Talk:Thottbot

Allakhazam
Allakhazam is completely different from Thottbot, right? I mean, Allakhazam doesn't refer to Thottbot at all (by name) that I have noticed, and I haven't seen that they promote Cosmos. So the link to Allakhazam should read "Allakhazam's counterpart to Thottbot's Cosmos", or something like that.

Re: Allakhazam
I think who ever wrote that is refering to how Thottbot was first, and how some might be suspisious and assume Allakhazam used thottbot as a base when they started tracking WoW. But I agree, this is an opinion that should not be expressed here…

--OwlBoy 01:04, 24 Aug 2005 (EDT)

See Also: Allakhazam
Just looking through Thottbot, Allakhazam and Wowhead at the moment, and it seems that this article is the only one with a See Also link to another similar site's article. It seems that the last fragments of "Allahazam's counterpart to Thottbot's Cosmos" have been removed, and there's nothing linking the two articles together coherently, except for their general nature.

Therefore, I propose bringing the three in sync regarding See Also: links to each other -- either they should be everywhere, or they shouldn't be anywhere. Since two of the three articles don't link to each other, I'm planning to remove the See Also section on Thottbot unless someone objects in the next few days. --Starlightblunder 17:41, 4 January 2007 (EST)


 * Agreed, I nuked it. I always felt that the references were contributed by people who dislike Thottbot anyhow and just wanted to steer people somewhere else. --Gryphon


 * Adding Thottbot link to Allakhazam and Wowhead would have been better, since that would offer wiki visitors the most resource. The 3 sites each have its own benefits that other 2 don't. Thottbot lists everything in tables, which can be easily exported to Excel or other apps. Alla can display quest and item names in other languages. Wowhead uses AJAX for more "web 2.0" interface. --Voidvector 08:55, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * It was more in the manner and order your added them. It was seen as an obvious attempt to defame Thottbot, which i and several others agreed with. This article is also not about the site, but about the addon. I don't agree with how this article has been handled, in the sense it should really be split, then you could simply add this and the others to a category. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 13:22, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * Eh, I'm not a fan when the new kids to the block use more successful predecessors as a comparison to sell their own product. As well, there are more than these 3 databases, the list would be annoyingly long and quickly inaccurate if you want to list competing products. 13:28, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * Indeed, if you list other sites under See Also, we then have to decide what makes the list, and have to update that too. Better would be a link to the database section of the Fansites page. 17:12, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * We are already listing 3 alternatives in templates like . Listing those 3 alternatives on their own pages would simply be an extension of what's already been done. Nevertheless Kirkburn's suggestion is really good.
 * Regarding "defame Thottbot", history doesn't change once it happens, but since this wiki isn't about history, I won't brother too much about it. --Voidvector 21:34, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * Voidvector, it was nothing to do with the content, but the mannar in which you added it and presented it. That's what was defaming. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 11:52, 10 February 2007 (EST)

"Should the template have a 'discontinued' paramater?"
I think so. Something like a "current status" parameter: active or discontinued. - Linneris (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because while this might not have been relevant back then, today a lot of pages have eitehr been merged or taken down. PeterWind (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)