Option 1 (Remove Thottbot)

1. 1 Ady_s 22:41, 14 February 2007 (EST) - (See article)
2. 1 Shadow 22:54, 14 February 2007 (EST) - ()
3. 1 Zealtalkcontrweb 23:14, 14 February 2007 (EST) - (I feel the fact Thottbot does not display the correct item and mob IDs, and thus it's page IDs are misleading information, to be grounds for removal on top of the usablity issues they've presented by doing so. Because of this, i'd like to see it added that it's discouraged for these articles (items and NPCs) to use Thottbot links unless good reason is given.)
4. 1 Gh4z 15:07, 15 February 2007 (EST) - ()
5. 1 Sharlin 11:47, 20 February 2007 (EST) - (Both Thotbot and Allakhazam are owned by a gold selling service or related to one are they not?)

Option 2 (Named params)

1. 2 Sky 22:55, 14 February 2007 (EST) - (no comment)
2. 2 Karrion 22:58, 14 February 2007 (EST) - (Allows ease of linking but also doesn't unfairly discriminate, allows for others in future)
3. 2 Hobinheim (talk · contr) 00:42, 15 February 2007 (EST) - (having the option to is a nice feature)
4. 2 Dracomage 06:44, 15 February 2007 (EST) - (No discrimination between source sites)
5. 2 Tachwedd 09:44, 15 February 2007 (EST) - (having option to include thottbot for completeness sake)
6. 2   SeiferTim  ( talk · contribs ) 10:04, 15 February 2007 (EST) - (Thottbot has been one of the standards for WoW information for a long time. While I have shifted to other resources, I know that a lot of people have not. Plus, a lot of the pages that have already been created contain the links to TB already, no sense it just throwing those away. Making them optional to the author makes more sense to me.)
7. 2 Montag 20:10, 15 February 2007 (EST) - (Agree with SeiferTim. Would prefer to provide options for editors, regardless of preference.)
8. 2 Mikaka 04:59, 17 February 2007 (EST) - (Basically what SeiferTim said. Thottbot is perhaps the most common WoW database and is used by a large majority of players. Many visitors expect a link to it. Making the link optional but recommended is the way to go in my opinion.)
9. 2 Jeoh 20:27, 20 February 2007 (EST) - ()
10. 2  Kirkburn talk contr 12:09, 23 February 2007 (EST) - (An optional parameter is easier than straight links, plus allows more compatibility)
11. 2 GRYPHON^tc 12:12, 23 February 2007 (EST) - (Thott rox, others sux)
12. 2 Verxion 12:12, 23 February 2007 (EST) - (What Gryphon said)
13. 2 Teomyr 12:21, 23 February 2007 (EST) - (Provide a way so that a Thottbot ID can be specified, but doesn't have to. Basically, the information provided on the wiki page should make a link to Thottbot unnecessary.)
14. 2 TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 16:15, 23 February 2007 (EST) - (no comment)
15. 2   Montronax  ( talk · contribs ) 10:58, 27 February 2007 (EST) - (no comment)

Option 3 (No change)

1. 3 --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:17, 16 February 2007 (EST) - (It is only an inconvenience if you have (and expect) access to the item number in the raw, in the first place. I do not. It is no more inconvenient to look up thott's ID than it is to look up wowhead's, and I use the same process.)

Comments Edit

Voted for option 2, have a second preference for option 1 --Karrion 22:58, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Your comment is what I meant to say, but I didn't know how to say it.--Sky 23:01, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Just want to add, penalizing a site because it contains inaccuracies you do not want to expose your visitors to when there is more accurate alternatives and creates difficulties for editors, is not in any way discrimination, and this policy is in no way discriminating against ThottBot. Any argument for such is ridiculous. Yes this is inspired by Dracomage's vote... --Zealtalkcontrweb 06:55, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Respectfully, I disagree. I submit you actually mean that it is discrimination sans disparagement. Omitting ThottBot's link is precisely discrimination, in that you wish not to be troubled by the differing number. A decision to do (or not to do) something always involved discrimination. The page for this policy makes no reference to inaccuracies of the data in question. The item number is not an issue relevant to the (casual) user, only to the administrator/link generator. And given the amount of time a wiki page exists vs the time to create it, I submit that the hardship is fleeting. By the same token, I submit that omitting the thottbot link is tantamount to a death sentence: it is hard enough to get stubs filled in, let alone adding details such as that to otherwise fully formed pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:37, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Discrimination is unjust, this is not. The fact you even have to look up Thott's ID is a matter of importance to contributers, it is not a fleeting matter when it stacks up over the vast amount of articles that exist and it's existence remains a biased one. The policy itself does not talk about inaccuracies, but i have brought it up, so that is irrelevant to the argument. Thott bot does not display item and mob ID's, that is the key here. The ID they give, is not the correct one, easily leading to a contributer using the wrong ID, or a reader using the wrong ID in something else. It is not in any way limited to their site use or linking. The do not provide an alternative method to display the ID, and thus it is..

