Talk:Classes in World of Warcraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Warlock?

What happened to the warlock? Its not on there when I last saw this article. Also, I'm just a casual everyman viewer of wikipedia, but I liked it better when each class had their own page and in depth analysis (pardon my spelling). I mean, they all had links at the bottom for the other classes...

I changed the description of Summoned Pets to include the fact that the Infernal and Doom Guard are seperate from the Imp, Voidwalker, etc. Wording is a little off, if anyone wants to make it look pretty, that would be appreciated. 24.86.59.67 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) -Razzik

The reason for this article

Being bold I chose to merge the articles, since each article was littered with guide information and some where just to small. Havok (T/C/c) 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I don't see the point of having nine articles on something that can be condensed into one article. Specially when most editors scream about everything being gamecruft. I do understand your concerns, but I think it's better to split up the articles, once each one of them grow beyond the main article, they can be moved to their own article. But articles like the Shaman one are just to small in my opinion. Havok T/C/c) 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not FAQ or Guide. Such information should be taken to strategy wikis, or somewhere. This article should outline what is special about each class in WoW in a few paragraphs or so, and possibly a few paragraphs on lore, and if there is any notable aspects from outside the game (such as in the paladin section) that should most certainly be listed. I think the warlock section is a bit detailed, the paladin section looks pretty good, and the rest could be improved on. Also, what Havok said. (got to it before me :P) Altair 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Chiguayante. The way it was laid out before was not perfect but it was detailed. What you've done is removed a ton of hard, detailed work. This reeks of arrogance. Articles like the lock and druid were much more detailed in the original. While I know my opinions won't change what you've done and I'm not malicious enough to destroy it myself but I will be voting with my feet. You've made these entries worthless to non-noobs. Thanks. A concerned user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.156.77.12 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the articles are here to enlighten people who know nothing about the subject, not people who play the game religiously, these people know of WoWWiki.com and wouldn't actually use Wikipedia for any information regarding World of Warcraft. I also disagree with your entire stance on the discussion; Yes I have removed a lot of information, but I have also improved the article by doing so, more does not equal better. Havok (T/C/c) 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I approve of the merge. It makes finding and comparing information about the various classes easier, and it makes it harder to delve into cruftland. ~MDD4696 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but are you going to delete all the images on the page? After all, by making them all one article, that violates the "one fair-use picture per article" thing, doesn't it? :) BTW, I would suggest that we add strengths/weaknesses back to each class description with a mind toward making sure it's written as relative to each other. RobertM525 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to have more images if they are there to comment on the information, and not as a decorative thing. These images show how each class might look, which does not break the rules. If someone finds that they are an removes all the images, I'll only cut and paste all the classes together into one image. Havok (T/C/c) 08:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that or people who no tact come in and add useless stupid info to the articles making them more like a gameguide than an encyclopedia article. Or none-too-subtle complaining in the article ("the rogue is totally beaten by everyone in PvP because of kiting"). It's irritating. RobertM525 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying something there, RobertM525? Hyde v 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can understand people's opinions being injected may have become "irritating" but I strongly dislike the deletion of so much information and effort and feel it was not necessary in the least. The definition of an encyclopedia is a reference work containing articles on various topics dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty. The articles that were DELETED supplied people with information about the classes. Personally, I didn't see that much that looked like a game guide, and when it did people simply deleted the parts where that occurred. It's ashame that someone thought they were above other people's efforts and work to just edit only what THEY think should have been included. Please remember you are not the only reader or contributer or editor here.12.110.169.214 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at what Wikipedia is not, here it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". And just for the record, non of the articles where deleted, all the information was keept in this article. The whole point was to condense the nine articles into one. There is absolutly no point in having one article per. class when all of it can be keept in one article. The only information that was removed, was things that actually go against the policy of Wikipedia, instead of arguing about the removal of policy breaking information, start adding information to help this article become better. Havok (T/C/c) 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What did you do with all the pictures? 12.110.169.214 15:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for more then one picture; one picture to outline what they are and nothing more. Not one for each class set, or anything like that. Havok (T/C/c) 21:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would appear you got so delete-happy that you removed the main hunter picture that USED to be on the page before you changed it. 12.110.169.165 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To me the idea of merging the topics seems completely pointless. There were, on the bottom of *every* class page, a cross table that had links to every other Playable Race (Both now and in the furture) and class. Accessability to the information was a no-brainer. Additionally, your claims of not having removed any information is false: I know for a fact that there was far more on the Warrior class alone. How do I know> Because I personally had spent hours touching up the article so that it did not convey the information in a personalized way. And then you merge every single class into one article. Completely, in my opinion, pointless and I pray that someone with more experience than me will fix your horrendous error.

Does anyone else here feel that the Class abilities are goofing up the formatting and really unecessary? I guess I'll take a tip from Havok and be BOLD and take them out, if anyone really wants them back, let's discuss and we can always reinstate them. Chiguayante 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They where put up for deletion when they where in their own ariticle. Consensus said to merge them with this article. Havok (T/C/c) 06:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Hero class to Classes in World of Warcraft

The article Hero class was deleted in a recent AfD located here.

Nobody knows what Hero class is, not even Blizzard. I like to suggest a temporary move of Hero class into this article as there really isn't any other article it could be merged into. A seperate article can be created once Blizzard releases any information about it. Havok (T/C/c) 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Do you know anything about World of Warcraft? Before you go crazy again, the Hero class has been put on hold for the time being since they are raising the level cap to 70 for Burning Crusade Expansion. The "Hero Class" idea has nothing to do with the class choices whatsoever and if you want to start deleting and merging things again that would be the wrong spot to put it. Somewhere about leveling or the main World of Warcraft page would be better suited. 12.110.169.165 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I know a great deal about World of Warcraft. If you cared to even read my initial comment, it says that I want to move it because: 1. It's a silly little stub which absolutly adds nothing to Wikipedia. 2. The whole concept of Hero class is sketchy at best, even mr. Dabiri has no idea what this "system" will end up being. 3. From the two choices I had; One being to delete the Hero class article, and two, to move it to this location. I chose to merge it with this location as there really isn't any other article which could benefit from this information. Havok (T/C/c) 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I see no reason to add the Hero class stub to this article. The Hero classes do not exist yet. Delete the article on it instead and when and if the Hero classes are ever released or announced, another topic can be added. Hyde v 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, deleting is not an option because it does exsist. In what form, well, that's the problem. Also, when Blizzard first started talking about them, they said they would be an "upgrade" to the classes allready in the game. So, placing the article under this one is not wrong, and yes, it actually does belong under this article. Havok (T/C/c) 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you want an addition that says "Hero classes are an upgrade to existing classes but have yet to be implemented"? There is zero information available on the Hero classes, not even rumors. But you still want to add it? Go ahead. It seems like useless clutter to me. In fact Havok, it is quite clear that you are going to do whatever you want to do just because you can. So why bother telling people or even asking our opinions? Hyde v 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a bit of information on Hero classes. There are even rumors that state that each race may choose from one or two different hero classes per class, and also what some abilities may be. As the information somewhat fits with this article on WoW classes, I propose it be merged rather than deleted. Later, if it is necesary, it can be put back into its own article, or deleted if Blizzard decides not to implement them (as some speculation concludes). Altair 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Hyde v assume good faith. If I was to do whatever I wanted, I would have done it allready. I'm an inclusionist, hence I don't want the article deleted. But, I do see problems with it. It is currently a stub, and can't be taken out of that status until more information is released on the Hero class, which most likely won't happen in a while. So, as Altair said, merging the article with this one will fix the problem. It can always at any time be moved to it's own article again at a later date. Havok (T/C/c) 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I do not assume anything, Havoc. That leads to misunderstandings and arguments. The bulk of my issue is that without discussion or prior warning, you took it upon yourself to merge everything (I will let the Hero classes addition go because you said below that you would not merge it.) In fact, I do not have an issue with the merging itself; the method that you used to do so (no warning, no prior discussion) bothers me. I once spent a considerable amount of time editing the region descriptions for both continents of Azeroth. Without a warning, advice, etc, a moderator swooped in and deleted all the information I had put in reducing it to a few sentences per region. If this had been discussed, I probably would have been able to condense it down (if they felt it was too long.) But no. If you are going to be bold, then prepare to face the consequences for doing so. And I am not being personal. I once again repeat my request to make policy that before undertaking such sweeping changes that a warning be posted and discussion opened BEFORE making said changes. Hyde v 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for eveyrone, everyone is equal. I merged them without discussing it because I don't really have to discuss it. You edit with your agenda in mind, I edit with mine. Disagreements are bound to happen regardles of what is done. The person who removed your edits might have thought exactly the same as you did with my edit, that you added something that you should have discussed adding before doing it. You might not agree, and you don't have to, but when push comes to shove, I didn't do anything wrong, I didn't break any policy and I didn't break anything on Wikipedia. If you feel I did, that is your prerogative. Deleting information that an editor feels goes against the policy of Wikipedia, is not vandalism, and is not wrong. If you add something that reads like a game guide, it will be removed. And can you seriously give me one good reason why these classes should have their own article, what does separate articles give that this one can't? Havok (T/C/c) 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you are a moderator and I am not. That fact alone makes you not equal to your average user. As I have said, I approve of the merger, just not the method you used to create it. Were I in your place, yes, I WOULD have brought it up for discussion. That would prevent the sort of negative feedback that has accumulated here after the fact. As for the editing done in the articles I referenced above, the entries contained outright errors and little or no information on the regions. My point in mentioning that moderator's edits was not to debate the edits themselves (which is another topic all together) but the measures the moderators are taking to make such edits. Moderators SHOULD be held to a different set of standards simply because they are moderators. There would be quite the difference if I personally had made the mergers here then if you had done them bold or not. Are you telling me that this is not the case? In reading your response to me, it is as if you are not reading what I am saying to you. My responses do not mention "vandalism" or adding information that reads like a game guide. I am not saying you broke any policies. What I am saying is that there should be a policy about a moderator making such large changes without bringing it up for discussion first. Hyde v 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not a "moderator" or administrator here on Wikipedia. I'm an editor, like you, I have registered and I'm editing articles. I have no special powers, everything I do, you can do yourself. And please remember, Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Havok (T/C/c) 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, this discussion is null and void. Hyde v 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Havok, you did do whatever you wanted when you decided to merge all the classes before. You are too thick headed to even understand what people say to you since you have already made up your mind. You create a Discuss page so people may disagree however you have full intentions on merging it regardless. HERO CLASS DOES NOT EXIST. Hero class was INDEED a future plan briefly talked about by the devs which have since instead RAISED THE LEVEL CAP TO 70. Hero Class idea has been deleted from On The Horizon page on worldofwarcraft.com and they have more or less dropped the idea. As someone clearly stated, Hero class is not specifically linked to WoW so maybe include a general info and links to game which use it.

I guess this is useless though since you will just say "No, it belongs here." regardless of what others say.

Please read and understand Wikipedia's Civility policy, there is no need for personal attacks. And please don't take my merging of the classes as anything personal, I did it for the good of the articles. Seeing as Wikipedia isn't and never will be an indiscriminate collection of information, merging them was done to save it from fancruft and people making guides of the article. If you want to work on information on how to play the game and such, please go to WoWWiki and do so there. To settle this the easy way, I will AfD the Hero class article, as you have convinced me that it dosn't belong on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I play WoW nearly everyday as well as check the forums to stay in touch with the community. There has not been any info on Hero classes for quite some time.

This is indeed very little information (and its accuracy is incredibly questionable) about any hero classes for WoW. Honestly, there seems absolutely NO sense to have a completely seperate page about hero classes for WoW that consists of a total of FOUR sentences. If this needs to be included, it should be mentioned very briefly at the bottom of this page. Should more information come out, it still wouldn't make sense for this to have its own page. The information is too closely tied to the general Warcraft classes. If this was the WoWWiki then sure, it could have a unique page, just like rogues and warlocks, etc. But in this case, the Hero class page should be deleted, or (like I said on the talk poage for it, a page on hero classes in general which is not a concept unique to WoW. -Krawnight 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, Hero Classes should not be included in the WoW pages ANYWHERE until there is more info. Chiguayante 00:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chiguayante, but I must say that it should be mentioned but just that it was brought up by the developers and was later scrapped.CFCF 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Game guide content

As I have stated before, this article needs to be cleaned up. For example mentioning the increase of armor in % on bear form is not needed. Havok (T/C/c) 11:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up Hunter, Mage and Druid. Please, do NOT add information that tells the reader how to play the game, how the game can easier be played, and/or things like how much armor a user gets from X and what goes best with Y etc. Wikipedia is NOT and NEVER will be a game guide, if you want to work on stuff like this, please use WoWWiki. Havok (T/C/c) 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

omg. WHY is the Hunter section completely removed now? Isn't there somewhere else on Wikipedia you can ruin besides this area??

Wikipedia is not supposed to tell people who don't play WoW how to play WoW, nor give every detail about the game to replace actually playing it. If people want to see more depth on anything WoW-related, not only are there untold number of WoW sites on the Internet, but there's also WoWWiki. The Wikipedia articles about WoW should explain things about the game to people who have never played the game (and might not ever) in a way that makes sense to them and gives them a feel for what is being talked about. This will leave a lot of things missing, yes. For example: retribution-spec paladins use Seal/Judgement of Command for a lot of our damage. Relevant to Wikipedia? Nope. Simply stating that the Retribution tree enhances a paladin's ability to do damage is plenty. The "what" is considerably more relevant than the "how." And that's kind of how all the WoW-related Wikipedia articles should be. If you want to put a lot of effort into WoW-related wiki stuff, I heartily recommend WoWWiki. RobertM525 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Especially the Shaman skills paragraph must undergo cleanup.CFCF 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Warrior Picture

Does anyone have a Warrior picture of one of the races in Might or Wrath? I've hardly seen anyone in that Dreadnaught armor and Wrath/Might is much more common and easier to obtain. Not to mention all the other pics are of classes in their Tier one with the exception of the Warrior.

This would be fluff and would not be needed. The pictures are there to show what a warrior "might" look like. So there is no need to change the images allready there. Havok (T/C/c) 12:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page isn't just directed at you. It would be nicer to have all the classes in their Tier One since that's how the current trend is. If anyone has a Warrior pic of them in Wrath please post it :)

I gave my answer to your question. I disagree with you, and I think the T3 image should stay. Havok (T/C/c) 08:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually my question is "Does anyone have a Warrior picture of one of the races in Might or Wrath?" which isn't something to disagree with. It's like someone asking if you have chicken or turkey because they don't want pork and you saying "I disagree." I didn't ask what's better I asked if it was available :P

I put up a picture of T3 because the old Warrior article had a picture of an Undead warrior in T1 already, and since I didn't want to delete it, I switched the UD-warrior to a secondary picture and put a picture of a human warrior (wearing T3) up as the main picture. Why T3 instead of T2? Becuase Wrath looks hideous. I'd be fine with replacing the T3 pic with a T1 pic (though T3 is more imposing), but I think keeping it as a human warrior is a good idea--it's the most commonly played race for that class. (Well, according to the WoW census sites; which, admittedly, aren't 100% accurate.) RobertM525 07:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I love Wrath, the spikey shoulders looks awesome. Might is the one that I think looks kinda ridiculous with the Rhino helm and Razorblade shoulderpads. I remember that Undead picture with the Thunderfury, it looked really nice and clear. I don't care what race it is as that doesn't make much of a difference imo. As long as we get some variety in the races (ex. not make them all just Alliance) which is another reason that Undead might be good? We don't have many Horde pics...

