User talk:Surafbrov/Archive01
NOTE: This is an archive, please do not edit it! See User talk:Surafbrov for the current talk page.
Patch changes
We don't typically include patch changes for things that were present when the game went live. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Dungeon Journal icons
These aren't going to be a new thing that is inserted into all the boss pages, journal entries are they? 
(Sssss/Slithered) 08:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well i have them all and i can do them all i just don't have a good place to put them. — Surafbrov T / C 08:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Patch section heading
I am just following what the boilerplate provides, and personally I view "Patches and hotfixes" to be more inclusive because not every change is from a patch. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
And before I forget again to mention this, section headings ought to be as consistent as possible. If you believe that the default name should be changed, it would be preferred if you brought this up in the forums (or wherever appropriate) instead giving me an eye twitch. :P -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 01:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Your signature
Somehow, changing your signature from a list of icons to a giant blue name stopped it from transcluding. Please fix this. It is too big to appear every time that you sign. I do not see the error, though your setup is odd, so it might be on your end in your preferences.--SWM2448 23:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Champion wealth
Hi Zdroid :) I saw you added {{cost}} for a couple of the pandarian champions. While the info is technically accurate, I don't feel it's really very useful, and clutters up the infobox a bit. None of the champions' wealth seems to even be as high as 1
, and since they are all pretty old content now, it seems especially unworthwhile to clutter eg. Kornas' display with the knowledge that he drops 34
55
;) -- Taohinton (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Internal NPC articles
Heya. I've noticed you've been creating a lot of npc articles for internal boss mechanics (like yu'lon's jadefire wall). Generally, if there's no content for the npc itself, we can do without a sub-stub for it, but you can put an elink on the main page for the encounter (in this case, Yu'lon (tactics)) pointing to the NPC. As an example, check out Blingtron 3000. The NPCs as part of the encounter (the Blingtron 2000 and the Gnomish Tesla Coil) are still on the wiki and still have their external links at the bottom of the page, but they don't need a separate article with no other content than an empty npcbox. They're just redirects to the Blingtron 3000 article.
You've been doing an excellent job filling in new content, so please keep up the good work and don't let this scare you off. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks again! --k_d3 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I hope I fixed it, not sure if the redirects pages should be deleted but its dealt with. :) — Surafbrov T / C 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
{{achievements}}
Is adding {{achievements}} at the end of every achievement article (e.g. 
[The Masquerade]) really a good idea? It seems equivalent to adding a hypothetical {{items}} at the end of every item article, to link to things like Axe and Sword -- the template is a little too generic, and categories/see also sections already offer a better way to find related achievements. — foxlit (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- It gives a easier navigation to other articles of the achievements. That's how I see it useful. — Surafbrov T / C 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Which specific other articles, and is there any reason to expect that anyone would want to get to those from an individual achievement page? The current navbox certainly doesn't, for example, help anyone find the rest of Hallow's End achievements which seems like the most obvious use case. In general, linking every article from every other article would also "give a easier navigation," (as the links would be, like, right there!) but that doesn't necessarily make that plan a good idea. — foxlit (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that template is fully finished which I think It was suppose to be on all the achievement pages with the correct category, for example,
[Level 10] would have {{Achievements|General}}. That's my concern about this and a reason why I'm applying this template to all the achievements so far. — Surafbrov T / C 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)- In that case, I think "finishing" the template first would be a better course of action. If the syntax is supposed to be
{{Achievements|General}}, isn't the work you're doing by adding just{{achievements}}essentially wasted, as you (or someone else) are going to have to add the category to those tags later? — foxlit (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)- Well at first I thought this wouldn't have been an issue until now, but if I were to complete the template, I'm not sure what its suppose to be. I'm thinking something familiar like
{{Creautrefooter|Beasts}}but then if you look how much achievements there are; It would be too big. — Surafbrov T / C 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)- There's way too many achievements to place them all into footers. It would be massive, honestly not happy with how the mounts one is, but whats done is done. (Sssss/Slithered) 04:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the current navbox isn't particularly helpful on achievement articles (it seems more suitable for achievement category articles, e.g. General achievements), and "completing" the template to include intra-category navigation is impractical (though maybe it should (depending on the current article?) include links to sub-categories like World Events achievements/Hallow's End -- but are those subcategory pages even meant to be stand-alone articles, or are they merely a workaround to limit the size of their parent articles?). In any case, I'm still not sure I like the idea of adding {{achievements}} to the bottom of every achievement article -- it seems like overkill to add a whole navbox to include a single relevant link (to the achievement's parent category). — foxlit (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- (I originally posed the question here because Zdroid was adding the navbox to a large number of achievement articles. The template is actually included in the achievement boilerplate, so a better place for this discussion might be Template talk:Achievements, Help talk:Achievement articles, or even a forum thread. We could continue the conversation here for a bit, but please feel free to move it off your talk page if you like.) — foxlit (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's way too many achievements to place them all into footers. It would be massive, honestly not happy with how the mounts one is, but whats done is done.
- Well at first I thought this wouldn't have been an issue until now, but if I were to complete the template, I'm not sure what its suppose to be. I'm thinking something familiar like
- In that case, I think "finishing" the template first would be a better course of action. If the syntax is supposed to be
- I don't think that template is fully finished which I think It was suppose to be on all the achievement pages with the correct category, for example,
- Which specific other articles, and is there any reason to expect that anyone would want to get to those from an individual achievement page? The current navbox certainly doesn't, for example, help anyone find the rest of Hallow's End achievements which seems like the most obvious use case. In general, linking every article from every other article would also "give a easier navigation," (as the links would be, like, right there!) but that doesn't necessarily make that plan a good idea. — foxlit (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Continued at Template talk:Achievements#Template.
Dorthar
Dorthar is actually a canon character from Bloodsworn. The article you moved just needed a huge update. --Mordecay (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh my bad; It looked like a made up character of/or some sort. I did look it up and found no information about it. — Surafbrov T / C 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Do not copy from wowwiki
It is not appropriate to copy article content and images from wowwiki onto Wowpedia without proper attribution. In particular, your recent revisions to the Battle.net Desktop app article, and uploads like File:Raid quest icon.png seem to be stemming directly from the corresponding articles and images on wowwiki. This is disallowed by wowwiki's (and wowpedia's, if the direction was reversed) license: CC-BY-SA explicitly requires that you provide attribution for the original authors of the content you republish.
