Wikipedia talk:External links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the Guideline about Wikipedia:External links.


Archive
Archives

Sorted by subject

Sorted by date

Contents

[edit] Chat boards

An editor at People's General (a video game?) has objected to the removal of his internet discussion forum from the external links. In addition to wanting his own site listed, he adds that other potentially objectionable sites are also included (downloads, and until recently, another chat board). If any of you have an interest in this, please consider reviewing the remaining links in the article, or putting this article on your watchlist.

[edit] External link section style guideline

I would like to add these points to the guideline:

  • Do not use a raw URL.
  • Do not use "official website". Generally Wikipedia does not link to unofficial websites.
  • Do not use "website" as part of the link name. It is assumed that users know it is a website.
  • Do not use "homepage" as part of a link description.
  • Quote only the name of the website (and the country of origin if appropriate) as part of the link:
  • Unless it is the subject of the article always qualify the link with a description, preferably as succinctly as possible, and try to use the actual description of the page:
  • Wikipedia - Wikipedia:External links, a style guideline.
  • Wikipedia - 2008 Sichuan earthquake
  • If appropriate, state the country of origin of the website:
  • Multiple links to the same website must be indented from the root page:
  • Where possible links from the English Wikipedia should be to English pages.

Comments? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No raw URLs is a good idea, but not the rest. The second one in particular is just wrong since obviously the wikipedia does generally link to "unofficial websites". "Official site" is normally the best link text and should always be encouraged. Desriptions should be discouraged, and they lead to POV and promotional crap, and also are of little use. Simple, accurate links is the best style:
Leave the the descriptions to advertisements and link directories. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a need to now reinvent all the various external links sections beyond the style implied by the guideline (end of article). I'd love to see all the spammy and pointless descriptions removed, but also obviously some people do like descriptions, so no consensus on that seems like something to assume. 2005 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I think this is WP:CREEP. For example, I think that descriptions should be used when useful, but not when redundant or promotional. I don't think we need to specifically tell editors that. Have you ever run across an article in which someone contested this issue? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken on WP:CREEP. Agree with avoiding promotion and redundancy. I raised the need for a style guideline to get a better consistency on ext links. I suppose a consensus may eventually emerge and all articles will slowly be updated to match whatever that may be. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This guide does not apply to interwiki and interlanguage links

The rough definition this guideline uses is: "external link" = "link outside of Wikipedia". This needs additional explanation, because both sister projects and non-english wikipedias can be in some sense considered "outside" (for example, they use independent MediaWiki software instances). But I don't think that links such as pl:this link or meta:that link or wikt:pl:yet another one are really external. I don't think this guideline EVER applied to them, so I adjusted it accordingly. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% behind this - I see your point about other language Wikipedia's but think adding in yet more text about it makes the guideline more difficult to follow given that we don't seem to have had any real problems in that regard. On sister projects - while I think there's generally greater latitude afforded to these and we seem to encourage cross linking, I don't think there is carte blanch to add them without considering most of the issues in this guideline. It might be more appropriate to add to the "Links to be considered" section something along the lines of "Links to appropriate sister project pages" rather than say the guidelines do not apply.
Also not all interwiki links are to sister projects. I think wikis that are not a part of the Wikimedia foundation are definitely covered by this guideline regardless of whether or not they are on the interwiki map. Just want to point this out because it seems like you are using the two terms interchangeably. -- SiobhanHansa
Yes, I changed Kubanczyk addition to only relate to Wikimedia Foundation sister projects. This guideline does definitely cover those wikis not owned by the Foundation. The language is not very clear and the points being addressed don't seem to need to be addressed, but definitely any language must be clear that anything not owned by the foundation is external and is covered by this guidelines. 2005 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this guideline applies to sister links at all. I would like to point out that WP:SISTER guide is already regulating that aspect, so don't say editors have a carte blanche. I agree that non-sister wikis are "external", whether they are in the interwiki maps or not. This was my misunderstanding. By the way there is a proposed guideline for them - Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis). --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up recently here as well (currently in archive 21, which for some reason I couldn't add to the list on the right), but what about the difference in nofollow versus not nofollow. This is a huge difference from a search engines point of view. For some reason some sites that use Wikimedia software have the nofollow tag removed from all the 'external' links to their site. Wikitravel.com is a case in point. It is my understanding this is some kind of sister link, yet wikitravel is not listed there any more. This might not seem like a big deal, but it really is quite huge. One of the main reasons this site was bought by a big international site that collects travel sites and is being listed on the stockmarket, is that they were/are able to use all the back links from Wikipedia to get better rankings for all their travel sites. This goes directly in the face of everything that Wikipedia stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.207.26 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Safe harbor" provision and EL

