Talk: Hearthstone Wiki

Please note, this page is specifically for discussing the wiki's front page.

For general discussions, please see the community discussion page.
To report an issue that requires administrative action, use the Admin noticeboard.

Log in issue

Sign in redirects to Gamepedia. It shows I'm already signed in but the sign in button is still there. Regardless of whether I sign in again, I'm not logged in when I then return here. 85.76.70.194 20:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: cleared history. Logged out from all websites. Problem still exists. Problem doesn't exist on other Curse or Gamepedia sites. 85.76.70.194 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC) (Blue_banana_whotookthisname)

They are working on authentication for all wikis at the moment, it's not on your end. --Pcj (T · C) 22:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be back to normal now. Unfortunately, Something Bad Happened^TM during the update and it was necessary to roll back. The plan is to make another attempt tomorrow, but if all goes as planned this time, login issues shouldn't last more than an hour. — oOeyes

23:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tables

Why are there two tabels, one with "the Heroes" and one with "Classes" if there both go to the same page? I think the tabel "Classes" is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greador (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 August 2013‎

It seemed likely that editors would eventually fill in the hero pages. That's why they are redirects rather than direct links; it lets an editor go back via the link after "Redirected from" and change the redirect page into a wiki page. OOeyes (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics section is too short - should be given more space, possibly moved to the left or right of the Trailer, and have some more references added to it, like Card Drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocawow (talk • contribs) 10:14, 1 September 2013‎

Is it ok if I add Advanced rulebook and Bugs to the main page under this section? --Patashu (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is my personal opinion that the Advanced Rulebook needs a massive cleanup, and that it needs a rewrite into something more approachable by newer players. Right now it is exceedingly hard to read even for experienced players, and some explanations are far more complicated than they need to be. Exceptions in game mechanics should not be listed in sequences of steps, and should be noted as that - an exception (perhaps at the end of the section). Sequences of steps should not be littered with any examples of cards that trigger at that point - leave that to one or two examples that are listed neatly after. This allows the reader to clearly see what is happening. The "Advanced Rulebook" is not really a rulebook at all, it is a long article about observed card interactions. A rulebook would state expected interactions clearly for every rule/section, and support it with one or two examples, and cleanly list exceptions; many current sections are overly verbose.

I think the pages can be linked, just needs some cleanup. -- Xinhuan (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're totally right on that. I'm going to attempt to rewrite it on my talk page section by section. The goal is to write it like a rulebook, e.g. introducing terms and then writing rules using the clearly defined terms that are always true, and then put all examples inside of references instead of inline. We'll see how well I can do, and if it's good enough, maybe we can swap the articles out. --Patashu (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As Xinhuan and I have already been discussing this, I had already drafted Hearthstone_Wiki:Advanced rulebook project so that all interested editors can collaborate on the rewrite. I agree it needs a rework. Feel free to paste your current draft onto the draft page, or otherwise link it there. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Card images

Hello, I know its not good idea to ask here, but still. How can I extract card images from the game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.141.143.119 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 June 2014‎

I'm afraid I can't help with that. I'd suggest trying forums or searching elsewhere online. The card images themselves can generally be found on sites like HearthPwn and HearthHead. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they're even available as standard images in the game. My understanding is that they are 3D assets, so a renderer has to be written to create 2D images from them. It's not at all a trivial project. — oOeyes

07:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Clumsy

I prefer calling it 'clumsy' to 'forgetful' and I'm not going to change all mentions of clumsy, since you provided a redirect, but maybe you want to edit / reword the ones

on this page in the Card mechanics section
Triggered_effect#Attacking
Abilities#Clumsy

--- Karol007 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed those instances. I think keeping 'clumsy' in various places is fine, and I'm not going to go through fixing every single use on the site. Even 'forgetful' is only a semi-official term, since it doesn't actually feature in-game. It does seem that it should take over as the main term on the wiki though. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Secrets are spells!

