Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Addicted players citation

Hey, as far as the Citation on the deaths of addicted players, here ya go. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13128 It claims that 60 players in addition to that one have died of addiction related causes.

CD's

I just got the game yesterday and I used 5 CD's to install the game, and the article says it uses 4, am I missing something here? Eenu 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The articles mentions 4 CDs under the Collector's Edition section. If I'm not mistaken the Collectors Edition is no longer sold by Blizzard. Also, the need for an additional CD was probably created due to the many patches and updates since the original release. --Hetar 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Realms

Is the entry on realms needed? I mean, it has some useful information, but it looks incredibly out of place. Could someone reposition, or better merge it into the rest of the article? 24.91.212.80 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the realm section and added a little bit more info. Hopefully this is an improvement. --Hetar 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Development data

I couldn't find this in the article, but, when did WoW get announced (and/or how long has it been under development)?
--Shadowcode 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft was officially announced Sept. 2, 2001[1]. Production work likely began sometime before this date, however I doubt the original start date is available. --Hetar 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous Celebrities that play WoW

I know that Dave Chappelle and Robin Williams are among the famous people that play WoW. But I do not know if it is enough to warrant a list on this article but if anyone knows any more and thinks it is enough, maybe there should be a section on it? This would also provide as evidence that WoW could be considered mainstream and/or popular.

Vin Diesel also play WoW, apparently as a shaman. --Akaroo 02:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really "famous celeberties", but a number of technology entrepreneurs like Joi Ito and Ross Mayfield play WoW, and even formed their own special guilds (see "Is World of Warcraft the New Golf?" and "Where the Hell Have You Been?") Ltc 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

John Romero (One of the guys that made Doom)plays frequently. He's a nightelf, I think. I goruped with him once or twice. 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion pack Info

What is the sorce for this line: The other race that is coming out is the Naga which will be on horde. The Blood Elves are the new race for the horde and blizzad did not say what the other one would be.

That line is blatantly inaccurate, so I removed it. --Arabani 05:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

lol alliance=draeni

horde=bloodelf

lol that comment you are lol'ing at is six months old. —Stormie 10:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I've read the article and the structure is a mess. The only information that is actually about WoW is the first sentence at the top. And why is Sales information even before information about the game. If I'm looking for information about World of Warcraft, I don't care about sales info, and I don't care about how it deviates from the MMORPG formula, I care about the actual game itself, how does it play, what can I play, etc. Even the expansion pack is mentioned before the actual game.

I thought WP was geard torward gathering information so that people who have never heard about it got a better clue as to what it was about. All I get from this article is information about everything other then World of Warcraft. 193.160.164.1 14:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

though i agree the article isn't perfect you shouldn't expect a normal game review either, for that you can better find a gaming reviews site. this is an encyclopedia, so information about it differences with the mmorpg genre and it sales information makes lots of sense to include. Boneyard 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the structure section was a good place to put this. The Character Type section was abysmal, I re-wrote it entirely. Several other sections have terrible grammar, as well as a myriad of other problems that should be adressed. ApocalypseCow 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been re-writing and making changes to a couple of the sections. Hope no one has a problem with this. ApocalypseCow 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is too much for one man, this article needs to be cleaned up.

imho this article is several times longer than it needs to be. The whole "Characters" and "Items and Equipment" sections delve into way too much minutiae for an encyclopedia article. Only problem is, I hate to rip out content that people have put a lot of effort into, even if it will make for a better article. --Stormie 11:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that content could be moved to a new article -similar to the article video game (for example the gameplay section)-, for example the section about attributes could be shortened to:

 Attributes (main article wikilink to Attributes_in_World_of_Warcraft)
 Attributes are used by the game to calculate strengths and weaknesses for each character. They are as 
 follows: Strength (STR), Intellect (INT), Spirit (SPI), Agility (AGI), and Stamina (STA). These 
 attributes hold a key ...

Then the rest of that section could move to a new article Attributes_in_World_of_Warcraft, that article could mention all there is to know about attributes in detail without cluttering the main article. Felsir 08:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this new approach. I've come to this page numerous times, and never found the main to be cluttered. Now I suddenly find the page completely void of races, classes, stats, etc. I can understand having more in depth information on other pages, but now it seems like anything is hardly mentioned at all. Some people find pages like this interesting for information on WHAT WoW is, but others like myself also like to find the main page and easily see the HOW's and the WHO's that seem to be suddenly missing.

what happened now is bad and i guess vandalism. i added the character info back at it seems to be vandalized out. Boneyard 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the value of having races and classes there, but is the casual reader really going to want the (rather technical) attribute data on the main page? I don't think it's a problem right now, but if the page starts getting to cluttered, I think all these atribute specifications should be the first thing to be moved to a separate page. Vespers 04:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

More on Warden

Warden is also in other Blizzard games. In fact, it was in Warcraft III 1.18 first. The hacker "ZoiD" was the first to discover it when working on Warcraft III. The string "WardenClient.cpp" can be found in these files:

• World of Warcraft 1.6.1 and above: WoW.exe
• Diablo II 1.11a and above: D2Client.dll
• Starcraft 1.13a and above: Battle.snp
• Warcraft III 1.18 and above: Game.dll

Warden is named after Maiev Shadowsong. The string "Maiev.mod" is present in these 4 games. However, in all but Warcraft III it's weakly encrypted.

perhaps interesting, but more so for a seperate warden article, something that would help in any case with trimming down the size of this article. Boneyard 09:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to provide more information on Warden, please post. I would like to know more about it.

seperating expansion information

is it really wise to already put the few things we are told by blizzard about the expansion in this article, it will mean adding everywhere stuff about how limit information is known and that it will be a long time for it actually is in game. next to that people keep slipping in fake info on the expansion now.

wouldn't it be wise to make one section saying that an expansion is announced and that all info on it can be found on the world of warcraft burning legion expansion article? that way there is one place for all the expansion info and once it is released we could put the information stuff in the main article. Boneyard 09:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Story

What the story to this game, if there is one?

