Talk:World of Warcraft: Cataclysm

Refs
Let's please use cite web for these web-based refs, please. - Denimadept (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, saw those other ones with normal refs. Will do if I add any more KimiNewt (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should use the new list-defined references, to make the text easily readable. I already made a start.--Totie (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Story from the official site
Isn't the story text copyrighted somehow? BeŻet (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a Blizzard employee posted it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.187.108 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 September 2009

OMG
This story line is dirctly taken from guild wars 2 ..... --87.227.96.88 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that’s not entirely true. You see, the lore/storyline surrounding the Cataclysm has been in existence long before Guild Wars. The Warcraft franchise is much older than GW, and the story of Deathwing too. So you could say GW copied WoW, but then you could argue that WoW copied Dungeons and Dragons, but then you could still argue that D&D copied from the likes of the Lord of the rings. But then you could argue that LOTR copied from folklore. At the core of it, none of these ideas are wholly original, but they are original in there own right. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While your sarcastic response would typically be correct, the line and wording and context could easilly be stolen from a released game, no matter how far back the "lore" of the story was solidified. Either way, I don't like the "story" section of this article, it feels too much like it was just copy/pasted from elsewhere. Gpia7r (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Detail loss
The edits over this period haven't been compensated for. I'd avise any copyeditors to star with the revision prior to that series. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed "last expansion" paragraph
I removed the following paragraph:
 * According to Warcraft's director of design, Jeff Kaplan, Cataclysm will be the final expansion pack for World of Warcraft, with future add-ons to be incorporated into a weekly update system.

..because I would really like to see a more reliable source for something which would be such major news. I'm wondering if something was lost in translation here. --Stormie (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Release Dates
Just a preemptive warning to avoid similar situations as were seen in the Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King articles; do not insert release dates into this article based on whatever amazon.com or similar websites cook up. They make (more or less) random guesses to ensure that you place your money with them when you preorder, and as such it is not reliable information. A release date does not have a place in this article until it's confirmed by Blizzard themselves. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes indeed, well I remember the pain of removing retailers' fictional release dates from those articles again and again and again and again and again. If it doesn't reference a press release from Blizzard announcing the date, it doesn't go in the article. --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rating
Has Cataclysm actually been rated by the ESRB yet? --85.81.86.44 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't. Could be necrophilia-porn in the finished version for all we know (unlikely). The ESRB website has ratings for all games up to Wrath of the Lich King. Fribbler (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No but i believe it will be rated T like all the other WoW games. --Poohunter (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Better gfx
Didnt Blizzard brag about how they updated the graphics in this update? Yoü know, better textures, better shaders etc. Or was that in the privious game..? I think I read it in Wikipedia somewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.15.55 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary graphics update in Cataclysm will be the water, which judging by screenshots has been improved upon tremendously. Perhaps we should get a screenshot up! --85.81.86.44 (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Water, slime, fire, lighting have all been improved. I am also inclined to believe that trees have been drastically improved as well. --Tsukiakari (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re refs
Um, did you know that we can use the ref's system that way? It's a rather new implementation, and I much favor it over the old. Wouldn't want to war over them. --Izno (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to argue with new styles, but I haven't heard about this... you got a link by any chance? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LDR. --Izno (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah... I didn't know anyone had added perameters to reflist... that's cool... I doubt I will start using it myself anytime soon (sounds a little over complicated to me), but feel free to change it back if you want... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information
I got rid of some incorrect information about the new cata races —Preceding unsigned comment added by L froud (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which races? I know there will be Worgen and goblins for sure, i dont think you got rid of those did you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohunter (talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Hello. Just to note, the original Worgen and Goblin descriptions here were copy-pasted directly from the Cataclysm website, so I improved them into what we have now.

For reference, here is the description in question; 

I can see that there are a few bits of it that could be viewed as copyright infringement. Understandably so, as I preserved them from the original descriptions listed on this page (which, as previously mentioned, were copy-pasted by someone, from the Cataclysm page). I reckon that only the first two sections of the description could qualify as copyright infringement.

Proposed replacement
The Worgen are a race of ferocious wolf-like humanoids whose origins remain shrouded in mystery. However, it appears that they are created by the spreading of the worgen curse; once afflicted, a human will soon turn into a worgen, his mind reduced to a primal and feral state. This curse of the Worgen has extended into Gilneas, the last human kingdom of the north, turning its denizens into the worgens that will be available for play. Gilneas had been sealed off from the rest of the world by a great wall for many long years to protect the kingdom from the threat of the Scourge, and this mighty barricade now also serves to contain the worgen within.

Some Gilneans, however, believe that all hope is not yet lost. Many denizens of the once-proud and prosperous human kingdom remain hopeful that a cure for the Worgen curse may soon be found, while others have nearly abandoned all hope, dreading that the wall might one day fall, which would allow the world to see their shameful condition - and worse, allow themselves to spread the curse.

--85.81.86.44 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC
 * The section should be removed entirely. If you look at The Burning Crusade, you'll notice that there is no particular section about the new races either. Currently they only consist of lore and class combinations, which is not a thing Wikipedia should care about. We're not a fan page, but an encyclopedia.—Totie (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus can determine what should and should not be included about these races, but I wanted to note that a rewrite has to be in completely original language. Material like "The Worgen are a race of ferocious wolf-like humanoids whose origins remain shrouded in mystery." runs a real risk of being too closely paraphrased from the source: "The worgen are a race of feral wolf-beasts whose very name inspires fear. Theories regarding their history abound, yet the worgen's origins remain steeped in mystery." This is particularly of concern when dealing with a fictional source, as the courts have typically afforded more control to authors of fictional material than non-fictional. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in either case, there should either be a Worgen section or the Goblin section should be removed. As of now there's only a goblin section which is misleading at best. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any autoconfirmed user is free to write a section on the Worgen (so long as it is in original language) or to remove the section on the goblins. If you don't have an account and don't wish to create one, you can propose changes to this article and type editsemiprotected next to your proposal, and a registered user will make the change, if it seems appropriate. The edit protection on this article expires on 5 January, and I hope it will not have to be renewed. Unfortunately, various IP addresses were used to restore the copyright violation to publication, which necessitated the protection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to persistent efforts by random IP contributors to restore copyright violations to publication, the article has been protected for a short time from unregistered edits. If this problem persists when the protection expires, it may be necessary to extend it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an editor who has helped keep this article in line (But not so recently), I will try my hardest to make sure copy-righted material never finds it's way into the article again. Thanks.--Misortie (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be keeping an eye on it for a while to make sure it's stable and to ensure that IP contributors don't go back to restoring the text once protection expires. But for the protection of Wikipedia, this is one issue we should all pull together on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Racial descriptions
Somewhat lengthy and in-depth descriptions of the races have been added by someone again. As Totie pointed out above, this is not consistent with the article for the previous The Burning Crusade expansion. So, should they be shortened down once more? In either case, something needs to be done as they are not entirely accurate in the facts they present. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Significant Edits for Quality
I have edited/rewritten the entirety of the article for improved readability. I've removed the race descriptions, as they exist in a separate article already (Races and factions of Warcraft) and instead linked to that article. The features paragraph at the top nearly mirrored the one found in it's own section, so I removed it. Schwinghammer (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC) um hey does any one know who changed basicaly, the whole thing its all like about bunnys and false stuff? lol it is funny as shit tho. XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.255.149 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 May 2010

um lol i gess it was sum glitch or something cause i went to show a friend the "evil bunny" it said "evil dragon" so yea disreguard what i just said. :X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.255.149 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 May 2010

Improvement tag
It would seem that the tag is no longer required, and that this article does not, in fact, need "additional citations for verification." Should the tag be removed?


 * Yeah, I think it should be. The amount of references seems fine for an article of this size and for a game in this relatively early stage of development. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"This is the best game we have ever made!" Blizzard said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.209.12 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As nobody's challenged this yet, I've taken the liberty of removing the tag in question. Should anyone feel the article still warrants it, feel free to say so here. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Removal of Thunder Bluff"?
I'm not familiar enough with the procedures of Wikipedia to edit this myself. However, I have followed the developments of Cataclysm very closely and have seen no information stating that Thunder Bluff would be removed from the game. Therefore, I believe it should be removed from the page. Either that or a source needs to be provided for such information. Wadark (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Thunder Bluff was never removed, so you were right in doing so. Given the nature of Cataclysm, it was prone to being riddled with rumors during development, some of which I have still been having to remove as I watch this article. I would remind everyone to ensure that content is verifiable before they add it to this article. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New race/class combo section
In the same fashion that the "Wrath of the Lich King" article explains Death Knights in depth as a new feature, I think the New Race and Class Combinations section is relevant information about the product. It is a simple explanation of one of the most significant new features of Cataclysm. I removed the section on Goblin and Worgen classes, as that is more along the lines of fan-site or trivial information, but the new race/class combos is a big part of what the product, and as such the article, is about. --JASpoon (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree about its relevancy, but it just does not appear to 'look', the way it is written out, very smooth. I just personally believed that it could be written better. I myself do not know how, but as it appears we can't find a better way to write it out I have no problem with the way it is now. Dobat 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)

Dwarf and Troll Warlocks were announced officially a while ago: Raistuumum (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Rais, I had heard rumor about that but never saw an official announcement, I apologize for not looking into it further before editing.


 * There are two conflicting sources of data: Cataclysm race/class matrix found on the current Cataclysm features page which does not show dwarf or trolls getting a warlock class and Ghostcrawler's mention post in the forums from May saying "Trolls and dwarves can be warlocks. It's official." Discuss! Rwalker (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not conflicting. The first reference was released long before the second source. So instead of conflicting, they coincide and give the complete picture. JASpoon (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Blizzard is constantly updating the Cata site with new content, so why don't they update the race/class matrix on the official site? I'm just saying they could solve the issue with a little site maintenance. Rwalker (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think having a separate section just for new race/class combinations is misrepresentative of its importance. The two races introduced in The Burning Crusade were way more important than these new combinations, yet they are only mentioned in a single sentence in The Burning Crusade article. Shouldn't the actual cataclysm - the complete reworking of the levels 1-60 quest zones and the basis of the entire expansion - get a section before new race/class combinations, which are pretty insignificant in comparison? I think you're completely wrong when you say that the new combinations are more important than the Worgen and Goblin races. In order to implement these new races in the game, entirely new starting zones had to be created with unique quests, items, and environmental assets. It took a hell of a lot of development time and creative talent to create all of this new content. In contrast, enabling Tauren to be Paladins was little more than a few bit flips. sdornan (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Protect
Can someone please protect this article so only mods can edit them? Someone was trolling and I changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.87.170 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A few days ago someone changed the release date to read "Tomorrow". I almost wet myself with excitement until I actually thought about it for more than a second. Strydom21.04 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Public reactions to the new feature changes
This should be documented in the article. The reason being is that many players in the World of Warcraft community are very displeased with Blizzard's recent changes to the classes and how they work (myself included). Blizzard is liable to have massive quits from the seasoned players of the game (some of whom have been with the game since the original WoW) because Blizzard keeps making the game easier to play. Some people want a challenge and Blizzard just isn't giving it anymore. I can't prove this. However, look at the WoW official forums and you'll see many people complaining about this stuff. This has been going on since Trial of the Crusader came out in Wrath of the Lich King. But enough of my rant. I don't feel like putting my rant into the article (nor would it be appropriate) so somebody please post something about the public reaction to it being "mixed." Vedalken (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a public reaction, but disagree in some of the areas you commented on. Not that I don't believe people are displeased but they are actually working in increasing difficulty, not just in the field of 'PVE', as I have heard but no official opinion on it, all portals to major cities aside from mages have been removed to force you to go there manually. (Flying over the zones so you actually participate.)

Now aside from my discrepancies I will gladly create a public reactions section if we can get one reference from a credible source on -anything-, I don't care what. Lets brainstorm on this and make a section as I believe this is the most controversial expansion yet. Dobat the Hobbat 15:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Forums aren't really considered credible because they're forums... Even if a Blizzard employee posted in a thread, it still wouldn't be credible. I'll try to dig up something on mmo-champion.com and the like. Vedalken (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, unless it's on the main WoW page it isn't credible, especially not their forums. MMO-Champion has a history of being correct on most subjects in WoW so perhaps that would be a start. Dobat the Hobbat 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)


 * This should not be documented anywhere, because really, it is nothing but mindless, incessant whining with no root in reality. People are afraid of change, as can be documented by the numerous QQ threads on the official forums that follow each and every WoW patch release - this has happened ever since vanilla (the original version of) WoW, and the reactions to most of the patches have been far greater than to 4.0, by the way. Let it be noted that despite this, Blizzard's subscription numbers are still growing and people tend to realise that hey, the changes are actually pretty good once they get over the initial kneejerk-nerdrage (WHY IS MANA ORANGE?!?!?!). Blizzard have pointed out numerous times that the vast majority of the people threatening with quitting do so because they foolishly believe they can scare the developers into complying with their every wish and that few cases of people carrying through with such behaviour have ever been documented (and they are the ones with access to subscription information, not we). I hope this clears things up. :)

