Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Screenshots

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting Vandalism 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Collector's edition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Layout (again) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Credit Numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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... --Shandristhe azylean 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover art in Infobox

message: Should we add a list of the talented people behin WoW? Lead designer, artists, programming and et cetera? Shandristhe azylean 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew 

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe Altair is referring to www.mmogchart.com Xenocidic 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WoW v.s. Lineage 1 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Link to wcradio.com 

message: They are mentioned nowhere in the article. JONJONAUG 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current pricing and subscription fees 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Game engine? 

message: 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.... Shandristhe azylean 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the reasons why it was deleted on the deletion page. Altair 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version history 

message: Even if something is common knowledge, we still need citations for them. So feel free to find sources for the information flaged with . Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. I found one, will hunt for some others. --Stormie 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Look good to me. Although do you think  (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fact 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Carebear 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  re: 7 million subscriber reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Let's go to war with one-sentence paragraphs. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Love your work. --Stormie 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Dugwiki 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took a try at improving wording in intro and gameplay sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Oppose merge: for the reasons stated above Boneyard 11:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with WoW Forums Article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article too geekish ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Success 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links creeping into the middle of article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed sentence from criticism, needs verification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I heard somewhere that Robin Williams plays WoW as well. NBS525 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities who play WoW 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deviation from the MMORPG archetype section changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WoW - SEA Server coming soon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deviance from MMORPG archetype section 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is already there as an article Make_Love%2C_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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Sorry I removed the ratings. Was not my intent, only the plot summary. Havok (T/C/c) 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. :)  Dugwiki 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park

message: 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)
thread_title: WoW In popular Media

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RE: Whores of Warcraft (or whatever it's called) 

message: World Of Warcraft has an official MySpace page, 
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)
thread_title:  WoW's MySpace Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Blood Elf classes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mounts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add Jason Foxx of the comic [[FoxTrot]] to Popular Media section?