Talk:World of Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World of Warcraft article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Good article World of Warcraft has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Warcraft task force.
VG To-do:
Archive
Archives
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Goals

  1. To maintain the article's somewhat shaky GA status,
  2. To edit as necessary in order to improve the article,
  3. To start the nomination process for FA status (would be the first MMO-related article to achieve that status).

See the Warcraft task force talk page on preceding in this venture.

Contents

[edit] Account Fraud

I've found out that Halifax (www.halifax.co.uk), a UK Bank, has started automatically blocking payment requests from Blizzard's gaming sites due to claimed high levels of fraud associated with the transactions. They are asking customers to contact them directly to authorise these payments. Is this noteworthy (possibly under Pricing)? Source is http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/halifax_blizzard_block/ Gazimoff (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly interesting and The Register is a reliable source, I think it should be worked into the article somewhere. -- Atamachat 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at working it in, but I'm not sure on placement or language. Please feel free to edit/move as needed - I'm new to this and I'm not expecting to get it right first time :)Gazimoff (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the Articles on Blood Elves and Night Elves

Did some person who hated WOW decide they were not Encyclopedia material and do a hack job on them? I believe they should be brought back. They were good articles. Maybe Conservapedia is right, Wikipedia is an elitist organization. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They were merged into Playable races in the Warcraft series as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft), and then that article was later deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playable races in the Warcraft series. The reason given was "there are seemingly unsurmountable problems about what Wikipedia is not, and notability outside the game universe, but the killer blow comes from verifiability. Without sources, the article is doomed to remain a repository of original research."
I recommend you check out Blood elf and Night elf at WoWWiki, they are thoroughly excellent articles. --Stormie (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is anti-cruft and has a high notability status, probably why you call it elitist. As Stormie said, you can easily get that information from WoWWiki. 69.255.170.118 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalization of External Links

The list of links is becoming large and unwieldy. I'd like to propose limiting this list to just two entries - the main WoW site and WoWWiki. I'd suggest removing the others as they don't contain further readin gon the subject and are just database repositories or fansites that are only really useful to people who already play the game. We're not trying to make a game guide here, which is while they feel out of place.

