Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12

message: Hi guys,
perhaps it is just me but I'm a bit perplexed by this: "There are two basic formats for external links. The most common is…". What is the other format? :-) Secondly, is the format currently used in SHA hash functions#External links correct? My reading of these guidelines suggests that in general there should be no headings within the list, thus that it should be reformatted as:
:*Description of the algorithms
:** Proposed NIST SHS (SHA0)
:** Specifications for a SECURE HASH STANDARD (SHS) (SHA0)
:** …
:*Cryptanalysis
:** Interview with Yiqun Lisa Yin concerning the attack on SHA-1
:** Lenstra's Summary of impact of the February 2005 cryptanalytic results
:** …
:*Implementations
:** …
However a quick round of past featured articles doesn't seem to confirm that. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: Many popular media products have "official" products, often available only from that production group or company. The website for those products would be primarily directed toward selling a product; but the product is part of the "official website" for the entity. This appears to place a "links normally to be avoided" #4 into conflict with "What should be linked to" #1.  Thoughts? --LQ 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That list of links to be avoided is prefaced with "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." So such a link would not be prima facie prohibited. -- Satori Son 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "official" media tie-ins and related products 

message: I am concerned that the new updated WP:EL policy is too "positive". The overall tone of it seems to be, "External links are welcome and helpful!" instead of, "Don't add an external link unless it matches these criteria!" Specifically, try this example - pretend you want to add a link to your favorite anime fan site from the WP article about that anime; what part of the policy specifically tells you not to do this, and how far down in the policy do you have to read before you find it? - Brian Kendig 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. Why don't you propose an alternative wording? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the way I worded it in my rewrite from late October.  Somewhere along the way my wording was changed. - Brian Kendig 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened, Brian, is that some editors took that "can't or shouldn't be added" to mean that External links could be any old garbage.  Completely lost was the reasons behind ""can't or shouldn't", and we've been off and running ever since.  I tried some time ago (see New_articles_vs._mature_articles) to get things back on track, but without success.  I would very much like to get back to something more like your version, only with an explanation of "can't or shouldn't" immediately after that sentence, but I've been distracted by other matters.  You might want to try again in the What_is_the_purpose_of_an_EL_section_in_an_encyclopedic_article? section below. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add this sentence after the first sentence of the second paragraph of WP:EL: No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified. Or something to that extent, making the point that linking shouldn't be done casually just because there happens to be a site on the same topic as the article. (This sentence came out of the Wikipedia talk:External links#Fan sites discussion, below.) - Brian Kendig 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this seems overly obvious to me, it seems okay to add... although I think it fits more strongly under Important points to remember #1: "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.  No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified."  2005 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with putting it in the "Important points to remember" section is that that's under the fold. I believe the guideline opening section needs to be more clear that external linking isn't to be taken for granted. I will make the edit to the guideline. - Brian Kendig 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The policy is too "positive" 

message: I invite editors to provide their views in one or two sentences about What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! "Can't or shouldn't be added" is exactly the issue that we have lost sight of.  What we don't want to link to is good encyclopedic articles, because those should be used as sources to improve our articles; they should not be used as external links (except when a Wikipedia article is in stub stage).  We lost sight of that back when some editors started reading "can't or shouldn't be added" as implying that any old crap could be an external link.  That was not the point of "can't or shouldn't".  We need to restore that language, but put what we mean by "can't or shouldn't" much closer to the phrase, so there is no mistaking the intent. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree.  I've always said it should explain why links should be made instead of just copying the linked info into the article.  I think it's clear enough already, but the bit after "can't or shouldn't" may need to be even more detailed so that it can't possibly be interpreted incorrectly.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How could "a small selection of useful links that provide additional information about the subject of the article" diminish the article's quality?  If they are useful, not too many, on-topic, and provide additional info, wouldn't they by definition improve the article's quality?  Your comment sounds like "It should be good, and not be bad".  It's redundant.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  More than redundant, it's wrong. An official site for the subject of the article can be of terrible quality, but still a very important link. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be misunderstanding "quality". When I speak of "good quality" I speak of good quality as it pertains to achieving the goals of the encyclopedia. Including a link to an official site is that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for a very pertinent distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also add the standard language about "...when it becomes a FAC". Some people use the EL as a temporary crutch, and this language protects against that (IMO bad) practice. Crum375 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, disagree. First, official sites can have lots of information that would not be included more than for copyright or detail problems - official sites can be spammy, advertising-laden, of questionable legality, or attack pages, and often are. Second, putting useful links in the article as a holding area is often the only thing that will stop a stub article from being deleted from lack of notability until someone adds their content to the article. Remember, the people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are not obliged to go look for references, that is the obligation of the person who wrote the stub. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Most, if not all, official sites of the subject of the article are used as sources in these articles, to present the POV of the author/company/political party, etc. so your point is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. AnonEMouse correctly highlights a common problem that many existing WP articles just have a bunch of text, then maybe a couple of links listed at the end as 'External Links'. This is obviously wrong, and is a systemic problem. What we need to do in each such case (assuming the article is otherwise OK) is to create an inline reference (I personally favor the 'cite X' template) and link to the same site, then create a 'References' section with , and remove the old 'external link'. This is fairly painless and will preserve the link, that we obviously don't want to just discard. But the issue in this thread is the left-over EL's, i.e. the ones that we are not using as direct references or sources. Crum375 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I think AnonEMouse has a point about how articles build up.  We generally discuss these guideline as they pertain to an FA class article.  But most of our articles aren't and I think there is a tension between having a polished article and getting to that stage.  The dumping ground approach (and I don't think AnonEMouse is just talking about official sites) can be harmful to an article and can encourage lazy editing, but it also provides a resource for editors.  Guidelines shouldn't sit in the vacuum of the perfect article edited by perfect editors, we ought to take into account how Wikipedia works in practice.  I'm not sure how we resolve these tensions in a way that encourages the best editing overall. --Siobhan Hansa 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, for articles in development, as Siobhan writes. 99.9% of our articles will always have room for improvement, that's the nature of the Wikipedia. I would guess that a third will actually be stubs. Note how this guideline is actually used: as a justification for deleting external links from articles, not for expanding the text. This guideline shouldn't be written so as to hurt those 99.9% of our articles that aren't FA. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the difficulty, but I am sure we can present the subject in a way that encourages best practices for articles in different stages of development. Maybe that is what is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That distinction about "the best resources that help them research the subject with the same standards as we (try to) apply to our articles" is very useful and sorely lacking in the current formulation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Crum375; also, I have suggested before that perhaps we should add a line or two advising people to use the talk page to suggest links for ref incorporation.  There are thousands of cases on Wikipedia where inexperienced editors make good faith contributions that are not in line with guidelines.  Guidelines aren't able to prevent such edits, but they certainly shouldn't be formulated to encourage them.  For example, WP:MOS is violated constantly, but it doesn't stop people from making style-related edits.  Nor does MOS say, "If you're unable to use proper punctuation as explained here, punctuate however you want and someone else will clean up for you." schi talk 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeing - talk page sounds like a good place for this stuff, maybe we could suggest a Research Resources section. Also pointing out that it isn't simply some contributors suggesting content that should go in the article should not be put in as ELs.  The guidelines have stated this for sometime.  Under Links normally to be avoided 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. --Siobhan Hansa 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The merit of Wikipedia is the way it allows for incremental improvements.  It is meant to a useful tool for readers now, not a hobby for Wikipedians to craft to perfection in an ivory tower.  If there's a lot of information at www.bolivianfoo.org that's not at Bolivian Foo, a link to the site from that article will obviously make the article more useful to a reader who wants to know about the Bolivian Foo.  Of course it would be better to incorporate (some or all) the information into the Wikipedia article, but for any number of reasons this may not happen the instant someone discovers the site.  To deny the usefulness of the link as an interim measure is absurd.  The fact is that most readers never read Talk: pages; they're mostly the preserve of  active Wikipedian editors. I completely disagree with the criterion "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article".  It seems to suggest that a perfect article is created by adding one component at a time, where each component is itself perfect when it is added.  I believe that adding an imperfect component may still improve an article, though obviously further improvement occurs if that component is later improved (or replaced with a better one). Even an improperly punctuated sentence may improve an article: few editors would react to such an error by reverting the edit rather than correcting the punctuation.  The question is, to what extent should guidelines encourage or discourage imperfect additions.  I believe editors are not stupid.  They do not need a simple good/bad do-this/don't-do-that list; you can say "this is bad, this is better, this is better still."  By all means say: "Rather than linking to an external site, consider instead incorporating its information directly into the article, using the site as a reference". The original question was "What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article?" If by "encyclopedic" you mean "complete, authoritative, featured-quality", then I agree that there will ipso facto be no need for ELs which merely repeat some of the content of the article.  However I oppose any guideline which is so phrased as to  discourage editors from adding links which improve the usefulness of incomplete articles (which, at any given time, constitute the vast majority).  jnestorius(talk) 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By your rationale, any link to any site that has any relevant information that could be construed as useful by someone would be allowed. In that case we might as well do away with WP:EL altogether. We are all for incrementally building an encyclopedia, from mere stub to beautiful edifice. But given that we are almost perpetually in an 'under construction' 'work-in-progress' environment, we must define some reasonable guidelines and rules, so our readers won't think they are visiting a construction zone. The way to do it is to allow external links under some circumstances. For example, in your above example, for Boliviafoo, if boliviafoo.org is a good site and has useful data, by all means link to it as a reference. All it takes is to find one reasonable shred of unique information in boliviafoo.org, add a sentence about it and link to it. It certainly takes less time to do it than for me to type this message. Then it moves out of the EL category (and into a reference section) and becomes moot for this discussion thread and this guideline. This guideline should focus strictly on the 'leftovers' - those links that cannot simply be used as references. Let's keep the focus there, since we seem to be drifting towards regular references. Crum375 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reasonable shred of unique information on boliviafoo.org does not make it a link allowed as a citation - boliviafoo.org could fail to pass WP:RS or WP:V but still be useful, at least for the current state of the page.  Also, you say any link to any site that has any relevant information ... would be allowed — perhaps, though I think you're over-reading it.  However, "would be allowed" is quite different from "would be encouraged" or "would stay on the page".  There is an editing process, and to a large degree the determination of worth to the article is one determined by the editors.  WP:EL is here to guide them in that determination, not to provide (generally) an if-then-else set of cases for ruling a link stays or goes.  We give them advice to keep the list small; make them relevant, avoid certain things.  But there are still cases where they most certainly are useful; doubly so for non-FA articles.  jesup 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with jesup.  jnestorious, you said, Even an improperly punctuated sentence may improve an article: few editors would react to such an error by reverting the edit rather than correcting the punctuation. The question is, to what extent should guidelines encourage or discourage imperfect additions.  I think the guideline should maximally encourage perfect additions, by, for example, describing that a perfect EL addition is a link that (among other things) should not otherwise be used as a source.  This seems to implicitly discourage imperfect additions, but I don't find it excessively prohibitive, just as, for example, the Manual of Style doesn't stop thousands of editors from using incorrect punctuation in otherwise helpful edits every day. schi talk 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, we first have to decide if a given reference provides useful information for the article. If so, we make a short statement and link to it ("Boilivafoo won the World Cup three years in a row [1]"), and put the link in the References section, not in the EL section, so it's outside the scope of this discussion thread, article and Talk page. Only if it has nothing obviously useful directly for the article, would it require the EL section and be governed by its guideline. I may be missing something, but it seems to me some of the comments here fail to make that important distinction. Crum375 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the concern is, at least on my part, that people put links into the EL section that should ideally be used as references.  In which case, since it's shown up as an external link, in the EL section, it does fall under the guideline. schi talk 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I referred to elsewhere. In a case (unfortunately very typical) where the only source is in the EL section, all we need to do is link to it inline and make it a reference. Once we do that it leaves the scope of this EL guideline. This guideline and discussion should focus on the cases where that simple action cannot be taken, yet the EL item is still valuable for some reason and we don't want to just discard it. Crum375 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right Crum375, and thanks for refocusing us.  Editors ought to think about links the in the same way they have to think about assertions they want to add to an article.  If you want it in there - while other editors may and should help you out, the real onus is on you to justify why it's appropriate for the article.  I feel like I opened up something i didn't intend to by agreeing with AnonEMouses' point.  I don't believe allowing the EL to be a dumping ground for links that "might provide good resources" is a seervice to our readers.  I was acknowleding that it has been useful for editors - but using the talk page should work well for them.  there's no need to dilute the encyclopedic quality of our articles. --Siobhan Hansa 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  And when removing such a link there is no reason the person removing it can't put it on the talk page if it's relevence is obvious as a source. See Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey. --Trödel 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That rules out the valid page with too much detail to be included, or links to copyrighted material relevant to the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And others, see above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article? 

message: Recently on the helpdesk there was a question regarding malicious external links (see here). The anon reported that the site www.jt.org gave them spyware when they wanted Saturday Night Live (naturally I haven't tested the site myself but McAffee site advisor thinks it's ok  however they hadn't tested any downloads so it may have spyware anyway). I did a linksearch  and it gave 190 results. I'm wondering, is there policy on malicious links other than to just delete them as spam? If so I think it should be clear on the External links page. James086Talk | Contribs 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. These sites, if harmful, can be blacklisted (preventing these links from being uploaded into Wikipedia). -- ReyBrujo 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the site has been reported to the spam blacklist at meta. James086Talk | Contribs 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malicious links

message: Sometimes users create templates holding external links and then include the templates in several articles. Some examples are GoT-Sites and Speedrun articles external links. I suggest adding a note in the guideline stating this is frowned upon. Although people think it makes easier to keep track and update external links, they are also a magnet for spammers, who can add their links to many articles with just one edit. In fact, external links should be discouraged from templates at all. -- ReyBrujo 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates with external links

message: I know wikis have been discussed above, but there appears to be a hole in the wiki EL restriction as currently written.
* "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
There are wikis that are stable with many users that openly request self-promoting articles and appear to have minimal editorial review.  These are primarily commercial wikis.  www.voip-info.org is one of these - they actually discourage editing someone else's article if you are a competitor.  I've seen numerous articles on WP with links citing this particular wiki, where the same author wrote the information in both places - not exactly NPOV.  Perhaps an additional EL restriction might apply.
* "Links to any self-publishing websites where guidelines are not in place or enforced that restrict the promotion of products, services or other websites. Calltech 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Wiki Suggestion 

message: I recently created another shortcut link to this article called WP:LINKS however, due to the recent editing dispute could not add it here.  Once this dispute is resolved would editors consider adding it? Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Update: Administrator Jossi took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently Created Another Shortcut 

message: Could an person experienced in handling new user's thoughts on addition of external links to Wikipedia take a look at User talk:Manofwar4662 and give some feedback on how this might have been handled better - or if it was at all appropriately handled?  Thanks - I'm sure I will encounter this kind of thing again in the future and having some feedback on this incident would be useful.  Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links dispute - probably resolved but with a disgruntled new user 

message: This guideline used to restrict links to fan sites, now it doesn't.  Why was that restriction removed?  Now when a user adds like 10,000 links to fan sites, I don't have a guideline to point to demonstrate that it's discouraged.  It allowed one link to an official fan site, which is fine, but now any unofficial fansite can be linked to without restriction.  The linking to of unofficial fansites should be out back in. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fan sites are restricted by all the criteria on EL.  Does the site provide significant accurate info beyond the article?  Does it pass all the "links to be avoided" criteria?  Is it self promotion from the fansite?  If a site can't be eliminated by EL itself, then maybe it should be included.  And if you end up with too many fansite links, just weed them down to the best ones, the guideline certainly is clear that they should be kept to a minimum.  And I don't think the guideline ever said that only "official" fansites could be linked (which is an oxymoron).  Fansites aren't inherently good or bad, they need to be judged by the EL criteria just like any other website.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Milo's explanation.  Most likely, "Links normally to be avoided" #13 ("Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject...") is what can be most easily applied to crufty fansites. schi talk 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The guideline has many restrictions, so you need to reexamine your mistatement of that. One restriction concerns adding links to sites not clearly on the topic of the article. 2005 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What is it with these strawmen?  Read the guideline.  The nonsense you suggest (someone adding multiple junk links) is prohibited in the guideline.  Additionally your comments speak nothing to fansites any more than corporate sites. 2005 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey - please assume good faith. I'm not talking about "junk links", I'm talking about links that can be defended as "accurate and on-topic," with "meaningful, relevant content." I do not see anything in the policy to which I can point someone and say, "There, see, this clearly tells you that it's not appropriate to link to six fansites from the article." Please humor me, and show me where you believe the guideline covers this. - Brian Kendig 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith.  If you aren't talking about junk links, then please explain how your comment is supposed to be responded to?  If six or eight links merit linking, then it is appropriate to link to them, or go to the option of using a Dmoz link instead.  Really, your position is hard to make sense of, especially since first you said one thing and now another.  Bad links can't get linked to.  Stuff that qualifies under the guideline can be linked to.  If an article could have sixteen or sixty appropriate, qualifying external links, then a broader solution needs to be applied, which linking to Dmoz is.  If on the other hand, you are saying that you don't want to link to appropriate sites just because you don't like that they aren't owned by corporations, that's just anti-user bad editing. There is no place that says "it's not appropriate to link to six fansites from the article" because that is just a senseless, user-hating attitude. Perhaps you should keep in mind we are making articles for users.  2005 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I occasionally come across articles about anime or Star Trek or various other kinds of fandom where an overenthusiastic fan has decided it's a good thing to use Wikipedia as a mini-dmoz and link to a number of fansites on the topic. It was my understanding that this is discouraged, but I'm tired of getting into debates with these people who say "these fansites are great! WP:EL says they're okay to link! I don't want people to have to use a web directory!" I was hoping that WP:EL would discourage fansites more clearly; that's all. I have no idea where you're coming up with "anti-user bad editing." - Brian Kendig 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else is to if someone wants to ignore what is best for users and cares about some irrelvant owenership detail?  You've basically shown why there is no prohibition via another strawmen argument.  The guideline talks about Wikipedia not being a mini-dmoz link directory, so once again there is no issue. 2005 08:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The criteria are spelled out in WP:EL.  If a site meets the criteria, there's an argument for linking it.  And EL does say to keep links to a minimum, but I think that setting a quota isn't in the spirit of WP.  If the editors of a page feel that six is still a short list, and all articles deserve linking, than maybe that's OK.  The same thing could happen with any kind of link, I don't see any reason why fansites should be singled out when they can be judged by the same standards as any other site.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, why are you singling out one type of site?  You really need to take a step back here because you seem to have locked yourself in some sort of mental blinders.  Saying soemthing like "Linking to six fansites is not a long list!" just doesn't make any sense, since you apparently are not caring if the person said "Linking to six corporate sites is not a long list!" and are not caring at all about the merit of the links.  Instead, for reasons you have not stated, you oppose non-corporate sites that merit linking.  That is plainly anti-user.  The guideline on the other hand bases its criteria on merit, stability, value to users, appropriateness.  It makes sites jump a bunch of hurdles before they can be linked.  The guideline doesn't care if sites have a green background or are owned by individuals or corporations, and you have made no argument why we should care about irrelevant stuff like that.  You should start thinking about user experience and added value to articles, instead of whatever arbritrary criteria you have. 2005 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh... okay, thank you; now I see the misunderstanding. I am not talking about web sites made by fans instead of by corporations; I'm talking about fansites, which are a specific kind of web site. Many fansites "do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article," which is point #1 under "Links normally to be avoided"; but the fans who add these kinds of links often insist that a fansite is authoritative and therefore should be linked anyway, and this has led to needless debates. All I'm asking is for the policy to explicitly mention fansites so I have something to point people to. - Brian Kendig 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said, "many don't".  But since some do, it doesn't make sense to ban all "fansites".  If they don't provide a unique resource, point them to that.  Of course, "unique resource" is open to opinion and interpretation to some degree.  Could you provide a specific example?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And again, if a fansite does not meet the criteria for linking, it should not be linked.  If it does merit a link, then it merits a link.  What exactly do you have a problem with there?  People who add links to ANY type of site often insist they should be linked, so that is why we have this guideline.  Again, you really need to rethink this because the guideline covers what any responsible editor should care about: inappropriate links without merit are prohibited.  Appropriate links with merit are explained.  Obviously fansites sometimes merit links, and just as obviously they sometimes don't.  The guideline explains what should be linked to. 2005 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above: "I believe that fansites shouldn't be linked from WP unless there's a much better reason than [the reasons I'm usually given]." I never said anything about a ban. The problem I want to solve is that whenever I edit a WP article to remove links to fansites which appear to only be there to use Wikipedia as a web directory, I often get flak about it from contributors who read WP:EL and easily misinterpret it to believe it's telling them that fansite links are okay and welcome. Two examples of articles with several fansite external links are Firefly (TV series) and Browncoat. I'm hesitant to remove those links because I don't want to again get into the same old debate with someone about why fansites shouldn't be linked even though fans think they're so great; I want to be able to link directly from my edit summary to some clearly-worded guidelines for fansites. - Brian Kendig 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to be with your editing if you are removing some links for no reason other than you don't like who owns the sites.  You should stop that.  Comments like "remove links to fansites which appear to only be there to use Wikipedia as a web directory" are out of place because the guideline addresses that directly. You should get flak if you are randomly removing appropriate links.  Fansites sometimes deserve linking.  Any links that don't merit linking according to the guideline should be removed. Continually putting up strawmen without explaination isn't helpful, but if your mission is a fanatical desire to "keep fansites out" I suggest you reexamine your editing practices and the bold text purpose of this guideline. 2005 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with "who owns the sites." Please stop misrepresenting my position and taking potshots at me. - Brian Kendig 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it matters who owns the sites. Haven't you even read fansites?  "A fansite or fan site, is a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon."  Fansites are sites owned and operated by fans.  They are by definitioned owned by fans, not corporately.  That is what they ARE.  That is what defines them.  What are you talking about if not this standard meaning of fansites? And, I've taken no potshots at you, but you have now taken two at me.  Please stop it, and please either present SOME rationale for your position besides just avoiding presenting any rationale for your desire, or lets move on. 2005 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd have a better shot if you didn't keep framing the issue as "why fansites shouldn't be linked".  Some fansites should be linked if they meet EL.  You just need to find specific reasons why specific sites should be removed (assuming there are some that should be removed).  On the firefly articles, which sites do you feel are inaproppriate?  Or do you want to remove them all?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So 11 of 13 shouldn't be linked according to the guideline... so... well.. what does this have to do with the above?  You seem to just have adopted some attitude that is irrelavnt to the point.  The ownership of those sites, whether they are fansites or commercial sites, has nothing to do with their merit as links.  Nothing, and you have aknowledged as much by presenting nothing to suggest otherwise.  People add poor quality links all the time.  If they don't meet the criteria of the guideline, then they should be removed.  On the other hand, if you are out of step with the opinions of multiple editors about how the sites merit links, then you should step back and accept that. To be blunt, saying "A fansite should not be linked unless its inclusion can be justified by the criteria in this policy" is just plain weird because the whole darn guideline basically says "A SITE should not be linked unless its inclusion can be justified by the criteria in this policy" (though it is a guideline not policy).  Really now, you seem to have some obsession here that you just need to reconsider.  No sites (no corporate site, no fan site, no site of any kind, no site at all...) should be linked unless it's inclusion is justified.  C'mon, this really can't be eluding you. 2005 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No sites (no corporate site, no fan site, no site of any kind, no site at all...) should be linked unless its inclusion is justified. Thank you - you hit the nail on the head. The guideline, as currently written, doesn't say this. Instead, the sense many people get from the guideline is the opposite: "Any site may be linked unless there's a good reason not to." The problem is that this makes it the responsibility of someone who wants to remove a link to prove that the guidelines say it doesn't belong, rather than the responsibility of the person who's adding it to make sure it does belong. Could we add that sentence of yours, "No site should be linked unless its inclusion is justified," to one of the first two paragraphs of the guideline? - Brian Kendig 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While forums aren't allowed at all (unless they're "official" ones), wikis are only forbidden if they aren't stable or have too few editors.  While there seem to be sites that can be elimiated, saying that eleven of them don't have anything that's not already on wikipedia seems inaccurate.  Looking at the sites, there seems to be quite a bit of info that's not on WP and shouldn't be (and would be attacked as "cruft" if people tried to add much of it).  "I see no particular reason..." isn't the criteria - that's a matter of opinion, so the decision is made by consensus seeing a particular reason to include them.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a site should not be added to External Links unless it specifically adds information beyond the content of the article - that is, a link to an unofficial podcast about a TV show doesn't belong on the article about that TV show, nor does a speculative "what if" essay. I also believe that it's not appropriate to link to a site which duplicates most of the information in Wikipedia with a little extra that Wikipedia doesn't have; in this case, the extra detail should be linked from a suitable place in the article, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to link to information already contained in Wikipedia (unless it's being cited as a source). I believe the bar should be high for adding links to Wikipedia, to avoid the usual "that site got linked, this site should get linked too!" arguments. You seem to feel that the guidelines for external linking should be permissive, that any links are welcome as long as someone out there feels they're on the same topic, there aren't too many of them, and none of the links explicitly violate the guidelines. Am I understanding you correctly? - Brian Kendig 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are.  You previously said that the sites didn't provide anything beyond what wikipedia has.  Now you are saying the sites offer some, but it's not enough for you.  Obviously, any site on a topic will likely duplicate some of the info in wikipedia, but how much extra is required to make it worth linking, and how much extra a given site actually provides are both debatable.  In regards to those sites, a quick look found unique info pretty easily, but I'm not in a position to judge which if any have "enough".  I would assume that some sites have more info than others, and whichever have the most are the most deserving of a link.  I also think it's unlikely that none of those sites have info that is more thorough than wikipedia (if that's the case, I'd be more concerned about cleaning the cruft out of wikipedia than removing links to fansites).  I agree that the bar should be high, but whether a site meets that bar is a matter of opinion.  It all comes back to consensus - there's no way to measure how much info a site has, so the editors of an article need to judge which sites best meet EL.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides being feature creep, wikipedia doesn't favor the use of quotas.  Setting arbitrary maximum numbers shouldn't be a substitute for common sense.  Not to mention that it seems biased to set a limit on one kind of EL but not others.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this isn't instruction creep; it was part of the long-standing content of this page prior to the recent flurry of (to me) rather opaque changes.  For example, it can be found in this version from September 22:  "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."  Strict, and wisely so; it is difficult for me to see how including more than one such site can ever be justified, and having to argue the point (or more likely, edit-war over the point) on page after page is silly, when the issue should be centrally addressed right here.  -- Visviva 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's way older than that-- see March 20, 2005, when it appeared under a section ""Maybe OK to add" as "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link." (emphasis added) -- Mwanner | Talk 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the new version better, the old one seemed arbitrary in that respect.  Including more than one site is justified if they have unique information as defined by EL.  I'm not sure why you'd put a quota on fansites, but not limit the number of other kinds of sites.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "it makes far more sense to have an absolute ceiling on fansites rather than hashing out the issues for every link in every article as if external links were on the same level as real content".  Actually that makes no sense at all.  What a thing to say.  This is guideline based on value to user and the encyclopedia, not random, brainless action.  Every site to be linked to is treated the same way.  If it doesn't merit a link, it shouldn't be linked to.  If there are a huge number of sites that merit links, an alternate solution like a Directory link can be used.  We link to "real content" wherever it is.  Once again do we really need to go over this non-argument, strawmen territory?  You seem to think that the guideline allows linking to non-"real content".  It doesn't, so please don't assert it does. 2005 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I never liked the "one fansite" rule in the old guidelines. The result were that people were linking a site because they felt they were allowed to, even if it contained nothing not already in Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan sites

message: Going back to "What to you is an EL?", how far do you think EL's should satisfy WP:RS? IMHO ELs are simply ELs because of the type of content they have, not because of the reliability of said content. They should be references in potentia but not used as such because of level of detail etc ad nauseum. The crux of my point: all ELs necessarily need to satisfy WP:RS in the same way as references do, and the guideline should be appended to reflect this. Thoughts? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have gone through an extensive discussion about this subject, in the last couple of week. The current formulation is the result of these discussions. I invite you to read the comments in this page as well as the archives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELs and [[WP:RS]] 

message: Cause for concern?  I recently noticed an editor linking to a site called wikivideolinks.org and it gave me pause. Given the stricter and stricter view about licensed content that WP:EL is promulgating should we be hesitant to be linking to a Wiki like this where we do not have better control of what content is linked to? (→Netscott) 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a new wiki, no owner stated, no disclaimers, no editors, etc.(see http://wikivideolinks.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30) I would consider that wiki to be one of these we should not be linking to, as per avoiding Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed all links to that wiki from five articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jossi... I suspected that'd be the proper course of action. (→Netscott) 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikivideolinks.org, cause for concern?

message: Why the immediate reversion after unprotection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was the previous consensus wording, which it should be obvious is the starting point for any changes, including the changes now being more productively discussed. 2005 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it is a bit wordy and could be tweaked, but it seems okay to me, though I continue to wish you would respect an orderly process and not make "un-consenused" changes to a page that says it is a consensus. In this case it seems wording similar to what you added has consensus but a couple days wait would have been appropriate. 2005 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no such consensus. So rather than keep reverting, with the unfortunate consequence of the article being protected, offering a version that may be agreeable is a better option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there was, literally all year long until you started trying to force your opinion in the guideline.  Just because you disagree, today, doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus, and a very longstanding one at that.  Consensus is not something that can be invalidated because someone comes in and disagrees.  You disagree with the previous consensus of the page, which briefly stated, does not include some text you want included.  That means you now need to gain a consensus to include it, which again obviously does not exist since the majority of the comments on this page don't want to include it.  So again, if some concept has not been in the document previously, you need to get a consensus before adding it back, especially again and again. The top of the page reads "The consensus of many editors...".  Please respect that. 2005 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be misinformed. The wording about which I contend was not reflecting consensus was added circa October 22nd 2006. See the consensus version  of October 21, 2006 ]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that supposed to mean?  You are adding wording that was never in the guideline.  the above linkobviously has no relation to that. Aside from that, the Oct 21 edits have nothing whatever to do with what you are adding! 2005 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording that was added on mid October was never in the guideline either. The current version, reflects the spirit of the guideline and reflects the discussions we had her over the last few weeks. If you believe that it does not, please propose an alternative wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you don't say what, I don't know what you are refering to, but regardless of what may or may not have been added previously, there is still no reason to add entirely new concepts not discussed in any way.  That has been the issue. 2005 08:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I've recently started using the  template even for external links. IMHO it is better than using the simple [ ] syntax because it enforces standardisation (which looks more elegant and professional), as well as providing the editor with fields such as author, title, work, etc. This encourages them to use the exact page title (or an abbreviated form of it) and to include as much detail as they can, which again looks more professional. Compare these two links for the Honda S2000:
* S2000 US Official Site
* 
I think this suggestion should be added and IMHO strongly encouraged as a preferred choice in the How to link section. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to link section 

message: We seem to say right in the intro that "professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks" are classical examples of useful/permitted external links.
Can someone explain to me why? If the article is about an athlete, can't we cite his/her stats as a valid source? If it's about a movie/TV show or a star, why can't we cite the credits? And why can't we cite interview transcripts? And why can't we cite online textbooks? IOW I don't see why all of these 'classical' examples of valid use of external links can't simply be linked and cited as a normal useful reference. Sorry if I am missing the point, but I'll be happy to be set straight. Crum375 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the intro is still confusing (possibly even more confusing than before).  All of those can be cited.  What it means is the info is linked to because the info can't be added to the article in its entirety.  For example, we can add a single stat about a baseball player.  But we would want to link to a huge list of complete stats instead of putting all those stats in the article.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am still confused. If athlete John Doe has stats in reference www.sportsstats.com, and we say "Doe has broken the 1 mile speed record 3 times [www.sportsstats.com/JohnDoe/Stats]". We have now included the stats as a regular reference. Why do we still need to include the link as External Link? What am I missing? Crum375 18:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline applies to sites that are used as external links but not cited.  Your comment brings up another question - if a website is an appropriate source for info, does it make sense to highlight it as an external link in addition to citing it?  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only in the rare and fortunate case when we actually have too many references, and official sites would be lost in the flood. See Jenna Jameson for an example. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with AnonEMouse. And I guess this is related to the equivalent question about 'See also' wikilinks - when (if ever) do we want a duplication, in both cases. And should we make an effort to always use a linked site as a cited reference before contemplating using it as EL? And then we come back to the original issue here: what are the best examples of truly needed EL's? Even the subject's own official web site, a very typical EL on WP, can be cited and used as a reference. Crum375 18:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing that sourcing something is not a reason to "give a link to" a valuable site.  Sports statistics is a classic example.  You could cite that Babe Ruth hit 37 home runs in 1932, but that is an entirely separate thing from offering readers an external link to the statistics of an entire career.  You are going down the same road, in an opposite direction, as spammer thinking.  The point is to make useful articles for users, not find ways to get a link on a page somewhere.  Just adding a sentence to an article, like Babe Ruth's shoe size, just so you can link to a very deep resource is unhelpful to users.  Sources are for citing significant factual-type information.  External links are for pointing users to further reading or viewing that adds to the article.  They have very different purposes and should not be used interchangeably. 2005 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a 'Further reading' section, which as I understand it, is distinct from EL. In your example, if there was a neat web site with lots of miscellaneous stats about "the Babe", would it not make sense to add it under 'Further reading'? Crum375 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EL and "further reading" are the exact same thing.  It's just a different name.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except further reading can include non-linked stuff, and is sometimes used strictly for that. Crum 375, when you say "...would it not make sense to add it under 'Further reading'..." sure, just as it would make sense under "external links".  I'm afraid I don't get your point. 2005 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that I don't think that 'Further reading' and EL sections are identical. I have seen some articles that have both. In FR they have (for example) some books about the subject. In EL they have links to related web sites. As of now I am not really sure of the distinction between these sections, what goes where, and the exact criteria as to when EL is absolutely needed as a standalone link, in addition to it being already a cited reference. Crum375 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid question 

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