Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Community

June role call

--Htmlism 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Havok (T/C/c) 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jirziczerny
  3. Deiaemeth 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Richielin 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) --
  5. Ifrit 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sekhui 06 June 2006 <-- Sargatanas of Runetotem
  7. Deiaemeth 22:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Rascilon 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. OrcShaman42 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry so late!)

Image:WPW icon.gif

For a project icon I recommend that someone design a "Wiki faction" crest or banner. I'm thinking light grey with gold trim, a large black W in the center. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugly, I wanted to create a burnt paper effect but failed miserably... (put a buster on it)

File:WLG.png Version 2. Redesign with trims. --Shandris 10:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

File:WLG.png
File:WLG.png
File:WLG.png

Version 3. With golden border. Havok's is sleeker, though --Shandris 10:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I made and uploaded the one on the left. Havok (T/C/c) 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I like the second you made Shandris, but how would it look small? I mean, with all the detail. That's why I removed the text from mine, to make it look the same both big and small. Havok (T/C/c) 11:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the size thing, looking good. Havok (T/C/c) 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

i prefer the 3rd one --Richielin 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better Shandris! I like it. Havok (T/C/c) 12:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shandris, Havok, you put me to shame. Good! Now whatever one we decide on please make sure it has a square aspect ratio, this makes it scale properly using the wikimedia software. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, thanks, CyberSkull =P. Aspect ratio, you mean the picture must have 1:1 ratio? I can fix that if you want; first we must decide whether we need more contributions, if these aren't already enough. Voting for multiple members? --Shandris 22:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll make mine in 1:1 if it's chosen. Great work though, I think much fruitful has come of this. ^^ Havok (T/C/c) 22:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Faction colors

I've filled in all the faction colors that I can remember in {{Infobox Warcraft character}}, any that you know would be great. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems nice, good work. I'll add what I can. --Ifrit 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Participants list

Is the participants list bugged or something? It's not the same as presented when you want to edit it; there are othere names and in different order Help? --Shandris 08:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

project banners

Please leave the WP:CVG banner on the talk pages. They automatically classify an article for the Wikipedia 1.0 project. If we could put {{cvgproj|class=|importance=}} back on any pages that they have been removed from, that would be appreciated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Should a system like that be made for the Warcraft project, or is that just silly? Havok (T/C/c) 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The images are shown in different sizes as to see how they will be looking on different parts of Wikipedia.


I vote for Shandris' logo:

  1. sekhui 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC). Good work on both though.
  2. Richielin 08:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) but havok's is nice as well
  3. OrcShaman42 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) ^^ ditto as above ^^!



I vote for Havok's logo:

  1. I like the design of Shandris' logo, but I think that Havok's is cleaner and scales better. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote neutral:

  1. Personally I like Havok|'s logo for the reasons CyberSkull mentioned, but I also like the background of Shandris'. I'd want something like... this! [1] (quick and dirty edit) --Ifrit 02:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, even I think that Havok's is sleeker and a bit less detailed, but I must admit that his colors are abit too dull. Hm, Ifrit, to mix these two designs is not as aesthetically pleasing as one would think... Shandristhe azylean 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I also think yours is great, but I do not like the "horns" on them, they don't look as good when the image is made smaller, the same with the gold things in the icon. Havok (T/C/c) 13:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Decision

3:1:1 -- what do you say, guys? Guess I'm the winner... Shandristhe azylean 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone react?? Shandristhe azylean 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


For example, I've put this custom made userbox on my page...

Wiki faction banner This user is a member of WikiProject Warcraft.






Shandristhe azylean 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The icon should be smaller. Havok (T/C/c) 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I made it bigger to be the same size as my WoW Comment box to the right of this one, on my page. Shandristhe azylean 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested/preferred logo:

Wiki faction banner This user is a member of WikiProject Warcraft.





Current logo (text modified, if you didn't notice):

Wiki faction banner This user is a member of the Warcraft WikiProject.




I'd like to request that whatever version we go with we use an SVG version with a 1:1 aspect ratio. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why must it be in SVG? It's such a complicated format, and I don't have Adoble Illustrator... Shandristhe azylean 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I would guess that it takes less space, and looks nicer when scaling. Havok (T/C/c) 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How shall I convert the PNG image into an equal SVG image? Logical suggestions? Shandristhe azylean 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll look into it when I get home from work. :P Havok (T/C/c) 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just assumed you both made them in a vector graphics editor. If you can't, then never mind. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem turning it into a vector, Adobe Illustrator should do the trick. Didn't get the time yesterday, I might try today. Havok (T/C/c) 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I'll do; turning it into 1:1 is not the problem here. Shandristhe azylean 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, the 1:1 SVG version of my logo, finally ;)

200px

(Hm, it got kind of ugly; I had to convert the PNG to JPEG, losing the transparency and then I found an online converter, Illustrator sucks.)
Shandristhe azylean 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, no one seems to be so active here, can we finally decide for something? Shandristhe azylean 21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

SVG Test

Test using SVG format.

File:Project Warcraft test1.svg

Now to make a version of my shield if I can even figure that out. :P Havok (T/C/c) 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just a question, Havok. Can you see my SVG logo? Cause I actually can't, when it's embedded here, only if you view it on it's own, that is, the full link to the image... weird. Shandristhe azylean 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't see it no.. Try uploading it again. Havok (T/C/c) 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Havok, your logo loooks great. I can't see Shandris' logo though. Deiaemeth 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's cause I made it in some weird format, hm... First, in the Illustrator SVG options, I chose "Adobe CEF" (better font viewing, but can't be viewed by all viewers). Didn't work. Then I tried just "SVG" (can be seen by almost all viewers). And as you see, doesn't work either... What's wrong? I mean, I just converted it from PNG to SVG straight-on; i.e., it's not "genuine" vector graphics. P.S. Havok, why is your logo not in full color? Shandristhe azylean 07:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW instances

Is there a reason there are a couple dozen articles on individual instances in World of Warcraft? Is this something this project sanctions? If so, why?

I wanted to come here before going to AFD or redirecting, because I feel it's wholly inappropriate, composed almost entirely of game-guide info, something called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am with you on this. They should all be merged into one article, and all guide elements should be removed. The same can also be said for all the classes in WoW, many are written like a guide. I have started removing pov and guide elements of them aswell. So far I have done Rogue (World of Warcraft), Mage (World of Warcraft), Warlock (World of Warcraft) and Paladin (World of Warcraft). Havok (T/C/c) 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Hi everyone. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but given that it -- along with all the other video game WikiProjects -- is technically a subsidiary of the overall Computer and Video Games WikiProject, I thought I'd bring to your attention this proposal for the deletion of spoiler tags from all computer and video game articles. An in-depth explanation of the reasoning behind this can be found on the discussion page I've linked to (and a lot of additional discussion on the matter can be found in the places linked to from there, such as the spoiler warning talk page and this archive from it, in which a motion to contest the spoiler warning's Guideline status was successfully put forth), but to briefly summarize the reasoning behind this:

"In no way do [spoiler tags] actually contribute to the encyclopedia's purpose of being informative about subjects on a comprehensive level, and, in actuality, they're redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive source of information on a variety of subjects. This is...not a fansite or blog. Also, given that Wikipedia is not censored -- and, again, given that it is an encyclopedia -- what encyclopedic purpose are spoiler tags serving? The answer is 'not a single one.' We already have a spoiler warning accessible from the bottom of every page of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia need not constantly reiterate that it is an encyclopedia."

If all of you could drop by and weigh in on this, we'd all appreciate it. We really feel like we're working toward the betterment of video game articles on Wikipedia -- and the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole -- by pushing for the removal of this unencyclopedic content. Thanks for your time. Ryu Kaze 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WoW Instance Articles up for AFD

Someone put up all the instance articles up for AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadmines PPGMD 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

citations

I've filled out some citation templates for the warcraft games if you need to use them. The version parameter should be set to the version the element of the game being discussed or the current version if it is not available. You may also leave it blank, that is fine too.

  • Blizzard Entertainment (2006-11-24). World of Warcraft (Mac OS X & Windows). Vivendi Universal.
    • {{cite video game|title=[[World of Warcraft]] |developer=[[Blizzard Entertainment]] |publisher=[[Vivendi Universal]] |date=2006-11-24 |platform=[[Mac OS X]] & [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] |version= |level= |language= |isolang=en }}

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Character notability

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. Originally posted by — TKD::Talk 10:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC). Havok (T/C/c) 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is LunarFalls used as a source?

Curious if Lunarfalls.com is considered a reliable source... --Fandyllic 4:36 PM PDT 15 Aug 2006

Source

As we aren't allowed to use Blizzard, and their own websites as source due to WP:OR, can't we use WoWWiki? They are reputable, and they even have their own article on WP. Would be great if we started working on the articles that where nominated, removing any novelization, original research and strategy elements. Havok (T/C/c) 10:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WoWWiki isn't a reliable source, for the same reason Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. There's no way to know anything said there is true. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
True enough. It seems more and more that we can just aswell delete all articles relating to anything Warcraft, seeing as no reliable third party source can be found. We can't cite the books, games, manuals, Blizzard, the official site or fan sites relating to Warcraft. I understand reliable source and original research was created to protect Wikipedia, but RS is not that easy to come by when it comes to games in general, not only Warcraft. Any suggestions AMiB? Havok (T/C/c) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
My suggestions would be to concentrate on the things that exist in the real world and worry a whole lot less about the things that don't. It's kind of harsh, but sometimes there are things that fan wikis do better than Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Harsh indeed. But then again, the same could be said about other things. Why not only focus on things that really matter in the world, like wars, religion, capitalisme etc. Why should we ex. care about games, music, movies, books, board games, rivers, mountains, trees, math etc. Why not only focus on that other stuff? I would argue that this is the reason Wikipedia is so great, because it caters to everyone, and is about everything. I know much about many other things, but right now I want to work on this. Does it exist in the real world? No, not in the same vain as George W. Bush, but it is a subject that is important to now 6 million players, people who actually do care for the lore. Same as the people who write detailed episode guides to Star Trek on WP, and to the people who know everything about Light Sabers, it's a hobby, just like Football, Tennis, History. In the end, does any of this really matter? So instead of worrying about why I feel so passionate about this, go edit and make the articles about your passions better. All in all, we are here with the same goal, to help others understand and appriciate what we care for. Havok (T/C/c) 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of importance, merely a matter of approach. Ideally, you're going to be covering the characters and worlds and places and stuff, but from the approach of covering them as a part of the work(s) in which they appear, instead of ascribing a false substance to them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If I got what you said right, one should not focus on the substance of the characters and places, but rather focus on the works of it instead? Havok (T/C/c) 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it. If Unpronouncable Compoundword is important in AdventureQuest 7 but has little role in the real world, then the place to cover Sir Compundword is in the AQ7 article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ofcourse, but considering Sir Compundword is in both AQ1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and is a major character, he has a place in Sir Compundword. Havok (T/C/c) 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he has a place in articles for AQ 1-7. One would hope that those articles would mention that each sequel picks up where the last left off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are galleries prohibited?

Mdd4696 removed the galleries from Orc and The Forsaken, later telling me that Wikipedia:Image use policy prohibits the use of galleries. My brief examination did not bear this out as the only mention of galleries is in the image queueing section. Your thoughts? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits as vandalism, and I have contacted BradPatrick about it. Seeing as the policy states nothing against the use of these images in the gallery section of an article. He is either vandalizing these articles, or he interprets the rules as he sees fit. Havok (T/C/c) 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively, do not ever make a gallery of fair-use images. WP:FUC, the rules on how you are allowed to use fair-use images, requires that as few images be used as possible and that the images identify the subject or relevant points in the article. Since you only need one image to identify the subject, the rest is unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I've been thinking, and I think we should merge are the classes in World of Warcraft, seeing as the articles in themselves can't stand on their own legs. Most of the articles are riddled with game guide information which Wikipedia does not condone. A simple merger of all these classes might be a better solution to deal with the lack of information. Thoughts, ideas, comments and suggestions appreciated. Havok (T/C/c) 07:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good move, think a merge of races would be a good idea as well, unfortunately, my time is limited so I can't really do that at the moment... Altair 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have recently been merging several of the troll articles together to provide a less confusing atmoshpere as well as to assimilate the parts that were redundant. I plan on doing so for all of the races that have this problem, but I think that incorporating them all into the huge list of creatures would be a bad move in my opinion. I'll try working on geting all of the class info updated so that each class has about the same amount of space devoted to it, as it looks pretty haphazard right now. Chiguayante 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Integration with {{cvgproj}}

A request has been made at WikiProject Computer and video games talk to integrate the {{Wproj}} template into the CVG header itself. The newly integrated template can be seen here: User:Hbdragon88/Temp. Thoughts? Objections? --PresN 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar userbox

Just an FYI, I've created a userbox for people who have won a Warcraft Barnstar. You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Award userbox. EVula 06:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft Custom Maps

I think there should be an article for Warcraft Custom Maps as it is a major feature of the game, sometimes rivaling the popularity of the original maps created by Blizzard in online play. Recently many articles have been put up for deletion due to notability and verification concerns. I think that there should be a custom map article giving information about custom maps. This would cut down on the Warcraft III article size, as well as negate the need for entire articles on maps that can be explained in a paragraph or two. See some discussion admist the comments on the most recent afdl for Footmen Wars. Altair 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WoWWiki:Proposed icon

WoWWiki is trying to decide what their icon will be. People who contributed to our icon may want to submit their work over there at wowwiki:WoWWiki:Proposed icon. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It took us a while, but we eventually picked one :) Kirkburn 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anniversaries

I've added Anniversaries to the Warcraft portal. Please help me flesh them out. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed for several Warcraft articles

Just as a heads up: I came across some articles (and I'm sure there is more) without sources. Wildhammer Clan, Horde (Warcraft) and Kirin Tor. Remember: when making articles, cite the references/sources. I don't know alot about Warcraft, otherwise I would find the sources myself. As a note: I'm not saying these articles are made up, all I'm saying is they need to be properly cited and referenced. RobJ1981 05:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

POV?

The sentence "although struck with some inflexibility of thought, as is common of aging rulers" the part "as is common of aging rulers" seems a little POV. This part of the sentence is not really needed.

Collaboration needed on classes in World of Warcraft

I just remembered this article was nominated in an AfD. I added some stuff afterwards but I could really use some help either to rewrite the classes that don't have a lore and a gameplay part or to find an other way to do the article... I just feel bad talking about a subject I don't know much about (the lore) -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

I'm trying to find a rule about capitalization... I don't think the race or class names should be capitalized (Blood Elf -> blood elf). That's sort of how it's done in the WoWWiki, and it sorta makes sense. Anyone? --Htmlism 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree. It's a race, like Iranian, American, Dwarf, Klingon. It needs to be capitalized McKay 07:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
But those are more like cultural/national groups. You could say Thrall is a fish, where fish is lowercase, in the same way you would describe Thrall as an orc. Not all orcs are bound to the same nation that Thrall governs. A type of species, if you will. --Htmlism 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Race is used an an alternative to species by Blizzard (for simplicity). Orc is a species. Species aren't capitalised. Kirkburn 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do?

So, I've got a lot of knowledge shoved into my head about Blizzard, I've been playing their games and purchasing their merch since they were big. I contribute where I can, but I want to know what the group is working on, is there nothing at the moment? McKay 07:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hero (Warcraft)

Please comment on Hero (Warcraft). I don't find anymore things to improve so... anyone mind to help? I'm wondering if it's OK to be a good article... or even a featured article :X (ha I know I'm thinking too much)

Any feedbacks are very much appreciated. — Yurei-eggtarttalk 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just use WoWWiki

The ability to use POV, non-neutrality, and talk freely using slang and acronyms is much more condusive to this kind of work. The pages there are well-written and are actually useful for people playing the game. I think we should move all of the instance, mobs, item, character, etc. pages there and just leave the lore on Wikipedia. OrcShaman42 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Zalvors to be deleted

Don't know if anyone cares (or even what this article is about) but someone has PRODed Zalvors. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone's listening

I've noticed many articles are in serious need of cleanup, probably because of sentiment like the post above me, but if anyone's listening (it says the project is inactive), I think I've made Kael'thas Sunstrider into an example of what we should aim for with noteworthy character/lore articles. Cheers. Luatha 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you (and my edits should show!), I personally think that lore should not be part of these articles; lore, guides, etc, are all well documented on wowwiki, which pretty much every player seems to utilize (myself included), but Wikipedia should present this beyond the lore. For example, patch progression is a good thing that can be written about, as it allows non-players (and non-interested people) to see a progression in the game. Most of the guide-style sites don't really include a lot of mechanical or technical history, and new players still ask "how do I get to be High Warlord?" Yngvarr 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


wrath of the lich king

The northrend section is written from an in game POV does this need adjusting, and is the main northrend page simalar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankalot (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

The single-purpose account IAmSasori (talk · contribs) has nominated nearly all World of Warcraft-related subarticles for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft). Melsaran (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add to the below list. Thanks -- Jreferee t/c 13:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You should also list all the other pages deleted by the Sasorization. Look at his user page for a whole list. 69.255.170.118 (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Warcraft Dead?