In most cases, we would prefer it if you simply didn't copy content from wowwiki at all: the editorial style between the two wikis is sufficiently different that such content would ultimately need to be rewritten or removed. In cases where the Wowpedia article is out of date, it's preferable to update it in a way that makes sense using primary sources, rather than wowwiki article. In cases where there is no reasonable way to update from other sources, please use {{WoWWiki credit}} to provide attribution to the original authors, as is required by the CC-BY-SA license.
Please do not copy content from wowwiki without attribution in the future. If you've copied files or article text from wowwiki to other articles, please tag them with {{WoWWiki credit}} now. — foxlit (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never knew about the template.... ._. I knew there was something like this and I never found it; I read policies and everything. Found nothing about this. Thank you... — Surafbrov T / C 23:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Achievement links
Hi Zdroid :) I've started a discussion at User_Talk:Coobra#Achievement links about your conversion of normal links for achievements to {{Achievement}}. I know you do a lot of good work, but I'm not in agreement with your approach on this particular point. Perhaps you could comment there to let me know your response. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have commented on it. Please take a look at it for a reason why I have been doing this. Thank you :) — Surafbrov T / C 20:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to check you get my reply on User_Talk:Coobra#Achievement links. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Warlords of Draenor
Since Warlords of Draenor is dealing with an alternative timeline, it brings into question on how the articles for characters like Durotan and Gul'dan should be handled. Please see Forum:Warlords of Draenor Characters as we attempt to figure exactly how to handle this. If you have any suggestions feel free to add them. --X59 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Items added on PTR
When making an article of an item that is on the PTR, add {{Stub/PTR|<patch number>}}. I fixed this on 
[Bipsi's Bobbing Berg] and Iron Chimaera. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
wowhead and pre-1.12.1 content
Heya, just a heads-up: Wowhead started in Patch 1.12.1, so that's the earliest date they'll have on any added/changed/removed info. Don't trust those dates.
Additionally, on content that was removed for the game or never made it out of beta, make sure to put |doc= in any templates to keep them from generating categories. Any WoW-content categories are for items still in the game. Thanks for the good work as always. --k_d3 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I already knew about the wowhead started in patch 1.12.1 ;p and thanks for informing me. — Surafbrov T / C 23:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Copying WoWWiki
Copying articles from WoWWiki is frowned upon, including their April Fools "World of Warcraft: Fogs of Furbolgia" article. Copying their April fools, especially 8 months later, is not something that you should do. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to put the template...... but yea when I use that template, it is either removed or unnecessary... Shame on me once, use this template. Shame on me twice, evil frowned is upon myself. Anyways, that article was an official april fools joke by blizzard. My apologizies. — Surafbrov T / C 19:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Stubs
When creating an item article that has no source added, such as 
[Axe of the Iron Price] and 
[Robes of the Quiet Isle], add {{Stub/Item}} at the top. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yea kinda knew that I was missing something for those, thanks for the notification and corrections! — Surafbrov T / C 21:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Image sizes
Can you make sure to scale down the scans before you upload them? 3.5mb images are way too big. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
WoD glyphs and abilities
I've reverted your edits adding WoD glyphs to the current class abilities pages, since as with all WoD changes, these don't reflect the current game. If you want to create /Warlords pages for those pages though, and then add the glyphs there, that would be a good start down that road. This has already been done for Monk abilities. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yea, kinda did my mistake there and I just read about creating the /Warlords for the WoD instead of changing the current game information on the main article. Thank you for correcting it. — Surafbrov T / C 17:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Page moves
If you move a page that you didn't mean to mean, you can use the Move function to simply move it back, which will overwrite the redirect. Don't just copy the text to the other page and redirect the new one, or you'll lose the edit history. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Image licensing
Out of interest, what makes you think File:Molten Giant by woxy.jpg is covered by CC-BY-SA? — foxlit (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen others covered by CC-BY-SA (on deviantart). This one does not seem to have it, so it must be changed. — Surafbrov T / C 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this classifies as fair use, either; could you elaborate a bit on your reasoning? — foxlit (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have no little of a reasoning for this. The image may not fall under fairuse, but I think its the closest than any other license Wowpedia has. — Surafbrov T / C 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it doesn't fall under fair use, and there's no other applicable license, the image should not have been uploaded; picking a random license, or labelling it as fair use, is about as meaningful as including "no copywrite intended" disclaimers. Basically, the only way fan art can appear on Wowpedia is if it was released under a permissive license, or if the creator otherwise granted explicit permission. — foxlit (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have no little of a reasoning for this. The image may not fall under fairuse, but I think its the closest than any other license Wowpedia has. — Surafbrov T / C 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this classifies as fair use, either; could you elaborate a bit on your reasoning? — foxlit (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Section heading markup
Hey, I noticed you just changed some of the wiki markup for section headings (in this case on Project:Guidelines) so that there are no longer spaces between the equals signs and the section name. I was wondering if there was a guideline that specified whether spaces should be present or not? Personally I think having spaces is more readable for people editing the page, and also the examples in Help:Editing use spaces. But it's not the kind of thing I usually bother to change if I'm not already editing the section. (This is the kind of thing that you initially think "nah, this is too minor to need a guideline", but then you have a situation where a "no spaces" person takes out the spaces, then 6 months later a "spaces person" puts them back in, and it's just a waste of the history log haha.) - jerodast (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also, seeing my own comment get posted just reminded me that when you "add comment" on a talk page, the automatically generated comment uses a space as well :) - jerodast (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Its not really an issue, but the spaces do count toward when viewing the actual article; the section heading will be shifted over just a space due to the space on the left of the header. It's not really an issue but I do agree with you when its just a waste of history space. Also, it makes sense that it could be easier to read for the editors. But thanks, I'll stop this if you want me too. No big deal.
And I know about that "add comment" thingy. ;)— Surafbrov T / C 17:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Its not really an issue, but the spaces do count toward when viewing the actual article; the section heading will be shifted over just a space due to the space on the left of the header. It's not really an issue but I do agree with you when its just a waste of history space. Also, it makes sense that it could be easier to read for the editors. But thanks, I'll stop this if you want me too. No big deal.
- This is just wrong; leading spaces in section headings (and, for that matter, any kind of list) do not result in any visible padding. — foxlit (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would never presume to "want someone to stop" doing something there is no guideline for, but I appreciate the offer :) This was just more me a) being OCD and worrying about consistency and back-and-forth changes, and b) wondering if there were formatting guidelines I was unaware of. I think I will continue feeling like a noob around her for another 5 years or so... Anyway don't worry about it! - jerodast (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
RTS remake reference
<ref name="Warcraft remake">{{ref web|date=2013-11-10|url=http://www.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/blizzard-entertainment-looking-for-lead-producer-of-new-unannounced-game|title=Blizzard Working On Bringing Warcraft & Warcraft II To Modern PCs|publisher=Gamespot|author=Kyle Hilliard|accessdate=2014-01-03}}</ref>
The link you added for the other reference isn't from Gamespot and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the RTS updates. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. This reference was originally from the Blizzard Entertainment article but I have fixed it up along with the correct link and publisher. I must've been not aware of it of checking it, until now. Thanks for informing me about that! :) — Surafbrov T / C 04:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Achievement strategies
Why are you removing the Strategy sections for achievements? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Let me be more clear: please stop removing the Strategy sections for achievements unless you can explain why. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The ones I removed were a mess and out of date. The ones that needs a cleanup I marked with the {{Cleanup}} template. I can add them back if so.. — Surafbrov T / C 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- We have the {{Outdated}} template for that. And just because most people aren't doing those achievements at their intended levels anymore doesn't mean the strategies are obsolete and should be removed; we don't remove boss strategies from old expansions. It would be appreciated if you would revert their removals and add cleanup or outdated templates where necessary. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The ones I removed were a mess and out of date. The ones that needs a cleanup I marked with the {{Cleanup}} template. I can add them back if so.. — Surafbrov T / C 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Project:UN
I'm curious what your relationship is to User:Ronvenal, you shared the same IP address and browser for the two edits in July. Are you the same person? (Sockpuppetry is not allowed per Project:UN). --Pcj (T•C) 23:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was originally created by someone else using my computer, but no longer. The account is no longer in any use accordingly to this day. As from what I've heard recently. Sorry if this caused any confusion. — Surafbrov T / C 00:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
RE: RTS Patches
Hey, thanks for the template. It will certainly be useful!
PIESofNORTH (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Moving files
Hey Zdroid. I just fixed two broken links to File:Pointer fishinghook on 32x32.png on Fishing, resulting from you moving the file back in May. I seem to remember coming across something similar a few months ago, so in case it's not just a random slip I thought I'd mention it's always worth either leaving the redirect, or at least checking the 'what links here' page when/before moving files; it saves time fixing broken links later. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Restoring Deleted Articles
Hello. Since you recently left a message on my talk page, I would like to ask if you could please restore the version history of two articles (namely Keeper of the Eternal Watch and Destroyer of Dreams) which I had previously written but were recently deleted by another administrator for some unknown reason. -- Feeltriss (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't have a privilege here to restore the pages that were deleted. You can make a discussion about this on the Village pump if they do serve a purpose but you'll have to provide a extraordinary reason why and be sure to be reasonable. — Surafbrov T / C 22:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Name change
Ho there, I noticed you changed your nick at some point. How do I do that? Don't wanna "94" in mine. --Mordecay (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- All I did was just contact Curse customer support and they'll help you change your name. Here, just follow this support article. :) — Surafbrov T / C 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just to warn you, it'll break any of your user pages, such as mine for the Dungeon Journal images and my signature that I've signed before the name change. — Surafbrov T / C 22:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Cap was removed, why wasn't removed from tooltip
Cause you don't change the tooltips during the PTR, which was when that patch note was added. Revision as of 22:51, 13 April 2015. (Sssss/Slithered) 02:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I knew when I assumed that was the reason, I was right. Anyways, thanks. — Surafbrov T / C 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't done with the article
Yesterday, I spent four or five hours doing a pass on the table of toys. I am feeling frustrated right now, for these reasons:
- I tried to word the change summary to make it obvious that I was not finished with what I was doing.
- I go to sleep and wake up with a change diff that gives me a panic attack that all my work yesterday was undone.
- I didn't have the time to type out what my goal is for the Toy Box article and get consensus for it. (Pass 1 was just getting as much info corrected and/or cleaned up before the next big change I was going to ask for.)
- Really, I'm just frustrated that I was still in a stage of improving the situation and, from my perspective, you came in and figuratively speaking put the majority of the alphabet blocks in a different box before I had a chance to communicate.
Moving the table of toys to its own template does nothing to ameliorate its massiveness and difficulty, and will only become more so with future expansions. The plan I was going to submit - and will be submitting on the talk page of Template:Toy Box now - is that we use templates to break down the size of the table. Whether by each alphabet letter or by a range of letters (ex: A - E, so forth) or some other measurement, is something to debate. I also bring up the issue of standardized terminology so readability isn't all over the place. "Quest" versus "Quest Reward," "Achievement" versus "Achievement Reward," "Sold by" versus "Purchased from," and more. I'm not trying to squat on the page and make everyone ask me for permission; that's not how a wiki should ever work. I just wish you'd said something first, or waited a day. Aliok (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- First off, I would like to apologize for such matter. I should have started a discussion about it first. From the way it was setup it was just too much, and moving it to a template did something (at least to a slightest, but not as helpful at all) but still kept the massive structure and overwhelming text wall. I'm willing to help you out with this issue to help make it easier for you. — Surafbrov T / C 17:54, 29 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. (Sssss/Slithered) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Stubs
Hello. I... am not a fan of you removing all these stubs from many articles. While in several cases the article already contained everything there was to say about their topics, I feel that you also removed the tag from many small articles that needed to be improved, and by removing these tags you made these articles that much harder to find for people willing to expand them. I know the policy about being bold, but next time could you try to discuss this with someone before to edit so many pages? Xporc (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on what stubs you're talking about? — Surafbrov T / C 07:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I'm a stupid idiot, just woke up, and should have took some time to fix my eyes before opening wowpedia. It's X59 who removed all the stubs. Sincere apologies. Xporc (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I knew something was wrong. No worries. — Surafbrov T / C 07:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with u tho! In some cases the stubs were ok to be removed but some pages were small and it is still possible to expand them with additional info from the game. This is what the stubs are for, no? I started adding canon sources some weeks back to the Marksman page and it is just few ones that I stumbled upon and I'm not sure if the page is in the state of being complete. Maybe something more from quests & NPCs can be found. --Mordecay (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I'm a stupid idiot, just woke up, and should have took some time to fix my eyes before opening wowpedia. It's X59 who removed all the stubs. Sincere apologies. Xporc (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary section removal
