Talk:World of Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 World of Warcraft is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 14 December 2006
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Warcraft Review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by Warcraft editors in order to get a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
See the WikiProject Warcraft review page for more information.
Warcraft icon This article is part of WikiProject Warcraft, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Warcraft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Warcraft To-do:

This article is within the scope of the Massively multiplayer online games WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

How to archive a talk page

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

Contents

[edit] WoW in American Dad

Other then the fact that it is a Fantasy MMO, the MMO in the American Dad episode had no resemblance to WoW, just MMOs in general, and should be taken off the Popular Culture list.--Babrook 15:01, 03 December 2006 (UTC)

The list item about American Dad has since be deleted. --Htmlism 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoW Grinding Guide

Would like to add this: [http://www.grinding-guide.com WoW Grinding Guide] - Most comprehensive WoW Grinding Guide.

I would not recommend adding this site, for two reasons. One, it being the most comprehensive or superlative of anything is subjective. Two, it looks like the site is out to make money, and it has obnocious ads on it. But it's great of you to ask first. On the aside, you should sign your additions.--Htmlism 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive 4

Archive 4 was created on November 7th, 2006. Mkdwtalk 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of Whorecraft

The paragraph about this in Popular culture has been marked with the [citation needed] -tag for nearly a month now. Maybe it's time to remove it/move it to the talk page, since there doesn't seem to be any verifiable claim to notability. Tengfred 08:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

the only site I found mentioning it is MMOrgy (a blog on sex and video game, not worth citing). We can rephrase the paragraph to say "there exist a porno", but that's definitely against policy, so I support remove. --Voidvector 08:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree to remove, "porno film" just doesn't sound right in an encyclopedia. I mean, at least change it to "A pornagraphy" or however you spell it --Freddy Jade 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - I think the entire part about the porno should be removed. I think it's irrelevant. People shouldn't be going to an encyclopedia to look for that kind of stuff anyway. --Christknight 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, this site has plenty of information about pornographic material, and this support comes off as a matter of taste reason. Whether you think so or not, it is an example of it in Popular Culture. The films (multiple) do exist, it is a web site with episodes for purchase. whoresofwarcraft.com/home.php. The above reasons for edit offer nothing but taste (distaste) of the subject and nothing more. Crypt King 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if has info or not - it doesn't belong on this article. Information like that has nothing to with the game itself - it's somebody's sick way of making money or drawing attention. If it means that much to you, write something about it on the pornography page. --Christknight 05:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Then remove all references to it in popular culture, every single one, since they have nothing to do with the game itself and are only ways of drawing attention (your words). Either all or none, your "taste" has no meaning on the viability of information for an article, it's biased and invalid. Because "you don't like it," is not valid, whether it offends your beliefs (religious, political or otherwise) or your personal hangups is not valid. South Park is just as tasteless (a cartoon character shooting diarrhea over their mothers is high in taste and value) yet it is included. And since the original flag was a ((fact)) tag, not a ((it offends me, I don't like it, porn is bad and sick)) tag and the fact that it has been proven to be a fact, it has every right to be included. The movie doesn't mean much to me (as you put it), what means so much to me is people editing works, removing works, and suporting it because it offends them. Goes for web articles, book burnings, and a host of other topics where people use their hangups to remove or censor information.--Crypt King 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference between the porn reference and the others is that the others aren't defiling WoW, but the porno one is. I don't watch South Park, either, but it doesn't sound like that scene you mentioned has anything to do with WoW. Porn defiles things because there is no respect in porn. And as I said before, people shouldn't be going to an encyclopedia to look for that kind of stuff anyway. --Christknight 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the difference is nothing to do with "defiling WoW" - it's the fact that the porn reference is to some random piece of internet pornography of no apparent notability, which has a punning name, whilst the other references are to mass-media television programs explicitly referencing WoW. Christknight, you should know that Wikipedia is not censored, and content which is otherwise significant and notable is not to be removed because you (or anyone else) thinks it is offensive or "sick". --Stormie 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know Wikipedia is not censored. However, my main point was what I said above, "it's irrelevant" - just like you said, "no apparent notability". --Christknight 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries - I was just concerned that you seemed to be saying that mention of pornography had no place in Wikipedia even if it WAS notable. --Stormie 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"And as I said before, people shouldn't be going to an encyclopedia to look for that kind of stuff anyway.", "Porn defiles things because there is no respect in porn." -Christknight. Your comments sure don't point to "it's irrelevant". Dude you go on a rant on the subject, how it defiles then try to say your objection is something else. Please be honest with your mad on. You don't want it because it's porn, that's it. To Stormie, what's the measure of how big a reference has to be to be considered of interest? Serious question, because I think references in Penny Arcade could also be considered of importance.--Crypt King 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), World of Whorecraft is a porn video being distributed on the internet, I would go by the notability standards of WP:WEB - "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" would be a good start. --Stormie 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Myself, being a fairly long-term Wikpedia fan and contributor, a casual WoW player for a year, and a follower of this talk page, I checked out the World of Whorecraft Webpage and watched an episode a friend had. I agree it has no place here. Though a semi-interesting divergence from WoW, it ultimately has no relevance here. 59.147.11.220 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
To Crypt King: Since when did porn become pop culture? --Voidvector 08:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Voidvector is right, porn is not public enough to be called pop culture. And Crypt King, my reason for bringing up my "As I said before..." statement was because you overlooked my first statement - "it's irrelevant." --Christknight 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that we agree that it is irrelevant, has no notability, and isn't pop culture at all, can we put this subject to rest? --Christknight 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it now. Tengfred 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo on expansion's name

Can't fix it myself, but in the opening paragraph it calls the expansion "Burning Crusades", but the correct name is singular not plural. A Burning Crusade entry in wikipedia already exists for it to link to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Roy (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing in China

Removed the erroneous speculation that "It is likely no monthly fee plan is offered in Asia to prevent gold farming," as this simply isn't true. Although many gold farmers are chinese, they don't generally operate in Chinese servers, as the market for WoW gold is much better in the states. From what I can tell based on a few wholly unscientific conversations, there's no monthly fee plan offered in China simply because it isn't a popular idea -- users prefer to simply pay for what they use. Gold farming has nothing to do with it. Theotherkg 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was having a conversation with my cousin in China when I wrote that paragraph, and that was the impression I got. Given it is subjective statement, it is good that you have spotted it and removed it. --Voidvector 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably a more likely reason that the monthly fee plan is not offered in China is that like most non-western countries the number of people owning credit cards is very low. Credit card fraud is also much more prevalent. --DMS 11:56, 23 November 2006
All the gamers I knew when I was over there payed by game card. You go to the store, buy the card, and scratch off a code. Once you enter the code, your account is credited a given number of hours of gameplay. Pretty much the same as game cards in the states, only you pay for however much you actually play rather than a flat monthly rate. Probably an article out there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it.Theotherkg 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warbiking

I have proposed the deletion of Warbiking. The term was used to describe one gamer's experience that was posted on Digg. It is not a commonly carried out activity amongst gamers. If any of you guys here like to comment/intervene please post on Warbiking talk page. --Voidvector 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has removed my deletion tag. However, I still do not think such an article belongs on Wikipedia. All the contents on Warbiking article are definitions. Additionally, they are regarding a non-notable concept. If any of you have any suggestion of what to do w/this article feel free to share. --Voidvector 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have merged and redirected Warbiking into Wardriving. --Stormie 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Maybe WoW should be added to the Virtual_reality category, for it has become both a technical and sociological phenomenon.

You should put Fan Site program links that u can see on official websites. (unsigned)

For the category you are suggesting, the WOW article is in it... kind of. World of Warcraft is in the category World of Warcraft < Massively multiplayer online role-playing games < Massively multiplayer online games < Virtual reality communities < Virtual reality

Also, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Greeves 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahn'Qiraj

I deleted the last paragraph that dealt with reactions. It felt a little to flamey and it was too specific anyway. No one besides WoW players cares that a scepter was held for random or that servers experienced things differently through the grind. If anything, mention that in the WoWWiki. --Htmlism 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of WarCraft is flawed and a disgrace (technical reasons)

The game is flawed in several ways, which I will outline below (this list is by no means complete):

  • The are only two factions which certain races and classes are arbitrarily and exclusively assigned to, and you cannot change your faction or class from the preset choices for no rational reason.
    • The Alliance is always portrayed as being lawful good, and the Horde is always portrayed as being chaotic evil, cleary an inconsistency with previous games and probably a type of major retcon.
      • Raciscm is prevalent and mandatory between the two factions.
    • The Undead Scourge/Cult of the Damned (i.e. necromancers and death knights), the Burning Legion (i.e. Eredar, Nathrezim, Satyr), and the Indepedents (i.e. Trolls, Dragonspawn, Gnolls, Goblins, Harpies/Kobolds, Murlocs/Mur'gul, Naga, Nerubians, Pandaren, Quilboars, Tuskarr, Worgen, etc.) despite being intergral to the storyline, are not included as playable.
      • No Death Knights or Necromancers (likely only to be added when Scourge becomes a playable faction, i.e. never).[1][2]
      • Not all major races are allowed as characters for arbitrary and meaningless reasons. [3][4]
        • No Half-elves or Half-orcs, like there are in the PnP RPG.

--Zenosaga 04:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Zenosaga, as tempted as I am to discuss this with you, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and article talk pages are to be used to talk about the article, not its subject -- i.e., improvements to the article, questions about POV or references, etc. Jpers36 07:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jpers36's statement. This is not an appropriate place for what you're looking to do. --MaTrIx 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to throw down the Wikipedia is not a soapbox, link, but it looks like Jpers36 already got it. Thanks for responding to this post, which has no merit here. SlapAyoda 11:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's just a game nothing is perfect, besides its all fantasy you chose who ever you want to be knowing which side is the bad guys, and the good guys. --Dark Kirby5 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to get too wrapped up in the conversation which should not be posted here in the first place it should be pointed out that there is no indication of either horde or alliance being "good" or "bad" and if anything the most "chaotic evil" race would be humans who belong to the alliance faction. It is a common misconception of the Warcraft universe that the orcs are evil when in fact it has been stated in Blizzard's lore that they have been controlled by the scourge in the past when acting in a war-like fashion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apoptygma (talk • contribs) 21:39, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

While you can debate the exact nature of what is or isn't "evil", there's little doubt that the Horde races lean toward evil acts more than the Alliance races. The upcoming Blood Elves in particular are, I believe, probably by all typical standards the most evil playable race in the game, followed closely by the Undead Forsaken. While these races aren't quite as vile as, say, the Burning Legion, they definitely qualify as macabre, violent and selfish with an expressed disdain for all other races, including their own allies. (One of the Blood Elf sound bites talks about the advantage to having Tauren as allies is "steak every night!") I think the best light you can use to frame these races is that they do exercise some degree of restraint in their hateful urges, meaning they are a "civilized", controlled form of evil when compared to savage races such as the Murlocs, intelligent carnivores such as the raptors, and the all consuming bloodthirsty Burning Legion, the old gods and the like. The Alliance, by comparison, isn't perfect, but its races clearly have a great deal more respect for each other and for life and nature in general than the racial philosophy of the Undead and Blood Elves.
Sorry for the tangent from discussion of the article, but since the topic came up I thought it was an interesting philosophical aside. Dugwiki 18:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't be discussing this here 1. because this is a talk page for the article, not the game itself, and 2. because we could go on for hours. My opinion is that the Alliance is good because the Alliance has Paladins (Blood Elves can't be Paladins, they'll be called blood knights or something like that), and the Alliance generally folows the "Light". However, the reason we could go on for hours is because it really all depends on how you look at it. Yes, the Blood Elves are evil-acting toward all other races(including their allies), but they were first part of the Alliance. They were under the command of a racist human who sent them on suicide missions; that's why they are now for the Horde. So it's all how you look at it, and that's why we shouldn't even be talking about this here - let alone my 1st point. Christknight 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for even mentioning it. As a fan I couldn't resist. :) Dugwiki 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's cool. I love the game myself. =) Christknight 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancelled Linux Game

The addition of the cancelled linux games category is being removed for two reasons. 1. the category is pretty shallow. Minus WoW, there's only two other articles. 2. There needs to be a citation. --Htmlism 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Credits

These are not representative of the primary individuals involved in the creation of the game. For example, Allen Adham was credited as a "Lead Designer" on WoW and is not listed. A full credits list (which should be linked in the article) can be found here: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/world-of-warcraft/credits wjmurdick 3:57, 9, December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs revision, it reads alot like an advertisment for the game.

[edit] The Warden

I'd like to propose we add a paragraph, perhaps in the Criticisms section, concerning the Warden program. Numerous articles, websites, and blogs make the comparisons between it and spyware, and since World of Warcraft is the first massively popular MMORPG (as far as I know) that utilizes such a feature, in my opinion at least a small blurb should be added. 170.98.106.254 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is currently already an as yet unreferenced article about The Warden (software). Therefore at most I'd say add a sentence or bullet under See Also that includes a link to that Wiki article. Note that the article about The Warden isn't yet referenced, though, so it will require citation and/or clean-up. Dugwiki 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have failed this GA due to the following reasons:

  • There are multiple {{fact}} tags still existent in the article. These must be replaced with sources before the GA can pass.
  • Several images are lacking fair use rationales and detailed source information (who created the images, where or how they were acquired, who owns the copyright, etc.)
  • In the lead, the statement "the game is widely regarded as a success" needs a citation such as MetaCritic, Gamerankings, showing that a majority of critics gave the game positive reviews or something similar.
  • The system requirements should be put in the System requirements section of the infobox. The rest of the prose in that section could be kept, but the heading should be renamed, "Version history" or something similar, possibly as part of a section on development.
  • Speaking of development, this article lacks any section dealing with the origins, idea, and development of the game. Who came up with the idea? Where and with what was it developed? Were there any ideas that were cut or hardships that happened during development? These things should be covered in a section of the article titled, "Development" or something similar.
  • The article also lacks a section that summarizes the critical reception the game received upon release, which is a must-have in a CVG article, unless there were no press reviews of the game (which I highly doubt given the game's popularity).
  • The game screenshot should be moved up to the gameplay section to better illustrate the article.
  • The section titled "The Scourge Invasion" should be cleaned up to represent and out-of-universe perspective, as the tag says.
  • Many more references are needed in "Deviation from the MMORPG archetype".
  • The external links in the section about mods should be moved down the the "External links" section of the article, as should (probably) the italicized reference to WoWWiki and the official forum.
  • The expansion pack section needs a citation stating that Blizzard announced the expansion pack on October 28, 2005.

There are probably more things that need fixing, but the above should keep you busy for quite a while, and, unfortunately, I don't believe that placing the nom on hold will give you enough time to fix all of this stuff. Try coming back for another shot at GA then. Hope this helps, Green451 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As a suggestion, I believe you should take this to CVG or general peer review. That will give you the advice of some fresh eyes that may not be as familiar with the game as you are. Green451 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWorld_of_Warcraft_aebc.html"