Talk:Adoption/external links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

external links

It seems some folks are clearly using this article to promote their commercial interests. That's actually fine, if their information is useful (e.g. adoption.com is a big site with lots of info for prospective parents).

When the same people try to add more sites they own (e.g. adoptioninformation.com), that should be OK too, as long as its unique or useful information. However, it just launched recently, and has very little to contribute at the moment. It may make sense to exercise some selective judgement until that site "grows up."

Eventually, we may want to have a separate listing of adoption resources here, though for now they can probably stay where they are, under the country they operate in..

Keeping things akphabetical makes sense to me - what do you guys think? Less jockeying for position, no?

Cheers,

porkchop32

Six new links to sites in Canada, England and Australia added October 30, 2005 by Unregistered

Actually, what is the official Wikipedia position on commercial advertising links? To my mind, it's fine to link to sites like adoption.com, state adoption boards, and adoption/post-adoption organisations such as those currently listed here. But I'm not so sure about the links to private adoption agencies on some of the other adoption category pages. Thoughts? Bastun 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about sites such as: "Adoption Articles"? If you're allowing sites like AdoptionInformation.com, what are the exact criteria for choosing which links are relevant and which are spam?

66.82.9.55 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Main guidelines would include Wikipedia:Notability_websites and Wikipedia:External_links, and several of the points referenced on those pages would appear to exclude Articleopedia, in my opinion. The articles on that site don't appear to cite sources or references, and well, this page isn't about dog adoption, either. It seems to exist mainly to generate revenue from Google ads .Bastun 10:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bastun is doing a great job generally monitoring the page ... but I checked the cleaned-out-all-the-links-version swiftly reverted by Bastun and, well, it looked a lot better without all those crappy external links. --Giddylake 00:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)