User talk:Dark T Zeratul/Archive05
 |
This is an archive of User talk:Dark T Zeratul.
|
VisionOfPerfection
When you get on, looks like it's time to ban VisionOfPerfection. Their recent edits have totally vandalised all pages related to the ongoing necromancy discussion. I might revert but not sure if there's much point without a block. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. The guy blanked a lot of pages for no reason, commiting flagant vandalism (as he added some "information" to the blanked pages, related to soul shards).
Cemotucu (talk contribs) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- And notice those comments. Ah... no words... --Mordecay (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've given him a day to cool off. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- And notice those comments. Ah... no words... --Mordecay (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- His time out hasn't done much to change his attitude. He's still removing the necromancer class from Gul'dan's page while simultaneously trying to argue that all warlocks are necromancers (regardless of what any Blizzard historians might think). Moreover, his comments on Talk:Warlock are growing progressively more insulting. Egrem (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. It's one thing to tenaciously persevere in an argument, but personal aggression and insults have no place in a rational discussion. If they are to be allowed to continue editing, they need a serious attitude change, sharp, or they should not be part of the community. They also seem to be abundantly willing to edit pages simply because they think they're right, even if current consensus strongly disagrees with them, which even in the better cases is very close to breaking policy regarding ongoing discussions. A thorough tracking of their contributions may be necessary. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- His time out hasn't done much to change his attitude. He's still removing the necromancer class from Gul'dan's page while simultaneously trying to argue that all warlocks are necromancers (regardless of what any Blizzard historians might think). Moreover, his comments on Talk:Warlock are growing progressively more insulting. Egrem (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Reporting a vandal
AzariahFTW vandalized a couple articles, adding ASCII for a certain anatomy, and creating a silly quest page that was in the same vein as the prior edits. I can't recall ever having to report a user on Wowpedia, so I figured I should go an administrator's talk page. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I put AzariaFTW on the violations page so any admin can deal with it if they happen to log in before DTZ. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Re: Naraxis' Fang
I did look at both databases before editing the article. I don't know why Wowhead didn't nuke the drop data, as I'm very inclined to believe the comment on the Wowhead page for it (scarcity of comments -- even recent ones -- on page, the person had farmed for it before). And I find it very telling that there is no drop data for the dagger on WoWDB.
Looking at the recent changes again, I see you've noted the comments on Wowhead as well. I would like to leave my comment here, nonetheless, for future reference. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 00:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Enchant names in 6.0
I'd like it if you could join in the discussion here. --g0urra[T҂C] 10:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Your Recent Deletion of My Articles
I'm not very happy with the fact that you recently deleted two of my articles simply because you felt there was "no need" for them to exist. The reason why I added these articles (beyond just being titles) is because I think they are important to the Warcraft II games and they also tie into the lore as far as references to other games, characters, novels, etc. is concerned. I am going to go ahead and restore both articles for this reason since I believe they were unduly deleted.
For you to just go ahead and blatantly delete those articles because you feel they are unnecessary is a complete disregard for whatever work I might be doing here in the future. I would think as an administrator you would exercise better judgement when going around and deleting other people's work on this wiki without consulting them first about it. I would gladly hear your response on this matter. -- Feeltriss (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is literally no lore at all behind those titles. There is no way the pages can ever have more information than "character X has this title." At best, you can have some speculation as to what it means, but ultimately there's nothing that could go on those pages that wouldn't be better suited to notes on their respective characters' pages. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- And you feel this is justification for you to delete the articles because...? The lore is coming from the game itself. Or perhaps the lore is in another source. There are countless other articles on this wiki with less lore or information related to them, but those articles are still here. How is it hurting you that these articles exist to explain the origins behind where these titles came from and/or who they are referring to? -- Feeltriss (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- What lore, exactly, is there for these titles? One page contained absolutely no information except "Gul'dan has this title," and the other openly stated that there was no lore for the title but speculated where Khadgar might have gotten it. The articles did not explain the origins of the titles, and what little there was about where they came from and what they referred to was entirely speculation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- The titles are coming from the game, which is lore. If the titles weren't a part of the game, then I wouldn't have made an article about them. The origins were/are explained in-game and in what I wrote or was in the process of writing about them. And Gul'dan's title which you are referring to was marked as a Stub article for that reason since I still wanted to do some research into other sources like the novels for reference material. And is there something wrong with adding speculation to an article? -- Feeltriss (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that the titles exist - that's why they're listed on Gul'dan and Khadgar's pages. What I'm disputing is that there's any need whatsoever for them to have their own pages. And while there's nothing wrong with adding speculation to an article, an article that's almost entirely speculation (and it was) is something to be avoided. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Except you are not disputing anything with anyone. You just went ahead and deleted both articles without my consent or without having a conversation on the matter, which is a complete disregard for the rules set forth in Project: Deletion policy. And if there are pages for the titles of
[Private], 
[Corporal], 
[Sergeant], etc., which have absolutely no content in them whatsoever, then I don't see why there can't also be two articles for actual important titles that major characters in the lore have, WITH references which clearly state where the titles came from in-game or from the manuals and what they refer to. This is why I made the articles to begin with. So people who want to know can look up the titles and see what they are, where they first came from, and who or what they refer to. And the articles were certainly not entirely speculation as you want to claim they are. Again, what gives you the justification to decide what is worthy of being a page and what isn't when there was clearly enough material on those pages to begin with? -- Feeltriss (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Except you are not disputing anything with anyone. You just went ahead and deleted both articles without my consent or without having a conversation on the matter, which is a complete disregard for the rules set forth in Project: Deletion policy. And if there are pages for the titles of
- I'm not disputing that the titles exist - that's why they're listed on Gul'dan and Khadgar's pages. What I'm disputing is that there's any need whatsoever for them to have their own pages. And while there's nothing wrong with adding speculation to an article, an article that's almost entirely speculation (and it was) is something to be avoided. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- The titles are coming from the game, which is lore. If the titles weren't a part of the game, then I wouldn't have made an article about them. The origins were/are explained in-game and in what I wrote or was in the process of writing about them. And Gul'dan's title which you are referring to was marked as a Stub article for that reason since I still wanted to do some research into other sources like the novels for reference material. And is there something wrong with adding speculation to an article? -- Feeltriss (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- What lore, exactly, is there for these titles? One page contained absolutely no information except "Gul'dan has this title," and the other openly stated that there was no lore for the title but speculated where Khadgar might have gotten it. The articles did not explain the origins of the titles, and what little there was about where they came from and what they referred to was entirely speculation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- And you feel this is justification for you to delete the articles because...? The lore is coming from the game itself. Or perhaps the lore is in another source. There are countless other articles on this wiki with less lore or information related to them, but those articles are still here. How is it hurting you that these articles exist to explain the origins behind where these titles came from and/or who they are referring to? -- Feeltriss (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
While I didn't see the content of those pages before they were deleted, it seems overkill to make a separate page for NPC titles. Next, there will be pages for every title ever held by a NPC character. Titles that are/were obtainable by players and can still be displayed are a different matter entirely. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Artifact
Was there any new article page made for the pre-Legion information? All I'm finding is pretty much just the original talk page that you archived. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 18:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- There was, but it really contained very little solid information since artifacts were never actually available to players. It was mostly speculation and whatever blue posts referenced them. I think the biggest indicator of how much relevant information it actually held is that it included an entire section on the item color. I condensed everything noteworthy into the section at the bottom of the new page, including the list of legacy artifacts. You can always check the edit history if you're really curious. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Shadow priest PvP guide
I was in the middle of moving the article page when you added your comment on the subject and didn't see your edits until after the fact. Should I finish what I was doing or...? -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 23:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The Skull of Tyrannistrasz
I don't want to get into an edit war, so let's sort it out here. The reason I used comment instead of note is the same reason why I undid your revision. On Template:Patch, it is specifically stated that note is "quoted text from patch notes"; comment is for "un-official notes, undocumented changes or additional info" (emphasis mine). Aliok (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's been used... Very inconsistently then. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
TCG Orgrimmar Grunts full image
This WarlordFromAnotherWorld keeps uploading an entirely different image to File:Orgrimmar Grunts full.jpg. DeludedTroll already reverted it once, but the person simply re-uploaded their image. I try to revert that edit but keep receiving the error "The edit appears to have already been undone" even though it hasn't been. I don't want have to re-upload the actual image again, so is there anything that can be done short of that? -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 22:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW I tried undoing myself and received the same error. Actually this isn't the first time I have encountered the error; when I thought I'd goofed on File:Eldtyara.gif and attempted to undo, I had exactly same error. Quite odd. Aliok (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Blood
Herro, I am about to create a page for blood, and I believe the anima page should be merged with it. What do I do? Leave the two separate?VisionOfPerfection (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
Live action imagery
Hey, I wanted to get your input on something.
