Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Evaluating links to other wikis

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam about linking to a non-Wikimedia wiki. Looking at the criteria for links to wikis, here's what the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL says:

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Any comments on what constitutes "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? Any other pages on Wikipedia where I might find information on this issue? Thanks, --A. B. 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed not that long ago, in a now-archived talk page, found here. Generally, folks were concerned about weeding out links to wikis with factual inaccuracy/instability/unverified original research, and keeping links to wikis with WP:WEB-like authority. Schi 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the "substantial number of editors" question, the low end is pretty easy to recognise: I see lots of wikis added that appear (from the Recent Changes page) to have one to three contributors, and only a handful of edits in the last 30 days. My read is that this is too few (and too inactive) editors to ensure reliability. Of course, there is no easy way to draw a line on larger, but still small, numbers of editors. Is 12 enough? 25? You really have to start looking at the articles-- not a determination that can be made quickly or easily. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at the subject matter of the article as well. I think the bar is a bit lower for independent video games then it might be for radical right/left-wing political wikis. ---J.S (t|c) 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is also very important to more carefully evaluate any external links to Wikia.com wikis, because of the obvious appearance of a "conflict of interest". Wikia is founded and operated by the Chairman Emeritus of Wikipedia (Jimbo Wales) and a former Wikimedia Foundation board member (Angela Beesley). There is no good reason why non-profit, donation-supported Wikipedia should be used as a "link farm" to generate for-profit traffic to Wikia, unless the wiki in question truly is authoritative like WP:WEB. I have deleted a few external links to Wikia wikis that had something like 1 or 2 edits in the past 30 days, which is an obviously shameful indication that the external link never belonged in Wikipedia. With how aggressive Wales has proved himself to be in limiting commercial access to Wikipedia, it's kind of embarrassing that he hasn't recused the Wikipedia property from his efforts with Wikia.com. Moreover, Wales sends official "Wikipedia-related" e-mails to users from an account at Wikia.com! --JossBuckle Swami 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur - I've removed several wikia.com links that appeared to be spam - no new content. I was not aware of the affiliation between WP and wikia.com, but I know that the wikia.com pages are populated with Google Adsense ads. There are currently over 3000 wikia.com links on WP [1]. I've seen some linked pages that appear trivial and even empty over at wikia.com (perhaps under construction). In other cases a one or two line article is created in WP with an external link to a larger article over at wikia. Calltech 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask, is anyone else concerned that there are 3,343 outbound links from Wikipedia space to Wikia.com wikis? Many of these are linking to wikis that have had less than 4 edits in the past 30 days. So, that violates the current policy on External Links, but I'm not seeing much outcry or action to delete these links. --JossBuckle Swami 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Video links

For viewing the film M, this edit replaced this link on tesla.liketelevision.com with this one on video.google.com. I'm wondering: do we favor one of these? Or is this link theft, pure and simple? I'm totally outside of my area here. (Certainly, it is appropriate to provide a link from an article on a film to somewhere you can watch the film for free.) - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deja Vu time. If its a link to a blatant copyvio its not appropriate to link to it via WP:C. That's said, perhaps we should let the bickering over YouTube die down before we even begin to think about other videolinks providers. --Spartaz 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is either official? I don't know anything about liketelevision.com. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe the film is in the public domain.

I take it that the short of it is that for films in the Public Domain that are available online, we do not yet have a specific policy on what constitutes appropriate linking. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to Myspace

Hello, I'm not sure if this is where I should be bringing up this issue. But I would like to make a written exception under Links Normally To Be Avoided-#10 to allow external links of a musical band's official Myspace. These sites are usually managed by the group themselves or someone close appointed by the group. Of course, the site must be official, and not a fan-made (unless it were maybe a verified official fanclub). I feel a band's Myspace can be just as important as their own official website, as news regarding the band, tourdates, and etc can be updated through them (causing many on the 'net to use a band's Myspace over their official dot-com to get the same, or even different, information). Additionally, bands put their songs up on their Myspace by their own will, so it is a link to quickly allows Wiki readers to gain access to hearing officially released material of the band as well. Again, I don't know if this is where I should be brining up this issue, so if it isn't, could someone lead me to where I should be? Thanks a lot! -- Shadowolf 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's already covered: "Links normally to be avoided" starts with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid..." -- Mwanner | Talk 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was enough to cover it too, but I was confronted with this page by another Wikipedian when I placed an official Myspace link to a band, with my external link removed. So I think it might not be specific enough, and that might partly be due to MySpace being more of a "service" that anyone can set up a page at, as opposed to an actual site owned by someone. I was thinking maybe add in a ",unless officially handled by the subject of the article" to #10 or something. -- Shadowolf 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, this is happening in a number of places. Some clarity would be very useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything else to say? I would really like to see this done (having an "except those officially managed by the subject of the article" or such, under Links to Be Avoided #10). This here is actually a debate on a MySpace template, but a few of those arguments are from those who side-with/oppose the allowance of MySpace links altogether. The consensus does say "...in the understanding that in certain cases, myspace links are inherently useful and permissible under policy", so I think this also backs up the idea to allow MySpace linking (as does "except for a link ...an official page of the subject of the article" in the External Link guidelines). -- Shadowolf 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to MySpace should be avoided, unless there is a very compelling reason, such as a MySpace page of a celebrity (providing, of course, that there is no doubt that it is of that celebrity). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I think we should allow external links to the official MySpace of a band, celebrity, or whoever is the subject of the Wiki article. However, there are some people who have taken Links to Be Avoided #10 to mean that all MySpace links should be avoided, so I wish to make it more clear by making it something like: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace, except those officially managed by the subject of the article), discussion forums or USENET." -- Shadowolf 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Shadowolf, there used to be a clause at the end of the blogs/MySpace bullet point that said "unless mandated by the article itself". This was much more confusingly worded than your suggestion, but both exception clauses are confusing because it implies that all the other items in the list under "Links normally to be avoided" don't share the same exception. That's why we agreed to put the exception at the top of the list - because it applies all the time. But I agree with you, there's clearly rampant misunderstanding about it, so perhaps we could revise to: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (As is the case for any type of link that may otherwise be normally avoided, official sites managed by the the subject of the article are acceptable.)" A bit wordy, perhaps... schi ^talk 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, that does make sense, and I could understand how adding this exception could probably cause some cluttering of "exceptions" in the future as well. But yeah, I think the matter should be worked on, because it is presenting a problem for some people (as it presented one for me). Your suggestion sounds good, and we could work with that (and trim it down as necessary as possible). I think an alternative way to approach this also, is to reword the first sentence at the top. Looking at it now, I feel it does not emphasize directly that there are exceptions to those rules, making it a little confusing. The line "...is an official page of the subject of the article" could simply imply the official dot-com website, but may not apply to networking sites (like Myspace) officially managed by a group. All in all, the first sentence might be a little vague. (Thanks for working with me here) -- Shadowolf 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new opening

Current version:"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article."

Proposed version: "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below." Text is the same after that. I don't think this changes the intent of the text, but just makes it more clear. Comments? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good. It might, though, be worth including something along the lines of Jossi's "A good selection of external links is welcome, but keep it concise: Wikipedia is not a web directory" (above). The "keep it concise" is a bit off: perhaps make it "should be kept to a minimum". So taken together, it would read:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below. A good selection of external links is welcome, but should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory." -- Mwanner | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below. A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory." — jesup 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That wording is misleading and can be wrongly interpreted as encouraging links to unsuitable material. I propose this wording:Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory. and leaving the detail of what to link and what not to link to the more elaborate sections below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What is misleading about "which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below" or would encourage people to add inappropriate links? I don't like this last wording - my response to reading it is, if information is accurate and on-topic, why not just add it to the article instead of linking to it? The previous suggestions (and the current revision) address that. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your proposed wording is that the "reasons listed below" do not address what cannot/should not be added to the article: What is listed below is what can and cannot be linked. See the difference? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that some of the criteria for what can be linked is based on what cannot/should not be added to the article. For example, #3 and #4 in "What should be linked to". I would change Jesup's wording from "reasons listed below" to "as discussed below", or something like that. schi ^talk 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider this wording: Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic that can add value to an article. A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory. The only reason for having an external link is that is augments the article's quality, not that diminishes it by linking to sites that do not add value. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are getting finally to the core of the dispute. My understanding always was EL are there for only one reason: to add value to an article. This idea the we link to external sites because we cannot use the material on these sites in the article itself, is in my view incorrect and may be in contradiction with the spirit of our content policies. We are in the business of writing an encyclopedia, and ELs are useful only of these links add value to the article from an encyclopedic viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is reflected in some of the misguided edits you made. Some external links have an unencyclopedic of detail. Put another way, a 1000 page website on a single person will have all kinds of details that are useful to a reader, but obviously can not be included in a one page article. Likewise things like very large amonts of raw statistics like a baseball player's batting averages, fielding averages, etc. While any individual fact from either of these two sites could be pulled out into an article, it should be obvious that huge volumes of facts can not. We don't have space. The level of detail is unencyclopedic; it isn't "lousy". External links are there to add value to the article, and one such type of link is a site with unencyclopedic level of detail. Another is detailed statistics. Another would be say reviews of every Alfred Hitchcock movie where there would be some POV that could be summarized as "he was a great director". 2005 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The examples you gave may be examples what we should not link to, unless these sites are published by a reputable source. For example, a site with batting averages written by a baseball fan, should not be linked to as the material may not be reliable and thus dtracting from the article. The same content published in a team's official site, is different and it can be trusted as accurate. Reviews of Hitchcock movies posted on a personal blog, should not be linked to as these are only the opinion of a non-notable person, unless the blogger is a recognized critic/historian of Hitchcock's movies. The issues boils down to: does it add value to the article, or not. If it does, by all means add a link. How do we assess if a link adds value or not? By basing our assessments on our content policies of . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"The examples you gave may be examples what we should not link to, unless these sites are published by a reputable source." What does that have to do with it? "If it does, by all means add a link..." That is what we have been telling you. But no, it isn't by basing assesments on the content policies for articles. This is why we have A SEPARATE GUIDELINE. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. For example, suppose babeball-reference.com's Babe Ruth page had a line at the top that said: "In the opinion of this website, Babe Ruth is the greatest player who ever lived." That is pure POV, but it distracts not at all from the authoritative statistics presented. We have NPOV so we would not include a line in the Ruth article saying he is the best player ever. However, it is anti-user to refuse to link to baseball-reference.com anywhere because it states a POV that Ruth is the best player. That Ruth POV is not why we link to it. Similarly, if Magic Johnson wrote a 30 page website on "How to Play Defense Against Michael Jordan", that would be entirely POV, and we would not include in articles statements like "front him on his right side", but the site would be expert opinion that could merit linking. Likewise, a Hitchcock website could have articles by Martin Scorcese on every movie Hitchcok made and would would make ZERO difference if on one page of the site Scorcese said "In my opinion, Hitchock is the second greatest director ever." An opinion statement may not be encyclopedic content for an article, but a reputable web resource that has some opinion does not disqualify it from being valuable to the article as an external link. But more to the point, you removed wording about unencyclopedic level of detail. That wording was presuming reputation/quality/merit/trust/etc. You seem to be looking at these sentences as unrelated. You need to read what can be linked to. Everything considered has to fit that subset. If a site is thrown up with no reputation, reliability, or authority, it won't get linked. BUT, we are not judging by the same criteria of what goes in an article. The point of the level of detail thing is valuable material normally should be summarized and used as sources, but when there is far more material, external links are useful to users. 2005 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you using "we" are telling you"? Who is this "we"? As far as I can see there are competing viewpoints expressed in this talk page by a variety of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My questions to you:

1. Do you agree that ELs should be added to an article only of they add value to an article?
2. If you agree, what would be the measuring stick for "added value"?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The criteria in the guideline... merit with level of detail, expert opinion, raw stats, and so on (including official presence). I'm not exactly sure what your issue is here now, but it seems to me mostly you are both not reading the guideline as a whole document, and also not recognizing that while articles need to conform to strict policies, a 1000 page website that is linked to add value can have some stuff on it that our articles can not and should not. These are other people's sites that also seem to be valuable. They are not the Wikipedia. 2005 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It would have helped to this discussion, if you answered the questions, rather than skirt them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What a comment. I answered the questions very directly. Several editors have explained things to you in multiple ways that you should be able to understand, User:Schi most recently. Instead of trying to antagonize everyone, I hope you'll read the comments and try to learn from the explanations your fellow contributors have taken the time to offer you. 2005 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what the word "directly" means. The issue is not with "understanding explanations", but with lack of direct answers. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is "merit with level of detail, expert opinion, raw stats, and so on" not direct? Sure, he didn't answer the first one, but I think it's obvious the answer is "yes" since the second question was contingent to agreeing with the first one. Would you feel better if 2005 spelled out "YES" for you to number one? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the issue here is that most of us (I think) believe that an EL can point to something that would not meet Wikipedia's content policies for inclusion on wikipedia and may not meet all of the requirements to be used as a reference, but does provide a starting point for further exploration, detail, etc. The exact determination of whether it's appropriate, adds value, and doesn't detract from the Wikipedia page (but instead adds to it) really is up to the editors, with this guideline to help them in their decisions. For example: We suggest people include dmoz links as ELs, and so help avoid the inclination to make Wikipedia into a directory. Dmoz links are probably not WP:RS per se, and they certainly would not meet guidelines or policy for inclusion as a page on Wikipedia, but they're definitely useful in many Wikipedia page's EL sections.

I do think we should consider suggesting to people lower down that in many cases, if an EL link does pass WP:RS and WP:V, they should consider converting it into a reference and making use of that in the text, if possible. In some cases it isn't possible or just doesn't work, and in those an EL is the way to go. An example of an EL that is appropriate (IMHO), but which may not meet all the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V (partly due to it being maintained off a "personal" page), but which does make a useful EL is Classical Fencing, linked to from Fencing (sport). (And yes, Fencing (sport) needs more EL cleanup - I've already done some.)

jesup 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Starting point for further exploration" is only good as the link we are linking to. If the site linked is not a good starting point, we should not link to it, right? So it all boils down to "adding value", and yes, the good judgment of editors is always needed to make that assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...I certainly hope it doesn't boil down to "adding value," as that is as subjective as "not crap," and is furthermore lame corporate-speak like "think outside the box." Further reading/further exploration doesn't need a "value" attached to it in the guideline. Trying to legislate prescriptive value judgements in generalities is never going to work--"value" is a matter of editorial judgement; it only exists in the judgement of editors. Even if you put something like "don't put crap in Wikipedia" or "only add links which add value," the same editors who think fancruft makes good ELs will be certain you are not talking to them, that the fansite they want to add is totally not crap and adds tons o' value. You cannot upgrade the judgement of editors with a guideline or policy. Cindery 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How does your response helps this discussion? I would appreciate it if you tone down your comments, as you are only escalating this rather than helping resolve it. "Adding value" falls within the same judgments needed to assess NPOV, doesn't it? But we have NPOV as a core policy. So, can you please provide some ideas on how to address the concerns expressed? I am not asking to "legislate prescriptive value judgements (sic)", I am trying to find common ground given the very different viewpoints expressed so far. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I think everybody agrees that the purpose of external links is to add value to the article. You seem to be suggesting that the only way to add value to the article, in terms of EL, is by adding links that meet WP:V and other content policies for material added to encyclopedia articles. My understanding, based on the discussion here and in the past, as well as previous versions of the guideline, is that one of the main purposes of EL is to provide links to things that add value and can't be incorporated into the article. I think some of the other editors have made this point pretty clear. The determination of what "adds value" to the article should be made by that article's editors. Do you really believe that we should only link to information that could otherwise be incorporated into the article? Because it seems to me that would encourage lazy article-writing. In the guideline, I think we ought not encourage people to add external links to things that should be sources. schi ^talk 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask some other questions, if I may? Why the animosity? Aren't we all interested in creating a great encyclopedia? Aren't we all interested in a good guideline that can help editors do their job better? If so, why cannot we attempt to find common ground? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider your previous comment, "How does your response helps (sic) this discussion?" Please assume good faith. I see no reason to believe that folks here aren't interested in finding common ground and advancing the project. schi ^talk 06:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any opposition to the idea that ELs should add value to the article, in fact, it's mentioned in both the current version ("Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links") and the proposed versions. And the "measuring stick" is definined by the rest of the guideline, it's all the criteria listed.

To get back on topic, I like the last proposed revision, here's a slight tweak, and an addition to the second chunk:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory.

Some external links are welcome (see below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; external links may not be necessary in every case. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first. Refer to the citation guideline for instructions on citing sources. This guideline refers to external links other than citations." (this doesn't contain wikilinks due to copy/paste, we'd obviously want to include these)

It seems like we're close to having consensus on a revised opening, let's see if we can get a revision that can be agreed upon. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that quite a bit. jesup 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still uncomfortable with the formulation. Here is another attempt, which also summarizes the last sentence of the first para with the sencond para:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, and that expands information available in the article.

"A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; external links may not be necessary in every case. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first."

"This guideline refers to external links other than citations, for guideline for instructions on citing sources see WP:CITE. "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think we need to at least mention that ELs can be used for sites that cannot be used as sources/citations. Either something as has been proposed above, which gives some examples, or perhaps "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, and it meets the requirements for a citation, consider using it as a source first." This last might be combined with a paragraph deeper in the article giving examples of good ELs that can't be used as sources. jesup 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is again:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, and that expands information available in the article.

"A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; external links may not be necessary in every case. "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, and it meets the requirements for a citation, consider using it as a source first."

"This guideline refers to external links other than citations, for guideline for instructions on citing sources see WP:CITE. "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mention that ELs can be used for sites that cannot be used as sources/citations, it looks like you just repeated it instead of changing anything. What are you uncomfortable with in the previous proposed version? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the aspect I am uncomfortable with: EL section is not there to link to sites that cannot be used as sources. That is not the reason for the EL section. ELs are there to expand the article, provide a point for further research, etc. Otherwise what we are saying can be easily interpreted as "if site X is cannot be used as source because it contains extremist POVs, inaccurate OR material, copyvios, etc., please go ahead and add it to the external links section". But if we say ""Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, and that expands information available in the article. " we sending a very different and unambiguous message about the reason for having ELs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"EL section is not there to link to sites that cannot be used as sources" If that's what you think, I think you're missing the whole point of EL. Where is that comment supported by WP policy or guidelines? ELs aren't held to the same standard as sources - if they were, what is the point of having a separate guideline for EL? The very existence of two guidelines implies that they are different things and have different criteria. Aside from that, I don't see how the previous proposed text could be read as condoning extremist POV etc, it specifically lists a couple examples and directs the reader to the rest of the text where the rest of the examples are spelled out. How can "because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below" be read as condoning POV? Or are you just assuming that people won't read the "reasons mentioned below" and will imagine their own reasons? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this, and I think the wording can be tighted a little, I propose:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Wikipedia which are accurate, on-topic, in context and functional. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is useful for many articles.

"This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon our cherished principles to attribute to reliable sources. A comprehensive index of websites is not desirable, neither does every article require external links. Before adding a website as an external link, consider whether it meets the requirements as a source for the article, and cite to the link instead.

"This guideline refers to links placed in the "External links" section of articles. For instructions on citing sources see WP:CITE. "

--Trödel 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel. I will go with that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this wording, same objections as before. Please get a consensus before making changes, that's not one person agreeing with you. Any bets on how fast this page will get locked again? I also strongly disagree with a mention of anonymous websites. --Milo H Minderbinder 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to see more discussion of the opening even if I don't have a strong opinion, other than I don't think "cherished" is a useful word to have there. 2005 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No problems. If you are not happy with the wording, please propose a modification so that we can move this forward. As for the anonymous sites, it will all depend on the wording of that sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a major problem. If YOU are not happy with the wording previously in the guideline, YOU need to gain a consensus to change it. Clearly many editors do not approve of your wording, and even more clearly you need to stop rudely changing the wording without a new consensus. 2005 09:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One more try: Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further resources that are accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory.

I strongly agree with a strong statement like Wikipedia is not a web directory up front. I don't think the consider using as a citation instead should be here. The EL section is generally much more prominent than citations, and occasionally a site used in citations will be well suited for listing in EL as well. Although I realize this may be a different issue, I disagree with the either-or approach to citations/EL. ∴ here…♠ 04:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below is totally misleading. It is stating something that is in contradiction with established policies and unacceptable in a guideline: (a) it implies that you can link to copyvios in contradiction to WP:COPYRIGHT; (b) It implies that editors can add links to spurious websites on the basis of "cannot or should not be added to the article in contradiction with WP:V, WP:NOR. or WP:NPOV. The lead should avoid getting into these details and only explain 'why do we want/need links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No contradiction, WP:CR 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. We want links because they improve the article by providing, further resources that are accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below. ∴ here…♠ 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ANother formulation that hinders rather than helps: We do not link to copyvios, period. That is different than copyrighted materials: All reputable/reliable websites are copyrighted and we do not have a problem linking to them! The reason why we link is because these links are useful, contain reliable information and augment the article's content. So there is no need to explain that. It is a given... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please change the wording back to the old. I prefer the old wording as well as Milo, and apparently a few others. I'll wait for you to revert yourself. ∴ here…♠ 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not. The formulation is in contradiction with established policy, and a guideline cannot bypass policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have partially restored the previous version, removing the disputed statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I found the change disputed. That said, I'll support the attempted revision with minor changes. Strike 2nd sentence redundant. Change our to wikipedia's. Change cherish to central. Strike last sentence, not either-or see Wp:cite#Further_reading.2FExternal_links, no need to disuade the link via WP:CITE.

Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Wikipedia which are accurate and on-topic. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is useful for many articles. This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to attribute to reliable sources. A comprehensive index of websites is not desirable, neither does every article require external links. Before adding a website as an external link, consider whether it meets the requirements as a source for the article, and cite to the link instead.

If feel the second sentence is important, add it back in. ∴ here…♠ 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One more, keeping cite as an additional option:

Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Wikipedia which are accurate and on-topic. This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to attribute to reliable sources. A comprehensive index of websites is not desirable, neither does every article require external links.

If you would like to add material from the research to the article, you will also need to add a full citation as detailed at Wikipedia:Citing sources

∴ here…♠ 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with the revision that's up as of this writing: [2]. Does anyone besides jossi object to "can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below"? He/she seems to be the only one misreading it as far as I can tell. This is supposed to be built by consensus, you shouldn't put it back in unless there's a number of people agreeing with you. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with user:here wording. It is not an issue of "misreading", Milo, it is a in an issue of having a lead that it is not reflecting the content of the guideline, and that is misleading in its formulation: we do not add links because "can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely why we add links, and it's in sync with policy. Unless you can get more people to back up your opinion, quit revert warring over this, it's how the policy has been. And if that's not the reason to add links to an article, then why do we add links? The version you want gives no reason why links should be added at all - if you can't think of a reason why links shouldn't be added, you should probably reexamine your reasoning. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. We add links to articles that contain useful and reliable information not currently in articles. Period. The ideal would be to require no external links at all, just notes and references. Until we reach that exalted state, external links are an interim compromise. And it's rather tiresome and hypocritical to hear you and User:2005 preach to others "stop revert-warring" even as you revert-war. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You should read the guideline. We certainly don't add external links based on what you said. For example, we normally will not a link to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a featured article. 2005 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nonsense"? I think you missed my point. The current version doesn't address why we add a link to an article instead of just putting the information at that link in the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Milo, I believe we've moved beyond your preferred version. If Jossi honestly misinterprets the intention, that is enough to assume many others will as well. Do you have any constructive comments on the latest above revision that Jossi finds agreeable? Jayjg, comments/revisions on the last stab above? ∴ here…♠ 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't misinterpret the intention. He doesn't agree with it, which certainly is not the same. 2005 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the wording could be misleading to suggest that you can use the EL section as a dumping ground for information that should be incorporated into the article as refs. schi ^talk 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent discussion is irrelevant. The wording in question is out for a number of reasons. I've yet to hear any concerns with the latest attempt. Any issues?, or can we put all this behind us -- if only momentarily -- and accept this version as a new in-article starting point?

Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Wikipedia which are accurate and on-topic. This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to attribute to reliable sources. A comprehensive index of websites is not desirable, neither does every article require external links.

If you would like to add material from the research to the article, you will also need to add a full citation as detailed at Wikipedia:Citing sources

∴ here…♠ 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not irrelevant. How do you figure that talking about the consensus text is irrelevant? It covers what needs to be covered, which is the important concept that external links are for content that can't or shouldn't be in articles. Content that should be in articles should be in articles; linking to redundant websites that offer nothing beyond the article should not be linked to. 2005 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New articles vs. mature articles

I think we have lost sight of what, I believe, is the real point of "which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article", which is that if the information can be added to the article, it should be (though re-written); it then becomes a source for the article. In other words, links should not be to pages that are, in themselves, good, encyclopedic treatments of the subject.

Now, this is all very well for a Wikipedia article that is well along in it's development, though when an article is stubby, this notion is not especially realistic. I have been debating whether we should introduce language into the guideline dealing with this new-article/mature-article difference-- it has some potential to open the gates to a lot of links that will become inappropriate as the article matures. Any thoughts on how or whether to incorporate such an approach? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Combining two strains of thought

I believe the following incorporates the current consensus text with text some editors want to add to the introduction, so I propse we make the opening:

• Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to accurate, on-topic, in context and functional web pages outside Wikipedia that contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. The criteria for such linking is below. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article. 2005 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this covers both phrasing people have been talking about. Perhaps the "the criteria..." sentence could be better worded, but I think this includes the different concepts editors have voiced support for. 2005 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please delete...

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.

This is unneccessary instruction creep. Some people use Wikipedia with screenreaders. Should we avoid linking to any site that is not compatible with screenreaders? This is just ridiculous and doesn't help our mission...Stevage 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest replacing it with something along the lines of "refrain from linking to large documents and web pages where a reasonable alternative exists." Fagstein 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Why should the length of the page come into it? Wikipedia pages themselves are frequently enormous, it seems utterly arbitrary and pointless to discourage linking to such pages. We should link or not link on a case-by-case basis based on the value of the link - not on some arbitrary condition. Stevage 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator

Sorry if this is not entirely the correct place for posting this. This article on an old abandonware DOS game contains IMHO an inordinate amount of links to download sites for the game. This type of thing is not not what EL's are meant for and IMHO should ALL be removed, but I thought I'd post here first to get a response and maybe pose a question: should the guideline include specific mention prohibiting posting links to download sites (for the sake of the argument assume copyright is NOT the issue i.e. only freeware, open source and shareware is linked)? While it may be useful for the reader to download an old game/program he's interested in, in terms of the encyclopaedia the link does not provide "information that extends the article". Thoughts? Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This Talk is mostly for discussing the guidelines, not if a page meets the guidelines - that should normally occur on the Talk page of the page in question. However, you're asking if the guideline should specifically mention download sites. I'm not sure - certainly that particular page has too many download and other ELs (though a couple of them are ok) - "Wikipedia is not a directory". But I wouldn't rule out all download links per se. For example, the Emacs page could reasonably include a link to a download of Emacs (it actually has an EL to a page that maintains a list of implementations, but you get the idea). I'd say discouraged in general, but not absolute ban. Whether that should translate into any wording in WP:EL... I'm not sure, IMO. jesup 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be there, especially if they're links to copyrighted software. "Abandonware" or not, we don't have the right to unilaterally violate licenses. Our goal here is also not to promote software, merely to describe it. Fagstein 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities

What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Wikipedia fraternity or sorority article such as Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi? Is this appropriate at all? Metros232 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, no - WP:NOT: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Huge lists of chapters and alumni isn't appropriate. Some notable alumni would be ok, or a category for alumni. Long lists of chapters and dates (and probably extensive lists of alums) should be on their own pages; that's not encyclopedic content. IMHO. jesup 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think a table of chapters with links is a great resource. Squidfryerchef 05:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Resource? Sure, for the frat members. Encyclopedic? No. Just because something is useful as a web resource doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia page. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of facts. It should be on their own page(s). — jesup 05:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Obvious commercial links on user talk pages/user pages

I just removed a commercial link added to this talk page (which seems to me to miss the point in really quite spectacular fashion) but I find the editor has on their talk page the same link: listed about five times in succession with different comments, so apparently an attempt to promote something. This policy doesn't seem to apply. Can anyone suggest a different one that does? Notinasnaid 11:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• We have WP:SPAM, among others, and WP:NOT an advertising service. This user seems indeed to be missing the point. I've deleted his page as a copyvio, by the way. (Radiant) 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal talk page

Am i free to link to commercial site from my home page? exmaple (link removed) or (link removed) --Darrendeng 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If the links are not contributing to the encyclopedia and are not linking to something about you, I would personally take the view that they are only there for advertising and are not permissible. --Spartaz 09:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your personal page is yours to do with whatever you wish that does not disrupt wikipedia. Links are not disruptive. You can link to anything you wish. Wjhonson 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, be careful. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Conex_India. Blatant advertising and spamming -- as this site has an established reputation for on wikipedia, is not welcome anywhere. user pages included. I've removed the links above. ∴ here…♠ 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If the link constitutes advertising, it should be removed, notwithstanding Wjhonson's opinion. --Improv 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent change?

