Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Version 3.3.3 since 23 March 2010

On 23 March 2010, the game was updated to version 3.3.3. I can't make the edit to the article because it is protected. Nearyan (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV flag

I understand that there is a dispute about inclusion or exclusion of WoW addiction in this article. I understand it is a content dispute, I do not see how it qualifies for NPoV-flagging. I propose to remove the tag, promptly. Even if gaming addiction does exist, that should be covered thoroughly as alcoholism is, in its article. I think it is clear that it is not POVish to have a mention of alcoholism in the article on vodka nor to omit it at Budweiser. This is a matter of reaching wp:consensus.- Sinneed 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article gives only one mention to its addictiveness, even though it's probably the one game most strongly linked to video game addiction, and that mention is of how fun it is. I think it does present a certain POV if it does not discuss the goods and bads of it being addictive. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the comparison to the alcohol brand articles? We *know* alcohol is addictive. I don't see a compelling argument for this being NPoV.

I used "censored" earlier, and in retrospect I feel that was less than wise.- Sinneed 20:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be more productive to set up a content RFC to get a wider consensus on the issue, instead of tagging it NPOV.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Further (with all due respect for wp:other stuff exists), consider Benson & Hedges. We know that tobacco is both addictive and Bad For You... yet there is no mention. In thinking about my consideration of the issue, I think that my argument for inclusion is that there *IS* still dispute about whether or not gaming is addictive, and whether or not it is a Bad Thing or just a Thing. There is mention of the harmful effects of smoking. I don't think an argument that this lack fails wp:NPOV would find much support.

Similarly, at Caesars Palace, there is no mention of gambling addiction, nor of compulsive gambling, or of other troublesome issues involving gambling. These are articles about brands, rather than about entire genre's. I don't think there is merit to the wp:POV flag.

MMORPG has a brief mention and link. Even at the genre article, I would be hard-pressed to claim that leaving out the heavily-contested addiction bit failed wp:NPOV, though I would strongly oppose its removal, there.- Sinneed 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion is not based on whether or not something is true, but whether we can verify that it came from someone verifiable. If someone verifiable contests the notion that WoW is addictive, specifically discussing it, then we can include it. We don't keep things off of Wikipedia just because they may be opposed. A lot of strongly contested things have their own articles, let alone a mention in another article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I fear that I see no connection between your comment and the NPOV flag you have inserted. I see no one proposing to keep the possibility of video games or more specifically MMORPGs are abused out of the encyclopedia. Internet addiction and video game addiction do indeed have their own articles. Clearly this information is in the encyclopedia, as with alcoholism and problem gambling. It also seems clear to me that going about to each brand of alcohol or gambling and adding the information that they are abused is not needed.- Sinneed 21:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (edit to add) ... nor to go to any specific brand or establishment article and adding the information there, no matter how popular it is.- Sinneed 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I went through the lead, gameplay, and reception sections making a few WP:MOS improvements and minor copy-editing, but didn't really notice any obvious NPOV as the flag suggests. Are there debates other than the one about "wow addiction" going on that need to wrap up before the tag is removed? Don't get me wrong, the article still has plenty of problems, I just don't think NPOV is one of them. Sebquantic (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No further discussion, and no argument I can see that this tag is needed. This is a content dispute about video game addiction and / or internet addiction being mentioned or not in the article. I removed the tag, as a proposed edit. If it is restored, I think further explanation of why this is an article NPOV issue rather than a simple content dispute is needed, or someone else should simply remove the tag again.- Sinneed 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Upper Deck deal and Login protocol

Upper Deck will no longer be producing the WoW TCG after March 2010
Players must use a battle.net login to access WoW. "After November 11, 2009, you won't be able to log in to the game unless you merge your account with a Battle.net account. You will need to log in using your Battle.net account username (your email address) and password."
And as someone pointed out, the current version of WoW is 3.3.3, as of 2010 March 23. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wine

The game can be played on Linux and FreeBSD with Wine. Can this be noted in the sidebar's "platforms", or is that only for official releases? Quispiam (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is Wine isn't specifically made for making WoW run on Linux and FreeBSD, its for all windows programs (even thought some work better than others). We would have to add that info to the sidebar for every windows program ever written in that case. —Sebquantic (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also say "yes" to the latter portion of your question, that only official releases are applicable (the operating systems that WoW was developed for). A good analogy would be the countless classic video games that can be run on emulators, we certainly wouldn't go through those articles and add info about each emulator to every old game, just what game systems those video games were originally written for. -- Atama頭 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.181.76.123, 23 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

System requirements, Microsoft Windows:

Windows 2000/SP4 is missing in the list (runs perfectly).