You've got your sets backwards: T1 = Might = spikey shoulders, T2 = Wrath = Skeleton Pirate shoulder and Rhino helm. Hence, I'm in favor of T1 or T3, but definately not the ugly T2. :) RobertM525 19:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Useless

I just wanted to note the uselessness of this article. If you truly believe you can give people who want to know about World of Warcraft classes all the information they need with just one article for all the classes, prove it. Before I dared to waste $50.00 I used Wikipedia to learn about the game when all the classes had comprehensive guides. That said, the information is not lost. Simply use the path names of the original article to find it then check on previous versions, they can be restored but I do not wish to fight over wikipedia articles at the moment.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a brochure. If you want to learn more about how the game is played before you buy it, I would suggest going to the official website at www.worldofwarcraft.net, and check out reviews for the game at GameRankings. Remember Wikipedia is not a game guide or an indiscriminate source of information. Havok (T/C/c) 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

wowwiki.com is another good choice

Indeed. Although on my talk page, he said he had tried WoWWiki and didn't like it. Havok (T/C/c) 12:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with Havok. I would suggest that there are few things worth doing that you can learn to do from a good encyclopedia. :) RobertM525 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact remains that the old pages were more useful. Again, I'm not going to change it myself, I understand the policies. I also realize that several other games have more detailed class descriptions than the new ones for WoW. Finally I would like to note that even if they are condensed to small amounts for each class it is still far more readable as seperate pages.

Please keep in mind those several other games do not have a nazi-like editor constantly messing with them. I'm sure if he went to "edit" them they'd lose most of their informatin as well.

Uselss? I disagree. The World of Warcraft is a phenomenon which, like the internet itself, does not exist except in cyberspace. If you could care less about computer games then it is understandable that you think the article is "useless". But I think it documents something that many people care enough about to spend endless hours playing. That makes this article (and others like it) important. Origen 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Skills v. Talents

Four classes have (Class) Skills subsections, while four classes have (Class) Talents as the subsection. Should we use Skills or Talents? Maybe "Trees" would be a better choice? Also, the Warrior section has no such subsection. --fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the character sheet area; the three trees are referred to as Class Skills. I'll change the remaining subtitles. --fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Should we mention as trivia the level 75 mage of WoW, referred to in Stargate :)) -- Raja Lon Flattery 19:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The "level 75 mage" in Stargate would be better placed in the main World of WarCraft article, probably in the "World of Warcraft in popular culture" section. Aserty 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What wikipedia is

I don't want to cause too much argument, but looking at some of the edits I was a bit confused and looked into this. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is a place for information which is in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. I found the information below:

"Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks."

So in this article we should not give advice or suggestions. However information removed in edits such as [1] appears to be fine under wikipedia policy. The level at which hunters can get pets and the method of getting one is specific and verifiable information. It is not a suggestion or piece of advice and therefore does not count as game guide information and should only be removed if it is detrimental to the article. Perhaps it could be argued that it adds nothing to the article, but I disagree, it is the sort of thing I would have wanted to know before I got the game. And if it was removed for that reason ( then that should be the reason given in the edit summary. Am I missing something here, because it sounds like there has been a misinterpretation of policy? Raoul 15:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued that Wikipedia is not a brochure, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Meaning, we don't write everything there is to know about a subject matter because not everything is worth mentioning. If you want to know more about WoW there are some external links at the bottom which hands out more information then this article. This article is here to give you a quick overview of the classes in the game, not give you all the information about them. Havok (T/C/c) 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Meaning, we don't write everything there is to know about a subject matter because not everything is worth mentioning." Why did you give the reason for the edit I used as an example as "game guide information" then if it was because the information was unnecessary?

"If you want to know more about WoW there are some external links at the bottom which hands out more information then this article." It only links to the Blizzard website. There may be a lot of useful information there, but not as a summary of the classes. Some more external links might be useful. You may argue that we don't need much information in this article, but we do need some information. It only gives 3 lines of information about priests. Now there may not need to be a huge amount of information, but three lines doesn't even give an overview of what a priest is. All it says is that priests heal and resurrect. There is a lot more to them than that (even if healing is the most obvious thing) Raoul 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you can contribute to the article and it dosn't break WP:NOT go right ahead. I don't own this article but I edit out what I feel shouldn't be there, if you disagree tell me I'm wrong and discuss it. The point of the matter is that most people would want this article of Wikipedia, and I do what I can to keep it as encyclopedic as possible. As for my edit summary, it could in fact be seen as game guide information. Havok (T/C/c) 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

People do disagree with you multiple times. Raoul has specifically pointed out with examples and information to back up his point about how you are wrong about a lot of edits saying they are game guides when he is right you tend to take stuff out that ISN'T "game guide" material (do you know what that is?) and then you come back when you are wrong about it and say it's unneccessary which is a completely different point. This man has clearly pointed out it doesn't break policies and you refuse to understand this article isn't simply about you and what you want. Yes, there was a TON of info about priests but instead of taking the time to actually edit you deleted it instead of making it better or improving it what people have put in there.

No you aren't missing anything and are correct (good job on research by the way). People come and add information they think is relevant but that guy is always deleting things so that he can keep it how he wants it. I looked at the Final Fantasy characters and they were so much more detailed but luckily they do not have a certain editor constantly trying to take people's contributions out :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.169.7 (talk • contribs)

I only delete what I feel breaks Wikipedia policy. Havok (T/C/c) 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Could I ask you to place a lock on this article so that anonymous editors can't edit it. Over the past weeks many editors have continued to add content that break WP:NOT, and I end up cleaning it up once a week, which is getting annoying. Thank you very much. Havok (T/C/c) 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)"

Hopefully you get annoyed enough to GO AWAY! Thankfully the Admin isn't going to do it :) Yay Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.169.7 (talk • contribs)

Please become acquainted with WP:CIVIL. Havok (T/C/c) 07:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please become acquainted with the following:

"Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia."

As far as you wanting to get a lock on the page "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I was civil, trust me, there were a lot worse things I can say then hoping you will go away :P If you would like an example of a page that needs you pretending to be an Admin then please visit Talk:Emo_(slang). You getting annoyed by feeling it is your responsibility to babysit this page is exactly how people feel when they contribute and you go in and delete all of it. Keep that in mind. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.169.7 (talk • contribs)

Please become acquainted with signing your posts. I did it for you this time, free of charge. It's not hard to get the grasp of it, and with time you'll master it. Unsigned attempts to provoke arguments just make you lose credibility. The Kinslayer 11:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was worried about my credibility with random people on the internet and how they would view my unsigned comments.

I respect edits that follow Wikipedia policy, all other edits are removed. If you feel I am "pretending to be an admin" by removing your edits that clearly break policy, please contribute to WoWWiki.com as they are more lenient on what is permitted in their articles. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not mean to crash your Wikiworld

Poisons

I am relatively new the WoWing and i now have a lvl 32 rogue. I still cannot figure out wow to get poisons to work. I completed the quest in SW and have alchemy but i just can't figure it out.

138.49.172.28 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Ryan     241130OCT06

Poisons do not have anything to do with potions, and there is no need for alchemy for them, adding that now.

This is not a game-guide and if you want help with playing a rogue, I would suggest the WoW forums on worldofwarcraft.com. RobertM525 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if it's really relevant, but I added a bit about the rogue debate of "Enchants Vs. Poisons", not much, just a Small summary of arguments, basically "Versatility Vs. Damage" stretched into two sentences. 24.86.59.67 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) -Razzik PS: I think I might just delete the above little "Help Me" thing, as it's irrelevant and closed.

