Template talk:Warcraft universe

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   --  I believe you're right in saying there should be characters listed - due to the precedence ... the organization is the objection.  See this [] ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ... 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I subsectioned this and moved the indents in. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Or collapsible submenu containing the professional pages from both starcraft, warcraft, heroes of storm individually? --  IamM1rv (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Universe category fields

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I subsectioned this and moved the indents in. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Or collapsible submenu containing the professional pages from both starcraft, warcraft, heroes of storm individually? --  IamM1rv (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pro Gaming