Hearthstone Wiki

Hearthstone Wiki is currently under major revamp. All articles that have card lists or queries may not function properly for now. Please check back later!

READ MORE

Hearthstone Wiki
Advertisement
Hearthstone Wiki

Display name[]

Is there any way to disable the double name display I'm seeing in changes and histories, or is this an unfortunate byproduct of the hydra wiki farm platform? I see "Kanegasi (User:Kanegasi)" instead of just Kanegasi. Kanegasi C 07:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not currently. I was hoping this was coming in the fix added Thursday, but that simply resolved the issue with User talk namespace showing up as User. I do have hopes we'll be able to get this fixed in the future. OOeyes (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I was just thinking about this when your reply showed up in my email. I think it's because of the display name option in preferences. I assume you don't have that set since your name isn't doubled. I wanted to try blanking it, but I need a "credit" from an admin to change it. Kanegasi C 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Arena page under Game Mechanics on main page[]

Can we get an Arena page added under the Game Mechanics title on the main page. Right below 'Battlefield'. I have a whole thing written up ready to get pasted in there :) But was unable to add that menu item.

The link is added. OOeyes (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hearthstone requires more![]

I've seen a lot of matches since Heartstone beta started in USA. One thing i know about the card games - is to make as much cards, as possible. But also you need not only make them, you need to combine them to create awesome unique builds(as much as possible). Why do you need it? Cause if the players will open all the cards in about a month, than majority of heartstone community will just leave this game behind very soon, like Diablo 3. How the developers try to hold their positions? In the beta i've seen, that you need to WIN 5 games in a row if you want to get 5 gold. But to open 5 cards, you need 100 gold to earn. So it seems to me, that to open all the cards without donating is gona be rather hard for many players. But if Blizzard wants to make this game even better, they should remember all the races in WarCraft Universe and make even more interesting builds. realy impressive example - is a murloc deck. I've seen it only once, but it made me chill cause it was such a badass thing to play. At least, all the players like to make deck with dragons, demons, beasts..... but there were so many races, so many different units. Let's say - we have trolls -> this will be one deck. but why not make Drakkari or Zandalari branches. Such thing can work with every units. This will make the game more interesting to discover(hope Blizzard already know it... i know, that you know it))))). So my point is to make more annd more cards at the start of the game, cause that will let people chose their way of playing. Wanna play gnoll deck - OKAY!(now there is only hogger). Wanna play Naga deck - shure man. Wanna create Mogu'Shan build - awesome. Hope you got this Blizzard, as always your dedicated player - Homalox!

Page Consistency[]

We have a lot of Card pages currently blank, and a lot of styles conflicting with one-another on various card pages. I would like to propose a single, inclusive format for information on a card page, as well as certain standards for style applications on the wiki. Nothing too drastic to start with, but I would like to cite some card pages as good examples to start with. Lord Jaraxxus, Deathwing, and Malygos are fantastic examples and good starting points.

These pages list information on how to get the cards themselves, strategies on using the cards, lore behind the figures cited, and some brief trivia. Malygos in particular has a great deal of information that should be easily found for any card, with a bit of effort. They do sometimes repeat information readily available in the infobox on the right-hand side of all card pages however, and there are varied states of information linked as well as different sources for different cards. I'll update this later with a fresh example of formatting; something the community can look at and get an idea of what to approach this with.Aetherine (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lord Jaraxxus is my baseline example.Aetherine (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Also goddamn it, the sandbox Jaraxxus is showing up in the card listing in spite of being a sandbox. =|Aetherine (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is quite worthwhile to establish. Along those lines I'd like to propose generally removing the Rarity sections we seem to have on most card pages; it's essentially a one-word section ('Free' or 'Rare') and this info is already displayed in the infobox. I think How To Get is reasonable to keep, since it makes it a little clearer for those who aren't yet well-enough acquainted with the system to figure this out for themselves. There are probably exceptions to both these rules, but that's my suggestion.
As for the wider issue of consistency, I've posted a message on the Admin noticeboard encouraging the creation of a style guide to help unify the site and establish a basic style. Until one is officially formed, I'd recommend adhering to the rules found on most major wikis (Wikipedia and Wowpedia for starters), such as using sentence case and not title case in article names and section headings (that means "How to get" and not "How To Get"). Establishing rules for which nouns get capitalised and a general boilerplate for articles would be a good idea too. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

druid cards etc[]

Hey, I've been working to clean up the druid cards. Many of the druid's cards produce one of two effects. Often, these effects are listed as entirely separate cards with a format akin to normal cards (e.g, a rarity, how to get section, etc), with nothing to indicate that these are not actually cards. How do we want to handle these? I have been referencing the base card for each of these effects so that it is clear that these "cards" do not exist on their own (see Leader of the Pack).

