Template talk:World of Warcraft

3rd party websites
The World of Warcraft template has several 3rd party websites which are not directly controlled by blizzard entertainment. While perhaps the pages themselves in wikipedia could be tagged to the category of world of warcraft, these sites do not belong on the World of Warcraft navbar: "Glider Thottbot Warden Wowhead WoWWiki".

Recommendation #1: Add category a tag for the 4 links in question to their respective articles Recommendation #2: Add link to the 4 artciles on wikipedia to the World of Warcraft page Final Step #3: Purge links from "Glider Thottbot Wowhead WoWWiki" from navbar. Recommendation Will check back on these next month for #3. IamM1rv (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ADV applies only to external links (it should be clear by its placement in WP:EL). Internal links for companies have been and always will be acceptable on internal templates. That aside, they are topical to WoW (in particular), which means they are appropriate here in this template. So the scope is correct too. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's remove the arugment over ADV then ... let's just discuss things pertinant to the template itself which is for world of warcraft - that includes more than just the video game itself - like book. Due to this ...I am not certain of the links being required, as that logic falls apart when you extent it to books which are another element of world warcraft & do not use the links in question for step #3.  Did you see my point that the links can be placed in the warcraft pages rather than the navbar?  If you read the entire post, can you explain the logic against my point on the books? IamM1rv (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're asking. I think however you need to take a read at WP:NAVBOX to understand what a navbox is used for since you seem to have some misconception(s). --Izno (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought that up, I read that before posting here last week. I think what you don't understand is original reason I looked into this template ... it's a duplicate, less complete & possibly ADV for said companies.  Here's one with a better title that is far more complete - not by me Template:Warcraft universe.  I was looking to limit this template by scope to just online warcraft universe which gives it new purpose, merge it or just redirect it to the more complete template located here Template:Warcraft universe. Without removing either the materials not related to online or changing this template Template:World of Warcraft, there is no reason for both of these to exist.  So, I propose we modify this current template rather than do away with it via redirect etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs)
 * "Limit this template simply to online universe" &mdash; that's the scope of this template. However, the only article which questionably fits in both this template's scope and Template:Warcraft universe's scope is WoWWiki, for which I don't see an issue with it only appearing here. (And you bring up ADV again, which is odd.) It would probably make sense to merge this template with T:Warcraft universe at this time. What's happened is that a bunch of the material in both templates has crept into both of them by presumably good-meaning editors, which makes them look like duplicates. Why don't you make a sandbox version of a combined template below? --Izno (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will propose it on the other link IamM1rv (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This template looks like it was made by a sockpuppet - can anyone confirm original poster to notify? IamM1rv (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate Template
In addition to the above ... going to propose a deletion for this template as Template:Warcraft universe is more complete and less links that do not belong. There's nothing in this current template that really belongs with franchise materials for world of warcraft & doesn't already multiple links in the main articles themselves which they pertain too. IamM1rv (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Holding on deletion request for another user....tag will be: template World of Warcraft ~


 * As noted on your talk page, I'm fine with the idea of combining the two templates to avoid duplicate information, but such articles as Corrupted Blood incident need to be added to the template that is kept. These are World of Warcraft specific topics, and you've added the Warcraft universe template to these pages (Via replacement of the other) without adding the pages themselves to that template. My position tentatively seems to be inline with Izno's comments above. -- ferret (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick question - is your opposition the removal of the link or the removal of the page? If you check all of those links are included in various areas on the pages in question...so nothing is lost.  If you want them in the navbar - would you settle for "List of" style?IamM1rv (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the confusion is.... We're talking about inclusion in the templates, not wikilinks within the various articles. If you include the navbar template in an article (I.e., Corrupted blood), then that article should be listed on that template. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made the necessary updates to Template:Warcraft universe (as I view them) due to the templates being switched in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWarcraft_universe&diff=653612469&oldid=653608969 -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger, we'll pick up over there, submitting the tags here to close this one up. IamM1rv (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The links should have been fully added to Template:Warcraft universe, one at least was not (Thottbot, WoWWiki, and other websites). This was not the consensus and I will be adding them.
 * Thanks. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Linking to the section at the other template: Template_talk:Warcraft universe -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)