Jump to content

Talk:World of Warcraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crowday (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 1 October 2009 (→Current Subscribers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleWorld of Warcraft was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 31, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 15, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 24, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

RP-PVP and PVP Servers allow either faction

{{editsemiprotected}}

The line: "On a PvP or RP-PvP server a player may create characters belonging to either the Horde or the Alliance factions, but not both" is no longer correct.

I suggest the line now read "Formerly, on a PvP or RP-PvP server a player could only create characters belonging to either the Horde or Alliance, but not both. In preparation for the faction change service, this restriction has been removed." insert ref http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=19110291048&pageNo=1#0


"As we've already discussed, we’re in the process of developing a new service for World of Warcraft that will allow players to change their faction from Alliance to Horde or Horde to Alliance. To prepare for this new service, we've removed the restriction that prevents players from creating both Horde and Alliance characters on a PvP realm." [1]

While I agree that this is no longer needed, I think just removing the out-of-date information would be better. Maybe someone will decide to add something about the evolution of PvP as the faction-change service was added. I don't feel strongly, but moving forward with the removal.- sinneed (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism as part of Reception

Please, I perfectly understand that I myself have edited little on this article, but could we not add some criticism. I understand it seems to be most...addicting and popular, even to Wikipedian editors, but refusing to add any negative effects appears somewhat odd, I must say. Is there no way to address this issue fairly? I mean, every show or game or book has some kind of criticism. I've read it is psychologically damaging, is this true? Please, I have refrained from contributing for fear of immediate revertion, but kindly address this issue with speed. My thanks, Soccerrox62 | Talk 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read that the game is "psychologically damaging"? Whatever you add to the article should be properly sourced to verify the information. Rumors about hypothetical addiction problems have been added to this article too many times, often sourcing articles that talk about addiction to online games in general that don't say anything about WoW being more addicting than any other game out there.
The Reception section already has criticism in it. Look at this huge chunk of text that is completely negative:
Quests also seemed to require players to explore every section of the game world, potentially causing problems for social gamers or roleplayers seeking somewhere quiet. Quests that required the player to collect items from the corpses of creatures they had killed were also unpopular, with a low "drop rate" or chance of finding the items required making them feel repetitive as a high number of creatures would need to be killed in order to complete the quest. Some critics mentioned a lack of quests that required players to group up made the game feel as if it was designed for solo play, while others complained that some dungeon or instance-based group quests were not friendly to new players and could take several hours to complete. Upon release, a small number of quests had errors or bugs that would make them impossible to complete, while the large number of new players in a particular area meant that there were often no creatures to kill, or that players would have to wait and take turns to kill a particular creature in order to complete a quest.
Later in that Reception section, it states that "character customization options were felt to be low", and also states, "The game was found to run smoothly on a range of systems, although some described it as basic and mentioned that the bloom graphics effect can blur things."
Outside of the Reception section, there is a "Security concerns" section that is almost entirely critical of WoW. The LGBT banning controversy is mentioned later in the Community section. I could go on, but suffice to say that the assertion that there is absolutely no criticism of the game at all in the article isn't accurate. -- Atama頭 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free vs Subscription

The opening leads are themselves misleading, WoW is easily the largest subscription MMOG on the market, but to declare it, regardless of pay or free, the largest and most popular is untrue. For instance, a game like MapleStory, which has many more players, around 92 million last I knew, is the most populous MMOG on the market. Revrant (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot assess truth or falsehood. It can only assess whether the content is backed up by generally reliable published sources (wp:RS). If interested, you might look above and in the archives, or follow the sources listed in the article. If there are conflicting sources, I, personally would be interested in reading them.
Guinness world records lists WoW.
The lead specifies subscriptions... and subscribers... and "largest in those terms".
Ignoring all that, if a politician wants to whine about how MMOGs are destroying "teh mindz of yuth", they don't yap about MapleStory. They yap about WoW.

- Sinneed (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't feel they properly represent that, and the lead does not say largest in those terms, and I believe it should, because to be vague would imply something that is not true. Revrant (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With more than 11.5 million monthly subscribers,[12] World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG[9][13][14] and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG.[15] In April 2008, World of Warcraft was estimated to hold 62 percent of the massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) market.[16]"
  • You are correct, after the last time someone objected about the non-subscriber-model games being larger, we reworked it so it doesn't say it is the largest any more, it says "most-subscribed", to be very very very specific. The "most popular" is directly sourced, and I objected to the source and then found I was wrong, voila.
What is your proposal? - Sinneed (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any issue with those first two, they're fine, the third and fourth lines should be changed, I think. The Guinness one specifies "subscribers" and the MMOGchart one, http://www.mmogchart.com/faq/ specifies that free games aren't included in the list or charts at all. Revrant (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't think the Guinness record is what it should be, please contact them and convince them to change it.
  • Since the lead makes it clear that it is talking about subscribers, only talking about subscribers is the opposite of misleading.
  • You still have not proposed a change, and only seem to be saying you do not wp:LIKE the fact that, as it is about a subscriber-based game, the lead talks about subscriber-based games. I don't think the lead focus will change. What change do you propose? - Sinneed (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World of Warcraft was estimated to hold 62 percent of the massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) market." I agree this should be re-worded. It makes no mention of for-pay subscriptions, leading to the assumption that WoW holds 11,500,000 of 18,548,387 TOTAL MMO-players, whereas that's just the number of people who PAY. --King Öomie 13:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Industry terminology is inextricable from the content, in this case. I disagree that the term "market" implies that people are paying. The free-to-play mmos generate a huge amount of capital from advertisements. --King Öomie 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I April 2008, World of Warcraft was estimated to hold 62 percent of the massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) subscription base." --King Öomie 13:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to belittle WoW here. I've got a raid tonight. But WoW leads the pack in its own category, and I think it's misleading to misrepresent exactly how large that category is. --King Öomie 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping over the side discussion of ingame item/service sales which I expect is not going in the lead...
  • "Industry terminology is inextricable from the content, in this case." - True, but only where it is part of the content.
  • I can't strongly support the change as is: "subscription base". Maybe something like "to host" or ..."MMMOG subscriptions."? But we know that is somewhat misleading, as many people are on their 1st month free at any given moment (one can argue that they paid for the month in the ridiculously high sale price). Maybe "MMOG subscription market? - Sinneed (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, anything that makes it clear the figure doesn't include free-to-play games. And if you're not going to scold me in the text, please don't scold me in your edit summary. --King Öomie 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, "focus please" - couldn't figure out what you were talking about. wp:talk, please. Edit conflict. I was not reworking my post. Sorry that offended you. Please reread until it is not a scold, if you wish, and then you will have read it as I wrote it. - Sinneed (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - Made a proposed change, adding "subscription" before "market" in (MMOG) market". Easily reverted if any disagree. - Sinneed (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that arguing about whether or not the "market" includes free-to-play games is ludicrous. You might want to look up what "market" means in a dictionary. The term "market" is unambiguous enough that you don't have to clarify that you mean pay-to-play games. -- Atama頭 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • *nod* - but there are markets for subscriptions, rent-the-PC-and-the-account, character change/move/look services, item sales. This is about subscriptions. I think the *argument* was specious, but that the problem, though IMO very minor, real. I saw no harm in adding "subscription"...it specifies which market...it is supported by the sources...it seems to add neither undue weight to the free-use games nor undue complexity. - Sinneed (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no harm and I think your edits were fine. I was just commenting on the argument itself. -- Atama頭 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

62 percent

That number is just not that good. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I propose to change it to "about 60" instead of "62". - Sinneed (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that when pulling statistics from sources, it was alright to drop small fractions (62.2%), but I"m not sure about cutting it down to the nearest mutiple of ten. --King Öomie 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally depends on the accuracy of the number. This is really an emotional question for our fellow editors. Contentious section. :) - Sinneed (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King, is that an objection or just a concern? If anyone disagrees, I won't do it, but... the number is simply "blurrier" than 1%, as I read the article. - Sinneed (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say go with the source. By 'blurrier', are you referring to readability, or cognitive clarity?
WP:NOR makes a special exception for arithmetic, but skewing the numbers without compensating (using "over" instead of "about", which I'd also suggest) could be construed as POV-pushing, making the product appear less popular than it is. --King Öomie 13:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going with the source. He explains in detail how "blurry" each number is... explaining why the numbers are not accurate (none of them)... attempting to give the reader an understanding of how accurate each number is. We *KNOW* the number is wrong, because the author tells us so. There is a long discussion about whether to use the number at all, and the loose consensus was to include it.
I think I am going to change my suggestion to "leave it alone... it is old... maybe he will come out with a new MMOGCHART this year," but with the wildly varying number of games using the subscription model at any given moment, I am not even sure he is trying.
One of the other sources, on the subscription statement, states that the TOTAL percentage for the top 10 subscriber-based games was down to "50-75%" of the subscription market... but then says "30-60Million subscribers"... well, since we know WoW was about (about please, critics) 10million, even considering 1stmonthers and promo subscriptions, that makes it between 17% and 30%. I am not buying those numbers (and I just noticed the source, who is GigaOM anyway?). - Sinneed (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriptions

"11.5 million monthly subscribers" - propose to change to "11.5 million monthly subscriptions"... more accurate, I think, and consistent with the following material in the lead. - Sinneed (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, moving forward. - Sinneed (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness line proposed change

Wow, I suppose I'll add here then given this has expanded so, it wasn't a matter of what I "like" it was just a matter of terminology implying what is not true that stuck out for me. I think that change is fine, perhaps "pay" or "pay-" could be included before MMORPG in the Guinness line so the language doesn't become redundant. Revrant (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with the proposed Guinness line, it is from the source, as I see it. Again, if you think Guinness should change its content, the link is in the article. - Sinneed (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the line specifies subscribers, and I quote World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world., they clearly denote subscription, this should be represented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revrant (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the line is quite clear, as written, and quite clearly supported by the source.
If you choose to do so, you might gather support for adding "pay" to the Guinness line... it is clearly not supported by the source, so I oppose it strongly. - Sinneed (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The line specifically states subscribers, whether it be pay or subscription-MMO I care very little for, I was merely suggesting it should reflect the source. Revrant (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and yes, I realize you disagree. I don't think you will find much support for your interpretation. - Sinneed (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the source be reflected in the article? I don't think I'll have any trouble in that area, in cases where the source has information, it's usually quite difficult to reason that it should not be represented as stated therein, but I could be mistaken. Revrant (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not, you've been shown what the line says and simply state it does not say that, and thank you for simply reverting it, this is progress. Revrant (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only point is whether or not "pay" is added to the line. Doing so would be original research. The line as it stands (as you edited it, Revrant) is just fine. Sinneed, I don't see Revrant pushing the "pay" wording, and Revrant, I don't think Sinneed has a problem with the line if it doesn't have the word "pay" in it. I assume that Guinness meant "paid" subscribers, any game that claims a large number of "unpaid" subscribers is meaningless since any player could make as many free "subscriptions" as they like in a free game; that's like someone boasting that they gave away twice as many free hamburgers in a year as McDonald's sold. But I digress, while I assume that "paid" is implied, that would be original research on my part and anyone else who adds it without clarification from Guinness. In any event, I don't think that there is a dispute any longer, am I correct? -- Atama頭 07:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be incorrect, it was reverted right back and I was told, despite the line specifically stating subscribers, that I am incorrect. Revrant (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)A pair of changes was wp:BOLDly made, and I have wp:reverted the edit, and now we discuss - wp:BRD.

  • "holds" changed to "was awarded" - Misleading - still holds the position. When it loses it, it will be big news and the lead will probably need to say "held the award...from yearx to yeary, when gamez replaced it.
  • "with 10 million subscribers" - oddly, the same editor then put in obsolete information. Perhaps this needs to be added in more detail in the body. I won't oppose, but I don't think it is needed. WoW is so much the #1 game that we keep having trouble keeping casual mentions of it out of the article. Every time the press blathers on about gaming, it yaps about "like WoW" even if WoW isn't involved.

I oppose these 2 changes, and would ask that we gain consensus on this here, and remind the adding editor(s) that the wp:burden is on the editor adding content. - Sinneed (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. The record was upheld this year, so only saying that it was awarded in 2008 would be misleading, because that leaves open the possibility that the record might have been broken since then, but it hasn't. -- Atama頭 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness records, more exactly, just ARE... the biggest cake is the biggest cake until there is a bigger one...the tallest stack of pancakes...the largest ice sculpture. The records don't have a specific life, and may last a minute, an hour or a century. Thus the content needs to say that it holds... and MAYBE when it took the prize. If there really is a separate free game record this year, I do think changing the lead to reflect whatever Guinness calls the non-free award would be great. (offtopic please forgive me) I'll also plan to add the Guinness bit to the Runescape article unless someone else does it 1st, once I see something from Guinness. :) - Sinneed (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if the record was broken (let's say by Star Wars: The Old Republic next year) then it would still be notable to say that the record was held at one time. Guinness publishes an annual book which is what most people refer to when quoting the records, even though as you said there's no indeterminate time for a record. It's not like the Academy Awards that are handed out each year, a record is held until broken. But since the book is often referred to it's almost like an annual award. -- Atama頭 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. - Sinneed (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? A forum? Let's try to stay on topic, we're discussing a single line change to reflect the source. There was nothing wrong with that language, it was awarded that title for having "nearly" 10 million subscribers, nothing insinuates it does not hold the title anymore, the line is not reflecting the source, it should reflect the source. Revrant (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we have confirmation that the record was upheld. Hence the "forum chatting" (by the way, you shouldn't make WP:FORUM accusations when people actually are discussing changes to the article). -- Atama頭 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making an accusation, if I make accusations, believe me, I would be incredibly clear. I wasn't insinuating by "was" that it was not upheld, I was using it as past tense, everything there reflected the source, if "and still holds, with 11.5 million subscribers" needed to be added it should have been added and not had the line reverted to it's current cherry-picking form. Wikipedia is not a cafeteria, it is not a buffet, the article must reflect the source, this pedantic way of going about changing a single line is not beneficial or efficient. Revrant (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we're discussing a single line change to reflect the source." - The line currently reflects the source. - Sinneed (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not, World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world. does not equate to and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG., the current line excludes information that is pertinent and is thus misleading.
The line must reflect the source and not cherry pick the facts, if you feel you cannot allow this then other parties can and will be involved in order for the article to reflect the source. Revrant (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please insert here as many copies of "Yes, it does reflect the source." from me and "No, it doesn't." from you as you wish: argument is unlikely to sway either of us. I accept your argument that the prepositional phrase "with nearly x million..." simply must be in the article in that sentence, rather than the current 11.5 million in another. I don't agree. Is there some specific (and different from before) proposal you would like to offer? Are there any other arguments you would like to make? Does anyone else propose a change to the Guinness line, or have any ideas they would like to share? - Sinneed (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, The Telegraph is content to simply say "it currently holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG". If our "...holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG." wasn't already in the article, I would insist on putting it in quotes if it were added, to comply with wp:QUOTE. Of course, one is always tempted to wonder if the Telegraph staff may have simply read WP. Geaux Us. I don't really know the Digital Spy folks, so I was not comforted by their use of similar wording. - Sinneed (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to, I had a direct quote from the source itself, either accept the source or cease arguing, because to reject the source is irrational and against policy, it is a verified source. If you had left the past tense alone as you should have and added on to the statement, the entire issue would have been resolved, but you did not, and I have yet to see a reason why. Revrant (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I added the direct quote, and it is still in the article, clicking the citation will take you directly to it, or simply scrolling down and looking at the source listing under the section heading "References". I have added 2 more direct quotes, which are still in the article.
  • I am sorry you cannot see the reasons listed above. If you study carefully, you may be able to do so. - Sinneed (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not! You're trying to bypass the issue by adding it to the reference tag, that is not the change in question, I will change the line again to take into account all views, if you revert it I will be forced to insist on intervention in favor of not expunging the source's information as you see fit.
You have not given a reason aside from hinging on the use of the word "was". Revrant (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "by subscribers" OR/SYNTH?

(outdent) - removed wp:OR/wp:SYNTH " by subscribers".

  • 1:"Set in the fantasy world of Azeroth it currently holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG, which probably accounts for why Blizzard is the most bankable games publisher in the world."
  • 2:"Blizzard’s Mike Morhaime and Paul Sams were handed awards for World Of Warcraft and Starcraft, which won Most Popular MMORPG and Best Selling PC Strategy Game respectively."
  • 3:"World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world."

The prepositional phrase "with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world." does not say "by subscribers". - Sinneed (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) And an editor proceeds to wp:Edit war.This is not covered by any wp:RS. Please remove it. - Sinneed (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 is the only one that matters, the other two only substantiate it, and really? That's your argument? Because given it explicitly reasons subscribers into the listing you'd think that would be obvious.
So let me get this straight, you won't allow the information as stated, and you won't allow the information as it is not stated.
So since you won't allow the information in a way that is not explicitly stated in the source, but will not allow the source information to be explicitly stated, what is it you propose? Revrant (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are your statements, not mine. I did not take those positions, nor imply them. If you inferred them, you erred.
  • You have added wp:original research/unpublished synthesis to the article. This is a violation of WP policy. I understand we disagree.
  • "won't allow" - You and I are both editors. Neither of us can "not allow" the other to edit. Your original research is in the article now, as I will not edit war with you. Someone else will eventually correct the issue, or it will stand.
  • Please see above for my proposal, should anyone find a source to cover it. We have your proposal, should anyone find a source to cover it, in the article now as wp:OR.
  • We have rumors that next year's book (2010) will have most popular paid and most popular free game (or some such... rumors), but that is not yet and wp:CRYSTAL would apply. - Sinneed (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are, you have rejected both the source as stated, and you have rejected the source stated in a way that evades your issue with the source as stated.
No, I have not, you have rejected the entirety of a source for no reason and will not explain why.
I have already begun the process of ending this given the issue is crystal clear.
The source has already been provided, you simply do not wish to include it, your proposal would require I ignore the source, I will not do that.
The text is right there, that does not apply, if you do not wish to accept the text from the very source, then you must explain why. Revrant (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the issue is indeed quite clear. As I said, I will not edit war with you over this, it is a minor matter. If no one else thinks it is worth reverting out, it will stay in the article. If they do, I will support the removal. The wp:burden is on the editor adding opposed content. I understand you feel you have met that burden. I disagree. Perhaps no one else will. :) - Sinneed (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided the most reliable source there can possibly be, the very establishment that awarded the record, if you could suggest to me a higher authority then I would seek them out, but instead you have dismissed them outright and that is why I have insisted on a third opinion. Revrant (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) ::::::* Removed bad link - Well I am glad I suggested it, anyway. It may draw a fresh set of eyes. - Sinneed (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) edit - initial reject was reversed. - Sinneed (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • New eyes are certainly good. The annoying part is that I agree with the edit itself... but it simply isn't supported by the source, as I read it. A web search turns up Runescape's web page showing a Guinness World Record for free-to-play MMO, aparently based on pre-announcement of the 2010 book at E3. Several other web sites mention the new record book entry for free MMO... but nothing I can spot as reliable. There is also reference to WoW holding the most popular MMORPG again for 2010... but nothing clarifying that they are changing the record from just plain "most popular" to "most popular for-pay" in the wp:RS my limited search skills are turning up. - Sinneed (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

First of all, thank you all for acknowledging that this is ridiculous. It's much easier when everyone agrees on that at least :)

I think the Guinness statement itself is problematic. The source says nearly 10 million subscribers around the world; it's a vague statement for something that can be measured with certainty, and provides no context...like whether it is the most popular MMORPG because it has nearly 10 million subscribers. Additionally, it contradicts the statement earlier in the article paragraph that WoW has more than 11.5m subscribers. I know the Guinness Book of World Records we all used to read when I was a kid had not just the record-holder, but usually the top few competitors. Is this in the Gamer's Edition book, and if so, is it any more clear? Like, does it provide a top-5 list or discuss their methodology?

If the book isn't more clear on this, I think the article would suffice if it said, "holds the Guinness World Record for most popular MMORPG" or "has held the Guinness World Record for most popular MMORPG since 2008". When some other MMORPG takes the world by storm, the article would need to be changed to "held the Guiness World Record for most popular MMORPG from 2008 to 20xx". Without clarification of Guinness, I don't think the "nearly 10 million" or "by subscribers" parts are relevant for the article (and it is borderline SYNTH)

Hope this helps! MirrorLockup (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, since you seem to agree with me, my "Thank You" may seem lame, but Thank You.
  • The gamer's (gamers'?) edition book seems to be due in Feb 2010, and appears to be in creation at the moment, they were promoting it at E3.
  • If my work allows, I will stop at the library and see if they have the Guinness regular book, and see what it says, if anything. On the 2008 thing... I don't have a source for that or I would have already wp:BOLDly put it in... The 1st record I see is June 2008... but it is NOT a "...today was awarded...". Calling all source-finders... :) - Sinneed (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Edit to add "NOT" since I can't tyep.(sic) - Sinneed (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to include with, the full statement World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world., 10 million is being used via the word "with" as a plain association, that is the aspect that plain as day qualifies the meaning I pursue. Popular as well is used just as explicitly in tandem with 10 million subscribers, it does not take a genius to deduce the meaning I came to, but apparently it does take one to address it in a request.
That would be because the subscriber count rose since it was given the record, on top of that it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion at all and I fail to see why it or the other sources were mentioned given they were not part of the third opinion request nor do they have any bearing. This discussion is regarding the simple wording of a single source, so that was totally unnecessary and unwanted.
The source is perfectly clear, and I fail to see how that is relevant either, you have addressed only a single point of this debate and you failed to include the critical language the debate was hinging on.
Oh, and WP:SYNTH, since if I see it used against me again I will file it as a baseless and continued attack on my character and bad faith.
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
There is no way this fits into the first, and if you are somehow accusing me of the second, then you will know well that I tried using the very language of the source, but this was rejected, so an attempt at compromise was made and rejected as well, there can be no synthesis.
This is an unsatisfactory response at almost every level, I feel I must request a comment from a more learned editor in order to reach a conclusion that actually addresses the points, regardless of the outcome. Revrant (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you an example. "With his curling lip, Elvis Presley was an unforgettable cultural icon and was one of the most famous entertainers of the 20th century." I just made that sentence up, and by your logic you might conclude that Elvis Presley was only famous for having a curling lip. Of course I didn't imply that at all in that sentence, because the word "with" only means that he possessed that feature. By the way, I resent the idea that we disagree with you because we aren't learned editors, and I suggest you refactor that ad hominem personal attack. Consider this an explicit warning to stick to the content of the arguments and not the capacity of the editors that disagree with you. -- Atama頭 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a correct example, the placement of the wording is absolutely key, especially considering this is the sole reason for the record and you are using flawed logic by using an icon popular for many others reasons, and that is thus hyperbolic as well. I resent that you have accused me of WP:SYNTH, I expect better of established editors than all of this behavior and harsh dismissal, and I suggest you recant your own now fallacious accusations given my logic was just proven right. Revrant (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness line change dispute

I have requested a change to the article, I wish for the line to reflect World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world. via and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG by subscribers., USER:Sinneed says the line should be and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG. without the addendum.

The language is clear to me, but not to the other party, I argue given the use of the term "popular", an explicit number, and the implicit association of the word "with", I believe it can and should be included, USER:Sinneed feels this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on my behalf. Revrant (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moot

  • Actually, under wp:BRD, you have wp:BOLDly made the change, had it reverted, then wp:edit warred the change into the article against wp:consensus, and the other editors who disagree are not willing to war with you. You requested a 3rd opinion, which went against you.
  • In any event, as I planned above, I have library-referenced the paper copy of:
    Glenday, Craig (2009). Craig Glenday (ed.). Guinness World Records 2009. GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS (paperback ed.). Random House, Inc. p. 241. ISBN 0553592564, 9780553592566. Retrieved September 18, 2009. Most popular MMORPG game(sic) In terms of the number of online subscribers, World of Warcraft is the most popular Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), with 10 million subscribers as of January 2008. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
As hoped, the paper reference does not suffer from the miserable construction of the online brief. I will add the citation now, and fully support the content as you made it. - Sinneed (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is this settled now? I would hope so. Honestly it's such a minor point that I haven't been invested terribly in how it was written, my biggest concern has been how this argument was conducted. -- Atama頭 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I considered it settled when I warned the editor against wp:SYNTH, stating that I would not revert it again, and opposed the change. - Sinneed (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, there could have been one if I had just had my statements addressed, only just now has an editor ADDRESSED my reasoning, and even then using a hyperbolic example, for that I am thankful as it is all I wanted and is supported by policy. You two, for being such experienced editors, need a lesson in addressing a person's logic instead of dismissing it and addressing unrelated points, it is highly dubious to do so and highly disrespectful. I expect in the future that my points will be addressed if there is a disagreement, not dismissed outright using fallacious arguments, especially given the fact that my interpretation has been proven correct and thus my deduction was correct all along even though no one challenged the basis of my deduction.
The third opinion did not address my total assessment either, and even went off into a totally unrelated topic despite what was asked of them and did not help the consensus. I will say this, I am offended by your conduct, this has been a lesson in experienced editors not paying due respect to the opinion of another editor and not discussing their logic, but off-handedly dismissing them without a basis and making bad faith based accusations about their edits. I will remember this as an example of how not to use policy and address the logic of another editor's argument regardless of how it is constructed. Revrant (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many refs now on the World Record

I think the book and the online links to Guinness should both stay, though the online version's poor construction is problematic... they might fix it and hopefully it will update.

I suggest keeping the other 2, but only weakly, they have dated information which the others lack. It would be nice to unearth one from the original announcement, if only in preparation for the day when we will be adding the "held the Guinness record from xxxxyear to yyyyyear, when it was surpassed by zzzzz" or whatever. - Sinneed (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Subscribers

The number 11,5 million was from late 2008, almost a year ago. It has since significantly droped, with the banning of Wow in China and the release of Aion, it only has c. 7 million left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. New items at the bottom, please. That would be wp:OR on at least 4 counts. It certainly should be down from the Lich King release time frame. It will be interesting to see the next set of numbers.- Sinneed 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WoW is still not banned in China. Check here. Crowday (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=19110291048&pageNo=1#0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_of_Warcraft&oldid=317247586"