Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an MMORPG

Moving the article

I like it, insightful enough for me to not VfD it even though it doesn't really belong. --Alex Krupp 23:38, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. I've moved it to meta. Lowellian 20:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I did not just move the article here; I was the original author of this article. :) —Lowellian (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but by moving it to meta, you did not change any of the article itself. Thus it makes no mention of the other sister projects. (no meta account--Wikipedia user HereToHelp) 18:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, because the title is, after all "Wikipedia is an MMORPG", not "Wikimedia projects are MMORPGs." —Lowellian (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As in the intervening couple of years, humor articles have sprung up in the Wikipedia namespace on Wikipedia and a large Wikipedia humor category has been created, I moved this page back to Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still here. Move it to meta already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.3.64 (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the above discussion more carefully. There is no need for a move to Meta, as even a deletion discussion resulted in a snowball keep. —Lowellian (reply) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Title?

Shouldn't the title be "Wikipedia is a MMORPG" instead of "an MMORPG?" Massive doesn't actually begin with a vowel or a vowel sound. cookie 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Massive" may not begin with a vowel sound, but "MMORPG" does: "M" is "em". —Lowellian (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I personally still have difficulty not reading it as a single word: "Wikipedia is a Mmoar-pig." ;D $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely stupid

Wikipedia is no more a MMORPG than Congress is. Articles are magic items? Whoever wrote this has absolutely no idea what even constitutes a "game".

Wikipedia is an online library that essentially allows anyone to add a book to it about just about anything. That isn't a game. And neither is 'edit wars' a game. Thats just griefing, and its been around much longer than the internet has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.7.2 (talk • contribs) 05:08, June 23, 2006 (UTC)

What does this article/opinion has to do with Meta anyway? NielsF 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Minimum requirements for this page: sense of humor --brion 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't people ever see these types of articles are JOKES? Sheesh.72.130.133.0 01:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a big banner at the top of the page with flashing text reading "THIS IS HUMOROUS. LAUGH!" People don't really know if this is serious, because they don't see the Category:Humor at the bottom. Nishkid64 01:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the humor template now.Orthologist

Stop making Wikipedia jokes, they aren't funny.... TheFireFox 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They are too funny! And I guess someone decided to note that this page is humorous now...Chenhsi (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was humor? Edit for 30 days, then decide. ;) 75.4.199.134 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

it wouldn't be funny if it wasn't half true. --Ludwigs2 22:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No-one has spoken in this discussion for eleven years (what's more ferret hates me for doing this kind of thing) but I LOVE THIS ESSAY. 65.102.7.2? Pah! I totally disagree with you. See my talk page for my reasons why (see Dungeon Attack, a game I made). MarioFyreFlower (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It's good

This page is extremely well written and innovative, but misses a point or two. It doesn't mention that "players" belong in "classes" (sysops, bureaucrats, etc.) and "races" (POV hunters, WikiGnomes, Wikifairies etc.). --Orthologist 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this page too. I think it's quite an apt observation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about...

The um... Cabal? Wait... There isn't one... <Shifty eyes> Yes... Let's go with that... Alx xlA 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiholism?

Hey i loved this article. I just wanted an explanation of how this fits in the Wikipediholism spectrum. J-stan 17:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Many editors are addicted to editing Wikipedia in the same way that many MMORPG players are addicted to playing their MMORPG accounts. —Lowellian (reply) 13:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like an MMORPG, but Wikipedia is not an MMORPG

People who treat this place like a game are probably violating WP policy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism may be like trying to slay a dragon with an infinite capacity to grow new heads and breathe fire, but it's important that editors (and especially admins) derstand that WP is not a game and do not treat it as such.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a humor article. It's not intended to be taken all that seriously in the first place. —Lowellian (reply) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the game itself, the problem reveals itself when all the kids start map-hacking. 79.42.61.14 (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many brackets

I think the humor of this essay is being distracted with the large number of terms in brackets. If no one disagrees, I will go ahead and incorporate their contents into wikilinks to the respective words.--Alasdair 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean parentheses, not brackets, right? Anyway, I disagree. Those brackets make it easy to read the article and what each Wikipedia term corresponds to in an MMORPG. —Lowellian (reply) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Only free MMO?

