Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/Archive 1

message: Proposal: Remove the table of characters, most of the game-inaccuracies stuff and so forth. Prune it down to a standard episode article for South Park, with a few lines of trivia tops.
Reason: Episode is light hearted satire, and since it is not intended to be canonical warcraft material, most of it is crap that can be removed.
-SteveGray
I agree, this really isn't needed. If everyone thinks it should stay, perhaps it should just be shortened to the profiles for the main characters?
-Mat
I can't believe there's so much excessive detail on this page that people adamantly defend that a character, who is supposed to be a complete, lifeless slob has an apartment that 'resembles the main character of GTA's and it has a palm tree too!' really should be in this article, and demand on changing it back when I delete it.
- K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.152.196 (talk • contribs) 20:14, October 6, 2006
:Maybe you should try using edit summaries and your deletions might not be immediately reverted. Gdo01 00:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Irrelev55yant Detail 

message: Devout or Netherwind as Ike's item set?
:Devout with the exception of the helm (likely the Lieutenant Commander's Satin Hood or Field Marshall's Headdress) --Ted 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devout or Netherwind? 

message: I'm going to go over the episode and get a few good quotes. I'm not at all suprised that a "Too Much Trivia" tag got added. It only took 1/2 hr. Anyways, this artice needs a few good edits... --Zrulli 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes? 

message: "the entire premise of the episode centers around a violation of the game's limits, because it would not be possible for a character of the same faction to attack another character without consent."
no, it was mentioned twice in the episode that the 'evil' player leveled up so much so he could do it even though the game doesnt allow it. fictional yes, "violation of the game" no, this is a tv show.
:: When I first started watching it I noticed this until they stated that like the above user said the player had leveled up too much and became powerful which is how he was able to do whatever he wanted and kill people without initiating a duel
The Blizzard characters themselves stated that it was was a game violation.  Nightscream 06:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no 

message: It seems to me that Stan's name is not a misspelling of splooge, but a correct spelling for spooge.  Wikipedia redirects spooge to a noun, but I've heard it used many times as a verb.  Hoof Hearted 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard "spooge" used, too, and that is most definetely what they said when they said his screen name aloud. Shivers talk 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded - 66.93.144.171 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fourthed. wikipediatrix 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fifthed.  It is spooge.  It is the same word they use in the JLo-Ben Affleck South Park, 65.11.201.83 15:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's "spooge" as well, but if you watch the closed captions, it leaves out a few characters in the spelling of his name.  I'm not sure if this can be considered real evidence, though. --72.200.64.230 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Splooge]] vs. [[Spooge]] 

message: Someone put that grinding world mobs makes leveling slower.  They stated it takes 9 months to a year to hit 60.  I can personally attest this isn't true, since it only took me 5 months to hit 60 (I didn't run an instance till lvl 60), and I have a friend that played it pretty much every day (like the south park kids do) and hit 60 in just two months of grinding.  9 months to a year is how long a casual WoW player takes to hit 60. 
Grinding mobs straight IS the fastest way to level (thats why the power-levelers do it that way), you just don't get any gear from instances. Roffler 17:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to add, there's some inconsistence with what level they're attempting to achieve in the episode. When Cartman first brings up the idea of grinding boars, Kyle suggests they'll only be grinding 30 levels. Later though, the Blizzard execs mention that the boys had gained 50 levels in 3 weeks. Because the episode suggests level 60 isn't the maximum limit, there's no effective way to compare this to the time it would take in the real game. SlvrEagle23 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the kids aren't "newbs" like Randy is, we assume they have gained several levels. Perhaps they each had achieved 30th level, and thus only needed 30 more levels each to reach 60. Also, perhaps the "they've gained 50 levels in 3 weeks" line refers not to "50 levels each" but rather "50 levels altogether". -- DesireCampbell 140.184.32.65 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  *9 months to a year to level* 

message: I know this episode was done in conjuction with Blizzard but a couple of things are still puzzeling me.
1: The guy who kept killing people at any point without a duel, did Blizzard alter the code for them to allow this? or did they create a character and give him the Orb of Deception? (Orb of Deception allows your avatar to turn into a race on the opposite faction, allowing you to go into enemy territory without being attacked by players or guards)
2: I noticed other people walking around in Goldshire in the beginning (right before the uber character appeared) did they actually film this on an actual server? or did Blizzard create a private server specifically for this? (i also noticed that there was coversations in the general chat when they showed them in town, shortly before Cartman made the comment about how most of the people in game were Koreans)
but overall I thought the epsiode was very well done, I'm not a huge fan of South Park but this is definently one of my favorite 
episodes.
Please read about the simulacrum theory of Jean Baudrillard; I think the sort of sarcasm in which this episode deals with the fact that many people can't tell the difference anymore between 'real' and 'unreal' , can be found in Baudrillard's theory and maybe therefore should be added?
:Perhaps your comment was made while the "Incongruities with World of Warcraft" section was wrongfully deleted, but yes, the plot of the episode would be impossible in the game for several reasons. - 66.93.144.171 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just some thoughts 

message: I converted it into a table to help clean it up, shorten it and work with those who took issue with it. Hopefully it helps. Comments? - 66.93.144.171 05:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. It's nice! I cleaned up a little more to make it blend with the table above it in style. SlvrEagle23 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converted Incongruities Section 

message: i thought machinima was film out of the game not of the game. it's just showing them play the game. it's not like the wow characters replaced southpark characters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.157.30.102 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 October 2006  (UTC)
Make Love, Not Warcraft uses machinima, aka using footage from the game to represent characters.  While it is essentially the boys roleplaying and not actually in the game itself, it can still be considered machinima. 67.11.140.20 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More needs to be said about this, but it's possible that it's a mixture of both. That said, nothing that I can find actually disputes that it's machinima, and Paul Marino's blog for the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences indicates that two accomplished World of Warcraft machinima producers were involved. However, South Parks production blog indicates that they did prerecord some WoW scenes for later use. That said, lip-synching and other animations in WoW machinima are nothing new; Illegal Danish: Super Snacks! does it, and so does Rufus Cubed's The Return (which, unfortunately, we don't have an article for at the moment). — TKD::Talk 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  machinima 

message: The website Joystiq has a huge lists of goofs that can be cited 
:You do realize that the Joystiq article you linked to got all of that information from earlier revisions of this Wikipedia page? --Billdorr 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joystiq is a blog, and doesn't qualify under WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. IGN are an acceptable source though.-Localzuk(talk) 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joystiq 

message: :I think the South Park creators also slipped in a GTA moment in this episode as well. Stan's dad, Randy, leaves his house to get to Cartman's house to hand him the USB thumb drive with the sword of a thousand truths. Both Blizzard executives tell Randy they came by cab. Randy notes that his car is in the shop. Randy suddenly steps into the street and a car comes to a screeching halt. Randy goes to the driver's door and opens it. Then he grabs the driver and pulls him out of the car. Then he punches the driver and throws him to the ground. Randy then gets into the car and closes the door. At that moment the Blizzard executives open their doors, on the  right side of the car, get in and close their doors.
:The whole sequence is almost identical to Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I believe Trey and Matt snuck in this GTA moment on purpose. I'm surprised that nobody noticed since it wasn't mentioned in the article.
:::It was discussed. Have a look at the archive page. Johan Aruba 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Theft Auto moment (GTA) 

message: I think this article desperately needs more information on how it was created. How did Blizzard help with this episode? Did they give the creators a modified WoW client that let them pose and animate characters within the actual game-world, or a copy of it running on a special server? Or were actual WoW scenes combined in post-processing with machinima? There really should be at least one good paragraph describing this process and Blizzard's collaboration on this episode. CGameProgrammer 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source of such information then it can be added. However I do not believe such details have been released. Timb0h 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There appears to be a lot of information on the official production blog. . Timb0h 10:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details on the creation of this episode 

message: I'm unsure about the trivia statement referencing Gynoid. Unsure how it can be worked into the main article, or ever if it's actually worth mentioning at all? Timb0h 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gynoid 

message: Whats the point? I mean, everytime someone adds some that is of interest to both the show and WoW someone who thinks they can edit and remove things can decide to remove it?
The hole entire point of this episode is about WoW, and the affects it has on both people and in mmorpg.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 
:Trivia is supposed to be worked into the main article body - not stuck as a list forever. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA. Also, everything that is claimed as trivia has to comply with our policies and guidelines for neutrality, original research and citation. If it falls foul of any of these then it will simply be deleted.
:Also, it is your opinion that 'the entire episode is about WoW. Personally I see it as a dig against MMORPG's in general and the people who obsess over them. However, neither of these opinions are admissable unless they have been published by a third party. (Also, please sign your posts by using ~~~~) -Localzuk(talk) 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  whats the point of having Trivia? 

message: Just thought I'd point out an interesting interview about the creation of the episode. Might be a good source for the article. --Conti|✉ 20:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it and will incorporate it into the aticle when I'll have time. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machinima.com interview 

message: Is the Leeroy character a nod to Leroy Jenkins?  Also, how do we know his name is Leeroy?  The reference in the article makes no reference to the charater name.
Duke Starhopper 17:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot doesn't need any references by default. The fact that he was named after Leeroy Jenkins was originally mentioned here, which is already linked at reference #12. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that reference just states that he is named Jenkins.  We can assume (probably without any fear of contradiction) that he is named after Leeroy, but it still needs to be marked as an assumption until complete validation occurs. I've edited the wording of Note #1. Captain Infinity 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeroy 

message: It seems like everything a good episode article should be. I'm rather impressed. Certainly gets my vote for GA. --SeizureDog 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to give you guys props, it looks great, I'm unoffically requesting this article be one of the articles which is one of the "Todays Featured Article". articles. Ace Fighter 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job guys 

message: I found this episode in a full length format, heres the link: I'm thinking that we can groove it into the article as an external link, there are 2 other full length ones on Youtube too. Ace Fighter 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that this is illegal and if Comedy Central cared they could sue us for putting the links. Gdo01 03:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, thank you ever so much, but if you want the link, i have it. I had no idea about that :S, but wouldnt YouTube also become pissed off? Contact if you would like it on my Talk Page. Ace Fighter 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Youtube 

message: In the last parts of the episode, specifically in the battle, the boys appear to be talking in the game. However, they don't have microphones on. Should this be listed as a goof?--Orthologist 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems as a rather minor piece of trivia. Please understand that the "Notes" section isn't supposed to contain goofs and trivia, as these aren't encyclopedic. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Surely this amusing bogus video game, referenced by Butters, should be mentioned somewhere.  The phrase has gotten a life of its own, especially in the MMO community, often used when players complain about something in a game being to hard, to which the standard response is something like, "Perhaps you should play 'Hello Kitty Island Adventure' instead."  Also, a lot of hits come up when googling the term. Villemar 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be included if a third party analysis of it is provided as a source. We need to see a news site or such place discussing this else it would be original research.-Localzuk(talk) 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello kitty is a game series though, made by saniro. Island Adventure is the only fictitious part of it. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason why it's funny is because it's a real game. http://www.hellokittyonline.com/us/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.159.68 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no it's not. That is not "Hello Kitty Island Adventure". Nice try. -- Atamachat 14:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hello Kitty Island Adventure" 

message: Why did they remove it? And why isn't it there anymore?
Pece Kocovski 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the episode, yes it was. The reason why it was likely removed is copyright. The uploader and youtube wouldn't have had permission to put it there.-Localzuk(talk) 15:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't this on Youtube? 

