Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 13

message: I, like many people here, interact with WP as both a reader and an editor. My editing is not as prolific as many but I do what I can to help. I have been trying to see what is wrong with including discussion forums (even if I have no connection with them) in External Links. As a reader I may read an article. If I am more interested I will read the references and External Links. If I am yet more interested then I want to find discussion forums. I go to Google but they are sometimes very hard to find. As a reader, I would like to see a list of discussion forums. As an editor, I do not see a problem with listing them except for the guidelines here. WP is not a fixed, written encyclopedia but a constantly changing online encyclopedia. What is the problem with including links to discussion forums? Thank you.—Who123 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first poster, I see no reason why a forum shouldn't be included, particularly those that are established and provide sections of information that don't change and can be used as a reference. Is there a way of propsing this? or finding a debate that took place earlier to discuss this issue? Stephenjh 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Improv. An online forum is typically unmoderated and its contents are unpredictable. They may include copyright violations and unfounded personal accusations against people. Allowing these links would essentially open the door to include, via a single link, all the content that we try to keep out of WP and would defeat our effort to present a respectable encyclopedia, IMO. Crum375 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A related problem is that many discussion forum are comparatively ephemeral.  They're not archived at archive.org, sometimes they change to member-only, and sometimes posts expire.  While this is true to some extent with any web link, I find that if I follow a link on Wikipedia, and it's a dead link, 95 times out of 100 it's a link to a discussion forum.  So from a purely practical perspective, forum links place a higher maintenance load on our editors.  That by itself is reason enough to prefer different sources. Nandesuka 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To be fair, most forums (I visit) are moderated, and contain nothing I couldn't find either in Wiki' or it's talk pages. Any link posted here can take the reader in all sorts of directions to content that is kept off of Wiki', but that's there point. I thought (in my case) linking to the 4 largest forums on a subject, each with over a 500 members kind of kept the junk out of things. That's what I would be interested in, establishing some kind of standard for a forum to be included as an external link. Just a suggestion. Stephenjh 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that the forum exclusion has been in the guidelines since at least April this year, which means that it has been extensively discussed in these pages.  Those proposing its elimination might want to look back through the archives.  To me, the primary problem of including forums is low reliability and low density of information-- rather like the discussions here, you find opinions ranging all over the place-- it can take a substantial amount of time to get a sense of where a discussion is going, and frequently a thread will end not because a solid consensus has been reached, but just because people have tired of the discussion. In short, they are less reliable than other resources, which is the sine qua non of a good resource. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Improv. Online fourms are not to be linked to from wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a external link farm. If you like a certain fourm, then bookmark it. They are most definetly not a reliable source, and do not meet WP:V. They are places for people with a Point Of View to go. Wikipedia is NPOV. If we are to remain any kind of respectable an encyclopedia, we can't start linking to crap. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who123 well stated some reasons for including selected links to external discussion forums. These same reasons are likely why other respected encyclopedias such as Encarta include links to external discussion forums. There's no good reason why Wikipedia can't do likewise, and in fact the current wording DOES NOT prohibit links to discussion forums -- it merely says you normally wouldn't do that. However the guideline is often misinterpreted, as well illustrated by some of the above responses. The issue about quality of external links is not isolated to discussion forums, but includes all other web sites. The points about reliable source and WP:V are misapplications. It's true links to discussion forums should not be used for these purposes (e.g, footnote to support an article main point), but they are rarely so used. Rather they are merely jump off points to additional information for the interested reader. Joema 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through your edit history, it looks like http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/ is an example of the kind of forum you feel is a quality link that improves an article.  I'm sorry, but I really don't agree.  As I said above, it's just really lightweight, low-quality, low-density consumer-blather info, where consumer A says "I bought one and it was the greatest", while consumer B says "it's a piece of junk", blah, blah, blah.  They web is just crawling with opinion spewing sites like these. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you carefully examine the site you referenced, you'll see by discussion forum standards, it's a high quality site, and includes detailed educational explanations about the physics, electronics and optics of flashlights. It's not dramatically different than the link to a model railroading discussion forum  in the Model Railroading article -- which BTW, the above responses would also prohibit. Selected links to discussion forums assist the interested reader. True they may appear lightweight or irrelevant to a casual reader not conversant with the subject. That is why whether a site is suitable should be up to the editors of that article, not determined by a blanket prohibition. Fortunately the current guidelines allow selected links, although this is widely misunderstood. Joema 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact there are three forums on that page, along with 28 other external links-- far too many by almost any standard.  Don't get me wrong-- I have gotten useful information from forums from time to time, but I wouldn't voluntarily repeat the experience for any search where there was a remote chance of finding reasonable info on a regular site.  And it's not as if good forums are hard for our readers to find via on their own via regular search processes-- Google "flashlight physics", and candlepowerforums.com comes up as the fourth link.  I just don't see the value in pointing our readers at them. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your points, and agree we should discourage (but not prohibit) external links. The current guideline wording does that. I'm concerned about the frequent misunderstanding (see above) that all forum links are totally banned, but that's another topic. Re replacing forum links with "see Google", the same argument could be made for most external links. Other credible encyclopedias besides Wikipedia use links to external forums, so their editors obviously see value in that. E.g, the Encarta article on Mathematics contains a link to this math discussion forum: . Similarly the Wikipedia Mathematics article also has a link to a math discussion forum: . Joema 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion forums 

