Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
<< 1 < Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 > 6 >>

Contents

Honor system

In the PVP ranking systems I added " The problem with this new honor system, however, was that players who had previously taken months to reach the High Warlord or Grand Marshal honor rank (the highest honor ranking for each faction) felt betrayed by Blizzard. In the old honor systems it would take an excess of 3 months of hard gaming (putting in several hours of pvp every day) to reach the High Warlord or Grand Marshal honor rank. By achieving this rank players had access to some of the greatest weapons and armor in the game. When Blizzard released this new patch it allowed players to purchase all the High Warlord or Grand Marshal gear that they would need after only two weeks of hard gaming and honor collecting. Due to this change any player that had once taken months to reach their factions highest pvp ranking felt that all their time had been wasted, as now anyone could use the weapons they had access to for a significantly shorter period of gaming."

The only problem I see with this is where i state "The problem with this new honor system, however, was". I was informed that it seemed rather unecyclopediaish and my edits were removed, but that if i felt the person was wrong i should start a discussion on this page. I think that this paragraph is important to the article because it shows the new honor system from the perspective of hardcore gamers instead of the perspective of a newbie gamer, while still saying it as unbiasdly as possible. What do you guys think? Should I put that edit into the page or not (after making a couple minor changes to remove all the bias i can).

The problem with that information is it's not a neutral, declarative statement. Instead, it states an opinion. If this opinion is widely-held, then it can be made encyclopedic if it is written in a neutral voice (instead of "The problem with this new honor system...," it should be something like "Many players did not receive the new changes to the honor system positively") and an external reference is cited. Luis1972 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
you should say that we need the rank advancemant back, but without the rewards or UBER great rewards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.25.24 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
No we shouldn't. Offering opinions about what changes would make a game better is about as far as you can get from what an encyclopedia article should do. --Stormie 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

20 million

"In August of that year, the government of the People's Republic of China decided to enforce control over how many hours the country's 20 million gamers can play."

How can there be 20 million people gaming in China when there's only 8 million gamers in the world?

Because the 20 million remark is false. That 20 million gamers, not 20 million WoW gamers. Babrook| 11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

then shouldn't someone change that?

Current version reads, "In August of that year, the government of the People's Republic of China proposed new rules to curb what they perceived to be social and financial costs brought on by the popularity of games such as World of Warcraft. The measure would enforce a time limit on China's estimated total of 20 million gamers." Luis1972 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The main article about WoW says that there are 3.5 million WoW players in China. Maybe this information could be added to that paragraph to help explain it better.

The World of Warcraft vs. The World of WarCraft

I wanted to add that when a publisher knowingly uses both spellings or alters logos it does give others the rights to also alter the spellings or logos of their products. Since Blizzard is no longer consistent with its nomenclature, we should also use the case senstive word 'Warcraft' for simplicity also.Imlookingnow 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

On the entire Warcraft series (Warcraft I-III: FT), it's always been spelled Warcraft, and it's always been called this by its players and non-players, at least to my knowledge. Thudunder 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pricing comments

World of War craft is a time consuming and a pricy game. Considering that the people have the audacity to charge a monthly fee ,isn't it enough that you bought the game,? It is also time consuming it takes forever just to get to a level 40 to a level 41 ,but I guess you guys like that sort of a challenge. Still though Why the fee? What could the people possibly have to do in order to have to charge a monthly fee there is no reason for it. This is anothe example of a power bigger than everyone else trying to squeeze the money out of all of us people. In conclusion the fact of the time consuming leveling up set up is just not for me ,but I don't think I know anyone who woulden't mind not having to pay a fee just to play a game that you have alredy purchesed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyler hobbs on February 6, 2007 at 23:32. It has been reformatted by Slavlin for readability and signature


1) not the place to discuss this 2) the fee is used for the continued maintainance of the game 3) PLEASE format what you have to say correctly, it's very rude to butt up on somebody elses comment 24.205.34.217 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, the fee pays for server farms and the internet connections to them. It's very practical for an individual to host their own Half-Life server, which may support 16 players over a regular cable modem connection that costs perhaps $50/month to run. A single WOW server, however, hosts thousands of players simultaniously, costs tens of thousands of dollars for the hardware and when you run a lot of servers, you need hundreds of thousands of dollars per month to afford the internet bill. You can't host your own WOW server because you don't have either the hardware or the internet connection to support it -- and even if you could, few people would want to play on your server because there's too much investment in a character. People want to play on servers that are guanenteed to still be running next month and next year, not simply at the whim of an individual.

So that's why these games charge monthly fees. Playing with 1000's of other players is neato and also not cheap. --128.222.37.20 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to make a quick comparison to, let's say, Guild Wars. How many people play that game? A lot! But the thing is, they only connect you to other players (completely) when you're in towns. Unless you're in a group, you're all alone! Even in towns, they cannot connect you with everyone, they have to split it into districts. But WoW, however, they connect you with everyone on the server all the time! Next, let's talk about the GM service. Wow, it's really good! You can request to see a GM, and within the hour (which is really fast considering how many servers there are), you'll be talking to a person who works with Blizzard. Can you do that in Guild Wars? No, they can't afford it on game profits alone. So now, I rest my case, the monthly fees for World of Warcraft are very necissary for the kind of service you're getting. Thudunder 03:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

EU Collector's Edition Netherwhelp Pet

I didn't think this was totally relevent, but had considered putting it in under the Critism section, as a lot of EU players are a little miffed about it. Thoughts?

It's at wow-europe.com>General News go to the News Archive...


European Collector’s Edition Netherwhelp Pet 12/01/2007

We have discovered an unforeseen production issue that will require a few extra steps for European World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade Collector’s Edition owners to access their exclusive Netherwhelp in-game pet. We will update the website with further details on this issue as soon as possible.

In the meantime, we ask that you retain your proof of purchase and the complete contents of your Collector’s Edition box set, including the content description sheet, after making your purchase.

This issue concerns only the in-game activation of the Netherwhelp pet. All the physical contents of your Collector’s Edition are of the quality we strive for in Blizzard special editions, and the ability to upgrade your World of Warcraft account to play The Burning Crusade from 00:01, January 16 is unaffected in any way.

Please do not contact our billing support team as they do not have any details on this issue, and the extra calls would adversely affect their service to players. More details will come on the website before the launch of The Burning Crusade.

We sincerely appreciate the continued support from the European community, and apologise for the delay in activation of this feature.

Miles 2397 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this is a fairly minor, technical problem that probably doesn't belong in this article. While it may miff some customers who have to keep their proof of purchase, it has very little to do with the game as a whole and almost certainly has no lasting or notable effect on how it works or the game's popularity. I'd suggest sticking to broader, general information about the game and leave details about minor technical bugs to fan sites and the official game site. Dugwiki 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Put a few bits in

I've made a few little tweaks that I thought were needed, and I'll be checking some details too. As there is nothing mentioned about how the pricing works in the UK, where you can buy a trial version, AND you can buy the full retail with a Full CD KEY, and with a Limited time card with a limited CD KEY in it, which you hand to a freind with the disks, they install the game and use the trial CD key and they get a short time trial, then have to buy a retail copy. I'm going to find out pricing and update it later if thats ok? Miles 2397 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Engine

This pages needs the game engine located on right top please

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)

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)

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)

World of Whorecraft was mentioned on G4TVs coverage of the 2007 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo, which aired January 12th, 2007. They listed it as one of the Top 10 Adult DVD's of 2006. --Dr Archeville 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)
I added various citations to the Warden article, but as it was my first serious attempt at editing, I don't know if it'll make it past quality control... 170.98.106.254 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

Please note that this is an old GA failure. Information on the most recent nomination can be found here.

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)

Per your comment above, I took the liberty of changing the "widely regarded as a success" to instead say that the game "is a popular and financial success...." The references cited in that paragraph apparently demonstrate that the game has over six million active subscriptinos and is the largest MMORPG on the market in terms of subscription base. Thus the references already provided demonstrate it is successful in terms of both popularity and income, so no additional citations should be necessary for the revised phrasing.
As far as game critics go, WoW did receive very high marks when it was released, and I agree that it would be worth noting its critical reception on release by quoting some of the major published scores and review snippets with citation. That would establish that in addition to having a large subscriber base, the game also is considered a good, solid game by major game reviewers. Dugwiki 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am working on bringing the article up to GA standards but if you don't mind, I will copy your list here so we can cross off what we have completed. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Progress

Un-Completed

  • 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.)
  • 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 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".

Completed

  • 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.
    • Dugwiki has changed around the wording there and I cited reviews from G4 and Gamespot. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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).
    • I have cited reviews as mentioned above. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • That was simple... done! I do not have any development information though. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The game screenshot should be moved up to the gameplay section to better illustrate the article.
    • That has now been done and I have added another screenshot to the version history section (the screenshot was taken during the game's beta testing). Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • I found an article from 1up.com that I have now cited. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Server Architecture

It would be interesting to see something technical about the server. I have heard that Oracle database system is used, but I don't know anything about what system software the game servers run.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.91.209 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2006.

This information is not easy to come by. I believe the Oracle information taken Blizzard's hiring notices. If you can come up with anything else, feel free to post it. You can probably portscan them to figure out what firewall they use. --Voidvector 07:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WoW runs on HP servers (mostly blade servers with a smattering of Integrity boxes) along with a huge amount of EMC storage. They host primarily in AT&T's data centers and have (in the data center I've been in) a 6.5gb Internet pipe.

It would be interesting to know what operating system(s) they are running. DonPMitchell 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gamers criticism of WoW

I would like to propose the criticism section is added another line, which could go something like the following:

In gaming culture World of Warcaft is often heavily criticized for not focusing on the skill of the player but rather the amount of time played. It has also been criticized for failing to improve on a players skills.

I know this suggestion may seem kinda "inapropriate", however I believe it is a good idea, as most of the people who will read this article ARE gamers, and the criticism is very much there among gamers.

Tehniobium 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue in question is basically one of the problems of the hardcore/casual gap, which is already mentioned in another section. You might want extended on that instead.
In addition, your current wording would not work because you used "In gaming culture" without giving a citation from a notable gaming website. --Voidvector 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you perhaps point out where this section/article is? (I guess PurePwnage could be used as citation?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tehniobium (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
I was referring to "Deviation from the MMORPG archetype". --Voidvector 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverted page, due to vandalism. May require block on editing for the time being.

-TOMNORTHWALES —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.123.114 (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I can't change it, but in my browser the first line reads "World of Warcraft commonly abbreviated as SHIT'". In the edit this page link it reads correctly.Stormie 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)jeff

It's been vandalised again. As of 3:45AM (Eastern US time) Dec. 30th 2006, the WoW page currently reads "World of Warcraft is highly overpriced and it is very retarded. Go spend your money wisley.

                                                   From,  Poop.

P.S. IT SUCKS!" I hate to say this, but with the spree of vadalism, I say this page should be reverted and locked for the time being :(

Awards and Recognitions section?

Someone added a sentence in the introduction indicating that WoW has "won numerous awards". This made me realize that the article currently has no section to list such awards. Seems to me it might be a good idea to create a section at the end of the article to bullet list any notable awards or recognitions that WoW has earned, such as "Game of the Year" recognitions, trade show awards, and so on. Such sections are pretty common in biographies and other articles about works. Dugwiki 18:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think I'm gonna do a bit of research on this sometime

Quezacolt 11:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWorld_of_Warcraft_Archive_5_1124.html"