Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 1

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, September 13th, 02003.
Hi Guys!
How do i add an external link with a dollar sign in it? Here's an example URL:
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take$.asp
Thanx
Dave
:You have to URL-encode the characters, i.e. exchange them with %hexcode - so your URL then is http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take%24.asp andy 15:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: How Do I Add An External Link With A Dollar Sign In It?

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, September 13th, 02003.
I am putting the finshing touches on a site with links, photos, and reviews of Web Browsers for Windows. I am wanting to link the site from the main web browser article. Would this be a conflict of interest since I edit here? --hoshie 06:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Angela, Thanks for your answer. The site will be about browsers. Nothing will be sold. --hoshie 07:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  A conflict of interest? 

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2003 archive 4 on Tuesday, November 4th, 02003.
I want to add an external link to Afghan Hound, but how do I link to this page without loosing the site frames?  The URL I see in the address bar ( http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/ ) links to the home page.  Is there a way round this?  Thanks -- sannse 19:10 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
:...and that's why frames are evil. E-mail their webmaster and ask if they have a way to link to their frameset such that it will show a particular file in the content frame. --Brion 20:40 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
Why not copy frame source code, put it on a second page, and change main page frame to link to the specified page? Spe88 10:52, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External link with frames

message: Hope this is the right page, if not please move it. QUESTION: Should we be posting External links to personal websites or any other kind of site that is not credible. It seems to me if the goal is to have Wikipedia be an "accurate" and relaible source, then any external link it references to has Wikipedia's "certificate of authenticity" equal to our own unless a clear disclaim notice is given as part of the External Link listing. It would seem that if you can refer to John Doe's personal website on the "History of apples", then it becomes legitimate to link to a personal KKK and the like  website from numerous Wikipedia articles. Angelique 01:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a bit of a jump - adding a couple of useful and interesting articles is different from linking to the KKK or whatever. As long as the external links aren't inaccurate or biased in some way, there shouldn't be a problem. In many cases it may be more useful to link to them, rather than put all the possible information in the article. Adam Bishop 02:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: IMHO you will run into the problem of agreeing what is "credible". I do not believe an editor needs to agree with a website to link to it. For instance a NPOV article might legitimately link to both Creationism and Evolutionist websites. I would see no problem with an article on racism linking to a KKK website, as long as it was a "mainstream" KKK site, not a here-today-gone-tomorrow personal hate rant. Would judging by Google rank be a yardstick for linking?Anjouli 05:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Having now seen the discussion on Talk:New France, I think your reasons for deprecating the external links are not valid. The personal page of a world authority is unimpeachable, and oftentimes a hardworking person goes to a great deal of trouble to put accurate information on a website. The only way to be sure is to evaluate website content on a case-by-case basis. For example, hazegray.org has a project to enter the content of DANFS as close to verbatim, and from experience I can say that they are very accurate, with fewer mistakes and typos than the average WP article. Stan 17:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: If an external link has some value and some bad points, just add a note ("the pictures are good but the dates on the site are inaccurate"). This is all a normal part of scholarly work; we don't try to pretend that things don't exist, we mention them and describe their good/bad points. If you insist on sites with "undoubted" credentials, you don't make the problem go away, you just turn it into a debate on whose credentials are doubtful and whose are not. Stan 07:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: There are two main reasons for linking to an external website. One is to link to useful and accurate information contained on that website, and the other is because the website itself is the object of interest. In the second case the website does not need to be accurate, fair or anything else. An article on (for instance) an Arabic newspaper would be negligent if it did not show the address of that newspaper's website - whether or not the information contained on that site was accurate, NPOV or not. People seem to be defending the first type of link and objecting to the second. Anjouli 18:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: The links are valid information sources. The first one is a list of all governors, intendants and bishops of New France, which in fact could be used to create a List of New France governors and intendants type page. The other, which is the one Angelique is clearly opposed to, is the personal Website of linguist and teacher Patrick Cousture from Montreal, Quebec. This Website features a rich chronology of the history of Quebec from New France until now and the sources that he used for this work are listed at the bottom of this page: http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/HIST1.HTM. There are over 30 different books he's read covering some 500 years of history. Because Patrick Cousture is a Quebecer, he writes in the way an American would write of America, an Australian of Australia, a Scot of Scotland etc. This is what Angelique doesn't like about the site. -- Mathieugp 19:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I did in fact use that site to make a list of Governors of New France, which at the moment is on List of Governors General of Canada (but it has been discussed on that page that governors and Intendants of New France should be split off). Adam Bishop 19:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Hi, im a user of the german Wikipedia and i recently found a lot URLs, which are obviously spam. The linked websites contain some basic infos, but it seems that their main purpose is to promote some commercial links on the bottom of the pages. I found 19 affected domains so far on de: and removed them from the articles. By accident i saw, that these links exist on en:, too. Maybe someone wants to search and remove them. I mainly used a local SQL dump and the contributions page, because these links are always added by some anonymous users (IPs). Here's a list of domains:
10-layout-rules.com
10-webdesign-regeln.de
10-webmaster-hints.com
10-webmaster-tipps.de
ab-nach-sylt.de
aquarium-starter.com
aquarium-starter.de
austen-biographie.de
badminton-crashkurs.de
badminton-kickstart.com
bernhard-grzimek.de
bob-marley-fan.de
carroll-jabberwocky.de
cocktails-machen.de
der-pc-hausmeister.de
durchmesser.de
ebay-ratschlaege.de
entspannung-am-pc.de
ferrari-page.de
finland-traveling.com
fotografieren-leichtgemacht.de
france-traveling.com
franz-revolution.de
fried-gedichte.de
georgeorwell.de
gitarren-kids.de
gratissites.de
html-collection.com
html-sammlung.de
internet-chronik.de
janullrich-fan.de
jayz-fan.de
jujutsu-info.de
klares.de
lecker-sushi.de
llcoolj-fan.de
madonna-fan.de
manson-fan.de
more-nintendo.com
my-own-summer.de
nintendo-chronik.de
olympic-games-chronics.com
pc-buyers-guide.com
pc-kauftipps.de
photography-starters.com
porsche-page.de
privat-versichern-experte.de
pur-fan.de
reise-nach-wales.de
sportwagen-fan.de
sportwagenfan.de
strat-games-chronics.com
strategiespiele-guide.de
techno-info.de
traveling-italy.com
whiskey-fuehrer.de
yummi-cocktails.com
I dislike the idea, that someone wants to get a commercial benefit from our google ranking or whatever. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on de: . Regards -- 213.54.99.133 16:22, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just created an account on en :-) -- Fab 16:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just made an update of the spam-domain-list on my user page -- fab 23:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: Is there a policy about listing these?  Someone edited Carpenters by adding a second fan site to the list of external links.  The Carpenters Webring includes 19 sites, and I'm sure plenty of bands, movie stars, etc. have many more than that.  Listing all and listing none both seem like bad ideas.  I suspect that, in many cases, the selection of sites to list is based on the site owners having shown up and added their own sites, which doesn't seem like much of a policy.  JamesMLane 06:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan sites in external links 

message: I've added a fairly general "suggestion" to the top of the page, that tries to reflect some of the views that seem to be agreed upon here and at a similar discussion at the village pump. I don't usually look at talk pages for general WP guidelines. I resisted the tempation to make it a detailed list because my impression is that, while WP offers much guidance to editors, much latitude is given for individual's contributions. Thinking about it later, I also think a suggestion to use KISS-principle sites logically should follow the same principle. Niteowlneils 23:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Added synthesis to content page

message: I've noticed that many editors have taken to including external links which are strongly POV towards one particular view or item of the article, often without any warning that this represents the views of one particular side. Often, these links escape the normal Wikipedia NPOV process, because someone needs to take the time to check them out (not always easy). Does anyone have views on this? Lately I've been killing links that are not properly described as being POV or fringe interest. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Documenting the POV is much more helpful than killing the link, don't you think? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Oops yes, should've added that before. Link to xyz's opinion only if it is an significant opinion. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: One option is always to move links you're not sure of to the article's discussion page - particularly if the article is a stub, so that it's hard to determine whether the link will end up appropriate or not once it has been expanded (in the potentially distant future...). That way you can also justify your deletion, and people can respond and discuss it with you or one another. - IMSoP 20:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links epidemic 

message: I do not think that wikipedia should link to grossly offensive pages, not even for reasons of "documenting". At the article Anti-French sentiment in the United States a link "Fuckfrance.com"  was added. Such a title is totally unacceptable for a website, and we should not advertise such things under any condition. What would you say if we listed crap like FuckUSA.org at anti-American sentiment or FuckIsrael.com at anti-Semitism? At both George W. Bush and John Kerry even all "critical" links were deleted. I do not see why there should not be a limit of indecency for link lists of other controversial articles as well. 
An even more important question in my eyes is if we provide links to communities of people who propagate sex with children or child pornography, which are both crimes in most countries, cf. "childlover" and List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles.
What do others think? I asked the same question at the article talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 22:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive links

message: I just removed a bunch of spam links to  that had been posted by two different anon IPs to seemingly random pages (for example, Stevenage and Leisure Suit Larry). Is there any way I can search within the content of external links to see if this URL has been posted from any other IPs? I've tried a Google search, which found me one of the IPs (and enabled me to remove some spam for the same site from the Belorussian and Polish Wikipedias - my first international edits!) --  ALargeElk | Talk 15:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to search for these is for a developer to run an SQL query across all the wikis. You can request this at m:Requests for queries. To have a site added to the spam filter, ask at m:Non-development tasks for developers. Angela. 21:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Searching within external links

message: I'm not sure how useful it is to add dmoz links directly to the actual articles. Perhaps having them in a separate box would be better? If they were stored separately, it would be easier to update a lot of them at once, or semi-automatically import the categories from dmoz to here, and easier to fix when they move their categories around. Since it isn't directly relevant to the article, I think I'd prefer it was taken out, along with a lot of other meta-data that ought not be in articles, and put alongside the article, not as a part of it. Angela. 02:53, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
:I like that idea.  Might even be another candidate to go into an "interproject links" box (under a separate heading), as suggested in Feature Request 708 at Bugzilla??  Use links like dmoz:Subject?  Catherine\talk 03:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dmoz links as meta data

message: Under "What should not be linked to", the page now includes this item:
:"Standards are just as high, or even higher, for material linked to externally as it is for content added internally. Pages that are factually inaccurate or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to."
I think this idea is clearly wrong.  We can't go around verifying the factual accuracy of every site we link to.  We might link to a site that supports a specific assertion (a company's website is the source of the data for its annual revenues) even if other material on the site is unverifiable or probably false.  Furthermore, in dealing with controversial subjects, it's often the best approach to link to sites on multiple sides of the issue.  For example, in last fall's controversy over John Kerry's service in Vietnam, one of his critics, William Schachte, claimed to have been present at the incident for which Kerry received his first Purple Heart.   Two other veterans both said they were there and Schachte wasn't.    Our article on the John Kerry military service controversy includes both these links, but the statement recently added to this policy seems to reject that approach.  I don't see this language discussed on Wikipedia talk:External links/temp or included in the previous version of that project page.  JamesMLane 17:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to "factually inaccurate" pages

