Template talk:Warcraft universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Blizzard task force.
 

Merge[edit]

Discussion of scope and merging with a very similar to redundant template ... one other option would be to scope the other template to only the online things. Template:World of Warcraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talkcontribs) 14:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Category for 3rd party[edit]

@Izno: This needs to be discussed and consensus gained as you are rolling back changes based on opinion instead of responding to talk pages for people individually. You didn't note you blew out a section in your edit comments too. Nor did you allow me time to put adventures with the rest of warcraft only games. You also added all links before discussing which ones belonged or you finished replying to my talk page where you left comments. Please work with us - as we met you half way already in some pretty trival links being added during the merge. You are pushing whatever changes you want with out a consent from 2 other people involved - have you considered that?@Izno: Edit - did not roll back changes - as I am trying to do this the right way. IamM1rv (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are making changes without consensus and I am reverting them per WP:BRD (you are boldly adding them and I am reverting them). Any discussion regarding this topic should take place on this talk page and this talk page alone: I am under no requirement to watch any other talk page in this regard.
Additionally, you are making changes while discussion is ongoing and some people cannot make contributions at the same time or in the same place as you do, or contribute at the same speed (whether in talk page discussion or otherwise). Please be more patient and move more slowly. --Izno (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So per your comments on bold - at what point does it become an edit war? -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@IamM1rv: To link to the relevant policy at WP:Edit warring would be pertinent. The high level summary is that an edit war is the continued reversion over some period of time without (or sometimes in spite of) discussion (usually on the corresponding talk page) regarding a set of edits. That can range from making more than 3 plain old reverts within 24 hours as a hard case to a slow-paced set of removals of someone else's material. Some people take a very strict view (see WP:1RR) of edit warring while most probably understand it to mean what the policy says. --Izno (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Izno. All articles that this navbar template appears on, should be linked in this template. Merging the templates, replacing them on articles, etc, requires that the template that remains be updated. From what I can tell, Izno has made the necessary corrections. -- ferret (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All articles that this navbar template appears on, should be linked in this template? Great heads up Ferret!! Where do we draw the line for Wikipedia:Not_everything_needs_a_navbox are all warcraft pages on point for this or are there some we aren't going to navbar? I'm basically checking before we flood the snot out of the navbar here... -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Related Articles section is pretty hard to read for someone who uses war3 map editor & keeps up on the warcraft front, so it would be worse for normal people. This so proposed change to navbar that keeps the items in the same section, but clumps them together by purpose or type of article: Organized Related Article -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the map making related components out of Related Articles entirely and give them a heading such as "Technology" or similar. Probably should move Warden as well. I would also suggest adding Battle.net. Once those items are moved out of "Related articles", the list will be shorter so I would not bother to clump the webpages. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Roger, I reflected those changes for map editing & called the category "Development", as the Stratagus link in there is actually a 3rd party game engine for developing applications which a free warcraft project was served a cease and desist order by blizzard. Organized Related Article -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I would put Related Articles below Development, so that it is last, and then unclump the webpages since there are fewer items listed under Related Articles. I'd have no issue with that update being made. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I reflect most of that...do you feel them being 3rd party websites is not enough of a reason to clump them? They are more tightly related than any of the others in that category. I believe they should have a category for them, I would compromise by clumping within "Related Articles" - if we don't delete them outright like previously discussed in the transfer during merge. -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer clumping them to making another category for them. However, maybe instead of "Webpages" use "Resource Sites" or something similar. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, there aren't enough of them to really make another category. If it wasn't for the fact that blizzard forum's directly have links to two of these pages I would argue they should not have a navbar entry at all. I'm afraid if we have this category up, all 400+ resource sites out there for wow will try to link in here. IamM1rv (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
These templates have been around a long time though, and templates only contain internal links to notable topics. If there's 400+ resource sites that are notable, we might have had an issue, but there aren't. :) -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Usually the only thing that restricts a navbox is the decided scope of that navbox on one side (per our editorial discretion) and the size of the navbox on the other. Template:Transformers has a couple hundred links and that's probably what I might consider "large". Template:Magic: The Gathering is another somewhat-large one. There are navboxes bigger than those and navboxes smaller than those. WP:NENAN is probably the limit for how small a navbox should be (not how large! as you seem to suggest here and elsewhere). As ferret suggests, navboxes only include navigation within Wikipedia and usually only to notable topics, rather than to external sites (see the difference between an internal link and external link) or subparts of a particular article. A relevant essay beyond the navbox guideline would be an essay on navigation templates for your reading.
Wow, that really helps actually & beautiful/easy to read - we definitely need more like that...this template is so disorganized next to that one & it's WAY bigger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talkcontribs) 11:50, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)
Even in the case where a navbox gets (too) big, you can still split the navbox into two more navboxes (just like an article!). See for example Template:Star Trek and its many other "sub"-navboxes. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Very interestings...consuming the information now :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talkcontribs) 11:50, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

