Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis/old proposal

message: This should probably be discussed on the talk page of our external links guideline. Note that a strict definition of "good" and a "tiered rating" system may turn out to be instruction creep. Note also that most of these are not "sister projects", and note finally that there are extremely few wikis that are "serious encyclopaedia with a NPOV". >Radiant< 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as regards noting this at WP:EL, and that many are not "serious encyclopaedia with a NPOV", but with a system to define "good", I think that any creep would be worth it - as noted, the few which are, such as Memory Alpha, contain more content than is truly encyclopedic for Wikipedia. For example see memoryalpha:Jumja stick, an article within the topic of Deep Space Nine which would surely be AfD'd as unencyclopedic on Wikipedia, but which is a valid Memory Alpha article. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

message: This is interesting, but if allowed in more than "See also links", the "box" needs to be very clear that the user would be leaving Wikipedia, and what that would mean. (For example, going to another wiki which likely has different policies and guidelines, and therefore, the reader may have misconceptions about the veracity, accuracy, or completeness of what they are reading.) - jc37 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this was the first thing to spring to my mind when seeing this on the Village Pump, and I noted that there. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting, but... 

message: Wikipedia:External links is set up to provide quidelines for what is and is not quality links. Wikis by their nature are almost always set up in a way that makes them inelligible for standard links on article pages. This page seems to say that instead of tending to remove most of them unless they have already demonstrated great quality, it suggests that we go around and link to most wikis. If you want a wiki about a topic, that's what Wikipedia is. There's been a massive explosion of other wikis with a more narrow focus, fewer contributors and fewer quality guidelines. The default should be (and is according to standard way of doing things) is to NOT link to them. 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolutely disagree with the entire concept

message: We already have too many infoboxes cluttering things up. If (and I say *IF*) anothe wiki can be shown to be a worthy link, make it a link under External links, don't make yet another big bulky box linking to it, that's just in your face promotion of some other website above and beyond how we normally link. DreamGuy 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AND, infobox proposal makes it even worse

message: Although there is no formal system or guideline for these, I noticed through the TfD of  that there are a number of Wikia templates which serve the purpose suggested by this proposal. Although this has been tagged as historical, I really think that it needs to be rediscussed given that there are templates already in use which follow the basic idea of this proposal. See , and further the whole category of Wikia templates. This should probably have some weight as a guideline - Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and as such its standards of notability tend to push away fancruft which may be acceptable on a specialized wiki. If templates such as those suggested are already in use as templates (though only for wikis on Wikia, admittedly), wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure that they're reasonable using what is set forth here? I was thinking about this for the long run in terms of adding to the Manual of Style's guide on links. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 12:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are templates in use that violate WP:EL's guidelines on linking to wikis then they should be put up for deletion. The existence of templates being used by people who aren't following the standards in no way invalidates the standards. DreamGuy 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't mean in any way to suggest that this invalidates the standards - I merely mean to suggest that this proposal may have merit which is being disregarded, since bold user(s) are creating such templates in good faith. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone can edit in good faith and still be totally incorrect by Wikipedia standards. This would be a prime example. DreamGuy 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This seems to be being used, somewhat! 

message: I've made this category to keep track of any boxes that get created. –Pomte 08:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:External link boxes]]