Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft terminology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Whilst many editors seem to be convinced that this is either a game guide or "cruft", it actually has the form of a glossary of the type that is quite common on Wikipedia, and there is significant evidence that the bulk of the terms are in common use and are referenced on relevant gaming sites. The popularity of this particular game and the sheer size of the population of players is also a factor here. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft terminology

This seems rather cruftish and unencyclopedic to me, something that is probably more appropriate at WOWwiki. Delete per WP:NOT. --Hetar 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per this AfD and others. Nifboy 04:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 8 regarding video game guides specifically.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. World of Warcraft is a major game, and a glossary over terms used in it is useful for the coverage. Also, it serves another useful purpose by providing a merge target for all sorts of short stubs people make on various items. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica. Fansites abound for this. Teke 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica. Good list but does not belong on wikipedia.--Cini 07:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep... What is unencyclopedic about it? This is not a video game 'guide' specifically... this is a glossary as well... i mean, i'm sure we don't have to mention that the finer points of Monopoly are a game guide... or even yet Dungeons and Dragons... also a game guide, that explains the game to only the depth that wikipedia can... the Glossary of firefighting terms and Contract bridge glossary are well constructed glossaries of terminology that have outgoing and incoming wikilinks that further can assist broad topics... as far as section 8 goes... "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." this is none of the above. This is not a guide to the 'game'... not in any way shape or form... it's a guide to the language surrounding the game... to get the VfD you need a broad consensus that wikipedia is not a place for glossaries, do not go after each individual instance of glossaries based on the content... go after the concept of them and shut them down from the top... as opposed to re:VfD for lists... which already has a consensus... This should not be a VfD without regards to the separations between a list and a glossary... This article is an encyclopedic Glossary of information as opposed to a List, as opposed to Common School Pranks (which i don't know if it exists anymore)... which was a list without many outgoing wikilinks... this is a comprehensive list of redirection and a compilation of more than just 'items', but a glossary of items that are contained under a very large topic with very specific nuances... see List of glossaries... this is there too... this is not a manual by any means, but more of an idiom and slang glossary that has not a loose base of topics (it's easy to see that it's focused on just WoW specific terminology just like ... while the common mmorpg termonology has a very focused role as well)... which doesn't violate 2... so, with both of those covered... i apologize with the verbose nature of this entry... --evesummernight Edited at 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WikiPedia is not a video game guide, and that is what this article boils down to. Host this (useful page) somewhere else and by all means link to it from the World of Warcraft article. But it is not encyclopedic. TH 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic information, bordering on gamecruft. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. JIP | Talk 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a slang dictionary either, make a deep link to this in the WoW article where the special slang is mentioned to some WoW wiki. Lundse 11:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to various keep votes around here. Who is going to look at this, except WoW players (mainly newbies)? This in itself makes it a gameguide of sorts. This sort of thing belongs on WoW pages, wikis, guidebooks, their help system, etc. I do not see why it should be here, it is just not notable (the game certainly is, and a deep link to this would be highly relevant).
• Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary/Gameguide, doesn't WoW have it's own wiki!?

