Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

With reference to citation needed about lag in Ironforge and Orgrimmar

It should be noted that the lag in these cities turned out to be due to the only auction houses in the game at the time being in those cities; this meant that members of each faction that wanted to use the auction house had to use those cities, thereby increasing the load on the servers that controlled those cities. Blizzard did resolve this, mainly by introducing auction houses in all cities, each linked to their faction (neutral auction houses in Winterspring, Booty Bay, Ratchet and Gadgetzan) which eased the burden by allowing players to visit an auction house in a city close to where they were questing, but Ironforge and Orgrimmar will always lag because of so many users go into it. User:Whisperwolf 16:52 20 August 2006 (GMT)

Screenshots

I added one screenshot to the page, perhaps someone could grab a raid one (preferably with the default UI)? If the page side is an issue, we might just remove the portal picture. IMHO, a game screenshot would be more relevant and offer more to the reader. Pasi 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted a screenshot of the default UI compared to a UI that I have made. It was removed, why I don't know. Havok (T/C/c) 12:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The WoW boxart image, should that be changed to one with better quality? --Chicito21154 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

Please be careful when reverting vandalism. You can check the history but 'somebody' reverted to a vandalised page. (I am assuming it was an accident) --Paddyffrench 10:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

How about a link to a WoW map? Perhaps http://mapwow.com Pushespretn 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's to big. Plain and simple. Havok (T/C/c) 12:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "in" crowd in making money from MMO's, including WoW, is RPGbugs.com. This site has been formed from many other exploit sites. To "exploit" means to exploit the code in the game. You must be weary when looking for game cheating sites as most are made to make money and once you sign in there is nothing to use. You can usualy tell this if the news section of their site uses date stamps or not. RPGBugs.com has professional coders putting out bots (programs which run the game for you while you are away) and other neat things. They are also an insider news source.

Why mention this? Many people, and it is growing rapidly, are using these to "bot" accounts to sell online. This is a great way for kids or adults to make extra cash seeing as how these accounts sell for hundreds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlwcom9000 (talk • contribs)

Let me be the first person to tell you plain and simple, no. Never going to happen. Wikipedia does not link to websites which exploit games, and break the games core mechanics. Neither do we endorse people who help destroy the game economy. If this is the only reason you are here, to promote such a site, then please leave as Wikipedia is not for you. Havok (T/C/c) 06:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, linking those kinds of sites here would be silly. Maybe there could be a (brief) section added that gives information on botting and other related "game breaking" issues? Or maybe even just a small part that describes Blizzards stance on cheating and exploitation of their games? --Lmundy 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I wasn't sure if I could use a source, web site, for the bots. The mentioned site was featured in a few European PC game magazines recently, including PC-Player and is known amongst the "in" crowd as a good source. The industry is growing toward the 100 million a year mark so it can not be avoided, even if you do not agree with it. There are "everyday" people becoming very wealthy with botting accounts to sell to eager customers. As for, "help destroy the game economy", there has been no proof of this. Do not believe everything a company tells you. They want to sell as many game keys as possible. - Wlwcom9000

Being an avid player myself, I can attest to that just by doing random searches on the auction house. So yes, they do infact hamper the economy. Having a paragraph on boting could go under the criticism section, but must be sourced by a reliable source, with no link to any site that help and condone botting. Havok (T/C/c) 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So you want to list a "reliable" source in this future article, yet you will not list the site which releases these hacks?

I don't actually think these sites would constitute as reliable. Havok (T/C/c) 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note here: Wikipedia is not supposed to make some sort of ethical judgement as to which websites to link to and which to not. It's not our job to decide what's good and what's bad, only what is. If we have an article on a controversial subject, and there is a relevant but also controversial site, Wikipedia should still link to it. ~MDD4696 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, if some such link is promoting illegal activities (and think internationally here), we don't want to be seen as aiding and abetting, do we? Consequently, some value judgement HAS to be made at some point. Who wants to be the first object of a lawsuit?? Not me. Glacierman 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Im pretty sure this is just some scam/gold selling site looking for free advertising on wiki, I highly doubt it is popular or featured in a magazine ( the popular goldbuying site is IGE), so it really shouldnt be in the article , in fact it would be good to get that comment removed completly

Collector's edition

I moved the Collector's Edition to its own section. It hasn't got anything to do with the launch really and it's rather 'heavy' information for that section. I think it works better this way. (Edit: In addition, the pictures of the extra pets looked rather funny so early in the article.) Pasi 16:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's significant enough for its own section, and I think it fits in better with the launch section. --Hetar 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What has detailed information about the collector's edition got to do with the launch of the game tho? Pasi 17:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as it was released on the day of launch, and it hasn't been available since might be an indication that it should be in that section? Havok (T/C/c) 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It definitely should be *mentioned*, but why are we listing *details* about it there? I don't see why behind the scenes DVD needs to be mentioned in the section talking about the launch of the game. Pasi 19:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To explain why it is a "collector's edition" and why it's special? Havok (T/C/c) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Were there other special versions of the game, perhaps outside of North America, that would make it warrant it's own section? I don't recall any, but then I live in North America. Fordan 13:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only version I have seen is that one version, I don't think they released any other version. We had the same version is Europe as the americans. Havok (T/C/c) 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Layout (again)

Why does realms come before world? Right now it's:

   * 1 Launch and sales
   * 2 System requirements
   * 3 Realms
         o 3.1 Normal (PvE)
         o 3.2 Player vs. player
         o 3.3 Roleplaying
         o 3.4 Roleplaying PvP
   * 4 Characters
         o 4.1 Races and classes
         o 4.2 Character types
         o 4.3 Professions
         o 4.4 Attributes
         o 4.5 Items and equipment
         o 4.6 PvP rankings
   * 5 The world
         o 5.1 Geography
         o 5.2 Instances
   * 6 Virtual community
   * 7 Deviance from the MMORPG archetype
   * 8 Modifications
   * 9 Expansion pack
   * 10 World of Warcraft movie
   * 11 Criticism
   * 12 See also
   * 13 References
   * 14 External links
         o 14.1 Official websites
         o 14.2 Useful resources

I think it should be:

   * 1 The world
         o 5.1 Geography
         o 5.2 Instances
   * 2 Launch and sales
   * 3 Characters
         o 3.1 Races and classes
         o 3.2 Character types
         o 3.3 Professions
         o 3.4 Attributes
         o 3.5 Items and equipment
         o 3.6 PvP rankings
   * 4 Realms
         o 4.1 Normal (PvE)
         o 4.2 Player vs. player
         o 4.3 Roleplaying
         o 4.4 Roleplaying PvP
   * 5 System requirements
   * 6 Virtual community
   * 7 Modifications
   * 8 Expansion pack
   * 9 World of Warcraft movie
   * 10 Criticism
   * 11 Deviance from the MMORPG archetype
   * 12 See also
   * 13 References
   * 14 External links
         o 14.1 Official websites
         o 14.2 Useful resources

Thoughts? Havok (T/C/c) 05:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the current order makes sense with jus one modification, just move the Realms section into a subset of The World. --Hetar 05:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. The way it is now sort of "guides" the reader into the game. For example, when a user first starts playing the game, they have to first choose which type of realm they want to play on. They then need to make a character and finally enter the world. I do however think that "World Events" should be moved above "Virtual Community" --Lmundy 11:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Serenity Now

I am a sometimes user here on wiki, mainly adding minor details that the original article overlooked. Normally there is a definitive area which these details fit into. Enough rambling and on to the details. In early march on the illidian (PVP) server, a guild hosted an in-game funeral for an IRL death of a guildmate. What's significant is that this memorial was held in a PvP zone (presumably so either faction could participate), was advertised on forums so others could attend, and was raided by grief themed guild. The video from this "raid" became a point of discussion for players debating whether the action kept with the "in game" mentality compared to "real life" respect for the mourning. At this moment YouTube has shown the video 118,298 times, so it is not a tiny blip on the radar. My question is first whether this is significant enough to warrant wiki attention and secondly, where to categorize it. The main page doesn't deal with the player culture enough to include all the relevant details without disrupting the flow of the article. The incident and video don't necessarily seem to be relevant enough to require a full article, but I could not find any sub-articles that were appropriate for the information. So what to do about it? Altimit01 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, this is pure cruft and should not be mentioned in this article, or any other for that matter. Havok (T/C/c) 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please! Like the whole Star Wars WikiProject is not? Wikipedia is riddled with your supposed "cruft." Just becuse you object to it doesn't mean it would not enhance the article. I could see it fitting under criticisms, you know players taking things to seriously. Sound and Fury 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about the Star Wars Wikiproject. I agree with Havoc in this case. It doesn't seem to be notable. If you can find a reliable source for more information on the subject, then be my guest and put it somewhere. You could even put it in its own article if there were justification.

