This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 8 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Otr500 I also removed Staff and board of the Filson Historical Society as it's linkable off their main website (and a typical part of a website anyway). This along with "Upcoming Filson Events" indeed seem worth not keeping. The Filson also clearly links to their YouTube channel on the website. If we keep any from the above list, direct "deep" links to the "Digital Exhibitions and Collections" and PastPerfect Online could be useful for the reader. In my opinion, external links that give readers a deeper dive into the subject are optimal choices. As for number of links, I don't care much about that as long as links are useful for the reader - being kept to a minimum doesn't force us to a specific number. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk 02:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my hunch is that the previous overexuberance in linking came with previous editors who tried to make the article into a marketing piece. I and others have made attempts to clean that up, as you can see in the history. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thank you. I did see the work. As a note: I started doing a lot of maintenance in the appendices, mainly "External links", early on as it seemed it was an area long neglected. I have seen over 25 links in four or more subsections. How about recently 32 entries in seven subsections? I was at a loss when it came to 151 images (WOW!) on an article. If a discussion involves including more than three or four links then that is consensus. I usually don't bother with 6 or less links but may toss something on the talk page. You could be right about the advertising aspect. It is somewhat easy to tell when an External links edit is reverted as BRD, adding back clear advertising links. Apparently there are some that don't read the talk pages. Have a great day, -- Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
