Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:External links

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.17.73.214 (talk) at 20:27, 27 January 2008 (→‎Unprotect page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

Sorted by subject

Sorted by date

Fan sites?

Here's a question - I keep getting told there is a blanket ban on "Fan sites" (usually with little definition of what that really is), yet this page only says that web pages with certain features are "normally to be avoided." What about a fan site that doesn't have any of those features (if such a thing exists). What is the rationale for the blanket ban I keep getting told about, and if there is such a ban, shouldn't it be listed on this page somewhere? I think there should, at the very least, be some small wiggle room to allow for (rare) exceptions, but I'm not a Wiki admin, so I will defer to the wisdom of TPTB - if someone will tell me what the actual stance is. Rabidwolfe 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket ban on fansites; WP:NOT#LINK suggests linking to a fansite may be appropriate in certain circumstances. However, almost all fansites contain content that violates the copyrights of others – for instance, reprints or scans of press and magazine articles, commercial and promotional images used without permission of the copyright holders, YouTube videos, song lyrics, and so on. Per this guideline's restrictions on linking section and Wikipedia's policy on linking to copyright works, we cannot link to such sites. If the copyright issues are not a concern (i.e., the site displays no copvyvio content or has obtained permission from the various copyright holders for any copyright content), then it may be appropriate to add a link to a fansite, provided that it meets WP:EL's criteria on what to link. Another thing to bear in mind is that fansites are often added by the site's owners, which is strongly discouraged per WP:COI; site owners should suggest their external link for inclusion on the article's talk page and let neutral editors discuss the link's merits and make the call. --Muchness 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict so pls. forgive if this is redundant) There is no blanket ban, more of a nuanced set of criteria that ends up filtering out 99% of all fan sites. A fan site makes sense if it is the authoritative fan site for a subject, isn't full of copyright or BLP violations, has some useful content that isn't the sort of thing we can include in an article, etc. That's particularly appropriate if it's an official fan site sponsored by the subject of the article. For example the Hannah Montana article can link to the site Disney has set up for fans. What we ought to avoid are random low quality sites without any useful content, self-published tribute sites, sites built to spread copyright violations and bootlegs, or that are set up over the objections of the article subject, etc.Wikidemo 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I keep getting told there is a blanket ban..." Just ignore anyone telling you that. 2005 23:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is something which definitely needs to be clarified. Right now the lack of clarification leads to an extreme logic which says that any site which is not an official site is a fan site. (I can just see a professor diagramming that on a whiteboard.) As has been noted above, when you have a site which is officially endorsed, full of useful content, and not intended to circumvent copyright laws, it is wrong to lump it in the same category as a goofy sparkly page with gushing tributes and pirated media. Rabidwolfe's comments come from a discussion we (attempted) to be involved in where a site which is so complete, authoritative, and officially endorsed that large parts of it are being merged into the official site within the next 60 days was still labeled a "fan site", the link was delisted from dozens of pages, and the person making the point resorted to bullying and puppetry against anyone trying to make a constructive discussion out of the issue. If the rules against the site's inclusion were solid enough, the person making it would not have had no reason to turn to personal attacks and putting words in other peoples' mouths. I have no problem if further clarification of the rules results in the site's definite exclusion, I do have a problem with people using the ambiguity of the rules as a vehicle for aggression. Idea15 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullies will be bullies regardless. There is no prohibition of linking to non-offical sites. If some editor insists there is they next thing they will likely do is just invoke ignore all rules and bully what they want anyway. 2005 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way to view it better is that whatever is included in the EL section should be material that would normally be included in a Feature Article-quality article but cannot be included due to copyright, technical, or other reasons. Additionally, WP does not allow linkage to sites that have copyvios on them. While these requirements do not exclude all fan sites, it sets a very high bar for their inclusion. Inclusion of a fan site on an article page should be based on consensus of its editors. --MASEM 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all true, can we get rid of the WP:FANSITE link to this page? Especially since the word "fan" doesn't even appear anywhere in the content. Torc2 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better than that, put something about fan sites back into the page. It keeps coming up, e.g. Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 19#Fansites.3F - which may be helpful. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, maybe copypaste what WP:NOT#LINK says: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. Right now there's no clear guideline of what to do about fansites on WP:EL, and it's becoming disruptive.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is perfectly clear about fansites. Do we really need to go over this stuff every time an editor doesn't want to bother to read this guideline? WP:FANSITE can link to this page because it provides clear guidance on external linking. 2005 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to map services

Wikipedia currently has around 300,000 articles with geographical coordinates, which all link to a Wikipedia edited list of map services available for those locations. In addition, Wikipedia articles have 18,000 external links to specific map services. These numbers are big enough to have a guideline on what kind of external links location related topics should have.

I assume most of the external map service links are trying to give readers a helpful way to see where the location is. Such links don't however give any information of the location on their own, they're printable only to tell that the online link may have useful information, and they make Wikipedia articles dependent on external services. This is not the case with coordinates, which are general information usable anywhere. Discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates may provide further information.

