Template talk:External links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wording: Converting links[edit]

I removed, "or by converting links into footnote references" from the template, made 01:43, 16 January 2010 without discussion. The new wording is too suggestive of editors to simply reformat improper links, in violation of WP:REFSPAM without regard to whether or not the link verifies anything of note. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the notion of nudging people to use links appropriately as inline references is a solid one. While external links do contain links to inappropriate sites, they also contain links that would be appropriate as inline references though not as external links. A number of users do not know how to create an inline cite, but they have found a useful source, so they put it in External links. Also, in the early days of Wikipedia, we didn't use inline cites much - sources were frequently listed at the end of the article, which over time have been grouped as External links. It does seem wrong to simply remove a source without first checking that it could be used as an inline cite. I support replacing the statement, though perhaps slightly reworded: Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references.
It might be even better to put the appropriate policy & guide in the appropriate place while we're at it: This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did this disputed phrase get put back into the template? It's almost never the intent of editors adding the tag. When you are warning people that the links don't meet our rules for links, the last thing we need is to encourage anyone to use them as sources instead, which have an even stricter set of guidelines. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why spam[edit]

This template add not only the logical Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup, but also Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup. I may be misunderstanding the word "spam", but I thought that "spam" referred to intentional advertisement-like adding of external links. If that is so, then this category seems unjustified on this template. Your reactions, please. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

External links in the body of an article[edit]

This template is frequently – more often than not, I've found – applied to articles which have inappropriate external links inline with the article text. In such cases, the tag is usually placed at the top of the article, which makes sense. I think the documentation should be amended to reflect this usage of the template (unless this is considered a misuse of the template, in which case I suppose another template could be created instead). DoctorKubla (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody's objected, I've amended the documentation accordingly. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)