Hey, is there a reason why you're removing the "Summary" section from the image files? --Celellach (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- From image files in general or the ones I updated which came from a different source? Most summary sections are out of date any ways. — Surafbrov T / C 09:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The summaries where it just said "Patch x logo". I didn't find that harmful at all so was wondering what were the reasons for its removal. --Celellach (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Public client builds
I'm pretty sure it goes without saying. If a build is labeled "Release Candidate", then it's only logical that one would consider later PTR builds to hold the same. In fact, I can't recall Blizzard, in the history of the game, ever going from "Release Candidate" back to "Test" once they had an RC pushed to the PTR. I feel it's only reasonable to believe that the comment you added for today's released build is redundant. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 06:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Patch changes
Heya. I'm not sure of it's an official or informal policy, but usually it's not required to add the "patch changes -> added" to sub-regions. It's assumed that they were added at the same time as the main region, and if that's wrong (ex: the sub-region was added later), then it can be added. You also added wrong information, the Argent Tournament areas were not already there in 3.0.2 Xporc (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fully aware, though they weren't there before such patch. As with the Argent Tournament areas, yes they were around during 3.0.2 patch but they were under construction from what I remembered before 3.3.0. — Surafbrov T / C 12:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- According to this the building foundations were added in 3.1.0 and the construction of the colosseum was finished in 3.2.0. So they were not exactly here during 3.0.2. Xporc (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Everything is so miss placed everywhere. — Surafbrov T / C 12:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also according to the first revision of the Argent Tournament Grounds it was originally created a with a PTR tag, indication that it was to come in a future patch. Xporc (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think I remember when it was under construction. I honestly can't remember how the area looked at launch though. PeterWind (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to dig deeper into the Argent Tournament and see what I can find out. Although, I hope the current patch section is correct. Unless they should be removed — Surafbrov T / C 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- A bit late, but I can confirm that the Argent Tournament and all of its related subzones (including the daily quest areas) were all added after the Wrath launch. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to dig deeper into the Argent Tournament and see what I can find out. Although, I hope the current patch section is correct. Unless they should be removed — Surafbrov T / C 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think I remember when it was under construction. I honestly can't remember how the area looked at launch though. PeterWind (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also according to the first revision of the Argent Tournament Grounds it was originally created a with a PTR tag, indication that it was to come in a future patch. Xporc (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Everything is so miss placed everywhere. — Surafbrov T / C 12:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- According to this the building foundations were added in 3.1.0 and the construction of the colosseum was finished in 3.2.0. So they were not exactly here during 3.0.2. Xporc (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Brewfest
Nice brewfest updates! Xporc (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've noticed the Brewfest pages don't get updated as often each year, so I'm taking the time to do so till the end of this years Brewfest. Thanks! — Surafbrov T / C 21:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Placeholder item
Hey! I was looking through some beta stuff and saw you had described the 
[Placeholder, Blessed Holder of Places] as still being in-game, rather than being removed from beta. Was this item ever obtainable on live servers? I only saw this on the beta servers myself. PeterWind (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Primal Hakkari Idol
Hey, I saw you edited (I did not receive a notification of it?) out the patch notes (it being added in 1.11.0) on the article page of 
[Primal Hakkari Idol], why was this done and if you haven't read the discussion I had with Pcj about it being added in Patch 1.11.0 you can read it here on his talk page (Junkerd (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC))
- The only reason I did that is because it is almost impossible to get most items that were in those patches, but with more research well case close. But I didn't see such conversation at the time I made the edit. — Surafbrov T / C 14:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly would be best to link the conversation like such topics to the articles talk page itself or start the conversation on the article's talk page. In that case, surely it won't be as missed. — Surafbrov T / C 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Templateimage
{{templateimage}} is really only useful on images which do not appear on their template's pages: things like File:Boss icon Default.png (which doesn't show up on Template:BossIcon), but not File:Cataclysm-Icon.png, which does appear on Template:User Cata Beta: the former is at risk of being deleted because it might appear unused (or at least it would be, if it wasn't listed on Project:List of small icons), while the latter isn't, because Template:User Cata Beta will always appear in the "File Usage" section. For images like File:Cataclysm-Icon.png, it's best just to remove the {{templateimage}} tag from the file page. — foxlit (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- ? I'm guessing you meant to have it removed from File:Boss icon Default.png since it isn't directly linked on the template. — Surafbrov T / C 00:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, it's as above: the point of the template isn't really to categorize every image used through templates, but to prevent accidental deletion of images that are used by templates, but do not have those templates appear in their "File usage" section, making them occasionally appear unused. — foxlit (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Periods
Is there a policy / rule / something saying when to add comas to picture descriptions? Seems like majority of these have them. --Mordecay (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just because the majority have them, doesn't mean it is correct. Use the Legion article as an example. — Surafbrov T / C 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wallpapers
Hey, I noticed that Wallpaper#Warcraft III contains wallpaper versions of Warcraft III campaign screens. Could you double check in wherever you got them if there are wallpaper versions of this, this and this? Those are the last missing. --Mordecay (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sadly, Blizzard never actually released those as a wallpaper. I've checked almost all the dates for them, the original and the expansion. — Surafbrov T / C 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
My Commander Shemdah'sohn Screenshot
Was there an issue with the screenshot I provided on Commander Shemdah'sohn's wiki page? You edited it out. Just want to know so I can fix the issue. Lovin90 (talk) 10:53pm Central August 26, 2018
- The name of the image should always follow the name of the article unless one is already in that place.. so there can be alternatives. Screenshots are prefered to not include the outlines (this can be turned off in the settings) and do not have the NPC in combat and not selected. A good example of a good screenshot would be like this. You can see his entire model at a good angle, instead of just half of it with a red outline. For more information about images, see Project:IMG. Other than that, thanks for your contributions! — Surafbrov T / C 04:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh okay. Apologizes. I'll restart the dungeon and try again. Lovin90 (talk) 11:42pm Central August 26, 2018
Gilneas Occupation
Not sure if this pings you off or not, been a while since using the talk pages; but I left my sources in the Ruins of Gilneas talk page. --Berenal (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yea, just waiting for the others who are involved to give their thoughts.