Jackofcrowns (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This will be tricky due to the reimports of card data. We'd need to flag these cards on the data pages somehow, but the flags would get overwritten during imports unless we can figure out something out on our end. I'll discuss it with the tech team to see what we can do. For now, we'll just have to stick with pointing it out on the card pages. OOeyes (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I thought of a way to handle it that won't get steamrolled by another import. On pages such as Cat Form and Bear Form that are possible effects of Choose One cards, you can now add |chosenfrom=Druid of the Claw just after Card infobox. After this, you'll probably have to open and save the data page too (don't make any changes there, just resave it). Now the infoboxes will display the links between them. OOeyes (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disenchanting Materials on Card Page[]

I saw the enchanting and disenchanting costs being added for some of the cards. I think there must be a consensus, whether to do it for all or no cards. I think it is better to not have the costs for each single card on the card page, as it is just determined by the rarity and in most cases not the needed information when someone is looking up the page. I think a link like, "Can be obtained through crafting" is the best solution.Icehai88 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up old cards, need help[]

Can someone make a chart that lists all the cards that are listed as "Enchantments," such as Preparation. This label was taken out of the game and now all enchantments are considered spells. I have failed miserably in trying to replicate other charts.

There are a large amount of abilities that are left out in the list in spells because of this. It's quite annoying to try to track down every misnamed spell.

Just write on my user talk page a link to the list. I'll change them all, another problem is that all of the data pages for these cards are wrong. Like how Preparation's picture has no text because its data page links to this outdated page instead of this one.

Torappu (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We can fix this during the next data import. I wouldn't suggest wasting your time doing it manually. OOeyes (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there an issue with that because the links for all these cards are incorrect and data will be taken from outdated sources? I am not entirely sure how the data importing works because if it's taking data from the hearthpwn link in the data page, then this issue won't resolve unless all the links are changed to the correct ones. Torappu (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hearthpwn and the wiki get the data from the game client; neither gets their data from the other and the links have nothing to do with the import process. The issue is that many enchantments and spells have the same name (because they're inherently connected), resulting in one or the other getting overwritten during an import. We didn't think name collision was going to be an issue when we originally set up the templates on the wiki; obviously, that was a mistake. We have a plan for resolving this issue. I've already changed how the regular card pages link to the data pages so that their names no longer need to match; in other words, the data page for Heroic Strike will no longer need to be Data:Cards/Heroic Strike.
When the tech team can get to it, we'll clear out the current data pages and they'll be reimported with the card's numeric ID included in the title, which will prevent collisions in the data pages. Most of the card pages should continue to work after this since they will find the appropriate data by the card name rather than the data page name. For cards with duplicates, the card pages will initially show more than one infobox. We'll only have to sort those out by using the new parameters for {{Card infobox}}, and probably create separate pages for the enchantments. I don't think this will take terribly long, so I'll take care of it if I'm available. OOeyes (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Streamer profiles[]

<-- moved from Project:Admin noticeboard How about a section for profiles of popular streams so people can find people streaming decks/strategies they are interested in? IRLmedic (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)IRLmedic

Adverts[]

I've recently joined the EU Beta, and as a long-time contributor to Wowpedia I'm tempted to get stuck in here as well. However, I have to say that there is one huge deterrent to my enthusiasm: the invasive adverts that eat up the right hand side of every page. I find it quite demotivating to put so much time and effort into improving something when it is garishly despoiled by large flashing adverts on every single page. It's a lot harder to feel proud of what your many hours and weeks of efforts have accomplished when it's all surmounted with an ad for Virgin Media.

