Where does it actually call this patch 3.9.0? User:Coobra/Sig4 00:01, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

In the URL. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,967 contributions and counting) 00:03, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok then, thanks for clearing that up. User:Coobra/Sig4 00:09, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
ummm are you sure this is not 3.3.9 because blizzard said that there will not even be a 3.4.0 because 3.3 is the last major patch so this is either fake or its 3.3.9 or its a cataclysm patch also cataclysm will come before they have time to do a 3.3.5,3.4.0,3.4.1,3.5.0,3.6.0 ect. Almasa (talk) 00:33, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
That was kind of my thought... it does seem kind of silly to go from 3.3.5 to 3.9.0. Though I can see why they would give it that number... cause technically a major patch would be needed to change the entire would prior to the cataclysm xpak release date. So 3.9 would make sense given that cata is 4.0.0. User:Coobra/Sig4 01:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure about it. They probably just didn't want it to be 3.4.0 and making it like 3.3.7 probably seemed silly. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,967 contributions and counting) 01:21, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
No.....that probobly wont be its name dude.they have never skiped numbers before and they wouldnt start now they also said that there would not be another major pass however i belive this is offical so its real but its name is wrong because its probobly 3.3.9 i think it might have gotten mixed up a little thoughout the corse of passing information along.... Almasa (talk) 05:40, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the underdev pages for ICC had /3p3 in the URL, the ones for Ulduar had /3p1, this one has /3p9... It's all precedent. In any case, if it ends up being a different patch version, it's not like it's hard to just move this page to the proper version number. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Almasa, they have also never done such a huge patch that would borderline an expansion set. Whatever they plan to call the patch this is likely the one that will change all of Azeroth's graphics and allow for flight capability. The work involved is probably equal to that of Wrath of the Lich King or Burning Crusade. Since this effects all players, not just those that will buy Cataclysm, there is likely a reason to their numbering of it 3.9 rather than say 4.0.1. And yes, blizz said no more major patches until Cataclysm. That doesn't mean this patch is coming out very soon, its likely to happen right before the release date. One last thing, just because Blizz doesn't do something, doesn't mean they won't do something... it's like expecting to see a new heroic class for the Xpak after Cataclysm just because of their "pattern" they've shown. BC=New races, Wrath=New class, Cata=New races... but this is a pointless debate, as Dark T Zeratul has said, the page can simply be moved if things change. User:Coobra/Sig4 07:02, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I think that the 3p9 is a placeholder name for maybe one of the last patches boefre cataclysm launch. Aedror42 (talk) 23:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is a Cataclysm leadup - and on top of it, the BC-to-Wrath changeover didn't exactly follow a numerical order. Last patch of BC was 2.4.3, the first official patch of Wrath was 3.0.2. Skipped over 2.5 to 2.9. This is just more of the same, I think...and we probably won't see 3.3.5 until probably May or June-ish, if I had to guess - just in time for the Cataclysm later in the summer (if then). --Joshmaul (talk) 10:43, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
It is likely that 3.9 must be renamed to 3.3.9, because that is likely. I suggest to keep the number 3.9 until it is clear what the actual version number is. Then we can change 3.9 in Wowwiki to that version number. 3.9 is a guess, likely a misinterpretation of "3p9" by MMO-Champion. Hans Kamp (talk) 07:42, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Joshmaul, that's simply how software version numbering schemes work. As you recall, vanilla got up to 1.12 before it was updated to 2.0 for the expansion. It's not a simple decimal system incrementing by 0.1. It's (release version).(major patch).(minor patch). Whenever a major patch is released, the minor patch is returned to zero. Likewise, whenever a release version comes out, the major patch is returned to zero. It wouldn't make any sense for them to skip from 3.3 to 3.9. Primal Zed (talk) 03:52, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

This years april fool's?Edit

I'm almost certain! DeliahSigDeliahSigtDeliahSigc 16:25, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Very unlikely.
Blizzard's April fool's are always unveiled the 1st, not a month before.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 17:21, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Some of the quests are already in the PTR according to WProt Spec RoundIcon Drkstrm (talk contribs) 22:41, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete this pageEdit

Blue post on forums confirmed that these events will happen in patch 3.3.5 so the events should be moved to 3.3.5 and this page should be deleted.EDIT:looked again and it turns out its not on 3.3.5 but it is not gonna be a 3.9.0 and the events wont happen with a patch!Almasa (talk) 17:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. The only reason the events are running in the 3.3.5 PTR is because they want to test it before this patch. By the way, do you have any evidence of your assertions? I doubt it, seeing as you've corrected yourself once already. --Joshmaul (talk) 20:16, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
Evindence: no patch 3.9.0 its not coming with a patch at all.Almasa (talk) 21:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Your link only explains that OP and ZF are not for 3.3.5, it do not says that there will not be a 3.9.0
You should just Wait and See, articles can always be moved or renamed later.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 11:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Look at the second blue post. It says that it wont come with a patch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Almasa (talkcontr).
The post reads:
"The release of the events will be contingent upon the development of other features leading up to Cataclysm, but their release will will likely not coincide directly with a patch. They're events that simply need to be "turned on" when we're ready."
"Likely not" does not mean "will not".
""turned on" when we're ready" means the event are in game files, but not that it is not started after a patch.
Nothing at all says that there will not be a Patch 3.9.0
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 08:46, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
I've had a (rather stupid) series of debates with people regarding this subject. They're stubbornly refusing to accept that there could even be a 3.9.0, even with the evidence that suggests it (3p1, 3p2, 3p3...3p9, lol), simply because it "doesn't follow Blizzard's naming convention" when it comes to patches. They go "precedence, can't happen, NO, NO, LA LA LA LA LA" (insert fingers in ears, so on). Yeah, let's look at other things Blizzard has "set in stone": No flying mounts in major raid instances after Icecrown Citadel... --Joshmaul (talk) 10:17, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
No faction changes.. no sex changes... No more stable pet slots (back when it was just 2slots). User:Coobra/Sig4 16:18, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, didn't they say that they weren't going to make Shaman available to the Alliance and Paladins available to the Horde? WAAAAAY back in the days of Vanilla? One thing I've learned about Blizzard is that it's only set in stone once it's released. For all we know, they might just say "screw it" to these events and just drop 4.0 on our heads. Tanooki1432 (talk) 20:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Still, not deleting the page means we will have a page for a patch with no listed changes except what's now already on the 3.3.5 undoc page. For that reason alone I say delete it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
OP and ZF should not be written in the 3.3.5 Undoc Changes, because it will not get "live" (stored but not active) with it. (said in a blue)
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 16:49, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
"The events themselves are not currently scheduled to go live with patch 3.3.5. We're simply taking the opportunity on the PTRs to test these events while they're up and running in case we do not have another opportunity to do so before marking these events live.."
From the same blue post A'noob linked earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toran Wildpaw (talkcontr).
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:10, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it helps when people read the blue print, don't it? *grin* --Joshmaul (talk) 22:29, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Seems it has finally just been confirmed to be coming with patch 3.3.5 [1]. User:Coobra/Sig4 21:58, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yet another turn around of Blizz...
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:16, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
What turn around? That's exactly what they said before, only worded differently. The events are being implemented in 3.3.5, but won't be turned on until later. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:28, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should assume that patch 3.9.0's going to happen until a blue post explicitly states otherwise or the event starts. Even if the patch is cancelled, I think we should still keep the page and state that the patch was announced and then cancelled. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:25, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Except the patch wasn't announced and canceled; its existence was merely assumed because the preview pages for the events had /3p9 in the URL, likely as a placeholder since they probably didn't know exactly what patch it would go live in. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with dark t zeratul the patch was never announced it just had it in the url. You can't cancel something that was never announced.Almasa (talk) 15:32, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


As we admitted we were wrong about the existence of Patch 3.9.0, why don't we delete this article and remove the redirect from Patch 3.9.0 to Patch 3.3.5 (undoc)?

IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 13:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Existence Edit

Now I know I had just merged this talk page with that of Talk:Patch 3.3.5 (undocumented changes)... but then I read , in which Bornakk clearly states... there's a patch 3.9.0 ... User:Coobra/Sig4 21:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I'd just leave it as is until we get something concrete saying "X is coming in patch 3.9." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a patch 3.9 coming later: --User:Gourra/Sig2 20:17, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

All contents have been returned to their original place since there will ba a 3.9
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 10:56, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

The arrival? Edit

On the EU servers it's been saying for a few days now that some of the servers are going down to "prepare for the upcoming expansion", now I recently, (like 2 days ago) re-installed WoW, so is this just a slow routine preparation that's been building up that I've missed, or is 3.9.0 on its way? Batjimi (talk) 00:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

If it's only "some" of the servers going down, it likely means they're doing hardware upgrades. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:33, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be doing it in phases, a large group are down at the moment, some more in a few hours, and so on and so on. Batjimi (talk) 00:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yea, they've been doing this for a few months now... like every 2 weeks or so they bring a set of servers down for the whole day. User:Coobra/Sig4 00:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Right, thanks for the info. Got a bit excited for a minute there. :P Batjimi (talk) 00:38, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
If it's the patch, they'll be bringing every server down for extended maintenance all at once. There will likely also be a PTR beforehand. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
So I was right! There IS a 3.9.0! --Joshmaul (talk) 18:46, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Good for you. You want a cookie? —EGingell (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 19:11, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Why, yes, yes I would. --Joshmaul (talk) 21:26, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Retaking troll and gnome zones Edit

Logged on to the US realms and found that Operation: Gnomeregan and Zalazane's Fall are live now. Since they does not seem to be connected to this patch, I'll remove them from the article. --User:Gourra/Sig2 18:21, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

World of Raids Article flat out Wrong Edit

The World of Raids article is completely incorrect about the existence of a "Patch 3.9". I'm a little disappointed that nobody actually bothered to listen to the interview, but if you do, Tom Chillton never mentions it in his 15 minute interview with a fansite or his 33 minute interview with He -never- uses the phrase "Patch 3.9". Imo, this article should be set for deletion until something is confirmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcemuser (talkcontr).

I'm sure I speak for most of us when I say... we'll wait till Cataclysm is released, if the 3.9.0 happens it happens if it doesn't then we'll delete this again. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Patch 3.9 is now 4.0.1 Edit

Zam confirms it here. And I have nothing else to say.--TheUltimate (talk) 03:07, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Just proves that there was a 3.9 as well. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Then is decided, delete this page. IconSmall HighElf MaleSnake SnakeAbout me (011)Lets Talk of The Silver Covenant Edited 807 articles on WoWWiki IconSmall PaladinSilver Hand 23:14, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little disappointed this page is still here - I don't know how to start a deletion vote, but we should. No blue poster (besides Zarhym, clearing up rumors) has -ever- referred to patch 3.9, and the article itself contains tons of misinformation. I'm going to edit the misinformation out, but I don't have the power to delete the page - whoever does, should, please. Dcemuser (talk)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.