Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

World of warcraft the movie!?

The New movie is called warcraft the movie, not wow: the movie, so why can the article be found under world of warcraft and not under warcraft universe. Whoever wrote that have to be a major idiot. So anybody who can edit please move it the info about the movie to the warcraft universe article. And some new info about the movie has been added on IMDB and the wowwiki so feel free to make the warcraft movie section larger.

Hello, firstly when adding a new section in a talk page please use the (+) symbol, that adds the section properly to the bottom of the list instead of the top.

That being said, your idea isn't bad, I'd support having a short mention of the movie on this page with a link to the more expanded section in the Warcraft Universe article. -- -- Atama(CHAT) 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the word "scribe" in the movie section is problematic for me. While it is an industry term for a screenwriter, and it is quoted directly from the cited reference, it is not something found in common usage. I am considering either linking it to the screenwriter article, or placing it in double quotes to highlight it's non-literal usage.

Also, commenting on the above comment that the film in question is not a World Of Warcraft movie, the cited article's first line is ""World of Warcraft" is heading to the world of film.". By strict standards it is stated correctly in this article based on cited references. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

World of WarCraft IS the largest MMO

According to the official figures, Lineage II has over twice the playerbase that WOW does, making IT the largest MMO ever. I'm curious why it isn't just as much a worldwide phenomenon as WOW? --Zenoseiya 15:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am misreading the numbers, but according to NCsoft, Lineage II has a subscriber base (active) of approximately 1mio worldwide (100k in Europe and the US) Q4 2006 Breakdown (summary). tomst | talk 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The OP is correct -- WoW is not the largest MMO. Lineage II has 14 million subscribers worldwide. FeralDruid 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that our introductory section describes WoW as "the world's leading subscription-based MMORPG" (emphasis mine) - am I correct in my vague memory that Lineage II does not operate on an "$x per month"-style subscription model in Korea? Just something I recall from a past discussion on a forum somewhere. --Stormie 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"Largest" is kinda a weird word, it's rather vague. In any case, we should avoid peacock words like this. I've changed it to "most popular" which is attributable to Blizzard itself. I therefore added a link, and cited it. If someone could find an independant source, that would be great. McKay 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not try "The Fastest Growing MMORPG in the past 5 years"? Im pretty sure im correct about that. if not, please re edit and repost. Grimreape513 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that 14 million refers to the number of people it has reached, which isn't necesesarily to say it has that many active subscribers. IIRC WoW has sold more that 14 million copies of the game? McKay 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's legitimate to use Blizzard's own press release as a citation for Blizzard's game being the world's most popular MMO. IMHO, Lineage II's 14 million clearly shows it's more popular than WoW's 8.5 million. To address McKay, your comment can just as easily refer to WoW. 8.5 million copies sold does not mean WoW has 8.5 million subscribers. FeralDruid 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but WoW does have 8.5 million active subscribers. They've sold over 12 million copies of the original game, and over 3.5 million copies of the expansion. But there are 8.5 million people who've paid blizzard to play this month. [1] shows WoW in a strong dominating lead. Lineage 1 and Lineage 2 *combined* have about *one third* of WoWs population. Clearly WoW is the largest in population. McKay 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I hope this silliness is over. Lineage 2 has 610918 unique users for March 2007. the lineage 2 page has been updated. McKay 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Double-checking your most recent data (specifically the '07 reports), I finally concur that there are not 14 million active Lineage II subscribers.  :) Your 610K number is still suspect, considering my own addition of the monthly access numbers are closer to 1 million, but that's still a far cry from the 14 million claim posted on NCSoft's web site, and is a fraction of WoW's numbers. FeralDruid 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Rechecking, I get 610918 users for March 2007 in Lineage II. Perhaps you were looking at the numbers for lineage 1? Which I show as being 962638 users for the month of march 2007? The first time I looked at the quarterly report, I saw lineage 1 first, and made that same mistake. McKay 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
WoW does not have 8.5 million monthly subscribers since none of the players in China pay by the month. The word players would be less misleading. Whether it is the "largest" depends on which metric is used. For on this below. Shawnc 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The press releases don't say "monthly subscribers," they say "active accounts." Even though the Chinese pay a per hour fee, they still have active accounts, and thus count towards the total as defined by Blizzard. --Brendan 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The figures can be wrong. I can name a few other MMORPG's such as MapleStory, or RuneScape —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavegave30 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the statement again it says at the top "terms of monthly subscribers", neither MapleStory nor RuneScape have monthly subscribers. Joeking16 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that Runescape has one million monthly subscribers who do pay. (Butters x (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Which is still not even close to the 8.5 million claim. Also, the topic at hand was Lineage, so let's refrain from naming every MMO that comes to mind, ok? Moblinmaniac (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's fine if you name any MMO you like. Find an MMO that's got more than 8.5million paying each month and we can remove the statement. You won't be able to find it. Not today at least. McKay (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reordered draft in my sandbox

While I never played WoW, I'm interested in seeing this article get fixed to be promoted to a higher quality status, so I thought I'd try fixing the order of the page's sections per what the list above wants. Here I haven't changed any of the text content other than merge the Third Party Extensions section into the Modifications section. I only changed the ordering of all the page's sections so that some become subsections of others. Hope this helps with the cleanup. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 05:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC) - :Oh yeah, I also removed the film section, because the Warcraft movie sounds like something that should just be noted as part of the main Warcraft franchise article. If we're sure the movie's specifically based on WoW, then it should be noted as a sentence or two as part of some other section, if not the intro. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nearly ten days of silence... That can be taken one of two ways; that nobody wants to support it, or nobody objects to it. I'll consider implementing the reordering of sections shortly if there's still no objection. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 06:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so I went forward and changed the ordering of everything. The one, main thing I removed was the Expansion Pack section, because it should be enough to mention the expansion as part of the intro, and let the expansion's article do the talking. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
From what I can gather the Warcraft move isn't a WoW movie but a part of Warcraft in general along with Warcraft 1, Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3, though alot of people are posting it as a WoW movie it is mostly as they don't understand Warcraft existed before WoW did. Joeking16 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's referenced as a World of Warcraft movie, because that's the last game of the series, but in the warcraft timeline it is actually before the WoW events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.35.28 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also referenced as a WoW movie because it takes place after Warcraft III but before WoW. It's as much a WoW movie as it is a general Warcraft movie. -- Atama(CHAT) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"A" screenshot of the game

I think that "A" screenshot is unnessecary, and if a picture should be inserted, it should be of an SW raid or some scenery.

i agree, wow cannot be properly justified with A screenshot, there should be more shots, or at least a different one. Techo 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We used to have plenty of them, including a beutiful screenshot of thunderbluff, but Wikipedia got mad and threw them out, i used to use them for my projects at school Grimreape513 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Trivia section

This game was also parodied extensively in the Simpsons episode "Marge Gamer."

Actually the fictional game featured in that episode bore little resemblence to anything WoW specific. It was more a parody of MMOs in general. 86.2.118.97 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the actual appearance of WoW in an episode of South Park, with the entire episode being based about the ingame adventures of the south park characters, and including several in-game segments. 82.16.137.96 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is mentioned in the In other media section of the article (actually it's the first thing listed there), plus there is a full article about that episode at "Make Love, Not Warcraft". --Stormie (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Who wants more content? (Leave your name here)

I am very displeased at the tremendous ignoring of the purpose of Wiki and all the content being deleted. Many users, possibly hundreds, have lost thousands of hours of work and personal time. Instances, maps, characters, stats, races, mobs, strategies, general dialog, opinions, etc. over a period of 3 years are gone, and a group of people have formed to continually remove content. I'm reading ambigous statements about too much information as if Wikipedia cannot grow anymore? A Wiki is suppose to share information. Where this hasn't been allowed, new websites (Thottbot, WoWWiki, WowArmory, WowHead, Allakhazam, etc.) have taken Wikipedia's place. No one comes here anymore. Congratulations, have just turned away 9 million people. This isn't a Wikipedia. This is a Peidia. Sell it, put it on a shelf, obsolete it, and move on to the next one. This is a non-living article. Why not delete the whole thing?


Please leave your name below if you would like to get everyone's content back, and contribute new material on a regular bases without fear of losing your work in the future:

  • Imlookingnow 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow (reviewing comments left below). Authors here don't want other's content, and Wikipedia is not public. Not good, but thanks for not deleting my question anyway. Readers can see below what the group here intends to do with the article. I think in summary, a lot of us (no one ever replied...they all left) were caught up in the idea of a Wiki rather than an article. I would definately recommend 'read only' at some point. (Walks away with baffled look on face.) Imlookingnow 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • "Readers can see below what the group here intends to do with the article" - yes, make an encyclopedia article out of it. --Stormie 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your name below if you would like any in-game materials removed and would rather have users go to another website for in-game information:

  • This is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. WoWWiki ([2]) is a fantastic resource if you want to contribute to a wiki containing "Instances, maps, characters, stats, races, mobs, strategies, general dialog, opinions, etc.", NONE of that stuff is relevant to a general-purpose encyclopedia. --Stormie 02:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Instance pages were repeatedly deleted. Maps were deemed to be too many images from the game. Strategies, general dialog, and opinions were removed as excess content. Guy below calls what 9million people do & look for online 'gamecruff' /cry /cry /cry Imlookingnow 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur with Stormie. Use WoWWiki for all that detail as it's not relevant to a general article which is to give an overall view, not a specific game guide. You can even just copy your work over to it as it will already be in good format for a Wiki :) --Marc Talk 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I third the motion for keeping gamecruft out of the article. 207.69.137.43 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I also say that the article needs to be trimmed down. The article was recently reviewed at Featured Article Candidates to see if it can be displayed on the main page and most people there agree that the article has too much in-game cruft. --<;i>Hdt83 Chat 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll add another voice to those stating that we actually need to remove some of the info. Thottbot, WoWWiki, etc. are great resources for WoW players (like myself) to learn info about the game, both to help us play the game better and to learn more of the background for the game. Wikipedia is a general encylopedia, though, about notable subjects, and doesn't need all of the information on those other sites. Also, policy states that it shouldn't have it either. This isn't a game guide. -- Atamasama 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with above. Wikipedia is not a gameguide as is clearly stated in the guidelines. External links to WoWWiki and others sites can direct those that have a further interest for indepth information that is of no interest to the general public. --Fogeltje 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Wikipedia is not a gameguide. It is just an encyclopedia. A "WIKI" can be created by anyone. So if you want a more detailed site on a particular subject, go ahead and create one. That's why WowWiki was created, and it happens to be an excellent resource. I use it frequently when looking up WoW information.Game Collector 12:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Other(?)

  • I disagree with you all, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it should be something that ?ANYBODY can look for ANYTHING at any given point, if they want to know how this game is, they go wikipedia and they serach WoW, I think it would be ok if they were allowed to look into this. Wikipedia is owned by the community, so it should be edited by the community, and it should be allowed to look as the public wants it to look. I mean, wasnt that the reason Wikipedia was made? let them make articles as long as they like, but I have seen some other stuff that needs trimming down, dont worry about this, and dont trim any article down, especially since i have been trying to donate. Grimreape513 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I certainly understand that you might feel that a website like that would be nice, but no, that's not the reason Wikipedia was made, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Have a read of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --Stormie 08:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, and additionally, Wikipedia is most certainly NOT "owned by the community", have a read of Wikimedia Foundation. --Stormie 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Can i ever win Stormie? Why not just put a huge asterisk right after the work wikipedia, not to be offensive or anything. Grimreape513 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean by the asterisk thing. I was just pointing out that while I understand that you would like Wikipedia to be something that it is not.. it's not going to become something that it's not, just because you think it would be neat. --Stormie (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, wikipedia admins and editors have made sure that wikipedia is the place NOT to go for information about World of Warcraft. Interested parties would be better served if the external links section were at the top. ;-) --Fandyllic (talk) 12:28 PM PST 5 Dec 2007
  • In a sense, Fandyllic, you are correct. However that's not just the case for WoW, but for many subjects. That's just the nature of an encyclopedia; if you wanted to know all there was to know about plankton, for example, and you went into a library would you look it up in an encyclopedia or look up books devoted to the subject? -- Atamasama 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The distinction I think is that in an encyclopedia you can still expect an article about George Washington to be separate from Presidents of the U.S.A. article, but apparently many subjects about World of Warcraft don't rate, so you get just a bad WoW article. --Fandyllic (talk) 1:05 AM PST 23 Dec 2007
The only problem is the 'Presidents of the USA' page here would be 'video games', or possibly 'Massively Multiplayer Online Game', and 'World of Warcraft' would be the 'George Washington' page - so it does exactly what you seem to be saying it should. In much the same way that you would not expect the George Washington page to give a hugely detailed blow-by-blow account of his entire life, but, instead, merely give an outline, and perhaps give some detail about the more important parts of his life, you should not expect this page to give every detail of WoW. If you do want every detail about either, you go to a website/book dedicated to the subject, not a general encyclopedia. Zmidponk (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You are inferring things I did not state. I did not suggest a George Washington article would need painful amounts of detail, I was suggesting you might still have many articles about separate presidents, even if you had an article about all of them in aggregate. If you look at the articles about characters or places in the Warcraft universe or World of Warcraft that exist in Wikipedia, their number and reason for being seems arbitrary in the extreme. Here are some examples:
  • Orgrimmar, but no other cities (like Ironforge or Stormwind), apparently. Grizzlemaw is an article with a merge tag to merge with Northrend which turns out to be a redirect to Warcraft (series).
  • Hogger is still around for a reason I can't fathom. Owlbear still has a Warcraft section that has evaded extermination.
  • Paladin (character class) has extensive Warcraft references, but other WoW classes articles don't exist.
  • All the character articles appear to have been systematically removed, even though Tolkien character articles abound. Somehow Maiev shadowsong and Thaurissan escaped. These aren't even in the top 10 of notable Warcraft characters.
  • Many of what were Warcraft-related articles are nonsensically redirected such that anyone who followed them would wonder what the article was about.
  • Many disambiguations refer to warcraft-related articles, but the deleters didn't appear to have the courtesy to remove the references.
As you can see the treatment of World of Warcraft and Warcraft in-general is a total mess. Can you explain any of this? The only thing I can think of is that the writhing mass that is Wikipedia has divorced the literary aspects of Warcraft and World of Warcraft's lore and labelled it all as merely "Game Guide" content and therefore "verboten". --Fandyllic (talk) 2 AM PST 5 Jan 2008
Is it my imagination or is Wikipedia trying to prove Conservapedia right in such that Wikipedia is a stuck up elitist organization? The Game articles were informative and needed.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
From my time as an editor on Wikipedia, I've seen that there are 3 main requirements to allowing an article to exist on this site. First, an article has to be notable, in that it has to be something worth having an article about. Second, an article must be verifiable, in that there should be some trusted source verifying that what is in the article is true. And last, it must be encyclopedic, which is more difficult to define but can be boiled down to avoiding what isn't an encyclopedia entry. Notability and verifiability go hand-in-hand, in that to prove something notable you need to find references to it in reliable sources (like newspaper articles or scholarly works), and such sources will also verify that the information is legitimate. Both notability and verifiability are hard for a lot of WoW articles because many subjects, such as the races and places in WoW, which are interesting to a WoW player or fan aren't discussed in the New York Times, on CNN, or Scientific American. Giving such requirements for articles on Wikipedia help keep both false information and garbage (an article on your pet goldfish for example) out of this site to make it better. Does it make the editors and administrators stuck-up and elitist? You could say yes or no, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. -- Atamachat 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time.

Imlookingnow 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


The point I think he was getting at was that unless you're a Wikipedia admin, what gives you the right to make rulings based on Wikipedia policies? It's all based on how you read into it, and only the creator can truly have the final say in how it is interpreted. Moblinmaniac (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As an editor, you have the privilege to make edits to articles, and the responsibility to follow policies. Are you suggesting that only admins need to worry about following policies? That we should be able to create whatever we want, content in the knowledge that someday an admin will come by and fix everything later? -- Atamasama 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Works on Linux

Although Linux is not natively supported by World of Warcraft, I assume it would be worth mentioning that using Wine, it does work on Linux? [3] 71.102.74.156 05:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It already is. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't tried it but when I ran my Linux CD it said it would support games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life so I assume it does, after all World of Warcraft doesn't require DirectX (unless of course you are using Windows) to run. Joeking16 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Overrated - why does it have its own page?

Why does this one guild have its own page? It just doesn't seem right. Fangz the Wolf 16:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Based on the fact that, that specific article is not written following wikipedia's policies. Your point is also valid. I think it should be deleted, any admin read the article and you'll see what we mean.businessman332211 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw that page too... It should probably be deleted, although I also thought the page was interesting (never heard of the incident before). But, yes, any page devoted to a particular WoW guild (or any guild/clan of any game) doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It's nearly impossible for a guild to be notable enough to have its own page, and that one sure isn't. -- Atamasama 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
They got a bit of news coverage for their great banning scandal. But if you take this page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it seems extremely likely that it would be deleted. --Stormie 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I put a proposed deletion tag on the article, instead of a flat-out AfD. -- Atamasama 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It got removed quickly, by someone simply saying that it's notable. I think that it should just be taken to AfD, or seriously redone. Right now it's a vanity page done as an homage to the guild, does Wikipedia really need to know the "history" of the guild or how "mature" the players took being banned. -- Atamasama 20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The person who removed that tag was apart of the guild, I did some research. He was a member. Add it to AFD Fangz the Wolf 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added it to AfD, if someone could help lend support against the inevitable Overrated fanboys I'd appreciate it! -- Atamasama 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone reported me and got me banned for an hour with no previous warnings for this! Now that is dirty play. Fangz the Wolf 12:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. --Fandyllic (talk) 12:29 PM PST 5 Dec 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Suggestions for improvement to featured articlestatus?

Anybody have any suggestions for improvement to FA status? I think we need someone to help copy-edit the article. --Hdt83 Chat 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I can go through and clean up grammar/spelling errors at least (I'm very good at that). Assuming there are any. -- Atamasama 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't catch any spelling errors, I fixed a couple of awkward sentences. -- Atamasama 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, as a suggestion for FA status, one idea brought up some time ago (and still in the "to-do" box) is to include a Development section. Something about how the game was brought about. Now, while the article is just a "B" class, the Everquest article has a development section we might look at as an example, other MMORPGs might as well. -- Atamasama 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. Just have to find references for it... --Hdt83 Chat 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

Great job to everyone who contributed to this article. I did some changes awhile back to try and make it better. I come back 4 days later and it's improved 2 times over. Great job. I see the sections were recategorized to make more sense, the crap was pulled out. The proper sources cited. This is going to be featured article status before it's done with. I think it looks great. businessman332211 14:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we merge Nagrand into Draenor?

It seems like a good idea to me. Fangz the Wolf 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nagrand is a stub and honestly there's really nothing more to add to it, that info should just be in the Draenor article. While we're at it, the Draenor article needs work as well. -- Atamasama 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Might also want to merge Hellfire Peninsula into Draenor as well. Mrneoluddite 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL these are all redirects! --Fandyllic (talk) 2:05 AM PST 5 Jan 2008
Those comments were added before the pages had been IAmSasorized. 69.255.170.118 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to Yahoo! Directory's category on WoW

  • World of Warcraft in the Yahoo! Directory. - the category contains some 115 sites on the game, including sections for the major expansions, and for addons/mods.

Mrneoluddite 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible External Link

WoW Insider is probably the most widely read WoW blog out there, and often posts articles with detailed information on improving game play, discussions of upcoming patches, etc. Mrneoluddite 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WotLK Release date

The release date has been announced [4] [5]. PD 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no release date there, just a couple of months-old articles about the announcement that the WotLK expansion is coming. --Stormie 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, misread. PD 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

According to play.com you can preorder WotLK for 30/05/2008 http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/3438174/World-Of-Warcraft-Wrath-Of-The-Lich-King/Product.html i assume that means that 2 days after that it should be delivered to your door —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh hexodus (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, retail outlets make up release dates for products to encourage presales. That date that play.com has listed is bogus. It happens with pretty much any anticipated game release for all retail chains. Until Blizzard announces a date, there is no date. -- Atamachat 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would expect the release date for WotLK to be announced at the Worldwide Invitational on June 28-29, so would expect a release date no earlier than the end of September. - Iceberg3k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.104 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hero class info wrong?

In the article, it says the upcoming Death Knight class will be the first Hero Class. Isn't this incorrect? Paladins are heroes in Warcraft 3, as are Death Knights. Kelpie K 04:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


To be exact (copied from article):

The Paladin class was previously only available to the Alliance, and the Shaman only available to the Horde. Now, with the release of The Burning Crusade, the Draenei (Alliance) are able to be shamans and the Blood Elves (Horde) are able to be paladins, removing the previous faction exclusivity. In the Wrath of the Lich King expansion, a tenth class known as the Death Knight will be added, which will also be the game's first Hero class.


So am I right? Isn't the Paladin supposed to be a Hero class? Kelpie K 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Paladins are not a hero class in World of Warcraft - the classes do not all map exactly to the way things worked in Warcraft 3. A World of Warcraft hero class requires some action (not yet finalised) to "unlock", and also starts at a higher level than level 1. There are no hero classes currently in game. --Stormie 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, Blizzard are referring to World of Warcraft only in these announcements. It's World of Warcrafts first hero class, nothing to do with W3 --Marc Talk 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barthilas

I put this page up for AfD. I feel that this character is so minor that it doesn't even deserve to be on the List of Warcraft characters page, let alone its own article. If you agree, please say so on the AfD page. If you disagree, please make your opinion known on that page as well. Thank you. -- Atamasama 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The article, additionally, is a GFDL violation, it copies content from [6] without crediting the original author(s). --Stormie (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a hoaxes section

I am just wondering if we should one? There has been a lot of hoaxes such as the Wisp prank and the tinfoil hat prank Fangz the Wolf 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... There have been a number of them, the Warcraft: Heroes of Azeroth (WHoA) prank was another one. But I'm just wondering if it's needed in the article, for the same reason that trivia sections are discouraged. -- Atamasama 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How come there is nothing about private servers?

Such as through WoWscape. There are a lot of private servers and I feel that a section about them would be beneficial to the article. - Bandgeek100

Private servers are a form of hacking within WoW to get it for free, you may want to have a sentence about it under modifications. Fangz the Wolf 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Some mentions have been added to the article in the past, and then removed, because nobody seems to be able to come up with any reliable sources for any info on them. --Stormie (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how notable private servers are. It seems that every online game has them, what about the WoW private servers is so unique that they merit inclusion? -- Atamasama 17:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider them hacks, and not really a need for them. Perhaps a mention that they exist but not a lot of detail. Fr0 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I came here wanting information on the client server model and information about some more of the technical details... having information about private servers is needed, simply because of the lack of info about fundamental technical aspects of the game, via the reverse engineering and community that seems to be built around them... we get useful information about architecture of how wow is put together... this is interesting for some poeple, of course non-withstanding I am sure blizzard wants as few people as possible to know about private servers. They exist and there existence provides useful insights into the game and communities around them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenertia (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a technical manual and you're not going to find that level of detail here. This is a general encyclopedia. Also, everything in Wikipedia must be given reliable, verifiable sources for everything, so even if we did include that kind of information you'd need a really solid place to reference. Do you know such a source? -- Atamachat 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The "lack of info about fundamental technical aspects of the game" is one of the main reasons why said info is not in this article. As Atama said, we need reliable, verifiable sources for everything, and I simply don't think that anything of that nature exists regarding WoW private servers. --Stormie (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. T and Shatner Commercials

We should add info on the new World of Warcraft Advertising campain featuring Mr. T and William Shatner.

[7] Turk brown (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And now Vern Troyer (sp?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.12.67 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Warrior Class Info is Wrong

When describing the warrior class the article claims them to be "World of Warcraft's most heavily-armored class." How is this true when Paladins can, and do, wear any and all armor a warrior can wear (excluding pvp gear of course). A warrior is only as armored as their gear permits and wearing the same armor as a paladin they are not any less or more armored. Just thought i'd point that out.Ultadoranis (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better wording would be "World of Warcraft's most durable class." which certainly holds true when you look at their talents/skills/stats compared to a Paladin's. TSplodey 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh I just changed the wording to "a heavily-armored class", not "the most heavily-armored class". --Stormie 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call. Unless there was armor in the game specific to warriors that paladins can't wear that has greater AP then it's not a valid statement. You could make an argument that the warrior has the potential for the best defense, but that is an opinion and not proper for Wikipedia. -- Atamasama 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you look at the damage coefficients, Warriors take less damage with the same amount of armor from a hit as a Paladin, as well as being more likely to avoid that hit. Someone more knowledgeable would find a citation. --142.162.56.47 (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference in armor mitigation between any classes, see http://www.wowwiki.com/Formulas:Damage_reduction for proof. And when the goal of a tank is to reach uncrushable by a raid boss, a paladin is actually more likely to avoid damage due to their Holy Shield only providing 30% block, compared to a Warrior's 75% which means similarly geared Paladins generally have better Passive mitigation. TSplodey (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can make arguments back and forth between whether a Warrior or a Paladin is more "armored", but that's suited better for WoW's message boards and not Wikipedia. The fact is that both classes use plate, and anything beyond that is opinion, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. -- -- Atamachat 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Can something be made of the fact that Warriors gain more health than Paladins? Also, do their Epic Tiered gear give more stamina? If so, then Warriors are more encouraged than Paladins to be further armoured, whereas items built for Paladins are balanced by adding to other areas and detracting from armour and stamina bonuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.151.8 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
These would indeed be issues to consider if we were writing a game guide. But Wikipedia is not a game guide, and we're just trying to write a one-sentence overview for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Addiction Terms

Recently a user of WOW said WOW was commonly referred to as "World of WarCrack"Septagram (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

World of WarCrack (ahem, Warcraft lol) seems like a notable term [8], I think a mention should be in the article. Anybody mind if this is put up? --Hdt83 Chat 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been playing WoW for years and never heard of "World of Warcrack". However, even if it was it wouldn't be particularly notable since putting "crack" in the name of a popular game is common, I remember Everquest being called "Evercrack" when I played it. If you find a reliable source for the "World of Warcrack" comment I'd say put it in but otherwise avoid the original research. -- -- Atama(CHAT) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't really heard it very often, only a handful of times. Due to "Evercrack" actually being a somewhat common terminology, people randomly say "warcrack" or the like, but it's definitely not notable or worth mentioning. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that even though Warcraft is a great game, I've heard World of Warcrack been mentioned quite alot (servers Trollbane+Spinebreaker) and I think it should be publically mentioned that World of Warcraft is addictive in its own way and long term playing of the game will cause a form of addiction to it but this can't cause harm or be related to harm so theirs really no need to say "World of Warcrack". People should just know that if you play the game you will want to keep playing it because its fun. ~oLiE~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.16.173 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

heavily modded UI

There's a picture of a heavily modded UI. Maybe there should be a picture of a standard UI to act as a comparison. -OOPSIE- (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We could certainly benefit from one more screenshot in any rate, a regular UI would be good to have. -- Atamachat 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There's a picture of the BC login screen but no picture of anyone playing the game besides the "heavily modified UI" picture. Not very informative and certainly not good for our "visual learner" Wikipedia readers. :) Perhaps a screenshot that shows a group with all the classes represented could be inserted--that would kill the need for a picture of the various classes as well. Just a thought. Most WoW-related images tend to get deleted by overzealous moderators who seem to think Blizzard has a problem with people posting WoW screenshots anywhere. RobertM525 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
'Comment' Done. :) Ziros (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Expansion Information

The new expansion date has been set for 2008 though an exact date has of course not been set at this time. I would like to also add that this is likely to be the last game of the Warcraft series seeing as how there hasnt been much room left after this game for furthur progression. One can only assume in the next expansion you will kill the Lich King (Arthas). While another expansion for World of Warcraft is possible the story line has ran into a dead end of sorts. Though they could probably make another game all togeather that could follow the Burning Crusade part of the story line it would likely be a World of Warcraft incarnate inless they were to make it a cross between the previous Warcrafts and the latest World of Warcraft. I think expansion in other franchises of Blizzard Entertainment is far more likely such as Diablo and Star Craft other the posibility of a whole new Franchise. However as of now I don't see any possibility of furthur expasion past Wrath of the Lich King, though thats what I had thought when the original World of Warcraft came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistis (talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not another expansion follows Wrath of the Lich King will be entirely determined by market forces - the presence or absence of room in the lore for a storyline for a third expansion will have absolutely no influence on Blizzard's decision. This is business, and BIG business. --Stormie (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is solely determined by WoW's success, yes it will get another expansion - it's pretty much impossible for it not to atm. In any case, Blizzard have also stated that it is their intention to keep on making expansions, and that they see several more years left in WoW. There's also a lot more to Warcraft than we have seen so far - a continent is missing, several zones are not open, portals in Outland aren't yet open, the underwater areas are missing, and some major characters are yet to be seen...
Anyway, this is offtopic. Kirkburn (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is off-topic because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculation doesn't belong in articles, and frankly not in talk pages either. -- Atamachat 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


id like to say that play.com has got it on preorder for 30/05/2008 release date http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/3438174/World-Of-Warcraft-Wrath-Of-The-Lich-King/Product.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh hexodus (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You've said it elsewhere already, be careful too because repeating that link over and over is going to look like advertising/spamming. -- Atamachat 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


'Comment' A Blizzard Developer recently commented in an interview that an additional hero class the Archdruid is on the drawing table along with The Emerald Dream which has already been posted as a future expansion.Ziros (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice about Wrath of the Lich King release date

I'm putting this in as a reminder to people, prior to including a release date for WotLK on the main page (which was already attempted once). Retailers will routinely make up a release date for an upcoming product to encourage presales. When a release date is announced, it will be done by Blizzard, it won't be by a store selling it. Amazon even warns you on their preorder page that a release date hasn't actually been set even though they claim it will be released on September 30. Just remember this before prematurely adding this info to the article. -- Atamachat 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Work to get this to Featured Article status

Okay, I've made some changes to the structure of the page, one of the proposed actions required to get this article accepted for Featured Article status. I'm not 100% certain that my changes are the best way to do this and we probably need to tweak things further, but I'll explain what I did, why I did it, and further concerns I have.

I moved the "Corrupted Blood plague incident" to the "World" section, right after "Major in-game events". It was itself an in-game event so I thought that was the best place for it, it seemed to stick out being placed later in the article. I did not make it a subcategory of the "Major in-game events" topic, because that is itself a subcategory of a subcategory of a topic already. I also thought it was important enough to stand on its own and not simply integrate it with the "Major in-game events" topic.

I moved the "Realms" section to be a subcategory of "Gameplay", because it really is part of gameplay, and the various types of realms make a difference in how the game is played (in terms of PvP options and RP enforcement).

I'm using The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind as a model right now, because it was a Featured Article and is already structured in a way similar to the World of Warcraft article.

Now, I do have some concerns and ideas, and I'd appreciate feedback if anyone has an opinion. I think that the "Gameplay" section is too large, even though I'm guilty of adding more to it than what was there before. If you look at the Morrowind article, it has a "Setting" topic which is seperate from "Gameplay". I think that might be a good idea in this article as well, we might want to move the entire "World" section out of "Gameplay" and place it before "Development". I'm going to go ahead and be bold, if someone objects to this please provide it.

I think we can get this article to FA, I think it might already be good enough for A status as is. -- Atamachat 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's some notes of things that should be addressed before going to FAC:
  • Some parts of the article may be hard to understand for the reader who knows nothing about WoW, or even video games in general. The sentence "A mount refers to an item or spell that, upon activation, summons a mount." doesn't help.
  • The TOC of the gameplay section is large and outweighs the other sections.
  • Some resectioning might help. Consider putting "Version history" under "Development" and "Controversy" under "Reception".
  • The Development and Reception sections are small compared to the rest of the article.
  • Watch the links—the character classes are linked to unrelated articles and disambiguation pages. A person clicking on hunter in that section likely isn't looking for information on hunting (the page to which that link redirects). Looks for this throughout.
  • The lead needs to be expanded. See Wikipedia:Lead section.
Pagrashtak 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Wikilinks

I notice that not long ago someone went through and Wikilinked unrestrainedly throughout the article. Unfortunately most of those links were dead ends. I've deleted the links for the Warcraft-specific races (Tauren, Draenei, etc.) because they either linked to deleted pages or redirected to the Warcraft Series page (or the WoW page itself!). The geographical links (places like Northrend, Azeroth, etc.) also linked to generic Warcraft articles because the original, specific articles were deleted. I also deleted the Wikilink for inscription because the article has absolutely nothing to do with Inscription in WoW (which is expected to provide permanent boosts to spells). I left some of the Wikilinks intact, even though they generally link to pages that aren't related to WoW (Dwarves, Shaman, First Aid, etc.). Honestly, the original "Wikifying" seemed somewhat irresponsible because nobody checked to see if the links went anywhere, and let's face it, it will be a long time if ever that we can have articles on "Blood Elves" and "Northrend" again, because establishing notability and providing references for those kinds of articles is almost impossible. I hope nobody tries to restore these links without taking the time to actually consider whether they're improving this article or not. -- Atamachat 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider, for the near future, of using the interwiki link wowwiki: to link the articles to WoWWiki. --Izno (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely, I did a bit of a trial run of this at World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King#Northrend and nobody seemed to object. There is a body of opinion, though, opposed to linking to Wikia wikis on the grounds that Wikia is a for-profit company. Which is ridiculous, since the mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation is "encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Linking to content (which has been deemed insufficiently encyclopedic to be in Wikipedia) on Wikia wikis obviously serves to encourage the growth, development and distribution of free content. --Stormie (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I like it. I think we should be careful to not overdo it however. For example, instead of linking every single class to the class article on WowWiki, just one link to the general class page. Same for professions. I'm afraid someone would consider indiscriminate linking to another Wiki to be a bad practice and would hurt this article's chance at making FA. -- Atamachat 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point, I'd be fascinated to see what the opinion at WP:FAC was regarding interwiki links to Wikia. --Stormie (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think Wikia has much to do with this - WoWWiki had an interwiki link long before Wikia bought it (and remember, neither WoWWiki nor Wikia charge for their content). It is not an overestimate to say WoWWiki is pretty much the wiki for Warcraft, so linking it does make sense - especially since most Warcraft articles got deleted on Wikipedia. However, indeed please do not overdo it. I do not wish anyone to be accused of advertising. Kirkburn (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've brought this conversation to WT:WikiProject Video games#Thoughts on interwiki links. --Izno (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of a 'Lost' episode

We see today that the front page of Wikipedia has a 'Lost' episode as featured. It demonstrates perfectly that World of Warcraft shouldn't have articles denoted to its gameplay deleted. It's a game that is played by several million of people. It obviously spends more time that "Lost" does to people's lives, yet it's less notable? Some here have to re-think their priorities. --Leladax (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

10 million, in fact. They're all off playing the game or don't speak English, rather defending the articles here. Such is the way ... Kirkburn (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this in reference to the bunch of articles that got deleted before, i.e. Blood Elves/Night Elves? --Marc Talk 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That episode was nominated for 3 Emmy awards, that's what made it notable. If that article was simply a plot summary of the episode of Lost, and had no references, no claims to notability, nothing about production, etc. then not only would it not be a FA it would be deleted. Here's a tip: look at that article, figure out what makes it good, and then apply the same thing to WoW articles. -- Atamachat 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Atama, they got deleted, so it's not exactly possible to improve them. It doesn't matter how well written they were because most of the citations possible were games - not much good for Wikipedia. More people know of Arthas, for example, than that Lost episode, but it's not really something you can establish notability about in the normal way. (Basically comes down to my "such is the way" comment). Kirkburn (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was involved in the deletion of many of them (I even started the AfDs for more than a few myself). Before any new WoW articles are created, we'd need to find reliable sources showing notability. Otherwise certain editors will leap on those articles like wolves on abandoned babies calling for them to be deleted. In the past I've tried to show that some of the subjects were notable within the context of the original work (per WP:FICTION), Arthas being a good example, but it didn't work. -- Atamachat 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps around the time of the release of the next expansion, since it focuses on Arthas, it may be possible to try again. Given the huge range of characters in the world of Warcraft, I'm not really surprised that any one article doesn't have enough references as the media has little to focus on (they mostly go for the popularity and influence angle). Kirkburn (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be better off making a List of Warcraft characters or something similar since you'd have a hard case to make that any one character has sufficient notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Won't work, Madcoverboy. There was such a list, and it was deleted. Nothing will survive without proper verification and establishing notability. -- Atamachat 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I stick with the whole, how can these deleted articles ever be improved and notability demonstrated when deleted so quickly? Baiter (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The only way to get these articles done properly is to first gather proper citations before you even create the article. Get them prepared, then get the article made and include them. Then if someone tries to bring the article up for deletion, you have Wikipedia policy on your side. To be perfectly fair, however, the vast majority of those articles that were deleted had a long time to be improved, years in many cases, and it was never done. -- Atamachat 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Nakon 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Goldselling/Spammers

First post here, so I apologise in advance if this isn't the right way of doing things. Is it notable to post an entry under Criticisms of WoW->Spamming mentioning Blizzard's recent court case against In Game Dollar, Inc trading as Peons4Hire? The injunction document is available somewhere as a PDF. Gazimoff (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an actual criticism article (the link for it is in the criticism section of this article). You could add the info there. That article exists to keep the criticism section in this article from being too large. -- Atamachat 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at getting the information worked into that article. I've also managed to find a large amount of source material on other sections that have been flagged as needing citations, as well as some material that was removed because it was lacking citations. When doing this, I'm trying to stick to reasonable quality sources such as newspaper or television media references or academic research journals. Is it preferable to avoid comments made by Blizzard employees on their own forums/websites, or articles on fan/hobby/specialist topic sites?Gazimoff (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Blizzard employees could be used if done properly. For example, you can state "A Blizzard employee admitted that it was a bug" and give a link to the "blue name" forum post. By doing it that way, you are not declaring something as "fact" but stating unambiguously that it was a claim made by a Blizzard employee. Articles on fan/hobby/specialist topic sites are almost always going to be considered unreliable. -- Atamachat 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_of_Warcraft/Archive_9&oldid=1142447728"