Pece Kocovski 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/story/ for heaps of info about the storyline! --Stormie 10:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like there really should be some summary of the situation presented. The game is all about fighting and many details of that are presented except for the motivation. The Alliance and Horde are loose federations that had been allied in struggle against the Scourge but now fight. -- M0llusk 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

New Alliance Race

I heard a rumor that Dryads were going to be the new alliance race, any (dis)confirmation on this? 209.69.41.129 22:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, there is no official information from Blizzard regarding what the new Alliance race will be. Anything you might hear/read about what the new Alliance race, regardless of your source, should be treated with extreme skepticism. Essentially, stuff you might hear between now and Blizzard's announcement is wishful thinking. --Arabani 07:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Atm the best guesses are either the Draeni or the Pandaren since the Worgen don't have much available backstory. And Drayds? They are part of the Night Elf faction. Perhaps I have delved too deeply into the lore though, Derktar 01:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

It's wisps. Happy April Fools Day. Mr. Quertee 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, the guys over at the WowWiki already put them under "new races". If anything, the racial abilities were a dead giveaway. After using one of them your character will die. Permanently. Arcanum7

Sys Req: HD space

Blizzard has one number which was 4GB and may now be 5GB. In my experience, I needed 7GB to do the install. It's a big freakin' deal to redo a 2 hour install because you didn't know that you needed to create 3GB more space than specified. TomCerul 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that you may have needed 7GB to install WoW, I believe the generally-accepted practice is to use the manufacturer's specifications, rather than user anecdotes to determine system requirements. According to Blizzard, the hard drive space required is 5+ GB. Seeing as how my own installation takes up about 5 GB of space, including the patch files, I think that's about right. I'm therefore going to be reverting your edit. --Arabani 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your arguement is that you disagree with me? wtf. I also appreciate the invitation to start a discussion about it AFTER I did. How many hundred gig do you have free on you HD? Try installing with 5 gig free. I dare ya. The installer may clean up after itself bringing the total back down to 5. My phrasing of "Manufacturer recommends X but " is not outside generally-accepted practice. Anecdotes are the basis for Experience. Freakin' pointless arguement over my efforts to save some other poor mook from wasting 2 hours based on bad info... TomCerul 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That was not my argument at all. I was stating that the OFFICIAL system requirement is 5+ GB of hard drive space. In addition, your wording wasn't "Manufacturer recommends X but ". You had put "7+ GB" as the requirement, which, according to Blizzard is not correct. --Arabani 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote: "5 GB or more of available hard drive space. With updates, 7GB is more realistic." The official spec [2] that you quote is now 6GB (creep, creep, creep). I think my box says 4 but it's a couple miles away ATM. Sorry about the tone of my last message. TomCerul 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly interesting. I wonder if it could be because of patches (adding in new content)? Well, regardless, I guess that means the number in the article should be changed to 6 now. :D --Arabani 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, for me, my WoW folder is 7.08GB, however if you exclude the TestRealm (1.73GB), and the 10 patches in my folder (409MB) you're back under 5GB -- MacAddct1984 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed freeing up 1.5GB this week to install the 200MB update. oh, btw, you need more space than the manufacturer recommends.TomCerul 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, anyone who has the slightest idea about operating a computer certainly does not overload their HDD. I'm assuming the manufacturer takes this logic into consideration when establishing the system requirements for a software title.

In addition, in case anyone else has done this, there is no need to free up the space asked for when you know the patch is only a couple of hundred megs. Even a 64 meg patch will demand 1.5 gigs free space, but this is due to the patching method and is obviously unnecessary.

Anyone have any problem with this text? "'6.0 GB available HD space.'(ref) Having an additional 1-2GB free is necessary to perform the periodic updates." (ref) would link to the WoW site that I'm quoting.TomCerul 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Windows may be contributing to this. Depending on your settings Windows is tracking changes so you can do a system restore if the install goes badly. What is the purpose of this section? If it's to publish in another format the information that is available from Blizzard than the article should only state their latest published size. Of course that changes with each patch. If its to match to user experience I would agree that it should include some sizing information about hard drive space. My experience of WoW personally is that the RAM, Video Card, and other specifications are minimal. Meaning, you'll be lucky it works ok but we can't prove it wont work. Perhaps we need a section on "User Recommended Specifications." .Djkester 21, February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the system requirements listed should just be the ones listed officially by Blizzard. Sure, they may not be optimal to get the full WoW experience, but that's true of all PC games. So about every month or two there's a patch, with it the harddrive needs more space to copy files and backup in case something goes wrong. You will need more than 5GB then, but that's it. That means that about 95% of the time you only need 5GB free on your harddrive. I think the having "1-2GB free" for updates is a little bit of an exageration. My laptop usually had less than 500MB free and had no problem updating. Everyone has different computers and they all might handle the game differently, but that's no reason to put up anything but the official specs. A "User Recommended Specifications" section, in my opinion, would be a POV mess. --TheKoG 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

i agree A "User Recommended Specifications" section isn't very wiki like, as in no personal research, wiki simply isn't a place to check for how much hdd space you exactly need to install / play a game beyond what the company that makes the game says. Boneyard 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Most popular?

I removed the section

See talk As of November 2005, World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world, with more than 4.5 million active subscriptions.

since Westward Journey have over 56 million registered accounts. // Liftarn

According to Westward Journey's official website they have 467,269 peak concurrent users. And that's out of 56 million registered accounts. That comes out to about .8% of the registered accounts they claim to have. That is, quite frankly, a very low number and makes me doubt the validity of their claim of 56 million registered accounts. Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to find independent statistics on MMORPG user populations and statistics. The statement that WoW is the most popular MMORPG in the world came from a Blizzard press release, which, admittedly, is probably a bit biased. However, I do think that you're nitpicking. I'm going to revert your edit, but qualify it with "one of the most popular" rather than "the most popular" for the time being. --Arabani 18:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Arabani. Blizz cites the "upwards of 500k users online at one time", and if I had a number of total servers I could estimate how accurate that was. --Syrthiss 18:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Blizzard has at least 100 servers in the US alone, with another 100 or so worldwide. I could give more specific numbers if I can find one of Caydiem's posts about why World Events similar to the end of beta events are no longer feasible ... she mentioned a rough server count. Update: Hopefully this thread won't get deleted by Blizzard's forums any time soon. Anyway, she mentions that there are over 100 servers in North America alone; nothing on international servers, but I'm going to guess around the same amount since I'm pretty sure at least half the players play on the international servers. --Arabani 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

and I estimate between 3k and 5k per server, which gives 600k - 1M online at one time. I'm wishing I could find where I read the 3-5k number though. :/ --Syrthiss 18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Blizzard's claim of "upwards of 500k users online at one time" per server or in total? Westward Journey claims 56 million registered accounts, but they don't say 56 million active accounts. I think players in China are online for shorter period (max three hours a day) than the average WoW player.[3] That may explain the lower count. I know that Westward Journey is very popular in China. "Fantasy Westward Journey and Westward Journey Online II reported peak concurrent user numbers of approximately 827,000 and 515,000, respectively, for the third quarter of 2005."[4] " Westward Journey Online II was able to hold on to top 3 positions in terms of number of players"[5] // Liftarn

