Talk:Classes in World of Warcraft

The reason for this article

Being bold I chose to merge the articles, since each article was littered with guide information and some where just to small. Havok (T/C/c) 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I don't see the point of having nine articles on something that can be condensed into one article. Specially when most editors scream about everything being gamecruft. I do understand your concerns, but I think it's better to split up the articles, once each one of them grow beyond the main article, they can be moved to their own article. But articles like the Shaman one are just to small in my opinion. Havok (T/C/c) 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not FAQ or Guide. Such information should be taken to strategy wikis, or somewhere. This article should outline what is special about each class in WoW in a few paragraphs or so, and possibly a few paragraphs on lore, and if there is any notable aspects from outside the game (such as in the paladin section) that should most certainly be listed. I think the warlock section is a bit detailed, the paladin section looks pretty good, and the rest could be improved on. Also, what Havok said. (got to it before me :P) Altair 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Chiguayante. The way it was laid out before was not perfect but it was detailed. What you've done is removed a ton of hard, detailed work. This reeks of arrogance. Articles like the lock and druid were much more detailed in the original. While I know my opinions won't change what you've done and I'm not malicious enough to destroy it myself but I will be voting with my feet. You've made these entries worthless to non-noobs. Thanks. A concerned user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.156.77.12 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the articles are here to enlighten people who know nothing about the subject, not people who play the game religiously, these people know of WoWWiki.com and wouldn't actually use Wikipedia for any information regarding World of Warcraft. I also disagree with your entire stance on the discussion; Yes I have removed a lot of information, but I have also improved the article by doing so, more does not equal better. Havok (T/C/c) 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I approve of the merge. It makes finding and comparing information about the various classes easier, and it makes it harder to delve into cruftland. ~MDD4696 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but are you going to delete all the images on the page? After all, by making them all one article, that violates the "one fair-use picture per article" thing, doesn't it? :) BTW, I would suggest that we add strengths/weaknesses back to each class description with a mind toward making sure it's written as relative to each other. RobertM525 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to have more images if they are there to comment on the information, and not as a decorative thing. These images show how each class might look, which does not break the rules. If someone finds that they are an removes all the images, I'll only cut and paste all the classes together into one image. Havok (T/C/c) 08:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that or people who no tact come in and add useless stupid info to the articles making them more like a gameguide than an encyclopedia article. Or none-too-subtle complaining in the article ("the rogue is totally beaten by everyone in PvP because of kiting"). It's irritating. RobertM525 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying something there, RobertM525? Hyde v 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can understand people's opinions being injected may have become "irritating" but I strongly dislike the deletion of so much information and effort and feel it was not necessary in the least. The definition of an encyclopedia is a reference work containing articles on various topics dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty. The articles that were DELETED supplied people with information about the classes. Personally, I didn't see that much that looked like a game guide, and when it did people simply deleted the parts where that occurred. It's ashame that someone thought they were above other people's efforts and work to just edit only what THEY think should have been included. Please remember you are not the only reader or contributer or editor here.12.110.169.214 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at what Wikipedia is not, here it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". And just for the record, non of the articles where deleted, all the information was keept in this article. The whole point was to condense the nine articles into one. There is absolutly no point in having one article per. class when all of it can be keept in one article. The only information that was removed, was things that actually go against the policy of Wikipedia, instead of arguing about the removal of policy breaking information, start adding information to help this article become better. Havok (T/C/c) 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What did you do with all the pictures? 12.110.169.214 15:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for more then one picture; one picture to outline what they are and nothing more. Not one for each class set, or anything like that. Havok (T/C/c) 21:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would appear you got so delete-happy that you removed the main hunter picture that USED to be on the page before you changed it. 12.110.169.165 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To me the idea of merging the topics seems completely pointless. There were, on the bottom of *every* class page, a cross table that had links to every other Playable Race (Both now and in the furture) and class. Accessability to the information was a no-brainer. Additionally, your claims of not having removed any information is false: I know for a fact that there was far more on the Warrior class alone. How do I know> Because I personally had spent hours touching up the article so that it did not convey the information in a personalized way. And then you merge every single class into one article. Completely, in my opinion, pointless and I pray that someone with more experience than me will fix your horrendous error.