Many articles I worked on have been deleted now, and it almost seems like any WoW-related article aside from the main article itself is doomed for deletion. While many of them may have been justified (in fact a few of them I nominated for deletion myself) it makes it seem like there's little point in expending effort on improving WoW articles right now, unless it's to specifically gather sources and/or establish solid real-world notability before you do anything else in the article. I've been working on just the main article itself, seeing if it can possibly get to Featured Article status. I doubt I'm alone in these sentiments which might be why this WikiProject appears inactive. -- Atamasama 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to lend a hand to Warcraft-related articles to help provide Verifiability and Notability in popular culture, aswell as more general edits. I'm also trying to get the Criticism of World of Warcraft article up to scratch, but there's some way to go. Gazimoff (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
same happens to relatively big videogame series such as Starcraft or Command Conquer, but not some like Halo Combat evolved--Andersmusician VOTE 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Classic example of the artibrary naure of how Wikipedia treats fan projects. The tyranny of the idiot majority (aka Star Wars fans, mostly). --63.175.18.130 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always WoWWiki :) Kirkburn (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Move to WP:VG

The old Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft is now a task force of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 12:11

Is this taskforce just the result of the failed wikiproject? --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It didn't fail as much as it was abandoned, I don't know what would constitute "failure" of the project anyway. The problem with the old Warcraft project was that we had a ton of Warcraft-related articles (over 100 I believe) that were unsourced, unencyclopedic, and full of cruft, created and expanded on by enthusiastic players and fans. Any attempt to fix them was undone by people doing mass deletions of the articles. I think that broke the spirits of people involved with the project, and people just walked away. Now that the dust has settled we're taking a more conservative approach, and people involved with this project are squashing all the cruft beforehand and gathering sources prior to creating new articles to be sure that this material is appropriate to Wikipedia and not deleted this time. -- Atamachat 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
We of course know where they walked away to (WoWWiki), but they probably should have started there to begin with, as it is a more hospitable place for people who wanted only to tell the world about Warcraft, without all the rules and policies regarding fiction that makes Wikipedia inhospitable to such people. No, it didn't fail, it just died. --Izno (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Cleanup Strategy

Alright, after some careful thought, I'd like to get the ball rolling on this one. I've noticed that the Warcraft wikiproject has been closed down due to inactivity, so I'd like to migrate the work over to a taskforce under WP:VG in order to get centralised debate.

The strategy here is about developing articles that will push out changes or updates elsewhere. One of the problems with the main article World of Warcraft is that every time there's a patch or change or content update, the article ends up being updated, usually without citations. It attracts cruft really easily and it's a tough job for editors like us to manage those frequent additions while maintaining a GA-class article. So, the strategy is to use the sub-articles we have more and create further ones, create a World of Warcraft topic to contain all the WoW specific articles (not just the warcraft ones). Once that's done, we can look at performing cleanup on the pre-WoW warcraft articles as well.

So, the plan is to have the following structure for World of Warcraft:

  • Lead - add info to direct readers to expansions. Explain that this article refers to pre-Burning Crusade content and that anything post TBC should be in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade or World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
  • Gameplay - as per Atama create a new main article called Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Move the existing content there. Summarise the pre-TBC stuff here. The content is already heavily cited and so should survive as a separate article. It might also be an idea to incorporate gameplay criticisms into this spinoff article. Merge Modifications in to this section.
  • Setting - Cleanup, removing the current cruft and expand by providing context with other games in the Warcraft setting. Merge Major In-Game Events in to this section. Trim down the Corrupted Blood Plague stuff as it already points to a more in-depth article at Corrupted Blood. Move Instances into Gameplay as it's a gameplay mechanic.
  • Development - expand heavily as there's a lot we're not covering about previous game showings, initial reception and so on. Merge Version History into this section, although I'm not sure what value it brings. Also merge information on the World of Warcraft Launcher here
  • Audio - cite fully.
  • Reception - expand further, merging in content from the Criticism of World of Warcraft section while also pointing to the Criticism of World of Warcraft article. Add the {{VG Reviews}} template to hold review scores.
  • Legacy - include information on the Virtual Community here. To reinforce, include further pointers to the two expansions here.

This will leave us with a much more streamlined article that's less likely to attract cruft. and more likely to be condensed and concise. Note that I've not included Pricing deliberately, as I'm not sure what value it adds.

The structure for World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade would change to be as follows:

  • Lead - add pointers to previous and next in series.
  • Gameplay - point to Gameplay of World of Warcraft as the main article (so we can re-use content and only have to get it right once). Emphasise differences between the original game and the expansion here.
  • Setting - Again, refer to differences between the original game and the expansion - the introduction of a new world to explore, etc etc.
  • Development - how the expansion was developed, beta phasings, etc. There's also information on the Collector's Edition Making-of DVD that may be citable.
  • Audio - include mention of the Audio CD (collector's edition item). I have a copy of the CD to help here.
  • Reception - add information on how the expansion was received and what criticisms were made of it. Again, refer to the Criticism of World of Warcraft article.
  • Legacy - if there's any BC-specific legacy, include this section.

The structure for World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King would follow suit as follows:

  • Lead - add pointers to previous and next in series.
  • Gameplay - point to Gameplay of World of Warcraft as the main article (so we can re-use content and only have to get it right once). Emphasise differences between the original game, TBC and this expansion here.
  • Setting - Again, refer to differences between the original game, TBC and the expansion - the introduction of a new continent, etc etc.
  • Development - how the expansion is being developed, beta phasings, etc.

Further sections on Reception can be added later.

This then leaves Gameplay of World of Warcraft, which would have the following rough layout

  • Characters - what the player can create and how the player's character works (races, classes, professions)
  • Creatures - what the character interacts with - NPCs, mobs, etc.
  • Items - what the character uses to interact with other game elements
  • Instances - special game sections such as dungeons(normal and raid), arenas, battlegrounds etc
  • Realms - how realms are described etc.
  • Misc - possibly include Voice Chat, Armoury etc.

This article can then expand logically as further content is released.

The topic World of Warcraft would then become World of Warcraft, World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, Gameplay of World of Warcraft and Criticism of World of Warcraft

So, what do you think? Gazimoff (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead changes / additions are going to need to implicit, else we end up with a self-reference.
Gameplay of WoW: These are my thoughts, rather than suggestions: Move races from Warcraft (series) to this article. While the other Warcraft games also have the races, the 10 playable races are much more pertinent than anything else. For the setting, that should be trimmed and have a pointer to Warcraft (series), which will need citations at some point.
Reception: Yes and yes. But could definitely use an expansion.
Development: This is where I think the current version fails the most; I'm relatively certain we could obtain enough sources for a four or five paragraph on the development of WoW. I disagree with the thought that it should reference the previous games, in favor for the section on development for each of their articles, and/or/as well as expanding the section on WC (series). As for merging the version history, citing the patches could be used in such a manner: "x was changed" in patch x,{citation} because the devs thought x should occur.{citation} But that's the only thing of use, and odds are, the second citation would have the relevant reasons and changes anyway. To be had, it probably shouldn't have a version history; wowwiki keeps tabs on these things, and it's a little crufty.
"Spam problems" can probably be done away with, or have a mention of them merged into the main piece on development. Keep the citation about the realworld study, and the why, and what the devs did to respond to it, but otherwise, remove the (in good faith) additions on it still ocurring, unless we can get good citation for those.
WoW launcher: I'm hesitant to merge that into development... Perhaps a subheading, but it just doesn't fit.
Pricing: I don't see the value of this section, now that you bring it up; if people really wanted the pricing of WoW, they could look it up on Amazon or at wow.com. Keeping a history of the pricing isn't really necessary, either; it costs what it costs now.
Legacy: The "virtual community" will be hardest to cite, and that's what we have to be thinking about. If we can find the citations, I'm all for keeping/merging it. But if not, then there's little value in holding onto the information which can't be cited.
Pop culture: The information on the movie should be shifted to Warcraft (series), where it also is; I'm not sure which is more up-to-date. I think the section could be done away with completely, but if not, merge what information we can into the "reception" section, as the satires and what not can be used there. Much as I love Leeroy, he should be in the virtual community section.
I'm sure there's a bit more I could add on my thoughts, but otherwise, I like your game plan. =). --Izno (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. To go through each point in turn -
Lead - I'm thinking of the markers that we have in a similar way to disambiguation pointers at the very top of an article, almost pre-lead.
Gameplay - I like your thinking. My intention was for Warcraft (series) to cover the initial RTS games, becoming part of a separate topic that would include Warcrarft II and III, together with expansions and Defense of the Ancients as a primary article for a featured topic. That strategy is a long way off though, but we can plan for it.
Development - yep, I'd like to merge the content of Version History without keeping the structure or prose and integrate it into Development in exactly the way you described.
Spam Problems - move to Criticism of World of Warcraft.
Launcher - is a bit problematic. It's not a gameplay thing, but it's part of the game software. It was something that was developed as a tool to run alongside the game, but it's not a part of the process but an end product. It also exists in both original and TBC, and probably WotLK. I'm open to thoughts here. Gameplay, Development, or somewhere else?
Pricing- Agree, delete. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that discourages it.
Legacy - Agreed about citing virtual community. If you can't cite it, don't write it. I think the pop culture stuff should be merged here, as it's all legacy stuff. The movie information should be in Warcraft (series) though, as it's not specific to WoW.
Hope that clears stuff up. I'm not sure on the Warcraft RTS stuff as yet, including Warcraft (series), but it's not crucial to resolve now. If Warcraft (series) ends up as an overall game series article including the MMO versions, that's fine. It'll just take a while to think how to shape it, that's all. Gazimoff (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Moved here to form a more centralised discussion. Further, I think it may be worthwhile to dissolve the Criticism article into it's related main articles, as criticism articles are generally discouraged now. Gazimoff (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for Gameplay article

I'ce creted a sandbox for the gameplay information at User:Gazimoff/Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Please feel welcome to add cited content to it. Once it reaches critical mass, I'll move it to the mainspace. Many thanks! Gazimoff WriteRead 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy paste current contents of the gameplay section below what you've got currently; that way, we can move text as we find citations for it. While I wouldn't say the current prose is FA worthy, I'd rather start with something than nothing, if that's alright. =) --Izno (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just as a forenote, this will be hard without a copy on me of the actual manual (don't know where they went). However, there do seem to be a couple references out there with ease of use. --Izno (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have the original manual, the BradyGames strategy guide and a handful of other bits. Also, Worldofwarcraft.com has a ton of primary source material for gameplay. It's going to be a struggle, but it'll be worth it.Gazimoff WriteRead 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This looks good but I'm worried about WP:RS, specifically WP:SELFPUB. The article relies heavily, very heavily, on Blizzard itself for the content of the article. You might argue, well of course, this article is about gameplay and what better source can there be than the developer of the game? Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series has managed to almost completely exclude Bethesda Softworks as a reference. I'm afraid someone might ding the article as a violation of WP:V because the info came from the people who published the game in the first place. That's my only complaint right now, good job otherwise. -- Atamachat 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a tricky one to follow. I'm trying a tactic of fleshing out the article using self-published articles for key points in place of liks to WoWwiki or elsewhere, with the idea of interleaving them with game preview and review citations to ensure notability. That way, the reader has the assurance that what we're discussing is factually accurate, while the project can be assured that what is included is notable enough. It should be interesting when the final result is finished. I'll be the first to admit that gameplay sections typically cite the manual as a reference, but I think we can use both here :)Gazimoff WriteRead 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Further to this, I've added a list of source links to use inside the article once we're nearly done with it These include beta and patch notes, reviews and previews, etc. Should be enough to cite almost everything from an alternate reliable source if needed. Anyway, time for sleep now.Gazimoff WriteRead 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Real-time strategy article needs help

Hey folks. Just wanted to direct some eager and intelligent minds to the real-time strategy article. Right now, the article is B-level status but it's important enough that it needs to be pushed to good article status. More than anything, it needs research and references to verify the statements in the article at this point. Please check in when you can. Randomran (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on merging book articles

