Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 6 July 2006

Archives
2003 – 2005 January 2005 – March 2006

mms://...wmv

How can i link to a Microsoft Media Services-Windows Media Video file? eg -- 172.178.207.199 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles about websites: citing primary sources versus only one link to site

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

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

Petitiononline.com

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Hi. There are currently 5,760 links to amazon.com . Is this acceptable? My second question is - can someone explain how to identify an affiliate link from a normal amazon link? -- Jim182 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These links are not acceptable to me. For books, we should just give the ISBN which adds a link to Misplaced Pages:Book sources. From there, people can choose whichever source they prefer. For CDs, I'm not sure if we have an equivalent, but don't think an Amazon link is appropriate. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazon affiliate links have the person's user ID in the URL. For example, mine (without the initial URL; I'm not posting this for link-spam) is /exec/obidos/redirect-home/evulaslair-20 (emphasis mine). For a link to a particular item (in this case, HHGttG on DVD) is /exec/obidos/ASIN/B000A283AW/evulaslair-20, though it is possible for a string of letters/numbers/both to come after the affiliate bit. Basically, if you see "anything-20" in the URL, it's an associate link; terminate with extreme prejudice. EVula 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages:External links#Links to normally avoid the applicable guide to avoiding/excluding links to specific bookstores, or is there another one? Шизомби 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes; guideline 6 suggests avoiding "ites that primarily exist to sell products or services." A link to a bookstore should be removed unless the article is about the bookstore. See also Misplaced Pages:Spam and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. --Muchness 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd replaced an Amazon link with an ISBN, but another editor added the Amazon link back in claiming it offered useful information... I think that's a weak rationale. Шизомби 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Links to Paid Sites

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

From the guideline; Links to normally avoid; "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" Martin 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The External.png image in the top paragraph

I was looking at this page today and the External.png image at the top looks ( in my opinion ) a bit pixaled and ugly. Do you think it would be worth getting a copy of it in SVG or a similar format ? I had a go at creating it in Inkscape but it turned out a bit crooked ( as a PNG ). --2mcm 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to look like that. It's an enlargement of the external link symbol used by Misplaced Pages, and intentionally kept at the same pixel aspect, just as an article about an old Mario game might intentionally have an enlarged Mario sprite at the same pixel aspect. Coyoty 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mario game I can understand, because that's a gamesprite, and it wouldn't show up looking the same if you made it smooth. The external link symbol is not of this type. So please, do elaborate why. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Strong preference for the SVG version here. The pixelated version doesn't look like anything at all. Stevage 08:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

findagrave.com

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

Links to sites in a foreign language

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

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

Sites in English should be (and are) preferred, certainly, but there are quite a few cases where a link to a site which is not in English is appropriate. For example when the article is about a text which is not in English it is still appropriate to link to the text. See Völuspá for an example. Haukur 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why I said "allowed in certain situations" and gave examples of when it might be appropriate. :-) However, the guide says nothing about links to non-English sites. -- Kjkolb 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

External links to non-commercial tutorials and hands-on articles

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

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

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

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

I am not a very experienced editor. I have seen a several sorts of informations placed within an exterior links section (sometimes called, additional reading) which could be of interest to a person about the subject, but which doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's standards. Various reasons to make such links exterior to the article are:

• we are not a how-to manual
• personal opinions which are unpublished (published by wikipedic standards) but could be of interest to a reader WP:NOR
• narrowly published information (a special interest news sheet for example) WP:V, WP:RS Terryeo 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(I took the liberty to indent the above reply to make it stand out more clearly from the original question)

I recognise the arguments you list, indeed one can avoid these by

• linking to how-to manuals - thus not beinbg a how-to manual in itself - though there is a related Wiki HOWTO collection elsewhere
• linking to useful and well rated articles - not to screeds by cranks or useless marketingspeak. Microsoft has a major problem here to people looking for the technical lowdown.
• as for narrowness, many articles in here are already rather narrow and I don't really see that as a problem.