Does anyone else here feel that the Class abilities are goofing up the formatting and really unecessary? I guess I'll take a tip from Havok and be BOLD and take them out, if anyone really wants them back, let's discuss and we can always reinstate them. Chiguayante 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They where put up for deletion when they where in their own ariticle. Consensus said to merge them with this article. Havok (T/C/c) 06:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mages

Why is there so much talk about Mana, Intellect, Spirit and the connections between them in the mage section? This is nothing special about the mage class, like conjuring water and AOE, it is inheritant to every class with a mana bar. Best would be to remove it I think and let the concept of mana be explained on the warcraft main entry or something. Also the mage entry here says "A Mage is a welcome addition to any party." - something not said anywhere else, this seems clearly subjective. Why doesn't it say "A Priest is a welcome addition to any party." which would be just as appropriate as saying it about mages. Aetherfukz 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI a mage IS a welcomed addition to ANY party and mostly needed in every high end instance, often being more difficult without them. A Priest is a welcomed addition yes, but can easily be replaced with a Druid or a Paladin - or both (or shaman) where as you cannot really replace a mage unless you have a warlock and if you've played WoW you know that Warlocks trying to replace mages doesn't quite work as well. No other class can summon Water, make ports, buff intellect (excluding MoTW), crowd control AND do DPS. They are one of the most requested classes (how many times have you see "LFM Need Mage"). Healers and tanks are also very high in demand but aside from 40 and 20 man instances they can have druids, paladins/shamans substitute. Maybe this will help explain that comment a bit more.

I've never felt I needed a mage for any 5 or 10 man instance, and I've done all of them without both mage and warlock, I don't see why mages would be more welcome than any other dps class, at least they are not to me.

The answer is pretty simple to that. And mind you, the comment was that they are a "welcomed addition" not a necessary addition. However, they are needed more then other DPS classes for all the reasons I stated above: AOE (Scholo, ST, ZF & LBRS without AOE makes it more difficult and particularly strenuous on the healer), Crowd Control (Sheeps in BRS, Lstrat, BRD, etc. make your life much easier), conjuring drinks benefits the healer very much (if you've played a healer you love mages for this), and Arcane Intellect buff which is always nice. I've done pretty much all the instances without a mage when I played my warlock and I also did them all with a mage when I played my priest and I can tell you it's a ton easier when you have mage *especially* when it comes to AOE.

True, a mage offers much utility to a group. But you CAN do an instance without a mage, but you CANNOT do an instance without a healer. And that healer has to be a priest or a druid or a healing specced paladin/shaman. Druid has the problem that he can only rezz every half hour so he needs a pala/shaman for the rezzing business should more than one group member die. That said, I can live with the "is a welcome addition to any party" comment, but all the stuff about mana, intellect and regeneration should go into a more general comment about game mechanics, and not be detailed here only in the mage section. Aetherfukz 12:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the mana, spirit, etc. Spirit isn't even that big for mages as they have other ways to regenerate mana and focus more on Int, Stam, +Spell dmg, etc. with spirit being one of their lowest priorities. Not to mention you are right, it's the same for every mana user for the most part!

Most anything a mage can do, other classes can do as well. A priest can be replaced by a paladin or druid, but is really the best class to have healing. As has been mentioned druids have a long cooldown on rez, and paladins must be holy spec to be able to heal well. I don't find summoning water to be much of a big deal, as you can always carry some from the vendors, or get blessing of wisdom/mana totems. Of course, no other class can make ports, but Warlocks can summon. Intellect buff isn't all that great, but can be a help. Almost every class has some form of CC. Priests - shackle, scream. Hunters - pets, traps. Warlocks - banish, fear. Etc. Mages primary use is burst damage. Warlocks, hunters, and rogues all do damage in different ways, but all of them function as damage dealers alongside mages. Other classes have AOE as well. But either way, that really has nothing to do with the article, I just like arguing. I will try to clean up the mage section a bit ^^ Altair 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shackle only works on Undead, Scream (lol) isn't an option in instances as it brings other mobs, Pets are not dependent form of CC, traps break early/don't last too long/can only be set OOC (unless Feigned which has a CD), Druid Sleep can only be used on animals, Banish can only be used on Elementals/demons, Fear -yet again- not an option in instances as it's too risky (please don't be stupid and use this in a dungeon! hehe), and seduce can only be used on Humanoids. Mages however, can sheep whenever as long as there is no dot and they can do it to any humanoid or animal making them much more prefered choice for CC.

As far as AOE - I have a 60 Druid, Warlock, Priest and a 56 Hunter. Druid's AOE has a CD, Warlock's AOE (the powerful one) kills them as well putting much strain on the healer and in comparison to mages it is much weaker. Hunter's aoe is a joke especially considering it has to be done at range. Mages are basically... a welcomed addition to any party.15:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We could argue about that until eternity. Either way, all classes are a welcome addition to any party, as they each have their strong and weak points. This has been reflected by adding a few words to the statement. Altair 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... except Rogues :P 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Mages are a welcome addition to any party" comment was mine. Providing free water and food and a buff anyone can use is the reason I said that. The Mage is a very useful class. However, if people think it needs to be removed, go ahead. I am not going to get into the stat argument. It is difficult enough adding content with all the "this does not belong here" critics running around. Hyde v 20:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Someone really cropped down the Mage entry, didn't they? Hyde v 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post below, and you will see why I did so. No information that makes the article read like a guide can be used. If you havn't yet, please read and understand the Wikipedia policy before you continue to edit the article. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "master." (sarc) Hyde v 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the Mage section to include some major points that were deleted. They do not tell a player how to play and is not different then the content that was left there so Havok should have no reason to go in there and screw with it. Mages being DPS, AOE, and CCers needed to be added as that's what makes the class more so then conjuring water lol.

Merge Hero class to Classes in World of Warcraft

The article Hero class was deleted in a recent AfD located here.

Nobody knows what Hero class is, not even Blizzard. I like to suggest a temporary move of Hero class into this article as there really isn't any other article it could be merged into. A seperate article can be created once Blizzard releases any information about it. Havok (T/C/c) 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Do you know anything about World of Warcraft? Before you go crazy again, the Hero class has been put on hold for the time being since they are raising the level cap to 70 for Burning Crusade Expansion. The "Hero Class" idea has nothing to do with the class choices whatsoever and if you want to start deleting and merging things again that would be the wrong spot to put it. Somewhere about leveling or the main World of Warcraft page would be better suited. 12.110.169.165 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I know a great deal about World of Warcraft. If you cared to even read my initial comment, it says that I want to move it because: 1. It's a silly little stub which absolutly adds nothing to Wikipedia. 2. The whole concept of Hero class is sketchy at best, even mr. Dabiri has no idea what this "system" will end up being. 3. From the two choices I had; One being to delete the Hero class article, and two, to move it to this location. I chose to merge it with this location as there really isn't any other article which could benefit from this information. Havok (T/C/c) 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I see no reason to add the Hero class stub to this article. The Hero classes do not exist yet. Delete the article on it instead and when and if the Hero classes are ever released or announced, another topic can be added. Hyde v 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, deleting is not an option because it does exsist. In what form, well, that's the problem. Also, when Blizzard first started talking about them, they said they would be an "upgrade" to the classes allready in the game. So, placing the article under this one is not wrong, and yes, it actually does belong under this article. Havok (T/C/c) 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you want an addition that says "Hero classes are an upgrade to existing classes but have yet to be implemented"? There is zero information available on the Hero classes, not even rumors. But you still want to add it? Go ahead. It seems like useless clutter to me. In fact Havok, it is quite clear that you are going to do whatever you want to do just because you can. So why bother telling people or even asking our opinions? Hyde v 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a bit of information on Hero classes. There are even rumors that state that each race may choose from one or two different hero classes per class, and also what some abilities may be. As the information somewhat fits with this article on WoW classes, I propose it be merged rather than deleted. Later, if it is necesary, it can be put back into its own article, or deleted if Blizzard decides not to implement them (as some speculation concludes). Altair 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Hyde v assume good faith. If I was to do whatever I wanted, I would have done it allready. I'm an inclusionist, hence I don't want the article deleted. But, I do see problems with it. It is currently a stub, and can't be taken out of that status until more information is released on the Hero class, which most likely won't happen in a while. So, as Altair said, merging the article with this one will fix the problem. It can always at any time be moved to it's own article again at a later date. Havok (T/C/c) 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I do not assume anything, Havoc. That leads to misunderstandings and arguments. The bulk of my issue is that without discussion or prior warning, you took it upon yourself to merge everything (I will let the Hero classes addition go because you said below that you would not merge it.) In fact, I do not have an issue with the merging itself; the method that you used to do so (no warning, no prior discussion) bothers me. I once spent a considerable amount of time editing the region descriptions for both continents of Azeroth. Without a warning, advice, etc, a moderator swooped in and deleted all the information I had put in reducing it to a few sentences per region. If this had been discussed, I probably would have been able to condense it down (if they felt it was too long.) But no. If you are going to be bold, then prepare to face the consequences for doing so. And I am not being personal. I once again repeat my request to make policy that before undertaking such sweeping changes that a warning be posted and discussion opened BEFORE making said changes. Hyde v 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for eveyrone, everyone is equal. I merged them without discussing it because I don't really have to discuss it. You edit with your agenda in mind, I edit with mine. Disagreements are bound to happen regardles of what is done. The person who removed your edits might have thought exactly the same as you did with my edit, that you added something that you should have discussed adding before doing it. You might not agree, and you don't have to, but when push comes to shove, I didn't do anything wrong, I didn't break any policy and I didn't break anything on Wikipedia. If you feel I did, that is your prerogative. Deleting information that an editor feels goes against the policy of Wikipedia, is not vandalism, and is not wrong. If you add something that reads like a game guide, it will be removed. And can you seriously give me one good reason why these classes should have their own article, what does separate articles give that this one can't? Havok (T/C/c) 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you are a moderator and I am not. That fact alone makes you not equal to your average user. As I have said, I approve of the merger, just not the method you used to create it. Were I in your place, yes, I WOULD have brought it up for discussion. That would prevent the sort of negative feedback that has accumulated here after the fact. As for the editing done in the articles I referenced above, the entries contained outright errors and little or no information on the regions. My point in mentioning that moderator's edits was not to debate the edits themselves (which is another topic all together) but the measures the moderators are taking to make such edits. Moderators SHOULD be held to a different set of standards simply because they are moderators. There would be quite the difference if I personally had made the mergers here then if you had done them bold or not. Are you telling me that this is not the case? In reading your response to me, it is as if you are not reading what I am saying to you. My responses do not mention "vandalism" or adding information that reads like a game guide. I am not saying you broke any policies. What I am saying is that there should be a policy about a moderator making such large changes without bringing it up for discussion first. Hyde v 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not a "moderator" or administrator here on Wikipedia. I'm an editor, like you, I have registered and I'm editing articles. I have no special powers, everything I do, you can do yourself. And please remember, Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Havok (T/C/c) 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, this discussion is null and void. Hyde v 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Havok, you did do whatever you wanted when you decided to merge all the classes before. You are too thick headed to even understand what people say to you since you have already made up your mind. You create a Discuss page so people may disagree however you have full intentions on merging it regardless. HERO CLASS DOES NOT EXIST. Hero class was INDEED a future plan briefly talked about by the devs which have since instead RAISED THE LEVEL CAP TO 70. Hero Class idea has been deleted from On The Horizon page on worldofwarcraft.com and they have more or less dropped the idea. As someone clearly stated, Hero class is not specifically linked to WoW so maybe include a general info and links to game which use it.

I guess this is useless though since you will just say "No, it belongs here." regardless of what others say.

Please read and understand Wikipedia's Civility policy, there is no need for personal attacks. And please don't take my merging of the classes as anything personal, I did it for the good of the articles. Seeing as Wikipedia isn't and never will be an indiscriminate collection of information, merging them was done to save it from fancruft and people making guides of the article. If you want to work on information on how to play the game and such, please go to WoWWiki and do so there. To settle this the easy way, I will AfD the Hero class article, as you have convinced me that it dosn't belong on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I play WoW nearly everyday as well as check the forums to stay in touch with the community. There has not been any info on Hero classes for quite some time.