Overhaul and standardization

This page is in need of some serious work. Leaving aside whether the page should even exist or not (a valid debate) the information between the classes needs to be STANDARDIZED. Some classes have just a small little blurb and that is it. Others go into detail about each different talent tree, and then others just seem to be a number of POV opinions about the class and upcoming changes in the expansion, which shouldn't even be mentioned since they are not finalized. I strongly suggest someone come up with some sort of a template for all classes to follow. -Kraw Night 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page is in some serious need of such improvements. I'd suggest briefly describing the class in general terms, saying whether it is primarily Alliance or Horde, and maybe a bit as to abilities. FrozenPurpleCube 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed much of the information that made the article read like a game guide. I will now await the outcry of being an administrator and wrecker of information. The entire article seemed almost copy/pasted from WoWWiki to the letter. I also removed the entire second section of all the classes as it it only explained more in detail what was already in the article. Havok (T/C/c) 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"I also removed the entire second section of all the classes as it it only explained more in detail what was already in the article." There is now no information on talents anywhere in the article for any class. You didn't just remove detail, you removed information which is central to each class. I admit that there was a lot of nonsense there before and it is good that you got rid of it, but you can't just have an article which leaves out talent information entirely, it's ridiculous. Raoul 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should add that information as a short sentence instead and not it's own section per class. Sound good? Thoughts, suggestions? Havok (T/C/c) 13:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I probably sounded a bit angry there, sorry. I'd be perfectly happy with a short sentence for each class in the main section, it's just that that currently doesn't exist (though I should be able to add it quite quickly). I liked having it as a seperate section though, it made the information easy to find and made bad edits to that information easier to spot and remove, but I would be fine with just a short sentence for each class. Raoul 08:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, so this article has taken a bite out of it, but it probably still needs some work. Would people prefer to work one class at a time or all at once? FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We could just start at the top with druids and move our way down. Keep in mind that many people "vandalize" this page, adding sentences like "omg shadow priest r imba" etc. So check history whenever you can. Havok (T/C/c) 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this needs serious cleanup. I tried to edit some areas and clear them up but someones simply gone through and removed the changes. And now I see that theyve been edited again. This is pretty ridiculous.

Druids

Since Havok suggested starting from the top, let's go with Druids. My thoughts on this entry. It's a bulleted list. I don't really favor that, and I think I'd prefer a different presentation. Content is ok though. FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, now that I reread it, the first sentence is unclear. What are those roles? FrozenPurpleCube 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We could go at it in a two way form; One where we explain their role in the game and one about the lore which surrounds each class. ex. That the first Night Elf druid was Malfurion Stormrage etc. Sound ok? Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing a druid I can rewrite the content. But to be honest I don't see how to present that whils staying concise. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see wowwiki is publishing its articles under the GFDL. I will use this as a base then, we will see. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I feel Feral Form is the apropriate term for the Animal forms. I have always seen these forms refered to as Feral Forms. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you have, as that be the standard WOW term for them, however, it is a specific terminology to WOW, and that creates a conflict with a general-purpose encyclopedia. I think animal is more descriptive and less likely to confuse folks. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that although "animal" makes it more obvious it is less accurate. Neither the Caster (if you count it as a form) or Tree of Life forms are animals. The Moonkin form is technically humanoid and therefore isn't really an "animal" form either. I think most people can probably understand "feral" almost as quickly and "animal" and that as long as we make it obvious what is meant "feral" is preferable. Raoul 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I would say that the Caster-form is probably an animal, as all the WoW races seem more or less mammals (as opposed to I dunno, Ghosts, or Robots or Energy forms)but more importantly, isn't considered a specific form either. It's more the default-shape I'd say. Moonkin are clearly animals, even if they can stand upright. Tree of life isn't an animal, but I'd be happy with "animal and plant" to refer to it. Especially since I can't see how the Caster or Tree of Life forms can be considered Feral. Maybe not the Moonkin etiher. FrozenPurpleCube 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be OK for Moonkin, I think they are considered as beast in the game mechanism. I am sure NPCs are beasts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, what do how do you feel about this version of the class section? I mean, maybe we can proceed with the hunter if you like it (the AfD is about to close) -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My main concern at the moment is how it looks with the two pictures. On some resolutions it just looks silly (example on 1280x800 (140kb)). I'm not quite certain what the best way to avoid this is, but as it is it looks unprofessional. Raoul 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I see as a problem now is the mention of how many points you need to get X talent in the talent tree. Isn't this guide-ish? Havok (T/C/c) 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were a secret, then it would be guid-ish. But it's not a secret - anybody (above level 10 anyway) can open up the talent panel and look at all the talents. If there was, say, a quest to get the last talent, and we wrote out how to complete that quest, THAT would be a guide. Saying that something exists when it clearly exists is not a guide. -Ryanbomber 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is guide-ish for the same reasons as Ryanbomber. Whether the information is useful or necessary is a different matter. I think I originally added that information (to the current incarnation anyway) because I think it is necessary. We don't want to give the impresion that Druids get the Moonkin and Tree of Life automatically. Of course you may disagree about how useful it is, but in my view that information should be kept in the article. Raoul 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that was my idea too when I rewrote it, even if I'd love having my druid in moonkin and tree of life. -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of X-points, I suggest saying that an investment is necessary to get the form, but not being specific about how many points are needed. That is less of a guide, you know? FrozenPurpleCube 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We could say Druids going deep into the xxx tree but I don't think it is better personally. -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say something like "The moonkin and tree of life form are learned via talents instead of being class skills, so not every druid can use them"? Aetherfukz 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing "x points" is just being vague for the sake of being vague. If the talents were hidden at all, then that would be game guide. But talent information is obvious and available - anybody at level 10 can view their classes talents (and have no reason to consider talents before then) and anybody can view all talent trees on thottbot.com or even worldofwarcraft.com. Game guides tell you how to complete challenges. Talent points aren't challenges - they're facts. -Ryanbomber 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Druid image

To stay consistent with the rest of the artworks in the article, I replace Image:World of Warcraft Nightelf Female Druid.jpg by Image:Druid WoW Night Elf Stormrage Arlokk.png. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I reverted it back to its original state, the Image:World_of_Warcraft_Nightelf_Female_Druid.jpg is fine. T1 seems to be what we're using in most of the pictures anyway. The picture is bland, I admit, but it works. RobertM525 02:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not the one that put T2 back) The previous picture was the T3 artwork. I didn't know there was a T1 picture somewhere. Fine with me (but I really think T1 is ugly) -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"This article is being considered for deletion..."

Perhaps this can be a specific section for whether or not the article should exist at all (unlike previous discussions which seem to center around what the article should discuss). If there's no discussion, perhaps the deletion tag should be removed... RobertM525 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion. Read the AFD tag carefully, there should be a link to the discussion. -Ryanbomber 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunters

Well does someone want to do the same thing with hunters? -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IP edits incoming!

I asked a few friends to try to give a hand on the article, be nice with them, they don't really know Wikipedia! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could suggest they try other parts of Wikipedia first, before editing this article? FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record I don't think anyone touched the article yet. The edit you reverted is a very hot topic in the beta community (and I agree with the revert). It is just a way to have someone knowing the different classes actually editing the article. I could do it but I know I don't like seeing false statements in an article. I warned because I know they are not familiar with the wiki syntax. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Stealth vs Invisible

I removed the term "invisible" from the Rogue desciption as they are two different things it may be misleading. Warlock's Succubus have invisibility and Mages in Burning Crusade will get an invisible spell which is different then Stealth. Stealth detection will not help against invisible enemies and Detect Invisibility will not help against stealthed enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.169.7 (talk • contribs)

Good call. Reworded it to "effectively invisible," which still may be a bit vague. "Hard to see" implies that you can see the player at all times, though. If anybody has any better ideas for wording, please edit it. -Ryanbomber 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding professions information

Would anybody object to adding professions information here, possibly with a re-titles to Classes and Professions in World of Warcraft? Just getting a feel for people's thoughts. FrozenPurpleCube 06:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The main World of Warcraft Article only has one paragraph entry about professions. The main problem here would be (I think) what do you tell about professions, apart from things like "Blacksmiths craft Mail and Plate armor and weapons, and specialize in either, Engineer make this and that trinket, and Enchanters enchant things"? There shouldn't be any talk about specific things (apart from maybe mentioning some weird Engineer trinket or so, or the 3 Classbound cloth epic recipies), just some overview. But if you can come up with more than 2 sentences for each profession, why not? Aetherfukz 12:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was an entire article on the subject, but it was deleted. (though there is on-going objection to that deletion. Me, I consider the admin who did it to be clearly biased, so I hope it is overturned). Still, if it forestalls objections, I was seeing if putting it here might be acceptable to folks. FrozenPurpleCube 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we do need at least a sentence, maybe more, on each profession, but I don't think this article is the place to do it. It really needs to have its own article or be part of the main article. The main article is a bit long as it is so I would favour, if possible, getting the separate article back. It would only be a very short article, but I don't think this article is the right place for it to go.

Having just looked at the deletion discussion for the professions page I find it ridiculous. It does not contravene rules on game guides, there being other websites does not mean that the information should be on wikipedia, etc. The only remotely sensible policy argument for deletion which I saw was about WP:FICT, which does state that you should stick to real world impact, however it also says that minor concepts in the subject should be put in a list with short descriptions in the main article and if it gets too long (which the WoW article is) made into a separate article, so WP:FICT actually supports the existence of a professions article. Raoul 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and if you'd like to share your thoughts on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_24

Lawladins?

I dont get the lawladins part, is it some sort of dumb joke?

Yeah kind of. In the game people often make a variety of references to Paladins as their spec such as "DPSadins", "Healadins", etc. Along the same lines as healers being called "Healbots" and what not.

I think that goes back to Diablo II (and maybe much further) when a special breed of Paladins was called Hammerdin. Nowadays the Alliance has as the previous poster says, DPSadins, Healadins. Horde generally refer to all breeds of Paladins as LOLadins, or Lawladins. Also please sign your posts on talk pages. Aetherfukz 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Armor

Recently I've been getting into an edit war with another person over the wording of armors. I'm not going to name names unless he wants to. He claims that all armor types should be listed, which I find rather redundant. Originally, I listed all armor types as "Druids can wear Leather armor" and so on. He complained, saying that I posted "false facts." I changed it to "The strongest armor Druids can wear is Leather armor." He still didn't like it, claiming that Leather armor isn't "stronger" because people measure by stats. I feel he's being overly technical, and it's moot point anyway as most class-designed armor (ie Tiers) are made with the "strongest" type available (like Leather for Druids!) What should we do? -Ryanbomber 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong is a bad qualifier. The word "heavier" or "thicker" might be better.

There are only 4 armor types in the game, you could also just list them when need to be. That way it's clear and avoid using subjective wordings. (e.g. Druids can only wear leather and cloth armors.) --Voidvector 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryanbomber, the other person does have a point because of the hybrid nature of the druid class. Druids can weather leather AND cloth, but even though leather will generally offer more protection (in terms of its armor rating) that doesn't neccessarily mean that the druid will always wear leather. If the druid needs to be healing a lot, they may choose to substitute some of the leather for cloth if it has better stats for healing (more int, spirit, +healing, etc). I agree with Voidvector and simply say that druids can wear either leather or cloth. It's just one sentence, covers all the possibilities, and doesn't get overly technical. --Kraw Night 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, whatever. It just seems like it makes more sense to go with whatever the class sets are, because that's pretty much the "standard" armor type. You don't really see Druids going around in full Devout... -Ryanbomber 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If they are the main healer for the group you often see them walking around with various cloth pieces--probably not devout because priests usually get first dibs on that. But cloth is very common on druids that are healing until they get to the 40-man raids and get to wear tier set armor pieces with specific bonuses for their class. --Kraw Night 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's wonderful, but by and large most Druids wear mostly Leather. Yes, they can wear cloth, but if you examine the average Druid, he'll be wearing Leather. My Shaman had a Leather chest piece for the longest time, but I'd still say Shaman wear Mail. There's plenty of Leather and Mail healing items out there, especially with the expansion, but it is very easy to get full of whatever-your-armor-type-is no matter what your role is. Except maybe Moonkin. -Ryanbomber 12:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Although whatever you may say, it is not of relevance that Leather may be the strongest armor type, the fact is that druids can wear Cloth too.CFCF 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryanbomber. Saying leather armour is the strongest armour Druids can wear is correct in my opinion (there may be cases where it is not the most useful, but strongest is clear in what it is talking about to all who play the game and armour is pretty irrelevant to those who don't). It is true that they can also wear cloth armour, but all classes which can wear leather can wear cloth, all that can wear mail can wear leather and cloth and other classes can wear all 4 types. Listing it all is just tedious. Statements like "Warriors can wear Cloth, Leather and Mail armor, and they can buy the skill Armor Proficiency: Plate at level 40" take time reading that could be spent reading the rest of the article. Of course Warriors can wear leather and cloth if they can wear mail and plate (and why do we need to give the full name of the skill?). (Sorry for the overuse of the word "wear", consider it a demonstration of how boring the repetition of all the types of armour is.) Raoul 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The only real measurable way to list "strongest" is by actual armor points. Everything else fluctuates. That, and it's pretty much implied that they can wear "weaker" armor too. -Ryanbomber 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations?

Why does almost every line have a citation request on it? Seeing as how we are basically just quoting the facts that exist on the www.worldofwarcraft.com page (which is listed as a reference at the bottom of the page), I'm going to remove all the citation requests soon unless someone offers a good reason why they should remain. I think the citations in the lore sections may be a bit more appropiate, but again, they should be used sparingly and I'm going to ignore those for now. But it is incredibly redundant to have a citation request after every comment. This is not debatable or controversial information and we shouldn't have to cite worldofwarcraft.com every time we state a game fact. --Kraw Night 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While I think sources are extremely important in most of the articles, quoting the game manual or the website every paragraph will just make the article tedious to read (I personally always read the footnotes) -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

People complained about a lack of citation. A lot of things aren't cited. I don't agree with it either, but I'm just following policy. -Ryanbomber 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the Wikipedia Citation policy I fail to see the need to cite the vast majority of the information on this page. In fact, the first paragraph of the page states "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." There isn't any information here that can be challenged. For example, some of the information that is marked as "citation required" includes:

• [Mages] can also conjure items, including food and water.
• Rage decays out of combat rapidly.
• Paladins also have powerful offensive spells against undead and demons, as well as several defensive abilities including a shield that makes the Paladin immune to damage for a few seconds.
• Several attacks ("openers") require the Rogue to be in stealth.

None of these comments are controversial or representing a specific POV. You cannot argue that mages can summon food and water nor can you argue that paladins don't have the spell "Divine Shield". Simply playing the game or a quick jaunt over to www.worldofwarcraft.com will verify this. Again, I do not see the need for so many redundant citations and object to this page suddenly being flagged as "missing citations". If someone feels strongly that they need to be included, state it here, or else I will proceed to fix the page. --Kraw Night 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went overboard a bit. My point is that there really isn't enough citations in the article though, we do need more. -Ryanbomber 12:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's basically just vandalism, honestly. Probably by people who wanted the article deleted. RobertM525 06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You caught me. I edit the article a lot and voted for Keep in the AFD because I'm trying to bring the article to it's knees. -Ryanbomber 12:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the number of fact tags is definitely on the high side, however we should be able to give citations for all of them (even though I don't believe it is needed as we already give a link to the blizzard site and citations for some statements more likely to be disputed) even if it means we end up with an article which is basically a list of links. What I find more worrying is the citing of WoW wiki and the WoW forums - they are hardly reliable, even if they are correct. Raoul 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of armour names

Roughly half of the sections had the first letter of armour types upper case and half lower case. I've changed them all to lower case for consistency. However I don't know if they should actually be lower case or not. The materials cloth, leather, etc. are obviously lower case, but not necessarily the armour names, so if anyone feels I've got it wrong just change them all to upper case.

