Jump to content

Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

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While I agree that this is no longer needed, I think just removing the out-of-date information would be better.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • "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)
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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
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)
"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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

(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)

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)
  • *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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)
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)
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)
I agree. - Sinneed (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
"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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

(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)

  • 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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
Actually, WoW is still not banned in China. Check here. Crowday (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That's the main reason why we require sources. -- Atama頭 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I also see that Mafia Wars has more than 24.5 million monthly active accounts so it's more than twice the size of WoW. // Liftarn (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you consider Mafia Wars to be an MMORPG? Certainly its own article says nothing of the sort. --Stormie (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that I'm wondering where you "see" that the game has so many subscribers, the article says it only has 5 million. -- Atama頭 03:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] shows 18.7 million just on Facebook. The lede of Mafia Wars seems problematic, the "more than 5 million users" it mentions is nowhere to be found in the referenced reference. --Stormie (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
One need not subscribe... one need only click "OK" when prompted. These are not subscribers. They aren't even USERS. They *certainly* are not "monthly subscribers"- Sinneed 04:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree 100%. They're not subscribers and Mafia Wars is not an MMORPG. --Stormie (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Monthly users would probably be more correct sine they don't pay to use Mafia Wars. As for being a MMORPG it certainly is that even if it's not in real time and browser based. It's massivley multiplayer, it's online and it's an RPG. // Liftarn (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source which describes Mafia Wars as an MMORPG, it does not meet any definition of the term in common currency. --Stormie (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
A quick googlestest[2] gives 40,600 hits. // Liftarn (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I repeat: Please provide a reliable source which describes Mafia Wars as an MMORPG. --Stormie (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Liftarn "monthly" - is not applicable at all. One clicks OK, and one is a user. One need never play at all. And *NONE* of it matters, this article is about "WoW". Mafia Wars is not WoW, and does not belong here. - Sinneed 12:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That is why only active users are counted. Mafia Wars is just an example that WoW is not the largest MMORPG even if many sources claim that. Farmville is even larger, but I think that dont qualify as an RPG (even if it's rpg-style[3]). We have RS that compare Mafia Wars with WoW[4] // Liftarn (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"That is why only active users are counted." - Source? - Sinneed 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For example, Liftarn: At one point, one could earn 50 coins in "Farm Town" game on Facebook by accepting "Mafia Wars" as an authorized application. At that point and from then on until the application is removed from that account, the account is part of the "active accounts". This is not a monthly account in any way, shape, form, or fashion. It has nothing to do with the well-clarified and sourced subscriptions discussed here.- Sinneed 12:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell inactive accounts are not counted.[5] It's true that there is no monthly fee, but I don't think that is a requirement for inclusion. // Liftarn (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"inclusion" - inclusion where? In the WoW article? No. If WoW switched to no-fee, the WoW article would remain about WoW. The content would change quite a bit. Please. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you have a proposed change?- Sinneed 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just pointing out that other MMORPGs have more subscribers/users/whatever. AS it is nw the article gives the impression that WoW is the largest MMORPG. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Insisting that Mafia Wars is an MMORPG is original research. Not only that, but anyone with any familiarity with what an MMORPG is, or who has played them, would consider calling a game like that an MMORPG to be ludicrous. It's like calling Microsoft Excel a video game because you think that it's a fun application to use and has a high score at the end (after all the cells are added up). -- Atama頭 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a high fantasy game, but it's a MMORPG. AS for Excel there is (was?) actually a game hidden in it as an easter egg. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinions, and I have no problem if you want to believe that it's an MMORPG. But if you attempt to insert original research into this or any other article because of those opinions, you're going to find your edits reverted because you're doing so in defiance of policy. You might wish to pursue dispute resolution but I assure you that without any reliable sources backing up your claims you're wasting your time. -- Atama頭 22:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Following the ban of WoW in China, should the number of active subscribers be changed? Does anyone have accurate(ish) figures on the numbers of Subs that were in china? [6] Zcomuto (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern about "game addiction"

I have considered carefully, and I must object strongly to the complete removal of the Video game addiction content and see-also information. While I, personally, believe the article should be retitled video game overuse or similar, the risks of game overuse, like those of compulsive gambling and other so-called psychological addictions are real. I think that their removal entirely is based on specious argument. WoW is clearly a video game. The widespread public, professional, and governmental concern over video game abuse or addiction is real, and certainly applies to WoW as well. I believe that at the very least, the "See also" for Internet addiction and Video game addiction should be restored, as citations at both specifically mention WoW... not as "the only" but simply as "one".--- Sinneed 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My argument parallels one I would use about alcohol. If a brand of booze had an article, and editors attempted to keep all mention of alcohol abuse out of the article simply because THAT BRAND of alcoholic beverage was not mentioned, that would clearly be a specious argument. The alcohol in the bottle is still there, no matter what name is on the label.--- Sinneed 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WoW is a video game. The risks of video gaming should not have been removed, and should be restored.- Sinneed 17:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Another parallel argument. If there were an article about a brand of explosive, and editors attempted to keep any mention of the dangers of explosives out of the article, because THAT brand was only mentioned in passing, not as being more dangerous than others, that argument would clearly be specious.- Sinneed 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that every video game have a See also link to Video game addiction? Is that really helpful? Or are you saying that WoW should have the link because it is mentioned on the page (where it is also stated that it was an unfounded claim)? In all honesty, it would be like putting Gerbil or Bestiality in the "See also" section of Richard Gere. I'm not trying to protect WoW, I haven't played the game in well over a year and don't really care for it. What I care about is having a neutral article free of activism and original research. -- Atama頭 17:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I to disagree with it's removal, I personally dislike the idea that "WoW=addiction" that everyone discusses but still feel since WoW is the example always given it should be left in as a see also link. Just my 2 cents. Webbg12365 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Think this through. What is the purpose of having it in "See also". To click on the link, then see that someone claims that WoW has a high addiction rate but without anything backing up the claim? Is that necessary? The whole point of See also is to present internal links to related articles that don't naturally fit into the body of the article. The question is whether or not addiction is related, and absent a reliable source it's original research to state this. I suppose I wouldn't object if it is included with clarification as suggested by the guideline, something along the lines of:
  • Video game addiction - World of Warcraft is often mentioned in discussions of video game addiction although no study has shown any direct correlation.
That might help to acknowledge the connection without suggesting inaccurately that WoW has been shown to be a particularly addictive game. -- Atama頭 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Addiction is a serious condition that can happen with anything, as well as any game. It's unfair to try and shine a light on the "currently popular" game for addiction when many games before it (and after it) had, and will have, the same issues. Everquest, Phantasy Star Online, etc... all have reports of addiction because people with addictive personalities choose to play them. Games don't cause addiction. Gpia7r (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"although no study has shown any direct correlation" - can't agree. What we DON'T have a study to show is whether any particular game is more or less *cough*"addictive".- Sinneed 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can dig back through to when the article read "Game overuse" with some fairly generic expression of concern over the impact. If I can't find it (it didn't live long), I'll draft something up here on the talk page.- Sinneed 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Addiction is not something that can happen with anything. Addiction is very specific. The pop-culture abuse of the word "addiction" is indeed applied to most anything.- Sinneed 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying a person can become madly addicted to a potato, as "anything" is painting with a broad brush, I admit... but addiction isn't something you can just implant into a game. An addictive person/personality will latch onto whatever satisfies their addiction, be it MMORPG's (any of them), alcohol (any brand), or sex (with anyone). Addiction is specific in the genre, not the granular item itself. A Warcraft addict is just as likely to be addicted to the next big MMO, as he/she may have been to the last great MMO. Gpia7r (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Addicted to Spuds. Just saying... -- Atama頭 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hah, I chose that example randomly. Touche. Gpia7r (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. By the way, if it was found that there was a real study that showed that WoW had a high addiction rate, not only would I not object to its inclusion I would fight to include it. It would add a whole new dimension to this article. But it has to be real, not something based on a web site poll, and not some claim thrown about by some person trying to get their name in the news. -- Atama頭 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there is NO SUCH THING as "addiction" to computer gaming (yet, there may be in the 2012 diagnosis list, but it is not 2012), no such study can exist. But, again, no such study is needed. The problem of game abuse/overuse is very real, measurable, and WoW is (clearly) abused and overused by some.- Sinneed 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If this is a semantics issue, then is there a study showing a measured overuse of World of Warcraft that makes it any different than other video games? Personally, I think that it's possible, maybe probable. MMORPGs are subscription-based games and need to keep a player's interest to make money, while a game like BioShock has made all the profit it's going to make when you purchase the game (possibly before you've even played it). So the game doesn't have to keep your interest to be successful, it just has to be shiny and interesting enough to lure you in to a purchase. If you play it for 12 hours or 2 months they make the same money. MMORPGs need to keep you hooked, and WoW is the "most successful" (in terms of numbers) in that regard, so it makes logical sense that game overuse would come into play more strongly than in other games. However, all of that is speculation and absent any actual evidence that is all that it is. One might think that the absence of evidence could be evidence of absence; that if there was a problem someone should have been able to find it by now. That too is speculation though. Either way, being "abused by some" isn't noteworthy, and if game abuse is real and measurable, where are the real measurements about WoW abuse? -- Atama頭 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would there EVER be a study of abuse of a particular brand of booze or a particular brand of game? I find this argument specious. WoW is a video game. It is subject to, and widely noted for overuse and abuse. Both WoW and the abuse are certainly notable. Am I understanding that you will oppose any inclusion of gaming abuse/overuse/addiction that is not specific to WoW?- Sinneed 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We just went through a similar exercise at Proton therapy. An editor wanted to place huge content about the risks of proton therapy into the article. But these risks were not specific to proton therapy. They were common to all external beam radiotherapy types. Thus, the article needed at least a link there, so that the dangers would be covered in the encyclopedia article, but the massive bulk of content did not. Eventually, a compromise of a very brief section with a "main" reference to the appropriate risks seems to have stuck.- Sinneed 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course I would object to any inclusion of gaming abuse/overuse/addiction that is not specific to WoW. For the same reason I would object to any inclusion of information not actually about World of Warcraft. This article links to MMORPG, which actually discusses and links to video game addiction, which is the logical, common sense way to link to it. My question to you is, do you intend to link every single MMORPG article to the article, or just WoW? And if just WoW, why? What does WP:VG think about this idea? If we suddenly want to link every single MMORPG directly to video game addiction I'd expect that the Wikiproject would be interested. -- Atama頭 23:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is actually about World of Warcraft. It just isn't about World of Warcraft alone. What, besides a never-going-to-happen differential study among different brands of computer games to measure the amount of abuse per game, would convince you that this should be included? Again, please stop talking about addiction. There is no such thing in current medical practice. There is, however, much press coverage of the problem, and citing WoW as an example of one of the brands of game suffering from the abuse and overuse.- Sinneed 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not my fault that the article is called "video game addiction". Should I instead say "the article currently called video game addiction"? I didn't write the thing. Actually, I don't even care if we include information about "video game overuse/abuse/whatever you want" in this article if it's done correctly. A brief blurb that says that the game has been mentioned numerous times but that there is no evidence that it is more prone to abuse than any other online game would be fine. The problem with such a section in the past is that it attracts anti-WoW POV-pushers who insist that it's some kind of an evil, virtual drug and uses those brief mentions as evidence. If anything, information like that will show how incorrect that alarmist behavior is. Or, as I mentioned before, an addition to "See also" with information to provide context would be fine also. You do realize that linking to "video game addiction" in See also (again, I didn't name the article so don't complain to me) without context is overtly declaring that there's a particular problem with this game in that area? And so what if the study about WoW addiction is "never going to happen", does that somehow mean that WP:V can get thrown out the window? -- Atama頭 01:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about this for awhile, what about this as a compromise in See also?

