Jump to content

User talk:Awillcox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stbalbach (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 30 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The External Link in the Christian Art Page doesn't have a description next to it. Please provide a description next to the link, as the link that you added doesn't necessarily identify or describe exactly what its aim is and how it relates to the many facets of Christian Art. I've made a concerted effort to keep The Christian Art page as generic as possible and I'm not certain how the link expands this multi-christian-faith perspective on christian art. Does artsandfaith discuss christian art or does it discuss all faiths (e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.). Perhaps you could answer this in a brief description next to the link in Christian Art. --sp00n17:talk 16:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Style

When creating new articles, remember that the External links section should read 'External links' and not 'External Links' according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The first sentence of the article should also include the title of the article in bold. — Wackymacs 21:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! fixed.

Arts and Faith

That kind of external linking is inappropriate to Wikipedia. It is promotional in nature (your promoting the web site by doing a mass-linkage across dozens of articles, abusing the trust of the community), it has little content available (theres no reason to link to it accept to promote it), and is not academic or encyclopedic in nature. I will remove them as I see them and encourage others to do the same. --Stbalbach 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Arts & Faith community has, for a few years now, created and maintained a list of spiritual films. This work involves hundreds of people (well, 160 at the last count). It has been written up in the Los Angeles Times, Christianity Today, and other outlets.

It's not a commercial venture, and it provides links and substantive content throughout the website. IMDb has no such restriction on its links, and my next step was to put Wikipedia links in my system, even before the IMDb links, given the collaborative and conversational nature of Wikipedia. Yes there are AdSense ads, because it's a small community and someone has to pay the bill.

According to the External Links information here, most of our pages definitely fall under condition 6: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." Some of our listings, including for The Virgin Spring, don't have summaries yet. This is actually particularly true for Bergman films, as he fared very well in the latest revision to the list (whereas others directors, such as Weir, did not). Most of our listings, however, do offer specific comments and reviews, with links to resources and conversations on-line, often on our site. Consider, for example, this page on Dreyer's Ordet.

I urge you to think it over. I'm putting in a friendly rv, but I hope we can arrive at an agreeable solution. At the least, let's do an RfC rather that just arbitrarily making more work. In adding links, I've also been able to build pages for many films that didn't even have any pages, ranging from Sansho the Bailiff to Thirteen Conversations About One Thing. --Alan Thomas 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no meaningful content, then it shouldnt be linked. Zero, or one or two brief reviews by non-notable authors is not meaningful content. It is promotion of your website. --Stbalbach 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your point about the pages that have little to add (for now)--including the new Bergman listings. Can we compromise there? I will remove the Wiki links to pages like The Virgin Spring that are only placeholders, but leave the ones that do have content. (And FWIW, many of these authors actually are notable, and include university faculty, professional film reviewers, and journalists.) If not, then, as I suggest, let's start an RfC. Alan Thomas 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts? 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's all I would expect. If a link has legitimate content thats fine. If not it shouldnt be linked. --Stbalbach 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the hang of the colons! Makes conversations much easier. I'm in the process of removing links with nothing to offer. Probably about 20 of the 100 listed films are just placeholders and will have links from Wiki removed. In addition, I'll keep an eye towards this in the future and make sure that our pages are substantial enough to warrant interest. Alan Thomas 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you. --Stbalbach 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awillcox&oldid=33268953"