87.181.76.123 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

However, per Blizzard themselves at their website: [1], Windows 2000 is not a supported operating system, thus it fails their system requirements for support. Thanks for your request, --Taelus (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Molten core nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just notifying readers here that I have nominated the article Molten core, an article currently tagged to be merged to this page, for deletion. I have done this as I believe there is no relevant content to be merged, and the content of the article is not notable. Your opinions are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molten core. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. That's the kind of info for WoWWiki or some other WoW-specific site that helps gamers, not something appropriate for Wikipedia. Nor is the content appropriate to include in this article. -- Atama頭 22:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WoW is not the biggest

The article says WoW is the biggest "With more than 11.5 million monthly subscriptions in December 2008, World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG". Happy Farm is possibly now the most popular MMOG with 228 million active users, and 23 million daily users. I am not sure what monthly subscriptions means. Is that how many people sign up or visit or what? Also, some of the WoW refs are 2008. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Released in 2009, it appears that Happy Farm is indeed the world's biggest. The WoW refs for size are all outdated. Happy Farm seems to be about 20 times bigger. It's a whale. Please comment, advise, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

wp:advert - the this article does not say wow is the biggest anything. It says it is the most-subscribed MMORPG.- Sinneed 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think something similar was discussed before here. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 12:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more than once, about more than one game. Also... MMOG <> MMORPG.- Sinneed 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a heck of a long thread. I'll let you all sort it out. Sinneed: Thanks for the Happy Farm edits. I wasn't trying to advert. The game is actually moronic, but absolutely every person in every cubicle in every office in China has this game going. I'm out of my league here with this online game stuff. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that I thought you were trying to advertise... only expressing my concern that the content might have that effect of advertising the farm game.- Sinneed 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed: No problem. I didn't think that at all. Please edit Happy Farm to help make it better. I know nothing of online games. - Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What I've gathered from all the discussions on here was that a player and a subscriber are two different definitions. So, while one game is the most-played MMO, it would be possible for a different game to be the most subscribed. I think. :0 Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 13:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Worse: Both player and subscriber have a kajillion definitions. Thus the long-running discuss and debate about subscriber numbers, and the avoidance of player count content.- Sinneed 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

Could somebody please help clarify and give the correct definitions, as I am trying to learn here.

My understanding is...

• Subscribers: People who have paid and are members
• Registered Users: People who are members but may not have paid (as in the case of free games)
• Active users: People who regularly log in and play
• Players: People who regularly log in and play
• Most Popular: Largest number of active users
• Biggest: Largest number of active users

• Subscribers: Players who play a game that requires a periodic fee to access it.
• Registered Users: Players who have created (registered) an account for a game, regardless of whether they pay. Same as a registered Wikipedia user.
• Active Users: Players who are playing a game regularly, and not taking some extended break; again, same as an active Wikipedia editor.
• Players: All people who play a game.
• Most Popular:
• Biggest:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think these would be great items for the Video Games Project talk page. I hesitate to attach them to any particular game... those interested in that game will have a point of view, whether intentional or not, IMO.- Sinneed 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be what you meant, but to clarify, "Subscriber" is generally held to mean people who have a currently active subscription to a game which has an ongoing regular fee, such as WoW's $15/month subscription fee. It would not cover, for example, players of a game like Guild Wars that only have to buy the box and not pay an ongoing regular fee. And I wouldn't bother trying to define terms like "most popular" and "biggest" since I doubt there can ever be an unambiguous meaning. --Stormie (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy Farm is free, but has the most players, so I guess it's like comparing apples and oranges. Should I qualify statements with "In terms of..."? As for the request for comment above, I see that nobody is insane enough to fill in the blanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about this article, not mentioning Happy Farm would be may opinion. If talking about Happy Farm, I would point to the Happy Farm talk page. :) - Sinneed 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tried to come up with some definitions there :) I agree that mentioning Happy Farm isn't needed because using the word subscribers in this article narrows it down to a field that doesn't include free games. Websters definition of subscription: "an arrangement for providing, receiving, or making use of something of a continuing or periodic nature on a prepayment plan"; in other words it implies that this isn't the biggest free game. —Sebquantic (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated you having taken the time to respond. I have edited Happy Farm accordingly. I am much obliged. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Input Method - Microphone

You can use a microphone in WoW as well - this should be added at the bottom of the thing on the right hand side at the top of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.126.123 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:DarkMasterBob

I may have reverted in err. I saw 16,000 kb of content removed and reverted it. If I have made a mistake, please forgive me and revert back to his/her version. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No error, even if some of that is worth keeping, a single, gigantic, controversial edit, with no discussion, like DMB's, would not get to stay.- Sinneed 12:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On further review, this appears to be a manual revert to 2006, and appears vandalistic.- Sinneed 12:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of World of Warcraft

I've re-redirected it here after it was un-redirected some time ago, with no prejudice to discussion of certain content to include here. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I pointed it to the Reception section, to make it more specific. --Taelus (Talk) 16:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Security - Token Authenicator Data Intercepted

From the current version of the article, there's no mention of the "Man In the Middle" attacks that some users of the security token have suffered. I'm not sure how noteworthy it is but the section is called "Security Concerns", I was wondering whether it should present the flaw in this security method? Govworker (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that discuss this? That's the first step in answering this question. It would have to have been written about, and by something more reliable than posters in forums.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a self-published source from Blizzard, and there should be a discussion of it at the article about such security devices.

It applies to all token-based security tools though, in all environments: if the system you are using is compromised, no security method can protect you.

That is, if I can see what you are sending and prevent your data from reaching the server... and instead I send it in for you, I win, no matter what security method you use.

The problem is not related to WoW, but to malware and similar. I would mildly oppose adding each and every PC security problem to the article... it will bloat beyond belief with offtopic technical esoterica.- Sinneed 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematic

I don't know about rest of you, but I remember in my home people talking about how some games teach the players, it may be language or maybe keyboard typing skills. In my personal opinion as we are talking about World of Warcraft, it is one very big community where mathematic has one role to the gaming, everyday at official and unofficial forums, live-chats, VoIP's and others has always something to do with mathematic problems and their solving. What I'm saying, that this article doesn't tell anything about that, which I think is very important, since the criticism of WoW is high and the positive sides lives under shadows. I haven't so far founded any references, but if someone does, please, add that information to this article, at least in few sentence. --109.204.166.94 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Halifax Bank 2008

I dropped this content, as it is about Blizz and various credit card users being victimized by credit card / identity theft. Most of it was unsourced and long tagged. I argue the presentation made it sound as if there were a Blizz security concern... and there was not. wp:NOTNEWS, off topic to that section... presenting it there failed wp:NPOV. Easily reverted if any disagree.- Sinneed 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk

I have removed this from the infobox again, wp:OR, source is wp:NN, qualified the statement in the body. I'll add a CN. I expect to drop this promptly unless it is sourced to a wp:RS.- Sinneed 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dropped the blogspot and anon entries. Reword to avoid the "many commenters" and left the statement in, for now. I am not translating the remaining source, and am not restoring the tag.- Sinneed 21:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unconvinced. The source basically cites 3-4 things in the game which could be recognised to be steampunk. This doesn't really make the game fall under the steampunk genre, as these things are very minor. The reason this is unconvincing, is because you could name 3-4 things to justify pretty much any genre here, since the game contains a large amount of minor things. You could identify the undead, the plague, the gallows in their towns, and the questlines where you poison the human and dwarf, and thus draw a line to the game being under the horror genre. The remaining source strikes me as a random editorial, not anything official or of notability. --Taelus (Talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Granted these are blog articles that cite several elements in the game that traditionally fall under the steampunk genre, which is why I did not edit back in the steampunk listing in the genre. That these blog posts and so many others comment on the steampunk elements is reason enough to let the steampunk notation stand *in the setting description* when speaking to the aesthetics of the game world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liblarva (talk • contribs) 22:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The content is still there, but it has been trimmed to not give undue weight, and not include unsuitable sources. The article currently reads: "World of Warcraft contains elements that are traditionally linked to the steampunk sub-genre, such as steam-powered automata, and extreme engineering." --Taelus (Talk) 22:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "In addition to many typical fantasy elements, World of Warcraft contains elements of steampunk sub-genre, such as steam-powered automata, and extreme engineering." and am trusting that the source supports this content. If it does not, the content needs to be changed so that it does. I am also trusting that the sources meets wp:reliable sources.- Sinneed 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How many "non-academic" sources does it take to include mention of an aesthetic into an article on a video game? -Liblarva (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tag dropped without consensus. So I dropped the tagged content. Does anyone else think this belongs?- Sinneed 02:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The two articles are not blogs, they are verification of aesthetic. You are only one wanting content removed. Obtain consensus before removal. The relevant quote here, from the "Concept of War" article is, "However, the presence of technology, unfitting in a medieval fantasy as it may be, might also be seen as an influence of steampunk aesthetics." -Liblarva (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning. Edit war, removal of article tags. Stop now.- Sinneed 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning User talk:Sinneed. WP:EW. Stop now. Let a consensus decide before you dictate. -!Liblarva (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And now back to the discussion at hand. The "Steampunk" neologism, especially as it applies to WoW, if it belongs in the article, will appear in generally wp:reliable sources. It is not. WoW is the most-subscribed MMORPG, and heavily covered in the press. It is quite well known.- Sinneed 05:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I provided WP:RS. You disagree with the opinion. They're still WP:RS. I provided blogs. You wanted academic sources. I provided academic sources. Now you want press coverage. Moving_the_goalpost. -Liblarva (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"You disagree with the opinion." - did not say, did not imply. "Now you want press coverage." - did not say, did not imply. Moving_the_goalpost - only if you move it.- Sinneed 13:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And now back to the discussion at hand. "From Catch the Flag to Shock and Awe: how World of Warcraft Negotiates Battle" uses the word "steampunk" once only, in a general reference to fantasy gaming presentation of war. "As a direct result of this, the wars portrayed in fantasy landscapes are seen as chivalrous and honourable; associated with the ideals of medieval wars – knights in shining armour and fair combat between equals. They are removed from the ideas of technology, which if it does make an appearance is usually portrayed in terms of steampunk – archaic, composed of gears, levers and valves, not particularly useful and often used by the enemy to carry out nefarious deeds." wp:SYNTH - I do think this article could be a useful source, just not for this. Does anyone see any support for the statements to which this is attached? This appears to be a simple posting of a research paper presented at DiGRA 2007, rather than an academic publication. What academic publication carried this, when?- Sinneed 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Any response? Anyone? Proposing to drop source and the steampunk otherwise.- Sinneed 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dropping these, this weekend unless someone thinks they belong.