Forum:External Links to Magelo

At present, WoWWiki pages for NPCs, items, etc have external links to Wowhead, Thottbot, and Allakhazam. Magelo is a well-known website that also offers a content database (wow.magelo.com), with many unique features including detailed maps with filtered content, and item trees that graphically illustrate how to obtain an item. Magelo's external links should also be posted on WoWWiki's pages, using existing templates.

Acrimonious (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :


 * Undecided :

Comments

 * Here's the main issue - Magelo, let alone wow.magelo.com, isn't in the top 100,000 websites. While I obviously wish them well, generally that makes it a bit of a non-starter. 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the main issue be if it violates the ToS or not? Regardless of where it places in the popularity, WoWWIki is an official fan site and I don't know if you could link to something that violates the ToS?  18:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say - I don't know that Blizzard have ever complained about Magelo, and they have run ads on several fansites, including this one. 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Until Magelo can be proven to be close to as good as at least Allakhazam, WoWDB (Curse's DB), or even Wowdigger, it is hard to justify adding Magelo. Make a better argument than, "offers a content database, with many unique features." How does the content database measure up to existing ones or other well known ones? What are the "many unique features" and why are they so good? Answer some of these questions and maybe it will qualify for addition. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 11:08 AM PST 28 Aug 2009
 * All that said, I do like the way "How to get this?" works on Magelo and I think we should probably get rid of Allakhazam. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 11:17 AM PST 28 Aug 2009
 * Here are examples of a weaknesses of Magelo. If you look up, it only says it drops from Kael'thas Sunstrider whereas Wowhead and Thottbot have much larger lists. If search for , it returns 100 items and Frost Lotus isn't anywhere near the top of the list. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 11:23 AM PST 28 Aug 2009
 * Magelo have got cool maps and animated NPCs, from a brief look around - which certainly makes me want to try it out more. But to expand on my earlier note - the wiki is generally reactive, not-proactive. That is, we don't promote sites, we link to sites people use. I am also somewhat of the opinion Alla has somewhat had its day. 18:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will step in to answer you all at best, as a non native english speaker, I apologize for my poor english in advance... Jelan
 * Our most interesting unique features as a database are in my opinion :
 * Item tree ("How to get this" tab), let you see in one page everything you need to obtain an item, it's very usefull for crafted items. We will have similar trees for Quests next week. As for your remark about, the Item Tree only show the "Most dropped by" NPC. In the drop tab, we have 40 Npcs. We will add the word "Most" in the item tree to avoid any futher confusion.
 * Maps as Kirkburn outlined is another strong point of Magelo. We have Map, minimap and indoor minimap for every zone (when such exists). You can switch from one to another seamlessly, you can zoom in and we highlight points of interest in 3d on it which you can filter.
 * NPC Tooltips are quite valuable and unique as well, featuring a minimap which highlights in a semi transparent way where you can find the given NPC. It's pretty cool and usefull to be able to see through the npc area on the map without the need to jump to the NPC detail page.
 * Live scrolling is an interesting feature as well. You dont waste your time paging through the content, you just scroll (mousewheel/scrollbar) it.
 * About the quick search you made Fandyllic, came in 20th position but, I agree, it should had come first, we will address this little bug next week I promise ;)
 * Generally speaking even if I am obviously biased, I think Magelo gives a refreshing look over WoW game databases with some cool and usefull innovations that should be welcomed by the community.


 * Some of the commentary above seems to imply that there is a limit to the number of external links that a particular page can have. i.e. that to add Magelo (or Curse, for that matter) links, Allakhazam or one of the other external links would have to be removed. This seems incorrect to me. As long as the new external links provide relevant and correct information, there is no reason there cannot be more than three external links. WoWWiki users (and Wikipedia users in general) should be presented with alternate sources of information (and therefore alternate perspectives), as long as the information is correct. Acrimonious (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Acrimonious
 * What has Wikipedia got to do with this? 11:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For practical reasons the external links template shows three choices - if we don't have a cut-off level, then we will eventually have 10, 15 links to DB sites on every single WoW article. More links can be added manually though, within reason - see WP:EL for the policy on this matter. 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to mention that while a global "add to Exetrnal links" vote seems to have been totally shot down, not all of our external links templates are alike. Certain links exclude some sites (notably: alakazam, wowarmory), or include them conditionally.  I've visited the site briefly, and the maps may be useful to some of our users.  "How do I get this" seems to have problems still (clicking at random, Leggings of the Lost Protector does not display all critters it drops from, for instance).  While an inheritance chart may be useful to some folks, I did not immediately warm to it.  I'd say Magelo deserves a place on Fansites, certainly.   (I'd also say that 'fansites' is buried fairly well and should be brought forward somehow.) But I'd have to agree, no advantage over The Terrible Threesome, without popular request. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:58, September 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Have to disagree with the principle you describe, Zeratul. Even a site which is obscure, if it provided a unique and useful service for users of the Warcraft universe games, should IMO gain admittance to the general link templates.  At least for those link types that make use of ObscureSite.com's unique service.  Magelo may not fit that description, but I would not want to rule it out simply because it was obscure. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:00, September 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * Eirik, looks like you didnt read carefully what I said above... :) The item tree for a given node will only given you the most dropped/sold/contained in "item" as it's now labeled. We have a tab which shows all the NPCs which drop the given item and in your example, it shows 2 NPCs, just like on wowhead and the like :) I totally concur with you on the obscure vs popular thing, not only because it serves my cause but because it makes sense. If a website has something to offer that the others don't which can help the community, it only makes sense to promote it because after all, what you/we are trying to achieve is to offer the most compelling features to our community. And yes, I do believe Magelo fit this picture, for our interactive Maps alone and the item tree for crafted items is priceless. Jelan


 * Fandyllic, The issue has been taken care of ;-)  Jelan

Popularity
Curious at the division in the vote, above, I found that all four of the votes in favor are from accounts whose only edit has been for this page. While I could hope, perhaps in vain, that those people would stay and contribute more to WoWwiki, I expect they saw a discussion on Magelo and came over here just to support the effort. And before it is asked, yes, I do think they were genuine users. (Btw: Jelan = Tlvenn). Not bad for short notice. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:11, September 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, we can probably leave the vote open a little longer than the 3 days by policy. Theoretically, it will probably lose tomorrow. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:35 PM PST 2 Sep 2009


 * Ya. I was surprised to see this jumped on by so many, so fast, when the category issues got only mediocre attendance.  Do we not have a "vote must be open a minimum of X long"?  While having a very large number of votes on one side does indicate a bias in that direction, having a vote around for only that long would seem to leave only the "3 days closing period" for discussion after the initial flurry of votes. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:59, September 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much it, yes. By the time of closing the vote for No had been winning for 3 days, which means that it will close. As it says in the vote box: "If No has won, and 3 days have passed". -- 08:08, September 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nice to see a clean vote. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:32 PM PST 4 Sep 2009

I want to point out that we wanted to have a fair vote here, hearing the wow wiki community opinion. At no point we tried to leverage our own community by asking them to come here en force and spam vote yes. Jelan