They were tagged as possibly non-notable until just recently, then untagged, probably due to the mistaken thought that notability is inherited. I was thinking of merging to two lists: List of Warcraft books and List of World of Warcraft books, possibly with a third of List of Warcraft role-playing game books, or something to that effect. While I'd like to find real world RS that would overcome Weight issues, I'm fairly certain that would be difficult. While I'm also of the personal opinion that they should all have their separate articles, I think this is an elegant solution to any future issues of notability. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started this at User:Izno/Sandbox#Book list. How do the first four look? I'm thinking to call it List of Warcraft literature, but I think List of Warcraft books might be easier. I would like to include all the Warcraft extended universe source books, as well as the RPG... --Izno (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Warcraft vs. other video games and taskforce should even exist

Why do the following exist, but Warcraft equivalents always seem to get deleted?

These are only a quick few examples. Does World of Warcraft have to get 50 million players and start it's own sovereign country to start getting equal treatment on Wikipedia?

Why don't you just ditch the stupid taskforce, apply your efforts to WoWWiki (which despite being roughly the same size as Wookiepedia is also only a redirect), and just redirect or interwiki link to WoWWiki instead. Seems like time better spent.

I'd love for someone to explain how we got to this situation in the first place, if Wikipedia is so fair, well-run, and self-correcting? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk • contribs)

Essentially summed up in WP:OTHERSTUFF, unfortunately. There was an editor that went on a binge deletion of Warcraft articles, and none have been recreated with reliable secondary sources which assert real world notability and which show that the information on any given character was verifiable. (which, the versions that were deleted did not do so). The same happened to the article on WoWWiki, more because there are only one or two (possibly notable) articles out there about the wiki. I'm the one that added the unreferenced tag to Wookiepedia; if no-one references it in the near future, I may take the next step of deletion (I would like not to, but no-one seems interested in making it look pretty).
Why don't we ditch the stupid task force? Because some of us would like to see the content on WoWWiki on Wikipedia, for one, and for two (I'm sure this is a reason), because Wikipedia's bigger, gets more hits, yadda yadda yadda. As for fair, well-run, and self-correcting... what world are you living on where a democracy (hell, even a republic, and they don't have to be federalized, though of course that model works best for republics) provides for those things? You're living in a really weird world if so...
And, btw, I edit WoWWiki. ;) --Izno (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason for the difference is that Wikipedia has rules about what can and cannot be included, while WoWWiki can be a lot mroe flexible and accomodating. That doesn't mean to say that the work done here is any more or less important. There's a place for highly detailed and specialised information, just as there's a place for Haynes Manuals. It does mean that anything we write has to be sourced carefuly before we release it into the encyclopedia.
As to why bother? Well, Warcraft stuff is just part of what I work on. I also work on other videogame articles as well, mainly working on cleanup or sourcing articles at risk of deletion. The warcraft articles were mostly deleted before I started working on Wikipedia, so it may in time be possible to bring them back. We'll see though. Besides, even when WoW goes the way of other MMOs and all that remains are a few private servers, there will still be other videogame articles to cleanup and work on. Gazimoff WriteRead 08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wowhead

I recently made a article for Wowhead after seeing the thottbot article. I'm new to wikipedia more or less, I got the box on the bottom but don't know how to get Wowhead on there beside Thottbot, if anyone can help me please do so (and post how to do it here if possible). I classified that article as a stub and if anyone can expand on it that would be great as well. conningcris 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay of World of Warcraft

Article is up and finally out of my sandbox. Feel free to review, update and edit. The next piece of work will be to trim and cleanup World of Warcraft, using Gameplay of World of Warcraft as a spinoff. Feel free to help!Gazimoff WriteRead 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:WAR

I'm of the opinion that the redirect should probably be to Edit warring rather than this wikiproject. What do others think? --Izno (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even associate WP:WAR with Warcraft, it makes more sense that it redirect to Edit warring. If anything, WP:CRAFT seems better, and it's free. Or WP:WARCRAFT. -- Atamachat 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I already made WP:VG/WC a redirect, which is probably the shortest smart version. If no one objects on this talk page in a day, I'll fix the non-talk links and redirect to edit war. --Izno (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Done checking — All the non-talk usages were meant for edit war and not Warcraft. --Izno (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Warcraft or WarCraft

I noticed that on the box art for the games, it looks like "Warcraft" is actually spelled "WarCraft". Is there a deliberate reason why Warcraft isn't in CamelCase, or is it popular usage? Xnux the Echidna 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One I can think of is WP:Manual of Style (trademarks): "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable".
You do bring up the better reason though. Very rarely (almost never) have I seen it WarCraft, perhaps because most players either a) don't learn to type correctly or b) it is simply easier to ignore the second capital letter. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Go to Blizzard's web site. They don't spell it "WarCraft" either. It's not even "CamelCase" on the box art or the logo, it is spelled "WARCRAFT" all in capital letters. The C is bigger because it's directly in the middle of the word and the bottom of the C sticks out at the bottom to give the logo a coat-of-arms sort of shape. -- Atamachat 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'd say it's CamelCase on the box art, but I guess we can leave that to opinion. Either way, Warcraft works. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Box art ambiguity aside, if Blizzard themselves call it "Warcraft" that's what it is. Go here for example, where they mention "World of Warcraft". I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point, since nobody's suggesting it really needs to be CamelCase, but I just wanted to make the point in case someone casts a rez spell on that horse. Also, check out the Diablo box art which suggests "Diablo" should be spelled "DiablO"... -- Atamachat 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Diablo example is really a design thing :) Gary King (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As is the Warcraft logo. Just pointing out that Blizzard does that sometimes in their logos. StarCraft is the only CamelCase title I'm aware of from Blizzard. -- Atamachat 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work to do...

I'm not going to join this project/taskforce or whatever, because I think Wikipedia has gotten so far behind and has so many people with bad faith towards Warcraft articles that it can't be salvaged. However, I want to make a list of articles that should be justifiable by looking at other video games that seem to have corresponding articles that haven't been AfD'd to use as examples to fill in. I will list the uncreated Warcraft link first and then the corresponding link for the other video game. I'm starting with The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind as my example.

List of possible future Warcraft articles:

I will add more stuff as I think of it. But looking through the hodge-podge of articles concerning things starting from video games, there is no standard or even-handed enforcement of anything. Wikipedia should be ashamed of the obvious arbitrary nature of how these things are handled, but admins are only worried about their various fiefs and foolish belief in this anarchic system.

--Intenionally unsigned

A lot of the examples you gave have multiple (tagged) issues, meaning they are potential AfD candidates as well if not given more attention. I think their existence is at least partly because they escaped notice, some time back a huge campaign to delete everything Warcraft-related hit this encyclopedia and deleted over 90% of related articles. Still, a couple of those examples are pretty good. The Jim Raynor article is fantastic, it's amazing how well-referenced a video game character article has gotten. We'll need some solid references to satisfy WP:V and WP:N before we can revive/recreate those Warcraft articles or they'll get nuked again. Gazimoff showed a great way to do that with the Gameplay article. -- Atamachat 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd eventually like to have solid articles on all these sections, as well as making headway on the Warcraft series. Unfortunately all these things take time to accurately source and present. I'm hoping that in time we'll be able to rebuild these articles, but progress is slow and these things do take time. All I can ask for is a little patience while we do all this work - I've only got a limited amount of time I can spend on this project. If anyone's willing to muck in, it would be most appreciated. Gazimoff 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WAR?

Hey, I used to be a member of the Warcraft Wikiproject, but lost faith in Wikipedia from the setbacks we had (I know the founder of that old WP personally, and he completely left Wikipedia because of disputes and situations like that). Glad to see there's still some folks going, though I'm sorry to say I'm not going to participate in the bullshit of bringing all those deleted articles back.

Anyway, learning of this "task force" something came to my attention. You're abbreviating it WP:WAR? Well, just to let you know, the official abbreviation for the new Warhammer Fantasy MMORPG Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning is WAR (just as with WoW to World of Warcraft). If that abbreviation catches on amongst the million or two people who will be playing that, a few confusing issues might arise. Just thought you should know.--Ifrit (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:WAR is now the redirect for WP:Edit war. Warhammer will have to live with that. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Found a source that could be useful

And just leaving it here so someone can run with it if they need to. --Izno (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A few loose pages

FYI- There are a couple of old pages left over from the Warcraft Project. Some are redirects, but others look to be part of the old project structure. Thought you'd like to be aware of some of these pages before we tried to MfD all of them. Drop us a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup with any thoughts on the matter you may have. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm MfDing them. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Warcraft pages

Some WikiProject Warcraft pages have been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Warcraft pages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of those WikiProject Warcraft pages during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Update- Only the two redirects were deleted. The rest were tagged as historical. I believe most editors at the MfD felt it would be alright for task force members to move the remaining pages over to subpages of this task force. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

World of warcraft

I am sure I am not the only one who noticed this but if there are 12.5 million subscribers world wide and they charge $14.99 per month to play and with out including merchandise, character transfers, or purchasing the game Blizzard makes $187,375,000 a month! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.123.136 (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't forget the initial cost to buy the game (atleast 40 for regular, now 20) and the expansion (atleast 20, plus a bit more for those who bought Collector's), and now a second expansion. Not that any of that matters here. Hooper (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The initial cost is lost in the noise compared to how much they get from subscription fees. They're making good money, I expect. When WoW goes the way of the dodo (nothing lasts forever), they can use the cash to fund the design of whatever comes after. - Denimadept (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is this discussion here? --Intentionally unsigned

Is this taskforce dead?

I haven't seen much activity. I didn't have much hope for it, but it already seems to have died of neglect. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We're still here. I know I'm watching it, and I would guess that Gazimoff is also. Both of us have real lives, so we're just making sure the articles don't get worse then the states they are in already. --Izno (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not much of a taskforce, if you're just making sure articles don't get worse. They're already abysmal in many cases. --Intentionally unsigned
You could always... You know... Create an account and do something instead of complaining. -- Atamachat 23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Why when WoWWiki is so much better? I want to stir things up to see if there really is that much interest in bringing Warcraft articles in Wikipedia up to par. I no longer will contribute after too many AfDs. I have an account BTW. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Because WoWWiki fails at bringing real-life relevance to people who haven't played any of the games. As for AfDs, all the WC/WoW related AfDs passed years ago, which is why the coverage of Warcraft doesn't exist. And I agree with their deletions. They were crap articles, written for WoWWiki rather than Wikipedia.
I would encourage you to reply here with yourself logged in. I can guess at a few who contribute to WoWWiki who would deliberately be this unhelpful in regard to this task force. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
WoWWiki and Wikipedia are two completely different things. WoWWiki is a game guide for people who play WoW. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. Anyone who has played WoW for a significant period of time will likely know 90% of what is in any WoW-related Wikipedia article. If your intention is to turn Wikipedia into WoWWiki then you shouldn't waste your time. WoWWiki is great for what it is, and I even refer people to it from Wikipedia, but its purpose isn't even close to what Wikipedia is. -- Atamachat 01:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm still around, although I've been suffering from some real-life crunch time. To continue what others have said, WoWWiki and Wikipedia are two different projects, with different goals, requirements and target audiences. WoWWiki will always be better for detailed information on the Warcraft universe, as it has the scope of covering the universe in as detailed a fashion as possible. Wikipedia has a deliberate barrier to entry, largely around the notability and verifiability requirements, limiting what Warcraft articles are possible to create and maintain.
One other thing worthy of note - Wikipedia is a very large project, of which Warcraft forms only a very small fraction of a percentage. It is understandable that you may feel dissolusioned about the project and the lack of articles - but the project isn't aiming to be either concise or exhaustive in this regard. Gazimoff 10:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia isn't intended to be concise or exhaustive, but it should at least attempt to be equitable. In this regard, Wikipedia is totally inequitable in regards to Warcraft vs. other video game or even game-world franchises. If the excuse is, "previous articles were crap," then it would be okay if many or most other like articles were better on average, which they are not. The defense of Wikipedia's treatment of Warcraft has been poor at best. I don't want my account associated with this dreck. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, it's an inequitable balance now because of the action of one or two users in the past. We here had nothing to do with it, first off, and I think you are mistakenly blaming us for not acting on it. Our hands are essentially tied, as there are two options that we have to make it more equitable; the first is that we delete the other universe information; this is nearly impossible, as swarms of people come out of the woodworks to defend it, even if those articles don't follow policy. Plus, they might be conceived as pointed deletion discussions. The other alternative of course then, is to create new articles which don't suck, because if they do suck, they'll simply be speedily deleted, or at best, will be sent to AfD where they will again be deleted because there aren't hordes here that could defend the content created. Because those hordes left for greener pasture; in this case, WoWWiki.
I think it unfortunate you don't want your account associated. You could start a sandbox subpage with it and work to make an article about a character or on the factions of Warcraft which doesn't suck, and we could help with citations, or whatnot. --Izno (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If there wer articles that you feel were good, that have been deleted then please list them. I'll userify the content and start working on sourcing etc in order to bring them up to quality. Gazimoff 16:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Until Wikipedia reins in the anti-Warcraft zealots, sandboxing here is a waste of time. How can any of you ensure that any new character articles or articles not specifically about a book or game won't get AfD'd? You can't because the ones who did the initial sweep are still out there. As far as I can tell, no one has done anything about the articles and issues I raised in Lots of work to do... above. I'd like to see someone try, because I suspect an AfD will follow shortly. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I can guarantee that articles won't be deleted if they are created properly. They weren't in the past. To be blunt, most of the articles that were deleted definitely deserved to be. Gazimoff's recent efforts with Gameplay of World of Warcraft are an example of the right way to do it. Establish notability and find reliable sources before you even bother starting the article. You can't blame someone for wanting an article deleted that doesn't even follow the most basic Wikipedia policies for inclusion, even if they seem to have an agenda. -- Atamachat 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Left over pages from the move

FYI- There are currently discussions taking place on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup/Leftovers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup that would effect pages related to the scope of your task force. Any input would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Not dead, but apparently in a deep coma

Is anyone working on anything? --Intentionally unsigned (aka User:63.175.18.130) 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to contribute, Fandyllic! --Izno (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hell no. --Intentionally unsigned (aka 63.175.18.130 (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Interview

Hey everyone! I am currently writing a community discourse paper for my college English class and was thinking I would do it on World of Warcraft. Honestly, I don't know much about WoW, so I thought it'd be a fun idea to do it on this subject. Basically, a community discourse is a group of people who share a similar interest, and I need to interview as many people as possible on the subject to gather information. Please let me know if you'd be interested in taking the interview/survey on my talk page or you can email me, it would really help me out. Thanks! --Pbroks13talk? 01:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars

Is there really a need to have two substantially identical barnstars for this project (1, 2)? Just something I noticed while poking around. - Mobius Clock 16:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion reasoning for Warcraft/World of Warcraft articles

If anyone's still here, and at the risk of re-opening a can of worms, I have a question regarding multiple deletion requests for articles related to the aforementioned games. Many of them had RfDs citing "real-world" notability issues, specifically stating that most of them would bear no interest to people who are not fans/players of the series. Blizzard Entertainment reported over 12 million World of Warcraft players in October 2010. At what point does the line blur between fictional and real personalities who are notable?

For example, Arthas Menethil (whose "life," though composed entirely of fictional plot, probably rates more than a redirect to a subsection that only reads, "The prince of Lordaeron, Arthas Menethil, also eventually succumbs to the will of the Lich King and is instrumental in bringing about the downfall of his kingdom and, eventually, the invasion of the Burning Legion. He is one of the main characters of the third game and its expansion."), is arguably notable to an equal or greater number of people that Canadian World Champion female curler Kelly Scott (not to diminish the sport).

When do fictional characters become notable enough to be considered relevant for inclusion? Multiple comic book and animated characters seem to have made the cut, regardless of their relative importance to their respective series/storylines, and heavily drawing from plot summaries for source material (see Squirrel Girl), so why not video game characters? I will grant that the majority of Warcraft/World of Warcraft articles were badly written and poorly sourced, but shouldn't they merit rewriting rather than deletion?

I understand that the fandom for the game series is so active that it is probably easy for editing of related articles to get out of control. However, I do think that there are a disproportionate number of game-related articles that were either deleted or reduced/merged to a point of near-inconsequentiality. I don't think this is the right answer. I'd like to help, but there should probably be a standardized format for characters and geographical locations similar to those used in fictional books, movies, or comic books before we start creating/expanding articles again. It may help if we have our own additional notability requirements. It seems, despite WP:Notability, that a great many fictional characters draw heavily on non-independent source data (e.g., comic book issues in which they've appeared) and generally rely on plot summaries for their biographies.

Also, for independent references, Google News archive search may come in handy. There's also no reason to re-invent the wheel...WoWWiki articles, properly cleaned up and sourced, can be adapted to Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately, I can't access WoWWiki during the day, but I'll do what I can.

Give me a few days in the sandbox and I'll see what pops up.  Cjmclark (Contact) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Release Dates for WarCraft 2

The release dates on the Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness article are all quite messed up, I wrote it up on the talk page hope you can fix that. Thanks --MetalSnake (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Task force cleanup

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages and merging the Warcraft TF with the StarCraft TF to make a Blizzard TF), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 01:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Warcraft/Archive_1&oldid=1111700391"