I don't know whose decision the ad policy is, and I doubt there's any likelihood of it changing in response to this. Nonetheless, I'd like to register my reaction, and perhaps echo the feelings of many others who won't ever find their way to posting them here. I probably will still contribute to some degree (perhaps fixing typos, etc) but at the moment this feels like a huge block in the way of my really getting stuck in and helping build the wiki here, which is certainly a shame, since I enjoy building a good wiki about as much as I enjoy actually playing Hearthstone. I guess we'll see if familiarity eventually tempers my dislike of the adverts ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

...of all the adverts, I have to say that HookupClub.com ("Get Laid Guaranteed!") has to be the worst offender so far. Doesn't seem like the right kind of ad for a child-friendly online card game wiki either. -- Taohinton (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! While we cannot change the placement of the the ads themselves, we've developed features like "Gamepedia blocks" to help mitigate their effect on the content area. You can use the blocks to help even out the appearance of the page. In terms of content, we definitely should not be having those ads. Should you ever see an inappropriate ad, please take a screenshot and send it to me at Community@gamepedia.com and I will see to it that it is taken care of immediately. I definitely appreciate and share your concern on that account :-) If you ever have any other concerns or questions please don't hesitate to leave me a message or to email. Btarsa (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Btarsa, thanks for your reply :) Unfortunately the 'Gamepedia blocks' link you provided doesn't seem to link to any existing page. Additionally I couldn't find any reference to anything related using the search function from that page. I'd be interested to learn more if you could provide a working link. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the link. OOeyes (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Decks[]

I couldn't find any easy or obvious way to add a Deck to a page, and I couldn't find any obvious location for decks to go. I have compiled a list of all 9 Basic Decks and some of the 9 Expert Decks (AI uses the Expert ones). I think this information is quite useful, and it is found nowhere else on the web. I just don't know where to put them or how to put them there. I was thinking maybe putting the Basic and Expert decks on each class page, but they might go better in a new page called "Basic Decks" (and another for Expert) and have the class pages link to the Basic/Expert deck pages.

If the only way to do this is to combine many different types of templates, then here is my spreadsheet, which you can use to make the needed lists: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq6WK3CXV0qldGVmQ3YyNzVnU2ZqdmlIWlhYNzV2RFE&usp=sharing

I will finish updating the Expert deck lists as time permits. MMOSimca (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Finished the Expert deck lists - the entire document is now complete. I await a response on what to do with this information, thanks! MMOSimca (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice work :) I've added your data to the Practice mode page. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not balanced[]

Hello..I think there are some classes with too powerfull cards and the system that choosing against which oponent to play its not real..How i can play for first time against player and against me to be mage with 4 secrets..Dont think thats real at all..I think cards have to be more complex and to need some brain how to use them..evrything is too simple ..its fun but after 1,2 weeks playng it i'm sure will be annoyed like Diablo 3..Game that i realy like..but its boring to do the same thing over and over again 500 times..I know HS its a new game but need MOAR cards..and much more complex and hard to play..Also will be good to have and some multiplayer teams..or some way to play with friends.Otherwise awose game :p

Please note that this is the community portal for discussion of the improvement of the Hearthstone wiki. It is not a forum for discussion or comments on the game itself. It's also not for posting feedback or making suggestions about the game, and no-one from Blizzard will ever read your comments if you post them here! The official Hearthstone forums are designed for precisely this; feel free to post your thoughts there. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Warcraft lore content[]

This wiki is in a great position to link into Wowpedia for information regarding the Warcraft universe. This is a great idea, and adds a lot of depth to characters, abilities and other aspects from the series. I think it's nice to link from pages to the related Wowpedia pages through the 'see also' or 'lore' sections; to extract a paragraph or two is a nice way to share a little of this on the page itself without needing to delve into the fathomless extents of the entire background history. However, if copying chunks of writing, give credit to the source.

A related matter is the extent of Warcraft lore which would in itself seem to merit explaining on this wiki. My suggested approach is that if something was around before Hearthstone and is not specifically expanded upon or progressed in a unique way by Hearthstone, we should link to Wowpedia for background/lore information.

The reasons for this recommendation are quite simple. Hearthstone touches upon almost every part of the Warcraft universe. Pretty much every race, continent, group, historical event and storyline from the Warcraft universe features in Hearthstone to some degree. They've designed it that way, and it's part of what makes Hearthstone great, with a deep (if fun) backstory. The point is, not only do we not have the resources to create, from scratch, an entire encyclopedia of everything Warcraft (and that is an incredibly large 'everything'), we don't need to - it already exists! Wowpedia already has substantial reference articles on all these subjects, just waiting to be linked to. So rather than attempting to create simple articles on this wiki explaining what the basic concepts of Warcraft are, let's link to Wowpedia, where that information has already been painstakingly assembled.