message: Are there other services? Then we could more realistically say "such as " or could even use a device like the [[ISBN] page for listing numerous sources. The advantage of being able to provide  permanently usable link is so enormously great that it might justify some stretching of the usual criteria if necessary. I do not follow this closely enought to know, but, assuming goood faith, and recognizing that your solution has been launched as buch for the general benefit as well as the commercial, I ask Eysen whether there are good alternatives besides the two mentioned.DGG 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, the answer is no. To fill this gap was why WebCite was developed in the first place. I don't even know whether "the two mentioned alternatives" are viable alternatives at all (haven't tested them, someone should).--Eysen 16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: solutions for WebCites

message: Hi - On many articles, the EL section ends up including articles from consultant newsletters in the field. This frequently happens in law articles; I also recently saw one on the Eye tracking article.  The articles themselves vary: some are written in good faith, some are thinly disguised promotional pieces; some are high quality and add news about new developments, and others are simply client-newsletter filler.  It occurred to me that it might be helpful to have a series of "case studies" for the EL guideline, to help users/editors evaluate these kinds of things.  One such case study could be "consultant / private practitioner newsletters".  Or perhaps there's a better way to handle it, or it already has, and someone could kindly point me that way.  ... I scanned quickly thru the archives & didn't see this previously addressed; if it is somewhere else, point me to it?  (being able to search the talk archives for a particular page would be helpful) --LQ 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  consultant newsletter articles 

message: A while back some editors started to develop a new way to implement external images. By now we have finished the template.
The size of this template is variable to fit better with other templates in the article.
The link to the image is always given with a description of its content. This description is basically an interpretation and for this reason it has to be sourced with a link to the website(in accordance with all guidelines for the use of websites as sources). Both reference styles are possible. It is optional to affix additional unlinked text after the linked description, possibly a legend for maps in foreign languages and so on. It is advised to use redundancy (2-3 links for the same subject) so we don't loose information in case we have to face troubles with the image link of a website(it can get blocked, the url changes or the site shuts down,...). It is possible to add up to 20 image links with the templates on the right side. If you have more, start a new template and please let it be known here that there is an article with more than 20 external image links.
The older version on the left is still functional and the same rules apply to it, but it is advised to use the new version with its significant icons. The old version has no limit to the number of image links. The specific icon for external image links can also be inserted manually prior to the link: 
I suggest to integrate it into the manual of style. I try here now to get an answer before boldly inserting and having an outcry afterwards. Wandalstouring 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like this.  The fancy box gives way too much prominence to the external image links compared to other material in the article.  Links to images should be given along with other links.  At most, they should be identified as images by use of the little  icon, like we use the  icon for links to PDF files.  The PDF icon is supplied by the style sheet so maybe we can do the same for graphics filename extensions. 67.117.130.181 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was explicitly requested to create something that does have prominence. Wandalstouring 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for external images 

message: The grammar in #1 of "links to normally be avoided" needed a tweak. It's either "..will contain if it becomes a featured article" or "..would contain if it became a featured article". As the vast majority of articles do not become featured articles, the second conditional construction is, imo, more appropriate. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: SERPs are listed under "Links normally to be avoided". What was the reasoning behind this? I can see listing how a broad Google search is not useful, but I have in the past added a link to an SERP on a news organisation's website which linked to many news stories covering the subject in question. This IMHO forms a perfectly good basis for "further reading" for the interested reader. I'm sure there are other cases where database-type searches (newspapers, scientific databases etc.) provide useful further reading and potential source material from which the article could be expanded. This clause should be amended to either restrict it only to general web searches or to allow database searches as an exception to the rule. Zunaid©Review me! 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't comment on the original rationale, but I can see at least a couple of reasons: first of all it seems a silly thing to do in most cases (what is its usefulness? avoid some typing to the user?); secondly, the result is a moving target and there's little control on what the search could actually yield, say, three years from now. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur. SERPs are not an article or document that you're referring the user to, it's a search ... with, as Gennaro pointed out, results that may differ from day to day. Really, the ideal link for me would be a citation or other template that links to the specific article, with its author, title, publication date, blah blah blah (see: Citation templates), so the user knows what s/he is clicking to. For me, ELs have value if they are further reading the user will get some understanding from, not just "more info." E.g., a WP article on digital video editing linking to an article at reputable source about digital video restoration of classic films. As opposed to a search on AFI or BFI for "digital video." This puts the burden on you to find a link that meets WP standards for citations/references, and then link to it with the proper form. Many, many editors just use the Some article I found link method, which IMHO is lazy, and requires other editors to Wikify. This is an encyclopedia, not a Web, so good links are pertinent, direct, clearly identified, and specifically of interest. A SERP just doesn't meet that standard. That said, if your SERp finds a good article to link to, open it (ensure any user can access, as links requiring login or payment are discouraged), and see if there's a "permanent link to this article" there ... then you've struck gold. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: SERPs should not be linked to from a spamming perspective.  One of the methods Google Adsense spammers (or Yahoo!, for that matter) employ is to create SERP pages and put up Adsense ads on them.  Google frowns on this, but there's lots of them on the web.  No unique content, simply relying on SE's to provide page content to create relevance for advertisements.  Calltech 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with the idea of noting exceptions to the no-search-results "rule," specifically for site-search and database-search pages (of course the latter aren't search engine results at all).  The rule should be:  no general searches, and searches only when the provide the best point of entry to a range of useful further reading on a particular website.  I've noted that people have a habit of enforcing this "rule" rather blindly, sometimes with ridiculous results (for example, removing any link if the URL contains the word "search," as someone recently did on a swath of articles).  It should be made clear that the first concern is utility to the user.  If a site-search result is the best point of entry -- and if there are numerous useful articles from a single source that would otherwise have to be linked individually -- then the search-results page should be linked.  More or less the same thing, methinks, applies to "further reading" sections; if an anthology contains 5 useful articles, we would list the anthology once.  On the other hand, if we were citing those articles as references, we would of course list them individually.  This is one of several differences between further reading (and EL) and references/notes/sources.  -- Visviva 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we talk about searches in general they can indeed be useful and I've used them in at least a couple of situations I can off-hand remember of: the Linguistic Universals Database (see last footnote in the endianness article) and Acronym Finder (in an upcoming version of KISS principle); in the latter case, "linking to a search" not only provided verifiability for the assertion (made in the article) that many expansions of the acronym KISS exist but avoided an inline list and the corresponding "I want to add my entry too" phenomenon which affects (to use a neutral term) so many Wikipedia articles (see for instance signature song). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searches certainly are useful, and the results of searches (including a link, for convenience) are certainly appropriate for posting to talk pages of articles.  I think that's a different matter than putting a URL that resolves into a (say) google search as an external link or footnote in an article.  I didn't see the latter in the two articles you mentioned.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search engine result pages 

message: Would somebody who feels confident in their knowledge of the guideline look at the rather large list of External Links at the Ex-gay article? I have no doubt that many should be removed but would rather another set of eyes look at them. CovenantD 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dang, thats a lot of links. You could legitimately remove all of them except for perhaps one or two of the biggest resources, write a note on the talkpage about the need for external links to be symmetrically, as opposed to tangentially, related to the subject of an article and caution that any individual subgroups should only be linked to from a page about them. Just because the article references a movement, it does not grant anyone connected with that movement the opportunity to be linked. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Many of those links are already compiled and organized at  and its various related categories. This might be one of those cases where the dmoz link saves everyone some trouble. --Xixtas 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links at [[Ex-gay]] 

message: Can we allow some types of online forums as external links?
For instance, many neighborhoods have a community blog, which would be a useful addition to an article about the neighborhood.  The same goes for articles about hobbies, where there often exists an authoritative forum or newsgroup, ex. USENET's rec.* hierarchy.
When the "forums" policy first appeared in the policy in April '06, it looked like this:
Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=49918030 )
It now looks like:
* Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
* Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
* Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
which is causing people to delete blog links on sight, even when the blog is useful to the article.
I'm proposing changing to:
* Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace)
* Links to discussion forums, community blogs, or USENET groups, except when the forum is about the subject of the article, the subject of the article is not a person or organization, _and_ when the forum is of a reasonably high standard.
* Links to personal blogs and web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
* Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
Because of these points:
* Community blogs are more like forums than personal blogs.
* Forums are not the same as social networking sites.
* Forums that are about the topic of the article are good.
* We should probably not link to forums about people though.
* The forum should be a good, active one and we should not list any forum just because it exists.
* Clarify that we're referring to live feeds of newsgroups here, there are some situations where USENET is cited, for example, a bona fide FAQ.
Squidfryerchef 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Links normally to avoid starts by saying "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid...".  Also, did you see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Discussion_forums? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read that exception narrowly, it's only for links to _offical_ sites or when the article is about the website itself.  This is too narrow, because it doesnt allow forums that are merely _about_ the subject.  P.S. I tried and there's nothing at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Discussion_forums.  Did there used to be a section for that? Squidfryerchef 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind about #Discussion_forums, found it here on the talk page. Squidfryerchef 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I misformed the link, and then it was "archived" this morning (though it doesn't seem to be in the archive(no longer true), so I have restored it and corrected the links). -- Mwanner | Talk 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly strict on forum sites? 

message: [moved from archived discussion]
I would like to ask, is anyone else concerned that there are 3,343 outbound links from Wikipedia space to Wikia.com wikis?  Many of these are linking to wikis that have had less than 4 edits in the past 30 days.  So, that violates the current policy on External Links, but I'm not seeing much outcry or action to delete these links. --JossBuckle Swami 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking only for myself, no, I'm not particularly worried about this.  There are probably tens of thousands of exteral links to blogs, forums, and other websites that violation WP:EL, for example.  I think some things just need to be handled on a case-by-case (that is, article by article) basis; this seems like one.  If you really think this is a huge problem, you might consider starting a wikiproject.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikia

message: I archived a bunch of stuff and moved the YouTube discussions to bring this talk page down to a reasonable size. I removed a little at a time and kept checking the size of the page. It is currently 39 KB, which is larger than ideal, but far smaller than the previous 367 KB. If you feel that a discussion was archived prematurely, please feel free to move it back. At the moment, I am still working on the archiving. The links to the pages will come soon. -- Kjkolb 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I am a Pararescuman and would like to post a link to my site http://www.pjcountry.blogspot.com . I have real time facts for people interested in the topic. Please respond with the appropriate measures in order to do so.... pjcountry@gmail.com  21:55, 2 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.143.22 (talk • contribs) 
:Posting of links to blogs is almost always unacceptable, and your site does not seem to be any different.  Please see WP:RS.  Thanks (and sorry, but there are literally millions of blogs out there).  John Broughton  |  Talk 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pararescue Link 

message: If WP:EL applies to every offsite link, why not create a section here about the "External Links" section.  Hopefully this will clear things up:
"Best practices for External Links section"
While WP:EL is usually taken to apply to every link that leads outside of Wikipedia, many articles have long had a section entitled "External Links".  However, this should be reserved for just a few ( 3 is a good number IMO ) links that are particularly relevant to the topic.
#For example, an article about a city might put a link to the official city website here.  Even if it is already buried in the References section.
#These links do not have to meet WP:RS; self-published material may be OK in some cases.
#These links must be about the subject of the article.  Not about some aspect of the subject, but about the subject in general.
#These links should be reasonably NPOV.  For instance, in an article about a corporation you would not link to a group that is protesting the corporation.  ( However, you might use that in your References section )
#The External Links section sometimes gets used as a Reference section sans footnotes, when pages are under construction.  However, this should be avoided.
Comments? Squidfryerchef 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If WP:EL applies to every offsite link".  It doesn't. This guideline applies to the external links section.  We aren't here to rewrite the WP:RS or anything else. 2005 04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might start the process by being the one who changes the Manual of Style page (see above) that specifically cites this guideline as covering all external links (as opposed to internal links)?  John Broughton  |  Talk 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly site-wide confusion that needs fixing regarding the exact meaning of 'external links' and their relevant guideline(s). Since the issue relates also to WP:RS, WP:V and probably WP:BLP, a cleanup/clarification is needed IMO. Crum375 15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "specifically cites this guideline as covering all external links".  It does not.  It plainly says Wikipedia is not a link collection.  Do we really need to go down this path?  This guideline (its a guideline not policy) is for the external link section.  It mentions other things, but it does not supercede WP:RS.  We have different guidelines for different things, and different discussions regarding the different guidelines too.  Let's keep this one to the guideline for external links sections on articles. 2005 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  On the contrary, as written the guideline refers to all external links. It does give some guidelines which would be appropriate to links used within sources, such as recommendations on how to link to foreign language sites and rich media. However, it should not be used to over-ride WP:RS and that may need clarification. --Barberio 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that EL applies to cited sources.  WP:RS applies to sources, and EL applies to links not used as sources.  If EL applied to sources or vice versa, then what would be the purpose of having two separate guidelines?  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Minderbinder. I think we need to clearly state in the EL guideline that it applies strictly to links that are not used as a source. Then, we have to think long and hard what kind of non-source links we really want to have on WP and what rules apply to them, as WP:RS and WP:V by definition do not apply, while WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO probably do apply, etc. Crum375 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Parts of WP:EL do apply to citations.  For example, if a link in a citation is a "convenience link" and is not being relied on for verification, then WP:EL would apply. For example, when citing a newspaper article with , it's common to also include a link to an online version of the article.  However, in a situation where the citation passes WP:RS but the link fails WP:EL then the EL should be removed and the citation should remain... For instance, if a "hate blog" is hosting a section of a book (with a plausible fair-use claim) it would fail WP:EL... and the best option would be to simply use a unlinked citation to the book. ---J.S  (T/C) 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  WP:RS tells what kind of content is good as a source, but it doesn't deal with technical issues like rich media, permanency of links, etc.  For WP:RS it doesn't matter if the source is even online at all.  So I'd say that WP:EL applies to every offsite link.  If you cite a link in your References section it should meet both WP:RS and WP:EL.  WP:RS and WP:EL may frown on certain types of sites but for different reasons.  For example, WP:RS may frown on social networking sites because they are self-published, but WP:EL might frown on them because many allow scripts that play rich media ( and possible copyright violations ).  On the other hand an article's EL section itself may need unique rules, because it is an unorganized list that tends to get cluttered.  I'm going to _be bold_ and add a draft EL section, we can see what the consensus is.  PS. If we did have a "hate blog" as a reference, and it passed both RS and fair use, I think that it might be OK under the "blanket" EL I'm pushing, but it would not be OK in the "External Links" section unless the article was about the hate blog itself of the group publishing it.  Perhaps best to move the more restrictive tenets of WP:EL, which were possibly intended for the EL section anyway, into my draft section Squidfryerchef 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Now that I look at the page again, quite a bit of it is specific to the EL section.  However, there are people who cite WP:EL as applying to every offsite link.  Perhaps the thing to do is instead of creating an "EL section" section, is to add an "offsite links" section at the beginning. Squidfryerchef 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No (or almost no) citation requires an external link, so there is no reason why WP:V (guiding policy of WP:RS/WP:CITE) would override WP:NOT (a guiding policy of WP:EL). ---J.S  (T/C) 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a simple solution for this, and it's already covered in this guideline.  Mention your site on the talk page, if other editors think it is appropriate to link to, they will add the link.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can understand your frustration, but you must see how allowing this sort of thing treads very close to breaking the concepts of "No Original Research", "Conflict of Interest" and "Verifiability" - this is not specific to any of your 800 pages, but in general.  Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a link farm - there are link directories out there that do a great job of catagloging websites that deal with topics.  In some cases it is these that are linked from Wikipedia pages (see various discussions on this Talk page). I think that this is the appropriate way to go. Alucard (Dr.) 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: arthurchappell, it might be benifitial to bring your website up on the related talk page. ---J.S  (T/C) 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing "external links section" section 

message: I was curious why Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam wasn't going after *.blogspot.com external links, so I used Special:Linksearch to take a look at what was out there.  I'm reporting back here on the hour or two I spent reviewing (scanning) the first 4,000 listed links.  First, that got me only partly into the "d's", so I estimate that there are between 15,000 and 25,000 *.blogspot.com external links on en.wikipedia.org pages.  Second, probably half are from Talk: or User: or User talk: pages, which means the other half are from articles.  Third, I found a trivial amount of spam (in fact, what I found was on user pages, not in articles), so that doesn't seem to account, at all, for the volume of links.  Fourth, I didn't find any obvious "vanity" articles in the articles I looked at, so using blogspot.com links to find such articles isn't a good idea.
What percentage of the links in articles to *blogspot.com pages don't meet the requirements of WP:RS and of this policy?  I'd have to spend more time analyzing the links than I did to answer that question with any degree of certainty.  Many seemed fine to me - for example, biograhical articles where the link was to a blog written by the subject of the article.  Many certainly are not, though I didn't find more than one or two that was so egregiously wrong that I deleted it.  
What is certain is that there are thousands of Wikipedia editors who think that blogs have valuable content and that it's useful to link to them.  I also think it's fairly certain that there are way too many links, and valuable links, for WikiProject Spam to target this blogsite in the future.  Finally, if policy is to mirror practice (many don't think that's a good idea), then a more thorough examination of what actually is being posted would be in order.  John Broughton  |  Talk 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I estimated, there were 16,019 blogspot links. I would say 90% are not necessary, and we should aggressively go against them when they are completely irrelevant. -- ReyBrujo 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the fact that most of those references are on Talk, User, or User_Talk pages indicate that the links may be "useful", but not encyclopedic?  Atom 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ReyBrujo - There are some who would say the appropriate response to your call for action is Who are "we", Kemo Sabe?  John Broughton  |  Talk 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, Wikipedia editors, of course. -- ReyBrujo 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogspot.com