As a side note we currently have weapon info above talents and armour below. Obviously that should be changed, but what order do you think would be best? Raoul 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Druid Lore

I have seen this falsified twice by anonymous editors to say the reverse, so I want to bring it up to the attention of future editors. The first druid was the Night Elf Malfurion Stormrage, not Tauren. If someone manage to falsify it again, please correct it. Supporting reference:

• "Cenarion Circle". Warcraft Encyclopedia. Blizzard Entertainment. Retrieved 2006-12-18. The first mortal druid on Azeroth was Malfurion Stormrage, who was trained in the druidic arts by the forest demigod Cenarius. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Nethaera (2006-11-03). "WoW Encyclopedia Error". Blizzard Entertainment. Retrieved 2006-12-18. The Tauren believe they were first. The Night Elves were the first. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

--Voidvector 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Pet Types?

Should a part be added to hunters information listing the different types of beasts that hunters can train as pets, or should a link to the Races in the Warcraft universe page, which tells if the animal can be tamed, be added instead? --Aratarin 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. The information is way too specific and is mainly about gameplay. --Htmlism 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think listing all the pets would be going into a lot of detail compared to what is given on other classes. I see any problem with a link though. Raoul 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mages

Why is there so much talk about Mana, Intellect, Spirit and the connections between them in the mage section? This is nothing special about the mage class, like conjuring water and AOE, it is inheritant to every class with a mana bar. Best would be to remove it I think and let the concept of mana be explained on the warcraft main entry or something. Also the mage entry here says "A Mage is a welcome addition to any party." - something not said anywhere else, this seems clearly subjective. Why doesn't it say "A Priest is a welcome addition to any party." which would be just as appropriate as saying it about mages. Aetherfukz 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI a mage IS a welcomed addition to ANY party and mostly needed in every high end instance, often being more difficult without them. A Priest is a welcomed addition yes, but can easily be replaced with a Druid or a Paladin - or both (or shaman) where as you cannot really replace a mage unless you have a warlock and if you've played WoW you know that Warlocks trying to replace mages doesn't quite work as well. No other class can summon Water, make ports, buff intellect (excluding MoTW), crowd control AND do DPS. They are one of the most requested classes (how many times have you see "LFM Need Mage"). Healers and tanks are also very high in demand but aside from 40 and 20 man instances they can have druids, paladins/shamans substitute. Maybe this will help explain that comment a bit more.

I've never felt I needed a mage for any 5 or 10 man instance, and I've done all of them without both mage and warlock, I don't see why mages would be more welcome than any other dps class, at least they are not to me.

The answer is pretty simple to that. And mind you, the comment was that they are a "welcomed addition" not a necessary addition. However, they are needed more then other DPS classes for all the reasons I stated above: AOE (Scholo, ST, ZF & LBRS without AOE makes it more difficult and particularly strenuous on the healer), Crowd Control (Sheeps in BRS, Lstrat, BRD, etc. make your life much easier), conjuring drinks benefits the healer very much (if you've played a healer you love mages for this), and Arcane Intellect buff which is always nice. I've done pretty much all the instances without a mage when I played my warlock and I also did them all with a mage when I played my priest and I can tell you it's a ton easier when you have mage *especially* when it comes to AOE.

True, a mage offers much utility to a group. But you CAN do an instance without a mage, but you CANNOT do an instance without a healer. And that healer has to be a priest or a druid or a healing specced paladin/shaman. Druid has the problem that he can only rezz every half hour so he needs a pala/shaman for the rezzing business should more than one group member die. That said, I can live with the "is a welcome addition to any party" comment, but all the stuff about mana, intellect and regeneration should go into a more general comment about game mechanics, and not be detailed here only in the mage section. Aetherfukz 12:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the mana, spirit, etc. Spirit isn't even that big for mages as they have other ways to regenerate mana and focus more on Int, Stam, +Spell dmg, etc. with spirit being one of their lowest priorities. Not to mention you are right, it's the same for every mana user for the most part!

Most anything a mage can do, other classes can do as well. A priest can be replaced by a paladin or druid, but is really the best class to have healing. As has been mentioned druids have a long cooldown on rez, and paladins must be holy spec to be able to heal well. I don't find summoning water to be much of a big deal, as you can always carry some from the vendors, or get blessing of wisdom/mana totems. Of course, no other class can make ports, but Warlocks can summon. Intellect buff isn't all that great, but can be a help. Almost every class has some form of CC. Priests - shackle, scream. Hunters - pets, traps. Warlocks - banish, fear. Etc. Mages primary use is burst damage. Warlocks, hunters, and rogues all do damage in different ways, but all of them function as damage dealers alongside mages. Other classes have AOE as well. But either way, that really has nothing to do with the article, I just like arguing. I will try to clean up the mage section a bit ^^ Altair 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shackle only works on Undead, Scream (lol) isn't an option in instances as it brings other mobs, Pets are not dependent form of CC, traps break early/don't last too long/can only be set OOC (unless Feigned which has a CD), Druid Sleep can only be used on animals, Banish can only be used on Elementals/demons, Fear -yet again- not an option in instances as it's too risky (please don't be stupid and use this in a dungeon! hehe), and seduce can only be used on Humanoids. Mages however, can sheep whenever as long as there is no dot and they can do it to any humanoid or animal making them much more prefered choice for CC.

As far as AOE - I have a 60 Druid, Warlock, Priest and a 56 Hunter. Druid's AOE has a CD, Warlock's AOE (the powerful one) kills them as well putting much strain on the healer and in comparison to mages it is much weaker. Hunter's aoe is a joke especially considering it has to be done at range. Mages are basically... a welcomed addition to any party.15:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We could argue about that until eternity. Either way, all classes are a welcome addition to any party, as they each have their strong and weak points. This has been reflected by adding a few words to the statement. Altair 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... except Rogues :P 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Mages are a welcome addition to any party" comment was mine. Providing free water and food and a buff anyone can use is the reason I said that. The Mage is a very useful class. However, if people think it needs to be removed, go ahead. I am not going to get into the stat argument. It is difficult enough adding content with all the "this does not belong here" critics running around. Hyde v 20:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Someone really cropped down the Mage entry, didn't they? Hyde v 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post below, and you will see why I did so. No information that makes the article read like a guide can be used. If you havn't yet, please read and understand the Wikipedia policy before you continue to edit the article. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "master." (sarc) Hyde v 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the Mage section to include some major points that were deleted. They do not tell a player how to play and is not different then the content that was left there so Havok should have no reason to go in there and screw with it. Mages being DPS, AOE, and CCers needed to be added as that's what makes the class more so then conjuring water lol.

I have added various talent descriptions. Feel free to add/change anything regarding the talents, but please post your reasoning. I feel that this talent section is necessary as to give an idea of how each of the talent trees have their own benefits and detractions. Pownow 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you added something, then removed it. Exactly where are you going with it? Mister.Manticore 00:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rogues

I have started a basic division of what rogue gameplay can be defined as. However, it was pointed out that I needed to included sources, and this is where it gets confusing. Should I link to a definition of both swashbuckling and assassins? While I can understand the "no original research" aspect, it seems to me that to need a quote simply to state that rogues can either fight more like assassins or more like swashbuckler seems a bit counter-productive. However, I admit that it can stand to be improved, the only reason I started that additional element was so that it could be improved upon by people much more experienced in the Wikipedia style of writing. Youkai no unmei 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need sources for swashbuckling and assassins, but rather sources for those usages in terms of World of Warcraft play styles for rogues. I'm dubious that the anti-game guide people won't react poorly to that section anyway, but I consider it at least potentially valuable so I'm not going to remove it myself. Mister.Manticore 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific page per class.