message: I move it is time to tighten the policy with respect to various discussion sites. We are witnessing the explosive growth thereof, accompanied with their increased encroaching on wikipedia articles. Let me reming you a very basic reason why external links are discouraged: wikipedia has no control on their content, relevance, or whether they are live or not. The very goal of encyclopedia is to provide a source of concentrated information on the subject, not to send the reader somewhere. I believe everyone may use google. And search technology (web digesting, etc.) is gradually maturing.
So, let us stick to the original idea from m:When should I link externally: if some info at some website is interesting, put it here. If you are busy or lazy, put the link into the "Talk" page, and someone else will do it. 
I suggest that is a particular forum is notable, then there should be an artcle about it, legally linkable. If it is not, then what is the reason to externally link to it?Mikkalai 19:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is in the Contributing FAQ under "Is it OK to link to other sites?":  "Please do not place advertising links in Wikipedia. Commercial sites are obvious, but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here." 68.67.170.26 01:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Links should not be added to increase the traffic to an external site, yes. But a site that is the source for, or can verify, one or more facts in an article ought to be linked to. Such a site may not be notable enough for a separate articel, even if it is reliable enough to seerve as a source. Furthermore, in many cases wher ethere are PoV issues, whe should report on, and document, all relevant PoVs. In such cases, linking to sites whivh may not be reliable sources of factual information may be not only legitimate, be required, because the existinace of such sites is evidence for the existance and prevelance of the PoV they contian, and that is itself a fact. DES (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to forums are, in my view, acceptable in articles on those forums, and not elsewhere.  I have seen numerous articles recently with multiple deep links into forums, essentially POV pushing or making arguments which are too fringe to eb included in the main article.  Sometimes there are links to a site and to its forum.  As far as I can tell bloga and forums are not sources (per WP:RS), so links to forums serve no real purpose in an article other than to promote the forums. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please add "forums" to the list of things not to link to, then? I'm tired of seeing articles with a bunch of External Links to discussion forums. - Brian Kendig 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forums\fancites\blogs, etc. 

message: I've encountered some resistance to this guideline while cleaning up external links sections; I'd appreciate the input of anyone interested in the matter at the village pump. --W(t) 15:09, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
I couldn't find the section at the Village pump, but I've expressed my opinion on my User talk page if you're interested. I do think the policy should be improved to focus on quality of the linked page instead of the circumstances surrounding the linking. - HVH 18:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links as semi-poliy/guideline 

message: We are currently having a disagreement about whether it is appropriate to link to a particular external site from Ted Kennedy; I would characterize the site in question as an "attack site" (see Talk:Ted_Kennedy#fatboy.cc). The same has happened recently at Pat Robertson, where I also opposed such a link. Critical sites are fine, more than fine, but mudslinging is another story, at least in my view. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:In general I don't like attack sites, but if the attack represents a common POV, significantly different from mor moderate or reasoned criticism, then it may IMO be not oly appropriate but required by WP:NPOV to cite some source for this POV.  This article might well be a case in point.DES 05:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack sites 

message: What determines whether a site is official or not ?
On Talk:Charles Taze Russell, we have a user who wants to call a link "The official Charles Taze Russell website" (he happens to also be the webmaster of that site :-/), however, there is no "Charles Taze Russell estate" or anything that could be used to qualify a site as "official".
I'd say it's ok to link the site, but not to call it "official" in the article, but a blurb about that somewhere in policy would be nice. Flammifer 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official website" ? 

message: This may be interesting to those watching this page: Talk:Department of Motor Vehicles Rl 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Potemkin villages

message: I recently deleted several links that had been added for Spanish language websites. The person who added them asked why I deleted them, so I figured that I could just point to a section of Wikipedia:External links that said something like "external links should generally go to English-language websites". Does this need to be added? BlankVerse ∅ 18:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone clarify the policy on non-English links in the English wiki? Someone is trying to start a revert war over multiple links to a Korean site which I believe should be on the KO wiki since the subject at hand is not Korean in origin (since I can't understand the site enough to even navigate it, I cannot even make any judgment on the content). Before I edit any further I would appreciate some assistance. Shiroi Hane 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen great links to foreign language sites, but generally avoid and remove them.  There is a bit more written here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Foreign-language_sites.  Perhaps simply a reference to that section of the manual of style?  ∴ here…♠ 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shiroi Hane 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Where's the best place to apply for assistance with this situation? Shiroi Hane 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to non-English websites? 

message: I believe that a note should be added to policy to specifically note that this policy is not intended to justify pushing POV.  In particular I am concerned about the section which states On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
#What a particular site's POV is, is subjective.  A site that one user sees as POV another user could see as neutral or POV in the opposite way.  Users are trying to push POV by labelling sites that match their point of view as neutral and neutral sites as POV against their point of view.  I do not believe that wikipedia should dictate to the reader how to interpret a site, as it is leading and reduces the credibility of any source.  I therefore believe that the policy should be ammended such that no site be labelled as POV unless it specifically states what its POV is.  Otherwise we are leading the reader.
#When the policy states the number of link dedicated to one POV should not be overwhelmed, I think that it needs to be spelled out that overwhelmed indicates a large disproportion, like 10 to 1.  People are interpreting this as 11 to 12 ratio as not acceptible and using it as a justification to eliminate links they do not like.  I think that the policy needs to state specifically the preferred solution when one POV overwhelms another should always be, whenever possible, to add new links to the other POV and NEVER to remove good links which might be neccessary for the article.
:Sirkumsize 18:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns that this policy can be interpreted to justify abuse of wikipedia

message: Among the disputes I have had over the Supercentenarian article (which I originated and have been taken to arbitration over my efforts to revert the addition of nonsense and excess formatting and dead links to) has been the addition some time back of a link to a Yahoo-group (web email list).The person who added this link was the group's moderator,Robert Young (he has user accounts "Robert Young" (created Feb 2004) and "Ryoung122" (created Feb 2005) but usually contributes from 172.*,131.96.*,66.*,and other IP addresses).A link to a list I created,at a site that I do not maintain,is also in that article but was not added by me.(Robert and I are actual researchers in the field of supercentenarians,routinely consulted by the press and reference books such as Guinness--I fear our stature in the field can be invoked to disqualify us under the "no original research" policy).I don't recall seeing any links to Yahoo-groups in other articles.
Are they considered appropriate as external links in Wikipedia?--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are unusual, but not outlawed. Many such groups are, like blogs or usenet groups, probably not reliable sources. Some are. And by the way , expert stature should not disqualify anyone, rather the reverse. Just be sure that any personal views are published elsewhere first, then cite yourself as a reliable source. DES (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Yahoo-groups legitimate links?

message: I notice that there is no standard about labeling foreign-language external links. I ask because this edit changed from what I would favor for this purpose to something else; I don't want to revert if there is some new standard being followed that I missed, but I don't see one. Here's a before-and-after for the link in question:
Before:
*Colegio Nacional of Mexico: Marcos Moshinsky (in Spanish)
After
* Profile at the Colegio Nacional of Mexico.
I'm perfectly OK with the new wording, but I think  is unnecessarily cryptic, while "in Spanish" is perfectly clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started writing articles for wikipedia I always used (in Spanish) for Spanish-language links. I observed that someone changed "(in Spanish)" for . Visually I do think it is more appealing and more standardized than having options such as "(in Spanish)". I don't know if there is a standard yet, but  was created for this sole purpose, so I am assume that it will keep catching on. --Vizcarra 03:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be more visually appealing (though I personally think it looks clumsy), but it certainly is more confusing to English speakers, and that's what this encyclopedia is for. DreamGuy 06:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The icon is CRYPTIC, CLUMSY and was REJECTED @ Commons since June 2005 . This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, is just Vizcarra's style, and I find it quite unintuitive. Ruiz 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to comment on your attempt to bash me, not because it is important to me, but because it is so easy. The icon was not rejected, follow the discussion carefully, the usage of flags was rejected. The usage of ISO 639 codes was supported (which is the code that the icon uses), and the majority preferred text instead an image. If it was "Vizcarra's style", then , would be credited to me, it is not, it is credited to User:Nataraja. Also, I would be the only one placing the icon. Click on the icon and you will see all the articles that are using it, you will see that I'm not the only one using it. --Vizcarra 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think there was a discussion some time ago on EN against the use of these language images on external links. If I remember correctly, the argument was that not every reader would be familiar with ISO language abbreviations, and also that they may be confused with internet country codes. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I am going to feel free to revert this change: clearly it does not represent a consensus of which I was unaware. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should read the link that Ruiz so kindly provided before you revert to "(in Spanish)". The vote was in favor of ISO codes ("es", in this case). --Vizcarra 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have read the link. The debate was on Wikimedia Commons, which is multilingual in a single wiki, and there were concerns about names in different languages (“Spanish” versus “Español”). Those concerns don’t apply to the English language Wikipedia. Susvolans ⇔ 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps there should be a template  for labeling a language reference.  This will allow editors to label foreign languages in a way which can later be modified.  (SEWilco 06:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of foreign language links that it would be reasonable to include on this Wikipedia would be those in the native language of the object in question.  I.e., Links in Polish for Poland related topics, etc.  Having a single marker for all of those types of foreign language links would be both more intuitive and save having to create an icon for every single language. Caerwine 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vizcarra has reverted me again, citing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Templates_for_galleries#Voting_about_language_representation, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the case. I'm not going to waste further time fighting over this myself, but I think he is dead wrong and is doing our readers a disservice. I think we should have a policy specific to these links in the English-language Wikipedia, and that it should make the reasonable assumption that virtually all readers of the English-language Wikipedia read English, while only a limited number are familiar with ISO language designations. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone please point me to a list of ALL templates in the form ((xx)) currently in existence? Thanks. Smartech 19:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Special pages->All pages->namespace:Template to get a list of all templates. Did you specifically want only two-character template names? I don't know of a way to do that, although it wouldn't be hard to download the list of all templates and write a quick script to find only those with two characters.-gadfium 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I wanted a list of all templates for languages like this  and this  Smartech 23:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign-language external links 

message: One major annoyance I have with Wikipedia is linkspam, as well as long lists of mediocre-quality external links at the end of articles.  I believe the length of external link lists should be limited and include only a small number of the highest-quality, reputable, most informative, preferably ad-free, NPOV websites.  I have come across articles with 50+ external links (e.g. Hybrid vehicle), sorted through them (a tedious process) to only find 6 links that were truly informative and worthy.  How do we expect readers to discern those 6 informative references out of such a lengthy list?
I propose a WikiProject where we nominate and work on such articles that need their external links weeded through to get rid of linkspam and be quality-checked.  I have also put forth guidelines and philosophy regarding external links — primarily drawn upon the policies set forth on this article.  I expanded on "What should not be included in external links" and welcome discussion on these ideas.  Maybe we could use these to improve the "official" Wikipedia external link policy.
If interested in helping out, please indicate your interest on the List of proposed projects.  ---Aude 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Wikiproject:External links 

message: Why did we remove "Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions"? If (as I suspect) the issue is with the word "vandalism", I suggest replacing that with "spam" and restoring the sentence.
Plus, an odd pair of edits
*Removed: "Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism."
*Added: "However, most web sites are not suitable references, see Wikipedia:Cite your sources."
If (as I suspect) the reason for removing the first was that it is better just to aim people at Wikipedia:Cite your sources, why add the remark about "most web sites are not suitable references". It just seems that someone substituted one pet issue for another. Also, while it is certainly the case strictly speaking that most web sites are not suitable references—most web sites probabably consist of porn, baby pictures, or wedding memorabilia—I'm not sure that it is a statement so clear as to belong here if we are pushing off most discussion of the issue to another page. My own feeling is that even a weak citation is better than no citation, because you can follow up and determine that there was only a weak source for the information. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about two recent edits 

message: Current rules say that external links ought to go at the bottom of articles. I propose one exception to this rule.
When the subject of an article is an online resource, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Pitchfork Media, the external link to the resource should appear in the introduction to the article, like this:
:"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  is a free online encyclopedia of philosophy..."
:or "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a free online encyclopedia of philosophy... It can be found at http://plato.stanford.edu."
Couple of reasons:
*Convenience. There's no reason why a user seeking a particular URL ought be made to to look for it any further than the beginning of the article. They'd expect it there, because:
*Importance. The URL of an online resource is essential to its definition. By hiding the URL at the bottom, we're intentionally obscuring an important piece of information. Why are we doing this? I suspect one good reason, but I think it's outweighed by the two I've just given:
One plausible counter-argument:
*Realpolitik. Let's face it; users are highly distractable. If we offer them links, they're going to click them; they will never read the article, and never learn from/appreciate the diversity of perspectives offered on Wikipedia. We're trying to provide users with information for their own good, and this aim is best achieved when we make it just a little more difficult to leave. (n.b.: This counterpoint is my own. I don't mean to misrepresent the rationale behind the current policy.)
Thoughts? (omphaloscope talk) 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about websites 

message: There's a large class of external links that this policy page doesn't address.  For a good example, see [bag] (Dec 13 version), which links to eight different manufacturers of sleeping bags.  It seems that these links may fall under the category of "Sites that exist primarily to sell products," but I'm really not sure. --Smack (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the links are appropriate in that article.  On separate articles such as The North Face, the link to the manufacturer's website is okay.  Such articles could be linked to Sleeping bag, through use of categories or some other way. ---Aude 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree.  If the firms are notable they have articles and should be linked in "see also".  If they are not, they should not be linked individually in this way.  Links to authoritative review sites trusted by the editing community, yes; links to individual manufacturers, no.  WP:ISNOT a link farm. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to product manufacturers 

message: * Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples. (SEWilco 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V citations 

message: I keep running across the addition of external links to websites that are basically just collections of photos. Sometimes they are well produced commercial websites with a minimum amount of ads, but with little or no text, so they really are not that much use in most cases, Other times they are personal websites that are basically "here's where I've on my summer vacations". The final type is the "I'm the biggest foo-geek in the world and here's my obsessive collections of photos of foos", where foo could be buses, planes, trains, roads, etc. I think that in almost all cases these links are low-quality and unnecessary external links, but I don't see where they fit under the current policy. Therefore, I think we need to explicitly state that links to websites that are almost totally photos are usually not appropriate for links from Wikipedia articles. BlankVerse 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with you.  We should not allow such external links, as I've found in the Acadia National Park article that I'm working to clean up.  I would much rather the person that added the link (supposedly the site's owner/web developer), that he/she uploads some of those photos directly to Wikipedia or Commons.  Some of those photos could then be directly used in the article and Wikipedians would see the photos.  That person, however, could put a link to their photo gallery website on their user page, which Wikipedians would see if that person made really wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. ---Aude 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the site you're linking to is not yours, and there are no other external links in the article (or none with pictures), then I think that would be acceptable. Put a message in the edit summary explaining this, and maybe on the talk page as well.-gadfium 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you suggest we decide if the site linked is good or not?  If the photo website is more than just trying to sell photos, or not a link (e.g. summer vacation photos) that was added by the website owner, then I'd be willing to consider it on a case-by-case basis.  Both these cases are covered under the existing External links guidelines.  Though, maybe the photo gallery link should be first suggested on the talk page and if there is consensus among the article's editors, then it's okay to add?  ---Aude 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is a particularly different case than any other link. If a particular link is controversial, it can always be discussed on the talk page. BTW, I'm usually negative on "how I spent my summer vacation" links, but it depends on how the person was as a photographer, etc. For a good example of the quality of site I would think we should link from a relevant topic, see http://www.theserpentswall.com/. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  Certainly there are plenty of high-quality photo websites that are worth linking to, such as the one you mention.  Also, in that case, the website is not selling anything, and it would be you or someone other than the website owner adding the link.  My concern is more about people that add links to their own sites (incl. photo galleries), which sometimes is difficult to prove and just based my suspicions.  I think the existing guidelines would suffice, though maybe we could somehow clarify "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates." under "What should not be linked to", to say "this includes photo galleries, ..." and whatever else needed. ---Aude 01:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I always consider commercialism a strike against any site. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to collections of photos