Hearthstone Wiki talk:Community portal

From Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives

Welcome to the Hearthstone Wiki community discussion page!

This is the place to post questions and discussions regarding larger wiki issues, such as changes to the site affecting a variety of pages. For discussions relating to specific articles, use the corresponding talk page. To report an issue that requires administrative action, use the Admin noticeboard.

As the central community talk page, this page is often used to make important announcements and hold site-wide discussions. To ensure you're kept up to date with wiki affairs, add this page to your watchlist.

This page works just like any other talk page on any other wiki. Click on the "+" tab above to add to the discussion. Thank you!


Card art in galleries and other things[edit source]

As I have gone through and added or updated most of the card full artworks, I have put them in under a Gallery heading at the bottom of the page. Obviously that should not be the case for all pages, like ones with long pages full of lore and text as to spread it out, like the heroes or a lore-filled card like Deathwing. Now I've put myself into a dilemma between putting all of the artworks into galleries and where to draw the line on how long a page needs to be before I align the art to the right, under the card infobox. Or maybe they should be aligned in the middle left. I don't know but I like a solid guideline to follow so I kind of want some extra input from others before I keep going through all the cards.

Also, while I go through I sometimes make minor changes for consistency, like bullet points for Notes and Trivia headings, and making card art descriptions say "Card Name, full art". Some pages have summon quotes at the top and I have removed some, and there are probably other nitpicks I have done but can't remember. Anyways, I would like some input from others to decide some universal guide and I will go through all the pages and fix everything up nice and tidy because I find making all the pages uniform is satisfying. --Beanchagbear (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I did see your edits and I'd like to thank you for all the good work.
What do you mean by tips wrt uniformization and consistency, something like a template a card / artist / etc. page should follow? What headings do we use ('lore' or 'history' or both?), in what order, what content goes into which section? -- Karol007 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
My main concerns are when the full art for cards, which I usually put in galleries at the bottom of the page, should not be put in galleries and instead be aligned to the right side of the page below the card infobox. This case would occur when pages are long and filled with text as it makes the page easier on the eyes when there is a picture thrown in and not at the bottom of the page. The problem (for me at least) is determining how long a page needs to be before I move art from the gallery to further up the page. For example, is Argent Protector long enough or should it be moved into a gallery section. Sorry, I know this kind of thing doesn't really matter much but I like making all the pages perfectly organized, at least the card pages, I'm anal like that.
Other concerns include what the description within the thumbnail for card art should say. I've been changing them all to say "Card Name, full art" but other options could be "Card Name - full art" or "Card Name (full art), I just chose one that I saw most often but I can go back through and change them all. Another is should all Notes and Trivia sections contain bulleted lists, as some have bullets and others just use paragraphs. I just like set guidelines for this stuff so I can fix all of the card pages up as I go through them. Like I said, it's not really that big of a deal but it's nice to know while I'm going through the pages to make sure everything matches and there is more consistency throughout the site. --Beanchagbear (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, long answer!
Philosophically, a balance needs to be struck between standardisation and the needs of each individual instance. The gallery example is a good one - in most cases having a separate Gallery section is a good idea, but in some it's actually better to put it alongside the text. Insisting that all pages be either way would only serve to lower the quality of the presentation, and thus be to the detriment of the wiki, not its benefit. Iteration is also important; being too fixed and rigid with regard to standardisation can prevent new, better, styles from emerging, and stifle the experimentation and gradual shifts that can lead to the discovery of better approaches. Articles like The Grand Tournament and Goblins vs Gnomes aren't identical, and that may be appropriate, not only because they have different needs, but also because wiki presentation is an art, not a science, and a collaborative one at that - a little wiggle room can be a good thing.
That said, in the majority of cases a consistent standard is a good thing, as with general card page layouts. Just remember to leave room for exceptions, as necessary.
The collaborative aspect is also important because we would probably all do things slightly differently. If we each tried to make the wiki precisely to our own personal tastes, there would be nonstop edit warring on pretty much every page. A little leeway is vital to prevent this. In my case, I try not to change things to match my own personal tastes, only when I think it unambiguously improves the wiki. But even that is a very subjective decision.
Regarding specific issues, I agree sometimes it makes sense to put the picture to the right of the page. I wouldn't generally be in favour of images on the left, since this interrupts the flow of the page pretty majorly. The main problem with putting images on the right is that you usually end up with a smaller picture, which sometimes fails to do justice to the art itself. But that may be in exchange for better formatting. My estimate would be that 'on the right' images should be fairly rare, but I'm happy with them being there some of the time. Portrait images also work far better there; landscape ones get squished too much.
The "Card Name, full art" is another good example of standard origination - I wrote that when I first started adding images. There are several different things you could write, and to be honest any of them would be fine. If we're looking for a single standard (and I agree we generally are) any would probably do, which usually means going by the easiest or current majority. So in this case I would say "Card Name, full art" seems perfectly good, so there seems little reason to change everything to a different standard.
Likewise, the reason there isn't a single standard for image file names is partly because we've had different editors uploading them, each using a different approach (or different ones themselves at different times). There's little reason to choose between the various possibilities, although 'Card Name full' is certainly easier to type than 'Card Name (full)' or 'Card Name - art'.
I always add bullet points for Notes, since these are meant to be succinct factual notes, and this is easier to grasp than in big paragraphs. Trivia I guess is similar, at least when the topics are separate; I'm happy with bullet points there.
The unfortunate truth with most of these kinds of concerns is that there is no simple, clear answer. There are a lot of different opinions and over time an editor will likely find themselves disagreeing with their own past choices! Personally, I share your pain, and I tend to agonise over these decisions far more than I should.
In many cases, there will be several viable solutions. Don't try to find the 'right' one; find a good one, and try to be content with that ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your guys' responses. A lot of the problems you posed are the exact reason I wanted to ask about this and get community opinion. I will probably begin another run through of the pages that exist for cards and that will be my main focus for perfecting, leaving room for unique cases for special cards. I think we can agree that conformity for at least the card pages themselves would be okay as compared to editing expansion and hero pages to be like card pages. As for discovering better layouts or styles, if we find one that we like, I wouldn't mind going back through and fixing as needed, because I like to. --Beanchagbear (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You may want to read a previous discussion about creating a styleguide and comments about standardization. -- Karol007 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that discussion has little relevance to the site today. It was a long time ago, and the wiki was a very different wiki at that time. The standards being discussed were also not really the same ones we're discussing today. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
One other thing you're probably already aware of: text from Wowpedia should be presented italicised, and indented, e.g.:
From Wowpedia:
Blargle was a murloc raider of the fluggerwhump tribe.
Most instances are correct, but feel free to fix any that aren't. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. That hasn't been something I have looked for and have already started finding some. (Many are ones that I have done. Heh.) --Beanchagbear (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Card art categories[edit source]

We have a design choice to be made regarding card art, and with our kind of-new community portal all polished up, I thought I'd put it to the community to see what feels right.

Many cards fit within more than one card art category. The main issue is the undead, which invariably belong to another race (or several... looking at you Abomination) - mostly Forsaken who were humans. The other overlap is mechs, which often represent races or species otherwise categorised.

Two main options strike me (although I'm open to better ones). We can add these cards to all related art pages; or we can decide to put them into only one.

If we put cards into multiple art pages, one immediate result would be that the Human art page would become very long and filled with zombies. You'd get inclusivity, and you'd be able to browse every living, dead and mechanical gnome in the game through Gnome art - which would be handy. You would dilute the focus of the page a little though - Goldshire Footman and Zombie Chow aren't really racially linked, and is Homing Chicken really a beast? Is Target Dummy really a human? The same would go for 'X art' in general, not just the minions themselves. There is also the problem of the unidentifiable heritage of many (most?) undead. Do we assume human? Do we not tag them if we aren't sure?

If we only put for example undead cards into Undead art, the problem is it's no longer possible to find all the gnomes in the game without looking at Gnome art, Undead art and Mech art - and browsing each list looking for them... which kind of defeats the purpose of the card art pages in the first place. It also means pages like Nerubian art would be a lot emptier, rather than a neat collection of the few nerubian cards in the game.

Combinative options include intentionally only adding undead cards to related pages if the race is clear and non-human. This would probably make sense, but wouldn't be entirely even. We could also add sub-sections for undead/mech minions-of-that-race, but that might get a bit messy. We could also do multiple categories for the depicted minion itself, but not for the art in general.

Some cards also do and likely will overlap in other ways, such as Rexxar who is half-orc, half-ogre. My feeling is we'll want to keep listing these on all relevant pages, though, since they're very definitely a combination rather than a 'version'.

Thoughts? -- Taohinton (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For my two cents, I think that we should go with the multiple art pages. The resulting undead problem is the main concern I think, but I think it would better suit the purpose of the art categories if a card was included in all immediately recognizable categories. --Beanchagbear (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I see no issues with the current system. In my opinion, each and every character depicted on a particular card should be included in some article in either of two categories (e.g., "Beast" and "Beast art").--Adûnâi (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The current system is conflicted, in that we have undead nerubians on Nerubian art, but no undead humans on Human art. It should be set straight one way or another. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit with form[edit source]

'Great minds think alike', as the Eskimos say. I was just thinking about something like this :-)

Why doesn't it list e.g. 'Destroy' in 'Abilities'? Why can't I edit tags?

If this is the wrong place to ask, please move it. -- Karol007 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a two-year old form that was apparently accidentally activated by today's upgrades. If the community does want this feature, it'd be better for the form to be updated first. I decided to remove it from the Cards category for the time being because I'm not entirely sure it won't cause problems being out of sync with the current {{Card infobox}} template. (And the Cards category is no longer the best place for it either.) oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing card images on Hearthpwn[edit source]

Dark Summoner, Skeleton (unused 3/3) and Metamorphosis have links to Hearthpwn, but I get

Not found
We were unable to find the page or file you were looking for.

when clicking them. Is it normal for removed cards? Should we remove the links then? -- Karol007 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably might as well. AFAIK this is because they used to have pages for these cards, but they've now been removed from the game data itself, and thus they've deleted the Hearthpwn pages. This makes sense for Hearthpwn since they're far more minimal than us when it comes to card data/info/history. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Card categories[edit source]

I originally added the categories such as Category:Expansion cards, Category:Adventure cards, Category:Goblins vs Gnomes cards, etc, quite a while ago as part of a goal to fully categorise the card pages. However, the card data system means that the set-specific tags are not necessary, as the cards are far better sorted through the |set parameter; and the lack of significant distinction between expansions and adventures means there seems little point in having the expansion and adventure card categories. The original intent for the latter categories was partly to enable table sorting for all cards released through expansions or adventures, etc. However, in practice the volume of such listings has already grown too great to be of much use, and that use is pretty arcane anyway.

As a result of the above, I stopped adding these categories to pages some time ago, but I've noticed other editors quite reasonably and diligently adding them to new card pages. While the effort is perfectly noble, as explained I can't see any reason to continue adding cards to these categories; it may even make sense to remove them from pages in order to avoid confusion. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Data import[edit source]

Up till now, I've handled the creation of new card pages and especially data and images by myself, but lately other editors have joined in the burden of getting it all up on the wiki. This is much appreciated, and hopefully such joint efforts will continue to be the case.

With the task no longer mine alone, I feel I should lay out the current setup for data importing, so that other editors are aware of the process.

The manual creation of card data pages and uploading of card images is necessary only in order to bridge the gap between the revealing of the card and the related patch being made available for sites like Hearthpwn to datamine. Once the patch can be datamined, the data is obtained directly by Hearthpwn, and then imported to the wiki.

The import brings complete data pages as well as gold and regular images for every new card. As well as the cards we know about, it also adds data for enchantments, Choose One cards, uncollectible cards, Tavern Brawl cards, heroes, boss cards and many other things that we wouldn't otherwise have listed on the wiki, or know existed. This is very useful for maintaining lists like Enchantment list, and for noticing things like the technically different Hero Powers used by the alternate heroes. It also adds credits cards, debug cards, removed cards from development, and other things unrelated to the current expansion or adventure. It's a valuable insight into the actual technical workings of the game, and makes the wiki a lot more comprehensive.

More than that, it saves us a large amount of time. The importing of regular images for ~150 cards is a task in itself. The process also creates and imports golden images for those cards from the animated versions in the game, which would be an even more substantial task. The import also includes flavor text, which is information we can't add manually to pages when we're first creating them, since that info isn't known until the patch is datamined; and Hearthpwn links which we would otherwise have to add to each card after that site had assigned numbers to the cards. It also gets the release-version text for each card, rather than earlier phrasings we often get from unfinished card versions, translations or third-hand information.

However, the data import doesn't come quickly. The very first cards are revealed about a month before the patch is made available, and we don't want to let the wiki get a whole month out of date! Therefore, we create the data pages for the cards manually in the meanwhile.

Once the import is made, we have two versions of the data for each card - the manually created ones, and the imported ones. The imported ones are directly superior; they have more data, more up to date information, and less human error. The manually created ones are therefore deleted, and the card pages themselves switch over to the imported ones.

This might seem an odd process, but the result is the best of both worlds, at least as far as practicalities go: the cards are up on the wiki as soon as possible, keeping the wiki up to date and a reliable source of information for the game; and by importing data a huge amount of editor effort is saved, allowing us to work on more important projects, and doing the really mechanical, repetitive work for us; and human error is reduced, making the wiki more solid and saving time spent correcting miscellaneous mistakes.

The only downside to the process is that the data imports don't come until after the patch has been made available, and the ability data doesn't always match up; I tend to give the pages a once-over just to catch any which need fixing. That aside, the system works pretty well.