- Sinneed 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sneaky. Start four different conversations across the discuss page and hope no one spots the removal notice. There are several dissenting opinions below and you know it. You are only one who thinks these should be removed. So far the count is 3 to keep, 1 to remove. wp:cons. -Liblarva (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion below is about the content, not about these sources. Any argument to keep these unrelated sources? Anyone at all? - Sinneed 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd source "The Concept of War in the World of Warcraft" also contains a single reference to steampunk, and it is heavily caveated: "However, the presence of technology, unfitting in a medieval fantasy as it may be, might also be seen as an influence of steampunk aesthetics." Does anyone see any support for the statements to which this is attached? This appears to be a simple posting of a research paper, rather than an academic publication. What academic publication carried this, when?- Sinneed 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Any response? Anyone? Proposing to drop source and the steampunk otherwise.- Sinneed 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dropping these this weekend unless someone thinks they belong.- Sinneed 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sneaky. Start four different conversations across the discuss page and hope no one spots the removal notice. There are several dissenting opinions below and you know it. You are only one who thinks these should be removed. So far the count is 3 to keep, 1 to remove. wp:cons. -Liblarva (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion below is about the content, not about these sources. Any argument to keep these unrelated sources? Anyone at all? - Sinneed 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No response, dropped.- Sinneed 22:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah, what's up with that? I see several people arguing here that it should remain as it describes exactly the look the game creators were going for, and one person arguing against using the term even though it's been shown - and he's acknowledged - that everyone in the gaming community, from major gaming sites at the top to blogs and forums at the bottom, use the term in describing it. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that "steampunk" www.worldsteamexpo.com is a neologism, which may or may not merit mention. Very few hits on news.google.com, and none at major news outlets. It does not seem to me that this jargon has made it into the language as a word, yet. Does anyone besides the adding editor believe this belongs in the article? I am ambivalent, at the moment. WoW also contains simple science fiction elements... starfaring, high-technology aliens... starships... noncorporial entities... time travel... meeting your earlier or later self and having a conversation.- Sinneed 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Further... the adding editor seems to disagree with the definition of steampunk given at the steampunk article "a sub-genre of science fiction and speculative fiction, frequently featuring elements of fantasy". So it appears that it is not a subgenre of fantasy at all, but of SF. On review, I think the problem there was my reading. Added the SF genre.- Sinneed 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it should not be included. From WP:UNDUE, part of our "Neutral Point of View" policy: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. --Taelus (Talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguing whether or not WoW has elements of steampunk is almost like finding an atmosphere on another planet and arguing whether it should be called "air" or not. Of course WoW has steampunk in it; I'm actually stunned that there is even debate over it. Every single bit of WoW's gnome society seems to be drawn straight out of the steampunk playbook. Steam, gears... goggles? Airships? And just google "warcraft steampunk" and you'll find literally dozens of forums and blogs discussing the matter. Hardly a "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." It seems everyone else knows it but Wikipedia. I don't even play WoW and I know this. It's so obvious that to not mention it would be a glaring omission of fact, and pretty much clue in anyone reading the article that Wikipedia was largely irrelevant as a serious source of pertinent information on the subject, not to mention a laughing stock among the gaming community. Gadzooki.com calls it a "notable steampunk game." Brighthub.com: "[One of the] top ten steampunk games." TopTenHammer.com: "World of Warcraft is almost a steampunk paradise." AllExperts Encyclopedia: "[Steampunk] is most clearly seen in the 'wondrous techno-city of Gnomeregan,' a city run primarily by steam engine technology." --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I see all your points, and they seem correct... but what do they have to do with WP?- Sinneed 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion was about whether or not the fact that WoW had steampunk elements merited mention (or if it even did, indeed, have such elements). Sentence in the main article was tagged as "dubious." I've just shown that it does indeed have such elements, and that they are pervasively discussed in the gaming community and therefore are relevant and hardly "dubious." Points which you have conceded. QED. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"shown that...elements... are pervasively discussed in the gaming community" - Actually, you haven't.

