Talk:Classes in World of Warcraft/Archive 1

message: What happened to the warlock? Its not on there when I last saw this article. 
Also, I'm just a casual everyman viewer of wikipedia, but I liked it better when each class had their own page and in depth analysis (pardon my spelling).
I mean, they all had links at the bottom for the other classes...
I changed the description of Summoned Pets to include the fact that the Infernal and Doom Guard are seperate from the Imp, Voidwalker, etc. Wording is a little off, if anyone wants to make it look pretty, that would be appreciated. 24.86.59.67 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warlock?

message: Being bold I chose to merge the articles, since each article was littered with guide information and some where just to small. Havok (T/C/c) 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The reason for this article

message: Four classes have (Class) Skills subsections, while four classes have (Class) Talents as the subsection.  Should we use Skills or Talents?  Maybe "Trees" would be a better choice? Also, the Warrior section has no such subsection.  --fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the character sheet area; the three trees are referred to as Class Skills.  I'll change the remaining subtitles.  --fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skills v. Talents 

message: Should we mention as trivia the level 75 mage of WoW, referred to in Stargate :)) -- Raja Lon Flattery 19:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "level 75 mage" in Stargate would be better placed in the main World of WarCraft article, probably in the "World of Warcraft in popular culture" section. Aserty 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I am relatively new the WoWing and i now have a lvl 32 rogue.  I still cannot figure out wow to get poisons to work.  I completed the quest in SW and have alchemy but i just can't figure it out. 
 138.49.172.28 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a game-guide and if you want help with playing a rogue, I would suggest the WoW forums on worldofwarcraft.com. RobertM525 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisons 

message: This page is in need of some serious work. Leaving aside whether the page should even exist or not (a valid debate) the information between the classes needs to be STANDARDIZED. Some classes have just a small little blurb and that is it. Others go into detail about each different talent tree, and then others just seem to be a number of POV opinions about the class and upcoming changes in the expansion, which shouldn't even be mentioned since they are not finalized. I strongly suggest someone come up with some sort of a template for all classes to follow. -Kraw Night 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this page is in some serious need of such improvements.  I'd suggest briefly describing the class in general terms, saying whether it is primarily Alliance or Horde, and maybe a bit as to abilities.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed much of the information that made the article read like a game guide. I will now await the outcry of being an administrator and wrecker of information. The entire article seemed almost copy/pasted from WoWWiki to the letter. I also removed the entire second section of all the classes as it it only explained more in detail what was already in the article. Havok (T/C/c) 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I also removed the entire second section of all the classes as it it only explained more in detail what was already in the article." There is now no information on talents anywhere in the article for any class. You didn't just remove detail, you removed information which is central to each class. I admit that there was a lot of nonsense there before and it is good that you got rid of it, but you can't just have an article which leaves out talent information entirely, it's ridiculous. Raoul 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should add that information as a short sentence instead and not it's own section per class. Sound good? Thoughts, suggestions? Havok (T/C/c) 13:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably sounded a bit angry there, sorry. I'd be perfectly happy with a short sentence for each class in the main section, it's just that that currently doesn't exist (though I should be able to add it quite quickly). I liked having it as a seperate section though, it made the information easy to find and made bad edits to that information easier to spot and remove, but I would be fine with just a short sentence for each class. Raoul 08:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We could just start at the top with druids and move our way down. Keep in mind that many people "vandalize" this page, adding sentences like "omg shadow priest r imba" etc. So check history whenever you can. Havok (T/C/c) 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul and standardization

message: Since Havok suggested starting from the top, let's go with Druids.   My thoughts on this entry.  It's a bulleted list.  I don't really favor that, and I think I'd prefer a different presentation.  Content is ok though.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, now that I reread it, the first sentence is unclear.  What are those roles?  FrozenPurpleCube 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Playing a druid I can rewrite the content. But to be honest I don't see how to present that whils staying concise. -- lucasbfr talk 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see wowwiki is publishing its articles under the GFDL. I will use this as a base then, we will see. -- lucasbfr talk 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I feel Feral Form is the apropriate term for the Animal forms. I have always seen these forms refered to as Feral Forms. -- lucasbfr talk 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you have, as that be the standard WOW term for them, however, it is a specific terminology to WOW, and that creates a conflict with a general-purpose encyclopedia.  I think animal is more descriptive and less likely to confuse folks.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that although "animal" makes it more obvious it is less accurate. Neither the Caster (if you count it as a form) or Tree of Life forms are animals. The Moonkin form is technically humanoid and therefore isn't really an "animal" form either. I think most people can probably understand "feral" almost as quickly and "animal" and that as long as we make it obvious what is meant "feral" is preferable. Raoul 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, I would say that the Caster-form is probably an animal, as all the WoW races seem more or less mammals (as opposed to I dunno, Ghosts, or Robots or Energy forms)but more importantly, isn't considered a specific form either.  It's more the default-shape I'd say.  Moonkin are clearly animals, even if they can stand upright.  Tree of life isn't an animal, but I'd be happy with "animal and plant" to refer to it.  Especially since I can't see how the Caster or Tree of Life forms can be considered Feral.  Maybe not the Moonkin etiher. FrozenPurpleCube 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be OK for Moonkin, I think they are considered as beast in the game mechanism. I am sure NPCs are beasts. -- lucasbfr talk 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My main concern at the moment is how it looks with the two pictures. On some resolutions it just looks silly (example on 1280x800 (140kb)). I'm not quite certain what the best way to avoid this is, but as it is it looks unprofessional. Raoul 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I see as a problem now is the mention of how many points you need to get X talent in the talent tree. Isn't this guide-ish? Havok (T/C/c) 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were a secret, then it would be guid-ish. But it's not a secret - anybody (above level 10 anyway) can open up the talent panel and look at all the talents. If there was, say, a quest to get the last talent, and we wrote out how to complete that quest, THAT would be a guide. Saying that something exists when it clearly exists is not a guide. -Ryanbomber 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is guide-ish for the same reasons as Ryanbomber. Whether the information is useful or necessary is a different matter. I think I originally added that information (to the current incarnation anyway) because I think it is necessary. We don't want to give the impresion that Druids get the Moonkin and Tree of Life automatically. Of course you may disagree about how useful it is, but in my view that information should be kept in the article. Raoul 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that was my idea too when I rewrote it, even if I'd love having my druid in moonkin and tree of life. -- lucasbfr talk 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: On the issue of X-points, I suggest saying that an investment is necessary to get the form, but not being specific about how many points are needed.  That is less of a guide, you know?  FrozenPurpleCube 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could say Druids going deep into the xxx tree but I don't think it is better personally. -- lucasbfr talk 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just say something like "The moonkin and tree of life form are learned via talents instead of being class skills, so not every druid can use them"? Aetherfukz 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing "x points" is just being vague for the sake of being vague. If the talents were hidden at all, then that would be game guide. But talent information is obvious and available - anybody at level 10 can view their classes talents (and have no reason to consider talents before then) and anybody can view all talent trees on thottbot.com or even worldofwarcraft.com. Game guides tell you how to complete challenges. Talent points aren't challenges - they're facts. -Ryanbomber 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Druids 

message: To stay consistent with the rest of the artworks in the article, I replace :Image:World of Warcraft Nightelf Female Druid.jpg by :Image:Druid WoW Night Elf Stormrage Arlokk.png. -- lucasbfr talk 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I reverted it back to its original state, the :Image:World_of_Warcraft_Nightelf_Female_Druid.jpg is fine. T1 seems to be what we're using in most of the pictures anyway. The picture is bland, I admit, but it works. RobertM525 02:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm not the one that put T2 back) The previous picture was the T3 artwork. I didn't know there was a T1 picture somewhere. Fine with me (but I really think T1 is ugly) -- lucasbfr talk 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Druid image

message: Perhaps this can be a specific section for whether or not the article should exist at all (unlike previous discussions which seem to center around what the article should discuss). If there's no discussion, perhaps the deletion tag should be removed... RobertM525 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion. Read the AFD tag carefully, there should be a link to the discussion. -Ryanbomber 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article is being considered for deletion..." 

message: Well does someone want to do the same thing with hunters? -- lucasbfr talk 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunters 

message: I asked a few friends to try to give a hand on the article, be nice with them, they don't really know Wikipedia! -- lucasbfr talk 15:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could suggest they try other parts of Wikipedia first, before editing this article?  FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record I don't think anyone touched the article yet. The edit you reverted is a very hot topic in the beta community (and I agree with the revert). It is just a way to have someone knowing the different classes actually editing the article. I could do it but I know I don't like seeing false statements in an article. I warned because I know they are not familiar with the wiki syntax. -- lucasbfr talk 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits incoming! 

message: I removed the term "invisible" from the Rogue desciption as they are two different things it may be misleading. Warlock's Succubus have invisibility and Mages in Burning Crusade will get an invisible spell which is different then Stealth. Stealth detection will not help against invisible enemies and Detect Invisibility will not help against stealthed enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.169.7 (talk • contribs) 
::Good call. Reworded it to "effectively invisible," which still may be a bit vague. "Hard to see" implies that you can see the player at all times, though. If anybody has any better ideas for wording, please edit it. -Ryanbomber 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealth vs Invisible 

message: I dont get the lawladins part, is it some sort of dumb joke?
:Yeah kind of. In the game people often make a variety of references to Paladins as their spec such as "DPSadins", "Healadins", etc. Along the same lines as healers being called "Healbots" and what not.
:: I think that goes back to Diablo II (and maybe much further) when a special breed of Paladins was called Hammerdin. Nowadays the Alliance has as the previous poster says, DPSadins, Healadins. Horde generally refer to all breeds of Paladins as LOLadins, or Lawladins. Also please sign your posts on talk pages. Aetherfukz 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawladins? 

message: Roughly half of the sections had the first letter of armour types upper case and half lower case. I've changed them all to lower case for consistency. However I don't know if they should actually be lower case or not. The materials cloth, leather, etc. are obviously lower case, but not necessarily the armour names, so if anyone feels I've got it wrong just change them all to upper case.
As a side note we currently have weapon info above talents and armour below. Obviously that should be changed, but what order do you think would be best? Raoul 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation of armour names

message: I have seen this falsified twice by anonymous editors to say the reverse, so I want to bring it up to the attention of future editors. The first druid was the Night Elf Malfurion Stormrage, not Tauren. If someone manage to falsify it again, please correct it. 
Supporting reference: 
* 
* 
--Voidvector 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Druid Lore 

message: Should a part be added to hunters information listing the different types of beasts that hunters can train as pets, or should a link to the Races in the Warcraft universe page, which tells if the animal can be tamed, be added instead? --Aratarin 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. The information is way too specific and is mainly about gameplay. --Htmlism 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think listing all the pets would be going into a lot of detail compared to what is given on other classes. I see any problem with a link though. Raoul 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunter Pet Types? 

message: I have started a basic division of what rogue gameplay can be defined as. However, it was pointed out that I needed to included sources, and this is where it gets confusing. Should I link to a definition of both swashbuckling and assassins? While I can understand the "no original research" aspect, it seems to me that to need a quote simply to state that rogues can either fight more like assassins or more like swashbuckler seems a bit counter-productive. However, I admit that it can stand to be improved, the only reason I started that additional element was so that it could be improved upon by people much more experienced in the Wikipedia style of writing. Youkai no unmei 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need sources for swashbuckling and assassins, but rather sources for those usages in terms of World of Warcraft play styles for rogues.  I'm dubious that the anti-game guide people won't react poorly to that section anyway, but I consider it at least potentially valuable so I'm not going to remove it myself.  Mister.Manticore 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogues 