On the project page is a template "There was recently a change in policy or guideline on this page.", but when I click the link, I'm not directed to an appropriate talk page section... Which recent change was meant? Shinobu 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"wikimyspace"

I have made a proposal on the proposal pump on this issue. It would be good if we could get people to give comments (but make sure all talk is there, or at least in one place). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: internal cite in "Hijacked Websites" section; no refs section

There seem to be some changes going on, and I don't wanna edit the page at all. This is just an FYI that a References section needs to be added (or the cite.php removed from the "Hijacked Websites" section). --Ling.Nut 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus

The formulation that user 2005 keep reverting back to is not a consensus version. This guideline was substantially changed in the last four weeks, as per the disclaimer tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you provide us with what you consider to be the last consensus text? Or are you reverting back 4 weeks? The lastest revision to the intro above has received no comments. Add a reference to WP:CITE if you must. 2005, comments above? ∴ here…♠ 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know that is not true. Shame on you. The consensus text is plainly available, having been there for a long time before Jossi decided to ignore everyone on the planet. (The word "anonymous" is nowhere in the document in June or February. That is the reality.) Jossi your behavior is unfathomable. Just because YOU decide you don't agree with something doesn't mean there has not been a consensus, and it certainly does not mean YOUR opinion is the one that should be placed in a document just because it is YOUR opinion. 2005 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I will obviously not respond to your uncivil comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:2005, if you want to create your own version, please get consensus for it on Talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The version 2005 has reverted to isn't "his version", it's much closer to how this page has been for a while. The version jossi keeps reverting to has new material that to my knowledge has never been in the guideline, and has minimal support (and in the absence of consensus for change, it should be left how it was previously). Besides jossi and Jayjg, who supports that version? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, a number of other editors, including MusicalLinguist and SlimVirgin. Aside from you, who else supports 2005's version? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin supports the mention of anonymous sites, but as far as I can tell, never commented on the opening passage - that makes three, hardly a consensus when at least that many oppose it. MusicalLinguist didn't mention the opening or anonymous websites so I'm not sure why you even mention him/her, the comment was about blogs, which are generally forbidden in either version. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this edit by Musical Linguist, which puts your various claims in perspective. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems yet another administrator opposes 2005's version, as he has just reverted you. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Milo: solid arguments have been presented for the inclusion of a statement about anonymous websites as well as for a small adjustment to the lead. Can these be discussed on their merits? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What fascinates me is that all the longer-term editors and administrators support the current version, whereas a couple of newer, non-administrators support User:2005's version. What do Milo and 2005 make of this? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see either of those two supporting the edit to the opening. Is there anyone besides you two in favor? And I don't see the significance of whether someone is an admin or not making their opinion worth more. I'm trying to discuss this on its merits, look at the page above. What policy forbids linking to anonymous material? It keeps getting argued that the reason for the addition is making it match "policy". So where is it? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Numerous arguments have been made showing why the anonymous section makes no sense but you continue to not comment on any of these and instead rudely keep adding text you have refused to discuss. Until you present any rationale for adding a completely new concept to the guideline, you need to offer some logical reason, and then get consensus on it. Just to be clear, the addition of this clause had absolutely ZERO discusssion before it was added, repeatedly. 2005 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User Jayjg, what is the point of you making up this nonsense. The edit history is right there to be seen by anyone who chooses to act in good faith. the anonymous section was never in this guideline... which is a Wikipedia guideline, not "mine". At this point you seem to not care about the dozens of editors who have contributed to this guideline over time, or those who worked on achieving a consensus again recently, but no matter how much you hate it, other people's opinions count. Other people matter, not just you two. Learn to cooperate, and learn to respect the view of others. You want to change a longstanding guideline, then make a case, don't just make up nonsense. 2005 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Where? easy. A Wikipedia article needs to contain verifiable and good quality information, is it not? After all this is an encyclopedia. Can you tell me how can we assure our readers that a website that we are linking to from an article on Judaism, for example, contains solid, verifiable and accurate information, if we cannot assess the website's author knowledge, relevance, authority on the subject? If you disagree with this, could you please explain in which cases an unverifiable anonymous website in the EL is good for an article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, in case t=you missed it, this guideline does not forbid anything. It simply provides some basic non-binding guidelines about which links to include and which to avoid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The page has been protected because of the edit war mentioned in this section. Please discuss it here. (Radiant) 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't that obvious, I'm not sure why the page was unprotected in the first place. It's a shame that people have to edit war over it instead of getting consensus for changes. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing that you recognize your actions as edit warring. Note: it takes two, not one, to edit war. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So would you care to weigh in on the guideline itself? New voices would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the mischaracterization? It is not an "edit war" to ask for consensus on the wording of a guideline that says it has consensus! Let's stay on track here. If any editors want to fundementally change the wording of a wikipedia guideline, on a page that says it has CONSENSUS, they need to actually get a consensus. Enough of this silliness. This page should be reverted to the stable version that had a consensus, permanently protected, and any changes to it should only be made after a consensus is achieved for a change. 2005 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we were asked to comment at WP:VPP, here is my opinion when comparing the two versions in this diff. Regarding the first sentence, I prefer the version on the right (after Crzrussian's revert) better because it's a better summary of what external links are appropriate. However, I'd prefer "web pages" above "research"; the latter seems too narrow for me (it excludes original texts, for instance). Minor gripe: if we stick with "research", I think that "are" should read "is" as the subject is "research", not "links".

On the item refering to blogs in the "links normally to be avoided" section, I'm not so sure about it. I agree with excluding anonymous sites: I thought about it and I can think of very few actual exceptions (DMOZ is apparently one of them). Personal sites are another matter, because there are quite a number of those that add value. To me, the fact that an external link is to a personal site, is only a minor concern, less than most of the other things in the list. Saying that one should avoid linking to personal sites unless they strictly satisfy WP:V is too strong, and I don't believe there is a consensus for it (though consensus is perhaps changing faster than I'm aware of). I'd much rather that it says that sites written by experts are preferable, and then leaves it to editors to decide whether it adds value. Additionally, it seems inconsistent to allow links to open wikis with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors, and to disallow links to personal sites unless they satisfy WP:V. Minor gripe: if this version remains, it should be clarified what part of WP:V this refers to (I assume WP:V#Sources), and of course Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! applies. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous websites

It was asked for examples of websites that could be anonymous yet still verifiable (true/accurate). Here are a few hypotheticals that come to mind:

1. A website that cites the sources for all information it contains. For example, a page with a collection of bible references about a particular topic, each with chapter and verse.
2. A website with information on a work of fiction, whether that is plot summaries, character info, quotes, etc with page or episode numbers referencing the original work of fiction as a source.
3. A website comparing statitics originating from different sources (whether it's a sports team, finanacial info, etc), with the sources for the original info given.
4. A website with a collection of recipies for a certain food, linked from a wikipedia article about that food (which is forbidden from containing a recipe).
5. A website with definitions or documented sourcing of slang or neologisms.
6. A picture gallery that illustrates a topic (wikipedia considers images an exception to WP:NOR and allows uploading of images by anonymous sources to the encyclopedia itself)
7. A directory of links on a topic (this very guideline recommends linking to DMOZ, which is edited anonymously)
8. A website containing a digital copy of public domain material, which can be verified by comparing it with a hard copy of the original material.
9. A download site for anonymously produced open-source software.

I'm sure there are plenty more possibilities. Why would any of these be objectionable (unverifiable?) on the grounds of anonymity, assuming they met all other criteira of WP:EL? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Verifiability comes from looking at sources that are themselves verifiable - summary sites like this may be convenient but they take us further down the "information food chain" and are probably unwise to partake of. --Improv 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's true that most would be tertiary sources instead of primary or secondary. But does wikipedia policy or guidelines say anywhere that tertiary sources shouldn't be linked to? With all due respect, your comment sounds like a gut reaction instead of something supported by wp policy. Wikipedia itself is written by anonymous people and is further down the food chain. Do you consider it unwise for other sites to link to it? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Numerous examples have been listed here and previously why anonymous websites will sometimes be fine external links, some types of photography pages being an obvious example. What remains unstated is why anyone would want to prevent anonymous websites? What is the reasoning? We have had a lot of hubub without any reasoning stated. Why does adding "John Smith" to a site add anything to its external link value. Of course it doesn't. What DOES matter is what we have in this guideline: merit, some sense of stability, unencyclopedic level of detail, and so on. In other words, anonymous sites will almost never be linked BECAUSE THE DO NOT MEET THE GUIDELINE in terms of VALUE. Some editors need tostart thinking about the value of external links to articles. If, for example, an anonymous website NEVER were to merit a link, then the guideline prevents linking to it. Why is that hard to udnerstand? On the rare occasions an anonymous website has the quality/merit/reliability to merit a link useful to our users, why precicely do some argue we should not link to it. It doesn't make any sense. Focus on this guidelines hurdles on content. Focus on the merit wording. Just pulling some arbritrary concept out of the sky that does not consider merit is AT BEST redundant. (And besides that, what on Earth IS "anonymous"? Have people here actually not considered that just adding John Smith to a site does not make it "better" in terms of linking? What, exactly, would someone advocating this this anonymous text HOPE to accomplish?) 2005 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This list reminds me of the answers that raise red flags when interviewing someone for a job. Anyone can think of a good example of what they "would" do or what they "should" or what an example "could" be like. But failure to give concrete examples of actual events means they haven't really done the activity that they claim they could do. All these look useful, but they should exist in real life. Are there any examples of existing websites that meet this criteria - that would be much more useful than hypothetical examples. --Trödel 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at Recipe turns up external links to a wiki recipe site which seems to be mainly anonymous recipes, and a recipe blog that isn't anonymous, but seems to belong to an average person instead of an "expert" - it contains some recipes that look like they were submitted anonymously. Apple Pie has a link to an anonymous recipe on wikihow. Is this apple pie recipe somehow "not verifiable" since it's anonymous? If you stuck "Betsy Jones" to the end, would that somehow make it more verifiable? Do I need to go through the whole list and provide examples, or can you just explain why the links in the list above shouldn't be allowed? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would offer http://history.rays-place.com/index.htm, an extremely useful site for town histories; we presently have 409 links to his pages. I have no idea who he is, or what, if any, are his credentials, but his site is solid. He publishes public domain material from long out-of-print sources, apparently using OCR on old books. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know anything on any of those pages is accurate in any way? Is there someone I can contact there to find out the website's sources of information, the reliability and credentials of its author, and its editorial oversight process? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If one must verify the contents of a website by looking up an outside source, then the website itself is unverifiable; instead, we have used an outside source for our information, because we had no way of knowing the reliability of the information on the website. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not supported by WP:V at all, did you just make it up? WP:V says: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Clicking at the first link I saw at ray's place, I came to [3], which says on the page "Published in the Connecticut Quartely Apr. May & June 1897". So if you want to verify that page, get a copy of the Connecticut Quarterly from that date, which is the reliable source that published the info, and verify it. As defined in WP:V, that page, although anonymous, is unquestionably verifiable. So why is the anonymity of the website a factor in linking to it?--Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous websites are OK for a few things where the content speaks for itself. But in terms of providing guidelines, suggesting that anonymous websites are generally a sign of a site to be avoided seems to be appropriate. My big concern with them is much less about verifiability (although that's a big issue with some sites) as about NPOV. A site that does not provide provenance may provide entirely accurate and verifiable information, but in selective way. Provenance, of course, does not negate this risk, but it provides a basis for understanding (ad investigating) the POV pressures - whether that POV is of an industry or political group masquerading as a helpful presenter of "the facts", of a website trying to gain the most click throughs on their google ads, or of an embittered ex-employee with an ax to grind.

I think there is a big difference when linking to photo and recipe websites compared to anything that provides any sort of authoritative treatment of a subject. Photos and recipes are almost always a "one of many" type deal, photos and recipes are rarely a problem in terms of needing some sort of voice of authority behind them. But when we link to sites that make assertions we normally ought to be linking to sites with some sort of authority in their field. With incredibly rare exceptions, anonymous sites do not hold that authority because they cannot build well founded trust.

I also think we need to distinguish between anonymous websites where the owner/publisher is anonymous, and websites where the publisher is known but allows anonymous posters. I'm more concerned about the former than the later. Problems in the latter case are, in my opinion, dealt with by the points against forums etc. If a publisher can develop a solid reputation publishing articles by anonymous authors I think that's fine, though I can't think of an example we'd link to.