@Izno:@Ferret:Getting everyone on board here ... keep discussions on this page? For consensus how long are we waiting for people to weigh in for consensus? 24 hours fair? How do we know when someone loses interest? I've never done this consensus thing, I thought two people was enough since Inzo was 4 days without responding on the subject - I know it sucks to come back and see a bunch of changes. Apologies if this is rough. I'm not even sure if consensus is a vote or has to be unanimous? -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that right now, there's a relatively clear consensus between Izno and myself. It's now up to you to sway us one way or the other with a valid argument. I think the template, as merged between Izno and myself, can probably stand as is with no further effort. It's fine for it to have lots of links, it's far from the worst template in existence. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is part is not about a specific single issue on the template, unless you are saying you're going to oppose any changes made regardless of the case. IamM1rv (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean? I think it would be very difficult to take what I said and twist it into "I oppose any changes, regardless of the reason." -- ferret (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no twisting what so ever ... I asked how to handle the consensus in general. You wrote about no further effort. If you didn't just tell me not to spend time on this page - perhaps you could explain this more clearly? IamM1rv (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If you provide an good argument that further changes are necessary, then I'll listen gladly. I personally do not see the need for further effort though. That isn't a declaration that I oppose anything further, ever. I'm not sure why you choose to take statements in such a stark black and white manner. As for how to handle consensus in a general sense, this talk page is not the correct venue for that discussion. Talk pages should be focused on improving the article (Or template) they belong with. You may want to head over to the community portal and try some of the resources there, such as the Teahouse. -- ferret (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This is really weird. First, this section of the talk page is about consensus only, to make sure the two of you feel happy about the way further changes should be handled. Instead, you are here telling me for an unspecified issue & unspecified time - don't make changes. Then you are saying I accused of you of saying no changes ever again...which if you reread - is clearly not the case.
I've done other changes with other people on other occasions, I'm conducting this here because what I learned from other people already does not seem to work with izno. I've been to the teahouse thanks, they are great people! IamM1rv (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You've said you were not asking about consensus regarding this template, but about consensus in a general sense (Your words: I asked how to handle the consensus in general). So which is it? -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll repost the beginning of this discussion ...

Getting everyone on board here ... keep discussions on this page? For consensus how long are we waiting for people to weigh in for consensus? 24 hours fair? How do we know when someone loses interest? I've never done this consensus thing, I thought two people was enough since Inzo was 4 days without responding on the subject - I know it sucks to come back and see a bunch of changes. Apologies if this is rough. I'm not even sure if consensus is a vote or has to be unanimous? -- IamM1rv

...so, what you should take away here is that we are talking about this page, but not one specific issue on it. IamM1rv (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would in general give at least 36-48 hours for replies, personally. That is to say, each time an editor chimes in with a view or question, the clock resets. There's no rush, no time limit, to making changes, as long as nothing is literally broken. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say a couple days is usually appropriate, even outside this particular template. Wikipedia:There is no deadline is a relevant essay but more pointed toward articles in general than edits in specific. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
So, I'll link to our policy on consensus and if you have questions after, let me know. Welcome to Wikipedia btw; you seem interested in doing work. --Izno (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I poked that one, but they don't have official timers - I favorite'd that on personal blog so I can point people at it too. Is there a way of generating a navbar dynamically based on if it's tagged for a category already? IamM1rv (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but I'm not sure what you're asking. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What if we loaded navbars automatically by bot each night with some filtering conditions? (who cares about the filtering conditions right now, as I'm not even sure what code base I'd use for it) -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're going to bump into problems with the job queue, and the fact that you're basically introducing instability for an arbitrary reason to a template. As has been provided to you multiple times, it is okay and even desirable to provide navigation in multiple ways. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Stratagus?[edit]