- Rather than keep reverting each other's edits, breaking the Project:3RR policy, talk about it with each other and come up with a conclusion. — Surafbrov T / C 04:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I understand; I put this stuff earlier with the citations and was told it was over sourced; that description has been up for months hence my confusion to its sudden removal. If there's no dispute can it be put up with the citations again or something after this is over so this doesn't happen again? --Berenal (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Pic
File:Warbringers Sylvanas cover.jpg & File:Warbringers Jaina cover.jpg - would you be able to make it without the text? --Mordecay (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sylvie is good. But Jaina's first file version file had better quality than the current one which is a shoot of the cinematic. You can see it when you compare Jaina's faces on both, for example. Would you mind reverting it to the second file version? How is it impractical? --Mordecay (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Didn't work well like Sylvanas did. Look at the swords where the logo was and compare it. — Surafbrov T / C 16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see now. Thanks! These are now duplicates --Mordecay (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yea. I'm aware about that. — Surafbrov T / C 22:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Jaina's cover should be better without the background getting messed up like the first time. I also did Azshara's cover. — Surafbrov T / C 11:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Very nice! Thanks (It looks like they cropped this the press release into this cover. Given they are cropped differently, it's ok to have them separated, yeah?) --Mordecay (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see now. Thanks! These are now duplicates --Mordecay (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Didn't work well like Sylvanas did. Look at the swords where the logo was and compare it. — Surafbrov T / C 16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sylvie is good. But Jaina's first file version file had better quality than the current one which is a shoot of the cinematic. You can see it when you compare Jaina's faces on both, for example. Would you mind reverting it to the second file version? How is it impractical? --Mordecay (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Dustwallow
Would you look at this one? The Dustwallow map was updated in 230, that file has the pre-230 map as its first version but a Warcraft III map is uploaded over it. Should the WoW one be uploaded anew for Classic and so that the Warcraft III one isn't in the Old world maps category, or just take out the category from this file? --Mordecay (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just take it out of the category. That classic one doesn't really have any significant changes like what Cataclysm did. — Surafbrov T / C 15:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Unsure why my edit was deleted
I tried to find the location in WoW and the page here didn't include even a hint of where to look. So after spending 30-45 minutes riding around Boralus I finally found what I was looking for. Yet the update I made was deleted. I don't know why.
Puzzled Svana (talk)
- Actually, that sentence you provided was only moved to the opening sentence of the article. You can see the changes here. Thanks for providing your contributions to help out Wowpedia! — Surafbrov T / C 15:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Talk page
Hi,
Thanks! Okay. I am new at this. Warcraft II is my favorite game and there's more information I think should be included in the site, so I'll try to add more if people are interested.
I think I can get jpg pictures instead.
Thanks!
BabyShark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W2BabyShark (talk · contr).
- Hey W2BabyShark! Glad you understood the reason for it! Also as a side note, you can sign a message on a talk page with four tildes (~~~~).
— Surafbrov T / C 20:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Quest rewards
Yep, it's a wowhead bug. Items that are used during quests are also listed as rewards when they are not. --Mordecay (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Demoniacs
Hi. I'm not sure I understand why you're adding a {{Fact|Quest chain}} in the article for the statement that the quest was removed? The relevant quests, which are the only mention of Demoniacs in the lore, are referenced by the very article we're editing. 
[60R] Paragons of Power: The Demoniac's Wraps and such. Azarchius (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Cute But Deadly
I just realized you deleted the Series 5 information I added a second time. I'm not sure why you're opposed to having complete information on the page? It seems like people could benefit from the text list until individual figure pictures are available? TheDaeval (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Personally, would prefer to stick to just images. I found an image of them all together, like the Series 4, so this won't be an issue. — Surafbrov T / C 00:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Having the appropriate names is helpful for collectors building a checklist and anyone else who would like to try to identify or find more information on an exact figure variant. I also noticed that you reverted yet another change that added more info, an image that contained everything included in the image it replaced and more. There's not a ton of info out there on this figure line and I thought it would be helpful to share some of what I've found, but it's been frustrating having edits and the information they add repeatedly removed for no great reason. I'll leave this page to you and keep my own info offline or on another wiki. Thanks.TheDaeval (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- You removed an image from the page that shouldn't have been removed in the first place; leaving it in the abyss of unused images. I simply added that image back, renamed the one you uploaded to upload an image that had all the figurines already. Don't need two images of just (some) figurines and its box. — Surafbrov T / C 00:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Having the appropriate names is helpful for collectors building a checklist and anyone else who would like to try to identify or find more information on an exact figure variant. I also noticed that you reverted yet another change that added more info, an image that contained everything included in the image it replaced and more. There's not a ton of info out there on this figure line and I thought it would be helpful to share some of what I've found, but it's been frustrating having edits and the information they add repeatedly removed for no great reason. I'll leave this page to you and keep my own info offline or on another wiki. Thanks.TheDaeval (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictures
I don't think having a new picture of a new ID which is also a different due to opened eyes on a 2005 picture is ok. The old one should be deleted as it is very weird with players and has nothing to do with the new one. --Mordecay (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Then feel free to request to delete the file history on that one. — Surafbrov T / C 23:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- And why can't the new one stay?
- Regarding the other ones, they should be uploaded anew, under a new name as well, since they are on locked locations, and the current ones may not represent the areas they are now on. --Mordecay (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ysondre's open eyes is an important enough detail to warrant a separate file. I have no strong feelings regarding the rest. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- The images that are currently on the anniversary encounters were removed from the original encounter's article because they already have a pic of them in the infobox. There is no need to have multiple images of the same thing unless it can be visually different in terms of the model. Just upload a new, modern picture, over the old ones and (if needed), ask an admin to delete the previous versions of the file. — Surafbrov T / C 23:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of uploading bfa pics over old ones. Take into consideration also graphics. --Mordecay (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- The one that looks bad can be replaced and used for the anniversary one.