--Eivind^t@c 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Whatever your opinion as to the worthiness of the subject, it's a place to merge and redirect minor WoW topics that the game's fans are certain to create. Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not what encyclopedias are for. — Haeleth Talk 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Face-melting two-handed delete. --Optichan 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WoW cruft, transwiki to WoW Wiki (if there is one). --Terence Ong 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nce Ong.--Isotope23 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per evesummernight and Smerdis of Tlön and especially Turnstep (below) --Naha|^(talk) 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry to buck the tide, but Wikipedia is studded with glossaries, as this article is. I can't see where this is a "game guide," which while people are waving around WP:NOT, is not in fact specifically excluded. By the way, I have a WP:NOT quote myself: "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields." It's tough to call WoW below the radar for that purpose. RGTraynor 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I completely understand your point. I suppose it's in personal reading of the NOT texts; I feel that "specialized fields" meant more of the academic genre, rather than fictional video games. Que sera sera, and to each his/her own. Teke 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While video games may be set in fictional "worlds", they, themselves, are not fictional - I'm looking at one sitting on my desk right now. Also, video games and computer games are a billion dollar world-wide industry and in that sense do deserve a tad of respect. Neither of these things justify keeping the article necessarily, but just some food for thought.--Naha|^(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I realized after I wrote "fictional" the way I did that it could be misconstrued as negative; I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that while the video game industry itself is a specialized(and lucrative) field, I don't think the product itself is deserving of that consideration. Users of the game may specialize, but to me that is fandom. Once again something I have no problem with, but that's in NOT too. Teke 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the breakpoint, though -- hundreds of thousands of people play this game, avidly, probably many more than practice some of those specialized academic fields. Its glossary page isn't any less valid than the Contract_bridge_glossary or Chess_terminology pages. I really hope people aren't voting on the basis of "highbrow game good" / "geek loser video game bad" mindsets. RGTraynor 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that is not the case. Sometimes I get that feeling from people while I am working on game related articles. --Naha|^(talk) 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can assure that is not the basis of my vote, I don't know about others. Teke 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per comments of delete voters above -- Hirudo 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP - It may not be the best or most organized, but it is worthwhile and useful to people just learning the game and there are alot of us out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.208.249.216 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a game guide, so that's not a valid argument in this context -- Hirudo 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This article is also not a game guide. --Naha|^(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT a game guide, and the fact that this article is completely unsourced. --InShaneee 20:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you would look at the article, you would see it is not a game guide. Also, is being unsourced valid deletion criteria? If so There are thousands upon thousands of articles that you should be putting up for AFD. --Naha|^(talk) 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the Nomenclature sections on many of the WoW articles remove the need for this -- Peteresch 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having to define the same term over and over doesn't seem right either. Being able to link to it is extremly helpful. --Naha|^(talk) 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per evesummernight, RGTraynor and Smerdis of Tlön. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid, non game-guide glossary. At the very least, the crustophobes should realize that having a single page to put all of this stuff is better than having people create and recreate all the items on this page over and over as separate pages. As stated above, glossaries are perfectly acceptable on Wikpedia, and (like it or not) more people play WoW than play contract bridge these days. Further, having the information on another wiki or external site is not, in and of itself, a reason for NOT having it on Wikipedia. Rather, that argument is more appropriate for deletion of things that do not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. This clearly does not fall into that category, unless you want to remove all glossaries, and this is not the place to do that. Turnstep 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it dead. It is game-guide glossary. As for the crustophobes should realize that having a single page to put all of this stuff is better than having people create and recreate all the items on this page over and over as separate pages, that's what {{deletedpage}} is for. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the existence of other game glossaries such as Contract_bridge_glossary. Seems a little too POV to single out a specific game to be nuked for having it(unless it's a non-notable game, something WoW certainly isn't). Not sure that glossaries are very encyclopedic, but if they don't belong in Wikipedia, there should be a rule made against them and then they should ALL be removed with none singled out. Shadowoftime 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that this nomination has nothing to do with POV. I'm an avid WOW fan, I have the user box on my user page, and spend a large amount of time contributing to WOW related articles. The precident for this nomination is more clearly lined out by this AfD which relates much more closely to WOW than bridge does. --Hetar 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking mnore of an anti-video-game. Whether conscious or not, people often have a POV about video games that they are less respectable(and therefore something you'd less likely associate with an encyclopedia) than non-video games and I'm betting many people that voted delete here would vote keep should the bridge glossary go up for deletion(the fact that it hasn't seems to support this). If you have a good reason for how video game glossaries violate WP:NOT when non-video game glossaries don't, type it up and I'll change my vote. I'm not a fan of WoW myself, but I can't see how we can base a deletion on whether glossaries seem "encyclopedic" or "cruftish" and not be POV. Shadowoftime 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - This just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Not to mention that it's impossible to verify or find reliable sources for. Cyde Weys 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but Expand/Rewrite. The bridge glossary is a precedent, but this article is mostly a list of abbreviations common in the game. Arguably, some of this information, i.e. defining corpse camping, is glossary fodder as much as defining various bidding/signaling strategies in bridge. Bridge has a larger number of players, but that does not make a bridge glossary more encyclopaedic than a WoW glossary. However, a list of abbreviations does not constitute a glossary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ESnyder2 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 April 2006.
• Transwiki to Wikibooks for reasons as per aeropagitica. Violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOT aside this is excellent content, and will make a fine addition to the WoW Wikibook. But not here. It unquestionably violates WP:NOT, and thus must be removed. Garrett^Talk 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Better have this than have to deal with people making pages for each of these terms. Arctic Gnome 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A glossary of terms that are used by five million subscribers is not 'nerdcruft.' TDS ^{(talk • email • contribs)} 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read this section of WP:NOT and reassess your vote. Calling it "notable" or "cruft" is entirely beside the point, the point here is that it clearly violates policy. Garrett^Talk 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Which part of that section do you think this violates? The only thing close is #8, and this is clearly not an instruction manual. Turnstep 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft and per nomination. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I would urge those suggesting Delete to be very careful. Deleting this article gives precedent for putting in AfD for List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands, Glossary_of_darts, perhaps all of List_of_glossaries#Games; Glossary_of_anatomical_terminology,_definitions_and_abbreviations on the basis of being barely more than a list of abbreviations; List_of_terms_associated_with_diabetes, which is almost entirely made of mere internal links; and most certainly List_of_Internet_slang. Weaker arguments could be made along the same lines for most of List_of_glossaries.