Does the game engine, stratagus and its front end wargus, which combine to create an open source clone of Warcraft II, belong on this template? --AliceJMarkham 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

@AliceJMarkham: There's many different links that do not relate properly or belong ... I agree this is a search engine to a freeware project that never even got completed (according to the wikipage). I would say remove it from navbar & remove navbar from the Stratagus page - but leave all links in place on Stratagus to warcraft -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with removing Stratagus, but note that this section is 8 years old. Since the Stratagus page no longer includes this template today, let's go ahead and remove it. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed stratagus, I tried to see when someone removed the warcraft navbar from the stratagus from the page, but got bored of looking down the links. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It was removed here. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with removal of the link given that Stratagus was indeed inspired as an open source clone of WC2. I disagree with "I agree this is a search engine" since I do not understand what that means and find "never even got completed" to be irrelevant, since 1) not being completed is not a reason to remove the link (see Adventures, among this and many other templates) and 2) it did go on to be completed, though not in the same form. --Izno (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't get this one till just now in the mess ... (stream of thought type writing here) I understand you point here @Izno:, I'm wondering how the wikipedia deals with companies that violate copyright law etc ... I didn't remove the navbar - which caused bidirectional to be not a compelling factor. If you check above someone else did before that ... I don't feel Stratagus itself is related to the navbar. I tried to stub Wargus but someone has a redirect in place. Wargus definitely would be related somehow to tides of darkness. I'm not sure it's warcraft navbar material still - but would linking to the articles as related violate copyright cease & desist stuff? Also, has anyone checked to see if the cease & desist is still active for freecraft/wargus? I wouldn't see an issue with various articles in "See also" linking to wargus or wargus as a stub appearing in related ... if every other game inspired by warcraft's world was included too. -- IamM1rv (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no concern regarding copyright here. Fundamentally, our text is free (given certain non-free content exceptions we feel we need to make), and even if there was deemed to be some problem with the text, fair use adequately covers us.

The reason Stratagus is linked to is precisely because Wargus is a redirect, and we should avoid redirects in templates.

if every other game inspired by warcraft's world was included too that's a lot of games and so the argument you've made in this context is a slippery slope ("if we include one, we should include the rest"), which is a fallacy. --Izno (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed that when ferret was talking about it! Was wargus enough of a thing to stub? -- IamM1rv (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There's two questions I think you've got going there:
  1. Is Wargus notable? The answer to this question I think is "questionable". Let's assume it is for right now because the 2nd question is more interesting.
  2. Does it make sense to cover the topic of Wargus outside the context of another article? I think the answer to this question is "probably not". Why? A good chunk of the content we would present in the context of an article on Wargus would be duplicated on the article about Stratagus, including history and reception, since Wargus was never developed into a fully functional game. So, using our editorial discretion, does it make sense to cover the topic of Wargus as its separate topic? I think no. Just because a topic is notable does not mean it must have its own article.
Some thoughts. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Individual links and their placement/inclusion[edit]

@IamM1rv: if you want to make a case for the location/inclusion of a particular link, feel free to start a section 3 header below. I like this format since it will allow us to look at them one at a time. --Izno (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Make Love, Not Warcraft[edit]

  • What: "Make Love, Not Warcraft"
  • Where: From "Related Articles" to "Other Media"
  • Why: It is a published media episode on cable tv just like the Choppers link already in Other Media
  • Note: I had moved this previously and it was rolled back without reason

