Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft page.
Archives: 1
 WikiProject Video games
This box: view • talk • edit
Main pages
Main project talk
  Talk page archive talk
Project category talk
Portal talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
  Naming convention talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  Archive talk
  Bot log talk
Cleanup talk
  Archive talk
Peer review talk
  Archive talk
Magazines talk
New! Newsletter talk
  Draft talk
  Current issue talk
Video Game Images talk
Articles
Articles for deletion talk
  Archive talk
New articles talk
Requests talk
Essential articles talk
Featured articles talk
Good articles talk
Task forces
Atari talk
Command & Conquer talk
Devil May Cry talk
New! Gears of War talk
Grand Theft Auto talk
Silent Hill talk
Suikoden talk
StarCraft talk
New! Valve talk
Visual novels talk
Warcraft talk

Contents

[edit] Move to WP:VG

The old Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft is now a task force of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 12:11

Is this taskforce just the result of the failed wikiproject? --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It didn't fail as much as it was abandoned, I don't know what would constitute "failure" of the project anyway. The problem with the old Warcraft project was that we had a ton of Warcraft-related articles (over 100 I believe) that were unsourced, unencyclopedic, and full of cruft, created and expanded on by enthusiastic players and fans. Any attempt to fix them was undone by people doing mass deletions of the articles. I think that broke the spirits of people involved with the project, and people just walked away. Now that the dust has settled we're taking a more conservative approach, and people involved with this project are squashing all the cruft beforehand and gathering sources prior to creating new articles to be sure that this material is appropriate to Wikipedia and not deleted this time. -- Atamachat 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
We of course know where they walked away to (WoWWiki), but they probably should have started there to begin with, as it is a more hospitable place for people who wanted only to tell the world about Warcraft, without all the rules and policies regarding fiction that makes Wikipedia inhospitable to such people. No, it didn't fail, it just died. --Izno (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft Cleanup Strategy

Alright, after some careful thought, I'd like to get the ball rolling on this one. I've noticed that the Warcraft wikiproject has been closed down due to inactivity, so I'd like to migrate the work over to a taskforce under WP:VG in order to get centralised debate.

The strategy here is about developing articles that will push out changes or updates elsewhere. One of the problems with the main article World of Warcraft is that every time there's a patch or change or content update, the article ends up being updated, usually without citations. It attracts cruft really easily and it's a tough job for editors like us to manage those frequent additions while maintaining a GA-class article. So, the strategy is to use the sub-articles we have more and create further ones, create a World of Warcraft topic to contain all the WoW specific articles (not just the warcraft ones). Once that's done, we can look at performing cleanup on the pre-WoW warcraft articles as well.

So, the plan is to have the following structure for World of Warcraft:

  • Lead - add info to direct readers to expansions. Explain that this article refers to pre-Burning Crusade content and that anything post TBC should be in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade or World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
  • Gameplay - as per Atama create a new main article called Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Move the existing content there. Summarise the pre-TBC stuff here. The content is already heavily cited and so should survive as a separate article. It might also be an idea to incorporate gameplay criticisms into this spinoff article. Merge Modifications in to this section.
  • Setting - Cleanup, removing the current cruft and expand by providing context with other games in the Warcraft setting. Merge Major In-Game Events in to this section. Trim down the Corrupted Blood Plague stuff as it already points to a more in-depth article at Corrupted Blood. Move Instances into Gameplay as it's a gameplay mechanic.
  • Development - expand heavily as there's a lot we're not covering about previous game showings, initial reception and so on. Merge Version History into this section, although I'm not sure what value it brings. Also merge information on the World of Warcraft Launcher here
  • Audio - cite fully.
  • Reception - expand further, merging in content from the Criticism of World of Warcraft section while also pointing to the Criticism of World of Warcraft article. Add the {{VG Reviews}} template to hold review scores.
  • Legacy - include information on the Virtual Community here. To reinforce, include further pointers to the two expansions here.

This will leave us with a much more streamlined article that's less likely to attract cruft. and more likely to be condensed and concise. Note that I've not included Pricing deliberately, as I'm not sure what value it adds.

The structure for World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade would change to be as follows:

  • Lead - add pointers to previous and next in series.
  • Gameplay - point to Gameplay of World of Warcraft as the main article (so we can re-use content and only have to get it right once). Emphasise differences between the original game and the expansion here.
  • Setting - Again, refer to differences between the original game and the expansion - the introduction of a new world to explore, etc etc.
  • Development - how the expansion was developed, beta phasings, etc. There's also information on the Collector's Edition Making-of DVD that may be citable.
  • Audio - include mention of the Audio CD (collector's edition item). I have a copy of the CD to help here.
  • Reception - add information on how the expansion was received and what criticisms were made of it. Again, refer to the Criticism of World of Warcraft article.
  • Legacy - if there's any BC-specific legacy, include this section.

The structure for World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King would follow suit as follows:

  • Lead - add pointers to previous and next in series.
  • Gameplay - point to Gameplay of World of Warcraft as the main article (so we can re-use content and only have to get it right once). Emphasise differences between the original game, TBC and this expansion here.
  • Setting - Again, refer to differences between the original game, TBC and the expansion - the introduction of a new continent, etc etc.
  • Development - how the expansion is being developed, beta phasings, etc.