Blizzard doesnt actually own those 100 servers the majority of them are owned by AT&T they just lease them out by contract. Sort of like web space which is why Blizzard has always had a hard time of keeping lag to a low level and Player number count to a high level. Its estimated at any one time there are 2,000 people on any one server that is listed with "High Population" other wise Blizzards claim to the game being the most popular is a bust, it is widely known though. **addin** its information iv obtained from friends that work with the company. They do own servers but they dont own them all its cheaper to lease them, like renting a modem from your dsl/cable service then upgrade as new units come out. They've been doing that crap since there first online games have come out. Their connection is also run by AT&T. But they do own there own servers just not 200 of them that wouldent be cost efficient at all... the information is a direct source. Anonymous

Just wondering, where did that information come from? I've never seen it before, which is why I'm asking. :D Anyway, I'm pretty sure Blizzard does in fact own the servers - they just stick them in some unknown company's colocation centre. --Arabani 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For information on nuber of servers, check out the realm status pages for each market: http://worldofwarcraft.com/realmstatus http://www.wow-europe.com/en/serverstatus/ http://app.wowchina.com/server/realmlist1.htm http://www.worldofwarcraft.co.kr/serverstatus/

Talent calculator link

The link to this talent calculator was added to the "Useful Resources" section a couple of times. Junjk removed it, as did I, since the official website has a talent calculator, and there is no need to link to a different one. User:Skosiris has put it to me that it should be linked since it has been so well received by WoW players, many of whom agree that it is far superior to the official one. And I agree - I actually checked it out a few days back when a saw a link to it on a WoW forum, and I since have it bookmarked as an excellent tool. But I'm really not sure that its the sort of site that Wikipedia:External links would have us linking to..? Anyway, I throw the discussion to the floor - what does anyone else think here? --Stormie 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the wowhead.com calculator is superior to Blizzard's one. Blizzard's one doesn't even work properly with Safari and this one is so much faster. --Kevin 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why link to an unofficial one. I'm using the official one, and it works, and right now I'm on a mac mini using Safari 1.2.4 and it's both fast and works perfectly, with no errors. It's also officially updated as changes are made, plus - shit - it's official. Havok (T/C) 12:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Jargon

While playing 'WoW', I often find myself running into strange vocublary used by other players. Might it be a good idea to posit a seperate 'WoW' jargon page, in the manner like that done on, say, poker? 30/10/05 User_talk:Jayteecork

Ask and you shall receive. World of Warcraft terminology --Arabani 06:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Monthly fee?

How much is the monthly fee? I don't see it anywhere in the article.

Hello. The fee is:

• 12.99€ for one month subscription
• 35.97€ for three months subscription
• 65.94€ for six months subscription

If you choose to pay for one month at a time, the price will be 12.99€, but if you choose to pay for three months at a time, the price will be 35.97€ etc. cun 12:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The prices cun listed are for the European servers. For play on the US servers, it is

• $14.99/month base fee
• $13.99/month if you pay for 3 months in advance
• $12.99/month if you pay for 6 months in advance

Those numbers are off the top of my head (official website seems to be down) but I believe they're correct. --Arabani 04:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

blizzard entertainment

does any one know the exact location of where blizzard entertainment is?

Blizzard is located in Irvine, California. [6] NBS525 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

external links

I want to suggest adding Leetster. It's a social networking site for WoW. People come to the wikipedia entry on WoW to find links to the definitive sites related to WoW. Leetster is the only SNS devoted to WoW, and is an important and unique social gathering point. Philosophistry 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to mention that leetster has been included in the external links before, and it was agreed that it didn't belong there. Having said that, Leetster is hardly the only social networking site for WoW. Facesofwow readily comes to mind. --Arabani 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I just checked your talk page and it seems that you were the one that first added Leetster way back in the day. In that case, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the situation that I referred to in my reply. :) --Arabani 01:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest adding at least two news/community blog links, one for dotWarcraft (www.dotwarcraft.com) and another for Weblog, Inc.'s WOW Insider (www.wowinsider.com). These are not individual player blogs, but sites based around WoW news, strategy, and community. They fill an important void that database, mod, and tool links cannot. 70.185.180.243 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with http://www.dotwarcraft.com/, the only question one might ask is, do we really need another external link of this type. I strongly object to adding wowinsider.com to the list as it has an objectional amount of advertising, and does not meet WP:EL. Remember, the Wikipedia guidelines state, "Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." --Hetar 03:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is wowinsider.com considered a fanlisting? I understand an objection based on advertising level, but it's not really a fanlisting-type site like Facesofwow. Also, what external link of "this type" are on the page the first place? None of the links I see really offer news and such -- except the official Blizzard WoW site, which is limited at best. 70.185.180.243 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blood Elf Confirmation of Classes?

I've been Googleing for awhile, and it seems like the only confirmed classes for BE's are Mage, Priest, Warlock, and Warrior. Most sources say any others are up in the air for now. I'm not nitpicking, but I'd like to know where Blood Elf Hunters were confirmed. Arcanum7

Blood Elf hunters were never confirmed. At Blizzcon, Blizzard stated that Blood Elves would either get Rogues or Hunters, but the developers had not decided yet which class it would be. --Arabani (Talk ∞ Contribs) 06:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started playing for the past few weeks, but I swear the questgiver for Ol' Sooty is a High Elf Hunter (as well as Sylvana being a High Elf before becoming a Banshee). Wouldn't the Blood Elves, being so highly integrated with them, follow same classes as the High Elves? --YoungFreud 07:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Simply because one NPC, which may or may not be a High Elf/Blood Elf, appears to have a specific class doesnt signify enough to go on. Unfortunatly, we can speculate all we want, but Blizzard will have the final say in what it is. captbananas 10:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blood elves embrace the arcane arts and demonic magics. High elves do not, high elves can only use magic born of the Holy Light, this is part of the magical addiction that high elves try to resist and the blood elves have embraced and adapted to. High elves are know to be expert swordsmen, however they do not share the same connection or empathy with animals that the night elves do. Brokenscope 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blood Elves are High Elves that are the survivors of the Scourge's destruction of Quel'thalas. They renamed themselves after they broke away from the Alliance becoming free agents as well as to respect those who have fallen to the scourge. A few of the survivors left Azeroth into the Outlands. Retroactively, the High Elves are a breed of Night Elves, a part of Night Elf society exiled to Northern half of the Eastern Continent. The last known breed of Night Elves are the Naga, who abused the arcane magic of the moonwells and were corrupted by it by their Queen Azshara. They were exiled because they refused to relinquish their command of Arcane magic drawn from the moonwell's because of its addictive and impure nature. It was the indiscriminate usage of these magics which led to the first great war between the Burning Legion 10 thousand years ago. Whereas the Night Elves draw their magic from the moon through moonwells, The High/Blood Elves draw their magic from the Sunwell at Quel'Thalas, which has been defiled by Arthas in WarCraft III. Human priests are empowered by Holy Light, the Night Elf priests are powered by their Goddess Elune, but it is not known what will power the Blood/High Elf priests at the current moment. If I had to guess, I'd say Warrior, Warlock, Priest, and Hunter's would be the Blood Elf classes. Because from previous WarCraft games, Rangers, Soldiers, Priests and Sorcerors where the High Elf norm. Uberpesh 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New Alliance Race Classes

