Skip to Content
7-06-2011 @ 9:31PM
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Asric & Jadaar yet. Who knows, we might even see them in Undermine when that's opened up.
7-06-2011 @ 9:57PM
How have I missed these guys?? They're awesome!(http://www.wowwiki.com/Asric is a good recap for anyone like me who hadn't seen them before)I really hope they turn up again somewhere in Cata!
7-06-2011 @ 10:17PM
You mean http://www.wowpedia.org/Asric surely?
7-06-2011 @ 10:26PM
maybe we should have an article explaining all this drama about wowwiki vs wowpedia. they both update, both those articles are identical, and theres no rational reason to like one over the other. in fact i've found older articles are often better on wowwiki vs wowpedia.
7-06-2011 @ 10:45PM
As far as I'm aware, the hosts of wowwiki wanted to force them to use a skin that apparently didn't work properly on many computers, messed up the formatting of existing lists and would require hundreds of pages to be rewritten and was occasionally hard to read and when they objected they just removed all the staff and put their own in place.And that's why everyone is encouraged to use the more independent wowpedia now.
7-06-2011 @ 11:51PM
@vendeurfrancaisIn addition to what Inmick says, the official WoW community site links to wowpedia, not wowwiki.See examples http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2356433 and http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1334974. They link to wowhead.com as well.
7-07-2011 @ 1:04AM
I can never in good conscience send someone to wowwiki.com, has to be wowpedia.org. The reason: the obtrusive ads. If you look at those links right now, wowpedia has one across the top, one across the bottom. Visible but not bothersome.HOWEVEROn wowwiki.com, there is a banner across the top, an ad at the bottom, 3 separate large graphics pointing to other wiki-related stuff also at the bottom...AND on the right is a small movie WHICH I CAN NOT PAUSE OR MUTE and is on auto-play, plus a small ad directly below it, followed by links to photos on the wiki, followed by a box of recent wiki activity, something about wowwiki chat, 3 more things related to wikia, then a skyscraper ad (shape, not subject), and a recent questions link box.Wowwiki.com is just too busy, and the ads are too obtrusive and annoying. Given that the content tends to be exactly the same on wowpedia.org, that's where I'm going. wowwiki can respectfully go DIAF.
7-07-2011 @ 5:19AM
Generally I use Wowpedia, but I do find there's one good time to use Wowwiki - when on my iPhone. They have an alternate stylesheet that renders well on the phone, while Wowpedia loads up as it would on a computer screen, which means lots of zooming and panning to read.
7-07-2011 @ 6:46PM
These two guys make me think of Rozencrantz and Guildenstern.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.