Wowpedia is basically the mother-wiki for all things Warcraft. Within this wiki, I suggest focusing on Hearthstone, and linking out for the rest. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Card data errors[]

As many editors have noticed, the site is currently mired in some technical trouble regarding card data. This causes problems with multiple cards of the same name, resulting in infoboxes missing entirely from many pages, as well as various errors with tables and such.

This problem is apparently being worked on by the technical crew, and will hopefully be fixed soon. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to confirm that our next data import should fix these issues! This should be going out in the next day or two! - Smokie (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

[Suggestion] Improved Card Search in Hearthstone[]

Hi Guys. I'm just a F2P player without a Blizzard Key so I couldn't post on the Hearthstone Forums. I needed to share my ideas somewhere & since I've been reading the Wiki since I started playing (for about a week now), I thought why not here? :)


In "My Collection", on the right of the (0 to 7+) filter bar is the Search Box. You can use it to search for specific Card Text.


My idea is too expand that to search for specific card properties - Such as Mana, Attack, Health within certain parameters using comparison operators (>,<,>=,<=,=) to determine magnitude of the search...


Each property in the search bar that you're looking for needs to have a hashtag (#) in front of it, then the comparison operator and then the magnitude. You can separate multiple property searches with a comma (,)


So for example - say you want to find all the minions with divine shield that cost less than 3 mana but have at least 2 attack, you type this in the search bar:


#mana <3, #attack >=2, divine shield


What do you guys think? If someone thinks this is solid, feel free to post it on the Hearthstone Forums, just give me credit :)


41.133.170.91 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


B.Net Tag : Qyle#2326

Arena reward and matchmaking distribution[]

Hey guys, i was wondering how good i was doing in arena compared to the other players and put together a win/loss distribution under the assumption that every player is always matched against a player with the same win/loss-record (which the system probably will try to do but wont if there is no such player). English is not my main language and i am not familiar with wiki-editing standards, so i thought i just put the data in here and if someone is interested they could put it in the arena-article.

table 1 http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3561/rq7guxy5_jpg.htm

table 2 http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3561/hwhpmu9e_jpg.htm

the first table shows the distribution of players with the same number of played games (highlighted in the same colors). The 100 % in the 0/0-record means that everyone has the same record after 0 played games, the 1/0 and 0/1- record with 50% means that half of the players have a 0/1 and half have a 1/0-record and so on. This way you can guess how high your "rating" is to be matched against other players. After 2 played games the distribution is 25% - 50% - 25%, which means with a 2/0-record you will be matched against the top 25% of players, a 0-2 record means you will be matched against the low 25% of players. With 1/1 you will be in the middle bracket, which contains 50% of the players. This gets particular interesting for the higher ratings - with 5-0 you will be matched against the top 3% of arena players.

The second table shows what percentage of the players will have x wins or more after 3 losses. So only 9% of the players will get 7 or more wins, which means you are in the top 10% if you manage to do this. Only the best 0,65% of all players will manage the 12 Wins.

ill check this section for questions a couple of times in the next days so feel free to ask. keep up the great work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.107.197 (talkcontribs) 09:28, 14 March 2014‎

Good stuff! I was actually thinking about working something like the second table out myself a few days ago (though may never have gotten round to it). I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll see about adding some of this information to the wiki when I get the time. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Finally got around to adding this to Arena. I used the basic win percentage table data, and recalculated the win/loss table to show precise numbers at each possible node, rather than percentage across that number of matches (which is handy because it allows you to see the percentage of players who achieved the same win/loss record as you). Thanks for the contribution! -- Taohinton (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Great job! Nice idea to add the individual ending point statistics in the second table, makes it even more interesting than the original one :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.96.133 (talkcontribs) 10:35, 9 May 2014‎

Major skin redesign[]

I have been presented with a mockup for a wiki skin by our design department. You can see it here.