I'm not sure that warrior should be listed as a definite yes. It seems, so far, that all races can be warriors, but Blizzard might make an exception for this new one. They made an exception with Taurens for rogues. If there is some confirmation out there that I'm unaware of, I apologize, but for now I'm changing it to unknown. Tyharvey313 03:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if I agree with this. Your reasoning that Taurens cant be rogues doesnt fit. All races can be warriors. Thinking solely in terms of the way the game works, it would be silly for them to dis-include warriors for any race. Warriors, in the team schematic, are essential. They are the main tank, they take the damage, dish out the damage, and pull aggro off other members. To only allow the new race the play as casters and hybrid classes seems to me something that would never happen. I wont change it because I dont beleive there is any confirmation for anything regarding the new Alliance Race. But I just want you to know that I disagree. captbananas 08:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't quite make sense, either, though. Healing classes are equally integral to the group, and yet gnomes cannot play a single one. Taurens can only marginally heal as shamans(or druids). Would it be so unusual to find the new Alliance race in a position to be healing-focused, or hybrid-focused, in the same way that gnomes are damage-focused (with their only options being mages, warlocks, rogues and warriors)? Tyharvey313 05:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality on Classes

The class descriptions didn't at all seem neutral, there were lines that stated "Rogues are the scum of the Earth" as well as something that is more or less objective "Shamans are masters of PvP." I changed the lines to "Rogues are assassins that prefer to fight quickly and discretely, often employing underhanded tactics." and "A well played Shaman can be extremely adept at PVP," respectively. Everyone ok with this? 154.20.135.89 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Raider vs. Non-Raider

I think that the whole "Raider vs. Non Raider/Casual vs. Hardcore" debate should be at least mentioned. It's bringing up discussion all over the community and even made developers consider changing some future content (IE: Narraxmus might be changed to a 10 man raid)

Throbberson 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Throbberson

I personally don't think that's necessary for two reasons:

1. 1. There is no evidence at all that the discussions on the forums are causing the developers to change some future content. In fact, the community managers consistently state that the developers planned to implement both large and small raid dungeons. And as we, the general players, are not privy to internal discussions, decisions, and changes, any statement that we caused a change in the course of the game is unverifiable speculation and should be avoided.
   2. Wikipedia is not a place to critique game mechanics. It doesn't matter what the community thinks - the developers are free to implement the game however they like. If their decisions alienate customers, then that's their problem. Furthermore, the article is long enough as it is. A section critiqueing game mechanics is not needed - that kind of stuff belongs in a review, not on Wikipedia.

--Arabani (Talk ∞ Contribs) 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

GLBT guild issue

Okay is that edit appropriate? Because as i understand it blizzard asked her not to create a guild that has a recruieting policy of mentioning it is GLBT Friendly. As someone who plays this game i know the moment that the moment someone saw a person with a GLBT guild tag many people who play that game would uh... harass them. In my opinion i just see blizzard trying to prevent something bad from happening. i can just see the barrens chat when someone see a player with a that guild tag, it won't be pretty and there person will be harrased. One last thing. In my small and insignifigant opinion, wow doesn't need a GBLT guild because people don't bring there sexual oreientation into the game. This guild would just bring this issue into the game and considering how immature many people who play this game are it seems like a stupid thing to do. People who play this game may also understand how some people will react. Brokenscope 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you - you bring up very good points. Furthermore, the edit simply doesn't add ANYTHING to the article. The edit would be appropriate if the article were about politics, but it isn't. It's about a game. I'm going to remove the edit. --Arabani (Talk ∞ Contribs) 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to be Comprehensive. The politics involved in how an MMPOG is run is relevent to an article on that MMPOG. This article is expliclty not just about the game play. Restoring the deleted section --Barberio 01:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of critizizing blizzard because of the fact they are trying to keep the lid on a pandoras box. The way it comes across is that blizzard has something against people who are homosexual or transsexual. And wtf i just read the artical again... they have not made it against the EULA to talk about homosexuality. I mean this is not an MMO where you can get married... your sexual orentation has no bearing on how you play the game(that i can see). I mean do you see a player who is openly gay getting harrased more or less because he has a guild tag for a guild that everyone knows is GLBT friendly? I think in my guild we have one gay member. Hes in the guild he is a good player and he is polite to everyone besides the occasiona friendly F-you that everyone in the guild trades on occasion. You know i guess im just worried that one of the few things i can still do that isn't completly governed by all the political and Straight vs Gay BS is gonna get attacked too. I mean for the love of god.. how many people in the game have been discriminated against for guild membership because they are gay? Hell the fact that you talk about your personal life to people you will never meet has always kinda bugged me.Brokenscope 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk about hypocrisy at its finest. If this were a Christian evangelical group, do you truly think there would even be an issue? "Protecting" people against their will is another ludicrous ideal. You might as well forbid them from admitting homosexuality at all, or race for that matter, because it might open them to some form of bigotry. --AWF

Explain how it's hypocrisy at its finest. You might also want to look up non sequitur - they don't help your argument at all.

The point is, Blizzard is right to worry about what might happen if they allowed openly gay guilds. The sad truth is, a significant fraction of WoW players is immature, and there is a very good chance that players in an openly gay guild will be harassed for their sexual orientation. You might argue that there are already gay people in guilds ... but in general, a random player (let's going to call him Player A) isn't going to know that Player B is gay. But once Player B joins a guild that is known to be only for gay people, Player A suddenly knows who's gay (the members of the guild).