- Emeriss: File:Emerissportal.jpg (this one is okay for original), File:Emeriss.jpg (just delete this and upload the anniversary over this)
- Lethon: File:Lethon.jpg (just delete this and upload the anniversary over this), File:Lethonportal.jpg (this one is okay for original)
- Taerar: File:Taerarportal.jpg, File:Taerar.jpg (this one is okay for original, although I personally prefer the originals to be at the portal rather than on the road)
- Ysondre: File:Ysondreportal.jpg (this one is okay for original), File:Ysondre.jpg (just delete this and move the anniversary over this because disambig for file names is just terrible anyways)
- There is no need to keep one or the other. And the old pics revisions can be deleted without an issue, they're badly taken anyways. — Surafbrov T / C 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Casually deleting history is not something I would ever encourage. Old images exist. Let's not send them down the memory hole just because. --k_d3 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Of course don't be casual about it but these just don't have a purpose, especially the Ysondre's "fight" picture. — Surafbrov T / C 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify my earlier position, I don't care one way or another about uploading new files for the anniversary versions of the bosses. I really don't see a need to delete or overwrite the old images just because you don't think they're necessary. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Whether or not we upload separate images for the anniversary, I would actually like to cleanup these images. Can't really do anything with moving files if they exist. Like for an example, the Emerissportal pic looks better than the Emeriss.jpg file. Okay? Instead of taking Emerissportal and uploading it to Emeriss.jpg just to rename the file, it'd be best to delete the bad file (in this case, Emeriss.jpg) and move the Emerissportal.jpg to Emeriss.jpg. Same thing with Ysondre. If the disambig has to stay, so be it, but the Ysondre "fight" pic (for an example) is not needed while also keeping the file names simple and straight forward. — Surafbrov T / C 00:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify my earlier position, I don't care one way or another about uploading new files for the anniversary versions of the bosses. I really don't see a need to delete or overwrite the old images just because you don't think they're necessary. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Of course don't be casual about it but these just don't have a purpose, especially the Ysondre's "fight" picture. — Surafbrov T / C 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Casually deleting history is not something I would ever encourage. Old images exist. Let's not send them down the memory hole just because. --k_d3 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- The one that looks bad can be replaced and used for the anniversary one.
- I don't like the idea of uploading bfa pics over old ones. Take into consideration also graphics. --Mordecay (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- The images that are currently on the anniversary encounters were removed from the original encounter's article because they already have a pic of them in the infobox. There is no need to have multiple images of the same thing unless it can be visually different in terms of the model. Just upload a new, modern picture, over the old ones and (if needed), ask an admin to delete the previous versions of the file. — Surafbrov T / C 23:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ysondre's open eyes is an important enough detail to warrant a separate file. I have no strong feelings regarding the rest. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Links
Okay, I know in an edit war you're going to win, but seriously, with the constant re-linking to the Diablo and StarCraft Gamepedias (the former of which is practically dead, the latter of which is literally dead), you realize that you're linking to pages that don't even exist, right? Not even touching on how that yes, a lot of Starpedia is simply copy-pasted from the StarCraft Wikia (and a no. of articles on the Diablo Gamepedia have similarly been copy-pasted), and as someone who actually put in the legwork in creating the original articles, seeing plagarism isn't the most pleasant feeling in the world.
Maybe this is some overarching loyalty to Gamepedia, maybe you genuinely believe the wikis can be revived, but seriously, if it's a choice between pages that don't exist and pages that do, I think it should be an easy choice.--Hawki (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- In an edit war, no one wins. These wikis exist for a reason, why not use them? (And yes I am aware that the pages linked are not created) Not sure what you're implying but nearly 90% of all articles on Starpedia are stubs and original content (look at the patches for an example), while there are some cases of some articles being copied from the StarCraft wiki on Fandom (look at Terran). If they're copied, then they are forced to have a Wikia credit template in the references section although it is highly advised to avoid this kind of stuff. The Diablo wiki, on the other hand, is a complete mess. Don't assume that I may have loyalty for anything, because I don't. It is just that we have these wikis sitting here, doing nothing. Why not make something of it instead of leaving it in the dust? And yes, I would like to see the Diablo wiki to be revived while the StarCraft wiki was only actually created at the end of 2017 with only a few people actually contributing it; It is a fairly new and an inactive wiki at the moment. — Surafbrov T / C 00:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- While those wikis might be sitting here, doing nothing, they have neither relevant content nor an active community to write it, so replacing links to actual content with links to Gamepedia "There is currently no text in this page" 404s is making our articles objectively worse. This is putting the cart before the horse: we should be linking to good content, not places that we one day hope would develop to have good content.
- For Matt Burns' bibliography, linking the Wikia pages, or even the Blizzard-published short stories directly would obviously be better for our readers than the "no text" or minimal stubs at Gamepedia. — foxlit (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you know that you have every right to revert my edit anyways and that you could provide these reasons as such to defend your case. But these wikis won't get any contributes unless people, like yourself, do come and actually start helping instead of linking to other sources. Like Hawki did with the Incubation article. I'm already creating these articles on the other wikis as stubs so we, at the very least, have a foundation for them to get them started. — Surafbrov T / C 00:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed that we should link to good and complete wikia content rather than empty gamepedia stubs, willingly making user experience worse in the hope of baiting potential contributors for these sites. I understand the need for these wikis to get more people involved, but I think our job at wowpedia is to make sure our site and linkage is good, it's the gamepedia staff that could try helping by doing a bit more of publicity :/ Xporc (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you know that you have every right to revert my edit anyways and that you could provide these reasons as such to defend your case. But these wikis won't get any contributes unless people, like yourself, do come and actually start helping instead of linking to other sources. Like Hawki did with the Incubation article. I'm already creating these articles on the other wikis as stubs so we, at the very least, have a foundation for them to get them started. — Surafbrov T / C 00:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Half-empty glass
From stylistics PoV: we have situation when half of all were removed, not all except 3. This is enough different situation, when in Cata it was remover all except 1. Dihunter (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Map
The wording of Old Ironforge#Patch changes implies that Aegrim's Study has its own map. Could u check datafiles if it's there and upload it? Lol, nvm, read it wrong :-D --Mordecay (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Something Warcraft 2 seekers would find helpful added to your website
Hi Surafbrov,
I noticed that your website has no information on active Warcraft communities who still play in 2018/2019 that I'm certain people who land on your page would really find helpful.
There are two communities of Warcraft 2 fans, the American (www.war2usa.com) and the Russian (en.war2.ru), made up of fans of this game who still play with and talk to each other online, as well as older strategy guides (that may already be included on your site and I just didn't see it, but perhaps not) by a guy called Axolotl who covered a wide range of Warcraft II related strategy in detail that any person inclined to play Warcraft 2 would find most useful: http://occult.war2.ru/strategy.php.
I would highly recommend these be added to the Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness section since they are some of the links that will be the most useful to people looking for Warcraft 2 to play. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W2BabyShark (talk · contr).
- I'm not sure how notable war2usa.com is but I've created Warcraft II: Combat Edition about the War2 "remake" version from war2.ru as that one is pretty notable. — Surafbrov T / C 17:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Public Builds
Question for you.. How is a build which is only on PTR, a 'Retail' Phase exactly? Resa1983 (talk)
- The patch has been released to retail since March 12, meaning it is no longer in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Its a brand new build for 8.1.5, which isn't on retail. Resa1983 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Except the patch has been released to retail, therefore it isn't in a testing phase. If the patch hasn't been released yet, it'd still be in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C 03:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- So apparently separate builds don't matter at all? Why bother tracking them then. Resa1983 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The phase column is more about the patch itself, not the build. — Surafbrov T / C 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Which doesn't really make sense. Phase is describing the major patch but isn't sitting next to the major patch number its supposedly describing. And the individual lines are SUPPOSED to be about the individual builds. Phase should just be removed altogether. All you're doing with the Phase thing is confusing people unnecessarily. Resa1983 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- How does it not make sense? Look at other patches like 1.13.0 in Classic; those patches are during the phase for the "demo" while they were on the classic server. Look at patch 8.0.1 at the beginning and slowly go up; started from a demo on a BlizzCon server, went up to alpha phase which is located on the Alpha/Beta server. The phase then continued on to beta, which is still the Alpha/Beta server. Eventually, the patch came to the PTR so the testing phase started. They were still pushing these builds to the Alpha/Beta server even though it was finally the testing phase for the patch. Finally, patch 8.0.1 was released and now it retail. They still pushed some of those builds to the Alpha/Beta and/or the Test servers. — Surafbrov T / C 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It makes no sense because when you look at "Phase", its beside the build number, and not the major patch number. It makes it look like 'Phase' is describing the build number, and not the major patch number that it really is describing. If you really have to keep it, switch the build number and the Phase, so it actually makes sense and LOOKS like Phase is describing the major patch, and not the build number its directly beside and has NOTHING to do with. Resa1983 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is possible some of the columns could be rearranged, but best not to jump the guns just yet. I have messaged MMWQ to see what opinion he has on this since him and I originally had a conversation about this on Slack when there was an overhaul to that page during the BfA alpha. — Surafbrov T / C 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The build number is a descriptive of the "patch". You read it from left to right, so no it wouldn't make sense to switch the columns. For example, build 8.0.1.26766 was pushed during the Beta phase on the Alpha/Beta servers on June 4, 2018.
- All the 8.1.5 builds that were pushed after 8.1.5 was pushed to the Retail servers are part of the Retail phase, they are no longer in Testing (that was before it was released). Essentially, Phases are periods. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 15:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It makes no sense because when you look at "Phase", its beside the build number, and not the major patch number. It makes it look like 'Phase' is describing the build number, and not the major patch number that it really is describing. If you really have to keep it, switch the build number and the Phase, so it actually makes sense and LOOKS like Phase is describing the major patch, and not the build number its directly beside and has NOTHING to do with. Resa1983 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- How does it not make sense? Look at other patches like 1.13.0 in Classic; those patches are during the phase for the "demo" while they were on the classic server. Look at patch 8.0.1 at the beginning and slowly go up; started from a demo on a BlizzCon server, went up to alpha phase which is located on the Alpha/Beta server. The phase then continued on to beta, which is still the Alpha/Beta server. Eventually, the patch came to the PTR so the testing phase started. They were still pushing these builds to the Alpha/Beta server even though it was finally the testing phase for the patch. Finally, patch 8.0.1 was released and now it retail. They still pushed some of those builds to the Alpha/Beta and/or the Test servers. — Surafbrov T / C 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Which doesn't really make sense. Phase is describing the major patch but isn't sitting next to the major patch number its supposedly describing. And the individual lines are SUPPOSED to be about the individual builds. Phase should just be removed altogether. All you're doing with the Phase thing is confusing people unnecessarily. Resa1983 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The phase column is more about the patch itself, not the build. — Surafbrov T / C 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- So apparently separate builds don't matter at all? Why bother tracking them then. Resa1983 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Except the patch has been released to retail, therefore it isn't in a testing phase. If the patch hasn't been released yet, it'd still be in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C 03:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Its a brand new build for 8.1.5, which isn't on retail. Resa1983 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Texts
Heya what's your source for those lines being Completion texts? What I can see from old databases is that it's a line for tracking. Mordecay (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you talking about WoW Freakz? My source:
QuestCache.wdbfrom older builds; two issues 1) that is part of the cache which is obtained as you play the game; retail wow is far beyond that. 2) the quests and items were removed entirely with 5.2.0 (as players reported that the quest was no longer in their quest log) so the quests are impossible to obtain or to view in the current game. — Surafbrov T / C 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)- yep. What they list as the 'completion quest log' header is very short tracking info and different from just 'completion' which is actual completion text. quests there have both of these at the same time so it can't be both all completion text.
- plus if you think about it, the quest ender Suraf in desolace wouldn't tell you to go to Suraf in desolate when you are already ending the quest with suraf in desolace. Those short one liners are tracking lines, and they have been OK at showing this kind of data.
- How does the build thing work tho? Does it directly tell you it's the completion text or is it just a line without any indication of what type of text it is? Mordecay (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yea that would make sense for that info to appear in the tracking info. I guess it is safe to say that it is "tracking info". The cache is structured to have the information such as the quest ID, the recommended level to complete the quest, the description, etc. The structure for these changed over the years, it is completely different when comparing BfA to Wotlk. Also, pretty sure this is what the Wowhead client looks for to upload to their servers to keep their database updated. — Surafbrov T / C 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Bettername
Pages based on Blizzard's descriptive terms don't have the bettername tags - should pages like Nightfallen rebellion or ogre girl have it? What about the pages created by Shammies to create a "lore" version of the Legion Assaults and Faction Assaults, like the assault on Stormheim and assault on Tiragarde Sound? --Mordecay (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Bettername}} - "This is because no official name is available for the subject of this article. We use a descriptive name instead." — Surafbrov T / C 19:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't know if those names are "official" like the Nightfallen rebellion may simply mean the rebellion of the Nightfallen elves and it wouldn't be the official name of the event.
- Some races don't have official names either and their page name is based on their appearance, like the honey in honey elemental or bones in skeletal wind serpent, so if those "X of Azshara" are made from storm and arcane which is also in the term provided by Blizzard wouldn't it be the same case? --Mordecay (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- You said to discuss the template which I'm doing. We are having a discussion about the use of a template and potential pages that should have it, don't know where you see the over exaggeration. You are saying that the tag should be on descriptive name pages, and that the pages mentioned here are descriptive, but they don't have them. I think we should continue to differentiate between fan-made and Blizzard-made names, whether they be descriptive or "official", and apply the tag only on fan-made. So elemental of storm and arcana shouldn't need that, just like the Nightfallen rebellion or the ogre girl don't have them since the terms are used by Blizz. --Mordecay (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- I said discuss the name on the article's talk page on how/why it is an official name and not a descriptive name.
- Obviously, there is a conflict between descriptive names using the template or not; some are using it and some are not. Crystal dryad, are dryads made of crystal. Sparks, literally a spark. Zandalari golem, a golem related to the Zandalari. Uldum watcher, a watcher found in Uldum. Crystal satyr, a satyr made of crystal. Nerubian spiderling, a spiderling related to the Nerubians. All these examples I just gave you are descriptive names marked with the {{bettername}} template.
- The template states this: "This is because no official name is available for the subject of this article. We use a descriptive name instead." The "Elemental of storm and arcana" article is simply a descriptive name: "X, forged by storm and arcana, is an elemental." They're a type of water elemental that was forged by storm and arcana. Descriptive names are not official and should be marked with {{bettername}} unless a discussion on the article's talk page gave an exceptional reasoning as to why such a descriptive name doesn't need a {{bettername}} and that majority have agreed with. Skeletal wind serpents don't need it because they're literally wind serpents made of bones; dead wind serpents brought back to life. They're a Skeleton; skeleton is an actual official name. A skeleton can be anything from a fish, to a humanoid, to a wind serpent. The page is just extending it out from the main article. Why the other articles are just redirects like "Skeletal draenei", "Skeletal human"? One would argue that they're very much the base "skeleton" I'd say. — Surafbrov T / C 21:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- If we wanted to be pedantic, I think basically all the examples listed in this thread could have a Bettername template, because they're not official terms. But still, let's not pretend that "Skeletal [animal]" is the same as "Azshara forged into being an elemental of storm and arcana".. [Animal] is literally an official race name, it just has a qualificative adjective in front of it (whether it's "skeletal", "crystal" or whatever), but "an elemental of storm and arcana" is not a race name at all.
- If we are not deleting this page (which has no reason for existence by the way, we can just put [Elemental] in their infobox race description), it should get a Bettername. As for other pages listed as examples, depends how pedantic we want to be. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 21:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like that these "in conflict" are examples of "fan-made" while not being "Blizzard-made terms" - all those listed with bettername tag have been created by fans, and Blizzard hasn't used the terms, that's why they got it. Also, keep in mind the box's description was changed "only" last year so this may be the reason the box seems to be "in conflict" with pages created before that. However, they may not necessarily be in conflict due to the fan-made vs. Blizzard-made terms (whether they are descriptive or "official"). --Mordecay (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The pedantry of you people is so depressing T_T Xporc (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Elinks-faction template
Regarding Elinks-faction: Since it is protected, could you correct the spelling used for WoWDB so that it's consistent with the spelling used by the other Elinks templates? (The second 'w' is currently lower-case instead of upper-case.) -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Addon question
Hey, let's say I just finished a quest jb the game that has say, yell, or whisper dialogues. Do you know if there's an addon that would allow me to copy those from the chat box? --Mordecay (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think EasyCopy might be the one you're looking for (although, it hasn't been updated and seems to be having issues with patch 8.1.5). You could use
/chatlogto tell the client to save the chat log (from the time you enable this macro and going forward as you play through the game) to<WoW Install>/Logs/WoWChatLog.txt. — Surafbrov T / C 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Dawn of Man Wiki
Hi, I'm going to translate the wiki davn of Man into Russian. Homepage is ready. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pugemoon (talk · contr).
Editing Spells
Hello chris i was hoping that you would give an advice in editing spells.My problem is that i want replace some old information in warlock spells such as 
[Demonbolt] but i dont know what I should add to patch changes since i dont know that the new information is patch change or a hotfix.I would be very happy if you give an advice.thank you.Thenewbee1 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the spell received a change via a patch, they'll be found on the patch articles. If a hotfix was applied to the spell, it would be found on the hotfix articles. — Surafbrov T / C 04:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Pics
Could you remove the first versions of File:Worthless Totem 2.jpg, File:Worthless Totem 3.jpg, and File:Worthless Totem 4.jpg? Thx. --Mordecay (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Health
Health on max level scales too, so I see 329K, you see 335K, and a stronger character sees 339K. I'd rather it be the highest known instead of a random middle number. --Mordecay (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Or a range from the lowest to the highest. — Surafbrov T / C 20:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Pages
So I would take it that you would never allow detail of different editions on their own page? For context, I'm not necessarily out to add or remove any pages here. But I was trying to clean up the pages that existed, considering the release of 8.2 and whatnot. If so I'll just assume it's content that would never be allowed to migrate and keep that in mind for any future discussions or other issues. Thanks. Celess (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- It just seemed silly to have multiple articles about it yet still have users redirected to WoWWiki for the instructions and current updates on a particular version of the AddOn Studio. So instead, using AddOn Studio as the all-in-one article seemed like a better fit to direct to each article on WoWWiki for the two versions. If you're planning on migrating the content instead of just linking to WoWWiki, I could help out if needed. — Surafbrov T / C 23:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it was a test in a way. It can't be both ways. Celess (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Requests for Deletion
I'm not nearly as active on here as I once was. I was but a child when I made my Wowpedia (then Wowwiki) account. You seem to be in a position of power, so I was wondering if you could maybe delete all the fanpages I've made in my time on here. In fact, some of them have gone untouched for so long that I don't even know what some of them were called. I don't think there's too many. Anyway, if you could do this I would GREATLY appreciate it. Hallowseve15 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Suraf isn't an admin, but I am and I can do that for you. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- For next time, you can look at the Community portal for a list of the active administrators on Wowpedia. — Surafbrov T / C 11:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- He is not??? --Mordecay (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a Wiki Manager for Gamepedia; doesn't make me an administrator on Wowpedia. I wouldn't mind helping in my free time... but if they don't want me to, I won't bother. I'll just keep directing things here on Wowpedia to them when necessary. (also late reply but w/e) — Surafbrov T / C 23:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- He is not??? --Mordecay (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Currency
Hey, how to make the warfront currency appear like the 
[Azerite] appears, with green link and icon? --Mordecay (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- The
|disambigpage=parameter. — Surafbrov T / C 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)