User talk:Matilda: Difference between revisions
wikibreak and archive |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
Response copied from IPs talk page: *Hi I got your message and was mulling it over. I think the problem is also the addition of links about underwater photography to city pages. If the link been dealing with a reef or other predominantly underwater topic, then perhaps would stay. The increasing preference is that external links are really only references to the content, not additional tangential material. Hope this makes sense - if not feel free to queryRegards--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
Response copied from IPs talk page: *Hi I got your message and was mulling it over. I think the problem is also the addition of links about underwater photography to city pages. If the link been dealing with a reef or other predominantly underwater topic, then perhaps would stay. The increasing preference is that external links are really only references to the content, not additional tangential material. Hope this makes sense - if not feel free to queryRegards--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
the thing is that most people forget the underwater life the cities have to offer - appreciation should go underwater as well - which is what we are all about and why we have such an active community of contributors. It is not about the photography, it is about what is to see especially at that location - which is why we have made our gallery based on localities. |
|||
But who is the judge of all this - maybe I should write a short article addition on each locality and reference underwater and the gallery - would that be something wikipedia is more happy with ? |
|||
Revision as of 01:57, 21 July 2006
 | A Y Arktos is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia late July |
Previous discussions:
Archive 1 (March to July 2005) / Archive 2 (August to November 2005) / Archive 3 (November 2005 to January 2006) / Archive 4 (February 2006 to April 2006) / Archive 5 (April 2006 to July 2006)
Re link removals
Looking at your comments below - I was hoping you would hear my opinion as well. It took many years and 1000s of people's contributions to create such an amazing repository of images on underwater.com.au - a community website - and yes it does have commercial aspects as well, but how could a website like that run any other way.
We have a community of people that spend a lot of their time at not charge to put photos into our galleries, to catalogue the underwater world of australia and to encourage visiting these amazing destinations.
I agree with not creating links to purely commercial sites and links that add no further content to wikipedia, but honestly believe these collections (which are constantly growing as the community keep submitting images) are a value add to the articles on wikipedia - most people don't even realise the amount of underwater life and beauty Australia has to offer. We don't need the 10s of click a week we would be getting from wiki links but honestly believed them to be an enrichment of the site.
Also the links are not merely to a collection of pictures - they also crosslink to articles by the community if they are related.
Of course i will respect the decisions of the wiki family and will not post a collection of external links again.
I would like hearing from you.
Copied from WP:AWNB
seeking an opinion on external links
Could people please offer opinions on external links added in these edits. The pictures are very pretty and possibly encyclopedic, but I think it skates a fine line it terms of being a commercial website. - What do you think? -- Adz|talk 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding links from one website to a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles with no other content-adding edits? Looks like linkspam to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
* I feel that they fall within the scope for removal under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: 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. The link is merely to a collection of pictures. Interested readers, if they were looking for pictures, could find them in other ways, eg Google. I agree with Pfctdayelise, looks like Linkspam.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They seem clearly commercial to me. The front page (at least from the link in the Broome article) contains items for sale. I would remove them all, along with any other commercial links already there. Kevin 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
* I am removing and will leave a message on talk page of IP--A Y Arktos\talk 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
just checking if you got my comments re the link removals
Response copied from IPs talk page: *Hi I got your message and was mulling it over. I think the problem is also the addition of links about underwater photography to city pages. If the link been dealing with a reef or other predominantly underwater topic, then perhaps would stay. The increasing preference is that external links are really only references to the content, not additional tangential material. Hope this makes sense - if not feel free to queryRegards--A Y Arktos\talk 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
the thing is that most people forget the underwater life the cities have to offer - appreciation should go underwater as well - which is what we are all about and why we have such an active community of contributors. It is not about the photography, it is about what is to see especially at that location - which is why we have made our gallery based on localities.
But who is the judge of all this - maybe I should write a short article addition on each locality and reference underwater and the gallery - would that be something wikipedia is more happy with ?