It's relevant and interesting, why not put it in?

Altair 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Also?

What happened to the see also? It looks like it got vandalized out, but the code still seems to be there. I can't quite figure out how to make it correctly appear on the page, can someone with better "wiki skill" stick it back in?

Nevermind, I got it. I think I had a problem with the pages being cached on my pc.

Question about movie

Is it a movie about "World of Warcraft" or about "Warcraft in general". If the last scenario is the case, it shouldn't be on this page I think. Sijo Ripa 11:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

All that Blizzard has said is that the movie will be about "The Warcraft Universe." The original press release does not mention what time period it will take place in, and to the best of my knowledge, no further information was disclosed to place it in Warcraft's timeline. --Polkapunk 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it was deleted from this article so I restored it to the "Warcraft" section -ScotchMB 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Credit Numbers

Is there any way to sign up to WoW other than by credit card? I've read about using a prepaid card, but don't you need a credit card to "authenticate" that your a "real person" or something? Jeez, just because I lack a credit number doesn't mean that i'm not a real person. AQjosh 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK you do not need a credit card to play the game, only the code from the box and a payment method. You can use exclusively prepaid cards so far as I know. sekhui 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cover art in Infobox

WP:WPCVG guidelines say that images in infoboxes should be game covers not logos of these games. This issue has been raised and warred over at WP:WPFF and led to the conversion from all game logos to cover arts in each article. I would suggest the same be done for World of Warcraft as its part of a descendant project of WPCVG and should conform to their MoS. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)—

Hm,,ok, I get your point; i just meant that you see the box in perspective, it looks slightly commercial, just wondering if a change to a flat cover image would be better? I don't know... --Shandris^{the azylean} 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Crew

Should we add a list of the talented people behin WoW? Lead designer, artists, programming and et cetera? Shandris^{the azylean} 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should and we should also add the forum moderators and Community Managers as well to this article Anker99 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WoW v.s. Lineage 1

So which of the above MMORPGs are the bestsellers/highest-subscribers of all time? Which one is currently #1? I've read that WoW is around 6 million; while Lineage was, at it's highest, 4 million; but right now, it's only 2.5 million. Is WoW really that much higher in active players than Lineage? But I've also read that even though there is a sequel, and it's very old, LIneage 1 is still #2 in active users, right under WoW. Is any of this true? What about outside of the U.S.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk • contribs) .

There is a website that puts out a pie chart comparison of subscriptions to major mmo's each month. WoW is the top with about 50% of all mmo subscriptions, with Lineage a fair distance behind at about 20-25%, other popular mmos such as Lineage 2 and Runescape are listed as well. Unfortunately I can't remember exact numbers, and I don't have a link. Also, I am uncertain of how they obtain the data used to create the pie chart... Altair 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Altair is referring to www.mmogchart.com Xenocidic 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Are there any wikipedia rules on reviews? We seem to keep getting links to reviews of questionable quality. --Polkapunk 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the rules outlined in WP:EL definately apply. Some of the most notable would be:

1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose should not be included.
2. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about those media, should not be included.
3. Websites with objectionable amounts of advertising should generally not be included.

--Hetar 19:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I always have a difficult time finding wikipedia rule/style pages... --Polkapunk 01:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

hacking of the game--all players affected?

Hi, working on Timeline of Internet conflicts, I have down that the first in-game 'hack' that negatively affected players in an MMO was the City of Heroes one in late 2005: harassement by hackers who took partial control of servers, forced disconnects, unplayability, repeated forced server reboots, etc. Anything like that ever happen in WoW or other MMOs? If so, when? Any links/screen shots? Thanks! rootology 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything like that happening in WoW, and I've been playing since release. There have been rumours that some instances of server instability have been caused by DDOS attacks, but that's about it. --Stormie 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes noted hacking team RPGBugs has released numerous hacks for WoW. These include Syndrome, A "Multi-Hack" that allowed you to climb over any mountin, float in the sky, teleport anywhere in the world, use a "radar" to see monsters, players and mines. Another multi-hack was BWH. Bots have been released which can play your character for you while you are AFK.

World of warcraft's hack protection, by Blizzard is like a ten foot tall and wide man fitting through a inch crack. Some people can get away with Bot's, but as soon as one is senced, it is added to a blacklist and the person is usually banned if the EXE is found running. I.E. WoWHack is added to the blacklist, if the program is detected, the person is banned. Never before has a hacker taken down a server, or actually done anything to bother any of the players.

Exploits R Us http://www.exploitsrus.com is another hugely popular group that focuses on exploiting World of Warcraft.

External Link to wcradio.com

Is the external link to the website wcradio.com usefull to this article? The article on this site has been removed under the accusation of non-notabilty. When a link to this site was added to the external links section, I removed it. It was then added a second time (by the same user), and I reverted it again. The links was then added by the third time, by the same user, using an "Edit Summary" for the first time now, saying "rv vandalism". As I may be doing vandalism without noticing, I would like to hear some established editors opinions on the value added by the presence of this link in the World of Warcraft article. I apologize in advance for my misguided judgement on this matter, if this was the case. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you are talking about me I will give you my opinion and wait for some other replies. World of Warcraft Radio is the biggest Talk Radio Station and Podcast center for shows based around W.o.W. It has all the latest information in relation the game and upcoming expansion, interviews with developers etc. The information contained on the site and the relevant shows in turn are equivalent if not greater than the relevant sites on this article. So I ask you, if Wow Radio is not notable enough to be linked why are the other sites on this article notable enough to be linked? Some of the sites linked provide the exact same content in the same fashion. e.g. Alakazam and Thottbot where as Wow Radio provides a unique view and means of content distribution which can be found nowhere else. That alone makes if reason enough to link it. The station themselves are supported by blizzard and have regular contact with them. They have been there every step of the way including the live video coverage of Blizzcon where blizzard gave them there full support to make sure it happened. --Paddyffrench 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the editors of this article agree with your arguments, I have no problem in mantaining this link. I do not really have an opinion on the relevance of a "talk radio station and podcast for shows based on W.o.W". As I said, I based my judgement on the fact that the article on this "talk radio station (...)" was removed for lack of notability. Anyway, it's great that you have come forth to state your ideas. Blank edit summaries and the unexplainned "rv vandalism" didn't exactly gave me the confidence to put the issue directly to you. --Abu Badali 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the article based around the Radio Station was deleted is a different story, one I’m not happy with. I checked that article regularly and it was deleted without my knowledge. I mean I didn't even get a chance to see it was up for deletion, I logged in to find it just gone. I and many other people were not given the chance to defend the article and put forward some of the points I made here. Given a chance the article may not have been deleted. With that said this is not the time or place to talk about that deletion and that article being deleted is not relevant to the linking of a website to this article. --Paddyffrench 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Article for Deletion bureocracy states that a warning should be put on the article page before deletion, just like it happened with your other deleted article. If the afd of World of Warcraft Radio was really irregular as you said, you should consider posting it on Wikipedia:Deletion review. As I side question, Paddyffrench, are you in any way related to these sites (WoW radio and origninal media)?--Abu Badali 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The O.M.F.G. article has nothing to do with this conversation or the justification for linking a website to this article neither has my affiliation with the Station and website in question. Please try to stay on topic. --Paddyffrench 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your affiliation with "the Station and website" may influence on your opinions of the notability of them. It is considered vanity to add links/articles to sites you're closely related with. You may want to take a look in #3 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided --Abu Badali 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again your point is completely irrelevant at this stage as you will see if you read point #3. It says "…let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link” which is what is being done. --Paddyffrench 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remove the link now and wait for some neutral stablished editor to add it sometime in the future, will you consider it vandalism again? --Abu Badali 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we keep adding links? Wikipedia is not a link repository. If you read the huge sign right under "External links", it says that the section is to big. This matter has been discussed many times before: here and here. No need for more links, there is actually a need to remove some. Havok (T/C/c) 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Playable Races