1. Missing Information
2. Unintentionally providing false information

This is their choice, and it was clearly a bad one. It is in no way detrimental to the wiki to remove it, as there are plenty of other sources that provide more accurate and complete information in this regard.

Keeping a external link that is detrimental to the wiki contributers and users, simply because it's popular, is biased in my view, as it is no longer serving a purpose to send users there. --Zealtalkcontrweb 23:46, 16 February 2007 (EST)

While I completely agree with you on Thottbot's failings as a site (and I'd like to note that you converted me to Wowhead), I don't think the answer is as cut and dry as that (yet, anyway). Since I don't believe we should make that call, I'd like to have the option available for editors, which is why I voted for #2. // Montagg (talk · contr) 00:57, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Well, i'd be fine with option 2, but with same discouragement stipulation i had for option 1. Anyways.. at least you chose to ackownledge the issue and comment on it, even if you don't agree. <3 --Zealtalkcontrweb 03:38, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If your complaint is that the thottbot link interferes with stub creation, change the template (See my comment below). Fleshing out the article can fill in that data. If you don't do it, someone else will. It is a wiki, after all. And we're all volunteers.

1. Detrimental/Inaccurate: WoWWiki is not an original source for item IDs (else you would not be complaining that Thottbot got them wrong). Nor do the elinks templates exist for that purpose. Nor yet do we make these IDs apparent to casual viewers. Thus, arguments as to the accuracy of IDs being presented to users do not sway me. We don't present it TO users.
2. Looking up IDs: The fact that I have to look up wowhead's IDs in exactly the same fashion as I do Thott's means that, for me at least, there is no difference. I don't have use of whatever tool you are using that extracts "correct" IDs.
3. Popular: External links, such as we have them at all, are for the use of the users. Otherwise, why have them? "Because it's popular" is IMO a valid justification. Wildly popular might also apply to this case.
4. MHO on Thott is: better laid out than Ala, and doesn't rely on javascript (as wowhead does). I typically do not browse with javascript enabled. Ergo, Thott is more useful to me.

The crux of it though, is that I don't consider Thottbot 'damaged' because of its using a different ID, and you (Zeal) do. --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:24, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Just wanted to ask Mikaka, did you mean to put "optional but recommended" instead of "optional but not recommended"? :s --Zealtalkcontrweb 05:13, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Montag - SeiferTom...? :P   SeiferTim  ( talk · contribs ) 12:10, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Sharlin, this is not a vote on removing thottbot because of their affiliations, it's irrelevent to the issue and i would suggest rethinking your vote and comment. --Zealtalkcontrweb 12:29, 20 February 2007 (EST)

This vote is being pressed, as some contributors are already omitting the thottbot ID while continuing to use the current template. This leaves invalid links without visible indication. I must perforce support a change to the template that at least makes this problem evident. Perhaps something along the lines of "if no number, use 'search for PAGENAME'"? This would bring currently broken links back.--Eirik Ratcatcher 18:24, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Blame Adys for this.. he's been removing Thottbot links without the result of this vote, and without a change to the template to make thottbot optional. ¬_¬ --Zealtalkcontrweb 20:42, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Zeal: See IRC.

Eirik Ratcatcher, in answer to #Looking up IDs: The fact that I have to look up wowhead's IDs in exactly the same fashion as I do Thott's means that, for me at least, there is no difference. I don't have use of whatever tool you are using that extracts "correct" IDs.  :

Fact is, on the end we shouldn't even have to use the elinksitem/elinksmob template. We should be able to assign an ID value to an item or mob article and have the links automatically added. The point of this is that Thottbot's ID is unique, whereas the mob's ID is used by whatever database exists in the world if they have a bit of brain. By using the item's/mob's ID to identify the page, we make it possible to add a new database link in the external links section without having to modify more than the template itself... just like we did when we added WoWHead. --Ady_s 00:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

In response to Eirik Ratcatcher, One of the long term goals of the wiki crew is to have direct access to the raw IDs and all the other information the datamining sites use. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 17:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)