Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 1

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, September 13th, 02003.

Hi Guys!

How do i add an external link with a dollar sign in it? Here's an example URL:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take$.asp

Thanx

Dave

:You have to URL-encode the characters, i.e. exchange them with %hexcode - so your URL then is http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take%24.asp andy 15:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2003 archive 2 on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.

I'm having some trouble getting a link to a URL with a dollar sign in it to work at William Shield. Is there some way to get it work properly, and if not what's the best thing to do? The troublesome link in question is: [http://farne.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$465 Details of the "Auld Lang Syne" controversy] --Camembert

:For now, replace the dollar sign with its encoded equivalent, %24: [http://farne.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader%24465 Details of the "Auld Lang Syne" controversy]. (Note -- do *not* put <nowiki>s into a URL, it does very very wrong things to the parser. :) --Brion 04:14 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

::Righto, I'll change that. Thanks to all. --Camembert

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, September 13th, 02003.

I am putting the finshing touches on a site with links, photos, and reviews of Web Browsers for Windows. I am wanting to link the site from the main web browser article. Would this be a conflict of interest since I edit here? --hoshie 06:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• If it's a page about web browsers as opposed to a site trying to sell them then it's probably ok. I don't think the issue is one of conflict of interest, but more on whether it passes the What Wikipedia is not test in regards to point 18: "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising". Angela 07:08, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

::Angela, Thanks for your answer. The site will be about browsers. Nothing will be sold. --hoshie 07:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.

I would like a second opinion on what counts as advertising/spam etc. I removed an external link ([http://cardshark.us/ CARDSHARK Online]) from a number of articles (Crimp, Three card monte, Card game, Confidence trick, Holdout, Gambling, Cardsharps etc) and have now had an e-mail from the poster of them who said the following: (permission to reprint this extract was given): "I included a link to my web site along with both of my contributions

simply because it is a related link for anyone who wishes to find out more on the subject described on the page... I feel that my contributions should include links to my site whenever relevant. I feel so because it is good to provide visitors with reputable follow up links and also because it is a way to reward me for my efforts."

Any thoughts? Angela 03:37, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

:I agree with the webmaster for cardshark IF his website is non-commercial and NPOV and provides quality information on the subject (we should always be willing to delete external links to weak web sites). As to commercial/non-commercial - maybe we could define that better, but any site clearly supported by a single business entity would have to have a lot NPOV value to be regarded as not commercial in nature. - Marshman 04:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:I looked at his web site (very well done) and it fits the criteria I would consider important as being acceptable for an external link. Sure, he is working on articles here and hopes to get more traffic through his site for his effort, but that fact is secondary; our goal should be to provide direction to offsite traffic that has quality - Marshman 04:49, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

::It's not non-commerical. You have to pay to view most of the site. I'm not sure how NPOV a site that teaches you how to cheat at cards can be. Angela 04:51, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

::: The password is an obvious attempt to lure visitors to pay for his so called "non-commercial" product. The irony. --Menchi 04:58, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:::Sorry Angela. I guess I did not go that far. Password and collects money from users! Obviously commercial and cannot be condoned as a useful link for our users. I stand by my criteria; but sounds like this website does not pass - Marshman 05:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My approach is generally to remove such links (not always immediately, but eventually, and boldly), and trust that if someone found them useful, I would be reverted (as I was on List of gay movies. This seems to work quite well. Martin 14:22, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

: Maybe when there is doubt about a site (has some value but also leads to pages that require $) there should be a warning note placed near the link in wikipedia. JWSchmidt 21:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2003 archive 4 on Tuesday, November 4th, 02003.

I want to add an external link to Afghan Hound, but how do I link to [http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/discoverdogs/hound/h765.htm this page] without loosing the site frames? The URL I see in the address bar ( http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/ ) links to the home page. Is there a way round this? Thanks -- sannse 19:10 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

:...and that's why frames are evil. E-mail their webmaster and ask if they have a way to link to their frameset such that it will show a particular file in the content frame. --Brion 20:40 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Why not copy frame source code, put it on a second page, and change main page frame to link to the specified page? Spe88 10:52, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Describe external links, Wikipedia:Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links

I noticed on a recent edit to World Wide Web by Mav that his summary stated:

:DO NOT sublink external links under body prose; use wiki refs or the external links section

yet I encounter this technique of embedded links regularly, like in this short article which has seven (!) such links in the body text:

:Pijnacker-Nootdorp

Is there any kind of concensus about this? -- Viajero 13:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

: I'd copyedit it ... mv'ing the links to a external link area (if needed) ... and mabey a ref to "see below" (as needed) ... don't know what the std nor concensus is though. Other than that you can always do a brackets notation citations (ala. [1]; how events does it), puttin' the link inline with the cited text.reddi

::I have done the latter now, that is sometimes more convenient for the reader than links in the External Links section. Patrick 22:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:::It is perhaps better but it is still far from ideal. For example:

::::departure schedules: to rtd [1], to gvc [2], DB site [3].

:::This is not exactly intuitive, especially since such links customarily refer to citations; moreover, the text is written in a kind of shorthand (what is rtd and gvc? And many people in the Anglophone world may not know that DB stands for Deutsche Bahn. It looks like you are writing for an Dutch audience!). It is a tiny article. Why not put the all external links at the bottom with clear labels? -- Viajero 00:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) aside: Deutsche Bahn means German railway, not Dutch. Get-back-world-respect 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::::The labels could be expanded, but it is not essential, they are already an extra compared with "departure schedules: [1], [2], [3]". I have no strong feelings either way regarding placing the links in the Ext. links section, but it would either give some duplication or some article content would be moved there too. - Patrick 11:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

::::If you like to demonstrate another arrangement, you could also pick another municipality, and add contents and links in the process, rather than just rearranging them. - Patrick 12:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I always delete inline links when I encounter them and move them to an External Links section. If they're kept inline, it's hard to tell that they're references to non-Wikipedia sites. Putting them in the External Links section makes that clear. RickK 19:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think what Mav meant is that body text shouldn't be hyperlinked. Wikipedia will covert a link by itself to a footnote format, which is perfectly desirably as footnotes. I suppose the Wikipedia software could be enhanced one day to automatically list these links in a reference section at the bottom of the article. Samw 01:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:Samw, the page was just changed; look at the previous version and you'll see what I mean. -- Viajero 13:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hope this is the right page, if not please move it. QUESTION: Should we be posting External links to personal websites or any other kind of site that is not credible. It seems to me if the goal is to have Wikipedia be an "accurate" and relaible source, then any external link it references to has Wikipedia's "certificate of authenticity" equal to our own unless a clear disclaim notice is given as part of the External Link listing. It would seem that if you can refer to John Doe's personal website on the "History of apples", then it becomes legitimate to link to a personal KKK and the like website from numerous Wikipedia articles. Angelique 01:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:I think that's a bit of a jump - adding a couple of useful and interesting articles is different from linking to the KKK or whatever. As long as the external links aren't inaccurate or biased in some way, there shouldn't be a problem. In many cases it may be more useful to link to them, rather than put all the possible information in the article. Adam Bishop 02:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:IMHO you will run into the problem of agreeing what is "credible". I do not believe an editor needs to agree with a website to link to it. For instance a NPOV article might legitimately link to both Creationism and Evolutionist websites. I would see no problem with an article on racism linking to a KKK website, as long as it was a "mainstream" KKK site, not a here-today-gone-tomorrow personal hate rant. Would judging by Google rank be a yardstick for linking?Anjouli 05:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The actual websites in question are (from New France):

• [http://pages.infinit.net/histoire/ydatnfqc.html Lists of Governors, Intendants, and Bishops]
• [http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/NVFR2.HTM New France: 1524-1763]
• Lirath Q. Pynnor

For me, external links are supplemental information that goes beyond Wikipedia's level of detail, so I generally only include ones that seem at least as knowledgeable and current as the content of the article referring to them. From a practical point of view, you don't want to link to bad data, otherwise future editors can mess up the WP article by using the external pages as sources. Many web pages are ephemeral too, be sure the WP article still makes sense if all the links stop working tomorrow. Stan 05:49, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The point that we don't want to link to bad data made by User:Stan Shebs is why I raised the matter. (and not for one specific page but relative to all of Wikipedia) Linking to an outside source that is only someone's personal page raises unnecessary risks and instead of adding benefit to Wikipedia has the potential to be detrimental. As such, my view would be never to add any outside link except those pointing to an source whose credentials are undoubted. Why would an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia ever want to refer anyone to the writings of sites where both the qualifications of the writer and the validity of their information is unknown to Wikipedia? In books, authors quote their references so as to prove they are quoting reliable sources. Why would Wikipedia want to do the opposite? Angelique 16:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:Having now seen the discussion on Talk:New France, I think your reasons for deprecating the external links are not valid. The personal page of a world authority is unimpeachable, and oftentimes a hardworking person goes to a great deal of trouble to put accurate information on a website. The only way to be sure is to evaluate website content on a case-by-case basis. For example, hazegray.org has a project to enter the content of DANFS as close to verbatim, and from experience I can say that they are very accurate, with fewer mistakes and typos than the average WP article. Stan 17:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

Dear Stan Shebs: Your insinuation is unfounded. REPEAT: " ---- I raised the matter. (and not for one specific page but relative to all of Wikipedia). my view would be never to add any outside link except those pointing to an source whose credentials are undoubted." Equally as often, a hardworking bigot etc. goes to great lengths to put their slant on "accurate" information. Want a list of "factual" right wing Religious Right sponsored sites? Should Wikipedia link to these? Or is someone going to start judging links? Angelique 22:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:If an external link has some value and some bad points, just add a note ("the pictures are good but the dates on the site are inaccurate"). This is all a normal part of scholarly work; we don't try to pretend that things don't exist, we mention them and describe their good/bad points. If you insist on sites with "undoubted" credentials, you don't make the problem go away, you just turn it into a debate on whose credentials are doubtful and whose are not. Stan 07:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:There are two main reasons for linking to an external website. One is to link to useful and accurate information contained on that website, and the other is because the website itself is the object of interest. In the second case the website does not need to be accurate, fair or anything else. An article on (for instance) an Arabic newspaper would be negligent if it did not show the address of that newspaper's website - whether or not the information contained on that site was accurate, NPOV or not. People seem to be defending the first type of link and objecting to the second. Anjouli 18:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

: The links are valid information sources. The first one is a list of all governors, intendants and bishops of New France, which in fact could be used to create a List of New France governors and intendants type page. The other, which is the one Angelique is clearly opposed to, is the personal Website of linguist and teacher Patrick Cousture from Montreal, Quebec. This Website features a rich chronology of the history of Quebec from New France until now and the sources that he used for this work are listed at the bottom of this page: [http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/HIST1.HTM http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/HIST1.HTM]. There are over 30 different books he's read covering some 500 years of history. Because Patrick Cousture is a Quebecer, he writes in the way an American would write of America, an Australian of Australia, a Scot of Scotland etc. This is what Angelique doesn't like about the site. -- Mathieugp 19:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

::I think I did in fact use that site to make a list of Governors of New France, which at the moment is on List of Governors General of Canada (but it has been discussed on that page that governors and Intendants of New France should be split off). Adam Bishop 19:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, im a user of the german Wikipedia and i recently found a lot URLs, which are obviously spam. The linked websites contain some basic infos, but it seems that their main purpose is to promote some commercial links on the bottom of the pages. I found 19 affected domains so far on de: and removed them from the articles. By accident i saw, that these links exist on en:, too. Maybe someone wants to search and remove them. I mainly used a local SQL dump and the contributions page, because these links are always added by some anonymous users (IPs). Here's a list of domains:

10-layout-rules.com

10-webdesign-regeln.de

10-webmaster-hints.com

10-webmaster-tipps.de

ab-nach-sylt.de

aquarium-starter.com

aquarium-starter.de

austen-biographie.de

badminton-crashkurs.de

badminton-kickstart.com

bernhard-grzimek.de

bob-marley-fan.de

carroll-jabberwocky.de

cocktails-machen.de

der-pc-hausmeister.de

durchmesser.de

ebay-ratschlaege.de

entspannung-am-pc.de

ferrari-page.de

finland-traveling.com

fotografieren-leichtgemacht.de

france-traveling.com

franz-revolution.de

fried-gedichte.de

georgeorwell.de

gitarren-kids.de

gratissites.de

html-collection.com

html-sammlung.de

internet-chronik.de

janullrich-fan.de

jayz-fan.de

jujutsu-info.de

klares.de

lecker-sushi.de

llcoolj-fan.de

madonna-fan.de

manson-fan.de

more-nintendo.com

my-own-summer.de

nintendo-chronik.de

olympic-games-chronics.com

pc-buyers-guide.com

pc-kauftipps.de

photography-starters.com

porsche-page.de

privat-versichern-experte.de

pur-fan.de

reise-nach-wales.de

sportwagen-fan.de

sportwagenfan.de

strat-games-chronics.com

strategiespiele-guide.de

techno-info.de

traveling-italy.com

whiskey-fuehrer.de

yummi-cocktails.com

I dislike the idea, that someone wants to get a commercial benefit from our google ranking or whatever. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on de: [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Fab]. Regards -- 213.54.99.133 16:22, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) aka Fab

:Just created an account on en :-) -- Fab 16:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

::Just made an update of the spam-domain-list on my user page -- fab 23:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, we get a lot of *.de spam on Wikipedia:Friends of Wikipedia too. Thinking of submitting a spam report to the ISP from all those IP addresses... Dysprosia 09:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know who removed all these links but - good work! :-) -- fab 22:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, February 21, 2004.

Do we have a policy on including eternal links which lead to paid subscription news services such as The Times? Fore example Current_events the Feb 16th story on the break-up of the BBC. Personally, I think that it's okay to link to news sites which require a free login, such as the New York Times, but that paid subscription links are best left out (or annotated as paid so that users don't waste time/bandwidth trying to acces them). dramatic 19:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Spend the extra 60 seconds and google for something free to link to. This should work 99.999% of the time. →Raul654 19:38, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

:"the Feb 16th story on the break-up of the BBC" - Wow! Do you get to see future news? Is there an option somewhere in preferences for that? [Sorry, couldn't resist]

:: You're just jealous because some of us are on UTC+13 :-)

:On a more sensible note, the Times link didn't require any kind of registration out of me, but in general you're probably right. Like with links to PDFs, links that require registration (whether paid or not) should probably have warnings. Slashdot conventionally puts "(free registration required)" or somesuch [although they sometimes parody themselves and put "(jumping through hoops required)", etc] but it's not obvious how that could be fitted in to the footnote-style auto-numbered links. - IMSoP 19:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) [via edit conflict]

I use http://news.google.com/ to search for news articles to link to in the Current Events pages. All of their entries are non-subscription services, and so far I haven't had a problem finding a news article which covers the event I'm trying to include. RickK 21:24, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We should also not give references to books or journal articles as they are cost money up front too. Let's just stick to sites supported by advertising (which we pay for in non-up-front ways) or the BBC (which I pay for out of taxes), cos they don't cost money up front. More seriously, the right thing to do from a scholastic perspective is to give the best references, wherever they may be. (Note that in theory our articles should be sufficently good that references are not needed by Joe Reader, only by more serious researchers) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Except that in most cases, the references are fungible - no particular pay site is going to be significantly better than another. That is why I strongly object to linking to the NY times, because after 3 months, the links becoming pay-only. →Raul654 22:16, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

::In the particular example cited, the Sunday Times is the best reference - it was the newspaper that got hold of the leaked report. All other reports are reporting the existence of the Sunday Times report, from what I've seen. Thus the it would be best to link directly to the Sunday Times. If identical information is available to all news sources (because the information has come from pa/reuters release or a press release) then sure link to the "best" (i.e. free/stable/readable) site - but wouldn't this lead to a bias to linking to the BBC - it has stable URLs and no ads, where as the other major news sources are almost unreadable due to ads and pop-ups.

:I think the best policy is not to not use them, but to label them. To answer your point about other kinds of reference, it is fairly obvious that a book is a paid-for resource (except when you use a library, of course), and journal articles all have the same general access arrangements (as one another). Online resources, however, have all sorts of different access requirements, and it is nice to be warned before following a reference whether it is particularly restrictive. And, as Raul says, where several references are only differentiable by their accessibility, we might as well as cite the most accessible (e.g. the one with no subscription requirements) - IMSoP 22:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::Yes, I'd agree with labelling whenever it is non-obvious. All other things being equal, accessibility should become a factor in chosing an ext. link, but other things aren't equal as often as the impression this thread gives. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:46, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see what's wrong with linking to a pay-only NY Times link. It'd be okay to link to "not even online at all" sources, like, say, the NY Times paper version, or a book, or a journal. I do agree that we should prefer online and free sources if they are just as good, and just as reputable. We shouldn't link to some random local paper nobody's ever heard of as our authoritative source just because it's free. Doubly so because our content may eventually be used in a non-internet setting, in which case being able to look up the NY Times article at your local library's archives is a lot better than having a useless reference to some obscure paper. --Delirium 12:00, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There is also the question of such links for science references. For example, Nature. Someone (possibly not from the best of motives) recently objected to this link to Nature http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7026/abs/nature03265_fs.html on the grounds of it being subscription-only. But... the link still helpfully provides the volume number etc for those without subscription to look it up on the paper version, even if it won't let you read the full text. This will become more common with science journals.

There are three human-created directories on the web and I added links for them to some Wikipedia articles yesterday (Palestine, Yasser Arafat, Al-Qaida). The links have been deleted with no explanation. By using all three directories the external links relevant to most topics should be fairly well-covered and it's complementary to the Wikipedia goal of definition and description (encyclopedia). It rounds out the topic and leverages existing work. Did I walk into some "not invented here" syndrome? I thought this was a help-the-user project and hadn't seen any instructions or discussions telling volunteers to re-invent the wheel.

:Hmm. I'm not aware of any policy discussion on this, but it seems to me that if we decide to link to directories in one article, the logical conclusion is that we should have such links in all (or nearly all) articles. At that point it seems like we'd be indexing another site. Isomorphic 21:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::Agreed. Linking to sites that have specific and detailed information about a subject is encouraged. Linking to directories isn't very helpful. --Αλεξ Σ 22:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

: Respectfully disagree with "isn't very helpful" from Alex S|Σ. It surely depends on how much material the Wikipedia page contains: if it has only a few paragraphs and we can add a link to a specific category in the sort of directory that lays out on one page a number of human-written profiles of relevant websites (often with meaningful subcategories listed on the same page, each with more specific site profiles), we are giving Wikipedia users a better/quicker tool than just listing the URLs. They can see which of the many websites or subcategories they want to try, rather than reading our necessarily brief comments accompanying each URL. :Robin Patterson 00:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:I think part of the problem is those are three of the most vandalized pages we have, so contributions from non-registered users sometimes don't get as careful scrutiny as they sometimes should. Try adding them as a logged in user--there's a better chance they'll stay, or at least get an explanation in the page history. Something in the Edit Summary box at the bottom would help, too, like "adding some neutral Web directories on ". Niteowlneils 01:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:This discussion seems to be continuing in More restrictive policy on external linking.

::Currently being discussed for a proposed change to the external links policy in Links to web directories like dmoz where are they appropriate? -- sabre23t 10:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there a policy about listing these? Someone edited Carpenters by adding a second fan site to the list of external links. The Carpenters Webring includes 19 sites, and I'm sure plenty of bands, movie stars, etc. have many more than that. Listing all and listing none both seem like bad ideas. I suspect that, in many cases, the selection of sites to list is based on the site owners having shown up and added their own sites, which doesn't seem like much of a policy. JamesMLane 06:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• Instead of a fan site itself, I'd link to their Links page and note it as a 'list of fan sites' (I would check a couple of such links pages for the best looking one first).Daeron 07:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• That's a very good idea. I'll keep it in mind if I'm creating an article or adding the first fan site (although even then I might sometimes get lazy and settle for linking to a good site that I happened to know about, even if further research might uncover another that was slightly better). But what would you do in editing an article that had one or more fan sites already listed? or if, as in the case that prompted my question, someone adds a fan site link to an existing article? Ruthlessly excising all such additions seems draconian. Allowing them all to remain will clutter the external links and reward the most assiduous self-promoters. In this instance, I did nothing except to add "fan site" after the link. JamesMLane 11:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• It's a potential nightmare. For entertainers one solution might be to look the name up at [http://news.bbc.co.uk BBC NEWS] and see the right hand panel which will show you which external link they favour. I guess other fan sites that appear, if they seem weak, should be looked at for vanity as many article entries are on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --bodnotbod 12:18, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

• A better way might be to place a link to the related category at the Open Directory - http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/ - most of the 'bands and artists' categories have a subcategory for fan sites. Heenan73 00:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a fairly general "suggestion" to the top of the page, that tries to reflect some of the views that seem to be agreed upon here and at a similar discussion at the village pump. I don't usually look at talk pages for general WP guidelines. I resisted the tempation to make it a detailed list because my impression is that, while WP offers much guidance to editors, much latitude is given for individual's contributions. Thinking about it later, I also think a suggestion to use KISS-principle sites logically should follow the same principle. Niteowlneils 23:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

moved from the village pump

Greetings.

After doing somewhat heavy contributing to the Wikipedia for some time now, I've started wondering if there are any generally agreed rules for what kinds of external links should be placed in articles. I notice what I consider to be junk links here and there, but although this is often a result of my personal opinion, I sometimes feel more objective in my complaint.

Besides having an obvious rule of relevance to the article, I would like to submit that there should be other ways to evaluate sites that are linked to.

On my web sites, I have what I call a "visitor-friendliness" policy (for lack of a better term). I don't link to sites that exhibit the following aspects:

• Displaying popup, pop-under, float-over, interstitial (intermediate page before continuing to requested link), content-obscuring or overly distracting advertisements; these kinds of ads are intrusive and take control away from the visitor.
• Requiring registration before being able to view content in its entirety.
• Using ActiveX controls, which are insecure, proprietary and effectively only work on Internet Explorer browsers.
• Using Java applets, which usually exhibit poor performance.
• Hosting by GeoCities or similar services that force in advertisements that effectively cheapen the site.
• Under construction.
• Frequently unavailable.
• Containing text that is difficult to read (e.g., fonts too small).
• Containing only a farm of links.
• Using background music or heavy graphics.
• Showing Flash or other video (with the exception of animated .gif's) on the main front page; showing it on an introductory page is OK if it's possible to bypass it and bookmark a main front page without video.

