Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 20

ARS billing system - Korea
This is fairly minor, but I was reading the "Regional Variations" section, and it makes mention of an "ARS billing system" in Korea, which I've never heard of. I tried Googling it, but didn't find much that seemed relevant. Any chance someone in the know can add a page explaining what ARS is? Merkinmuffly (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite know either: credit card, home phone bill (it gets added), cell phone bill (it gets added), wire transfer, cyber cash (you probably buy coupon cards at a convenience store) are the pay choices. You can also buy a 30-day code from the Battle.net site, for gifting to other people. None of these seem similar to ARS... It's a common acronym in Korea that means Automatic Response System, where you wait for the phone system to say "press 1 for blah, 2 for blah blah, etc" and you press numbers to navigate. Not sure if the home phone bill option fits... I don't remember seeing it before. --Kjoonlee 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Burning Crusade
Burning Crusade is now part of vanilla WoW, doesn't require a separate purchase or additional fees.114.220.16.205 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So is Wrath. The scope of this article is only of classic. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Patch release was today
The page still says 5.0.5(Sept. 18, 2012) As of November 27, 2012, the version is now 5.1--208.65.83.118 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed for NA only. User talk:Unfriend12 21:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Classes: Warlock
World of Warcraft Classes: Warlock has been created (I think recreated, but the title is different slightly). I have tagged it for PROD deletion, and the PROD was removed without comment. I have therefore tagged it with an AfD tag, and the discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft Classes: Warlock.User talk:Unfriend12 08:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Minimum System Requirements
The minimum system requirements for patch 5.0.4 have changed significantly.

The minimum OS Requirements are as follows.

Mac: Mac OS 10.7.3 on an Intel Core 2 Duo. NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 2600. 2GB of RAM. 25GB of Disc Space. DVD-ROM drive required to install from disc.

PC: Windows® XP/Vista/7 with latest service pack. Intel® Pentium® D or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2. 2 GB of RAM. 25GB of Disc Space. DVD-ROM drive required to install from disc.

Those may be the published "requirements", but I have Mists of Pandaria running just fine on a Pentium 4 (no HT) 2.4 GHz, 1GB with onboard Intel graphics, XP Pro SP3. Graphic detail has to be turned down to the minimum, but it works at a serviceable 30 fps. This is in Cataclysm areas; can't speak for Pandaria since I don't have the expansion yet. It would be nice to get this info back on the article; anyone have a link to the requirements at release for historical purposes? Noderaser (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Glider (MDY Industries lawsuit)
The page talks about the lawsuit as a pending action. It should be updated to reflect that the court found that Glider infringed upon Blizzard's intellectual property by making an illicit copy of the World of Warcraft client in order to avoid Blizzard's anti-cheating software, Warden, and ordered MDY Industries to pay Blizzard six million dollars. Or perhaps a link should be added to the "Glider Bot" Wikipedia page which focuses on the details of the lawsuit and makes that same statement supported by a (now defunct) citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_%28bot%29 24.96.100.122 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay section
The article explanation of gameplay makes no sense. Wikipedia is supposed to be for general readers, and this would only make sense to seasoned WoW veterans.184.147.123.113 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarify, please. It makes no sense in that you don't understand it, or it makes no sense in that you don't see why it's there at all? - Denimadept (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WoW television comercial
the article states that the television campaign didn't start until 2008, yet there are videos of the television comercials on youtube that were posted as early as 2005, the Mr T advert aired in november 2005, three years before this articles states they started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.232.224 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * After looking at the link provided as a reference for the statement doesn't seem to link to proof. (Maybe it used to) http://www.wowwiki.com/Timeline_(World_of_Warcraft) states that they were released in 2007 (Possibly due to this article), I am currently trying to hunt down a good reference. Looking on Google reveals no results about the TV adverts earlier than November 20, 2007. Reference has been updated with a Joystiq one until a more reliable one can be found. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Current Version removed??
Why was the current version removed? Needs to be re-added and changed to 5.2.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.10.194 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The field was removed from Template:Infobox video games. I don't agree with it myself, but that's why. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Subscriptions now down to 8.3 million
I don't have a Wikipedia account so I can't make the change, but the current item says "As per 2013 investor call for the fourth quarter of 2012, official subscriber numbers are at 9.6 million."

The latest: "As per 2013 investor call for the first quarter of 2013, official subscriber numbers are at 8.3 million."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578471463434435612.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4B78:2006:FE7A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Though I did not use the WSJ source.  There is also a PDF from the corporation linked at the source article on cnet.au.Unfriend13 (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Most lucrative game ever.
As quoted in http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-top-10-highest-grossing-video-games-of-all-time-2012-6?op=1 this is the most lucrative game ever, and by far. I think it would be informative to add that information, more informative than "highest subcripstion of any mmo by guiness record" everybody knows this. And it's not benign either, the other top 10 games goes from 700 milion to 1.4 billion for second place to over 10 billion for WOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.247.39 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is there at the site you list. This is an encyclopedia.  I don't see an argument for inclusion of the profitability bit here, but I don't feel strongly.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon
How come there is no mention of the video Jimmy featured on his show celebrating World of Warcraft through the song 'We are The World of Warcraft' featuring players from the game? 86.9.43.75 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason it should be mentioned? Is it particularily notable? -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes because there is a video for it on YouTube which I took the liberty of citing in previous edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.43.75 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are roughly 103,000,000 videos on Youtube. This is not an indicator that something should be included in an encyclopedia.  A reason to include would be: coverage of the WoW video in the general press or a book.  Maybe.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Blizzard have featured the video on their World of Warcraft website [] how's that for coverage? Jking88 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't.  Now if CNN commented about how the video was important because x, y, z, p and q, it would be coverage.  "A reason to include would be: coverage of the [corrected to say "song"] song in the general press or a book."  Seriously.Unfriend13 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretending that a bunch of quotes of the Blizzard site is a Player posts on the chat forum not a source
There is no content there. The source is Blizzard's forum (edited). That is a quote set of quotes. Pretending it is a secondary source is specious.

Also, this is a player talking... not Blizzard. The entire thing needs to be removed, see wp:RS... this is a forum post by a player... a player respected by Blizzard, but a player nevertheless. On that note, I am removing the content entirely. Until it is sourced to an actual RS, it should not be readded.

Edit note: well, that was pretty much a mess. Corrected header, corrected grammar, corrected factual error (source was not Blizz... source was a player) Unfriend13 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC) edits Unfriend13 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the forum posts alone would be indeed a debatable primary source of information. Therefore we rely primarily on secondary sources (like Phoronix) which do fact checking and have editorial overwiew etc. So if the professional IT journalist Michael Larabel creates an article, we can cite and use this article (we don't know what other sources he had used and checked). Therefore I suggest re-adding with the phoronix ref, maybe after rewording for clarity. Shaddim (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A better fomulation proposal: While a native Linux client is neither released nor announced by Blizzard, IT journalist Michael Larabel indicated in a Phoronix article in January 2011 that a internal linux client might exist but is not released due to the non-standardization of the linux distro ecosystem.
 * I can't agree at all... they fact-checked that in fact a green-name had posted it. Certainly that isn't debatable, we see it.  However, the source is still a green-name, not a blue-name.  This is like citing the NY times quoting testimony from a trial or before Congress:  the Times doesn't care whether the witnesses knew what they were talking about, they just have to be sure the witness actually said it.  So if the times quoted a UFOlogist, the source would not be the Times, it would be the UFOlogist.  I oppose inclusion, but I don't expect to take it out again.Unfriend13 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia authors are not here for "fact checking" (that would be original research), we are here for presenting the stuff which is evaluated by secondary sources (Larabel is known for having good connection inside the companies... so we don't know if he had other sources too). I think, we can live with the neutral formulation I suggested. Shaddim (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, to be clear, you are breaking wp:RS, by citing a quote of a player on a discussion board as source. You should remove the addition.Unfriend13 (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is debateable, but I follow your interpretation here and focussed the quote. In the general wording I brought back the focus on the article and what the journalist indicated. Hope this is now an acceptable compromise for you. cheers Shaddim (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, another interested editor will come along and remove this bit of trivia, but it is way too unimportant to me to spend more time on. This is a quote on a forum by a user.  That it is covered by a unix afficianado on his widely respected Unix site does not affect the fact that it is coverage of a post on a forum by a player... it does not belong in WP anywhere.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Calgary Expo pic
That image is of a Skyrim cosplay, not World of Warcraft. If you look at the bow zoomed in, you'll find it's the Nightingale Bow from the Thieves Guild questline, Furthermore the armour also appears to be based on the Nightingale armour (sans hood). I'm not entirely sure such an image is appropriate in a World of Warcraft article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.182.151 (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A good point! :) (*edit to add*) This is in "Community and study of player interaction", and with that in mind I think it is probably OK that it isn't a "real" WoW elf. If we need such an image at all, I don't think the game the bow is modeled from matters in terms of the illustration.  It could be used I should think to illustrate the community of any RP game, book, movie, etc.Unfriend13 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I emailed Amanda (the subject) and although she created the costume for Skyrim we found that WoW and Elder Scrolls both based their elves on Tolkien's LOTR. Her work is far more detailed than WoW or Skyrim can portray in video games. WoW elves have such a variation that this one could be WoW as well as Skyrim. This article is lacking any good images. I just thought that a Tolkien elf is a Tolkien elf and that it should be very similar in all three universes so inclusion of her version in WoW should fit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I support leaving this in, barring some other reason to exclude it. Beyond that, I have another very weak argument for inclusion: I wp:LIKE the image and think it adds to the article.Unfriend13 (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to remove it from this article, as it neither accurately represents an elf from WoW nor the style of dress typical in the game. Even though we might claim that WoW elves are based on Tolkien elves, as are Elder Scrolls elves, that gets us into questionable WP:OR territory.
 * I checked Commons for elves, and this is an image of an elf in Judgement armor, which is from WoW (though oddly colored). I would much prefer this one on this article. --Izno (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty convincing argument. I don't see a need for 2 of these, and that seems more appropriate.Unfriend13 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a few more in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosplay_of_Warcraft --Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We could also make a Fan art custom one. I have samples at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of replacements, I don't see any relevance to the current image. It's for Skyrim (Clearly detailed on the image's own page), not Warcraft, so doesn't belong here and should be removed. The idea of finding a replacement WoW-related cosplay is separate issue in my view, though I agree with that course of action. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With no further views expressed, I am removing the photo on grounds that it is specific and clear not to be related to Warcraft. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I created Cosplay images in articles if anyone wants to chime in at the talk page or edit the proposal. According to my draft this image should actually be removed from the article and we should select one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosplay_of_Warcraft if any are good enough to pass consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This search I also set to filter images that have free licenses from Flickr that we can use. I can upload 5-10 and then we can decide if one warrants inclusion. The others can just hang in the commons category for future discussions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay Image
The image in the Community and study of player interaction section of the article is from a different game universe altogether (Skyrim). It misrepresents the elven races in World of Warcraft and, I think, should be removed from the page. File:Silver Elf female cosplay 2013 Calgary Expo.jpg --Rotellam1 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See the section above this. Calgary Expo pic -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will add a gallery here for discussion above. Feel free to add and remove.
 * (all from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosplay_of_Warcraft )--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

please don't remove any tags
Unless you reviewed the article and don't find any issue with the tone. Its practically WP:OWN to ask for consensus for a tag. Tags are allowed to be placed above an article if there are issues. And one shouldn't remove it unless its well reviewed. Now the entire article has issues with tone especially with long section naming of vague analysis such as the plague and several other sections I organized, such as the new "controversies" section. Most of it is explained in a guuidelike way. Hard to tell what's trivial details and what's important.Lucia Black (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of those issues probably already have consensus. Feel free to open a discussion to change it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not about removing content but rephrasing it. I don't need consensus to ask for a better tone. Its not well focused and its probably what made it lose its GA. The tag should be there anyways for those who are experts.Lucia Black (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should discuss the content you see problems with on the talk page. The plague analysis is mostly in the sources. Which material isn't in the sources?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even see the tag I placed for? Did you not read what I just said?? Its how its worded. The "tone", how it informs the reader. That's the issue, not whether its sourced or whether it should be removed.Lucia Black (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which phrases do you disagree with?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Their entire sections. I just mentioned them. Plus the tag should stay until its all clear. You may not like it but their helpful. The issue with the virus is too guidelike, it loses focus on the main point. And same for the plague (in which has its own article) and the community and studies (which really isn't that much studies).Lucia Black (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I support leaving the copyedit and usedate tags out of the heading.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Warcraft film
Can this be added please details [] Jking88 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not. wp:not a crystal ball - and... maybe a link to its article after the movie is real enough to rate one.  Until then... what does it have to do with the game?  Illustrates that it is popular?  That is adequately covered.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be entirely relevant, if and when the film were to materialise. But at this point and time, all we've had for almost half a decade is rumour and conjecture, so let's hold off on anything until there's something more concrete. Justin.Parallax (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)