message: The last two paragraphs of the Plot section are essentially incomprehensible and need to be re-written with care taken to properly identify antecedents.207.69.137.10 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot needs to be edited 

message: Cartman says that the boys need to kill boars, and Kyle asks, "Boars cost 2 EXP apiece.  Do you know how much it takes to go up 30 levels?"  But during the "Live to Win" sequence the Blizzard manager says the boys have "gone up 50 levels.  They must really have no lives at all."  This mistake should be added in this article. --Angeldeb82 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says it's a mistake?  They said that'd it take *seven days* to go up thirty levels (which it may or may not have - it doesn't matter and there's no way to tell), and the Blizzard employees said it'd been *three weeks* and that they went up fifty levels. Indium 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level mistakes 

message: ist it possible stan was in a guild that made that tabard?63.166.254.137 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stan tabard 

message: The wording in the plot section, "They reluctantly give Randy the sword "We can't trust the Sword of a Thousand Truths to a noob!" ", seems like it needs a rewording. 74.119.181.233 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Wording 

message: Is it correct to have it redirect to this article? 66.244.5.12 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no.  If you search the article you'll see it's not mentioned in the article at all, the reason being that (while hilarious in my opinion) it's not notable.  You're not going to find it being mentioned anywhere in reliable 3rd party sources, so it's not really worth mentioning.  If it's not even worth mentioning in the article about the episode it came from, it's probably not worth being in Wikipedia at all, even just to redirect to this page.  I'd just remove the redirect and just say it's not worth acknowledging unless it does become notable. -- Atamasama 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  People watching the episode are going to wonder if such a game exists, and will come to Wikipedia for information about it.  Better to have them redirect here than to give them no information at all, lost on the search page, frustrated. Captain Infinity 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So instead they'll be lost on this page, frustrated...  That's not any better. -- Atamasama 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean it isn't real?! Someone has to make this game now! --Pinkkeith 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello Kitty Island Adventure 

message: WTF is a mage? Would someone care to explain in the article, or substitute a better known word. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mage is a very well known and common word, coming from different aspects of folk lore - They usually mean the same thing, which is the same with WoW - someone who can cast magic. Like a Witch of some kind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Haunted Angel (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a Wikilink to "mage" so that someone curious (or confused) can read the Wikipedia article about it. -- Atamasama 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found your Wikilink to be a bit indirect, so I replaced it with one I think more fitting for this context. - Denimadept (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You make a good point.  It isn't mentioned in the show, or in the South Park FAQ.  I added a citation tag to it for now. -- Atamachat 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone removed my citation request, and then someone else called him "a class like a mage but with mail"...  We don't know what class he is.  He doesn't seem to really fit any known class in the game, so all references to his class have been deleted.  He's just a "griefer". -- Atamachat 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He casts Pyroblast, but that's probably a result of him being able to defy the rules of the game, hence his summoning of the scorpions. Suigetsu 05:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mage 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps (Pass) 

message: I'm proposing that we remove the entire "notes" section which is just nitpicking trivia about the episode, showing how what is portrayed in the show is incosistent with the game. It's not important at all, certainly not encyclopedic, and pretty much any time a video game is portrayed in other media it's not 100% faithful. If nobody objects I'm just going to delete the entire section. -- Atamachat 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections really, most of it smells like WP:OR.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be removed - it's no different to the goofs section that was on every article until I got to them ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. I preserved the references for Jenkins' name, and for a human being a hunter, which previously were only in the Notes section. -- Atamachat 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia/Gamecruft section 

message: Does anyone think that this episode refers partly to the Corrupted Blood incident? It is clear that there is "global" problem of sorts going on in WoW, and many players are affected... would love to hear if anyone agress/disagrees, or thinks it deserves a "See also"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherm (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not even the tiniest bit. The Corrupted Blood incident had to do with a disease spreading from character-to-character by accident. This episode is about a player causing grief by killing other player characters in combat. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That's like trying to link the Titanic disaster to the destruction of Pompeii because both involved a lot of people dying. -- Atamachat 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrupted Blood incident reference 

message: i changed all refrences to newb to noob, my bad i was wrong someone plz cus i cba :P
u r-tard :-P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.121.228 (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  woops 

message: I'm surprised there's no mention that this episode featured the title song of Paul Stanley's debut album, "Live to Win," almost three weeks before the album was released.Thatfield977 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live to Win 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Make Love, Not Warcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161790
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917174713/http://www.emmys.tv/awards/2007pt/nominations_crtv.php?action=search_db to http://www.emmys.tv/awards/2007pt/nominations_crtv.php?action=search_db
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified