Talk:List of development aid agencies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject International development, which is building a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to International development, including such areas as Appropriate technology, Microfinance, and social issues related to development. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks and discuss the project. |
[edit] External and red links
Recently a user removed all of the external links and red links from this article [[1]]. This page is not a repository and it follows the conventions of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).
The red links should definitely stay. This is a list of development agencies. It doesn't matter if some don't have articles. The Wikipedia project page for developing lists even says that lists can be used to keep track of redlinks.
Red links should stay, but so should the external ones. Nowhere in MoS can I find anything that says that lists shouldn't include external links. However, Wikipedia:External links says links to an official organization are appropriate. This page also says nothing that makes me think having the links is inappropriate. The relevant section of "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" reads:
- [Wikipedia is not a] Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.
This is not a "mere collection" of external links. It is an appropriate list. When interpreting Wikipedia policy, it is important to look at purpose. The above statement indicates that long lists of links detract from articles. This is not an article. The links don't detract from the page.
I'll admit that, stylistically, the current inclusion of links is undesirable. However, create something better looking, don't delete them. Especially from red linked articles since these links could be used to start those articles.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- What if we drop the external links for those entries with articles and keep those where there is a redlink? Wikipedia gives priority to its own content and there is no need for an external link when an article present; the external link is appropriate in that article. This list, with the external links present as duplicates to the article links, definitely is acting as a link repository. In addition, I suggest that there be no redlinks or external links in the "Non-governmental organizations" section and below to help control spamming (it is clean now). I first discovered this article after cleaning up after a spammer; they love articles like this that allow anyone to put in a redlink and an external link to some non-notable site. Which leads to another problem. This articles is basically unreferenced. It relies on original research and the primary sources of individual groups' websites; we have to rely on what they say about themselves, with no real verification. Burlywood (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, those proposals all seem fair. I agree that redlinked NGOs should be removed to avoid spamming. This article could even be forked to split up "official" aid agencies, run by countries and mulitlateral groups (World Bank and UN), from NGOs. Some of the NGOs are relevant, but the list is a target for spam. I've removed some myself.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
