Would be nice to see class differences. I think mages start with higher mana than say warrior. Does mage regenerate more mana than warrior? At least warrior has more HP right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 June 2013
- No all classes have the same stats, the only differences are their class cards and hero ability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torappu (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 August 2013
People, I don't think that this wiki is meant to be a biography. We need to delete all of this wowwiki stuff because it's completely unnecessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torappu (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 August 2013
Mirror Image[edit source]
- This is part of a known error with the card data. It's being worked on and will hopefully be fixed soon. There's not much we can do til then.-- Taohinton (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Unified template[edit source]
I'd like to have all the hero articles follow the same template.
I prefer 'Hero Power' etc. not '<class> Hero Power' e.g. Shaman#Shaman_unique_mechanics would lose the 'Shaman' part.
Priest#Strategy_and_gameplay would get flattened i.e. wouldn't have nearly as many subsections: 'Strategy and gameplay' with 'Counters' as a subsection and 'Unique mechanics' as the next section. 'Common deck types' may stay too.
- Currently most of those class sections are <class> <feature> rather than simply <feature>. Would it be sufficiently clear to new readers that the 'Spells' section on Paladin lists spells exclusive to the paladin class? Would 'Spells' be better than 'Paladin spells'? Or do you propose one standard for Hero Powers and another for spells, minions, weapons?
- I definitely prefer the multiple sub-sections in the Priest Strategy section to one huge unbroken section - it's far more readable and less intimidating. That conversation should really be had on Talk:Priest though. It's not good for talk discussions to get dotted across unrelated pages - it makes it harder for editors to keep up with things, and easier for them to miss out on discussions. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Where can we discuss unifying various article's templates? Please move this discussion there.
- Similarly to Heroes articles, Freeze_(ability)#Cards_with_Freeze has 'cards with <ability>' section, while Overload#Cards says simply 'Cards' and Charge_(ability)#Cards with Charge follows 'cards with <ability>' style, but has no ToC.
- I'm more interested in making similar articles look the same and while I have my preferences, this is not my private wiki, so if e.g. you think <class> <feature> style is better, I won't object, I'll just weep a bit in the corner ;-) -- Karol007 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure where would be the best place for a multi-article discussion - since we don't have forums, I guess the *correct* place should really be the Community portal, but I'm not pressing the issue. It's just unfortunate to search for a discussion re: an article and not find it... then find it weeks later on a seemingly unrelated article's talk page.
- I think "Cards with <ability>" is clearer and more accurate for ability pages, especially given the following "Related cards" sections.
- Yes, wiki collaboration often results in one editor or another weeping *offers tissues* - sometimes all concerned! In this case I wasn't saying I prefer <class> <feature>, though, just pointing out we should probably have it consistent for all those headers, not just the Hero Power ones. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- We can always post a short note with a link on the talk pages and soft-redirect the discussion this way.
- Yes, I did mean all section headers, not just Hero Power ones. -- Karol007 (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- My 2 cents: The redundancy of "Paladin spells" on a page that is completely about Paladins does bug me. I think it would be clear enough just saying "Spells". I would support adopting this on all class pages. On ability pages though, I came to the same conclusion as Tao, that if it just said "Cards" it would be unclear what the distinction was between that section and "Related cards". But that seems like a special case. - jerodast (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- With regard to subsection organization, the format is not the same because the content is not the same. Since the wiki is dependent on editors to put in the time where they see fit, we sometimes end up with different amounts of content on pages that seem like they should be similar. This page (Mage) has a few paragraphs of content, so one subsection is sufficient to keep it organized. Another page like Priest requires many more. I think the priority should be to organize whatever content exists, not to force different-sized content into same-sized templates.
- Of course, if someone wanted to spend time adding as much depth to the Mage strategy section as there is for Priest, then following the same layout might make sense :)
- - jerodast (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, on all points :) I share the response to 'Paladin spells'; it's something I nearly changed very early on, since it seems redundant. I'd be happy with changing all those section headers. Beyond those headers, yes the difference between different articles makes it more appropriate not to try too hard to standardise headers such as in the strategy section. If we achieve a comparable level of detail/write-up on other class pages we could aim for consistency, although if that meant re-writing articles simply in order to make them conform to the same set of headers, I think we've gone too far. If an editor wants to make a great and much-needed write-up that simply tackles the subject top-down instead of bottom-up, I don't think it matters that a different set of sub-headers are used. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please separate the secrets out from the spells 184.108.40.206 14:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this isn't possible without removing page automatisation, which would mean this page would require specific updating every time a mage spell was added. With all other such pages automated, this would be a big step backwards. You can however find a display of mage Secrets on Secret (as linked in that section). -- Taohinton (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)