message: What do you all think of making different pages for each class so that more is able to be expanded up for each class rather than just a short summary on each? PhyberOptikKable 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suspect such an attempt would not be well-regarded by certain folks, who find the inclusion of any MMORPG material to be abhorrent and seek its deletion.  Not opposed to it inherently myself, but I do think this page needs a bit of work anyway. And fewer vandals. Oy! Mister.Manticore 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is really not a good idea. This article used to be in seperate articles until it was merged, and splitting it again would just lead to accusations of fancruft, etc. Like Manticore, I'm not hugely opposed to it myself, but I think the way things are organised now are fine as they are. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific page per class. 

message: I've put this article up for peer review in an attempt to get more outside opinions about what needs improving :) The link is in the template at the top of this page. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I am reading the Article again, and I am starting to get worried we are writing a game guide again. Am I the only one thinking we might need to remove some gameplay stuff? -- lucasbfr talk 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I somewhat agree with this comment. The druid's gameplay section includes detailed explanation about abilities and how they work.Youkai no unmei 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I 100% agree.  It's probably gone too far, and it's good that people are aware of this.  171.71.37.103 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game guide? 

message: I believe the content in each class description should be standardised. Here is a suggestion of how it could be divided: 
First part: Class overall description. Basically, what is the point of the class.
Second part: Class Lore. Not every class has a lore rich background like paladins, however, each class has at least some elements of lore that can be interesting to read.
Third part: Gameplay. Here is where more information about how to play can be found. It could be possible to present the talent trees without having it turn into a gameguide, or a twisted presentation enhancing the image of one talent over the others.
Also, I would like to suggest that any sentence that seems to impose a perception be removed. Basically, when you see something like "Shadow priest are now seen as useful in PVE" it imposes an opinion on the reader. Let the readers decide, and simply present information.Youkai no unmei 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content suggestion 

message: Ive just added a little bit to the hunter section, specifically mentioning that the aspects are referred to as SELF-BUFFS, but included the party-affecting buffs also (aspect of the pack / wild). I also added a minor section alongside the weapons referring to the "HUNTER WEAPON!" phenomenon. This is my first proper edit, so of course it may not be perfect, and it probably needs a bit of cleanup, but hopefully the information will be useful. Meat Golem 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor hunter additions 

message: The BlizzCon panel provided a some info on each of the nine classes from the developers point of view, including inspirations leading to each class's creation and their evolution.  I found two articles which covered this, one by techFEAR and one by Goblin Workshop.  Not sure how to incorporate this information best into the article, but I hope it helps.  - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Class panel from BlizzCon 

message: Ok, I just removed two examples of talent tree descriptions from the Paladin and Priest sections, partly because they were the only ones, and partly because they don't cover all of the classes, and partly because the descriptions were possibly inaccurate.  Does anybody want them for all of the classes though, and how would you describe them?
*I think a basic overview, i.e. (for priests), "The Holy talent tree increases healing abilities, whereas the Shadow tree boosts damage". And then maybe a comment at the beginning (in the lead), about every class having different 'Talent' options (something like, "Every class has three different 'talent' trees that are different from every other class.".  We really have to steer clear of going in depth, cuz that will only bring accusations of game-guideness. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that is a good idea.  That information would be far too specific and game-guide like for this page, and it's better to leave it elsewhere.  I think just listing the names of the trees is more than sufficient, with coverage of distinctive talents (like moonkin, Fel Guard, Shadowform) in the class description.  Mister.Manticore 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would love the talent tree. I mean there is one for Warlock but no-others so can someone please add them. I am posting this cause Im going to play WoW but I dont know what class I should be. --DestructoTalk to me 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you try wowwiki.com or a forum site, as that would be the best place to get the advice you seem to want.  Personally, I think the Warlock section needs to be revised, if not removed, but I'll wait and see if anybody else feels the same.  Mister.Manticore 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mister.Manticore. Talent trees are too specific and can be found with much more in-depth on wowwiki. I also think the warlock write-up needs a revamp. On another completely unrelated note and breaking the rules as wikipedia is not a forum, you should try out the druid because they can do everything due to their "Jack-of-All-Trades" description in the article :). --GTPoompt(talk) 13:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talent descriptions 

message: WAY WAY too much stuff about locks in here. Cut it down to the size the other classes have. TY --Colinstu 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and unless somebody objects, I'll begin editing later today.  Mister.Manticore 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warlock section 

message: So, it seems to me that there's a continuous concern with folks editing this article to add whatever gameplay they want. I'm going to add a non-display comment at the top that I hope will forestall some of it.  Mister.Manticore 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble with this article being edited 

message: Anyone think this is too much like a game guide still? Statements like, "Mages are very sought for groups", or "Shadow priests are considered the most dangerous class for PVP." I can understand if it's a complete fact that shadow priests are the most dangerous class in PVP if they can kick people from the server when they want to :P, but I think there needs to be a revamp. The lore section is OK, I don't see any problem with that. I think it would be better if there was a Lore section, section giving the Unique Abilities to that class section, then a very brief talent tree section. Here's an example of what I'm saying below, in psuedotext, since I haven't started playing this game yet.
:Lore - Leave this how it is
:General - (Something about Shaman being a hybrid class). Shaman's are the only class that can lay totems, which can grant beneficial effects to your party, draw enemy fire, or explode. They also have the ability to enhance thier weapon with with the elements, making it do fire damage or freeze.
:Talents
::Enchancement - Increases the Shaman's melee damage and defense, making the shaman comparable to a warrior.
::Elemental - Boosts the Shaman's Magical offense, increasing the amount of damage they can do from range.
::Restoration - Makes the Shaman a potent healer with great defense abilities.
Granted, it may seem like a lack of info, but there is a link to the WoW wiki, which can explain in much greater detail the classes and such.--GTPoompt 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the catch though for video games isn't it? There is no reliable source to get information from except the official website, since everything is pretty much an opinion, unless it's just a hard fact (like something along the lines of the hunter is best with the bow and gun, only because it believe it says that on the official website). quoting WoWwiki is not good either, since half of that is opinionated too. But you're right in the sense that people will just add stuff on their own due to the nature of the game. The plan should be to have key class attributes, and no "data" if you will, since the game is being patched, updated, and balance of power is being shifted constantly. I'm going to remove any of the stuff I feel doesn't fit, and maybe if it settles down we can change the format
On another note, comments like, the 41 point talent is blah blah blah, what do you think of that being in this article?--GTPoompt 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are some things that the official website is good for, and some it's not.  In some cases, it might be best to say "Blizzard presents this as so" in others, it's possible to just say it.  Like Shadow priests have shadowform or druids have the most shape-change abilities.  Wowwiki isn't a good source at all, but it's possible there are some decent books, websites or other material.  Mister.Manticore 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited a few of the gameplay sections, revert some of the edits if you think I went too far, or if I didn't do enough. I don't have access to most of the game websites since I usually edit from work when there's not much to do, but so far, I just trimmed stuff that felt like a game guide.--GTPoompt 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp of the article 