I think an additional reading header would be a good heading for this kind of material --22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research problem

The first item discouraged is:

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

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

Original research, is perfectly legitimate *outside* Misplaced Pages. The presenence of original research, is never a bad thing per se. Even if it is "unverified", it may be a legitimate, if its from a reputable source. I think the wording of the guidelines misuderstands the meaing of WP:NOR. WP:NOR just means *we* don't do original research, it doesn't stop us from using the original research of others, and it actually requires us to do, just that. Taken literally, this guideline would preclude us from linking to reliable pollsters, and other conductors of original research (who's work isn't necessarily verified by others). So, I wish to keep the rest of the wording, but drop "original research". --Rob 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research in a reputable source is impossible according to Misplaced Pages's definitions of the terms. If research has been published in a reputable source then it is no longer original research. Andries 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree a researcher can publish raw data (a primary source), and also publish their analysis of the data (a secondary source). Also, one person may analyze data provided by somebody else (e.g. both published indepdently of one another). Misplaced Pages can do original research, however it is totally reliant on original research of *others*. Also, remember, we have a unique definition of original research. Misplaced Pages calls placing a phone call or e-mail to confirm a fact "original research". Now, if a newspaper reporters does this "original research", and prints their findings, we can definately link to that. If the reporter includes a transcript of the phone call, or a copy of the e-mail to go along with their analysis, we can also link to that. If a famous person's diary is published, we can link to that (not use it as a secondary source, but still link to it). Original research is simply something we can't do, not something we can't link to. Incidently, sources that do no original research, are actually worse then ones that do original research. --Rob 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Added: In additional to noting original research is something we may cite (but not do ourselves), its also worth noting, even if something doesn't qualify as a reliable source, it may still qualify as a valid external link. In fact, one role of "External links" and "Further reading" is to place things that don't qualify for the "References" section. --Rob 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research

could become

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube linking

I have noticed that some people are inserting links to YouTube videos in articles about singers or bands. I am torn at this moment: promotional videos are promotional, but the links are just link and aren't specified as the guidelines state. So far, I am being bold and removing them as I see linking to them a way of increasing the popularity of the owner's videos. What is the community thought about this? I am doing something similar www.videouncovered.com, which 82.161.26.23 (talk · contribs) has been inserting into every article (around 90% of his edits are adding links to the site). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

YouTube should be linked only if it has some specific relevance to the article, such as the actual video an article is about, or footage of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction in an article where it's a significant point. Even then, there may be copyright issues if the YouTube clip violates copyright, because once you link to it, it becomes Misplaced Pages content as well and may not qualify as fair use. Coyoty 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack pages

I'm a little surprised that there isn't an official policy saying that there shouldn't be any links to attack pages, by which I mean pages created specifically to disparage their subjects, with no othere content on them. Would anyone want to consider adding that? --InShaneee 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack pages can (partially) consist of reputable sources or selective excerpts from reputable sources. Andries 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so they could make for possible references...but what about simply dropping a link to the page as a whole in the 'external links' section of a page? --InShaneee 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To be fair I have to state that I am affiliated with an attack page i.e. exbaba.com. I always felt that, though this may not be supported by policy that the criteria for inclusion in the external link section is much more lenient than everywhere else. However if there is scholarly or scientific consensus about a certain subject and the external link does not represent a significant minority view then I think that deletion may be appropriate. Andries 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you're suggesting that such links may be used to bolster an argument, but not as an example of the argument itself? --InShaneee 23:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is what I mean if I understand your question well. Andries 06:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice Needed.

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

anonymous sites

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

Needing comments from people who follow this policy

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

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

Ummmm....

Could someone have a look at this contrib page?

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

Those links have been (quite rightly) all reverted now, it seems.

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

Standards Compliancy

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

How is this different to those sites that require users to download a plug-in in order to view the sites correctly? The user is given a choice on whether they want to download the "plugin" or not - no exclusion is made due to race, religion, origin IP, etc. And what exactly does "standards compliancy" mean? Is IE a standard that everyone has to follow? 70.111.217.203 12:16, 30 May 2006

IE is the majority browser, so if a site doesn't allow IE users to view it, it should not be linked. Naconkantari 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

So, you guys are going to pore over each and every site to make sure no plugins are required. Ok, good luck on that. Listen, I pretty much have given up reasoning here. If you guys want to keep Misplaced Pages a closed system in a world that's fast becoming an open community, fine with me. I made my initial contributions and that's obviously the last contributions I'll make. Adios muchachos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.165.176.62 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 May 2006.

It is unfortunate that you feel that way, and this is not the outcome I would have hoped for as you seem to be knowlegable on the subject of Leafcutters and could have made a fine contributor. All the best, Parasite 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to standards compliancy, I agree that IE is not a standard which everyone needs to follow. However, it would seem to me that any one with a browser that is broadly compliant with RFC2616 should be able to access information on, or linked to, by Misplaced Pages.

More importantly, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and external pages where the page owner decides to exclude a group of people from information because the page owner does not agree with that groups choice of browser should not be linked to. Parasite 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

In your hypothetical example, the current wording of the guideline allows for the North Kensignton wine growers association website to be linked since it is the official site of the article's subject. --Muchness 18:39, 30

May 2006 (UTC)

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

How about this "Sites that have the relevant content inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community." Please add, edit, expand to improve. Parasite 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Totally agree Parasite 08:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to normally avoid: advertising

I noticed the recent change from:

5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partisan websites

I have added "Partisan websites" with only a small number of followers to the links to avoid. While it is useful to link to popular conceptions there is little value to link to a minor activism website. One should use a well-known exponent of opinion. Dr Zak 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's best left to individual editorial judgement. In some cases, certain articles are inherently about rather fringe views. So, some links may be essential to give some balance. Such partisan sites may be invalid as a source for the article, but I don't see how they can't ever be given as links. Also, there's a pretty common tendancy for people to think the opposing side is always the "fringe" side. We already tell people to use external links selectively, and not for self-promotion, so I don't see the need for this. To me, a reasonable example is an article on the political parties of a particular jurisdiction, where don't yet have articles on the individual parties. It would seem necessary for balance to link to all registered parties, if any are linked to. --Rob 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that if there is a choice of websites supporting a certain fringe view one should pick a popular one, not one of minor importance that just repeats what everyone else says. Dr Zak 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even with the last change, it still needs to make that clear. The fact a site is partisan, and small in an absolute sense, isn't really the issue in that case. It's the relative size, given other available links. That falls under the category of redundant links (already discouraged). I just have this fear, that somebody in the future, won't see your intent, and will use this page, as an excusive to remove a link based on political dislike of a group (but keep their own groups). --Rob 07:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the addition is redundant with existing guidelines, and I've edited the page accordingly (diff). Feel free to revert if my edit was in error. --Muchness 09:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti linking fanatism

Many articles are plagued by "no external links talebans". According to them, the only external links allowed are the ones to Google websites and the like, which is a great limitation to the concept of the Web, and an insult to the Misplaced Pages philosophy, expecially considering that for the big companies the common man is just a costumer, not a user. It seems that only the websites owned by big companies can be linked, ignoring the efforts and the contribute of independent webmasters that help the Web to grow and remain free. Those "no external links talebans" often edit articles removing links to websites which are relevant to articles and that have been in place for months without anybody else complaining, and usually leave only links to Google categories, CNN articles, or other main websites, including ones of pure commercial nature, like Amazon. While Misplaced Pages is not a directory of web pages, I think we should made clear that links to websites that comply with these guidelines (see "What to link to") are meaningful even if such websites are not owned by a large corporation. --80.181.230.202 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything sinister going on. I suspect that such links are removed because they are considered overly commercial, are of uncertain reliability or provide content that is fine, but not relevant to the article's purpose (I don't know why people would be linking to Amazon with any great frequency, though, since it does not have much content that is useful for articles). The sites of larger companies tend to have more useful content along with their advertising. For example, a large gas turbine manufacturer may have text and diagrams on how the they work, while a company that sells small generators may only have pictures of generator models with their prices. I think that editors believe that large companies are more likely to have accurate information, but I don't know if this belief is justified. Sites that don't have their own domain, are considered less reliable and the lack of a domain indicates that the company is probably small. Not linking to those sites excludes a lot of small businesses and very few large ones. It might be helpful if you could provide examples, but I think this covers the most likely reasons the links were removed. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have said above, content is key. The necessary criteria for adding an external link is that its content adds (i.e. is not merely "related") to that of the article, and that it is of reliable provenance.

However, even that condition is not sufficient; particularly, we do not include every link that meets the above criteria - if we have one site that covers the topic, we don't need another one that basically cover the same ground, as that would be against the spirit of the policy "Misplaced Pages is not a link-farm" (explicitly stated in WP:NOT).

If there is more than one site that covers the material, we should pick the one with best content and most reliable provenance, because that source is the most encyclopaedic - incidentally of whether it is from a big company or not. This is an encyclopaedia, after all.

In summary, a link has to justify its inclusion to Misplaced Pages on the quality of the supplementary content that it contains, but which the current article and links do not offer; so few external links meet that condition that it is very easy for Misplaced Pages to justify their exclusion. Aquilina 10:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While we don't want redundant links generally, sometimes there is justification. Often, extra links are appropriate as back-up. Sometimes, there can be a wealth of available links initially, but then most go dead, and you can't predict which ones will survive. Back up links are good. Also, for many topics, notability is established by coverage in multiple independent sources. For instance WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC all have such a ctierion. Now, if somebody records bunch of independent sources (all saying similiar things, but written independently), and then somebody else removes them, then the articles may appear to fail the notability test. Often new google searches don't quickly re-find what was previously found (often lost in the mix). In AFDs, whenever somebody provides links showing large media coverage, I always say, put it in the article, not the AFD (which if done originally, often avoids the AFD). So, while we should be cautious, we shouldn't be overly so. --Rob 11:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case here; references for establishing notability should go in the references section, not the external links, as by definition their presence in the article is required. Furthermore, unstable links should not be linked to - that is explicitly stated on the WP:EL page. If it is that unstable, it probably was not a reliable source. Also, if no further sources can be found to replace ones lost, it strongly suggests the subject is no longer notable. My main truck is with the listing of six or seven directories though - almost by definition, one directory is always sufficient Aqulina 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

You cannot argue principle from a couple of special cases. As regards AP, I specifically used the word "probably" above for a reason. Of course it is reliable - however, if we know the links routinely as removed/become restricted, then we should only link to it if no other source can be found - the guideline and motivation are clear. For newsworthy subjects, this is often not too difficult; if an AP link (in the EL section, not the References section) is not maintained and it goes dead it should most likely be removed.

If you are using external links to reference the establishment of notability, then yes, it does go in the references section. Using the proper referencing style shows precisely which fact you are trying to substantiate from a given article. If you think an article is good for establishing a fact, but the rest of it is substantially less reliable you should really be looking for a better source. Using the references section also combats some of the problems for when links go dead - have a look at WP:REF#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_"goes_dead" for more information.

I agree that the Misplaced Pages reliance on Google is a problem - however, if there are no remaining Google sources, then off-internet sources must be found and cited. This is a direct corollary of WP:V, and is a non-negotiable. If an articles are being deleted because their sole references are now-moribund Google links, that is a question for deletion policy.

I also agree that links should not be removed "blindly" - no editing should be done without due care and attention! Removing all links to an article is usually misguided, too. However, the general principle is that there is no harm in removing external links which are largely duplicates of material in other external links, dead external links, and ones of tangential relevance. That's the main problem here. Aquilina 10:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is now being used for leverage by the section starter in including rather large EL sections in Newsgroup and News server. I cannot necessarily see that it is justified. Haakon 09:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the fanatic people I was refering to. If there's no consensus, why don't leave things as they are (as long as it's not blatant spam, of course, and it follows the guidelines listed here)? Otherwise I think links to major websites must be removed as well. --80.181.230.202 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the change at Newsgroup, as the pre-existing set of links were completely sufficient. There is perhaps room for a couple of links at News server, but I haven't examined those as closely. There has been no change to the guidelines resulting from this discussion Aquilina 10:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Lyrics Sites

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

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

Even when they don't have advertising (I've run across a couple), how do the lyrics add to a article? If you're linking from an album page, discussing the songs, or pointing at something in the writing, then it might be useful to use a lyrics page as a reference more than as something that you'd set in the EL section. I've been trying to clean up a number of band pages lately, and so far it seems that sometimes the lyrics pages matter, but more often they're just included with 30 other EL to fan sites and blogs out of a misguided sense of "fairness" --Xinit 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-inclusion of the site ultimateitaly.com

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

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

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

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

Can you please help me in this regard.

Regards,
Susan Fernandes

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

"References" vs. "External links"

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

This is somewhat problematic, as, in my experience, putting references in "External links" sections is very common on Misplaced Pages. I believe this has to do with inline references: generally, when the using inline references, the links are put in the "References", and when the reference is not cited inline (as for a short article, a general whole-article reference, or just an article where no one has bothered to do references inline) the reference is generally placed in the "External links" section. Anyways, I'm not sure if it this is good or bad, but it would be painful to go around and change all of the articles (especially considering each link would have to be evaluated to see if it is merely a convenience link, or if the article uses information from it, making a bot unsuitable), and it is understandable to keep inline and non-inline references separate.
— Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you (I have seen thousands of articles with references in the external links section), that is not the correct style. Remember, Misplaced Pages is about verifiability. A casual user who reads something in an article may want to verify the information. If he needs to check 10 external links to do that, the information is not verifiable.

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

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

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

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

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

External links warning

The external links section for this article is too big and should be toned down. Misplaced Pages is not a link repository. Please discuss this on the article talk page.

{{External links}} I created this since many of the articles I work with sometimes overflow with external links. Comments, suggestions etc. is much appreciated. Havok (T/C/c) 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a {{cleanup-spam}} tag. -- ReyBrujo 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages spam cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

Links to convertors, calculators, etc.

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

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

"Your own website"

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

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

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

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

Template:Youtube

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

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

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

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

Re: External Link vs. External Links

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

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

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

"External link" does indeed suggest that this whole section has been set aside for a single link, which seems silly to me. At least "External links" suggests that more might be coming later, at which point the section would be deserved. Furthermore, any links directly to that section (i.e. "See external links") are going to be messed up by any transition from one to many links. As for "External link(s)", that is just awkward and pedantic. - Rainwarrior 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a long-standing practice to use the plural, and (somewhere) there's a manual of style entry that supports it.
brenneman 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would think that the "External link" section is supposed to be for only one link; obviously if something else is applicable to the topic at hand, it should be included (and the editor should be smart enough to change the heading). And brenneman, I've yet to see anything in the MoS that supports this issue in one way or another (not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it). EVula 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fan site spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unless"-es are redundant/misleading.

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

Rich Media Links: PDF files; (PDF) vs. PDF

Concerning linking to PDF files, the most common standard seems to be (as per this page and actual usage) the use of (PDF) next to the link. I've stumbled upon a few cases of using PDF instead, and personally I find this to be much more noticeable, thus a better "warning" and simply looks better. Can I get any feedback on this alternative? I'd love to endeavor to search out pages on which to make this change. (Note, I've added the relevant code, to be copy/pasted, to the image's page, near the bottom) Gertlex 00:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See {{pdf}} (File:Pdf.pngPDF File) as it includes a helpful link -- zzuuzz 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, nice. The symbol alone is no good: useless to exactly the people who'd most need it (people with disabilities who cannot access the PDF) and mysterious to many of the people who wouldn't want to follow the link (those who never work with PDFs and/or don't have a PDF reader). - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

External links for political parties

Since politics is inherently a POV business, I suggest adding to this style guide a limitation on what kind of sites can be linked in an external links section of a political party article. Foremost examples of how this is properly done are the Democratic Party and Republican Party (US). There, only links to (official) party organizations are given. Since politics is a POV business, I can only assume WP:NPOV when I link to (official) party organizations in the External links section or links deemed not to be biased against the party. Any other link would constitute bias on part of Misplaced Pages editors, a political opinion in itself. Intangible 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, the only sites we could link on the IRA, ETA, or Al Qaeda would be their own official sites. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well these are not political parties, they are militias, on for them being militias they will want to attack people or property, and as such, a site describing these attacks can properly be included in the external links section. But this all has nothing to do with the argument I am making here. Intangible 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Review limit

A recent change, gives the wording for "Occasionally acceptable links":

For albums, movies, and books, one or two links to professional reviews.

What's special about the number two? I think we should often have more. One important item in determining notability, is seeing how widely something has been reviewed. If somebody's sifted through the usual web spam, and selected out truly independent reviews (as opposed to promos, and directory-entries), and linked to them in the article, those links shouldn't be casually removed. Also, in general, one editor may find a useful link, but not have time to fully use it. Recording it, has some value (whether it's a review, or some other kind of link). --Rob 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing External links with References. To probe notability, you need to reference the different claims. In example,

The sixth album of XXXX received very good critics from several well-known online resources as AAAA ("Outstanding!"), BBBB ("Best. Album. Ever."), CCCC ("9.5 points, incredible!") and DDDD ("A real five-star album").

All those four links must go in the References section to prevent having them removed as spam from the External links section, and to make space for a link to EEEE, which may be a Metacritic-like site which collects rankings from several other sites. -- ReyBrujo 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that I also removed the word "reviews" from the first section since it was already in the second.
brenneman 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

User:JJay's recent edit

• Edit in question

User:Aaron Brenneman's comment

Let's look at your reversion more closely:

• You added "An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible."

  If you have some new technology that allows me to actually link directly to a musical score, I'd like to see it. The existing "Articles about any entity should link to their official site" not only covers this, it actually makes sense, as opposed to your addition.

• You added the words "or reviews." in "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews."

  This makes no sense considering that reviews are explicitly mentioned as being only occasionally acceptable in the following section.

• You changed "professional reviews" to "reviews which express some sort of general sentiment" and inserted "For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Hollywood.com, Internet Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews."

  What does "general sentiment" mean, and why does this guideline need lend imprimatur to these particular sites?

• You also added caveats already discussed on this page as not required, as well as a totally useless and amero-centric redlink.

All up, this was about as good an example of a blind revert following a content dispute on another page as one is likely to see. This edit simply served to clean up a lot of sloppy language. I'd also note that the heading you've got a problem with was previusly "What should not be linked to."

Aaron Brenneman 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I stated, the more examples the better. Thinning out what is already an extremely difficult to understand style guide is not the right approach. Furthermore, your comment about previous language is not relevant. "Links to normally avoid" better sums up the advice and the tone of the guide- I see no reason to change to "what should not be linked to". This is not the wikipedia is not page. The bit about books, scores, etc is useful. It is a good idea to suggest linking directly to the work in question. I see no reason not to spell out that those type of links are encouraged. There is also no "technology" required to link to scores. They are widely found on 100s of library sites. Finally, your insinuations regarding a content dispute are childish and unfounded. It is you that pointed to this page in your edit summmaries removing links from various articles. In fact, it is the only explanation you ever give for removing links. Since you clearly intend people to read the style guide, you should expect edits as well. --JJay 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)