--77.215.75.103 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Wikipedia is neutral. Therefore putting the opinions of a few individuals, who's numbers and even (heaven forbid, but we are after all talking about the WoW Forums) sincerity is not verifiable, in the spotlight is tantamount to going against very clear guidelines that Wikipedia articles must adhere to. This is veiled POV pushing, and this article should neither be "Ogmzors cataclysm rocks" nor "wtfz i hate teh clysm". - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To sorta address this topic, I added some information about the decline in subscriptions under Reception. I won't say that these numbers directly enforce the opinions we see on forums and such, but it does gives us some insight into how players feel about the current expansion. kegofham 10 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kegofham (talk • contribs) 05:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Development
I see that speculation has been a recurring problem for this article. Particularly about the release since Blizzard has yet to officially announce it. Any information about it whether its from MMO-Champion, GameSpot, or WoW.com is speculative and equally plausible as a result. I suggest that the article be revamped more like a current events article where if it was reported by a notable third party source per WP:CITE then it should be included. Generally this is a good idea because there's been so much misinformation. We're going to have readers come to this article having heard a number of stories about the release, and if this article can give a broad overview as to what has happened so far, acknowledge the fact that Blizzard has not officially announced the dates, and note that BlizzCon 2010 is the most likely time for the official announcement, it will leave all readers and editors represented and satisfied. Alternatively we can throw out everything that doesn't meet WP:VERIFY rock solid, which would be most of the development section and only be able to report from Blizzard media releases as everything could be changed once the game actually comes out; after all the game is still in beta. Mkdw talk 07:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have edited a part of the article that discusses the release date to give it a more tone of how speculative it is, I am not the best at getting across what I mean in words however. But I will gladly assist in cleaning up the article more. Dobat the Hobbat 12:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)
 * The grammar was slightly misleading but I understood what you wanted to write. That Blizzard employee in the post did not specify any dates, and that has all been MMO-Champion speculation. While the timeline of a release and an arena season after 1 week has been announced, the Dec 7th date has not. I hope you don't mind but I've restored the last paragraph since it clearly states Blizzard has not made the announcement yet. Mkdw talk 16:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I sorely miss the point of citing fan site speculation regarding Amazon misinformation and beta client data mining to the information given here. It's already been stated that the release date stated on this article should be the official one from Blizzard. Curmudgeonry (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's important this article include that much speculation has occurred. Primarily because we're going to have Amazon.com customers, MMO-Champion fans, GameSpot and Kotaku readers all looking up the actual release date since other sources have been all over the place. If we can summarize what's going on in the rest of the third party news sites and consolidate the real information in that Blizzard has not made any announcement, then we'll have to deal with less misinformation being added here (as it will already be here, but correctly marked as speculation and balanced with the other sources), and it will be the most complete article of information about the release on the internet. Mkdw talk 16:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, what you consider a complete article, I interpret as incessant babbling about rumors. If you think it adds value, I won't remove it but the release date should still state 2010 and not the uselessly ambiguous 2010-2011 which you keep changing it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeonry (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incessant babbling perhaps, but Blizzard's safety buffer by never announcing release dates until weeks before the actual release creates a fine mess. Think we should do the best we can in representing the rumors and exposing them for what they are rather than saying the release date in Dec because MMO said so. MMO-Champion is accurate most of the time, they make very calculated guesses, but they're only guesses at best. I only came to this article because of so much misinformation and Wikipedia generally should give a broad overview of all the notable sources, dribble in this case. I agree on the dating if that's the last outdated statement Blizzard made. Mkdw talk 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I whole heartingly agree with Mkdw, Blizzard almost never even announces an official release date, as they are now. All current release dates are rumors and Blizzard merely states that it will be within 2010, or 2011. (If that.) And we need to make clear these are all rumors and speculations about the release date. Frankly I do not see any of it as 'Incessant babbling'. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 17:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll concede it's relevant for now. My negative tone to the use of the speculations from Gamespot and Kotaku was because they were initially used to justify listing the release date as 2010-2011. Curmudgeonry (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

December 7th
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1994-Cataclysm-Beta-Build-13117

Release Date: December 7th. mmo-champion has always been realiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.248.197 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Until an official source (ie: Blizzard themselves) gives a release date, any edits made to the release date will be reverted on sight. Half  Shadow  21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read the article before you edit it IP. You would have found out that MMO-Champion is not affiliated with Blizzard Entertainment and their announced release date is purely an educated guess. Mkdw talk 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I put a hidden warning beside the release date, but I'm not sure how well it'll work; a moderate number of IPs don't seem to have the intelligence of swamp water, but I have to be able to say I tried... Half  Shadow  22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll at least mildly deter them, perhaps the GorillazWiki will take notice as well, if not we may need to put it under some protection if this edit war keeps up. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 02:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mdkw, false. you should know that MMO-champion.com is a website associated by several Blizzard Entertainment empoyees. Any employees with current info slaps it onto the website such as leaked photos, videos, info, etc. . . Any PTR patches, announcements, in-game sources, appears days/weeks before its attached to Worldofwarcraft website. Unless mmo is unsure, they would say that they are unsure, or use the words "possibilty, maybe, probably. . . " November 2nd according to MMO was a "target release date which was confirmed later on by CEO of Blizzard Ent. and you should read the article before you say anything. It was a statement. .  not a guess. A week(7 days)earlier from season nine arena, is an accuracy. If they werent sure, they would say It'll "Possibly" be released december 7th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.248.197 (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And when we hear this from Blizzard themselves, it'll get changed. A website that is right 'fairly often', much less one that deals with leaked information (which is often wrong, misinterpreted, oh, yeah, and also illegal) doesn't cut it. Half  Shadow  16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have no idea what you're talking about, especially calling me out on being wrong. Where to begin, MMO-Champion was started by a 20-year old who lived at home in France named Boubouille. He sold his website to Major League Gaming but still works as this manager and operator. He is the only employee that works at the website and has 15 volunteer moderators on the forums. That said, Major League Gaming is not affiliated or associated, in the business sense to Activision Blizzard. Case probably solved here, but I'll keep going. Boubouille: A lot of the info is gathered from forums or emails I receive, I also get the help from a few databases to get changes on items and things like that. (Wowhead and Thottbot mostly) On major patches I also spend a lot of time browsing the game files with WoWModelViewer and MyWarcraftStudio to see if anything changed. A lot of their information is estimated off educated information such as the release date in which Boubouille calculated the expansion pack updates in comparison to the past. Not by any official correspondence with Blizzard Entertainment. I've been through the entire corporate subsidiary list and their share-holder quarterly reports regarding marketing and advertisement and I can with complete confidence say that MMO-Champion is in no way affiliated with Blizzard Entertainment. None of the Blizzard employee's that leaked information to MMO-Champion.com, that wasn't already available on the Activision Blizzard websites or blue posted on its forums, had the blessing of its PR department, and in fact there have been numerous Blizzard employees in the past that have been discovered and subsequently fired.

If you had bothered to check yourself, you'd even see a statement by MMO-Champion that they're not officially affiliated, nor associated for that matter in the business sense. Blizzard actually lists its partner companies on its main PR page; they list everything from costume companies to toy makers, surely they would list a company that OFFICIALLY announced the release dates of their direct product -- or maybe you made no attempt to know what you're talking about and just decided to call me out on it. Mkdw talk 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've decided to answer our favourite IPs reply despite it breaking a ton of Wikipedia ToS, especially the swearing. To begin with, MMO-Champion may be right most of the time, in fact I've never seen them wrong. This does not mean they speak on behalf of Blizzard in an affiliated, associated, or official, way which means their information is speculation, very good speculation, but speculation at best. I'm sorry you find it tough that despite doing a very good job at it, MMO-Champion will never be an official source for anything to do with Blizzard Entertainment, and in the academic world we call that an inconclusive source -- regardless of how accurate its history. I'll concede that my reply was harsh, but proportionate to your first reply. Mkdw talk 03:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL if MMO-Champion is always right and never wrong. . . That would make them reliable then; wouldn't it. . . re·li·a·ble [ri-lahy-uh-buhl] –adjective that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information.

Just like if i were to create my own website, COPY info from Worldofwarcraft.com and paste it onto mine. Wikipedia would say WoW.com is right and my website is wrong even though its an exact replica. --216.249.168.8 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhhh yes, and that would make perfectly logical sense. Please go troll WoW forums and leave Wikipedia to the adults. 12.86.230.202 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is MMO-Champs has been wrong in the past, even if it's been right more then it has been wrong we are still taking the chance to hope the ratio is 100%. That's not how it works, MMO-Champ isn't a website that just takes information from WoW.com it speculates and it uses sources that it believes to be correct. We do not know those sources and we cannot dig them up and rely on them just because MMO-Champs past history has a good rap sheet. Dobat the Hobbat 12:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC) User:Dobat

The development section is a history of all the events that unfolded during the game's development. The key word being history, not oh I don't find that interesting to read, or I'm not used to reading so I want everything in point form and 3 words long. Mkdw talk 02:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Brill/UC controlled towns
Towns controlled by Sylvanas/Forsaken rule have all been drastically overhauled to the point of being completely new and unrecognizable from before, finally with their own character- Brill being the most easily accessible example of this. Also, the plagueland areas have also been drastically overhauled. In comparison to Stormwind, these have had many more changes than that place, although mentioning it IS worthy since each faction's capitol cities have had changes (with Orgrimmar especially so). With this in mind, though, perhaps the list at the bottom of the article could be updated to reflect as such, as I don't think "Org and SW, with minor changes in others" suffices with the extremity of the changes that are also in other areas. --Tsukiakari (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that I believe the quote in the article was more of a city-only point of view (so Org, UC, TB, Silvermoon), whereas Brill, Andorrhal and other HAVE recieved updates, they aren't the faction capital of UC, so I don't think listing every change is valid. Coreyfan (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also known
I find the 'also known as' to be ridiculous. "Cat"... seriously, that's someone's attempt at making an abbreviation. It reminds me of a similar case when someone tried to argue Microsoft was known as Micro and Msoft. I'm going to remove them until someone can produce a citation that those abbreviations are commonly used by notable third party sources and not catch phrases people are trying to coin. Mkdw talk 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the only abbreviation I know of commonly used everywhere is 'Cata'.I have not seen 'Cat' anywhere. Feel free to remove it until an actual citation is given. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 00:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree: It's certainly not verifiable, so it doesn't have any place here. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 20:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sales information correction
The following "Cataclysm has sold more than 3.3 million copies in the first 24 hours of its release." isn't entirely accurate. From the company press release they admit they are including all digital presales from November 3 to December 8th. That is over a month of digital sales, and in store preorders. I think it should be changed to something along the lines of 'Cataclysm has sold more than 3.3million copies in the first 24 hours including digital presales, and preorders'. 76.123.149.130 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the tiny italicized fine print hidden in there. Doesn't seem like many other sources caught it or included it in their report. I decided to use the wording 'digital presales' as worded by the press release. Mkdw talk 08:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New Features
Shouldn't this be a little more organized? It seems really almost randomly placed together with almost no co-hesion or organization. I know it's a list, but would it be better for heading for 'Class Changes' and other things like it. I'm willing to do the work, I'm just wondering how to fix the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyfan (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Game is Out
A lot of this article is currently written in a future tense, and most likely has not been edited since before Cataclysm was released. Correcting this should probably be a priority for those editing the article. NickGrayLOL (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger of "awards" into "critical response"
The awards section is a single line. If it is not possible to expand this section, then this section is unnecessary and should be merged into critical response. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 08:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Patches
With the release of each major patch (4.0.3a, 4.1) someone adds the new features to this page. Shouldn't this page be about the expansion release (4.0.1) and not a history of the patches that added content? Neither World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade nor World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King have this extra info. Rwalker (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, It seems to me that in order to be fair and reasonable, we should A: create history of patches on every world of warcraft game (Burning crusade etc...) or B: remove the patch information.DarkCorrectioner 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper grammer question
Each zone has its own storyline, through a series of quests intended to keep the player interested in the story and exploring each zone.[6 Im new here and not entirely sure what i can edit, But i would like to revise this because it seems to me to be a sentence fragment.(DarkCorrectioner (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Go ahead! (we'll fix it if it's not done very well. :). I agree that it reads like a fragment. I would suggest tweaking it to "Each zone has its own storyline which can be explored through a series of quests.[6]" --Izno (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tides of Darkness?
Wasn't Deathwing introduced in beyond the dark portal with a bunch of other horde heroes like grom/kilrog/etc? I don't remember him being in vanilla Warcraft 2 but there aren't exactly many good sources out there on this sort of thing and I cannot find my old manuals. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  )