Talk:Classes in World of Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Classes in World of Warcraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Classes in World of Warcraft has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

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: edit  Warcraft Peer Review: World of Warcraft Expand: .BLP, Alliance (Warcraft), Aman'thul (Warcraft), Argus (warcraft), Azeroth (kingdom), Azuremyst Isles, Bloodscalp Tribe, C'Thun, Canal District, Creep (warcraft), Dark Iron, Dark Portal, Darkspear Tribe, Exodar, Felguard, Footman Wars, Forest Trolls, Goblin (Warcraft), Hakkar the Soulflayer, Hero class, Horde (Warcraft), Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore, Items in the Warcraft universe, Khaz Modan, Lordaeron, MPQ, Mekgineer Thermaplugg, Nazjatar, Northrend, Pit lord, Rhonin, Rokhan, Royal Apothecary Society, Sen'jin, Shandris Feathermoon, Silverleaf, Silvermoon, The Governor, The Warden (software), Thunder Bluff, Tichondrius, Timeline of Warcraft, Titans (Warcraft), Tyrande Whisperwind, Uldum, Undermine, Uther the Lightbringer, Velen (World of Warcraft), Vol'jin, Warcraft III World Editor, Warcraft: Day of the Dragon, Warcraft: Lord of the Clans, Warcraft: Of Blood and Honor, Warcraft: The Last Guardian, Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy, Warcraft: War of the Ancients Trilogy, Wildhammer Dwarves, World dungeon, World of Warcraft Launcher, World of Warcraft Trading Card Game, World of Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred, World of Warcraft: Rise of the Horde, Wyvern (Warcraft), Zul'jin Improve: template talk:Infobox Warcraft character with appropriate faction colors Improve with images: Corrupted Blood, C'Thun, Creep (warcraft), Hakkar the Soulflayer Merges: Heavy cleanup: Illidan Stormrage, Malfurion Stormrage

Archives November & December 2006

Contents 1 Game guide? 2 Content suggestion 3 minor hunter additions 4 Misinformative stat recommendations 5 Character Class panel from BlizzCon 6 [1] 7 Talent descriptions 8 Armor Sets 9 Warlock section 10 Trouble with this article being edited 11 OK here!!!

[edit] Game guide?

I am reading the Article again, and I am starting to get worried we are writing a game guide again. Am I the only one thinking we might need to remove some gameplay stuff? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with this comment. The druid's gameplay section includes detailed explanation about abilities and how they work.Youkai no unmei 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content suggestion

I believe the content in each class description should be standardised. Here is a suggestion of how it could be divided: First part: Class overall description. Basically, what is the point of the class. Second part: Class Lore. Not every class has a lore rich background like paladins, however, each class has at least some elements of lore that can be interesting to read. Third part: Gameplay. Here is where more information about how to play can be found. It could be possible to present the talent trees without having it turn into a gameguide, or a twisted presentation enhancing the image of one talent over the others.

Also, I would like to suggest that any sentence that seems to impose a perception be removed. Basically, when you see something like "Shadow priest are now seen as useful in PVE" it imposes an opinion on the reader. Let the readers decide, and simply present information.Youkai no unmei 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor hunter additions

Ive just added a little bit to the hunter section, specifically mentioning that the aspects are referred to as SELF-BUFFS, but included the party-affecting buffs also (aspect of the pack / wild). I also added a minor section alongside the weapons referring to the "HUNTER WEAPON!" phenomenon. This is my first proper edit, so of course it may not be perfect, and it probably needs a bit of cleanup, but hopefully the information will be useful. Meat Golem 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i beleive the addition to party affecting buff will work well... very well indeed...*cackle* Gnomeslasher 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misinformative stat recommendations

Metastats came about a long time ago. Why is this still recommending, for example, intellect as appropriate for dps casters? Stamina, spelldamage, spellhit, and then intellect are, incidentally, the appropriate order in the case of a non-arcane mage. Could someone address this?

[edit] Character Class panel from BlizzCon

The BlizzCon panel provided a some info on each of the nine classes from the developers point of view, including inspirations leading to each class's creation and their evolution. I found two articles which covered this, one by techFEAR and one by Goblin Workshop. Not sure how to incorporate this information best into the article, but I hope it helps. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am trying to incorporate this information into the article now.

[edit] [1]

Is it really acceptable to use WoW Wiki as a source? It's hardly reliable. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any inherent objection to using it. Sure, if there are better sources, use them(in fact, looking for them is not a bad idea), if other sources contradict them, see who is right or wrong depending on the circumstances, but as sources go, I'd rather have them than not have them. Now this isn't to say everything from the site is gold, but that's a problem to be handled on a case by case basis. Mister.Manticore 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it further, I really don't think it's a good idea to use WoW Wiki. I'm going to try and look for more sources to replace them.

[edit] Talent descriptions

Ok, I just removed two examples of talent tree descriptions from the Paladin and Priest sections, partly because they were the only ones, and partly because they don't cover all of the classes, and partly because the descriptions were possibly inaccurate. Does anybody want them for all of the classes though, and how would you describe them?

• I think a basic overview, i.e. (for priests), "The Holy talent tree increases healing abilities, whereas the Shadow tree boosts damage". And then maybe a comment at the beginning (in the lead), about every class having different 'Talent' options (something like, "Every class has three different 'talent' trees that are different from every other class.". We really have to steer clear of going in depth, cuz that will only bring accusations of game-guideness. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armor Sets

I recently added a list of the warlock dungeon armor sets, which is the main focusing of the game once you 'top out', which makes this information important. My list was deleted once because it was 'not Wikipedia appropriate'. Therefore, I decided that making it own section under the game play would work. It did not either. On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not, I read the following:

• "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fan sites, including a link to one major fan site may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines."

This I agree with and notice that my 'list' is under this category.

However, I was confused by the comment of "However, you'll note that the information is not present for any of the classes, so if you are going to add it, you'll need to do it for all of them, not just one." This does not make sense to me. If the information is not appropriate for Warlocks, then why does me editing everything on the page then make it alright? "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the web site." Source I have been searching the websites help, talk, and discussion boards for anything that states that if someone it going to even the slightest information on a topic why they have to do it all. I do not know the Rogue dungeon gear, Shammys, Druids, and Warriors are not something that I am interested in or willing to do the research for. I am adding my '2 cents' of this database on information that is missing from a page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viceversa-Kuzma (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

It wouldn't make it all right, in fact, I'd disagree with including the content at all. WP:NOT is more than just a mention of external links, it's a whole page, and it's not complete anyway, it's just a bare start. Most decisions are made on a case by case basis, and here, the general feeling has been that the information you added is not appropriate for Wikipedia. However, if the consensus were to include the content for any class, it's not possible to just include that information for one class. All of them would have to be included. Otherwise it just wouldn't seem right. However, this would greatly complicate the page. Basically, the problem with including the information in the specific detail you provided is that it would be far too much of a game guide or instruction manual. It's better to describe the existence of the sets, rather than include the sets as such. This isn't to say there aren't appropriate places for it, Wowwiki is one example, and there are other possibilities.

And I'm not sure, but I think this information was already removed from this page, maybe somebody else can remember. Still, I appreciate you're trying to do good things for this page and not vandalizing it, I just think you might want to consider other ways of improvement. It could use some language cleanup and sourcing for example, much more than lists of high level gear. Mister.Manticore 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warlock section

WAY WAY too much stuff about locks in here. Cut it down to the size the other classes have. TY --Colinstu 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and unless somebody objects, I'll begin editing later today. Mister.Manticore 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with this article being edited

So, it seems to me that there's a continuous concern with folks editing this article to add whatever gameplay they want. I'm going to add a non-display comment at the top that I hope will forestall some of it. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK here!!!

i am a regular wow player, ive read half the article, i have found no signs of error, ima check over the rest ASAP, but for now i gotta finish a few other matters, laters! Gnomeslasher 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)