I assume the "safe harbor" provision, which says that so long as a site is not physically hosting a file that infringes copyright than it's not infringing copyright, applies to the external link restriction? This is important since many anime news sites mention fansubs (which violate copyright) but don't host any of the files related to fansubs themselves.[1] Buspar (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when do courts define or limit WP rules ? If the community doesn't want to allow sites related to copyright violations, there's nothing to add. The websites you're desperately trying do add don't just "mention fansubs", they are real directories of copyrighted files and are made precisely to help the distribution of the said files. They are by essence violations of the "copyright" policy of WP, whether or not there is a debate on the legality of the site itself. They are just contradictory to WP's spirit, and if you want to allow external links to torrent trackers, then you're opening the pandora box because torrents can contain much than just fansubs (which are illegal, I remind you, so I don't see why WP would help or promote their distribution in anyway)...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Folken. Wikipedia has no interest in promoting copyright infringements, whether directly or indirectly. Fans will just have to use their favorite internet search engines instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we slightly modify the "restriction on linking" paragraph to better reflect that (meaning "whether direct or indirect") because some people are using the somewhat vague and general formulation to claim that WP somehow allows "indirect links".
Something like "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright, or to websites helping in anyway the unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material, may be considered contributory infringement" [...] "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright or helping its distribution in any way, do not link to that copy of the work or to that site".Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem we need to solve: we apparently have a few editors that
(1) have learned that linking directly to copyright violations is not okay, but
(2) have decided to technically avoid this problem by linking to websites that link to places Wikipedia won't accept.
I think that adding a clear, unambiguous statement about this specific problem is a good idea. I'm flexible on the exact wording, but we need something that clearly states that this is unacceptable. Either or both of Folken's suggestions might work, or we might add a sentence that says "If a website cannot be linked to because it violates Wikipedia's copyright policies, then do not link to a third-party website that links to the unacceptable website." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This generally sounds like a good idea, but I would just like to say that we need to be careful with the wording to make sure we are solving the right problem. We don't want to link to directories of copyright-violating links, or websites that primarily exist to link to copyright-violating sites -- but at the same time, we don't want to create a situation where a legitimate external link has to be vetted for purity. For instance -- and I'm just making this up here, but I am pretty sure real life examples exist -- say we had an article about a notable whistleblower activist website. Having an EL to the website itself is a no-brainer. But what if this website had linked to a leaked document, and the document's owners were calling it a copyright violation? In that case, I think it would be quite appropriate to leave the EL in place. It is an appropriate EL, and nobody is using it to try and circumvent the no copyright-violating links policy -- it just happens to be a link that also links to an alleged copyright violation. I think it is important that the wording protect instances like that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Extending on this, this will clearly get us to far and I think should not be policy. As Jaysweet says, we should not link to sites which are intentionally or primarily engaging in copyright violation even at one remove. But this is very different from all places whcih might link to such a place. I'm not sure any large site it many areas can can avoid doing that among others. This is especially true as many otherwise good sites do not worry about anything other than direct violation and take no responsibility for the rest of the universe. We'd be eliminating too much. DGG (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unlinked domain name

  • In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.

A notable person with a large following also has organized opposition. As an example of that opposition, the unlinked domain name of an "anti" website is mentioned. The existence and nature of the website is established with reliable, 3rd-party sources. I don't believe that this guideline has anything to say about such a case. Is a domain name a link even if it's not linked? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links on Campaign Pages...

Hello!

I stopped by the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 - while taking a quick look at the external links, I noticed quite a few that are questionable (blogs, forums) and one that just seems completely out of place (the link to buy John McCain merchandise).

So, I checked the other two main articles (Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008) and saw these two articles have quite a few links that don't seem to fit as well.

With some of the heated talks going on on the talk pages of these articles, I thought it might be best to just bring the issue here and let the pros decide if and how it needs to be dealt with. Thanks. TheUncleBob (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2008

I say delete 'em - links should be informative, and link to offical candidate/campaign pages. On a page like that, unless it's a political commentator's extensive analysis of how the campaign is shaping up or dissolving, I'd say it shouldn't be there. WLU (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all but the official campaign websites, Wikipedia is not Google. We will have to keep a close watch on 3 articles though, I'm afraid their partisan supporters will put them back in soon. cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering of external links

I've added that when the subject of the article has its own website it is normal practice to place this at the top of the list of external links. By doing so however I should stress that I'm not wanting to create new policy here, but rather to state what now appears to have become normal practice by default. Vitaminman (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Holding links"

Hi all,

One situation that I keep running into is the use of the EL section as a 'holding area' for sources - someone will find an article that relates to the subject area and plop it down into the EL section. Is it worth editing the page to mention that this is a bad thing? Talk pages are a great place for potential sources, but the EL section is not. I'm not talking about the broad overview articles (i.e. an eMedicine article on a page about a disease, though that shouldn't be there either because of WP:ELNO #1), it's more like on sildenafil someone adds a pubmed journal article to the EL secton about how grapefruit can interfere with absorption in the lower intestine. Since it is a valuable article about one aspect of the page it's not really ELNO #1, but it's still a bad choice for an EL. Thoughts? WLU (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: That sort of link is not good, but maybe not always bad. IMO the editors who put that link in ==EL== instead of on the talk page aren't very likely to read WP:EL anyway, so adding that idea here is likely to be useless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial links allways bad?

This guideline seems to suggest that commercial links are allways bad, regardless of how much general information they may contain. Is this right? Example: I now have two editors telling me that this commercial link must go from Indoor bonsai. I think not, arguing it is meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article and that I cannot find a comparable, non-commercial site about Schefflera as bonsai. Stays or goes? Emmanuelm (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link, and it took five full screen scrolls to get past the merchandising/advertising and down to links to what are presumably more informative/instructional pages. While it may be appropriate to link to a relevant subpage of that site from an article, I find that the main page of the site to be entirely inappropriate per WP:ELNO, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:SPAM. (Note: I didn't explore the sub-pages so have no immediate opinion on those at this time - just saying they may be more appropriate; I think the community should likely review those on a case-by-case basis.) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Was there a specific sub-page dedicated to Schefflera that you intended to link to? I agree with Barek; the front page is over-the-top adcopy. There's nothing wrong with content-rich commercial links, but the line between promotional and informative is pretty thin. That one is clearly across the line, in my opinion. If there some deep-linked, topical content, that bypasses the smothering ads, then maybe you could point it out? Kuru talk 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Links to commercial sites can often be appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not. This seems to be a case of the latter. ("*Fukubonsai sale and information about Schefflera arboricola as indoor bonsai"). I gree with Kuru and Barek links to the root domain are promotional additions. Note additions such as this is both inapropriate, and unacceptable as a reference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site or sell products. please remove those links, thanks --Hu12 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion of finding informative, non-commercial subpages. There was in fact a perfect subpage in that site; I edited the articles accordingly.
This being said, I think the "External links" section is sufficiently separate from the articles to allow some commercial content. I disagree with Hu12's accusation that I "promote a site" or "sell a product" when linking to the only reliable source on the web on one very specific subject, which happens to be commercial. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The actions of improving or maintaining Wikipedia should not be confused with adding external links. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic content on subjects, not to provide a repository of external links - other sites such as dmoz exist for that purpose. No policy or guideline guarantees or mandates that an external links section be included.
Also, keep in mind that ignore all rules is not a permit to do whatever you wish - accountability still remains. Be sure to review what "Ignore all rules" means before using IAR to justify any actions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The actual material when one gets to it seems excellent & noncommercial and possibly unique on the web. . Unfortunately the site creator has foolishly set it all up a single url, and I can not figure out how to link to the specific parts. An explanation in the link would help: .url and click on such and such at the end of the page. DGG (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)