Talk:Spam

"It is worth noticing that gold selling is frowned upon by Blizzard, but not explicitly against the Terms of Use or End User Liscense Agreement for the purchasers, and has minimal consequences. Selling gold, on the other hand, is illegal and can result in bans and legal action by Blizzard. " Is Gold Selling the sale of the item gold or the currency? If it's the currency then these are contradicting sentences. If not, selling the item Gold Bar is not frowned upon by Blizzard. --Mouren (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Selling any in-game item, whether it be gold bars or gold currency, is disallowed by the Blizzard Terms of Use. -- 15:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant selling the Gold Bar as is selling it in game for gold, not for real currency. Should have made that clearer. --Mouren (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it should be clearer now. -- 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Other types of spam?
I can't help notice that anal spam is mentioned in this article (most anal spam is unimaginative like the examples listed, and I suppose it's not a great idea to be listing some of the few marginally creative examples here), and I thought it might be worth mentioning other popular forms of spam seen in Trade chat. Chuck Norris facts often fill up the screen as well as Murloc Movie Titles (the title of a movie with one or more of the words replaced by "Murloc"), but I don't know if it's just my realm or not that has these, so I'm only suggesting it for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.

Relatively pointless and highly inaccurate discussion of the origin of the term "spam" needs removal.
Factual inaccuracy in that tinned meats (of all kinds) were not exempt from rationing restrictions. They were, in fact, almost always the first thing that stores ran out of. The Hormel Company shipped huge quantities of SPAM to Britain because of the demand and because tinned meat ships well and because the British (and Russians, eventually) took to the product. SPAM was ubiquitous, well-liked by the British, and closely identified with American generosity. Both the British and Russian governments singled out SPAM as essential war-time material. Its popularity is evidenced by the fact that post-WWII a license was applied for and granted to a local (British) company for production of the product which license remained in effect until 1998 when it was sold to a Danish company with more production capacity in order to produce the product on a larger scale and reduce the necessity (and expense) of importing the product from the US for the rest of Europe.

Grammatical inaccuracy in that SPAM is not "a type of processed meat" but a brand of processed meat. It does not constitute its own "type."

Virtually all of this should probably be removed as the definition of "spamming" is thorough enough in the main body of the article, little of this information is both accurate and relevant, much of it represents non-encyclopedic information and is unsupported by factual accuracy or references other than a single wikipedia link (oddly, many of the factual inaccuracies of this information can be easily refuted by information in that same wikipedia article).

Recommended action is to remove the "History and Origin" subsection entirely.

I'm deferring taking action until a moderator approves it.Mltco78dhs (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Meh, the thing about British people having been sick of Spam may be removed since it's conjecture, but the rest seems fine to me. Xporc (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have detailed my grievances with the remainder of that section instead of leaving it to the community to see what I see. There is but a single reference to Spam-humor from one contemporary comedian (seems inappropriate in a subsection about history) without any acknowledgment of the long history of previous pseudo-explanations for the meaning of the name "SPAM" (which include "Specially Processed American Meat," "Shoulder Pork And Ham," "SPiced hAM," "Spiced Pork And Ham," and others, all of which predate Mr. Foxworthy's existence on this planet and almost predate that of his father).  There is inaccurate representation of the nature of the trademark (I looked it up in the U. S. Government's trademark database - the word itself, regardless of capitalization, is not trademarked - it's the image, including colors of the letters and the shape and color of the background.) There is mischaracterization of the source of the humor in the Monty Python sketch (it's not funny because the Brit's don't like SPAM; it's funny because it's poking at the fact that they put it in so many things - the ubiquity of the product rather than any distaste for it is the source of the humor).  Nothing in this section contributes to the topic of the article at all and much of it is both incorrect and non-encyclopedic.  If wowpedia is to include this sort of background trivia, it should probably be given its own article rather than included in a spotty, hit-and-miss, and wildly inaccurate fashion like this.  There are certainly enough other fun and strange linkages between elements of World of Warcraft and cultural tropes that such an article might be worthwhile, but sticking this at the bottom of this article seems out of place and does not materially support the topic of the article itself.  Taking no action until I see moderator input.Mltco78dhs (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)