I still see no argument that this should be part of WP, only that the gaming community wants WP to be different, and in being different would include this content. There are many many gaming sites, and they are perfect for very much gaming lore that does not belong in WP. I must tell you that the rant about WP does not lend you any credibility.- Sinneed 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the gaming community wants anything. It's what is. The gnomes are a major race in the WoW universe, and they are clearly meant to be steampunk. Whether the gaming community wants them to be or not, they are. Whether WP wants them to be or not, they are. Even perusing WoW's own description of the race on the Blizzard website, although they don't come out and use the term directly, they strongly imply it, mentioning the abundance of steam technology and showing a gnome with goggles and a giant wrench, both icons of steampunk.

WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a compendium of facts relating to various subjects. People come here for information, and this is rather key information relating to one of the primary races in the game. I don't see any reason or point in censoring the fact that it is indeed a part of the game, and was designed and intended that way. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"they are clearly meant to be steampunk" - The moon is clearly made of CHEESE. " they strongly imply it" - wp:SYNTH. "censoring" there is no censorship proposed. This is not about "facts" (what is) but about interpretation (what should we call it). There are plenty of mentions of starships, aliens, steam tech, computers, unknown technology... this whole tempest in a teapot is over whether to call it simply "fantasy" or identify it as "steampunk". *nothing* about facts is in dispute. If I have missed any sort of factual dispute, my apologies, and please put it in a section not about classification of type of fictional universe.- Sinneed 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your facts are in error. Blatant use of straw man. This isn't about whether the game falls into the fantasy or steampunk genre as you seem to think. Read the text in the article in the context of the section it is contained in. The single line mentioning steampunk is contained in the "Setting" section, and mentions the aesthetics of that setting. There is *currently* no mention of the game's genre being steampunk. -Liblarva (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I never said the game itself was steampunk. That would be silly. But the gnomish kingdom is blatantly and unashamedly drawing from the steampunk aesthetic, incorporating all the major themes of the genre (gears/goggles/steam/airships/giant wrenches/mad science/etc.) and should be noted as such, just as it should be noted that the other races incorporate the themes of other fantasy genres. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk:OK so it isn't about what to call it

Proposed edit dropping the problem of what to call it, and focusing on the elements. Added a "clarify" tag. Leaving the other tags in. I confess I misunderstood. I thought your focus was on adding the steampunk moniker. Since that seems to be the problematic part, rather than the fact that it contains starships, computers, steam machines, and weird gizmos, I dropped the name, and left the facts in. Ideally, they should be sourced, but looking to make progress.- Sinneed 23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it should be mentioned that the setting includes elements that are not traditionally associated with fantasy, hence why I included that as the start of the sentence. The other genres WoW draws upon should be mentioned in a single sentence to avoid undue weight. Both articles I sourced support this broader view. WoW does include elements of horror, steampunk, science fiction, further, that claim is verified by the articles. -Liblarva (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no article supporting this narrower view, no. Oddly, after you said this was not about what to call it, you immediately restored the word. wp:AGF is difficult in such a situation.- Sinneed 01:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Advanced technology in an anachronistic--Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC) setting is steampunk. The subgenre began as purely Victorian but has evolved past that. The articles I linked state that the technological elements used in WoW are reminiscent of steampunk. They also support the broader claim that WoW includes various elements from other genres, and specifically mention steampunk.

The contention seems to be in the use of the word "steampunk." We both agree that WoW uses various elements from across the genres. Why the sticking point for you on that word? And again, remember it's not about claiming (or trying to support the claim that) WoW is a steampunk game by genre. Simply that WoW contains some aesthetic elements of steampunk. Check the Steampunk#Art_and_design for what I mean, not the genre as a whole. -Liblarva (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"The contention seems to be in the use of the word "steampunk." - It seems to be, for you, yes. I suggested this, and you insulted me. So. Perhaps you might review, above, address the issues, strike your wp:AGF failure and rudeness. My unaddressed concerns are above.- Sinneed 04:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote this alleged insult. -Liblarva (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Blatant use of straw man."- Sinneed 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. "they are clearly meant to be steampunk" - The moon is clearly made of CHEESE"

2, Back to topic. Why the contention over the use of the word steampunk in describing the aesthetics of the game? -Liblarva (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) - Does *anyone* understand what point 1 or point 2 is intended to convey?- Sinneed 22:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Point number one meant that your statement seemed every bit as insulting as Liblarva stating you used a straw man argument (which isn't an insult, btw). Point number 2 means exactly what it says it means. Why is the term steampunk used in describing the aesthetics of the game (or at least a part of it) so upsetting that you feel it needs to be removed? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1- Ahh, I see. Makes no sense to me, but I understand the viewpoint. "The moon is clearly made of CHEESE" - That was a "reflection", and not helpful, my apologies for adding unhelpful text.