What do you all think of making different pages for each class so that more is able to be expanded up for each class rather than just a short summary on each? PhyberOptikKable 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suspect such an attempt would not be well-regarded by certain folks, who find the inclusion of any MMORPG material to be abhorrent and seek its deletion. Not opposed to it inherently myself, but I do think this page needs a bit of work anyway. And fewer vandals. Oy! Mister.Manticore 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really not a good idea. This article used to be in seperate articles until it was merged, and splitting it again would just lead to accusations of fancruft, etc. Like Manticore, I'm not hugely opposed to it myself, but I think the way things are organised now are fine as they are. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've put this article up for peer review in an attempt to get more outside opinions about what needs improving :) The link is in the template at the top of this page. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Game guide?

I am reading the Article again, and I am starting to get worried we are writing a game guide again. Am I the only one thinking we might need to remove some gameplay stuff? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with this comment. The druid's gameplay section includes detailed explanation about abilities and how they work.Youkai no unmei 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree. It's probably gone too far, and it's good that people are aware of this. 171.71.37.103 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Content suggestion

I believe the content in each class description should be standardised. Here is a suggestion of how it could be divided: First part: Class overall description. Basically, what is the point of the class. Second part: Class Lore. Not every class has a lore rich background like paladins, however, each class has at least some elements of lore that can be interesting to read. Third part: Gameplay. Here is where more information about how to play can be found. It could be possible to present the talent trees without having it turn into a gameguide, or a twisted presentation enhancing the image of one talent over the others.

Also, I would like to suggest that any sentence that seems to impose a perception be removed. Basically, when you see something like "Shadow priest are now seen as useful in PVE" it imposes an opinion on the reader. Let the readers decide, and simply present information.Youkai no unmei 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

minor hunter additions

Ive just added a little bit to the hunter section, specifically mentioning that the aspects are referred to as SELF-BUFFS, but included the party-affecting buffs also (aspect of the pack / wild). I also added a minor section alongside the weapons referring to the "HUNTER WEAPON!" phenomenon. This is my first proper edit, so of course it may not be perfect, and it probably needs a bit of cleanup, but hopefully the information will be useful. Meat Golem 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i beleive the addition to party affecting buff will work well... very well indeed...*cackle* Gnomeslasher 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Misinformative stat recommendations

Metastats came about a long time ago. Why is this still recommending, for example, intellect as appropriate for dps casters? Stamina, spelldamage, spellhit, and then intellect are, incidentally, the appropriate order in the case of a non-arcane mage. Could someone address this?

Character Class panel from BlizzCon

The BlizzCon panel provided a some info on each of the nine classes from the developers point of view, including inspirations leading to each class's creation and their evolution. I found two articles which covered this, one by techFEAR and one by Goblin Workshop. Not sure how to incorporate this information best into the article, but I hope it helps. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am trying to incorporate this information into the article now.

[2]

Is it really acceptable to use WoW Wiki as a source? It's hardly reliable. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any inherent objection to using it. Sure, if there are better sources, use them(in fact, looking for them is not a bad idea), if other sources contradict them, see who is right or wrong depending on the circumstances, but as sources go, I'd rather have them than not have them. Now this isn't to say everything from the site is gold, but that's a problem to be handled on a case by case basis. Mister.Manticore 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it further, I really don't think it's a good idea to use WoW Wiki. I'm going to try and look for more sources to replace them.

Talent descriptions

Ok, I just removed two examples of talent tree descriptions from the Paladin and Priest sections, partly because they were the only ones, and partly because they don't cover all of the classes, and partly because the descriptions were possibly inaccurate. Does anybody want them for all of the classes though, and how would you describe them?

• I think a basic overview, i.e. (for priests), "The Holy talent tree increases healing abilities, whereas the Shadow tree boosts damage". And then maybe a comment at the beginning (in the lead), about every class having different 'Talent' options (something like, "Every class has three different 'talent' trees that are different from every other class.". We really have to steer clear of going in depth, cuz that will only bring accusations of game-guideness. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would highly reccommend adding the talent trees for all classes, there is a website with all of that info, but i dont have time to get the link until tomorrow, but i gotta go now ill try to post the link tomorrow, laters Gnomeslasher 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that is a good idea. That information would be far too specific and game-guide like for this page, and it's better to leave it elsewhere. I think just listing the names of the trees is more than sufficient, with coverage of distinctive talents (like moonkin, Fel Guard, Shadowform) in the class description. Mister.Manticore 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love the talent tree. I mean there is one for Warlock but no-others so can someone please add them. I am posting this cause Im going to play WoW but I dont know what class I should be. --Destructo^{Talk to me} 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try wowwiki.com or a forum site, as that would be the best place to get the advice you seem to want. Personally, I think the Warlock section needs to be revised, if not removed, but I'll wait and see if anybody else feels the same. Mister.Manticore 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mister.Manticore. Talent trees are too specific and can be found with much more in-depth on wowwiki. I also think the warlock write-up needs a revamp. On another completely unrelated note and breaking the rules as wikipedia is not a forum, you should try out the druid because they can do everything due to their "Jack-of-All-Trades" description in the article :). --GTPoompt(talk) 13:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Armor Sets

I recently added a list of the warlock dungeon armor sets, which is the main focusing of the game once you 'top out', which makes this information important. My list was deleted once because it was 'not Wikipedia appropriate'. Therefore, I decided that making it own section under the game play would work. It did not either. On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not, I read the following:

• "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fan sites, including a link to one major fan site may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines."

This I agree with and notice that my 'list' is under this category.

However, I was confused by the comment of "However, you'll note that the information is not present for any of the classes, so if you are going to add it, you'll need to do it for all of them, not just one." This does not make sense to me. If the information is not appropriate for Warlocks, then why does me editing everything on the page then make it alright? "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the web site." Source I have been searching the websites help, talk, and discussion boards for anything that states that if someone it going to even the slightest information on a topic why they have to do it all. I do not know the Rogue dungeon gear, Shammys, Druids, and Warriors are not something that I am interested in or willing to do the research for. I am adding my '2 cents' of this database on information that is missing from a page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viceversa-Kuzma (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

It wouldn't make it all right, in fact, I'd disagree with including the content at all. WP:NOT is more than just a mention of external links, it's a whole page, and it's not complete anyway, it's just a bare start. Most decisions are made on a case by case basis, and here, the general feeling has been that the information you added is not appropriate for Wikipedia. However, if the consensus were to include the content for any class, it's not possible to just include that information for one class. All of them would have to be included. Otherwise it just wouldn't seem right. However, this would greatly complicate the page. Basically, the problem with including the information in the specific detail you provided is that it would be far too much of a game guide or instruction manual. It's better to describe the existence of the sets, rather than include the sets as such. This isn't to say there aren't appropriate places for it, Wowwiki is one example, and there are other possibilities.

And I'm not sure, but I think this information was already removed from this page, maybe somebody else can remember. Still, I appreciate you're trying to do good things for this page and not vandalizing it, I just think you might want to consider other ways of improvement. It could use some language cleanup and sourcing for example, much more than lists of high level gear. Mister.Manticore 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Warlock section

WAY WAY too much stuff about locks in here. Cut it down to the size the other classes have. TY --Colinstu 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and unless somebody objects, I'll begin editing later today. Mister.Manticore 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with this article being edited

So, it seems to me that there's a continuous concern with folks editing this article to add whatever gameplay they want. I'm going to add a non-display comment at the top that I hope will forestall some of it. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Priests in Shadowform

It's true the priest can NOT cast Holy spells of any kind while in Shadowform, not just Healing spells. This includes Holy Fire, Smite, Cure disease, etc. Healing spells ARE of the holy tree hence why they cannot cast them. - Danni

Revamp of the article

Anyone think this is too much like a game guide still? Statements like, "Mages are very sought for groups", or "Shadow priests are considered the most dangerous class for PVP." I can understand if it's a complete fact that shadow priests are the most dangerous class in PVP if they can kick people from the server when they want to :P, but I think there needs to be a revamp. The lore section is OK, I don't see any problem with that. I think it would be better if there was a Lore section, section giving the Unique Abilities to that class section, then a very brief talent tree section. Here's an example of what I'm saying below, in psuedotext, since I haven't started playing this game yet.

