Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 14

Merge/redirect proposal of Wowscape
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.  Gazi moff  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. Wikipedia 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 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 wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia, 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.  Gazi moff  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. --  At am a chat 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I merged the China government part here into the stuff already in video game addiction. 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)
 * This section was dropped today (which I support). I suspect it will be readded... addiction is so very popular.- sinneed (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it gets re-added without references that are specifically about World of Warcraft addiction, I'll remove it. Inserting information about addiction in this article falsely implies that addiction is a bigger problem in WoW than in other online games. --  At am a chat 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even things that refer to WoW are often like the FCC thing...WoW is biggest so they mention WoW. This doesn't make it relevant to WoW... it just means that people who don't know any other MMOG are likely to know WoW.  It may be that we wind up with something like a "Video game abuse" section mentioning that video games can be misused, abused or overused and pointing to the overuse/abuse article.- sinneed (talk) 18:18, 29 June 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 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 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. --  At am a chat 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 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. --  At am a chat 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. --  At am a chat 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assed206 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * References need to conform to guidelines set at WP:RS to be considered a reliable source, and WP:EL has some requirements as well before we add it as an external link. I took a peek at that site, and it's just a public forum for people to post opinions and videos, which is very far from being satisfactory. The "WoW culture" you've mentioned is essentially trivia and not encyclopedic, unless you can show that it has had some kind of impact on the larger culture outside of WoW itself, and that's a pretty steep hurdle to get over. --  At am a chat 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WoW also has its own wiki http://www.wowwiki.com/ which covers gameplay as well as guilds, lore and culture. Could someone who has rights to edit, add this link to the page as I have insufficient privilege? GreenLady UK (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think wowwiki is already linked at the bottom where extrernal links are, its on a line with three links in case you missed it. Dark verdant (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please fix or delete link
Under "Ongoing gameplay" the link "See also: World of Warcraft Professions" just redirects back to main page. Should this link be deleted or fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.192.78 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * World of Warcraft Professions was nominated for deletion a couple of weeks ago, and unanimously determined to be game guide material not suited for Wikipedia. Instead of deleting the article completely they redirected it back here to the main page. Thanks for pointing out that there's still a link to that article, it obviously isn't any use anymore. I've fixed it. --  At am a chat 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Worlds.com Patent Lawsuit
While Blizzard hasn't been included in Worlds.com's lawsuit against NCsoft, WoW faces severe problems should Worlds win the suit. I was wondering if this is worth including in this article, and if so where should it be placed. For those unaware of the lawsuit I am refering to, see the NCsoft page for a summary. Frohike14 (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of the lawsuit and I think it's crazy. But in any case it's not relevant to this article. Any "severe problems" it might face would be pure speculation and constitutes original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, nor is predicting the future. Even if you could find reliable sources specifically mentioning the potential impact of the lawsuit on WoW, it still wouldn't belong in this article because pointing out this info for WoW when it applies equally to nearly all MMORPGs is redundant. You'd have to add the information to every single MMORPG article in the encyclopedia. It's much better to keep all of that information in one place. I would say that it would certainly belong in the MMORPG article itself, however. --  At am a chat 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Input methods: 3.1 and joysticks
Patch 3.1 is adding config files for Joystick and high button-count controllers. Should this be added to the input methods section? Arathanar (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After patch 3.1 goes live yes, otherwise it's too early. You never know, Blizzard might remove that from the patch at the last minute because of some unforeseen technical problem. --  At am a chat 01:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect description
WoW Classic intro: "4 years has passed when the mortal races banded together against the might of the Burning Legion... Now the drums of war thunder once again"

Note "united against the might of the BL", that's the conclusion of WC3:RoC. So logically, WoW has taken 4 years AFTER RoC, and 2 years after tFT (not 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulhis899 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

An external link is wrong.
'The official US World of Warcraft website' link takes you to http://www.wow-essentials.com/

I believe it is supposed to point to http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/

Joezach (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore this now. Joezach (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what we call vandalism around these parts. Despite the semi-protection people still do it from time to time. --  At am a chat 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

-Removed Mayple (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WoW tabletop RPG not mentioned
There is no mention of the World of Warcraft tabletop role-playing game anywhere in this article. This strikes me as a rather large omission. -- Manatrance (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't strike me as "rather large", since the RPG isn't very popular and certainly hasn't shown itself to be particularly notable. But it warrants a small mention. Why don't you fix it? --  At am a chat 18:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
Thumperward tagged the Criticisms section, and I agree, actual "Criticism" sections don't have any place in Wikipedia articles. The thing is, it doesn't seem like that section is really about "criticisms", and the items in it shouldn't be lumped together anyway just because they're negative (that's the reason why we don't want criticism sections).The whole "addiction" section should be deleted because it's not even about WoW (China instituted the 3 hour rule for all online games in China, and WoW isn't even the biggest online game in that country, not even close). "Usage Problems" could be moved to "Development", since it deals mostly about connection problems not long after launch. "Sale of virtual goods in the real world" could be moved to "Community" (which is right now a stub of a section). "Corrupted Blood plague incident" could be moved to "Gameplay". I'm really not sure what to do about "Security concerns". --  At am a chat 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking to work further on this article in the future - I'll see what I can come up with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a particular objection with the Corrupted Blood section, it doesn't strike me as criticism at all. It effected only a small number of players and only a small number of those were actually disgruntled. If nothing else this needs removing from the criticism section. James. 13.20.137.12 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, while I'm sure some people weren't happy with what happened with their characters (it practically made low-level characters unplayable) the section contains more information about how it took place and how it resembled real-life disease progression. --  At am a chat 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest renaming the 'Game "addiction"' to something like "Addictive potential" (without any quotation marks, of course) and actually focussing on the topic. The alternative would be deletion of that section, as Atama mentioned above; as it is, the title has nothing to do with the content. 84.59.174.138 (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In Other Media problem
Jean Claude van Dam did not do a commercial. The citation link is pretty clear that the French commercial is done by alexandre astier.
 * Hmm it seems like the page on wow-europe.com has since been updated, but if you check you'll see the Wayback Machine's archive from 2008 with the Jean-Claude van Damme commercial. The commercial itself is on YouTube at . --Stormie (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Halifax Bank
While the new development is interesting, it doesn't seem to have caused interest in the media. It isn't immediately searchable on their website. I don't think it should stay in very long at all without a wp:reliable source.

"However, in the Autumn of 2008 this was no longer the case and Halifax accepted that the majority of transactions were legitimate and removed the default ban."

This seems more useful in an article about the bank.- sinneed (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I almost removed it right away but decided to give the person who posted it a chance to provide a reliable source. I doubt that's going to happen. How do we know that the person they talked to knew what they were talking about? --  At am a chat 15:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

'''In reply to the above, I posted the updated information. It came from the Fraud Prevention Department when I contacted the Halifax (my own bank) about subscribing to Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft Game. The reasons I was given by the Customer Representitive was that children were using their parents credit/debit card to purchase game time over the internet and many parents were calling in complaining about transactions they did not recognise. So as a preventative measure they automatically declined transactions of this nature and contacted the customer who placed it by their registered account details. ''' croc97 01:22 20 June 2009 (BST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.188.252 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. Unfortunately, WP:OR is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. We can't accept original research of any kind. If you can find the policy published on Halifax's web site, for example, that would be acceptable. Otherwise we can't include that information, because Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. I personally believe you, but that doesn't matter. --  At am a chat 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

System Requirements
Is this going by the box or by reality? I play using Ubuntu Linux and have better performance than either Mac OS X or Windows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.202.62 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It goes by "reality"... the secondary wp:RSes available. The box requirements are what is required in order to play the game with the support of Blizz.
 * If one doesn't care about support, one can run it on a abacus if one finds it workable... the graphics seem very limited and having effects on the online world might prove difficult. :) - sinneed (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that although you may have enough hard disk space to load a copy of WoW its continuous updates mean you will require more and more space. You cannot play if you cannot fit the new updates on your hard disk.
 * I can't really see that. I have always been a bit dubious of the need for the SR information at all. But I don't find many others who share that doubt. ;)- sinneed (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any game with DLC requires ever-increasing disk space. I should think that the reader can infer from the description of various patches adding content that maybe their old hard drive from 1992 doesn't have enough girth to handle the game. --King ♣   Talk   14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Population
Maybe is because where i am is 2:00 AM and i`m sleepy but do you think is worth mentioning the fact that if WoW were a country (counting only the official servers) would be the 75th most populated in the world. Zidane tribal (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, unless you have a reliable source backing up that claim, such a thing would be considered original research or at least synthesis. --  At am a chat 21:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. Census source + Blizzard WoW Population press release = WP:SYNTH. Find a source talking specifically about your claim, and it's fair game. --King ♣   Talk   14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even with a source, the argument is a bit specious. At any given moment, the "population" is much much smaller.  The "population" of WoW is more like the population of Time Square... it is 0, but sometimes there are a *LOT* of people there, and it is rarely completely empty.- sinneed (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Faction changing
Accoriding to the WoW offical site, it seems that players will be able to change their factions (not yet implemented). Do you think we should include this in the article? 143.43.8.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Don't know any particular reason not to. That is a Blizz poster on the forums.  But this is so fuzzy and far away I can't even imagine what to say.  Maybe something like "On June 29, 2009, Blizzard announced that it would implement..." blah blah in the post-launch development area.  - sinneed (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Now available to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.236.70 (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Game addiction section

 * This is a partial restore of the archive for this section, as this small bit is pretty new discussion.- sinneed (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This section was dropped today (which I support). I suspect it will be readded... addiction is so very popular.- sinneed (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it gets re-added without references that are specifically about World of Warcraft addiction, I'll remove it. Inserting information about addiction in this article falsely implies that addiction is a bigger problem in WoW than in other online games. --  At am a chat 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even things that refer to WoW are often like the FCC thing...WoW is biggest so they mention WoW. This doesn't make it relevant to WoW... it just means that people who don't know any other MMOG are likely to know WoW.  It may be that we wind up with something like a "Video game abuse" section mentioning that video games can be misused, abused or overused and pointing to the overuse/abuse article.- sinneed (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, I was editing an article about a MMOG and mentioned that to a coworker, who asked, what's a mog? I answered "blah blah blah (definition)..." response: blank stare.  Then I answered: "Games kinda like WoW." and the coworker understood immediately. This is a person who plays no computer games whatsoever.  WoW is Well Known, now.  Every notable mention is not going to be notable in the WoW article.- sinneed (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See Also section inappropriate
It seems to me that the current "See Also" section violates NPOV implicitly and is irrelevant to the page in general. At the time of writing, the "See Also" section is composed entirely of:


 * Computer addiction
 * Internet addiction disorder
 * Video game addiction

To my knowledge, none of these are referenced in the article. If such a link were to be extant, however, it would seem that only one of the three would be necessary. Ilikerps (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect I know why it's like that. There was a study reported in the media last year which drew a link between WoW and the addictions/disorders mentioned. However the study isn't quoted or ref'd in the article is it? So those items don't really seem to belong in the See Also, which would leave it empty. Seems like an easy call to me...cut it. Doc  Tropics  03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is there because there was an entire section with "Main" and "See also" under it, about addiction. However, it was not well done, and died.  WoW is mentioned heavily in the press, and in the articles.- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That said... I don't oppose chopping them... just wanted to point to the root here.- sinneed (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking it down 2 out of 3 of the See Also links off. This is quite stereotypical. --68.49.32.245 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the entire section myself, as it does not relate to anything stated in the article. The above user may have been thwarted by the semi-protected nature of the page. (If it is really believed that one of the links should remain, I am not very much against putting it back in.) Ilikerps (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. None are relevant. You did the right thing. --  At am a chat 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is relevant, it's one of the main criticism of World of Warcraft. While the place might be incorrect, it is still relevant.--99.192.79.245 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what he said was, it's not relevant to anything STATED in the article. Video game addiction was ONLY mentioned, rather passive-aggressively, in the 'See Also' section. It didn't tie into the article text in any way. And so, it was removed. --King ♣  Talk  15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * wp:RS say so? Mostly they seem to mention WoW as an example of a big MMOG, and say there is a problem with game overuse, sometimes calling it the very popular "whatever addiction".  I would encourage addition of the content at video game addiction which gets very little attention, with wp:RS that specifically talk about WoW addiction.  If someone generates such content I will be happy to put a VERY SPECIFIC, and very small summary of the WoW part here.  An objector argued that since WoW is the biggest MMOG, there should be a section about video game addiction here, when I changed the name to "video game overuse" or some such, and they changed it back to "addiction".  I am not at all sure of this, as I see experts squabble about whether or not it is addiction, and if so, whether or not it is a problem beyond individuals who already had other problems... that is whether it is a condition or a symptom of some other condition.- sinneed (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it sad that addiction isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article. WOW takes a great deal of time to play; there are obvious side effects from spending a lot of time playing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.162.237 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're sad. Maybe you should play a different game that doesn't make you sad? --  At am a chat 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sad that you wasted your brain cells writing that reply. No addiction mentioned in a WOW article?  lol  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.170.78 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yanked "usage problems"
===Usage problems=== In September 2005, Blizzard gave all European players two free days of play as compensation for repeated network failures. During the early days of World of Warcraft's U.S. release Blizzard also gave out free days to compensate players for days lost due to problems on their end. The issues were suspected to be Blizzard's upstream Internet service provider. Weaknesses of the client-server model used by World of Warcraft have also been exploited in order to crash the cluster of servers that make up a realm. Exploits also include characters being able to instantly change location or teleport.

At various times, World of Warcraft players have experienced problems with connecting to and logging in to the game. Cases include long delays waiting for usernames and passwords to be authenticated or large queues on certain realms. Sudden server crashes that would force realms offline also occurred. The situation became worse when trying to coordinate activities across a number of players or guilds on the same realm. On May 3, 2006 Shane Dabiri, World of Warcraft Lead Producer, stated that new realms would be introduced to relieve the burden on existing ones. Existing realms would be upgraded. The paid migration service was also unveiled at this time.

Placing this on the talk page. I don't feel the section is really a WoW specific issue, as with the addiction. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with argument, though I do support the removal.Maybe a sentence would be worth including in the post-launch development area, mentioning the "growing pains" and how Blizz handled them... but probably not, IMO.- sinneed (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also question the argument that it's not a WoW-specific issue, as the section speaks specifically of problems that occured in WoW, cites sources that discuss issues in WoW, and even quotes a Blizzard producer discussing problems. The addiction section, by contrast, spoke about online game addiction in general and linked to sources that weren't talking about WoW exclusively (on the contrary, when it talked about Chinese reaction to online game addiction it was shown that WoW has only a small presence in that country). I endorse including some of the info in this section in the post-launch development area, it is good to show that there have been problems with the game without giving undue weight to it. --  At am a chat 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every [online] game has issues with servers, and I'm certain the other MMOs can ascribe to these problems as WoW can (perhaps not, by popularity...), and every game has its exploits. --Izno (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not every online game has issues with servers filling up as quickly as WoW does. WoW has certainly been a victim of its own success in that area, more so than most other games. Giving free gameplay days to users isn't common, and I speak as someone who has played dozens of MMOPRGs. I'm not saying to keep all of the info as it was, but some of it should be kept and again trying to equate the section to the addiction section is flawed, because once again these are issues that actually occurred in the game, not some generic complaint about all online games. --  At am a chat 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That needs to be referenced by reliable independent sources which say "WoW has more problems than comparable MMORPGs" before it should go back in. As it was, the sources didn't support that assertion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. No it doesn't. If you want to actually say, "WoW has more problems than other MMORPGs", then yes it needs to be sourced. But to include problems it has had, you only need sources that show that WoW had those issues, and we do have such sources. It was my opinion that WoW has had problems with server populations going out of control, and this opinion is based on two things; my own experiences as a WoW player compared to my experiences in other leading MMORPGs I've played, and the fact that WoW has a higher population than other MMORPGs. I think that my opinion is a reasonable one. Does anyone have sources that specifically say "WoW has had no more problems than comparable MMORPGs"? I don't think so. So we don't have sources either way, what we have is judgement as editors, and the question should simply be, "what improves the article"? Does removing documented issues with the game, backed by reliable sources, even commented on by Blizzard, does removing that make the article better, or worse? I think trimming it makes it better, because it looks to me that it goes into too much detail into something that's not that big of a deal. But I think that removing all of that information completely, not leaving any of it in, I think that makes it worse because it helps to show that the game does have its problems now and again. Or do you want to imply that the game is flawless? --  At am a chat 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I "want to imply that the game is faultless". That's a mature characterisation of my comments.
 * Feel free to try a condensed rewording if you want; I just took issue with the way that you framed this in your last comment, which was that the WoW article needs a section on this because it is uniquely or specially affected by technical faults. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, then I guess that we have a compromise. Let me see what I can come up with. --  At am a chat 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WoW Movie
Set to be released in 2011 i think, i remember reading it on here but obviousely its been removed. I really feel that it should have some kind of mention here.--86.26.110.119 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been removed because there's no such thing. There is no "WoW Movie". There is a proposed movie that will take place in the Warcraft universe, but it will reportedly occur before the events of the World of Warcraft game, and will therefore not be about the WoW game. It is instead mentioned appropriately at the Warcraft (series) article. --  At am a chat 00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently included under the heading 'Film' this paragraph incorrectly states that the film will be an adaptation of the World of Warcraft franchise." This is widely reported as being not the case. Rather, the film will be an adaptation of the Warcraft universe and take place 1 year before the events of the World of Warcraft game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarramcgrath (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * can "See also: Warcraft (series)#Film adaptation" be added to the part about the "different media" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.180.22 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't quite see why it would be good for this article? How will it provide more information about the WoW game? The relationship goes the other way, and WoW is already linked there.  The article itself is already well-attached to this one.- sinneed (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, no criticism section?
I don't get it, every other page can have criticism sections or a separate criticism section, but not WOW?. Not because a product is popular it means that criticism cannot be aplied to it. The GBLT clan banning was very real, the gold selling is also real as well as it was the post launch problems and usage problems, not to mention the game addiction topics. I have no idea who is washing away these things that already have a source. I believe it's downright censorship, all because they "stain" a popular game. This isn't wowpedia, it's not supposed to have useless information about a videogame (corrupted blood has it's own article, really?), but real information, if there has been backlash on any topic, this shouldn't be censored as it has been right now.--99.192.79.245 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * wp:criticism - it is better to put the criticisms in the parts of the articles they criticize. Banishing anyone who doesn't support the subject to the criticism section is clearly not going to lead to wp:BALANCE.  Consider, for example, the reverse... articles begin with how awful the subject is... then, in a section, "Positive elements" or some such.  Not Good. - sinneed (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked to be sure the criticism spread throughout the article had not vanished... reception... blood plague... security concerns... real life money sales. *shrug* I would encourage you to study the article, and if there are criticisms of WoW, covered in wp:RS, either create an account and build a bit of experience editing under it and add it... or introduce it here on the talk page.  On the addiction thing, please consider video game addiction, it needs work and WoW specifics can be brought here.  It is also not protected (or wasn't last time I looked).- sinneed (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WoW Addiction
I think WoW addiction would be a good angle, a couple let their kid die due to their addiction]. Also bad physical and mental health. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source. That's a list of unsourced testimonies. And I hate to say it, but the shortsightedness and stupidity of two adults isn't WoW's fault. --King ♣  Talk  17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see it relating to WoW... but nothing to do with addiction of any kind... just with humans... an example: A man or woman leaves a child locked in the car and goes in to work.  They aren't addicted to work.  They just blew it.  It won't make it into the article on work, or cars.- sinneed (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe die hard WoW lovers. I just love em. :-)--Sikh-history (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough to know to comment on the content of replies, not extrapolate as to the motivations behind the reply. They're right, none of those look like reliable sources. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring policy in order to push an agenda isn't going to work in this article, nor are personal attacks against editors that disagree with you. --  At am a chat 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that people can become addicted to video games. But singling out WoW as the problem would be akin to having a section dedicated to alchoholism on the Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) page. It's inappropriate, and as Atama says, serves only to push an agenda. --King ♣ Talk  16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Has everyone lost their sense of humour. I am a WoW player myself on the European Argent Dawn Realm. I run several guilds. So chill people. :-) --Sikh- History 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to avoid people misinterpreting what you say, don't troll talkpages. How's that for a plan? --King ♣  Talk  18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sincerity is a much better policy than sarcasm when trying to express yourself on Wikipedia. No reasonable person would have interpreted your comments as jokes. It's especially not humorous when there are a number of people who are sincerely attempting to insert unsupported allegations of addiction unique to World of Warcraft players. Note that I myself actually don't play WoW (I did for quite some time but quit over a year ago). --  At am a chat 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially limited as we are by WP:AGF. It's bad business going around 'making sure' people being genuine- it tends to piss off the people that are. --King ♣  Talk  19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok chaps, slap on wrist noted but:-


 * 1) Is there anything in WoW (different from other games), that makes it more addictive?
 * 2) Is there something in the game mechanics, that means you have to play it for a certain amount of time?
 * 3) Are there more health related problems to WoW more than any other game?
 * 4) Are their articles that would back any of the above up? Thanks --Sikh- History 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No reliable source has ever been presented in this article to even suggest that WoW is more addictive than other games. It's more popular than other games, and more well-known as a result, which is why its name often appears in connection with articles discussing online game addiction. But nothing has ever been shown that targets WoW in particular.
 * I will speak as someone who played WoW for over a year, and has played other online games both before and after (many games). If anything, WoW is more friendly to casual players than other games, for 90% of the content you don't really need to be on for more than an hour at a time to advance in the game, nor do you need to be on many days a week. I have a full-time job and a wife and daughter, and still managed to advance a number of characters in the sporadic times I played. (I realize this is original research on my part but I'm just answering the question to the best of my knowledge.) In contrast, the first MMORPG I ever played, Everquest, often required sitting in front of the computer for 6 hours or more trying to get a particular reward from an enemy (because only a small number of people could make the attempt at a time, and you had to wait your turn, and it took hours of killing the same thing over and over before the reward you wanted randomly appeared).
 * I don't think there are "health-related problems" specific to any game. Any health problems might be caused by inactivity, eye strain from staring at a computer screen, or repetitive-motion injuries. But all of those problems are due to computer use, not specifically playing a game. For example, a job that involves sitting in front of a computer for 8 or more hours a day would be just as harmful.
 * I think I've answered this, but articles that have been presented about the dangers of online games never single out WoW for any particular reason, aside from the fact that WoW is a well-known example. --  At am a chat 22:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow should have a critisism section becaus it has many problems! The bifest isnt mentioned at all, the constant rewarding of players who "rest" or the 2x experince for new accounts and other things constantly making the game easier for new players 71.222.43.190 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't. Criticism sections are a good sign of a bad article. Criticism should be worked naturally into the article. -- King Öomie 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the idea that the game is too "easy" for new players is an opinion not suited for an encyclopedia. (Even though I admit I actually share that opinion.) --  At am a  頭 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Other media
In the book Server Down, the game of "War Of Worldcraft" is fairly central to the story, and is a very thinly veiled WoW reference... with major changes for the convenience of the author. I think the section is already too large, and am not adding it.- sinneed (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I note we don't have an article on Server Down. Is it by a notable author? --Stormie (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO there are way too many articles on books and movies...but that is just wp:OR :) Anyway, it is J. M. Hayes.- sinneed (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

in "Other Media" Second Skin -- WoW Doc.
Recommend following text: 'Director Juan Carlos Pineiro Escoriaza has released a documentary that "examines people whose lives have been transformed by virtual worlds in online games such as World of Warcraft, Everquest, Everquest II and Second Life. The documentary follows a group of online gamers whose lives are intensely woven together inside and outside the virtual worlds, a couple whose lives have changed since meeting online, and an avid player whose life spins out of control due to his addiction to playing MMOs." Second Skin focuses extensively on WoW players and features numerous in-game shots.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.50.83 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See the discussion above about the "World of Warcraft" movie that isn't actually about WoW. If the documentary is about MMORPGs in general, and WoW is only one of the games covered it doesn't really belong here. MMORPG might be a better article to include it. Also, the text you intend to include looks like an ad for the film. --  At am a chat 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your criticism. However, as all of the six major characters in the Doc are WoW players, and all of the screen shots come exclusively from WoW, I would argue it is much more of a WoW doc than a MMORPG doc.  Its sections on gold-farming and WoW addiction are all specifically tailored to WoW players as opposed to other MMORPGs. How about this "Director Juan Carlos Pineiro Escoriaza has released a documentary called Second Skin that deeply examines the lives of six World of Warcraft players."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.50.83 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual documentary is currently located at Second Skin (film) (you linked to a very different film) and the article goes against what you are saying. The article states that only about half of the people chronicled play WoW. Again, the movie is not about World of Warcraft, it happens to show the game in the film but mention of it in the article would be the equivalent of trivia which isn't helpful. Maybe someone else can chime in but I don't see how mentioning the movie will improve the article. --  At am a chat 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a telling point is that folks want to put this stuff into the game articles, rather than the game abuse article, or the MMORPG article. I think once well-sourced content sticks to the abuse/addiction article, a short bit here, pointing there, would be great.  At the moment, I don't see any such content.  I couldn't even make a good argument for the See-also's because of the weak tie to WoW.  I think those should be here, but the argument against seemed pretty compelling.  The problem seems no more related to WoW than to any other MMOG, and is arguably mentioned because more English-press-readers know what WoW is, compared to EQ, Second Life, and all the kagillion others.- sinneed (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)