Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Reminders for Gazimoff
Who deserves a barnstar for his work on this article. Anyway, reminders as requested (advertisements for other people to work as well!):
- Use the tools normally used at FAC. Includes refchecker and other items.
- Legacy, Development need improving
- Copyedit
- Lead needs redone (this I might do).
Cheers. --Izno (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Recruit A Friend Video
Some references for wow
Most of the following references are from the field of games studies. Some of them are on SSRN (they usually are), unless they are within one year of initial publication, then they are usually embargoed. I will try to link to a freely available version when possible but a considerable amount of these articles are gated and may not be accesible to the general public. I can access them but I won't republish them broadly for obvious reasons. If you want an excerpt or want to see a copy, let me know on my talk page and we'll work something out so that we aren't violating the spirit and the letter of my access agreement.
First off, Nick Yee's work. He's a researcher at PARC and does empirical and other work within and about WoW.
- Building an MMO With Mass Appeal (gated)
- From Tree House to Barracks:The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft (gated)
- Alone together? (gated) This is a good one. controversial, as it basically says that people socialise a lot less (on the whole) than most game researchers think or would like to hear.
Constance Steinkuehler works in games and learning theory. Her research has moved on to Lineage, but there are some good papers there on WoW (non gated papers are linked directly from her info page). She has a conference paper on WoW forums, interestingly enough.
Some other researchers:
- Mark Chen has a few papers in stages of publication about guilds, raiding and learning in WoW. Some are linked here (Check this cite for a good way to cite a conference presentation without an associated PDF). the paper is a draft, but it is based on a received and reviewed conference talk given in 2007. Also, he has a talk from 2008 discussing "relearning" the game at 60/70 and how this correlates to some different learning models (ZOMG huge .gif).
- Krista-Lee Malone has produced what is basically the first paper on DKP out there. The work is still a draft (accepted for publication in Games and Culture), so it probably won't fly as RS, but when it is published it should make for an interesting anchor.
- conference paper (gated) on collaboration in WoW.
RMT research
- Ted Castronova (kinda the guy who lit the fire under modern games studies) has a paper on cost/benefit analysis of RMT in WoW and online spaces in general. Be aware, Ted is kinda anti-RMT, so the gist of it may be slightly POV. ungated
- T.L. Taylor's work in virtual worlds is very well known. This paper discusses emergent behavior and regulation in those worlds generally, but mentions RMT as well. gated
- Julian Dibbell is not a scholar per se, but his work skirts the boundary between reporting and novel scholarship. Any discussion on RMT ought to include his piece in the new york times on chinese gold farmers. ungated
- A very brief rundown (basically because the readers of the duke law review don't usually play wow) of the "legal status" of goods in WoW ungated
- A similar review in the Loyola Law review (accepted but not published) ungated
- Again, similar but very detailed, in the UC Davis law review. ungated
That's a start. A lot of it is parochial and technical. A lot of it will seem remedial to people who play wow. this is mostly because about 1/2 of the intro of the paper (and, as you will see, 1/2 of the paper sometimes) is devoted to explaining what WoW is and why it is worthy of scholarly attention. Part of the problem is that this field is REALLY young. Most of the good work was formative and is about EQ (Castronova, TL Taylor, etc). Some really good work is done by grad students and most of the work is in conference papers or in Games and Culture. That makes scholarly sourcing hard for wikipedia, but I think it is important to include serious study of WoW in this and daughter articles in order for them to get past FAC. You can ask me questions about this stuff on my talk page or here (for a while, I might unwatchlist this page if it is really heavy traffic). I will try to contribute as best as I can, but I'm not very good at getting articles beyond GA, I'm more of a create/save from deletion kind of guy. Hopw this helps. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Armory
References to the Armory and to alternative Armory sites (armorylite.com, armory-light.com, warcrafter.net) are completely missing. Seeing how the WoW Armory is a great technological feat (XML source) and how it has allowed hundreds of player-hosted sites to exist, there should be at least a mention of the Armory in this article. 80.109.144.111 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Subscription Prices?
While I myself am not a player of WoW, I think it should be good information if someone were to add to the entry the actual subscription price of WoW (maybe even compared in different regions. There are references to getting discounts and that each region is different, but since things like the WoW pre-paid cards could be similar to XM Radio Pre-Paid cards (example), where you buy a block of money and it would cover as much as a couple months depending on usage. (Example: a $30 card would would cover the "average" single XM radio listener for 2 months with a remainder carrying over to the next month of anywhere from $2-$4 depending on tax [@$12.99 a month], a 2 radio subscription would be covered for only about a month and have about $8-10 remaining as a credit for the next month {@19.98 a month]).
Pricing seems to be one of those things that unless you know someone who plays WoW, you won't find out how much it is without alot of looking around online. ZyphBear (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Error in Usage Problems Section
{{editsemiprotected}}
There is a minor error in the final sentence of the 4th paragraph in the Usage Problems section. The sentence that reads:
The token generates an one-time password based code that the layer supplies when logging on. The password is only valid for a limited time, thus providing extra security against keylogging malware.
Should read:
The token generates an one-time password based code that the player supplies when logging on. The password is only valid for a limited time, thus providing extra security against keylogging malware. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Swotam (talk o contribs) 17:39, 11 August 2008
Collectible Card Game -- Should it Have its Own Article?
I think this is worth considering. The board game has its own article and the TCG has at least as much notability. What do others think? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Recruit-a-friend program mentionable?
should we throw in the new recruit-a-friend deal that they have had going on for the past few months? Wish i had a few links to show it in full detail...Grimreape513 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Huge work
A huge work has been done since last I came and it's nice. However, sometimes the paragraphs are way too long to read. I know you've been working on trimming, but perhaps just subsections would be easier to read. Zandalia (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Some content is just plain out of date. For example the paragraph Players having difficulty finding groups to venture into a dungeon with can use meeting stones, which attempt to match characters with groups requiring particular skills or abilities.[32] High end dungeons allow more players to group together and form a raid. These dungeons allow up to forty players to enter at a time in order to face some of the most difficult challenges This usage of meeting stones has been replaced by a LFG group matching interface about two years ago. And the old system never had the matching system that the article suggests, they just joined players into groups as soon as they queued. Because of this players considered the meeting stone system to be worthless and unusable, as it always produced an unusable group of 5 random players without any consideration for required skills. This change of 2 years ago also changed the meeting stones into summoning stones so the meeting stones don't exist anymore. Also raiding in the Burning Crusade is limited to 25 players with 20 and 10 player raids also existing, so the statement that any raid allows up to 40 players is just wrong.
The article claims Victory rewards the character with tokens and honor points that can be used to buy armour and weapons. However, defeat also rewards the character with this, only in a lesser amount. A player can fully complete his goals by losing consistently, it just takes longer. The way it is now incorrectly suggests winning matches is mandatory. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.221.228 (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The 'Reception' & 'Usage Problems' sections are indeed huge & largely unncessary, they should be downsized to a few sentences within the article. Barrel-rider (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
![Heavensward: Twintania Mount [Recruit a Friend] - YouTube](https://i0.wp.com/imagos.club/wp-contents/uploads/2014/1/3FGqDn.jpg "Heavensward: Twintania Mount [Recruit a Friend] - YouTube")
Update to 12 million players (229 US realm)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/09/05/lapin.albrecht.game.on.cnn --Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmasyean (talk o contribs) 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
![Blaugust Day 16][FFXIV]Machinist to 45 | Nomadic Gamers](https://i0.wp.com/imagos.club/wp-contents/uploads/2015/12/vZHgDp.jpg "Blaugust Day 16][FFXIV]Machinist to 45 | Nomadic Gamers")
New External Link Suggestion
Hi i would like to suggest www.wowvillage.com for the external link section, it contains very detailed information about the races, classes and complete class skill/ability lists, all the information has been collected from ingame. I belive this would be benficial for readers wanting more information on ingame information.
Clusterman (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Total MMO/MMOG numbers
There is a section that has been removed and replaced regarding MMO subscription base estimates as a whole. Since it followed the WoW subscription base, I reverted its removal as the total number provides some perspective for the reader whereas the number of WoW subscribers does not. In comparison, the EQ article should (dunno if it does) note the number of subscribers to EQ in 2000 in comparison to the number of subscribers of MMO's in total (otherwise a # like 200k doesn't look so big). I appreciate the OR concerns about comparing two separate estimates involving different methodologies, but I would prefer to discuss it here rather than revert back and forth. Also, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I would ask that Celtic Muffin self-revert the second removal of the content. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:Proposal for consideration:
Edit war relating to subscriber numbers
Can y'all discuss that here rather than in an edit war? - Denimadept (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Vote to remove section about the Corrupted Blood incident?
Is there really any reason to have this in the article? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article, and it really is of minor relevance (besides a "cool factor") compared to the rest of WoW development. I suggest it be deleted. Slinky317 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon