Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 3

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the External links/Archive 3 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

See also: Wikipedia talk:External links/temp

External Link in a New Window

How do I add an external link which loads into a new window?

This does not work in Wikipedia. Frankly, it may be worthwile to change the software so that every external link automatically opens in a new window. You wouldn't want to lose the focus of that Wikipedia page, would you? JFW | T@lk 20:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The W3C agreed position is that opening external links should be the users choice, that's why XHTML 1.0 onwards doesn't support the 'target' attribute, it's against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Apr/0100.html --DuLithgow 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dollar sign

How Do I Add An External Link With A Dollar Sign In It?

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)

Dollar sign in external link

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2003 archive 2 on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.

I'm having some trouble getting a link to a URL with a dollar sign in it to work at William Shield. Is there some way to get it work properly, and if not what's the best thing to do? The troublesome link in question is: Details of the "Auld Lang Syne" controversy --Camembert

For now, replace the dollar sign with its encoded equivalent, %24: Details of the "Auld Lang Syne" controversy. (Note -- do *not* put <nowiki>s into a URL, it does very very wrong things to the parser. :) --Brion 04:14 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Righto, I'll change that. Thanks to all. --Camembert

A conflict of interest?

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)

If it's a page about web browsers as opposed to a site trying to sell them then it's probably ok. I don't think the issue is one of conflict of interest, but more on whether it passes the What Wikipedia is not test in regards to point 18: "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising". Angela 07:08, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Angela, Thanks for your answer. The site will be about browsers. Nothing will be sold. --hoshie 07:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Commercial links

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.

I would like a second opinion on what counts as advertising/spam etc. I removed an external link (CARDSHARK Online) from a number of articles (Crimp, Three card monte, Card game, Confidence trick, Holdout, Gambling, Cardsharps etc) and have now had an e-mail from the poster of them who said the following: (permission to reprint this extract was given): "I included a link to my web site along with both of my contributions simply because it is a related link for anyone who wishes to find out more on the subject described on the page... I feel that my contributions should include links to my site whenever relevant. I feel so because it is good to provide visitors with reputable follow up links and also because it is a way to reward me for my efforts."

Any thoughts? Angela 03:37, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the webmaster for cardshark IF his website is non-commercial and NPOV and provides quality information on the subject (we should always be willing to delete external links to weak web sites). As to commercial/non-commercial - maybe we could define that better, but any site clearly supported by a single business entity would have to have a lot NPOV value to be regarded as not commercial in nature. - Marshman 04:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I looked at his web site (very well done) and it fits the criteria I would consider important as being acceptable for an external link. Sure, he is working on articles here and hopes to get more traffic through his site for his effort, but that fact is secondary; our goal should be to provide direction to offsite traffic that has quality - Marshman 04:49, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's not non-commerical. You have to pay to view most of the site. I'm not sure how NPOV a site that teaches you how to cheat at cards can be. Angela 04:51, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

The password is an obvious attempt to lure visitors to pay for his so called "non-commercial" product. The irony. --Menchi 04:58, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Angela. I guess I did not go that far. Password and collects money from users! Obviously commercial and cannot be condoned as a useful link for our users. I stand by my criteria; but sounds like this website does not pass - Marshman 05:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My approach is generally to remove such links (not always immediately, but eventually, and boldly), and trust that if someone found them useful, I would be reverted (as I was on List of gay movies. This seems to work quite well. Martin 14:22, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe when there is doubt about a site (has some value but also leads to pages that require $) there should be a warning note placed near the link in wikipedia. JWSchmidt 21:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

External link with frames

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)

Inline external links

I noticed on a recent edit to World Wide Web by Mav that his summary stated:

DO NOT sublink external links under body prose; use wiki refs or the external links section

yet I encounter this technique of embedded links regularly, like in this short article which has seven (!) such links in the body text:

Pijnacker-Nootdorp

Is there any kind of concensus about this? -- Viajero 13:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd copyedit it ... mv'ing the links to a external link area (if needed) ... and mabey a ref to "see below" (as needed) ... don't know what the std nor concensus is though. Other than that you can always do a brackets notation citations (ala. [1]; how events does it), puttin' the link inline with the cited text.reddi

I have done the latter now, that is sometimes more convenient for the reader than links in the External Links section. Patrick 22:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is perhaps better but it is still far from ideal. For example:

departure schedules: to rtd [1], to gvc [2], DB site [3].

This is not exactly intuitive, especially since such links customarily refer to citations; moreover, the text is written in a kind of shorthand (what is rtd and gvc? And many people in the Anglophone world may not know that DB stands for Deutsche Bahn. It looks like you are writing for an Dutch audience!). It is a tiny article. Why not put the all external links at the bottom with clear labels? -- Viajero 00:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) aside: Deutsche Bahn means German railway, not Dutch. Get-back-world-respect 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The labels could be expanded, but it is not essential, they are already an extra compared with "departure schedules: [1], [2], [3]". I have no strong feelings either way regarding placing the links in the Ext. links section, but it would either give some duplication or some article content would be moved there too. - Patrick 11:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you like to demonstrate another arrangement, you could also pick another municipality, and add contents and links in the process, rather than just rearranging them. - Patrick 12:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I always delete inline links when I encounter them and move them to an External Links section. If they're kept inline, it's hard to tell that they're references to non-Wikipedia sites. Putting them in the External Links section makes that clear. RickK 19:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think what Mav meant is that body text shouldn't be hyperlinked. Wikipedia will covert a link by itself to a footnote format, which is perfectly desirably as footnotes. I suppose the Wikipedia software could be enhanced one day to automatically list these links in a reference section at the bottom of the article. Samw 01:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Samw, the page was just changed; look at the previous version and you'll see what I mean. -- Viajero 13:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

External Links

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)

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)

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)

The actual websites in question are (from New France):

For me, external links are supplemental information that goes beyond Wikipedia's level of detail, so I generally only include ones that seem at least as knowledgeable and current as the content of the article referring to them. From a practical point of view, you don't want to link to bad data, otherwise future editors can mess up the WP article by using the external pages as sources. Many web pages are ephemeral too, be sure the WP article still makes sense if all the links stop working tomorrow. Stan 05:49, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The point that we don't want to link to bad data made by User:Stan Shebs is why I raised the matter. (and not for one specific page but relative to all of Wikipedia) Linking to an outside source that is only someone's personal page raises unnecessary risks and instead of adding benefit to Wikipedia has the potential to be detrimental. As such, my view would be never to add any outside link except those pointing to an source whose credentials are undoubted. Why would an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia ever want to refer anyone to the writings of sites where both the qualifications of the writer and the validity of their information is unknown to Wikipedia? In books, authors quote their references so as to prove they are quoting reliable sources. Why would Wikipedia want to do the opposite? Angelique 16:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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)~

Dear Stan Shebs: Your insinuation is unfounded. REPEAT: " ---- I raised the matter. (and not for one specific page but relative to all of Wikipedia). my view would be never to add any outside link except those pointing to an source whose credentials are undoubted." Equally as often, a hardworking bigot etc. goes to great lengths to put their slant on "accurate" information. Want a list of "factual" right wing Religious Right sponsored sites? Should Wikipedia link to these? Or is someone going to start judging links? Angelique 22:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Linkspam

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: [1]. Regards -- 213.54.99.133 16:22, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) aka Fab

Just created an account on en :-) -- Fab 16:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just made an update of the spam-domain-list on my user page -- fab 23:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, we get a lot of *.de spam on Wikipedia:Friends of Wikipedia too. Thinking of submitting a spam report to the ISP from all those IP addresses... Dysprosia 09:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know who removed all these links but - good work! :-) -- fab 22:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

External links to subscription services

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, February 21, 2004.

Do we have a policy on including eternal links which lead to paid subscription news services such as The Times? Fore example Current_events the Feb 16th story on the break-up of the BBC. Personally, I think that it's okay to link to news sites which require a free login, such as the New York Times, but that paid subscription links are best left out (or annotated as paid so that users don't waste time/bandwidth trying to acces them). dramatic 19:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Spend the extra 60 seconds and google for something free to link to. This should work 99.999% of the time. →Raul654 19:38, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

"the Feb 16th story on the break-up of the BBC" - Wow! Do you get to see future news? Is there an option somewhere in preferences for that? [Sorry, couldn't resist]

You're just jealous because some of us are on UTC+13 :-)

On a more sensible note, the Times link didn't require any kind of registration out of me, but in general you're probably right. Like with links to PDFs, links that require registration (whether paid or not) should probably have warnings. Slashdot conventionally puts "(free registration required)" or somesuch [although they sometimes parody themselves and put "(jumping through hoops required)", etc] but it's not obvious how that could be fitted in to the footnote-style auto-numbered links. - IMSoP 19:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) [via edit conflict]

I use http://news.google.com/ to search for news articles to link to in the Current Events pages. All of their entries are non-subscription services, and so far I haven't had a problem finding a news article which covers the event I'm trying to include. RickK 21:24, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We should also not give references to books or journal articles as they are cost money up front too. Let's just stick to sites supported by advertising (which we pay for in non-up-front ways) or the BBC (which I pay for out of taxes), cos they don't cost money up front. More seriously, the right thing to do from a scholastic perspective is to give the best references, wherever they may be. (Note that in theory our articles should be sufficently good that references are not needed by Joe Reader, only by more serious researchers) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Except that in most cases, the references are fungible - no particular pay site is going to be significantly better than another. That is why I strongly object to linking to the NY times, because after 3 months, the links becoming pay-only. →Raul654 22:16, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

In the particular example cited, the Sunday Times is the best reference - it was the newspaper that got hold of the leaked report. All other reports are reporting the existence of the Sunday Times report, from what I've seen. Thus the it would be best to link directly to the Sunday Times. If identical information is available to all news sources (because the information has come from pa/reuters release or a press release) then sure link to the "best" (i.e. free/stable/readable) site - but wouldn't this lead to a bias to linking to the BBC - it has stable URLs and no ads, where as the other major news sources are almost unreadable due to ads and pop-ups.

I think the best policy is not to not use them, but to label them. To answer your point about other kinds of reference, it is fairly obvious that a book is a paid-for resource (except when you use a library, of course), and journal articles all have the same general access arrangements (as one another). Online resources, however, have all sorts of different access requirements, and it is nice to be warned before following a reference whether it is particularly restrictive. And, as Raul says, where several references are only differentiable by their accessibility, we might as well as cite the most accessible (e.g. the one with no subscription requirements) - IMSoP 22:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with labelling whenever it is non-obvious. All other things being equal, accessibility should become a factor in chosing an ext. link, but other things aren't equal as often as the impression this thread gives. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:46, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see what's wrong with linking to a pay-only NY Times link. It'd be okay to link to "not even online at all" sources, like, say, the NY Times paper version, or a book, or a journal. I do agree that we should prefer online and free sources if they are just as good, and just as reputable. We shouldn't link to some random local paper nobody's ever heard of as our authoritative source just because it's free. Doubly so because our content may eventually be used in a non-internet setting, in which case being able to look up the NY Times article at your local library's archives is a lot better than having a useless reference to some obscure paper. --Delirium 12:00, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There is also the question of such links for science references. For example, Nature. Someone (possibly not from the best of motives) recently objected to this link to Nature http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7026/abs/nature03265_fs.html on the grounds of it being subscription-only. But... the link still helpfully provides the volume number etc for those without subscription to look it up on the paper version, even if it won't let you read the full text. This will become more common with science journals.

External Links - Directories

There are three human-created directories on the web and I added links for them to some Wikipedia articles yesterday (Palestine, Yasser Arafat, Al-Qaida). The links have been deleted with no explanation. By using all three directories the external links relevant to most topics should be fairly well-covered and it's complementary to the Wikipedia goal of definition and description (encyclopedia). It rounds out the topic and leverages existing work. Did I walk into some "not invented here" syndrome? I thought this was a help-the-user project and hadn't seen any instructions or discussions telling volunteers to re-invent the wheel.

Hmm. I'm not aware of any policy discussion on this, but it seems to me that if we decide to link to directories in one article, the logical conclusion is that we should have such links in all (or nearly all) articles. At that point it seems like we'd be indexing another site. Isomorphic 21:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Linking to sites that have specific and detailed information about a subject is encouraged. Linking to directories isn't very helpful. --Αλεξ Σ 22:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with "isn't very helpful" from Alex S|Σ. It surely depends on how much material the Wikipedia page contains: if it has only a few paragraphs and we can add a link to a specific category in the sort of directory that lays out on one page a number of human-written profiles of relevant websites (often with meaningful subcategories listed on the same page, each with more specific site profiles), we are giving Wikipedia users a better/quicker tool than just listing the URLs. They can see which of the many websites or subcategories they want to try, rather than reading our necessarily brief comments accompanying each URL. :Robin Patterson 00:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is those are three of the most vandalized pages we have, so contributions from non-registered users sometimes don't get as careful scrutiny as they sometimes should. Try adding them as a logged in user--there's a better chance they'll stay, or at least get an explanation in the page history. Something in the Edit Summary box at the bottom would help, too, like "adding some neutral Web directories on <whichever subject>". Niteowlneils 01:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be continuing in More restrictive policy on external linking.

Currently being discussed for a proposed change to the external links policy in Links to web directories like dmoz where are they appropriate? -- sabre23t 10:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fan sites in external links

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)

Instead of a fan site itself, I'd link to their Links page and note it as a 'list of fan sites' (I would check a couple of such links pages for the best looking one first).Daeron 07:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I'll keep it in mind if I'm creating an article or adding the first fan site (although even then I might sometimes get lazy and settle for linking to a good site that I happened to know about, even if further research might uncover another that was slightly better). But what would you do in editing an article that had one or more fan sites already listed? or if, as in the case that prompted my question, someone adds a fan site link to an existing article? Ruthlessly excising all such additions seems draconian. Allowing them all to remain will clutter the external links and reward the most assiduous self-promoters. In this instance, I did nothing except to add "fan site" after the link. JamesMLane 11:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

It's a potential nightmare. For entertainers one solution might be to look the name up at BBC NEWS and see the right hand panel which will show you which external link they favour. I guess other fan sites that appear, if they seem weak, should be looked at for vanity as many article entries are on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --bodnotbod 12:18, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

A better way might be to place a link to the related category at the Open Directory - http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/ - most of the 'bands and artists' categories have a subcategory for fan sites. Heenan73 00:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added synthesis to content page

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)

Wikipedia rules for External links?

moved from the village pump

Greetings.

After doing somewhat heavy contributing to the Wikipedia for some time now, I've started wondering if there are any generally agreed rules for what kinds of external links should be placed in articles. I notice what I consider to be junk links here and there, but although this is often a result of my personal opinion, I sometimes feel more objective in my complaint.

Besides having an obvious rule of relevance to the article, I would like to submit that there should be other ways to evaluate sites that are linked to.

On my web sites, I have what I call a "visitor-friendliness" policy (for lack of a better term). I don't link to sites that exhibit the following aspects:

Displaying popup, pop-under, float-over, interstitial (intermediate page before continuing to requested link), content-obscuring or overly distracting advertisements; these kinds of ads are intrusive and take control away from the visitor.
Requiring registration before being able to view content in its entirety.
Using ActiveX controls, which are insecure, proprietary and effectively only work on Internet Explorer browsers.
Using Java applets, which usually exhibit poor performance.
Hosting by GeoCities or similar services that force in advertisements that effectively cheapen the site.
Under construction.
Frequently unavailable.
Containing text that is difficult to read (e.g., fonts too small).
Containing only a farm of links.
Using background music or heavy graphics.
Showing Flash or other video (with the exception of animated .gif's) on the main front page; showing it on an introductory page is OK if it's possible to bypass it and bookmark a main front page without video.

Now, I admit that my list may be overly restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, but I offer the list as a starting point for discussion.

Any thoughts?

Stevietheman 18:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree 99%. I try to follow the same rules (I don't actively check for ActiveX, but since I mostly use Mozilla, I probably wouldn't link to such a site). I would only make an exception when such a site is the only relevant one available. Most, if not all, the external links I have added are either: the official site for the company/person, a government site, or a leading news media site (unfortunately, some news sites (EG cnn.com) occasionally include Flash ads). Niteowlneils 19:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this came up on Talk:Current events a while back, with respect to linking news articles that required registration to view. Some people really couldn't see what the fuss was about, but it was generally considered best to link to equivalents without such drawbacks where possible, but not to exclude links simply because they needed (free) registration, and not to go out of one's way to hunt down alternatives.

I think the same can apply to most of your other criteria: where there is an unnecessary but irritating "feature" of the target site, and an alternative is available, we should prefer the alternative. Where a piece of flash, Java, or even ActiveX content [does anyone actually use ActiveX? I've never spotted anything broken because of not having it...] is interesting in its own right, a note/warning next to the link might be helpful. But in general, we shouldn't go too far in ostracising sites just because their revenue model or design philosophy is different to ours.

One point where I'd disagree with you in your list of negative aspects, by the way, is "Containing only a farm of links". I think such pages serve a very valuable purpose in collecting together information (page locations) that you'd otherwise have to do yourself from scratch - indeed, since Wikipedia is not a link repository, these are actually sometimes the best sites to link to, since they can provide far more depth of information than one "dead-end" link. Broadly speaking, I think I agree with your points, though. - IMSoP 19:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

If indeed there is something notably "unusual" about a linked site, then notice should be given in text accompanying the link (examples: "requires Java", "100MB PDF file", "requires registration"). - Bevo 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I skimmed a couple of the CE talk archives, and didn't find the discussion, but from IMSoP's summary, and the conversation here, I decided there was enuf consensus to address the issue briefly at Wikipedia:External links (most of the articles it links to seem to just be "how to"s, with out much policy guidance). If I've been too bold, someone can delete it. If someone thinks of better wording, feel free--I'm feeling a bit rushed as I have to catch a plane in a few hours and still have things to do before I go (and yet, here I am on WP :) ). Niteowlneils 21:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a great start. I'm not sure at this point if more should go there. Part of me wants to see extensive guidelines, but I can also see how that could easily go too far. -- Stevietheman 22:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I was tempted to, also, but I've added a note about my paragraph (to which I have added pay sites) to Wikipedia_talk:External_links, which also talks about my reasoning to keep it fairly brief, and let the broad goal speak for itself. Niteowlneils 23:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered that some of my concerns are addressed in Wikipedia_talk:External_links. -- Stevietheman 22:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

External links epidemic

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)

Documenting the POV is much more helpful than killing the link, don't you think? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, Pete. I personally only kill links when I feel they don't enhance the article content but just confirm that someone has a POV. Random assasinations of links will just provoke "link insertion wars" anywayz. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

I've noticed this as a serious problem in science articles: Standard and established science knowledge is usually found in textbooks and not so much on the web. But fringe theories, non-standard ideas and other strongly POV stuff is easily found on the web, often in a way carefully tailored to be easily accesible and quick too read. Hence such links often overpower the standard science in the link list, especially if its a stub.

Not as serious, but related, are external links to papers or articles dealing with definitly minor details. Especially if these are the only links, this looks highly misleading. Stubs with such links are worst. I usually at least consider deleting such links but then don't as I feel obliged to replace it by a better link. But maybe one shouldn't be so hesistating. Sanders muc 18:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

IMSoP: This is what is probably the best thing, but many POV pushers simply reinsert the links without engaging in a discussion :-(
Sanders muc: This phenomenon (of fringe theories overwhelming main science articles) attracted my attention at cholesterol, where someone inserted a rant on the "dissidents of the lipid hypothesis", some noisy people who doubt the link between cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. Yet >99% of all doctors will subscribe to the "lipid hypothesis" (which is not a hypothesis anymore). Disconcerting. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with POV or dissent in an external link. All I look at in judging a link is whether it's a) relevant, b) has significant contributive content, and c) uses the same language as the article (i.e., article in English -> linked site in English). I think external POV adds to the NPOV article, not hurt it; however, it would be prudent for the article editor to include as many NPOV links as they can find. -- Stevietheman 20:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding of NPOV to think that adding an external link can violate the policy. NPOV is not about making everything conform to some consensus; it is about presenting views as facts, by attributing them to those who have them. Ex: "Flat-earthers think the Earth is flat" is a fact, and appropriate to an artical on geography or cartology. Now, an external link to the Flat Earth Society website is giving both the source of the material, and the material, all at once, so its NPOV to add it, regardless if the Flat Earth view is stated in the article; it might be deleted everytime it crops up by cartology majors who think it is nonsense. Further, perhaps one reason people add POV links, is because editors are censoring out POV's they don't like from articles. The addition of POV links might be a sign of a very POV article dominated by editors who either don't support, or don't understand, the NPOV policy. Adding a link, or sometimes just a reference to a book, is an easier way of getting a view heard, than fighting to establish it in the text of the article. See for example, the page on Saudi Arabia, where a reference is made to a controversial book about a view unable to be expressed on the page because editors won't allow it. ChessPlayer 22:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

What External links are allowed?

If there are relative external links to the article what are the rules regarding them? In addition what are the rules regarding removing other links. It appears that links are just getting removed is there a way to report this? tom@cuy.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.66.3 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, GraemeL has explained on your talk page why the links were removed; see What should not be linked to for further guidelines. If you disagree with the removal, your best course of action is to mention it as a possible link on the talk page and attempt to build consensus for adding it. --Muchness 03:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't Bother Posting Educational Videos

If you desire to link to an outside video -- even an educational video -- don't even bother.

After editing a couple of articles to include links to educational videos online (with no commercials), then I got an urgent message from one of the users commanding me to stop "spamming the website with self-promotional links." Afterwards, I noticed he had removed all of my link updates. Oh well! I guess doctors don't need to know about emergency medical procedures from other emergency room doctors!

Well if you don't even create a user account, and then solely start adding the same link to a LOT of articles, you look like someone spamming. Wyllium 06:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. The first thing is that is very bad form to bite people who contribute without creating an account. We encourage people to contribute anonymously in order to get them hooked, we shouldn't complain when they go ahead and do it!

Second thing: The IP who posted here is 69.38.37.161. Checking his contributions, he had only added four links when you wrote your comment, hardly a "LOT". Also it wasn't the same link, each link was tailored to a particular article... e.g. a link to video about drowning was added to the drowning article. A video about the Wright brothers was added to the Wright brothers article.

So unless I've missed something (e.g. that isn't the only IP involved), please remember to Assume Good Faith and to not bite the newcomers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not justifying removing his links (which don't look that suspicious to me), I'm merely explaining why people might have reverted him. When anonymous users add the same link to a lot of articles, 9 times out of ten, it's a linkspammer. Wyllium 01:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Pete/Pcb21. I noticed the link being added on Drowning, and it looked good to me. I just watched the video, and it's not bad. I personally prefer text, but some people may like the video. I'll add the links again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

69.38.37.161: Your stuff looks fine. Your links look fine. They should not have been deleted. Your edits to the Charles Kuralt article look fine. Sorry you got nipped, glad you mentioned it here, and hope you don't go away mad. It's really true that Wikipedia does get a lot of Wikispam, and it's true that some of it takes the form of unregistered users adding self-promotional external links to many articles, so what happened, though wrong, is, regrettably, understandable. It would have been less likely to happen if you were a registered user, and I don't know of any reason not to register--you needn't disclose anything, not even an email address. If you had registered I'd be replying on your own page, instead of here. There's absolutely no requirement to register, you can just keep contributing as an unregistered user. What happened would also have been less likely if you had included an edit summary--a short phrase or line that can be typed into a box whenever you edit a page. Dpbsmith 13:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

As I was the one who reverted the links, I feel I should comment (though I question the value of defending myself, given the comments above).

I see a lot of spam while monitoring RC, and what this user was doing is a classic example. It does not matter that the material itself was free (and "free of commercials"): the fact is, the links were added in an effort to drive traffic to this person's website. While all the links were "tailored" to the topic of the articles, they were all to the same site. This site is (apparently, please correct me if I'm wrong) a commercial enterprise and makes its money by selling ad space. Did anyone actually look at the site linked to? A good chunk of their programming seems to be entirely about patronizing their sponsors.

If I had not warned this user (politely, I may add; I did not "bite" him/her. See User talk:69.38.37.161 for my horrible warning.), s/he would very likely have continued to add links to this one website to a large number of articles. I've seen this many times before; you are free to disagree, but I believe I did what was in the best interests of the project. I might also point those interested to m:when should I link externally, which includes the helpful guideline "In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally." If these vidoes were truly educational, we would want them internally. I don't know about you, but I don't find a travel video about Mississippi steamship cruises to be particularly "educational". (Interesting to some, sure.)

