Wowhead is a million times better than thottbot, or as i like to call it, always-slow-and-often-down-bot. allakazam is messy and unorganized too, wowhead will prevail, just needs more comments on certain pages, in all other aspects, it looks, performs, and is generally a lot better than other data sites. --Sunwind 15:08, 7 October 2006 (EST)
I love WoWHead, much cleaner and cooler than thottbot and not as messy as Allhakazam, more people need to use WoWHead. Ive already converted my friends :) --Thursday 01:31, 27 January 2007 (EST)
- Supposedly there is/was an API in the works.--Viper007Bond 10:16, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- Close to impossible to export? lol.... couldnt be farthest from the truth... They have their entire search results (yes even paginated results) all in a single text string on their pages... i exported the whole site in a matter of minutes with some proper regex parsing and creative PHP scripts...
- --Jeebus123 23:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)
I'm a convert! Discovered the site a couple days ago and fell in love. It's by FAR my favorite resource. It may not have as many comments and such yet, but the data is soooo much easier to navigate and such. Great stuff. --Viper007Bond 10:16, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Wowzers. This site is like...like...hm... Like Google, in a way, but more like a number of general torrent sites, in so many others. (No, it doesn't have torrents, to my knowledge, but the interface works similarly.) Plus...it's all dark-colored and pretty. I'm totally suggesting this to my guildies and sister. ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doc, Skosiris from Wowhead hangs out with us on IRC, so if you ever have a suggestion or a question, pop on and have a chat. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I like Wowhead, but they still have some catchup to do in some areas. When I make my quest pages and such I usually check Thott, Alla, and Wowhead. They all have their +/-, but I would like to see Wowhead get better.
- Does Wowhead have a sub-area list? I couldn't find it. -- (talk · contr) 11:53 AM PDT 6 July 2007
Before anything is posted on the page I recommend reading these links:
The second article specifically states that IGE is no longer a part of Affinity.
JM: Affinity Media is basically a holding company for different gaming assets. Clearly, there were three parts to the company. There was an IGE division, which everyone knows about. And while we’re not releasing the details, it’s common knowledge now that IGE is no longer a part of Affinity Media, that we’re no longer in that business.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Confirmation of IGE's new owner seems to come via Allakhazam's site owner, who commented in April: "A month ago, IGE was owned by Affinity Media who also owns us. Now, IGE is owned by Jon Yantis, who, I believe, was one of the original founders of IGE but had sold off his share years ago."]
Some more links as reported around the net:
I hope that helps clear up matters (and would put Wowhead in the same boat as Thott, Alla and others). I'm out for the day, here's hoping this doesn't get stupid.05:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- This has now been officially confirmed on the wowhead site. I had a brief conversation with one of the developers of wowhead, and he basically confirmed these facts:
- Affinity Media *used* to own IGE.
- Affinity Media no longer owns IGE.
- They have been acquired by Affinity Media.
- This is simply a business deal. IGE isn't even in the picture. Google might as well of purchased wowhead, its the same end result. --Tecnobrat t/c 14:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Why does it matter who owns what? The site will still be there and offer the same services as before. --User:Varghedin/Sig 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Affinity Media might not own IGE anymore but they are still the same people who care only about the money and not the game and the gamers. They didn't sell IGE because they realized cheating was bad.. they sold it because it was a good business deal for them. ahac 08:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- As fun as sweeping generalisations are ... leave your prejudices and inferences at the door. They don't care about the game? Does it matter that much? They will still try and make the best service, so they get the most users. Gryphon, people cared when it happened to other sites because the situation was different. 13:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The real question is not about ownership, but where else to go for WoW DB lookups, since Affinity now appears to own three of the most widely used DBs (Thottbot, Allakhazam and Wowhead):
- -- (talk · contr) 2:03 PM PDT 6 July 2007
- So, now that Affinity has admitted in court documents  that they lied about no longer being owned by IGE - does that change anything? Lying to your 'customers' seems like bad business. User:Triump 29 November 2007.
- Wait, what? This part of the company was once referred to as IGE, now they're Affinity. I don't see a problem here, and it doesn't say they've lied ... Selling an asset which you took your name from does not mean you have to keep the same name. 14:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- The documents are in relation to a lawsuit about IGE's RMT activities. The lawsuit was filed in May. Affinity claims it sold IGE in March. Do you seriously believe if Affinity had actually sold IGE they wouldn't be filing to demonstrate that and aim that class action suit at the "new" IGE? User:Triump 29 November 2007.
- You guys are losing your objectivity. It isn't up to a Wiki community to decide whether a controversy is true or false. A wiki (like an encyclopedia) should state that a subject is controversial if it is. Given that Affinity has admitted and apologized for deceiving the community in 2004 after purchasing Zam and that there's a ton of controversy our there and a pending class action lawsuit, those things should be stated (i.e. "Affinity Media is the subject of a lot of controversy as a result of alleged connections to gold-seller IGE"). That is how controversy is dealt with throughout Wiki land (recognizing its existence without making judgments on its validity). User:Triump 29 November 2007.
- True that, add it! Then see people whine for no reason.-- 02:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Triump, we are a wiki about Warcraft, however, and this isn't really within our scope. If anything, such info would have to be on a page about Affinity Media, and that really is stretching the bounds of what is within our scope. However, the problem with the link you brought up was that it wasn't a fair conclusion fromt he evidence given. More concrete evidence would be required than the obvious fact that the company changed name. 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. That is a good reason, but he was right about how controversy should be.-- 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Team descriptions are fairly subjective. I'm not familiar enough with the policies regarding factuality to change anything myself, but it seems to me that adjectives like genius, mastermind and unbelievable don't belong on this kind of site. Wolfgang 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Their descriptions have been modified to be slightly less ridiculous. Stillfresh 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wowhead Talent Calculator Links
A bunch of the Wowhead talent calculator links seemed to stop working recently. I've updated all the links in the talent build pages, but if there are more elsewhere I didn't find, to update them you change the first character of the URL after '?talent=' to a specific class indicator as follows:
- '0' for Druid
- 'c' for Hunter
- 'o' for Mage
- 's' for Paladin
- 'b' for Priest
- 'f' for Rogue
- 'h' for Shaman
- 'I' for Warlock
- 'L' for Warrior
How did wowiki enable the wowhead tooltip?
I love wowwiki! It is such a good source of information and the quality is keeping on improving. For my personal gear planning I wanted to create a wiki on the same/similar engine as this one (http://wikispot.org/). On the wowhead website http://www.wowhead.com/?powered they show how to use the following HTML statement: <script src="http://www.wowhead.com/widgets/power.js?4"></script> , but my wiki does not use this I guess. At least is it not able to interpret it.
They seem to be using MediaWiki 1.10