Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 28 March 2009

World of Warcraft was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 15, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 17, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 18, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

Video games B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Taito SJ System (2 participants) Hannah Telle (3 participants) MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1 (3 participants) Real Flight Simulator (4 participants) Gameplay of Hearthstone (4 participants) Kristoffer von Hassel (4 participants) Aimsey (3 participants) Fedmyster (2 participants) Merge discussions Astro Bot (soundtrack) (discussion) Evil Empire (company) (discussion) Console game (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Fallout: New Vegas (nom) The Legend of Dragoon (nom) Rockstar North (nom) Good article nominations Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (nom) Cry of Fear (nom) A Space for the Unbound (nom) The King of Fighters '97 (nom) F1 24 (start) Façade (video game) (start) Prey (2017 video game) (start) Transfer Pak (start) Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (start) Lost Sphear (start) Pocket Monsters' Stadium (start) Celeste 64: Fragments of the Mountain (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Dynasty Warriors 4 (nom) Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga (nom) Articles that need... assessment (1) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (256) screenshots (9,043) photos (70) translation from japan (186) creation merging

Archives August 2003 — May 2005 May — October 2005 November 2005 — June 2006 June — November 2006 November — December 2006 January — February 2007 March — June 2007 July — October 2007 October 2007 — February 2008 March 2008 — May 2008

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-02-01 Goals Achieve GA status To edit as necessary in order to improve the article, See the Warcraft task force talk page on preceding in this venture.

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 _Read 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What about a mention of the American Dad! episode Dungeons and Wagons? I cannot seem to create it myself. 99.254.124.230 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that episode actually about WoW or just online RPGs in general. Do they mention world of warcraft at all in the episode, I can't remember myself. Dark verdant (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No it's not about WoW. It's not even worth a mention in this article. Even if it was about WoW, it still would be trivia, unless it was something along the lines of Make Love, Not Warcraft. -- Atama 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, if these rules apply to Dungeons And Wagons, then Marge Gamer should not be included either, as it is just a spoof of many MMORPGS and doesn't make a mention of WoW either. So, i'm going to add it in, and if you delete it then you should also remove Marge Gamer.Dragonixta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.182.95 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely valid statement. To be honest, I had never noticed that little blurb in there about The Simpsons. I've removed it and the American Dad information because (1) neither was about WoW, (2) neither was a big deal (unlike the South Park episode which received a lot of press attention and was also a collaboration with Blizzard and (3) there were no references (not that references would have made a difference, unless those references somehow disputed my first two points). Thanks for pointing that out. -- Atama 15:34, 27 March 2009 (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 23:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

"This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." This is from WP:TRIVIA Dannysjgdf (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is something Misplaced Pages needs, I would say it should go at the cited games, in something like "In Other Media". But...there is already WAY too much coverage of computer gaming in Misplaced Pages (opinion, clearly)... how much more game trivia does a truly great general purpose encyclopedia need? A great deal of this stuff should be in the gaming sites... or possibly in books and articles that would be cited by Misplaced Pages articles, if only they existed. :) sinneed (talk) 13:29, 23 November 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 _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 _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 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 _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 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And people deny the Holocaust existed, nobody denys the massacre existed Grimreape513 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 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 _Read 11:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also on the Maplestory article in[REDACTED] says it has 50 Million

http://en.wikipedia.org/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. Misplaced Pages kind of has a bad name for being unable 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)

The statement says "...holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG."The reference backs this up, stating that it does hold the Guinness World Record. If the holder of the world record changes, so can the statement. Until then, the article accurately reflects what the sources state. If your issue is with World of Warcraft holding the world record, you may want to take this up with Guinness, as articles can only reflect what the sources indicate. Hope this helps, Gazimoff _Read 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that a similar argument was made before, see here where the argument was about how Lineage II had larger numbers than WoW, however this article states that WoW is the largest MMORPG in terms of monthly subscribers. The same argument applies again, where MapleStory does not have a monthly subscription. As far as the popularity question goes, as Gazimoff stated, if you contest the statement find a more reliable source that Guinness. -- Atama 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WoW Addiction

Addiction is a big issue in the popular culture surrounding the game, and perhaps more should be written in this section. One common situation that seems to occur is when conflict arises from either long play hours or scheduled raiding, or both. It's a fact that some guilds require significant playtime dedication in order to achieve greater rewards in the game. Oftentimes, it seems that players feel like they must dedicate large amounts of time to the game in order to be successful and experience the artistic content to its fullest potential.

The section is large enough already. To add more to it would be to give it undue weight. Remember there is a whole other article devoted just to WoW controversies, Criticism of World of Warcraft. If you want to expand on this subject please do it there. Just remember that if you do, you're not allowed to add your own personal experiences, theories, or opinions on the matter as that is original research, everything has to be properly sourced. -- Atama 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What's happened to criticism of World of Warcraft then? It just redirects here. Since criticism is no longer covered in a seperate article, I argue that expanding the criticism section in this one will not give it undue weight. Perhaps we should mention a site like WOW detox where 1500 WOW players and acquaintances have posted testimonies as to what they feel is the game's habit forming nature. It should be acknowledged that some do make claims as to WOW's addicting nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.249.165 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See here for the decision to merge it with this article. It's a tough call, I almost think there could be a World of Warcraft addiction article, but it would be an uphill battle to prove notability on an article like that. -- Atama 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that aside from a small summary of the issue and a link to Video game addiction that the addiction thing doesn't need additional coverage. It applies to any popular video game. While I do know personally a few WoW addicts, most (the ones old enough) were EQ or UO addicts before that. Some of us started off with Adventure on line printer terminals, playing all night and programming all day... this isn't a new problem, it isn't particular to WoW... and in fact has nothing directly to do with WoW. And all that is OR and wouldn't go in an article. ;0)~ I have not studied the addiction article, and so I am not claiming it is good (or bad)... only that it is there. sinneed (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate stated that online gaming addiction was one of the top reasons for college drop-outs. However, she did not identify any source to validate the statement, nor identify its position in relation to other causes, such as getting a good job offer.

Am I the only one who thinks "getting a good job offer" opinionated?. My reason for bringing this up is that the fact how WoW leads to what the last sentence claims, the both reference 95 and 96 did not have make mention of it. I don't want to just go and edit an article if I was the only one to think that way. BlueIslandWolf (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:World of Warcraft#Recent Game Addiction edit. I intend to kill it.sinneed (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Active Subscriptions Graph

I think it would be a great addition to the article to have a graph showing the evolution of the number of subscriptions (see http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart11.html) Chandrasonic (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No Further Mention of Character Customization

There is no mention of how customizable is your character avatar. Could someone include an entry on it, as I would like to know - and I'm sure others do as well - about how much personalizing can be had on WoW? Psypho (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful how much we get into detail in describing game features. Too much and it begins to resemble a game guide, and that is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. -- Atama 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition to setting

The setting speaks of Draenor, but it is more commonly known as Outland. I think it would be appropriate to add this for the sake of clarity, so that people unfamiliar with the history or people who haven't played that far into thew game will understand.--Loknidas (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding something like "(aka Outland)" to it? - Denimadept (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Why is the article under semi-protection? (Regardless of the reasons, I think it should be made clear what they are) Karbinski (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When it wasn't it was being vandalized constantly. Vandlism is still not rare but it's no longer happening a dozen times a day. -- Atama 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I love vandalfighting. But the WoW article was vandalized so much that I never even tried. I didn't even put it on my watch list... it was like a constant assault and I wouldn't find other article changes in the WoWspam. sinneed (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Instances: related to factions in Outland