Unless there are any objections, I'll make the edit in the next couple of days. Gazimoff (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say it is "becoming large and unwieldy". I don't think that list has changed in months, since we have basically been preventing people from adding any. Maybe we can trim it down a bit, but to just 2 entries? That's unreasonable in my opinion. -- Atamachat 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, in hindsight I could have put this a lot better. I didn't mean to be confrontational, but I can see how what I've said can be interpreted as such. I was trying to respond to the criticism template put in place by Silber Edge about the number of external links, in an attempt to start a dialogue surrounding them. I've had some time to think more on them (in hindsight, I should have thought more before I posted) and agree with the links to the EU and US game sites as foreign language ones aren't a place for the English Wiki. I also agree with having a link to WoWWiki and the ODP.
What I'm struggling with are the links to Thottbot/Wowhead/Alakhazam, Curse/UI.WorldofWar.net etc. Although places like Wowhead are useful to the player, they are essentially game item databases. I'm not sure how they help to expand on the information available to the reader, as some familiarity with items, quests and so on is required. While there are also many notable addons and modifications, again these sites typically require knowledge of the game in order to be useful. Curse Gaming has since moved on from purely being Warcraft related to covering all mainstream MMOs. I know they're important to gamers (I can think of several more besides that I use, wowace.com springing to mind), but I'm not sure is they're appropriate.
As always though, just my opinion. Let's see if there's any work to be fone before we get rid of that template on the article page :) Gazimoff (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with reducing links to official sites only. The list as it stands it is too difficult to maintain objectively - there are merits to all the sites listed, but everyone has their favourite and it would be impossible to fairly and accurately represent the resources available. However, I do think it would be useful to link to both the forums and the [Armory], as well as the official site, for both the US and the EU. Each shows a very different side of the game than the main site - you can actually read what players themselves are saying in the forums, and the armory allows people to find out information about every stage of the game in much greater detail than the online manual. Yes they are linked from the main site, but not very prominently; first-time visitors to the site would definitely not get an accurate impression if they did even see the links. And linking to both the US and EU sites is important firstly because there are some noticeable differences between the two sets of sites, and secondly because people just aren't going to be as interested in something specific to a region other than their own - it's almost guaranteed that everyone living in Europe is going to click the EU version, if it's there. However, I'm not sure I agree with linking to the ODP's WoW category - it's doesn't seem to be very comprehensive, to be honest. I would suggest linking to the official Blizzard fansites section(s - again, both the [EU] and [US] versions). Semi-official sites in themselves, hand-picked by Blizzard, and not subject to the quirks of ODP's ontology. Regardless of any of this, however, the very minimum that should be done is that the existing links be fixed - is even this banned? Pgl (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If existing links are broken feel free to fix them, of course. I don't disagree with trimming down the list of links a lot, I agree there are too many. But I don't think we need to restrict it to the official sites necessarily. This isn't a game guide, true, and the purpose of this article isn't to give assistance to people who play WoW, but rather to inform people about the game itself. The official sites are fair game, and WowWiki which has plenty of detailed non-gameguide info about WoW, including detailed histories of the gameworld and atlases, info that we have been unsuccessful in including in Wikipedia due to a lack of good sources. Gazimoff has already proposed as much. Objectively looking over the list of links, I have to admit that I can't really justify the inclusion of most of them, except perhaps WoW Insider, because it's a blog that might contain information of interest to non-players. -- Atamachat 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
WoWWiki absolutely should be linked as well as the official sites. The mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally," since so much free content has been removed from Wikipedia due to being non-encyclopedic, it is our duty to point people towards the best source for it. --Stormie (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the External links section? What is the encyclopedia trying to do by having it and its links? To someone who doesn't know about the game, what does, "Modification Info" mean? How are the sites, a part of the article that appears above them? I know that Thottbot is a part of the game (It is used as a verb.), but I don't want to have to write why that is so, I'd rather just slap a link up, and argue here about why "my" link is better than some other link? Nanabozho (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of any External Links section for any article is to provide a place to find more information about the game, information that isn't covered in this article for whatever reason (maybe not quite encyclopedic, maybe it would make the article too long). To give an example used before on this talk page, if you want to know some facts about George Washington you could look him up in an encyclopedia. If you want to know every detail of his life you'd instead go to a full biographical book about George Washington. The External Links are meant to point people towards those kinds of resources. Now, what we aren't interested in here is providing guidance to people wanting to learn tips on playing the game, that is why we are proposing the removal of such links as Allakhazam and Thottbot and just leaving links that would provide more information about the game, just not necessarily tips/rricks/spoilers/walkthroughs/hints/etc. So far I'm okay with just having the official Blizzard-run pages, WowWiki, and WoW Insider (and I insist on WoW Insider because while it is a blog it's the foremost blog about the game and provides interesting info for those curious about WoW who might not be players). Your point about "modification info" is a good one, it's that kind of link we're talking about deleting. -- Atamachat 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the External links policy, ones to be avoided are links to Search Engines (WowHead, Thottbot and Alakazam are item search engines, modification sites are essentially modification search engines) Discussion Sites and Forums (that also includes WowHead, Thottbot, Alakazam and Modification Sites, as well as WorldofWar and WowVault.) I would recommend removing all of these. Gazimoff (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a See also section would have merit: I don't know if the articles exist, but an MMO database article, and an MMO user modifications article would seem to have merit for such a section.
Which we keep: I would also agree with keeping the ODP link; while WP is NOT a link farm, I'm not sure there's anything in WP:EL that says we cannot link to such websites. I also agree with keeping the official pages, and WoWInsider. I disagree with the addition of armory and the official forums, as we'd have to link both US / EU versions, and/or armory is just another DB site, though run by Blizzard itself, though I don't really care as to the addition of forum links either way. As for Curse... again, one I'd remove, but I'm not sure as to whether it should go or stay. As to yahoo, probably would remove. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links actually promotes the use of ODP. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to be bold and edit the list down. Please note, we are trying to build a list of what would educate the reader more about WoW as a game and Warcraft as a universe. Adding further references to addons, item/quest databases, etc is not valid in this case as it requires a working understanding of the game before they are of value. Adding links to subsections of the main Warcraft website is also not valid, as they can be discovered via exploration of the official websites. Gazimoff (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I now agree that the Armory should not be included. Its primary audience is players, so of limited value here. I disagree with removing the links to the forums, for several reasons: [[1]] says to avoid "Links to ... discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET" - however, at the top of this list it says "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject", both of which exceptions apply to the WoW forums. The site constitutes the largest representation of the community available. The number of topics covered, with the amount of officially sanctioned material presented, make the forum sites a valuable resource in their own right (this doesn't include the conversations - information is useful; conversations are less so). There are no other links given that allow readers to find out about the community itself (which is an essential part of the game). They are not subsections of a linked site, and readers going from here to an official WoW site could easily miss the forums entirely.
One other thing: why does the WoWWiki link point to the entry on the site for "World of Warcraft"? People do not link to the Wiki entry on Wikipedia when they are listing general knowledge wikis. ~ Pgl (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Because this article is about World of Warcraft, not WoWWiki. Why else? :) --76.105.227.156 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:VG/EL: "Inappropriate external links - ... Forums, even if official forums provided by the developer/publisher of the game - Again, these are self-published forums and are not appropriate". --Silver Edge (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Because this article is about World of Warcraft, not WoWWiki. Why else?" WoWWiki is about World of Warcraft, not itself. Have you looked at WoWWiki's entry on WoW and compared it to its main page? And can you honestly say that the former is a more useful addition to this page? Because it is not.
"forums ... are self-published forums and are not appropriate" First, go read [Wikipedia:SELFPUB]. Regarding the list stating that it's OK to use self-serving links if certain requirements are met: the forums are relevant to World of Warcraft's notability, they are not unduly contentious (as a whole), they are not unduly self-serving, they do not involve claims about third-parties, they do not involve claims about events directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to the author of the sites, and this article is not based primarily on the forums. I'm sure it would be possible to argue some of those assertions, but really, the list is only trying to make sure that self-serving resources aren't simply there to appear to be authoritative while really just reinforcing themselves. The forums should be listed because they are useful and informative on topics not covered in this article and they are the largest representation available of the community in a game where the community is a huge factor. Honestly though, I don't think quoting subsections of rules and regulations is a good way of resolving this.
Perhaps this would easier if we tried following the spirit of guidelines rather than the the letter. It's frustrating: the point seems to me that that adding or removing anything to an article should really be based on whether or not, on balance, it makes Wikipedia more useful to the intended audience of the subject matter - and hey, guidelines are useful for figuring out what "on balance" resolves to. But, interpreting the guidelines so that a link to the forums brings down the overall quality and usefulness of this article? Really? Can't people disagree based on common sense? Pgl (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Undent: I'll answer what I think I can answer. To start, I'm the IP that asked the question you phrased your first paragraph to.

