Classic WoW Wiki talk:External links policy/Archivevote

Votes

 * Yes :

}


 * No :

Comments
I'm a little confused if this is a vote to keep / remove this policy or what.... Kirkburn voted Yes, yet his vote says delete. -- 10:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Fixed :) 22:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Shouldn't it be Writing/Externallinks? :D -- 03:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Or more simply External links -- 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we are going in the wrong direction here, While it is nice to have info on the wiki and internal links where ever possible it think that trying to nuke external links if WE think there isn't anything new is bad. If any of you remeber/are old enough to remeber the macy's/gimbal's (sp?) war you'd know that one of the big reasons that macy's is here today is that they would show you all of there merchandise and if they did not have anything help you find a competitor that did. Because of this everyone went to macy's FIRST and there buissness soared. If we did the same (links throught article i still think is bad they should be at the end) then people will get used to comming here first which can only help us. 14:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't think the intention is to remove external links, merely to make sure that they are a) useful, b) not cluttering up the main body of the article, and c) easy to find in one place. Also I'm not sure your analogy applies, since if we don't have an article on something, there's nowhere to put any external links... --Karrion 20:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Aye, the intent here is to 1) wrangle all the links into one place and 2) impose a standard format. We don't want to remove any links, that wording was all added mostly to justify removal of undesirable links (i.e. people abusing the wiki to drum up traffic and drive up ad revenues).  We want links, we just don't want people to abuse the offer.   06:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * It's relevent in that i though we didn't want links (at end of page) unless we could think of a specific reason for them. wording suggested this to me if this is not the case then i withdraw my vote. 23:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Nah, just a backup in case we need to remove something. The goal isn't to prove links need to exist, but to be able to prove they should be remove in extreme cases.   02:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