I wonder if we don't spend too much effort on trying to craft these particular bullet points because we don't do enough to emphasize the collective responsibility editors have to consider the external links section as a part of the article as a whole. Too often it seems editors are happy to let the section become a directory or a dumping ground for POV rants. We might spend a little more time focussed on the idea that all editors have a responsibility to care for these sections and think of their encyclopedic value. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All good points. But if a site suffers from NPOV issues, that's grounds for not linking to it. Being anonymous isn't really relevant. And as you pointed out, corporate, political, and news websites can have NPOV issues as well, and it can be just as hard to try and investigate the POV pressures behind it. If NPOV is really a big concern for linking, I think expanding on that would be much more useful than a blanket ban on anonymous or personal websites. As you said, anonymous websites can be OK for some material - so why not explain in what cases it isn't acceptable instead of saying you shouldn't link to any? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against refining the language. I'm just saying I think our readers will be better served if we do have guidelines that discourage anonymous websites in many situations. I think anonymity is correlated for good reason with ulterior motives when it comes to publishing information. Provenance speaks not only to what is on the site when a link is added to wikipedia, but also to how content can be expected to change. It's one part of judging a website's reputation. Reputation for authority, for accuracy, for thoroughness, for POV, for being up-to-date. It might be that is best covered by a "What to look for when assessing a site" section, instead of straight avoid/include lists. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"generally a sign of a site to be avoided seems to be appropriate"... which is the whole point. Before the flurry of undiscussed edits, the guideline emphasized concepts without "instruction creep". The wording trying to be added makes a useless, unthinking blanket statement, which as the numerous examples offered here shows makes no sense. A further line warning about anonymity would be a fine addition since anonymity offers nothing positive. It's a warning sign, but it is plainly NOT a death sentence to merit. We want links to recognized authorities, which means we will seldom link to anonymous sites. But on rare occasions anonymous sites to rise to the occasion of unique authority, mwanner's example is a good one. 2005 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anonymous" could have too many different meanings (for example, as SiobhanHansa pointed out, regarding owner/publisher vs. "posters") to be really useful as it is currently formulated in this guideline, and it also seems to contradict, for example, #12 regarding wikis. Why can't we stick with something about "recognized authority"? And again, and as has been repeatedly brought up on this talk page, how are we going to sort out how to apply content policies to external links to other sites, which are by definition, not part of Wikipedia? schi ^talk 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. Anonymous (as well as "personal") are useless words unrelated to merit and that do not clarify anything. Some folks apparently not getting that "external" means "external" should not be a problem but unfortunately is. We don't stand behind these links. They are not a part of the Wikipedia. POV is an obvious example as mentioned previously. One sentence of POV on a brilliant 1000 page website is no reason to not add a link. 2005 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not a fan of mwanner's example (rays-place.com). I don't know the subject well, so the site may have an established reputation among experts in the field. But on the face of it I'd be worried by a site like that in the external links section - almost entirely because of it's anonymity. It's not clear what the site's purpose is, how have those particular articles been chosen? What POV do they represent? What articles have been left out? How might the content change in the future? He may just be going through public domain journals and posting them for the world - but there's nothing about the site to make me think it's anything other than an expression of his personal take on the subject. And if he's not a recognized authority, that's not something I think we should be linking to.

I agree one sentence of POV in a site shouldn't invalidate it. In fact I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with a POV site in many circumstances, so long as that POV is clearly labeled, it's not an attack or rant site, and other external links provide the balance necessary for an NPOV article. --Siobhan Hansa 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think sites like that are generally linked to via a specific article, not a link to ray's entire site. If there's a link on wikipedia to the single article [4], how would a single article, written in 1897 and published in the Connecticut Quarterly, be an expression of his POV? And for argument's sake, if the Connecticut Quarterly had an official website and it contained the same text, how would that be any different? The decision to link to that particular article is made by wikipedia editors, who don't have to be recognized authority - if there's POV by the selection of that article, it would be POV on the part of the wp editors who linked it, and whether the site it's hosted on is anonymous or not is irrelevant. A google search showed a mention of the article on the US army website, showing that the article existed, and that they thought it was relevant. But as far as I could find, ray's place was the only site that had an online copy of the actual article - should wikipedia readers be denied a reference to an article from 1897 (including five scanned photos, which I didn't notice until now) just because the guy who put it online doesn't have "credentials"? And it would somehow become more acceptable to link if "ray" was either not anonymous/expert/"offical" website instead of a personal one? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the specific article as appropriate does alleviate the POV concerns. I didn't realize that was the case. I think of a site that simply provides an electronic version of a useful document as more like a photo site in that sense. There isn't really the same editorial control on the part of the publisher. It does require greater diligence on the part of the adding editor though. If they haven't read the document elsewhere, how do they know the site is accurate except by reputation? I do not mean to imply that a site that isn't anonymous is automatically better than an anonymous one - just that you have more of a basis to form an opinion based on reputation. Knowing a site's provenance is more likely to make me think it's not appropriate than that it is, because very few institutions have much of a reputation for rigor. --Siobhan Hansa 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree wit Siobhan Hansa's assessment. As for Schi's comment about external links not being part of an artile, I may disagree. While the websites themselves are not part of an article, the links we add in an EL section, are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that all sites linked to must meet all wikipedia content policies and guidelines? That content can only be linked to if it meets the same standards as content included in the article itself? I don't see any support for that anywhere in WP policy. That certainly doesn't reflect current practice, and would be a major change to wikipedia, effecting thousands of external links. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument? I am not say that, Milo. What I am saying that, as editors of an encyclopedia, we have the responsibility to ensure that what we link to from our articles include relevant, useful, reliable information. The idea that the EL section is a dumping ground for what could not make it into the article, needs to be removed from this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you need to clarify then. You've pointed out WP:V even though it doesn't say that it applies to content linked externally. So which policies/guidelines do you feel external content should meet to be linked to? WP:V? And I'm not sure where you get the whole idea that anyone is advocating EL as a dumping ground (straw man?), has anyone disagreed that linked content should be accurate and neutral? What exactly makes you think that people want to condone making EL a "dumping ground"? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jossi, you keep referring to the idea that the EL section is a "dumping ground" for what can't be included in the article. That's not at all what the EL section is, no one is making that assertion, and it's not helpful or productive to the discussion to keep mischaracterizing people's comments in this fashion. We all agree that the EL section should only include links that provide "relevant, useful, reliable information". It's however not the case (and I believe that it has been sufficiently proven) that the only links that would do so are those that would meet all Wikipedia content policies. Do you disagree with that? schi ^talk 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The formulation that I opposed, included the wording that the EL section is designed to "provid[e] links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article". That wording can be to easily interpreted as "dumping ground for all the material we should not or could not add to an article." That has been my concern all along. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How? I think your problem is you read sentences, rather than the guideline as a whole. Content should be inegrated into articles. Sometimes it can't because of level of detail, expert POV, raw statistical volume or similar reasons. Those can be linked externally. The guideline needs to be read as whole, not a bunch of unrelated sentences. There is no way for external links to be a dumping ground given the previous consensus wording because we have a high bar based on merit. 2005 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What about making an effort to understand the concern raised instead of make assessment on my "problem"? I am talking about the lead of the guideline, 2005. The lead needs to be as unambiguous as possible, that wording is ambiguous, misleading, and in contradiction with the rest of the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not even talking about the intro - while I don't agree that it can be interpreted that way, I'm letting it slide since it's addressed in the article itself. The wording quoted doesn't even apply to anonymous websites. We're talking about number 11 under links to be avoided, specifically "anonymous" and "personal" websites (whatever those terms even mean). --Milo H Minderbinder 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried repeatedly, as have others. Maybe I could characterize it differently, but it is a problem to just go and make edits without discussion largely because it seems to me that you have interpreted four things in obscure ways. Once it was discussed, two of the things were easily addressed. In the case of the lead now, no one disagrees the lead needs to be unambiguous. Wording can always be improved, and we can discuss that. Similarly the anonymous/personal site point, as has been pointed out by many editors now, could have a different wording to emphasize merit and authority more. Both these subjects, especially the lead, could be addressed just by a clause in a sentence emphasizing what I just said above, that the guideline has to be read as a whole. Finally, it is easier to understand a concern when you raise it as a concern and discuss it, rather than repeatedly try to force it on other people. So, perhaps we can move forward by considering adding to the previous wording (in the intro) so the merit bars further down the guideline are emphasized more; and, similarly a warning about anonymous/personal sites have to meet a very high bar of merit to earn a link. (That bar is not a policy which concerns article space but one we define here.) 2005 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Obscure ways? I have raised a concern that is not being addressed. Adress the concern with a good argument, if you could, please, rather than making value judgments on my understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, your concerns, about the previous wording in the intro, and the idea of including links to pages containing information that does not belong in the article - which you allege is "ambiguous, misleading, and in contradiction with the rest of the guideline", have been addressed several times on this talk page and you haven't responded to them. I will repeat them here:

• J.S's example above is excellent, and demonstrates how EL is properly used without becoming "a dumping ground". Please consider reading it:

articles in peer review journals. The minute detail of how a experiment was performed it helpful for those who want more information, but is likely too much detail for an article aiming for a broad scope. Likewise, an author might release the first chapter of his new book on his website... the first chapter cannot be included because it would be a violation of his copyrights, but it could be of great value to someone who wanted to know more about the book.

• Further, I and others have, on multiple occasions, asked for you to articulate how such links would be in contradiction to the rest of the guideline and Wikipedia policies, and you have yet to address our concerns, except to say that you wish to apply Wikipedia content policies to websites outside of Wikipedia. This may be something you want to bring up at the various policy pages, for example WP:V, but until I see something on WP:V that tells us how to govern external links to non-Wikipedia content, I don't think your interpretation is conclusive.
• "Misleading" - I simply disagree that the wording was misleading. I can allow that it perhaps should be included in a secondary, etc. sentence and not the very first sentence. However, I think it's important to include in the guideline intro. Otherwise, the guideline could be too easily misinterpreted as allowing EL to become a dumping ground for links that should be refs, which would encourage sloppy encyclopedia-writing. schi ^talk 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of the "recognized authority" type of yard stick. --Siobhan Hansa 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think instead of forbidding anonymous websites, maybe there should be a mention after "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Maybe something like "While all linked sites should be accurate, anonymous sites and personal websites should be given extra scrutiny since they have no editorial oversight. Anonymous sites should not be linked unless they meet the rest of this guideline and are the best available external content on a given topic." On the wordy side, but I think it's a big improvement over number 11. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good start. 2005 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, good start. This may be quibbling, but I think "if" instead of "since" ("extra scrutiny if they have") and the term "anonymous sites" is still open to misinterpretation (for example, wikis in #12? Unless we can combine these two in a satisfactory way). I think I would still prefer the "recognized authority" criterion over "personal" or "anonymous"; as someone else (I forget) has said before, the guideline is coming across as if you can only externally link to huge-corporation-endorsed content. It seems as if the guideline is discouraging even the personal sites of recognized authorities. schi ^talk 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how a site whose author is anonymous can be a "recognized authority" on anything? If it is anonymous there is no feasible way to recognize anything, let alone authority, is there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is an "anonymous"ly edited website (wiki) considered to be a recognized authority. As I've said before and you have failed to address, your inclusion of "anonymous" is problematic in that it contradicts #12, regarding wikis. schi ^talk 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or better, please give an example on a non-trivial article that an anonymous website would be worth linking to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, why don't you respond to my question about how you define an "anonymous website", and then I can have a better idea on how to respond to your question? schi ^talk 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. An anonymous website is a site whose author is not known. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Known by whom? schi ^talk 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, take any one of the 405 Wikipedia articles that link to http://history.rays-place.com/index.htm, say Paul Smiths, New York which links to http://history.rays-place.com/ny/brighton-ny.htm -- Mwanner | Talk 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Some questions, then: (a) How can you we be assured that the transcript of the newspaper articles are bona fide? (b) Why not to link directly to online newspaper archives instead? (b) Why link to "Connacticut" (sic) to check biographies of Thomas Hooker, rather than to a reputable published source, such as ancestry.com? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(a) We can only assume, much as we assume that reporters from the New York Times are not making things up, or scientists publishing academic papers are not faking their results. This should be left up to the individual article's editors to evaluate on a case by case basis.

(b) Because many of them, for example the Thomas Hooker biography (which links to a 1906 article in Connecticut Magazine; the online archives only go back to 2002), link to articles that aren't going to be in online newspaper archives, or will only be available to those with non-free services like LexisNexis.

(c) Because ancestry.com violates #4 of Links normally to be avoided: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". And actually, I can't initially determine how ancestry.com would provide comparable information to what's on the Rays Place link, even if it were an acceptable link. schi ^talk 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't avoid the obvious. It should be obvious that we should link to the best link possible. If an online newspaper original article is available, of course we wouldn't link to some copy. However, if some 1897 article is not online, and a site run by an anonymous person is the only place to offer a screenshot of the original newspaper, there is no reason not to link to it. Also, we can't be absolute "assured" about nearly anything. We can make our best effort though. Even the most authoritative resource on a subject could possibly have errors in it, typos even. The point is not to make an obsessive guideline based on extreme fears, but rather rely on editors to use their heads and add appropriate, high quality links that there is plenty of reason to think are accurate. In this case, suppose fifty different newspapers or authority sites link to the anonymous site's screenshot of a 1897 newspaper. Of course the person who made the website could have printed something up and tricked those 50 newspapers and authority sites to think it is genuine, but we can't go back in time to get a paper ourselves. We can just make a judgment that the link meets the criteria to offer further reading to Wikipedia users. 2005 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank for expressing your views so eloquently. I think that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the external links section is for and how it compares with sources for articles. I do not know what type of articles you edit, but let me assure you that unless this guideline is firm and unambiguous it will be seldom applied in that spirit in those articles about which there are strong POVs at play. I would also argue against the premise that "we should link to the best link possible". We should link only if the link is useful. If links are not useful, we should not link just because there is nothing better to link to. Again, a big difference in understanding of what an EL section is for. Maybe what would be useful, rather than discuss this wording or the other, or this point or the other, is to have an open conversation about what is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article Once there is agreement on that, it will be very easy to build a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"We should link only if the link is useful." Obviously. C'mon, you keep taking an illogical view based on apparently looking at every sentence without any context of a guideline! We should only link if a link is useful, but just because it is useful doesn't mean we should link! On some topics there are thousands of useful websites, but we aren't going to link to them. The point, again, is if some content deserves a link, then it should be obvious that we link to the best (original if possible) source of that content. You really need to read the guideline as a full guideline, not pick out sentences without understanding that other sentences impact on them. 2005 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the repeated insistence that people want links that aren't useful? It's a strawman, let it go so we can have a real discussion here. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Because people do, Milo. Most articles contain (a) too many links; (b) many of these links are not useful; and (c) many of these links diminishes the article's quality. Why would you call that a strawman? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a strawman because nobody here is arguing that. Nobody here, nobody participating in the editing of this guideline, is saying that links that aren't useful should be allowed. So why do you keep bringing it up? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inline linking

I do not see guidelines on inline linking. The top of the guide says external links should be at in the external links section, but then later shows how to inline link. Could the policy be made clearer and easier to find? Flamesplash 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Embedded Citations. I've proposed to rename this article to Wikipedia:Embedded links, which I will do shortly if no objections arise. Can add it more explicitly here after unprotection. Thanks! ∴ here…♠ 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have always read our guidelines as saying we should not externally link other than as citations, or in the external links or footnotes section (though some info-boxes include official websites, and that seems in keeping with writing a reasonable encyclopedia article). I got that from WP:MoS#External_links which lists the three ways of including external links as: 1) an external links section, 2 ) as citations, and 3) in footnotes. The only one of these which is inline in the article is citations. This seems to be in keeping with the idea we should be providing a well balanced, verifiable article for our readers, and sending them to sites off Wikipedia is not really in keeping with that.

Flamesplash - where in the guidelines did you see an example for inline linking? I checked through but couldn't spot it. --Siobhan Hansa 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)