By: IamM1rv (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. "Other Media" seems to only include official Blizzard properties at this time. Choppers was an event owned and ran by Blizzard. "Make Love, Not Warcraft" is not directly owned or marketed by Blizzard. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hrm, 2 points relevant here ...
First, I find that logic hard to accept. The category pretty clearly states "Other Media", not "Official Media" / "blizzard media" or such that was self explanatory. I could get behind changing the label, otherwise, I see no reason to follow an undocumented & probably unintentional rule. Especially in light of other links that are clearly 3rd party owned. Other wiki editors will not realize either & make the same mistakes down the road, if/when this discussion gets archived or the simply don't read the entire talk page first.
Second point, on the "Make Love, Not Warcraft" wiki link in question - you will see blizzard actually collaborated to make the episode in question with South Park's creators. They definitely don't hold copyright or publisher rights though...so I don't weight the argument that much as it's not self evident like changing the label of the category on the navbar. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Typically "Other media" categories on most navboxes are exclusively a part of the property of the series/company but which don't bucket well together with other items. The current placement of "Make Love" would be inappropriate in this category IMO. I can say pretty simply that most editors don't "make the same mistakes", since I watch/have edited almost the entirety of the set of video games navboxes (as well as a large number outside of that scope e.g. Template:ASOIAF). --Izno (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The link in question is an episode of South Park, so it is only related to Warcraft, not a part of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Adamsom.97: You know southpark was a partnership with blizzard on that episode right? IamM1rv (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Where are the guidelines that says other media is always owned by the company in question? I've read everything I can find directly linked from the help files ... is this a subcategory thing? Does this apply to items simply licensed to another company or does it have to be directly owned? IamM1rv (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that Blizzard worked with the producers on the episode, it is an episode of South Park in which the characters play Warcraft. If Blizzard contributed on a film/short about people playing Warcraft, it too would be relegated to the related section, for that is all it is. It is not an other media version of Warcraft in the same sense that the new film is, for example. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going off what I've seen in the vast majority of navboxes related to media, so I'm taking what I'm fairly certain is current practice. (You might want to take a look at Category:Video game navigational boxes and its subcategories.) Since our guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive (in most cases), I don't see it as too particularly "wrong" that this detail of navboxes is not documented anywhere, and I think there are more than a few who might construe it as instruction creep. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So there is no rule & in fact a guideline preventing a rule which would prevent putting it in such a location. Basis is just the no consent? IamM1rv (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NAVBOX is the prevalent guideline; the 5 criteria therein can help to assess whether a particular link or set of links within a navbox are "good" links to include ("Make Love, Not Warcraft" meets the intent of all 5 in a template related to Warcraft). Beyond that, consensus is how we work here. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
None of that relates to where in the navbar items go. Also, clearly you guys aren't following the rules of WP:NAVBOX anyways if some of these links are being kept on the navabr (worst offender was finally removed, but almost all of these commercial type & the external website (3rd party) belong in a list rather than the navbar per WP:NAVBOX. IamM1rv (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know what you're talking about here. WP:NAVBOX never uses the word "commercial" and there are NO external links in this navbox template.. Navboxes are not in any way forbidden from linking the the Wikipedia article of a commercial entity. The fact that an article is about an external website is irrelevant. The website is notable in it's own right, which is why it has an article, and the template is using an internal link to that article. No external links exist here. -- ferret (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about either. I mentioned them as a class to distinguish them from other links. Not because the rules forbade commerical/3rd party resources on games, just that they lack merit based on other factors in the WP:NAVBOX: Specifically #5: You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Maybe it's just a logic thing, but most of the articles don't & shouldn't have "See Also" sections for thotbot/wowhead as they are not relevant warcraft I, II, hearthstone, any of the table top games ... (include warcraft 3 map editing, even though it's not 3rd party) ... I'm chipping away at illogical or inconsistencies here, as we found out a few of the voters in the consensus had not been reading the articles we were voting on. Please note too: the only reason WP:Nav just got brought up in this section was because of someone else side tracking us - I simply wanted to know if there was a rule forbidding 3rd party products on navbars or preventing a project that was actively made by blizzard & south park's creators from going up to a regular section that it fit versus being left in the catch all category of things that do not have a good match. IamM1rv (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(undent): None of that relates to where in the navbar items go.: That's fine. That just means that interested editors have the responsibility to decide, per the consensus policy (and other policies and guidelines, such as the pertinent WP:NAVBOX and the essay WP:NAV).

just that they lack merit based on other factors in the WP:NAVBOX: Specifically #5: You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Maybe it's just a logic thing, but most of the articles don't & shouldn't have "See Also" sections for thotbot/wowhead as they are not relevant warcraft I, II, hearthstone, any of the table top games ... (include warcraft 3 map editing, even though it's not 3rd party) ...: I reject the notion that those articles should not be linked in the see also sections of the games-proper articles. As for their current non-presence in those articles, this non-presence is exactly because they are in this template, and because we should avoid duplication of information, then we do not have see also sections including the websites and the file formats. Were those classes of items to be removed from the navbox, I would expect them to be added either in see also sections (or even better) as part of the articles proper. Also, per WP:CLN and particularly WP:NAVBOX, articles can be grouped more usefully than in their categories (which are always alphabetical), and a list for such a bare handful of items would probably be deleted at WP:AFD per WP:N.

