Talk:World of Warcraft

Pic

Somone take off the picture of the "mod" before and after. The player was bragging on the wow forums, and it should be like the last pic with no name so nobody gets advertised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virus Errupt (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Sir. Denton22 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In other media

How about the swedish comedian Björn Gustafssons joke? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azE5ueU22jo Egon Eagle (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Probaly not. See WP:TRIVIA Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Credit to other games, from Blizzard

I was thinking about adding a small topic on the page about the Larion and Muigin (Mario and Luigi) and Linken (Link, from Zelda) in Un'goro Crater, showing how blizzard is giving credit to Mario and Link series', both of which were revolutionary to gameing.

Thoughts? --Recipies (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As Gazimoff said above, WP:TRIVIA recommends we keep trivia out of the article. Now, there used to be an entire article devoted to "Cultural references in World of Warcraft" or something along those lines but it was deleted because it was essentially one giant trivia article. -- Atama^chat 23:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HTRIVIA is another guideline to consider as well. -- Atama^chat 23:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article

I've removed this article from the Good Article List. The "good article" version should never even have been promoted considering it had a maintenance tag, lousy prose, poor sourcing, etc. The problems with the current revision:

• Poor prose: Lists where prose will do; one-sentence paragraphs; poor grammar; one-paragraph sections, excessive wikilinking to WoWWiki (this is confusing to new users, who may not know the difference between our website and theirs)
• Poor organization: No logical flow/structure in the article; bad summary style for criticism/controversy
• Insufficient breadth of coverage: Critical reception and development are way too short; in-game related material is too long

On top of this, there is still a "cleanup" tag from April. The article needs some serious work.-Wafulz (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised at this, we've been struggling to keep the cruft out of the article but it creeps in. I dispute the WoWWiki criticism, the only alternative is to not Wikilink much of anything because there's no way we're ever going to have that information in Wikipedia, deletionists will firebomb any WoW article that's not heavily sourced and thoroughly notable. The WoWWiki links are a pretty smart compromise. If they're not okay, we'll just have to leave those subjects de-linked I suppose, which is a shame.

I also don't understand the "Critical Reception" length complaint, is it the Reception or Criticism section that is too short? Criticism is spun off into another article due to length, while Reception could indeed be expanded, sure. The Development section is actually a relatively new section, when the Good Article status was granted it didn't even exist yet. The "poor sourcing" criticism isn't very helpful... How is sourcing poor? Not enough? This article will be improved, though, thanks for your feedback. -- Atama^chat 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Critical reception" means "Reception" in this case. Comparing it to featured video game articles highlights the deficiencies (see Halo 3#Critical reception and impact, for example). The WoWWiki links should be used sparingly - users may get confused if they're directed to another Wiki. I don't know of any other articles that link to external wikis. The sourcing comment refers to things like unsourced paragraphs, citations without full information (publisher, title , accessdate, etc), and ambiguous citations (the citation is placed in the middle of a sentence or paragraph).-Wafulz (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've turned all the regular inter-wiki links into refs to make it clear that they're not local. There are a few non-standard interwiki links which I left as-is. - Denimadept (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's worse; we'll get crapshot at GAC/FAC for having them in references. This is a rather frustrating point...
As for the delisting, this should probably have been taken to GAR, rather than arbitrarily delisted. I disagree with the process, but do feel that the article does not meet the criteria of a good article. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert it. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've finished the spinoff Gameplay of World of Warcraft. I'd now suggest we trim this down and start some heavy cleanup work. I'll do what I can on the reception, legacy and popular culture side of things to get the ball rolling.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to trim it down. One or two paragraphs, maybe? --Izno (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a sandbox at User: Gazimoff/wow sandbox that I'm working on at the moment in order to sort out the article before merging it back in. Feel free to give me a hand there on performing some open-heart surgery on it before bringing it back in. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Player Characters (PCs, or simply "players") This statement was correct at one time the term at the moment is Toon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladeyama (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "toon" is slang, and not only slang but fairly unpopular slang. In fact, I personally don't remember ever hearing anyone actually use the term "toon" in my years playing WoW. I've heard "avatar" a number of times. Officially, however, Blizzard refers to them as PCs or players as the article states. -- Atama^chat 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the Reception sections with citations. I'm going to start work on compressing down the Gameplay section next and merging content into either Legacy or Development. Anyone who wants to help, please feel free to lend a hand. I'd like to shrink down the Pricing section into Development as well, removing the fees table but keeping in the important distinction on the differences between subscription and pay-as-you-go models used in different regions. Any thoughts? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Easter egg

Adding a small topic on the page about the Larion and Muigin (Mario and Luigi) and Linken (Link, from Zelda) would not be inappropriate because Blizzard is not giving credit to the games. These are just Easter Eggs with some similarity in the names nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladeyama (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this sort of thing at Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 6#Pop references. I think it is generally reckoned that there are far, far too many such easter eggs to put into this article; and that a separate article on them would be unavoidably Original Research. --Stormie (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There actually was a separate article at one time if I recall and it was nuked in the "Great WoW Article Massacre". -- Atama^chat 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Most Popular

I think it may be innacurate to call it The most popular as this page says that Maplestory, a different MMO has 71 million subscribers.

http://www.wonderlandblog.com/wonderland/2008/04/maplestory-71m.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyDragon (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment says that it's according to the Guinness Book of Records, here. As it's a reliable source, I see no problem with keeping the comment. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also on the Maplestory article in wikipedia says it has 50 Million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapleStory —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyDragon (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't really compare subscription figures between a pay-to-play game like WoW and a free-to-play game like Maple Story. I'm sure the Guinness record was for paid subscriptions. --Stormie (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The business model of the games companies do not matter at all. Simply saying "you are sure" still leaves room for doubt. Wikipedia kind of has a bad name for being able to verify their references we must try and change this by being as rigorous as possible. We are currently contradicting ourselves with these two articles 124.169.136.30 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)