| abstract
| - As some of you know i've been developing KasoBot for a while for the dual purpose of A. Replacing {{tooltipcss}} type tooltips with the new {{tooltip}} B. Mass adding new items. Tonight i ran a small test run of thirty edits, this included 4 tooltipcss replacements and 26 new item imports, Contributions also, i'm keeping a record of all grey and "random suffix" items i skip over on my page. I release that this bot is fairly wide-reaching, so i'd like to check that we think that this "right" before i start making hundreds and hundreds of pages. In relation to this, theres some proposals about {{tooltip}} which i'd like to get down on paper:
* effect= and elink= Please see the infomation i posted here following on from this infomation, my conclusion is that elink= in it's current form it pretty much superfluous, and it makes more sense to just do |effect=Use: {{spelllink|99999}} then use and the same on a new line if you want to do more than one effect with a link. In relation to this my bot is coded to do the above, so if you dont want this, speak now or forever hold your peace.
* itemid= With the old tooltipcss it was possible (at least in some flavors, god knows how many there were) to have τ ω α links on the bottom if the tooltip was included in another page, whilst im not sure about this, it does seem that the tooltip is lacking and itemid field which could be use for various different things in the future. Also it seems to me that when i am editing in all these tooltips, and i have the itemID in the code, it would be a waste to not include this into the tooltip incase it is needed in the future. To that end i have included a |itemid=99999 field in all the tooltips i have made thus far, as above, if you dont want this, speak now or forever hold your peace. Thanks for reading, any ideas/suggestions/flames welcome. --Kaso 21:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT) Posted on as to what is the "correct" way to use the effect tag. (according to Zeal) Does adding |itemid actually affect the current tooltip? If not then sounds fine to leave it there. You also might want to leave set items be for the moment, there is no standard with the current tooltip to include them =( I've been using |comment but that doesn't look quite right... --Psyker7 21:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT) While there isn't a full blown policy about external links, there's been a bit of a movement lately (at least by me) to keep external links on the subject's page only. Elinks for items belong on item pages, elinks to specific boss fight videos belong on boss fight pages not instance pages. There's too many WoW DBs out there (more thatn what's in elinks, even) to effectivly remain neutral when embedding external links in other wiki pages. Besides, we want people to open the item pages here, not just skip out to thott, that's probably the biggest reason so many item pages are just stubs. 21:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT) Tekkub - the elink referred to by Kaso is actually standing for effect link, not external links on a tooltip =) {{Spelllink|1234}} goes to another wiki page. --Psyker7 22:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT) He might be talking about my mentioning thottbot/wowhead/allka links on tooltips in relation to itemid= i'll clarify that i'm not suggesting these return i cant say im a huge fan either, but it does seem to me that itemid is a piece of infomation that has quite alot of use, and even though we dont use it now, it might be worth "future-proofing" incase we ever do need it. --Kaso I was looking at some of the stub pages created by KasoBot and I have to wonder if we really need some of these items in WoWWiki? For example: Acolyte's Shoes. I think these are the initial shoes given to level 1 priest characters. They have no abilities, no stats, nothing. I personally don't think we need items like this in the wiki. My view on what items should go in here is this: 1.
* All uncommon/green items or better. 2.
* Common/white items that are actually used (not just stuff to sell to a vendor). That means quest items, quest rewards, crafting ingredients, crafting products, etc. 3.
* Junk/grey items should be excluded. What do you think? P.S. Nice job on the bot! - ClydeJr 16:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT) This is one of the things that i've been most concerned about, i'm glad to have some opinion on it, It does seem a bit inappropriate for me to go adding thousands of items that people don't actually want :> As far as i can see there's two possible takes on this
* Add all items for sake of completeness, WoWWiki is "dedicated to cataloging [the] Warcraft Universe"
* Add only "useful" items like you describe. I also am leaning slightly towards the "less is more" point of view, i mean its alot easier to add more items than it is to remove existing items, then again this also introduces a slight difficulty on my side, telling items apart has different challenges on my end of things, I mean, quest items/quest starting items, i can tell easily, but crafting ingredients/products isnt easily detectable for me, perhaps it would be better if that in this first "sweep" i miss out white items all together and just focus on green/blue/purple, i can always go back and add the whites should it be needed. --Kaso 09:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT) Every "white" item (with a handful of exceptions, , , etc) have a purpose. Even those without a purpose are of note, because it is helpful to know something is useless and can be discarded. So, I would recommend including white items, as they are often the most confusing. Every one knows what to do with a Mercenary Blade of the Monkey. Ichor of Undeath is a little less obvious.--Mlucero 10:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)