The patch for The Grand Tournament should show up pretty soon, and hopefully the import will arrive shortly after that. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info. I will gladly go through TGT cards once the import is done. -- Karol007 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Your corrections are always appreciated :) -- Taohinton (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Update

The import has now completed. I've manually checked and compared all the data pages (a couple of hundred or so @_@), deleted the old ones (and images) and switched all the content pages over to the new ones. I've also created redirects and listings for all the enchantments, as well as the new debug cards, etc, and thoroughly refreshed the pages so we shouldn't have many missing card issues.

I've removed all the |category=upcoming tags, so all the TGT cards are now live, which they kind of will be in a few hours in-game, through the Tavern Brawl. I've also removed all the temporary table works and TGT tags from pages.

One small error from the data import is that the set is listed as "The Grand Tourney" rather than "The Grand Tournament". A bot has been requested and this should be fixed soon.

For all intents and purposes, TGT is now live. Feel free to update pages to the present tense, and fix anything else that needs doing. I've done a very thorough job of checking all the new data, but there may still be errors or mistakes - feel free to ask about anything significantly strange.

The tavern has now come to a complete stop. Please remember to take all your belongings with you, as the tavern may relocate itself at any time. On behalf of everyone here at The Grand Tournament, we hope enjoy your stay in sunny Northrend. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Created by" sections[edit source]

Warning: wall of text ahoy! Sometimes explaining a subject takes some doing...

I sympathise with the recent edits such as this one. It makes sense to include information like this. However, aside from suggesting we trim the text to something far briefer such as "As well as being collected in decks, this card can also be created by the following cards.", I also feel the idea needs serious review.

While it seems natural enough to add a card like Neptulon to Murloc pages to show the Murloc can be generated by Neptulon, the problem is that we have far more cards performing such a function than just Neptulon. Every Murloc can be summoned by Neptulon and Murloc Knight. Every Beast can be generated by Webspinner, and summoned by Ram Wrangler; every Mech by Gazlowe; every Demon by Bane of Doom; every Totem by Tuskarr Totemic. Any class spell can be generated by Nefarian, every class card by Burgle, every class minion summoned by Convert, every spell by Nexus-Champion Saraad and Spellslinger; any 2-cost minion by Piloted Shredder, any 4-cost minion by Piloted Sky Golem, any legendary minion by Sneed's Old Shredder and Confessor Paletress, and any minion at all by Unstable Portal and Mulch. Any hunter card can be generated by Lock and Load, any paladin card by Grand Crusader. Then there are copy effects like Thoughtsteal, Chromaggus and Faceless Manipulator, which can generate or turn into any card or minion in the game.

Even without the copy effects, if we added even half of these to each card page, we would end up with very large and cumbersome lists on every page. For example Hunter's Mark would list Lock and Load, Nexus-Champion Saraad, Spellslinger, Nefarian and Burgle; Snowchugger would list Unstable Portal, Mulch, Gazlowe, Burgle, Convert and Piloted Shredder; Tirion Fordring would list Burgle, Convert, Grand Crusader, Sneed's Old Shredder, Confessor Paletress, Mulch and Unstable Portal.

It's pretty clear to me this far too large a list to provide visually. Having 6 or 7 cards shown at the top of each page is pretty overkill, and also distracts from the actual page itself, since in most cases these cards have nothing to do with the card in question - Nefarian is very rarely related to Fireball, and is only minimally relevant to people wanting to read about that card. The "Summoned by" type sections were originally added for uncollectible cards like Sheep or Boar; these minions can only obtained through these spells, so it makes sense to feature the generating card pretty prominently. The same with featuring Sheep on Polymorph or Boar on Razorfen Hunter; they are the minions generated by the spells, so it makes sense.

The question is whether we want to work out a way to provide this type of list on every card page in a way that is less disruptive, or to drop the idea. It doesn't really make sense to only list 2 of the 4-7 relevant cards, or to only provide these sections for certain cards, e.g., Murlocs. The design has to be consistent, and complete.

I've tried doing it several ways, and the best I've come up with is to put the cards in a collapsible table, which readers can click to expand, like this. This provides a good clear visual list, but is hidden from view unless readers want to see it. It's still a bit clunky, though.

Assuming we do want to add this functionality to the wiki (which is indeed an impressive one, although I'm not really sure how useful) the question becomes are we willing to put the work into making and maintaining it. If we manually created these listings for each card page on the site (several hundred) this would take a lot of effort. But what's more problematic is that each time a new random generate or summon effect is put into the game, we'd have to manually add that to the page of each card it could create. This would quickly snowball into a huge amount of work. And of course with that huge amount of work there comes a huge margin for human error, and cards not being listed. Plus, Hearthstone is going to continue to grow, indefinitely.

A better solution might be to create a sorting query which works out which cards should be listed on each card page, based on its data. This could work pretty well, although the template would still need to be updated each time a new random summon/generate card is added. We'd also need to manually add cards like Bear Trap for Ironfur Grizzly, which would probably throw the ordering of the cards out.

The concern with the query is that it might add to the loading time for each page. If this is a noticeable increase, I would say it's not worth it - increasing loading time for every card page on the wiki, just in case someone wants to browse a list of fairly obvious cards like Piloted Shredder and Unstable Portal. It's also something I'd have to ask OOEyes about, since I don't have the knowledge required to set something like that up. This plan does however seem doable, loading time concerns aside. It would still mean extra work, though.

Regarding the question "is it worth it?" it should be considered that with Hearthstone exponentially embracing RNG and generate effects, the chances are these listings will become too large to be of much use before too long. But, they could still be somewhat more handy in the meanwhile.

So... any feedback, after that mammoth post? -- Taohinton (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

We have 'Cards with Summon' etc. lists on respective abilities' pages , so let's just tag the cards properly and try to keep the wiki showing these card lists. -- Karol007 (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally think that a section for this kind of stuff is way too much fluff. That section should only really be in place if a minion or spell is specifically created by another card like for Ironfur Grizzly with Bear Trap, Silver Hand Recruits with Muster for Battle and others, and maybe Arcane Missiles with Rhonin. If we go about adding every possible way to get a card then there that is too much fluff on every single card in the game. I mean do you add Lorewalker Cho to every spell and Unstable Portal or Faceless Manipulator to every minion. I think that's just silly. For stuff like Murloc Knight and Neptulon, I think those possibilities should be kept on their own pages rather than be put on every Murloc page and Gazlowe for every mech. --Beanchagbear (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should list cards like Bear Trap on specifically generated card pages like Ironfur Grizzly. I think it would be better done as a subsection of the "How to get" section, though, rather than as a section of its own. The original "Summoned by" sections were intended for uncollectible cards like Sheep to show how to bring them into play - importantly, the only way to bring them into play. With collectible cards like Ironfur Grizzly, adding a "Summoned by" section as usual is a bit too powerful, and may suggest to readers quickly scanning the page that it is an uncollectible minion, since that is the only place you usually see those sections. Also, the "Summoned by" section on uncollectible card pages is basically a simplified "How to get" section, so when both are present it makes sense to combine them.
I would suggest something like this. -- Taohinton (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

`

Resolution

If we have no further input from editors, it sounds like the consensus is not to invest the effort in creating such a system. I agree with Beanchagbear that any card which specifically summons/generates another should be mentioned on that page (and vice versa). If we're in agreement, I'll remove the current extra listings on the Murloc pages, and add more standardised listings to those pages which specifically merit them. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I posted that without checking the recent changes first; looks like Beanchagbear beat me to it ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The League of Explorers[edit source]

Greetings fellow wiki-explorers! Following the announcement at BlizzCon I've now gotten almost all the core The League of Explorers info up on the wiki @_@ However, there are some things still to do. I'm making a list here in the hopes that editors who would like to contribute will find it useful in showing them what still needs doing.

Bear in mind many of these tasks require a bit of knowledge of the habits of the wiki. If you're not familiar with them, the best idea is to examine several other (recent) pages and see how it's done there. Icehowl, Chillmaw and North Sea Kraken are some decent card content page examples.


Stuff that needs doing
  • Adding lore info to card pages and boss pages
  • Adding gallery art and images to card pages and boss pages
  • Adding cards to card art pages (card art system overhaul coming soon)
  • Adding strategy to card pages (if you have something useful to add!)
  • Adding quotes to card pages (once they're released)
  • Fixing any of the thousand mistakes I've probably made in setting up the content so far
Stuff that will happen automatically
  • Importing full data pages for all the collectible cards, uncollectible cards, bosses, and boss cards.
    • This will hopefully take place just before November 12. New data pages will be imported for all content, which Taohinton will then switch to replace the current data pages (except for bosses).
  • Importing images and golden images for all the above
Stuff that Taohinton will do
  • Switch over data pages for all the new content
  • Add reasonably fleshed-out content pages for new boss cards, Hero Powers, unrevealed bosses
  • Add boss encounter dialogue from strings
  • List new enchantments
Stuff you probably shouldn't bother doing
  • Adding flavor text, full card text or other stuff to the card data pages
    • All of this will get imported automatically shortly, making this unnecessary


I'll add to and amend these lists as the project progresses. Feel free to discuss, suggest, ask questions, etc, below. Happy exploring! -- Taohinton (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been busy lately but as always, I will gladly take care of the artwork and any other things I find along the way. --Beanchagbear (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Dialogue

I've just finished adding all the dialogue from the strings to the boss pages. It should be (99%) on the right pages, and the descriptions are fairly good based on the string names and a bit of logic. However, the presentation/indentation system isn't particularly great; sometimes we have a long string of quotes from one character, and other times we have a back and forth between two. I've focused on the strings themselves and haven't put much time into fussing with the system, but it could probably be improved.

Oh, and fairly obviously, heads up, massive (pretty cool) spoiler alert ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Import

The data import is almost complete. I've spent the last several hours putting together pages for all the new cards (mostly boss, plus some Tavern Brawl and others), as well as handling all the other miscellaneous necessities.

The boss pages have all been made, and tied together in what is probably correct in most cases. However obviously some might be on the wrong boss pages/not on enough boss pages, and there are a couple of ambiguous Normal/Heroic possibilities in there. We might also have a removed card or two the developers never took out. Aside from that, it's pretty much done. Likewise I've put all other new stuff into fairly accurate place.

The import hasn't actually completed, since we're still waiting on the images for the actual playable cards. Unfortunately they're the very last things to be imported, and the import keeps stopping for minutes or hours at a time. I didn't want to leave the pages like that for any longer than necessary, so I've manually uploaded the normal images for the cards and switched the data. This should mean everything is now done except for the image imports (mostly golden), and a few fixes. -- Taohinton (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: It seems there were some hiccups in the import procedure. The golden images have now been requested, but there's no ETA. They will hopefully happen early next week. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Nearly done

The import process has now completed, and all the main pages should be fairly complete. There should be some bots run tonight to fix some small errors in the imported data, like the '104' card set being displayed. There are still plenty of ways to improve the pages, as suggested above, but the main functional work should now be over... until next time. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Competitive Hearthstone[edit source]

Gamepedia are looking to expand the wiki with a new and impressive competitive section. But to make this happen we'll need enthusiastic editors to detail the latest tournaments and events. If you're interested in being part of the wiki team to create and maintain this resource, send me an email. Cheers! -- Taohinton (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Winter's Veil from the Hearthstone Wiki[edit source]

The patrons of the inn are gathered around the fire, eating, drinking, playing and dozing... while outside through the falling snow the shape of a dwarven carriage can be seen flying from rooftop to rooftop, delivering crates full of Hearthstone cards... as the children tucked up in bed at home listen for the sound of Dreadsteed hooves upon the roof.

2015 has been the first full year of Hearthstone: we've seen the release of Blackrock Mountain, The Grand Tournament and The League of Explorers; the addition of the first alternate heroes, Magni Bronzebeard, Alleria Windrunner and Medivh; the release of the Tavern Brawl game mode; the game's first true seasonal event, Winter Veil; and the release of Hearthstone on phones! This time last year the game's first expansion, Goblins vs Gnomes, had just been released, along with the new spectator mode; and decklists were still reeling from the nerfs to Starving Buzzard and Leeroy Jenkins.

It's been a full year for the wiki, too, with expansions and new additions across the site, including big projects like the Full art pages (thanks especially to User:Shammiesgun and User:Beanchagbear) and the rewrite and massive expansion of the Advanced rulebook and addition of the Bug article (thanks especially to User:Patashu and User:Xinhuan, along with User:Culinko and the many spectator mode-members of the Hearthsim community). We've also had substantial upgrading and rethinking of card sorting and listing systems, and the beginning of new traditions with Tavern Brawl content.

2015 Champions' Table[edit source]

Every contribution to the wiki is appreciated; even the simplest typo correction or grammar fix raises the standard of the site, with every edit helping to making the wiki into the comprehensive and widely-consulted resource that it is today.

However, among the crowd of cheerful contributors, there are some patrons whose generosity and devotion (some might say obsession) makes them stand out from their compatriots. These towering champions of the hearth serve as pillars of the community, upholding the wiki's foundations and elevating it to new heights upon the broad shoulders of their diligent labours. These champions come in every shape and size: there are ingenious gnomes and cunning goblins ceaselessly tinkering and innovating among the tavern's innumerable details; swift and nimble elves leaping to put out fires and snipe bandits wherever they arise; draenei historians and troll elders recording the events of each season for future generations; scheming Forsaken and savage worgen sharing their fiendish battle strategies; painterly pandaren telling the tales of Azeroth through sumptuous art; and of course stalwart tauren and dwarves heroically hoisting the raw materials necessary for the site's ever-continuing construction.

Set right before the roaring fire in a place of special honour is the Champions' Table, around which are gathered the community's most outstanding contributors. This year's most prominent champions include:

And of course, a special word of thanks and cheer for our Curse tech liaison, the Tinkmaster who makes the MediaWiki shine: User:OOeyes.

To all our editors, thank you for your contributions, and I hope you've enjoyed being part of this sprawling resource for one of the biggest (and littlest) games out there. Editing can be a thankless task, and a tiring evening spent editing can easily feel like a drop in the ocean of all the work that's left needing to be done. But while we may not get much thanks or recognition, together we are building and maintaining what is without doubt the most extensive and comprehensive Hearthstone resource of its kind in the world, visited by millions of players with implicit faith in the wiki's expansiveness and accuracy. The wiki is unparalleled in its scope and depth of card knowledge, its sumptuous collection of art, its mind-bogglingly detailed rulebook, its clear yet comprehensive listing of abilities and effects, its encyclopaedic yet accessible listings of cards and enchantments, and its wealth of trivia and Warcraft lore. And what's more than any other site, all of this is built by community effort - not by paid admins or site managers, but by a genuine grass-roots community of people who play the game, and give generously and unstintingly of their time to build this mighty resource. And when you consider how that effort has built such a remarkable and unrivalled resource... I think that's pretty cool.

I hope you're all proud of what you've achieved here, and if the millions of readers had any idea of the work that goes into creating the reliable resource they take for granted, I think they'd thank you too.

Have a great end to 2015 everyone, and here's to a fabulous 2016! -- Taohinton (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Taohinton! Appreciate it! :) --Patashu (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Daww, quite an honor being listed among such illustrious company! Tao, I sure hope the only reason you didn't list yourself at that Champion's Table is there's a special throne for you up on the balcony looking wisely down upon the whole inn. Pleasant Feast of Winter Veil to all... - jerodast (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the accolades, and thanks to everyone here for your hard editing work. Have a great holiday season. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Winter's Veil! Always glad to help out. -- Xinhuan (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Feast of Winterveil! What an awesome message to have on Christmas morning. I am inspired to contribute more! --Beanchagbear (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No e-mail notifications[edit source]

If I marked a page as watched, I used to get notifications to my mailbox if somebody edited that page. 'Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed' is checked and so is 'Email me also for minor edits of pages and files'. I don't think I've got any e-mails after January 16th, even though changes to the pages that are on my watchlist have been made e.g. I've got no notifications about Taohinton's edits to Miniature Warfare‎‎. Only when I've checked the history of edits of this page, I saw that he was polishing the article after I've expanded it a bit.

These changes do show up in my http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist , but I get no e-mail notifications.

I've checked my spam folder, no gamepedia stuff there.

-- Karol007 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There were some technical difficulties with emails going out this week; I ended up with some missed notifications myself. I've been informed it should be corrected by now. Apologies for any inconvenience. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 18:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has changed for me e.g. I haven't got any notification about your reply ... -- Karol007 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I did get a notification about a recent edit, so hopefully things are clearing up :-) -- Karol007 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just checked, and there have been 5 edits by other users to pages on my watchlist since Jan 16 - I have not received notifications for any of them. The next notification should have gone out on Jan 28 (Karol's post, above) but didn't happen. This includes changes on Feb 13 and 16. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I've received notifications about recent edits to the pages that are on my watchlist. -- Karol007 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I figured out why I'm not getting notifications. They're going to my spam email! I'll have to whitelist 'From: [email protected] on behalf of Hearthstone@ (curse.us:Heroes of Warcraft Wiki [email protected]) Microsoft SmartScreen classified this message as junk.' to receive them again. --Patashu (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Standard format cometh[edit source]

The arrival of game formats (most importantly Standard format) is obviously going to affect Hearthstone a lot, the consequences of which are currently being debated far and wide. However, it will also affect the wiki, in a pretty big way.

Overall, the arrival of game formats complicates things a fair bit. But it also provides one useful change: a solution to our problem of ever-growing card lists. This parallels the primary in-game reason for the invention of the format in the first place: adding more and more (and more) cards becomes problematic before too long. However, this solution revolves around a key point: the focus of the wiki.

With the coming change creating a split in both card lists and game strategy, it seems clear to me that the primary focus of the wiki should be Standard format. The reasons for this are many. Standard will be used for all official tournaments and qualifiers, and therefore likely almost all 'serious' non-official tournaments too. This means the pros will be focused on it, which means popular decks will be primarily influenced by it, and players will be wanting to challenge themselves at the same version of the game they've been watching in the latest tournaments. Standard format is also explicitly intended to be the focus for new players; it's got a smaller range of sources of cards, a smaller pool of cards overall, and will be more balanced (at the least, less "wild"). Finally, Standard format is fairly obviously going to be the main focus of Hearthstone on the whole going forward, despite assurances that Wild will not be overlooked.

This focus is important in terms of policy, but also for structure. The list of cards for each format will be different, and we can't provide both versions of each list on each page. Additionally, as long foreseen, the lists for Wild format will before long be too lengthy to provide in full, requiring simplification, and - eventually - removal. The increase in card release pace to include two expansions and one adventure each year will accelerate that progression even further. With a focus on Standard format, the card lists which were beginning to stretch MediaWiki's limits will be brought back within reach, and are essentially guaranteed never to grow beyond a manageable size. This is excellent news in terms of presentation and the utility of the wiki.

The plan at present is to make all current card lists on the wiki include only Standard cards, meaning pages like Charge, Beast and Druid will only show cards available in Standard format. This may feel a little weird at first (as may the Standard/Wild split in-game), but as explained above I believe it's the best (and ultimately only) option. It also makes a lot of sense in terms of helping the wiki to be useful to readers: both serious Standard-focused players and new-comers alike will benefit from the wiki providing easy and clear access to the cards available in Standard format.

However, I in no way want to abandon Wild format. What I'd like to provide are separate linked pages providing corresponding Wild lists. In many cases these will simply reproduce the list portions of the main page (but set to include Wild cards), while for the bigger lists they can be easily split into a list on each page. These can be linked in articles from just above the normal (Standard) lists, making it very clear at every point the separation between the formats. I'm open to ideas for more elegant solutions; this is a simple and manageable one. I've made a draft here, feel free to comment. NB: The card lists themselves are currently identical.

Regarding the sorting itself, the simplest way to handle this seems to be to additionally place all Standard cards into Category:Standard format cards. This will save Standard card lists from wasting time searching through all the Wild cards, making the whole thing workable. Standard cards will remain in Category:Cards so they'll still work normally in Wild searches. Manually adding the categories means a bot can easily remove them at the start of each new Standard Year.

Regarding Strategy/Notes sections/write-ups in general, I don't think it will be necessary to go through and separate information out, although this may end up happening over time. We're going to reach a point where we have different (perhaps very different) strategies/synergies/perspectives on a card's value depending on whether you're playing it in Standard or Wild, so to some degree this will require separation. This could be done through separate sub-sections, but I don't think we need to enforce this too much; it will probably evolve fairly organically.

Overall it's a complex matter for the wiki, and I'm open to ideas and suggestions on how best to handle it. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) Nice work! Sorry about your injury :( - jerodast (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Levels of XP-based card unlocks[edit source]

Example: Warrior#Level_2-10

The placement of levels vs card is non-intuitive. It's difficult to associate the "Level X" notation with the card, because my brain isn't used to this juxtaposition. Image captions are always placed below their associated images (ex. Whispers_of_the_Old_Gods#Gallery) and even more strikingly almost all card text is at the bottom of the card. So when I scroll down through the gallery wondering when I can unlock X card, I associate level XX with the card above it, with no visual cues like a table or grid to orient me. I propose a reversal: levels below cards.

That is all. TehAnonymous (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, although I think either above or below would be confusing to some people. Perhaps the table there (currently invisible) could be used with some stronger styling to emphasize the connection. I tried out a few options at User:jerodast/Table_Experiment. Would appreciate feedback and input from wiki formatting experts! Side note: Is there an alternative to tables like this that don't really need to be (unwrappable) tables, just block-unit (wrapple) chunks of content? Maybe just a bunch of inline divs? - jerodast (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I took the liberty of expanding the main styles out on your user page, which confirmed what I trialled a couple of days ago, which is that it seems much clearer to me to have the numbers underneath. Regarding other elements, in-situ I think invisible tables are fine (and better match the main class card listings), and actually clearer since it is ambiguous which cards the ! rows are referring to. I've made the edit I had drafted to Warrior#Leveling rewards so you can see that in-situ.
Regarding divs, this should be pretty easy to do. I've added some to the bottom of your user page. I really should get round to thinking this through for other pages on the site, and probably making up some templates. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice! Yes, I suppose just putting the text below is enough now that I look at it. I agree it's not clear enough which header goes where with the shaded table, which is why I was experimenting with borders, but I spose this is good.
The divs idea just occurred to me based on the many other places you've simply listed out {{card}}s. The reward listings are basically the same things, just with one line attached underneath each. Not a big visual change from tables, but hey, flowing layouts are nice so eventually, why not. - jerodast (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Tooltips, as always[edit source]

I've been editing some Hero Power pages and noticing tooltips worked before my edits and stopped working after. Also they don't seem to be working on talk pages? Is this just me? I could swear it wasn't happening yesterday. - jerodast (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The extension doesn't have them enabled on talk pages. I send a request in to dev to get access to those configuration settings, but I think it may have been overlooked. As for the Hero Powers, I resaved Steady Shot and they began working again. My best guess is that the category check was giving false negatives during those saves, but I don't know why that would happen unless someone removed Category:All cards from Category:Has tooltips enabled. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 19:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I figured the talk pages were intentional. I definitely didn't remove any categories but who knows, thanks for repairing it :) I will try just resaving after awhile, next time it happens. - jerodast (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

sir finley add[edit source]

I just want to advice that sir finley says a new line when he is played and the opponent is the new shaman hero, Morgl the murloc. Need to add to sir finley page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.197.228 (talkcontribs) 01:08, 13 July 2016‎

Thanks for the tip! I've added notes to Sir Finley Mrrgglton and Morgl the Oracle :) -- Taohinton (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tooltips on card images[edit source]

A new version of the TippingOver was deployed today that supports tooltips on image links. It was requested on STOWiki, but not desirable here because it'll just show the same card image you're hovering over. But due to a snafu, I don't have access to the setting to disable it yet. I just wanted to let you know that it wasn't intentional to have this feature active here and I'll be disabling it as soon as dev gets to my ticket, but for now, tooltips are going to be a bit awkward sadly. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 18:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) I do tend to wonder about things like this, so that saves me posting a question! -- Taohinton (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Zeriyah twitter[edit source]

We have a lot of references from Zeriyah's tweets, but a month or two (?) ago I noticed her account went protected. Do we know why and if she plans to un-protect? (Knowing how the internet treats women, maybe I don't want to know why.) Is there a Twitter archive service of some kind that might have them? Maybe it's not important but it's sad seeing all the "dead" links around (not really dead dead but still). - jerodast (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's unfortunate. The account has been dead for nearly a year now, since they shut down all the individual CM accounts. Not sure why she's gone protected at this point though; that account hasn't tweeted anything in many months, and going protected only prevents people reading your tweets, not tweeting at you, so it wouldn't really help with any harassment (also she already has 24k people with access to that account). At any rate, I follow the account so if there's any tweet in particular you need I can always look it up. No idea about archive services, I'm afraid :| -- Taohinton (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't use the follower features. It's nothing in particular, just the principle that you shouldn't need a twitter login to see our sources, ideally. (Btw, true that protection doesn't stop folks from tweeting at you, but it can remove the impetus to tweet at someone in the first place. I would hope this is more related to the general CM twitter shutdown than a specific incident though.) - jerodast (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gadgetzan ahoy[edit source]

With the new expansion coming up there will be more work than usual to be done. I've done a blitz and put together the Mean Streets of Gadgetzan page, and also made up all the data and content pages for all the cards shown so far. However, I'd really like some help with the subsequent reveals, and generally getting all the info up.

Things that will need doing:

  • Making data and content pages for new cards as they're revealed
    • The easiest way to do this is usually just to copy one of the other new cards (eg Pint-Size Potion) and change the info appropriately. However, there is a boilerplate content page for those who find that system easier (sadly due to the way the wiki handles cards a few comment tags have to be removed).
  • Adding additional content to the new card pages
    • A basic job of making card pages often misses stuff like strategy, lore, card art categories, etc. Adding these can make the pages really come to life, and is always welcome.
  • Checking new card pages for errors
    • There are always a few slips in card details, especially when the editor responsible has been making dozens of cards up in one go. Checking the details over quickly and correcting errors is easier (and less exhausting) with a fresh pair of eyes.
    • Those with more technical experience can also check for missing or mis-entered tags and hiddentags, to make sure cards show up on the appropriate lists.
  • Updating the main expansion page with new info
    • This includes adding new cards to the list, even if you don't have time to make the cards themselves.
  • Generally updating the site to match the new content
    • Various other pages will need updating in response to the new expansion. This might be adding the expansion to lists or discussions, or changing sections following new innovations.

I tend to get pretty exhausted trying to handle the post-reveal work load, and work is always lighter with a few additional pairs of hands. As usual, any and all help is much appreciated, and editors are welcome to comment here to take on specific tasks or ask for help in doing so. I tend to be among the first to pounce on new reveals, but my resources are stretched fairly thin at present, and I would be more than happy to hand my usual responsibilities over to other editors.

I hope everyone is enjoying the BlizzCon madness, and looking forward to the goodies to come. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Update

There's still lots left to do, but after a month or so of adding to and updating the wiki, the bulk of the work for the new expansion has been completed. Well done to everyone who has contributed to the many new pages (and those who are still doing so), and updating the rest of the site. Especial thanks to User:Senescalzin and User:DeludedTroll, who have respectively done a brilliant job of creating the content and data pages, and writing up the lore and uploading all the new art, among other things! -- Taohinton (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki style changes[edit source]

I was contacted recently by Curse personnel working on a revamp of the main page. They're planning on making the front page a lot more impressive and that's something I welcome. However, they also plan on making some significant style changes that will apply throughout the wiki.

Critically, the main article background texture will be removed, and replaced by a pale plain colour; the current header bar will be removed in lieu of a plain extension of the new article background colour; and all fonts for the wiki will be changed. While I'm in favour of many of the changes planned to the front page, I am not in favour of all of the changes for the rest of the wiki.

You can see an impression of the new look here, as opposed to the current look. (The cards are obviously missing.)

As for my thoughts, I'll quote what I said in my email to the manager involved:

The most important point is the background. We've lost the warm parchment skin and gained a paler plain colour instead. The new colour doesn't go very well with the red, is a lot colder, and doesn't match the Hearthstone colour scheme; the previous tones were chosen to match the game itself, which seems like a good idea for branding.
The top bar is also gone. The previous one reprised the colour themes from the sidebar, strengthening the feel and matching the wood-panel style of both the side bar and again Hearthstone itself. The new non-bar feels very plain and an abrupt start to each page. We've also lost the shading on the edge of the article space, which was nice, and again feels abrupt.
I'm not sure how I feel about either font change, but the header font at least looks characterful; the main text font feels a bit plain.

Unfortunately the developers involved don't agree, and the changes will be implemented on the wiki this Friday.

I won't go into too much depth, but I do feel that we, the editors who have made this wiki what it is - and on whom its ongoing success solely depends - should have some input as to how the wiki looks and feels. I don't believe this is something that should be decided for us, and left for us to live with. Especially as we are the ones who will be spending so much time reading, editing and looking at the new style on every page from here on out. I also believe that as long-time players of Hearthstone and users of the wiki, we are in an excellent position to provide perspective on what feels right for a Hearthstone wiki, and what it's like to work on and regularly read the wiki; something the developers do not have an abundance of.

Many of the other changes (see an early draft of the new front page) are in my opinion good, and based on useful user data that Curse has access to. I am all for such improvements to the site. I am also aware that we all have our own sense of aesthetics, and changes are often uncomfortable at the time. Those reading this may well disagree with my opinions and welcome the style changes: and if so, I am willing to accept this. Either way, I believe the preferences of the editors should have some weight, and that the best solution is one that works for those who will be working, building the site on a daily basis, as well as for those whose job it is to host and support the network.

I would therefore like to invite the community to comment on the upcoming changes. Given the looming deadline the window for comment is brief; please add your thoughts now if you wish to have a say. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The main thing is the background. I strongly agree with your objections there. The top bar, I do like the red too but not so much that I'm confident it's anything but status quo bias :) I'm neutral on font and front page. Again, the background is a big deal. I'm not sure what advantage taking away the warm texture could possibly have. - jerodast (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Just dropping a note they modified the mockup they provided me for the main page. There are some changes coming to the class and hero section and to the area left of that. May end up getting left work-in-progress depending on how much I'm able to finish tonight. :( oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 04:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with any change shown so far. As long as it doesn't break the website.Shammiesgun (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say I agree with all of your concerns, Taohinton. The current style looks a lot more like what I'd expect a Hearthstone-centered wiki to look like than the new style does. The main page overhaul looks alright, but the overall style change looks a bit too cold and artificial, which feels at odds with the aesthetic of Hearthstone itself of being a cozy inn with warm color tones and wooden panels, if that makes any sense. But maybe that's just me having an instinctively negative reaction to big changes. --DeludedTroll (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, main page updates are still a work in progress until the night. In particular, the images for the classes are not yet updated. Apologies. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 10:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason why Curse decided to go with a darker color scheme is that:
  1. It fits the style of the "Curse" brand (darker tones, darker red)
  2. It changes the background color SO much, that people who revisit the wiki will probably notice Curse as the "one" who made the change.
I'm neutral in the color scheme, even though it is decidedly darker. I'm sure the makeover will benefit Curse branding, and "rejuvenate" the site with a fresh look. The pointers I mentioned is what they're after. The main important thing to see is that the articles are kept intact. Aegonostic (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I wanted to go ahead and jump into the discussion. For those who don't know me, I'm the Community & Marketing Manager for Gamepedia and this redesign/layout change has been a project I'm heading up. First off, I want to say that we absolutely do value your contributions on the wiki and feedback on these design changes, especially the excitement/appreciation of the layout and content changes. I also really appreciate the self-awareness that some reactions may be from the gut just because things are different than they have been for a long time. I want to apologize to Taohinton as well because it seems as though I communicated that we were going to simply forge ahead without addressing any critiques he raised. You were our first-ever Editor of the Month and part of the inspiration for that program and so I'm sorry that you felt like your concerns were not being heard appropriately.

That said, it seems like the background texture is really the main sticking point in this discussion. I went back to chat with our designers and found that our original mockups actually do call for a parchment texture, which I'm going to work to have implemented ASAP. Although it is lighter than the one used now and removes the edge shading, I hope that maybe it will help to make the design less "sterile" and more welcoming and in-line with the historic look and feel of the wiki. Setting aside the thematic connection with the game itself for a moment, the design justification for the lightening/removal of the background is for readability. Here's a side-by-side comparison: Link -- I, personally, agree that while the current background has a certain warmth to it, the lighter background does make the reading experience a little better. I'd like to see if retaining the parchment texture like this might be more acceptable to everyone. If not, we can test some other options. I do feel fairly strongly about removing the edge shading though, for me it really makes the start of text lines difficult to read and is distracting.

Finally, I just want to say that our aim here is not to charge in and make waves because we can, or because we want to exert control over the wiki and mold it to fit our brand. As Tao mentioned, we spent a lot of time running tests, analyzing traffic data, and working through designs with our expert team here. All of that is because we want to make the wiki a better experience for the thousands and thousands of people who come here to use (and hopefully appreciate!) the content that you help create. This is something we're aiming to do with other top wikis on the platform as well, and the process has been a learning experience for us for sure. CrsBenjamin 16:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin, and thanks for joining us! I hope you don't mind me opening up the discussion to the rest of the community; as I say these are changes that will affect all of us so it only felt right to get everybody's thoughts, especially from our top editors.
Thanks also for providing some alternative ideas regarding the background, which I agree is the main concern, if not the only one. I'll be interested to hear from the other editors whether the colour or the texture is the bigger issue. The addition of the texture does mitigate the new base colour, but I'm not sure if does much to help it fit with the rest of the wiki colours, or to make it feel much less cold. I agree readability has to be a concern, but I'd ideally like to find a solution without sacrificing too many other strengths. The current background is desirable because it matches both the wiki palette and that of the game; the warmth is not only pleasant as a reader, but as DeludedTroll mentions captures the feeling of the game itself, something which I think is worth keeping if possible. Since I know the texture has been mentioned previously as an obstacle to readability, perhaps a warmer plain colour would be an alternative to a colder parchment texture?
I'm also unclear about the font changes. The new image you've provided shows significantly different font sizes than currently used for both the article header and base text (as seen in the contrast between left and right - or live). Are these intended changes? I also notice the font colours have changed from a deep wine-ish colour to black and orangish; presumably these are the latest iterations?
With talk of a texture and/or changed background tone, it's hard to otherwise respond regarding the edge shading or top bar; it would be good to see the latest batch of changes live on the Spyro wiki (or at least some full screen mockups), so we can get a better sense of what it would look like. A compromise if the current edge shading is problematic due to overlapping the text might be to reduce it to the actual edge of the space rather than a fat chunk, which might still help the cut-off feel less abrupt without troubling the eyes. Since you mention finding bits difficult to read, I should say I do find the font colour for the new top bar quite hard to read, due to the small contrast between the font and background.
Anyway, I'll leave it there for now, and look forward to hearing people's thoughts. Thanks again for discussing possible solutions. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
All I have currently in my queue is the remaining main page adjustments, so the current version on Spyro is the place to go for font sizing. This is in part because the wiki skins use relative sizing, and that generally isn't a concept that even exists in most software used to make these mockups, so mileage is going to vary on that anyway. The only further adjustments currently in my queue are main page only, though naturally more may be coming. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 03:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Most changes to the main page now live on Spyro. Seems I never received all the assets for the new links on the left hand side, though, so that will have to wait until tomorrow. The new parchment is up too. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 10:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Now updated with all the images for the links. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 10:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Something is off with the positioning of tiles for Arena, Ranked, and Tavern Brawl on Spyro wiki. They're overlapping the expansions/adventures, at least in Chrome. - jerodast (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops. It should be fixed now. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 07:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
ill this wiki be offline for some time when implementing changes? If so, it would be good to check in on the timetable (especially with the reveal of the new expansion Journey_to_Un'Goro). Aegonostic (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This won't require any downtime to push live. As for schedule, apologies, but I haven't received any updates to pass along. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 07:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
So to clarify, oOeyes: the font size and colour on the current Spyro wiki are (as far as you know) the intended final versions for the new style?
Also, I can't see the parchment, or any difference between the wiki before and after (unless you changed it earlier than I understood). Is that definitely up? -- Taohinton (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, the Spyro font sizes are final. The parchment is there between the boxes, but I too am surprised at how subtle it is. I actually had to take a screenshot and zoom in to confirm it's not just the solid color. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 16:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the long silence, I was out of town last week for a conference. I believe everything is fairly up to date now. The background is less visible on the main page, but more visible on content pages. I've copied over http://spyro.gamepedia.com/Card_draw_effect as an example to check out. CrsBenjamin (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the spyro article on mobile, the whitespace margin should be increased (right now there's no whitespace margin, on the sides of the article, 5px should be sufficient). Also, I'd like to see an article example of a Hearthstone card. Other than that, I think it looks good. When are the wiki changes to be implemented? Aegonostic (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been much additional discussion since my last message, what I would like to do is implement the new mainpage on Friday, and then over a period of 2 weeks track some key metrics like how the page is being used, traffic, bounce rate, etc. and then re-convene the discussion. This would give everyone a chance to see it in action, maybe get used to it a little bit, but I do want give another opportunity for discussion to see if there are still strong feelings about some of the changes. Unless there is sharp opposition to this plan, I will get things in motion Friday afternoon. CrsBenjamin (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely would like to see the color of the parchment paper (background-image) to remain the same. Less stress on the eyes on desktop and mobile (because of its lower brightness) and it is a warm "Hearthstone-oriented" color. Aegonostic (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
As I've said, the main page looks good and I would be fine with putting that into place. However, regarding the other changes I posed several points in my reply to your post on Feb 23. Have you had the chance to read it?
As an update to my response re: the background colour, the texture has been implemented in the latest Spyro version. It has unfortunately proven not to do much to moderate the "sterile" feel of the new background colour, or to match the game's feel.
In addition, and in response to the point of the fonts, the new font colour makes the argument of the changes being on the basis of readability a little confusing. The new font colour is less clear than the current one, and serves to counter much of the benefit gained from lightening the background. If readability is the goal, at the least the font should be black, and not a wine-ish colour that blends with the tone of the background. To be clear, the font in your readability comparison actually used black, which is not the colour actually planned to go live. Given that the rationale for replacing the warm background with a cold, pale one is readability, changing the font from a clear, strong black to a washy wine colour is a bit hard to understand.
On the upside I agree the new main text font itself is much clearer than the current one. Since the majority of our top editors are in agreement that we would like to keep the background, perhaps for now it would be worth trying simply updating the font? This should boost readability nicely without sacrificing the style's other strengths. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd forgotten about the text changes. I believe they are intentional, but if we move back to the warmer background, which I think we're going to, we'll likely change the font color back as well. I'm not totally sure about the font there though. The image I'd linked is the mockup, so that font would be what was intended, but on the live/beta version it doesn't seem to be changed as dramatically, so I can check on that. I'm going to work with oOeyes to make a few tweaks and then hopefully we can come to something we can take live by next Wednesday or so. 69.85.223.171 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. I was sidetracked with another wiki redesign. Spyro has received some updates:
  • Now using the parchment background from the current design. Trying this with the side box shadows left off for the moment.
  • Text colors have been reverted to those from the current design. (Maybe an accidental change with heading colors or such, but should be mostly back the way it was.)
  • Not sure if this makes much difference, but it turns out there are two different versions of the Lato font. Spyro has been adjusted to use the first version of Lato rather than the second, though since they are both Lato, the change won't affect what you see if you have the font installed (since it will use your version).
oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 08:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
For convenience, the differences between the two website designs are:
I'd say that the revert to the original parchment color is great. I like the revamped main page, except that it doesn't include the Twitter box and the Curse video highlight. I'm probably neutral to everything else color-wise font-wise. Aegonostic (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks oOeyes for making these adjustments and laying out the comparisons. I know there are a few minor tweaks we'll need to make as we bring this over to the live wiki (adding padding to the left margin, e.g.), but I think it seems like we're at a point where we can do this, start collecting some info about how the new main page is used by users on the wiki, but not be disrupting the existing style in any major way that's firmly unacceptable to the community here. Thanks everyone for your continued participation, opinions, and willingness to work with us on this project. CrsBenjamin (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)