Difference between revisions of "Talk:World of Warcraft"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Article locked)
m (Overboard!)
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
: 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. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 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. --[[User:Colest|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
  
 
== Article locked ==
 
== Article locked ==

Revision as of 05:24, 12 July 2007

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

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)