The Wikipedia page the coordinates link to, Template:GeoTemplate, links to over 100 different map services. In addition, next to all coordinates is a link to an entirely free Wikimedia map service. Should Wikipedia articles then have additional links to any external map services? This is also related to the recent guideline change from "Links should be kept to a minimum" to "Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful". In light of WP:USEFUL, the change might be a problem. --Para (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I haven't thought about this much and I'm no expert in mapping services. But for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps (though a special link, or free map on the page might be appropriate if there is some special reason why the geo template is inadequate and that particular map has to be used). Ideally they could set something up in their browser or wikipedia cookie to indicate a preference of one service or another, which could be launched directly from the template as it displays on the page, but that's getting fancy. (all just my opinion, of course) Wikidemo (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts. The only reason I can think of to include a direct external map link is when the service has unique data that is known to remain static, ie. when the link points to data from a certain date. Another reason could be unique satellite imagery that shows some very specific feature not visible in other services, but the problem with such links is that the contents of the external map services can change at any time without notice, often within months, leading to link rot that can't be detected without human review. There's been discussion on finding and converting the articles that link directly to an editor chosen map service, so if we can agree on a guideline for linking to external map services and the existing links are converted to coordinates, it would be possible to have a bot convert all new map service links to coordinates, with possibly a special template for the links that should not be converted. The idea to have a user set map service preference feature in the tool that shows the link page (currently called GeoHack) is a good one and I think entirely possible. --Para (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There also is discussion about multiple links to map services at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Geolinks-cityscale. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for having split the discussion here, but I felt it was necessary to have some general opinion from people unrelated to WP:GEO, since some have expressed concerns that a single Wikiproject is dictating policy. It would also be good to be able to consider this issue outside the "it's useful" aspect, and ignore the fact that they're map links. --Para (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on converting individual map links in articles to coordinates and/or removing them when the article has coordinates already. It's a bit of a big project on my own though, so everyone please take care of a few. More details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Map link conversion to coordinates. --Para (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would have been a good idea to get wider agreement before making wholesale changes. As someone who has created hundreds - and maintains thousands - of geo-articles I think that when a reader clicks on a map location they want to see a map, not a confusing selection of hundreds of options on an ugly page. If the Wiki map is good then standardise to that. First priority is ease of navigation for the casual reader; there is no other "great principle" at stake. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Removing external map links from articles has been discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates; over half of the page is about getting rid of all the geolinks. It was announced on everything related to coordinates and the village pump, at least. If you have general comments about external links to services that have dozens of alternatives that can be linked to using the same identifier (coordinates, here), then comment here, but otherwise please read up on the previous WP:GEO discussion and participate there. Wikipedia's first priority is the dissemination of information, and limiting readers to a single or even a few services that may not even work for them is not helpful. Editors should not be making the decision on which advertising supported commercial map service to make available for people reading Wikipedia. They can't all be included in articles, so yes, that one extra mouse click is needed. Anyway, more there. --Para (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we direct to Wikimapia it isn't advertising. And one extra click to a confusing page is not reader friendly. Never been to the village pump but I reckon I'll decide for myself what to read before commenting here. Ciao. Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't have chosen a better example of just how wrong it is to make Wikipedia support general use external services by linking articles directly to them. WikiMapia is a site that lives on pay per click advertisements using Google's AdSense. Every time a user clicks on one of the fascinating rectangles overlayed on their map, an advertisement is served where it can best be seen: right in the middle of the screen. All they have to do is to somehow have people come to their site and click. Enter Wikipedia, a global top 10 site with topics matching theirs and thereby making click-through more likely. Some people believe that WikiMapia shares Wikipedia's ideology by serving community contributed material, but their users' contributions are not available for download and reuse in bulk, making it actually very different from Wikipedia. Still, under this misconception, many articles have a prominent link to WikiMapia, sometimes being the only external link at the end of the article. I can't think of any better way for such a site to profit. --Para (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One extra mouse click? If only! :( The useability of those systems is very poor, and this proposal puts the cart before the horse.
I just tested this on Ballyporeen, and when I tried following the links from the co-ordinates, I was presented there with no less than thirteen screenfuls of links. As a reader, that's simply a pain-in-the-neck, and it's depressingly similar to what happens when I follow an ISBN link such as this one.
The effect of all this is that as a reader, I simply don't bother with these links. It's quicker and easier to just copy-and-paste the ISBN number or co-ordinates into one of my favourite mapping services or book catalogues.
I fully support the principle of channeling the geographical links through a centralised system, but unless and until the useability of that system is improved (e.g. by allowing readers to set a preferred map service as a continuing preference), then forcing readers onto that list of hundreds of links is not a satisfactory replacement for a direct link to a map.
The GeoHack system is a great idea, but it's still a bit raw. Hopefully in future it will evolve into something more user-friendly, but isn't there yet. In the meantime it is grossly premature to force the removal of direct links to relevant maps unless and until the generic system is improved to avoid directing the reader to what Sarah777 rightly describes above as a "confusing selection of hundreds of options on an ugly page". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You happened to choose a place in Ireland, for which there is no specialized entry, so you didn't get to notice that the info for many countries pops up to the top of the GeoHack page. But, yes, the GeoHack solution is similar to that for ISBNs. Maybe User Preferences should have geo and ISBN preferences. But that's outside the ability of the present tools. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Wikipedia users don't have the option for external map service preferences in articles or other lists, so moving from an arbitrary editor chosen service link or a list of links to a list of all available links shouldn't be a problem. If you believe there is a usability issue, please report what it is and let's fix it. People seem to accept that it wouldn't be right for Wikipedia to have links in all book articles to Amazon for example, but can't relate this to other situations where the same services are available from a number of sources. Why is this? --Para (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Para, please read what I wrote above, about thr useability nightmare of a 13-screen list if links when I just want one map.
The comparison with amazon is a red herring: Amazon is trying to sell me the book, but google or yahoo is not trying to sell me the map. And as above, the book finding system stinks too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a specific issue with usability in mind, please say what it is and we'll see what we can do. Are there any Irish map services you would like to see added, for example? Have you ever actually tried accessing a map service through the list, and which service were you looking for? The top global ones are already at the top of the list without any scrolling needed at all. If there are any applicable local services, they are shown before. Hardly anyone needs to scroll down more than maybe one page to find what they're after, so this change really adds just a single additional mouse click. The reason why the other services are still kept on the list is that a service listed for one region may work for another too, especially near the borders, and while we have no way to map the coverage of all services, we have to give the users the chance to go to the service they feel is best. All of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, or some other advertisement supported book database profit from incoming links, from advertisers or by selling products. Wikipedia can't support them selectively. --Para (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the Yahoo! maps are the clearest - do THEY (shock, horror) make money when someone clicks a link? If we had a template/format that allows the reader to choose a map or a maze - surely that would do? It would keep the socialists and cartographers happy without punishing the pundit. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, they display ads as well. Even if they didn't, there are many editors who prefer using some other service, and even more readers with varying preferences. If all those links or even just the top ones on some undefined metric were included in articles directly, many articles would use less screen space for content than external links. So surely we have to let the readers choose themselves by showing them a list of all available services elsewhere, after the click. GeoHack is a tool that fills the map service list Template:GeoTemplate with the given coordinates, creating map links to all available services. Anyone can edit the template to improve it, and more complicated improvements can be discussed on the talk page. The only problem with this is for editors who are so used to seeing the direct links that the resistance to change can be overwhelming. But that'll pass. --Para (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth makes you think that users will start to enjoy the nightmare of thirteen screenfuls of links rather than one direct link? This is not about resistsance to change: it is about resistance to change to a ssytem which is useability disaster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above at 00:36: hardly anyone needs to scroll more than one page, and there is an easy table of contents for those who do. If the many pages really are the only issue, then this still seems to me like resistance to change coming from someone who has never tried using the system. --Para (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Para, you really ought to assume good faith. I have tried the new sytem, many times, and I hve described above why it is a complete pain-in-the-neck to use, and it is exceptionally rude of you to simply dismissd my objections on the basis of your entirely false assumption that I have not tried it.
Yes, there are often links to apropriate mapping services the first screenful, but there are dozens of them, and yes, there is atable of contents. My objection is to the extra hasle of having to select from all those options rather than a direct link.
If you don't see thr advantage of a direct link, let me put it this way: why link to any article when there is a search box at the side of the page you are reading? Because it's a lot easier for the reader to click on one link and get the page they want rather than have to choose from a long list of alternatives. The same applies to maps: being forced to make a selection from a 13-screen list is a giant leap bcakwards in useability, no matter how carefully that list is arranged. If you don't understand that this a useability problem, then please have the good manners to accept that other users genuinely do find it a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the problem is in my understanding, please try to explain the problem more clearly, because I still don't see where there would be any hassle and can't believe that you would have tried the system. Nobody needs to scroll 13 screens. It would be possible to make it just a couple of pages or even a single one if it's in columns, if we ignore the possibility of cross-region services being necessary, but such a change wouldn't significantly improve the usability. Please write in complete detail where all you have to click and which part of doing that makes it hard to find the service you need. When I click on your GeoHack link above, I get links to 12 different map services on the first screen without scrolling anywhere, and all of them seem to have more information on the location. What is the hassle in just clicking the first one? It might be easier for a reader not to have to do that single additional click, and have a direct link to some random service in the article, but what makes it impossible is that people have different preferences and everyone won't be happy using the service some editor happened to choose. That's forcing your own preferences to everyone reading Wikipedia, and doesn't follow the neutrality and free content principles we should base our work on here. If some people don't care which service they end up in, they can use the entirely Wikimedia run WikiMiniAtlas service, available from the globe icon next to all coordinates. Otherwise, we need to let people make their own choice. The analogy to Wikipedia is flawed, because an encyclopedia article is only related to the topics discussed in it, while with a location and map services the location is related to all the available global and local services. Furthermore, hyperlinks allow Wikipedia articles to be linked to each other without having to use any additional screen space, whereas all the map links need something additional to link from, and such interface elements wouldn't belong in articles. --Para (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The big list of map services is needed for the same reason the big list is needed in ISBN 0-8070-3253-0. Or should an ISBN just link to a specific bookseller or library? The list gives readers several options. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise the above thread, there is support for centralising the links to external map services on a single page, but some editors accustomed to seeing direct links in articles may feel overwhelmed by the amount of alternatives, and will have to use a couple more seconds to choose one of the first links on the list page. Perhaps a Javascript tool can be created for them to get over the worst resistance to change, and rewrite locally the external links that are being deleted. --Para (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace

From what I understand, you can add a MySpace page if it is the the real page belonging to the person (like Tilta Tequila's article has a link to her MySpace page). My question is regards to Jeff Hardy's article. It has a link to the MySpace page of "The Hardy Show" (a website run by him and his brother Matt, and others). If that link goes anywhere, it should go at Hardy Boyz (the article on him and Matt]]. A user also keeps adding the MySpace page of something called "Itchweed" (which appears to only exist on MySpace). Any comments? TJ Spyke 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar question; the official MySpace is permitted in FA articles (Godsmack, Megadeth, Slayer), so what stops the official Facebook from being added? There was a user recently who tried to add the official Facebook of Opeth (they link to it from their official site, so I assume it is as valid as the MySpace), only to see me revert him. However, I now question myself; number 11 of Links normally to be avoided says to avoid Myspace, Facebook and similar sites; if we allow Myspace, why not Facebook as well? Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

organizations' official sites

I have noticed that in many global organizations external links section many official websites are listed. The global website and other regional (North America, Europe etc...) or National websites (USA, Canada, UK etc...). I Know official websites should be listed but I believe the global website (that usually provides links to other national websites) should be sufficient. After all the links are there to provide further information not help users find a product. Is there a policy on this? Chris Ssk talk 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific policy, but you are correct that the links to the additional sites are over-linking, and you would be right to remove them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems to me that one will do in most cases, and if we're only linking one, the international version would seem to make the most sense. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our site has a new domain, hundreds (thousands?) of links to it in Wikipedia need to be updated

Is there a way to globally update links that contain our old domain to the new one? Opening up each article individually isn't practical (see linksearch results below). Our old site was located here: www.tsha.utexas.edu and the new one resides here: www.tshaonline.org . Everything is still in the same place, just a different domain ( www.tsha.utexas.edu/education is now www.tshaonline.org/education for instance)

I put the old URL in the Wiki linksearch and got a rather large list: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tsha.utexas.edu%2F&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0 Any help would be appreciated! Txnomad (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no simple way unless it is put in a template (and putting external links in templates would make it an easy target for spammers). The best way is to use AWB or maybe Twinkle for that. Maybe you can request a bot for the changes, though. Or see for someone with editcountitis to help. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see there are 3035 links. Some (the www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/ ones without determined page) can be removed since they aren't giving information to the articles. The 3000 others are the ones to change. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that http://tshaonline.com identifies itself as run by the Texas State Historical Association. Is there some reason why the existing page at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu couldn't redirect all visitors over to tshaonline.com? Is there some legal reason why they can't anymore be included at utexas.edu? Remember that this change will not only break all the links at WP, which are fixable, but all links elsewhere on the web, which will reduce the usefulness of the information in this historical collection. State history is surely not so controversial that U of Texas can't link to it. Perhaps Txnomad could have a conversation with the webmaster of utexas.edu. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template at {{Handbook of Texas}}. I updated the URL in that template. There are still some 2000 links to convert to the template-- User:Docu

Everything is still in the same place, just a different domain ( www.tsha.utexas.edu/education is now www.tshaonline.org/education for instance) You can do this in your server's config... by issuing a Permanent redirect from the old domain name to the new domain name. Contact your hostmaster or webmaster to do this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this would apply to this situation, but situations like this can often benefit from being added to Meta:Interwiki map, if said site passes the criteria there. This would allow for such an update with minimal work. Alternatively, you can also make a template for the link. Granted this doesn't really help anyone out now, nor can we always predict when someone will change domain names, but I thought I'd throw it out there. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Hu12 raised a spam concern about some of these links. See my reply to him here. I left a message on Txnomad's talk asking him to return to this discussion, since he's been active today. So we have two questions: (a) is mass conversion appropriate? (b) should we be keeping the generic links to the TSHA site at all, or the generic links to their handbook? The links to specific historical documents, from relevant articles, are likely to be OK in my view, but I don't know if those are the majority. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion required

User:Legionarius seems to be on a personal crusade to remove external links from Wikipedia articles, apparently in the belief that the clause "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" under "Links normally to be avoided" gives him licence to remove almost any link. I have reverted him on are Alan Moore, where the links mostly consist of interviews with the subject - but I feel that no matter how good and how comprehensive the article got, Moore's own words would be a resource beyond what the article could contain - and Buddhist art - again, no matter how good the article got, it could not contain every example or every interpretation of Buddhist art, and so external links would be an extra resource. He's now challenging others to defend the links he wants removed - perhaps a few more opinions might dissuade him from his destructive behaviour? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google for 'Alan Moore interview', there are 339,000 results. If an interview is truly of interest, isn't there some place in the article where it could be used as a reference? There is a stronger case for adding external links in an article on a rare or off-the-beaten-track subject. When Google overflows with results, the case seems weaker. If the companies he published with have their own articles, it should be OK to include them as See Alsos. It is possible that you'd get less resistance if you tried to add the links at List of published material by Alan Moore, which is a more casual and less beautiful article. There is a sense in which interviews are publications. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, my intentions are good and I sincerely believe I am following policy. Since I am giving you all this trouble of following my removals around, could you please look at this too? I do not want to get in another edit war with this editor. (you in this case are viewers of this page, not Nick only) Thanks!--Legionarius (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting policy in a wilfully pedantic manner. Firstly, "Links normally to be avoided" does not mean "Links never to be included". Secondly, if an article became a featured article it would still not possibly include all conceivable information of interpretations about the subject, so links to other resources for further reading are always possible. The idea that an encyclopedia article can or should be self-contained is absurd. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe one link in the Buddhist art page is salvageable - I left it in. I added a link to dmoz too. I don't think I am misinterpreting policy and I do not agree with your assessment, but all good faith opinions are welcome. (other editors) If you are reading this, please what is your take? There is more information in the article's talk page.--Legionarius (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance here is quite clear that links section should be kept minimal and contain links which are accessible, informative and functional. Beyond that it is editorial consensus that mostly dictates. The wholesale removal of all links is not called for, and is against this guidance and against WP:CONSENSUS. I disagree with portions of this edit[1] by Legionarius because it removes links wholesale, not in the spirit of this guidance, it removes functional, accessible relevant links, again not in the spirit of this guidance and having an empty external links section also counters our purpose; we supposed to be comprehensive. I've only edited at Alan Moore so I'm not sure on actions elsewhere, I was pointed here by a message in my talk page. It has been a ling time since I was involved in a drafting of this page, but in all the time I had this page on my watch list it was always felt that links were a good thing. Indeed the nutshell still states that they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article. That's a matter for consensus through editing and discussion at individual pages. I don't disagree that there are numerous Alan Moore interviews on the internet, but not all the links removed were interviews. Some of them covered material in more depth and a different scope to that which Wikipedia can take, and so are informative, and help inform the reader. At the point our guidance or interpretations of it conflict with informing readers, I would argue that we inform our readers. Hiding T 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I do not think those links are particularly valuable or representative; I still think that if they add to the article they should be included as references. The worst links are out anyway, and this is an improvement to the article. Those are just unnecessary.--Legionarius (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm old enough to remember when we guided that links which could be used as references be placed in the external links section. I'm not sure whey that has fallen from this guideline, and I would recommend it be reinstated. A discussion specific to the Moore links is best held at Talk:Alan Moore. I agree the worst of them have gone, which has improved the article. I do not agree that removing them all and leaving an empty external links section was in line with guidance. Hiding T 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other wikis, pre-proposal

I've been trying to format the proposal at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis, and wanted to see what other ideas people have before the asking the community to comment on which ideas they like and which they don't like. If nothing new comes up in the next day or two, I'll tidy up the page and pimp the proposal out. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs of the article subject

Is it really reasonable that a personal blog of the person the article is about be removed? I refer to Aaron Turner, where his own blog has been removed from the external links section. Surely that's a little overly-literal in the interpretation of the letter of the law? Thoughts? If I'm wrong, please direct me to the relevant guideline, so I can gape at it in disbelief. Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading of these guidelines, a blog authored by the article subject is okay to link to in most circumstances. My feeling is that a blog authored by the article subject falls within the "official page of the article subject" exception; so, provided the blog isn't prohibited by this guideline's Restrictions on linking, I don't see a problem with adding it to the external links section. --Muchness (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Trailers

I would like to direct some of your attention to a discussion happening at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Movie_Trailers. Please let me know your suggestions on that. Thanks. -- Anshuk (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tooltips on mouseover

Is there anyway to provide alternate text for external links that will be displayed when someone mouses over it? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Wikipedia articles are printed; in that case, any such information would be lost when the article is printed. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to personal memoirs on Chita, Siberia

SiberianSpireite (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Legionarius removed links to my own personal memoirs of living in Chita, Siberia from both the Siberia and Chita pages, prompting the following discussion. Of course, I wish to re-add the links but Legionarius has requested I post here for further views. Any views are welcome! Thanks from James (aka SiberianSpireite). (Pasted discussion follows):

Hello,

I appreciate the valuable work you do for Wikipedia, but I have a question regarding the 'Chita, Russia' page. I lived in Chita for sixteen months, wrote about it and placed my musings online (not for commercial purposes but for anyone to read). For months I linked this to the 'Chita, Russia' and 'Siberia' pages on Wikipedia and received tens of hits from those sources every week, plus some positive guestbook feedback. I chose to link (only) from Wikipedia because I reasoned that those seeking knowledge about Chita and Siberia would be among those who would most value my writings.

Recently, links to both have been removed, so I edited them back in, only to see them removed for being 'Too narrow in scope'. Disappointing as this is, I can accept that writing about life in Chita may be too narrow for the 'Siberia' page, but how is it too narrow for a page about Chita? So many people ask me what it was like to live in Siberia, which is one of the reasons I put up my site, and I'm sure many visitors to these two pages would find my content interesting. I don't profit personally from visitors. Can you explain why my site is not permitted as a link from Wikipedia please?

Thanks

SiberianSpireite —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiberianSpireite (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi James! Please do not take it personally. The guidelines in WP:EL disencourage linking to "to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" and "sites that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". Although your account is perfectly enjoyable and an interesting read, the link fails the two conditions mentioned and talk about only a little part of all the aspects that should be covered in an article about Chita/Siberia. If you disagree with my evaluation, please copy/paste your question in Wikipedia talk:External links for additional input from other editors.--Legionarius (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Legionarius. I will make a point to reply in detail after the holidays. In a nutshell, I aagree with your response, although considering that there are currently hardly any external links on the Chita page, I don't see any harm in leaving this particular link there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, James! I was the person who removed the link to your site from Siberia. Basically, I do agree with what Legionarius said above—we have a set of guidelines which discourage linking to personal websites. I myself am pretty liberal about it—I left the link on Chita, Russia because that article currently does not have any quality external links at all, but, of course, it would not be right to restore the link once it is removed by someone else on policy grounds. I also enjoyed reading your account a great deal, but please understand that a link to it is not really suitable in an encyclopedia. I hope this resolves this situation. If you have any questions, you are quite welcome to ask them on my talk page, and I am sure Legionarius would be more than happy to help you as well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Privet Ezhiki, Hi Legionarius.... Thanks for your considered responses. I appreciate why my link was removed from the Siberia page but, regarding the 'Chita, Russia' page would disagree that my site does not meet the condition "sites that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". Surely many Wikipedia users visit the Chita page in order to seek information about the city: I would argue that my book provides this in abundance, arguably beyond what a 'Featured article' may be able to encompass. I appreciate the work you both do and remain a huge fan of Wikipedia. Of course, I would like to see the link restored for personal reasons but I also strongly believe that the quantity and quality of information I placed into my book- ie virtually everything I had gleaned about Chita whilst living there for sixteen months- is a resource which would be appreciated by Wikipedia users and, I hope, encourage people to develop a more accurate view of Siberian life and perhaps even a desire to visit Chita.--SiberianSpireite

Like I said, I myself am extremely liberal about external links. For me, as long as they are not clearly spam, are on topic, and are not overly broad or too narrow in scope, I just let them be. I, however, also realize that it is not the approach taken by most other editors, who take cleaning up the external links more seriously than I do, which is why I rarely get myself involved in discussions on this subject. If you want to contest the removal of your link, you will probably be better off by talking primarily with Legionarius. If you need an outside opinion, you can also post a review request on WP:AN to get opinions of other administrators. I doubt they will be much different from Legionarius', but you are sure free to try this option. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi James: I will not remove the links again, but please take the discussion to the talk page of Wp:EL before readding it; I of course may be wrong about my interpretation, and an outside view is alawys helpful.--Legionarius (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC) SiberianSpireite (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special pages "External links" tool not working?

Apologies if this has already been asked, but when I perform an External Links search as here, only the first 50 results are being returned, with no links or options to expand the list to 100, 200, 500, etc. Is there a bug with this tool? - John Russ Finley (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of manufacturers and suppliers

I should like to explicitly exclude lists of external links to manufacturers and suppliers. Not only are these unencyclopaedic, but since they are rarely complete they are potentially commercially damaging to non-included companies. May I have any views, please? TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not usually happy with long lists of manufacturers, and even less happy with list of suppliers. I could see an exception for hard-to-find items where normal search methods might not succeed. But it is entirely appropriate to link to useful material loacated on manufacturer's sites (and occasionally on supplier's sites). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of external links added by Ateamfog

Please see his contributions. This user has been adding links to tons of Philippine locality articles to the batch2006.com domain. The website is basically a whole slew of photo galleries depicting places in the Philippines. This user has been adding links with the edit summary pointing to the External Links guideline. I don't know what to make of it. --seav (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Yahoo! News articles

I continually find links to Yahoo! News articles that are dead links. Yahoo! News is infamous for expiring their articles relatively quickly. Most of these links are to Associated Press or Reuters stories. Yahoo! News (and Yahoo! Finance as well) should not be used for this purpose.

I would like to see this become Wikipedia Policy.

If you find a story on Yahoo! News that you want to link to, then find the same story on a site that doesn't expire the articles. There are numerous (probably dozens, if not hundreds of) sites that carry AP or Reuters stories that don't later become dead links.

And speaking of external links...

Among the sites with AP and/or Reuters stories that remain permanent are:

This is by no means an exhaustive list. I know of several smaller sites that keep the articles as well, but you get the idea.

Just say no to Yahoo! News (and same applies to Yahoo! Finance as well).

Thank you. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI policy unclear for newcomers

I often remove spammy/COI links (new users or IP addresses whose edits only consist of adding links to a single website), thereby referring to WP:EL. I dare to say that the majority of disputes on external links are about whether or not something is spam. Often, all discussion on whether it somehow fits in the suitable/considerable categories of external links can be bypassed by the fact that it is (likely) a site owner who added the link.

Currently, the section WP:EL#Advertising and conflict of interest is buried somewhere halfway the page and easily overlooked by the good-faith editor who believes that his/her site falls under the category of acceptable external links.

Hence, would it be an idea to add an extra line about CoI under "Points to remember"? Also, the wording "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." is rather vague: (1) "Should" suggests that it can be done, but usually preferably not, and (2) "avoid linking" also invites liberal interpretation. I would suggest a wording along the lines of "You must not link to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if ...".

Han-Kwang (t) 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. IP users trying to add an external link get an automatic warning on the page submission form, referring to the WP:EL page. Again the good-faith editor will see first that his/her site might be suitable, and not read all the way down to the COI warning. I think moving the COI warning further up in the WP:EL page could reduce spam considerably. Han-Kwang (t) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free and registration-required links

Looks like we have some policy warriors going on here. Currently, WP:EL states that it is not allowed to have external links to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and so forth. This is clearly (a) ridiculous, and (b) not consensus policy, as I have never seen anyone delete links such as these. Does anyone want to defend the practice?

Simply declaring that the current policy of forbidding links "is consensus" is probably not going to be helpful. 69.17.73.214 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally did delete non-free links plenty of times, if only because newspaper articles in many cases don't belong in the external links section anyway. Occasionally, a non-free article is is under external links, but was actually used as a reference for a statement, in which case I change it into a reference. AFAIK references can be non-free. Han-Kwang (t) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links to pay and registration sites are routinely deleted, and we don't have them here. That's the current norm / consensus, clearly - sorry if you don't think that's helpful but that's how it is. Incidentally the New York Times has recently opened up its entire archive so you can almost always find a free non-registration link to any NYT article. It's only a matter of time before all the others follow suit. Wikidemo (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken -- you are required to register to view free content on the New York Times. So are you suggesting that we delete all Times links? Let's just be clear! 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so does anybody want to defend the idea that we should never have a "non-free" link in the external links section? 69.17.73.214 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there should not be Non-free links in EL sections. what some newspapers do do is have a free registration process. which is OK for the EL section. βcommand 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, betacommand2 -- you seem to be saying that registration-required links are OK for EL. That's not what you kept reverting about, but then you're a bit of a strong man on these things. 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sites that require registrations are fine for references if you inline them. Otherwise, we would stop using books as references because you are required to buy it in order to check it out. However, in the external links section adding a link to a site requiring registration is not really needed. Say, an article about some author, with an external link to The Wall Street Journal that requires registration. In this case, the link is not really useful because it may refer to any section of the article itself (the biography, the career, the death, etc), everything or maybe nothing at all (achievements by the author, a section that hasn't yet been created in the article). However, when you add it as an inline reference, you are pointing out that the reference is used to back some claim up. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can do an informal poll... Han-Kwang (t) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: non free links

Proposal: 'non-free' links are allowed in the external links section of articles.

  • Oppose it is harder for other editors to judge whether the link belongs there if he cannot see the contents without payment. (I'm neutral about content requiring free registration) Han-Kwang (t) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's hard to put a finger on it, but I think it has to do with convenience to readers and with our being a free encyclopedia. If we link to pay sites, we're really saying that the experience we're offering is going to be better for people who pay than people who don't. We also avoid spam, endorsements, etc., so directing people to a place where they have to pay makes us more commercial. And finally, what's the chance that anyone reading an article is already a subscriber or is going to whip out their credit card just because we sent them there? On a case-by-case basis, very low. So an external link to a pay site is only of use to a tiny fraction of the readers. We require external links to be minimal and of significant interest - so a pay site link almost always would fail that test. If a site requires registration but is free it still has most of these problems. Most people will be turned off by the process so it's not a useful link. And if there's a registration it's not really free - there's an exchange of value. I believe there's wide consensus on this point. Wikidemo (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reg. required links

The original discussion was about registration, but it looks like "non-free" means something else.

Does anybody want to defend removing all links requiring registration from external links sections? 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if you use section headings that are a bit more descriptive than "sigh" (I changed it now). Han-Kwang (t) 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll - Proposal: should 'free registration required' links be allowed as external links?

*Bad poll question and stop edit warring. The consensus, and status quo, is that these links are not permitted. The question isn't whether anyone "want[s] to defend removing all links" but whether we should change the rules to permit them. I think not, for the reasons discussed above. A number of anonymous IP editors are now edit warring on the guideline page, never a good thing, on a flimsy claim that this brief conversation taking place on a Sunday morning is establishing some kind of new consensus (despite some clear opposition to boot). If you keep that up we're going to have this page semi-protected. Wikidemo (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: consensus is that no registration-required links should appear on external links sections? 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not vote on this issue? I think it is much more helpful to discuss, as we are admonished at the top of the page! 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As ReyBrujo mentioned upthread, non-free sites and sites requiring registration are perfectly acceptable as references, provided they're reliable sources. However, external links sections are intended to provide useful additional material, and I agree with Wikidemo's point that registration severely limits the general usefulness of the link. I also want to make the point that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy page, and there's always scope for talk page discussion to determine that a non-free or register-to-view site may be linked from an article's external links section on a case-by-case basis. But as a general guideline, I think this practice should be discouraged for the reasons mentioned previously. --Muchness (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(aside) I do agree that we shouldn't be throwing up poll questions. Polls do have a few uses but usually not, and only towards the end of a discussion or when there's a deadlock, to get people to come off the fence and state what they think. If you're reading this, Han-Kwang, please keep that in mind because polling can actually make a disagreement worse instead of better.Wikidemo (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so both Muchness and Wikidemo think that all external links that require registration should be removed except through discussion on the talk page? I just want to be clear here. 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline page, which has been stable until today, prohibits such links so yes, that is the consensus until proven otherwise. I agree with that, and admonish people to be slow and avoid contention and edit warring when considering changes to guidelines.Wikidemo (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will go and clarify on the page that that includes various important newspapers. 128.135.197.189 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to the annons you both could be blocked for WP:3RR right now. lets give the conversation a few days before attempting to change policy. βcommand 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was weird. I was in the process of issuing a 3RR warning when 128.135.197.189 was blocked. This discussion is such a mess to read and rather unconstructive to boot, and one of the main participants is now blocked, so I suggest we declare it closed and if anyone wants to take the issue up again later they may start a clean new section. Wikidemo (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, βcommand 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I requested protection at WP:RFPP. Ideally, I did not want to have the ips blocked because they could add another point of view. I don't like having the list of accepted sites requiring registrations there, mostly because it invites people to add other sites. The anonymous came from somewhere, so it is likely more will come. The only problem was that they changed the guideline directly (and created two different threads here, making "staying in focus" harder). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

current discussion on reg-required links

OK, as far as I can tell from the current discussion (let's leave pay links aside for a moment):

  • Betacommand2 thinks that reg-required links are fine.
  • Wikidemo thinks that reg-required links should always be removed.
  • Muchness thinks that reg-required links should be removed, except if talk page discussion resolves otherwise.

My personal view is that it's pretty clear that major sites such as the Times are absolutely fine as ELs as long as they satisfy the other criteria. And it's also pretty clear that that's the working rule on EL sections all over the wiki -- i.e., the page as it stands does not reflect the consensus of people who do not obsessively monitor guideline pages.

For example, a Times book review seems quite OK. Currently, the page as it stands says that all reg-required links should be removed. What do people think we should do next to clear this up? 128.135.197.189 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation, I'd cite the Times book review in the section of the article that discusses the book's critical reception. --Muchness (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy explicitly says reviews and interviews are OK for EL. So, do you want to prohibit review ELs, or registration required sites in ELs? 128.135.197.189 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We must differentiate the external links from the references. I favor adding links to sites that require registration when they are used as references (specifically, inline references). But I don't like the idea of having these links added to the External links section, because they can refer to the whole article, a determined section of the article, or nothing in particular. For example, a reliable site that requires registration like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times or The Times would be used as reference and not external link. So, instead of having an external link that says "Times review for The Book (requires registration)" I would have a paragraph in the "Critical reception" section of the article about The Book to say "British newspaper The Times was critical about The Book presentation, although it considered it an interesting lecture.[link to The Times review]" This not only makes these links appear in the references section (which is true because they are being used as a source for the article) but also they remove them from the External links section (which is likely to be spammed with Amazon links to buy it, reviews hosted in GeoCities-like pages, etc) and allows the user to immediately know what The Times opines about The Book, even though he cannot access the site because it requires registration. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are drifting off topic. We all agree that reg-req inline references are fine. The question is: should reg-req be prohibited in ELs? ReyBrujo, could you be explicit on what you think about this issue? Allow, discourage, or forbid? 128.135.197.189 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is no reason for having registration required links in the external links section. They can either be used as references, or removed altogether. Consensus in articles can modify that, of course, but as a general rule, if you have registered to the site and know what the article is about, have the courtesy of using it as a reference for those who haven't registered. If you want to put it in one of those three options, discourage tending to forbid. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the New York Times is a bad example because its articles are available without registration.Wikidemo (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true; it may be the case if you're accessing from a .edu IP, but in general, you are asked for registration information. It is the payment demand that has gone away. 128.135.197.189 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a special link URL that allows accessing their pages without registration, which is used by all outlets when linking to them. Show me a URL they require registration, and there will likely be another that makes it accessible without it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting to know, but we're drifting off topic again -- my mistake as well. Let's stay focused. 128.135.197.189 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline page's prohibition on external links to registration sites is no accident or anomaly. It is emphatic and explicit on the point. "Sites requiring registration" is a heading under the "Links normally to be avoided" section, where it is clearly stated, twice, that registration site links are prohibited. As enumerated item #7 in that section, sites that "require payment or registration" should normally not be linked. I don't see any support for your claim that this rule is some kind of accident or oversight. Further, I don't think your claim is right that these links are often used. External link sections tend to be magnets for inexperienced new editors, and for all kinds of spam, but other than having a high noise content and having to be cleaned out regularly, I just don't think it's a regular practice for articles to include external links to registration sites. If you think otherwise, could you point to some? Wikidemo (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand your point of view; and I agree that the policy is currently clear and unambiguous. It is also silly and out of line with usual practice on the wiki -- experienced users or not. As for reg-req links -- gosh, everywhere, as experienced users I think know! Helen Vendler and Harold Bloom are two articles that I've looked at recently that both have reg-req links in the ELs. 128.135.197.189 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Neither article has any external links to registration-required content. The Harold Bloom article's external links section, though, is a complete mess in need of a clean-up and illustrates my point about newbie editors. Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, Vendler's is NYT, yes. As for Bloom: we are in a bit of a bind: any time there's an article with a reg-req it's a case of a "newbie editor" -- according to you! So perhaps you can come up with a better way for me to show you you're wrong? I should get back to work here, but perhaps (since my own attempts are being reverted) you and others can come up with a better version of the paragraph? 128.135.197.189 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 5) Do you agree with me that the one who added the link to the external links section should have added it as a reference backing some text to give you an idea of what the contents of the links are? And Wikidemo, the NYTimes requires registration if you don't have a login and have cleared your cache (it actually takes you to this page). I think it has to do with the referral (to prevent deep linking). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a NY Times login and it's not asking me to register. My comment about newbie editors is an observation, not a rule. The Harold Bloom article doesn't prove anything except that people can make a mess out of an external link section. Among the 19 links, one is a dead link, one or two is to a site peddling a book, and four are duplicative links to the same person's self-published personal website. Yet none are to a registration site. Bad editing doesn't demonstrate anything about consensus. You haven't supported at all the claim that people are actually linking to registration sites, and frankly, from what I can see your claim to the contrary looks like a simple error of observation.Wikidemo (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is a registration site and is linked in the Harold Bloom article -- the reason you didn't see it is that the article that is actually linked is a copyvio reproduction of its content on the syr.edu site; I am having the same problem as ReyBrujo accessing the NYT article on Helen Vendler without a login. Would you like further examples of ELs that have reg-req links? 69.17.73.214 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect page

Can we get an assurance that if the page is unblocked, nobody is going to break 3RR again or insist on making changes to the guideline over anybody's principled objection? I've tried discussing this with User:128.135.197.189 on the user's talk page but that's not going anywhere. If I don't see a sign that this is all proceeding in good faith, then as far as I'm concerned this discussion is over and the proposal to change the guideline is simply rejected.Wikidemo (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it protected, it won't harm anyone. And as I said, there is a possibility that both users have come to this page directed by another page (it is interesting that two anonymous arrive here to make changes to the same section of the guideline at virtually the same time, and just after one was warned for 3RR). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting policy and guideline pages is a harm in itself - it has to be unprotected sooner or later, and as far as I can tell the only source of trouble is these two anonymous IP editors. I share your suspicion that this whole matter has not been handled by all parties in good faith. My position against changing the guideline to allow links to registration sites is clear. So unless anyone has anything new to add, I'm on to more productive things.Wikidemo (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to join in the discussion, you're welcome to leave -- but do please refrain from reverting and undoing other people's work on the page in that case. 69.17.73.214 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&oldid=187315380"