Academic Kids talk:Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links

Supporters of this rule include: Larry Sanger, Janet Davis, sjc, GWO (see m:When should I link externally?), tbc, AxelBoldt, 24 (strongly), Enchanter, Karen Johnson, maveric149 (references should still be cited, like so [1] (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/deepimpact-02g.html) within the text of an article -- no particular body text should be linked though), Olivier (mav's suggestion sounds OK to me), Sam, Kingturtle. Mintguy (with the exceptions listed below).

Opponents include:

---

I presume there are exceptions to this rule like IMDB (eg. RMS Titanic)and possibly Gutenberg links Mintguy

I believe the problem is not links that look like [1] [2] [3], but cases where text is linked where it could be just wikilinked. -- Sam

Clarification

I think we need to be clear about what exactly we're "supporting" and "opposing" here.

I agree with Sam. Clearly we should prefer linking to the Democratic National Committee, for example, over linking to the Democratic National Committee (http://www.democrats.org/) in the text of an article. To me, that's what this guideline is about. But that's not the same as discouraging text inside of external links.

Personally, I don't like the "numbered" (unnamed) external link style [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Links.2C_URLs) unless it functions more or less as a footnote (after a quote, for example). In fact, when I first saw a numbered link in Wikipedia, I thought it did refer to a footnote on the same page. It wasn't until I looked at the article source that I realized it was because the external link had no text in it. I tend to view that practice as a mistake — except, as I've said, when the link actually functions as a footnote.

Since external links are already formatted differently than internal ones, why discourage the use of text in them? If someone has linked to an external source when there is, or should rightly be, an internal one, sure, change it to an internal link. If an article is peppered with "see also" or "for more information" links to external sources, yes, move them to an "External links" section. But some people (here and elsewhere) seem to advocate the systematic removal of text from all external links in the main article, a practice I most definitely oppose.

- dcljr 00:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't we're talking about actually removing anything. just the method of presenting the information. The issue is consistency and what people expect to see, especially insofar as an external link may take longer to load. I think the "cure" of confusing internal and external links in in-line copy is worse than the disease of confusing number links with footnotes. A third way might me to alter the software so what are now number links show up as the external icon instead of supplying a number, since the number isn't really meaningful. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place.