According to the chart, the Alliance Draenei will be able to play as a Shaman and the Horde Blood Elf will be able to play as a Paladin. This is certainly not correct? Lynxy 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is correct. Blizzard announced it yesterday 21/July/2006. Check any of the main websites. --Paddyffrench 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we all think it is strange :P 85.146.214.109 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Draenei no longer listed as being able to be paladins? There are several official Blizzard screenshots with them in paladin gear and I have heard no news to suggest otherwise... -- MacAddct1984  23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find an official definitive list to indicate either way. See discussion at Template talk:World of Warcraft classes. --Pcj 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The error has been fixed. --Paddyffrench 11:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, and gave a notice to the person who removed it. Havok (T/C/c) 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry to butt in as a non member but, is there anyway the race only abiltys can be added like the undead +10 dark resist. -random viewer

Current pricing and subscription fees

They are mentioned nowhere in the article. JONJONAUG 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Vault

Considering that we already have a link to IGN in the article's external links, would it not be appropriate to also add IGN's World of Warcraft Vault under "Useful information"? ~xenc. 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One IGN link is more than enough. --Hetar 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The IGN link currently is a link to a review and not to the fansite, which I feel is a huge resource. ~xenc. 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not an external link repository. The vault offers nothing that can't already be found at Wowiki, Thotbot, or any of the other current links. --Hetar 21:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel you are being unfair, WoW Vault is one of the original fan/community site for the game, and home of the original online Talent Calculator, and countless other special features. Its also one of the most active WoW Community sites for the game. Not having it at wikipedia is a disservice to the readership. -Eviltrance

Added web search results to verify "carebear server" slang usage

FYI, I added a quick web search results page from ask.com for "carebear server" as verification of the slang usage referring to servers with limited or no PvP play. Obviously a web search isn't pretty, but in this case since all we need is to verify it's informal use as a slang phrase, it's probably adequate. Still, if someone has a more formal citation, feel free to insert it. :) Dugwiki 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not just 'slang', it is in fact a derogatory comment used by people to insult others who play on a pve server. The fact alone that people find the comment insulting should be enough to have it removed. --Paddyffrench 13:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the problem here is notability, rather than verifiability. The web search verifies the meaning of the term, but it does not show that the use of this term is so common that it needs to be included in the description of the server type (in my experience it is not very common). In my opinion the article would be better off without that sentence, but at the very least, "care-bear" should be changed to "carebear", which is the term used in the search. Tengfred 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is original research. A search result set is a primary source; taking the initiative to perform the search and decide what the results mean is original research, creating a secondary source. Wikipedia is to be a tertiary source, which means we can't do web searches and cite them as references. Powers ^T 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to quickly reply to the comments above...

First, it's not entirely clear to me how "derogatory" the term "carebear" actually is. I've also seen the term used in non-derogatory ways as simple shorthand interchangable with "PvE". And even if you assume that some players find the term insulting, that doesn't necessarilly mean it's not notable or worth mentioning in the article. In particular, this particular phrase might serve as partial illustration of differences in preferred play style and attitudes of PvE and PvP players. So the fact that there might be some conflict over the term would make it worth mentioning.

Second, the fact that the term does appear on numerous websites and forums clearly demonstrates it is a notable term. In fact, the term isn't specific to WoW; it is used by players in many other MMORPGs, including Everquest, DDO, SWG, etc. Basically you'll find the term popping up in PvP/PvE discussions on any MMO forum where PvP is a "hot topic".

Therefore the main question is how to verify the term's usage without original research, and whether or not to use the web search in this context. On review I tend to agree with the above poster that a web search is probably a primary source as opposed to secondary source. It still probably serves as pretty good direct evidence of the term's usage, but it's definitely preferable to instead cite a secondary source. Finding a secondary source doing research on internet gaming phraseology, though, might be tricky. After all, this is slang, so it's probably only going to appear on blogs and forums and in MMORPG related podcasts, etc. Wikipedia has a Carebear article, but of course it too isn't referenced and Wiki articles can't use other Wiki articles as citations. So for now, I'll remove the search results, being a primary source, and hopefully someone can find a better source for citation. Dugwiki 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

'Carebear' is indeed a derogatory term, used exclusively by PvPers against non-PvPers indicating that they are somehow weak or lesser only because they do not like PvP. A non-PvPer would never refer to themselves or their own server with this term. it is synonymous with wuss and other such words. Sahuagin 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A web search will return many results showing individuals describing themselves, or their playing style, as 'carebear'. Whilst the term may have originally been an insult, it appears it is no longer considered this way.

oh, really? heres what i get from google:

"Anyone who wasn't for full, all out PVP was a Carebear and a loser"

"if you want to be a carebear you can play on the pve servers."

"You are the same jerks that call those of us on PVE Servers "Carebears"

"Eventually some people (including me), sick of being labelled Carebears, started to ..."

"I find it so funny that all those PVP Jerks that called us Carebears because we wanted to play..."

besides even if a black person uses the 'n' word against himself its still a derogatory term. Sahuagin 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Game engine?

Why doesn't this article have any information on the game's development or the game engine used? It would be very appropriate for an encyclopedic article about a video game. ~MDD4696 03:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is such information available? The game engine is not a licensed one (although I know it uses FMOD for it's sound engine), there may be some information about the development available from developer interviews or some such. --Stormie 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Version history

When and why was the page "World of Warcraft Version history" removed, and by whom? It was a good page...sad that Wikipedia likes to delete so many good articles, it's just waste of people's time.... Shandris^{the azylean} 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find the reasons why it was deleted on the deletion page. Altair 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Leeroy Jenkins on Jeopardy

I don't see why someone put next to this. If you want, you can use leeroyfor1000.ytmnd.com as a source. --TIB (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Internet memes are not a reliable source. Syrthiss 12:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added links to the videos themselves. NBS525 13:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Those would be primary sources, though. Per WP:RS: "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." Powers 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are, though, some exceptions to the primary source rule when the information being verified by the source requires no expert knowledge of the subject and there is no contention of its validity. In this case, a video clip of the actual question being read by Alex Trebek on the Jeopardy episode in question is clearly accurate and doesn't require expert fact checking to validate (ie the clip is totally self explanatory and can't be taken out of context). So this might be a reasonable case where using a primary source is ok.

However, that all being said, there would be the possible issue of copyright infringement. That is, Jeopardy is a copyrighted show, and presumably reserves the right to refuse people to rebroadcast it. It's not immediately clear to me whether or not Wikipedia would allow you to post a link to a clip that the copyright holder hasn't provided an open license to show. For that reason, it might be better to post a link to a news article from a reasonably reliable source that mentions the Jenkins question (maybe an article from a realiable WoW news site?) Dugwiki 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact

Even if something is common knowledge, we still need citations for them. So feel free to find sources for the information flaged with {{Fact}}. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice one. I found one, will hunt for some others. --Stormie 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the following sources for the second fact-tag in the System requirements section, but I'm a bit unsure about both if they are "good sources" and how to add them, I figured I'd post them here for review first. Source for running WoW under linux: http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=5606 Source for running under FreeBSD: http://wiki.bsdforen.de/index.php/FreeBSD_-_WoW_-_English Tengfred 09:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Look good to me. Although do you think [1] (a page that is linked to from the page you linked) would be better for running WoW under Linux? I dunno. --Stormie 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The page you suggest seems to be instructions for a particular distribution of linux. I belive that the winehq page shows more clearly that the game can in general be played under linux. I will add the links now, feel free to edit them if you disagree. Tengfred 10:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles is currently being debated. Feel free to contribute to the discussion, whatever your opinion may be. --Hetar 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Carebear