The nature of TBC instances is to be related to a faction. Perhaps this should be woven into the Instances section... Karbinski (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We're looking at trimming down the gameplay section of this article now, as we have the spinoff Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Having said that, it's important not to venture too far into gameguide material. Mentioning the reputation system and how it rewards players is great, but I think that discussing it in further detail without having sources to back up that increase in detail is probably unwarranted. Remember, if you can't cite it, don't say it. Gazimoff _Read 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We should call you "Gameplay Gazimoff" now. -- Atama 20:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Har har :) I've finished rewriting the gameplay section on this article, although I think I could be a bit heavier with the knife. I'm going to be working on the development section next before moving on to cleaning up the legacy section and finally the lead. I'm going to remove the part on pricing, but merge some of it into development in order to demonstrate the subtle differences in subscription methods between territories. I'm sure that there's a guideline somewhere that states that pricing information shouldn't be included in articles. Gazimoff _Read 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting paragraph

In the starting paragraph they say that World of Warcraft has 10 million subscribers, which is true, then basing off a graph which im not sure how old it is, says it has 62% of all MMOG's. I went to a couple of other MMORPG's and found they also had around 10 million, so I was wondering how this information could be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandox1 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The confusion often arises from comparing WoW's 10 million paying subscribers to the player figures of free-to-play MMORPGs. But one thing I notice - we should not say "The current subscriber base for all MMOGs is 16 million" and use mmogchart.com as a reference. Whilst Bruce Woodcock does sterling work with mmogchart, he says "I am the first to admit that the data is not always reliable." I have revised that sentence to "As of 2008, the current subscriber base for all MMOGs has been estimated at approximately 16 million." --Stormie (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that 16 million subscriptions does not equal 16 million people playing the game. I have multiple accounts myself, and it seems to be a big practice to have more than one account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, I've shared an account with my wife in many games, so it's possible for one account to have more than one player. It's impossible to keep track of any of that stuff, so "subscriptions" is the best we can do. -- Atama 16:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Conference in World of Warcraft

John Bohannon: Slaying Monsters for Science, Science 20 June 2008, Vol. 320. no. 5883, p. 1592, doi:10.1126/science.320.5883.1592c, material -- Cherubino (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Two new games

Since I'm not allowed to edit the main article (only this discussion article), can someone change this: "World of Warcraft has inspired a board game produced by Fantasy Flight Games, as well as a trading card game produced by Upper Deck Entertainment."

to: "World of Warcraft has inspired two board games (World of Warcraft: The Board Game and World of Warcraft: The Adventure Game) produced by Fantasy Flight Games, as well as an upcoming miniature figure game (World of WarCraft Miniatures Game) and a trading card game produced by Upper Deck Entertainment."

Sources for the two additional games: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/wow-adventure/ http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/wowmini/en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowlevelio (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do the corrections. Do you know if these games have been picked up in any news sources, or if there's any press releases announcing them? Many thanks, Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 22:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the second board game certainly seems to be released and available, based on the link provided (), and Amazon is listing it for sale currently (). I can't find an official press release (although it is on Fantasy Flight Games front page news (). Here's an article about it's release from a gaming blog: .

As for the upcoming miniatures game, there's a microsite for it on Upper Deck's website, including a FAQ () listing it as "slated to launch in fall 2008". Aha, found an initial press release from Upper Deck announcing it: . --Stormie (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okies, I'll get on to it tomorrow - getting a bit late for me now. I also need to get some information on the action figures, the figure Prints stuff, the other various bits and pieces and maybe the Jinx clothing range before rounding it off. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I put the new games in as requested by Lowlevelio, with refs for all the games. Please tweak if you think it needs tweaking. --Stormie (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminders for Gazimoff

Who deserves a barnstar for his work on this article. Anyway, reminders as requested (advertisements for other people to work as well!):

• Use the tools normally used at FAC. Includes refchecker and other items.
• Legacy, Development need improving
• Copyedit
• Lead needs redone (this I might do).

Cheers. --Izno (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some references for wow

Most of the following references are from the field of games studies. Some of them are on SSRN (they usually are), unless they are within one year of initial publication, then they are usually embargoed. I will try to link to a freely available version when possible but a considerable amount of these articles are gated and may not be accesible to the general public. I can access them but I won't republish them broadly for obvious reasons. If you want an excerpt or want to see a copy, let me know on my talk page and we'll work something out so that we aren't violating the spirit and the letter of my access agreement.

First off, Nick Yee's work. He's a researcher at PARC and does empirical and other work within and about WoW.

• Building an MMO With Mass Appeal (gated)
• From Tree House to Barracks:The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft (gated)
• Alone together? (gated) This is a good one. controversial, as it basically says that people socialise a lot less (on the whole) than most game researchers think or would like to hear.

Constance Steinkuehler works in games and learning theory. Her research has moved on to Lineage, but there are some good papers there on WoW (non gated papers are linked directly from her info page). She has a conference paper on WoW forums, interestingly enough.

Some other researchers:

• Mark Chen has a few papers in stages of publication about guilds, raiding and learning in WoW. Some are linked here (Check this cite for a good way to cite a conference presentation without an associated PDF). the paper is a draft, but it is based on a received and reviewed conference talk given in 2007. Also, he has a talk from 2008 discussing "relearning" the game at 60/70 and how this correlates to some different learning models (ZOMG huge .gif).
• Krista-Lee Malone has produced what is basically the first paper on DKP out there. The work is still a draft (accepted for publication in Games and Culture), so it probably won't fly as RS, but when it is published it should make for an interesting anchor.
• conference paper (gated) on collaboration in WoW.

RMT research

• Ted Castronova (kinda the guy who lit the fire under modern games studies) has a paper on cost/benefit analysis of RMT in WoW and online spaces in general. Be aware, Ted is kinda anti-RMT, so the gist of it may be slightly POV. ungated
• T.L. Taylor's work in virtual worlds is very well known. This paper discusses emergent behavior and regulation in those worlds generally, but mentions RMT as well. gated
• Julian Dibbell is not a scholar per se, but his work skirts the boundary between reporting and novel scholarship. Any discussion on RMT ought to include his piece in the new york times on chinese gold farmers. ungated
• A very brief rundown (basically because the readers of the duke law review don't usually play wow) of the "legal status" of goods in WoW ungated
• A similar review in the Loyola Law review (accepted but not published) ungated
• Again, similar but very detailed, in the UC Davis law review. ungated

That's a start. A lot of it is parochial and technical. A lot of it will seem remedial to people who play wow. this is mostly because about 1/2 of the intro of the paper (and, as you will see, 1/2 of the paper sometimes) is devoted to explaining what WoW is and why it is worthy of scholarly attention. Part of the problem is that this field is REALLY young. Most of the good work was formative and is about EQ (Castronova, TL Taylor, etc). Some really good work is done by grad students and most of the work is in conference papers or in Games and Culture. That makes scholarly sourcing hard for wikipedia, but I think it is important to include serious study of WoW in this and daughter articles in order for them to get past FAC. You can ask me questions about this stuff on my talk page or here (for a while, I might unwatchlist this page if it is really heavy traffic). I will try to contribute as best as I can, but I'm not very good at getting articles beyond GA, I'm more of a create/save from deletion kind of guy. Hopw this helps. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Armory

References to the Armory and to alternative Armory sites (armorylite.com, armory-light.com, warcrafter.net) are completely missing. Seeing how the WoW Armory is a great technological feat (XML source) and how it has allowed hundreds of player-hosted sites to exist, there should be at least a mention of the Armory in this article. 80.109.144.111 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that talks aout the armory? Protonk (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be... A good Article on the armory can be found here: User:Gazimoff/World_of_Warcraft/#The_Armory and here are a few news sources that talk about the armory: http://news.mmosite.com/content/2007-03-02/20070302223948674.shtml http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=315766880.109.144.111 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The old article was in my sandbox, and I should have deleted it (I think it is now). In terms of sources, I don't think mmosite qualifies as a reliable source, but 1up definately does. In terms of placing it, I think that the information should go in Gameplay of World of Warcraft#Miscellaneous features, also mentioning it in World of Warcraft: the Burning Crusade under the development section. Thanks for reminding me about it - I'd been doing a lot of article cleanup recently and it slipped off my stack. Hope this is alright for you. Gazimoff 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, thank you. I just noticed your Article in your user page when googling for the Armory and thought it would be a great and well-written addition. If you add the section to the original article, it would be great if you could specifically mention the technological feat (one of the first websites presented fully in XML) and some of the existing spin-offs (http://www.armorylite.com and http://www.armory-light.com) since they are an important source for players with hundreds of thousands of cached characters and a high user base. Besides, Blizzard decided to present the Armory in real XML (no easy feat, considering how graphic-rich the site is) in order to allow other websites to access the character information 80.109.144.111 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at what we can gather together - I need to make sure we have good quality sources to back up what's added to the articles, which usually counts out any forums, blogs and so on. Once that's done, we should be able to get something in to the articles. If you know of anything from Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku or similar. We proably won't be able to link to any spin-ff sites like the ones you mentioned due to the policy on external links, but we'll see what the sources bring up. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look too. Would a seperate article on the Armory be a better idea? It would allow to link to spin-off sites... As I said, I believe that Blizzards choice in implementing the Armory allowed several hundred sites to exist. This is a notable feat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.144.111 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"one of the first websites presented fully in XML" is a fairly bold claim that would need some serious sourcing. --Stormie (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. make that: one of the - or probably even the - most graphically enhanced XML websites. All websites I know of which are presented as structured XML (not xhtml) are pretty basic and not at all like the armory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.144.111 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Subscription Prices?

While I myself am not a player of WoW, I think it should be good information if someone were to add to the entry the actual subscription price of WoW (maybe even compared in different regions. There are references to getting discounts and that each region is different, but since things like the WoW pre-paid cards could be similar to XM Radio Pre-Paid cards (example), where you buy a block of money and it would cover as much as a couple months depending on usage. (Example: a $30 card would would cover the "average" single XM radio listener for 2 months with a remainder carrying over to the next month of anywhere from $2-$4 depending on tax , a 2 radio subscription would be covered for only about a month and have about $8-10 remaining as a credit for the next month {@19.98 a month]).

Pricing seems to be one of those things that unless you know someone who plays WoW, you won't find out how much it is without alot of looking around online. ZyphBear (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Pricing was one of those things that was talked about, but was eventually removed. Misplaced Pages is not a directory, catalogue or price guide. Hope this helps. Gazimoff 15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in Usage Problems Section

{{editsemiprotected}}

There is a minor error in the final sentence of the 4th paragraph in the Usage Problems section. The sentence that reads:

The token generates an one-time password based code that the layer supplies when logging on. The password is only valid for a limited time, thus providing extra security against keylogging malware.

Should read:

The token generates an one-time password based code that the player supplies when logging on. The password is only valid for a limited time, thus providing extra security against keylogging malware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swotam (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 August 2008

I've now completed this. Should you spot anything else, please feel free to drop me a note. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectible Card Game -- Should it Have its Own Article?

I think this is worth considering. The board game has its own article and the TCG has at least as much notability. What do others think? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a try but before you do it, you'll need to make sure you have reliable sources to establish notability. I'm not kidding when I say that if you create an article on the card game and don't have really good sources right off the bat it will get flagged for deletion. WoW-related articles seem to draw a lot of deletionist attention to themselves, probably because so many of them have been very crufty in the past, and I think certain editors are touchy about them in general. Gazimoff did a really good job when he created the Gameplay of World of Warcraft article; he created everything in a sandbox first, including references, before creating the real article. That thing is now pretty rock-solid and it would be difficult to put it through AfD at this point if not impossible. -- Atama 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recruit-a-friend program mentionable?

should we throw in the new recruit-a-friend deal that they have had going on for the past few months? Wish i had a few links to show it in full detail...Grimreape513 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

With promotions likr this, they have to be notable, such as being covered in multiple reliable sources. Places like mmo-champion.com aren't really considered a reliable source on topics like these. If there's mention of the promotion outside the usual fansite circuit it might be possible to include it, but it's probably unlikely. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Huge work

A huge work has been done since last I came and it's nice. However, sometimes the paragraphs are way too long to read. I know you've been working on trimming, but perhaps just subsections would be easier to read. Zandalia (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any paragraphs of excessive length, at least comparing to quality Misplaced Pages articles. The Manual of Style has no provision for paragraph length either. Even if it were necessary to break up the paragraphs, I'm not sure how that would be done efficiently. -- Atama 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some content is just plain out of date. For example the paragraph Players having difficulty finding groups to venture into a dungeon with can use meeting stones, which attempt to match characters with groups requiring particular skills or abilities. High end dungeons allow more players to group together and form a raid. These dungeons allow up to forty players to enter at a time in order to face some of the most difficult challenges This usage of meeting stones has been replaced by a LFG group matching interface about two years ago. And the old system never had the matching system that the article suggests, they just joined players into groups as soon as they queued. Because of this players considered the meeting stone system to be worthless and unusable, as it always produced an unusable group of 5 random players without any consideration for required skills. This change of 2 years ago also changed the meeting stones into summoning stones so the meeting stones don't exist anymore. Also raiding in the Burning Crusade is limited to 25 players with 20 and 10 player raids also existing, so the statement that any raid allows up to 40 players is just wrong.

The article claims Victory rewards the character with tokens and honor points that can be used to buy armour and weapons. However, defeat also rewards the character with this, only in a lesser amount. A player can fully complete his goals by losing consistently, it just takes longer. The way it is now incorrectly suggests winning matches is mandatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.221.228 (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Meeting stones still exist and I believe that the LFG system is only available to those who have the Burning Crusade expansion. So for the - dozen or so? - people who still play WoW without the BC expansion, meeting stones are all they have. Good luck finding anyone with one though. I do know that the language you cite has been changed back and forth but I don't know why they settled on what is effectively outdated information, I'm with you on that. I'll leave it up to someone else to change it though, or give someone else a chance to argue the other way. As for the comment about tokens and honor, you're correct. When I used to do Eye of the Storm as an Alliance player I think at least half of my tokens came from losses. I'll go ahead and change that section. -- Atama 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'Reception' & 'Usage Problems' sections are indeed huge & largely unncessary, they should be downsized to a few sentences within the article. Barrel-rider (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to 12 million players (229 US realm)

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/09/05/lapin.albrecht.game.on.cnn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmasyean (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That video doesn't work for me, can you elaborate on what it said? Given that a Blizzard press release from September 15 put the subscriber base at 10.9 million I'd be dubious of a news report from a week earlier that claimed 12 million. --Stormie (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the video has nothing to do with the subject. Nice segment on projectlore.com, talking about their speeded-up videos of raids, with wipes edited out ... to me this seems to be an advertisement for the site. 5:46 lost out of my life. Even if there was a mention of 12 million that I missed in the babble, it isn't RS, just idle on-camera chatter. This is entertainment, not news. sinneed (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't need to watch the whole video, the reporter says "World of Warcraft is all the rage with 12 million users" within the first fifteen seconds of the video. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that explains it. For me, the first several seconds were stuttering... unintelligible. I struggle to call the commentator for "Get your game on" a reporter. :) "users", not subscriptions... I think we can safely stick with the earlier 10Million and later 10.9 Million numbers. I wonder how high the numbers are going to jump about 13 November. :) sinneed (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I guess if it comes directly from Blizzard, it's probably the figure that should be used. That's not just a game commentator, however. That's Nicole Lapin, one of the youngest anchors in history who started college at 15 and even graduated valedictorian. But I suppose sometimes news agencies tend to exagerate things. :) Rasmasyean (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New External Link Suggestion

Hi i would like to suggest www.wowvillage.com for the external link section, it contains very detailed information about the races, classes and complete class skill/ability lists, all the information has been collected from ingame. I belive this would be benficial for readers wanting more information on ingame information.

Clusterman (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty poor-quality loaded-with-ads site to me, I can't see anything that it would add to the article. --Stormie (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the eq2village site from the external links section of the EQ2 article, which is the only other edit this editor has made. Thanks for bringing my attention to that Clusterman! -- Atama 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Total MMO/MMOG numbers

There is a section that has been removed and replaced regarding MMO subscription base estimates as a whole. Since it followed the WoW subscription base, I reverted its removal as the total number provides some perspective for the reader whereas the number of WoW subscribers does not. In comparison, the EQ article should (dunno if it does) note the number of subscribers to EQ in 2000 in comparison to the number of subscribers of MMO's in total (otherwise a # like 200k doesn't look so big). I appreciate the OR concerns about comparing two separate estimates involving different methodologies, but I would prefer to discuss it here rather than revert back and forth. Also, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I would ask that Celtic Muffin self-revert the second removal of the content. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as another viewpoint, I believe that this section should be left in, as it shows how much of a grip that WoW has on the overall MMO subscriber base. As others have said, saying that there are 10 million subscribers is fine and dandy, but if you don't have anything to compare it to, what's the point?

Anywho, I think that the disputed section should be kept in. Corath (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need anything to "compare it to". It already says it has 62% of the market. Anyone with a calculator and basic arithmetic skills can figure out the total MMOG population, and I agree it's beyond the scope of the WoW article to start describing figures for the entire market. I'm guessing the both of you missed that percentage figure. -- Atama 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In addendum, the removed reference can stay to support that 62% figure. -- Atama 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, my bad, didn't see the 62% reference. So yeah, I agree with removing the section in question. Corath (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am actually very dubious of the active subscription estimates. If the game publisher wants to announce numbers, I think that is grand. For myself, and for informal game discussions, I use MMMOGCHART and other estimators... but those numbers are blurry indeed. The EQ article, unless I missed an edit, does not have estimates... it cites the "official" numbers and mentions that there are secondary sources and estimates if someone wants to pursue them. I did not even leave an external link for it. I think that, for a formal encyclopedia article, that is best. sinneed (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to look up the 10M number (it has a good source), but the 62% number I am going to flag for verification. I don't see a reliable source for it... as I understand it. Done. Painfully. My machine crashed. A kind person finished the edit for me. sinneed (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DrNegative and Stormie made a couple of edits which I think make this much better. The link to the April 2008 MMOGCHART is probably not RS for a FACT, but it is now clearly marked as an estimate, and is a widely valued source for estimates of various qualities (and the author grades them and acknowledges that they are indeed estimates and certainly not perfect). A more knowledgeable Wikipedian than I may know if the estimate in the lead-in is a Good Thing or not. sinneed (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably Good Enough. -- Atama 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." Considering "World of Warcraft" is notably a dominating force in the MMORPG market in terms of subscribers, the lead in its article should prominantly display this, even as an estimate, its explains why the article is notable. In this case, subscriber count. DrNegative (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Doc, the COUNT is not an estimate. It is the 62% that is an estimate. Blizz blitzes us with their counts regularly. *blink* Sorry, couldn't resist. It is the estimate for all-the-rest that makes the 62% iffy. sinneed (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats true, but the author of the site has also noted here as to how he came up with his numbers (Official Corporate Data, Corporate Press Releases, Corporate Documents, News Articles, and Public Comments from the game developers themselves, etc..) and notes that he rarely ever uses educated guesses, saying it would be noted if he did. He simply goes further than most for the info of the subscriber base that Blizzard gloats about publicly as you mentioned. When the approximated counts are gathered, he gets the 62%. Unless someone else can show another source we can go by to contrast, its pretty much all we got. Nontheless, it should be noted in the lead. DrNegative (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:Proposal for consideration:

I don't think the 62% number has reliable source... there are just too many MMOGs with too little firm data. However, we can cite the next largest paid subscription game Lineage, at about 1 million (source there is press release), to give the 10million number a scale. I think that belongs in the body, rather than in the lead-in. Thoughts? We can't prove the negative... that there is nothing larger... but if someone produces a reliable source to counter it then Poof we have another candidate for scale. sinneed (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war relating to subscriber numbers

Can y'all discuss that here rather than in an edit war? - Denimadept (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

^^^^^ :) Protonk (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're waaaay ahead of me! Good. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote to remove section about the Corrupted Blood incident?

Is there really any reason to have this in the article? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article, and it really is of minor relevance (besides a "cool factor") compared to the rest of WoW development. I suggest it be deleted. Slinky317 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It was apparently a major incident, with wider interest than just that of people who played the game. - Denimadept (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a major incident with it's own article at Corrupted Blood, as it was used by academics as a study of how epidemic infection would be spread in the real world. It should definately be kept. Also, we don't use votes, we develop content based on consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 20:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur on both counts, if you have a strong objection to its inclusion we can discuss that but we don't vote on whether or not to keep it. I'm opposed to getting rid of it because it was an event that brought not only popular attention, but scholarly interest to the game. -- Atama 00:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the section remaining. As far as I know, it remains unique in computer gaming.sinneed (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Put in Information on The expansion packs and classes

Guitarherosunite (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put in information about the expansion packs, I mean we put in the corrupted blood incident, but we did not put anything on the expansion packs? I mean Burning Crusade added 2 new races to the game, new Dungeons, new gear, the Outlands, new honor system, jewel crafting, eventually mounts being lvl 30 to buy them, and elekk and Plainstrider mounts, and Flying mounts, and also you could go from lvl 60 to lvl 70! Also when WotLk comes out we should have information on that too! So far the most important news is that you can play as DeathKnights that start out at lvl 55. And you can go up to lvl 80.

Also we should put in information on the classes and what they do. Because the first time I came to the page it was to get information on the actual game not how it was made who made it and everything.

Consider World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King.

As for the classes, see gameplay of World of Warcraft. The rest of your request is incompatible with Misplaced Pages policy and guideline, in that would become too much like a game guide. --Izno (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination listing

This article is currently listed at WP:GAN#Video games, but there is no banner at the top of this page confirming that the article is supposed to be a nominee, and I can see no evidence that a banner was put in the page at the time that it was listed. This may suggest that the user who put the article on the list does not fully understand how to nominate an article, or that it was done by an editor who has not been a significant contributor. Could I request editors here confirm whether or not they want this article be listed as a good article nominee by either adding the relevant banner to the top of this page ({{subst:GAN|subtopic=Video games}}), or removing WoW's entry from WP:GAN#Video games. -- Sabre (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of your inquiries are probably correct; I know the latter to be true. Gazimoff was the main one who brought the article to its current state, and he has said elsewhere that he wanted to hold off on GAN until after he's done with his work here (which he isn't). Feel free to remove it from WP:GAN as you see fit. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

zombie plague section?

Should we include a section, or a link to a section for zombie plague? apparently it draw attention of media http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5032908.ece FoxNews also has a link direct to this article. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444505,00.html it was compared to the Corrupted Blood incident.

Good article, I would agree to a separate section, possibly joined with the corrupted blood plague incident. Maybe a new section on virtual viruses or something like that. Dark verdant (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a section on the wrath of the lich king page regarding the plague, it could probably be removed from that page as it isn't really a feature of lich king but more a prelude to it in the actual WoW main game.Dark verdant (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely something to add, though to which page also gives me pause. I would probably add it to Wrath, where it is now, as that should provide the best context for it. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Meeting stones sentence should be removed or updated

The sentence "Players having difficulty finding groups to venture into a dungeon with can use meeting stones, which attempt to match characters with groups requiring particular skills or abilities." is totally wrong, easily years out of date. Meeting stones are no longer used for matchmaking, which is now simply part of the UI (the LFG, or Looking for Group system). I suggest just removing the sentence, or changing it to reflect the current LFG system. - Zenex13 (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also worked a bit on the raid descriptive text. sinneed (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unique rested XP

There is a sentence that says that 'rested xp' is unique, it's not. LOTRO has an enhanced XP system. New here just thought this should be pointed out 86.156.161.163 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was unique at the time, and has since been implemented in other MMOs. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit, removed "unique", etc. sinneed (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks 86.156.161.163 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Merge

This page seems to be protected, I need to add the following to the top to replace the disambig page at Wow which now redirects here:

" For other meanings of the therm "Wow" see Other Meanings of Wow."

Thanks! Wikify567 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's protected to stop new and inexperienced users changing pages unneccesarily. Secondly, the disambiguation page link you suggest doesn't exist, nor frankly is it likely to. Thirdly, new comments should go at the bottom of a talk page. Thanks --Ged UK (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there already a disambig page link at the top of the article anyway?Dark verdant (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikify567 has been on a merging purge today, even merging snooker, pool, billards and any cue sports all into one article. This was just another in a rather odd line of merges. The disam at the top is perfectly fine. Other Meanings of Wow is just not a proper disambiguation page. --Ged UK (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's a good thing this article is protected... -- Atama 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A very good thing indeed. I have been doing some serious vandalism-checking over the past 3 days, and the sheer magnitude of the foul, the silly, the positional, and quite frankly the deranged postings is amazing. sinneed (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As a result, I've added this article to my watchlist and will be looking out for future vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

11 Million Subscribers worldwide

Officially announced by Blizzard Entertainment on October 28, 2008.

Seen in the 3rd Quarter Results of 2008, page 2. http://vivendi.com/vivendi/IMG/pdf/081105_ATVI_ResultsQ3-2.pdf

GEAUX (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This press release, dated 28 Oct 2008, is here http://eu.blizzard.com/en/press/081028.html and is in the article. sinneed (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard to miss it, it's right in the lead... -- Atama 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Game Addiction WotLK

Another gamer hit by game addiction on the new add-on if anyone wants to use the info in the article: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081118/twl-gamer-collapses-after-24hr-stint-3fd0ae9.html Dark verdant (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article says nothing about "game addiction". The article is talking about marathon playing, where someone plays a single long session of the game. If someone runs for 12 hours in a marathon race, you wouldn't call him "addicted to running". As portrayed in the article these players are just playing for as long as they can and one kid collapsed from exhaustion, no surprise. By the way, I'll tell you from personal experience that playing a game for 24 hours is nothing, I've done "marathons" for longer. Really it's a guy sitting on a chair for 24 hours looking at a screen. The fact that he entered an "epileptic fit" means he probably had a pre-existing condition already. By the way, the article does mention "addiction" but as a non sequiter, it never says that either of the marathon gaming cases involve kids who were addicted, but it does strongly imply it. -- Atama 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Big edit. oops.

I made a singe large edit (sorry). If anyone objects, please first accept my apology, then reverse it out or fix it. If you don't want to fix it in detail, just let me know what you didn't like. I'll put it back in in more manageable pieces. If you just have suggestions, those are welcome too. sinneed (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I made several smaller edits. Some will conflict, so it may not be easy to rev out. Sloppy editing. I'll do better.  :,( sinneed (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to kill both the section "Post-lauch development" and the system requirements section on the infobox.

This, to me, seems very much too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia article.

Maybe post-launch should include the various expansions and expansion-sets?

Do we really need the hardware requirements here? Why? We aren't trying to sell someone a computer or convince them to buy or not to buy the game. The buyer needs to read the box/manufacturer pages anyway. sinneed (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't. Look at the Morrowind article. That is a former Featured Article. If that article can have even more detail that this one, and make FA, then it's clear that what this article needs isn't less detail, it's more. -- Atama 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :) sinneed (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I made use of the system requirements info, thank you. So leave it. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition: By the way, the idea of "The sum of all human knowledge," meant for Misplaced Pages, includes the knowledge about the system requirements for World of Warcraft. By excluding things, you are censoring information. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"The sum of all human knowledge" is somewhat bogus (or at least open to misinterpretation) even if Jimbo himself uses it. If Misplaced Pages really were meant to be that, it'd just be a dumping ground for anything and everything from photos of gum wrappers to the way each person organizes their sock drawer. Misplaced Pages could be considered a collection of all knowledge that might be of real use to mankind, so we do have to filter out the garbage. Also, Misplaced Pages requires everything to be verifiable so that you can be reasonably sure what you are reading is accurate. Read WP:CENSOR to see what is considered censorship to Misplaced Pages and why we don't do it. -- Atama 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Endgame

"End-game experience" is part of the ongoing experience, once the level cap is reached there are many oppurtunities for a player, for example, 10 man up to 40 man raids, heroic dungeons and player versus player (PvP) in battlegrounds.

PvP

What does the PvP dimension of this game consist of? Is it possible to jump right into it or must you reach the high level cap? Eighth Octavarium (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this isn't a chat forum to talk about the game itself, we're supposed to talk about the article specifically. Details such as what level you are eligible for PvP are information for a game guide, not an encyclopedia. Feel free to check out WoWWiki for that kind of info, it's a great site. -- Atama 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Best Game Ever - unimportant vandalism - sockpuppetry

who put 'BEST GAME EVER' at the top?Ippy97 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Revision history of World of Warcraft, it was User:Dudeman14143535. The change has been reverted.

It's still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiataMike (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You may need to clear your cache, or possibly click the "Reload" button on your browser. Is it gone now? Don't forget to sign (I say, having almost forgotten to sign this post).:) sinneed (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some (one) re-added "BEST GAME EVER" - have people no respect for information sources?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.198.188 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been no further edits, and the text does not appear in the article. You may need to clear your cache, or possibly click the "Reload" button on your browser. Is it gone now? Don't forget to sign. sinneed (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Some has put a BEST GAME EVER at the top of the page... and by the looks of it, it's not the first time. I'm new to wiki so I'm not too sure on how to remove it. Someone fix? Firzen777 (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This sort of opinion as the first line for the game seems unbased, unfactual, and entirely out of place. Do we have a reference for it being the best game ever? Is it an advertising slogan that has been used for WoW before? If not, I suggest removing this, the first sentence, in this article.

Vermillian (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Alexander James
"20:44, 11 December 2008 Vermillian (Talk | contribs) New user account" Stop it.. Thanks. sinneed (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On 10th Dec at 3:44 Unpopular Opinion reverted the edit that said "Best Game Ever". Looking at the History it has not returned since then. Do as people have said above and clear your cache. Dark verdant (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the game they were playing relevant to how screwed up one couple was?

The article currently reads "In June 2005, it was reported that a four-month-old South Korean child had suffocated due to neglect by her parents, who were reportedly at a nearby café, playing World of Warcraft."

And how many children die simply because their parents are off drinking, or gambling? Some leave their kids in cars and they die from the heat, while they simply go off visiting or shopping, no addictions towards anything at all. Reading the article about these people, just shows what idiots they were, they having one of their mother's upstairs who could've watched the child even. I don't think its fair criticism of the game, or a demonstration of the addictive nature to mention something like that.

Mentioning the obsessive compulsive disorder bit that these types of games have, where to do things you want to you must first do the level treadmill, repeating the same tiresome tasks continuously just to raise a number on your stats and be able to move on to the next bit, would make sense though. I'm going to do some editing now. Just thought I'd explain the reasoning before hand. Dream Focus (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a reference from a notable third party publication about the obsessive compulsive disorder some have with this sort of game. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22world+of+warcraft%22+%22obsessive+compulsive+disorder%22+%22repetitive+tasks%22&btnG=Search Anyone know of any articles about that? Some people are addicted to doing the same exact tasks, just to watch a number on a screen go up. This is for many games of this genre, such as when Ultima Online came out, I would run around looking for trees to hit with an axe to get logs, or spots on the mountain not tapped out yet to use a pick or shovel to mine with. This sort of activity isn't fun after awhile, you just get obsessed with it, and don't continue it once you max out your stats in that area. In World of Warcraft, you fight the same monster, killing it, waiting for it to respond on the spot it died, and then killing it again, just to get your stats up, so that you can move up to the next level of monster, and do the same thing again. Dream Focus (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"In World of Warcraft, you fight the same monster, killing it, waiting for it to respond on the spot it died, and then killing it again, just to get your stats up, so that you can move up to the next level of monster, and do the same thing again." Really? Wow, that's just crazy. In Everquest that used to be common, because you had no other choice, but in WoW and most other MMORPGs I've played you can advance faster through questing, which also provides at least a bit of variety to keep you from getting bored. I find it hard to believe that someone would choose to go back to that type of play in a game like WoW. -- Atama 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't played it since the open beta years ago. So, you can just do the quests and not have to camp one spot killing the same monster continuously for hours? Are the quests still mostly the kill so many of a certain type of creature than return, and gather an item found here and then return, with some go kill this opponent and then return ones tossed in at times? I remember the podcast from Penny Arcade talking about how parts of it were OCD, you having to go through a lot of that, before you could get to the parts you wanted. But I can't really comment on it, since its been years since I played it, and things have surely changed a lot sense then. Dream Focus (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Most quests are along the lines of "kill this one specific named monster", or "kill 20 bears", or "find 10 purple flowers in the forest". But not all, they actually vary quite a bit, some are simply "get halfway through a dungeon" or "take this mug of ale to a dwarf in 10 minutes", or "escort this elf and make sure he walks from point A to point B without getting killed". There are even quests that make you play a memorization game identical to Simon. There's a lot of variety, and while it can sometimes get repetitive, the developers do seem to put an effort into making the gameplay different now and again. I think that if someone plays this game like they have OCD, that says something about the player but not the game. -- Atama 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Idea to consider before adding addiction info here: Please see instead the main article about such things. It is an Internet phenomenon, rather than a particular-piece-of-the-Internet phenomenon. Back when computer games were rare, people spent INSANE numbers of hours on them... Adventure, for example. I see the same thing with chat rooms, discussion groups, Misplaced Pages (yes). sinneed (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New Ad

I was watching TV last night and saw a new WoW ad (for the wrath expansion) with Ozzy Osbourne in it. Should this be added to the article after Shatner et al or maybe put in the Lich King Page? Didn't want to add myself as I don't want to mess things up. Dark verdant (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there. It has been there for some time (you may have just seen it last night but it isn't new). -- Atama 18:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, stupid me, sorry I didnt spot it when I went in search of the shatner bit. Thanks! Dark verdant (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WoW in The Day the Earth Stood Still

In the new film the Day the Earth Stood Still, the kid Jacob Benson is seen playing WoW in an early part of the movie. He is seen killing Nagas in Stranglethorn Vale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudja69 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but that is the kind of trivia we try to avoid in Misplaced Pages articles. -- Atama 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Addiction to WoW article.

It is a pity these WoW article debates are not mentioned in the target-merge article talk pages. This is NOT the place for the article, IMO.

Addiction to WoW is *POSSIBLY* Video game addiction, but there is not yet consensus in the scientific community that such a disorder actually exists, or if "video game addiction" symptoms are merely symptoms of some broader problem, or if there is no problem, per se. There would certainly be no consensus that there is such a disorder as addiction to WoW.

All that said, there is very very little encyclopedic content at the article, as I read it... and I am actively seeking content for Video game addiction as it is a... hmmm... "weak" perhaps... article at the moment. I will look at the sources and the words and see if there is anything I can steal for VGA.  :) I will, of course, leave the redirect alone.

The WoW addiction article reads more like a transcript for a talk, which leads me to think it is notes from or for a talk.sinneed (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful about what is merged into this article. First, it gives undue weight if there's a lot, and secondly I'm guessing that much of the original article was OR. I'm personally skeptical about WoW causing any more "addiction" than any other video game, and I doubt that there's much credible information available supporting its existence (it sounds like that's the case from your comments). As it stands what is already in this article is probably sufficient enough, maybe with another sentence or two added from the other article if it's sourced and seems to add something to the discussion. -- Atama 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything worth keeping. I reread. It really does read like a talk from a presentation/slide show. It is a nice chat, but it is not an encyclopedia article. With apologies to the author I think it is a GOOD talk... but it isn't encyclopedic.

• On the any-more-addiction thing. Well, I think it probably does... by absolute numbers, simply because it is an order of magnitude larger than its next competitor. It is 2 orders of magnitude greater than most games. So we would expect there to be 100x as many WoW addicts (if game addiction even exists) as EQ addicts.
  
• Consider though, throughout the world there are bored people hanging around doing nothing much. Much of the world became wealthy enough that these people, instead of sitting around smoking a random dried shrub in a hand-carved pipe...could sit around doing that and listening to a radio...then they could sit around doing the same and listening to and watching a TV. No they can sit around in a gaming center or their house and play WoW. It is easy, fun for very many... allows people to socialize whenever they want, be alone whenever they want, be "alone" with their chosen group when they want... compete, even violently, at will. All without risk. For very many, the cost is still far too large, but the number of people who can afford it is growing.
  

sinneed (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of a different take on the China gaming restrictions.

In response to several highly-publicized World of Warcraft-related deaths (and to combat game-addiction in general), China has imposed strict restrictions on how long, and how often, a person may play. All of the country's major game operators have expressed agreement with the restrictions, which severely curb the players' characters' abilities after more than five hours of sustained play. Additionally, players must also take a mandatory five-hour break between sessions..

The above was added today, but conflicts substantially with existing wording. I place it here for review and possible inclusion, or inclusion in the gaming addiction article. sinneed (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the WoW article. As the news article itself states, this restriction is to all online games, not just WoW (ten other games are listed by name in the article). Also, this article is 3 years old, are these restrictions in place still? If this belongs anywhere it would be in gaming addiction as you stated, but putting it here would be like putting a report about the danger of eating fatty foods into the entry on ice cream. Another problem is that the text above states this was "in response to several highly-publicized World of Warcraft-related deaths"... The article does not support this. It mentions one person murdered another over the theft of an online item, but mentioned no other deaths of any kind and did not even imply that player death had anything to do with the restrictions, rather that the government thought people played the game too long. Misplaced Pages is not the place for sensationalism. -- Atama 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WoW Dances

Im curious as to if someone would at all the dances for evrey race, the song that goes with the dance and the artist of the song, just a suggestion of course. I would happily do it but i am unable to edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupun (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant "add". That would be a Bad Thing. There are great WoW-specific Wikis with wonderful detail about the game, how to play, how to dance, emote, etc. But this isn't one.sinneed (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, that is considered trivia which is difficult enough to avoid in articles about popular subjects as it is. -- Atama 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect proposal of Wowscape

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this proposal was to redirect Wowscape to World of Warcraft with no merge of content per consensus established below. MuZemike 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating this section only because it appears that the person who specified it as a target didn't bother to create it. Personally, I figure the Wowscape article would be better off as the target of an AfD. - Denimadept (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I had to leave all-of-a-sudden, so I couldn't finish it right then and there. Sorry about that.