2 "...so upsetting that you feel it needs to be removed?" - You are once again reading something other than what I wrote. The last proposed edit of the content in this, other than "It is entirely wp:OR, toss it." is in the article. Since tossing it appears impractical, it will remain until someone else removes it, or stay, I should think.- Sinneed 04:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk is a subgenre

According to various sources (a couple seem to be attached, oddly, to this unrelated article about WoW), this steampunk is a "new" (neologism) sub-genre of fantasy and science fiction.- Sinneed 14:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk began as a subgenre of science fiction, specifically advanced, steam-powered technology in a Victorian England setting. It is a variant of cyberpunk. Cyber- was coined in the 80s. Steam- was coined sometime after (likely in the 90s if I recall). Steam- has since gone on to become a genre label used for any advanced technology used in an anachronistic setting. Steam- has also developed as an artistic / aesthetic movement not limited to genre.

There are two (apparently confused) discussions happening here. 1. The genre of WoW. 2. The aesthetics included in the setting of WoW. I am not arguing 1. I am discussing 2. -Liblarva (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is discussing the genre of WoW, and why are they discussing it in the section about the use of a term for the subgenre of SF/Fatasy called "steampunk"?

The term steampunk was coined in the late 80s to describe the genre; the genre itself had been around for at least a decade or two longer. (I read that on some place called Wikipedia. :p) So, 20 to 40 years "new". --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the English language, it is slang that does not seem to have entered the language yet: a neologism.

And yes, 20-40 years is indeed a new thing in literature.

And I hope you don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia... anyone can introduce new or made up words, cite them to unrelated/loosely-related sources, and place them in an article. :) - Sinneed 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has entered the language. From the Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction (Copyright © Oxford University Press Inc, 2007): Steampunk (n.) [by analogy to cyberpunk] a genre of science fiction with a historical setting in the nineteenth century characterized by technologies extrapolated from the science of that era, but which were not invented at that time. Hence steampunker, steampunkish. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is a dictionary of science fiction jargon, so no. I remain unsure what your proposed edit is. The only issue I see with the section at the moment is that it is wp:OR, but I have no expectation of cutting it, it seems "correct" to me and either 1 or 2 editors strongly object to its removal. Perhaps some other editor will kill it. I have an unaddressed objection to the sources, above, but that has nothing to do with the content, as I see it.- Sinneed 04:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest additions

• It looks better now, simply mentioning it contains themes of steampunk, as this does not seem to be as undue weight as before, especially as it also mentions other genres rather than focusing on steampunk. I have copyedited it slightly, since it's a bit clunky to read, but I am still unhappy with the second usage of "also" in my version, so please feel free to tweak it to read more smoothly. --Taelus (Talk) 10:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. -Liblarva (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Drop dubious?

Do we need this tag? I think a {{CN}} would be more appropriate. Unless someone thinks this tag still belongs, I expect to turn it into a CN sometime in the next few days.- Sinneed 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, this was already discussed and consensus reached. Of the people discussing this, only you claim it is dubious. The sources met everyone else's standards, so no, the sources should not be dropped for a {{CN}}. The dubious tag should be dropped, but the sources are valid. -Liblarva (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is usually best not to duplicate discussions. The sources are discussed above. This is about the dubious tag.- Sinneed 16:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"...the sources should not be dropped for a {{CN}}." - just to be clear, no such proposal is being made by me. I am proposing to replace the dubious tag with CN. This is about the dubious tag.- Sinneed 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Due to difficulty in communicating with these 2(?) editors, I have simply made the proposed edit. Easily reverted to a dubious tag if any disagree, though joining the discussion would be good, if it is reverted.- Sinneed 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No difficulty, we just simply disagree with you. -Liblarva (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assure you I have difficulty understanding you. And your answers indicate the same with me. I speak of dropping an article tag, you respond about not removing sources. Pretty clear we are talking about 2 different things. Or are you saying now that you disagree with the removal of the "dubious" tag, and that it should be restored?- Sinneed 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)