I've never heard the slang "Carebear" for PVE servers, Of all the servers I've been on, i've never heard of it... is it ok if it can be deleted? Colinstu

It's actually a fairly common internet slang word. It usually comes up in internet forum topics and podcasts that are specifically dealing with PvP vs PvE settings. It's not a Warcraft specific term, either; I've seen it used since the early days of Everquest, for example. For a quick sample of its usage, take a look at the search results from ask.com "Carebear PvP".Dugwiki 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it a decent amount. Calling PvE servers "carebear servers", calling guilds that don't interefere much with the other faction "carebears", that sort of thing. I don't think it's actually used much on PvE servers themselves; it's more used by people on PvP servers who are ardent PvPers and look down on players on their server who aren't. modargo 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be removed. "Carebear server" is not common general slang for PvE server, it is a derogatory term usable only in a very narrow context ("pve-bashing"), and as such it's out of place in an encyclopedic entry such as this. As it is, the sentence creates more confusion than it clears up. Tengfred 11:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to dispute one thing above - this term IS pretty common slang on internet forums and in podcasts. I already posted a sample search of its uses above. You might debate whether to include it due to being a possibly insulting term, but I definitely disagree with the contention that it's not a common term in the MMORPG community.Dugwiki 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Level 60 progression and Area accesibility

I'd like to note that at level 60, the game does not in ANY WAY become raid-centric for all players. There are many hardcore PvPers, alt levelers, Rpers, and lowbie instance runners. not to mention those who do instances such as BRD, Scholo, and Strath... Also, Hyjal and the Ironforge airport both have graphics, and are accesible by hillwalking. this hould also be changed. 71.137.109.236 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Golvani71.137.109.236 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the intro seems to have been heavily modified by someone who's bitter about the endgame...dare I say someone who wants free epics. --Tilmitt 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The introduction reads not at all unlike the intro at EverQuest. The statements about the endgame are both accurate and well-sourced, including remarks from the game's lead designer in The New York Times. Yes, in any MMO, one can "come up with something to do" if they're not participating in the intended endgame. One can fish all day in WoW if one likes, but that is obviously not its intended endgame nor where the overwhelming majority of WoW's development has been focused.

Dispute the comments? Take it up with Mr. Jeff Kaplan, the "fundamental change at 60" assessment is a verbatim quote, available in the provided source. The game is raid-centric; whether or not it "becomes that" for all players is irrelevant. 206.255.1.73 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

sure sounds like bias in those last two sentences. it just doesnt sound relevant to the intro.

"The game fundamentally changes upon reaching level 60, its raid-dependent (and time-consuming) nature a vast departure from the relatively casual experience of advancing one's character from levels 1 to 60.[3] The majority of World of Warcraft's endgame content (for level 60 players) requires raiding, with 40-player raids making up the bulk of the game's development since release.[4]"

why is it so negative? maybe the fact that there are lots of raids at 60 is a good thing? until 60 you cant have gone on raids. in the end the article is supposed to have NO bias, good or bad. Sahuagin 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate for the intro. Completely. Put it in a relevent section such as criticisms or percieved "raid centric" end game. I personally completely disagree with it too. --Tilmitt 17:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not percieved, and that aside, why is it criticism? You can disagree with Jeff Kaplan and World of Warcraft's own site all you like. I completely object to the removal of this paragraph, especially in light of an identical paragraph at EverQuest. There is precedent. 206.255.1.73 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of slightly modifying the language in the above sentence. I wanted to clarify that it is content designed for level 60 that is mainly raid-centric, but it is still possible to play the game by defeating lower level challenges and certain quests. Hopefully the new modification helps answer some of the concerns in this thread by getting both points across, but if you think you have a better wording please feel free to edit it as appropriate. Just thought I'd give it a shot. :) Dugwiki 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chunk of text removed

I have removed the following chunk of text from the opening section.

The game fundamentally changes upon reaching level 60, its raid-dependent (and time-consuming) nature a vast departure from the relatively casual experience of advancing one's character from levels 1 to 60. Although level 60 players can continue playing casually by defeating lower level content, crafting and certain quests, the majority of World of Warcraft's endgame content designed specifically for level 60 players requires raiding, with 40-player raids making up the bulk of the game's development since release. Upon the release of "The Burning Crusade" Expansion, new raid encounters will comprise of 25-player groups, as Blizzard attempts to move toward smaller, more tight knit raids. Blizzard has gone on the record to say the previous 40-man raids (Naxxramas, Blackwing Lair, Onyxia's Lair, Temple of Ahn'Qiraj and The Molten Core) will be the last 40-man encounters.

This starts off at a totally inappropriate level of detail for the introductory section, veers into total POV, and winds up in excessive detail that would be better off in the World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade article. Maybe we can use some portion of this in a later section on gameplay, but not in the introduction. See Wikipedia:Lead section - "the lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic". --Stormie 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the above section probably would fit better under a later gameplay subsection of the article. I'm not as sure about a major POV problem, though. It does references for verification for most of the statements, including a citation on the official Blizzard website and the New York Times. So while it might stand some minor tweaking, I don't think it has POV problems that rise to the level of complete deletion. Dugwiki 17:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well-sourced information should not be deleted without reason, and the introductory paragraph you deleted runs parallel to the same at EverQuest. Please discuss on Talk before making mass deletions, there is clearly no consensus for your outright deletions. 206.255.1.73 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with OP 100% that this should be removed from the introduction. I'm not sure it belongs in the article at all as I think it does have POV problems ('relatively casual experience', etc) and contains a lot of detail for an encyclopedia article. If it's included, it should be included in proposed 'gameplay' type section. Aboverepine 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "too much detail" argument is untrue; see EverQuest. The allegations of "POV problems" are, again, made toward well-sourced quotes from Jeff Kaplan's interview with the New York Times. There is no POV problem. 206.255.1.73 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the EverQuest intro should be trimmed as well. Way too long and detailed for an article intro. It's bad precedent. See Wikipedia:Lead section - "the lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic." I'll cede the POV thing in the context of this discussion. At the very least, this paragraph should be moved from the intro to another section of the article. Aboverepine 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Everquest's lead section was also way too long and detailed, thanks for pointing this out. I have split the lead sections of both articles in half, breaking off a big chunk into a "Gameplay" section. I think this is an improvement, although World of Warcraft needs a bit more of a description in there I think. --Stormie 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a big problem with the following section remaining in the intro:

World of Warcraft is a radical departure from the standard real-time strategy style of the other Warcraft games. Featuring a low learning curve, easy level advancement, and "hack-n-slash" gameplay with low down-time,

If that type of game evaluation is to be used, which reads like an advertisement more than anything else, why not the well-sourced one? 206.255.1.73 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

re: 7 million subscriber reference

I modified the sentence and reinserted the Blizzard article that Stormie deleted. I changed the sentence to clarify that the number is a Blizzard claim as of Feburary 28, 2006, as opposed to a "current" number. Hopefully that addresses your complaint about the reference being dated, Stormie, but if not feel free to clarify and edit the sentence as needed. Dugwiki 16:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. Obviously if there's a more recent number officially claimed by Blizzard in an official press release, please feel free to update that sentence and change the reference accordingly. Dugwiki 16:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If Blizzard have claimed 7 million subscribers, we should be able to find a source for this claim. But we can't just say "Blizzard claim 7 million subscribers[1]" with a footnote to a press release which clearly says "6 million". Anyway, I found a more recent press release claiming 6.5 million - please leave this in place until someone can provide a source for a claim of 7 million. --Stormie 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whatever number the footnoted Blizzard press release says is what should be in the article as what they are claiming "as of this date". Dugwiki 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's go to war with one-sentence paragraphs.

The article obviously needs a heavy cleanup; I started by scrapping the point-by-point list of system requirements. If you see any one-line/one-sentence paragraphs, see if they can be integrated elsewhere in the article. 1.73 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article with the single intention of reading what the sys requirements are for the game. I saw none and had to leave this comment. My one suggestion: If youre going to just chop out an entire section, perhaps you should also change the title of the section as it reads "System requirements" right now and they are nowhere to be found. (Well, besides the history.) Yeah I found them on the official website after checking here so it doesn't matter now, but maybe someone should rename the section to help with the confusion? Also isn't it best to ask for opinions from others before deleting a huge chunk of text? 71.81.243.226 05:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

old forum links

Blizzard has moved to a new forum system, thus many links will be out of date (Face Melting link, for example). The forum links need to be cleaned up.

Took a try at improving wording in intro and gameplay sections

I took a stab at improving the wording in the intro and gameplay sections. I moved a few sentences around slightly, merged a single sentence paragraph into a neighboring one, replaced some duplicated phrases, and so on. I also added a very basic, general introduction to World of Warcraft RPG gameplay, for those readers who might not play MMORPGs and aren't familiar with how they work.

Hopefully the new wording and Gameplay section intro paragraph sound good, but feel free to undo or alter it if you think I messed something up or you have a better way to phrase something. Dugwiki 16:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Love your work. --Stormie 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Dugwiki 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with WoW Forums Article

I don't think the articles should be merged, with one main reason. That reason is this article is massive, and adding a somewhat large article like the WoW Forums article, would only clutter up this page more. However, if we were to split up this article a bit and cut back on the WoW Forums article, I would agree to merging it. Altair 17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Altair above. If anything the article is probably too large as it stands. Merging in another large article about the forums would be too much. I say leave the forum article as simply a related article with a "see also" in this one." Dugwiki 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, no need to make this article larger. I think the only circumstances a 'merger' would work is to note the forums briefly in the main article and delete the forums article. edit: just saw that forums survived AfD last year, so this probably isn't a viable solution.Aboverepine 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge: The forums are a completely separate software entity from the game itself. Aside from using the same login and character lists as the game, the 2 have no direct interaction. Also, it would really clutter up the WoW article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge: for the reasons stated above Boneyard 11:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge This article is big enough as it is and the forums have nothing to do with the game itself. Havok (T/C/c) 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was not to merge. Havok (T/C/c) 07:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Article too geekish ?

Heavy use of video-game "jargon" is made in the article. Jargon is fine and all whenever a given audience is composed of "experts" (in this particular field, "expert" would refer to MMORPG/WoW players), but Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is typically (or at least potentially so) read by non experts. While I, being a geek and having played WoW, did have no trouble reading the article, the choice of words and overall tone struck me as wholly inadequate. Introducing jargon to provide the reader with material for further reading or to label concepts is of course fine, however, regular language should be prefered whenever possible in the regular course of the article.

"hardcore players", "raids", "gear" (to designate weapons and armour), "to log", "to script", "PvP flag", "grinding", "resists", "instance", are unlikely to be understood by people unfamiliar with online gaming or MMORPGs/WoW specifically, and that's assuming the reader understands more generic RPG jargon such as "levels" and "dungeons" in the first place.

Some fundamental concepts or features are so obvious to WoW players that they are addressed only vaguely if at all in the article. For instance, that the players are split into feuding "Horde" and "Alliance" sides, with next to no communication possible between the two, and little interaction outside of player vs player combat, is fundamental to the game, yet mostly assumed to be common knowledge. Opposite to that are details that I don't think the average reader needs to know, such as how to turn on one's "PvP flag".

To anyone this may concern, please keep in mind articles are potentially read by a broad audience (I'll try to fix the more glaring problems if I find the time). Equendil Talk 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it IS an article about a Game, made by players of that game...131.247.240.244 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe these terms deserve a page to themselves. One page covering all the most popular words used. As a player of multiple MMORPGS, I have seen many terms be transfered between games without the slightest change in meaning. Any thoughts? -Mcloud1221

Success

The article should mention the success of the game: 7 million subscribers in 9/2006, with 3 million+ players in China, 2 million in U.S., and 1 million+ in Europe. Most other online games have only 100,000s or 10,000s of subcribers. World of Warcraft earned over $1 billion (at $14 subscriptions/month) in 2006, even though the software is free.

I think you missed

Although its initial release was hampered by server stability and performance issues, problems which still intermittently recur[1], the game is widely regarded as a success. Blizzard claims to have more than 6.5 million active subscriptions worldwide as of May 10, 2006.[2].

that part. If you find a reliable source that says 7 mil, we can gladly change that part.Altair 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links creeping into the middle of article

External Links are being creeped into the middle of the article in the modification section. (See WP:EL) --Voidvector 06:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been done to combat the ever growing EL section at the bottom. Seeing as they have something to do with the article, I see no problem here. WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy, so we are allowed to link in the middle of articles, and rather that then a bloated EL section at the bottom. Havok (T/C/c) 11:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

trial or demo

is there any sort of trial or demo for wow? thanks.

There is Recruit-A-Friend program for the North America version. There used to be a FilePlanet trial, I just checked, it is over now. There might be other other websites sponsoring trial for North America version, but I don't know. There is an European trial version.--Voidvector 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you! very helpful. so happens I'm in europe, so we'll see if it works. thanks again.

Removed sentence from criticism, needs verification

Removed this from the criticism section. It needs to be verified: "Also early in 2006 a boy in new york stabbed his sister after he was repeatedly "ganked" (slang for a new low level player being "ganged up on" by high level characters." Tengfred 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding Wowhead to the Useful information section

Wowhead is an awesome World of Warcraft database website which promises a great future, as long as it becomes increasingly popular. I find the filter and browsing systems superior than the ones on Thottbot, and the website looks better and is faster to browse on. I think a link to the website should be added to the Useful information section.

--Father Chaos 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a site hosted by wowvault.ign.com which is already in the list of external links. It has the same functionality as thottbot. It does have a better interface and is not owned by IGE, but thottbot is already listed and more established. --Voidvector 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of more clean and complete db's than THB , Allakhazam for one with more data and more clean but a bit slower , or WoWd with a bit more data even than THB and fast speed , still THB is the refference wow db for now , and wowhead is just growing out of a talent calculator , it is a bit basic.--Mancini 20:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of wowd before, it sure is ugly and unorganized, I don't see how it can compare. Thottbot is clean and fast for me and I never have trouble finding what I am searching for.

Celebrities who play WoW

Tell me if you guys agree or disagree, but I think it would be cool to add a section about celebrities who are known fans and players of the game. It would solidify the fact that the game is very deeply laden in the public's concsiousness, and show that the game is very cool (despite what's stereotypically believed). I know for a fact that Brandon Routh and Dave Chappelle are big into it. Do you guys know more? --CmdrClow 06:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's totally relevant to the article. But if you can find reliable sources for who plays then I guess it wouldn't be a big deal? --Lmundy 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that Lori and Corey Cole, from the sadly-defunct Sierra Entertainment, have WoW characters (it's listed on their website, which I currently don't have on me). 207.216.10.130 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that Robin Williams plays WoW as well. NBS525 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that a section like that would be good for the article. I agree with what CmdrClow is saying, in that it would help explain just how popular the game really is. --Christknight 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching around, I found a couple of links to articles for celebrities playign WoW. These might be an ok start, if the references can be cleaned up a little:

• Gamespot and other sites had references to David Chappelle talking about how he plays the game ("I knew I had some geek brothers and sisters ....")

• Moviehole.net had an interview excerpt from the new Superman actor Brandon Routh. Routh claimed he was very interested in taking part in the upcoming WoW because he is an avid fan of the game. (A link to the full interview would be a better reference.)

Robin Williams was mentioned in a couple of places, and is particularly mentioned as an avid computer gamer, but I didn't spot any good references such as an interview where he specifically mentions WoW. Dugwiki 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Deviation from the MMORPG archetype section changes

Continuing edits on the "Deviation" section, and per Havoc's tags, I'm removing or altering some of the unreferenced statements. For reference, below are statements I've removed so that, if a suitable citation is provided, they can be easily reinserted.

• Removed "common" from "common complaints". Easier to verify they received complaints or feedback than that the complaints are "common".

