Wikipedia talk:External links/workshop

message: Hi,
I have moved the page to main Wikipedia space to leave room for discussion and more detailed propositions here. It was quite "bold" of me, but I guess it is quite a minor change, and the benefits are clear.
Regards,
Bravada, talk - 23:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: While some external links are welcome in the article (see below), one should remember that it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a list of all external links related to the topic. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, please consider using it as a source first (see WP:CITE for guidance).
Please also see about the Open Directory Project, which is entirely devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. It is recommended to link to a related Open Directory category from an article rather to create a long list of external links within the article itself. If there is no relevant category, you may want to create one.
If you belive an external links section has gotten out of hand, then you can mark it for attention of other editors by placing  at the top of the section.
----
By not using mid-level section headings, we eliminate the overexposure of DMOZ, while at the same time maintaining the strong recommendation to use it in lieu of WP as a links directory (obviously). I am not that satisfied with my wording, so suggestions on how to brush it up (while retaining the meaning and "spirit") are welcome.
I would also have reservation about this "valuable service" thing, as it might be misunderstood. I would say:
:"However, adding some relevant external links is permitted and recommended. See below for details."
Simple and, I guess, clear.
Oh, another thing. For the vast majority of any media, be it books, music or visual arts, any site containing a copy would violate copyright. I would move it to "links to be used occassionally", and reword it to express the extreme caution that should be taken before linking to such site - I guess only un-copyrighted works would qualify.
Regards, Bravada, talk - 23:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wonder if we should create a template to request moving links to DMOZ or creation of an apropriate category. --Barberio 09:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea! Bravada, talk - 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of editors from ODP who also edit here (like me) who would be eager to help out. Also, don't forget about the  template, which could probably use a mention here. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the wording re: . I expect that very often the ODP will have a directory but that people will have trouble negotiating the hierarchy. An ODP editor should probably be able to zero in on the appropriate directory very easily. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a web directory

message: We realy need to stop putting in complicated special exceptions for circumstances.
Idealy, a rule set should be simple, and applicable to situations as they arise. Especialy considering the general disclaimer of 'guidelines are just guideines', we don't need to put in cavets that you can link to a Fansite if it's especialy notable, or officialy endorsed. We need to ween people off this kind of beuocracy, rather than adding to it. (see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep)
As an aside, linking to fansites just to link to fansites goes directly against the 'Wikipedia is not a Linkings Directory' policy. It is not a guidelines place to overide policy. I see no reason to recomend people to link to fansites. And they should be included in the general recomendation against 'spurious unrelated links' which applys in a more general way. If there is special reason to link to a fansite, then it's not a spurious unrelated link. No other special wording is needed, so under Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep it doesn't need it's own rule. --Barberio 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid special exceptions, [[Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep]] 

message: The It is being used as a source exception in Sites requiring registration should be changed to It is being used as an inline reference. Unless it is pointed where it is being used as reference, many (maybe including us) won't be able to verify the reference. The current wording would allow someone to include a site asking for registration as external link, and never explain why it is needed. -- ReyBrujo 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. -- Moondyne 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Made a change to this which I hope makes it clearer. --Barberio 09:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... not sure, I have seen articles where the references section just looks like another external links section. I believe we have to be aggressive here stating that, unless there is an inline reference (either as an external link embedded into the article or with the m:cite/cite.php reference), it is not acceptable. This way we will also be helping distinguish between external links and references, something that would ease the amount of external links in an article. -- ReyBrujo 12:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in following the citations guidelines as a requirement. --Barberio 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The following seems to imply that we must have link(s) for each point of view.  
On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.
There are some cases where the minority point of view is so small that it shouldn't be given any links.  Or the minority point of view has a separate subarticle (in compliance with WP:SUMMARY), and links dedicated to that point of view go on that subarticle.  
I have in mind here September 11, 2001 attacks and the minority "view" that are the 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, there are no conspiracy sites linked on the main 9/11 attacks article.  Though, we have a small summary paragraph in the article about these theories, with a link to the subarticle.  On 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are conspiracy links (and debunking links).  To conspiracy theorists, they view their theories as "alternative views" and see themselves as "9/11 researchers".  Though, in pouring over reliable sources, the conspiracy theories have very little weight and should be treated as such on the main article.  Number 3 of "links normally to be avoided" might cover conspiracy sites, but might contradict "Avoid undue weight" with its present wording.
I suggest this sentence be reworded, though I'm not sure yet how it should be reworded.  --Aude (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just state the obvious? External links should conform to Wikipedia policy on undue weight. Fagstein 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: Well, I will just paste what I wrote here. Hopefully you will understand why I object using === instead of ; in the external links section.
I heavily contest this section about using === instead of ;. Rationale:
# By using ===, you are cluttering the table of contents of the article. External links should just be a section in there, not a full tree of possibilities. See the current state of the external links section of the Jew article (it has 9 subsections in the table of contents!).
# It makes much easier for people to add their own spam links. They just need to click the Edit subsection in the "Fansites" list to add their own. In example, see this revision of the Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories article, this revision of the Kabbalah, or the previously mentioned Jew article.
# Most warnings are put just below the External links heading, either as a template or as a HTML comment. By allowing them to edit a sub section of the heading they are bypassing the warning.
# When a responsible user wants to add or modify an external link from the section, if he needs to browse through the full external link section because of ;, he will be encouraged to eliminate as many of those as possible to make navigation easier.
Hopefully, we will remove the === syntax from this section and force the usage of ;, as it is much better (at least, from my point of view) than the === one. -- ReyBrujo 05:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite doesn't advise using subsections at all. For the reason that a linklist that is long enough to require subsections is almost certanly too long a list of links. --Barberio 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection format in the section itself 

message: "Editors should try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website, instead trying to find an apropriate page to link to that will provide links within the site."   Is this not at odds with a need for links to be to a specific page?  I can imagine spammers using this as an excuse to link to site which is only generally applicable to the article.  I don't have a strong view about this BTW.  — Moondyne 06:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we want to ballance that against keeping links to a minimum. I have seem several articles which have an over long links section because they link to multiple pages from the same site. --Barberio 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mulitiple pages 

message: I think perhaps the guideline could be streamlined by adding a consolidated section on how the guideline relates to various Wikipedia policies.  WP:NOT is already addressed in the beginning, and WP:NPOV is addressed near the bottom, under "Undue weight".  What about WP:V — any thoughts on how verifiability applies to external links? Schi 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't.  That would lead to never ending tail chasing of then verifying the content that verifies the external link.  Besides that, the Foundation will never "verify" anything about an external link as the legal ramifications of that are endless.  External links are further reading, unverified and unendorsed by the Wikipedia. 2005 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I suspected, thanks for the input. Schi 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Application of Wikipedia policies

message: I think the "What to do with a dead link" section should expanded to cover the issue of hijacked links. These are links which may have been appropriate when added, but now are not appropriate to be linked to. This may be due to a simple "bait and switch" by the site owner, a domain that expired and was snapped up by a domain speculator, or some other reason.
Wikipedia's primitive tools wouldn't flag any of these, as they're not 404 or redirects. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added text addressing this. --Barberio 10:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijacked links 

message: A small beef, but can we change the (*) bullets back to (#) numbered bullets?  It's easier to refer to one or the other point when there's a number attached to it. Schi 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object to that. I only changed it for consistancy. - Mike | Talk 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back, but I understand your concern about consistency.  I left some of the bullets as * bullets, as I believe it was before your edit, but am open to someone else converting those to numbers if it makes sense. Schi 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have changed it to the numbered format in the "important points to remember" section. Other than that, looks good. - Mike | Talk 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering points