text:
Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 3

mms://...wmv
How can i link to a Microsoft Media Services-Windows Media Video file? eg [mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/0408/23062/MSR_Faculty_Summit_Touchlite/msrtouchlite1_MBR_300k_110k_56k.wmv] -- 172.178.207.199 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles about websites: citing primary sources versus only one link to site
Many people advocate that there should only be one or two links to a website in an article about that site. But, if we really want to be citing our sources, is that a good idea? Why should we limit the number of links when we have the oportunity to cite sources?

Does anyone seriously contend that the foundational directive to cite sources doesn't override the external links style guides in such cases? --James S. 09:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Petitiononline.com
I went through and deleted approximately 200 links to petitiononline.com several months ago. There are once again several hundred articles -- different articles -- linking to this site. I believe these are being added manually, but that doesn't change the fact that these petitions are inherently unencyclopedic. Anyone can create a petition at this site, there is no authentication of the creator or the signers, there is no end time, and there is no mechanism in place for the petition to actually get sent to anyone. Furthermore, nobody pays the least bit of attention to them. I had blacklisted the site at one point on meta but the blacklisting was removed on the grounds that there are a handful of articles on topics where online petitions became unusually notable for some reason.

In any case, I'd encourage people to remove these on sight, and would like to suggest that we add online petitions to the category of things we don't link to, for clarity. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Scanning the database, there are 121 links to this site, you could whiz through these with WP:AWB in a matter of minutes. Martin 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com
Hi. There are currently 5,760 links to amazon.com. Is this acceptable? My second question is - can someone explain how to identify an affiliate link from a normal amazon link? -- Jim182 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * These links are not acceptable to me. For books, we should just give the ISBN which adds a link to Book sources.  From there, people can choose whichever source they prefer.  For CDs, I'm not sure if we have an equivalent, but don't think an Amazon link is appropriate. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazon affiliate links have the person's user ID in the URL. For example, mine (without the initial URL; I'm not posting this for link-spam) is /exec/obidos/redirect-home/evulaslair-20 (emphasis mine). For a link to a particular item (in this case, HHGttG on DVD) is /exec/obidos/ASIN/B000A283AW/evulaslair-20, though it is possible for a string of letters/numbers/both to come after the affiliate bit. Basically, if you see "anything-20" in the URL, it's an associate link; terminate with extreme prejudice. EVula 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is External links the applicable guide to avoiding/excluding links to specific bookstores, or is there another one? Шизомби 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; guideline 6 suggests avoiding "[s]ites that primarily exist to sell products or services." A link to a bookstore should be removed unless the article is about the bookstore. See also Spam and WikiProject Spam. --Muchness 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd replaced an Amazon link with an ISBN, but another editor added the Amazon link back in claiming it offered useful information... I think that's a weak rationale. Шизомби 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I took an Amazon.com link out again offering the above links in the edit summary, and it was replaced again. Can somebody set this guy straight? The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle Шизомби 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to Paid Sites
Hello, a question of links to a site which requires payment for viewing of its contents has recently arisen in regards to the Lincoln LS article. A user posted a link to the Lincoln LS Owners Club (LSOC) web-site. This web-site has caused some controversy since most parts of the site are for "members-only" and thereby require payment. Is there any policy stating wheteher or not it is acceptable to have a link to such a site, which requires a certain type of membership for the viewing of most of its contents? FYI: Here is the link to the LSOC web-site. Thank you. Regards,  Signature brendel  05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From the guideline; Links to normally avoid; "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" Martin 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * In this particular case, however, there's considerable "relevant content" available for free to nonmembers. The FAQ alone meets the criterion of having extensive information that's more detailed than we'd want in our article. The presence of additional information that's not generally available doesn't diminish the value of the parts that anyone can access. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The External.png image in the top paragraph
I was looking at this page today and the External.png image at the top looks ( in my opinion ) a bit pixaled and ugly. Do you think it would be worth getting a copy of it in SVG or a similar format ? I had a go at creating it in Inkscape but it turned out a bit crooked ( as a PNG ). --2mcmGespräch 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to look like that. It's an enlargement of the external link symbol used by Wikipedia, and intentionally kept at the same pixel aspect, just as an article about an old Mario game might intentionally have an enlarged Mario sprite at the same pixel aspect.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Mario game I can understand, because that's a gamesprite, and it wouldn't show up looking the same if you made it smooth. The external link symbol is not of this type. So please, do elaborate why. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I like the clean look better as well. Sorry, but to my eye a pixelated enlargement looks like a mistake. Those of us who appreciate the geek background may understand why it's pixelated, but a clean enlargement looks more professional to the average user. Is this a policy, or a tradition? Is there another example of an enlarged wiki graphic intentionally left pixelated? Carboncopy 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * When you look at the unenlarged version as an external link, what you see is an arrow coming out of a box. You don't normally think of it being pixelated. The brain fills in the missing information between the pixels; the vector graphic is identifiable as the original; the pixelated enlargment is unintelligible and ugly. "It's not supposed to look better?" What kind of argument is that? - Rainwarrior 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong preference for the SVG version here. The pixelated version doesn't look like anything at all. Stevage 08:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I only reverted the change to the smooth version because it wasn't clear Havoc was aware of this discussion. I don't care much one way or the other about the artistic style, especially since this isn't an actual article page. —johndburger 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Then you do not need to discuss the matter either. Havok (T/C/c) 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

findagrave.com
Tim Long (contributions) has been adding ELs to findagrave.com entries for a number of famous dead people. I was initially turned off by the site due to annoying banner ads and popup windows that firefox couldn't block. That said, I was curious if these links are good enough to include here. I noticed his addition to the Jesus page was reverted (they are aiming for FA status, and have a pretty strict EL policy). I would propose that all of these additions be reverted, but I wanted to come here and see if this was covered by policy, and if others agreed or disagreed with me. --Andrew c 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It's hard to like, since findagrave.com is so full of ads. Plus, why link? Just mention the burial location in the article. "Joe Smith died at a poker table in Reno, Nevada. He is buired in Plot C of the Riverview branch of The Eternal Resting cemetary in Carson City, Nevada." Cite findagrave.com as a reference, if you want. -- Mikeblas 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to sites in a foreign language
I propose that links to sites in a foreign language be discouraged (but allowed in certain situations). First, sites in other languages are of little use to the vast majority of readers, either because they only understand English or because they can understand English in addition to other languages, making the links in other languages redundant. Second, speakers of other languages can use the Wikipedia in their own language. The other Wikipedias have fewer articles, but they tend to have the articles that are of most interest to speakers of that language. Third, if they are able to understand the English Wikipedia article, they should be able to understand the English sites that are linked to. Fourth, an article on a complex or controversial topic that has enough links to be anywhere near comprehensive in a couple of languages other than English would be dominated by its external link section.

The only reasons that I can think of to link sites in other languages is if the link is to the official/definitive site of the article's subject or if it is not necessary to understand the language to use the site and it provides something the English sites don't. -- Kjkolb 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sites in English should be (and are) preferred, certainly, but there are quite a few cases where a link to a site which is not in English is appropriate. For example when the article is about a text which is not in English it is still appropriate to link to the text. See Völuspá for an example. Haukur 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why I said "allowed in certain situations" and gave examples of when it might be appropriate. :-) However, the guide says nothing about links to non-English sites. -- Kjkolb 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, this issue is brought up specifically in the Links section of the Manual of Style. When I edit pages on topics related to the non-English speaking world, my rule of thumb is to only include foreign-language links if there is no English-language site with comparable content.  The guidelines in the MOS guide are quite appropriate in my eyes though, and could be adapted for the Occasionally acceptable links section of this page with little trouble if people feel there's a need.  A  q  uilina  23:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the information, Aquilina. :-) Kjkolb 07:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I feel that the current policy on this matter (WP:MOS-L) is a bit restrictive. I do not agree on the argument:"First, sites in other languages are of little use to the vast majority of readers, either because they only understand English or because they can understand English in addition to other languages, making the links in other languages redundant."
 * Many readers should be able to follow content in at least languages such as french, german or spanish, which are being tought in school in many countries where they are not the official language. (I would not insert links to sites in swedish, my language, though.) That sites in other languages would be redundant if you understand english is something I do not agree with, even if a site is not the "definitive" or official site of something. If it contains some information that is not given in english, then it can be valuable to know about this site, even if you are not confident enough with that language to read it normally. Even those who do not understand that language at all are able to get some kind of translation with sites such as "Babel Fish" and "World Lingo". --Battra 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

External links to non-commercial tutorials and hands-on articles
A number of articles on technical topics have had external links to hands-on articles and tutorials wiped. At the same time there seems to be a desire not to have long lists of details (such as sample code) here. This is a problems to someone looking for more information, even when it comes to commercial systems. If, say, you want the low down on systems from Microsoft you have to wave through tons of buzzword filled marketing speak before you find anything remotely technical. Microsoft is also hampered by a search engine which is less useful then Google using site:microsoft.com so I come to Wikipedia for the hard facts. And I do find useful links ... by going through history files looking for deletions of what someone called link spam.

I therefore propose to explicitly allow external links to tutorials, hands-on articles, HOWTOs and sample code that are non-commercial and non-overlapping (ref. also MECE principle).

Relevant links to DMOZ might also be useful but I'd first like to know what went wrong that caused Google to severe the ties with them.

--14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not a very experienced editor. I have seen a several sorts of informations placed within an exterior links section (sometimes called, additional reading) which could be of interest to a person about the subject, but which doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards.  Various reasons to make such links exterior to the article are:
 * we are not a how-to manual
 * personal opinions which are unpublished (published by wikipedic standards) but could be of interest to a reader WP:NOR
 * narrowly published information (a special interest news sheet for example) WP:V, WP:RS Terryeo 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * (I took the liberty to indent the above reply to make it stand out more clearly from the original question)
 * I recognise the arguments you list, indeed one can avoid these by
 * linking to how-to manuals - thus not beinbg a how-to manual in itself - though there is a related Wiki HOWTO collection elsewhere
 * linking to useful and well rated articles - not to screeds by cranks or useless marketingspeak. Microsoft has a major problem here to people looking for the technical lowdown.
 * as for narrowness, many articles in here are already rather narrow and I don't really see that as a problem.
 * I think an additional reading header would be a good heading for this kind of material --22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research problem
The first item discouraged is:

 * Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)

This item muddles unrelated points. Factually inaccurate material should obviously never be used as a source. But that has nothing to do with whether a source conducted "original research".

Original research, is perfectly legitimate *outside* Wikipedia. The presenence of original research, is never a bad thing per se. Even if it is "unverified", it may be a legitimate, if its from a reputable source. I think the wording of the guidelines misuderstands the meaing of WP:NOR. WP:NOR just means *we* don't do original research, it doesn't stop us from using the original research of others, and it actually requires us to do, just that. Taken literally, this guideline would preclude us from linking to reliable pollsters, and other conductors of original research (who's work isn't necessarily verified by others). So, I wish to keep the rest of the wording, but drop "original research". --Rob 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Original research in a reputable source is impossible according to Wikipedia's definitions of the terms. If research has been published in a reputable source then it is no longer original research. Andries 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree a researcher can publish raw data (a primary source), and also publish their analysis of the data (a secondary source). Also, one person may analyze data provided by somebody else (e.g. both published indepdently of one another).  Wikipedia can do original research, however it is totally reliant on original research of *others*.  Also, remember, we have a unique definition of original research.  Wikipedia calls placing a phone call or e-mail to confirm a fact "original research".    Now, if a newspaper reporters does this "original research", and prints their findings, we can definately link to that.  If the reporter includes a transcript of the phone call, or a copy of the e-mail to go along with their analysis, we can also link to that.  If a famous person's diary is published, we can link to that (not use it as a secondary source, but still link to it).  Original research is simply something we can't do, not something we can't link to.  Incidently, sources that do no original research, are actually worse then ones that do original research.  --Rob 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added: In additional to noting original research is something we may cite (but not do ourselves), its also worth noting, even if something doesn't qualify as a reliable source, it may still qualify as a valid external link.  In fact, one role of "External links" and "Further reading" is to place things that don't qualify for the "References" section.  --Rob 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I was getting ready to boldly delete that part of the sentence, but then I re-read Reliable sources and No original research, and it seems that yes, an exterior website can be considered as original research too, if it's about something that hasn't been published in "reputable sources". Maybe

 * Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research

could become

 * Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research (that is, discussion of ideas that have never been published in a reputable source)

... hmm. Sounds a bit lame. Needs moe discussion, and probably coordination with those other policy pages. Flammifer 16:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Almost any site you can find "contains factually inaccurate material", whether it is material that is not outdated or something that was wrong from the beginning. It would be ludicrous to preclude linking to a site because it made a mistake somewhere.  Would you like me to start a list of unacceptable websites under this rule, such as nasa.gov and britannica.com and nature.com and whatever?