• "Many players find grinding uninteresting and opt instead to continue to do quests." - altered the sentence. Verification needed to say what "many" players find uninteresting.

• "Rest increases whether or not a character is logged in, but slowly enough (10 days to reach a fully-rested state in an inn) that it is most easily noticed when a character is first logged in after not having been played for several hours or days." - Havoc flagged this for citation. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe this sentence is taken almost directly from the game manual. If so, the game manual could be used as the reference.

• "Attention to such details are common strategies among the top guilds to prepare their members for tackling the most difficult, and correspondingly most rewarding, raid encounters in the game." - This statement is true, I think, but it needs a reference or example. It also doesn't add as much as I wanted to the last paragraph when I wrote it, so removed it for now. Maybe a similar statement can be verified by finding a well written guide to high level raiding on the net?

• The statement about Naxxramas is probably true, but could use a footnote. Maybe something pointing to a walkthrough for the raid?

Generally speaking, this section could use some footnotes overall pointing to text that backs up the statements. I'm not doubting the facts, but it would be useful to have a footnote pointing to verification. Dugwiki 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There are seriously celebs who play WoW!?

Importance

I don't find anything in the article about this game which justify the Top importancec this game was rated with. I have just re-rated the importance of this game to High — even that might be a bit much: It's "just" one in a series of Warcraft games and (apparently) not notable in any areas (ref. the article). Add some notability references or I'll be tempted to re-rate it as Mid. :-) --Frodet 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I may be missing the reason for this label, but if you want a reason this game is important, 6+ Million subscribes worldwide (making it the largest MMORPG of current times and indeed ever) certainly endow it with some 'high' significance I'd say. Should you be looking for other significance - academic for instance - there are a number of published papers dealing with interpersonal relations within the game. Ducheneaut et al (2006) for instance. Tim 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning it's importance, I'm questioning it's Top importance. --Frodet 21:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Essential articles, "Top" importance means "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia" and "High" means "Subject is exceptionally important". Almost all of the "Top" importance articles are broader concepts such as History of computer and video games. Only three actual games are so revered - Super Mario Bros., Pokémon Red and Blue and Tetris. By these demanding standards, I think it is perfectly reasonable to rate World of Warcraft as "High" importance - I certainly have no doubt that it is "exceptionally important". --Stormie 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes Pokémon Red and Blue so special? If you say it's because it has sold so many units, then The Sims should be made Top aswell, seeing as it's the best selling PC game of all time, and also one of the - if not the - best known PC game in the world. I would contend that an MMORPG with almost 7 million players would rate as Top, seeing as no other MMORPG has even come close to the astablished userbase which WoW has. Not only that, but Blizzard single-handedly made MMORPGs mainstream with this game. Much like, for example the PlayStation made gaming a non-geek hobby. I think this article deservs the Top rating as it has made its place in gaming history. And who decides these ratings anyway? Havok (T/C/c) 07:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Havok above that Pokémon Red and Blue being a Top rated article is questionable. I also agree that WoW probably deserves a Top rating due to its overwhelming success and, more importantly, because it now appears to be a benchmark product for comparison in interviews and industry trade show presentations. By the I mean that other game publishers looking to enter the MMO market are specifically mentioning WoW as a means of comparison for their own product, and interviewers and game reviewers are using WoW as a well-known popular standard by which to compare other products in the MMORPG field. So even people who feel that WoW is not the "best" game still mention it and respect its mass appeal, and either want to imitate successful parts of its model or seek weaknesses in the game system on which their own new products might improve. WoW is also the game of choice to discuss in the news media when talking about "video game addiction"; even though other games and MMORPGs presumably have a small percentage of literally "addicted" players, the only game I have ever seen actually mentioned in such articles is WoW.

Therefore because WoW has become an important "standard" for comparison in the industry, due to its massive popularity, I would say that any encyclopedia which discusses computer gaming likely must mention this game, hence giving it a Top rating. In fact, if anything, I'd go so far as to say that WoW surpasses the "Warcraft series" overall in importance (meaning WoW as a game is more important to computer gaming than the Warcraft mythology and previous games around which its own storylines are based.) Dugwiki 15:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, given that Frodet unilaterally changed the importance rating without prior discussion, and that the response to the change so far was negative, I have reverted the rating to "Top" for now. I'd suggest that before lowering the rating at this point a consensus should be sought here first. Dugwiki 16:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just when I think I'm done typing, I think of something else. I'm going to temper my comments with the following - I'm assuming here that some individual computer games are assigned "Top" ratings. That is, within the scope of specific computer games, WoW would be a "top" rating of importance. However, if no individual computer games are given Top status, and instead Top status is reserved for very broad articles such as Computer and video games,then it would make sense to not give WoW a Top rating. Note that currently MMORPG and Computer role-playing game, for example, currently have "Mid" ratings of importance. So if no specific games are mentioned, it's hard to justify WoW getting a higher rating than parent articles about its overall gaming genre.

Thus the question of what rating to give this article would depend on the scale we're talking about. If the scale is "importance among specific games", it would be Top (in my opinion). If the scale is "all articles related to leisure time activities", its importance is either High or Mid depending on the scope. Dugwiki 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that games like Civilization (computer game), Donkey Kong (video game), Pac-Man and Quake are all rated high. What makes WoW of higher importance than these titles? I'm not saying that it's not, but as a non-MMORPG gamer I fail to understand it's top importance from the article alone. The NYTimes article in the references does not work either.

Of course, all ratings are subjective — there is bound to be dissent. It's difficult to find objective criteries for everything. For instance, I could re-assess all articles after my personal taste, but short of that I tend to compare relative importance based on article content. :-) This is a CVG article so the scale is "everything computer and video game related" (from 1947-).

My suggestion on this is that the editors of this article back up the current top importance with verifyable facts about the game (sales or subscriptions are one; others can be awards, impact in and out of CVG genre, critical acclaim, technology or anything else significant.

--Frodet 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which again brings me to the question, what makes Pokémon Red and Blue special enough to warrant a Top rating? And I would also argue that the four titles you mention all warrant a Top rating. Havok (T/C/c) 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For one it apparently outsold Tetris. :) PRaB might not deserve a top ranking, but the article at least gives some rationale for that ranking, compared to WoW. But even if the games I mentioned are promoted to a top ranking, that does not automatically warrant WoW the same ranking. Substanciate! --Frodet 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need is a broader answer to the question of what constitutes a top rating within the realm of video games. Are we looking to include a sampling of the top "must read about" games from each gaming genre? If so then WoW is definitley on the top of the MMORPG list, and one of the top computer RPG or online games. On the other hand, if the encyclopedia only "needs" to have an article about the broad concept of video games, and then just a small sample of influential video games from over the course of the last 30 years, then WoW would probably be "High" importance alongside other highly successful games. So the question, then, is what sort of cross sample of video game articles are we looking for? Dugwiki 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a question (now I better understand what's being looked for) of zeitgeist. In terms of current importance, there is no question that WoW would justify a "top" rating in my mind, but the qualification seems more geared towards something of longstanding import rather than of-the-moment. WoW *could* be that. It may well turn out to be just that, but at the moment I'm not sure you can say it is. All it takes is the next revolution, the next step up and suddenly it's an interesting stepping stone on the route to somwhere else. That's my take on it anyhow; such criteria would probably alter the current makeup of the "top" games list anyhow. Tim 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance is really an opinion, isn't it? When we look at the importance of WoW, what I think we should be looking at is what the players think about it. I play WoW, myself, and it's true that most of WoW's players are convinced that it is indeed the best MMORPG out there. I, as well as many other online gamers can compare WoW to a few other online games, such as City of Heroes and RuneScape, and I agree with them that WoW is the best. And it's true that WoW has become an MMORPG standard. Some proof of that fact could be: if you deactivate a City of Heroes account, they ask you (in a deactivation survey) what other online games you've played in the past, and the game at the top of the list of games is World of Warcraft. In my opinion, WoW has well earned a Top rating. --Christknight 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WoW - SEA Server coming soon

Please keep checking the WarcraftSEAhomepage and add the link to this article as an official link once Closed/Open Beta commences. --AOL Alex 21:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Concerning the citation by Dr. Maressa Orzack at Criticism section:

• The 40% figure comes from a not-new Nick Yee survey -- where at least 40% of the people who took the survey identified themselves as addicted: http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/pdf/Yee_MMORPG_Presence_Paper.pdf This 40% figure was of course relative to the respondents, and not necessarily representative of the overall population.
• One of Maressa Orzack's colleagues, John M. Grohol, pointed out that "Dr. Orzack is not claiming that up to 40% of Word of Warcraft gamers are addicted based upon any actual evidence or surveys of players. This is just her opinion, based upon her own experience and observation of the problem." and also "it’s a ridiculous claim to say someone is addicted to an activity they enjoy and call it a “serious mental disorder.”"
• When asked Dr. Orzack refused to comment on the methodology of her study, see: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060809-7459.html

Therefore i think this statement lacks foundation, is sensationalistic and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.11.185.115 (talk • contribs)

It's not really the place of Wikipedia to analyze Dr. Orzack's work and decide whether or not he methodology was acceptable - to do so is basically original research. It would be more appropriate to add the fact that Dr. Grohol disagreed with her conclusions than to remove them entirely. --Stormie 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Per above, I added a sentence to the paragraph clarifying that the 40% figure is Orzack's informal opinion and not based on scientific study or evidence. Nor would I mind Orzack's statement being deleted entirely, since it's not a verifiable figure but is simply someone's gut opinion. Personally I'm not sure Wiki should be in the business of presenting unresearched "opinions" as having scientific weight (just my opinion). Dugwiki 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone commented out the sentence I added as "original research", so I reinserted the sentence and expanded it, including quotes and citations to the above interviews. Hopefully that will satisfy the complaint. Dugwiki 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Its great now. Before it just sounded like someone who didn't like what she was saying and was trying to minimize it unnecessarily. She did make clear in her original quote that it is conjecture, not the formal results of a study in the way she started the sentence: "I'd say...". But either way, ist fine now. I am a WoW supporter in the end in the sense that my software was used to make the game. --Bhouston 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The word accommodate is misspelt as accomodate in the 'Deviation' section.

Fixed! --Stormie 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article cited under Criticism about the GLBT group that got targeted by a WoW mod appears to have been pulled off of Washington Post's online records. I managed to read a 'cached' copy I found at Google, but there's no telling how long that will last. Perhaps someone knows of a permanent record somewhere that could be linked instead? 209.233.180.44 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deviance from MMORPG archetype section

I looked at a previous version of the last paragraph:

"However, gameplay changes drastically at level 60. In order to get access to the best gear, players must either invest in an 'honor grind' in battlegrounds, or spend copious amounts of time raiding in end-game instances. Furthermore, progression in these end-game instances may require additional grinding for 'resist' gear (fire, nature, and shadow predominantly), reputation for factions associated with the instance, money for repair bills, and consumables for use within the instance. The newest 40 man instance, Naxxramas, requires considerable reputation grinding to even be allowed to enter the instance without expensive material costs. The gear obtained from high end instances is in most cases considerably superior to that available elsewhere, and can result in a pronounced disparity that is readily apparent in Player vs Player combat. While many agree that gear obtained from raiding is the result of large amounts of time and effort put into the game, endgame in World of Warcraft has reverted to the paradigm set by previous games such as EverQuest. "

And it was changed to:

"However, gameplay changes for some players at level 60. If a player chooses to attain the "best" gear, players must either invest time in earning PVP rewards in battlegrounds, or spend varying amounts of time raiding in end-game instances. Players who are skilled in PVE events and raiding usually spend no more than 4 to 6 hours on their raid days to clear entire dungeons, like Molten Core, Ahn'Qiraj, Blackwing Lair, etc. As with grouping, doing small 5-man instances, it's a good idea to go in with 'resist' gear (fire, nature, and shadow predominantly). It is also a good idea to work up one's reputation for factions associated with the instance, make sure they earned money for repair bills, and consumables for use within the instance. If one is not prepared, it is simply a burden on others who are. The newest 40 man instance, Naxxramas, requires the right reputation level to be allowed to enter the instance without expensive material costs. The gear obtained from high end instances is in most cases considerably superior to that available elsewhere, because the content is harder and takes more time to earn. "

then through some later edits it was a bit toned down. I have a problem with the deviance section's last paragraph. How is grinding, raiding, time sinks something unique to wow? Whether it's a good thing or not is debatable, but it's definitely not something that makes wow unique and is a carryover from everquest. There's no deviance, it's the same archetype and the previous version was pointing out that WoW endgame is nothing unique. Does anyone else find this paragraph change was biased and odd?

Good point. The last paragraph shown above does look like it would better belong at the end of the Gameplay section, not the Deviation section. The high end raid system its describing is actually pretty commonplace and doesn't really "deviate" from anything else, nor to my knowledge does Blizzard claim that "raids" are unique to WoW. I'd suggest moving that paragraph to the end of the Gameplay section, along with maybe condensing it slightly and removing some duplicate statements already in the Gameplay section. Dugwiki 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and, as suggested above, moved the last paragraph talking abotu level 60 play of the Deviation section to the Gameplay section. It looks ok, but I can't shake the feeling the gameplay section could stand a little trimming. I didn't have any great ideas off-hand on condensing it, but maybe one of you guys can word that section more efficiently. Of course, if someone disgrees with the move I did, feel free to post about it here and/or revert it. Dugwiki 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

South Park

The premier episode of the tenth season was solely based on World of Warcraft and it's culture (online culture in general). This could be considered a reference or something, but I'll let someone else put it in. If someones up to the task, that'd be great to add.Monkeypillow 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is already there as an article Make_Love,_Not_Warcraft, of course this is a flash in the pan, I suspect that it will be forgotten very soon. - Trysha ^(talk) 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't notice that article, thank you. Like you said, it'll probably be forgotten after a while.Monkeypillow 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the article didn't have a Pop Culture References section, which I've seen in a number of similar articles. I went ahead and created a short Pop Culture section and included snippets about South Park episode and Leeroy Jenkins with links to the related articles. There was also a scene revolving around World of Warcraft in the Stargate:Atlantis "The Return: Part 1" recently, but I didn't include it since I didn't have a footnote reference to include for it yet. If someone can find a good reference though to verify the Warcraft scene, feel free to add a bullet point for it. Dugwiki 16:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Havoc removed the section a few minutes after I added it, since he felt that a See Also link was sufficient. That's fine, although I wanted to add the snippets under a Pop Culture section to place those links and context and also to help establish a current level of notability for the game within popular media. Dugwiki 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. Havoc, FYI for future reference, please don't mark section deletions or reversions in the history as "minor". Thanks.) Dugwiki 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I felt it was a minor edit. As for the section, I think it should be removed seeing as we have articles for them allready. The entire WoW article is cluttered and massive as it is allready, and I don't actually feel that this section adds anything to the article that isn't explored in the other articles allready. That is the reason we have a See also section. Havok (T/C/c) 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a minor edit because a) it was multiple paragraphs and took probably about 15 minutes to type the section up and look up the links for the references, so reverting it undoes all that work; and b) the reversion is clearly something that might be controversial or could use some discussion. The minor edit tag is supposed to be for things like typos and small corrections that probably aren't going to be debated. This doesn't fall in that category.Dugwiki 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt the first episode of the tenth season, its the first episode of the second half of the 10th season

Just to follow, according to today's paper the episode was a big success for Comedy Central as their highest rated midseason debut in six years. I included a sentence about that with citation in the South Park paragraph, as it indirectly implies the popularity and reach of this game, and also shows that this episode could have been a notable item making South Park viewers who don't play WoW interested in checking out the game. Dugwiki 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised nobody has noticed this, but the plot of the episode is based off .hack//sign, the whole "he has surpassed the game itself" quote is pretty much ripped from that show dirrectly. And the general idea of a single person becoming all powerful and outside the normal game rules is the .hack plot as well. anybody think that should be added to the article? --M_Gargantua 03:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It can only be added if a valid source can be referenced. Our own observations are not good enough. ~MDD4696 03:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I reinserted a sentence Havok removed regarding the ratings of this episode. That sentence is, I think, important to this article in that it helps demonstrate some relative importance of the South Park episode in terms of WoW's exposure in popular media. (I agree with Havok that the plot details can be left in the episode article.) Dugwiki 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I removed the ratings. Was not my intent, only the plot summary. Havok (T/C/c) 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Dugwiki 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WoW In popular Media

Seeing as Wow has warrented a episode from the southpark guys, I think we should creat a section on "WoW In Popular Media". There are refrences to it beyond South Park, so...the cheat 00:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Whores of Warcraft (or whatever it's called)

Someone added a mention of the "adult film" Whores of Warcraft (or whatever the actual title is) to the article, since it's been getting some media buzz recently.