On an aside, be careful that you don't wikilawyer: guidelines and policies are best thought of as rules to follow in whole, which means their spirit is more important than what exactly is presented on a particular policy or guideline page. This is not carte blanche to not follow them, but instead to consider them as a whole. In this case, you have pointed to precisely 1 criterion for which the articles you have pointed out may be questionable. The other 4 are not in question.

voters: Consensus is not a vote, so be careful when you throw around such a term. Usually, most people will use "!vote(r)" to indicate that it's not a vote, but that it may be vote-like, when referring to persons who participated in some sort of consensus-gathering activity (such as WP:RFC, WP:3O, etc.).

I simply wanted to know if there was a rule forbidding: I assume you mean this in a general sense, as a rule particular to "3rd party products" and such would seem to me creepy. The answer to that question is no, per the guidelines and policies I have already provided for reference earlier on this talk page. Where an item ends up on this template is up to the consensus of the editors on the talk page (and if those editors cannot find a resolution among them, then they should use the dispute resolution processes already in place to elicit fresh opinions).

Lastly, please use "navbox" when you mean navbox, and "navbar" when you mean navbar. These two items are not the same thing (see Template:Navbox versus Template:Navbar). --Izno (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Two months on here & first I've heard of this from a user...

...Usually, most people will use "!vote(r)" to indicate that it's not a vote,...

I've seen over 60 people actually vote on the wiki though ... -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It may look like a vote, but it's actually a very complicated process to gather consensus. From WP:Consensus: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What you think are votes are actually straw polls. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You are the single exception to over 60 experiences on the wikipedia. It puts question to all "common" practices purportedly used by "many" or "most" people which have been presented to me in this page. I read some more on voting & can't help but wonder if people are just randomly writing guides to writing wikipedia articles and etiquette that aren't used or ratified etc at all. I think I'm going to write one to explain navbar relationship determination! -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to request additional input via WT:VG or WP:3O if you think I've said anything unfair or unrepresentative of our policies and guidelines. --Izno (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just think you don't read sometimes ... example in #5 - I was never suggesting they should be linked in every or even most "see also" - merely, that the wanting to including them is how #5 is determined - if that's a mistake on my interpritation then the problem isn't that you don't read every article, but rather you ignored something I said to talk about something else? Maybe you are scanning key words and skipping the text around them, not sure. Stratagus being another example, the pertinent navbar link had been removed months/years before I arrived at the navbar template and discovered the duplication. Yet clearly the article says they paused developement of the game years ago (maybe they picked it up again later - but it's not reflected in the wiki). I don't feel the need for a WP:30 - you are really helpful & I definitely appreciate your input - even if it sounds like I am critical, I disect everything, including myself. I'm also balancing my needs to micro organize against the "take your time" philisophy. I honestly expected the next part of the discussion to be, "well gee m1rv, how many see other sections does a link belong in before it makes the navbar?" To which I say, I don't know more than 2 sounds reasonable? (caveating expansions should have see also's should be put on the parent articles page if it affects more than one wiki link). I might do a page to show what I'm thinking and why - not because i'm making new guidelines - but because I feel like this structure is allowing me to express the connections or disconnection I feel might be present. IamM1rv (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You got a little stream of conscious there, which makes this a little difficult to parse. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97:, @Izno: -- Based on your suggestions if we retitle related media to licensed media then all of this would make sense - otherwise it's not self-evident. I'm going to bold it - since it's so minor of a change compared to the actual content modification where something could be lost. IamM1rv (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particular hard against this change, though I try to avoid lengthy header names wherever possible as long header names can cause issues on small screens. It's also not the practice in almost all other navboxes to call "official media which doesn't fall into these other categories" "other licensed media". --Izno (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Universe category fields[edit]