Further sections on Reception can be added later.

This then leaves Gameplay of World of Warcraft, which would have the following rough layout

  • Characters - what the player can create and how the player's character works (races, classes, professions)
  • Creatures - what the character interacts with - NPCs, mobs, etc.
  • Items - what the character uses to interact with other game elements
  • Instances - special game sections such as dungeons(normal and raid), arenas, battlegrounds etc
  • Realms - how realms are described etc.
  • Misc - possibly include Voice Chat, Armoury etc.

This article can then expand logically as further content is released.

The topic World of Warcraft would then become World of Warcraft, World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, Gameplay of World of Warcraft and Criticism of World of Warcraft

So, what do you think? Gazimoff (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead changes / additions are going to need to implicit, else we end up with a self-reference.
Gameplay of WoW: These are my thoughts, rather than suggestions: Move races from Warcraft (series) to this article. While the other Warcraft games also have the races, the 10 playable races are much more pertinent than anything else. For the setting, that should be trimmed and have a pointer to Warcraft (series), which will need citations at some point.
Reception: Yes and yes. But could definitely use an expansion.
Development: This is where I think the current version fails the most; I'm relatively certain we could obtain enough sources for a four or five paragraph on the development of WoW. I disagree with the thought that it should reference the previous games, in favor for the section on development for each of their articles, and/or/as well as expanding the section on WC (series). As for merging the version history, citing the patches could be used in such a manner: "x was changed" in patch x,{citation} because the devs thought x should occur.{citation} But that's the only thing of use, and odds are, the second citation would have the relevant reasons and changes anyway. To be had, it probably shouldn't have a version history; wowwiki keeps tabs on these things, and it's a little crufty.
"Spam problems" can probably be done away with, or have a mention of them merged into the main piece on development. Keep the citation about the realworld study, and the why, and what the devs did to respond to it, but otherwise, remove the (in good faith) additions on it still ocurring, unless we can get good citation for those.
WoW launcher: I'm hesitant to merge that into development... Perhaps a subheading, but it just doesn't fit.
Pricing: I don't see the value of this section, now that you bring it up; if people really wanted the pricing of WoW, they could look it up on Amazon or at wow.com. Keeping a history of the pricing isn't really necessary, either; it costs what it costs now.
Legacy: The "virtual community" will be hardest to cite, and that's what we have to be thinking about. If we can find the citations, I'm all for keeping/merging it. But if not, then there's little value in holding onto the information which can't be cited.
Pop culture: The information on the movie should be shifted to Warcraft (series), where it also is; I'm not sure which is more up-to-date. I think the section could be done away with completely, but if not, merge what information we can into the "reception" section, as the satires and what not can be used there. Much as I love Leeroy, he should be in the virtual community section.
I'm sure there's a bit more I could add on my thoughts, but otherwise, I like your game plan. =). --Izno (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. To go through each point in turn -
Lead - I'm thinking of the markers that we have in a similar way to disambiguation pointers at the very top of an article, almost pre-lead.
Gameplay - I like your thinking. My intention was for Warcraft (series) to cover the initial RTS games, becoming part of a separate topic that would include Warcrarft II and III, together with expansions and Defense of the Ancients as a primary article for a featured topic. That strategy is a long way off though, but we can plan for it.
Development - yep, I'd like to merge the content of Version History without keeping the structure or prose and integrate it into Development in exactly the way you described.
Spam Problems - move to Criticism of World of Warcraft.
Launcher - is a bit problematic. It's not a gameplay thing, but it's part of the game software. It was something that was developed as a tool to run alongside the game, but it's not a part of the process but an end product. It also exists in both original and TBC, and probably WotLK. I'm open to thoughts here. Gameplay, Development, or somewhere else?
Pricing- Agree, delete. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that discourages it.
Legacy - Agreed about citing virtual community. If you can't cite it, don't write it. I think the pop culture stuff should be merged here, as it's all legacy stuff. The movie information should be in Warcraft (series) though, as it's not specific to WoW.
Hope that clears stuff up. I'm not sure on the Warcraft RTS stuff as yet, including Warcraft (series), but it's not crucial to resolve now. If Warcraft (series) ends up as an overall game series article including the MMO versions, that's fine. It'll just take a while to think how to shape it, that's all. Gazimoff (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Moved here to form a more centralised discussion. Further, I think it may be worthwhile to dissolve the Criticism article into it's related main articles, as criticism articles are generally discouraged now. Gazimoff (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox for Gameplay article

I'ce creted a sandbox for the gameplay information at User:Gazimoff/Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Please feel welcome to add cited content to it. Once it reaches critical mass, I'll move it to the mainspace. Many thanks! Gazimoff WriteRead 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy paste current contents of the gameplay section below what you've got currently; that way, we can move text as we find citations for it. While I wouldn't say the current prose is FA worthy, I'd rather start with something than nothing, if that's alright. =) --Izno (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just as a forenote, this will be hard without a copy on me of the actual manual (don't know where they went). However, there do seem to be a couple references out there with ease of use. --Izno (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have the original manual, the BradyGames strategy guide and a handful of other bits. Also, Worldofwarcraft.com has a ton of primary source material for gameplay. It's going to be a struggle, but it'll be worth it.Gazimoff WriteRead 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This looks good but I'm worried about WP:RS, specifically WP:SELFPUB. The article relies heavily, very heavily, on Blizzard itself for the content of the article. You might argue, well of course, this article is about gameplay and what better source can there be than the developer of the game? Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series has managed to almost completely exclude Bethesda Softworks as a reference. I'm afraid someone might ding the article as a violation of WP:V because the info came from the people who published the game in the first place. That's my only complaint right now, good job otherwise. -- Atamachat 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a tricky one to follow. I'm trying a tactic of fleshing out the article using self-published articles for key points in place of liks to WoWwiki or elsewhere, with the idea of interleaving them with game preview and review citations to ensure notability. That way, the reader has the assurance that what we're discussing is factually accurate, while the project can be assured that what is included is notable enough. It should be interesting when the final result is finished. I'll be the first to admit that gameplay sections typically cite the manual as a reference, but I think we can use both here :)Gazimoff WriteRead 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Further to this, I've added a list of source links to use inside the article once we're nearly done with it These include beta and patch notes, reviews and previews, etc. Should be enough to cite almost everything from an alternate reliable source if needed. Anyway, time for sleep now.Gazimoff WriteRead 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real-time strategy article needs help

Hey folks. Just wanted to direct some eager and intelligent minds to the real-time strategy article. Right now, the article is B-level status but it's important enough that it needs to be pushed to good article status. More than anything, it needs research and references to verify the statements in the article at this point. Please check in when you can. Randomran (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on merging book articles

They were tagged as possibly non-notable until just recently, then untagged, probably due to the mistaken thought that notability is inherited. I was thinking of merging to two lists: List of Warcraft books and List of World of Warcraft books, possibly with a third of List of Warcraft role-playing game books, or something to that effect. While I'd like to find real world RS that would overcome Weight issues, I'm fairly certain that would be difficult. While I'm also of the personal opinion that they should all have their separate articles, I think this is an elegant solution to any future issues of notability. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started this at User:Izno/Sandbox#Book list. How do the first four look? I'm thinking to call it List of Warcraft literature, but I think List of Warcraft books might be easier. I would like to include all the Warcraft extended universe source books, as well as the RPG... --Izno (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warcraft vs. other video games and taskforce should even exist

Why do the following exist, but Warcraft equivalents always seem to get deleted?

These are only a quick few examples. Does World of Warcraft have to get 50 million players and start it's own sovereign country to start getting equal treatment on Wikipedia?

Why don't you just ditch the stupid taskforce, apply your efforts to WoWWiki (which despite being roughly the same size as Wookiepedia is also only a redirect), and just redirect or interwiki link to WoWWiki instead. Seems like time better spent.

I'd love for someone to explain how we got to this situation in the first place, if Wikipedia is so fair, well-run, and self-correcting? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk • contribs)

Essentially summed up in WP:OTHERSTUFF, unfortunately. There was an editor that went on a binge deletion of Warcraft articles, and none have been recreated with reliable secondary sources which assert real world notability and which show that the information on any given character was verifiable. (which, the versions that were deleted did not do so). The same happened to the article on WoWWiki, more because there are only one or two (possibly notable) articles out there about the wiki. I'm the one that added the unreferenced tag to Wookiepedia; if no-one references it in the near future, I may take the next step of deletion (I would like not to, but no-one seems interested in making it look pretty).
Why don't we ditch the stupid task force? Because some of us would like to see the content on WoWWiki on Wikipedia, for one, and for two (I'm sure this is a reason), because Wikipedia's bigger, gets more hits, yadda yadda yadda. As for fair, well-run, and self-correcting... what world are you living on where a democracy (hell, even a republic, and they don't have to be federalized, though of course that model works best for republics) provides for those things? You're living in a really weird world if so...
And, btw, I edit WoWWiki. ;) --Izno (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason for the difference is that Wikipedia has rules about what can and cannot be included, while WoWWiki can be a lot mroe flexible and accomodating. That doesn't mean to say that the work done here is any more or less important. There's a place for highly detailed and specialised information, just as there's a place for Haynes Manuals. It does mean that anything we write has to be sourced carefuly before we release it into the encyclopedia.
As to why bother? Well, Warcraft stuff is just part of what I work on. I also work on other videogame articles as well, mainly working on cleanup or sourcing articles at risk of deletion. The warcraft articles were mostly deleted before I started working on Wikipedia, so it may in time be possible to bring them back. We'll see though. Besides, even when WoW goes the way of other MMOs and all that remains are a few private servers, there will still be other videogame articles to cleanup and work on. Gazimoff WriteRead 08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wowhead

I recently made a article for Wowhead after seeing the thottbot article. I'm new to wikipedia more or less, I got the box on the bottom but don't know how to get Wowhead on there beside Thottbot, if anyone can help me please do so (and post how to do it here if possible). I classified that article as a stub and if anyone can expand on it that would be great as well. conningcris 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)