Talk:Wow

message: Bad redirection!
Wow redirects to the World of Warcraft article - i think it is a bad redirection, as there are many other things that stand for "wow", for example the "wowing acoustical phenomenon" (see article gramophone record). Thus i think, the redirect at wow should be changed to a "multiple definition" article. thanks, --Abdull 13:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following was added to the article, which I removed:
:Wow is an expression of (usually positive) surprise, possibly from the Wolof language word for "yes".
A quick Google reveals that Waaw does indeed mean "Yes!"  However, I suspect it's a false cognate.  A quick check over at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wow reveals this:
:1513, Scottish interjection, a natural expression of amazement. The verb meaning "overwhelm with delight or amazement" is first recorded 1924, Amer.Eng. slang. Used as a noun meaning "unqualified success" since 1920.
1513 is too early for Scots to be knowing Senegalese.  So it looks like it's just a weird coincidence.  SnowFire 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.  However, the 1920s is awfully late to be picking up medievel Scottish, too.  It just so happens that the 1920s is also around the time when the other Wolof attributed words started becoming American slang.  A Google search for "wow" and "Wolof" gets thousands of hits, but none appear authoritative.  The authoritative refs all appear mum or point to the Scottish origin, so I reluctantly agree with your reversion.  I think that the linguists (or whoever) got this one wrong, possibly due to an inadvertant European bias, but they've got the sheepskins on this one.  (I know that bias is not an argument.  It is ad hominen.)  You did the right thing.  Thanks. —BozoTheScary 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if some new research turns up, by all means bring it up.  As for the 1920's, it says that it use as a verb is first recorded there- "that performance wowed them," etc.  I assume that just saying "Wow!" had existed before. SnowFire 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow and the Wolof language. 

message: It seems that the link spammer guy keeps reverting his link spam back even after they are reverted away. Should this page be locked or something? Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 14:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's really diligent, he'll just get himself on the Spam blacklist (see m:Spam blacklist, but he hasn't been that bad yet. SnowFire 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link spammer plague

message: Why is gaming listed first. All of the links undr gaming are Abrieviations whilst most of the links in the other sections are to things actually titled wow or to official Acronyms were the full is not used. To my minds the article should either be alphabetical or based on relevance. I propose that the order is changed to either 'Business, fiction, gaming, music, science, other' or 'Business, music, gaming, science, fiction, other' (Based on the number of entries. I get the impression from the talk that the main reason for this was an editor trying to claim this page as a world of warcraft redirect. I'd like to know what other people think about this.(Morcus (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is gaming first? 

message: As part of a general cleanup, I have promoted Wow! to the top spot though I am somewhat doubtful if it deserves it. However, as long as the redirect exists, I don't think we have any choice according to my reading of mos:dab. Abtract (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Wow! has been demoted (fair enough) but what made you change your mind about the redirect Sess? Abtract (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this. And why must you keep changing my edits that you do not agree with? Talk about it first, as was said in the contract, which you've broken anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I don't understand what you mean in your edit summary. Abtract (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Dictionary definition? I didn't think the guidelines prohibited such a thing. There a certain section which says this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See  the mos. Abtract (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep!  (Yay for clarification).  I believe the rationale is so as to make navigation to the actual articles that the page is disambiguating easiest, but not having definitions thrown in there.  And it goes along with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary too.  Having the Wiktionary link is always a nice compromise. -- Natalya 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not 100% sure how that applies, but I've taken off the entry anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary topic

message: Sorry, I don't mean to put a stick in the works, but World of warcraft has 5.6k dayly readers, whilst the other links barely get over 100 and people who play the game refer to it as WoW (which does redirect to it). I would proposed to writen at the top: "Wow is an indication of exitement and may refer to several topics, (including World of warcraft):" --Squidonius (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warcarft 

message: In aviation, WOW seems to mean weight on wheels (referring to a sensor/switch or to a system that uses these), but I don't know whether it is an official term. List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical abbreviations contains the related WOFW and WONW terms. I could not find any article explaining this further (e.g. Undercarriage). --Mopskatze (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight on wheels (aviation) 

message: :Hi LaundryPizza03. All the edits you are making are exactly what I expected, >1 links, failure to meet WP:DABMENTION, utter nonsense like W, etc. This was such a poor page I didn't feel I needed to explain as I assumed that any other editor, who perhaps focused on cleanup, would automatically see the problems. When you have finished I would be happy to re-review. Tassedethe (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about now? I don't see any more obvious bad items. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a some redirects WOW (Junko Onishi album), WOW (Mouse on Mars album) and WOW air that I would fix but overall looks a lot better. Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup