Template talk:No more links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:NoMoreLinks)
Jump to: navigation, search

I fixed some links and changed the "spammers" text to link to Wikipedia:Spam instead of Spam (electronic) as it's more specific.

I have one suggestion though. Most templates that are intended to be subst'd have, somewhere in them, an invisible comment that says what the template is so that others can learn what templates to use to get certain effects. (Normally they can just see the template call, but subst'd templates need to give extra help to identify themselves.) Since this is an all-invisible template, how best to do this? My first thought was putting ({{NoMoreLinks}}) in the right-hand-side whitespace on the last line of the text, or embedding that into the line of equal signs on the right.


<!-- ============================================================================= -->
<!-- If you think that your link might be useful, instead of placing it here, put  -->
<!-- it on this article's discussion page first. Links that have not been verified -->
<!--                             WILL BE DELETED                                   -->
<!-- =========================================================({{NoMoreLinks}})=== -->

Saxifrage 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • How about placing the text in the top line?:
<!-- ==============================({{NoMoreLinks}})============================== -->

This way it would be a bit less confusing for new users who would probably take this line of text for some kind of heading, and would not spend time trying to find the meaning of this text. It would also make this template a bit harder to find by vandals who are new to wikipedia. Mieciu K 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea! Much better placement than my idea. — Saxifrage 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

copied from the Village Pump:[edit]

from [[1]]:

I found the following notice in the external links section of a couple of articles:

| LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |
| but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link |
| to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|
| and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. |
| |
| Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED. |
| See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details |

The sections I found them in were empty except for a single link. See external links section of Life extension and the Genetics article.

The notice is disturbing for three reasons:

  1. The command "DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE" runs contrary to the very nature of wikis. It's a variation of "you cannot edit". Not good.
  2. Edits are not subject to preapproval. Anybody can contribute to articles without getting their contributions approved first. This notice is setting a bad precedent.
  3. The articles the notice is placed in can't be tracked. They don't show up for "What links here", because the notice is just a comment and doesn't contain any links. I have also been unable to find articles with the notice by using the search box.

I believe use of this notice should be discontinued, and that the notice should be removed from articles.

The notice itself is not a page, and therefore, a TfD is insufficient. The template:NoMoreLinks should be nominated for deletion if the notice is determined by the community to be inappropriate.

The Transhumanist 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

perhaps instead it should be modified. I will give it a try , and we can continue at its talk page. If you still do not like it, then TfD would seem the way to go. But let's see first if it can be worded less imperatively.DGG (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've only seen this in use on Naruto, so I can only offer my opinion in that context, but this notice does help in cases of excessive linkspam. I would agree that, in the case of one link, its use seems inappropriate. Overall, I would probably vote delete if there were a TfD, as people can cobble together such messages (albeit not so brilliantly ASCII'ed) on their own. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I BOLDly changed it to:


   | LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful,it would be best to |
   | put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link  |
   | to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|
   | and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template.             |
   |                                                                         |
   |           Links that are inappropriate WILL BE DELETED.            |
   |  See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details    |


I replaced it on the two page mentioned. I note that the EL section of Life Extension has a number of links, not just one-- some quite dubious, which I will remove later. I consider it a very appropriate place for such a template. Genetics had only one link at present, abut I want to trace the history of earlier links there before deciding it is unnecessary. I know many other pages where the template has been very useful indeed. If we are agree on the wording, we can try to hunt them down & fix DGG (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

and I note the template as survived a previous TfD. DGG (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I know the template is subst'd because its too long to appear as content. What about an expandable box or having the term "External Links" link to the policy or some other thing that lets us categorize the template. Lets say DMOZ goes out of business or changes its purpose. We'd have no easy way to track it down.Mbisanz (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If Dmoz dies we'd use Google's copy: http://directory.google.com/ ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point, but how do we know what aticles its used in? Can we make the subst command drop the talk pagee into a category like "Articles with External Link Issues" It wouldn't mess up the encyclopedic content and might reduce template abuse. Mbisanz (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(editconf)The notice is useful in places. I've seen many variants, in many of our large or heavily-edited articles, and even a few in featured articles (eg Microsoft, Absinthe, 300 (film)).
Can I recommend that you inquire at a template's talkpage first, in the future? There is often relevant discussion, or a previous/recent TfD notice (as there is in this case, which ended with a unanimous keep). Also, it leaves a trail of discussion in the most permanent and relevant place, for the benefit of the editors that turn up in the future. It is also good wikiquette to at least alert the people watching a page, that it is being discussed somewhere else. Thanks :-) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Spam#Tagging articles prone to spam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Regular clean-out of undiscussed links who instruct its use, and might know more. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Quiddity, I agree with you--that's why I brought it here from the VP as soon as i saw it. I note the discussion at the TfD concerned only usefulness---which is certainly undoubted-- rather than possible policy questions. I figured if people didnt like my change, its easily enough reverted. DGG (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
the template can just be removed from any articles where it is rather obtusely added. It's always been one of the most pretentious, and possibly the single easiest template to abuse, but there is no reason to ever leave it in place when either 1) it makes no sense when their is just one link to a non-official site, and 2) when it's addition has not been discussed on a talk page. One editor can't just pompously say 'no more links' and everybody else has to obey. The thing should only be given any creedance when it is the result of a talk consensus. 2005 (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

latest changes[edit]

I like the change in the template made just now by the Transhumanist. Better than mine. I suggest however replacing "plentiful links" by "suitable links" We dont want a fixed number, certainly not a fixed large number. I'll do it if no objections-- or improved wording DGG (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"If there is already suitable coverage, please propose additional or replacement links on this article's discussion page." The Transhumanist 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the changes, but do we really need the brackets "[["? If its in edit-mode, won't it appear as just text? Mbisanz 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a way of highlighting/separating the page-title from the prose. It allows users to more intuitively drag-select the text, and drag that highlight to the search box, thereby accessing said page. Fairly common in commented code :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Q, your probably right about that. Is there anyway to rename thise to a less combative template? Like "LinkQualityControl" The message is good now, but the title still seems a little hard as in, "No More Links are allowed on this page, so don't even think about putting in that great link you found that is relevant" ? Mbisanz 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I might be missing the markup, but I don't see this template as being protected or semi-protected. I'd argue that it should be protected to prevent random editors (like me) from coming in and making changes that would either loosen or tighten the policy without consensus at WP:EL. At least semi-protecting for vandalism as a high-use template would be good. Mbisanz 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As it is subst'd, it is not a target for vandalism concern at all. See WP:PROT and WP:HRT for details on the rare instances protection is used.
I don't imagine it is that highly used either, if anything quite rare, though as has been pointed out, it seems to be impossible to measure it's usage (? someone should ask at WP:VPT about that), however all the hand-written variants would be very hard to count too. At a complete guess, maybe 500 instances of this and its variants? It shouldn't be high use, at least.
As for a rename, I think the current title is intuitively/instantly understandable, and changing to something less forceful would defeat the purpose, which is to discourage casual link addition to heavily spammed articles. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that transculded? vandalism isn't a major issue, but if someone were to change the wording to make it more or less severe, and it was then used in a page, there would be no easy way to correct it. Could it include a Category:Pages with Linking Template when its used by a user? I guess this is the clearest title we can use Mbisanz (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)-- Mbisanz (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't SHOUT[edit]

I don't have much of a problem with the basic policy, though I guess I'd tolerate more links than some supporters here would, but I do have a considerable problem with the SHOUTING. Any editor here is capable of reading, and if not a vandal, does not need to be SHOUTED AT. And if a vandal, nothing will be a deterrent.

I vote for standard capitalization in this template's wikitext. ww (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also vote for sentence case in this template. See:
  • WP:CAPSLOCK — "Typing in all caps ("TYPING IN ALL CAPS") on Wikipedia, in line with most internet resources, is perceived as "shouting" and can come across as aggressive. Please do not do it."
  • WP:SHOUT — "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate."
  • WP:ALLCAPS — "Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases."
DemonicPartyHat(contact) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I got rid of the shouting, and the ASCII-art box. I reduced the text by a few words, and added a tracking template. I think the text really really should be pruned back further. Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

counter productive[edit]

It appeared counter productive. Saw a spammer add their links together with something like this warning Special:Contributions/ It went unnoticed for six and a half year! The most blatant ones should be removed by now. Jo Pol (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)