With the flow of content regarding the Warcraft movie, we're getting a look at characters in their live-action form for the first time. With ones like Taria Wrynn, the content can only be based solely on the films, but what would you think about other characters having their main infobox images being the versions as shown in the film, such as Durotan and Anduin Lothar? MightyBotto (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's something that should be brought up in the forums so everyone can have a voice on this.
(Sssss/Slithered) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sylvanas
hey here the sylvanas thingy http://beta.wowdb.com/quests/39692-the-call-of-war —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alliancevshorde (talk · contr).
- That's datamined info, and should not be posted here as per our DNP policy. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Bleeding Hollow Fel Horde
Was the portion joining the Illidari willingly in Beyond the Dark Portal? Ingame we see many Mag'har in the Bleeding Hollow, and several Mag'har forced into Fel Orcs, so it doesn't seem unlikely to me that many Bleeding Hollow Fel Orcs were those captured. Copperblast (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's possible some of the Bleeding Hollow were unwilling converts, but there's nothing that really suggests the clan as a whole was forced into it, especially as they were the ones doing the forcing in the Blood Furnace. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well we know the first Fel Orcs in the Blood Furnace were Kargath's Shattered Hand who went there willingly according to Beyond the Dark Portal. Most of the Bleeding Hollow were stalling with Kilrogg Deadeye, and none were depicted as going to the Blood Furnace to my recollection. So it seems unclear whether they went into it willingly. We also don't see Bleeding Hollow NPCS in the Blood Furnace. Copperblast (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't use Beyond the Dark Portal as a guide to how things are in Outland; that was decades earlier before there WAS a Fel Horde, or Illidan, or Magtheridon.
- I thought Blood Furnace was mostly Bleeding Hollow orcs, but you're right - I went back and checked, and it's all Laughing Skull and Shadowmoon. On the other hand, though, I didn't see that any of the prisoners were identified as Bleeding Hollow (or any clan at all), so there's still nothing to suggest that they didn't join willingly. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I mean the novel, sorry I should've clarified.
- Well in the novel, none of the Bleeding Hollow orcs went to Blood Furnace with Kargath, and Kilrogg was shown not to be crazy about demon blood, so its gives some motivation for the Bleeding Hollow not to join willingly.
- On another subject, the novel gives no mention of the Laughing Skull Clan helping the Alliance, so its possible it was retconned? Copperblast (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't mean that the game was made decades before Burning Crusade, I meant that the events of the game and/or novel happened decades earlier; there's almost twenty years of time between the invasion of Draenor and the incursion into Outland, and Illidan only showed up within the last five. Beyond the Dark Portal is therefore not particularly useful for determining modern-day relationships. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I put became part of the Fel Horde, due to the vagueness. The Ilidan novel covers it a bit, mind if I tell you? Copperblast (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well we know the first Fel Orcs in the Blood Furnace were Kargath's Shattered Hand who went there willingly according to Beyond the Dark Portal. Most of the Bleeding Hollow were stalling with Kilrogg Deadeye, and none were depicted as going to the Blood Furnace to my recollection. So it seems unclear whether they went into it willingly. We also don't see Bleeding Hollow NPCS in the Blood Furnace. Copperblast (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Veras Darkshadow
Are you talking about the new Legion book? Xporc (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- World of Warcraft: Illidan, yeah. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I edit the page to say that despite looking like a demon hunter he actually isn't one and add a reference to the book then?Xporc (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno that it's needed; he dual-wields daggers and uses poisons and vanish; it seems pretty obvious that he's a rogue. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I edit the page to say that despite looking like a demon hunter he actually isn't one and add a reference to the book then?Xporc (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Trollbane and Stromgarde
Hello, can you offer some meditation here by giving your thoughts on the points discussed? The discussion isn't really going anywhere. ShadowShade81413 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Movie characters
Hi, now that Durotan is coming next week, I was thinking of what was previously said about the characters of the movieverse. Coobra agreed to have Name (movie) for their articles but I was thinking that with the expanded literature it could be Name (movie universe) (since some don't appear only in the movie). Thoughts?
Suggested Warcraft movie actors ideas
Instead of completely removing the characters from the page, do you think it may be more prudent to have a section at the bottom of the page for already-cast characters that aren't up for debate anymore? MightyBotto (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. There's little use in keeping an archive of every actor that fans have come up with as a possibility. It's also consistent with pages like Race ideas. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Earthshrine portals
Previously, if a character had not unlocked the portal to a Cataclysm zone you did not see it at all (ie. inactive). Now you can see them all, regardless of your character's level. So that's what I meant by "permanently active". You still have to be the appropriate level to actually use them, though. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 03:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. That was not clear from the wording. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Drops/skinning/pick pocket
I saw you removed some of the loot tables on some of the Black Temple mobs. I had been wondering what the consensus was on those. To me they seem, in most cases unnecessary. Apart from cases where the mob in question has unique loot/skins/pick pocket drops, it seems to me that such info is more fitting on other fan sites. Often, when looking through old mob pages, more than half the article is taken up by those tables. Do we keep or delete those tables? Many are also no longer acurate with the changes of cataclysm. PeterWind (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say drop them, when people are looking through old articles I guess they are mostly here about the lore, not about some old grey items from a decade ago Xporc (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, list any notable or unique drops, but the full tables are unnecessary. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Battle Trance
I saw that you moved the old Battle Trance talent to 
[Battle Trance], with the motivation that there's already a talent, however the current one is an honor talent and I've been using "(<class> honor talent)" to distinguish talents from honor talents. What do you think? --g0urra[T҂C] 18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's one of those things where talent vs. honor talent has the potential to cause confusion, even though they are the official terms. If the non-honor talent is no longer in the game, I'd prefer to minimize the confusion and clarify that the disambiguation is to an old spell/talent with that name. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Typo or rename
Perhaps rename wasn't the correct term here. The word guide was added to the title. PeterWind (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought it was just moving the apostrophe from Extreme' to Anglin'. One of the problems with super-long item names, I suppose. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Broken youtube tag
You left out a < in the tag for the Patch 7.1.0 trailer. Tried to correct it myself, but TIL I can't fix youtube tags of the sort you used. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 22:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it gave me an error when I tried to save it with the proper tags, too, so I just broke it and figured I'd go back and fix it later (unless someone else knows of a fix). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Combine Pages
Hi boss, if it's possible, please combine the element, elemental, and elemental spirit pages. It seems unnecessary having three pages about basically the same thing. Combine them and I'll try to make a pretty page.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
- This is a discussion that you should start on the Talk page of one of those (probably elemental). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
ShellShockLive
Hi, can give a warning to ShellShockLive? I need to look up on wowpedia's policies again, but is re-wording canon information so that it seems to mean something entirely else fraud or vandalism? Canon establishes that the Burning Legion feeds warlocks their powers, "allowing them to channel destructive energies and call upon the demonic emissaries of their demon masters", yet Shellshock reworded what canon established to make it seem as if warlocks tapping into chaotic magics is what allows warlocks to do these things. When I present information here, I avoid rewording information, and I don't believe it's necessary for him to reword the information I present. I feel as if he's just editing the information I add just to annoy me or to make me angry and, honestly, it's upsetting. I'm not presenting misinformation or rewording canon information while he is, so I really just want you to stop these edit wars I seem to be having with him.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
- I can guarantee, he is not doing this just to annoy you or make you angry. He simply disagrees with you. I urge you to read our policy on assuming good faith, because you seem to be taking every edit someone else makes personally, which is really not a good thing. Keep in mind, this is a communal wiki, not your personal project for defining how magic works according to your own interpretations (which is exactly what they are). I applaud you for wanting to avoid edit wars, but the proper solution is to discuss the matter on the article's Talk page rather than asking an admin to take punitive action against someone who does not think exactly how you do. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Icon errors (My bad)
Hi ! During my updates for icons, I made 2 mistakes : 
(I don't remember why I created this one) and 
(I don't know how a duplicate this). so can you erase the first and merge the seconds please ? Klakmuf 23:33, 07 January 2017
- It looks like all three are heavily in use. I would recommend asking Coobra or Gourra about how best to merge the latter two. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is what tends to happen when icons are around for years. So
can stay and the Ragnaros icons have been fixed. (Sssss/Slithered) 01:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Can you merge RaceIcon|Maiden into
