Talk:Future race ideas/Archivevote

Deletion vote

Note: If it is agreed that this page be deleted, all similar pages will be removed along with it at the same time (Read comments below)

Votes

Delete

1. Delete Pcj (T•C) 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC) - (Read comments above...)

Keep

1. Keep Sandwichman2448 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC) - (Read my comments below... It had a good run, but it is too not NPOV now. Yes it is! THE NOOBS TRICKED ME!)
2. Keep Nunuka 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - (Not pretending to know about policies or controversies but believe it should be preserved somewhere in some context and am voting as a reader who found the page useful.)
3. Keep Airiph 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - (I can never get a vote to work.)
4. Keep Kulsprutejojjo 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - (I don't feel there's any real reason to remove this aritcle. One, it's very popular, and two, there are better ways to go than to just delete the article. A revamp, perhaps?)
5. Keep Vorbis 18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - (This article is taken too seriously. There is nothing that cannot be solved by just a minor tweak of the labelling.)
6. Keep Kirochi 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC) - (I've had it with those people who want to delete something just because they can't rule it.)
7. Keep Piu ^(?!) 05:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC) - (Keep but mark clearly as speculation and we probably need some rules on articles of this type)
8. Keep Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC) - (You have seriously got to be kidding me)
9. Keep Hekirou 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC) - (I think it needs to be moved out of being a main article and into... I dunno, somewhere else. It's speculation. Yeah, okay, it's fun speculation and it does provide sources [some of which are informative, you have to admit] but... it just doesn't seem right to put it out as a legit article.)

Comments

Again votes are to remain in the talk pages due to policy. Voting processes do not go outside of talk pages.Baggins 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

HAH! Pcj,Im with ya there!--User:Airiph/sig 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that last comment in any way useful or constructive (you too, Pcj)? Why do you cultivate a feeling of resentment towards the page? Enlighten me, o bandwagon demolisher. :/ --User:Vorbis/Sig

Jamvaru, read what I wrote about voting above... Delete the whole article? In a perfect world, no. Pcj is known for dislike of anything without factual grounding (Understandable but not fun, but wikis are not for fun), but has a point here. This page has become nothing more than a list of arguments about twisting lore so that no race that has fans is seen as 'bad'. I liked this page, but it has gone crazy. I think no one reads this page as a list of facts, their mind decided on the one it will be, some see this page only bashing that race without a NPOV (Read NPOV as 'facts no fans dislike'). With WotLK having no new races, and the way the discussions are going, I think I will say yes... Unless the aforementioned noobs shut up.--SWM2448 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm,Baggins,III waaasss juusst kiiidddiiinngg.Ook?--User:Airiph/sig 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Baggins.--SWM2448 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops I ment Vorbis.--User:Airiph/sig 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WoWWiki is an encyclopedic work. This article would not be in an encyclopedia because its nature is highly subjective. Review Project:NPOV. Also, it's not like Blizzard will reference this page before adding playable races. You want my opinion on which races should be kept? I vote that none of them should be kept. --Pcj (T•C) 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. This page's purpose was to see the likelyhood of races for TBC based on what Blizzard said. It seems to have fallen off since.--SWM2448 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is to be voted off the island, then all related pages should be up for the vote as well. Such as future expansion ideas, and the subpages like Pandaren ideas. If one goes they must all go.Baggins 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

lol...sounds good to me. --Pcj (T•C) 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll round them up if this goes, let us not make too many separate votes.--SWM2448 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

this page only bashing that race without a NPOV

One comment however, bashing is not allowed, only information that was from official sources and properly cited. If Blizzard showed a negative side of a race, or the reasons it wouldn't join one faction over another, then that was properly cited. Fan opinions are not allowed, read the introduction for more information. This was one of the major things that a few admins decided on when we revamped the page.

NPOV means not allowing fan opinons into account, however, cited Blizzard lore and facts does not fall under NPOV policy. It is is its own entity altogether.Baggins 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then vote keep. That is only a fragment of my sentance (I just edited it for clarity).--SWM2448 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently thinking of abstaining from voting. While I've done alot to try to clean up the page's format, it was not neutral to begin with, back when it started as a TBC speculation page. We have tried to fix it since then, and make it more NPOV. However that doesn't mean that I'm for or against the page.Baggins 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As for a revamp, I got an idea. A five-point-scaled system, which measures the popularity, lore possibilities, how civilized and cultured a race is, and how few technical problems it would cause. There could also be a category called other, which brings up issues like the "Pandaren and China law" problem and stuff like that. The more points a race gets on each category, the more likely it is to get selected. That said, some of these categories are of more importance than others, like the lore reason is obviously more influencing on the possibilities of a race getting selected than the technical issues and other categories. However, a too low score on for example technical issue, ie. flying, can decrease the chances a lot, since it would give a heck of a lot of problems on Azeroth. Beyond the generic points, there could be points influencing horde and alliance chances of getting said race. However, when measuring the horde and alliance possibilities, only the lore and other categories could apply, since none of the other points could influence on the possibilities of being picked for the said faction. --Kulsprutejojjo 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is really going a bit far. The page has simply been around too long. Slap a fanfic tag on or remove links to the page by all means, but destroying this article and the articles which link to it doesn't solve any problems at all. It's a sandpit, a debate forum - don't take it too seriously. I enjoy arguing the toss on this talk page, and wowwiki would certainly be dull without it.

Either way, it's unlikely this page will actually disappear. It may be kept as a wowwiki relic like the Burning Crusade page and if not, you can guarantee it will appear on someone's user space. Possibly even mine. --User:Vorbis/Sig

I'll change my vote if we can get it to a NPOV. Here is my suggestions: Two colors, red and green, for 'for' and 'against' (With grey comments). No picture captions beside the race name.--SWM2448 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

SWM to help with the neutrality issue, can you create a new discussion, pointing to the specific issues you have found? It would be a big help.Baggins 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sandwichman, not Sky (Both have four number after their names for no reason and stary with S). Upon... thinking about it, I realize that there is no issue. Fans/noobs think a NPOV is 'just facts they do not dislike'. What I said before mainly applies to the talk page, with little of it spilling on to the mainspace. Who cares what these trolls think?--SWM2448 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just gonna take back my vote. I don't like being called an arrogant controlling n00b, and you guys want to keep your article. Compromise. I've learned my lesson.--Blayaden 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Confuzzled, huh?Baggins 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just gonna stay out of the way for now.--Blayaden 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he meant you when he used those terms, :p...Baggins 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean you.--SWM2448 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

S'ok. My antidepressants ran out yesterday, and I'm in super mega hyper sensitive mode. ^_^; I'll be better tomorrow. In the meantime I wonder what can be done to make the thread less... controversial? ::shrugs::--Blayaden 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe articles like this and other speculation things that are collaborative need to be marked as such and maybe live in their own namespace? We have plenty of fanfic on the wiki already, this seems to fall under that category even if it's not true RP. There's no reason it shouldn't stay, it just needs to be filed in the right place. Maybe it's time for a "fan speculation" policy? --Piu ^(?!) 05:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically only the white ? and grey comments are supposed to be speculation, anything else is actually pure official annotation.Baggins

Break

This page isn't fan fiction. It's also not about voting or opinions - it is an article recording the various positive and negative reasons why races may or may not be possible for addition. It is also hugely popular, and well sourced. Voting on whether races are included is also utterly absurd. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember the Rumored Races issue with the likeliness of each race? This article can't be a democracy, it would be turned too quickly into a dictatorship of POVs. A few serious people have to watch this page, and that's all.--K ) (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do remember the fun discussions about liklihood, soon after I arrived :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)