Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 7

message: This article is a mess.  I've been playing this game since release, but I still get a headache trying to navigate through this article.  Needs to be cleaned up and re-organized.  I'm somewhat unfamiliar with Wiki code, so I couldn't figure out how to flag this article for clean up.  Every time I tried, it was prompting me to enter information about filing a dispute...  --CBrewster 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs a Cleanup Badly 

message: Under gameplay, it reads "...raids" (a term originating from EverQuest gameplay)." There is no source of this claim, and a preliminary google search of the term "dungeon raid" turns up a video game from 1983 that's based on D&D which leads me to believe that the term "raid" actually shares its roots with Everquest and World of Warcraft in the classic paper and pencil Dungeons and Dragons games.  Anyone have any insight on this piece of trivia? -Jaardon 09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove the comment in parentheses, in my opinion.  It's unnecessary.  If we really want to provide an explanation, then let's create a page called "Raid Dungeon" explaining what it is, and link to it. --CBrewster 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "raid" term? 

message: I am currently not sure on how to deal with the original World of Warcraft and its expansion The Burning Crusade. This article contains information about both versions, whereas the Burning Crusade article is lacking information and is not updated consistently. If I were not playing this game, I would be confused, as in some sections lvl60 is designated as Endgame and the next sentence discusses lvl70 content. 
Should we keep this article restricted on the originally released World of Warcraft and discuss lvl 60-70 in the Burning Crusade article, or should we try to reword certain statements to cover both versions. The latter may result in mess  if not written carefully. --tomst | talk 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a good point and I can see both sides. However, I think I'm in favour of your latter decision - reword it so the L60 doesn't seem like Endgame. I think this is important as one of the great functions of Wikipedia is the ability to alter information, should the need arise. The game information changes, therefore, the article should reflect that. :) Summoner Marc 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World of Warcaft Expansion: The Burning Crusade 

message: I was bold. I removed the section "Deviation from the MMORPG archetype" entirely. Only the first paragraph contained interesting information, which nonetheless read like original research and was not sourced at all. The following paragraphs did not discuss differences to other MMORPGs but instead read like subjective statements about the history of PVP in WoW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomst (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I think the original purpose of the section is good (comparing WoW to traditional MMO conventions), but the section, as written, was basically a long-winded discussion of the Honor system without any citations. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You deserve a great big HUG! That section wasn't encyclopedic at all. Quezacolt 09:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deviation from the MMORPG archetype section removal 

message: Allakhazam.com is a well-known and valuable reference website to most WoW fans.  In fact, I would hazard a guess that it's the 2nd most important WoW fansite aside from Thottbot.  I think that it would enhance the article if the link is provided. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, wonder why it isn't there in the first place... Quezacolt 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm trying to figure out why wowhead isn't there. JavaTenor 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The external links section is getting a bit long. How about replacing some of them with directory entries e.g. by linking to Dmoz categories. There are some extensive lists for reviews as well as some uncategorized links. Game Databases also has some entries. I do not want to remove all the links, but some could be covered by a directory link. --tomst | talk 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose to add Allakhazam.com to the links section 

message: :Image:WoW_User_Interface.jpg
Hi!
I'm thinking of adding a screenshot of my UI(which is extremely modded up) into the Modifications section. See the pic to the right. Is the screenshot ok? I plan on adding it to the article tomorrow.
Quezacolt 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ok example of a modified UI, but I wouldn't call it the best example of an 'extremely modded up' ui. I uploaded a screen of what the newest modded UIs look like. Tell me what you think. --Jackbox55 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Modified_WoW_User_Interface.jpg
Mind telling me what mod makes your party frames look like that? :) Please? Quezacolt 04:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a screenshot to Modifications section... 

message: Please link "retail software" to retail software, thanks. --71.169.143.192 23:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Quezacolt 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Alliance can not find the Print Screen key? d: All seriousness though, because no one with an Alliance character took and submitted a screenshot. From the tone I guess you play Ally, so solve the problem yourself and submit a screenshot. --Ihmhi 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retail software 

message: I feel this section is neutral enough.  Can the tag be removed now? 72.156.181.178 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded some text to make it seem less personal.  I think it looks better and is more encyclopedic. Derfy 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PvP Neutrality 

message: One of the opening paragraphs claims 3.5 million players in China, yet the "Controversy and Criticism" section says it's 20 million! I doubt this is due simply to outdated content. Most likely, the latter is the number of accounts, since as I understand, players can create multiple accounts. If so, can this be fixed, I think it's a pretty conspicuous mistake. --...Wikiwøw 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 20 million reference in Controversy and criticism isn't discussing China having 20 million WoW subscribers, but 20 million gamers in general, and steps the Chinese government is taking to curb game addiction. FeralDruid 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, I thought it meant World of Warcraft gamers. Well then, I suppose it's fine. --...Wikiwøw 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradiction 

message: do we have statistics on how the number of players online at any given times fluctuates between? i think this would be interesting, and useful for measuring it's size. 131.111.8.103 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I'm aware, and I don't think Blizzard want to release that information. Sazielt c 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of simultaneous players? 

message: I really think the information is irrelevant. I think it should be changed into a Collector's Edition sections instead, mentioning the soundtrack and the other goodies that came with it. Sazielt c 11:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: I've added a Film section based on news about the project.  Due to the lack of actual production, the film article was redirected here.  (Actually, I redirected it to Warcraft for a while, which goes to show how familiar I am with this.)  Anyway, it's usually a rule of thumb to establish film articles when there's a director, a cast, and a production start date.  This is because production of some projects is not always guaranteed -- look at what happened with the film adaptation of Halo.  Hope the new addition is sufficient! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film section 

message: This entire paragraph:
With the recent release of the expansion, Blizzard has attempted to make endgame content more accessible to casual players by reducing the amount of required preparation to do these. The original (level 60) endgame dungeons involved gathering rather large amounts of supplies before the dungeon attempt, such as doing long "attunement" quests, which is a requirement for almost all raiding guilds in the game. The attunement quest enables the player to easily enter a specific raid dungeon, and for some dungeons, players cannot enter without completing this quest. Blizzard claims to have made these quests shorter in the expansion, but since not enough people have reached endgame level, this is unproven.
is simply wrong and I suggest removing/rewriting it. If anything, attunement for endgame dungeons in Burning Crusade is far more difficult and complicated than it ever was pre-BC.
For reference we could include a copy of an attunement chart, such as this one: http://worldofraids.free.fr/bc/BCRaids.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.195.241 (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who wrote just about the entire paragraph - I based it off CM posts from some time ago, so it's most likely outdated. I approve it's removal. Quezacolt 12:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad paragraph 

message: I think it should be noted that while the game from the store does include 30 days free play, you cannot create an account without a credit card or buying a game card. When you try to create a character, it tells you to either enter a credit card number, or a game card number. It never mentions that on the box. There is a way around that, however. I called their support desk, and the guy told me to go to warcraft.com, and get the trial version for 10 days, and then authenticate it from the code that comes with the box. Even though that resolved it for me, I still think it's misleading. When you buy the game that says 30 days free included, you should be able to play and not purchase any other products or enter credit card numbers.
Sacrublood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.243.242 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billing 

message: I just made a lot of changes to this article (i've been bold :P), diff
* Changed the player limit of raids from 40 to 25 (even though old raids are still 40man, all burning crusade instances are either 5, 10 or 25)
* System requirements don't change frequently but often (they changed only once as far as i know)
* Removed the following paragraph (unsourced and out of date):
** With the recent release of the expansion, Blizzard has attempted to make endgame content more accessible to casual players by reducing the amount of required preparation to do these. The original (level 60) endgame dungeons involved gathering rather large amounts of supplies before the dungeon attempt, such as doing long "attunement" quests, which is a requirement for almost all raiding guilds in the game. The attunement quest enables the player to easily enter a specific raid dungeon, and for some dungeons, players cannot enter without completing this quest. Blizzard claims to have made these quests shorter in the expansion, but since not enough people have reached endgame level, this is unproven.
* Changed all the "1 month subscription" to "30 days subscription"
* The definition of "Contested Territory" was incorrect.
* Removed all the explanation of the color of the zone names (red = hostile, green = friendly, etc). IMO it's not pertinent to this article.
* Added the citation needed tag to "RP rules are very rarely enforced by GMs". This is most certainly not true and imo should be removed.
* Replaced:
** Including combinations only available with The Burning Crusade, there are currently 26 possible combinations of race and class for each faction, for a total of 52 combinations across both factions. Without the expansion, the character and class combinations are limited to 20 and 20 respectively.
* with:
** for example Night Elves can only be Druids, Hunters, Priests, Rogues or Warriors.
* Removed the Nether Drake mount paragraph from the Arena section since the rewards change every arena season (ie, the next arena season will have a different reward)
* Many players did not receive well the changes that were made to the honor system as of version 2.0 ---> Added citation needed tag
* The Burning Crusade expansion released on January 16 2007 added one new race to each faction (the Blood Elves and the Draenei). In a controversial decision by Blizzard each of these new races are able to play as the previously faction-specific class of the opposite faction. ---> Added citation needed tag
* Removed the Unexplored regions section, not pertinent to the article.
Azshadarae Talk 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the player limit for raids back to 40. As you have stated, there are still 40 man raids in the game. Maybe we could add a note saying that new raid instances will be capped at 25 players. tomst | talk 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes.. 

message: What happens when a character loses all of his/her HP? How does one keep playing after they die? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/basics/death.html --Stormie 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death? 

message: In reference to the following passage from the first paragraph of the page: "World of Warcraft is a subscription-based MMORPG that lacks an offline mode."
This wording seems to be an overstatement.  An online game can't really lack an offline mode. It would be more appropriate to say something like "...is a subscription-based MMORPG that is played exclusively online."  This game is widely accepted as one of the best MMORPG's evermade, if not the epitome of the genre.  So, to say the game is "missing" something is too strong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrdeath5493 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable wording in the initial description 

message: I edited the Article again. Added some Information about Hacks. But I am not quite sure why the formatting looks so wiered. Why should D3scene.com Included? Because it is not a real discussion Board. It provides sources, downloads and Information about Hacks.
World of Warcraft Forum. It provides Information about those Hacks.--Hendricius 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rv your edits regarding hacks due to copyright issues as the content you added was copy pasted from www.hackwiki.net/World_of_Warcraft.  Having said that, I think its good information but it needs to be written and sourced, rather than copied from another site. Dman727 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I really see no need for this section in the article. If any of this information belongs in the article (ie if it can be properly sourced, and is deemed to be relevant) it should be in the Modifications section. A slightly larger coverage of "hacks" in that section probably wouldn't hurt, but the amount of detail in the current version seems too much to me. I won't revert anything now, instead wait to see what others feel. Tengfred 07:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 10% eh?  I'm REALLY curious how you came up with that statistic.  I think that Tengfred has a good point - this information should proably fall into the modifications section. Dman727 21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Site appears to be a scam.  There is no known method of duping items in WOW at this moment (there was some in the past, but they have been patched). 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just checked the Website. The only Article, copied from Wikipedia I have found, was the Article about Cheat Engine. Readded the Link, just look at that WoW-Page, it provides tons of more Information.--Mr.Wong2000 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without attribution, I don't think that they can copy Wikipedia articles. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I removed the link again. Hackwiki contains verbatim copies of Tsearch (), Cheat Engine () and WoW Glider () without fulfilling license requirements (see WP:COPY), we should not link to such sites. Furthermore I was under the impression, that we want to discuss external links before they are added to the list (as mentioned in the inline comments of the External Links section). Regarding content, the site lists some generic tools like Cheat Engine and Tsearch; they are already covered by Wikipedia and they are not of importance to World of Warcraft itself. tomst | talk 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are on GNU-Free-license I just checked. Look at all the articles about World of Warcraft, modelchanging, hacking and other usefull Information. I readded the link. --Mr.Wong2000 09:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between licensing issues (which remain unadressed) and the promotional nature of the link (the link appears to serve mainly as a promotion for Hackwiki, rather than a tool to improve this Wikipedia article), I don't see how we can keep it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheating on World of Warcraft is a huge part of the game. There are always people, interested in Cheating/hacking. When they see those Videos with uber-cheaters. I just checked Hackwiki and it provides usefull Information about Cheating e.g what is possible, the dangers, blizzards antidetection. --Hendricius 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no indication or source that cheating is a huge part of WOW.  Dman727 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been banned more than 200 000 CD Keys including Accounts. That is almost 5-10% of all WoW Players. Readded. --Hendricius 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely you have got reliable sources for that. As for the continuous adding and re-adding, apparently the link is disputed, two users feel it should belong, others don't. I'd say keep the link removed and gain consensus whether it should be included or not before adding it again. --Fogeltje 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you appear to be the administrator of HackWiki, Hendricius, I'm not convinced that you are adding this link for any reason other than self-promotion. --Stormie 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, that would be a violation of WP:EL which states you shouldn't add links to sites you are affliated with, but should post it on the talkpage to let neutral people decide on it.--Fogeltje 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacks 