Anyways, I propose a merge or redirect of Wowscape to World of Warcraft because I don't think Wowscape demonstrates sufficient notability as an independent article (I tried finding some in a basic Google search here, and I could not find anything regarding the servers themselves); it can be better explained in the context of the World of Warcraft article as a couple of sentences under a single section or subsection. I am trying to avoid going to AFD if I can help it. I would recommend a slight merge of whatever is verifiable and then a redirection. Please discuss below as to whether you support a merge or redirect or if you oppose any merger or redirection. Thank you, MuZemike 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie. - Denimadept (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

With such a sensitive subject as emulated servers and such, I'd just straight up redirect it. The little bit that's currently verifiable in that article is better suited to an article on emulated servers, if one such exists. --Izno (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue to cut out the self-aggrandizement and leave it up. In fact, I am going to be wp:be bold. *gets out sharp hatchet* sinneed (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we just found the online identity of Jason Voorhees :) MuZemike 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah! That machete won't cut through ... erm... cruft, yeah, cruft, like a good hatchet! ;0)~ sinneed (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Paging Lizzie Bordon! - Denimadept (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect - I couldn't see anything in the article that makes Wowscape notable or verifiable. If there are some reliable sources out there on Warcraft emulations or private servers I think we can justify a small section on the topic in this aticle to serve as a redirect target. Gazimoff 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against giving EMUs a mention in this article, wp:Undue. These things are very peripheral and encourage people to (at least) break their EULA. Historically, they have also been GREAT ways to give away userids and passwords, as folks just WILL use the same id and pw on the EMUs as the real game. OR they will download "Sinneed's Great Managerprogram for the EMU! FREE! FREE! FREEeeee!!!!!" and it will turn out to be a keylogger or other worm. Hmm, maybe an EMU article, their ought to be enough legal squabbling about them to give enough notability and source for a small (nay miniscule) article.sinneed (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to worry about protecting people from breaking their EULA. Misplaced Pages is not censored in that way, that we have to be worried about encouraging certain behaviors with the material we present. However I'm opposed to this on the "so what" principle that is the basis of WP:V. There's an emulator for WoW, so what? Why does it even need to be mentioned? What's to differentiate it from the other emulators and private servers and other systems that try to allow people to play WoW for free? Just redirect it and forget about it. It's not worth mentioning here. -- Atama 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, you don't have to put in a redirect or an AfD. You can just Prod it. I doubt anyone will object. -- Atama 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about a prod. I suppose the question would then be: would Wowscape work as a plausible redirect to World of Warcraft? MuZemike 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I like a straight redirect, no content move, idea. The only things I see in the article are not related to the subject, but rather, IMO, to EMUlators in general. :) (edit to add)... if, that is, just leaving it up in this very stubby state isn't acceptable.sinneed (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Game Addiction edit

I reverted a recent addition to the Game Addiction section. Essentially, it was using Alley Insider to allege that the FCC blamed WoW for the college dropout rate and that "most employers and recruiters" try not to hire WoW players. As evidence for the first statement is an FCC report on the FCC government web site, which is pretty solid. However the report states that it was a person's opinion that game addiction was leading to a higher dropout rate, and said "games like World of Warcraft". It did not state that WoW specifically was to blame. It would be a great addition to a gaming addiction article but not to WoW. The other one was worse, the source was just a conversation someone had with a single headhunter who said he doesn't like to hire WoW players. That was supposed to support the assertion that most employers don't want WoW players. -- Atama 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a BLP and those sources are good. As I said when making the edits, I am open to a rewording of what I wrote.DegenFarang (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the second source and information. I reworded the first. If you look at the information about China before it Warcraft is also not mentioned, China just made online gaming regulations. This is the same thing. DegenFarang (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The part about China doesn't belong there either, see where we discussed it already. This is like finding an article where someone says "you must eat food, like apples, or you will die of starvation" and proclaiming that if a person doesn't eat apples they will die. Thanks for pointing out that the part about China is still there. -- Atama 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is like somebody saying, 'if you use search engines, like google, you will get cancer'. WoW has a 60%+ market share, as noted in the sources. Apples hardly have that big of a share of the food market DegenFarang (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given this a lot of thought and I think I've come around to your side a bit. I'd really like to see some expansion in this article outside of discussion of the gameplay itself. So instead of deleting anything in the Game Addiction section I'm going to add to it to make it more accurate. -- Atama 22:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read this posting on Terra Nova on the subject. The poster himself, Nick Yee is an expert per SPS, but the articles and commentary linked to on the posting are helpful sources on the nature of MMO's, games and addiction. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DefenFarang, I've made some changes, noting that in China (according the sole source given) you have more than 20 million players, 1.5 million of which play WoW (that is less than an 8% market share, far from the 60% worldwide), and putting the FCC Commissioner's statements in better context.

Protonk, that's a great link, thanks. It helps drive in the point that ultimately none of this information belongs in this article at all. Online gaming addiction can be a fascinating subject in and of itself, but there is nothing differentiating WoW itself aside from the fact that it is so successful. I challenge anyone to find a single source stating that WoW is more addicting than any other online game, when that is found it would be great to include it here. But the only time you will ever see WoW mentioned alongside addiction in any notable source, it's when they use it as an example simply because it is so well-known. I expect that we'll probably just remove this section from the article. -- Atama 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are certainly some journalists who have opined about MMO's being "more addictive" than other games (Remember "Evercrack"?) Some of that is just fear of change. Some of that is editors looking for 'big stories'. Some of it actually derives from the model game developers use in creating these games and retaining customers. We can probably find some sources that speak to that, but (as the post I linked to noted) we should be careful not to run away with their speculation and commentary. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Atama if I wasn't certain you are acting in good faith I would think you were purposely using fuzzy math: another alley insider article shows that Blizzard has yet to make a push into Asia with WoW at all. So that there are that many Chinese using it already strengthens my argument, as they do not even actively market there yet. I was referring to the English speaking world where the reach and market share of WoW is huge. However all I wanted was for that information to be included and was hoping others would tweak and add to it, and it appears that is being done, so I have no objections at this time. DegenFarang (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparing gaming in China to gaming in Europe or comparing either to gaming in the united states is a lost cause. There are many differences in the regulatory environments, cultural elements and business realities that have to be factored in. There are a few reasons Blizz could have been delayed with WoW. Also, other games (not WoW) led to the gaming regulations. Take a look at QQ, Habbo or With Your Destiny. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"It would be a great addition to a gaming addiction article but not to WoW." It already was... and has been squabbled over, added too, resourced, etc. :)

I am uncertain why this belongs in the WoW article, but please give a look at the language various editors have built up. I copied it here.sinneed (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• For example, each of the 2950 responses on a 2951 item list is "one of the top". One of the top 2950... but nevertheless.sinneed (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• After a concern about the example, which might well be taken to be ... ironic perhaps... I removed it and replaced it with 3 perennial reasons dropouts have cited: not being ready academically, running out of money, and homesickness. The point is that the relationship to ANY reason, common or rare is not given. It could be reason 999,993 and it is still one of the top one million reasons.sinneed (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I remain convinced this belongs in one of the main articles, and not here. The China article mentions WoW heavily and prominently, so I certainly agree it belongs in the WoW article.sinneed (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Interestingly, The dropout dilemma: One in four college freshmen drop out. What is going on here? What does it take to stay in? (from 2002, and rather dated now)... uses 1 in 4 for the drop-out rate. The rate I had from a many-years-ago-research-paper was 50%.sinneed (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is *NOT* an RS, but:

"Reasons Cited Amongst The 19% of 4 Yr College Undergrads Who Dropped Out

- 38% Financial pressure

- 28% Academic disqualification

- 13% Poor social fit

- 9% Family support

- 4% Distance from home

- 3% Mental / emotional issues

This also gives a 19%...for all students in 4-year programs. I wonder where gaming overuse would fit it were included in the survey. I wonder where "too much partying" would go. Most likely (PoV, but not OR) MOST of both of those would be part of the 28%. It would be REALLY interesting to see those two, along with "inadequate academic preparation" added. sinneed (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Game addiction section title misleading

There is presently no diagnosis of video game addiction, nor Internet addiction, etc. There is presently no plan to add it to the 2012 diagnosis list, though it is being studied. This is covered in the (bad but hopefully improving) main articles.sinneed (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the term "video game addiction" has corresponding ICD9 association. The question is whether the term has significant usage and would be referenced as such by the average wikipedian. A quick google "video game addiction" turns up 209,000 google hits, and in fact is the subject of its very own article here on[REDACTED] - video game addiction. So it seems that the term is well used and defined, so I don't believe that changing the section name to something that is somewhat nebulous would be a positive change. Dman727 (talk)

The *Debate* has at least 3 articles here on Misplaced Pages, cited in the section. The term is well overused, indeed, but it is not defined. It is the subject of intense debate.sinneed (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on the quoted "addiction"? It warns the reader that it is a questionable term, but lets them see what they are looking for, I think.

Also, should this be "WoW" instead of "game", all the stuff that was in no way related to WoW is gone, though I continue to argue that the FCC relevance is specious.sinneed (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I like "Game addiction" a bit better. I think we all agree the term is controversial, but its seems to be in common use nonetheless. I just thought the previous treatment was a bit...well wishy washy and vague. Personally I'm fine with the compromise.Dman727 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I was beginning to feel I had completely blown it when I changed it from "WoW addiction" to "Game addiction" in the 1st place, thus the question. Thanks for spotting the weakness...it is so very hard to edit one's own work, and I agree with your concern... overuse may be right, but it certainly doesn't catch the attention of someone looking for the "addiction". sinneed (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2nd subject... why is this a subsection? and under "Legacy"? Making it a section. Easily reverted if someone disagrees.sinneed (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be more worthwhile adding this content to the main article Video game addiction, instead of enlarging the section in this article. Gazimoff 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As above...it is already there...part of my objection to its inclusion here... it is directly applicable to the main article... WoW is used only as an example of 1 small (ESA reported persistent online games were 9.5% of the online market in 2005, I don't immediately see the 2008 numbers) part of the online gaming market . This has been great, though, because it got much more attention here than the main article gets. It also allowed me, by chance, to find the citation for the 2006 change in the China play time limits. So I'll be duplicating these 2 chunks there, with the improved sourcing and wording.sinneed (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite objections to the contrary, I'll stress again that the addiction section has no place in this article. There are no reliable sources that even suggest that there is anything special about WoW that makes it more addicting than any other online game. We just have original research on behalf of editors that since online games have been considered addicting, and WoW is the most successful online game, that WoW must have a significant problem with game addiction. What we do have are sources discussing online game addiction that mention WoW in passing, only to give an example of a better-known game. Again this info only belongs in the main article about addiction unless someone can show with a reliable source that there is anything significant about game addiction in WoW specifically. -- Atama 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I merged the China government part here into the stuff already in video game addiction#Governmental concern. I also copied the updated FCC stuff from here to there. If I can lure interested editors there that would be great. I won't fight killing the section but I feel sure someone will re-add it... it is a MUCH overused term, and yapping about addictions is *terribly* popular globally just now.sinneed (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vivendi isn't publisher

Blizzard Entertainment publishes all of its own games. This game was published by Blizzard Entertainment and not Vivendi.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drasill (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Vivendi Games owns Blizzard. -Mike

Not anymore: http://www.activisionblizzard.com/corp/index.html

Besides, even when Vivendi Games owned Blizzard they didn't publish any Blizzard games. --Fandyllic (talk)

I'm changing the publisher to Blizzard Entertainment based on the following article (which I will cite): http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16458

2. Blizzard - New Billing, Same Independence

One of the intriguing things about the old Vivendi structure was that, even when Martin Tremblay joined to run Vivendi's publishing, it was specified: "World Of Warcraft creator Blizzard Entertainment has been designated a stand-alone division reporting to VU Games' CEO, and is not part of Tremblay's product development mandate."

This seems to indicate VUG just collected money from Blizzard and was not involved in developing or publishing any of their games. --Fandyllic (talk)

Classification in Australia.

A report appeared on a games review television program last night, as well as on the sydney morning herald website, that world of warcraft does not have an official classification in Australia and therefore, is technically banned from sale. The article is at http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/no-classification-online-games-legal-minefield/2009/02/03/1233423203018.html?page=2.

If this were the case, what would the Australian rating appear as in the infobox for the game? Baggers89 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's no rating then it's "Unrated", just like films that don't have a rating. -- Atama 22:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it look like?

The article fails to mention how the game is played. Is it text based, isometric, first person or what? Surely a pretty major point to be missing? Talltim (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It does now. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Atama 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the previous editor slightly confused the two perspectives. I have changed it now though. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't confuse a thing. I am very aware of the difference, if I wasn't I wouldn't have bothered to link to an article describing what first person is. Have you ever played WoW? You have the option to play first person, or third person. When in third person view, you can move the "camera" close so that it's tight to the back of the character, or scroll out far to be able to view the landscape around, and you can reposition the camera above, to the side, etc. In addition, if you move the camera even closer when it's tight behind your character, you enter a full first person view, where you don't see your character on the screen at all and see everything as if from that character's own eyes. If you have never played the game, you shouldn't be correcting these things, and if do play the game try it yourself. -- Atama 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in the fact that it can be played in a first person perspective as well, but you made it sound like that is the preferred choice, which is wrong and false, hence me correcting you. Thank you. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right in that. I've rarely gone into first person mode except to take screenshots of things without my character cluttering up the screen, and I've also done it in tight spaces where my character is blocking what I'm trying to look at. I've already changed the text to reflect the idea that the game is normally played in 3rd person, with 1st person as an option. Evidently the game designers expect a 3rd person gameplay as well, since you start that way on creating a new character. -- Atama 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both Talltim (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

US & Canada Subscription Info

I was looking at this particular section:

In the United States, Canada and Europe, Blizzard distributes World of Warcraft via retail software packages. The software package includes 30 days of gameplay for no additional cost. In order to continue playing after the initial 30 days, additional play time must be purchased using a credit card or prepaid game card. The minimum gameplay duration that a player can purchase is 30 days using a credit card, or 60 using a prepaid game card.

Is it true that you have to (buy the game card) & (use a credit card or game card) in order to access the 30 free days that come with purchasing the software? I was specifically told that you had to buy both the retail package and the game card in order to play. The registration process required a game card to access the free 30 days. It may seem like a trivial fact, but consider the cost of $50 for the game and one expansion pack, only to find you need to go out again and spend another $30 for a game card. If this is true it should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.6.242 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The part you quote says "In order to continue playing after the initial 30 days, additional play time must be...." means that you get 30 days free and if you want to keep play after that you need to buy time. You don't need to buy it straight away, in fact you can wait after your free time has elapsed before buying more time. Once you have an account it never gets removed so it does not matter if you dont pay for a few months, you just wont be able to play. At least that is my understanding. Dark verdant (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark verdant is correct. You get 30 days to play the game upon buying the retail package, and then to continue playing you have to purchase additional time, either through game cards or a subscription. Whoever told you that you need to buy a game card to access the free 30 days was wrong. You do have to set up an account after you install the game before you can play your free 30 days, but you don't have to set up account payment options right away, you can do it at any time after. -- Atama 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Refernece Site/ WoW Culture

I found this site that may be used for a reference, it like a mix of all the WoW guilds and dicusses gameplay, etc. It also has videos that could be very informational. The site is http://wowcrossroads.webs.com/

Secondly,shouldnt there be an article or a section of this article telling about WoW culture such as the words used, the clothes, and other things know by warcraft players

1. . {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class video game articles
• High-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists