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 :


 * Remove :

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. -- 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. -- 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.   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. 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 :) 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.   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. 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. 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). 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. 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.   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 ;) -- 18:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, to reestablish neutrality, you should practice neutrality ;) 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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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 WP: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. -- 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.   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". --
 * 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! :)   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. :-) --