Talk:Warcraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Races[edit]

Why interreferencing to wowwiki? yes it's good info, but stay on wikipedia? Mallerd (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other wiki websites are common for these types of articles on Wikipedia. 'WoWwiki' is currently the best source of WoW lore information on the internet. Considering these points it is completely logical that there are some external links on this page.--F Notebook (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the "Gnomes" subheading a little bit; seeing as this race has pretty much been a footnote since Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, most of the information is WoW related; I've tried to provide links to external sources if users want more information than what I've provided. Hopefully, my partial rewrite does not bloat the section. --Sarienpalth (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horde races[edit]

Why are the Naga,the Burning Legion and the Scourge listed as races of the Horde?The Great Duck (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's because someone doesn't understand heading levels. It's fixed now. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night Elves[edit]

Just to say, night elves are described as Children of the Stars. Kaldorei, in their language. Unlike Quel'dorei and Sin'dorei, the other two elves, it does -not- contain an apostrophe. [1] I'll change it, this is just to establish the minute removal of a piece of punctuation. TheAdamant (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganization[edit]

The races and factions section dwarfs the rest of the article in size. There is also the problem that categorizing races by faction fails for races that were members of the faction in one game but not in subsequent games. It's also vague how significant a race should be to merit mention on this page (Why are Naga included but Murlocs, Furbolgs, and especially the Dragons aren't? "Playable" is not a sound justification) And probably worst of all, there's never any explanation of what the Alliance and Horde actually are -- only which races belong to it. Change to the structure of the article is necessary.

I propose the details about each race be moved to a Races of Warcraft article, and the Universe article only list details on each major faction. Alliance, Horde, Scourge, Burning Legion, and possibly Goblins are the factions I would list. Each faction should have a paragraph or two about which game the faction originated in, what motivated its formation, which races were founding members of it, and major events from subsequent games that had the faction change leadership or caused other races to join/leave the faction. Basically, answering the question "What is this Horde thing?" in a way that is clear to readers completely unfamiliar with Warcraft. DoctorDiablo (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why later members shouldn't be mentioned. The original Horde only included Orcs and Ogres, and the original Scourge only included former Orc Liches and Nathrezim. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I didn't notice the "major events from subsequent games that had the faction change leadership or caused other races to join/leave the faction" part. I support this proposal, and have added a split tag. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Naga[edit]

How come the WHOLE ARTICLE seems to pay homage only to the Naga? It's too much and the main races are being COMPLETELY IGNORED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.232.170 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moons of Draenor[edit]

I have corrected the 'Geography' section of this article. The previous revision stated "Draenor, after having been shattered into many pieces, currently has no known moons." Firstly, Dreanor is not current. The remains of that planet are called Outland. Secondly, Outland does have a number of moons which can clearly be seen from most regions in Outland. --F Notebook (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection[edit]

In view of the "pattern of heavy sustained vandalism" on this article, I recommend that it receive semi-protection as soon as possible. --F Notebook (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking For Group reference[edit]

Maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason I remember the author of the webcomic stating that LFG was not tied to any specific Fantasy/MMO game. Karakkan (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that LFG is referring to World of Warcraft in an offhanded way; that doesn't mean there aren't references to other High-Fantasy MMORPGs, such as Guild Wars, Warhammer Online, Ultima Online, or other, various MMORPGs. However, you have to admit, the parallels can easily be drawn to WoW even if the races are "generic" high fantasy races. --Sarienpalth (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuke to: 32 Playable Races?[edit]

Basically, the playable races are the basic compounds of the game(s). Yes, it does pertain to World of Warcraft, but are you forgetting that WoW is basically a MMORPG revision of Warcraft itself? This is an online encyclopedia, people! This (that is, deleting the section you are talking about) would be deleting a MAJOR part of the entire database of Warcraft. The reason (in my opinion) that all the races are bundled in the exact same way as World of Warcraft instead of Warcraft is because World of Warcraft (hereby referred to as WoW) is the most current addition to the Warcraft universe, thus we are referring in the most convenient manner as to not confuse WoW-only players. Perhaps, however, we could sympathize and maybe, for instance, put (under the race's name) their faction. But, in my closing statement, the playable races are definitely ideals to the Warcraft universe; deleting them would be deleting precious information from the Warcraft universe. Epithanyseeker (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link problems[edit]

Several of the links throughout the article are circular in nature (ie, they lead right back to this article in one way or another). I couldn't find an appropriate tag for this, so I'm noting it on here. Scify (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sargeras[edit]

I remember reading that Sargeras was the creator and He started the burning legion. In this article, however, is says "After being defeated in the War Of The Ancients the main aim of the Burning Legion has been towards destroying Azeroth through mortal pawns such as the orcs and the Scourge. One of them was Sargeras hiding his essence in Aegwynn,...". It makes it sound like Sageras was a pawn of the Burning Legion instead of one of the major players. Turanis (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it to correctly refer to Aegwynn as a pawn of the legion and describe her as being possessed by Sargeras. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas[edit]

I don't know if it's been discussed, but although I don't actually care for gamecruft, I think there's sufficient references out there to warrant an individual article for Arthas. You know, the central character of two games? Despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we have plenty of similar characters out there with less relevance and coverage such as Jim Raynor, or Sophitia Alexandra, or Kain (Legacy of Kain). I don't feel an Arthas article should be subject to deletionism simply because WoWWiki exists and the old stub was full of in-universe detail. I'd take a second shot at it, but any non-biased thoughts out there? Monere (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to make an article on the Lich King, covering the histories of both Arthas Menethil and Ner'zhul. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since that's his common name it'd probably be appropriate. Monere (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arthas has potential, but he's only mentioned here and there outside of Warcraft products. If you can find the sources, do it! --Izno (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massively excessive plot detail[edit]

The vast majority of this article consists of material which is:

  1. Presented from an in-universe perspective.
  2. Of limited general value when assessing its real-world impact (i.e. how much it actually has to do with playing the games).
  3. Completely unsourced, and drawn only from primary sources (i.e. the games and sourcebooks) in the first place.

As such, I'm going to start going through the Major races and factions section and liberally deleting portions of it which are unsourced, are written from the perspective of the game universe and do not establish why they affect the playing of the game. I expect that this section will end up being less than 50% of the article's total length. The rest of the article is mostly fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the amount of storyline, setting and other cruft, cruft and pure cruft contained in this article is bordering on ridiculous, to the point that it's misnamed and should be labelled as universe and not series. Nonetheless, unless you're already done, I hope you won't eliminate some portions purely because they're unsourced (unsourced + other criteria I have no issue with). It's blatant that they're that way because nobody has bothered to add the source material, not because there's no material out there. I'm planning to help out with reworking the thing into a proper series article, but the pile of retcons, revelations and reshuffling in WoW is so dense that I'd need at least a month to get into the swing of it, time I simply don't have yet. Another small thing - not sure but it seems some subsections are now royally screwed up (i.e. Scourge and Naga). Monere (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered tagging the offending material with {{fact}} and {{In-universe/Video game}} to make it easier for others to clean it up? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ulduar[edit]

Ulduar is redirected here, but the word itself doesn't appear in text. I was intrested of what excactly sentence 'And it's embarasing, that every night I have to fight about who gets to go to Ulduar' (speaking about PC and WoW) means. As I have never played WoW myself, the article wasn't really helpful with this. Now I know its about wow, which I knew from the start, but nothing else. --195.148.29.73 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the endgame dungeons in WoW. It should probably redirect to the WoW article instead, which should really have some actual detail on endgame and the instance system rather than half of it being on criticism. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie[edit]

Given the amount of information here about the movie, and the fact the director has just been announced means we're likely to start getting quite a bit more information soon, maybe the section on the warcraft movie should be given it's own separate article now? -OOPSIE- (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have information, but no title. Without a title, it would be unlikely to survive at articles for deletion due to WP:CRYSTAL. Be patient. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, without a title there is very little ground to create an article. In addition, alot of information here on the movie is news regarding its upcoming release, rather than information about the topic itself. I do not believe it is yet suitable to have its own article. --Taelus (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be created when either; a) the actors are announced b) the title is announced. DarthBotto talkcont 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bring into question the following source; Paul Hayes (2007-08-05). "Warcraft Movie Chronicles: 'WoW' Film at BlizzCon 2007". Movie Chronicles. http://warcraft.moviechronicles.com/2007-08/warcraft-movie-at-blizzcon-2007. Retrieved 2007-08-05. Basically, if you read the actual quote there, it doesn't even say anything about the Warcraft Movie being PG-13, it just states that such movies aren't necessarily bad (with a reference to LotR). I'm going to remove that section, seeing as I found a quote from the very same BlizzCon from the co-producer of the movie that contradicts it by stating that it won't be PG-13 (and that's an actual quote, not some loose interpretion such as in this case). --85.81.86.44 (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C[edit]

I was wondering guys, has it been discussed whether or not to uppercase the C in the titles? StarCraft does it, and just looking at the images for all 3 games in the series, the C in the middle is clearly bigger (extending above and below) the Rs on either side of it. Are there official things using a lowercase 'c' and that's the reason? Tyciol (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all the images do it, but they've been this way for so long... /shrug. If you want to get a consensus together to move them around, feel free... I do believe this has come up before on Wikipedia somewhere, and I think we came up with "most usage is with the lower case c, even if Blizzard markets the games themselves with an uppercase. Blizzard even uses lower case c themselves"... meh. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TRADE is the best place to start reading. In general, we should avoid using nonstandard English even for the names of companies and products unless the nonstandard naming is the most commonly-used way of naming it (such as with "iPod"). The use of CamelCase is far from universal with Warcraft, so we just use standard English conventions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't there be a session for minor races in the Alliance/Horde?[edit]

Aside from playable races, the Alliance is also joined by surviving high elves, wildhammer dwarves, ice dwarves, furbulgs, ancients, treants, Cenarius' children etc. As for the Horde, it has some ogre and forest troll allies.Vulturedroid (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these races play almost no part in real-world evaluation of the subject (they appear almost entirely as single units, mobs or quest givers in the games) there is no need to elaborate on them. We should be striving to cut back on the amount of fictional background detail presented here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the minor races need to maintain some mention. Perhaps in a reorganized page that everyone seems to be talking about having a small paragraph listing the various and sundry races (furlbogs, centaurs, kobolds etc.,) and describing exactly what Chris Cunningham says that they are minor races that mostly give quests and appear as "neutral" enemies in game. While we want to avoid lore heavy content, I do think the role of neutrals as mobs and side quest giving NPCs is important enough to merit a mention, with a brief list identifying the names of the races not being too much detail. I think one thing the article is tyring to do is convey the depth of WarCraft lore without going into excessive detail. Any number of those races could easily become more heavily featured in future RTS titles especially. Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Knight merge[edit]

In July it was proposed that the Blood Knight article was merged into this one, and seeing as I can't see any related discussion around here, I'll start one. Personally I think it should be merged, seeing as the blood knight class is a very specific thing within WoW, so it's really better off in here. Just seems way more specific than any other articles in the World of Warcraft category. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The target section for that topic has since been split off into it's own article, however I still feel that a class is not suitable for inclusion. The section, now article, only dealt with major races and factions anyway. Just my opinion, but a merge is unsuitable here. --Taelus (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up books/comics lists[edit]

I’m deleting World of Warcraft: Death Knight from the books section, because it is mentioned later in the Comics section and fits there better. Also, I’m going to add Warcraft: Mage to the comic list. We may not want Warcraft: Shaman to be added yet, as it hasn’t been released.

I also edited the first paragraph in location slightly so the mentions of the Elemental Plane and the Twisting Nether didn't come out of nowhere later in the article. I'm not sure if "metaphysical" is exactly the right word, but it seems to describe them. Okikage (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing supposed naming controversy section[edit]

I'm removing the following section from the article because it has no sources, from my long experiences with the franchise no basis in reality and reeks of obvious bias and personal opinions. "Rumors" aren't enough to warrant inclusion in a wikipedia article, and as the obviously-later second part correctly states, there's no connection to Lovecraft, rendering the section further obsolete.

"Rumors circulate as to the title of "Warcraft" being a subtle and tributary play on the name of infamous early 20th century fantasy/weird fiction writer H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft's writings dealt with faux-myths of pseudo-gods and monsters of similar nature to some elements of the world of Azeroth. Lovecraft's mythos has been given subtle tributes and nods across a wide array of media as he is often credited with bringing about the modern tone of complex fantasy fiction.

Obviously, this is not true. Warcraft is a word that simply means "the art of war". The only reason it was used in the very first title of the franchise is because it was going to be originally a videogame based on the very similar setting of "Warhammer" miniatures games, but Games Workshop decided at the last minute not to take part in the project." --77.215.75.103 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massive content deletion[edit]

Is it just me, or has wikipedia removed massive amounts of content related to this game? I remember coming here about a year ago and finding articles on many aspects of this game. Now, I can't even find a reference to the fact that these pages were removed, wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.71.226 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was several years ago at this point. You're better off checking out Wowpedia. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

grammer[edit]

grammer in opening must be corrected: 'Warcraft: Orcs & Humans had no expansions, Warcraft II had Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal, and Warcraft III had Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. World of Warcraft has had multiple expansions, namely The Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King, Cataclysm, ...' should be corrected-- i do not believe the use of the possessive had is proper form and will make small correction.

-rasko99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Linux support[edit]

None of Blizzard's products have official Linux support. This should be removed from the sidebar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.195.99.242 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rush deletion discussion[edit]

Rush (video gaming) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming), if anyone involved with this article might be interested in weighing in. —Lowellian (reply) 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with this franchise care to add it to this list?[edit]

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This franchise would likely qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft III: Reforged[edit]

I've added Warcraft III: Reforged both to the timeline and to the intro. Feel free to review it on the matter of conflicting styles, etc.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend 500 edit protection[edit]

The recent controversy regarding Blizzard’s response to a Chinese player has brought out an onset of vandalism by trolls to this page which still hasn’t been fixed and seems to have been ignored by the regular editors. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ECP is not required yet. I've applied semiprot though. -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the races is better than the rest[edit]

Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the races in the video game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I come to revive this topic, because it seems that there was no answer at all. Could someone please add the information that: "None of the races is better than the rest" in the article? Because it's important and true at the same time. Not necessarily this statement this way, just a little bit of an explanation upon this topic on the article. Please reply! Thanks! 190.231.171.103 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a reply... 181.110.70.239 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing we can do without a source that explicitly states this. It's awfully subjective, and theorycrafting often believes certain races have been racial abilities for PVE, PVP, etc. While those differences have certainly been lessened over the years, "they're all equally good" is hardly true or sourceable statement. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warcraft&oldid=1210909424"