Talk:World of Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
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
Stock post message.svg To-do: E·H·W·R
Updated 2010-02-01


  1. Achieve GA status
  2. To edit as necessary in order to improve the article,

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020[edit]

Meanwhile, there are "PVP-Server" which allow other players to have the "Player-versus-Player"-mod constantly on. But The Players are able since Patch 7.3.5 to turn the "PvP"-Mod on. Player-vs-Player means while new World of Warcraft patches, since 7.3.5, to play in selectablbe PvP and in non-PvP-Mod. AlexSfr (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talkcontribs) 02:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corrupted Blood plague incident" reference[edit]

I want there to be a reference/citation thing at the end of the sentence "The Corrupted Blood plague so closely resembled the outbreak of real-world epidemics that scientists are currently looking at the ways MMORPGs or other massively distributed systems can model human behavior during outbreaks.".

Grant Tavinor in his book The Art of Videogames talks about this extensively on pages 36-37 (wiley-blackwell 2009).

Adding this reference is not absolutely necessary. The section was already referenced in a reasonable manner because it cited BBC News.

But I think adding this particular reference would be a nice touch. It would just be very useful for someone who wants to read up more on this virtual epidemic, and I don't think BBC news really offers that opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaAlex115 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


The article states "Blizzard announced the change following an agreement with Facebook to allow Facebook to connect persons who choose to become friends to share their real identity". I have reread this sequence of words repeatedly but cannot parse it. What does it mean? Does the "face book" website create a blank profile for every Battle.NET user who begins to use the BattleTag feature to establish this new out-of-game connection (rather than the normal /friend Charname we are used to ingame)? For customers who have been using Battle.NET since Diablo was released (1997) and WoW since it was released (2004) and only far later was the login process modified to expect the customer's (publicly known) email address rather than their (private and secret) username - does the "face book" website retroactively extract the customer's email address and construct some kind of profile from it? Is there any way to prevent any information whatsoever from being leaked to the "face book" infrastructure from our unrelated Battle.NET activity? (I didn't even realise this was a problem until I returned to Classic having left WoW in Jan 2007, and heard mention today of an "authenticator" and read this article to find out what that is. So, my apologies if this was already discussed and answered years ago.) If someone knows what the actual interaction is between these two systems, please could they rewrite the sentence I quoted in order to make it clear to readers? Thankyou! (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Large rewrite - some content needs to be restored.[edit]

I like some of the addition, but I am very dubious of the removal. I am also dubious of the 12 million number, as I thought Blizz last count was 10, with others being speculation.

Adding detail of the years of launch for the expansions seems too much detail in the lead. In fact, I think the list of expansions in the lead would have been a better candidate for the editorial axe.

I believe it would have been more productive to make the edits in chunks, as I am dubious of retyping the cut parts, and reverting and working in the good bits may be best. I'll leave this for others for the moment and look at it tomorrow.

My tentative proposal is to revert, remove the expansion list, add a wikilink into this page to the expansion list section, maybe grab some of the updated text.Shajure (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Efficiency edit to navigate to expansions[edit]

On the right side, possibly inside the video game infobox, there could be great benefit to include links to all the expansions, somewhat similiar to the Age of Empires page (Release Timeline section) to help people quickly and efficiently navigate to subsequent pages. This solution would be more functional as well as aesthetic, as it can save space and horizontal paragraph listing (and searching) in the opening blurb, as mentioned above. For more detail, there's information in the Expansions section. I tried to adjust the title box, but realized it's standardized with no simple way for me to change it. Thanks! March 23 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarethedrummer (talkcontribs) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a table at World of Warcraft#Expansions already, which is where it belongs. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)