Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Release Dates

I believe the release dates are wrong.

I got my copy (EU) in August 2005, but it says the release date was November 2005.

Regards, Heidi

the release date for burning crusade is January 17, not 16. At least, thats what Wired mag sez.

Wired is incorrect - the street date is definitely January 16, see this Blizzard press release, or the product pages from EBgames or other major retailers. --Stormie 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps other countries' release dates could also be added?61.88.43.91 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, although I'd suggest that the info would be more appropriate in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade that the main World of Warcraft article. --Stormie 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the criticism section here dosen't really seem to be targeted at WoW in particular, but more general gaming/online gaming addiction issues ? Almost all the addiction section is mirrored in the separate criticism article. Perheps it should be shortened here and maybe replaced with a bit more relevant gameplay criticism. --Helixdq 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Very small notice

WoW now have 8 milion players, not 7,5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbswe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

keylogger

ui.worldofwar.net is widely known to have a keylogger last I checked. Should probably not have a link to it.

Forums not maintained by Blizzard and other WoW fan websites, have been known to contain keyloggers, or hidden programs that resemble system files that steal keystokes from users remotely. Keyloggers are not considered as viruses, and even allowed by McAfee and some of the other top selling virus protection programs,
"...McAfee(R) AVERT recognizes that this program may have legitimate uses in contexts where an authorized administrator has knowingly installed this application. If you agreed to a license agreement for this, or another bundled application, you may have legal obligations with regard to removing this software, or using the host application without this software. Please contact the software vendor for further information..."
Blizzard also highly discourages UI (User Interface) Modification program, which are used to enhance the game, but are allowed becuase they encourage creativity without giving an unfair advantage to users. Imlookingnow 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, if you don't want a keylogger, you can always go get Zone Alarm. It works well at stopping those things. Blu Pickles 12:05, 15 February 2007

The whole keylogger problem is no malice on ui.worldofwar.net's part. They are under constant hack attack from gold farmers who want to steal your login details. Those keylogger links are removed as fast as they are hacked in, usually. Significant work is currently going in to prevent these attacks in the future, and fix old PHP code. Chriskl 12:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Would anyone be able to fix the page so that the text will run next to the info box, rather than having to scroll 2 pages down first? Slavlin 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Internet Connection unit

"56k or better Internet connection"

(excuse me if its obvious) what does "k" mean? kb/s? kB/s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.87 (talk) 16:39, 16 January, 2007 (UTC)

In kb/s and kB/s the kb is kilobytes, so you have 56 kilibytes/second. I would like to remind you that this is not a public forum for computer questions, this page is for discussion on improving the article. Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
kb means kilobits, kB means kilobytes(which is 8 times larger) so its important to note whether its kb or kB. Just "k" can be misleading. thats why i asked.
Also, 56k commonly refers to kb/s not kB/s, but the standard abbreviation is kbps. I think that was a good catch, I changed it. Richard Manion 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Current GA Nomination on hold

I have reviewed this article and I feel that it currently could meet to meet the status of a good article with only minor changes. A brief list of the points that it meets or fails is below, followed by explainations of the points it is lacking in

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

2)

a) There are four citation needed templates
c) There are numerous inaccuracies that stand out to me due to the release of The Burning Crusade. They are relatively minor, at most saying that it will contain, as opposed to does contain, just as an example. Please check the Gameplay, Professions, Geography, and the Expansion Pack sections for instances of the tense modifications needed to bring the article up to speed with the Burning Crusade. Everything else checks out.

6c)

i) The beta gryphon shot is really iffy, only saying that the content depicted belongs to Blizzard Entertainment.
ii) The map of Azeroth (not the one with Outland) and the photo of the Blood Elves in their starting area do not have a fair-use rationale

Until these concerns are addressed, this article's GA nomination is on hold for a minimum of two days and a maximum of seven calendar days. You may contact me through my talk page or leave a note here when you wish me to take another look at the article, or another editor is more than welcome to do so. Kyra~(talk) 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)



I have been working on getting the pictures ready. For the beta gryphon shot it was mentioned that the uploading user took the shot. I think that should be okay (please correct me if I'm wrong). The map was outdated so I have now removed it from the article. The blood elf picture, I found on the WoW website, so I guess it was stolen from there; I removed it.

Just checked over the article for the inaccuracies that you mentioned, but I couldn't find any. Maybe they have already been removed. With the citation needed tags, the first one (the one about Linux) I could not find any evidence of. The second one (the one about alcohol being in Blizzard's style), may not be NPOV. I have not yet checked into the third tag (about the Lua language). The fourth one (about X-Play) is true (I am a fan of the show) but I could not find a source.

We're getting closer and we still have a week if needed. Please disregard the old list of tasks that I created. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The beta gryphon shot does fall under fair use, as the World of Warcraft Terms of Use, section 2, state that all characters and objects (among other things) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors. I would like to see a detailed rationale for the gryphon shot, but it just squeezes by as is, I think.
One of the (very small) inaccuracies I was referring to is something like this or this, where there are only minor tense changes to be made to bring the article up to the present. As far as I can tell, everything is in the correct tense now. Also, please check within the Gameplay section, specifically this: "As of early 2007 a number of regions in the virtual world have yet to be implemented". Is this still the case? If so, then the article will then pass criterion 2c, if not, it needs to be updated.
The first one about Linux has been taken care of. I have taken out the offending sentence and replaced it with one saying there is no current Linux version, as well as citing the technology FAQ on the WoW site. The Lua citation, I have cited, but it's not an exact source for the statement, as the source says Blizzard can change anything within the program at its sole discretion, but it does back up that they have the right to do so. I removed the statement about alcohol being Blizzard's style as possible POV, so the only needed reference as of now is the X-Play one. Kyra~(talk) 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot for not only reviewing the article, but helping it pass too! I am afraid that we may not be able to get a reference for the X-Play pop culture line. If that is the case, can we remove it per WP:OR? Thanks again! Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Pop culture reference removed as possible original research. If a source is found in the future, it may be re-added at a later date. And you are most welcome; It was a rather refreshing change from my usual routine. I still am going to wait until the minimum time passes, however, as per GA reviewing procedures . Have a wonderful day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Could someone take a look at the following two edits, I am not sure if they fit within the article fluidly enough. The first one is the World of Warcraft soundtrack listing. It seems to stick out too much, and the information is almost certainly able to be found elsewhere, or be relocated to a different area. The second two (combined into one) is more of a mass of links than anything else, with information that is, for the most part, duplicated here. Does anyone have any ideas on what to do with these two additions? Kyra~(talk) 11:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The soundtrack section looks like it may have been stolen: "...and later produced on (1) CD. Format: *.Mp3". If it was not stolen, then it is definitely not encyclopedic. The list might have been passable if not for the great length of it. I say delete or create a section about it without the list.
Maybe for the other stuff, we can merge it into one section and place one of those Main article:Instance (World of Warcraft) templates above it.
By the way, in just under an hour, this article is officially GA! :-) Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Soundtrack article was a list. It's my understanding you cannot copyright a list. The *.mp3's themselves cannot be posted. The source for the list was www.blizzard.com. They sell the CD. This is the music from the game. Other 'lists' we could use here would be the credits.Imlookingnow 03:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Originally, the information at the top of the list looked copied and pasted. Someone changed that and worded it better for an encyclopedia. Greeves (talk • contribs) 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Since it's release in 2004, has a music major or composer attempted to self-reproduce the melody or theme song in sheet music format? Imlookingnow 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Max level no longer 60

The gameplay section only takes into account the old maximum level; 60. With the expansion it's now 70.

Can't change myself. Kazookazoo 07:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Fixed!

Quezacolt 11:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think Wowhead should be added to the 'Useful information' section.

What is Wowhead? It's basically a sexy-looking Thottbot. It provides:

  • A clean and usable interface
  • Colors that more closely jive with the feel of WoW
  • Item/Profession/Class information
  • Embeddable Talent Calculator (you can put the calculator on your site)
  • Periodic contests
What's there is enough. The section stays as it is. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not a WoW player but it looks like a good site for players. Though to the general public, that would be considered serious cruft (no offense). Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination Status: Pass

1. Well written?: Very well written, and if I didn't know what World of Warcraft was beforehand, I'd say I'd have a good understanding afterwards. Pass.
2. Factually accurate?: Everything is sourced well, and all concerns that placed this article on hold initially have been rectified.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article seems to cover a wide array of topics. Pass.
4. Neutral point of view?: I could not find any instances of prose written from a single point of view. Additionally, the controvery and criticism section is sourced. Pass.
5. Article stability? The article went in to the GA process stable, minor changes needed to be made during, but it still seems to be stable coming out of the process. Pass.
6. Images?: All fair use images to have fair use rationales, but I would still like to see a better rationale on the beta gryphon shot. Nevertheless, this still Passes


Overall, the article is well written, and it was a pleasure to review this article. My final verdict on this article's Good Article nomination, is Pass. --Kyra~(talk) 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be delisted - it's currently full of cleanup tags and has other problems like writing style and spelling. Richard001 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you, but I think there's enough major editing going on that I think it's worthwhile to just see how those pan out before we delist it. Luis1972 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Instances

I liked what you did to my listing of Instances. While descriptive, this is a higher level article and I did see that we have something already done one level down. Kudos.Imlookingnow 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No reception section?

There is currently no discussion of the success of WoW, both critically and popularly, outside of the lead; only a "criticism" section with its own subpage. Perhaps this ought to be amended? Nifboy 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To maintain neutrality, this is necessary. Supported. .Absolution. 13:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently working on this section. —Luis1972 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pop references

I reverted the following edit, but not because I don't agree. Though these may be "obvious" to some, without a third party (not the reader or the writer) reference, it is really Original research to say these are definate references. Also, this would be a HUGE list to cite everything. Don't forget Farmer Kent, the new Kessel Run quest, etc. Included cut text below.

References in World of Warcraft
  • The NPC 'Terry Palin', found in the Eastvale Logging Camp, is a mishmash of the names Terry Gilliam or Terry Jones and Micheal Palin, all three members of the British comedy group Monty Python.
  • The NPC 'Sergeant Hartman' is a reference to R. Lee Ermy's character in the film "Full Metal Jacket", Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.
  • The hermit in Duskwood, Abercrombie, and the auctioneer in Stormwind City, Fitch, are together a reference to clothing label 'Abercrombie & Fitch".

Slavlin 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

100% agreed. I've seen lists of these references elsewhere, and an exhaustive one would be longer than the rest of the article. And it is, as you say, original research. --Stormie 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If we could find some references (which might be impossible) we could create Popular culture references in World of Warcraft. That would only be if we could find references though as per WP:OR. Just a thought, doubt that it would happen due to a lack of reliable sources. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


How can it be OR when several sites already deamed fit to host it? Why not just put a link to the website?

If it is not cited, then it would be original research. If it is going to be cited, you would want to provide a link to a site which could be deemed a reliable source. For reliability here, I would look for interviews or statements from the company specifically acknowledging the references or from a credible non-commercial or gaming news site. You might try doing a google search for Linken and Abercrombie in the same article. That would probably give you something to start with, but again, I would be hesitant to start a huge list of these. Slavlin 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion Summary

It appears the expansion subsection in this article is outdated. If no one takes the reins, I will eventually find the sources to create a current, concise substitute. .Absolution. 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Too in-depth

Most of this article seems much too in-depth for an encyclopedia, notability is a reason for there to be an article about it, not a reason to have whole independant articles on towns, in-game only events, ect. It most definately needs a cleanup. Aeonoris 12:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article, and most of the related ones, contain too much that is not encyclopedic content. While I am an avid player (2 level 60+s so far) and do like having a lot of the information, I think having this much detail is a disservice to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. Knowing the exact stat mods for the new Burning Crusade races is, in my opinion, more appropriate to one of the many other data projects out there. WoWWiki for example? Slavlin 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on all your points. If this was the case the article wouldn't have reached GA status. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please give examples. -Ryanbomber 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, under the Wikiproject for Computer and Videogames the scope of information guideline for information is, if it is only useful for players of the game, it should go on a gaming wiki. As with any guideline, I agree it is open to discussion, but I do think that an article for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should be for the broad public. Here are some items that I think are less than helpful to that end.
  • The chart of which race can play which class.
  • In the page for each race, the listings of how many points each race gets as a bonus to skills and how much each resistance bonus is.
  • A detailed and in-depth breakdown of the geography of the game world.
These are just some of the things that I think we would not expect to see in a normal encyclopedia. Slavlin 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The chart of which race can play which class. - No, it's a basic gameplay mechanic. If we throw that out, we might as well remove statements like "Mario 64 involved collecting stars."
  • In the page for each race, the listings etc. - I didn't catch that. Very good point, I'd say throw it out.
  • A detailed and in-depth breakdown of the geography etc - Borderline "cruft" and maybe we don't need that much detail/details on every zone, but I'd have to look at it in depth.
Overall, I think putting up the tag was a bit extreme. There are problems, but there's problems with every article. Not to mention that you're beginning to mention problems NOT on World of Warcraft but on other articles related to the game... -Ryanbomber 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ryanbomber, I don't thik the tag is too extreme, but I was not the one who originally put it up. I just reverted an edit that removed it with no comment. I do have a few nits to pick here though.
  • The fact that only specific class and race combinations are valid is the mechanic. Details on exactly which ones are valid combinations would be something that is useless trivia to people not playing the game. To use your example, I am saying to leave "Mario 64 involves collecting stars." but remove how many stars they are, what they look like and where they are located.
  • For the other pages that are cruft-filled, I feel that, should we take on the trimming and re-writing that I think will be needed to make this a featured article, we would want to consolodate the other pages at the same time. For example, possibly trim the game mechanic details on the races and roll them up into one article with each having their own section heading.
  • I think that the world setting information is even a bit much were this a real location, not subject to change by programmers. Trimming it down to what 'types' of geography are presented would be plenty, in my opinion.
Overall, I think that it is significant that we have more detail on Wikipedia about this game than many of the dedicated commercial gaming sites do. Also, Blizzard has put together a world encyclopedia of their own, so having world history and background in Wikipedia is not really necessary, I feel. Slavlin 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still gonna disagree with your definition on a game guide. Saying what race/class combination is best (ie "OMG BE UNDEAD ROGUE FOR WOTF!!!") would be a game guide. Saying what's POSSIBLE is kosher as it's just explaining basic game mechanics, not how to best use them. WP:NOT specificly says a how-to guide. Saying that Tauren can be Druids, Warriors, Hunters, and Shamen (Shaman? Shamans? Shamanii?) isn't a how-to guide.
On a more positive note, yes, if Blizzard ever updates that encyclopedia again, I don't see much of a reason to have more lore-based information here. -Ryanbomber 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not saying that this looks more like a game guide. What I was saying is that much of the information is of no use to a non-player and is not really encyclopedic content. If we want the article to reach FA status, then we need to make it focused toward users of encyclopedias, rather than players of WoW. Again, I have yet to see anyone present a reason why the details need to be there or why the article is better with them than without them. The standard that I have found in the all of the discussions on Featured Articles and developing them has been biased on the side of proving that the info is needed rather than proving it is not. If the inclusion can't be justified as making the article better, then it can't be of that much value to the article.Slavlin 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"The line" is pretty hard to pinpoint, and I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one, but let me put it another way; leaving out the race/class combos is sort of like "Chess has several pieces, including the Pawn, Rook, Knight, Bishop, King, and Queen. We're not telling you what they do, however." Giving a basic rundown of the most vital game mechanics is pretty standard, even in "real" encyclopedias. Why not here? -Ryanbomber 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ryanbomber, and I have removed the tag. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, no one has explained how the all of the detailed items included in the article are of benefit to an encyclopedia. I don't think that this will ever reach FA status until some pruning and cleanup to take out the items which are useful only to the players of the game, but I will leave it alone for now as I do not have the energy to argue a case that I should not have to argue any longer. Slavlin 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slavin. I think the following sections should be cut: Version History, Pricing, Playable Races and Classes Table, Geography, Soundtrack, and Deviations From the MMORPG Archetype. Jfbolus 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Version history - As it stands right now, it's more of a history of the OSes usable. I'd go so far as to say add more information on major patches. We don't need a complete list of every patch, but giving some historical update context ("most new patches add a new instance") wouldn't hurt.
Pricing - Relates it to other MMOs. Nein.
Playable Races/Classes - I've been through this before and I don't really have anything new to say on the matter.
Geography - Trim, sure. Remove, probably not.
Soundtrack - Why is this here? Remove.
Deviations - No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No. This relates it to other MMOs HARD. This gives it more context. This is what you are arguing FOR. -Ryanbomber 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ryanbomber. A lot of the in formation on the article are non-encyclopedic. We have to keep in mind that this article must be written with the audience in mind --- that of an average, non-player that is merely curious about the game. Luis1972 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As it seems that we have decided that it is still too in-depth and still needs cleanup, I am re-adding the tag. Aeonoris 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know we all love the game, or we wouldnt be reading this, but I totally agree the article is way too long. The Deviation from the MMORPG archetype section reads like a diatribe.Barrel-rider 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems

The whole thing is told as though it's a real event, which isn't really encyclopedic at all. It's more of a story then a description of the game, it needs some serious rewrites. Jaenop 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no disagreement there. I also think it should mention somewhere that this game requires a broadband internet connection and then a registered, subscription-based account online in order to operate the game at all; there is no offline content whatsoever. The reason I bring this up is because I got Warcraft 3 Battle Chest recently, which includes the 14-day trial edition of WoW as a bonus, but the computer I use for gaming (not this laptop which I am using to edit Wikipedia) does not have an internet connection, so I was a tinge taken aback when I tried the bonus disc and I couldn't do anything at all with it. Mentioning this strictly-online-only business may be practical for the article, if only to prevent somebody else from buying the game for a computer that's not connected to cyberspace. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In the system requirements section, it does mention that a "56k or better Internet connection" is required. That is in the information template on the right. Slavlin 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's just what I'm talking about; It lists an internet connection as a requirement, but I assumed it was listed up there because it was a requirement for online play, as in, it could also be played offline if you wished to for a moment. Probably a dumb assumption on my part, but it may be something to consider. I would advocate listing somewhere in the article that the game has no offline mode. But if listing a connection speed as part of the System Requirements for any game article automatically indicates to readers that the game that article covers is online only, then yeah, it should stay as it is. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the problems discussed at the start of this section, I think it'd be a lot better to say "With the release of Patch 1.09, this new region was opened up for players to explore" than "With the release of Patch 1.09, the gates to this new region opened up with monsters pouring out." That seems to be a prime example of how parts of the article are told like it's a real event. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Add this to reference names:

Postmaster Malown is reference to the famous basketball player Karl Malone "The Postman". Ofc Postamaster Malown drops Malown's Slam :))

What does a computer RPG Featured Article look like?