I may not be the most prolific editor, but up until recently I've happily volunteered my time in maintaining and (IMO) defending Wikipedia. But after witnessing the flak dedicated users like RickK have to put up with and seeing valuable users such as Tannin leave us, I have reason to reconsider my commitments here. If the consensus is that I've done something wrong, I sincerely apologise. I was acting, as always, for what I thought was the betterment of Wikipedia. Time will tell me if that betterment is really worth fighting for. -- Hadal 02:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Easy there. You do good work. Thank you for monitoring RC. As a long term wikipedian you know that people disagree about pretty much everything. Just because some of us feel that one revert was not needed doesn't mean that your reverts were wrong, and in fact - looking at your recent edits - I think your RC patrol work is quite good. I would like to apoligize if my comment and my reverting of your reverts came across as curt, and I certainly do not want you to stop acting for the betterment of Wikipedia! Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No hard feelings here, and thanks for the kind words (and awesome work on pufferfish, by the way). I'm not often reverted, but what I actually found offensive was the characterization of my actions; I feel I've been made out to be the bad guy here (I don't think there is one on either side), when I honestly meant no harm nor offense to anyone. Perhaps next time I'll wait until a user has added, oh, I don't know, 20 links to the same website before I even dare use the word "spamming". Otherwise something like this might happen again. So, right or wrong, I'm sorry for any negativity I've created and hope this user (I don't know his username?) settles in well. Cheers, -- Hadal 06:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand the abhorrence of linking to commercial entities. The argument should be solely about the quality of the linked-to material, not how it is funded (although a site with lots of flashing ads, popups or whatever would probably count as "poor quality"). I checked the drowning link and it looked reasonable. I didn't see about the steamboat.

'"In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally." If these vidoes were truly educational, we would want them internally.' By that logic, we would barely want any external links at all, we would want everything internally. There are obvious problems with this.

You say your warning was polite ... but you managed to use the words "spamming" and "will result in a block" in a warning that fits on to one line on my screen. This would be absolutely fine except that they are the very first words that a new user, apparently acting in good faith, has had directed at them since joining the project.

Apologies for continuing to debate these points after you've offered to sincerely apologise, but these "threaten to leave if I can't do things my way" posts (you and Rick are far the first) really get on my wick. I make compromises every day on Wikipedia... perhaps I am not so battle-hardened by the fighting the legions of trolls and vandals so much. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First, see my reply to Chris above. Why is it that someone can be "spamming" without knowing it, which I believe is what happened here (and therefore he/she was "acting in good faith"), but I can't be "acting in good faith" by pointing out (what I thought was) his/her error? You again bring up my warning, which is why I ask. It may have appeared curt, but I did say please. Its brevity was purely an attempt at efficiency; I hand out many warnings in a single day, and as far as I know there's no template: suitable for spamming (whether you agree with that verdict or not). Emotions can't be conveyed very well in a text-based medium. Perhaps I should have included a smiley?

The fact that the site was commercial isn't the point, exactly. The point is that the user was adding links to the same site to a number of articles; while it is true that only four links were added at the time of my warning, judging by the scope of the site this user could have conceivably gone on to add many, many more. While I know it's only my testimony, I have seen this happen more than a few times. I was trying to nip the problem (not the user) in the bud rather than have him/her waste his/her time and the time of those maintaining Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could advise me as to exactly how many links qualifies as spam so that I may reserve my apparently rude accusations of "spamming" to cases everyone can agree upon.

And yes, I do apologise for any wrongdoing. I also apologise for getting on your wick with my "threaten to leave if I can't do things my way" post; I don't see that I've made such a post, of course. I didn't say I was going to leave (perhaps stop dedicating huge chunks of my evening, but not leave), and I didn't say I wanted things my way; I just don't like being villanized, and I don't imagine you do either. I welcome disagreement, however. Perhaps there should be a "don't bite the well-intentioned admin" policy, eh? -- Hadal 06:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As the person who posted this comment in the first place, I feel I should address some of the other comments. First of all, I am very glad to see such a great tool on the web such as WikiPedia. Secondly, as a newcomer just learning about it in a magazine article, I was not aware of the differences in attitude towards registered and non-registered folks. As a newcomer, I have to say I was somewhat shocked that someone would call me a "spammer" and accused of posting "self-promotional" links -- it was kind of weird to have a "new message" link pop-up and see that message being new to the site. I feel that some sort of protocol to actually CHECK OUT the links before making those accusations would be helpful. Also, I think there are lots of opinions about what is "educational" or even beneficial to a reader on a certain WikiPedia topic. However, just arbitrarily removing edits without checking them out first is not exactly fair. Legitimate edits and constructive debate about what is best for each article is certainly the reason that WikiPedia is exciting since everyone has input. Lastly, I am sure that Hadal has done good work for Wikipedia and that spammers are a big problem. But please don't automatically lump people who are new to the site and not aware of your policies in the same category as spammers. Thanks for the chance to have some input. PS: I have now created a User Account -- thanks for the tip. Also, one more thing -- thank you to everyone who took time to post to my original post including Hadal. It seems like a great way to overcome differences.

Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Offensive links

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)

Searching within external links

I just removed a bunch of spam links to [2] 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)

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)

External links to H2G2 entries

Recently an anon edited Homeopathy by adding an external link to the H2G2 Edited Guide Entry on the subject. A quick search showed several other places where H2G2 is in the external links. We should certainly keep the ones in the H2G2 article itself; there might be a reason to keep some other particular link (e.g. we might link to an entry on a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy topic if it was written by someone who had a unique personal connection with the subject). Despite these exceptions, I think most of the links should be removed. They don't meet the general standard for external links. Before I remove any of them, though, do people think we should apply a different standard to H2G2, e.g. as a courtesy to a somewhat similar project? JamesMLane 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as it is a similar project in which anyone can write anything, that makes it all the less credible to link to. Unless you want to link to a sepcific revision of the document (if I understand how H2G2 works). Ilyanep (Talk) 12:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would take it strictly on an article-by-article basis. Is that H2G2 article particularly good and relevant? That sort of thing - David Gerard 13:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --bodnotbod 18:25, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'm rather late for this discussion-ette, but I would also like to suggest that linking is restricted to h2g2 articles which have been through the entire review process: only "Edited Guide" articles in other words. --Phil | Talk 09:59, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dmoz links as meta data

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)

Turn Off Linking

Why note just turn off linking to external sites? This is such a major bone of contention why bother anymore. Some users here spend an inordinate amount of their time deleting links which could be better used improving articles. Many new users get accussed of spamming for adding good links (or at least not bad ones) to articles and leave Wikipedia with a bad taste in their mouth. Yes, some links are spam but there is no harm in most of the links which are added and then promptly removed. Why not just stop linking and be done with this issue? If DMOZ links are not good enough to add, I don't know what is.

Links to fan sites?

What's the policy of adding links to related web sites to an article's "External links" section? For example, linking to Pokémon fan sites from the Pokémon article, or Disney fan sites from a Disney article, or Windows discussion boards from a Windows article?

My own opinion is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a link repository, and if we allow a link to one fan site then we're going to have to allow links to every fan site. I figure that a user can use Google if he wants to find related web sites, so I usually delete "External links" to anything other than corporate web sites. If someone really wants to link to his own web site, he can use Yahoo or Dmoz.

The situation which raised this question is that someone edited Windows XP to add a link to his own personal page which has a Windows XP performance guide. I removed it, then he re-added the link. I don't want to get into an edit war with him, so I decided to ask here to find out if there's any official policy on the subject. - Brian Kendig 12:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I vote no fan sites, for the reason you stated and for the fact that this is a good way to increase dead links. For similar reasons I frown on links to news stories about the topic. External links should only be to primary sources, or extensive background information not easily available elsewhere. - DavidWBrooks 13:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have many answers for you, but I tend to think there is not enough of a policy. I recently posted at Wikipedia talk:External links#More restrictive policy on external linking with some ideas for a start of a better policy on external linking. I don't think fan sites or personal web pages should be allowed as external links unless the article specifically makes reference to them for some reason. Maybe we should begin to hammer out a policy on this to stop wikipedia from becoming a collection of links. —siro χ o 13:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot (too many?) fan sites from Ken Jennings also. A page can easily get overwhelmed by fan sites, but one or two well-done fan sites can be helpful. Salasks 13:10, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are cases when fan-sites are big/good enough to justify linking to them. I've noticed this with tv shows/movies, where the official site is little more than an ad and the best fan sites have voluminous information about the subject.

It looks like the link in question is one for "Optimize XP", a website so personal that it's hosted on comcast's free user web space. Removing that one from Windows XP is pretty much a no-brainer. So I removed it. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My solution when faced with a multitude of fan sites on Lucy Lawless was to remove them all and replace them with a single link to the Lucy Lawless webring. --ALargeElk | Talk 13:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The answer is to be reasonable. If there are only three or four sites findable on the web pertinent to an article, and all of them are fan sites, then linking to them all is reasonable. If there are twenty or thirty pertinent sites then use judgement and link to the best ones, just as in an article on an historical figure, you would link to web pages that were most useful in respect to that article, regardless of whether a page happened to be on a university website or was a good discussion or essay on someone's personal website. You don't have to include everything. On many subjects there are often a few large websites that themselves provide many other links and in those cases linking to those sites alone is often the correct answer.

That Wikipedia is not a link repositary should not be taken to mean that an article should not sometimes include a large number of links to further information. Wikipedia is not a bibliography, but articles may sometimes contain extensive bibliographies, extensive selected bibliographies. Only including corporate websites has certainly never been Wikipedia policy. Such a policy would be very wrong-headed for articles I tend to edit and write. If an individual website on free user web space contains excellent material concerning the topic of any article that is not just rewording of material duplicated elsewhere on the web, then it should be linked to.

The question one should ask is what degree of extra benefit does the link provide to people reading the article who want more information. An article should contain the best and most useful links that can be found, just as it contains the best and most useful information, regardless of origin. Select links for an article just as you would select facts for an article. Obscure facts not generally known are sometimes what makes an article especially valuable. Similarly, if you find an excellent, obscure web page on any subject, linking to that page provides far more value to a Wikipedia user than does linking to well-known pages near the top of Google's search on a topic which the user would also easily find in a Google search. If a user comes out of an article thinking that the links were excellent, especially if they pointed to good material that the user would not have easily found otherwise, then the links were well chosen. Whether they are links to personal websites, hobbiest websites, academic websites, corporate websites, political propaganda websites, fan websites ... all that is secondary.

Jallan 18:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with fan sites, as long as they are decent. Like, in an extreme case, some pervert might place a "fan site" for, say, Hilary Duff and it could actually contain a fixed photo of a girl naked with Hil's face pasted on, well that would be a little troubling and not of our standard. Like it has been said beforem a few well done and well meaning fan sites are ok to keep. Besides, another thing is that we also have links to the celebrity's own websites, and they obviously use their official websites to glorify themselves too.

"Antonio The Crusher Martin"

It appears the consensus is to allow links to multiple fan sites. This seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the current phrasing of allow a link to ONE fan site. What is there are two that both claim to be the biggest? Do we engage in an endless tug of war? Either you allow both or neither. Not "one".

Linking to gameinfo wiki

Hey, a few days ago I started the gameinfo wiki, which is small and humble right now but will grow with time. The aim is to compile data on every game ever made (concentrating on computer and video games, but we may expand from there), similar to GameFAQs, but it's a wiki, and each game will have only one guide for simplicity. Should I or should I not link to gameinfo for articles relevant to a game? For instance, should Civilization computer game contain a link to http://moinmoin.riters.com/gameinfo/index.cgi/PC/Civ as an external link? - Furrykef 23:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea at the moment, as there really isn't much content to the current entries on gameinfo yet. Perhaps when and if it gets established, and produces good quality entries that complement wikipedia, providing information that we don't have in wikipedia then it might be worth a link. In any case, as and when gameinfo is in a position to provide worthwhile links, I think we should decide on a case by case basis, whether a particular game wants a link to gameinfo.

What if I restrict it only to games that have guides or other substantial information? - Furrykef 18:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If there are pages with substantial amounts of (good quality) information then I'd be more happy with links to gameinfo. I've had a look at a few guides, and they look like they rather good, although I'm not really familiar with the games in particular, so It's hard to judge.

Where there is good information as those seem to be, then it's probably worth linking, but again, I think these should be judged individually.

If you link because of the guide, then I think a direct link to the guide would be better than a link to the main game page. Silverfish 12:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, each game should have a guide -- eventually. I don't consider the guide anything special except that it's likely to have more content than any other kind of game information with the possible exception of reviews. I'd prefer to link to the game page itself for the "chat" and "review" links, not to mention the game description (which may well include something the Wikipedia entry does not, like a game excerpt), publication data, etc... - Furrykef 19:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

DMOZ/Open Directory Project links

Moved from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

An anon user (many IPs) has been adding DMOZ directory links to many many articles. This spam is often to DMOZ directory links that don't exist. Sometimes google, yahoo, and looksmart directories are also linked in order to create a "directory links" section in the articles. Examining each one you find they provide no useful content but are just link directories. I suspect that this anon user is trying to google-bomb or just promote the DMOZ website. - Tεx τ urε 16:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nearly every major article has a DMOZ directory link (not all work). Somehow we missed someone inserting advertising into every single topic to mere directory links. - Tεx τ urε 17:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have found 114 articles with links to this yahoo-like directory listing. There are probably more. I don't think we need to advertise for them anymore. I did not include articles relating to the DMOZ project. - Tεx τ urε 18:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think necessarily that this is vandalism per se on many articles. I've looked at some of the dmoz links and many of them were put up by registered users who've done much other work. I think simply that dmoz being a big collaborative project, there are a lot of dmoz contributors or users who edit here and link to relevant dmoz categories. —Morven 21:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I could not think of a better place to list it. Many recent additions are from anon users. Perhaps a partnership link (something similar to language links) would be more appropriate than external links if we really want to give DMOZ this exceptional status? - Tεx τ urε 21:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of some of the articles? Rick K 05:10, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've re-added most of the links to Yahoo and ODP, where they had a reasonable number of links. Smaller categories and some of Looksmart ones I left. Incidentally, this is a completely inappropriate place to discuss the merits of including links to directories. Markalexander100 05:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With all respect, it's a bit rich to be putting DMOZ here and calling it spam. They're already the largest directory on the net, with far more hits than Wikipedia. In many cases, they're very good resources. Of course, not all categories are suitable, but it makes sense to judge them on their merits. Don't judge the lot because of some overzealous anon. Ambi 06:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

DMOZ/Open Directory Project categories are often very useful, and often remove the need for lots of external links. Their content is available under a royalty-free licence with few restrictions [3], so their mission is reasonably compatible with that of Wikipedia. -- The Anome 13:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, they now list Wikipedia as a sister site at the bottom of each page. Methinks this'll help our PageRank against the clones, too. Ambi 02:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can I spam my links all over your site please?

Do you we have a standard letter anywhere for saying no to the above question? I keep getting requests for "link exchange" and we don't seem to have any page I can just send people to other than What Wikipedia is not which mentions Wikipedia is not a collection of links, but that's not really the same thing. Angela . 20:04, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I just had a nice discussion with someone from GenomeNewsNetworks, who thought he was doing is a favour by linking through countless pages. My answer is here and can be adapted. My basic points are:

Wikipedia is about content, not where to get lots of information that may (or may not) be relevant to the subject. For this we have Google.
Not all links are relevant to the article, and it takes a long time to verify this - editors have better things to do.
The articles are often better served if the relevant information is parsed into the article text, with the external link maximally as a reference.

JFW | T@lk 21:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good example of where the question has been answered before. Perhaps expanding the FAQ might be a good place to put this if it doesn't exist elsewhere. Angela . 00:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

"External link" versus "External links"

I have seen this topic mentioned here and there on Wikipedia, but wonder if there is a recommended standard for this situation. I would like to know whether the "External links" header should be in singular or plural form when there is only one external link. I have come across many articles that use the singular form in this situation, and fewer that use the plural form. Personally, I have been using singular form, but I think that the plural form might be better for consistancy's sake, as well as encourage the future addition of more external links.

It should be "External links". Using "External link" somewhat implies there can only be one external link. Besides as you say consistancy, just like always using "References" even if there is only one reference. —Mike 05:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The actual article contradicted what you wrote, and what I have seen as the actual practice here for the last year and a half. It was changed by an anonymous user less than a month ago, so I changed it back. Now another editor reverted my change claiming that "the 4 months it was there" (?!) means it must be policy, ignoring the much longer time it wasn't there. I personally suspect it's that people missed it. DreamGuy 22:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've put in yet another version, noting simply that different editors do it different ways. I don't think we've yet had a knock-down, drag-out battle, with a vote and an array of comments, to establish a policy on this subject. JamesMLane 23:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we please being a knock-down drag-out battle on this subject? "External link" irks me. L upin 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel just the opposite. "External links" sections with only one link irk me. It is not good grammar. As an encyclopedia, we should use good grammar. The name of a section is as easily modified as the contents of he section. There is no reason to not use good grammar. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Persoanlly i always use the plural form, and will change the singular form to the plural when i am editing a page which uses the sigular form, for both External links and References. There ought to be more than one in a well developed article, so using the plural encourages adding more. And haveing only a single standard wording acn make searches easier, and adds to teh consistancy of the look of wikipedia articles. DES ^(talk) 13:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

- I do the exact opposite, changing the section heading to match its contents. Good grammar encourages users to use good grammar. Bad grammar encourages sloppy article writing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

"External links" with only one link makes my eyes bleed. Stewart Adcock 18:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that External links is incorrect when there's only one link. Headlines often don't follow the strict rules of grammar that running text should. It's reasonable to think of the headline External links as being shorthand for The set of external links, or The section where external links are displayed, in which case the plural form is correct regardless of the number of links that actually exist in the set. Same with things like References, Table of Contents (would you call it Table of Content if there was only one entry?), etc. As an example, the New York Times has a section called Automobiles. Today's paper has but a single article in that section. Would you have them change the section head to Automobile when this happens? Likewise, would you have the Sports section change its name to Sport on those days when every article is about baseball? --RoySmith 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that External links (and References) with only one link should be changed to the singular form because it's correct grammar. We don't use plurals for other things where we should (and do) use singulars just because "people might add something to it later" now do we? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure we do (use plural when there's only one thing). A couple of examples:
- Vatican City, the Official languages box lists only Latin. In fact, I'd venture a guess that for most countries, there's only a single official language, yet the template still says languages, plural.
- Category:150 deaths has only a single item in it.

What makes those work is that, in general, countries have some number of official languages, and years have some number of people who died that year. The fact that those two examples happen to only have a single entry doesn't matter much. It's the same thing with "External links". In general, there are some number of external links for an article. On occasion, an article will have exactly one, but that doesn't mean the name of the section should change.

There's another reason, that that's because sections of articles are linkable, and you don't want bookmarks to go stale. Let's say I save a bookmark (or make a wikilink, or deep-link from another web site) to Elbonian toenail clippings#External link and then later somebody comes along and adds another one and changes the section title to External links. My bookmark/wikilink/deep-link is now broken. We get away with renaming articles because a rename generates a redirect to keep old links from going stale. No such mechanism exists with section titles --RoySmith 21:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point RoySmith. I think that changing things to "External link" is wrong because it is a section heading--the name of a section should define what it to be found in a section (here, a collection of external links, which sometimes only consists of one link). ~MDD 46 96 17:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm firmly in the "External links" camp as well, and since there's no consensus as to what's correct, anyone who changes "External links" to "External link" (unless they're also removing links and leaving just one), is committing the same type of act as someone who changes spelling from British to American or vice versa. -- OsgoodeLawyer 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to "factually inaccurate" pages

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. [4] Two other veterans both said they were there and Schachte wasn't. [5] 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)

Absent any defense of the item I disputed, I've removed it. JamesMLane 20:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Forum/tutorial links

This is kind of along the lines of fansite links... I have been removing forum and tutorial links from Maya (software) (old revision), as I feel they fall along the same lines as fansite links. I think tutorial links are inappropriate because they are not applicable to the average encyclopedia user. Just as we wouldn't put tutorials in the text, they shouldn't be in the external links section. A lot of the same applies to forums. In this specific case, the forum is more like a tutorial site than a discussion forum, but I think that discussion forums aren't really appropriate, either.

Basically, I feel that external links should be primarily informational and aimed at the average encyclopedia reader, with the exception being "official websites" (but most of those have informational content anyway).

– flamurai (t) 17:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Forums\fancites\blogs, etc.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Linking to sites with illegal content

Greets. I've been working on a page about a television show here that contains external links and I have a question. Someone keeps coming by once a week or so and creating a link to their site which hosts illegal downloads of the show's episodes. I feel that a link to this site is wrong and have removed the link when I see it.

I'm troubled though that I do not see any mention of a policy like this within Wikipedia. Am I missing it? Or does Wikipedia turn a blind eye towards questionable sites? (Not complaining about that. Even I have found the site useful in the past but I feel promoting it is wrong.)

Thanks.

on Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works it says Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. That would seem to cover the case at hand, as "illegal" downloads are copyvios. Other kinds of illegal content might be another matter. DES 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

search engines

I would like to list search results pages in the "Don't link to" category. Occasionally, we have articles that link to a google search (or google news search) on the topic. I consider this a "half-digested" external link. We use external links to provide our readers a service of more stuff they can find. If we can't take the time to go through the search and figure out which websites are worth looking at, I think we just shouldn't bother. DanKeshet 20:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Speciallized searches, for example, to a topic within a particular domain name, can produce good results that a casual searcher may not find. This is especially true for the mention of a topic within a particularly lengthy web page, or for recurrent mentions of a topic in a periodical with specialized interest in that topic. DJ Silverfish 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can see that. I still feel like it's better if we can extract from that the useful results, but that's okay. Could we write this up in the guide? DanKeshet 21:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

External links as semi-poliy/guideline

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)

External links to sites that violate copyright

A number of sites provide scads of "etexts" in violation of the Berne Convention, copyright law in the nation where the servers of the linked site are located, and copyright law in the US (where WP's servers are located) — at least according to my understanding of (a) copyright terms as summarized here and (b) the facts of publication.

If we may put aside copyright considerations, these sites are certainly useful. But may we put them aside? Obvious options include:

Linking as usual
Linking with a warning about copyright
Not linking

Comments? -- Hoary 02:43, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

How bad of a problem is this on the Wikipedia? Do you have any examples? I know that I've run across some of those sites doing standard Google searches, and almost all of the websites I've seen appear to be in Russian. On the other hand, I have not run across any links to any of those websites on the Wikipedia. My own opinion is that if I ever did run across any links for one of those websites, I would probably just delete it, even if there is no specific policy against them. BlankVerse ∅ 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's a useful external link I'm all for them; the legal issues are for the site operator. If DeCSS-style "illegal to link" things prop up we'll get a cease-and-desist first anyway and we can decide whether we're legally obliged to remove the link then. --W(t) 11:49, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding. An example is the link to "Moshkow's site" from Vladimir Nabokov: see the history from 14 June (don't worry, only three edits so far) and "Copyright of Nabokov's works" within -- and now at the foot of -- its talk page. (I had been about to respond to this, but thought I should first look for some policy statement, and when there wasn't one I wrote this comment here and another at the "pump" and then forgot the VN talk page where the issue came up.)

Another example would be the link to orwell.ru at the foot of George Orwell: in partial contrast, Orwell's works are in the public domain in Russia, and elsewhere; but they're still not in the PD in, say, the EU and the US. -- Hoary 06:28, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Legally, at least for the web version, there is no real problem, thanks to OCILLA. The print version may require stricter standards if linking can be considered aiding (which I don't think has been tested). Deco 22:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The OCILLA will only protect Wikipedia. It won't protect individual editors. And under U.S. case law, linking to a site that you know or should know contains infringing material constitutes contributory infringement. Postdlf 28 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works it says Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Are you arguing for a change in that guideline? DES 5 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Policy of where external links should be

Is there a policy about where external links should be? I prefer to have all external links near the bottom under = = External links = =, and not in the body of the article, although the article can say "see external link". Bubba73 04:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the best link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

Also, see Wikipedia:External links:

I almost always put them in the External links section, unless it is a reference to some obscure fact in which case I may include an inline numbered link that just shows up as [1].

Spalding 11:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

thank you! Bubba73 18:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Attack sites

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)

"Official website" ?

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)

InterWiki v. External links

How does one determine the difference between Interwiki links and External links? The crux of my question regards the Glen Cook Wikipedia entry. I have set up an extensive MediaWiki-based Glen Cook wiki with detailed breakdown and analysis of the series, books, characters, and locales of this author's works. The page here has only a listing of titles. I would like to make InterWiki links from those titles, and series titles, to my wiki - but do not want to fly in the face of the 'no self-promotion' and 'limited external links' rules, especially since Interwiki links do NOT show up as "external" links. Since Wikipedia's policies tend to shy away from fictional character breakdowns and plot summaries, I thought it best to have a seperate site for this, rather than creating articles in Wikipedia itself. Please let me know your thoughts. GuruBuckaroo 05:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been about 48 hours since I posed this question, both here and on the talk page of the article in question. Noone has responded. I'm going to go ahead and put in the links.

Here's my rationale: As I interpret it, the rule on 'fansites' is that they are discouraged. However, since the site I'm linking to is a wiki, it falls into the 'more detail' category, and is updatable just like Wikipedia itself. If the powers that be feel that this is still inappropriate, please feel free to revert the changes out, and contact me to clarify. GuruBuckaroo 02:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Potemkin villages

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

Critical Reviews vs. Commercial Interest

Is there a definite consensus on what Wikipedia's policy is regarding linking to professional reviews? There is a quasi-policy listed under the Maybe section of the external links style guide. We've been having a discussion about how to handle external links on the WikiProject Albums talk page. My goal is to help Wikipedia avoid becoming a marketing arm of any particular online record store. I feel that review links should point to an objective, authoritative source that doesn't derive revenue from album sales. If a source like that cannot be found, then I think Wikipedia should forego using links to reviews. I'd like to hear thoughts on this topic. --Chevan 21:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

links to non-English websites?

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)

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)

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)

Thanks Shiroi Hane 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's the best place to apply for assistance with this situation? Shiroi Hane 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns that this policy can be interpreted to justify abuse of wikipedia

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)

Are Yahoo-groups legitimate links?

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)

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)

New propositions

User:Fadix/EL

I've done several changes, but mostly added. I want to discuss about many issues about this article, but I think, it is better to start, by letting others read my changes, and having their input. Regards.

Foreign-language external links

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

Template:Es icon Profile at the Colegio Nacional of Mexico.

I'm perfectly OK with the new wording, but I think Template:Es icon is unnecessarily cryptic, while "in Spanish" is perfectly clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

When I started writing articles for wikipedia I always used (in Spanish) for Spanish-language links. I observed that someone changed "(in Spanish)" for Template:Es icon. 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 Template:Es icon was created for this sole purpose, so I am assume that it will keep catching on. --Vizcarra 03:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

The icon is CRYPTIC, CLUMSY and was REJECTED @ Commons since June 2005 [6]. 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)

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 Template:Es icon, 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)

Would it be asking too much to suggest that we adopt some standards on style for describing external links to foreign-language articles? I have no problem with using this icon in addition to comprehensible text, but I don't see how it usefully replaces comprehensible text. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps there should be a template {{linklanguage|Spanish}} 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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually I wanted a list of all templates for languages like this Template:Es icon and this Template:De icon Smartech 23:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Open Directory Project has a rule that the English directory only lists websites in English, and foreign language websites have to be listed in the language-appropriate directory. In other words, Spanish-language websites could be listed on the Spanish Wikipedia articles, but not on English Wikipedia articles. Obviously there will be some exceptions. It seems pointless to me to have English readers sent to non-English external websites.--Tdkehoe 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking uncited books for sale (linkspam or not)

I have recently removed a number of links by Special:Contributions/203.122.53.88 as they all link to books published by packetpub.com. At RSS, this is now on beginning 3rd revert (I'm leaving the link for now). My questions lies in two places.

Should the book be cited as a Further reading reference?
Should the book be deleted as advertising, even though the subject is the article.

The links added by 203.122.53.88 obviously commercially promotes packtpub.com (violates What_should_not_be_linked_to)... but the links are relevent to the articles. What_should_be_linked_to #3; states that, If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.

How do we differ between notable books for sale and the amazon.com catalog in External links?

Move to Further reading, or delete as linkspam (refering the offendor to what written guideline?) ∴ here…♠ 11:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretty blatant spamming. The "book or other text that is the subject of the article" means if the article is about a book itself, then you should link to the book if it's available online. So, for example, if there's an article about Moby-Dick and it's available online for free somewhere, link to it (probably on Gutenberg or the commons). That line does not mean link to a website selling some book that happens to cover the topic. If the topic is physics we can't like to every book on physics that ever existed, and if someone linked to just some physics book for sale, that's not helpful to readers in the slightest.

I've gone and removed the other links the person put in. He should be blocked as an unrepetant spammer if he continues, because the only edits this person has made is linking to the same site selling different books. Those contributions are just leeching off of Wikipedia with the hope of receiving monetary gain, they are not assisting in the creation of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy 12:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

For books which are not available online but which do have an ISBN, the ISBN link serves as a way to find the book instead of defined links. Indeed, the {{book reference}} template only has a URL for an online book and not an ordering link. Irrelevant books or spammed ones should be removed. Spamming behavior carries an implication of irrelevancy, although sometimes justified enthusiasm has a similar appearance. (SEWilco 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

I agree. There is a big difference between a link to a book that is actually online (say, Thinking in Java), vs. a link to a page that describes how to buy a book that is sitting on a shelf somewhere. If the book is notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it, and the book is online, then please make the article link to the book. If the link is irrelevant to the article, please remove it. (Is a link listing hardware stores relevant to the hammer article?) --70.189.75.148 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Books whose text is not available free online should be linked using the ISBN mechanism, which directs the user to a variety of book resources including libraries and bookstores. In all but (at most) a handful of cases, in-print books that lack ISBNs aren't notable and don't bear mention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Wikiproject:External links

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. --Kmf164 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions about two recent edits

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)

I agree. I prefer strong references over weak references, but I prefer a citation to a weak source of information over no citation at all (implying original research). So I restored the "Intellectual honesty" sentence. --70.189.75.148 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Precedents and policy

There is a discussion going on at Talk:MMR vaccine about the suitability for inclusion of a particularly rabid website propagating the views of one conspiracy theorist vis a vis the vaccine debate. It is currently on RFC for same.

I think it's vitally important that this policy is reviewed to deal with such discussions. With Wikipedia becoming a force in public information, many individuals seek attention to themselves or organisations by putting links on pages.

There is good grounds to say that a view that is not mentioned specifically in the article because it is too fringe (see WP:NPOV) also does not merit inclusion into "external links". Or, rather: NPOV should also apply to external links, and links should have a description that mirrors a link's POV. JFW | T@lk 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does apply to the listing of links, but not necessarily the content of sites at the other end of the links. And most definitely all links should have accurate descriptions on them, which would have to follow the NPOV of the rest of the article. DreamGuy

My problem here is the use of external links as offsite POV forks. This happens from time to time, the above being an example. Extremes in the continuum of opinion, or opinions which are clearly of no real merit (I waas going to say as a hypothetical example adding a link to a "young earth" website to an article on dinosaurs, but that is scarily plausible!), which would of themselves not merit inclusion in the 'pedia, can be pushed via external links. As a rule of thumb, I would say that an external link which explains a POV which is discussed in detail in the article, but which does not of itself warrant a separate article, is usually OK, but it is hard to word this clause so as to prevent the real fruitcakes from exploiting the guidelines. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we just restrict linking?

Actually, it's hard to understanf the policy when the article contains external links to different sites with unique or maybe not unique content and it's ok. But when a new link is added to a site with absolutely uniques content, it's considered spamming and is removed. If one sees links to poor sites, to commercial sites etc., and then, after adding his one he is named "spammer" then, why isn't it better just restrict external linking at all?

Articles about websites

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 [7] 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)

I think that your suggestion makes some sense, although we aren't a web directory and don't want to become one. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree and prefer links at the bottom. Inline links break the flow of the text, as said distracting readers, and just doesn't look right to me. Also, I think we should aim for consistency in style across articles — having links in the bottom section. --Kmf164 04:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to product manufacturers

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)

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. --Kmf164 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

WP:V citations

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

External linking to Flash, Java, etc

One of the rules explicitly states that this should NOT be done. I'm wondering why this is the case. I understand that many users have low-speed connections or will not want to access a page that features external apps, but as long as this is explicitly delineated in the external link description, I don't see why this would be a problem. Can't users simply opt to avoid those sites on their own? I'm admittedly relatively new to the editting scene, so if this question is extremely n00bish, I apologize in advance. Hinotori 14:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a relatively rare Flash sites that actually merit a link, but (for example) similar issues come up a lot with PDFs. If it is in the External links at the bottom of an article, I usually do something like:

Berkowitz, Joel, Avrom Goldfaden and the Modern Yiddish Theater: The Bard of Old Constantine (PDF), Pakn Treger, no. 44, Winter 2004, 10-19.

This reduces the chance that someone clicks on the link and then wonders why the heck their browser freezes for three minutes.

There is no easy way to do an equivalen with an inline link without inserting something ugly in the article; one more argument for footnotes and "references" sections rather than inline links. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In some *rare* cases, I think Flash (or Java) can be used effectively.

One of my favorite websites http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm demonstrates the dynamic implementation of a treemap, based on Google News.
Also, how about, What is a Print? - from the Museum of Modern Art.
And, as a Cartographer, Flash can be an effective tool for creating interactive/animated web-maps, as it affords much higher resolution and capabilities for vector data.

All that said, 99% of the time[8] , Flash is used ineffectively or inappropriately. Wikipedia doesn't need to link to those sites.

I suggest we either

Leave the External links guidelines as-is, and just handle the few exceptions on a case-by-case basis, or
Add something to the "What might be okay" to clarify the guidelines and what exceptions might be. And, as Jmabel says, be sure to note that the link requires Flash, uses Java, is a PDF, or whatever, when listing in the external links.

--Kmf164 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Much appreciated. Personally, I agree with Kmf164 and lean towards option #2. However, although useful flash external links are rare, I don't think they're *that* rare. For example, I've come across several topics where flash as an artwork is, itself, the subject of related controversy or attention. An example is the "Ebaumsworldsucks" flash which became very prominent. Again, as long as the user knows in advance what the link contains, I don't see a problem. I think there are enough uses for such links to warrant a clarification in the guidelines. My two (four? five? more?) cents. Cheers. -- Hinotori 05:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to collections of photos

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. ^Blank ^Verse 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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. --Kmf164 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I kind of like these links, if the site linked to is good. Often, these lead to an extensive set of images to which we could not legitimately claim fair use. I've found these particularly useful in geographical articles, to give a sense of what the place actually looks like. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Jmabel! I have been working on a bunch of articles on Mexican archaeological sites and, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I don't feel right grabbing a photo off someone's personal website to insert into the article, I have had zero luck asking them to upload (no responses whatsoever), and the chances of me getting down there are remote (about as remote as some of these sites are). And in no case would I be able to put more than a few photos into the article.

So I may link to a quality "here are my vacation photos" site. These are not commercial sites and they usually offer lots of photos, some with the vacationers in them (which are really good for getting a scale of the ruins, stelae, etc.). And, best of all, they give a feel for the place that no amount of verbiage could evoke. Madman 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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? --Kmf164 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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. --Kmf164 01:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I always consider commercialism a strike against any site. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dead external links

The section What can be done with a dead external link should cover how to determine that a link is dead. A server might be temporarily down. A link to http://www.electionworld.org/unitedstates.htm is in the external links section of Elections_in_the_United_States but it's been dead for several days. It's not in the Internet Archive for 2005, but the page was indexed by Google on December 9th. To complicate things more, I added a link to my website in the external links section, so I'm reluctant to delete the Electionworld link. I don't want to look like I'm deleting the competition. -Barry- 07:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the Electionworld link is down longterm; you might ask User:Electionworld.

As for how dead links in general, the most comprehensive discussion is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link .22goes_dead.22, but that doesn't really address how you tell if it's dead, either. When I encounter a seemingly dead link I think would be worth keeping it it "revives", I usually put in an HTML comment about it; if I come back to it more than a week later and it's still dead, I usually cut it (unless it's used as a reference, in which case see the "Citing Sources" link I just mentioned). If I think it really would be worth recovering if at all possible, I put something on the talk page. I'd be interested in hearing what others do before we say that on the project page, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to add a similar recommendation to the project page, or to one of the general Wikipedia sections for site-wide changes, if nobody responded. I think a special tag would be good for this, and a special page listing what articles need to be re-checked for broken links, but a regular comment will do for now. I would give a dead link about five days before removing it. The initial comment about a newly discovered dead link should mention the date that it was discovered to be dead, and others who check it can add their time and date stamp and mention whether the link worked. The comments should remain for a while even if the link starts working because a very unstable website should have that held against it. -Barry- 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

authors

If the subject of the article is an author, is it inappropriate to link to the author's articles? This is the article I'm referring to. — goethean ॐ 17:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That list was just excessive... DreamGuy 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In this example, I think the links are too much. A list of books is okay, and maybe articles in scholarly journals or other very well-known and notable publications. http://www.vegetarianfriends.net/ isn't notable and this particular list of articles is too excessive. Better yet, is a link to the author's C.V. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Internet ranking

I would like to propose adding the following to the "What should not be linked to" section: "If the domain is not one of the top 100,000 websites, as determined by the Alexa Internet ranking, then the content on that site may be indistinguishable from original research. Links to websites without significant traffic should be discouraged when alternative resources are available." Any objections/feedback/thoughts? --Arcadian 12:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong objection: many authoritative sites have low Alexa rankings because they are not of general interest. For example, an academic site dedicated to 19th century Yiddish-language literature is not going to have a high Alexa ranking, nor is the official site of a small town in Colombia. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

True enough. What should, I think, be said is that before adding a link you should check to see if it is a good and widely recognised authority for that particular point of view (and preferably the best and most widely recognised). If it is the sole authority, or if there are already links to sites covering the same material, take it to the talk page first. Some pages have truly insane numbers of links, probably because they have crept past the Spam Event Horizon. Some articles appear to be little more than link farms! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel, that we can't limit sites to the top 100,000 (or any set limit). For more obscure, specialized topics, there might not be websites that are ranked in the top 100,000. For more notable topics, I prefer reputable links that rank well in Alexa and Google (there are always exceptions), but also judged reputable with many other criteria and by consensus of editors of the particular article in question. Though, in cleaning external links, (say a list of 50 links), a higher Alexa ranking is one indication that a website is reputable and should be kept. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we all actually are almost completely in agreement with each other (but forgive me if I'm putting words in anybody's mouth.) I think we all agree that terrible Alexa rankings are not a problem for obscure topics, but that they should be avoided when sites with much better Alexa rankings are available. Does somebody want to try coming up with a sentence that captures that? --Arcadian 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt that sites with "better" Alexa rankings are at all likely to be better sources even if the articles are on the same topic. Encyclopedia Mythica, for example, is quite popular with a lot of traffic but has very poor information. In academic topics, at least, worse Alexa ratings could very easily (I almost said "almost always are") be much better sources. True academic scholarly sites are not going to be the popular ones that people with the Alexa toolbar installed fo see, largely from Google ranking bias (going to ones that are already popular) and from the bias towards entertaining sites instead of scholarly ones. Any attempt to link quality of sources solely to Alexa ratings should be resisted most strenuously. Alexa, on the other hand, does provide a resaonable guide for determing popularity. DreamGuy 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of Alexa rankings is just *one* quantitative factor, among many. For more obscure or academic topics, good external sources indeed might not rank highly in Alexa. Comparing links on one article to another is like apples to oranges. Rather, I use Alexa to help compare a list of links on one particular article on a more popular topic such as Podcasting, where excessive links are a problem. I also might look at del.icio.us to see if the site has been bookmarked. Of course, subjective jugdment if the quality of the site is most important, as is adherance to the external links guidelines. Finally, I'll defer to the consensus of editors of the particular article in question. I think the key in what Jmabel says is "Links to websites without significant traffic should be discouraged when alternative resources are available". -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merely having an alternative that has more traffic doesn't mean the site is any better or more authoritative or reliable. If you are just picking a link for a fan site, fine, Alexa is useful there, but if it's a quality of information question Alexa should be a negative indicator, as the kinds of people using the Alexa toolbar and the sites they go to are completely different. DreamGuy 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with linking to OR. Rich Farmbrough. 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sites selling products (or services)

I propose changing "Sites that primarily exist to sell products.", listed under "What should not be linked to", to:

"Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."

I was just about to revert Findbgs's adding of a tour operator site to Grand Canyon, [[9]], and refer them to the External links guidelines. Though, the guidelines don't explicitly include "sites that primarily exist to sell services".

Seems logical to me to make this change, but I want to suggest it here first. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 04:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Logical and uncontroversial -- go for it. DreamGuy 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Made the change, though I don't mind further discussion here if others wish. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 04:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On this topic - how do we determine if a site exists to sell products or services or has objectionable amounts of advertising? I'm having a debate with another editor over a link to the following site [10] from the Female Bodybuilding page. To me this site is a corporate online magazine that relies heavily on web traffic to pay for advertising and for conversions to sales of videos and memberships http://www.ftvideo.com/videos/VIDEO_FRONT.htm. Adding a Wikipedia link will increase this site's search engine ranking and indirectly increase the revenue the site can generate. The link has been removed in the past, yet is being consistantly re-inserted into the article. I think the site does have valuable material, however I don't think it contains anything that can't be added to the current article. Thoughts? Yankees76 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the actual URL linked to on the Female Bodybuilding page is http://www.ftvideo.com/genex_FRONT.htm, not http://www.ftvideo.com/videos/VIDEO_FRONT.htm. Also, this issue is already being discussed on the Female Bodybuilding talk page. fbb_fan 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate marketing

Is there a policy concerning external links that contain relevant content but also include affiliate links (e.g., Amazon Associates links to products)? This could be construed as borderline linkspam, especially if the link is being added by the website owner. --Muchness 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

At What should not be linked to, point #2 is "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates.". Some judgement is involved of course, but if ads are prominent (for example, a signal-to-noise ratio of worse than ten-to-one), it is usually appropriate to remove the link. --Arcadian 16:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate links should never be allowed, period. If the link somehow makes good encyclopedic sense, make sure it goes direct to the source instead of through an affiliate link. The affiliate code itself is always spam, no matter what, because it is someone diverting a link through an extra hop in the hopes of that person making money. DreamGuy 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What's a good way to respond?

I'm tired of getting into the same long drawn-out discussion every time I remove fan sites and promotional links from an article, and somebody reverts and says "external links are useful, WP:NOT only says that links shouldn't dwarf an article and these don't, I like links to forums and fan sites and related products, I don't want to have to use an open directory because those have crap links." Until the guidelines are rewritten to be more clear against these things, I could use some suggestions for effective ways to respond to these arguments. - Brian Kendig 15:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Try "Encyclopedia vs. Web directory" --Pjacobi 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to MP3s

Is a link to a highly relevant MP3 a violation of Wikipedia's rules? In this case, I am referring to a link to a radio interview given by the subject of an article. It was removed because the link required an MP3 player. Thoughts? 38.2.108.125 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to, which specifically includes "Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content". I would consider an MP3 player to be an "external application". —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Even pdfs? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think external links to formats requiring external apps are acceptable in a References section to substantiate information in the article. But they should be avoided in the External links section, unless we're linking to the subject's official site. --Muchness 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of pdfs, if they are used as reference then I think they are okay, provided that it's noted with the link that it's a pdf file. Better yet, is a link to an html page, which in turn provides the media links. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of the style guideline which says that "rich media" should not be linked to? Seems pretty daft to me - sometimes the best online resource will not be HTML or plain text. Lupin|talk|popups 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. See my other comment with respect to Java, Flash, etc. However this isn't to say that I don't also see other potential problems. Particularly in the case of MP3s, there may be intellectual property issues. Would it be defensible to link to a MP3 of a substantial reading from a popular novel such as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, or a copy of the single of Good Vibrations? MP3s of works released on free licenses or released into the public domain, where relevant to the subject, should always be acceptable, however, though I would prefer that local copies of such works be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons for this purpose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the external applications clause should be replaced with a follow-up note, something like: "Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content should only be linked to if they qualify under the 'What should be linked to' criteria and no HTML alternatives are available." --Muchness 14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Added to policy - your own website

I boldly added "your own website" into things not to link to. Please review and revert if you believe this is not widely accepted as consensus already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

While "# Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming." seems to cover this, I think it's fine to say it twice to emphasize it. And, how you say it sounds more straightforward. I hate spam and dealing with external links. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument I would present - if you did not agree with the inclusion - is that links added to promote is a motive-oriented question vs. "do not add your page, propose it on talk" which is a rock-solid "don't do it." If people believe it is ever appropriate to link your own site as opposed to asking someone else on the talk page of the article in question to link your site, then that person should revert my change and we can discuss it here. This is the same construction that we ask for people on their biographies, and it works fine there. It's a "presumption of guilt," I suppose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wholly sure I understand your perspective here, Hipcrite; are you saying that you think the talk-page-first proposal is right or wrong? - JzG 17:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you should never link to your own website - that there is the presumption of guilt. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I completely agree. - JzG 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Never is a bit strong. Obviously, there do exist some web links that are valid. Thus, we might be invoking the genetic fallacy here. For instance, suppose a non-owner of the web page adds link X. The link could in principle be a valid addition. Now suppose the actual owner proposes the same web page. Under Hipocrite's plan, the web page now cannot possibly be added, even though we are dealing with the exact same web page. So now we're judging the link based on the person who adds it rather than the actual web page itself (confer ad hominem fallacy). Discussing whether to include the link in the talk section seems like a more logical policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is afraid the above is a principled critique, Talk:Ontological_argument. If the owner of the website can't convince any regular editor that his website is interesting, perhaps it's not. Please review policy as it is currently written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are always some exceptions to the "what should not be linked" guidelines, such as some legitimate Flash, Java content sites that I'm sure are linked on Wikipedia. Maybe these should be suggested on the talk page too? And if the consensus of editors of that article agree, then the exception can be made. Maybe never is a bit too strong? But, I'd rather err towards the language being too strong (and providing some way to allow some exceptions to the guidelines). I think it merits more discussion on finding the best way to discourage linking to one's own site, while allowing exceptions on a case-by-case basis. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of edit by User:Tony Sidaway on Flash, Java, etc

On what should not be linked to, there was a general clause about "Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content."

Since we do have articles about websites whose purpose is the showcasing of such media (which are not really regarded as exotic), I have appeneded: "unless the subject is about items using those media." I don't see the point of forbidding reasonable links to the subject of an article on the grounds that the subject is not HTML. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Adult Content

One query. On the websites for some celebrities who merit inclusion into Wikipedia there is 'Adult Content.' Should we avoid linking to external websites where there would be adult content or is it deemed not suitable in these cases for an encyclopaedia? Ben W Bell 13:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a link from an all-audiences celebrity Jennifer Aniston, to pull a name out of my hat, should not link to restricted-audiences information *WITHOUT A WARNING*. A warning nearby the link would alleviate all of my concerns. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

External links do not replace references

I think this policy should state clearly that the "external links" section is NOT to be used for references. At present many articles are unreferenced, with some potentially relevant material in the external links section (but nobody knows which link is actually a reference). JFW | T@lk 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to different parts of same site

What are other editors' views regarding cases like this (leaving aside the absence of information about the links)? My view was that the one link to an index page was enough, and that four links to the same site was excessive; the editor concerned replaced the links, as you see. Has this been discussed before? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Four links is clearly excessive and spammy. I tend to think two links to the same place is excessive without a damn good reason. DreamGuy 01:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. (I came to this page looking for a policy statement on this issue, in fact, because I'm about to delete a link to a site's subpage that was added directly underneath the link to the main page, and wanted to cite it.) There may be some exceptions, but generally the link to the main page is enough. -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Links as examples

A long-running dispute at Double degree concerns a list of examples. The article concerns a specific sort of degree programme, largely confined to Universities havign a U.K.-style degree system; many editors have found this concept difficult to grasp, and have confused it with other sorts of programme (such as a credits sytem, degrees taken in sequence, etc.). I added a short list of links to university pages concerning genuine examples of the subject. One editor insists (against every other contributor to the discussion) that this is "linkspam", and keeps deleting it. Discussants are divided over whether the list should stay; I think that there's a small majority in favour, though I may have miscalculated. Do people here think that this sort of list is acceptable?

My main reason for keeping it is that the information provided by the Web pages concerned is too detailed to be appropriate for the Wikipedia article, while at the same time giving the reader an idea both of the variety of approaches and of the type of programme involved. The list is clearly labelled as a sample, so that no suggestion is made that these courses are special or recommended (though, again, some editors seem unable to grasp this).

If anyone here has a good reason to remove the list, I'll be happy to do so; so far no good reason has been given, but the debate (largely because of one editor who seems emotionally involved with the need to remove the list won't give up) drags on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be, as Mel says, that another editor has become obsessional about removing them, often with abusive edit summaries, and almost invariably referring to them as spam. I have looked at the links, and they are certainly not spam. Some people seem to think they are useful; others think they are unnecessary. Nobody except the editor referred to above thinks they are spam. I missed this message when it was first posted, but came here now because I saw another edit summary saying, you got zero support on Wikipedia_talk:External_links, it is now clear nobody on Wikipedia agrees with you. I have been following this for some time, and I think I can say that nobody agrees with User:Howardjp that the links are spam. It's also true that several people seem to be confusing "double degree" with other kinds of degrees, which I suppose is one reason for keeping the links. However, it's not the most passionately interesting debate I've ever been caught up in at Wikipedia. AnnH ^(talk) 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the number of people who own the website relevant?

Take for instance link proposed for the ontological argument Wikipedia entry. The website appears to be a owned by a single individual, Raul Corazzon. Despite its ownership, it contains no actual vanity content and so would it be right to call it a "personal web page"? Or can this be considered a valid external link? To me it almost seems like a fallacy to reject it based on the number of people who own the website, particularly since it contains some useful information for researchers. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course this would have nothing to do with you failing in trying to insert a link into the Ontological argument article to your own website... FeloniousMonk 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First, let it be known that I was not the one who originally inserted the link there. Some other user found the web page useful and added the external link to the ontological argument. I had a dispute with ScienceApologist, who has subsquently went on a campaign to remove the link. I am of course not pleased with ScienceApologist's efforts, but that doesn't change the logic of the circumstances or the question at hand. Is the number of people who own the website relevant?

And FeloniousMonk, your behavior is bordering on harassment. Already today you have reverted my removal of a challanged material (I removed the challanged material because it did not cite a source as per Wikipedia policy). And after this small revert war, and your ignoring of the Wikipedia policy I cited, you removed the RfC I put up on this issue. This kind of behavior has got to stop. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What a fortunate coincidence then. I wonder who this mysterious "some other user" might have been?

Your contributions to the project have consisted of little other than a long, sad list of disrupting Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism and Talk:Ontological argument with literally weeks of specious, long-winded objections that yield no positive results and promoting your own original research found here. It's your own behavior as seen in that history that has established that your presence often demands admin intervention to keep the ensuing disruption from spreading to the point that all progress on the article is halted. FeloniousMonk 23:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who the other user was, but that person wasn't me. Get over it. Since you’re so quick to make accusations, how about you back them up? Yes, you have found my website. Now, can you point to even one example of my alleged original research in any of the Wikipedia entries? I suspect not. In contrast, you yourself have been guilty of entering original research of the straw man kind e.g. in the intelligent design article (which I pointed out in certain Talk:Intelligent Design sections). You call my efforts to remove straw men, original research and enforce the Wikipedia citation policy disruption? Well, that's your business. But this is not the time or place to continue your harassment of me. Feel free to go to my user talk page for that if you feel it is truly necessary to continue this. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

proposed change

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&diff=35750081&oldid=35432649

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&diff=35753194&oldid=35752220

80.229.160.150 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to explain what kind of changes you intend to introduce, why should we take it seriously? A few diffs or a cogent presentation? It's up to you. JFW | T@lk 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, goodbye then. 80.229.160.150 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

foe sites

Does the prescription of ok-to-add for fan sites apply to also Foe sites? By Foe sites I mean a site which has negative views of the subject of the article.

As a specific case, is it allowed to include the link A collection of materials by detractors dedicated to criticism of Derek Smart in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Smart ?

Arguments for are that it is the number one site for a google query of the article's subject and that it contains a large amount of information.

Does a high google page rank for a search reflect its notability?

Arguments against are that the information is mainly usenet posts and private emails and is therefore non-verifiable and also that the author seems like an internet stalker.

Does non-verifiability disqualify an external link.

Note that the http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/ site is very one-sided and consists mainly of excerpts (with headers) of usenet posting and private emails with the site author's comments and conclusions. The conclusions do appear (to me at least) to follow from the referenced postings, except perhaps for the author's attempt at psychoanalysis.

Note, this specific instance was under mediation until one of the participants withdrew with no consensus, but a general opinion on the propriety of external links to foesites would be appreciated. And requirements that would qualify/disqualify a site from being and external link would be appreciated.

"Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. "

Let's tighten up the guidelines against fan sites

One of the problems which seems to always raise tempers on Wikipedia - and one of the most-often-discussed problems on this talk page - is External Links. Specifically, I keep on finding articles with twenty links to fan sites and reviews and discussion forums, and when I delete them, I often get angrily reverted by people who say that was useful! I don't want to have to go find them on my own! In the interests of rewriting the guidelines to more clearly state that Wikipedia is not a place to link fan sites, let me ask first: are there any circumstances you can think of, or examples you can remember, for when an article's External Links section should link to anything more than one or two fan sites or discussion boards? - Brian Kendig 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There should never be twenty. Wikipedia is not a web directory. In some cases it may be necesary to have a handful of links to fan sites, when there is no single site that is clearly most representive or complete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone feels that Wikipedia's guidelines on linking to fan sites should be vague, I'm going to go back through the proposals that other people have submitted here and try to come up with a new "Fan sites" section to add to the guidelines. - Brian Kendig 13:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

External links for Bible verses

I just noticed on Lilith that somebody came and changed an external cite link to a Bible verse from one odd-sounding outside URL to another... and it got me thinking. Seems to me that Bible verses have no good reason to be linked to an external site at all, and that it's all too easy for spammers just putting up the verses to go around and put in links, or fight over them. I don;t really think these things need clickable links, as it's easy enough for someone to look up a verse on its own, but that if we do have a link it should go to either a Wikipedia article or like some of wikibooks sort of thing and not www.bibleversesbysomespammer.cc -- has this been discussed anywhere? Should it be written up? Do we need to go undo a bumch of spam? DreamGuy 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you can link to the verses on some authoritative and non-denominational site containing the full text of the Bible, then go to it. I agree that linking to verses on fly-by-nite sites isn't good. - Brian Kendig 13:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hager Twins Web-Link embeded in Hee Haw inquiry

please consider providing a link >thehagertwins.com< on your Hee Haw info page. It has a lot of content that those who are fan's (and why would they look it up at Wikipedia?) would find very entertaining and informative.

Thank you.

Hee Haw Cast Members,

Jim and Jon Hager The Hager Twins

Fanlistings

Is there ever a time when a fanlisting is appropriate in an external link? I can't see that it would ever add anything to an article. All these have ever done is disappoint me by turning up when I was looking for more information.

These don't appear to be covered under any of the (currently six) points under "What should be linked to." I'd like to consider modifying point 3 under "Maybe OK to add" to say:

Fan sites: Links to informative fan sites may be appropriate, but not to sites which provide no information, such as fanlistings. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

Yes? No? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand them fanlistings are bascially just lists of fans of a particular subject, unless the sites have other content that is actually useful I personally can't see the point in listing them. Shiroi Hane 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing the guide to clarify this. If anyone disagrees and reverts me, I won't get my feelings hurt. Unless they cuss me out over it or something. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm removing some myself. Thanks for the suggestion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Language indicator for external links

There is a discussion going on Template talk:Languageicon about what style the language indicator should be. I suppose there may also be room to debate whether template is even desireable. -- Netoholic @ 22:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is ridiculously strict and I will remove it

"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. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)" Andries 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see that there is a lot of merit in this rule for general subjects, such as basic physics, basic history, and basic mathematics, for which there is scholarly and scientific agreement, but not for a obscure comic books series in case there is a great website available. This has to be re-written and specified. Andries 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I question Andries motive in rewriting the original standard as it appears that Andries is rewriting the standard to promote his POV on controversial articles:

View Reference One

View Sathya Sai Baba Article

SSS108 06:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe even the rewrite is too strict. It would prohibit linking to "creation science" websites on the creation science article, for example. Or to Gene Ray's timecube website. In general, for any subject where the scientific consensus is that the subject is pseudoscience, this guideline prohibits linking to sites that actually promote the pseudoscientific view. I don't think that's acceptable. Any alternative proposals? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 12:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sites on creation science are acceptable under What should be linked to guideline 4; the timecube website is acceptable under What should be linked to guideline 1.

How about something along these lines? – "Any page that contains unverified facts or original research should not be linked to, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view." --Muchness 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Expresses the intent (we don't need original research links to viewpoints of a vanishing minority where virtually noone believes the view in question and the view is not the subject of the article) without eliminating things when relevant. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I shifted this to the article; feel free to revert / reword if there are objections. --Muchness 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam or not Spam?

User:Npgallery has been systematically adding external links to [[11]]nationalparksgallery.com to every article about a national park on wikipedia. The site is suspicious, it has no links to actual national park sites, just a large amount of links to adverstising and seems to be run by a sporting goods group. The pictures are low resolution, and there is no clear identifier of the owner of the page. The user name even makes me suspicious. Additionally, whenever the link it removed, the user cries Revert Vandalism! and has made some false claims about another user questioning him. His talk page is beginning to be a discussion about this as more than one wikiperson is suspicious of this activity. Can anyone with more experience weigh in on this one? The link is nominally valuable, but it may be a site designed specifically to link to online stores and if someone else has some super secret high tech snooping ideas to figure out the true nature of the page and the owner, or if these should be included it would be appreciated. Oh and now my questioning of the link has prompted some personal attacks on me too. Please help. Pschemp | ^Talk 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like classic spam to me. I've removed a bunch of them, given him a final warning, and I'll follow up in a few days.-08:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC) User:Gadfium

User:Pschemp has engaged in libel, defamation, personal attacks (see User:nationalparks's talk page) and this appears to be her personal vendetta. The links to nationalparksgallery.com have existed in Wikipedia for a long time. She is clearly degrading and abusing Wikipedia. The claim that the site is "suspicious" is laughable. So what if it doesn't contain links to actual national park sites? Is that a requirement? Her claim that it contains a large amount of links to advertising is false too. As is her claim about low resolution photos (is that a requirement too?). Owner of a page? Also, admin User:Gadfium has completely one-sidely helped her in her cause. Finally, I have made NO personal attacks against Pschemp.

I will refer you to Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to. Given that these are encyclopedic entries about National Parks, it would seem reasonable to have links to National Park sites. The only reason the links have exisited for so long, is when someone removes them, you revert, saying rv vandal (see [12] this example]). Nationalparks 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you make false assertions - the site DOES include links to national parks sites. And that's NOT the reason they have existed for so long - it's only in the past few days that's it has been necessary to defend against malicious editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)

People have reverted many of your links 2, 3, 4 or more times. They just never went to admins about it. Fine, maybe your site includes links to NP sites, but those links should already be in the relevant pages of Wikipedia (though on another page, you did question whether that was needed). Nationalparks 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice that you're finely admitting that you've made false assertions. Those previous reverts were due to anti-ad zealots who finally acquiesced after their realization that they were making up their own Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)

I have blocked User:Npgallery for 24 hours not only for spamming after giving multiple warnings, but for disruption by wasting the time of Wikipedians by trying to argue that his spam is justifiable. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-06 Pschemp. Nationalparks 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This material looks strongly like spam. I endorse its removal. Continuing to add spam is a blockable offense. -Will Beback 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

An anon IP changed the wording from one site to a few, I can't see any firm decision on the talk page for this and i think the wording needs to be made clearer as fan site lists just get longer and longer. Perhaps something like "As few sites as possible linking to only the most informative" or "only linking to more than one fan site when none of them are clearly larger or more informative". Perhaps something could be said for fan-made wikis? If theres a large informative fan-wiki on say wikicities I would consider it a seperate case from fan sites, but perhaps it should just be said that established fan-wikis are the preferred fan site link? Discordance 18:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we link to them at all? The ones I've looked at have been full of just gossip and speculation, mixed with some press releases and pirated photos. Once one is allowed in, they all want to be included and it is hard to find a cogent reason to include one but not another. -Will Beback 20:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Official sites

The guideline, "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one", is useless. Not all official sites are appropriate for viewing. Not all of them are factually accurate either. Ergo, the guideline is void. Further explanations are available. Marcus2 | Talk 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely, I can't think of an instance where we would ever exclude an official site from a page. By their very nature official sites are POV and promotional, so excluding ones for this reason would mean excluding all of them. - SimonP 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I disagree completely with you. It's true that official sites are POV and promotional, but I can think of an instance where a website is not appropriate. Sure, official sites may be added, but they shouldn't be required. Marcus2 | Talk 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In what cases would you say that a site is not appropriate? For instance I'm certain that David Irving's official site is quite horrible and filled with deep factual errors, but it should still unquestionably be at the top of the external links section of his article, where it is. - SimonP 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint, and I now agree with you to some point. Maybe I'll E-mail E.G. Daily about her website instead! Marcus2 | Talk 18:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the normal custom is, and should be, to link to the official website. Sure, there'll be exceptions, perhaps in the case of a child pornography site. But for the overwhelming majority of topics we should link to the subject's website. -Will Beback 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia better than Google

I've been contributing to WP for a few months, and lately I've been using it for tasks that I would formerly have Googled. The external links from articles can yield relevant information far more readily than an ordinary search, cutting out the need to click on sites containing minimal info. Is WP the search engine of the future?--shtove 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory and should not try to be one. It sounds like you may want to try using Yahoo or Open Directory instead of Google. - Brian Kendig 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy on fansite linking

I am in a debate right now with someone who felt the need to create a template to link his favorite eight fansites from all 72 articles about his favorite anime. I believe that we really need a better-defined policy regarding links to fansites. To this end I've drawn up some rough ideas at User:Brian Kendig/Fansite links; would you please visit there and give me some ideas on the Talk page for how it could be refined? - Brian Kendig 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Way to not include the External.png image?

Is there a way to exclude the said image from showing up after EL's? Are there any templates that do this? I am just curious because my username looks ugly with that image after the link to make a new comment on my talk page. Thanks. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 00:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

External links of local relevance

Articles on outdoor activities get a lot of links such as "multiuse trails in Anchorage, Alaska." These links are very useful for some readers, but completely useless for others, depending on where people live and plan to travel. Do we allow these kinds of links, or not? --Smack (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Every article is very useful for some readers but completely useless for others. If the links are relevant and useful to the article, there should be no reason not to include them.

Coyoty 18:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course no link is useful to every reader, but these are useful to fewer readers than most. Also, since there's an endless supply of these local websites, they can fill up articles with scores of external links. Wikipedia is not a link repository.

Wikipedia is not a repository for "me too" links that don't add anything new to the article or are there only because of name association (such as a band having the same name as the subject). This does not mean representative links related to the subject should be removed because they're "useless" to some people. The links are not for those people, they're for the ones who will find them useful. A link on multiuse trails in Anchorage, because it is very useful for some readers of an Anchorage article, should stay. IMO, it's a no-brainer to keep. Any additional links on multiuse trails should go, or the best one kept.

Coyoty 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer depends on the article in question. A link about multipurpose trails in Anchorage would probably be nice in an article about trails in Alaska. As a link in an article about Anchorage or trails it would be more dubious. If the article has a local focus, then local links can be a positive contribution. If it covers a wider context, they're probably not appropriate, IMO. - EurekaLott 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll try to move these links to more specific articles. --Smack (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bolding Official Sites

Some pages have A LOT of links! (See PHP.) Usually, the first link is the subjects offical link, if it has one (MercyMe's (band) official site is mercyme.org, but the article Nudibranch shouldn't have a official site because it's a mollusk/animal). I propose that all OFFICIAL LINKS should be bolded for easier useability. Just being BOLD here. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some articles have a lot of links because they have passed the spam event horizon :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Official sites should be first, shouldn;t need to bold them, because being first makes them stand out already... and of course should be labeled as the official site. And if you see a page with so many links that you think you need boilding to tell the good ones from the bad ones, just remove all the bad ones. There's no reason to have more than, say, ten links. DreamGuy 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Webrings

Can we add webrings to the list of things to link to? Webrings would provide ready-made portals for subjects that have them, and when people can't resist adding non-notable fansites to an article, we can point to the webring as a representative link for fansites. Coyoty 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope not. Webrings include all kinds of junk. Much better to have a few sites of known authority. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to link to a good directory category instead, if one exists. We have templates for the Open Directory Project and Yahoo. - EurekaLott 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

linkspam, good links, promotion

After a two-day struggle to understand what seemed to me to be an inconsistent wikipedia linkspam policy (I now get it), particluarly the question of what takes precedence: what should be linked and what should not be linked, I added the following to the "What should not be linked" section of External_Links:

"NOTE relating to items #3 and #9: Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included."

I hope adding it to the page was not too hasty (please do with it as you wish), but having this aspect of the policy clearer would have saved much much long and circular debate. Mackinaw 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes

I'm in discussion at Talk:Calvin and Hobbes#External links redux regarding how this policy should be implemented and I'd appreciate comments from anyone interested in this policy and its implementation. Happy editing! Steve block talk 19:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Blogs fansites and forums

Apologies for duplicating a some of the above, but I didn't want to continue an old discussion. My thoughts can be summed up in a 2 sentences:

There is no sensible reason for a quality source of information to reference in any way blogs, fansites or forums. They are - relative to an encyclopedia - poor, innacurate and POV.

Even the best types of these websites only provide third-hand, unverifiable factoids. The worst cases are extreme POV lies. I therefore strongly feel that we should specifically add these types of websites to the "Links to normally avoid" section. Of course there are (very rarely) specific reaons to link to these types of website, most obviously if the article is about the website itself, in which case a link would be acceptable. Martin 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you give other examples where they might be acceptable? What about support forums for a medical condition or a suicide prevention message board? These aren't fan sites and don't have a POV. Some are funded by non-profit organizations and provide a good resource for that topic. Would these be allowed? Gflores ^Talk 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are some extreme examples (e.g. a supervised suicide forum), there will always be exceptions to the rule. But wikipedia is specifically not a web directory, thus it can only be presumed that links are in some way a reference or otherwise deemed a quality source, blogs fansites and forums are almost always the opposite of what a quality source should be. Plus of course most additions of links to these kind of websites are done for purely promotional reasons. Martin 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying all forums are acceptable. In fact, I think most fansites and trivial message boards aren't valid for inclusion on WP. I just hope that someone doesn't just remove anything that has a forums.foobar.com url. Gflores ^Talk 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to fansites and weblogs. Yes, the vast majority are crap, but there are more than enough good ones to rule out a guideline forbidding them. I can think of a number of fansites that are higher-quality and more comprehensive than the official site. On the weblog side, more and more, companies and organizations are using them as official communications tools. Some tightly-focused weblogs are very reliable sources of information. Charactering all of them as "poor, inaccurate and POV" paints an unfair picture. - EurekaLott 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The section header is "Links to normally avoid" so it's not as if we would be saying that they are 100% prohibited or anything like that. It is odd that at the moment blogs and forums are not mentioned at all. Martin 23:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not derailing anything, but in the Death Star article we've run into a bit of a dispute about NPOV, verifiability, and fansites. I would particularly like to hear clarification on what we should do when the fansites are far more comprehensive on a topic than any official source (e.g., an interesting read adding enormous detail that we couldn't include in the article for space reasons), but also are controversial within the fanbase and about as far as possible from NPOV as possible. This is likely to be a recurring issue, barring a more clear policy on fansites, as a cursory overview of science fiction vehicle articles suggests. Balancer 17:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind it would be best to hive all information sourced from fansites into a fan speculation section, or if included in the main body, cite it appropriately as fan speculation. It should not be presented as fact, and if it is disputed then cite the opinion which disputes it too. Steve block talk 20:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example: I think it can be reasonable to link Mudcat. Their forum consists almost entirely of well-informed discussion of folk music and other related musics. Or The forum of Ballet Talk: moderated, and often a place of discussion for published critics (though not Ballet Talk for Dancers, crawling with teenage girls who want to be ballerinas). - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Website and webpages that are created or altered due to Wikipedia dynamics

What to do with websites and webpages that are created or altered due to the Wikipedia dynamics on certain articles? The webpages and website often contain criticism of these Wikipedia articles and the dynamics of Wikipedia and sometimes includes criticisms and even heavy ad homimem attacks on editors.

Examples

www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias.html created by user:SSS108 Contains criticism of the article Sathya Sai Baba and also contains heavy ad hominem attacks against user:Andries mentioning my full name. Please do not link to it.
www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/md.htm created by non-contributor, contains criticism of the Wikipedia article Prem Rawat and states that you have to be a fanatic to contribute to this article. (I am a contributor to this article and I agree with that statement.)
http://miraclevision.com/prem-rawat-files/index.html created by user:Scottperry regarding Prem Rawat

Andries 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

mms://...wmv

How can i link to a Microsoft Media Services-Windows Media Video file? eg [13] -- 172.178.207.199 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles about websites: citing primary sources versus only one link to site

Many people advocate that there should only be one or two links to a website in an article about that site. But, if we really want to be citing our sources, is that a good idea? Why should we limit the number of links when we have the oportunity to cite sources?

Does anyone seriously contend that the foundational directive to cite sources doesn't override the external links style guides in such cases? --James S. 09:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Petitiononline.com

I went through and deleted approximately 200 links to petitiononline.com several months ago. There are once again several hundred articles -- different articles -- linking to this site. I believe these are being added manually, but that doesn't change the fact that these petitions are inherently unencyclopedic. Anyone can create a petition at this site, there is no authentication of the creator or the signers, there is no end time, and there is no mechanism in place for the petition to actually get sent to anyone. Furthermore, nobody pays the least bit of attention to them. I had blacklisted the site at one point on meta but the blacklisting was removed on the grounds that there are a handful of articles on topics where online petitions became unusually notable for some reason.

In any case, I'd encourage people to remove these on sight, and would like to suggest that we add online petitions to the category of things we don't link to, for clarity. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Scanning the database, there are 121 links to this site, you could whiz through these with WP:AWB in a matter of minutes. Martin 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com

Hi. There are currently 5,760 links to amazon.com [14]. Is this acceptable? My second question is - can someone explain how to identify an affiliate link from a normal amazon link? -- Jim182 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These links are not acceptable to me. For books, we should just give the ISBN which adds a link to Wikipedia:Book sources. From there, people can choose whichever source they prefer. For CDs, I'm not sure if we have an equivalent, but don't think an Amazon link is appropriate. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazon affiliate links have the person's user ID in the URL. For example, mine (without the initial URL; I'm not posting this for link-spam) is /exec/obidos/redirect-home/evulaslair-20 (emphasis mine). For a link to a particular item (in this case, HHGttG on DVD) is /exec/obidos/ASIN/B000A283AW/evulaslair-20, though it is possible for a string of letters/numbers/both to come after the affiliate bit. Basically, if you see "anything-20" in the URL, it's an associate link; terminate with extreme prejudice. EVula 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to Paid Sites

Hello, a question of links to a site which requires payment for viewing of its contents has recently arisen in regards to the Lincoln LS article. A user posted a link to the Lincoln LS Owners Club (LSOC) web-site. This web-site has caused some controversy since most parts of the site are for "members-only" and thereby require payment. Is there any policy stating wheteher or not it is acceptable to have a link to such a site, which requires a certain type of membership for the viewing of most of its contents? FYI: Here is the link to the LSOC web-site. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

From the guideline; Links to normally avoid; "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" Martin 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, however, there's considerable "relevant content" available for free to nonmembers. The FAQ alone meets the criterion of having extensive information that's more detailed than we'd want in our article. The presence of additional information that's not generally available doesn't diminish the value of the parts that anyone can access. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The External.png image in the top paragraph

I was looking at this page today and the External.png image at the top looks ( in my opinion ) a bit pixaled and ugly. Do you think it would be worth getting a copy of it in SVG or a similar format ? I had a go at creating it in Inkscape but it turned out a bit crooked ( as a PNG ). --2mcm^Gespräch 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to look like that. It's an enlargement of the external link symbol used by Wikipedia, and intentionally kept at the same pixel aspect, just as an article about an old Mario game might intentionally have an enlarged Mario sprite at the same pixel aspect.

Coyoty 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

findagrave.com

Tim Long (contributions) has been adding ELs to findagrave.com entries for a number of famous dead people. I was initially turned off by the site due to annoying banner ads and popup windows that firefox couldn't block. That said, I was curious if these links are good enough to include here. I noticed his addition to the Jesus page was reverted (they are aiming for FA status, and have a pretty strict EL policy). I would propose that all of these additions be reverted, but I wanted to come here and see if this was covered by policy, and if others agreed or disagreed with me. --Andrew c 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to sites in a foreign language

I propose that links to sites in a foreign language be discouraged (but allowed in certain situations). First, sites in other languages are of little use to the vast majority of readers, either because they only understand English or because they can understand English in addition to other languages, making the links in other languages redundant. Second, speakers of other languages can use the Wikipedia in their own language. The other Wikipedias have fewer articles, but they tend to have the articles that are of most interest to speakers of that language. Third, if they are able to understand the English Wikipedia article, they should be able to understand the English sites that are linked to. Fourth, an article on a complex or controversial topic that has enough links to be anywhere near comprehensive in a couple of languages other than English would be dominated by its external link section.

The only reasons that I can think of to link sites in other languages is if the link is to the official/definitive site of the article's subject or if it is not necessary to understand the language to use the site and it provides something the English sites don't. -- Kjkolb 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sites in English should be (and are) preferred, certainly, but there are quite a few cases where a link to a site which is not in English is appropriate. For example when the article is about a text which is not in English it is still appropriate to link to the text. See Völuspá for an example. Haukur 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why I said "allowed in certain situations" and gave examples of when it might be appropriate. :-) However, the guide says nothing about links to non-English sites. -- Kjkolb 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

External links to non-commercial tutorials and hands-on articles

A number of articles on technical topics have had external links to hands-on articles and tutorials wiped. At the same time there seems to be a desire not to have long lists of details (such as sample code) here. This is a problems to someone looking for more information, even when it comes to commercial systems. If, say, you want the low down on systems from Microsoft you have to wave through tons of buzzword filled marketing speak before you find anything remotely technical. Microsoft is also hampered by a search engine which is less useful then Google using site:microsoft.com so I come to Wikipedia for the hard facts. And I do find useful links ... by going through history files looking for deletions of what someone called link spam.

I therefore propose to explicitly allow external links to tutorials, hands-on articles, HOWTOs and sample code that are non-commercial and non-overlapping (ref. also MECE principle).

Relevant links to DMOZ might also be useful but I'd first like to know what went wrong that caused Google to severe the ties with them.

--14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)