It's a little deceptive putting Secret as a separate card type when they are absolutely spells and activate spell-related things. I mean, I can live with it being there since it is a distinct subtype of spell for which the other types have nothing similar, but it would be cool if we could come up with a way to indicate this visually. - jerodast (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's technically misleading, although I also agree they are conceptually a very distinct subtype of card, with no immediate effect (triggers aside) and which the player cannot themselves activate. I'm open to a really good suggestion for changing the display, but otherwise I would say the presentation is pretty good as it is, conceptually makes sense for newer players, and doesn't cause any real problems. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Triggers aside" is a pretty big aside! Loatheb/Apprentice's cost changes are relevant too. But I'm no expert at wiki formatting so I'll just leave this issue as "duly noted" for the time being haha. - jerodast (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Khadgar

Should we arrange the front page to include Khadgar?Shammiesgun (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

TBD

Khadgar

TBD

Oops, look like missed this before finalising. I tried this exact layout, along with a few other variants. I chose this one for use in {{Heroes}}, since that merits a full layout of all the heroes in the game. However, for the front page it felt a bit much, with more 'TBD's than heroes, and the columns likely to fill up fairly slowly. I've therefore added them as floating heroes for now, which while not perfect was definitely better than the other options. When we get more heroes, we can swap back to the 'TBD' approach. -- Taohinton (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist is needed

I've noticed that nearly half of the pages about cards from WotoG, and some from TGT and LoE, lack information. Often the Strategy, Notes, or Lore section is empty or barely written.

In my opinion, this Wiki needs more editors, or there needs to be a clear "Watchlist" with all unfinished pages that require additional information.

Note; I have made this account about a week ago, and I already contributed to, when I wrote this, 24 pages. How come nobody else does this? -- JordiTK (talk) 19:40, 24 [May] (UTC)

Short version: Unfortunately, this is just the nature of wikis. There is always more work to be done, and since we're all unpaid volunteers, never enough editors to do it. The only solution to this is to get stuck in and help improve the site; good contributions are always welcome.

Finding pages to improve isn't particularly hard - as you've found, simply checking the card pages for the latest sets will give you plenty of opportunities to contribute. Most editors end up editing areas of the site they know something about, which are encountered fairly naturally through using the site. Before long the next expansion/adventure/feature comes along, bringing with it a ton more opportunities to contribute.

You'd also be surprised at the mountain of work required to get the site to its current standard. It's a vast communal effort, and we are all standing on the shoulders of proverbial giants as we fill in the blanks remaining. We're always looking for more editors; your contributions so far seem good and more would be very welcome. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for Deletion

Come on, moderators, I just tagged a page to be deleted, and when I looked at "Category:Candidates for (Speedy) Deletion" there were pages, tagged in the year 2015! How many active editors/moderators are actually still on this wiki? --JordiTK (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The presence of 5 pages in existing deletion candidate categories isn't really a good indicator of the level of activity on the wiki. The pages in question were either left due to ongoing discussions regarding the correct action to take and later forgotten, or apparently overlooked among the tens of thousands of edits in need of patrolling. Again, this is very common on gaming wikis. That said, as you've brought them to my attention, I've happily addressed those pages in need of deletion.

With regard to your own additions to the category:

As stated on the page, Blood Pact is an enchantment. I've therefore correctly turned it into a redirect.
Discarded cards was an orphaned page from long ago, and since it serves no purpose has been deleted.
Two of the pages were created by vandalism and have been deleted.
Sideboard doesn't seem to be used as a term in Hearthstone much any more, but is linked from many of the old tournament pages. If the term is still in use, it should stay, but if it's an import from MTG which has since died out, I'll be happy to delete it.
Overpowered is a valid article defining a term which is frequently and specifically used in Hearthstone, and which is not defined elsewhere. The word has a specific meaning and purpose in gaming which is beyond that seen elsewhere, with a particular relationship to nerf. The article is perfectly valid (albeit underdeveloped) and I've therefore removed the deletion tag.
The numerous translated articles you've tagged represent efforts to create a simple version of the wiki in other languages. While some of them are outdated, they would be fairly easy to update, and I'm not going to eradicate the efforts of other editors to translate the wiki simply because they are incomplete - at least not today. I do however sympathise somewhat with your reaction, and I've gone ahead and moved those not already on language subpages, which will reduce and clarify their presence in searches. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough reply. It's a shame that there aren't more editors on this wiki than there are now.

