Wowpedia:Writing/ExternalLinks/Allakhazam removal vote

Changes and Options

This vote will deal with whether we keep Allakhazam in the auto-added Elinks templates ({{Elinks-item}}, {{Elinks-quest}}, {{Elinks-NPC}}...). It will be a simple Keep/Remove vote. Manually added {{elink}} do not count and are always welcome if they fit the policy. The vote is exclusively for the Elinks templates.

Votes

Keep

1. Keep Reskar 11:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (I find Alla to be useful in some areas as it tends to have a more complete loot list for newer things and user comments are MUCH more useful than the other 2 sites. Significantly less spam/stupid flames.),
2. Keep User:Tekkub/Sig 22:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT) - (Even though I prefer Wowhead, I do still hit alla up for info from time to time.)
3. Keep Vysogota T / C 22:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT) - (In most cases Allakhazam has newly discovered drops long before Thott or Wowhead. I use this site a lot.)
4. Keep User:Psyker7/Sig 22:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT) - (While it is owned somewhere above by IGN, in general their site is a good source of information, and they DO use the correct item id's in all their links.)
5. Keep Mikk (T) 07:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (There are more people running the allakhazam client than people running the wowhead client. At least for now, allakhazam has much more accurate drop rate readings. Doubly so for lower level areas.)
6. Keep Shirik 08:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
7. Keep GRYPHON^tc 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (Can't deny their popularity even if you like other sites better they are still in top 2 for most used site.)
8. Keep Dracomage 13:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (They provide good pre/sequel links to quests and items.)
9. Keep Mlucero 11:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (I don't use it and they aren't perfect, but no one can deny its popularity and wowwiki should be as complete a reference as possible.)
10. keep Baggins 15:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (I find it useful along with Thottbot, and Goblinworkshop and others. There is not just one end all/beat all source of information.)
11. keep --Sandwichman2448 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (They have more pictures... and like Birdlion said, they are popular... So keep.)
12. Keep Tachwedd 11:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (I'm more ambivalent. Rarely has info that either TB or Wowhead don't have between them, but because of historic popularity, still some especially pictures; design blows)
13. Keep User:SeiferTim/Sig 12:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
14. Keep User:DuTempete/Signature18:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (because of the drop rates, and because many people still use Alla's frequently. I think any site that uses the IDs should be in the elinks code. It isn't up to WoW Wiki to decide which is better than another.)
15. Keep Bobson 16:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT) - (I never use Allakhazam, but I think everything ought to be linked. Maybe we emphasise one (put the others in smaller text, for instance), but it's not our place to decide for users where they want to go for extra information.)
16. Keep Tharabas 15:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT) - (I'd always prefer alla over thott, so yes - 2nd best source after wowhead)

Remove

1. Remove Pyroshen 17:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (searching for things is terrible,)
2. Remove User:Adys/Sig 21:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT) - ()
3. Remove Normal 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
4. Remove Shadow 22:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
5. Remove Sharlin 06:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (was once a great site, not anymore)
6. Remove Leyritz13 08:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
7. Remove Pinky84 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
8. Remove Tribunal 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - (Alla is full of trojans, keyloggers, owned by IGE. Don't support them!)
9. Remove User:Kitan/Sig 21:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT) - ()
10. Remove InfinityX 02:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (Wowhead always runs smoother than any of the others, and is much more reliable. Allakhazam is unreliable, the navigation is a chore, and the site as a whole is hard on the eyes, considering all the links to completely unrelated sections of the parent site.)
11. Remove Malus 07:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (Outdated garbage, doesn't have anything other sites don't, except more ads than you can count, we all love those, right?)
12. Remove Yithnal 16:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (ads, subscriptions, outdated, everything I'm opposed to)
13. Remove User:Kirkburn/Sig2 16:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (Badly designed websites are just a no-no for me)
14. Remove Rorus Raz 17:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT) - (Alla ads can not only be annoying, but make it the slowest loading amongst the four sites.)
15. Remove thejeni 13:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (I've never been impressed with Alla, it just seems like it is lacking all around.)
16. Remove Malusz 14:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (By principle external links should be avoided whenever possible. Nothing against Alla specifically.)
17. Remove Storming 15:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
18. Remove  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  16:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
19. Remove JohnLo 17:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT) - (no comment)
20. Remove Colinstu 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT) - ()
21. Remove Boblo-WW 08:50, 16 April 2007 (EDT) - (Seems like every "comment" is laced with links to some paysite.)
22. Remove Gparent 01:14, 20 April 2007 (EDT) - (Supporting gold selling organizations is always bad.)

Comments

Abstain: While I personally don't prefer Alla, I hold nothing against it. It dose, however, appear psyker (sp?) missed the note that Thott is now using the correct item ids. ;P--Sky (t · c · w) 01:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My bad.... Still, alla and thott have been the two constants in wow databases, might remove my thott remove vote. --User:Psyker7/Sig 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed my vote to keep. Originally, I must admit I was too biased. I grew up on Thott, always used it, never used Allakhazam. After having actually played around with it since voting remove, I have to admit it has some good information. It deserves a second look. Shirik 11:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

does anyone know why this vote was initiated in the first place? is have 3 links causing a strain on the system in some way?--Reskar 12:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Some people prefer certain sites and would like to push more traffic toward their favorite. --GRYPHON^tc 12:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

After a bit of discussion on IRC it was proposed that adding new sites to the elinks templates should require a community vote. It seemed appropriate that the current items pass a vote as well, since at least one site's addition has been questioned. User:Tekkub/Sig 14:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it seemed appropriate to have all items but Wowhead pass a vote apparently until a vote was created after the fact. GRYPHON^tc 14:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*cough* You'll have to talk about Adys on that, since he's the one that created the vote pages :) User:Tekkub/Sig 17:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Tribunal your comments for thott "(Thottbot is full of trojans, keyloggers, owned by IGE. Don't support them!)" and alla "Alla is full of trojans, keyloggers, owned by IGE. Don't support them!" are exactly the same, and the only think you've done is these votes, gotta wonder do you own wowhead or something?--Reskar 13:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The Wowhead admins are on IRC from time to time, and they're mostly harmless I'm afraid :) In fact, they asked if they were even allowed to vote on this matter. User:Tekkub/Sig 14:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It may sound like a flame, but at least some of it (owned by IGE) is factually true... and I've heard plenty of stories from folks with poorly secured computers/browsers getting bit by ads on both sites. User:Fizzwidget/Signature 15:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

However you do not know the motives of the site or other sites beyond what they tell you just the same. GRYPHON^tc 15:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyway, I'll abstain here too. I dislike it primarily for being owned by IGE (and the security-risk ads may not affect me, but I'd hate to see some poor newbie who doesn't know better than to use IE getting upset because the wiki linked 'em to a site that ate their machine)... but it's still very popular, has pretty good data, and does a few things the better sites don't (I still use their web API to get item links on my site). User:Fizzwidget/Signature 15:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I am concerned by the assumption that all but one of them are leaving. I don't see any reason not to allow multiple sites to add themselves to the template as long as they use the same id. User:Kitan/Sig 17:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

There was no assumption that any sight would be removed. The elinks templates are protected and it seems the most acceptable way to get a new one added would be a community vote. So these votes are for community support of the sites in the template... for all fairness. User:Tekkub/Sig 18:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

As you can probably see on the AmpWoW vote, some people disagree with some websites being added. So yes, the vote is here to restablish neutrality. As for not making a vote for Wowhead, its for the simple reason I knew the results. Doubt it? Check it out ;) --User:Adys/Sig 18:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, to reestablish neutrality, you should practice neutrality ;) GRYPHON^tc 19:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed mine to remove, WoWhead is superior in everyway. --Colinstu 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of sounding like a complete outsider - which is technically correct: This discussion is flawed. There are lots and lots of database sites out there. Most are just Thott wannabes, but you could link to them all, if you wanted. Instead of arguing over one, you should establish some criteria for why you are linking. Some possibilities:

• Link to sites that give more information than the wiki page. Perhaps enough "more" to warrant someone going there.
  • Taken to its extreme, the paradigm of "unique information": Only add a new link if it gives something more that other links do. Pretty much impossible to do in a template.
• Link to sites that support the information in the wiki page. More citation than link. Not relevant to a template.
• Link to popular sites. The links become a service to the users, allowing them to select their favourite poison.
• Link based on prejudice and opinion: Ownership, advertising, search, quality, usability. There's a fine line between linking to any old rubbish, and becoming a holier-than-thou dictatorship.

There are no doubt more. Just answer the question: What's the purpose of listing external links? There are reasons. You need to be clear about what they are. Chip away at this iceberg one block of ice at a time, and all that happens is more of the iceberg becomes visible. And your feet get cold. --Timski 11:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Timski brings up a really good point. What are the criteria for putting a link in the template? I'm not very fond of the idea that we can remove a site from the template just because 5 people don't like it. For a website that tries very hard to be neutral in every aspect, I think these votes are very much the opposite, until such a time as criteria are developed. That is probably what we should be voting on right now. Not this. -- DuTempete talk|contr 12:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The votes are based upon the implementation of the WW:EL policy. If the website meets the minimal requirements, a regular community vote is started to accept or decline the need of this website in External Links. --User:Adys/Sig 14:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Is that the need as perceived by regular editors/authors, or the need as perceived by users/readers? Part of the reason I ended up reading all this was because I was trying to resolve how and why to link things for El. I have a personal preference for one site for most (but not all) types of game information. But Alexa's data tells me that most users have a preference for Thott and Alla. Where there is only room for one link, it's become my personal recommendation. At least until the 4-way hypertext link is invented. But where an entire page is dedicated to one thing (as is the case in here), I'll offer up the three or four most popular sites, so the user can decide themselves. Does that mean I'll link to anything? No. I'm limiting myself to a managable number, that are most likely to suit the majority. Do I editorialise? Hell yes: I'm not touching the cookie-cutter sites, bots, exploits and so on, that sadly make up the majority of WoW web content. So in my opinion there is a balance between what the authors of a website might want themselves, and what their users might expect. I'm concerned that the users' perspective is being lost here. --Timski 18:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the whole point of the vote, see what the users here want. We're not saying any sites are not welcome, just determining which ones to auto-create. User:Tekkub/Sig 19:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Once again Allakhazam has newly discovered drops long before similar sites -- Arcanite Steam-Pistol and Band of Al'Ar from Al'ar are already there, while not on Thottbot or Wowhead. The same went for nearly every TBC raid drop -- in most cases they were first on Allakhazam (OK, World Breaker was first on Wowhead, but that's a rare exception), which is why I use this site a lot and voted "Keep". -- Vysogota T / C

The fun irony of this reason is, if you're looking at a new item which they have before anyone else, it's guaranteed you didn't get there from an elink of ours!  :) User:Tekkub/Sig 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but when I spot some new raid drop on Allakhazam (and I check this site regularly), I instantly make new item page here and fill it with basic stats & info taken from Alla. :-) -- Vysogota T / C

---