too or not ? (because there too many npc's who use different colors of this model) Klakmuf 12:30, 12 January 2017
- Thank you ! Can you merge RaceIcon|Maiden into
- That is what tends to happen when icons are around for years. So
Ashen Ring item article
I thought it was Wowpedia's general policy not to create articles for items that are not notable in some way? I am confused because I could swear I was told by somebody not to create articles for junk-type items at some point. Was I misinformed? Aliok (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Those were articles for items that appeared in Wowhead's database but weren't actually obtainable in any way in-game. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Old loot tables
Hey. While moving through mob by zone categories and "removed in patch x" categories I've come across a good deal of old loot tables. Figured I might as well ask. How noteworthy do items have to be to stay? I figure quest items should remain. Unique drops aswell. In some cases I think crafting reagents can be justified, although that is not really an issue for me. Ofcourse I don't think every humanoid and undead needs the specific cloths listed as drops, and probably same with all the other "obvious" crafting stuff like stones from stone elementals, but rarer materials perhaps. I've at time left "rarer" poor or common items aswell if they only drop from specific or few mobs. Again, not a big issue, but always nice with some feedback. What are your opinions on this? PeterWind (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I really only leave items that are specific to that creature like quest items or unique drops. Anything that's a world drop (even if it's a more narrow world drop like "any level 40-50 earth elemental" I leave off. I might make exceptions for things like recipes, but not relatively common crafting materials. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking "rare" materials like
[Righteous Orb] or 
[Guardian Stone]. But yeah okay that works for me. PeterWind (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, obviously things like those should stay. I was going by the elemental pages I'd just pruned of things like
[Solid Stone] and 
[Essence of Earth]. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I was uncertain of those but I'll keep it to just the most specific items from now on. PeterWind (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, maybe we could add to the earth elemental page that most of them will drop stuff like
[Elemental Earth] and [Essence of Earth] ? Xporc (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- For items that drop from that wide a variety of creatures, it's much better to just make sure the source info on the item page is clear. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, obviously things like those should stay. I was going by the elemental pages I'd just pruned of things like
- I was thinking "rare" materials like
- Figuring I'd root out some of those old tables, I just went directly to the "source" (
), as the icon is used in those table. What about all those mobs with raidwide random drops? For places like Naxxramas those lists can be quite extensive, even if the table is removed. Isn't it fine to just have the source information on those random drop items, instead of those lists on all the mobs? PeterWind (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you show me an example so I can make sure I'm looking at the same thing? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at this one Patchwork Golem (original). The scraps and thawing scroll have a lot higher drop chance than the epics ofcourse, but as far as I know/recall, the items on this list were just zone drops. PeterWind (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd just stick a list of raidwide drops like that on the instance page itself. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at this one Patchwork Golem (original). The scraps and thawing scroll have a lot higher drop chance than the epics ofcourse, but as far as I know/recall, the items on this list were just zone drops. PeterWind (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you show me an example so I can make sure I'm looking at the same thing? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
MMWQ's Panoramics
There was some concern over their quality. They were high resolution, but warped and not cropped.--SWM2448 00:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Mostly I just wanted to preserve file history instead of uploading an entirely new file and deleting the old ones. I've got no strong opinion on whether or not to revert to the old version. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Requests for comments
Can you please weigh in on some of the things filling the RFC category, if you have not already?--SWM2448 01:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Table of Contents column?
Figured I'd ask you about it, considering you helped me out a while ago with how to produce a ToC.
Would it be possible to separate a ToC into columns? As to reduce the overall size of the ToC, to keep it from becoming Burj Khalifa on a page. WarGodZajru (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware this is not something that can be done. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, alright, that's a bummer. :c
- Thanks anyway. WarGodZajru (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
New admins
Yo! I've been taking a look at the sysops category of wowpedia, and noticed that several of the "semi-active" administrators are not active at all anymore. Are you satisfied with the current state of things? Do you think it would be better to empower some more contributors and fill the gap? I know I wouldn't mind being able to have more frequent bot actions. Xporc (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Hey. Could you please take a look at this please? Xporc (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Questions
Hello,
Will you review my requested changes to the Alliance and Horde Infoboxes?
Also, how can one become a PRO user? --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)