Talk:Intangible asset finance
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed deletion
[edit]Please provide the specific grounds on which this article has been marked for deletion. On its face the article is not about any of the companies or entities that are mentioned, but instead concerns the area of intangible asset finance in general. Mere mention of firms involved in this area of finance does not constitute promotion or endorsement of any of the firms.IA Finance Type (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
May 08 edits
[edit]External links shouldn't be in the body of the article, but kept to a section at the end. Half of them have articles on wiki already. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the norm your trying to enforce, but you should not have undone all my linking wholesale. It took a lot of time and care to retrieve those links and add them to the page. You should have instead added a section at the bottom with the external links, and then removed the links from the body. As for those that have articles on wiki already, you should have changed to an internal citation. Again, you simply changed all the links to internal links. As you can see from your version of the page, many of the links do not have articles on wiki already. I will do this, but I need the time to do it. Alternatively, feel free to do it yourself. Please do not remove the links wholesale again. IA Finance Type —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.107.228 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's no value to linking to the home page of NexCen, nor to that of Royalty Pharma, nor of IDP Analytics, etc. There were a couple that supported the point you were making, and I converted those to refs, and added the references section. Title them if you like. The article can't have external links in place of articles on wiki. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I sympathise with you in that your contribution was obviously made in good faith and it's always hard to see work you've labored over undone. Nevertheless, I have agree with AndrewHowse in the removal of the links. Citations in the text are for referencing the information conveyed thereby. Though a very simple form of referencing is to add a naked external link, we greatly prefer an inline citation which shows a footnote in the text which, when clicked on, shows you in the references section detail on where the information is verified. Linking words/names/entities to their websites is not referencing. Our policies on making links and on what external links to include in an article are also against this. We link to other internal Wikipedia articles to add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia. We only do this when the subject linked is relevant to the context. We also make links to articles that don't exist in order to invite people to make those articles, and to flag that an article doesn't exist when it probably should. So this should only be done when the linked page should have an article and is a topic that is both notable and verifiable. External links only belong in references, which these weren't, and in an external links section, which these mostly wouldn't be appropriate for. Please note the following from our policy on external links:
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)External links should not normally be used in the body of an article... Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox...Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links...Links normally to be avoided include 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article; 2) Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising (and most importantly here) 3) Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.
- I sympathise with you in that your contribution was obviously made in good faith and it's always hard to see work you've labored over undone. Nevertheless, I have agree with AndrewHowse in the removal of the links. Citations in the text are for referencing the information conveyed thereby. Though a very simple form of referencing is to add a naked external link, we greatly prefer an inline citation which shows a footnote in the text which, when clicked on, shows you in the references section detail on where the information is verified. Linking words/names/entities to their websites is not referencing. Our policies on making links and on what external links to include in an article are also against this. We link to other internal Wikipedia articles to add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia. We only do this when the subject linked is relevant to the context. We also make links to articles that don't exist in order to invite people to make those articles, and to flag that an article doesn't exist when it probably should. So this should only be done when the linked page should have an article and is a topic that is both notable and verifiable. External links only belong in references, which these weren't, and in an external links section, which these mostly wouldn't be appropriate for. Please note the following from our policy on external links: