualities are structured. PeterWind (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)