Can anyone explain, in terms of Wikipedia policy, what the difference is between this AfD (and other deleted game articles quoted as precedent) and the articles I've just linked? Is there a reason that Point 8 here says "video game guides" rather than the less specific "game guides?

We need consistency. I'd actually be willing to argue that all of these glossaries are non-encyclopaedic, but if we keep one, especially one as crufty as List_of_Internet_slang (which can almost certainly be found on thousands of other, more appropriate sites), then precedent should be established that we keep all. --ES2 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please check all of the other so called glossaries... if they all indeed violate 8 then delete them all... but if a particular entry is 'poorly written' (which, in my eyes, is not...) please change from 'delete' to 'clean up'... prescedence i think takes priority... if you allow one... you should allow them all... but force them to a higher standard... i think people (including myself) aren't willing to undertake the responsibility to update wiki:not to further identify what wikipedia isn't... either follow the written law, or allow some permeability (akin to esnyder2's comment)... even more precedence can be found here AfD: for Poker Jargon the result of which was the AfD failed... --evesummernight
• Transwiki to WoWWiki. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Having the information on another wiki or external site is not, in and of itself, a reason for NOT having it on Wikipedia." --Naha|^(talk) 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I cite as reference a similar document that has not been called out for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_slang, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_slang, which function in a similar manner to the WoW Terminology page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.10.130 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment Just pointing something out: Would it be possible, or even recommened, to just transfer each of these over into their own articles on Wiktionary? I know a list of fighting game terms was deleted not too long ago and was wondering if this might be a solution for lists of video game terms. Unfortunately I don't really know much about Wiktionary so I don't know if that would be against policy there. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the more generic ones can be moved to MMORPG terminology. -- infinity0 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why keep MMORPG terminology instead of this? This isn't a particuarly bad glossary... besides, most of these (meaning a fairly high percentage) are actually WoW specific... --evesummernight 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I supported keeping EVE Online Acronyms and Abbreviations. After looking into the issue more however, it seems other online game glossaries were deleted or moved as well. WoW terminology isn't more vital than any of the others. Anyway, there is a detailed Wiki out there just for Warcraft things. Landeyda 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep World of Warcraft is a Multi-million dollar industry. They currently have approximately 7 million customers. This article, if anything, gives insight into the subculture created online as well as what keeps WoW ticking. Surely if we can have Ytmnd, which praise the most obscure facts of pop culture, then we can have an article on the pop culture of a game with a higher player base then the population of Mongolia

Cowbell14 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable Melchoir 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Blizzard has a full-length terminology page on their website via worldofwarcraft.com, but it doesn't go as full-length as this. Doesn't imply nearely as many of the phrases such as "3 minute mage" which is considered an insult to people who play that way. This is a definate keep. --Spazztastic
• Strong Delete. WP:NOT. Show me some citations of the terminology being used outside of the fan groups (like a completely unrelated article in a magazine that has nothing to do with games), and I'd be willing to change.In1984 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a poor criterion. Show me citations of Glossary_of_graph_theory used outside of mathematics circles. --ES2 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time. Almost everyone I know has a particular hobby or interest, be it sports, gaming, art, models, etc. For just about every hobby I can think of, there are terms used to describe various elements within the hobby, but they are rarely heard outside of the special interest groups in which they are used. There is nothing wrong with that. Words/terms/concepts should not have to be pushed onto the general public or become "important" on a world scale to justify inclusion in Wikipedia, Wikitionary or wherever. --Naha|^(talk) 21:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Sandstein 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep per evesummernight and Smerdis of Tlön, Turnstep and Cowbell. The Mongolia comparison is striking. JoshuaZ 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.