I heard someone once say that there are two qualifications to know that you've "hit it big": 1) when The Simpsons or South Park makes fun of you, and 2) when someone makes a porno about you. So by that standard, WoW has definitely hit it big on both counts. :) Thus, oddly, it might be a notable side item for the article to say that there is a WoW porno getting hits in the news.

But to establish that it's important to the article, it would need a reference. Especially in a case like this, where you could argue that it's mainly unimportant trivia, the only way to justify its inclusion is by providing one of the stories from an independent major gaming publication or news source talking about it. The reason is that while I'm pretty sure there's porno movies about all sorts of pop culture figures, this is one of those very rare cases where one of these "porno homages" has received national media attention.

For now, I'll just tag it with "citation needed". I'd also recommend adding a sentence explaining why the porno is worth noting (ie it's possibly notable because it oddly received a lot more press than you'd expect a simple adult film to receive). Dugwiki 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think someone would need to demonstrate that it has received more press than the other million "parody" pornos like The Sopornos, Edward Penishands, Lord of the G-Strings, etc. etc. --Stormie 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, off-topic, whoever came up with the name The Sopornos is an evil genius of porno marketing. :) Anyway, that's why I flagged it for citations, so that we can verify it's actually noteworthy. You don't have to specifically compare it to similar parodies, but you do have to at least provide evidence that it's received national media attention. Dugwiki 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See also: .DBC

The .DBC article redirects to this page, but is also linked to on this page.

WoW's MySpace Page

World Of Warcraft has an official MySpace page,

[2]

Shouldn't it be there under Official Links? It's the sole remaining official link that World Of Warcraft owns, but is left out.--Exander 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blood Elf classes

I think there may have been a mistake it says that blood elfs cannot be warriors this should probably be fixed.

Hmm, that might be right. I thought I read somewhere that blood elves are so addicted to and imbued with magic that they completely eschew the pure non-casting warrior class. It's similar to the Erudites in Everquest, who likewise are so fascinated by magic that they have no pure warrior class, only paladins. I can't verify anything at the moment, though, since I can't get to the corresponding official site right now. It's also possible that the no-warrior aspect of the race has changed over the course of beta testing. Dugwiki 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked it up this morning. No warriors for Blood Elves according to The official Blizzard Blood Elf race web page. The page doesn't go into the reason why, but I'm my best guess is it's something like what I said above. Dugwiki 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There was an announcement awhile back regarding this. read here As for why they chose to remove Warrior, not some other non-magical class (e.g. rogue), was never answered. --Voidvector 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Release Date

When was the game released? I scanned the article and didn't find this information. It only said that it was on the tenth aniversary so I must assume 2004, but I don't know the exact date. -Iopq 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

you can find that in the infobox to the right of the page, for US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand, the game was released on November 23rd, 2004. LG-犬夜叉 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mounts

I think there should be a mounts section detailing what kind of mount the each of the races use.

While detailed by race mounts information is probably interesting for fans of the game (including myself), I'm not sure it's needed in this article. The article is already a bit long as it is, so adding a section talking about the nitty-gritty of racial mounts sounds like too much detail. Keep in mind this article mainly is meant to act as a basic, general description of the game for readers who aren't familiar with it. Really minor in-game details should pretty much be left either to external WoW-dedicated sites or to side articles. Dugwiki 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How about if I just add the words "depending on which race you are" to the last sentance of the Items and equipment section? I think that much is relevant. --Christknight 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I went ahead and edited the sentence regarding mounts to mention that the mount type varies by class and race. It still needs a citation, though, so tt would be helpful if someone could footnote that sentence with an appropriate reference, as as a link or official hint book reference that talks about the different types of mounts. Dugwiki 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Add Jason Foxx of the comic FoxTrot to Popular Media section?

Last week's comic strips reminded me that Jason Fox of the popular comic Fox Trot has had a number of parody story lines focussing on his obsession with a game called "World of Warquest", an obvious spoof on WoW. (This week he was upset that he didn't get invited into the expansion beta.) Since FoxTrot is a popular major internationally syndicated comic strip, and this is a recurring plot point, it seems like it might be worth mentioning in a bullet point under the popular media section here. I'm just not sure what would be the best reference to cite for verification, but if someone agrees and has a good reference I say go ahead and add it. Just a suggestion. Dugwiki 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actual Size of continents?

Hi everybody. Just wondered if anybody has ever worked out how big the continents in WoW would actually be in real life (I don't own the game, but I know they're massive)? Looked on google but couldn't see anything like it, would just be an interesting fact to be able to compare it to other big-ass games perhaps. Dragonfly888 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be interesting to know. I've often though about it myself, but I don't a have a good mind for math. I do know that it is possible to figure out somehow. However, as interesting as it would be, I'm not sure how relevant that info is to the article. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Christknight 23:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be able to calculate the approximate size of each continent by using a coordinate mod. Presumably each integer point of difference in the coordinates corresponds to a constant planar distance. For example, let's say that a one point difference in the X axis means going about three "game" feet on the map. Then from that you can calculate the "game foot" distance between any two given coordinates. Find end points for each major zone, add up the distances, and you have a rough idea of the planar size of the game world. Dugwiki 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO the world is not that big, I've ran all the way from Hearthglen in WPL to StormWind in about 20 minutes on my epic mount the day I got it, and that's not going in a straight line, including dismounting several times in Searing Gorge and running on foot.

Both continents are about equal in size, altho in expansion the Eastern Kingdoms will be slightly larger considering Quel'thalas way up the north.

The game is measured in 'yards', which I assume it is the same measurement as the yard in real life. Each zone's map is fitted so that it will display its entirety on the screen, so that means smaller zones will be blown up, while larger zoned like the Barrens will be shrunken. It wouldn't be that easy to come up with an actual number of how big the world actually is. LG-犬夜叉 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just found this: [3]. Found it quite interesting. Azeroth's tiny! (well, kinda.) Dragonfly888 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool. That could be very close. However, though I've never been to Manhatten, I know the continents of Azeroth are bigger than that. The closest I've been to Manhatten is in the Spider-man 2 game, and that game was made very close to perfect scale(in terms of size of the island). My guess is that the Eastern Kingdoms are about as long, north to south, as a US state. I know they are all different sizes, but I was thinking maybe as long as New Jersey, or some other state around that size? I don't know, but Manhatten just seems a bit too small to be the same size as Azeroth. --Christknight 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical as well. I wouldn't say it's as big as a state (as loose a guide as that is) but then I don't live in America and I've never played World of Warcraft, so I could be very wrong. Dragonfly888 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

well having been a player for a year and half, most players i've come across agree that the world is small. And it is small. Refer to my previous comment about going from extreme north of the continent to almost the southern end in 20 minutes at a speed of twice the normal running speed. 10 miles from north to south seem to be a pretty good estimate to me. LG-犬夜叉 00:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know they are indeed small. I'm only comparing a WoW continent to Manhatten in the Spider-man 2 game(which was was said to be made fairly to scale). I spent the past weekend traveling Azeroth on foot, and I'm quite sure that the distance from Westfall to Wetlands is no shorter than Manhatten Island from one end to the other(according to Spider-man 2). Yes, the continents of Azeroth are small, but if you look at a map of the US, Manhatten is pretty small, too. --Christknight 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)