Talk:World of Warcraft Classic

Business model?

For those of us unfamiliar with how WoW accounts etc. work, it might be nice to add a small section explaining WoW-classic's relationship to users' accounts. All (I think) this article says is that it's "a server option", so I'd have to guess that this means its available to anyone with a current subscription (but does that mean they have to own any expansions?), and that characters in WoW-classic are confined to that environment. This is probably massively obvious to anyone at all familiar with how WoW works, but to those of us who aren't, it's not that clear. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Launch and Reception?

Should this be one category or two? There are lots of articles out there now to cite as sources of information about launch day, it seems like a good time to start adding to this article. Gibdiski (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"fork" vs. "server option"

(originally posted to ferret's talk page) Hi there - I noticed you reverted my recent edit on World of Warcraft Classic. I still think "fork" is a far more accurate term than "server option". Sources that reference it as a fork are here: 1 2 3. Source #2 directly quotes J. Allen Brack (Blizzard president) mentioning that, at the very least, the server-side code is indeed a fork of the modern WoW server architecture. The way the client-side code is described is a bit murky, but considering that they used a continuation of the pre-expansion version numbering scheme (currently 1.13.5.35753) and the Classic code is now being patched independently of modern WoW, "fork" still seems to be the most accurate description of WoW Classic. To myself and I'd imagine most readers, "server option" indicates that the same client-side code is being utilized, and that is clearly not the case here. Curious to know your thoughts. Paradoxsociety 16:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that we're an encyclopedia targeted to a general audience as well, though. WoW:Classic is far and wide not known as a "fork of WoW", not in any common way at all. To most players even, let alone non-players who made read this, it's just another game / server option. That said, these sources if not already incorporated should be used to expand the development section. -- ferret (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's a fair point, but I still don't think "server option" is an accurate descriptor. If it's "just another game / server option", then why does it deserve its own article? Is it separate or not? From a software standpoint, it is now a project that is not compatible with the main game. It is definitively separate and thus it is accurately classified as a fork. I'll see what I can do about updating the development section but would still like to understand why "server option" is better for the lead. Paradoxsociety 09:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"just another option" doesn't factor into Wikipedia notability guidelines. In-depth coverage in reliable sourcing does. Classic is a clearly distinct and widely covered topic. As for the rest, let's let it sit for a bit to see if other opinions crop up. -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm not really a fan of either verbiage, but I were tending toward one, I think "fork" is more likely to be understood than "server option". I think we should probably get that statement out of the lead regardless and tend toward the 'classic' "WOW Classic is a video game produced/provided since X in the WoW series. It recreates the state of the game from the time of Y.", and then leave any forkings to the Development section. --Izno (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this. Both options are not really general reader-friendly. What's a "fork"? What's a "server option"? The lead should probably not get this technical. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. "Server option" was just the existing text. Versus "software fork", I'd take "server option", but neither is ideal. -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

TBC Classic?

What are we going to do about TBC Classic>? Incorporate it into this article or new article? There's no mention whatsoever of TBC Classic in this article since it's been announced. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorporating it here would put the current anti-TBC bias in the article on display. ze un fo un 14:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

After looking through it a little, there's a few reliable sources we could use, but just not enough to split it into a new article. I'm going to work on a sandbox and maybe explore the sources a little more to see if we could reach a consensus. Thanks. cheezejack | talk | contributions - 13:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that it is possible that we could leave a small section on TBC Classic in this article, but also publish an entirely new article about TBC Classic itself. cheezejack | talk | contributions - 13:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Wrath Classic section?

I greatly expanded the Wrath Classic section a few weeks ago, but just noticed that it has the "some sources may not be reliable" banner. Unfortunately, the only sources I was able to find for certain points were from WoWhead, and often from the same author. I tried to find more varied sources, but given the small-scale coverage of most WoW Classic updates, I didn't have many options. Anyone have some suggestions on what we could change to then remove the banner? FebruaryThirtieth (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)