  • Video game addiction - World of Warcraft is frequently mentioned as an example in discussions of video game overuse.

It mentions the bare fact that WoW is mentioned in those discussions, but only mentioned, and isn't the subject of those discussions. The readers can draw their own conclusions, or click on the link for more information. Would that work? -- Atama頭 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That'd work. You could also word it like this, as to explain why it's mentioned as an example:
  • Video game addiction - World of Warcraft is frequently mentioned as an example in discussions of video game overuse due to its popularity and it being well known in the public media.

That way it is clear that it is mention simply becasue it's popular and people recognize it instead of it being mentioned for something specific. Veritiel (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with you, but the explanation that its popularity leads to its inclusion in discussions would probably be considered original research, unfortunately, without a source to back it up. -- Atama頭 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
True. Then again, we do not really need a See Also section. If the point is (and it seems it is) to warn people about the risks in playing WoW (it being highly addictive), then a small section titled "Critisism" could be added where the whole Addiction issue can be explored or mentioned. Veritiel (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A rumor

  • There have been unconfirmed reports of a boy in the Western Suburbs of Chicago who played for 90 hours straight and fainted of exhaustion... I will find more information later Jcorry10 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bold Statement

Forgive me, but I think its borderline incorrect to say that 'World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG', sure it is in the western world. But what about elsewhere, there are other games, in Korea for instance (I can't recall the name at the moment) but does have a far larger user base.

However most free Korean MMOs don't have the same type of subscription model as WoW does, so...

I guess I'm contradicting myselfDarkNightWolf (T|C|M) 08:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up numerous times. In this case, the term "Subscribed" refers to paying customers. It doesn't necessarily mean WoW is the MMO with the most players. --King Öomie 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales Figures

Other retail games include sales figures in the article. How come this one doesn't? 58.111.65.194 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't matter...(edit to add) very much in an encyclopedia article.- Sinneed 03:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC) - Edit - - Sinneed 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sales figures are an important part of reviewing the success of a product and it's penetration into the marketplace compared with other games, even from other genres. If sales figures didn't matter, they wouldn't charge to purchase the game in the first place. Going on subscriptions, it would appear WoW is played by a lot less people than most successful non-mmo games, but it's hard to be certain without sales figures. 122.111.0.60 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Expanded response above. What is your proposed comparison? MMO vs stand-alone game sales contest? Sounds fun, but I fear it will be difficult to create an article... notability for such a competition would be hard to come by. I can't really imagine there is any doubt that far more one-time-use games are sold than MMOGs... if not, the console games would go out of business promptly.
But none of this would have anything particular to do with a subscription-based game like WoW. Idly, there have been and are sales numbers, but they tend to be interesting in this article mainly in the sense of "How fast did people snap up the expansion?".- Sinneed 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Many console games are played for one week and traded in or never played again, even so, their initial sales figures are included. According to this story[7], including the expansions as well as the original, the game has sold 8.6 million copies. Compared with Pokemon Gold & Silver which sold 15.2 million, or Super Mario Brothers which sold 40 million, these figures show WoW is far surpassed by games in other genres. If you consider the 8.6 includes expansion sales, the market penetration doesn't look as great compared to games like Halo 3 at 8.1 million people. I don't want the sales figures used in place of subscription numbers, I want them used in addition to. It doesn't need to be included in some kind of sub heading which comparisons done. Simply somewhere in the article stating the sales figure of the game(s) is fine. 122.111.0.60 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I am of course giving only one opinion, but I have not heard anything yet that causes me to think it will add value to this article, and as I mentioned, the specific sales figures editors felt were germane are in the article now. You will need to sway other editors to gather consensus to add sales numbers. At the moment, I oppose, but am listening. The 8.6 million number fails, BTW, as every subscription requires a sale, and many people have played and stopped, and at least 11.5 million were subscribed at one point.- Sinneed 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with sales figures I suppose. Subscriptions matter far more than retail sales for MMORPGs, because that's where the revenue comes from. As long as there's no apples vs oranges analysis going on (something like WoW sold 8.6 million copies compared to 40 million from Super Mario Bros). Even comparing it to other MMORPGs may not be the most useful; which MMORPGs would you choose to compare it to? As to where to put it. maybe in the infobox? -- Atama頭 02:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
imho, any reliably sourced figures we can get, either sales or subscription, should be added to the article. But I'm really not sure how to handle something like the above link, which is logically inconsistent with other information, as Sinneed points out. Maybe it was only talking about USA sales? That could be possible I suppose, I'm not sure if Blizzard have ever claimed more than 3 million (iirc) subscriptions in the USA. --Stormie (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's only talking about US sales. In fact, the article's title is "World Of Warcraft's U.S. Retail Sales Total 8.6 Million". I wonder if the figures for the other game sales figures that the second IP quoted were international sales? (I suspect they were.) -- Atama頭 23:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I obviously scrolled straight past the headling without taking it in, and focused on the paragraph in the middle. Score one for reading comprehension! Whoops! --Stormie (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Classes

Hello, I went ahead and added classes to the mix in section 2: Starting a game session. If you have an idea, feel free to post it and change it any which way. Thank you. IatachiRedlboomFur 14:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougeloverboy2 (talk • contribs)

The article used to have much more information about specific game features, such as classes and races, abilities, etc. However, this was removed as being unnecessary to the article because Wikipedia is not a game guide. Your recent edits were reverted (not by me, though I support the revert). Including too much information about gameplay could also be considered fancruft as well. There is another Wiki that supports such information, WoWWiki, which I highly recommend (it was a great resource when I played the game). -- Atama頭 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
To add to this - your addition was also not factual. For example, the Warrior is not the "most damage class" among the choices. There is a "Gameplay in World of Warcraft" page on Wikipedia, and elaboration of class mechanics may be a better fit there, as long as it is factual. Gpia7r (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, while risking a violation of WP:FORUM, I will say that no way a warrior could have done more DPS than my combat-specced rogue. :) -- Atama頭 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding revert of "shut down in China" edit.

Very well, I understand your point and have rephrased the addition to make it clear that the subscriber numbers have not dropped yet. However, I re-added the reference, and clarified that due to the fact the chinese authorities have ruled that no new subscriptions may be created, and existing ones may not be renewed, this is expected to result in a significant drop in subscriber numbers. This is fully supported by the reference, which provides qualitative data. When some quantitative data appears I will update the previous section again.

Also please in future could you amend edits, rather than simply undoing them? Whilst I acknowledge my mistake in editing the numerical data as the reference did not quite say what I typed, the majority of my information was correct and relevant when minorly rephrased. Sure its easier to undo, but the article is better with up to date information backed up with references. Thanks. --Taelus (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard is bold, revert, discuss. You make a bold edit, someone disagrees with you and reverts it, and it is discussed on the talk page for a consensus. Asking someone to not revert you when they disagree is not a reasonable request.
As to the text you added, I don't think it's productive to speculate on a drop of subscriber numbers, even when the speculation is sourced. If and when numbers drop we can add that information to the article. Also, this info isn't appropriate for inclusion in the lead, it is better placed in the Reception section. WP:LEAD states that what is in the lead should be a summary of information in the body of the article, and you shouldn't include info in the lead not present in the rest of the article.
The info is good, and sourced, and certainly notable enough to be in the article (and thanks for finding it!) but shouldn't have been added as it was. -- Atama頭 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me slightly, I am not complaining that I was reverted, more that all my additions were reverted when a part of them actually needed rephrasing. Correct me if I am wrong, but WP:BRD is for an entire edit which is questionable, not for removing a part of it with ease. As I said, whilst I agree with the removal of my edit to the quantitative data, making one mistake shouldn't result in simple revert of the entire addition. If this isn't in line with current policy then I apologise, but let's just agree to disagree. I am sure at the end of the day every editor has a slightly different view of how the best way to build the project is and all... If concensus is to move it to another section then please do so, don't just remove it completely because it had a minor issue which is amendable, or was "in the wrong place". --Taelus (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now moved the section to /Reception/ per your suggestions, which has allowed me to further clarify it and add an additional citation. Please do note though that it is current news and may develop further as more information becomes available, more specifically some quantitative data may become available when Activision Blizzard responds. --Taelus (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for that and again I think it's very important info to include in the article. Personally, I think that it's reasonable to assume that the subscriptions will drop, and it's possible that WoW will lose its top status, but we'll see what happens. -- Atama頭 18:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. 1st, this is new business that started on 19 September 2009, . This not loss of business from 2008. It is potential loss of hoped-for revenue projected in this year's earnings.
2nd, the shut down statement is headline... and ends in a question mark - Sinneed 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Still struggling with how to say this based on the sources. Please give it a look/edit... the current shut-down is the new business... the earnings impacts are if WoW is shut down... very different. I can't decide if it was just too complex to go over in the space they had or what.- Sinneed 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article states that all current subscribers will be unable to pay further payments, and no new registrations will be allowed to take place. This means none of the Chinese subscribers may continue to subscribe, thus Blizzard's subscription total will fall. Whilst yes this is a new firm, it replaced the old one, and thus carries all the subscribers of China with it. Unless this is changed, the only possibility is that the subscription number will fall. It is also implied that this is what is going to cause the projected damage to shares, along with the loss of future sales in China. I have however rephrased again to make it a bit more clear I hope. I also rephrased your additions slightly, as it appeared as if WoW had only been in China for 2 months. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if you multiply the 0.05 dollars by the number of shares issued, it is infact quite a big dent. Additionally, the Activision Blizzard shares dropped 4% on the day this was announced, although this has not been attributed to it yet as it is still current news. --Taelus (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"The article states that all current subscribers" - No. Please provide a quote. This is about an operator who began working on 19 September 2009. Thus, the "If..." language.
"I also rephrased your additions slightly, as it appeared as if WoW had only been in China for 2 months" - You did not rephrase, you deleted critical content. NetEase had been in operation for less than 2 months. The shutdown affects NetEase.- Sinneed 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be that if this is something that needs discussion, a subsection for China would be worthwhile, with an explanation of how subscriptions work there, how they were bought before 19 September 2009, how the NetEase block affects Blizzard, how it will affect Blizzard if it is expanded to cover all WoW use in China, how the periodic internet blocks annoy Chinese gamers, etc. I personally don't plan to add this, as I think sourcing it will be stunningly difficult. As in this case, the press does not generally cover China to the depth it would require... 1.3billion humans require a slightly complex governing process.- Sinneed 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
However it should be clarified that WoW has operated in China longer than this under different firms. Either way I will accept the current revision we have got to through our combined bold edits. Thanks for your help editing my submissions, I think I might just be a bit too sensitive for tough editing though... I can't help but feel a bit stung when I get hit with policy and have my edits called "flawed". All the best with future editing, thanks for helping me out sorting the section out. I apologise for any misunderstandings of policy. --Taelus (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating Available Features in the Core Game

I've updated the features available while playing the game in its original form (no expansions) - ie. guild banks. There is still a great deal more that must be brought up-to-date. Playable areas are mentioned as they appear on maps and dialogue within the original game with explicit mention if specific accessibility requires further expansions.
-K10wnsta (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The guild banks bit needs a reference. --Izno (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Done.
It appears a great deal of information in this article is out-of-date, poorly referenced, or unencyclopedic. I just perused a couple of the other WoW-related articles and it seems they all suffer the same shortcomings. Given that this article is one of the top 300 articles viewed on wikipedia, we should collaberate with a few other knowledgable editors to give it an overhaul. While I understand the desire to keep the information herein focused on the core game (vanilla-WoW), the problem is, that core game has seen sweeping changes to its most basic features with each expansion's release. A better way to approach this might be to treat in much the same way as the subject of Harry Potter is arranged and has evolved as new installments were appended. I really don't see any reason why this can't achieve GA status, although it will be no easy task in achieving that status either.
-K10wnsta (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Anything that would help the article is more than welcome. I've been working on this article for a couple of years now, though I haven't really done much recently with the article itself. At one time I was rewriting it heavily to try to meet GA status but didn't finish (I was using Morrowind, a FA video game article, as a template). Unfortunately I haven't played WoW for so long that I can't judge what is out-of-date in this article (I quit before WotLK was released). Fresh blood would be wonderful. -- Atama頭 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  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/Archive_15&oldid=1142783474"