The important thing to realize is that Blizzard is not forbidding people from mentioning personal details. What Blizzard is trying to do is protect people from harrassment that would detract from their enjoyment of the game. You claim that Blizzard is protecting people against their will. I beg to differ. I feel that Blizzard is trying to err on the side of caution - it's better to attempt to keep personal details private than to risk the possibility that people will be harrassed because of how they choose to live their lives. --Arabani (Talk ∞ Contribs) 09:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Remember that this talk page is for discussion of our Wikipedia article, not discussion of World of Warcraft itself. Please keep discusion of any Blizzard policies beyond simple acknowledgment of their presence to the correct forums. --Barberio 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Will add the rest of warrior and other classes, just need some more time. Cheers!

-- I added a small blurb about the lift of warning for the GLBT guild member. Now that I've read through this, I don't know if it should be removed now. It's up to you guys I suppose 32.97.110.142 13:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Piepants

I'm surprised that inclusion of this is an issue. When I read about it I found it very interesting. Whether you believe Blizzard is right or wrong to institute a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on homosexuality, it's interesting and verified, so it should definitely be in the article. Personally, I think the claim that this is just about protection against harrassment by preventing the release of 'personal details' is nonsense. I assume they don't ban you for saying you're black, or white, or short, or ugly, or any of a hundred other 'personal details' for which people could insult you. --Malthusian (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that this should stay in there also. It is verified and adds social implications/information to the game that is a reflection of the culture and issues surrounding it. Jpittman 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Naraxxamas will NOT be changed to a 10 man dungeon, it has remained 40man and it has been said (in a thread that is loong gone, I can't find it) that it is too far along in the development cycle. (The whole thread was along the lines of "OMG WHY DO WE GET ANOTHER 40MAN!" and Tigole responded that "Naraxxamas was in development before the whole hardcore v casual debate flared up, the development cycle is long but we are starting plans on more 5-10 man content" (like Kharazan). Just thought I would mention that

Formulas

Maybe we should include formulas or a linking to WoWWiki? Just an idea, don't flame me I'm a newbie. --xSpaceyx 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Armour

Armour is a giant part of the game, it is what the majority of players work towards when they reach level 60. And such should be considered one of the games main mechanics.

"This is not thottbott"

No ofcourse it is not thottbot, but armour sets is a major game incentive, without it i doubt many would play when they reach 60. And such should be included in a world of warcraft thread.

what exactly do you propose here? and why are you talking to yourself? :) Boneyard 13:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

ah i get it now, you don't agree with the removal of the warrior armor information right? well i feel it doesn't belong here either, sure you can say armor is important and several nice suits can be gotten ingame, but to put every piece of armor with it stats in such a set on this general world of warcraft page is simply not how it should be. therefor im taking it out again. Boneyard 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First armor guy(195.194.74.227) please sign your comments. Second i removed your Armor info for a reason. I will repeat my self THIS IS NOT THOTTBOT. This is an article that gives a general overveiw of the game. Your reasoning that a lvl 60 wants to know about this armor is invalid. I don't see someone who has made it to lvl 60 comeing to wikipedia to find out about the game. There are much better resources to be found if you need help. Also in my talk page you don't need to call me "NEW". I have not been here very long but i do not edit lightly. I do it for a reason, and only when i see it needs to be done. More often then not i go to the talk page first. I will remove the armor again if i see it, it has no place in the main articleBrokenscope 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Classes vandalism

Removed an entry in the "classes" section describing the "rodeo clown." Motorneuron 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)motorneuron

Last comment on mounts

"Lastly, there are quests that are not very well known that can be done by each faction to gain a unique mount. These special raptor and tiger-type mounts are very rare and take hours of game time to earn."

I've been playing this game for 9 months, and would call myself very knowledgable on the game. I have never heard of these. I'm getting the idea that whoever wrote mistook the Zul'Gurrub Tiger and Raptor mounts for quest mounts. I'm new to editing wikipedia, so not going to delete it until a second opinion, but i suspect this entry is false. SanderJK 14:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a special tiger-type mount, Reins of the Winterspring Frostsaber, which you can get by grinding repeatable quests with the Frostsaber Trainers in Winterspring. As for the special raptor mount - pretty sure that does not exist. There are raptor trainers in Un'goro Crater but they don't do anything (yet?). Frankly the whole paragraph should be removed imho, this is way way too much trivial detail for an encyclopedia article. Please, people who are interested in writing this stuff, go and look at http://www.wowwiki.com - a World of Warcraft wiki which would welcome as much detail as you can possibly give it. --Stormie 21:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be good if someone knowledgeable about the Qiraji Battle Tank would write more about getting them at the portal opening. My impression is that an unlimited number of people can get them by doing the quests in advance and then hitting the gong during the ten hour period. I have seen numberous cases where a guild leader told their members that only the first person to ring the gong could get the mount, and their guild helped them do the quests once without realizing that they could all get one if they worked together. Needless to say, some of these people are very angry now that they found out the truth. I am not an expert, but I would like to get the word out so others don't suffer. Anyone up to the challenge?

class information removal

it will prolly get added again but i felt it wasn't needed because there are pretty large articles on all classes already, so why add them to the main article too. sure a very small summary might be useful, but people will want to add more and more information anyway. Boneyard 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Boneyard. --Stormie 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, I removed the "classes" section sice the section above it was names "races and classes". Seemed double to me. It also looked weird to me to have a section that just had the text "see above". Felsir 07:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, wasn't sure about it, seemed like a nice temporary solution, but im fine with it being removed. Boneyard 09:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah besides the Wintersaber trainers, the only other special mounts are the Alterac Valley Exalted ones (not that special), the Skeletal Horse mount form the Baron, and the Zul'Gurub Tiger and Raptor. Derktar 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Deathcharger's Reigns dropped by Baron Rivendare in UD Stratholme

Terrorist holds server hostage

Someone may want to add this news to the article (here). --Thorpe | talk 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

do we really have to add every small thing to the article, seems way to small to me. and if it gets added don't add the word terrorist to it even hostage is taken things way too far. Boneyard 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Boneyard, we don't need to add every single iota of WOW news to the article. Should this develop into a major controversy that affected a significant number of realms it might be worthwhile, but until then... --Hetar 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

it seems it all was a joke, exactly the reason why we shouldn't instantly add all these silly things. Boneyard 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Genre change

Wouldn't the genre be Fantasy instead of MMORPG witch isnt even a genre? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by St. Eddies (talk • contribs) .

Actually if you look at Computer and Video Game Genres you will see MMORPG listed there. I think the best solution would be to list both genres, MMORPG and Fantasy. --Hetar 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think fantasy is a genre, it's a setting. The game is an MMORPG set in a fantasy universe. For example, if someone asked what genre Halo was in you wouldn't say sci-fi, you'd say FPS. So for describing the genre I think it should be listed as "Fantasy MMORPG." --TheKoG 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been writing for a number of years, and fantasy has always been clearly identified using both terms. A 'genre' is more specifically related to a 'type' of game or book (fantasy, sci-fi, etc), while 'setting' is used in terms of location and time period (a fantasy novel can be set in modern New York City, for example). DarkMasterBob 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Eponymous?

After looking this word up, I believe it is being used incorrectly. An eponym is a person whose name is the source of the name of some other thing. eponym. Its pretty clear throughout the various definitions that it means 'from a person' and nothing else but a person.

"The Warcraft games are set in the eponymous Warcraft Universe...". 'Warcraft' is not derived from any persons name that i know of. The writer probably meant to say something like "The Warcraft games are set in the appropriately named Warcraft Universe..." indicating the reuse of the word 'Warcraft' in naming the universe, and failing at using a fancy word to sound smart.

Sahuagin 20:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

changed the wording since (i think) its incorrect. Sahuagin 17:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Graffitti

Removed graffiti 2nd March 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathwombat (talk • contribs) .

free 10day trial pass xmas 2005

someone create a line stating blizzard handed out free passes for 10 day trials around / at xmas 2005, did this actually happen? as i can find zero references to it. i also don't believe blizzard has some system where you if you hook up someone else you get a free month or such, seen it in other games, but not at wow. Boneyard 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that this actually happened. I got an e-mail from Blizzard back in December about the promotion. You give someone the CD-key for the free pass in the e-mail, and if they became a subscriber then Blizzard rewarded you with a free month. Unfortunately I don't have a reference on me at the moment. --TheKoG 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Same. If I dig I might be able to find the email text... Well I'll have to search later, gmail is being annoying. --Syrthiss 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

weird, im searching like crazy but i can't find anything on this, not even on message boards. ah well, if several people remember it, it happened i guess. Boneyard 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured it out, it was something from Fileplanet...but I don't have an email from them so its possible I just heard about it on Penny-arcade or something. I'll check there. --Syrthiss 16:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I found the e-mail:

Dear World of Warcraft® Subscriber:
You are eligible to receive a FREE 30-day credit* to your World of Warcraft subscription when you recruit a friend using the Guest Pass key below. This key is trackable back to your account and if your friend becomes a World of Warcraft subscriber and pays for their first 30 days of subscription time, your account will be automatically credited with a free 30 days. It's that simple. 
Here's how it works:
Give a friend the Guest Pass Key provided below.
Install World of Warcraft on his or her machine using your Game CDs (your friend will not need the CDs to play the game after installation)
Have your friend enter the special Guest Pass Key below when prompted during the installation process (the Key can only be used once).
Your friend will have 10 days of free access to World of Warcraft.
When your friend completes their 10 free days, they will be given an option to upgrade to a full version of World of Warcraft by purchasing a retail copy of the game.
When your friend upgrades to a full version of World of Warcraft and then pays for their first month of World of Warcraft, your account will be automatically credited with a FREE 30-day World of Warcraft subscription.
Offer expires January 1st, 2006. Your friend must upgade to the full version of World of Warcraft on or before this date in order for you to receive the free 30 days of World of Warcraft subscription time. 
Your Guest Pass Key is: 
[Edited out CD-Key]
Enjoy,
The World of Warcraft Team

The e-mail also came out in October, not December like I originally thought. --TheKoG 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah i found it at the world of warcraft site also now here, i really wonder how many people even know about this, but anyway it did happen indeed though had little to do with xmas i guess and the question is if this was for all subscribers or just the US ones. europe also had something like this, started a little later and ended 1 january 2006, info here. Boneyard 16:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then thats different than the fileplanet 10 day trial I remember. I registered there on November 12th according to the email...

Thank you for registering for and participating in the World of Warcraft 10-day
trial.
To get started playing the trial of World of Warcraft, download the World of
Warcraft client.
Download the World of Warcraft trial:
http://www.fileplanet.com/download.aspx?f=158404
Important: This .zip files requires Winzip 9.0 or above. Get Winzip 9.0 here
http://www.fileplanet.com/62709/60000/fileinfo/WinZip-9.0-
After extracting the files to your hard drive, execute the installation file
Installer.exe to install the game.
There is a patch included in the .zip file called wow-1.8.0-enus-patch.exe. Run
that patch before playing the game so you do not have to auto patch to the
latest version.
You'll then need to create a World of Warcraft game account using your 10-day
trial key to access the game.
(rm key haha, I'm sure it doesnt work now anyhow)
Enjoy your time in the Warcraft universe!

(after EC) --Syrthiss 16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Removal

The following image was recently removed. I actually liked the image and thought it fit well with the article, anyone else have any thoughts/opinions on the matter? --Hetar 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Videogame warcraft screenshot 2.jpg

A World of Warcraft party resting.

just readd it, it does look like a screenshot and to say it glorifies the game sounds a little like trolling. the other changes of that user seem fine though. the part about saying the advantage of the large world in wow is just plain wrong, it is a pretty small world actually compared to other mmorpgs. the balance thing remained doubtful also, as that is something you will never see everyone agree on, rightfully or not. Boneyard 09:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this image would be that it's a posed picture, and does not reflect actual game play. Any in game screenshot should reflect actual play first, look nice second. I think the article would benefit from a shot that reflected actual game play. Also, remeber to put your fair use rational in the image. --Barberio 12:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

more screenshots is always fine, upto a limit of course. but this one was nicely placed at the community section, some people at a campire are pretty appropriate for such a section. Boneyard 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think that it doesn't look like a real screenshot. Look, for example, at the dwarf's arms, and the human and night elf's faces. It looked to me like a photoshopped or otherwise unrealistic screenshot that created a feel that wasn't present in the game. I mean, I like the game, but in my opinion, the ideal that this picture represents is one of the few lacking parts of the game. I think a screenshot of some good PvP or raid action might more accurately show the game's strengths. I might be biased, though. If you guys all agree that the screenshot wasn't altered, then go ahead and put it back in.Tyharvey313 23:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a screen shot form Alpha or Beta. (I think this atricle could use some more screens personaly.--Legendary Frog 14:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, That was messed up

A guild actually raided another guild that was holding a funeral for one of their players that had recently died in a car accident. The guild had asked everyone to leave them alone while they were holding their funeral. But one guild decided to raid them, and annihilated everyone that went to the funeral..--Vercalos 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm baffled that they held this memorial in a PvP-Enabled area to begin with, instead of a "homeland" to remove any chance of this happening, which it was so obviously likely to.

No In-Game Screenshots in the article???

I noticed that there were no in-game screenshots in the World of Warcraft article, even though in-game screenshots are found in other MMORPGs' articles. Any idea why? --Shultz III 10:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was one, but it was removed (see discussion above) and is awaiting consensus on whether it will be put back in or not. I suppose we could consider a class/race picture like the Guildwars article has, although I'm not sure that we want to make the WOW article any bigger than it already is. --Hetar 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Length

We could probably start a World of Warcraft Controversies article, or something simillar. All of the current problems, exploits, and controversy sections could go in there and that would help quite a bit. --Hetar 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah that sounds like a good section to give it's seperate article. in my opinion we could also move a part of the items and such to a seperate article. information about bags, purple item, mounts, .... could be moved off, it targets partly a different group then general information on the game. Boneyard 10:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree those areas are taking up way to much space, and many of them are unneeded. Do we really have to know how many ways there are to cheat in WoW? The Criticism section seems mainly based on personal taste. The Problems secton seems to have many complaits or minor issues rather than liginamate game problems, or they just problems with MMO's in general. --Legendary Frog 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. The criticism section looks like the 'suggestion' forums. Like "player housing" since when was that a big issue? Seems rather personal opinions to me. If that is the case, check the forums[7] and we can add another 20 sections like that ("selling enchantments on AH","Guild bank" to name a few). The point is, there are always people complaining about things they want to see in a game like this, it is impossible (undesired) to list all those things on Wikipedia.

The homosexuality issue caused quite a stir in the community so I would suggest to keep that part, perhaps in a seperate article Felsir 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the items, equipment, and mounts section from this article to it's own separate article in World of Warcraft items and equipment. That knocked out about 8kb from the article size; however, it's still up there at 54kb. I also agree with maybe starting a controversies article. Having a section in this main article about exploits and player housing and such doesn't really help one understand the game better. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think the "Problems" section just needs to go. Those aren't problems specific to World of Warcraft, those are problems that affect almost every MMORPG on the market. I'll leave it open to discussion first though. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheKoG. Move the problems section to a generic MMORPG article. Also house the information related to bots, gold farming, exploits, controversy into a separate article...perhaps something like WOW Sub Culture or WOW Controversies.

The goal of this main article should be quick readability and understanding of the game, not overblown analysis down to the gnat's eyelash for each and every little thing that goes on related to the game. That information should be housed separately.

As such, I would suggest an entire article perhaps around "game mechanics" for things like characters, instances, geography/travel, guilds in wow, etcetera. Also, it is important to note that this is not WOWwiki. That already exists. Jpittman 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have split off some information into Criticism of World of Warcraft. Please feel free to edit and modify the little paragraph I left in this article as well as the new article that has been created. The new article will need lots of attention to bring it up to a decent level. --Hetar 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a separate section for "System Requirements"? It would be more prudent and space-saving to just copy and paste the actual requirements into the table at the top of the article and get rid of the extraneous information.

that might be a good idea indeed, as people keep changing that info because they don't understand this isn't some gaming site. Boneyard 09:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

saving characters

Does anyone know what the length of time between ending a subscription with characters and restarting it again with those characters is?

you mean when will blizzard delete inactive accounts? from what they said so far the answer is never, they have no plans to do so and will prolly announce it way in advance if they ever gonna. Boneyard 09:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Most games are one month, but I have not found a verifiable source on this matter. I have, however had people not play the game for months on end and come back, but I am not sure they physically cancelled their accounts.

(I moved this comment by 65.67.154.29 up from the private servers topic it was placed under Suppafly)

most games are on month? you must know different mmorpgs then me then. if you look around at the blizzard site im sure you can find something like i said about it. Boneyard 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"If your subscription ends and there is no payment information listed on the account then it will become frozen and inaccessible for play. Provided that the characters do not get deleted by the account holder, we will retain all character information on our servers indefinitely." From: [8] --Hetar 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

private servers

Shouldn't there atleast be some mention of private servers and perhaps some of the controversy surrounding their usage? Suppafly 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you could actually find some verifiable sources on this subject, (that don't consist of original research) then a section could probably be created in the criticisms article. --Hetar 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's going to be tricky since most of the sites that have info about them get shutdown by blizzard. http://www.wowstatus.net/ is one of the main sites that has links to private servers, but it doesn't really have any encyclopedic knowledge about them. I don't feel that we really need a verifiable source to mention that people play on private servers. Suppafly 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." That doesn't leave any wiggle room. --Hetar 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into the no original research policy. I'm not trying to introduce some unverifiable theory here, I'm just saying that we should make some mention of the very real fact that a lot of people play on private servers.Suppafly 23:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more of an issue of whether or not it would add anything to the article ... it's already somewhat lengthy, and I'm just not convinced that mentioning private servers adds anything substantive to the article. --Arabani (Talk ∞ Contribs) 00:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ah, there's a WoW hater running around graffiting the article <"RFPCs" "Assgrabbers" etc.> I changed the stuff back, but I'm not sure what the sentence after the introduction about playing characters was, so I just put a slight filler there, please change it if necessary.

Oh, Hetar, I didn't do it. You got the wrong guy :P Nerion 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit: [9] by you was clearly vandalism. --Hetar 23:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One-player game

"Furthermore, they have not yet considered making it possible to play WOW as single player/Offline, that is: one plays alone against the computer controlling NPCs. This is discouraging for those who are not on an unlimited internet usage plan."

I actually can't think of one MMORPG where this is an option, but if anyone can remind me of one that was released over the years it'd be an interesting factoid to add to this wiki entry. I don't even think FFXI is one-player capable. Asdfff 02:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this suggestion actually defeats the purpose of a MMORPG. I mean, if you want to play an offline RPG, there are many options available. It's a bit like buying a Formula 1 simulation game and request support for a NES type gamepad "because it is discouraging for those who don't have the cash for a analogue joystick/steering wheel".