message: I removed the link to Hackwiki as it does not provide any additional information relevant to World of Warcraft and/or third party extensions. The history of the wiki shows first edits on the 4th of May, most additional topics there are verbatim copies of other Wikipedia articles. tomst | talk 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the Website. The only Article, copied from Wikipedia I have found, was the Article about Cheat Engine. Readded the Link, just look at that WoW-Page, it provides tons of more Information.--Mr.Wong2000 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without attribution, I don't think that they can copy Wikipedia articles. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I removed the link again. Hackwiki contains verbatim copies of Tsearch (), Cheat Engine () and WoW Glider () without fulfilling license requirements (see WP:COPY), we should not link to such sites. Furthermore I was under the impression, that we want to discuss external links before they are added to the list (as mentioned in the inline comments of the External Links section). Regarding content, the site lists some generic tools like Cheat Engine and Tsearch; they are already covered by Wikipedia and they are not of importance to World of Warcraft itself. tomst | talk 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are on GNU-Free-license I just checked. Look at all the articles about World of Warcraft, modelchanging, hacking and other usefull Information. I readded the link. --Mr.Wong2000 09:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between licensing issues (which remain unadressed) and the promotional nature of the link (the link appears to serve mainly as a promotion for Hackwiki, rather than a tool to improve this Wikipedia article), I don't see how we can keep it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheating on World of Warcraft is a huge part of the game. There are always people, interested in Cheating/hacking. When they see those Videos with uber-cheaters. I just checked Hackwiki and it provides usefull Information about Cheating e.g what is possible, the dangers, blizzards antidetection. --Hendricius 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no indication or source that cheating is a huge part of WOW.  Dman727 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been banned more than 200 000 CD Keys including Accounts. That is almost 5-10% of all WoW Players. Readded. --Hendricius 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely you have got reliable sources for that. As for the continuous adding and re-adding, apparently the link is disputed, two users feel it should belong, others don't. I'd say keep the link removed and gain consensus whether it should be included or not before adding it again. --Fogeltje 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you appear to be the administrator of HackWiki, Hendricius, I'm not convinced that you are adding this link for any reason other than self-promotion. --Stormie 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, that would be a violation of WP:EL which states you shouldn't add links to sites you are affliated with, but should post it on the talkpage to let neutral people decide on it.--Fogeltje 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: This edit looks to me to be about a hundred times more detail than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. What reason is there for this minutiae to be here rather than on, say, wowwiki? --Stormie 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a separate article to deal with the "excessive detail". See Mounts (World of Warcraft). Pejorative.majeure 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mounts - excessive detail 

message: Shouldnt this: be added to the article, in the Controversy section? (if its true, of course, but its quite known on the web anyway).
:Certainly not without a reliable source. --Stormie 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But even if its all wrong, it is a known controversy. I can give reference of this being well-known, but i dont play WoW so i cannot confirm if its true. Anyway, some places where its referenced: , ,  --82.131.84.240 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be included if we can find a Reliable Source reporting on it. The links so far in this section are just forum posts, and are not reliable. So if someone like Joystiq reported on it, we'd be in. Until then, we can't include it. McKay 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman "Getting Mounted" 

message: Shouldn't there be a short section detailing how WOW does not follow the storyline/canon of the previous games and being all around unrealistic, such as by the following:
*Separating the races into two factions representing good (Alliance) and evil (Horde).
*Limiting to only two factions, thus limiting the number of racial choices and being all-around unrealistic. Third party factions would theoretically include: Burning Legion (demon and worshiper races), Undead Scourge (undead and cultist races), and Independents (all other races).
*Removing classes with connection to undead (Death Knight & Necromancer), because Scourge faction does not exist.
*Making it impossible for you to change your faction or even communicate with the enemy faction, which is unrealistic.
*Not being player driven except in ultra-rare circumstances (like holding world event items for ransom); what players do has absolutely NO effect on the game world.
*The list goes on. --Zenoseiya 15:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like Original Research to me. --Stormie 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and a lot of if looks like standard complaints when a MMO is based on previous worlds.--Donovan Ravenhull 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um a Couple of things here:
*Alliance and Horde are not good and evil factions. they are merely two different factions fighting the same enemy as well as each other
*Like the burning legion isnt godly enough, we dont need level 70 demons roaming around. look at what happened when kazzam got into stormwind, they had to roll back the server. imagine a bunch of raiding idiots raiding whole towns.
*The undead race is the forsaken, and is therefore a limited race, with the same reason to it as my last point.
*No matter what level your gnome is, the horde doesnt want you.
* The only explanation i want is why they changed the draenei from the brown things in frozen throne to blue in burning crusade... but i like the new ones better
203.29.106.59 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW inconsistent with previous games in the series and all round unrealistic in terms of politics 

message: There are tons out there but I can't find any info on Wikipedia about them... Isn't playing WoW for free illegal? --Marshmello 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Wikipedia's primary concerns isn't as much about legality, but of Notability. Wikipedia doesn't mention playing on private servers because playing on private servers isn't notable enough for inclusion. On the other hand, I think legally, playing on private servers is against the WoW terms of service, which if you're playing on a private server may or may not have been agreed by you. But the creation of a private server *would* be in violation of the terms of service for at least one person who agreed to it. It also is shaky on DMCA grounds to host a private server. The WoW client has to be modified in a way that is against the WoW terms of service also. McKay 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Servers?