Difference between revisions of "Talk:World of Warcraft"

Revision as of 19:26, February 4, 2008

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---Be not dismayed XXI June 2007

It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in The New York Times. If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. Dpbsmith 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" plus "Blizzard" in The New York Times since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear news articles about the game. Here are a few:

• December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
• February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
• August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
• December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
• May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
• September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
• January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. Dpbsmith 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on The Virtual World of Online Gaming, and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." Dpbsmith 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --Hsmom 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. Learn together 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --Colest 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Article overboard! Way overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit

It may be a bit overboard, but it has a huge following, especially among age groups that Andy is most gearing the use of Conservapedia for. It makes sense to give them the type of information that they want that will get them interested if it gets them to spend time looking at Conservapedia and using it as a resource. In other words in this one we may want to go beyond a dry encyclopedia article. Learn together 10:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Right now it looks like we've removed most of the random terminology that one could easily gain off of the official website. It gives a concise description of what the basic premise of the game is, notes it's popularity, and brings up some criticisms of the game. What type of information beyond this do you think would be relevant? I'm happy to make whatever changes might be needed, but like I said before, we just need a good direction as to what type of information we're trying to relate here. --Colest 11:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree we need a general understanding, but looking at the edit history, the recent direction is not one that has been agreed upon and was not the reason the article was unlocked. It appears this game is being cut some slack in giving more information than is usually desired, but then it is in a unique position of having an immense following of dedicated players and curious onlookers and may be a way to attract more attention to Conservapedia from groups that otherwise wouldn't be drawn to using our website. Learn together 11:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Article locked

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --Funnny 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

It was locked by Elamdri, so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. Philip J. Rayment 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--Elamdri 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Recent Changes

I think it may be wise to engage in concensus discussion before making major changes. While I'm sure all changes are being made in good faith, it's going against the reasons the Sysop stated he unprotected the article. Thanks. Learn together 11:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, first off, he hasn't stated any reasons that I can see why he unprotected it, only because it was requested. "If it stays relatively good, I see no reason it should be protected" doesn't really offer any insight as to 1) what was wrong in the first place and 2) what he'd like to see out of the article. Furthermore, I would argue that while this is a popular video game, CP is not a website that is going to attract your curious video game enthusiast. They are more than likely going to seek out official video game websites, or perhaps a wiki specifically focused on the game (ie www.wowwiki.com). I believe providing a more concise explination of the game and cultural issues surrounding it is more appropriate for this encyclopedia. --Colest 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Elamdri himself put in many of the additions that were removed, and it is unlikely that's what he wanted. ;-) I'm not saying either that we're going to suddenly get 8.5 million game players, but the first rule of selling is to get them in, and the second is to sell your product -- give them something they want. We did a fine job on the Longbow article, but chances are more people passing through here are going to be curious to see what is said about World of WarCraft than that ancient weapon. (Although actually, in this case, there may be some overlap.) Personally, I've never played the game, but having played other role playing games in the past, I was curious when I read about it. If I'm a new person, that makes me more inclined to think favorably about Conservapedia and use it more, or at least think about it. Peace to you my friend. Learn together 12:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I protected the World of Warcraft article because we had a rash of vandal attacks against it a while back. Rather than revert it every time, unofficial CP policy is to revert the vandalism and protect until the vandal gets bored/blocked. Then if we find the article to be a high profile target, we keep the article locked, unless a reasonable request comes along, which Funnny provided. As for the terminology and game content that was cut and re-added, I'm not particularly attached to it so much as to get upset about someone removing it, although asking would be nice ;). Personally, I feel wiki's that aren't confined to one one area, like wowwiki, are going to end up growing out of their britches so to speak. Our articles might start out small and concise, but I see no problems with them developing to be all inclusive.--Elamdri 18:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Deleted Incorrect Info

I've deleted the claim about 'levelling to 70 taking weeks', as, to put it simply, it's wrong. The evidence presented backing it up is a single reference in passing on a website discussing World of Warcraft in general, claiming that getting to 70 would take 960 hours of playing. On my own character, I have 21 days measured by the game's own playing meter, which would be only 504 hours, yet I am level 70, so this is obviously incorrect. Not only that, there is a well-known guide, Joana's Levelling Guide, which gives a video of a character getting from level 1 to level 60 in 4 days 20 hours of playing (116 hours), and this was before a recent patch which actually reduced the amount of experience you need to get from level 1 to 60. Zmidponk 17:56, 27 December 2007 (EST)

In reference to the controversy section of your article: All information present is hearsay. You even say that in the article. You claim to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia" and yet you include open hearsay in you articles. This does not make sense. Expect change.