This is indeed very little information (and its accuracy is incredibly questionable) about any hero classes for WoW. Honestly, there seems absolutely NO sense to have a completely seperate page about hero classes for WoW that consists of a total of FOUR sentences. If this needs to be included, it should be mentioned very briefly at the bottom of this page. Should more information come out, it still wouldn't make sense for this to have its own page. The information is too closely tied to the general Warcraft classes. If this was the WoWWiki then sure, it could have a unique page, just like rogues and warlocks, etc. But in this case, the Hero class page should be deleted, or (like I said on the talk poage for it, a page on hero classes in general which is not a concept unique to WoW. -Krawnight 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, Hero Classes should not be included in the WoW pages ANYWHERE until there is more info. Chiguayante 00:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Game guide content

As I have stated before, this article needs to be cleaned up. For example mentioning the increase of armor in % on bear form is not needed. Havok (T/C/c) 11:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up Hunter, Mage and Druid. Please, do NOT add information that tells the reader how to play the game, how the game can easier be played, and/or things like how much armor a user gets from X and what goes best with Y etc. Wikipedia is NOT and NEVER will be a game guide, if you want to work on stuff like this, please use WoWWiki. Havok (T/C/c) 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

omg. WHY is the Hunter section completely removed now? Isn't there somewhere else on Wikipedia you can ruin besides this area??

Wikipedia is not supposed to tell people who don't play WoW how to play WoW, nor give every detail about the game to replace actually playing it. If people want to see more depth on anything WoW-related, not only are there untold number of WoW sites on the Internet, but there's also WoWWiki. The Wikipedia articles about WoW should explain things about the game to people who have never played the game (and might not ever) in a way that makes sense to them and gives them a feel for what is being talked about. This will leave a lot of things missing, yes. For example: retribution-spec paladins use Seal/Judgement of Command for a lot of our damage. Relevant to Wikipedia? Nope. Simply stating that the Retribution tree enhances a paladin's ability to do damage is plenty. The "what" is considerably more relevant than the "how." And that's kind of how all the WoW-related Wikipedia articles should be. If you want to put a lot of effort into WoW-related wiki stuff, I heartily recommend WoWWiki. RobertM525 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Warrior Picture

Does anyone have a Warrior picture of one of the races in Might or Wrath? I've hardly seen anyone in that Dreadnaught armor and Wrath/Might is much more common and easier to obtain. Not to mention all the other pics are of classes in their Tier one with the exception of the Warrior.

This would be fluff and would not be needed. The pictures are there to show what a warrior "might" look like. So there is no need to change the images allready there. Havok (T/C/c) 12:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page isn't just directed at you. It would be nicer to have all the classes in their Tier One since that's how the current trend is. If anyone has a Warrior pic of them in Wrath please post it :)

I gave my answer to your question. I disagree with you, and I think the T3 image should stay. Havok (T/C/c) 08:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually my question is "Does anyone have a Warrior picture of one of the races in Might or Wrath?" which isn't something to disagree with. It's like someone asking if you have chicken or turkey because they don't want pork and you saying "I disagree." I didn't ask what's better I asked if it was available :P

I put up a picture of T3 because the old Warrior article had a picture of an Undead warrior in T1 already, and since I didn't want to delete it, I switched the UD-warrior to a secondary picture and put a picture of a human warrior (wearing T3) up as the main picture. Why T3 instead of T2? Becuase Wrath looks hideous. I'd be fine with replacing the T3 pic with a T1 pic (though T3 is more imposing), but I think keeping it as a human warrior is a good idea--it's the most commonly played race for that class. (Well, according to the WoW census sites; which, admittedly, aren't 100% accurate.) RobertM525 07:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I love Wrath, the spikey shoulders looks awesome. Might is the one that I think looks kinda ridiculous with the Rhino helm and Razorblade shoulderpads. I remember that Undead picture with the Thunderfury, it looked really nice and clear. I don't care what race it is as that doesn't make much of a difference imo. As long as we get some variety in the races (ex. not make them all just Alliance) which is another reason that Undead might be good? We don't have many Horde pics...

Wait. That pic is of Warrior Tier 3? I thought that was the AQ armor set? o_o

Useless

I just wanted to note the uselessness of this article. If you truly believe you can give people who want to know about World of Warcraft classes all the information they need with just one article for all the classes, prove it. Before I dared to waste $50.00 I used Wikipedia to learn about the game when all the classes had comprehensive guides. That said, the information is not lost. Simply use the path names of the original article to find it then check on previous versions, they can be restored but I do not wish to fight over wikipedia articles at the moment.