Lore - Leave this how it is

General - (Something about Shaman being a hybrid class). Shaman's are the only class that can lay totems, which can grant beneficial effects to your party, draw enemy fire, or explode. They also have the ability to enhance thier weapon with with the elements, making it do fire damage or freeze.

Talents

Enchancement - Increases the Shaman's melee damage and defense, making the shaman comparable to a warrior.

Elemental - Boosts the Shaman's Magical offense, increasing the amount of damage they can do from range.

Restoration - Makes the Shaman a potent healer with great defense abilities.

Granted, it may seem like a lack of info, but there is a link to the WoW wiki, which can explain in much greater detail the classes and such.--GTPoompt 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't object to the removal of certain content, but it might be better to look for sources. The trick is finding some reliable ones for statements like Shadow Priest PVP capability. Most comments about the game are going to be forum posts which aren't highly reliable. So maybe it'd be best to just remove those things. The problem is the people are going to keep adding them without thinking. Mister.Manticore 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the catch though for video games isn't it? There is no reliable source to get information from except the official website, since everything is pretty much an opinion, unless it's just a hard fact (like something along the lines of the hunter is best with the bow and gun, only because it believe it says that on the official website). quoting WoWwiki is not good either, since half of that is opinionated too. But you're right in the sense that people will just add stuff on their own due to the nature of the game. The plan should be to have key class attributes, and no "data" if you will, since the game is being patched, updated, and balance of power is being shifted constantly. I'm going to remove any of the stuff I feel doesn't fit, and maybe if it settles down we can change the format

On another note, comments like, the 41 point talent is blah blah blah, what do you think of that being in this article?--GTPoompt 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are some things that the official website is good for, and some it's not. In some cases, it might be best to say "Blizzard presents this as so" in others, it's possible to just say it. Like Shadow priests have shadowform or druids have the most shape-change abilities. Wowwiki isn't a good source at all, but it's possible there are some decent books, websites or other material. Mister.Manticore 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited a few of the gameplay sections, revert some of the edits if you think I went too far, or if I didn't do enough. I don't have access to most of the game websites since I usually edit from work when there's not much to do, but so far, I just trimmed stuff that felt like a game guide.--GTPoompt 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No Love For Druids

There doesn't seem too much about druids here. Yes, the article explains the different shpeshifts fairly indepth, but I think that needs some explaining. Druids have one of the more richer back stories and lore than any other class and I think that needs to be touched upon. It seems like whoever wrote the section on druids just did it to get it out of the way so they can talk about how shadow preists are the best at pvp =).

I'd do it myself but: a.) I don't have any experience writing stuff for wiki, and b.) maybe a more experienced WoW player could write it up better than I could. If nothing else, I think the shapeshift section could be shortened slightly to make way for more room on lore and Druids in general.

What do you guys think?

143.138.26.138 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Stoneburner lvl 61 Druid (Dath'Remar Realm)

In fact the druid thing was the first ont to be written :). The idea behind this article is to give a rough explanation on the basics of each class for people that do not play WoW. First because we want to avoid looking like a game guide (see the deletion discussion at the top of the page), and because wowwiki and druidwiki will always be a better and more up-to-date source of information than us :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

melting faces

It is silly that "melting faces" redirects here. the "melting faces" thread and culture pop refrence that it has become warrants a page or at least a mention.

I never knew this. Honestly I don't think it's a big enough meme that it should redirect. But I suppose there is no harm in there being a redirect.--GTPoompt(talk) 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Misinfo concerning rogues

Rogues are also the only class that open locked doors, chests, and boxes. This requires using "Thieves' Tools[14]" and the "Lockpicking[15]" skill.

This is incorrect. Engineers can blast things open. Rogues are the only ones who can lockpick, but not the only ones who can open things. This either needs to be reworded, or engineering needs to be mentioned. Spazure 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The information is accurate. They are the only class that can do so using class abilities. That addition would be similar to saying "Alchemists can heal with potions" in the priest section. The focus in this article is classes, not professions.Youkai no unmei 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

idea re: "Game Guide" ness

To avoid becoming too much like a game guide, perhaps we can ban (or at least make a reasonable attempt to avoid) the mention of specific reagants or skill names. ie: "A rogue has the ability to sneak by undetected." instead of "A rogue has the ability to enter stealth mode to sneak by enemies when not in combat, and can vanish from combat using flash powder." Spazure 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I think adding reagents and such is turningn it into game guide material. The problem is that there are a bunch of edits to the page from members who don't stick to the "no game guide" mentality (as per the rules somewhere on this site)--GTPoompt(talk) 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added to Shaman

On the list of reasons for the low number of shaman I added their perception as a weak class. It looks weasely now, I think, but once I can track down the citation (a post-BC poll had them voted by a fair margin the class most in need of attention, it's somewhere on the WoW forums...) I can cite it properly.

At least, in the WoW community, it's always seemed the low number of shaman was due largely to them sucking. --192.75.68.254 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to be careful with numbers like that since polls such as that tend to be somewhat biased. Also, an internet poll on a forum is not representative of the total population of players that play the game. And yet, a source like a warcraft realm censsus is not correct either, since there could be 700,000 shaman that play 20 hours a day, compared to maybe 1.5 million warlocks that play 1 hour a day. There may be more warlocks total, but if those 1.5 million one hours were spread throughout the day, there would be more shaman logged in then warlocks, which would mean they are more numerous in game. So it is quite a different census then a census of the human race. Also, perception as a weak class is a point of view, even if it held by a majority of players. If blizzard comes out and says the shaman class is the worst in the game because they programmed it that way, then we could possibly cite that and put it up. For these reasons, I am removing those additions from the Shaman article.--GTPoompt(talk) 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrath of the Lich King stuff in main article

See Talk:World_of_Warcraft#Northrend_stuff_in_main_article. We shouldn't be adding anything to the articles that still might not happen (you know Blizzard..), as it's pretty much still WP:CRYSTAL at this point. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

re-open discussion on revamp

This article (and others) recently went thru an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player versus player in World of Warcraft. For whatever reason, the nominator grouped over a dozen articles into a single AfD, and it was called for closure.

Right now, this article wouldn't stand AfD on it's own.

One of the basic policies would probably be Wikipedia is not a game guide. Much of the information here is guide-like. I think all WoW players know that when you want information on mechanics, spells, classes, etc, you go to WoWWiki, allakhazam, or pick-your-favorite. Much of this information here would not be useful for a person who is not familiar with WoW.

• Lore sections should be struck. External links can be made to both Blizz's websites and to non-official websites.
• The infobox which details the class and race restrictions is nice. It gives a good out-of-world context, and is verifiable.
• Gameplay should be trimmed down. Much of that is tied to lore. Major skills, spells, abilities should be noted with a brief description, not an entire paragraph.

There are other issues. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think personally that the lore section is useful in the sense that it is the less gameguideish part of the article, but I agree with the gameplay sections, these should be kept to a few lines each. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the Warrior section (since that's my main, and the class I am most familiar with). There was no lore section, but I think something like this can be applied to the rest of the classes [3]. There are still some "guideish" stuff in there (trying to describe the differences between the three trees is different is a little difficult). Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shortened again, I'm pondering removing even more. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)