|This is an archive of Wowpedia:Criticism.
- Shortcut WP:C.
- This article is intended only for criticism of Wowpedia (or previously WoWWiki). Criticisms should be reasoned and preferably have evidence and examples, but they are not required. Text may be edited for spelling and grammar. Any defenses, rebuttals, or responses should go on the talk page (click Discussion).
Criticism of Wowpedia/WoWWiki
- All pages should give the google/WoWWiki search box default focus for keystrokes. Or alternately, adjust the order of the frames on the left so search appears after advertising box, this would allow a user to see the search box without having to scroll the window down in 1024x768 (current web standards to dev to). Justification; allows WoWWiki to be more of a tool for a quick text search rather than category browsing.
- Featured Article box on front page. You've got two links to the description of the Featured Article. I frequently have to remind myself to look in the first sentence of the article's text for the link, and observe which words link where, to actually send me to the article, rather than the header of the box. The footer part of the FA front box thing clearly indicates Wowpedia:Featured Articles, thus I believe the link to the same WW:FA in the header is redundant, and should instead be reworked to link to the FA. Normal 19:04, 9 January 2008 (EST)
- Done! 19:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
- Not enough TimTams Normal 19:04, 9 January 2008 (EST)
- This page exists. Leave the criticisms to the relevant talk pages so they're topical, contained and can be discussed fully. No need to throw up a banner as say "Tell us what's wrong" either, not like you're running low on issues to deal with. --
- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zeal</imagelink>
- From The ups and downs of contributing to WoWWiki:
- There are some down sides to WoWWiki, or a community wiki in general. While everyone can edit, everyone should most definitely not edit. For instance, I'm much more interested in what someone from a guild that's killed Illidan has to say about him then what a 12 year old thinks of his helmet. Another problem is that sometimes the information can be dated or inaccurate, especially after a patch has come about that's changed the mechanics of a fight. My guild oftentimes has a "sanity check" on information that comes from WoWWiki, or any other source for that matter, just to make sure it makes sense in terms of the fight as we know it. Of course, this only leads to knowing the fight better and having an easier time defeating the encounter.
- Wikipedia does not have an article about Wowpedia, therefore it is not notable and all of Wowpedia should probably be deleted. -- (talk · contr) 11:14 PM PST 5 Feb 2008
- I have some sympathy for fanfic but shouldn't there be some kind of limit as to what should be included? Personally I think the Huran material should be a candidate for deletion. It's a bad knock off of Supertown from DC, and the whole concept of a flying city of Super Highborne could not be a worse fit if it tried.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drahliana (talk · contr).
- Drahliana is referring to the works of Daenen. I think it is a good idea to use some sort of criteria for judging if fan fiction is low-quality and needs to be removed.-- 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am trying to work on an addon and an advertisement linked as http://wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Interstitial  is popping up within a few clicks every time I tab over here to check on something in the API references. It appears in the browser history and interferes with browsing back and forth quickly too. It is annoying me to the point of pondering trying to block it somehow. Ads should not interfere with site usage. Adron (talk) 00:06, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Make sure you are logged in. Logged-in users should not get ads. -- ( • ) 01:19, March 14, 2010 (UTC)