Removing inappropriate link
editHi. I apologize for removing the link somewhat abrubtly. I actually assumed it was added along with the advertising link for "Punta Cana" real estate, and removed it because advertising links are inappropriate on Wikipedia. However, after reviewing the content, it doesn't seem like it was necessarily advertising, although the original user who placed it may have had the intention of driving traffic to the site. Even if it isn't advertising, links still need to adhere to the guidelines located at Wikipedia:External links and the policy for What Wikipedia is not. I personally think that as a travel guide, and other reasons, the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course, implementing these guidelines is a subjective task, and your opinion may differ from mine. Since you have more knowledge in the matter, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after reading the related guidelines. Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) -- Renesis (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and for refering me to the guidelines. I read the guidelines and went to the link in question and read a good deal of the site and reread the guidelines again. I kept the following points from the guidelines in mind while reading through the site:
* Is it accessible to the reader? * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? *Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. *Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The site's content with regard to Dominican history, culture, politics, cuisine, location, climate and resorts fits the Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible external link.
- The guidelines you have quoted above are the basic guidelines for technical feasibility of including an external link, but do not thoroughly address the appropriateness of the content of external links. #3 in the section "What should be linked to" is so broad that it could be argued that this link fits into that category. However, I believe there are a couple categories in the section "Links normally to be avoided" that this link could fall into, specifically:
- Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
- The article Dominican Republic is an article about the countries history, people, geography, government, economy, etc. The site being considered is about travel to one specific location within the Dominican Republic. While this site may contain information relative to the Dominican Republic, it is not directly related. The reason I mentioned Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before is that one of the things Wikipedia specifically is not is a directory. While a web directory for useful sites concerning specific topics is a worthy goal, it is not the goal of Wikipedia (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). Many new users wishing to help Wikipedia feel these links ought to be included, and their desire to help is certainly appreciated, but those type of links would be more appropriate for a project like dmoz.org or the Google Directory. I don't wish to make a definitive statement on this specific link, as it seems your wish to include it is in good faith, but I would ask you to further consider these Wikipedia guidelines I've mentioned. Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You make a good point about the remaining links. When I cleaned out several links today, I left alone those links which seemed to refer to "official" pages. I didn't mean it as an endorsement of those links, but rather I was just trying to eliminate the obvious problems. I think considering the points you have made, we could at least leave the Punta Cana Information Guide link at the Punta Cana article, but I'd prefer not to have it at Dominican Republic. The remaining links at the Dominican Republic article might need to be reconsidered as well. I just didn't want to clean it out entirely! Thanks for your help sorting this out. P.S. -- you can sign your articles by ending your message with "~~~~" ! Thanks again, Renesis (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Glad I could help. About the signature, copy just the 4 ~ characters, without the " and <nowiki> stuff that you see in the edit box (that is just to make it so that it appears as 4 ~ characters instead of actually placing my signature). See Wikipedia:How to edit a page for more information. -- Renesis (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You make a good point about the remaining links. When I cleaned out several links today, I left alone those links which seemed to refer to "official" pages. I didn't mean it as an endorsement of those links, but rather I was just trying to eliminate the obvious problems. I think considering the points you have made, we could at least leave the Punta Cana Information Guide link at the Punta Cana article, but I'd prefer not to have it at Dominican Republic. The remaining links at the Dominican Republic article might need to be reconsidered as well. I just didn't want to clean it out entirely! Thanks for your help sorting this out. P.S. -- you can sign your articles by ending your message with "~~~~" ! Thanks again, Renesis (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)