Talk:External links

When to use external links

Not very often. If the site you are linking to is an article, history or timeline, then Wikipedia should have its own article on that subject, not just an external link. The web is already full past capacity of sites composed of links to other sites.

If the content is free (in the w:GNU FDL / free as in speech sense), consider copying and wikifying it for us. If it's not, you can cannibalise it. Extract the facts and rewrite it (in your own words since their words are copyright) or alternatively place a link to it in the talk page so that someone else can do so.

There are exceptions, of course. It is quite reasonable to link to Donald Knuth's own web page in our w:Donald Knuth article, for example.

In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally. -- GWO

External links are a very good way of pointing to authorative reference material that supports facts in the article. -- Egil 09:01, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but I like to create shallow articles with links to more information from the article page itself, not /Talk with the intent that I or someone else will eventually follow that link and use it as a source to create a deeper Wikipedia article. Then the link can be relegated to a /Sources subpage. (Actually, on that subject, I prefer to cite my sources in the main article page.) <>< tbc

---

Where one has written some wikipedia content by lifting facts from an external webpage then it is polite to reference that webpage. Perhaps just in a subpage called /Sources? --drj

Yes, that seems reasonable. But steal the facts first... :) GWO

IMDB etc.

Somebody recently linked a movie (very unimportant, but that's not the point) to the site of IMDb. Nobody has seemed to mind. Simply nobody noticed? I think that, either the link should be eliminated, or all the movies, acting professionals, directors, etc. should be linked in that way. Probably the first is true. The entry in question is en:Miss Congeniality

Actually, I'd prefer the latter. IMDb is a good, reliable source of accurate information, and unlikely to go away anytime soon. In fact, I think IMDb is the very archetype of the kind of site Wiki pages should be linking to. There's no reason not to link to it from every movie-related page (or, perhaps even better, link to a local Wiki page that redirects to it--this will require software support). External links are a good thing, so long as they are not to unreliable sites (like fan sites or time-dependent sites). --LDC

That "somebody" would be me. Obviously I agree with LDC or I wouldn't have done it :-). I think it's redundant to have a Wikipedia article for any movie that doesn't include a link to the IMDb. If someone wants to write an original article, then let them do it. But don't try to reconstruct the IMDb facts. See en:Crash (1996 film), for example. (Eeww, not that I'd want to see that movie.) <>< tbc

Actually, I disagree with the above a bit. External links are icing; let's not leave out the cake. Yes, that means duplicating facts from IMDb. Duplication is good. Wikipedia should have complete and relevant articles. If it also links to external info, that's good too, but that doesn't mean the local article shouldn't have whatever data the author thinks is most important (for example, the local article should have the main actors and plotline; it's OK to leave thing like small bit-parts and cameos to IMDb). --LDC

---

I noticed the entry and chose not to comment on it. I think it should have at least a plot description (but, unlike the entry for en:Fearless, not a spoiler, or at least not one without a very clear warning). I prefer links as a supplement, not as the main content. This, in spite of my frequent contributions to various film pages and, more recently various en:historical anniversaries... --KQ

---

Another couple points....

• particularly now that the Wikipedia content is easily downloadable for offline or other use, it's convenient to have the material available "locally" and licensed for any use
• distributed and duplicated content is good (if sometimes annoyingly inconsistent); for an extreme example, say *all* websites just linked to IMDb ... which was then permanently taken out by a major disaster, and backups were unavailable or faulty (yeah, I'm ignoring that Google and other sites have caches) ...

---

Recently I added an IMDB link as well, not knowing that there may be any doubts about it; and on cs:, I do it as a matter of course. In other words, I also agree with LDC. Distributed duplicated content is very fine, but it is a long-term goal; for now, I'm an inclusionist or slow-goer or whatever: you can't make anybody write a thorough page from nothing, or stolen facts. If the choice is, ceteris paribus, between having a link to a site with more info than Wiki (currently) contains and not having it, there is no question what is more useful. --Maly ctenar 10:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I ran into a similar problem just now when adding to the en:Boudicca entry that she was the subject of two movies. Where there are no entries on Wikipedia on these films currently, it seems only logical to link to information about them elsewhere (pending, of course, Wiki articles on them). I would've created an internal link to new pages to encourage them being written, but I doubt that would happen any time soon, and anyone willing to author an entry on either film isn't likely to be influenced by whether they are simply referenced or referenced and given an external link to IMdB for those seeking more information. It also seems appropriate to link to IMdB as it was the reference I used for the spelling of titles and release years I included in the article itself, and in fact didn't even know the earlier movie existed before consulting IMdB. The unsurety I ran into, though, came with exactly where to include the links: as links off the mention of the movies? (this didn't seem right, as personally I'd expect a link in such format to be an internal link); as a footnote? (didn't seem right either, no real information about where it went, just the implication that it held info on the movie in question); as a separate piece of linked text following the mention of the movies? (also didn't seem right, a bit cluttered); or as an external link under the external links list? (problems of not being directly linked to the mention of the films and of taking up two spots in the external links list with links that aren't really about the subject as a whole). I decided to go with the latter, as it seemed the least offensive to those who might disagree.

However, I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the particular issue, including any other methods of linking the references on IMdB that I didn't think of. Also if anyone with more experience on Wikipedia wants to modify the listing, please feel free; my main concern was getting the information on there in one form or another. ~Bruce

Non-neutral links

Is there any policy about extremely non-neutral external links in the Wikipedia? If so, what is it? If not, one will have to make sure that articles with links to non-neutral sites should also have links to non-neutral sites representing opposing ideas. Marcos 21:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has been my recent headache (see en:Arthritis for a little "link insertion war"). There's nothing wrong with a POVed link, as long as the link description makes a clear statement which POV is represented (which is not immediately obvious). I have, for example, seperated the links under en:Judaism to form categories, including one with criticisms. This makes immediately obvious which POV you'll see represented. JFW T@lk 11:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You will see one approach on the en:King-James-Only Movement page where a Pro and Con section has been created, each with it's own section of links. 80.200.130.162 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Blog links: when?

In an article that I've been following/working on, someone added a link to a blog-style site (in the original weblog sense, a journal of sites related to a particular topic or theme). This site kinda fits, because it does bring together a diversity of related sites that might be hard to locate otherwise. In that way, it adds to the value of this particular article. But, it's not a particularly comprehensive site (as far as I can tell after a quick look). And I think the link was placed to promote the blog site, and in turn that the blog site is a business (started as an information resource, hoping to capture traffic to presumably generate ad revenue).

I guess this in part falls in fan site territory, but not exactly. If I'm not being clear, I'll...clarify! --24.244.220.229 14:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blogs are rarely good sources for anything. It's mostly regurgitated stuff from places on the web with actual original content. JFW 05:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Blogs are often really good sources of information online. I don't know about your own browsing habits, but half of the sites I visit these days are "blogs". And I'm talking about getting work done, not just browsing sites for fun. The term "blog" is very generic, and I would be wary to write off this very large, important, source of information online.
2. With regards to being concerned about linking to sites with revenue potential. There are fewer and fewer sites online that are not monetizing through some form of ads. Every major newspaper's site is flooded with ads, yet they are still a good source of reference. Community sites are often good places to link to from articles, and most of these will have advertising on them. You may have to give in sometime.

Note: I realize that the case in question is more than likely a link to a less-than-useful blog that should have been removed. Still, I take offense to the "blog prejudice" and feel that high quality sites with advertising may become a problem if a policy of "ads=no link" remains enforced. Also, while a long time "user" of Wikipedia, I have only recently considered contributing. I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia culture. I appologize if I'm out of line here. Thanks. (Jason R. Coleman)

Forums

Forums are usually fan sites of different things/shows/movies/games whatever. At a Forum, you can chat about differen't things you like, you even have an Image for your avatar and signature. (If you use Mail.Yahoo, you'll know what type of "Avatar" I mean.) You can post threads and replies, sort of like a chat room, only it's much more organized.

Anyone, feel free to add on to this.

---

I am also curious about feelings on whether or not to link to message boards/forums. Relevant discussion forums are clearly something Wikipedia does not offer, and something that many visitors would undoubtedly find interesting/useful. So should related forums be linked to? Sorry if this is discussed elsewhere, I haven't seen any guidelines on it yet. Feel free to delete it if so (but leave a message on my talk, please.) 68.55.191.187 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Drake222

WineLog.net Links

(let me know if there is a better place to file this) I am the Co-founder of WineLog.net. Our site is an open database of wines and wine information. The site is also a community for wine drinkers with ratings, reviews, and general commentary.

Why Link to WineLog? I know I'm biased on this, but I believe that links to WineLog would be very beneficial for browsers researching wine at Wikipedia. If I'm searching for Portuguese wine, what better link than one to a list of over 90 Portuguese wines (and growing). We have information, ratings, and reviews on over 8,000 wines.

The site currently has ads to subsidize hosting costs and other monetization efforts are in the works, but first and foremost the site is a resource for wine information and discussions. It's true that we might benefit from the links here, but why should that keep people from being exposed to our site? The argument would be similar to the one for IMDB above. I think it will be increasingly hard to find informative website without conflicts of interest presented by the inclusion of advertising on the sites.

Why External Links? I agree and sympathize with the want to include information in the Wikipedia article itself rather than linking to an external resource. As our community and my own wine knowledge grows, I imagine I will be able to contribute to the already excellent wine knowledge that exists at Wikiepedia. However, because of the fluid and user-generated nature of the WineLog database, it makes more sense to link to our site as a resource for finding more information on wines.

I would ask that the editors review their decision to remove WineLog.net links. Please feel free to contact us at info@winelog.net. We would be very interested in working together with you to figure out what the best way would be for us to work with Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Jason Coleman WineLog.net

Commercial Websites

There are many websites listed in External Links or as Resources in the pages for any Place or City. Do the official websites of those Cities or Places are ok to list on the pages even if they are as much commercial as other non-official websites? or all commercial websites, whether they are offical or not, should be banned altogether?

On another note, every website has to cover its cost somehow, even wikipedia needs it but not everyone can get donations to run the websites and server etc.

At the end of the day, IMO best criteria can only be the quality of the content & relevancy.

-Ali

Personal sites

I run a stargate fansite that has lots of info about the show. Can I add a link to stagate-related pages?

I also have a Carry on film website, but even though i am a very popular website, some people seem to delete it? How can i get this linked if it keeps getting deleted

Personal or Commercial?

I am trying to write a wiki article on a humour-related website, and I feel I should link to what the article is talking about. However every time I attempt this, the entire article gets deleted. Is this because the website is technically commercial, since it is hosted by a commercial website? --BoBoTheBum

Table outdated

Are we really saying that there are only 2.6 million external links from Wikipedia's 3+ million articles? Some articles have a dozen or more links. If this table is not somehow auto-updated by a toolserver bot, then I see no value in listing a "# of ELs" or "#ELs/#articles" column. Do I have agreement? If so, then I'd support removing those columns after a period of discussion here; say, until November 1, 2009. -- Thekohser 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)