It might be interesting for those who would like to get this article into Featured Article contention to have a look over the multiple Final Fantasy games article which have achieved that status: Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2. Obviously a CRPG calls for a somewhat different approach to an MMORPG, but it shows what sort of level is needed. One feature of particular note, imho, is the complete absence of lists and tables of game elements - everything is described in prose. --Stormie 00:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it might be more prudent to look for a FA on an MMORPG than a console traditional RPG as a reference, and bear in mind that WoW looks like a Diablo 2-style game set in a Sandbox-style world (Grand Theft Auto 3) so elements of those pages should be considered as well. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - there don't seem to be any MMORPG articles at Featured status, though. Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Sport and games for other ideas. StarCraft is Featured, for an idea of how to write a Featured Article about a Blizzard game. --Stormie 02:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looked into it a few times for WikiProject MMO and yes, there is no article under our scope that is a FA however this is one of three GAs under our scope (the others being Make Love, Not Warcraft and Final Fantasy XI, but more to come!). Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Respawn in instances

In the article, it states that monsters do not respawn in the instance unless your party leaves the instance. However, I have played WoW before, and once the monsters DID begin to respawn after an hour or two, even though we did not leave the area. Could someone clarify this for me? RHSB Scipio 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)RHSB Scipio

Roving monsters will respawn over time, while bosses won't. For example, Molten Core. A good raid can complete Molten Core, including all bosses, in four hours. But if the raid wipes, and has to re-enter the instance, they'll find the roaming "trash" mobs have respawned. If the article says monsters don't respawn, that's incorrect. Probably a clarification should state that bosses don't respawn, while roaming mobs will. FeralDruid 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Clarification on my prior point... it may take 30-60 minutes for these roaming monsters to reappear. FeralDruid 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the respawn is about 10-15 lava surgers and core hounds until their boss is killed, the general respawn in MC is 2 hours for all mobs. Finally if the instance is left to reset (about 45 minutes after a group leaves) all mobs except the ones that are linked to bosses will respawn. BWL has no respawns (except that one room before Broodlord that stops respawning after he's dead) unless you fail to kill a complete pack (or they bug out). I honestly don't remember for AQ40 and Naxx but there are time based respawns there, much more manageable then MCs ones though. For the new instances that came out with BC I can't tell you because I quit WoW. PPGMD 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep that sentence was inaccurate - many mobs (other than boss mobs) DO respawn in instances. I have removed it since it's better covered in the "Instances" section anyway. --Stormie 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me. RHSB Scipio 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)RHSB Scipio

Small problem with min. system requirements.

As of The Burning Crusade release, Blizzard has stated that a DSL line is the minimum internet connectivity required to play the game. I'm not sure if the orginal game's reqs have been modified, but I would assume the the connectivity requirements would transfer over. 24.205.34.217 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/technology.html the requirement is 56k or better, but dsl is recommended. I think that is pretty authoritative. Richard Manion 03:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

World of warcraft now offers flying mounts should that be put in or is it?

I think that the reqs have been modified so the connectivity should transfer over. If not i wonder why?

Flying Mounts

Where in the game are you able to get the flying mounts. WHat lvl do you have to be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.1.76.207 (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Flying mounts are available at level 70. You can find out everything you want to know about this (and a huge amount of other WoW game info) at the World of Warcraft Wiki, wowwiki.com - see [1] for mounts. --Stormie 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Flying mounts such as Netherwhelps can only be flown in the Outland.

Deviation from the MMORPG archetype Revision

This section needs a major overhaul (I am a new user, I cannot make changes). There are multiple spelling errors as well as a large deviation from the subject matter. Also, there seems to be a great deal of loaded language against some of the described material Dwcarroll 13:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently studying this section, but it seems to be a plain essay or original research. If I can't clean it up, I may delete it. Luis1972 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Also, I think the whole entry needs to be fixed in relation to its use of words like "grind" and "aggro." Either we remove them, or we should make several stub entry's to explain them so someone who doesn't know what a video game is would be able to understand it Dwcarroll 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch your images

Hello everyone. Remember to keep an eye on the images in your articles. Over at RuneScape, we get a lot of vandals trying to be sneaky by hitting the image pages, since the main article is usually sprotected. We're not alone. I just followed a vandal's contribs to Image:WoW-Lakeshire.png. The Image: namespace isn't as well patrolled as the mainspace, so it could have lasted quite a while. Cheers, CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sections with Neutral point of view problems

PvP rankings

I tagged this section for not having NPOV, especially with the use of weasel words:
Luis1972 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As of version 2.0, the PvP system has been changed. Upon defeating another player of the opposite faction, the victor earns "Honor Points" which may be spent on various rewards (similar to in game gold). Some rewards require marks of honor from various Battlegrounds as well (you receive 1 mark from a loss and 3 from a win). A new battleground area called "The Arena" has been added, allowing players to form teams of 2 and up to 5 versus other player teams, be it Alliance or Horde players. Currently, the Arena is still in development, and as such, Honor cannot be gained in this battleground instance. However for level 70's this is the equivalent of honor. The only people who are even allowed to earn something from the arena are level 70 players. 70's fight in teams and the top teams can obtain gear from the arena. Otherwise though, the arena is still useless because nothing except skill is gained.


The PvP titles that were available in the old system are still displayed but frozen to what they were before the 'version 2.0 update" and they now give no bonus and are just for display purposes.

Many players did not recieve the changes that were made to the honor system as of version 2.0, because 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 or 4 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.
Welp, i agree with you on the is still useless one. I think it needs to be reworded before it can be allowed to stay. However, i personally wrote the next two, felt betrayed, and felt that all their time had been wasted, and feel they should be allowed to stay. Because, i specifically said Many players did not recieve the changes that were made to the honor system as of version 2.0. So for the betrayed and time wasted comments, it is saying its only for a few people. I for one don't think we can get rid of that final pragraph though because it shows the perspective of the honor system from the hardcore gamers, a perspective that is almost never shown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DurotarLord (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Thank you and I appreciate your response. Here is why I think those passages should be reworded if not deleted: First, while I personally think that the perspective of hardcore gamers should be taken into account generally speaking, it may not be appropriate in an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia article, the scope of the content must be broad/generalized and not too "in-universe." Keep in mind that the audience of this article and any other article on Wikipedia are those that may not know anything about the game at all. As the Videogames WikiProject guideline states, "Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia." That is why topics that are too specialized or only understandable to a select group of people should be included instead in Encyclopedia Gamia, GamerWiki, or StrategyWiki. Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars for more information on what may be included in an encyclopedia article.
Second, even if we were to say that the information is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it must still be written in a neutral manner without any use of weasel words. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to take anyone's perspective on any subject.
Finally, even were the information appropriate and neutral, a citation to a reliable external source is required. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information on when and how citations are used. Luis1972 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I've made the first paragraph a bit more neutral, and I'm planning on doing this to the rest too. Problem is, the changes might be a bit too major. I think I need some people to agree with me first. What do you guys think? Quezacolt 11:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
When in doubt, be bold! Slavlin 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I modified the wording of the last paragraph, and removed a superfluous POV comment. Does the section now follow NPOV guidelines? Blast 12,03,07 2103 (UTC)

Michael Koiter

Uhh, this page is locked so i cant add this but during production a Blizzard employee named Michael Koiter died and so somewhere in the game there is a shrine with the letters MK on it, and in spirit form(im not a WoW player, excuse my termonology if its wrong) there is a spirit healer named Koiter, so i think someone that can edit the page should add it209.71.200.215 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Tubyboulin

Condolences to Michael Koiter's family, but that doesn't really sounds like encyclopedic detail. There is some detail on him on www.wowwiki.com, though - see [2]. --Stormie 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I went there, and it's a nice memorial, but I'm not sure that that information is notable enough to belong on the main WoW article. — Luis1972 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the WoW forums, I've read about a small grave marker in Southeast Hillsbrad with a Dwarf kneeling in front of it... Will check it out soon

Quezacolt 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


There isn't anything much there, there is alot of graves and stuff for each thing and whatnot.