 * The whole purpose for external links, as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, is different from the reasons for citing "reliable sources" as references.

 * Many of the most reliable sources for use as references are original research; without the originality, they wouldn't get published. But that has nothing to do with WP:NOR, which deals with using original research by Wikipedia editors in articles. Gene Nygaard 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * NOR is exactly as Gene says. But frequently discussions about it become muddled with the issue raised in this paragraph.  As task as editors is to judge whether a source of infomation is published or unpublished.  If a source of information is published, we can include it.  It is not a trival task.  Personal websites often contain published material as part of a web page which the web owner wants to comment about.  The web owner has done original research in the sense that he states his opinion.  His opinion is unpublished (by wikipedic standards) while the information he comments on may be widely published material.  Therefore, I would propose the guideline encourage editors to judge whether or not the information is published, instead of judging whether or not the information is accurate:

 * Any site that contains unpublished information on its web page, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.) Terryeo 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

YouTube linking
I have noticed that some people are inserting links to YouTube videos in articles about singers or bands. I am torn at this moment: promotional videos are promotional, but the links are just link and aren't specified as the guidelines state. So far, I am being bold and removing them as I see linking to them a way of increasing the popularity of the owner's videos. What is the community thought about this? I am doing something similar www.videouncovered.com, which has been inserting into every article (around 90% of his edits are adding links to the site). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * YouTube should be linked only if it has some specific relevance to the article, such as the actual video an article is about, or footage of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction in an article where it's a significant point. Even then, there may be copyright issues if the YouTube clip violates copyright, because once you link to it, it becomes Wikipedia content as well and may not qualify as fair use.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the same questions about clevver.com.  While videos are promotional, they're still intellectual property that's owned by someone who probably wishes to exercise their right over the redistribution of the property. That is, have all the record companies given all their rights for those videos over to YouTube and Clevver? If not, I don't think Wikipedia should be linking to them. -- Mikeblas 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack pages
I'm a little surprised that there isn't an official policy saying that there shouldn't be any links to attack pages, by which I mean pages created specifically to disparage their subjects, with no othere content on them. Would anyone want to consider adding that? --InShaneee 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Attack pages can (partially) consist of reputable sources or selective excerpts from reputable sources. Andries 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, so they could make for possible references...but what about simply dropping a link to the page as a whole in the 'external links' section of a page? --InShaneee 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair I have to state that I am affiliated with an attack page i.e. exbaba.com. I always felt that, though this may not be supported by policy that the criteria for inclusion in the external link section is much more lenient than everywhere else. However if there is scholarly or scientific consensus about a certain subject and the external link does not represent a significant minority view then I think that deletion may be appropriate. Andries 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're suggesting that such links may be used to bolster an argument, but not as an example of the argument itself? --InShaneee 23:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is what I mean if I understand your question well. Andries 06:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice Needed.
There is currently a red hot debate on whether to have any links on the RuneScape article, Wikipedia's most edited Game article (More edits than Michael Jackson!) The debate is about whether to bring back a single fanite link and really you have to see the discussion to understand What is going on. The link is found here. Please give advice on what is right either there, or here. J.J.Sagnella 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

anonymous sites
I'd like to add "Anonymous sites of unknown origin." to the list of "Links to normally avoid". What do you think about that? Raphael1 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Needing comments from people who follow this policy
The Talk:Spore (video game) page could use some input on it's external links section discussion (specifically on xspore) to decide what should be done here. All the information necessary is just a short read, we could use comments of other editors to get this sorted out. If there is a better place to mention this, let me know. Chris M. 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The current state of the article's external links section looks fine to me: it has the official site, a forum that's notable within the Spore community, and a fan wiki included per talk page consensus. Further fansites (e.g., xSpore) should not be added without prior consensus on the talk page to add them. --Muchness 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm....
Could someone have a look at this contrib page?

The links made on the pages I saw all seem to be for the same site. Is there a page somewhere I should be posting this question on (i.e., a more appropriate one than this one?) SB Johnny 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Those links have been (quite rightly) all reverted now, it seems.
 * As to whether this is the right place to report such things, I have opened up a discussion on the Wikiproject Spam talk page as to whether we should have a dedicated page for reporting such spammers. Inputs and comments from all editors are gratefully received! Aquilina 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Standards Compliancy
Due to the discussion Talk:Leafcutter_ant I have added a few words regarding sites that do not allow access to those with a specific brand of browser. Parasite 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * How is this different to those sites that require users to download a plug-in in order to view the sites correctly? The user is given a choice on whether they want to download the "plugin" or not - no exclusion is made due to race, religion, origin IP, etc. And what exactly does "standards compliancy" mean? Is IE a standard that everyone has to follow? 70.111.217.203 12:16, 30 May 2006
 * IE is the majority browser, so if a site doesn't allow IE users to view it, it should not be linked. Nacon kantari  02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You are right, linking to a site which requires a certain browser is a similar situation to linking to a site which requires an external application. We do not normally link to those either.

 * So, you guys are going to pore over each and every site to make sure no plugins are required. Ok, good luck on that. Listen, I pretty much have given up reasoning here. If you guys want to keep Wikipedia a closed system in a world that's fast becoming an open community, fine with me. I made my initial contributions and that's obviously the last contributions I'll make. Adios muchachos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.165.176.62 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 May 2006.
 * It is unfortunate that you feel that way, and this is not the outcome I would have hoped for as you seem to be knowlegable on the subject of Leafcutters and could have made a fine contributor. All the best, Parasite 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * With regards to standards compliancy, I agree that IE is not a standard which everyone needs to follow. However, it would seem to me that any one with a browser that is broadly compliant with RFC2616 should be able to access information on, or linked to, by Wikipedia.
 * More importantly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and external pages where the page owner decides to exclude a group of people from information because the page owner does not agree with that groups choice of browser should not be linked to. Parasite 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think insisting on any sort of standard compliance for external links is a dangerous precedent to set. After all, what if the homepage for the North Kensignton wine growers association (I made them up, bear with me), happens to have a few errors in it. Does that mean the wiki page for the same group couldn't link to that group's homepage? What about the countless pages which aren't section 508 compliant? Should we not link to those as well? I personally use lynx - I can't even tell you the number of webpages which I can't see with my browser. The EL should be evaluated based on content and source, not accesibility. --Bachrach44 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In your hypothetical example, the current wording of the guideline allows for the North Kensignton wine growers association website to be linked since it is the official site of the article's subject. --Muchness 18:39, 30

May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact that a lot of sites and a lot of browsers do not strictly follow HTTP/1.1 makes it hard to ensure standards compliancy. It may be my clumsy wording, but what I am trying to say on the project page is that ELs that "intentionally" do not allow access to certain brands of browsers should be removed.  The EL that has raised this issue is The Lurker's Guide to Leafcutter Ants and discussion can be found here Talk:Leafcutter_ant.  It is the intentional denying of information to a group based on their browser preference that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.  I would welcome somebody to improve the words on the project page to more clearly clarify this. Regards, Parasite 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this "Sites that have the relevant content inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community." Please add, edit, expand to improve. Parasite 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * On an earlier thread, I said that my rule of thumb for foreign-language sites is to only link to them if there is no English-language alternative which covers the material to a sufficient standard. The information quality of the resource is the primary criterion for inclusion in external links - restricted browser sites should be used, but only if there is no non-restricted alternative of similar content. Aquilina 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally agree Parasite 08:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to normally avoid: advertising
I noticed the recent change from:

5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

to:

5. Pages with advertising unless the page is the official home page of the organization, person, or other entity that is the subject of the Wikipedia article on which the external link exists (as prescribed in the "What should be linked to" section above).