Now, I admit that my list may be overly restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, but I offer the list as a starting point for discussion.

Any thoughts?

Stevietheman 18:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

:I agree 99%. I try to follow the same rules (I don't actively check for ActiveX, but since I mostly use Mozilla, I probably wouldn't link to such a site). I would only make an exception when such a site is the only relevant one available. Most, if not all, the external links I have added are either: the official site for the company/person, a government site, or a leading news media site (unfortunately, some news sites (EG cnn.com) occasionally include Flash ads). Niteowlneils 19:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

:Interestingly enough, this came up on Talk:Current events a while back, with respect to linking news articles that required registration to view. Some people really couldn't see what the fuss was about, but it was generally considered best to link to equivalents without such drawbacks where possible, but not to exclude links simply because they needed (free) registration, and not to go out of one's way to hunt down alternatives.

:I think the same can apply to most of your other criteria: where there is an unnecessary but irritating "feature" of the target site, and an alternative is available, we should prefer the alternative. Where a piece of flash, Java, or even ActiveX content [does anyone actually use ActiveX? I've never spotted anything broken because of not having it...] is interesting in its own right, a note/warning next to the link might be helpful. But in general, we shouldn't go too far in ostracising sites just because their revenue model or design philosophy is different to ours.

:One point where I'd disagree with you in your list of negative aspects, by the way, is "Containing only a farm of links". I think such pages serve a very valuable purpose in collecting together information (page locations) that you'd otherwise have to do yourself from scratch - indeed, since Wikipedia is not a link repository, these are actually sometimes the best sites to link to, since they can provide far more depth of information than one "dead-end" link. Broadly speaking, I think I agree with your points, though. - IMSoP 19:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

If indeed there is something notably "unusual" about a linked site, then notice should be given in text accompanying the link (examples: "requires Java", "100MB PDF file", "requires registration"). - Bevo 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

:I skimmed a couple of the CE talk archives, and didn't find the discussion, but from IMSoP's summary, and the conversation here, I decided there was enuf consensus to address the issue briefly at Wikipedia:External links (most of the articles it links to seem to just be "how to"s, with out much policy guidance). If I've been too bold, someone can delete it. If someone thinks of better wording, feel free--I'm feeling a bit rushed as I have to catch a plane in a few hours and still have things to do before I go (and yet, here I am on WP :) ). Niteowlneils 21:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

::I think it's a great start. I'm not sure at this point if more should go there. Part of me wants to see extensive guidelines, but I can also see how that could easily go too far. -- Stevietheman 22:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

:::I was tempted to, also, but I've added a note about my paragraph (to which I have added pay sites) to Wikipedia_talk:External_links, which also talks about my reasoning to keep it fairly brief, and let the broad goal speak for itself. Niteowlneils 23:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered that some of my concerns are addressed in Wikipedia_talk:External_links. -- Stevietheman 22:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that many editors have taken to including external links which are strongly POV towards one particular view or item of the article, often without any warning that this represents the views of one particular side. Often, these links escape the normal Wikipedia NPOV process, because someone needs to take the time to check them out (not always easy). Does anyone have views on this? Lately I've been killing links that are not properly described as being POV or fringe interest. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

:Documenting the POV is much more helpful than killing the link, don't you think? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, Pete. I personally only kill links when I feel they don't enhance the article content but just confirm that someone has a POV. Random assasinations of links will just provoke "link insertion wars" anywayz. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

:Oops yes, should've added that before. Link to xyz's opinion only if it is an significant opinion. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed this as a serious problem in science articles: Standard and established science knowledge is usually found in textbooks and not so much on the web. But fringe theories, non-standard ideas and other strongly POV stuff is easily found on the web, often in a way carefully tailored to be easily accesible and quick too read. Hence such links often overpower the standard science in the link list, especially if its a stub.

Not as serious, but related, are external links to papers or articles dealing with definitly minor details. Especially if these are the only links, this looks highly misleading. Stubs with such links are worst. I usually at least consider deleting such links but then don't as I feel obliged to replace it by a better link. But maybe one shouldn't be so hesistating. Sanders muc 18:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

:One option is always to move links you're not sure of to the article's discussion page - particularly if the article is a stub, so that it's hard to determine whether the link will end up appropriate or not once it has been expanded (in the potentially distant future...). That way you can also justify your deletion, and people can respond and discuss it with you or one another. - IMSoP 20:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

IMSoP: This is what is probably the best thing, but many POV pushers simply reinsert the links without engaging in a discussion :-(

Sanders muc: This phenomenon (of fringe theories overwhelming main science articles) attracted my attention at cholesterol, where someone inserted a rant on the "dissidents of the lipid hypothesis", some noisy people who doubt the link between cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. Yet >99% of all doctors will subscribe to the "lipid hypothesis" (which is not a hypothesis anymore). Disconcerting. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with POV or dissent in an external link. All I look at in judging a link is whether it's a) relevant, b) has significant contributive content, and c) uses the same language as the article (i.e., article in English -> linked site in English). I think external POV adds to the NPOV article, not hurt it; however, it would be prudent for the article editor to include as many NPOV links as they can find. -- Stevietheman 20:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding of NPOV to think that adding an external link can violate the policy. NPOV is not about making everything conform to some consensus; it is about presenting views as facts, by attributing them to those who have them. Ex: "Flat-earthers think the Earth is flat" is a fact, and appropriate to an artical on geography or cartology. Now, an external link to the Flat Earth Society website is giving both the source of the material, and the material, all at once, so its NPOV to add it, regardless if the Flat Earth view is stated in the article; it might be deleted everytime it crops up by cartology majors who think it is nonsense. Further, perhaps one reason people add POV links, is because editors are censoring out POV's they don't like from articles. The addition of POV links might be a sign of a very POV article dominated by editors who either don't support, or don't understand, the NPOV policy. Adding a link, or sometimes just a reference to a book, is an easier way of getting a view heard, than fighting to establish it in the text of the article. See for example, the page on Saudi Arabia, where a reference is made to a controversial book about a view unable to be expressed on the page because editors won't allow it. ChessPlayer 22:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

If you desire to link to an outside video -- even an educational video -- don't even bother.

After editing a couple of articles to include links to educational videos online (with no commercials), then I got an urgent message from one of the users commanding me to stop "spamming the website with self-promotional links." Afterwards, I noticed he had removed all of my link updates. Oh well! I guess doctors don't need to know about emergency medical procedures from other emergency room doctors!

:Well if you don't even create a user account, and then solely start adding the same link to a LOT of articles, you look like someone spamming. Wyllium 06:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

::Hang on a moment. The first thing is that is very bad form to bite people who contribute without creating an account. We encourage people to contribute anonymously in order to get them hooked, we shouldn't complain when they go ahead and do it!

::Second thing: The IP who posted here is 69.38.37.161. Checking his contributions, he had only added four links when you wrote your comment, hardly a "LOT". Also it wasn't the same link, each link was tailored to a particular article... e.g. a link to video about drowning was added to the drowning article. A video about the Wright brothers was added to the Wright brothers article.

::So unless I've missed something (e.g. that isn't the only IP involved), please remember to Assume Good Faith and to not bite the newcomers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

:::I'm not justifying removing his links (which don't look that suspicious to me), I'm merely explaining why people might have reverted him. When anonymous users add the same link to a lot of articles, 9 times out of ten, it's a linkspammer. Wyllium 01:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:::Agree with Pete/Pcb21. I noticed the link being added on Drowning, and it looked good to me. I just watched the video, and it's not bad. I personally prefer text, but some people may like the video. I'll add the links again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

:69.38.37.161: Your stuff looks fine. Your links look fine. They should not have been deleted. Your edits to the Charles Kuralt article look fine. Sorry you got nipped, glad you mentioned it here, and hope you don't go away mad. It's really true that Wikipedia does get a lot of Wikispam, and it's true that some of it takes the form of unregistered users adding self-promotional external links to many articles, so what happened, though wrong, is, regrettably, understandable. It would have been less likely to happen if you were a registered user, and I don't know of any reason not to register--you needn't disclose anything, not even an email address. If you had registered I'd be replying on your own page, instead of here. There's absolutely no requirement to register, you can just keep contributing as an unregistered user. What happened would also have been less likely if you had included an edit summary--a short phrase or line that can be typed into a box whenever you edit a page. Dpbsmith 13:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

As I was the one who reverted the links, I feel I should comment (though I question the value of defending myself, given the comments above).

I see a lot of spam while monitoring RC, and what this user was doing is a classic example. It does not matter that the material itself was free (and "free of commercials"): the fact is, the links were added in an effort to drive traffic to this person's website. While all the links were "tailored" to the topic of the articles, they were all to the same site. This site is (apparently, please correct me if I'm wrong) a commercial enterprise and makes its money by selling ad space. Did anyone actually look at the site linked to? A good chunk of their programming seems to be entirely about patronizing their sponsors.

If I had not warned this user (politely, I may add; I did not "bite" him/her. See User talk:69.38.37.161 for my horrible warning.), s/he would very likely have continued to add links to this one website to a large number of articles. I've seen this many times before; you are free to disagree, but I believe I did what was in the best interests of the project. I might also point those interested to m:when should I link externally, which includes the helpful guideline "In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally." If these vidoes were truly educational, we would want them internally. I don't know about you, but I don't find a travel video about Mississippi steamship cruises to be particularly "educational". (Interesting to some, sure.)

I may not be the most prolific editor, but up until recently I've happily volunteered my time in maintaining and (IMO) defending Wikipedia. But after witnessing the flak dedicated users like RickK have to put up with and seeing valuable users such as Tannin leave us, I have reason to reconsider my commitments here. If the consensus is that I've done something wrong, I sincerely apologise. I was acting, as always, for what I thought was the betterment of Wikipedia. Time will tell me if that betterment is really worth fighting for. -- Hadal 02:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Easy there. You do good work. Thank you for monitoring RC. As a long term wikipedian you know that people disagree about pretty much everything. Just because some of us feel that one revert was not needed doesn't mean that your reverts were wrong, and in fact - looking at your recent edits - I think your RC patrol work is quite good. I would like to apoligize if my comment and my reverting of your reverts came across as curt, and I certainly do not want you to stop acting for the betterment of Wikipedia! Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::No hard feelings here, and thanks for the kind words (and awesome work on pufferfish, by the way). I'm not often reverted, but what I actually found offensive was the characterization of my actions; I feel I've been made out to be the bad guy here (I don't think there is one on either side), when I honestly meant no harm nor offense to anyone. Perhaps next time I'll wait until a user has added, oh, I don't know, 20 links to the same website before I even dare use the word "spamming". Otherwise something like this might happen again. So, right or wrong, I'm sorry for any negativity I've created and hope this user (I don't know his username?) settles in well. Cheers, -- Hadal 06:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I do not understand the abhorrence of linking to commercial entities. The argument should be solely about the quality of the linked-to material, not how it is funded (although a site with lots of flashing ads, popups or whatever would probably count as "poor quality"). I checked the drowning link and it looked reasonable. I didn't see about the steamboat.

:'"In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally." If these vidoes were truly educational, we would want them internally.' By that logic, we would barely want any external links at all, we would want everything internally. There are obvious problems with this.

:You say your warning was polite ... but you managed to use the words "spamming" and "will result in a block" in a warning that fits on to one line on my screen. This would be absolutely fine except that they are the very first words that a new user, apparently acting in good faith, has had directed at them since joining the project.

:Apologies for continuing to debate these points after you've offered to sincerely apologise, but these "threaten to leave if I can't do things my way" posts (you and Rick are far the first) really get on my wick. I make compromises every day on Wikipedia... perhaps I am not so battle-hardened by the fighting the legions of trolls and vandals so much. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::First, see my reply to Chris above. Why is it that someone can be "spamming" without knowing it, which I believe is what happened here (and therefore he/she was "acting in good faith"), but I can't be "acting in good faith" by pointing out (what I thought was) his/her error? You again bring up my warning, which is why I ask. It may have appeared curt, but I did say please. Its brevity was purely an attempt at efficiency; I hand out many warnings in a single day, and as far as I know there's no template: suitable for spamming (whether you agree with that verdict or not). Emotions can't be conveyed very well in a text-based medium. Perhaps I should have included a smiley?

::The fact that the site was commercial isn't the point, exactly. The point is that the user was adding links to the same site to a number of articles; while it is true that only four links were added at the time of my warning, judging by the scope of the site this user could have conceivably gone on to add many, many more. While I know it's only my testimony, I have seen this happen more than a few times. I was trying to nip the problem (not the user) in the bud rather than have him/her waste his/her time and the time of those maintaining Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could advise me as to exactly how many links qualifies as spam so that I may reserve my apparently rude accusations of "spamming" to cases everyone can agree upon.

::And yes, I do apologise for any wrongdoing. I also apologise for getting on your wick with my "threaten to leave if I can't do things my way" post; I don't see that I've made such a post, of course. I didn't say I was going to leave (perhaps stop dedicating huge chunks of my evening, but not leave), and I didn't say I wanted things my way; I just don't like being villanized, and I don't imagine you do either. I welcome disagreement, however. Perhaps there should be a "don't bite the well-intentioned admin" policy, eh? -- Hadal 06:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As the person who posted this comment in the first place, I feel I should address some of the other comments. First of all, I am very glad to see such a great tool on the web such as WikiPedia. Secondly, as a newcomer just learning about it in a magazine article, I was not aware of the differences in attitude towards registered and non-registered folks. As a newcomer, I have to say I was somewhat shocked that someone would call me a "spammer" and accused of posting "self-promotional" links -- it was kind of weird to have a "new message" link pop-up and see that message being new to the site. I feel that some sort of protocol to actually CHECK OUT the links before making those accusations would be helpful. Also, I think there are lots of opinions about what is "educational" or even beneficial to a reader on a certain WikiPedia topic. However, just arbitrarily removing edits without checking them out first is not exactly fair. Legitimate edits and constructive debate about what is best for each article is certainly the reason that WikiPedia is exciting since everyone has input. Lastly, I am sure that Hadal has done good work for Wikipedia and that spammers are a big problem. But please don't automatically lump people who are new to the site and not aware of your policies in the same category as spammers. Thanks for the chance to have some input. PS: I have now created a User Account -- thanks for the tip. Also, one more thing -- thank you to everyone who took time to post to my original post including Hadal. It seems like a great way to overcome differences.

:Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that wikipedia should link to grossly offensive pages, not even for reasons of "documenting". At the article Anti-French sentiment in the United States a link "Fuckfrance.com" was added. Such a title is totally unacceptable for a website, and we should not advertise such things under any condition. What would you say if we listed crap like FuckUSA.org at anti-American sentiment or FuckIsrael.com at anti-Semitism? At both George W. Bush and John Kerry even all "critical" links were deleted. I do not see why there should not be a limit of indecency for link lists of other controversial articles as well.

An even more important question in my eyes is if we provide links to communities of people who propagate sex with children or child pornography, which are both crimes in most countries, cf. "childlover" and List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles.

What do others think? I asked the same question at the article talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 22:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch of spam links to [http://edu.magicpage.co.il/seminarking/] that had been posted by two different anon IPs to seemingly random pages (for example, Stevenage and Leisure Suit Larry). Is there any way I can search within the content of external links to see if this URL has been posted from any other IPs? I've tried a Google search, which found me one of the IPs (and enabled me to remove some spam for the same site from the Belorussian and Polish Wikipedias - my first international edits!) -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:The only way to search for these is for a developer to run an SQL query across all the wikis. You can request this at m:Requests for queries. To have a site added to the spam filter, ask at m:Non-development tasks for developers. Angela. 21:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recently an anon edited Homeopathy by adding an external link to the H2G2 Edited Guide Entry on the subject. A quick search showed several other places where H2G2 is in the external links. We should certainly keep the ones in the H2G2 article itself; there might be a reason to keep some other particular link (e.g. we might link to an entry on a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy topic if it was written by someone who had a unique personal connection with the subject). Despite these exceptions, I think most of the links should be removed. They don't meet the general standard for external links. Before I remove any of them, though, do people think we should apply a different standard to H2G2, e.g. as a courtesy to a somewhat similar project? JamesMLane 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Seeing as it is a similar project in which anyone can write anything, that makes it all the less credible to link to. Unless you want to link to a sepcific revision of the document (if I understand how H2G2 works). Ilyanep (Talk) 12:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I would take it strictly on an article-by-article basis. Is that H2G2 article particularly good and relevant? That sort of thing - David Gerard 13:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I agree. --bodnotbod 18:25, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

:::I'm rather late for this discussion-ette, but I would also like to suggest that linking is restricted to h2g2 articles which have been through the entire review process: only "Edited Guide" articles in other words. --Phil | Talk 09:59, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

A recent conversation on #wikipedia got me thinking more about our external link policy, or lack thereof. As everyone knows, wikipedia is not a collection of links, and we might want to think about what kind of links we do desire, and what we don't. Here are my initial thoughts:

• What we do want:
• #On articles about companies/websites, a link to their official site.
• #On articles with two very differing Points of View, a link to some site dedicated to each, with an explanation
• #Links which provide actual "Further reading" or "References" from reliable sources
• What we might want (in moderation of course):
• #For albums, movies, books: one or two links to proffessional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment.
• What we don't want:
• #Links related to the article only by topic.
• #Links giving a POV where none is needed
• #Links to fansites and personal webpages that are not specifically referred to in the article.

Anyways, tell me what you think about fixing up the external link policy.

—siroχo 04:29, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

:I completely agree. As the recent examples of Linux and Mozilla Firefox show, it's very easy for external links sections to get completely out of hand, and full of unrelated or only very marginally related sites. These add nothing to the article and are more appropriate on a links directory such as DMOZ. —Kate | Talk 04:38, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

::I agree strongly that we need to sort this out. Have a look at my thoughts on how to deal with external links. Might this make a starting point for a policy? --ALargeElk | Talk 13:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes the big old good Disney fan sites appear in the External Links section of Disney articles, which is fine, but then people who run their dinky little poorly-made fan sites say "Ooh, I want to link mine from here too!" and do. If would be great if there were a uniform policy for how to distinguish between major fan sites which deserve to be linked to, and wimpy (or overly commercial) fan sites which are trying to get more exposure by being linked. - Brian Kendig 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(P.S. Maybe a solution would be to put links from articles to their DMOZ sections, and/or provide an easier way for Wiki editors to add links to DMOZ? - Brian Kendig 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))

:I have been removing links to DMOZ when I see when because I don't think there's any point in putting them here. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of links or a web directory, and pointing to list of links in every place we possibly could doesn't seem to be helpful. I think ext. links should only be listed when they're directly relevant to the article—and DMOZ isn't. —Kate | Talk 13:37, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

:: Quite the contrary, Kate - Wikipedia is indeed not meant to be a collection of links, so linking to the relevant category of a web directory like DMOZ instead of listing lots of links here makes perfect sense. For example, the article J._R._R._Tolkien contains quite a lot of external links. The last three links are the Tolkien categories at LookSmart, DMOZ (Open Directory Project), and Yahoo. I think that http://dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Genres/Fantasy/Authors/T/Tolkien,_J._R._R./ with its 409 links is pretty comprehensive and would suffice as the single external link in this article, since it presents virtually all relevant external links in a well-ordered way. I think that any Wikipedia article would benefit from a link to the relevant Open Directory category. Gestumblindi 21:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::It's interesting to note that Dmoz are now linking to Wikipedia. Most of their pages lists Wikipedia as a "sister site", although we have no formal affiliation with them. If you have an account at Dmoz, you might want to see [http://forums.dmoz.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=908066 Wikipedia now a Sister site?] thread in the general forum where there are various complaints about Dmoz links being removed from articles and a short discussion on whether they ought to be adding Dmoz links here. Angela. 19:06, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

::As a DMOZ editor I'm probably a little biased, but why exactly isn't a moderated directory useful for visitors? Lufiaguy. 21:30, Aug 5, 2004 (GMT)

::This was discussed earlier in External Links - Directories (see above). I think we're all agreed that Wikipedia is not intended to be ONLY a link repository, but there's nothing that says it CANNOT include links collections. See the difference? Please re-read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not Wikipedia is not] with that in mind. Perhaps it should be clarified, but adding major and extensive directories to existing articles doesn't change the articles into 'Mere collections of external links'.

Adding links to three different search engines for a single article (as I saw recently done) is not useful. Wikipedia is not a link repository and adding Google, Yahoo, or the lesser named directory sites (who may just want the advertising) is not helpful. The idea is to include information or links to information. Not to provide mere passthrough of web traffic to a search engine. MHO. - Tεxτurε 22:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:The example was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict Israeli-Palestinian conflict] and the directory links (NOT search engine links) are useful. How are those not 'links to information'? This isn't about web traffic or advertising, or we'd be deleting all links. ODP and Zeal are done by volunteer contributors, just like Wikipedia. Yahoo is well-known as a useful directory, and those three are the only general link directories (although others copy them) in cyberspace. I don't see any problem (other than your arbitrary deletions).

The Open Directory Project (ODP/dmoz.org) ist not a "search engine". The ODP web directory is an open-content, non-commercial, ad-free project built by volunteer editors, just like the Wikipedia (therefore a "sister site" in spirit - yes, it's owned by Netscape/AOL (visits to dmoz.org only cost them money ;-) ) and you might dislike the license, but it's basically open content). Anyone can use ODP data for free, e.g. it is powering Google's directory at http://directory.google.com/ . I am a volunteer editor at the ODP as well as here (I have contributed more at de.wikipedia.org than here, though) because I think that the two projects complement one another perfectly - Wikipedia is describing the topics, and the ODP is collecting the links for the topics.

The ODP is increasingly adding links to relevant Wikipedia articles in its categories (there are currently only 625 to en.wikipedia.org, but adding more is encouraged) - oh yes, there were also people like you with a they-may-just-want-the-advertising attitude and who questioned the appropriateness of "deeplinking" to Wikipedia, but now most see that Wikipedia links are useful for the ODP; and so it is vice versa - ODP category links are most useful for Wikipedia users, they provide immediate access to a link collection regarding the topic we couldn't add here, because Wikipedia is not a link repository. Gestumblindi 22:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I have recently assumed the alter ego Dr Linkslasher with the mission to tidy up snowballed links under medical articles. With a few set criteria, the vast majority of links becomes oxymoronic and qualifies for removal. I applaud any effort to reduce excessive linking: everyone who uses Wikipedia can also use Google. If a reader really wants to know everything, then Google may supplement the "overview" gained at Wikipedia with a better understanding of terms. I use this as a friendly reminder to all anons who add substandard links to articles. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:PS: Do we really need links to BBC news articles? How permanent are these links?

I've created a temp page at Wikipedia:External links/temp trying to set better guidelines for external linking. Please disect it (; —siroχo 04:44, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful it is to add dmoz links directly to the actual articles. Perhaps having them in a separate box would be better? If they were stored separately, it would be easier to update a lot of them at once, or semi-automatically import the categories from dmoz to here, and easier to fix when they move their categories around. Since it isn't directly relevant to the article, I think I'd prefer it was taken out, along with a lot of other meta-data that ought not be in articles, and put alongside the article, not as a part of it. Angela. 02:53, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

:I like that idea. Might even be another candidate to go into an "interproject links" box (under a separate heading), as suggested in [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708 Feature Request 708 at Bugzilla?]? Use links like dmoz:Subject? Catherine\^talk 03:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why note just turn off linking to external sites? This is such a major bone of contention why bother anymore. Some users here spend an inordinate amount of their time deleting links which could be better used improving articles. Many new users get accussed of spamming for adding good links (or at least not bad ones) to articles and leave Wikipedia with a bad taste in their mouth. Yes, some links are spam but there is no harm in most of the links which are added and then promptly removed. Why not just stop linking and be done with this issue? If DMOZ links are not good enough to add, I don't know what is.

What's the policy of adding links to related web sites to an article's "External links" section? For example, linking to Pokémon fan sites from the Pokémon article, or Disney fan sites from a Disney article, or Windows discussion boards from a Windows article?

My own opinion is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a link repository, and if we allow a link to one fan site then we're going to have to allow links to every fan site. I figure that a user can use Google if he wants to find related web sites, so I usually delete "External links" to anything other than corporate web sites. If someone really wants to link to his own web site, he can use Yahoo or Dmoz.

The situation which raised this question is that someone edited Windows XP to add a link to his own personal page which has a Windows XP performance guide. I removed it, then he re-added the link. I don't want to get into an edit war with him, so I decided to ask here to find out if there's any official policy on the subject. - Brian Kendig 12:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

: I vote no fan sites, for the reason you stated and for the fact that this is a good way to increase dead links. For similar reasons I frown on links to news stories about the topic. External links should only be to primary sources, or extensive background information not easily available elsewhere. - DavidWBrooks 13:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Unfortunately I don't have many answers for you, but I tend to think there is not enough of a policy. I recently posted at Wikipedia talk:External links#More restrictive policy on external linking with some ideas for a start of a better policy on external linking. I don't think fan sites or personal web pages should be allowed as external links unless the article specifically makes reference to them for some reason. Maybe we should begin to hammer out a policy on this to stop wikipedia from becoming a collection of links. —siroχo 13:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot (too many?) fan sites from Ken Jennings also. A page can easily get overwhelmed by fan sites, but one or two well-done fan sites can be helpful. Salasks 13:10, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

:There are cases when fan-sites are big/good enough to justify linking to them. I've noticed this with tv shows/movies, where the official site is little more than an ad and the best fan sites have voluminous information about the subject.

:It looks like the link in question is one for "Optimize XP", a website so personal that it's hosted on comcast's free user web space. Removing that one from Windows XP is pretty much a no-brainer. So I removed it. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My solution when faced with a multitude of fan sites on Lucy Lawless was to remove them all and replace them with a single link to the Lucy Lawless webring. --ALargeElk | Talk 13:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:The answer is to be reasonable. If there are only three or four sites findable on the web pertinent to an article, and all of them are fan sites, then linking to them all is reasonable. If there are twenty or thirty pertinent sites then use judgement and link to the best ones, just as in an article on an historical figure, you would link to web pages that were most useful in respect to that article, regardless of whether a page happened to be on a university website or was a good discussion or essay on someone's personal website. You don't have to include everything. On many subjects there are often a few large websites that themselves provide many other links and in those cases linking to those sites alone is often the correct answer.

:That Wikipedia is not a link repositary should not be taken to mean that an article should not sometimes include a large number of links to further information. Wikipedia is not a bibliography, but articles may sometimes contain extensive bibliographies, extensive selected bibliographies. Only including corporate websites has certainly never been Wikipedia policy. Such a policy would be very wrong-headed for articles I tend to edit and write. If an individual website on free user web space contains excellent material concerning the topic of any article that is not just rewording of material duplicated elsewhere on the web, then it should be linked to.

:The question one should ask is what degree of extra benefit does the link provide to people reading the article who want more information. An article should contain the best and most useful links that can be found, just as it contains the best and most useful information, regardless of origin. Select links for an article just as you would select facts for an article. Obscure facts not generally known are sometimes what makes an article especially valuable. Similarly, if you find an excellent, obscure web page on any subject, linking to that page provides far more value to a Wikipedia user than does linking to well-known pages near the top of Google's search on a topic which the user would also easily find in a Google search. If a user comes out of an article thinking that the links were excellent, especially if they pointed to good material that the user would not have easily found otherwise, then the links were well chosen. Whether they are links to personal websites, hobbiest websites, academic websites, corporate websites, political propaganda websites, fan websites ... all that is secondary.

:Jallan 18:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I dont have a problem with fan sites, as long as they are decent. Like, in an extreme case, some pervert might place a "fan site" for, say, Hilary Duff and it could actually contain a fixed photo of a girl naked with Hil's face pasted on, well that would be a little troubling and not of our standard. Like it has been said beforem a few well done and well meaning fan sites are ok to keep. Besides, another thing is that we also have links to the celebrity's own websites, and they obviously use their official websites to glorify themselves too.

"Antonio The Crusher Martin"

:It appears the consensus is to allow links to multiple fan sites. This seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the current phrasing of allow a link to ONE fan site. What is there are two that both claim to be the biggest? Do we engage in an endless tug of war? Either you allow both or neither. Not "one".

Hey, a few days ago I started the [http://moinmoin.riters.com/gameinfo gameinfo wiki], which is small and humble right now but will grow with time. The aim is to compile data on every game ever made (concentrating on computer and video games, but we may expand from there), similar to GameFAQs, but it's a wiki, and each game will have only one guide for simplicity. Should I or should I not link to gameinfo for articles relevant to a game? For instance, should Civilization computer game contain a link to http://moinmoin.riters.com/gameinfo/index.cgi/PC/Civ as an external link? - Furrykef 23:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I don't think it's a good idea at the moment, as there really isn't much content to the current entries on gameinfo yet. Perhaps when and if it gets established, and produces good quality entries that complement wikipedia, providing information that we don't have in wikipedia then it might be worth a link. In any case, as and when gameinfo is in a position to provide worthwhile links, I think we should decide on a case by case basis, whether a particular game wants a link to gameinfo.

What if I restrict it only to games that have guides or other substantial information? - Furrykef 18:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:If there are pages with substantial amounts of (good quality) information then I'd be more happy with links to gameinfo. I've had a look at a few guides, and they look like they rather good, although I'm not really familiar with the games in particular, so It's hard to judge.

:Where there is good information as those seem to be, then it's probably worth linking, but again, I think these should be judged individually.

:If you link because of the guide, then I think a direct link to the guide would be better than a link to the main game page. Silverfish 12:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, each game should have a guide -- eventually. I don't consider the guide anything special except that it's likely to have more content than any other kind of game information with the possible exception of reviews. I'd prefer to link to the game page itself for the "chat" and "review" links, not to mention the game description (which may well include something the Wikipedia entry does not, like a game excerpt), publication data, etc... - Furrykef 19:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

An anon user (many IPs) has been adding DMOZ directory links to many many articles. This spam is often to DMOZ directory links that don't exist. Sometimes google, yahoo, and looksmart directories are also linked in order to create a "directory links" section in the articles. Examining each one you find they provide no useful content but are just link directories. I suspect that this anon user is trying to google-bomb or just promote the DMOZ website. - Tεxτurε 16:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nearly every major article has a DMOZ directory link (not all work). Somehow we missed someone inserting advertising into every single topic to mere directory links. - Tεxτurε 17:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have found 114 articles with links to this yahoo-like directory listing. There are probably more. I don't think we need to advertise for them anymore. I did not include articles relating to the DMOZ project. - Tεxτurε 18:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I don't think necessarily that this is vandalism per se on many articles. I've looked at some of the dmoz links and many of them were put up by registered users who've done much other work. I think simply that dmoz being a big collaborative project, there are a lot of dmoz contributors or users who edit here and link to relevant dmoz categories. —Morven 21:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

::Agreed. I could not think of a better place to list it. Many recent additions are from anon users. Perhaps a partnership link (something similar to language links) would be more appropriate than external links if we really want to give DMOZ this exceptional status? - Tεxτurε 21:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of some of the articles? RickK 05:10, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've re-added most of the links to Yahoo and ODP, where they had a reasonable number of links. Smaller categories and some of Looksmart ones I left. Incidentally, this is a completely inappropriate place to discuss the merits of including links to directories. Markalexander100 05:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With all respect, it's a bit rich to be putting DMOZ here and calling it spam. They're already the largest directory on the net, with far more hits than Wikipedia. In many cases, they're very good resources. Of course, not all categories are suitable, but it makes sense to judge them on their merits. Don't judge the lot because of some overzealous anon. Ambi 06:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

DMOZ/Open Directory Project categories are often very useful, and often remove the need for lots of external links. Their content is available under a royalty-free licence with few restrictions [http://dmoz.org/license.html], so their mission is reasonably compatible with that of Wikipedia. -- The Anome 13:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, they now list Wikipedia as a sister site at the bottom of each page. Methinks this'll help our PageRank against the clones, too. Ambi 02:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you we have a standard letter anywhere for saying no to the above question? I keep getting requests for "link exchange" and we don't seem to have any page I can just send people to other than What Wikipedia is not which mentions Wikipedia is not a collection of links, but that's not really the same thing. Angela. 20:04, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

:I just had a nice discussion with someone from GenomeNewsNetworks, who thought he was doing is a favour by linking through countless pages. My answer is here and can be adapted. My basic points are:

:* Wikipedia is about content, not where to get lots of information that may (or may not) be relevant to the subject. For this we have Google.

:* Not all links are relevant to the article, and it takes a long time to verify this - editors have better things to do.

:* The articles are often better served if the relevant information is parsed into the article text, with the external link maximally as a reference.

:JFW | T@lk 21:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::Thanks. That's a good example of where the question has been answered before. Perhaps expanding the FAQ might be a good place to put this if it doesn't exist elsewhere. Angela. 00:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Under "What should not be linked to", the page now includes this item:

:"Standards are just as high, or even higher, for material linked to externally as it is for content added internally. Pages that are factually inaccurate or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to."

I think this idea is clearly wrong. We can't go around verifying the factual accuracy of every site we link to. We might link to a site that supports a specific assertion (a company's website is the source of the data for its annual revenues) even if other material on the site is unverifiable or probably false. Furthermore, in dealing with controversial subjects, it's often the best approach to link to sites on multiple sides of the issue. For example, in last fall's controversy over John Kerry's service in Vietnam, one of his critics, William Schachte, claimed to have been present at the incident for which Kerry received his first Purple Heart. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/] Two other veterans both said they were there and Schachte wasn't. [http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04356.html] Our article on the John Kerry military service controversy includes both these links, but the statement recently added to this policy seems to reject that approach. I don't see this language discussed on Wikipedia talk:External links/temp or included in the previous version of that project page. JamesMLane 17:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absent any defense of the item I disputed, I've removed it. JamesMLane 20:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of along the lines of fansite links... I have been removing forum and tutorial links from Maya (software) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_%28software%29&oldid=11171224 old revision]), as I feel they fall along the same lines as fansite links. I think tutorial links are inappropriate because they are not applicable to the average encyclopedia user. Just as we wouldn't put tutorials in the text, they shouldn't be in the external links section. A lot of the same applies to forums. In this specific case, the forum is more like a tutorial site than a discussion forum, but I think that discussion forums aren't really appropriate, either.

Basically, I feel that external links should be primarily informational and aimed at the average encyclopedia reader, with the exception being "official websites" (but most of those have informational content anyway).

– flamurai (t) 17:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I move it is time to tighten the policy with respect to various discussion sites. We are witnessing the explosive growth thereof, accompanied with their increased encroaching on wikipedia articles. Let me reming you a very basic reason why external links are discouraged: wikipedia has no control on their content, relevance, or whether they are live or not. The very goal of encyclopedia is to provide a source of concentrated information on the subject, not to send the reader somewhere. I believe everyone may use google. And search technology (web digesting, etc.) is gradually maturing.

So, let us stick to the original idea from m:When should I link externally: if some info at some website is interesting, put it here. If you are busy or lazy, put the link into the "Talk" page, and someone else will do it.

I suggest that is a particular forum is notable, then there should be an artcle about it, legally linkable. If it is not, then what is the reason to externally link to it?Mikkalai 19:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed. This is in the Contributing FAQ under "Is it OK to link to other sites?": "Please do not place advertising links in Wikipedia. Commercial sites are obvious, but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here." 68.67.170.26 01:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::I strongly disagree. Links should not be added to increase the traffic to an external site, yes. But a site that is the source for, or can verify, one or more facts in an article ought to be linked to. Such a site may not be notable enough for a separate articel, even if it is reliable enough to seerve as a source. Furthermore, in many cases wher ethere are PoV issues, whe should report on, and document, all relevant PoVs. In such cases, linking to sites whivh may not be reliable sources of factual information may be not only legitimate, be required, because the existinace of such sites is evidence for the existance and prevelance of the PoV they contian, and that is itself a fact. DES ^(talk) 14:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Links to forums are, in my view, acceptable in articles on those forums, and not elsewhere. I have seen numerous articles recently with multiple deep links into forums, essentially POV pushing or making arguments which are too fringe to eb included in the main article. Sometimes there are links to a site and to its forum. As far as I can tell bloga and forums are not sources (per WP:RS), so links to forums serve no real purpose in an article other than to promote the forums. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Can we please add "forums" to the list of things not to link to, then? I'm tired of seeing articles with a bunch of External Links to discussion forums. - Brian Kendig 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Greets. I've been working on a page about a television show here that contains external links and I have a question. Someone keeps coming by once a week or so and creating a link to their site which hosts illegal downloads of the show's episodes. I feel that a link to this site is wrong and have removed the link when I see it.

I'm troubled though that I do not see any mention of a policy like this within Wikipedia. Am I missing it? Or does Wikipedia turn a blind eye towards questionable sites? (Not complaining about that. Even I have found the site useful in the past but I feel promoting it is wrong.)

Thanks.

:on Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works it says Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. That would seem to cover the case at hand, as "illegal" downloads are copyvios. Other kinds of illegal content might be another matter. DES 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

I would like to list search results pages in the "Don't link to" category. Occasionally, we have articles that link to a google search (or google news search) on the topic. I consider this a "half-digested" external link. We use external links to provide our readers a service of more stuff they can find. If we can't take the time to go through the search and figure out which websites are worth looking at, I think we just shouldn't bother. DanKeshet 20:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

:I disagree. Speciallized searches, for example, to a topic within a particular domain name, can produce good results that a casual searcher may not find. This is especially true for the mention of a topic within a particularly lengthy web page, or for recurrent mentions of a topic in a periodical with specialized interest in that topic. DJ Silverfish 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::OK, I can see that. I still feel like it's better if we can extract from that the useful results, but that's okay. Could we write this up in the guide? DanKeshet 21:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've encountered some resistance to this guideline while cleaning up external links sections; I'd appreciate the input of anyone interested in the matter at the village pump. --W(t) 15:09, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

I couldn't find the section at the Village pump, but I've expressed my opinion on my User talk page if you're interested. I do think the policy should be improved to focus on quality of the linked page instead of the circumstances surrounding the linking. - HVH 18:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A number of sites provide scads of "etexts" in violation of the Berne Convention, copyright law in the nation where the servers of the linked site are located, and copyright law in the US (where WP's servers are located) — at least according to my understanding of (a) copyright terms as summarized [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html here] and (b) the facts of publication.

If we may put aside copyright considerations, these sites are certainly useful. But may we put them aside? Obvious options include:

• Linking as usual
• Linking with a warning about copyright
• Not linking

Comments? -- Hoary 02:43, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

:How bad of a problem is this on the Wikipedia? Do you have any examples? I know that I've run across some of those sites doing standard Google searches, and almost all of the websites I've seen appear to be in Russian. On the other hand, I have not run across any links to any of those websites on the Wikipedia. My own opinion is that if I ever did run across any links for one of those websites, I would probably just delete it, even if there is no specific policy against them. BlankVerse ∅ 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's a useful external link I'm all for them; the legal issues are for the site operator. If DeCSS-style "illegal to link" things prop up we'll get a cease-and-desist first anyway and we can decide whether we're legally obliged to remove the link then. --W(t) 11:49, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

::Sorry about the delay in responding. An example is the link to "Moshkow's site" from Vladimir Nabokov: see the history from 14 June (don't worry, only three edits so far) and "Copyright of Nabokov's works" within -- and now at the foot of -- its talk page. (I had been about to respond to this, but thought I should first look for some policy statement, and when there wasn't one I wrote this comment here and another at the "pump" and then forgot the VN talk page where the issue came up.)

::Another example would be the link to orwell.ru at the foot of George Orwell: in partial contrast, Orwell's works are in the public domain in Russia, and elsewhere; but they're still not in the PD in, say, the EU and the US. -- Hoary 06:28, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

:Legally, at least for the web version, there is no real problem, thanks to OCILLA. The print version may require stricter standards if linking can be considered aiding (which I don't think has been tested). Deco 22:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::The OCILLA will only protect Wikipedia. It won't protect individual editors. And under U.S. case law, linking to a site that you know or should know contains infringing material constitutes contributory infringement. Postdlf 28 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

:::On Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works it says Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Are you arguing for a change in that guideline? DES 5 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Is there a policy about where external links should be? I prefer to have all external links near the bottom under = = External links = =, and not in the body of the article, although the article can say "see external link". Bubba73 04:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

:Here's the best link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

Also, see Wikipedia:External links:

I almost always put them in the External links section, unless it is a reference to some obscure fact in which case I may include an inline numbered link that just shows up as [1].

Spalding 11:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

: thank you! Bubba73 18:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

We are currently having a disagreement about whether it is appropriate to link to a particular external site from Ted Kennedy; I would characterize the site in question as an "attack site" (see Talk:Ted_Kennedy#fatboy.cc). The same has happened recently at Pat Robertson, where I also opposed such a link. Critical sites are fine, more than fine, but mudslinging is another story, at least in my view. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

:In general I don't like attack sites, but if the attack represents a common POV, significantly different from mor moderate or reasoned criticism, then it may IMO be not oly appropriate but required by WP:NPOV to cite some source for this POV. This article might well be a case in point.DES 05:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What determines whether a site is official or not ?

On Talk:Charles Taze Russell, we have a user who wants to call a link "The official Charles Taze Russell website" (he happens to also be the webmaster of that site :-/), however, there is no "Charles Taze Russell estate" or anything that could be used to qualify a site as "official".

I'd say it's ok to link the site, but not to call it "official" in the article, but a blurb about that somewhere in policy would be nice. Flammifer 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

How does one determine the difference between Interwiki links and External links? The crux of my question regards the Glen Cook Wikipedia entry. I have set up an extensive MediaWiki-based Glen Cook wiki with detailed breakdown and analysis of the series, books, characters, and locales of this author's works. The page here has only a listing of titles. I would like to make InterWiki links from those titles, and series titles, to my wiki - but do not want to fly in the face of the 'no self-promotion' and 'limited external links' rules, especially since Interwiki links do NOT show up as "external" links. Since Wikipedia's policies tend to shy away from fictional character breakdowns and plot summaries, I thought it best to have a seperate site for this, rather than creating articles in Wikipedia itself. Please let me know your thoughts. GuruBuckaroo 05:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:Well, it's been about 48 hours since I posed this question, both here and on the talk page of the article in question. Noone has responded. I'm going to go ahead and put in the links.

:Here's my rationale: As I interpret it, the rule on 'fansites' is that they are discouraged. However, since the site I'm linking to is a wiki, it falls into the 'more detail' category, and is updatable just like Wikipedia itself. If the powers that be feel that this is still inappropriate, please feel free to revert the changes out, and contact me to clarify. GuruBuckaroo 02:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This may be interesting to those watching this page: Talk:Department of Motor Vehicles Rl 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a definite consensus on what Wikipedia's policy is regarding linking to professional reviews? There is a quasi-policy listed under the Maybe section of the external links style guide. We've been having a discussion about how to handle external links on the WikiProject Albums talk page. My goal is to help Wikipedia avoid becoming a marketing arm of any particular online record store. I feel that review links should point to an objective, authoritative source that doesn't derive revenue from album sales. If a source like that cannot be found, then I think Wikipedia should forego using links to reviews. I'd like to hear thoughts on this topic. --Chevan 21:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I recently deleted several links that had been added for Spanish language websites. The person who added them asked why I deleted them, so I figured that I could just point to a section of Wikipedia:External links that said something like "external links should generally go to English-language websites". Does this need to be added? BlankVerse ∅ 18:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:Can anyone clarify the policy on non-English links in the English wiki? Someone is trying to start a revert war over multiple links to a Korean site which I believe should be on the KO wiki since the subject at hand is not Korean in origin (since I can't understand the site enough to even navigate it, I cannot even make any judgment on the content). Before I edit any further I would appreciate some assistance. Shiroi Hane 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::I've seen great links to foreign language sites, but generally avoid and remove them. There is a bit more written here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Foreign-language_sites. Perhaps simply a reference to that section of the manual of style? ∴ here…♠ 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks Shiroi Hane 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Where's the best place to apply for assistance with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Mew_Mew&diff=37522974&oldid=37491057 this] situation? Shiroi Hane 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a note should be added to policy to specifically note that this policy is not intended to justify pushing POV. In particular I am concerned about the section which states On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.

1. What a particular site's POV is, is subjective. A site that one user sees as POV another user could see as neutral or POV in the opposite way. Users are trying to push POV by labelling sites that match their point of view as neutral and neutral sites as POV against their point of view. I do not believe that wikipedia should dictate to the reader how to interpret a site, as it is leading and reduces the credibility of any source. I therefore believe that the policy should be ammended such that no site be labelled as POV unless it specifically states what its POV is. Otherwise we are leading the reader.
2. When the policy states the number of link dedicated to one POV should not be overwhelmed, I think that it needs to be spelled out that overwhelmed indicates a large disproportion, like 10 to 1. People are interpreting this as 11 to 12 ratio as not acceptible and using it as a justification to eliminate links they do not like. I think that the policy needs to state specifically the preferred solution when one POV overwhelms another should always be, whenever possible, to add new links to the other POV and NEVER to remove good links which might be neccessary for the article.

:Sirkumsize 18:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Among the disputes I have had over the Supercentenarian article (which I originated and have been taken to arbitration over my efforts to revert the addition of nonsense and excess formatting and dead links to) has been the addition some time back of a link to a Yahoo-group (web email list).The person who added this link was the group's moderator,Robert Young (he has user accounts "Robert Young" (created Feb 2004) and "Ryoung122" (created Feb 2005) but usually contributes from 172.*,131.96.*,66.*,and other IP addresses).A link to a list I created,at a site that I do not maintain,is also in that article but was not added by me.(Robert and I are actual researchers in the field of supercentenarians,routinely consulted by the press and reference books such as Guinness--I fear our stature in the field can be invoked to disqualify us under the "no original research" policy).I don't recall seeing any links to Yahoo-groups in other articles.

Are they considered appropriate as external links in Wikipedia?--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

:They are unusual, but not outlawed. Many such groups are, like blogs or usenet groups, probably not reliable sources. Some are. And by the way , expert stature should not disqualify anyone, rather the reverse. Just be sure that any personal views are published elsewhere first, then cite yourself as a reliable source. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Fadix/EL

I've done several changes, but mostly added. I want to discuss about many issues about this article, but I think, it is better to start, by letting others read my changes, and having their input. Regards.

I notice that there is no standard about labeling foreign-language external links. I ask because [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcos_Moshinsky&diff=24823195&oldid=24532800 this edit] changed from what I would favor for this purpose to something else; I don't want to revert if there is some new standard being followed that I missed, but I don't see one. Here's a before-and-after for the link in question:

Before:

• [http://www.colegionacional.org.mx/Moshin.htm Colegio Nacional of Mexico: Marcos Moshinsky] (in Spanish)

After

• {{In lang|es}} [http://www.colegionacional.org.mx/Moshin.htm Profile] at the Colegio Nacional of Mexico.

I'm perfectly OK with the new wording, but I think {{In lang|es}} is unnecessarily cryptic, while "in Spanish" is perfectly clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:When I started writing articles for wikipedia I always used (in Spanish) for Spanish-language links. I observed that someone changed "(in Spanish)" for {{In lang|es}}. Visually I do think it is more appealing and more standardized than having options such as "(in Spanish)". I don't know if there is a standard yet, but {{In lang|es}} was created for this sole purpose, so I am assume that it will keep catching on. --Vizcarra 03:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::It might be more visually appealing (though I personally think it looks clumsy), but it certainly is more confusing to English speakers, and that's what this encyclopedia is for. DreamGuy 06:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::The icon is CRYPTIC, CLUMSY and was REJECTED @ Commons since June 2005 [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Templates_for_galleries#Voting_about_language_representation]. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, is just Vizcarra's style, and I find it quite unintuitive. Ruiz 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm going to comment on your attempt to bash me, not because it is important to me, but because it is so easy. The icon was not rejected, follow the discussion carefully, the usage of flags was rejected. The usage of ISO 639 codes was supported (which is the code that the icon uses), and the majority preferred text instead an image. If it was "Vizcarra's style", then {{In lang|es}}, would be credited to me, it is not, it is credited to User:Nataraja. Also, I would be the only one placing the icon. Click on the icon and you will see all the articles that are using it, you will see that I'm not the only one using it. --Vizcarra 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Would it be asking too much to suggest that we adopt some standards on style for describing external links to foreign-language articles? I have no problem with using this icon in addition to comprehensible text, but I don't see how it usefully replaces comprehensible text. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

:I think there was a discussion some time ago on EN against the use of these language images on external links. If I remember correctly, the argument was that not every reader would be familiar with ISO language abbreviations, and also that they may be confused with internet country codes. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:: Then I am going to feel free to revert this change: clearly it does not represent a consensus of which I was unaware. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Then you should read the link that Ruiz so kindly provided before you revert to "(in Spanish)". The vote was in favor of ISO codes ("es", in this case). --Vizcarra 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Yes I have read the link. The debate was on Wikimedia Commons, which is multilingual in a single wiki, and there were concerns about names in different languages (“Spanish” versus “Español”). Those concerns don’t apply to the English language Wikipedia. Susvolans ⇔ 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

: Perhaps there should be a template {{linklanguage|Spanish}} for labeling a language reference. This will allow editors to label foreign languages in a way which can later be modified. (SEWilco 06:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

:The vast majority of foreign language links that it would be reasonable to include on this Wikipedia would be those in the native language of the object in question. I.e., Links in Polish for Poland related topics, etc. Having a single marker for all of those types of foreign language links would be both more intuitive and save having to create an icon for every single language. Caerwine 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:: Vizcarra has reverted me again, citing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Templates_for_galleries#Voting_about_language_representation, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the case. I'm not going to waste further time fighting over this myself, but I think he is dead wrong and is doing our readers a disservice. I think we should have a policy specific to these links in the English-language Wikipedia, and that it should make the reasonable assumption that virtually all readers of the English-language Wikipedia read English, while only a limited number are familiar with ISO language designations. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

::: Can someone please point me to a list of ALL templates in the form ((xx)) currently in existence? Thanks. Smartech 19:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Go to Special pages->All pages->namespace:Template to get a list of all templates. Did you specifically want only two-character template names? I don't know of a way to do that, although it wouldn't be hard to download the list of all templates and write a quick script to find only those with two characters.-gadfium 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

::::: Actually I wanted a list of all templates for languages like this {{In lang|es}} and this {{In lang|de}} Smartech 23:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Open Directory Project has a rule that the English directory only lists websites in English, and foreign language websites have to be listed in the language-appropriate directory. In other words, Spanish-language websites could be listed on the Spanish Wikipedia articles, but not on English Wikipedia articles. Obviously there will be some exceptions. It seems pointless to me to have English readers sent to non-English external websites.--Tdkehoe 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have recently removed a number of links by Special:Contributions/203.122.53.88 as they all link to books published by packetpub.com. At RSS, this is now on beginning 3rd revert (I'm leaving the link for now). My questions lies in two places.

1. Should the book be cited as a Further reading reference?
2. Should the book be deleted as advertising, even though the subject is the article.

The links added by 203.122.53.88 obviously commercially promotes packtpub.com (violates What_should_not_be_linked_to)... but the links are relevent to the articles. What_should_be_linked_to #3; states that, If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.

How do we differ between notable books for sale and the amazon.com catalog in External links?

Move to Further reading, or delete as linkspam (refering the offendor to what written guideline?) ∴ here…♠ 11:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:Pretty blatant spamming. The "book or other text that is the subject of the article" means if the article is about a book itself, then you should link to the book if it's available online. So, for example, if there's an article about Moby-Dick and it's available online for free somewhere, link to it (probably on Gutenberg or the commons). That line does not mean link to a website selling some book that happens to cover the topic. If the topic is physics we can't like to every book on physics that ever existed, and if someone linked to just some physics book for sale, that's not helpful to readers in the slightest.

:I've gone and removed the other links the person put in. He should be blocked as an unrepetant spammer if he continues, because the only edits this person has made is linking to the same site selling different books. Those contributions are just leeching off of Wikipedia with the hope of receiving monetary gain, they are not assisting in the creation of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy 12:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

: For books which are not available online but which do have an ISBN, the ISBN link serves as a way to find the book instead of defined links. Indeed, the {{tl|book reference}} template only has a URL for an online book and not an ordering link. Irrelevant books or spammed ones should be removed. Spamming behavior carries an implication of irrelevancy, although sometimes justified enthusiasm has a similar appearance. (SEWilco 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

:: I agree. There is a big difference between a link to a book that is actually online (say, Thinking in Java), vs. a link to a page that describes how to buy a book that is sitting on a shelf somewhere. If the book is notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it, and the book is online, then please make the article link to the book. If the link is irrelevant to the article, please remove it. (Is a link listing hardware stores relevant to the hammer article?) --70.189.75.148 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Books whose text is not available free online should be linked using the ISBN mechanism, which directs the user to a variety of book resources including libraries and bookstores. In all but (at most) a handful of cases, in-print books that lack ISBNs aren't notable and don't bear mention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

One major annoyance I have with Wikipedia is linkspam, as well as long lists of mediocre-quality external links at the end of articles. I believe the length of external link lists should be limited and include only a small number of the highest-quality, reputable, most informative, preferably ad-free, NPOV websites. I have come across articles with 50+ external links (e.g. Hybrid vehicle), sorted through them (a tedious process) to only find 6 links that were truly informative and worthy. How do we expect readers to discern those 6 informative references out of such a lengthy list?

I propose a WikiProject where we nominate and work on such articles that need their external links weeded through to get rid of linkspam and be quality-checked. I have also put forth guidelines and philosophy regarding external links — primarily drawn upon the policies set forth on this article. I expanded on "What should not be included in external links" and welcome discussion on these ideas. Maybe we could use these to improve the "official" Wikipedia external link policy.

{{See|User:Kmf164/External_links|Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects}}

If interested in helping out, please indicate your interest on the List of proposed projects. ---Aude 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did we remove "Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions"? If (as I suspect) the issue is with the word "vandalism", I suggest replacing that with "spam" and restoring the sentence.

Plus, an odd pair of edits

• Removed: "Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism."
• Added: "However, most web sites are not suitable references, see Wikipedia:Cite your sources."

If (as I suspect) the reason for removing the first was that it is better just to aim people at Wikipedia:Cite your sources, why add the remark about "most web sites are not suitable references". It just seems that someone substituted one pet issue for another. Also, while it is certainly the case strictly speaking that most web sites are not suitable references—most web sites probabably consist of porn, baby pictures, or wedding memorabilia—I'm not sure that it is a statement so clear as to belong here if we are pushing off most discussion of the issue to another page. My own feeling is that even a weak citation is better than no citation, because you can follow up and determine that there was only a weak source for the information. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I prefer strong references over weak references, but I prefer a citation to a weak source of information over no citation at all (implying original research). So I restored the "Intellectual honesty" sentence.

--70.189.75.148 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at Talk:MMR vaccine about the suitability for inclusion of a particularly rabid website propagating the views of one conspiracy theorist vis a vis the vaccine debate. It is currently on RFC for same.

I think it's vitally important that this policy is reviewed to deal with such discussions. With Wikipedia becoming a force in public information, many individuals seek attention to themselves or organisations by putting links on pages.

There is good grounds to say that a view that is not mentioned specifically in the article because it is too fringe (see WP:NPOV) also does not merit inclusion into "external links". Or, rather: NPOV should also apply to external links, and links should have a description that mirrors a link's POV. JFW | T@lk 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:NPOV does apply to the listing of links, but not necessarily the content of sites at the other end of the links. And most definitely all links should have accurate descriptions on them, which would have to follow the NPOV of the rest of the article. DreamGuy

::My problem here is the use of external links as offsite POV forks. This happens from time to time, the above being an example. Extremes in the continuum of opinion, or opinions which are clearly of no real merit (I waas going to say as a hypothetical example adding a link to a "young earth" website to an article on dinosaurs, but that is scarily plausible!), which would of themselves not merit inclusion in the 'pedia, can be pushed via external links. As a rule of thumb, I would say that an external link which explains a POV which is discussed in detail in the article, but which does not of itself warrant a separate article, is usually OK, but it is hard to word this clause so as to prevent the real fruitcakes from exploiting the guidelines. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's hard to understanf the policy when the article contains external links to different sites with unique or maybe not unique content and it's ok. But when a new link is added to a site with absolutely uniques content, it's considered spamming and is removed. If one sees links to poor sites, to commercial sites etc., and then, after adding his one he is named "spammer" then, why isn't it better just restrict external linking at all?

Current rules say that external links ought to go at the bottom of articles. I propose one exception to this rule.

When the subject of an article is an online resource, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Pitchfork Media, the external link to the resource should appear in the introduction to the article, like this:

:"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [http://plato.stanford.edu/] is a free online encyclopedia of philosophy..."

:or "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a free online encyclopedia of philosophy... It can be found at [http://plato.stanford.edu/ http://plato.stanford.edu]."

Couple of reasons:

• Convenience. There's no reason why a user seeking a particular URL ought be made to to look for it any further than the beginning of the article. They'd expect it there, because:
• Importance. The URL of an online resource is essential to its definition. By hiding the URL at the bottom, we're intentionally obscuring an important piece of information. Why are we doing this? I suspect one good reason, but I think it's outweighed by the two I've just given:

One plausible counter-argument:

• Realpolitik. Let's face it; users are highly distractable. If we offer them links, they're going to click them; they will never read the article, and never learn from/appreciate the diversity of perspectives offered on Wikipedia. We're trying to provide users with information for their own good, and this aim is best achieved when we make it just a little more difficult to leave. (n.b.: This counterpoint is my own. I don't mean to misrepresent the rationale behind the current policy.)

Thoughts? (omphaloscope talk) 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think that your suggestion makes some sense, although we aren't a web directory and don't want to become one. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree and prefer links at the bottom. Inline links break the flow of the text, as said distracting readers, and just doesn't look right to me. Also, I think we should aim for consistency in style across articles — having links in the bottom section. ---Aude 04:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a large class of external links that this policy page doesn't address. For a good example, see Sleeping bag (Dec 13 version), which links to eight different manufacturers of sleeping bags. It seems that these links may fall under the category of "Sites that exist primarily to sell products," but I'm really not sure. --Smack (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:I don't think the links are appropriate in that article. On separate articles such as The North Face, the link to the manufacturer's website is okay. Such articles could be linked to Sleeping bag, through use of categories or some other way. ---Aude 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

::I absolutely agree. If the firms are notable they have articles and should be linked in "see also". If they are not, they should not be linked individually in this way. Links to authoritative review sites trusted by the editing community, yes; links to individual manufacturers, no. WP:ISNOT a link farm. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples. (SEWilco 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

One of the rules explicitly states that this should NOT be done. I'm wondering why this is the case. I understand that many users have low-speed connections or will not want to access a page that features external apps, but as long as this is explicitly delineated in the external link description, I don't see why this would be a problem. Can't users simply opt to avoid those sites on their own? I'm admittedly relatively new to the editting scene, so if this question is extremely n00bish, I apologize in advance. Hinotori 14:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

: It's a relatively rare Flash sites that actually merit a link, but (for example) similar issues come up a lot with PDFs. If it is in the External links at the bottom of an article, I usually do something like:

:*Berkowitz, Joel, [http://yiddishbookcenter.org/pdf/pt/44/PT44_goldfaden.pdf Avrom Goldfaden and the Modern Yiddish Theater: The Bard of Old Constantine] (PDF), Pakn Treger, no. 44, Winter 2004, 10-19.

: This reduces the chance that someone clicks on the link and then wonders why the heck their browser freezes for three minutes.

:There is no easy way to do an equivalen with an inline link without inserting something ugly in the article; one more argument for footnotes and "references" sections rather than inline links. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

::In some *rare* cases, I think Flash (or Java) can be used effectively.

::* One of my favorite websites [http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm] demonstrates the dynamic implementation of a treemap, based on Google News.

::* Also, how about, [http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2001/whatisaprint/flash.html What is a Print?] - from the Museum of Modern Art.

::* And, as a Cartographer, Flash can be an effective tool for creating interactive/animated web-maps, as it affords much higher resolution and capabilities for vector data.

::All that said, 99% of the time[http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00006C&topic_id=1] , Flash is used ineffectively or inappropriately. Wikipedia doesn't need to link to those sites.

::I suggest we either

::# Leave the External links guidelines as-is, and just handle the few exceptions on a case-by-case basis, or

::# Add something to the "What might be okay" to clarify the guidelines and what exceptions might be. And, as Jmabel says, be sure to note that the link requires Flash, uses Java, is a PDF, or whatever, when listing in the external links.

::---Aude 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback, folks. Much appreciated. Personally, I agree with Kmf164 and lean towards option #2. However, although useful flash external links are rare, I don't think they're *that* rare. For example, I've come across several topics where flash as an artwork is, itself, the subject of related controversy or attention. An example is the "Ebaumsworldsucks" flash which became very prominent. Again, as long as the user knows in advance what the link contains, I don't see a problem. I think there are enough uses for such links to warrant a clarification in the guidelines. My two (four? five? more?) cents. Cheers. -- Hinotori 05:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I keep running across the addition of external links to websites that are basically just collections of photos. Sometimes they are well produced commercial websites with a minimum amount of ads, but with little or no text, so they really are not that much use in most cases, Other times they are personal websites that are basically "here's where I've on my summer vacations". The final type is the "I'm the biggest foo-geek in the world and here's my obsessive collections of photos of foos", where foo could be buses, planes, trains, roads, etc. I think that in almost all cases these links are low-quality and unnecessary external links, but I don't see where they fit under the current policy. Therefore, I think we need to explicitly state that links to websites that are almost totally photos are usually not appropriate for links from Wikipedia articles. ^BlankVerse 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

:I wholeheartedly agree with you. We should not allow such external links, as I've found in the Acadia National Park article that I'm working to clean up. I would much rather the person that added the link (supposedly the site's owner/web developer), that he/she uploads some of those photos directly to Wikipedia or Commons. Some of those photos could then be directly used in the article and Wikipedians would see the photos. That person, however, could put a link to their photo gallery website on their user page, which Wikipedians would see if that person made really wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. ---Aude 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I kind of like these links, if the site linked to is good. Often, these lead to an extensive set of images to which we could not legitimately claim fair use. I've found these particularly useful in geographical articles, to give a sense of what the place actually looks like. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Jmabel! I have been working on a bunch of articles on Mexican archaeological sites and, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I don't feel right grabbing a photo off someone's personal website to insert into the article, I have had zero luck asking them to upload (no responses whatsoever), and the chances of me getting down there are remote (about as remote as some of these sites are). And in no case would I be able to put more than a few photos into the article.

So I may link to a quality "here are my vacation photos" site. These are not commercial sites and they usually offer lots of photos, some with the vacationers in them (which are really good for getting a scale of the ruins, stelae, etc.). And, best of all, they give a feel for the place that no amount of verbiage could evoke. Madman 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

::If the site you're linking to is not yours, and there are no other external links in the article (or none with pictures), then I think that would be acceptable. Put a message in the edit summary explaining this, and maybe on the talk page as well.-gadfium 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:How do you suggest we decide if the site linked is good or not? If the photo website is more than just trying to sell photos, or not a link (e.g. summer vacation photos) that was added by the website owner, then I'd be willing to consider it on a case-by-case basis. Both these cases are covered under the existing External links guidelines. Though, maybe the photo gallery link should be first suggested on the talk page and if there is consensus among the article's editors, then it's okay to add? ---Aude 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

::I'm not sure this is a particularly different case than any other link. If a particular link is controversial, it can always be discussed on the talk page. BTW, I'm usually negative on "how I spent my summer vacation" links, but it depends on how the person was as a photographer, etc. For a good example of the quality of site I would think we should link from a relevant topic, see http://www.theserpentswall.com/. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the feedback. Certainly there are plenty of high-quality photo websites that are worth linking to, such as the one you mention. Also, in that case, the website is not selling anything, and it would be you or someone other than the website owner adding the link. My concern is more about people that add links to their own sites (incl. photo galleries), which sometimes is difficult to prove and just based my suspicions. I think the existing guidelines would suffice, though maybe we could somehow clarify "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates." under "What should not be linked to", to say "this includes photo galleries, ..." and whatever else needed. ---Aude 01:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I always consider commercialism a strike against any site. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The section What can be done with a dead external link should cover how to determine that a link is dead. A server might be temporarily down. A link to http://www.electionworld.org/unitedstates.htm is in the external links section of Elections_in_the_United_States but it's been dead for several days. It's not in the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive] for 2005, but the page was indexed by Google on December 9th. To complicate things more, I added a link to my website in the external links section, so I'm reluctant to delete the Electionworld link. I don't want to look like I'm deleting the competition. -Barry- 07:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

: It is unlikely that the Electionworld link is down longterm; you might ask User:Electionworld.

: As for how dead links in general, the most comprehensive discussion is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link .22goes_dead.22, but that doesn't really address how you tell if it's dead, either. When I encounter a seemingly dead link I think would be worth keeping it it "revives", I usually put in an HTML comment about it; if I come back to it more than a week later and it's still dead, I usually cut it (unless it's used as a reference, in which case see the "Citing Sources" link I just mentioned). If I think it really would be worth recovering if at all possible, I put something on the talk page. I'd be interested in hearing what others do before we say that on the project page, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

::I was going to add a similar recommendation to the project page, or to one of the general Wikipedia sections for site-wide changes, if nobody responded. I think a special tag would be good for this, and a special page listing what articles need to be re-checked for broken links, but a regular comment will do for now. I would give a dead link about five days before removing it. The initial comment about a newly discovered dead link should mention the date that it was discovered to be dead, and others who check it can add their time and date stamp and mention whether the link worked. The comments should remain for a while even if the link starts working because a very unstable website should have that held against it. -Barry- 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)