WoWWiki is about World of Warcraft, not itself. Have you looked at WoWWiki's entry on WoW and compared it to its main page? And can you honestly say that the former is a more useful addition to this page? Because it is not.

I have. I edit there. That WoWWiki's WoW article is smaller is not indicative that it is less useful when compared to the main page. While most people enter, I'm sure, through "World of Warcraft", they are free to explore the wiki by themselves; this is the nature of a wiki. A click here, a click there, and suddenly you're reading an article on the war of the Ancients.

I wonder why you make the point to begin with, considering the fact that not five words later we have the main page linked. :0). And my point still stands; the link is meant for the article, not the main page of another wiki. --Izno (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry to bring this discussion up again, but I want to say I agree the list should be kept short, and descriptive of WoW in general. I agree that WoWWiki has its place, as it is the biggest wiki for the game, even if it's a Wikia-owned site now, and WoWInsider can be a good way of measuring the "temp" of WoW community. I also want to add WorldOfWar.net, as it has been a big site in terms of the community since before release, and still is one of the major community sites. It is also the only site that has features of a very wive variety, and has news of both interest to the general gamer as well as the hardcores. If we wanted to link the hardcore WoW news sites, then WorldOfRaids.com would come high on the list, but with the current thought in mind I actually think WoW.net is of higher value to the general Wikipedia visitor than WoWinsider.com --Leord (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcrack Citations

I thought these would be useful for citing the common term "World of Warcrack". CNet has an article with the term in the title, as does BorkWeb. There is also a popular Warcraft merchandise site called WarCrack Wear. Hope this helps clear some areas up!Gazimoff (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Wired also have an article with this term in the title. Definately referenced from reliable sources. Gazimoff (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Requested citation

Current price of WoW is £19.99 from Amazon

Citation about the openness while questing can be found hereGazimoff (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WoW was in Game a month ago for £9.99 actualy, ill see if I can find a link.Kcollis (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • From Play the core game is £9.99 [2]and its £5.99 from a place called FOXY.com, but I havn't heard of this website before and don't use websites that I havn't heard of before as citation.Kcollis (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic models for research

I believe it would also be worthwhile to mention the invaluable information and research done in economics using Warcraft. I have come across several articles mentioning this. If anyone would be willing to add this section? If not I will see what I could do to find sources and come up with a rough draft and post it here for review.

Anyone else support this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.25.120 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that something like that would br suitable for MMORPG, as other games like Second Life have bee used in similar ways.--Gazimoff (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest a section on it, with a Main article: MMORPG. The section here would probably be focused on WoW specific reports. --Izno (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Is Really Needed

Is a section of this article that contains all the references that is in the game, such as characters being named after fictional characters in movies, and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.72 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's too many to count. WoWWiki has half a dozen pages on the documentation of all the different references. --Izno (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There was once an entire article about that stuff, since removed because it's not really encyclopedic at all. As Izno stated, WoWWiki covers that already. -- Atamachat 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arena Tournament Realm?

Should we add information to the realm section in regards to the new arena realms ?

It's still in testing but soon to be implemented. SSJNinjaMonkey (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources are also added indicating that arena realms are in development, then I don't see a problem with the addition. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/pvp/tournament/index.xml would be an appropriate link for more information regarding this addition no need to clutter the wiki page with tons of info on it, I have added a realm part under gameplay section. SSJNinjaMonkey (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arena Tournament Realms are up. Some information about the realm(players can create 3 characters that start at maximum level, all attackable NPCs are removed, players are given unlimited money, a large selection of pvp gear is available to all players, realm entirely focused around arena matches). And pricing info: $20 to participate for each 6 week round (Canadians can write and mail in a report instead due to local laws), requires an active non-trial account. Top teams are invited to participate in on-site live game play. All this info is available at http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/pvp/tournament/index.xmlSubanark (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging World of Warcraft Soundtrack into this article

I see a proposal has been made to merge the soundtrack article into this one. I'd support doing so if we can get references for the soundtrack, currently the soundtrack article has none. I'm just not convinced the soundtrack is even worth mentioning in this article if its release went ignored. If it is merged, however, I'd support a passing mention in the "Impact on Popular Culture" section of this article, and certainly not keeping such information as who arranged the album and track listing. -- Atamachat 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with a merge if the data is pruned way back, but then, I turn the music in WoW off completely. - Denimadept (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a sound idea (pun intended). The information on the composers etc could comfortably be placed in the Development section, with a mention on the soundtrack being used in machinima and Make Love, Not Warcraft in the Popular Culture section. As far as Legacy is concerned, it may be worth noting that in later expansions (Ahn'Quiraj, Naxxaramas and Burning Crusade) that the musical score was performed by an orchestra instead of being electronic synth. I might have some sources on this somewhere, although it might be the collector's edition making-of DVD.Gazimoff (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Go for it if you have good sources. If you can't find good, reliable sources though it's just going to hurt this article. Thanks Gazimoff! -- Atamachat 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If I can't cite it, I won't write it. Gazimoff (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the article be there. There is no need to merge it. Moreover the world of warcraft is already long. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The soundtrack article is basically a stub, and this article has no information on the games audio, so it make sense to put it here. Besides, there needs to be trimming in the article for sure, but not its audio section. Information like gameplay needs to be trimmed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NEW RACE

in the next game there will be a new race=D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.126.235 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King - Denimadept (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There will be few new races, non will actually be playable though. but there will be a new class, this has been covered in the Lich King wiki page SSJNinjaMonkey (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arena Title Rewards

It should be noted that reward in season 2 of pvp arenas was title of Merciless Gladiator and in season 3 it will be Vengeful Gladiator. the other titles remain the same. 86.18.27.99 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Realms/Transfers

It should be added that a character cannot be transfered from a PVE realm to a PVP realm. 66.162.207.31 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Class Pages?

Would it be possibly to have individual class pages linked by the WoW main Page Right now the links lead to a brief overview of the word used in general but doesnt talk about the WoW part that much. Before I do so i would like a few other people in favor of this to say they would find it valuble and if we do, do it, I would be able to do the Shaman page but would need others to help with the other pages and it also.

--Spread The Word (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To be hnest it's possible but unnecessary since there is WoW Wiki which is a much more detailed expansion of this. 87.102.66.83 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The individual class pages were deleted and are probably never coming back. It is nearly impossible to find reliable sources to verify the information in those pages and to satisfy WP:FICT and WP:N. As was said before, WoWWiki has great information, and one of these days I'll get around to linking those sections of this article to the WoWWiki pages. -- Atamachat 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Like that? - Denimadept (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well done. -- Atamachat 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. However, it might be more to the point to have this and related pages redirect to the WoWwiki. Otherwise, all the links eventually will go the way these have. - Denimadept (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you saying that this entire article should just redirect to WoWWiki? In other words, to delete the whole article here? If you're concerned that someone else is going to get this article deleted, that's unlikely; it's well-sourced, the subject is notable (biggest online game in the world) and it is currently a "Good Article" as far as quality (some people including myself are working on getting it up to Featured Article status). -- Atamachat 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
But the point of the article is to document what someone else is using a whole Wiki for. Why the duplication? - Denimadept (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your question now, and it's a pretty good one. The best answer I can come up with is that the purposes of Wikipedia and WoWWiki are different. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia covering a broad range of notable subjects, done in an encyclopedic manner and with good sources to hopefully provide as much accurate info as possible. WoWWiki is an information source for all things about World of Warcraft. The WoW article at Wikipedia would be targeted at someone who is unfamiliar with WoW, who wants to learn something about it. WoWWiki is of interest almost exclusively to WoW players and fans looking to learn more about the game, including game tips and strategies. A good example might be that Billy who plays WoW would be reading WoWWiki to figure out how to get to Durnholde and what armor a Paladin can wear, while Billy's mom might go to Wikipedia to figure out what kind of game her son is playing. That's what the difference is in my mind, other people might disagree. -- Atamachat 02:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Atama I agree 100%, that's exactly how I see the difference between Wikipedia and WoWWiki too. --Stormie (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. Fair enough. - Denimadept (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just fyi, you don't need to use full external links for WoWWiki, it is on the "interwiki list" of free content wikis which have a simpler linking syntax. See this edit of mine for how to use them. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. - Denimadept (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WOW PVP gameplay criticism

I've introduced a short new section under the L2 heading "PVP criticisms", since to my reading of the article in its current state, it reads a little too much like a glowing editorial, rather than a totally objective discussion of the game. Certainly, my experience as a player was coloured by swathes of criticism of PVP gameplay in the game, and for sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence available on various player forums of player criticism of PVP as it is implemented in WOW. Therefore I believe it deserves some level of treatment under the "Criticisms" section. By PVP criticism i am specifically referring to criticism of WOW as a PVP game; ie its PVP gameplay as it is implemented, NOT PVP balance, although that could easily be mentioned as another source of ongoing player criticism. Mjharrison (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it might be an idea to include the section in the spinout article Criticism of World of Warcraft. The spinout article tends to include everything, while the main article should just be an overview of the salient points.
In terms of content itself, I've removed the inline link to the community forums as per the manual of style - either use a citation or include it in the external links. Ten Ton Hammer I'd feel uncomfortable about citing, as it is essentially a fansite and not a third-party reliable source. The GGL entry isn't as clear and consensus would need to be achieved. The satirism demonstrated by the Hammer of Grammar webcomic, although entertaining, is again a fancomic and isn't a third-party source. Finally, the link to the forum article does not constitute a reliable third-party source. Your points may be completely valid, but without third-party sources to back them up they come across as opinion.Gazimoff (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that forum posts aren't reference material, with the exception that a link to a thread with a large number of critical posts is simply evidence that said criticism does indeed exist. Furthermore, I would contend that official Blizzard responses on the WOW official forums acknowledging the existence of a sufficiently large source of player criticism is also verifiable, solid evidence of said criticism. Certainly, blizzard enacted changes in gameplay/game mechanics are clear evidence of some level of player dissatisfaction/criticism.
I do take your point about borderline fansites being less than ideal reference sources. I believe the responses of Blizzard employees (especially when they are WOW lead designers) are solid references, and perhaps i ought to endeavour to add those instead. Comments welcome.
The section is long enough now that maybe it is better in the breakout article and the content very briefly summarised. will look at doing this and fleshing out more refs in the coming days. Mjharrison (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section & General Cleanup

I'm going to look at redoing the criticism section summary and migrating all the topics here to Criticism of World of Warcraft as part of an overall cleanup. The article's currently at risk of losing it's Good Article status and needs some careful pruning. Everything that's got citations and references will remain, although the language and tone may be changed. I'd like to try and coordinate the work on this, so if you have any interest please let me know! Many thanks --Gazimoff (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to trim down the gamecruft. The classes section in particular has been slowly expanding since the last time this article was trimmed down and contains a lot of unnecessary information about classes that doesn't belong. This information has likely been added by well-meaning WoW players who wanted to expand the section to be more helpful to other players, but as stated before on this talk page that's not the purpose of this article (or any other Wikipedia article). -- Atamachat 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to tackle it, Gaz; I've been thinking on it, but have been afraid to touch it. Have a look at the previous FA noms / RfCs, and maybe we can collate a list of stuff that needs to be done. I would personally not be against taking the majority of the gameplay / other stuff and creating an article like Gameplay of World of Warcraft, with appropriate citations (which should probably come from the manual, or 2ndary resources, if we can find them), while simultaneously enlargening the other sections, such as development. Then again, gameplay could simply be shrinked to a link to MMORPG, as I'm sure that has the pertinent non-WoW information in it, while keeping WoW specific references (specifically the classes) in the main article. --Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think what I'll do is generate a new version in a sandbox in my userspace then bring it through here once it's complete. That way, it'll be possible to make direct comparisons. It might also be worth clearing up this talk page at the same time.--Gazimoff (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I just archived everything up to the beginning of March. One thought I had is that we need a person / persons who don't play WoW, much less MMORPGs, to give it a peer review and tell us what's not understandable. Digging through the archives and rfcs and FA candidacies should serve us partially in this case. I might have the time to collate it this weekend. --Izno (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before but I strongly encourage using The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind as a model for this article. It received a Featured Article status not long ago and is a similar enough game that what makes that article work can work for World of Warcraft as well. You can also look at its gameplay article which is well-cited and well-written. I'll warn you, though, that if you start a gameplay article for WoW without first gathering appropriate sources it will be deleted faster than you can blink, that's just what happens. -- Atamachat 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"that if you start a gameplay article for WoW without first gathering appropriate sources it will be deleted faster than you can blink" - I gathered that much from the great purging of Warcraft-related articles, which has probably aided WoWWiki more than anything else. --Izno (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping to have enough sources for a gameplay article spinoff, although we'll see how things progress. I'm a little nervous though - as Atama suggested, a fair bit of content could be applied to MMOs in general and shunted over to Massively multiplayer online role-playing game, World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade or similar. The other problem that you have is that an MMO only becomes static once it's discontinued. Till then, new content is always being added, making maintaining an article a mammoth task.Gazimoff (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bard Class?

okay i heared that they were introducing a new bard hero class could someone please check since Blizzards site is blocked from my schools site(which is the only place i have time to do this), also is there anything on this article explaining what a hero class is? --Spread The Word (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They introduced such shocking news on... Which day? April 1st? Is there something significant about that day? -- Atamachat 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It was one of their april fools jokes - along with the molten core game aparently to be released on the atari 2600, which is no longer in production, still I think it is worth a mention as I do not think there is a place for April Fools Jokes for Games on Wikipedia. 78.151.117.230 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


It's a pretty obvious joke. World of Warcraft took so much from Everquest, why Guitar Hero, too? (Though the "new axe" was pretty cool) Mumbles (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft coverage in Wikipedia is a joke

Maybe all references should just link to WoWWiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See section on this page labeled Individual Class Pages? - Denimadept (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends what you're trying to build. If you're trying to construct a repository on everything there is to know about WoW, verified or not, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. If you're just trying to pull out the main points that can be proven to be important by their coverage in reliable, third party sources then Wikipedia is fine. It is important to understand the distinction to understand why information may be in WoWWiki but not here. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PvP article is a joke

What is it even doing here on wikipedia? If a criticism section can exist in WoW's wikipedia article then there should be a criticism section in everything!"Although Speed Run 3 was a good movie there have been several criticisms, number 1: many didn't like the way the blue car looked, number 2: The bad guy was too scary and made many infants cry." You can't include your gripes in an encyclopedia article under the guise of a "criticisms section." whats that? theres a lot of you who feel the same way? guess what...who cares! there's probably just as many people feeling the exact oppostie! "WoW is too gear dependant I hate it I wish I could just turn level 70 and be competitive with eveyone who has put a lot more time and effort into the game blah blah blah." meanwhile someone else is saying "I like the fact that my hard earned gear makes it so no wet-behind-the-ears-turned-level-70-five-seconds-ago can pwn me" Those are both opinions, and neither one belongs on wikipedia.Ultadoranis (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is. It's usually under Reception & Legacy instead of Criticism these days, but it's quite common for Video Game articles to include feedback from reviewers and other reliable sources on the subject. Having said that, this article is overdue for a cleanup, something that will hopefully be finished in a week or so. I'll be reporting on it's progress here if you want to throw in your opinions. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Criticism sections are actually generally discouraged. -- Atamachat 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this entry should have gone under the heading i made above... In any case, it is historical fact that WOW's PVP has been commented on numerous times by the games designers and developers, has been wholesale redesigned once in response to player criticism (ie: battlegrounds/old honour system --> arena), as well as having seen numerous smaller additions & changes in response to player criticism (addition of world PVP objectives, modifications thereof, additional of entire world PVP zone in upcoming expansion). Mjharrison (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Historical fact documented where? Find a reliable source and we can add it. -- Atamachat 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Forum posts by the devs / CMs, which could be considered WP:SPS, I believe. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addictiveness/In game funeral

In 2007 Guiness World Records (a reliable source, I think) stated that someone played WoW for 3 days straight and died (in the real world). In the game, over 100 players attended a funeral for her.

Should this be added?

Lukewarm and proud,

72.183.115.91 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (Oops, I wasn't signed in. LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

The fact that you don't know the person's name off-hand says WP:NOTE to me. Not to be cold, but it sounds like trivia. - Denimadept (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
For WoW, it is a trivia. This information is better to be mentioned in the articles for game addiction (1st case) and social interaction of games (2nd case) if they exist. --BirdKr (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PVP Criticism

Get rid of the pvp criticism, its stupid, badly written and riddled with grammatical errors seems like a rant about how something has gone wrong for that particular player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.62.8 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think any of the source links provided are legitimate WP:reliable sources. I'll remove in two days if there are no objections. --76.105.227.156 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree somewhat. It needs cleaning but it takes a fairly balanced view on the matter and rather than being a POV criticism of the game itself, it clearly states that some players have problems with the PvP in the game. The sources are a mixed bag, but for the most part do well enough for the claims made. However I think the entire section doesn't belong in this article. It has undue weight (much longer than any other part of the criticism section of this article) and it's not even a real criticism of WoW itself but just an issue that players have complained about. If we felt the need to document player gripes about the game we could fill a book with them. At the very least it should be moved to the Criticism of World of Warcraft article. -- Atamachat 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, none are sources which could be used, except for one or two, which don't even mention the "gripes"; furthermore, it's full of weasel words, and, as you said, contains weight issues and actual content-issues. --Izno (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why can't they be used? If a claim is made that "some players object to so-and-so" then a link to the WoW forums where players are objecting is reliable enough for that claim. The WoW patch notes are a reliable source for game changes, even WP:RS allows for primary sources as long as the article doesn't rely on them too heavily. The WoW web site is also an acceptable source for information about the game if it verifies the claims made. I'm going to go ahead and clean it up a bit, but I do recommend that we either delete the section because it's not notable information or move it to the criticism article, just not because of the sources. -- Atamachat 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Forums and blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. It cannot validate the weasel phrase "some players" and the statement as whole itself. Also, most, if not all, Wikipedia articles are encouraged try to incorporate criticisms through the entire article instead of grouping them all in one section, if possible (unlike the article about game addiction and similar) --BirdKr (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WoWwiki reference at top, or only at the bottom?

I placed a link at the top of the article to WoWwiki. User:Izno feels it doesn't belong there. He's got good reasons, but I don't agree. Rather than get into some kind of pointless edit war, I'm bringing this discussion here where we can get a consensus.

Here's my reasoning: we get a lot of "in universe" edits. I expect these edits are from WoW players who are trying to improve the article. I know I fall into this category. However, there's no guarantee that these people read to the end of the article and see the reference to WoWwiki. Also, I feel that if we point them at the beginning of the article to a place where they might be happier, they might leave this article alone, or at least edit it less. I'm expecting that User:Izno will make his own case here, or you can check my talk page to peruse what he's already said. Input requested, please. - Denimadept (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to agree with Izno, I don't feel that having it at the very beginning is appropriate, especially with the initial way you phrased it "for playing tips". I don't know any other articles that have a similar header that link to the fan-base wiki (e.g. Lost (TV series)/Lostpedia, Battlestar Galactica/Batlestar Wiki, etc...) -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well. For consistency with other articles where an in-depth wiki is available, it is preferable to confine links to the External Links section at the bottom of the article. What I think we could probably do better at is encouraging new editors to register accounts and channel their passion and enthusiasm in a way that is useful and productive. Tricky, I know, but maybe worthwhile.
On that note, is the Warcraft WikiProject still running? Gazimoff (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Consensus seems clear. Fair enough. - Denimadept (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Gaz, basically not, as all the editors for that project left for greener grasses, or are otherwise disappeared or working in other areas, I believe. Not that I blame them, with the systematic way Warcraft articles were deleted (I have an issue with the process of deletion of said articles, but not the fact that they were deleted, as the reasons they were deleted were legitimate by WP standards).
Question for you, Gaz: when are you going to get a fork of WoW started so we can have a go at making this one of the better articles of WP? :) --Izno (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a sandbox in my userspace taken from last week, but the more I've been tackling the problem, the more I think that a conceptual rewrite is needed. That's not to say redo from scratch, but look at the concepts that we currently have and how we can rearrange them in order to make more sense. This will probably involve bringing Warcraft (series) up to scratch, along with a fully referenced and cited Gameplay of World of Warcraft, Races of Warcraft and possibly Character Classes of Warcraft. It'll also involve moving some content into World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King and possibly merging content from Criticism of World of Warcraft into all three. I have the shape of a strategy and just need some time to sketch it out before writing it up. It's going to be huge though and will probably involve a lot of serious work. Still, if you're up for a challenge, I'll give detail on my proposal as soon as it's ready, which will hopefully be in the next couple of days. Gazimoff (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this was already settled but I agree with Denimadept in spirit, it would be nice to do something to reduce the in-universe/gameplay/cruft edits and putting WoWWiki in the header is a good idea. However I don't know that it would be effective (am I just a bit cynical?). We probably just need to clean it up now and then. I have a question though, does anyone know of a template we could use that's along the line of "this is not a game guide"? I swear I've seen one somewhere before, in fact I think it directed people to Strategywiki. There is definitely a precedent for that, I know I've seen other articles with similar suggestions when the subject is one that would naturally draw people looking for information that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In the case it wasn't intimated, I agree with him also in spirit, but disagree with him in implementation. I encourage you to hunt down your template =). --Izno (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There are {{gameguide}} and {{gamecleanup}}

{{gameguide}} {{gamecleanup}}

However, both of those are cleanup tags though and not general warnings. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing links

Hello there - there are a lot of links to other Wikipedia articles, particularly in the Professions and Classes sections, that link to the 'real world' version of the skill in question. First Aid, Cooking, Inscription, lock-picking and so on. Is it really helpful to send readers in this direction? Does it not serve to distract and dilute their experience, rather than get them even more specifically into the area they want to know more about? SCI FI UK (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. They should link to the WoWWiki profession pages. This article is badly Wikified I'm afraid to say, though it has been improved lately through the efforts of some really good editors (Gazimoff especially). More work should be done though, thanks for the reminder. -- Atamachat 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. - Denimadept (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I see that the primary professions now link to the relevent WoWWiki article, so do they need the icon to indicate an external link? Also, the references to poisoning, lock-picking etc in the classes section might need to be delinked. SCI FI UK (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Those links used to go to unrelated articles. Now they go to places in WoWwiki which are relevant. Why would you want to de-link them? - Denimadept (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Awesome job again Denim with the link changes. I disagree about the links in the classes section, for now they are very appropriate. -- Atamachat 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Denim just asked me about my most recent edit; I removed the what I thought to be excessive wikilinks in the profs section. Remember, we don't want to overdo it, else the wikipolice will come to eat us. =). --Izno (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, well, I wouldn't want THAT! But what's a reasonable limit? - Denimadept (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think two to three links per section should be the most in this specific case, with the rest of the pertinent topics wikilinks to real-life equivalents. Why: Professions are a rather minor point of WoW (really, they are), and so I don't think there needs to be a wowwikilink for all of them. I'm thinking about applying this to the classes section also... Someone is welcome to beat me over the head, however. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start beating. Here's the deal: it takes more than two seconds to skin a critter and turn its hide into leather. It takes more than 30 seconds to completely exhaust a mine. And the rest of the professions and classes are similar. What is in WoW is a simplified, to put it VERY mildly, version of everything, and in some cases it's made up out of whole cloth. What the reality is, is irrelevant as "reality" is very loosely interpreted in WoW. The way these topics are defined for the game is wildly different from reality. Links to what these things mean in reality is therefore irrelevant. The WoWwiki links, on the other hand, are vitally relevant. I suggest you (1) put them back, and (2) think of this in that sense from here on out. - Denimadept (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Denim, I'm sure what you said makes perfect sense but I haven't had my caffeine yet this morning and your words made me dizzy. Are you just saying, hey we can't link real-life tailoring when talking about the profession in WoW because it bears no resemblance to actual tailoring? (I doubt real life tailors beat up criminals and homeless people to gather scraps of material to make clothes, though I'm no expert.) If so, I support what you're saying. If not, I better go grab a Coca-Cola to straighten my head out. -- Atamachat 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What?? That's not how it works??? Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that things in WoW and things in RL have very little to do with one another. Referring people to real life definitions makes little sense to me. - Denimadept (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Undent: Ok, so that sounds like a request not to link the specifics at all, rather than one in support of linking all to wowwiki. As it is, I think the solution we've concocted would see the article slaughtered at FAC / GAR (which are the two steps this article can take in quality control, I believe), and at this point, I'm just trying to forestall us adding too many links. The link we have linked (profession) leaves a list for the users to take information from if they wish, which is sufficient for Wikipedia purposes, no? Feel free to recommence with beating. --Izno (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is not the whole link problem just a side-effect of the various and many purges of Warcraft or World of Warcraft related content? Do you think Wikipedia readers interested in Warcraft or World of Warcraft would rather go to a more comprehensive source like WoWWiki, rather than the frustratingly vague redirect hunt that would happen otherwise? --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk • contribs) 23:10, May 5, 2008 (UTC)
Essentially. See reply at the task force talk page for what we're doing about it. --Izno (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft Cleanup Strategy

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft in order to centralise discussion. Gazimoff (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference cleanup needed

The references need serious attention. Problems range from minor (missing accessdate) to medium (lack of author, publisher, and date when readily available) to serious (using WoWwiki as a source). Pagrashtak 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC) edited Pagrashtak 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See the section above this one. - Denimadept (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was originally going to discuss just the references, but thought I should add my other comments while I was here. I guess that was a mistake. I'll limit this to reference problems, as that doesn't require centralized discussion. Pagrashtak 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's all good. References in most articles are primarily web pages, and links will get broken over time so it's good to check their validity from time to time. This article has close to a hundred references and I doubt they've been checked recently. This is in addition to the problems you've pointed out. -- Atamachat 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Fix

In the section about webcomic guilds in World of Warcraft, the webcomic "Holy Bibble" is stated as one of the comic guilds. This is false. Please delete it. Sp4c35 (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why people come onto the dicussion pages of articles and demand changes be made. DO IT YOURSELF.
Wikipedia is about the people who edit it. We are not here to please you. If you want something changes, change it.Denton22 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing to bear in mind is that, due to frequent vandalism, the World of Warcraft is often semi-protected, which means that unregistered or recently registered accounts are unable to edit it. This is unfortunate, and not how a wiki is supposed to work, but the levels of childish vandalism on this article are incredibly high when anonymous editing is permitted. --Stormie (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering...

Wow, first Starcraft and Now Warcraft.

Wondering if the same person, or people are having problems with craft stuff. The articles look like crap, too much stuff is now on one page and the alot of information that was true is now gone.

GOG damnit, this is one of the many faults of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.244.29 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the specific issues you have with the current version, if I may ask? Feedback is welcome. :) --Izno (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cosmic map

kinda stupid, warcraft "history" tells of many many universes and the cosmic map only shows 2 of them..Mallerd (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinda stupid is that you can't cite that in a source worthy of mention. ;) --Izno (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kinda stupid is that apparently you don't know this one, but still comment on Warcraft pages. Mallerd (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not appreciated, both of you. They just get in the way. - Denimadept (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
But still, it is stupid. Mallerd (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

Somone take off the picture of the "mod" before and after. The player was bragging on the wow forums, and it should be like the last pic with no name so nobody gets advertised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virus Errupt (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Sir. Denton22 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)