I'm wondering why this change was made. The exception it now describes is redundant, but what it described before was pages that may be relevant but had too much advertising on them. The reason I'm asking is that there are very many good sites with great information on them that have a little bit of advertising on them. Are we to avoid them now if they have any advertising at all? It seems that this excludes a lot of resources that could be useful. - Rainwarrior 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The issue of advertising and the web is a very large one. While only linking to advertising-free sites is an honorable goal, is it realistic in today's monitized web? If information is what Wikipedia is about, then any site should be evaluated on the quality of the information first, the amount of advertising second. A blanket "don't link to sites with advertising" is probably too simplistic. Carboncopy 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I share your concerns. I've restored the previous wording for now, and invited the user who made the change to this discussion. - EurekaLott 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In most cases, pages with relevant information but too much advertising can be used as references in the article instead of external links. As for the others, maybe a warning about the amount of advertisment could be added? -- ReyBrujo 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I made the change and would argue that since Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, it should deprecate links to sites with any product advertising (with the stated exception). The guidelines make it clear that this is not an absolute rule in any case. Also, who is to say what is an "objectionable amount"? To argue that "the Web is what it is is and therefore ...." is no argument at all. If Wikipedia takes a stand, it will make a difference! Peak 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I am a more pragmatic (well, cynical, really). Wikipedia seeks to be the free repository of information. The web is much more: information, communication--and commerce. Commerce is a latecomer, but it has driven the web to be the cultural force that it is today. I see little hope in extracting that commerce component at this late stage.  To insist that we link to either the commercial-free parts of the web or link to nothing at all leaves too much behind. OTOH, certainly we can set a policy that favors sites with the least commercialization when choices exist.  And I agree that defining "objectionable amount" is difficult, but that is where the consensus mechanism will have to do its work.  --Carboncopy 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Partisan websites
I have added "Partisan websites" with only a small number of followers to the links to avoid. While it is useful to link to popular conceptions there is little value to link to a minor activism website. One should use a well-known exponent of opinion. Dr Zak 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's best left to individual editorial judgement. In some cases, certain articles are inherently about rather fringe views.  So, some links may be essential to give some balance.  Such partisan sites may be invalid as a source for the article, but I don't see how they can't ever be given as links.  Also, there's a pretty common tendancy for people to think the opposing side is always the "fringe" side.  We already tell people to use external links selectively, and not for self-promotion, so I don't see the need for this.  To me, a reasonable example is an article on the political parties of a particular jurisdiction, where don't yet have articles on the individual parties.  It would seem necessary for balance to link to all registered parties, if any are linked to.  --Rob 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that if there is a choice of websites supporting a certain fringe view one should pick a popular one, not one of minor importance that just repeats what everyone else says. Dr Zak 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even with the last change, it still needs to make that clear. The fact a site is partisan, and small in an absolute sense, isn't really the issue in that case.  It's the relative size, given other available links.  That falls under the category of redundant links (already discouraged).  I just have this fear, that somebody in the future, won't see your intent, and will use this page, as an excusive to remove a link based on political dislike of a group (but keep their own groups).  --Rob 07:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the addition is redundant with existing guidelines, and I've edited the page accordingly (diff). Feel free to revert if my edit was in error. --Muchness 09:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti linking fanatism
Many articles are plagued by "no external links talebans". According to them, the only external links allowed are the ones to Google websites and the like, which is a great limitation to the concept of the Web, and an insult to the Wikipedia philosophy, expecially considering that for the big companies the common man is just a costumer, not a user. It seems that only the websites owned by big companies can be linked, ignoring the efforts and the contribute of independent webmasters that help the Web to grow and remain free. Those "no external links talebans" often edit articles removing links to websites which are relevant to articles and that have been in place for months without anybody else complaining, and usually leave only links to Google categories, CNN articles, or other main websites, including ones of pure commercial nature, like Amazon. While Wikipedia is not a directory of web pages, I think we should made clear that links to websites that comply with these guidelines (see "What to link to") are meaningful even if such websites are not owned by a large corporation. --80.181.230.202 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything sinister going on. I suspect that such links are removed because they are considered overly commercial, are of uncertain reliability or provide content that is fine, but not relevant to the article's purpose (I don't know why people would be linking to Amazon with any great frequency, though, since it does not have much content that is useful for articles). The sites of larger companies tend to have more useful content along with their advertising. For example, a large gas turbine manufacturer may have text and diagrams on how the they work, while a company that sells small generators may only have pictures of generator models with their prices. I think that editors believe that large companies are more likely to have accurate information, but I don't know if this belief is justified. Sites that don't have their own domain, are considered less reliable and the lack of a domain indicates that the company is probably small. Not linking to those sites excludes a lot of small businesses and very few large ones. It might be helpful if you could provide examples, but I think this covers the most likely reasons the links were removed. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * As I have said above, content is key. The necessary criteria for adding an external link is that its content adds (i.e. is not merely "related") to that of the article, and that it is of reliable provenance.
 * However, even that condition is not sufficient; particularly, we do not include every link that meets the above criteria - if we have one site that covers the topic, we don't need another one that basically cover the same ground, as that would be against the spirit of the policy "Wikipedia is not a link-farm" (explicitly stated in WP:NOT).
 * If there is more than one site that covers the material, we should pick the one with best content and most reliable provenance, because that source is the most encyclopaedic - incidentally of whether it is from a big company or not. This is an encyclopaedia, after all.
 * In summary, a link has to justify its inclusion to Wikipedia on the quality of the supplementary content that it contains, but which the current article and links do not offer; so few external links meet that condition that it is very easy for Wikipedia to justify their exclusion. Aquilina 10:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While we don't want redundant links generally, sometimes there is justification. Often, extra links are appropriate as back-up.  Sometimes, there can be a wealth of available links initially, but then most go dead, and you can't predict which ones will survive.  Back up links are good.  Also, for many topics, notability is established by coverage in multiple independent sources.  For instance WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC all have such a ctierion.  Now, if somebody records bunch of independent sources (all saying similiar things, but written independently), and then somebody else removes them, then the articles may appear to fail the notability test.  Often new google searches don't quickly re-find what was previously found (often lost in the mix).  In AFDs, whenever somebody provides links showing large media coverage, I always say, put it in the article, not the AFD (which if done originally, often avoids the AFD).  So, while we should be cautious, we shouldn't be overly so.  --Rob 11:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This is not the case here; references for establishing notability should go in the references section, not the external links, as by definition their presence in the article is required. Furthermore, unstable links should not be linked to - that is explicitly stated on the WP:EL page.  If it is that unstable, it probably was not a reliable source.  Also, if no further sources can be found to replace    ones lost, it strongly suggests the subject is no longer notable.  My main truck is with the listing of six or seven directories though - almost by definition, one directory is always sufficient Aqulina 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've just called Associated Press unreliable, since a huge portion of their stories expire on various web sites, after a set of time. Will you be going systematically and removing AP links?  Many highly reliable sources go from free completely free access (no registration required), to free with registration, to payment required, to compeletely off-web, even to paper only.  The story is still reliable and remains published.  But generally, reliable sources like to make money, and thefore charge for what they do.  But often when one publication changes the status of a link, another a link remains available, with free access.  Also, your wrong about putting all these in the "Reference" section.  One has to fully read, and ensure a link is consistant with the facts before incorporatining into references.  But for the purpose of External Links, one need only ensure it has relevant useful information, that will be useful (without doing a more careful fact-by-fact check).  It is completely *absurd* to think somebody becomes non-notable because links to stories about them go dead.   Generally notability is constant or increasees for a subject.  Notability is not transient, and does not fade.  If something will not remain notable, it probably never was notable.  Often on AFD no further sources can be found because sadly, many Wikipedians rely exclusively on Google, not realizing that it fails to find most information on the web.  Also, lots of stuff in Google, is practically not findable through Google, because the keyword for the subject is identical to some hugely famous keyword for something unrelated.  It can take huge amounts of time sifting through unrelated links, to find relevant ones.  So, when somebody does that, and includes relevant, useful informative, they shouldn't be blindly removed by other editors.  I've seen people remove useful informative links, leaving a page with no links whatsoever, because of perceived "link spam".   --Rob 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You cannot argue principle from a couple of special cases. As regards AP, I specifically used the word "probably" above for a reason.  Of course it is reliable - however, if we know the links routinely as removed/become restricted, then we should only link to it if no other source can be found - the guideline and motivation are clear.  For newsworthy subjects, this is often not too difficult; if an AP link (in the EL section, not the References section) is not maintained and it goes dead it should most likely be removed.
 * If you are using external links to reference the establishment of notability, then yes, it does go in the references section. Using the proper referencing style shows precisely which fact you are trying to substantiate from a given article.  If you think an article is good for establishing a fact, but the rest of it is substantially less reliable you should really be looking for a better source.  Using the references section also combats some of the problems for when links go dead - have a look at WP:REF for more information.
 * I agree that the Wikipedia reliance on Google is a problem - however, if there are no remaining Google sources, then off-internet sources must be found and cited. This is a direct corollary of WP:V, and is a non-negotiable. If an articles are being deleted because their sole references are now-moribund Google links, that is a question for deletion policy.
 * I also agree that links should not be removed "blindly" - no editing should be done without due care and attention! Removing all links to an article is usually misguided, too. However, the general principle is that there is no harm in removing external links which are largely duplicates of material in other external links, dead external links, and ones of tangential relevance. That's the main problem here. Aquilina 10:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This discussion is now being used for leverage by the section starter in including rather large EL sections in Newsgroup and News server. I cannot necessarily see that it is justified. Haakon 09:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is one of the fanatic people I was refering to. If there's no consensus, why don't leave things as they are (as long as it's not blatant spam, of course, and it follows the guidelines listed here)? Otherwise I think links to major websites must be removed as well. --80.181.230.202 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the change at Newsgroup, as the pre-existing set of links were completely sufficient. There is perhaps room for a couple of links at News server, but I haven't examined those as closely.  There has been no change to the guidelines resulting from this discussion Aquilina 10:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The sites removed were removed because they merely duplicated material in other external links, or contained very little information themselves. This was regardless of whether they were from big sites or not. If a link doesn't contribute any further knowledge to the subject in question, and isn't an explicit reference for the article text, there's no point in it being there - whether it meets guidelines or not.  Content is the mecessary condition, the guidelines are  Removing all sites removes all the information, and the reader loses out. Aquilina 10:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * They are a better source in your own opinion, which means POV (Point Of View). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.181.231.128 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

 * That having some sources is better than none is also a point of view - the consensus one. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Aquilina 11:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Assuming some sources is better than none, which ones we should choose, the ones you like? The point I'd like to state is not a minor one: the Web is much more than Google, MSN & c. Often, especially for specialistic or "niche" subjects they are even much less reliable and complete than a small but specific website --80.181.231.71 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that some references (even if they are bad in some way, particularly on WP:RS) are better than none. However, when citing such sources, one should be careful to note the unreliability (if that's the problem) in the article. A bad reference may make the difference between a fact that is debatable (for which a more reliable reference may eventually be found) and a fact that is complete nonsense. It seems impractical to hold minor articles that do not get sufficient attention to high standards of referencing. (Of course, any article wishing to be a GA or a FA should be held to the strictest of standards.) But then that's just my opinion, and probably not the consensus of all of Wikipedia. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics Sites
Hi all. What do people think about linking to lyrics sites? I think it should be discouraged. Lyrics sites are limited on encyclopedic content, and are easily found using a search engine. The sites themselves are usually copyright violations as well. Thoughts? ~MDD4696 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * They often fail WP:EL for having "objectional amounts of advertising". Linking to lyrics posted on a band's own webpage should be fine, however.  Jkelly 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Even when they don't have advertising (I've run across a couple), how do the lyrics add to a article? If you're linking from an album page, discussing the songs, or pointing at something in the writing, then it might be useful to use a lyrics page as a reference more than as something that you'd set in the EL section. I've been trying to clean up a number of band pages lately, and so far it seems that sometimes the lyrics pages matter, but more often they're just included with 30 other EL to fan sites and blogs out of a misguided sense of "fairness" --Xinit 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that lyrics sites redistribute material protected by copyright and should not be allowed. The lyrics are the intellectual property of the author of the song, and most artists (or publishers, or whoever turns out to own the copyright) would defend their rights over the material. Unfortunately, it's easy to find lots of links to lyrics sites from articles in the encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia should add lyrics sites to the spam blacklist, so that such links are rejected. -- Mikeblas 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is pretty well on point here. Unless the lyrics are on the artist's site, it is almost certainly copyright infringement (which is why the sites they're on have tons of questionable advertising), so they shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia. Fagstein 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-inclusion of the site ultimateitaly.com
Susanf 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Hello, I am Susan Fernandes. I am the webmaster for the site http://www.ultimateitaly.com.

This is purely a NON-PROFIT site that reveals original facts about Italy tourism and detailed information about tourist destinations in Italy.

It was linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy under the section External Links/Others for so many months.

But now it is removed from your site. I was just wondering why it has been removed.

Can you please help me in this regard.

Regards, Susan Fernandes
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory to the web. If we list every tourism site on the web, in every article in which it is relevant, then we will have our articles overwhelmed by external links. Our editors also will have to regularly check whether the sites are still running and relevent to the articles. It makes much more sense for us to link only to a very small number of external sites (other than those we use directly as references), such as the government websites. On the Italy article at the moment, I see quite a lot of government websites (probably more than we need), and only seven others. Some of those seven others might be better put in subarticles.-gadfium 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"References" vs. "External links"
According to this style guide: ''Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Verifiability and Citing sources.''

This is somewhat problematic, as, in my experience, putting references in "External links" sections is very common on Wikipedia. I believe this has to do with inline references: generally, when the using inline references, the links are put in the "References", and when the reference is not cited inline (as for a short article, a general whole-article reference, or just an article where no one has bothered to do references inline) the reference is generally placed in the "External links" section. Anyways, I'm not sure if it this is good or bad, but it would be painful to go around and change all of the articles (especially considering each link would have to be evaluated to see if it is merely a convenience link, or if the article uses information from it, making a bot unsuitable), and it is understandable to keep inline and non-inline references separate.

— Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you (I have seen thousands of articles with references in the external links section), that is not the correct style. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability. A casual user who reads something in an article may want to verify the information. If he needs to check 10 external links to do that, the information is not verifiable.

 * Soon or late the articles will have to be modified. I am doing that myself by either using the tag to force them to begin referencing, adding  to statements that don't have a reference, removing non notable links that fail the external links guidelines, removing references to non-reliable sources. It is painful, but it must be done. You can help by not confusing the External links with the References sections, removing extra external links and tagging articles. -- ReyBrujo 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I often add references in "external links" sections to articles that are referenceless. While this does not offer the same quality as inline references, I feel that it is an improvement over no references, and inline references are impractical for mass referencing. (It may also be good considering I often add such links with the good faith assumption that they support the text in the article, but relying on editors who are actually familiar with the subject matter to verify material based on the links I add, in which case perhaps they should remain "External links" until a knowledgable editor uses them to verify facts?) In the future, assuming the article has no "References" section for inline references, should I title the section "References" instead (assuming there is no style yet in place over a number of similiar articles)? And for articles which do contain inline references listed in a "References section", should non-inline references be a subsection of the references section, or a separate "External links" section? Armedblowfish (talk|contribs)

 * Articles that have been used to create the article must always be put in the References section, inlined or not. Later someone may take the time to check the references and inline them. As for non-inline references, you should use the Template:Cite web without a reference. If it helps you, see Goldmoon, an article I recently finished expanding, where you will find inline references, other references that have not been inlined but have been discussed in the article (as a subsection in the references using Template:Cite book, replace that with Cite web if you need), the external sections, and a sub section for other references that have been used in the article but, as they do not fit the reliable source guideline, they are put there. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * So I haven't been violating style all this time by putting links which may help other people verify facts in artices in "External links" sections. The Goldmoon example was helpful, you should consider linking to it from this style guide as an example. Do you think you could take a look at Comparison of BSD operating systems, an article I have contributed heavily to, and let me know if the referencing is up to Wikipedia standards? Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The article hasn't yet passed a peer review, nor is a good or featured article, and is still too young for that. I use it as example because I got some very good comments in the Talk page about how to develop a good article. I will check the article you linked later. -- ReyBrujo 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

External links warning
I created this since many of the articles I work with sometimes overflow with external links. Comments, suggestions etc. is much appreciated. Havok (T/C/c) 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is already a tag. -- ReyBrujo 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article or section may contain external links added only to promote a website, product, or service – otherwise known as spam. If you are familiar with the content of the external links, please help by removing commercial links, in accordance with External links. (you can help!) Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup

 * Didn't see that, sorry. Now I know. I would also say they are two different things. Mine says the section is to big, the one talks about there being "spam" i the section. Havok (T/C/c) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The two templates are approaching different problems. The cleanup-spam template asks editors to remove commercial links, and links added for promotional purposes. It deals with the WP:SPAM policy. The newer External links template is commenting on the style policy. Ideally there should be no need for two templates to achieve the same effect. However, currently this new template offers something that cleanup-spam doesn't - removal of excessive non-spam linkcruft. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If the Template:External links is to stay, I suggest renaming it to Template:Cleanup-el or similar, to group it as a clean up template. -- ReyBrujo 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, since it is section-oriented, maybe it would be better to make it section specific, or at least dual. In example, instead of for this article,  for this article or section. And add a Please to the last sentence, otherwise it seems an order which may be misunderstood by newbies. Also, it should give the option to act, not only discuss (in example, Please trim the external links section down or discuss about it in the Talk page. -- ReyBrujo 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Feel free to help me word it better. I'll look at other ways of showing it in the articles aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to convertors, calculators, etc.
I've spent some time recently removing links to the following online convertor tools:  from over a dozen pages, like inch and area. I wonder if folks here agree that this is proper. These links are not classic spam, and are perhaps arguably useful. However, my reasoning is that these links do not in fact add any additional information to the articles in question, and it bothers me that the same link is many different articles. (FYI, there are still remaining links to these convertors, and I suspect there might be similar links added to, say, currency, or peso.) Thanks in advance for your reply. —johndburger 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just to make this more on-target, I guess I'm asking what folks think about addressing these kinds of links explicitly in the style guide. —johndburger 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Your own website"
Currently, we're told to avoid linking to A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). I think this needs to be expanded a bit, or perhaps an additional clause needs to be inserted. Something like "Material that you yourself have written." Blogs intersect this, and self-owned commercial websites intersect this, but "linking to an article I wrote a couple years ago that's now posted on xyz.com" isn't covered, I think, and should be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Blogs, commercial sites, artist pages that you designed... I know I've run into this personally with an artist's article here that I contributed to; I chose not to link to his official website which I maintain with the expectation that one of his fans would do so in short order. About 10 minutes later that link was placed by someone else... Articles have a way of attracting correct information sometimes.

 * I think that even if your blog was picked up by Time or Rolling Stone and turned into a column or similar, you should choose not to add it directly. I would suggest that people mention the link on the talk page and ask what other editors think about adding it. --Xinit 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Generally asking to add a link to an article is good practice. That way the link won't be removed as spam etc. Other then that, my feelings are per Xinit. Havok (T/C/c) 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:YouTube
What do you think about Template:YouTube? I was not sure whether to post this in EL, FU or TM. Is this template regarding video founds in YouTube useful, or may it bring abuse? -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what to make of that template myself, but I'm sure the guys over at WP:TFD will be interested, and will know if it's ok policy-wise. Aquilina 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the suggestion, I will give their talk page a call. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The TFD failed. YouTube is very successful and has a lot of content. I predict that much of the "entertainment" pages are soon going to be adorned with YouTube links.  We might want to provide some guidelines about what kind of content is preferable: You know: Live performances, rather than MTV-style videos. Videos where information is provided, as provided to entertainment. -- 64.175.42.87 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. I think that WP:EL should expressly forbid linking to YouTube. The content there is of unknown pedigree, but almost always a copyvio. Because of that, it's very difficult to police for true links to copyvios, and it won't take long for things to get out of hand. How do we form a concensus to put this into place as policy on WP:EL? -- Mikeblas 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: External Link vs. External Links
Why not "External Link(s)"? Wizrdwarts (T|C) 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I would much rather have an article "know" if it has multiple links or not. "Link(s)" just looks bad (for lack of a better word) to me. EVula 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that "link(s)" looks bad. Instead of a compromise, why don't we just establish what the right one is? I think it's pretty clear that "External links" is the proper name for the heading. Since it is the name of an appendix, it should be consistent throughout Wikipedia. Secondly, as a heading, the name should reflect what goes in the section. Normally, there is more than one external link in the section. Why would we establish an entire section for one "external link"? ~MDD4696 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "External link" does indeed suggest that this whole section has been set aside for a single link, which seems silly to me. At least "External links" suggests that more might be coming later, at which point the section would be deserved. Furthermore, any links directly to that section (i.e. "See external links") are going to be messed up by any transition from one to many links. As for "External link(s)", that is just awkward and pedantic. - Rainwarrior 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a long-standing practice to use the plural, and (somewhere) there's a manual of style entry that supports it. brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why someone would think that the "External link" section is supposed to be for only one link; obviously if something else is applicable to the topic at hand, it should be included (and the editor should be smart enough to change the heading). And brenneman, I've yet to see anything in the MoS that supports this issue in one way or another (not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it). EVula 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fan site spam
I'm having something of a difficult time with Red Hot Chili Peppers with regard to a rather rabid fan community that's been bombarding the article with links to a couple specific fan sites. After a number of revisions, I opted to head for the Mediation Cabal, in hopes that the mediator would be impartial.

 * You see Anthony, if you are patient you can gather evidence to support your position. If you try to find the people responsible for editing the kylie minogue page you might even get them to help your cause. Of course that's not my job. Ideogram 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I have a mediator that's offering assistance to the link spammer on how to sell his point about adding a link to a web site that has much less useful content than the WP article.

Anyhow, I just want more eyes on the discussion at Talk:Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers...

-- Xinit 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stadium-Arcadium.com is more than worthy as an external link for the rhcp article. ReadyMade 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unless"-es are redundant/misleading.
In the Links to normally avoid section, I think the various "unless" clauses should be removed, and a blanket statement should be added before the list saying that "Unless otherwise stated, none of these guidelines supersedes the guidelines in the What should be linked to section above." I say this because really, those "unless" clauses apply to all of them; for example, it's appropriate to link to a site whose primary purpose is sales, if said site is the official site of the article's topic (quite likely if the article is about a product). Putting the "unless" clauses on only some points makes it sound like the other rules are more hard-and-fast. Does anyone object to this? Thanks in advance! Ruakh 13:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rich Media Links: PDF files; (PDF) vs. [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|16px|PDF]]
Concerning linking to PDF files, the most common standard seems to be (as per this page and actual usage) the use of (PDF) next to the link. I've stumbled upon a few cases of using instead, and personally I find this to be much more noticeable, thus a better "warning" and simply looks better. Can I get any feedback on this alternative? I'd love to endeavor to search out pages on which to make this change. (Note, I've added the relevant code, to be copy/pasted, to the image's page, near the bottom) Gertlex 00:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See ([[Image:pdf.png|14px|]] PDF File ) as it includes a helpful link -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, nice. The symbol alone is no good: useless to exactly the people who'd most need it (people with disabilities who cannot access the PDF) and mysterious to many of the people who wouldn't want to follow the link (those who never work with PDFs and/or don't have a PDF reader). - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

External links for political parties
Since politics is inherently a POV business, I suggest adding to this style guide a limitation on what kind of sites can be linked in an external links section of a political party article. Foremost examples of how this is properly done are the Democratic Party and Republican Party (US). There, only links to (official) party organizations are given. Since politics is a POV business, I can only assume WP:NPOV when I link to (official) party organizations in the External links section or links deemed not to be biased against the party. Any other link would constitute bias on part of Wikipedia editors, a political opinion in itself. Intangible 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By this logic, the only sites we could link on the IRA, ETA, or Al Qaeda would be their own official sites. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well these are not political parties, they are militias, on for them being militias they will want to attack people or property, and as such, a site describing these attacks can properly be included in the external links section. But this all has nothing to do with the argument I am making here. Intangible 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Review limit
A recent change, gives the wording for "Occasionally acceptable links":
 * For albums, movies, and books, one or two links to professional reviews.

What's special about the number two? I think we should often have more. One important item in determining notability, is seeing how widely something has been reviewed. If somebody's sifted through the usual web spam, and selected out truly independent reviews (as opposed to promos, and directory-entries), and linked to them in the article, those links shouldn't be casually removed. Also, in general, one editor may find a useful link, but not have time to fully use it. Recording it, has some value (whether it's a review, or some other kind of link). --Rob 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are confusing External links with References. To probe notability, you need to reference the different claims. In example,
 * "The sixth album of XXXX received very good critics from several well-known online resources as AAAA ('Outstanding!'[AAA]), BBBB ('Best. Album. Ever.'[BBB]), CCCC ('9.5 points, incredible!'[CCC]) and DDDD ('''A real five-star album'[DDD])."
 * All those four links must go in the References section to prevent having them removed as spam from the External links section, and to make space for a link to EEEE, which may be a Metacritic-like site which collects rankings from several other sites. -- ReyBrujo 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I also removed the word "reviews" from the first section since it was already in the second. brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits from User:Aaron Brenneman
I've reverted the recent series of edits, which removed too many examples and excessively restricted what is already an overly restrictive style guide. For example, we need some general consensus before adding aheader such as: "What should not be linked". The previous language was better. --JJay 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit in question

 * The existing "Articles about any [...]" covers "An article about a book...".
 * The words "or reviews" in "Sites with other meaningful..." are redundant with the following section.
 * The"For films..." should not mention specific websites.
 * Caveats already discussed on this page as not required
 * Amero-centric redlink should be removed
 * The heading was previusly "What should not be linked to."
 * brenneman color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Refactored for brevity. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the more examples the better. Thinning out what is already an extremely difficult to understand style guide is not the right approach. Furthermore, your comment about previous language is not relevant. "Links to normally avoid" better sums up the advice and the tone of the guide- I see no reason to change to "what should not be linked to". This is not the wikipedia is not page. The bit about books, scores, etc is useful. It is a good idea to suggest linking directly to the work in question. I see no reason not to spell out that those type of links are encouraged. There is also no "technology" required to link to scores. They are widely found on 100s of library sites. Finally, your insinuations regarding a content dispute are childish and unfounded. It is you that pointed to this page in your edit summmaries removing links from various articles. In fact, it is the only explanation you ever give for removing links. Since you clearly intend people to read the style guide, you should expect edits as well. --JJay 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, to respond to your points in order:
 * "[T]he more examples the better" is your opinion only.
 * If the style guide is hard to understand, clear concise writing is the best solution to that.
 * Your argument on the header is, again, pure opinion. Literally "[you] see no reason."
 * You cannot link to a score you can only link to a website that contains a score.  That point is unnecessary duplication.
 * Prior to your criticism of my "Hiding behind the style guide you are writing", I was unable to find any an edit of yours to this page. It was the third full revert of me by you in a very few days.  I cannot know your actual motivations, and I apologise for commenting on them.  However, this edit surely makes me question them.
 * Clearly any postive edits to the guideline would be welcome, and thoughtful and reasoned discourse is here on the talk even more so.
 * Aaron Brenneman 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To set your mind at ease and restate the obvious, I can readily confirm that all my edits reflected my "opinion". To state more of the obvious, so did yours. Or at least I hope so, because your edits did not reflect any prior consensus or discussion on this talk page. Furthermore, removing the section of the style guide related to books, scores, etc., as you did with this edit, violated the warning notice at the top of the page, i.e. "Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Despite your opinion to the contrary, point 1 and point 3 of that section of the style guide are neither the same nor in any way redundant. They are quite different, not the least because very few of the books, scores etc that we can link to are going to have "official sites". It needs to be made clear that is is ok to link directly to electronic copies of these works (with the usual caveats as to copyright). Removing the section does not make this clear.

 * With this edit you have severely restricted the section on fansites and have excessively shortened the section on copyrights. You then continue with this edit, to remove the possibility of any exception on the linking of blogs or social networking sites. Where is the consensus here to rule out any exceptions? A blanket statement that "blogs should not be linked to" is going to far. You have repeatedly tried to claim that you were just cleaning up "sloppy language". In fact, with each edit you radically changed the meaning of certain style guide points, eliminating exceptions and severely tightening the criteria. That is what I object to.

 * Now, regarding your complaints and insinuations regarding my "motivations", I reiterate that you pôinted me to this page with your cryptic message here . The page is called wikipedia:external links, not Aaron Brenneman:external links. It is thus a style guide that anyone can edit. I would ask that you seek consensus before making radical changes to the meaning of key points in the guide. Finally, on a secondary note, there is no good reason that I or other editors have to wade through three or four lines of coding surrounding your user name when trying to edit this talk page. Please use a standard signature for talk page posts. --JJay 19:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing some specific points to respond to. The "a webcomic, a web site" phrase should be removed, as inarguably redundant with the first.  Can we agree to that as a starting point? -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also note you used over 400 words to respond to less than 150. I'll continue to use my full signature, and you can continue to refactor it as long as you don't mind if I refactor any over-long comments of yours?  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree in any way that "webcomic" is redundant with point 1 of the section in question. A webcomic is not an "organization" or "person" and, in this context, it is not at all clear that the "other entity" qualifier would apply to a "webcomic" or a website. A webcomic will also not necessarily have an indisputable "official site". It is better to leave "webcomic" as is in point 3. Furthermore, the problem with the style guide is not redundancy. The problem is ambiguity. It might be worthwhile to remove the ambiguities in lines like : "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose". What constitutes a unique resource exactly? What does brilliant prose have to do with links? I don't know who wrote that line, but without easy and obvious answers, it should probably be removed.

 * As for your critique of my sincere attempt to respond to your complaints, I will say that it is somewhat fallacious on your part to state that "Clearly any positive edits to the guideline would be welcome, and thoughtful and reasoned discourse is here on the talk even more so" and then criticize the length of my reply. It is seemingly deceitful and intellectually dishonest to remove a large portion of your comment, as you did with this edit  before attacking me for long-windedness when I am responding among others to the comment in question. I apologize for the length of my replies, even though I assume no one is forcing you to participate here. You should bear in mind, though, that it is standard practice to use the talk page to explain major changes- and I will take a long explanation over no explanation, as was the case with your recent series of edits to the style guide.

 * Regarding your signature, I find it highly unfortunate that you seem to think that devising some kind of special look via the addition of a few hundred characters of coding overrides facilitating editing of this talk page. I see no compelling reason why editors - most of whom will be more interested in improving the style guide than in calling attention to themselves - should have to scroll through 3-4 encoded lines of your signature, over and over, while replying to your comments (i.e. before you remove them)- particularly when half a line is sufficient. I would advise you to try to adhere to the wikipedia: talk page guidelines (and the same is obviously true concerning your threat to start editing other people's comments). Nevertheless, based on your tone, I now know that you are quite attached to the personal statement you have worked hard to achieve. Given the extent of my respect for your editing experience, I will thus no longer refactor your sig here since you apparently consider it an excellent use of your skills and wikipedia resources. --JJay 00:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 * With respect to the hyper-important issue of whether or not Aaron's signature is too long, maybe you two could get a room to discuss that? Because I promise you, none of the other people reading this page care.
 * With respect to the underlying issue, this is a style guide. A style guide should be clear, concise, and easy to read and understand.  Examples should be used when they make the page easier to read and understand.  If the examples are redundant or serve to simply elaborate on a point that was already made clear, then they should be removed (or moved elsewhere). Nandesuka 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Right, thanks for that interesting comment. Since you are interested in making the page "easy to read and understand", please comment on the line that now leads off our links to avoid section: "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose". As per my previous comments, what exactly is a "unique resource" and what does "brilliant prose" have to do with linking? Without some explanation and examples this sentence is hoplessly vague. It sets the stage for endless battles between those who see all sites as "unique resources" and those who do not see any sites as "unique resources". It demands that contributors project themselves to some distant future point when the article in question becomes an "example of brilliant prose" - a process that can take years. It seems to ignore our day-to-day role of providing an informative and useful reference work that may include links (at the end of the day, this is still an internet encyclopedia) despite the quality of the prose. In short, why should this line remain in the style guide? --JJay 01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By substituting the phrase "if the article is of high quality" for the somewhat flip "brilliant prose", the meaning is unambiguous: don't add links when the proper thing to do is to add content. Nandesuka 02:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion. Please address the rest of the sentence, i.e. the meaning of "unique resources" and the use of the conditional tense. Or are you instead suggesting that the sentence be replaced with: don't add links when the proper thing to do is add content? Which, of course, would raise a whole series of other questions and objections. --JJay 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying. What exactly is ambiguous about the phrase "unique resource?"  Yes, someone who is bloody-minded could indeed argue that somehow "unique resources" means something other than the obvious.  We call such editors "tendentious" and we deal with them on a case-by-case basis, because such editors will just as easily misinterpret a baroque, thirty-six point rule with fifteen hundred examples as they will misinterpret a statement as clear as "Don't link any site that does not provide a resource beyond what a properly written article would provide." Nandesuka 08:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you here to discuss improving the style guide? Or to vent? Because I'm not particularly interested in what you call other editors, or how you deal with them. Name calling has little place here. The point of this discussion is to clarify the first sentence in our links to avoid section. The sentence is now as follows: "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose". We need a definition of "unique resource" and so far you have twice declined to provide one. It is far from "obvious" what "unique resource" means due to its vagueness - and I believe we should avoid vagueness as much as possible. To me a "unique resource" would mean any and every site with any original content, such as every blog, fansite, commercial site, my space page or bookstore site. It would mean any and every site that provides information not already in the article. It would mean any and every site that adds information in a way that contributes to making wikipedia a true internet encyclopedia, rather than a pale copy of World Book. Is that its meaning for you? At the very least, if the phrase remains, it needs to be expanded. --JJay 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I will try to answer your question, substituting my language for the "brillian prose" part.  A "unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it is of high quality" refers to a unique resource beyond what the article would have once it is of high quality.  In other wors, I don't think your reading of that sentence (taking the words "unique resource" as isolated from the rest of the sentence, which explains what a unique resource is) is terribly reasonable. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 14:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No, your response is not particularly helpful, nor do you seem to be sincerely trying to help.
 * Your cryptic comment: A "unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it is of high quality" refers to a unique resource beyond what the article would have once it is of high quality insults the intelligence of the participants in this discussion. The sentence does nothing to explain what is meant by "unique resource". I have explained that "unique resource" could be interpreted to mean almost every site on the internet. Do you disagree with that or not?   --JJay 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I categorically disagree that "unique resources" could be interpreted by a reasonable editor to mean almost every site on the internet. Nandesuka 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have expected as much. Given your profound interest in removing "clear redundancies" from the style guide, please explain why when we start the style guide with What should be linked to : Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article...That we need to follow with "Links normally to be avoided: any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." Isn't the first line more than sufficient? And if we need to make the same point again, shouldn't the second line read: "Links normally to be avoided: any site without meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"? --JJay 00:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward
Rather than stalling out in endless discussion, I'll start making very small changes, beginnning with the least objectionable. brenneman color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My diff
 * Removed "or reviews"
 * This is clearly dealt with in the section below. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "what should be linked to", and "Occasionally acceptable links". Therefore, removal of the word review changes the meaning of the style guide. I'm reverting for now, but always happy to discuss. --JJay 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviews are clearly addressed in the section immediately following. Removing them from the clause in question is perfectly appropriate. Nandesuka 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the first section is entitled "what should be linked to"; the second "Occasionally acceptable links". The meanings of these two sections are very different. Removing "review" from the first section changes the permissibility of linking to reviews. If your interest is merely redundancy, the proper approach would be to move the entire phrase dealing with reviews into the first section, i.e. "what should be linked to". --JJay 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear from both current Wikipedia practice and from the history of this page that reviews are, in fact, occasionally acceptable links. Nandesuka 00:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviews has been in the first section since 2005. Therefore, as I have indicated, I do not see any reason to demote it to the second section. That is a fairly major policy change for which we need consesnus. Therefore, since you have reverted my addition. I will reinstore reviews to Section 1. --JJay 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to samples of author's works?
After reading this guideline, I still have a question. Consider a biography of a writer or essayist. Is it appropriate to include two or three links to samples of their writing? This comes up because a newbie added some links to an article I'm monitoring, Robert Zubrin. Although I've been aggressive in removing linkspam from that page, the new links seemed to add to the article. I thought they'd be allowed under the "other meaningful, relevant content" clause, but there's some concern they're inappropriate. How do people who've studied this more closely feel? Thanks, William Pietri 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per guidelines 3 and 5, linking to samples (especially if those samples are legal, in example, PDF chapter sample in the editorial or the writer's own website) is fine enough. Just be sure they are sample and not full work, which probably violates copyright. You can also include them as references. In example, in this section, the 25th reference is actually a link to the PDF containing a sample chapter of the book, which incidentally talks about the character. Thus, if you are examining the style of a writer, you could link to a sample chapter if it matches the topic you are discussing. Otherwise, they should be fine enough as external links. Although external links can violate copyright, I suggest not linking to many chapters of the same book, but instead one chapter of several books, if anything as a courtesy. -- ReyBrujo 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In this case the links were to essays published on web editions of magazines, so I think there are no copyright concerns. But it sounds like these were in the proper spirit: to give an idea of what the author has to say and how they say it. Thanks, William Pietri 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Murray (tennis player)
Input welcome on the Andrew Murray (tennis player) article: Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player), and the section immediately above. Thanks/wangi 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a bit of background, things had got to this many external links, with revert wars over the order of fansite links. Thanks/wangi 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Choose the best of those, considering Alexa ranking, amount of forum members, less amount of advertisment, up to date information, etc. Get consensus in all those variables, and then add it in a NPOV (not major fansite but instead plainly Fansite). If there is an "official fan site", consider it the fansite to add, if not, get consensus for one. Wikipedia is not a link directory. How many fan sites are we talking about, by the way? -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After checking your new link, I suggest removing the ones hosted in LiveJournal and Activeboard on sight (per 9th guideline. mountmurray at freewebs has only 310 hits, Wikipedia won't advertise their site. britainsnewhope has 377, same thought. The one hosted at TennisCrazy states that THIS SITE WILL NOT BE UPDATED INBETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER BECAUSE I WON'T BE IN THE COUNTRY, SORRY. We won't be advertising them for free during three months. Even if that note weren't there, it has less than 1700 hits, not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That leaves one fan site, which seems to be the only one that (apparently) can be considered good enough for inclusion. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Policy pages need to be stable, and not change several times a day, because that basically makes them useless as its content just depends on the excact time you check it. That is very helpfull when people have a discussion about whether a link is acceptable or not, and look at different times. Therefore, I have protected it. Work it out here first. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would suggest tagging the article with a template as well. -- ReyBrujo 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kim van der Linde that the recent flip-flopping isn't helpful. One point however: the page has been protected in the amended form of the bi-stable pair, without "and reviews" following "such as textbooks". An alternative would have been to protect it in the state including "and reviews", which JJay said above had been there since 2005. So the protection entrenched the changed form, not the status quo. But to take up Kim's suggestion to "work it out here first". . . I would suggest as a compromise "such as text-books and high-quality reviews". I don't see why reviews of high-quality (interpreted sensibly) shouldn't be linked as a matter of course, not just "accepted occasionally". Furthermore, I'd like to suggest that links to substantial pertinent interviews should also be encouraged here, giving overall:

 * 6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks, high-quality reviews, and substantial pertinent interviews.

For background on the interview point, see Wikipedia talk:Spam. -- JimR 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I wanted him to add a Protected template to the page, which clarifies that Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. -- ReyBrujo 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above points. I would also suggest that we include professional athlete statistics, and actor screen credits as further examples within that sentence of what should be linked. It is not our role, nor should we encourage contributors, to include comprehensive detailed information of that type within a bio article. However, it is undeniable that many readers of those articles would be interested in a link to an acceptable site that has the information (i.e. IMDB, MLB site, etc). --JJay 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will revert the text back to the stable version before this edit warring, if someone will give me the version that is the stable version. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest this one, as afterwards Aaron's consecutive edits that were reverted by JJay. -- ReyBrujo 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No surpise that I think that the edits I made were all positive ones, but I'd be concerned if we effectivly rewarded JJay's edit warring by returning to the version he preferred. Multiple blind reversions is not harmonious editing, and a series reverts combined with a fillibuster is borderline disruption. -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why you are talking about "rewards". The goal here is to reach consensus before making major changes to the meaning of the style guide, something that you failed to do before making your edits. This is explained at length in my posts above. There was certainly nothing "blind" in my action. That you want to characterize that at "disruption" is perhaps your right, but I would strongly encourage you to work with the other editors here before radically altering the guide in the future. --JJay 01:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am not going to revert anything. If there are things that need to be changed, show me the consensus, and I will make those changes, and until then, the text remains as is. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews
I believe reviews of any type should fall under "occasionally acceptable links", not "what should be linked to". Many (I would argue most) reviews are biased or at the very least quite opinionated. This is especially true of any art-related reviews such as movie reviews; such reviews nearly always reflect the reviewer's opinions.

Also, regarding one of the proposed definition for reviews, "for albums, movies, books, one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment." -- short of linking to a poll of some sort, how do you know what the general sentiment is for any given topic?

As an encyclopedia, we ought to encourage information and links that are strictly factual whenever possible. By leaving reviews in the "occasionally acceptable links" section, we allow for relevant, high-quality, neutral reviews when it is appropriate, without encouraging en masse linking to reviews. I disagree with expanding the reviews clause to include any art-related reviews. WP:NPOV.--AbsolutDan (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Reviews of art and music are almost always subjective and are bound to reflect the reviewer's opinions. But surely the history of critical reaction to an artist's work is part of the information about the artist which should be recorded in Wikipedia.  This is best done by summarising within the article and providing references — for example, see Damien Hirst.  But a representative selection of reviews by well-known critics could also be added in "External links".  Put differently . . . Wikipedia must be NPOV, but that doesn't mean it can't discuss or refer to POV material by other people. -- JimR 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that in some cases reviews are appropriate (such as the criteria you mention) and hence would be perfectly fine in the "occasionally acceptable links". --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that the header "Occasionally acceptable links" expresses the intent of that section well. It sounds as if it might mean that it's acceptable for such links to be added to Wikipedia occasionally — say once an hour across all articles; or that it's acceptable for occasional articles — say 10% of all pages — to contain such links.  Neither of those makes sense.  How about renaming it "Links to be used cautiously and sparingly", or "Links to be used in moderation"?  I'd be happier for reviews to be in that section if it had such a title.  -- JimR 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree it is a bit vague. Perhaps though instead of changing the heading, a brief explanation could be added just below it, like the section "Links normally to be avoided" has? --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is better as is. "Moderation" makes it sound like a drug or alcohol, and is not really any clearer. --JJay 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * My take on this is that we should draw a distinction between reviews by well-known and respected authorities (Halliwell, Ebert etc.) and random fan-reviews. Reviews from self-professed Internet reviewers with no presence outside their own sites should never be included, they are essentially blogs; reviews from leading figures in the fan community could be OK, reviews from Bogdanovitch, Ebert & Roeper, syndicated work, that is generally a reliable source so a good link.  As usual the link should be weighed against WP:RS - if the reviewer counts as an acceptable source for the content of the article, then the review should be acceptable. No Amazon or other submit-yourself review should be included.  I'd include IMDB reviews in that as well. Just zis Guy you know? 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. The examples need to be very specifically spelled out in the style guide. --JJay 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Right now it says this:
 * "For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Hollywood.com, Internet Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews."
 * I see that as requiring clarification, per JJay's comment above. Specifically, we should not point people to a specific review unless we know it is an authoritative one; we should not point them to a collection of reviews unless we know that the overall balance of those reviews is likely to be fair and reasonable and to reflect general opinion; we should not point them to self-submitted review sites at all.  I would remove IMDB as a source of reviews.  As I understand it theirs are "user comments" not reviews - and in any case we typically link the IMDB profile for films. Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is impossible to determine an "authoritative" review. Is the NY Times more authoritative than the Guardian or LA Times? However, I agree that self-submitted reviews are not good sources or links. Regarding the IMDB, it is not a good source for reviews, but is an excellent source for screen credits. That should be reflected in the style guide. --JJay 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Reviews in major newspapers have an implicit authority - if they were radically off then the reviewer would not last. It's internet reviews which are hard to qualify. Just zis Guy you know? 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with that. It would seem to me, as you pointed out, that user-submitted internet reviews should be equated with blogs (maybe there are exceptions, but I'm no expert in those sites). However, metacritic looks like an excellent resource because it summarizes and links to a whole host of reviews. For me, the bottom line is that the style guide should be as specific as possible regarding what constitutes good links - with plenty of examples and while avoiding cryptic language. There is too much confusion out there among well-meaning new editors (and less new such as myself). --JJay 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Like interviews below, authority should be the operative criteria. Authority can be gained, partly, via a source, but we certainly have all seen things in major newspapers that are wrong or somehow greatly missed the point.  Being on a normally authoritative source should not earn an automatic pass, while a recognized authority could easily be on a person's own site, like if rogerebert.com existed.  Reviews or profiles are POV.  That's what they are, and links to them enriches articles with content that we should not have in the articles themselves.  We should link to those that are fair where significant authority (personal or website/source) suggests their credibility. 2005 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I wouldn't consider Ebert much of an "authority", just an average-quality reviewer who got famous. Sure, I'd pick him way over a fan site, and I wouldn't object to him being linked (though I'd probably never link him) but certainly he's not in a league with (for example) late Pauline Kael. Or Stuart Klawans. Or even Richard T. Jameson. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Interviews
I suggested above that "substantial pertinent interviews" be added to point 6. This has had one "I agree", and no opposition. Kim: I wonder if you would consider that sufficient consensus to add it to the protected page. -- JimR 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "substantial pertinent interviews" is vague to me (maybe because I am not a native english speaker), what does that mean? As far as I am concerned, interviews are permissable when it is on the person itself, not when it is on a topic in which opinion starts to play a role again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Substantial" means "significant" or "non-trivial". "Pertinent" means much the same as "relevant", but I didn't want to say "relevant" because that word already appears earlier in the sentence and the repetition would grate. I'd be happy with "substantial interviews with a person who is the subject of or otherwise referred to in the article", which seems to fit in with what you say above. . . provided it isn't considered too long-winded. -- JimR 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd qualify it to avoid ambiguity. Perhaps: "Substantial interviews in recognised authoritative sources which directly address the subject matter of the articlle".  As Kim hints above, if it's not immediately and unambiguously understood by a non-native English speaker we are probably asking for a series of acrimonious debates otherwise.  Would the interview be considered an appropriate source for content?  If not, it should not be included.  If so, it may be reaosnable to link it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I know what the word mean, but I just do not graps what type of interviews you mean with that, and as JzG is indicating, we should be clear about that. I think JzG's suggestion is much better, as it is very clear when yes and when no. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "Authoritative interviews which directly address the subject matter of the article". Putting a secondary focus on the source is not a good idea and makes for trivia arguments. We care about quality, wherever that may be. If a very well-regarded interviewer does an interview for a major newspaper or for his/her persoanl site, it shouldn't matter.  The quality of the content of the interview is far more important than the URL it is hosted on.  The website the interview is on could make a difference in terms of something marginal being used (because it is on a trusted source) or not used (because the source is overall weak) but that is a minor fine line that is far from the main goal of including links to things valuable. 2005 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2005 brings up some excellent points. There are lots of non-mainstream people who are never going to get inteviewed by "recognized authoritative sources". Nevertheless, pertinent interviews with these people are going to interest readers of their bios. I think we need to reduce the emphasis on the source and emphasize the quality/content of the interview. --JJay 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very happy with 2005's formulation "Authoritative interviews which directly address the subject matter of the article", and I think we may be nearing consensus on this one. For background on the interview point, see Wikipedia talk:Spam (I've mentioned this already above). I hope most people would see the Paris Review as authoritative; so for example the link to the interview in it at Lawrence Durrell would be covered as "something which should be linked to" under 2005's wording. -- JimR 06:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If something directly adresses the material in the article, wouldn't it be better to have it as a reference (WP:CITE) rather than as an external link? Additionally, it's almost always a bad idea to formulate a guideline around cases on the thin tail of a distribution.  If we include the phrasing as suggested, it won't be used to allow the inclusion of an odd valuable interview here or there.  The existing language regarding "unique resource" clearly covers an authorative link that directly addresses the subject matter. -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be better to have it as a reference, except that the vast majority of even experienced editors will never add a proper reference to an article. They will, however, add links. These editors should not be discouraged from participating, although nothing prevents an editor, such as yourself, from converting those links into references at a later date. Regarding your comment on "unique resource", I do not feel that it defines or covers anything. It is ambiguous and redundant with "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article". It needs to be expanded or removed. As shown by the conversation above, there is general agreement that examples are highly useful in the style guide. --JJay 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I like "Authoritative interviews which directly address the subject matter of the article". And they are not necessarily useful for cites. For example, in an article about a band, their might be a fine radio interview, complete with half a dozen live performances. Quite relevant, but there might not bt much to cite. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Other concensus
Elsewhere on this page, we appear to agree that we shouldn't link to MySpace, since there's no way to verify that the MySpace page is truly owned by the person that owns it. Should #8 explicitly point this out? The way it reads now seems to imply that, if the MySpace page is about a person, the article about that person can link to that MySpace. I think the intent actually was the article about MySpace can link to MySpace, and that's it.

Do Yahoo! Groups fall into the collection of social networking sites? Should they be explicitly mentioned?

Further, we seem to have concensus that several copyvio-rich sites shouldn't be linked to. Lyrics pages (unless they're provided by the artist or record company) are copyvio. Video sites (clevver, YouTube, and so on) are apparently almost always copyvio. Should that guideline be included in WP:EL? Or should WP:EL refer to WP:FU for that advice? -- Mikeblas 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How about changing #5 to explicitly mention lyrics pages and video sites because of their inherent copyright problems? My suggested addition is underlined.

5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. 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. Sites which often contain material of questionable copyright status include video sites such as YouTube.com and clevver.com. Sites not related to the artist or their record label containing music videos or song lyrics almost always do so without the knowledge or approval of the copyright holder. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

-- Mikeblas 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Working copies
I'm finding the above dialog a little hard to follow. Could we instead work on a mock-ups here? Below is the result of this edit. If we could either edit it in place here of create alterate version below, it's a bit easier to see what everyone like/hates. Then if we get consensus here it gets moved to the main page, eh. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "reviews" and "etc" in "what should be linked to" should be removed - it doesn't make sense to have the more general term "reviews" there while the more strict "professional reviews" is in "occasionally acceptable links". Striking as such. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And why not move it up to "what should be linked to"? --JJay 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above, and that "occasionally acceptable" means "if it is of high enough quality". If 100 high-quality, relevent reviews were put to the "occasionally acceptable links test", all 100 would pass. Being in "occasionally linked", in my opinion, would further enhance the need for the link to be of a high enough caliber. As non-citation ELs really ought to be added sparingly, we really shouldn't be expanding the "full allow" criteria any more than we have to (IMHO). --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can accept that reasoning. But why use the qualifier "one or two"? Why are we setting some kind of arbitrary limit? Isn't each case different? How about "one or more"? --JJay 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point - how about saying "a small number of..." or similar? --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding a note that reviews, if notable, should be inlined as references instead of having them as external links (where people may abuse them). -- ReyBrujo 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Point 2 already states: Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section. If the review is not in any way used as a reference it should not be put in the references section. Linking, though, allows other editors to use the review later as a reference, perhaps then switching it to the "reference" section. --JJay 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviews should not be suggested into inline cites (although they could be there) since reviews are by their nature POV. Some movie reviewers for example do think their job is merely to "reveal the plot", which might be useful to source inline, but the type of reviews we should link to would instead compare the movie to the artists prior work, similar type movies, and so on. Such a review could be extremely valuable, but would not an inline/encyclopedic thing to include. In shorthand, external links should be for quality things the article can't include. If a review contains something that should be cited, it should be a reference.  If a review includes something that should not be cited but is useful and informative, then it should be an external link. 2005 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That is why I suggested them to be used as references if they are notable only, in example, if they are famous because the reviewer said something to be remembered. As for POV, I agree that several reviewers are biased, however, there is nothing wrong in adding a paragraph explaining the mixed reactions an album or piece of work got. Not that this is the best example, but Brain Age, a game, has incorporated most of the reviews into the article to create a paragraph (horribly looking, but informative enough) still under development. -- ReyBrujo 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply bias when saying a reviewer has a POV. Reviews should have POV, that is normally their point, a person saying their opinion on something. Saying Terminator 2 was better than Terminator 3 does not reflect bias, but rather it just presents an opinion. 2005 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In terms of the below mockup, I don't see a reason that "etc." be removed from point 6. There is no downside to making it very clear that there are other things similar to the ones listed, and it will prevent anal edit wars in the future. Under occasionally acceptable, for 1, why one or two. That really makes no sense, particularly since it contradicts point 4  above about what should be linked to. Instead for 1 I suggest: "Authoritative reviews." (I also would remove albums, movies and books" because this could apply to television series, songs, essays or other significant creative works. Again we don't want edit wars over the addition of a link to a review of a novella because it isn't a "book". Number 2 should drop the word "one". In many cases a link to Dmoz and to Yahoo directories cover a lot of territory whch a link to only one would not. "One or two" seems much more sensible here. Finally, number 3, I think the second sentence is nothing but a headache.  The first line covers it, as it does offer the ability to link to a very high quality fansite as an exception. 2005 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest re-ordering the points so that "Sites that have been used as references ..." comes first; then "Articles . . . should link to their official site" and "An article about a book . . . should link to the actual book" (which are similar points) come together. I've made this change below. I've also introduced "or" before "textbooks", and added "other creative works" after "movies and books" in the professional reviews point so as to include artworks and other similar cases. -- JimR 10:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with "Occasionally acceptable". Acceptable to who? The other two headings "What should be linked to" and "Links normally to be avoided" are couched from the editor's point of view: what to link or avoid when editing. "Occasionally acceptable" jars because it's suddenly from the point of view of the audience — some hypothetical ideal reader who decides what's acceptable and what isn't. So I'd still like to change "Occasionally acceptable links" to "Links to be used sparingly". This covers most of the cases in this section, where "one or two" links are generally endorsed. But since a similar suggestion wasn't met with full approval above, I haven't made the change yet, but would like to hear further comments. -- JimR 10:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see why you have a problem with "occasionally acceptable". It's the same thrust from the wikipedia's point of view as "what should be linked to" and "links normally to be avoided".  I think you are are reading the line in some obscure way rather than the obvious one.  That text is fine.  On the other hand, "sparingly" is not good at all, since it is completely different than "occasionally". The point is not how often certain types of links are used, but rather using links when they add considerable user-friendly value to users.  The links described should be used occasionally.  There is no reason to link to them sparingly.  They should be linked to when they make user-friendly sense. 2005 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained above why I dislike "acceptable". The move from the viewpoint of an editor ("What should be linked to") to that of a reader ("Occasionally acceptable") and back again ("Links normally to be avoided") is jarring and inconsistent — even inelegant (less politely, it's stylistically ugly). If you don't like "sparingly", which I think fits better than "occasionally" but on which I'm not so decided, how about "Links to be used occasionally"? I've changed the working copy below so people can see the effect. -- JimR 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "Links to be used occasionally" is fine. 2005 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've now also added in the text of the subsection "Links normally to be avoided" in the grey working copy below, and inserted in italics the change suggested by User:Cyde further down this talk page about pages needing registration. -- JimR 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've combined points two and three in "What should be linked to." - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've reinserted (stricken through) the two points as they were before your change, to show the differences you've made. I think that the change from "should" to "may" is a very substantial one, not just a combination of points.  Articles about a work should certainly link to a site where the work is available (if there are no compelling impediments against the link), so that Wikipedia readers can readily have access to the full work if our article has interested them enough about it.  I've put "should" back.  (I've also tidied the "if they have one" wording slightly: I hope that change at least won't be controversial).  -- JimR 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added in Mikeblas's suggested change about hosting websites in the "Links normally to be avoided" working copy below. -- JimR 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be linked to

 * 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. (moved to point 2)

 * 1) Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
 * 2) Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.  AND An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.  Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to their the official site if they have one there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media may should link to a site hosting a copy if no "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. (combined two points.)
 * 3) On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
 * 4) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
 * 5) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews, professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or textbooks, etc.

Links to be used occasionally

 * 1) For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, one or two links to professional reviews.
 * 2) When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing, with preference to open directories.
 * 3) Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such.
 * 4) Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
 * 5) Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.

Links normally to be avoided
Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

 * 1) In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
 * 2) Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
 * 3) A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
 * 4) Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming.
 * 5) Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that require registration or only work with a specific brand of browser).  This includes direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about those media (see Rich media below). (Combined with point above.)
 * 6) Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)
 * 7) Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
 * 8) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.
 * 9) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the hosting website itself (rather than just about a user with a page on the site), or where the website is of a particularly high standard.

Myspace
What about links to an artists/actors official myspace profiles. When or should they be linked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs).
 * If this is officially endorsed by them then I see nothing wrong with linking it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Official sites can usually become references (in example, thoughts from the artist written in official sites usually enrich the article). If it can't be used as reference, it is a fine External Link. -- ReyBrujo 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Like anything else, if they are officially endorsed AND useful linking to them would be a good idea. While an official website is just that, and should be linked to liberally, an "official myspace" is far more disposable, and it should have significant content on it, rather than just something thrown up in fifteen minutes and abandoned. 2005 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the comments above. Therefore, we should probably rewrite #9 of "Links normally to be avoided" to make it clear that it may be OK to link to a personal MySpace page for a bio subject. --JJay 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to over-specify. If it's an "official" page then it's clearly in under the auspice of "what to link to."  If there are two (or more!) "official" pages then the myspace one is the least preferred.  There's no need to spell out every caveat/special pleading/exception to every point.  The best guidelines are as succinct as possible, and by writing for the fringe cases we muddy the waters for the >= 97% of "normal" links. -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding myspace, the style guide at present does spell out one exception:
 * Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.
 * It should be made clear that it may be OK to link to Myspace for bio subjects barring a better "official site". Note that few Myspace pages are going to be labeled "official". At present the style guide is too ambiguous. Regarding your general point, I sense little agreement here with your thinking on "over-specification". A good style guide page spells out directly what is and isn't allowed. Otherwise, there is too much confusion, as demonstrated by User:MyRockstar's question and a previous comment about anal edit warring. --JJay 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict, answer to Aaron) That is a pretty strange wording, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding. I would guess all official sites should be included. Sure, myspace pages would be at the bottom of the list, but that does not really mean it should not be included. Usually official pages are "backed" by companies or discographies, while myspace pages are more personal, sites where you will usually read opinions from members which may not appear in full official sites. Note that I consider MySpace at the bottom of the quality scale for internet site, but I do think they deserve a mention in some occassions, in example, when they are official. -- ReyBrujo 00:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well specifically for Paris Hilton, and musical artists when often the myspace page includes playable singles for listen. I thought that would be quite useful because the singles are "officialy" provided by the company so there should be no problems.  Anyways, the link was removed because it was intrepreted as "spam". That is why I was confused, I read the guidlines, and really found no real answer to whether it is correct, or spam. The myspace page can be seen here  Myrockstar 04:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep in mind people create fake networking site pages (like myspace) on a famous person, then preceed to add that link to it. Usually the creator and sometimes their close friends are the on the 'friends' list of that famous star.  It happens frequently.  It really needs to be endorsed by the person themselves outside of wikipedia and the social networking site, else it could easily be fake.  That said, what actual good information is there that that particular link Myrockstar, and is verifiable that it is, indeed, sanctioned by the famous person in question? Kevin_b_er 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. How is a MySpace page a verifiable source for a particular artist or group when we can't even be sure the page is endorsed by the entity it claims to represent? I think that MySpace links are right out, for that reason. If a band or artist is truly notable, then it has a real website (with a domain name, and traceable registration, and so on). -- Mikeblas 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So to cement this, I'd suggest a very simple change to the "normally to be avoided" section. My addition is underlined:

 * Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the hosting website itself (rather than just about a user with a page on the site), or where the website is of a particularly high standard.

-- Mikeblas 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that wording confusing as all get-out, sorry. First of all, I think that there should be a MySpace exception specifically for musician/band articles. The MySpace page frequently contains tour information and has downloadable music and they enforce the DMCA so there shouldn't be too many fakesters doing that. I think generally the fans/editors for a particular musician will be savvy enough to smoke out the frauds, anyway. Conversely, there's likely little to be gained by linking to the MySpace for a non-musical article subject. Maybe that's their blog and they say something notable or it becomes a source (leaving aside the WP:V problem, bear with me), then it becomes notable.
 * Basically I think that MySpace, at least in the music world, has become the new web. It's a requirement, and yes, usually it's the labels having some intern update the thing, but it has useful information that used to be put on a website. This is completely aside from one's opinion about MySpace over design or usability issues, or over its advertising policies -- it has become a force to be reckoned with. I'm inclined to link liberally anyway and in this case I don't see the harm, especially when Template:Myspace is used. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's a MySpace page, chosen at random: . Has MySpace member Tom paid royalties to Dashboard Confessional to use their song? (Or to whatever artist for playing whatever song randomly plays at Tom's MySpace page?) -- Mikeblas 01:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Mikeblas, that's a song that Dashboard Confessional put on their MySpace page. Any song like that is available for users to edit into their own page (by default in the left column spot by their profile). There's a difference between a regular MySpace and a Music MySpace; in those you see the standard up-to-four-song layout in the upper right. I seriously doubt that a fakester for any non-trivial band could remain for long; the label would find out, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided
I'd like to propose an amendment to the "Links normally to be avoided" section as follows:
 * Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser).

becomes
 * Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that require registration or only work with a specific brand of browser).

My reasoning for this is that sites that require registration just to read the article are worthless to the vast majority of web readers, because web readers aren't going to bother to take the time to fill in a bunch of contact details and give out their email address, opening themselves up to potential spam, just to read a single article. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point. I won't even register with the N.Y. Times site. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was how it was written before, if I recall correctly. Some articles become available after a determined amount of days anyways. -- ReyBrujo 15:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well until they are freely viewable by anyone with a web browser, they shouldn't be linked. -- Cyde↔Weys  20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree with this change, I'm rolling it back. It's a bit poor to propose a change and then make that edit to a protected page. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Would this preclude the use of registration-only sites as references? Billboard.com requires registration for most of its research info, and it is an invaluable tool. Lexus-Nexus, news sites, industry-specific sites (like digitimes.com), and so on, all require registration for at least some of their content. They're invaluable as references, and I'd hate to not be able to cite them. -- Mikeblas 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The wording as it stands now in the working copy above is that "sites that require registration" are "normally to be avoided". This would preclude the cases you mention.  Can you describe one or two specific examples?  But the trouble is that many people in this discussion (me, at least) won't want to register, so won't read such pages if you link to them here.  This seems to bear out the point that registration-only sites are nearly useless as references.  -- JimR 07:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

chainki.org links
I have created a number of external links, each of which are to the site Chainki. The User:Aquilina expressed concern about the links and suggested I bring the situation before you folk here. So, here is the situation.

I am involved in the linked site, and, not wanting to spam, each one of the changees carries text more or less like:

Added link to chainki.org. Please verify. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brusselsshrek#chainki.org

The information to which people are led is at: User_talk:Brusselsshrek

Here are a few examples of links:

Examples of links directly added:
 * Madonna_%28entertainer%29
 * Leeds

Examples of a suggestion on the related talk page. I had not any reaction from these (even a "No way Pal!"), hence trying a bolder approach; I admit I perhaps have not yet waited long enough:
 * Talk:Pamela_Anderson
 * Talk:Pope_John_Paul_II

You can of course find all my contributions at Special:Contributions/Brusselsshrek, (there are I think 9 direct links and 2 or 3 appeals for someone else to add a link).

Some questions I suppose which you will want to discuss:
 * 1) Does the link on each of the pages so far add value to the article?
 * 2) Is it acceptable for someone involved in the site to do the link?
 * 3) Should even a link such as this be done via the talk page when the person is at all involved in the linked to site?
 * 4) Is putting the link for discussion on the talk page being overly cautious and creating unnecessary work?
 * 5) Is the text included in the "change comment" enough to allow direct addition?
 * 6) Does Wikipedia want an external link on most "big" topic articles to an external open content directory?
 * 7) What is "big"?
 * 8) Under what criteria should Chainki or Dmoz, if any be linked?
 * 9) If included, should the link
 * 10) also use the site name separately, e.g. Pamela Anderson at Yahoo movies, (a style used for example on Pamela_Anderson), or
 * 11) should it be embedded as a single link Pamela Anderson on Yahoo movies (more like Leeds, though Wikitravel illustrates the separation of "deep" and "main page" linking).

Brusselsshrek 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are adding links to a Dmoz clone, which is something that should never be done under any cicurmstances. Sometimes linking to dmoz makes sense, but never a clone.  I'd encourage you to remove all these links yourself before someone else has to. 2005 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I know you were hoping for a debate, but to me it's pretty obvious these links don't belong here. I think I would be more sympathetic to your cause if you were one of those "I'm only working for the betterment of the Internet" people, but, alas, the site has advertising. I like the idea of the blog though. Mrtea (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I have to agree that these links are not suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. There is no sign of reliability. I am not one to encourage blogs in Wikipedia either — except under very exceptional circumstances which are few and far between. -- Alias Flood 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire point of cutting down on external links should not be a reason to greatly expand them by linking to a huge collection of more external links, of which spam could end up on them in great amounts. This, in my opnion, is tantamount to just keeping the links on wikipedia on separate pages form the main article.  Its no better than link farms, just in this case the ads aren't quite as in-my-face as usual.  What's worse is that its a dmoz clone... with ads.  I'd strongly oppose these links.  Kevin_b_er 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me address a few points:
 * Some of the discussion here suggests that the whole idea of a link to an open content website which just has links on the subject is fundamentally wrong, which flatly contradicts the existing guidance on this page (External_links) and the spam page (WP:WPSPAM.
 * Chainki is rather a dmoz fork rather than a clone (though I agree the difference is subtle and any clone could simply claim to be a fork), that is, it has taken as a starting point the dmoz data (in that it has taken all the existing dmoz links), completely reworked the links into a wiki format, and made the pages from being heirarchical to being much more "flat" (for example, the page may at first view appear to be a subpage of "Arts", but it is when you look more closely a completely independent page called just "Art History", and future edits could link it in any way the editor chooses to other pages - this is basically the same non-forced linking which Wikipedia uses). It does not intend to follow behind dmoz, always one step behind, but rather branch out on its own path completely independent of dmoz; it is these things which make the real difference between a simple clone and a genuine fork.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of genuine clones (which simply act rather as lagging behind mirrors of dmoz); this site though has taken the dmoz data and reworked it completely into a series of uniquely named non-hierarchical pages (the trail is a deception - there is no hierarchy in the pages, as there might be if, for example, subpages were used).
 * in deciding how to finance the site, the decision was taken that rather than beg for donations to support it, that it would be supported by advertising. I personally find the idea of ongoing ads less distasteful than begging for financial support as donations.  In response to the fierce reaction here against the adverts, the adverts have all been removed from the site.  In the end, any website must be supported financially somehow.
 * Dmoz has done a wonderful job in building the largest human-edited open content directory of the web. However, I think that the openness and speed of the whole process is extremely poor: editor and site submissions take an age and there is almost no feedback particularly on site submissions.
 * In addressing the underlying question of whether this is an attempt to make a fast buck of the back of dmoz or a genuine attempt to work for the betterment of the internet, it is the latter, and it cannot possibly be successful if it were otherwise because nobody would want to give of their time freely otherwise. I have already started the ball rolling in it being taken over by MediaWiki.

Brusselsshrek 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

add interwiki

 * please add interwiki to pl:Wikipedia:Zasady wstawiania linków zewnętrznych . Thanks. --Wanted 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * please add also cs interwiki to cs:Wikipedie:Externí odkazy . Thanks. --RuM 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I get some feedback?
There's a discussion at Talk:Narbonic with one user insisting on using external links instead of internal redlinks to point to webcomic websites (insisting the redlinks would never be turned into articles). There appears to be nothing on this policy page (other than the stated preference for internal vs external links) to dissuade people from using external links in article text when no internal links exist. Can I get some opinion on this? Fagstein 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors creating external links to their own works but not from their website
In Talk:Emerging_Church, an editor has admitted to adding external links referencing his own works. The External_Links page states that content from websites owned by editors should be avoided but does not address content created by editors published on sites they do not own. This seems contrary to the spirit of Neutral_point_of_view and No_original_research and Verifiability but none of those pages explicitly mention this scenario. Is there a policy page that does? Thanks. Gold Dragon 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Laser tag
If someone can come, take a look at the dicussion at Talk:Laser tag and comment, I would appreciate it. Thanks! -- moe .RON   talk  05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Now most of the problem links have been removed, I've added a link to the relevant page on the dmoz web directory - this page contains links to most of the removed sites, and I've found in the past that including the dmoz link discourages people from readding the old data. Fingers crossed!  Good work on the clean-up Aquilina 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that placement; like you said, it should discourage commerical and such links in the future. Cheers! -- moe .RON   talk  17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Linking to copyright violations
Press Release Settlement of LDS Church v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry The opinion of linking to a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation was withdrawn as part of the settlement. Personally I think if it's inline linking then that would be a violation but not regular linking.

 * Regardless of whether it is legal or not, I do not think that we should make any kind of links to websites that are breaking copyright law. However, if the website is clearly being falsely accused of breaking copyright law, then I would not object to linking to it. -- Kjkolb 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New proposal
I request that Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.) be removed. If people wish to look up their celebrity's fansite, then let them do it on their own time. This is just attracting un-wanted spam. And who is to judge as what fansite should be included? Who decides? I find it ambiguous and likely to cause edit wars etc. Iola k ana |T  13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this clearer version, listed in "what not to link":
 * Fan sites: while links to third-party, neutral lists of fansites (such as those founds at the Open Directory Project or on Yahoo!) are fine, links to individual fan sites are discouraged.
 * Circeus 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The inclusion of fansites has been the center of many disputes. The simplest solution would be to ban all fan sites (though they aren't always obviously fansites). Any other solution that works would good too. -Will Beback 20:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Certainly not. Fan sites can be extremely valuable to link to, and should be linked to when appropriate.  The point, as usual, is that we are building an encyclopedia that is useful to users.  That trumps considerations that are "pain in the butt" ones, like spamming junk fan sites.  The consideration should be... "Occasionally acceptable links: High quality fansites that offer unique authoritative content on the topic of the article. On articles about topics with many fansites, a link to a web directory of fansites could be used instead of a link to several fan sites. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)"  We should never "normally ban" anything that can serve readers and make articles better.  We should "normally ban" junk.  Editors have to use their brains.  Occasional disputes are greatly preferable to bad rules. 2005 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the wording that Circeus has proposed. -- Mikeblas 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is to like? Please explain why a high quality site should not be listed, just because it is made by someone who is very devoted to the subject.  It makes no sense whatsoever, so let's move past that.  A small percentage of fan sites are outstanding and should be linked to.  We should do nothing to discourage that.  We should only discourage linking to crap.  Language like the above should never be used as it is not quality focused. 2005 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * How do we establish which fansites are high quality and which are crap? That just seems like more fodder for disputes. As much as possible, useful informaiton should be included in the article itself. Most fansites that I've seen are just gossip and copyvio photos. -Will Beback 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to judge which of non-official sites are to be accepted. If we accept one fan site, how are we to argue that we cannot accept all of them? My proposal has the advantage of not keeping any good site more than extra click away from the user, but not linking directly to them either. Circeus 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "How do we establish which fansites are high quality and which are crap?" By using your brain of course.  What kind of question is that?  If you aren't comptent to be judging such a thing, don't edit the article.  Of course we are supposed to judge what non-official sites are to be accepted.  Again, what kind of comment is that?  This is what we are doing right this minute. LOL.  "Most fansites that I've seen are just gossip and copyvio photos."  So most should not be linked.  You really should examine what you are saying here.  You are wanting to base decisions on a type of delivery, rather than quality of content. If we accept a great fan site and don't list a crappy fan site, that is called using good judgment. I suspect one problem here is some people think of "fansites" in terms of Brittany Spears instead of Alfred Hitchcock.  In general, fan sites for people who have been dead for fifty years are far superior to fan sites for somebody who got famous five months ago.  A policy to cover both is genuinely absurd.  Also, in some cases of older celebrities/teams/artists fan sites are the only quality resource online.  Some actress from the 1930s is likely to not have an official site, but may well have a lovingly cared for, in depth, authoritative fan site. That should be linked to because it brings value to our readers, not based on the ownership, html or title that it is a "fan site".  A blanket use of that term is unthinking and extreemly unhelpful.  If a Dmoz category for fan sites on a subject exists, that can be linked to instead of any particular fan site, but a very high percentage of the time there will be no Yahoo or Dmoz category to link to.  We should link to the things that serve our readers the best and use our brains to make criteria for that and then judgments based on quality.  If you don't want to think, don't, but don't insist other editors can not. (Added... the idea that we would not link to hitchcock.tv from the Alfred Hitchcock article because it is a fan site is just plain horrible policy.)  2005 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are sites which are good. When we say "fansites" I think we mean sites which feature forums where fans can discuss their idols. Those are different from the sites constructed usually by one fan that contain detailed biographies, filmographies, etc. Perhaps we should define what we mean by "fansites"? -Will Beback 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Definition: Fansite. Right, the problem is only looking at one type of fansite, the crappy ones, even though the term is applied (and can be applied) much more broadly.  The point however should not be to define fansites, that accomplsihes little other than to encourage arguments over an irrelevant shadings of the definition in the future.  We should focus on quality and authority... and have rules against illegal/stolen/copyvio stuff. Also, having a guideline to link to a directory of sites instead of a large number of similar fan-type sites is good. 2005 22:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "LOL"? What kind of comment is that? The problem with judgement is that it varies. One editor will assert that, in their judgement, a fansite is very good and must be linked to, and another will assert that, in their judgement, it's a pile of gossip and copyvio. So then you have a disagreement. We have ways of resolving disagreements, but there's no reason to have them if we can write a guideline that completely avoids them. Seems to me that, if a fansite is so good, it should be a reference and not just an external link. If you want to help this conversation, I'd ask you to "use your brain" to find a sharper policy; one that spells out the criteria that make a good enough fansite, and so on. After all, without such a measure, we don't have a usable, evenly applicable guideline. -- Mikeblas 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I stated a clear policy which you did not see fit to disagree with. Disagreements occur all the time over everything, so I can't imagine what you think is relevant about that. So now instead of being nasty, why not comment on: "Occasionally acceptable links: High quality fansites that offer unique authoritative content on the topic of the article. On articles about topics with many fansites, a link to a web directory of fansites could be used instead of a link to several fan sites. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)" This is a sharp, distinct and very easy to understand policy, which most importantly focuses on quality rather than unthinking arbitrariness. 2005 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagreements don't occur all the time over everything. They only occur over issues which don't have clear enough guidelines. With the guideline you've suggested, the issue is deciding what is "high quality", or proving uniqueness, or demonstrating authority over the subject domain. A guideline with room for interpretation in three different measures doesn't help as much as it could. -- Mikeblas 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I even daresay it won't solve any disagreement ever. Circeus 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When in problem, I always suggest to remove all of them. Most times, I prefer to discuss in the talk (like Talk:J-pop, Talk:Ayumi Hamasaki, etc. (I ought to go there and unlink all the links). I am for a solution that determines one or two external links, either forbid them all, or add a guideline to find which is the best one (Alexa, forum members, longevity, etc). -- ReyBrujo 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw this put up in RfC, and I really have to disagree with the reasoning that guidelines must not leave room for interpretation, lest there be disputes. The best rule is usually not the most precise or detailed rule. Disputes are not the end of the world, and in fact they are often beneficial to the article in question. I do sympathise, because they are sometimes not so beneficial to the mental state of those involved, but that's just something we have to live with. 192.75.48.150 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what's the point of the WP:MOS, for example? At some point, crisp guidelines resolves issues with multiple acceptable outcomes by choosing one that works. Indeed, for motivating research or investigation, disputes can be healthy and beneficial. For resolving something as trivial as the placement of links to fansites (which usually benefit the fansite more than the article), disputes are bothersome distraction. Wikipedia can barely enforce the rules it has today without adding more ambiguity and depth. -- Mikeblas 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, you're right about the manual of style. It is feasible to in detail specify capitalizations, placement of headings and that sort of thing, there is probably benefit in doing so globally, and offhand I would guess that case-by-case disputes about them always are utterly pointless. On the other hand, something like WP:RS, while it has some specific rules and thorough set of questions, still has considerable leeway for interpretation, and this is a good thing. It looks like issues about which external links to include are closer to the latter (as opposed to issues about how to format your links, which is probably in the former category). Now, I can't say I'm really attached to fansite links myself, and there may well be other reasons for a blanket taboo on fansites -- sort of like the taboo on blogs and myspace on the page. (Number 9 at the time I wrote this -- and I notice there is even an out for "high standard" sites!) I just don't think worries about leeway in your guideline and "enforcement" problems (!) are, by themselves, valid reasons in this case. 192.75.48.150 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * What ambiguity? You are asserting a strange position, in first saying there are not disputes everywhere over everything.  You can't have edited over a week and honestly believe that.  People do things others disagree with every single second, so there is no point talking about that.  More to the point though, what you suggest offers far greater disagreements than the clear policy I suggested.  You are encouraging disputes over what a "fansite" is.  hitchcock.tv and backstreets.com are fansites, but I doubt there will be much dispute that they aren't head and shoulders above most fansites, and that they don't add value in being linked from the articles they are linked.  An unthinking, troublesome policy not based on quality and value would lead to both disagreements, and most importantly, the non-inclusion of valuable, user-friendly resources.  Bottom line, there is zero reason to not include links based on some arbitrary naming of a type of motivation for creating a site.  I don't know why some folks argue against using quality and what is best for users, but I'd suggest they rethink that idea, especially since it is far more contentious and prone to disputes to not base on quality and user-friendliness.  Finally, I can't let pass the idea presented that sites too weak to be external links should be put in cites.  That is fully backwards. Criteria for authoritative cites should be always higher than for links.  Far more importantly though, right now we don't have a huge problem with spam in cites largely due to spam being put in external links instead.  We should certainly not do anything to encourage the reverse.  Spam in links is easy to see and deal with while spam in cites, especially inline ones, is far more "clever" and hard to handle.  The guideline I suggested makes dealing with spam easier, while the idea of no fansites in links but having them in cites would be extremely contentious and time wasting. Fansites are just sites.  They should be linked only occasionally, when they add significant quality to an article.  Anything beyond that is missing the point of making a quality web encyclopedia. 2005 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd really appreciate it if you dialed back the ad homenim rhetoric and condescending tone (eg, "couldn't have been editing", "genuinely absurd", "unthinking", and "use your brain"), and I bet others would, too. Thanks!
 * The ambiguity I'm referring to is caused by the lack of further guidelines that specificly describe what is "high quality" and what is "authoritative". The reason that some folks argue against using quality as a guideline is that it is subjective. Editors have a hard enough time working on Wikipedia proper to assure the quality of its content; why extend the job to evaluating the content targeted by external links to determine its quality and authority, and therefore its propriety for use as an external link target? It seems like you've misunderstood what I suggested; it was that strong references be made citations instead of external links -- not weaker ones. -- Mikeblas 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which goes back to my point. In general, if something is credible enough to be a "strong" reference, it is strong enough to be a an external link.  Besides that though, your argument against quality really is hard to get a handle on since already we say thinks to link to include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article."  That's the whole point.  There is zero reason, stated here or from any logical standpoint, that should disqualify fan sites.  Emphasizing that fan sites generally need to be held to a high quality, authoritative standard merely emphasaizes what is previously stated in the guidelines, raising the bar a little but that's all. I really don't see how you have no problem with the thought necessary with discerning "neutral and accurate material" but do have a problem with emphasizing to editors that there is a guideline for a certain type of site where a somewhat higher standard is in play.  It isn't fundamentally needed since the previous "neutral and accurate material" would cover it, but the problem here is an apparent desire of some to unthinkingly prohibit good quality links simply because they are domains created by fans. (I certainly made no ad hominem comments so please stick to the topic.) 2005 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if someone really wants clear, then replace the line in the grey proposal above to be: "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." There is no reason to even call out "fansites" at all. The motivation of the creation of the site is irrelevant to its quality or value to users reading the article. The rest of the guidelines outline what should be linked and what shouldn't. The word "fansite" does not need to be included anywhere. 2005 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 3