I've already brought up problems with the navigation bar (the Page, Discussion, View, Edit, etc. links) as the design as presented is just too wide. (Approximately 1550px of width would be needed to display everything that might show up in that bar, counting the space taken by the sidebar. I'm expected to at least be provided with alternate assets to support smaller browser widths, though I'm beginning to favor that part being rethought completely.

Are there any other comments or suggestions for this redesign? Would we want to change the current skin to this? OOeyes (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to say I for one will be replying to this when I get the chance, but work has been keeping me busy. I suspect it will be the usual trade off of getting some good things in exchange for losing some others, rather than a straight-forward upgrade. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the overall change in page tone, along with the use of the deep red and wood colours, both of which match the game itself; I think that's a good choice. The overall effect is a lot more warmth and presence, which feels good.
  • I have some concerns about the line between a respected resource and a themed site. I'm unsure about changes that begin to distance the wiki too far from the presentation of Wikipedia and Wowpedia and move it more towards a novelty Flash site. I'd rather see a Hearthstone-styled site that still leaves the underlying wiki well-visible.
  • Uncertain about the pennant-style drapes for "Page", "View source", etc.
  • The panel-style work looks very nice, although I am a little worried about the hinges eating into the page; the width and scale are hard to gauge due to the high resolution of the mockup pic, and it wouldn't be good to have them squeezing the page much thinner than it already is, especially for those using smaller monitors: sidebar + adverts + infobox = very little room left for text on lower resolutions (or even medium ones).
  • The Go and Search buttons are kinda neat, but again it's hard to say precisely how this would feel when implemented. Again, authentic is good, novelty not so much.
  • The crooked letters in the wiki logo will probably drive me crazy. But, that's just me.
  • I'm not sure I prefer the new header-section over the current one. The main image is neat enough, but I think I prefer the overall backdrop of the players in the tavern (the current image). It also makes for a hell of a lot of brown, where the current one adds a nice bit of mood and clever lighting. Finally, the other header image elements seem to be taken from WoW sources; the dwarf on the left is well-known to WoW players from the Alterac Valley loading screen (making its appearance here feel a little strange), while the gryphon-flying dwarf on the right is a little obscure given the lack of any such dwarves or indeed gryphons (SW battlefield aside) in the game so far. Again, I'd think that the tavern theme would be a stronger choice, and imagery from Hearthstone, rather than WoW, if possible. A header which evokes Hearthstone is preferable to one that evokes WoW, and the two are quite distinct.
  • I'm also curious about how these changes will affect the pages themselves, in terms of layout, tables, infoboxes, etc - assuming they will end up doing so to some degree. A mock-up of a card or list page would be interesting.
  • Overall though, it definitely has a consistency and solidity which is lacking in the current wiki. I think it has the potential to be a good change, as long as the wiki itself doesn't get lost. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the header, and my opinion that well-known WoW dwarf art is not the most appropriate to use, there at least a couple of official images of the Innkeeper, which would be perfect to use for the header, since he's the dwarf in Hearthstone, and a memorable and key (if cosmetic) character (actually the only specifically Hearthstone character). As far as other ideas go, cards, card backs, mana crystals, ranked medals (such as here), the hearthstone icon and the Hearthstone box would all be good iconic images to include, all of which would better serve to evoke the game than the current mockup, in my opinion. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already passed the previous suggestions up, and I'll make sure these suggestions are passed along as well. I'll keep you updated, but so far, I haven't heard anything significant back yet. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 00:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. (Added ranked medals to the list as an afterthought) -- Taohinton (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The design team has sent me an updated mockup, which you can see here. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 05:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement! Good stuff. Specific points and nit-picks:
  • The margin width is lower, which is presumably a good thing
  • Similarly the removed pennants is probably good, and will help with the predicted width problems. I still couldn't say the top bar looks quite right, but I think it's probably a better solution
  • The new troll and Mekkatorque images look great, and add a real Hearthstone touch. The lightening and filling-in of that strip also looks better
  • I definitely prefer the less wonky logo lettering. I think I preferred the larger size though, and having been shrunk the current logo looks a little high on the page. I'd probably go back to the previous size and position, but definitely keep the changes to the logo itself.
Overall I'd say it looks pretty good. The only other improvement I can think of would be to try the dark red colour (and maybe texture?) for the background of that top bar (the one with Page, Discussion, Share, etc, on it) to see if it adds a bit more colour and juice to the otherwise brown-dominated page. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've forgotten to mention until now that I can't guarantee the search box or buttons will look like the mockup. I may have to greatly simplify those when the time comes, especially now that the simple search is now a preferences option and both the new and old styles have to be supported by the skin. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Implementation near complete[]

I have a version of the new skin near completion. I haven't had a chance to do much testing yet, but it seems to be working fine on major pages at least. Also, it needs to checked out in browsers other then Firefox, but while it still may have some issues, I think it's far enough along for some users to begin trying it out.

To begin using it, copy and past the code from my personal stylesheet to your own. I'll be off for a day or two, but I plan to resume working on it over the weekend. Please feel free to report any issues or leave any feedback below. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 04:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Text size too small.[]

I personally feel that the font size is way too small, smaller than the previous font at least. Previously I could read the text with ease but now it feels a bit harder. The font seems to be 'slimmer', cope with the fact that its smaller... It just makes it harder to read. I do wear glasses and I have a 22' LCD monitor. Not sure if I am alone with this issue or if other people feels the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.224.9.214 (talkcontribs) 18:25, 25 June 2014‎

I was worried about that myself, but no one said anything at the mockup stage. Let's try using Droid Serif for most things. It should at least be an improvement, and if necessary, we can then notch up the size a little. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 04:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd appreciate a bigger and/or thicker text/font. Usually there is +/- 1 meter distance between me and the monitor but when I visit this wiki now I have to lean forward to be able to read properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.224.12.69 (talkcontribs) 12:01, 26 June 2014‎
Please don't use a Serif font, Sans Serif looks better on small text. As other users stated, right now it's hard to read (I don't need glasses and I use to read a lot on PC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.62.182 (talkcontribs) 23:45, 26 June 2014‎
Trying a thematically-appropriate sans-serif font. If there are still readability issues, I'll revert it to the old way of using the browser-default sans-serif. Please also note that the current font sizing method is relative to your browser preferences, so if you selected a smaller-than-normal size there, the text will then be smaller here as well. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't had time to appraise the changes properly yet, but I was planning on mentioning the small text also. It definitely used to be bigger, and it seems pretty small now. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Please just bump up the text size. Most people has +20" widescreen these days running on +1080p. Those small (which just seems like its bolded compare to how it was previously) are still a pain to read. Its way too much text cramp together when there are large paragraph and its very sore to the eyes (specially for people with impaired vision who wear glasses). Again, we're in 2014, people use 1080p in general and we have widescreens; keep that in mind for future reference.
I've given it another nudge up. I'll remind again that the sizing method used is relative to any text size/font preferences in your browser. With non-default settings, there may not be a visible increase, but the increase should be noticeable with default sizes. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 11:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The new text size works for me. We seem to be about half-way between Wowpedia and Wikipedia now, but not too far from either. -- Taohinton (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion[]

I find that the position of the search bar covers the artwork done at the top of the pages. Can it be placed somewhere else?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.192.152 (talkcontribs) 10:16, 26 June 2014‎

Yep, this seems to be due to resolution issues; the mockup showed a much higher resolution, and hence the search bar didn't get in the way of the characters in this way. I'm running 1280 x 1024 and the bar partly covers Thrall and Malfurion. A good solution seems tricky. That's the right/conventional position for the search bar, so it shouldn't really be moved. Perhaps if the bar were simply placed somewhat lower (but still above the brown bar), it would less problematically block the characters? -- Taohinton (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
On higher resolutions, there's a gap and the search bar moves to the right into it. Moving it lower closer to the "View/Edit/History" links is probably the best compromise. Putting it back in the nav bar is something I'd like to avoid as new features are making that more crowded on narrow displays. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 06:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I've now set this up to move the search box lower when there isn't enough horizontal space for a gap to appear. When there is enough space, the search bar should be in approximately the same position it was. (I changed the positioning method so that larger text sizes should not cause it to overlap the View/Edit/History links, which is now a concern with it being closer. This may cause it to change position slightly.) oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 02:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Red-link colour[]

The current shade for red links doesn't stand out enough from that for regular links: link, red link. Ideally it should clearly be a broken/empty link, both to save wasted clicking and to highlight broken links and uncreated content. Not sure what direction of changes to suggest though; maybe deeper/redder? -- Taohinton (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Darkened it down some and shifted it to pure red. (It was nearly pure red as it was.) If necessary, it can probably be darkened some more, but much more and it may be too difficult to distinguish from body text. Sadly, cooler colors look out of place on this theme, which has narrowed the range of colors for the various types of links. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 11:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a bit better than before. I'll give it a few days to see, but I think it will probably do okay. -- Taohinton (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Weapons cards and ability affecting cards[]

There should be a list of weapons. There should a list of those cards that affect enemy abilities- e.g. reduce enemy attack to 1; switch health with attack. Put it in abilities area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloa513 (talkcontribs) 23:49, 22 July 2014‎

You can find a list of weapons on Weapon. There are tables for other types and effects, too, on pages like Battlecry and Taunt. We're in the process of expanding to a wider range of abilities and effect types. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Secrets[]

I tried to use secret keeper with the Mad Scientist to buff the secret keeper tremendously, but the deathrattle doesn't count as "played". Is this a bug or just the way that it's suppose to be?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.212.91 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 10 September 2014

Yes, this is working as intended. I've added a note to Mad Scientist to explain this for others. -- Taohinton (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Golden card images.[]

Need golden card images for GvG card data. Also updated golden images for Harvest Golem, Alarm-o-Bot and Demolisher.

I'd add them myself but I have no idea how to get the images. DJRockstar1 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a request in for an automated import of HearthPwn images. I'll remind them tomorrow because I haven't heard back since Monday. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 07:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Need to exclude debug cards from table[]

We need a way to create a table containing all collectible minion cards except debug cards, for the list of cards that Unstable Portal can summon. Could someone please add negative selectors (e.g. set=!Cheat) to Template:Custom minion card table to handle this?

On a related note, might it be possible for the template to output statistics (average attack, average health, chance of various keywords & minion types) as well, so we can provide an auto-updated description of what to expect on average from a card such as Piloted Shredder? Seahen (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That situation is what the devonly parameter on the {{Card infobox}} is for. I've updated Card infobox so that the Cheat set now has the same effect and I've resaved the relevant card pages. Any pages using the tables might still a resave to catch up, though.
As for adding negative selection, that would be okay only if each card can be in only one set. Last I knew, negative selection doesn't work correctly when a property has more than one value. For example, if a card was in Cheat and another set, it'd still get selected because that other set is not the Cheat set. This flaw is in the SMW extension itself, not the templates, so I'm reluctant to add that feature when it may give broken results I can't fix.
As for the final request, I can't give you an definitive answer at this time, because I'm not a player and don't know the relevant game mechanics, and because I'm needed on another project currently. Unfortunately, it's not likely I'll be able to look into it very soon, and even if it is possible, I might need a more through description of what calculations and variables are expected. My initial impression though is that at least some of this would include automatically interpreting some mechanics from the card description, which is tricky at best, or may require data we can't automatically acquire. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 03:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the debug cards, this was working previously (ie debug cards weren't showing up in tables) but will have been broken when the data import added a load of new ones, which obviously weren't inherently tagged as devonly, and hence I guess got included in tables. The new solution is probably a handier approach.
I'm not sure about table statistics, although it certainly could be neat in the right place. Perhaps a separate template, that provided stats on the stated sample? If it were included in tables, it would need to be optional, since it would probably take up a fair amount of space to display all that data. Alternatively perhaps you could have a 'Statistics' button which when clicked revealed that info.
I was going to ask at some point about adding a card count to all tables, though. This is already done for tables like {{Equipment card short table}}, and is very handy, especially when trying to write articles or check through the data for missing cards, etc; it would also be neat for readers. Presumably this would be a bit simpler to add. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I do think most things are already in place for card counts on the table. I'll try to look into it soon, because it probably will be fairly quick to set up. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 01:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Counts should be working now on tables. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 05:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. One more presumably small thing to fix with tables: they're ordering numerical values in simplistic order - 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 20, 3, 4, 5... etc. This occurs for mana cost, Attack, Health and presumably any other numerical values. Obviously we'd like this to be the normal order of 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12... 20... etc. No great rush if you're busy at present. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, the icon is probably preventing the tablesorter code from detecting that it's dealing with numbers. I've explicitly identified the sort type on those columns so that it won't try to sort them by alphabetic rules anymore. oOeyes User-OOeyes-Sig.png 07:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement