Talk:World of Warcraft

I have just found out that the trail for world of warcraft has become 'free up to level 20' instead of '10 days to play' and have decided that I might has well give it a go again, if only to find something 'new' to do aside from getting zombified in haunted biomes and playing a moderate game that is only cool to me because it is 40k, and it takes up over TEN GIGABYTES of space. FOR THE FUCKING TRAIL. Some games take an hour or two to install. this one? I'm probabaly going to have to leave my computor on overnight. All I want to do is play a dorf...

DON'T DO IT!!!! IT'S NOT WORTH IT!!!!

"Oh yeah, and the Lich king? That guy that was the last big baddy in the WCIII RTS game? Got killed by a fucking two-dimensional add-on character that did not exist prior to Wrath of the Lich King. Seriously Blizzard, WTF?"

>>rage about how expansions ruined the Awesome of Vanilla World of Warcraft

>>don't know who Tirion MOTHERFUCKING Fordring was

Blizzard's writers are clearly not the only pants-on-head retarded individuals involved in this article.

Now who's the retarded Blizzfag who fucked up this article?

Dunno, but it appears that it is staying that way.

• No, for I have fixed this article. Jesus, someone who obviously does NOT play WoW should NOT be touching this article. CrazyThang 21:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What about folks that played it and got disgusted by plot development? --5.254.65.88 08:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The panda

For those who didn't know, Pandarian existed in warcraft 3 frozen throne's orc campaign. I thought it was just a typical joke played by Blizzard back then, but who knows, Blizzard buttfucked warcraft 3's lore too much anyway.

• • It was originally a joke, but a few people saw the image and liked the idea of a "panda race", so Blizzard made Pandarens cannon.

Rewriting, as a disambiguation page or otherwise

Given the existence of the World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game page and the plans to create a page for the board game, I propose that this be remade as a disambiguation page. It would be more efficient to cover them separately in that respect, and the necessity of summing up the entirety of the video game on this page is debatable.

While I don't entirely see the need for an article on the video game, I would be content with it if it was rewritten to cover only the setting of the game rather than the game itself. Ideally, it should sum up the basic story of each expansion and details on the races/classes without forcing the reader to look at a different wiki just because the page refers to characters never even mentioned on this page or the Warcraft page. Gameplay details should also be limited to what was most important in each expansion rather than listing out every little thing, and the rants about Blizzard being the second coming of GeeDubs just plain detract from the article as a whole. The textwalls also make the page a pain to read through as well, so breaking them down would be a good idea. Whether you do that by separating the paragraphs or by removing the parts that aren't vital for a WoW newcomer to know about is up to you. --Newerfag (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• RPG's are based in the world they are set in. Thus, a summary of the plot is necessary for people to decide at what pointbto set the story in. If providing summaries of RPG setting plots wasn't a thing, why would we have so many pages for 40k and D&D? This is just one page afterall. --Thannak (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • True. But still, textwalls are textwalls and a lot of the information within the article assumes the reader knows a lot about the Warcraft setting already so it'll be more likely to confuse people than to help them. That's what I'd prefer to fix, but as someone who never paid attention to WoW in the first place I don't think I have the know-how to decide what is and isn't worth keeping. At the very least, the complaints about Blizzard can go. They sound like they were copypasted from /v/, and not in a good way. --Newerfag (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a /v/ related article, which we tolerate because it's popular or we can't be bothered to delete it.

• Allow me to rephrase that. I literally could not understand most of what was written in the "Game and Expansions" section, partly due to the eye-searing walls of text that felt three times as long as they needed to be and partly because it was written as if I should know every character in the Warcraft series up until then. And if I'm only using it as a setting, I'm not going to give a shit about issues that are only present in the video game which I'm not actually playing and very likely never will play. Is having this rewritten in a way that a total newcomer to Warcraft who has no intention of playing the games can understand it without constantly referring to WoWWiki or Wikipedia to figure out what the fuck is going on too much to ask? --Newerfag (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, explaining the setting in a way that is actually useful to a newcomer is fine. I think a useful thing to do is put the section order back to how it was before Thannak expanded everything, so races (and probably additional characters) are first.--68.204.237.58 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. Right now it's a complete clusterfuck of lore most people know nothing about, bitching about issues exclusive to the game as opposed to the setting, and the fans' reception of the games which shouldn't even be relevant. Those sections could stay, but they'd have to be streamlined considerably in a way that would explain who the hell everyone is, and why they're fighting each other in the first place. And explanations of what "the players" can do should be removed outright- as far as the setting proper is concerned, they're just generic adventurers whose only role is to do all of the work for the actually important characters. All that's needed is a basic plot summary, with enough details to inform newcomers without going overboard and confusing them further instead. For the moment, I'm culling that section of video game only-related information and bitching about Blizzard, because nobody's going to be worrying about how balanced PvP is when they're not playing the game anyway.--Newerfag (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A section for an overview of the major characters is now up. While I'm starting it off with three subdivisions (Alliance/Horde/Other), feel free to make more if that's what's needed. --Newerfag (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting better, but I still suggest collapsible sections lest the "textwall of doom" problem make the page even more unreadable. Remember- if you can't keep it simple, you shouldn't keep it at all. --Newerfag (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Text wall of doom" was never actually a problem, on any page anywhere. Stubs and lack of detail is. Collapsible sections were never necessary, just proper organization of index. --Thannak (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet I found that the problem was too much detail- or should I say, too much unexplained detail and too little context to put that detail in. The new sections regarding the setting information and important characters should go some way to address that, and perhaps it could lead to this page and the Warcraft page being merged at some point in the future depending on how much it gets expanded on. --Newerfag (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I dropped some Forsaken anvils. I know you all will hate me but I calls em as I sees em. --5.254.65.195 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Fuck, These Forsaken Rants

• Are there no Blizzard forums? No fan wikis? These details should go there, or die, and decrease the surplus page bloat.

Also, people keep fixing this hate diarrhea and someone keeps switching it back, which is just awful. --SpectralTime (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Because that part of the storyline fucked up in a way that is beyond awful. Last time I checked 1d4chan was neckbeard saltwiki, and not some robot9k expy. --81.213.214.211 15:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Plus, what the fuck is bloat on 1d4chan? Seriously... --81.213.214.211 15:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My problem with it is that constant references and long rants about Forsaken diminish the pages on the other races. Its okay to be longer, but a paragraph on Night Elves and a fucking book on Forsaken with references throughout the rest of the document is a major problem. --Thannak (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's Blizzard's attitude towards world-building and storytelling nowadays in a nutshell right there. Damn right this is a problem, just less with the article and more with a material it's based on.

Let's take these in order, shall we? There are and they're full of shit. This is a fan wiki. Should they? As far as I know, the others are trying to keep things as encyclopedic and as formal as possible where 1d4chan allows for more... informal, fan(atical) approach "with more opinions, sarcasm, skub, and salt that typically pokes fun of the absurdities found in the settings they discuss." What people? I look at pages' history and all I see are 'positive' edits and occasional formatting by Thannak. If this is a war, I fail to see the opposing side.

Mumble-grumble, you make one bad Christmas Carol joke...

Who called it a war? I just complained that shoe-horning in an eleven-year-old bitchfest into literally every mention of the Forsaken on the page, and also into a few completely-unrelated places for good measure, is exhausting and dumb. You *do* know this page used to be nothing but bitching about 4e, right? It just feels like we've given you as much room to say your peace as a reasonable person could possibly want, and it's just never going to be enough. Bad lore sucks, but you don't see me finding every mention of gnolls on every page of the wiki and complaining about how 5e's are shit, then finding every page that mentions 5e and shoehorning in a mention of how shit the gnolls are. Also, you sign posts with two dashes, and four tildes, like this: "--~~~~". --SpectralTime (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that plaque at the page's start is called "Editwar" so, I suppose, you did. Rather uncalled for, if you ask me, again - no one's fighting, just complaining. Kind of a false advertisement there. Eleven-year-olds aren't usually interested in questions of morality (or poor writing for that matter), however they are about to become interested in Sylvanas' choice of wardrobe, though. Any references for these "few completely-unrelated places"? I didn't get that far into history, no. Who's "we"? "Bad lore" and shitty gnolls don't exactly correlate, don't you think? And for the record, I'm not the one that "dropped the anvil" on Forsaken, merely his self-appointed redactor, and I'm well aware of the signatures - do allow me this undignified pretence of anonymity.

An edit was carefully-removed and carefully-reworked, and then someone just reverted all of it back to the way it was. That's pretty much the exact definition of an editwar, even if this is pretty much just a low-stakes editsquabble. And how the hell are you trying to argue that bad lore doesn't correlate with bad lore? I could go down the page and delete every little whiny nitpick about how much the Forsaken fucking suck outside the designated, novel-length section we already set aside for it... so I think I will, actually. Why not? --SpectralTime (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite the Mess This Article Is

Regardless of other complaints no matter how well- or ill-founded, this article could use a good restructuring. There's a disjointed amount of specific knowledge and assumptions that dance around the page that helps no one except those that already do not need to read the article. Since there seems to be some arguing, I rather not go ahead an implement this without prior approval. The proposed restructure is:

• General Setting Stuff
  • General Setting Information
  • Races
    • Perhaps divided into factions of there's a clean correlation
  • Geography
• Classes, mechanics, other things that can be interestingly transferred to the tabletop
• Plot-related content and developments
• See Also

--Naeondaemon (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)