Next time I find an odd page like this, I will instead write in your Talk page which is more appropriate. --JordiTK (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and you're welcome. As a rule, questions about specific pages should go on their talk pages, while site-wide discussions should go on the community discussion page (this helps other editors find the discussion, both now and in the future), but if it's urgent or part of a bigger discussion you can always post on my page. I'm normally on here most days which means I should see messages on regular talk pages pretty quickly (injury breaks notwithstanding), but I often leave it a little while before responding to questions, to reflect on possible solutions, to allow other editors to join the discussion, and because my real life provides plenty of interruption. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Game title was changed with Gadgetzan patch, and the Wiki also should be renamed in same fashion

Hearthstone is dropped the "Heroes of Warcraft" subtitle with the Gadgetzan patch, and I think that the Wiki also would need that name change. From an article: "Blizzard did that to ensure the simplicity in branding. When is the last time anyone used the Heroes of Warcraft subtitle to refer to the game? More, the title no longer needs the Warcraft name recognition to attract (or maintain) its playerbase. Dropping the subtitle makes expansion marketing simpler, too. Consider that the proper title of the latest expansion would technically be Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft: Mean Streets of Gadgetzan. That’s just a mess. Hearthstone is no longer a World of Warcraft spin-off title. Hearthstone is recognizable on its own merit. At this point, the subtitle just takes up space — and when talking logos, the additional words only created visual clutter." TheGamer765 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I still see the title "Heroes of Warcraft" still being used to refer to Hearthstone, can you link to the article? Aegonostic (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Here you go:

TheGamer765 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a valid consideration. Aegonostic (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - strangely this has all happened very quietly, so I hadn't heard. The original subtitle was obviously useful for bridging WoW players to Hearthstone, but I agree with the assessments that it was a bit clunky, and definitely unnecessary now the latter game has been established as a brand in its own right. Re: the wiki I've updated the most important pages, and added some notes; most pages use Hearthstone anyway, so there's not too much to change. The logo on the front page will take a little while to upload due to the wiki generally liking to chew on new image versions like a crazed puppy with a new toy. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki logo

Should the logo for the Hearthstone wiki itself (the one featured in the banner on the top of the desktop version of the page) also be updated to make the word "Hearthstone" in "Hearthstone Wiki" look more like the new official logo? --DeludedTroll (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't really noticed the changes, but you're right, it should really. Since I don't have the skills for high-quality graphics work, I've passed on a message to the Curse people who created our current logo; hopefully they'll be willing to help. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Addition on Card Mechanics

Hello! Could the editors of the Main Page add Refresh Mana as a card Mechanic? Thanks! Onlymyself (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

At present I'm trying to keep the list on the front page to common or major mechanics, rather than every one we recognise: there are several not currently listed there (we could arguably trim a few more). The left column is already a bit overlong and it doesn't feel necessary to list them all there, especially those like Refresh Mana that are featured on only a single card. I have however added the ability to {{Card nav}} and Abilities (and Mana), and built up Refresh Mana itself a bit. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on the new Main Page

I like the new Main Page, it's really good, but I noticed that Curse of Naxxramas' name was got a typo in it, it should be fixed.

Overall, the new design seems really good. TheGamer765 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! It's been fixed. --Alianin 22:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The mobile version still have the typo. TheGamer765 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Got that one too now. — oOeyes

00:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the design so far, very fresh. However, the tables such as in Small-Time_Recruits#How_to_get have a transparent background for their "tbody" cell content, which should be fixed. Aegonostic (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll ask for more general opinions on that. Do we want tables to be full solid color, probably like the nav bar with Main page/Discussion, and such, or keep the cells transparent to let the parchment through? — oOeyes

00:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like the table "tbody" elements to not be transparent. They should be of a different color than the parchment background to distinguish the table from the background. Also the table borders should be of a dark color, to distinguish that it is a table. Currently, tables have a white border, which blends with the parchment background.

Any color is fine, as long as it isn't transparent, and the black-colored words in the table are easily readable.

And the widths of the Getting Started and the Featured Video blocks on the main page are out of whack with the widths of the other blocks, but I'm sure you guys are aware of it. Aegonostic (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking amazing! Now, the only gripe is with the tables being transparent and without dark borders. Aegonostic (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

With no other opinions registered so far, I'm just going to jump ahead and make the change. — oOeyes

11:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! It definitely helps a lot with tables like these Card_set#List and templates like these Expansion#References, and long tables like these Card#Minion_cards.

Though, not to be picky, but, the color is kind of metallic and kind of dull with the grey. Aegonostic (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a brighter, slightly more pinker grey is better, close to the color of the "th" elements, but not quite. Aegonostic (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to test some colors out. You can use the hex color: "f1e0be" for the "td" elements. I created an imgur to highlight the difference in brightness from the current dull color: http://imgur.com/a/RRtff Aegonostic (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The colours for the tables/panes are all rather bleached and anaemic now, in my opinion. I believe the issue is that they were changed to match the new background colour, but now that that change has been reverted, we still have the other new colours, and they don't match the background any more. Since the background hasn't changed, I can't see any reason to change the colours for the boxes and panes. The previous colours/textures looked and felt good, and went well with the background, so I would suggest simply reverting to the previous values. You can see them side by side here. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or do what Taohinton suggests, which is to revert back to the old table colors (before the site update) with the dark borders. Aegonostic (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The old style was all partial transparents. For now, I've decided to just adjust that color (everywhere it was used) to one matching the hue and saturation of the parchment background. The other background colors are already very similar in hue and saturation, so I think that adjustment will help. — oOeyes

11:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, was a much needed adjustment. Aegonostic (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we have our wires crossed a little. The change doesn't seem to have affected the boxes such as the table of contents, wikitables, infobox or category displays. Here's a comparison. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a quick and simple reversion at this point, and in my view, a mismatch of design styles to revert entirely to the partial transparent backgrounds, bordered boxes, and box shadows used previously. Basically, the main page would stand entirely alone in using the rounded solid color boxes, and it seems like some changes, such as those to the infoboxes, received positive feedback as well. Hence, I only attempted to solve the primary problem of the desaturated table background, and I interpreted your suggestion as just one option for that. Frankly, I'd prefer to see more of a consensus before making that many changes to the site styles. This is not a change I'd like to seesaw back and forth on. — oOeyes

06:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the new whiter background for the table of contents and card infoboxes, it makes it look more modern and refreshing (in my opinion). I also like the fonts. Aegonostic (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Refresh Mana ability

Could someone add Refresh Mana into the ability box please? thanks. Onlymyself (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to {{card nav}}? "Refresh Mana" is in the box. Aegonostic (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I already replied to this in #Request for Addition on Card Mechanics. We have 50 terms listed in {{Card nav}} and we don't need all of these on the front page - nor would they fit, without pushing everything else down. Refresh Mana is currently used on only one card in the whole game, so isn't exactly a major topic. I have however edited the list and added Adapt and Quest, as well as a couple of other adjustments. -- Taohinton (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Spambots?

I have noticed that some new user profiles have odd content in their introductory text, such as "unblocked games" and etc. I think that they are spambots, and they should be removed. TheGamer765 (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

How to upload gold versions of cards?

How do you guys upload a golden version of a card? The Hearthpwn site only has the gold version of the card in Webm format, and not .png format. Aegonostic (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think if you use some screenshot tool, it will go just fine, unless you want that animation. TheGamer765 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok cool, thanks. Just uploaded my first golden image to

Unearthed Raptor. Aegonostic (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Knights of the Frozen Throne is not an upcoming expansion, it's the current expansion

The Front page states that KFT is an upcoming expansion, meanwhile it's released. I hope it will be fixed. 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It takes a solid few weeks for a mod to get around updating the front page :P --Bannanawaffles (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, guys! Thanks for catching that. It has been udpated. --Alianin 16:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please fix the Paladin alt heroes section

This issue has gone long enough and I cannot let this go unaddressed anymore. Please change the Paladin alt heroes segment to be the same size as the rest. Make it like the Mage alt heroes. --ThemJohns (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Done.

Admins: please leave me a message if you add more heroes and this needs to be done again. Thank you. — oOeyes

07:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New expansion

KnC is out, the front page should have it where KFT is currently. Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The admin has updated the front page so KnC is the latest expansion. The next question to ask is, why are all the Standard expansions listed, except for Knights of the Frozen Throne? And why is Blackrock Mountain still listed on the front page even though it has already rotated out to Wild?

Because I had to do it in a hurry and I derped. Fixed now. — oOeyes

19:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Spell vs Weapon Wild inconsistency

Why are Wild Weapon cards put in a separate page, but the Wild Spell cards are referenced on the Spell page itself? Shouldn't there be consistency?--Adûnâi (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please update main page, thanks

The Witchwood is out, the main page should reflect that. Aegonostic (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant to refer to the mobile version of the site, the main page has been stuck on Knights of the Frozen Throne for quite a while now. Aegonostic (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the heading. Okay, done. — oOeyes

01:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

- Update again the mainpage, I know that The Boomsday Project is there. But the other expansions are outdated. Remove Mean Streets of Gadgetzan or One Night in Karazhan and put back The Witchwood. Senescalzin 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)