The box says "internet connection required" to play the game. The box also says "Gforce 2 or better", yet noone ask for it to run on a CGA videocard. Felsir 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

i removed it, hadn't noticed it before and agree it's a pointless remark, it's a mmorpg that states you need a internet connection, the idea of single play is silly. Boneyard 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but if you were able to play WOW in singleplayer you would have the option to completed it without the ganking taking place against the horde players. Futhermore you would be able to use cheat legaly to go through the game - i certainly would like to complete my expensive game (paid €99 in feb 2005) in a short time. ran_slirpa 09:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 130.225.184.24 (talk • contribs) .

If you want to play a single-player game, you should probably buy a single-player game, rather than a massively-multiplayer online game. —Stormie 03:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

indeed, blizzard designed and released a mmorpg, they never even hinted at offline play or such. i won't make up some funny comparision but there are enough that show it's a pointless remark. Boneyard 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Try playing Diablo if you enjoy single player RPGs. It's fun and you can cheat if you wish. There, have your cake and eat it too.

The state of the article

Simply put, the article is a mess currently. The organization is all over the place, and it looks like it hasn't ever seen a thorough copyedit. This is the kind of article which needs to be at featured, or at least a good article. Therefore, I suggest we compile a todo list of tasks that need to be completed. I suggest: a history of game section, reorganize article, and a copyedit. I've only seen the article for a few minutes, so I'm sure everyone else has ideas for what needs to be done. Let's get this article up to snuff. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Just thought I'd give you WoW folks a heads up - World of Warcraft terminology is up for AFD - noticed it because I work on the MMORPG terms and acronyms pages. --Naha|^(talk) 06:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on Emerald Dream

Is the in depth analysis of the eranikus questline in Geography really needed? It just seems unnecesary especially considering that Eranikus is dealt with as part of the opening Aq gates questline.

Ultron87 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Race

Seems that, according to New York Times, that Draenei are, in fact, the new Alliance race: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/technology/10warcraft.web.html - 80.212.91.190 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

...And theres a note in the article requesting that people wait for the official announcement from Blizzard before adding it. Meh. --James 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The note was just to prevent the constant vandalism that was going on. At first it was just rampant speculation, and then there was the whole wisp thing which went on for over a month. As the new announcement comes from a reliable source and that source is even linked to from the World of Warcraft homepage, it is probably ok to incorporate the new information (with the NYT article as a reference). --Hetar 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you guys. NBS525 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Useful resources

We don't need all the links that are under this section. It's repitative.

• Two map sites
• Four UI sites
• Two talent calculators (which is on the official site aswell)
• Five database sites

There is no need for it, Wikipedia isn't a link repository.

And the links to all the Official WoW sites is not necessary, the US and english europe site is enough. Havok (T/C/c) 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The World - Geography - Reference to the 'new' World Tree?

I removed the comment about the new world tree being off the northwest coast of Kalimdor. That tree is not the world tree, the original world tree is still on Mount Hyjal where it has always been. Not to mention the reference to the starting Night Elf zone has no relevance in the context of the paragraph.--Paddyffrench 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Attributes

There was some talk about this earlier, but the attributes section should be rewritten. Currently it includes lots of personal, arguable opinions ("Stamina is especially important for Warriors, Warlocks, Rogues and Paladins"). These should be removed in my opinion. Pasi 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- bcasterline • talk 04:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I simplified the section a lot. Basically I removed all the related maths (which definitely are game guide material) and wrote a short paragraph about the starting attributes. Perhaps we can add little more detail what each attribute does, but in my opinion we shouldn't go to the detail the section went before. Pasi 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. --Stormie 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lead Section

I am a little concerned about the recent changes to the lead section (ie chopping everything but one sentence out and moving it down to another section). Many featured article candidates are opposed because they had lead sections that were too small. Also, Wikipedia:Lead section says that the appropriate length for a lead section for an article as big as this one is three or four paraprahps. I don't see why the change is necessary, and it seems to impinge on the quality of the article. --Hetar 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like Sdornan has restored the intro text, thank you! --Hetar 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Read this after I made the change just now. Although I think my edit makes more sense, considering the section general information would look strange without the info which is there now. Comments? Havok (T/C/c) 09:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrupted Blood

This article has been added to the AfD, please go to Articles for deletion/Corrupted Blood and give your vote on the subject. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Layout

I've moved some sections around a little. It makes more sense to start with general information then going straight for the character and classes. Also made the intro text smaler as it is only there to get the reader to read the rest. Short and sweet. Havok (T/C/c) 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

MMOG or MMORPG

Got a source for "Blizzard themselves classify it as a MMOG not MMORPG", Havok? The Introduction to World of Warcraft on their site says World of Warcraft is a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game", has a section entitled "What is an MMORPG?", and also directs readers to The World of Warcraft FAQ, which answers the question "What is World of Warcraft?" with World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), and goes on to the next two questions: "What is an MMORPG?" and "How will World of Warcraft differ from other MMORPGs?".

But the wording of that FAQ makes it clear that it was written prior to release, and Blizzard may well have changed their tune in the year and a half since? —Stormie 08:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From the official site: "As a massively multiplayer online game, World of Warcraft enables thousands of players to come together online and battle against the world and each other." [10] Then again, they might have called it a MMORPG before, but I remember reading about people bitching about it not being a MMORPG but more atune to a MMOG, so they might have changed it because of this. I would contest both are right, but, MMOG sounds more "versatile" if you ask me. Havok (T/C/c) 12:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft is a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" which allows thousands of players to interact within the same world. Whether adventuring together or fighting against each other in epic battles, players will form friendships, forge alliances, and compete with enemies for power and glory.

MMORPG is an acronym for "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". In an MMORPG, thousands of players exist in the same game world at the same time.

Unlike other MMORPGs, World of Warcraft allows players to play the game at their own pace, whether it be a few hours here and there or entire weeks at a time. (from the official "Intro to WoW" section on the site)

It's still an MMOG, but it's specifically an MMORPG, even according to Blizzard. The article should be as specific as it can about things like this without going into fan detail, and the game is specifically an MMORPG. Voretus the Benevolent 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did the class/race chart come from?

this was in the article {{World of Warcraft classes}} but sometimes i find false infos on there,and i dunno how to edit it,cuz the main page edit doesn't edit this one so where do i go to edit that?

DivineBaboon 04:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:World_of_Warcraft_classes Pasi 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was just wondering if there is some way we can work this table into a sub-page? It would make the main article flow a lot better. --Hetar 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)