Theoretically, aren't there several other free MMO's?

Viridia (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

yes! Bam123456789 Please Talk!! 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars!!! Valerio Kreuk (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Most supposedly "free" MMORPGs still have things like ads or the option for paid accounts that unlock more options. In the case of Guild Wars, you have to buy the game in the first place even though it doesn't have subscription fees. That said, I agree that Wikipedia is not the only free MMORPG in the world. —Lowellian (reply) 13:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

True there are no ads and there are no fees, but you do have to train your character long and hard to level up to Game Master status. Kytti khat (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Any abandonware software could theoretically do the trick; you will spend hours of fun without spending anything except the internet bill, AND without the hassle and idiocy that permeates this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.61.14 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Most useful page ever

I nominate this page as the single most useful page on Wikipedia as it contains every resource a Wikipedian could ever need! Jubilee♫clipman 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How you know you're a n00b

You know you're a n00b if you think there's an automated level advancement after 5000 edits. 79.42.61.14 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedia IS AN MMORPG

I'm on here way too much and i'm still new X3 --XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WoWiki

nope not talking about [wowwiki] we're all play World of Wikicraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakpack4 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Social - tavern?

In the WP:Wikipedia is an MMORPG#Social section, it is suggesting that we have over 6.91 million taverns. Now, that's an interesting, if expensive, prospect, but I was wondering if perhaps "balconies" might be a better fit? With the villagepumps as more obvious contenders for the title of our 5 main "taverns"... -- Quiddity (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Intresting

I like this idea however I suggest including more Wikifauna.Jastcaan (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That this article was not deleted, shows that the premise is actually correct

so much for running an encyclopedia. This is just a giant space for jerking off by little Nacny boys, who should do sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.134.132 (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article. It is a humor essay, in projectspace. It is only intended for the amusement/insight of other editors (or curious browsers). Hence no articles link to it. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

damn, and I was just trying to up my points so I could get some more rollbacker spells. You sure this is just humorous? --Ludwigs2 06:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I blame everything on the overwhelming number of taverns. (See 2 threads up). With that much ale, everything is humourous (or morose). -- Quiddity (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I pity the Nacny boys. That's /b/ worthy. --Lexein (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Stewards

I'm not sure how we can talk about stewards' ability to do just about anything the dark lord can do. Surely that should be mentioned.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oversight/Revdelete

I propose the following for Revdelete and Oversight:

• Revdelete=Brick dissolver: Only game masters may use a brick dissolver, which allows bricks in a dungeon wall to be dissolved. A dissolved brick is nothing but a clear space that still supports the bricks above it, and can be only viewed by game masters or miners. Whether the signature (edit summary) or even the name of the player who made the brick gets dissolved or not can be decided by the game master. The solvent is 69M per-unobtanic acid.
  • Brick crystallizer: A game master can also choose to re-crystallize a brick that has been dissolved, turning it back into a normally-functional brick.
• Oversight=Brick vaporizer: Only SGMs and players allowed by SGMs are allowed to carry this. Anyone with it can permanently vaporize a dungeon's bricks. It is used when a player's secret plans and weaknesses are revealed to all the other players.

If these already exist, they would be cool additional analogies.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Added. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IP block exemption

I'm going crazy here, but I'm proposing this:

• Ice-proof suite: Can only be worn by game masters or players allowed by game masters. Allows anyone who wears it to pass through a freeze lock (IP block).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it already here as the sandwich-warming glove? Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New logo

I thought having the default image was a bit dull, so I changed it to File:WikiGreen.png. There's also File:En-wikipedia arms 3.svg and File:Outlaw-halo.PNG which might be worth a look. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

New section

I have added a new section on general Wikipedia roles. Would appreciate of some-one could expand it.--Deathlaser ^talk 14:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Checkusers

Shouldn't they be here? Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just sayin'

It's been two years or so since I've looked at this, and it's still hilarious. Sometimes I wonder if Phil Foglio's been editing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow

This is one of the greatest articles I have ever read. Seriously, hats off to the authors, that was clever and very awesome. I'm impressed and greatly amused. :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-humorous counterpart to this essay

Could we work in a link to WP:Wikipedia is in the real world#Wikipedia is not a role-playing game somewhere around the "See also" section? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what about the rules?

Hello everyone.

I saw no section about game rules! Did I miss something? 2602:304:59B8:3C89:5D8B:D475:D76:D59C (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, though I don't know how to implement that. RedPanda25 21:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Arbcom is first referred to as the Arch Mages and is then later referred to as the Super Game Masters. This inconsistency should be fixed, but I'm not really sure how to best do it. --Jakob (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It says, under Super Classes,

"Super Game Masters, also known as Arch Mages, are..." RedPanda25 21:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

LMAO!

I had to say, that's the funnest thing I've seen on here.

Comment

I must say, well done. It's great as a game. The only problem is, you CAN'T win. But it's still pretty good. RedPanda25 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And yes, this is the funniest thing on Wikipedia. RedPanda25 21:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A question about content

Don't you need to be a gunner in order to use swords? --Rlin8 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Bad bold page move

Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) did a bad move. MMORPG is pronounce beginning with em /ɛm/), with a vowel. This is normal. See "is a M" versus "is an M". Please revert the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed--the move SN54129 made was quite strange. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, an MMORPG preferred.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we move-protect this page please, after restoring "an MMORPG"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There probably are people who say "mmmmore-pug". But they are silly and I want to frag them and pwn their territories.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Frag"? Does this mean "transform into fragments"? I was on the verge of requesting move protection, but it hasn't been boldly moves that many times. How many bad bold page moves are OK? I have previously mused on proposing that all pages with over 100 versions and over 10 authors should be move protected. What do you think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes... I think I've heard that and other variations once or twice.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Frag: yes, I was using gamer jargon in joking about gamers. As for excessive move protection: it would make maintenance very difficult. Our naming conventions and other guidelines are a slowly moving target; page names, sometimes en masse, flow with the changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

hey

i beat the game TheBendly Games 13:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't beat MMORPG's... Fortunny (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiImps and citation needed

Without wanting to breach the three revert rule rule, I thought I'd bring those involved to the talk page so we could all figure out what's going on.

@EthanRossie2000:, @Izno:, the reason that the reference to WP:WikiImp has a {{citation needed}} template on it is because, as explained in the link, WikiImps tend to leave such templates wherever they go. Thus, it is humorous for the WikiImp reference in this article to be templated so.

I would like to vote for consensus to have the tag re-applied, but of course am willing to bend to the community voice should that not be the case.

Thanks for hearing me out - a sometimes WikiImp, Elfabet (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that humor isn't best placed in this page, especially in the current construction of the sentence. It definitely flew over my head. --Izno (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WMF and Permabans

Seem to be lots of opportunities for this group who are in both support and disagreement with the players - black locks, unbreakable, that not only can't be accessed by a skeleton key, but break them. Permabans - more like carbonite than ice blocks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

Nosebagbear Nah, basically the game mods. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

World Of Warcraft vs Wikipedia

If Wikipedia was an MMORPG, shouldn't it be considered the biggest MMO because it has more players than World of Warcraft? If so, should this information be added to the article? MarioFyreFlower (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

how do you leave

help Welltowiki (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC) welltowiki

Video

I made a video about this concept. Not sure if it should be added to the external links or not. If it belongs there, then I definitely shouldn't be the one to add it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

was developed should be is actively developed

was developed should be is actively developed Ellenor2000 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)