This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The content of WOPR was merged into WarGames. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.
An interesting panel on Youtube made two points about this movie's influence. One, that NORAD remodelled its command center after the movie came out to more closely resemble what was seen in the movie, and two, that Ronald Reagan quoted the line "the only winning move is not to play" in one of his speeches. Can't find any published references to it though. Serendipodous 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting certainly. There might be published references to it out there, somewhere. From the page you linked:
On Friday, May 30th Craig Silverstein hosted a panel and an exclusive screening at Google of the 1983 suspense film, WarGames, in honor of the 25th Anniversary DVD. The panelists included Walter Parkes (Academy Award Nominated Writer, Producer), Lawrence Lasker, (Academy Award Nominated Writer, Producer) and Peter Schwartz (Cofounder and Chairman, Global Business Network). The panelists gave Googlers a behind the scenes peek into the making of this film and its resulting legacy.
The video is uploaded by Google, on their official channel; copyvio wouldn't apply if linking to it. It should be possible to use it to develop the article in some way. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Found a source referring to it already in the article, in the Development section. Wiredarticle. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge. Per WP: MERGE, this discussion should have been closed way back on October 17, 2012, at which point support for the merge was unanimous. For some reason none of the three editors who had then voted for the merge, not even the original nominator, did so, and since then opinions on the issue have become mixed. However, the only editor to provide an "Oppose" rationale was Jimerb; his reasons were countered by McGeddon, and no counterargument to McGeddon's reasoning has since been provided. Also, sourcing for the article has not improved in the ten months since the nomination, so the case for merging remains valid.NukeofEarl (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Right now, there is a seperate article for WOPR, which seems rather unecessary. The computer does not really have any notability outside of the film (or any real reliable sources to demonstrate that it does), and the majority of the article is either just plot information that is already covered here, or unsourced and unnotable trivia, making it a pretty pointless split from the film's article. Pretty much the only information there that is actually useful, sourced information is the section on the creation of the prop itself, which can be merged nicely into the Development section of this article. So, I am proposing that information be merged to the main WarGames article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Support. Reasons for merging are self-evident. Ylee (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. IMHO WOPR was an icon of the 80s for movie enthusiasts like me. MauriceCarbonaro 12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. I agree a separate article is not necessary for WOPR. Charger2 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. WOPR has a life outside of Wargames making appearances in commericals and TV shows as outlined in the article. This is similar to the DeLorean time machine from the movie Back to the Future which has correctly earned a separate article. People who see no reason to keep it separate should provide additional rationale as they should vet/oppose the stated reasons why it should be kept split. They are not self evident. Jimerb (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Jimerb reasons + article size. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 02:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Sirex98 and Jimerb. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. The WOPR has nowhere near the depth of the DeLorean time machine article; at best it's a sentence about the name "WOPR", one paragraph about the computer's role in the film, one paragraph about how it was designed, and one paragraph about how it's appeared in pop culture since. The WOPR "Prop" section would add a lot to this article's "Development", and the pop culture list of WOPR appearances could be trimmed down to "WOPR appeared in an AT&T commercial and some very minor parodies" and merged into "Influence" (providing a more accurate view of the film's cultural legacy, which is currently only lists tech jargon). Adding two paragraphs and a sentence about the name doesn't seem like a significant "article size" concern. --McGeddon (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment finding more sources would help - in particular indi secondary sources Widefox; talk 17:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Incredulity and personal commentary aside, can you explain what you think this film or its broader Cold War themes have to do with a 1983 recession in the videogame industry? --McGeddon (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The article currently states "The movie was notable for coining the term firewall in reference to computer network security." with the  remark. In the movie the dialogue is at about 1 hour and 39 minutes in: "Can we invade the deep logic?" - McKittrick, "We keep hitting a damn firewall" - Richter. An online transcript can be found, but it is not wholly accurate.
I tried to do a quick search for other claims to the term firewall in relation to computers in general, and most claim "90's" or "late 80's" (in reference to the 20th century). While Wikipedia itself cannot be considered a source, the article on [Firewall (Computing)] states "The first paper published on firewall technology was in 1988", the paper referenced claims "Firewalls have existed since about 1987, and several surveys and histories have already been written.".
While I doubt the writers coined the term, the movie (1983) certainly predates those claims by a healthy margin, and an earlier claim is proving elusive. Perhaps the paper referred to as the first written on firewalls, by Dodong Sean James and Elohra (no title mentioned), could shed some light on it, but I can't find this paper. Kmqz (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)