message: There doesn't seem too much about druids here.  Yes, the article explains the different shpeshifts fairly indepth, but I think that needs some explaining.  Druids have one of the more richer back stories and lore than any other class and I think that needs to be touched upon.  It seems like whoever wrote the section on druids just did it to get it out of the way so they can talk about how shadow preists are the best at pvp =).  
I'd do it myself but: a.) I don't have any experience writing stuff for wiki, and b.) maybe a more experienced WoW player could write it up better than I could.  If nothing else, I think the shapeshift section could be shortened slightly to make way for more room on lore and Druids in general.
What do you guys think?
143.138.26.138 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the druid thing was the first ont to be written :). The idea behind this article is to give a rough explanation on the basics of each class for people that do not play WoW. First because we want to avoid looking like a game guide (see the deletion discussion at the top of the page), and because wowwiki and druidwiki will always be a better and more up-to-date source of information than us :) -- lucasbfr talk 07:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Love For Druids 

message: It is silly that "melting faces" redirects here. the "melting faces" thread and culture pop refrence that it has become warrants a page or at least a mention.
:I never knew this. Honestly I don't think it's a big enough meme that it should redirect. But I suppose there is no harm in there being a redirect.--GTPoompt(talk) 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  melting faces 

message: Rogues are also the only class that open locked doors, chests, and boxes. This requires using "Thieves' Tools[14]" and the "Lockpicking[15]" skill.
This is incorrect. Engineers can blast things open. Rogues are the only ones who can lockpick, but not the only ones who can open things. This either needs to be reworded, or engineering needs to be mentioned. Spazure 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is accurate. They are the only class that can do so using class abilities. That addition would be similar to saying "Alchemists can heal with potions" in the priest section. The focus in this article is classes, not professions.Youkai no unmei 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinfo concerning rogues

message: To avoid becoming too much like a game guide, perhaps we can ban (or at least make a reasonable attempt to avoid) the mention of specific reagants or skill names. ie: "A rogue has the ability to sneak by undetected." instead of "A rogue has the ability to enter stealth mode to sneak by enemies when not in combat, and can vanish from combat using flash powder." Spazure 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I think adding reagents and such is turningn it into game guide material. The problem is that there are a bunch of edits to the page from members who don't stick to the "no game guide" mentality (as per the rules somewhere on this site)--GTPoompt(talk) 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  idea re: "Game Guide" ness 

message: On the list of reasons for the low number of shaman I added their perception as a weak class. It looks weasely now, I think, but once I can track down the citation (a post-BC poll had them voted by a fair margin the class most in need of attention, it's somewhere on the WoW forums...) I can cite it properly.
At least, in the WoW community, it's always seemed the low number of shaman was due largely to them sucking. --192.75.68.254 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to Shaman 

message: See Talk:World_of_Warcraft#Northrend_stuff_in_main_article. We shouldn't be adding anything to the articles that still might not happen (you know Blizzard..), as it's pretty much still WP:CRYSTAL at this point. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrath of the Lich King stuff in main article 

message: This article (and others) recently went thru an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player versus player in World of Warcraft. For whatever reason, the nominator grouped over a dozen articles into a single AfD, and it was called for closure. 
Right now, this article wouldn't stand AfD on it's own. 
One of the basic policies would probably be Wikipedia is not a game guide. Much of the information here is guide-like. I think all WoW players know that when you want information on mechanics, spells, classes, etc, you go to WoWWiki, allakhazam, or pick-your-favorite. Much of this information here would not be useful for a person who is not familiar with WoW. 
*Lore sections should be struck. External links can be made to both Blizz's websites and to non-official websites.
*The infobox which details the class and race restrictions is nice. It gives a good out-of-world context, and is verifiable. 
*Gameplay should be trimmed down. Much of that is tied to lore. Major skills, spells, abilities should be noted with a brief description, not an entire paragraph.
There are other issues. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think personally that the lore section is useful in the sense that it is the less gameguideish part of the article, but I agree with the gameplay sections, these should be kept to a few lines each. -- lucasbfr talk 08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited the Warrior section (since that's my main, and the class I am most familiar with). There was no lore section, but I think something like this can be applied to the rest of the classes . There are still some "guideish" stuff in there (trying to describe the differences between the three trees is different is a little difficult). Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortened again, I'm pondering removing even more. -- lucasbfr talk 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-open discussion on revamp