@Satellizer:Removed individual characters for universe field, as universe is only links to lists of Lore. If you want to make a subnavbar or a new field list (category), with precedent from the Transformers side bar, would support, but sublisting inside the Lore category field is the wrong way to approach that, as you'd also have lists of all notable places, things, monsters sublisted there - not of the same type. See Template:Transformers -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I assume this is to do with my placement of individual character articles within the navbox, which you're opposed to. I'm not sure why though - there is absolutely precedence for such an inclusion - see other video game franchise navboxes such as Template:Ninja Gaiden series and Template:Xeno series, both of which follows this exact format. Others include the characters in a separate sidebar, such as Template:Final Fight series, Template:Soul series, Template:Resident Evil, Template:Mario franchise, and Template:Street Fighter series just to name a few, but I don't think that would work here. I oppose your "Transformers" precedent as my examples are more relevant, all being video game franchises. Thanks. (Also, just as a heads-up, I will not be able to respond for at least several hours - it's getting late where I live, and one needs to sleep.) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Satellizer: -- I believe you're right in saying there should be characters listed - due to the precedence ... the organization is the objection. See this [[1]] ... poke through my page. If you provide the links, I can make the submenus or head over to the help section and make the submenu's yourself. Transformers has the same setup - that's why I mentioned them. -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not have issue with Satellizer's current inclusion method. I don't feel this navbar is nearly large enough to warrant Transformer-style submenuing. In regards to having to list all notable places, things, etc... Well, those things aren't notable at Wikipedia so it's not a concern here. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ferret sums up my views on this quite perfectly. A "subgroup" of "Universe" for the characters may also work, but I don't think that's necessary here. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm torn here, Illidan is a duplicate entry for the already existing list of characters. Ditto for the others. Illidan is probably top 10 or 15 for warcraft notability - but there are others based on how frequently/power they appear in the universe. I'm not sure he passes a wikipedia standard of notability on his own, just like half the transformers listed on the menu. Say, Illidan & other's in his league of notability pass, we're justifying the stubs for the others like him & not just from warcraft 3's transition into WoW phase. Based on # of games, roles played, power/prestige in lore etc. Also, you guys know about the old Warcraft Portal Page right? They basically justified removing the portal and supporting warcraft on wikipedia as it's done better on the sister-pedia type situation. -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The question of whether or not the characters pass WP:GNG isn't really relevant to the template. The articles currently exist and are suitable for inclusion here. If they are ever taken to AFD and deleted as a result, they can be removed from the template. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
True, I'm still digging stuff up here before I decide my final opinion on the duplicate information stuff & non consent roll back. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Satellizer split a lot of information from the main list article when creating the separate articles. They are not duplicate information, though some is shared. I'm also not sure what you mean by a non consent roll back. I don't see any rollbacks relating to characters on the template or the various character articles. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's change the word to 'redundant' instead of 'duplicate'. We just removed a 'duplicate' or 'redundant' navbar, due two issues (bad design & not being self-explanatory), they got scope creep'd ... were they exact clones, no. Let's keep this specific part within the boundaries of "Do we really need two links on the same navbar to the same subject?" Exact duplicate or not is a question of bad design in someone making a 2nd page for the same subject - not a question for if we put the links on the navbar. As for the other part, with rollback, I'm not going to rollback the change right now is what I meant, but it's likely coming. -- IamM1rv (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I still am not sure what you are talking about. There is only one navbar template now, and a quick glance shows no duplicate links. The other navbar template was redirected to this one. If you are talking about the fact that some prominent characters have been split to their own articles from the Characters of Warcraft main article, then you should take that up at the talk pages for each of those articles. The template talk page is not the place to tackle that discussion. It is 100% acceptable for notable characters to have their own articles, assuming that pass notability guidelines.-- ferret (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret: ... I clearly said, two things ...

1) We just removed a 'duplicate' or 'redundant' navbar ...so of course there is only one, now. I can't pull the history on a deleted page to show you, but we used to have two navbars - which is why I became involved on this page. Template:Warcraft

2)Let's keep this specific part within the boundaries of "Do we really need two links on the same navbar to the same subject?" As you can see, your comments just rephrased what I said. The question though is whether or not both are legitimate pages in wikipedia - rather:

"Do we really need two links on the same navbar to the same subject?"
"Can we link to one (prehaps the one already on there with comprehensive listing & that one links to the more detailed?"

-- IamM1rv (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Warcraft was deleted in 2007. The one we have recently redirected is Template:World of Warcraft. Regarding your second point, I support linking the standalone character articles. Those articles benefit from the presence of the template in my view, and through BIDIRECTIONAL, that means the template must link to them. I really think you're looking to solve an issue that doesn't exist here. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro Gaming[edit]

I asked this before on here and never got a good answer - how does the BIDIRECTIONAL & I lost the links, but there used to be two, one was not every article [needs a navbar] and something about expansions in video games portal page ... I will dig more here. Essentially though, any page about warcraft with the navbar {should|has to} be included? Does this include individual pages for the korean gamers of enough note to have wikipages? PS: Yes grabbed wrong link of the 3 in search, but you got the point? -- IamM1rv (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Bidirectional states that if the template appears on the page, the template should link to that page. Whether or not we put a template on a particular page though is ultimately up to the editors involved. The size and structure of the template is currently well within norms for video game franchise navbars. However, I would personally say that the individual Korean gamer pages do not belong though, unless maybe if they focus solely on Warcraft games. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, what I do know, is if they list the winners the NBA tournaments on the wikipedia - then the Korean's belong. The Korean tournaments are actually a big deal historically for professional gaming & mainstreaming. I'm not defending a particular season. In general gaming and further blizzard games especially would not have been funded like they are or reached mainstream levels so quickly without the Korean tournament scene. Even blizzard's original brains commented on it & how it took starcraft & warcraft 3 from just good titles, to world powerhouses. I read that article in 2003. If you're not aware of the culture, today - how many public channels on tv are devoted to just video gaming in general? Whatever the number, korean tournaments were 15 or 17 years ahead of the U.S. by 3 channels and people funding games took note of this aspect - blizzard had an interview from 2003 as stating they modeled warcraft 3's ladder in game after the korean system. Sponsors sent teams from all of the world to go to the mecca of professional gaming. Until the past few years, all of the most highly paid players in the world played korea. -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I dug one of the Korean players up quickly, Jang Jae-ho. There is a template on his page, Template:StarCraft Pro-Gaming. I would recommend a similar template for Warcraft, i.e. Template:WarCraft Pro-Gaming. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret: Would it be ok if we put a new header for the pro-gaming on the talk page? We are probably going to have a conversation about this that's not just a single reply. It's not really related to the lore discussion. I don't want to just grab something you wrote and move it. -- IamM1rv (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I subsectioned this and moved the indents in. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@IamM1rv and Ferret: I'd like to try to be careful regarding professional players. I like the idea notionally but a template on pro players/competition/teams could bloat quickly, or have lots of overlap with other game-specific e-sports templates. /musing --Izno (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, perhaps Template:StarCraft Pro-Gaming could be repurposed into "Blizzard Pro-Gaming", allowing it to cover Warcraft and Heroes of the Storm. But that might warrant changing to that template's talk page. I definitely don't think we should expand pro-gaming on THIS template. It should be a "Warcraft Pro-Gaming" template, an expanded "Blizzard Pro-Gaming" template, or none at all. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this template would be a bad place to put a bunch of professional stuff (and specifically players/teams). --Izno (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Going to go with no consent on basis space & bloat are not issues as it has been repeated to me over & over again...IE: transformers. It works just fine as it is and the bidirectional is a thing still - so no changes necessary. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm parsing this again & not sure if it changed or I recall differently ... but they have all the seasons listed for rankings & champions. I don't find the rankings to be a basis for general notability per season. I would be fine with those being combined into one mention where they are now & that mention pointing to a list of each season's ranking. Where as, with the world championship you are talking each team having a minimal of millions of fans. I think in this respect, football/basketball/soccer rules would be interesting to study for wikipedia handling. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Or collapsible submenu containing the professional pages from both starcraft, warcraft, heroes of storm individually? -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Since consensus appears to be that this template should not include this information, there's little reason to continue discussing it at this page. There are a couple of editors working heavily in the eSports taskforce of WP:VG currently, if you're interested you should check in on that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports. They have been doing a lot of work on the eSport templates for numerous games including Blizzard games. -- ferret (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)