Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 5

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.

Contents 1 Exceptions when linking to blogs. 2 embedded external links 3 Do we have concensus on how the 'related to' exception for blogs should work? 4 The undue weight clause 5 Personal sites 6 Question about external links 7 web directory 8 Foreign language links 9 Application/use of WP:EL with "External links" 10 Copyright Breach 11 Public domain literature sites 12 Unique resource 13 Linking to search 14 Too many links? 15 About wiki 16 Linking to Wikia

Exceptions when linking to blogs.

Hi, I'v had it highlighted to me that the current wording,

"However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."

can cause some problems. It's the 'or closely related to' that causes the problem. It can be argued that if the blog is about the same subject as the article is, then that satisfies the 'closely related to' clause. Of course, this would mean that the bar on blogs would be almost meaningless, since it'd be very easy to demonstrate a 'close relationship'.

Can I suggest changing the wording, maybe

"However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about the website itself, about blog coverage of a subject, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."

would serve better? --Barberio 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, but the wording doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that people interpret it backwards. The article should be indirectly related to the blog, not the blog indirectly related to the article. Hence, if the article mentions the blog it's OK, but otherwise probably not. Frankly, unless the blog is an official blog or the article is about the blog, I see very few cases where a blog link would be appropriate. Fagstein 20:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "The article should be related to the blog, not the blog related to the article.", should be directly stated, instead of having to be interperated. --Barberio 10:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And soon we will see people adding mention of a blog in an article so that they can link to it. Eternal vigilence and all that. sigh -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That is already currently a problem with citation spam, although not as big a problem now as it will be if end up driving spam into cites, rather than external links. 2005 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern that blog links may be pushed into 'citation spam'. Since the verifiability requirments on Citations (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) is much greater than that of External Links, I don't think there would be a way to legitimatly bump spurious external links to a citation. Also, I'm not enitrly sure if this 'citation spam' problem actualy exists, I've seen articles that have lengthy lists of citations, but I'd say this is a good thing when considering the role of directing the reader to our sources. If there's a problem with illigitimate citations, then it's a matter of correction of those issues, not a systemic flaw in the system. --Barberio 10:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't talking about "legitimately" since spam isn't legitimate. But to repeat, if someone is going to spam, we certainly prefer them to put spam in external links where it is easier to see and remove. 2005 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunatly it's been my experience that the lack of clear definate language makes it harder to remove without it being restored because 'The blog is related to the article'. --Barberio 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: To understand why Barberio is so interested in changing the wording of WP:EL, please see the active arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon (and /Evidence). AdamKesher 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

embedded external links

i read somewhere a long time ago in wikipedia about avoiding embedded external links because it takes readers out of wikipedia and into other websites. does anyone remember that? can anyone point me to it? Kingturtle 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have concensus on how the 'related to' exception for blogs should work?

I'd like to alter the blog section to read as,

Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. An exception can be made where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself. The site being related to the same subject matter, or having a relation to the article should not grant an exception on its own. An exception can also be made where the website is of an especially high standard.

this wording should cut down on the wikilawyering over what kind of blog links are allowed. --Barberio 12:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If this seems acceptable to most people, can someone else edit the project page to put it in. I'm involved in a dispute at the moment, and I'd rather not have charge that I 'edited the guidelines to get my way'. --Barberio 00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that, however more elegant prose wouldn't go a miss! It doesn't read clearly like that... I'll see if I can think of anything tomorrow... Failing that any other suggestions on the text? Thanks/wangi 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a slightly different version. (Also introducing some guidelines on how to assess 'especially high standard')

Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Exceptions can be made where the article is about, or closely related, to the website itself; or where the website is of an especially high standard. The site being related to the same subject matter, or having a relation to the article should not grant an exception on its own. Consideration of the site's quality should be made in relation to it's verifiability, prose, and factual content.

--Barberio 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs only say "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." This entire section already has multiple caveats. The "normally" in the section header,the lead sentance, and the "generally" already make it clear this list is not proscriptive. Why do we need yet another weakener on this guideline? If the blog linked can't be justified by any of the bullet points above, why should we be linking it? - brenneman ^{L} 13:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change. It was the only bullet point that had a rider like that, and the second sentance added nothing. Anyone who attempted to remove what was actaully a high-quality link and resisted reasonable arguments based on the guideline as it stands would get over-ridden. - brenneman ^{L} 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest the change be reverted. As currently worded, item 9 can be interpreted as solely "....forums should generally not be linked to...", IOW no discussion forum should be linked to. The original wording made clear there should be reasonable exceptions. Without specifically calling these out, the current wording can be used to remove any link to any discussion forum. Joema 03:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Not to flog a dead horse, but in reality forums generally should not be linked to. There are a whole swag of statements in place before the #9 bullet that ensure that if there actually exists a reason to link a forum or blog, and that it actually benefits an article, it can be "argued in." If a person cannot make a compelling argument that a blog is a "unique resource," is "mandated by the article," or fits any of the "should/occasionally" criterion, then why do we want it to be linked again? - brenneman ^{L} 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but in practice the current wording is causing problems. Well-intentioned but misguided editors read the simplistic "forums should generally not be linked to", and delete the link. If you try to restore it they delete it again. If you explain the rationale, they'll do an RFC. Editors with short attention spans and no knowledge of the forum specifics will simply vote to delete the link because -- after all -- the wording says "should generally not be linked to". You can explain all day and in great detail how the forum is unique content, high quality, non-commercial, not a blog, etc. It makes no difference because of the current wording in this article. In the strongest possible terms, I fervently suggest the original wording (or similar) be restored. The current wording is causing problems. Joema 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you point us to examples of this happening? The wording was changed here to address an actual instance of the previous wording being misinterperated to allow blog linking in almost any case. --Barberio 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example: RfC to remove link to http://candlepowerforums.com Joema 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am the only one who thought the RFC was made against the user inserting the external link :-/ That specific forum seems notable enough to be inserted as an external link under the previous style guide. Unluckily, when inserting a what should be linked, the one removing it needs to offer a proof about why to remove it. In this case, the one inserting a what should generally not be linked to link must prove the link fits the article. I don't comment on the modification for now. -- ReyBrujo 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who determines the "high standard"? I have removed external links with insane amounts of advertisments, forums with 20 members, sites with Alexa rank of 5m or worse, and they keep coming. Gizmondo used to be filled with almost every kind of external link.^[1] My reasoning is simple: if the keepers of the article don't clean it up, I do it. The main problem is always the same: when you tell them to limit the amount of fan sites/forums, they can never reach consensus, thus all of them are deleted. If anyone wants to add a "controversial" link (forum, blog or fan site) to an article, I always suggest them to post in the talk page to see if it is accepted. If it is, it will be inserted, and attempts to delete it will be reverted by the editors working on the article and not a single editor. -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: To understand why Barberio is so interested in changing the wording of WP:EL, please see the active arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon (and /Evidence). AdamKesher 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The undue weight clause

I'm worried over this wording in "What should be linked to",

On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)

I think this could be misread as saying you can include any type of site if it 'balences an oposite POV' because it's under 'What should be linked to'. Maybe it would be better to move this phrase out of "What should be linked to", and given its own section since it does seem to be a seperate issue. Maybe "Avoid giving links undue weight"? --Barberio 12:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: To understand why Barberio is so interested in changing the wording of WP:EL, please see the active arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon (and /Evidence). AdamKesher 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So you keep saying :-) Maybe it's time to have a look at WP:AGF. We all see guidelines and policies in the light of examples, as well as vice versa. That said, I think the clause Barberio quotes is correctly placed in "What should be linked to", and is clear. If you are indicating that a topic — especially a controversial one — is viewed in multiple different ways, then to illustrate that, it may be appropriate to link to different sites which are quite polemical and which mightn't be suitable as reliable sources. The point of the clause is that one should do this in a balanced and proportionate way. -- JimR 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the assumption that WP:NPOV trumps WP:V, when in almost all cases it's the other way around. For instance, if there are two conflicting economic theories, you should link to sites of the two econimic institutes that propose these theories. You should not link to oposing political blogs about these theories. Yes, we should avoid giving undue weight to keep in line with WP:NPOV, but we shouldn't go against WP:V to do so. --Barberio 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Aditional note. What WP:NPOV actualy says on the matter, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" (my emphasis), so giving fair representation should only apply to links that are otherwise acceptable. That a link demonstrates a point of view is not a reason to link in of itself. --Barberio 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal sites

Personal sites are not reliable sources, but you often find links to www.isp.com/~personalsite - I think these should be discouraged explicity rather than implicitly. What does the panel think? Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Surely a personal site should be linked to from an article on that person. Fagstein 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If the person is notable, and has a personal site, no matter where, it can be included in the article about this person. This includes official blogs, MySpace (ugh!) accounts and things like that. However, John Nonnotable Smith's personal site can't be used as external link or reference. -- ReyBrujo 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about John Noarticlebutmightbenotabe Smith? As far as I'm concerned if they are not sources, explicitly identified as such with a rationale for thier being reliable, they should not be linked in External Links. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're reliable sources, shouldn't they be references? AndroidCat 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, we're getting into a bigger issue altogether here :) See User talk:JzG#Uninterruptible power supply for another tangent on this discussion. Thanks/wangi 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal sites are often reliable sources of information, and very often the only reliable source of information. Once again, the mode that the information is delivered should not be a criteria to make unhelpful rules. Quality information that helps users should be linked to, whether it is on johnsomebodysmith.com or somewhere else. Raising a higher bar for certain types of sites is a fine idea, "discouraging" is fine, but making blanket assumptions that are just flat out wrong is not helpful. 2005 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Added, I now see perhaps the original post here just doesn't like ~somepersonalsite user sites rather than "personal site of a person". It should be obvious that there is no reason a site named ~somethingorother is less reliable than somethingorother.com. The URL of something is certainly no criteria to make rules around. 2005 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The case under discussion at User talk:JzG#Uninterruptible power supply, as I've said there, looks to me like an external link covered by WP:EL#What should be linked to point 4: neutral and accurate but copyright and detailed. -- JimR 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Sometimes personal sites carry coppies of their published academic papers, which would be unavailable anywhere else. In which case, you can link to those papers. --Barberio 09:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about external links

I don't understand how any of the links added in this edit are relevant to the article. They might be good internal links for a see also section, but as external links they seem extraneous. Was I right to remove them? --NE2 13:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me for them to have been removed. Your logic is sound. Fagstein 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

web directory

What does it mean where this talks about linking to "a web directory category"? Does this just mean "a web directory page"? Or what? - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language links

I think that the foreign language link section should be a bit stronger against them and more importantly discount the arguments that I have heard repeatedly in favor of external links to foreign languages sites. The first argument is that external links should be included because the content available in English is not the same. The second argument is that external links should be included because people who speak a foreign language are likely to be interested in or read an article. While simplicity is often best, I believe that the inclusion of these two points would counter the main reasons that people argue for the inclusion of foreign language links and save a hell of a lot of head butting for those of us who try to reduce external link glut. We could simply refer to the external link guideline instead of arguing why such links should not be included every time it comes up. I do not like that the easiest current solution is to wait a while to remove external links and hope no one notices to avoid these repetitive arguments. A simple change could prevent the arguments. When it favors their position, people will interpret guidelines and policies extremely narrowly or broadly, so specificity is sometimes best. The wording that I used was, "Reasons that are insufficient for including a foreign language link include the fact that the English language content available is not the same or that people who speak a foreign language are likely to be interested in the subject or read the article." However, I am open to suggestions. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My pereference is for clear, concise wording in guidelines and policies. The shorter and more to the point that these pages are, they more likely people are to actually read them and the easier it is to have meaningful dialog. If I may make the sort of hand-waving argument that I so often complain about: People who resist the clear intent of a short guideline often ignore the more-explicit intent of a longer guideline, and often have more ammunition in which to do so. I do understand the pain of a repatitive argument, so perhaps if we could have some diffs pointing to spots where these have been made?
brenneman ^{L} 08:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the change that was made here. I work a great deal (though by no means exclusively) on topics related to Romania. There simply aren't many good English-language links out there on most of this. There are often excellent Romanian-language links. Unsurprisingly, many of the people who read articles about Romania can read Romanian. I think it would be nearly insane not to include them. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The decision to includethe link should have almost nothing to do with whom is able to read it. If the material in the link is good enough based upon the criteria and there is no english language version available, then linking it should require very little argument. Your statement is about the quality of the material available, while Kjkolb's is about whom is "likely to be interested in" the material. See the difference? - brenneman ^{L} 07:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I see the difference perfectly, that's why I object to the changed text on the project page. After "English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia," with which I agree, it now reads "It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language." Only "may be appropriate" (emphasis mine) even for an official site or an original text. And no suggestion at all that, for example, good but unofficial secondary sources in a foreign language are ever appropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I work a lot with japanese articles, and most (if not all) of my sources are in japanese. When using them as reference, I follow the guidelines for them. However, because of the fact this is an english Wikipedia, if the links aren't official, or aren't being used as references, I usually remove them. That is because I have seen an article with links to Spanish, German, Portuguese and so many other languages that people forked it into a new article^[2] after I removed them from the external link section. I agree that the wording should say that the official site should always be present if there is not an english official site, or at least to have an external link related to the country of the company (in example, since Sony is a japanese company, it would be good to have the official english and japanese sites, but not the korean or french ones). -- ReyBrujo 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Application/use of WP:EL with "External links"

In regards to an article's "External links" section, how does "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources" apply in regards to linking to other sites running Wiki-type or similar software? For example, in the "External links" section--not an inline citation/ref link--would it be appropriate to link to a related or additional article about the subject on Memory Alpha or Everything2? Or, by it's nature, should Wiki/community controlled sites not be linked to? I would appreciate some clarification on this, and perhaps an adjustment to the policy, as these sites are fairly prevalent now, and will grow in time. rootology (T) 23:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion similar to this, from 2004. It seemed to support such links if there was related content. rootology (T) 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I find some of this a bit silly. The issue shouldn't be whether the site contains (blah blah) but whether the linked page does. For example, most universities have student papers on line; that doesn't mean that the university's site should not be linked to. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Breach

Good Day,

I have a question. If I know that a page or part of page is breaching Copyrights, should the page remain with External Links or not? Thank you --84.184.126.111 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about a link to a page breaking copyright? Per the fifth guideline, if you know it is breaking a copyright, you should remove it. In example, if you link to the editorial where a book chapter is presented in PDF format for download, there is no problem. If you link to a GeoCities page where a scanned book is found (nevertheless to say, copyrighted and not for free distribution), then it should be removed. Hopefully this answers your query. -- ReyBrujo 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It does. --84.184.110.170 07:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Public domain literature sites

Are there any guidelines or discussions about how to handle external links to online repositories of classic literature such as Project Gutenberg? In particular when there are 2, 3, 5 etc.. external links to the same piece of literature, but marked up in slightly different ways via HTML. An example of the problem can be seen in the external links section of A Tale of Two Cities. I realize lots of people will have opinions on this, but I'm interested in formalizing a style guideline or looking for pre-existing discussions about this. Thanks for any pointers. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, just one is enough. If there is an "official" release (in example, the author has died and the family had decided to release his remaining works to the public domain at his site), link to it, even if they are offering a text file and other sites are releasing a PDF one. When there is none, I would go with the most reliable source (or the one that I would be more sure to find still online on the following year). Gutenberg's link should be enough, even if they only release a text file. -- ReyBrujo 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of personal opinions on this (I have my own too), so I was looking for preexisting discussions or guidelines to see what the Wikipedia historical record has to say. -- Stbalbach 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unique resource

I replaced the phrase below. This is actually the most important item, all the others are simply illustrative. - brenneman ^{L} 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.

Why should we base our judgment on a possible future FA state of the article? We should link to sites that contain useful information beyond what our article contains now. If our article is later improved to contain all that information then the link can be removed. Haukur 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take an example. I just added an external link to Valhalla. The link goes to an encyclopaedic overview article on the topic, a good one, in my opinion. Yet it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article". What do you think of that, Aaron? Haukur 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good plan, always easier to work from a real-life example. While I must pray ignorance to the topic, I'd agree that the linked page seems to be a concise, well-written, neutral account. But what value do we get from linking it alone? If it were used as a citation, that would be different... especially since that article has no citations. If the refernce works were used as a jumping-off point to find other citations that would be even better. This is a fairly innocuous example, but what does it add? This I'd link from the talk page in a "holding pen" until such a time as it was incorporated into the text. - brenneman ^{L} 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even a "featured article" doesn't contain all useful information on a topic -- that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. After completing a featured article, readers often want pointers to additional information on the subject. That's why Encarta provides external links to web sites and discussion forums -- for those readers wanting more information beyond what fits in an encyclopedia article. Those links are not always unique resources. The questions to ask: is the link useful to most readers, is it quality material, etc. Uniqueness seems an artificial test, e.g, say there are THREE equally high quality links to external material (thus not unique), but you might only include one. By the "unique resource" test, you wouldn't include any, because they're not unique, thus denying readers easy access to further useful material. Now if by unique, you mean "noteworthy", vs "one of a kind", that's different. But in that case just say noteworthy. Joema 13:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It can certainly be used to add information to the article, but meanwhile our readers are well served with a pointer to it. It makes the Wikipedia entry more useful. Wikipedia is usually my first stop when I'm searching for information on something. Even when it fails to provide me with a good article it has still served me well when it provides me with a link to a good article. Haukur 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that particular example is moot now since the site has "relaunched" as, essentially, a Wikipedia mirror and those high quality Norse mythology articles are gone. I've saved what I could find from the Google cache. I wonder where these articles came from, I suspect the site didn't really hold the rights to them. Haukur 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Google cache is not long-term. The Internet Archive is usually the way to do this, if it is worth doing. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1. The link should be followed by a statement about the extent of coverage by the link (if it is not obvious from the title.)
2. When adding a more comprehensive article as External link, would an HTML comment satisfy you, brenneman?:

<!--Delete this link (or move it to 'References') when all the information has been incorporated in this article.-->

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To recapitulate and add to some points above . . . two reasons, or values, for having an external link to a website which might not be needed (as an external link) once the article is expanded sufficiently are:

• To be helpful to readers of the article in its current partially developed state;
• To lead potential editors of the article to useful material which they can incorporate (paraphrased if copyright).

In the latter case, the external link is likely to turn into a citation.

In the light of these values, the injunction against having an external link now, while the article is under development, is not constructive or helpful, and should be removed again. -- JimR 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. (I am involved in a related dispute.) I find the claim that "We should link to sites that contain useful information . . ." quite compelling. If a blog or any other site contains information that readers would find useful (and which is not already in the article) what possible reason is there for not including it? I would propose two edits in the guidelines to achieve this.

This solves several problems. First, we don't need to make blanket statements about blogs or forums or whatever. A site, whatever its organization, is either useful and high quality or it isn't (although people will right about this). We dispute the quality, not the format. Second, we do not need to worry about what is in or not in the article. Obviously, a site which only had information which is already in the article will not be "useful" to many readers.

If that is accepted, we could then remove three items from Links normally to be avoided as so:

These have led to lots of debate. They add little to a "high quality" or "usefulness to many readers" test. See other objections elsewhere in this discussion. In particular, a site might be "unverified" but still high quality and useful.

In general, I think that the tenor of this page is too specific. We need more common law type guidelines rather than blanket statements which fail to capture the spirit of the External Links section, a section with a purpose that is very different from that of References. David.Kane 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking to search

I see that linking to a search isn't in these rules. For example, linking to google.com with some URL parameters that force a search on the current subject: [3]. This practice seems patently absurd to me, but I run across it often enough to wonde why we don't expressly discourage it here. -- Mikeblas 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to the guideline. Haukur 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It's number ten on the "to be avoided". How's the wording? -- Mikeblas 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you need to explain why they are not good links. In example, the result could vary depending on the user preferences at Google search (showing or hidding results, merging them, etc), that probing a determined word is notable or not through a link can be considered original research, etc. -- ReyBrujo 20:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my lazy side would just add "as the unfiltered results are unlikely to meet the 'What should be linked to' criteria."

But if I tried harder, I might write: "This is because the results are highly unpredictable, varying on engine ranking and even user settings. Further, listed hits may not be relevant to the article despite mathcing search terms, and could contain inaccurate material or unverified original research." But then I feel like I'm being redundant (to Avoided #2, for instance).

What say ya'll? -- Mikeblas 22:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, I'd especially emphasize how fleeting and unpredictable this sort of thing is. It's also usually trivial for the reader to come up with the search for herself. As you mention the point about inaccurate material may be redundant with #2. Haukur 22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered List of Statutes of New Zealand (1800-1980). I am guessing the page is using them to expand the articles whose wikilinks can be found in the list, but do we need them all? -- ReyBrujo 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many links?

I'm trying to get my head wrapped around the external link policy as it relates to search engine spamming, etc. So I started to look at the actual search engine optimization related articles. I came across this one, which I'm thinking has too many external links: Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization. . Can I go ahead and change these? Invader Zim 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead. The Founded by Whom section does not need the links after the names, and the ones found at SEMPO Involvement in the Industry should become references for content, not just links. If you are unsure about how to treat them, just tag the article with the {{External links}} template. -- ReyBrujo 14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I started some cleanup, and also placed the tag. Invader Zim 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

About wiki

Question. For minor wikis yes they are fansite but have lots of info on the topic. im questioning this For things from editthis.info. Djf2014 14:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean adding an external link to editthis.info? I personally don't recommend that, as the site has little over 2,000 pages (see http://editthis.info/wiki/Special:Statistics) with 500 members. I usually remove links to sites with forums with less than 1,000 members. -- ReyBrujo 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Wikia

Should a link to Wikia go in the "External links" section, or the "See also" section (assuming it is not linked to in the body of the article)? Obviously, being not only a wiki but founded by the same person who founded the Wikimedia Foundation, it can not be used as a reference. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

External links section of what? Fagstein 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Smallville episodes. Apparently, they put detailed information about the episodes on Wikia, though there is now a push by some to create individual episode articles on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville episodes. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikia content, when appropriate, belongs in external links. Dragons flight 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)