User talk:Sharkbaits

External links[edit]

Hi! I have seen you add external links to Shark Attack Survivors for a while now. I do not think these are links we should have in most of the pages where you have added them and I have removed a few before. Now I have read up more on what the rules for external links are, see WP:EL. When you link to SAS from a shark species page you are breaking the statement 'links that should be avoided' for the following points.

1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

4) Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. (my opinion, might be questionable)

13) Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

Because of this I will continue to remove the links, if you want to discuss this issue please do so, either here or at the individual pages talk page. --Stefan ^talk 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the problem with a link such as this * List of Bull Shark Attack Related Incidents listed under the bull shark page. I'm not even pointing out the name of the site and the topic is right on it only contains bull shark incidents.

I could see if I spammed each species to the same page, which I'm not.

Is the problem that the info is up to date and current information that changes daily can't be added in a feature article, because it changes.

What are my options here?

--Sharkbaits (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reson have nothing to do with the information beeing updated to often or naming the name of the site, as for link spamming just having the link on wikipedia will give the other site a very good increment in page rank, the name does not matter much. The problem that I have is that the information is not relevant or needed for the article, therefore it is basically link spam. As for 1) the bull shark page does not need to show a current up to date list of attacks and attack survivours, it is a pages about the bull shark, and the coverage on how many people it have attacked and their survivour is not in the scope of that article. As stated 4) might be questionable, and for 13) again 'Indirectly related to the articles subject', i.e. Bull shark is about the shark, it is not a page about Bull shark attacks, if it where the sharkattacksurvivors would be a possibel good link.

:13) Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

This is the reson why I removed most of the links, but I keept the links on shark attack and List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States by decade where they are relevant to the subject of the article.

You options if you do not agree, is to continue to discuss here until we reach an agreement, or if you wish discuss and get consensus in a broader forum, e.g. on the bull shark talk page, or maybe the fish project WP:FISH, write what have happend, i.e. you put in links, I reverted, we disagree, put a link to this discussion on your talk page and argue your case why the links are relevant. If you get WP:consensus that the links are in line with WP:EL then of course I will not revert them anymore. Possibly you could also discuss to get consensus to change WP:EL, but I expect that to be very hard. --Stefan ^talk 05:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I create a page "shark attack survivors" on wiki. Do a nice shark attack survivors article Then list the shark attacks for each species on that page. Then add a link to my "shark attack survivors" page on wiki to the "See Also" on each species page.

As I notice on the bull shark page under "See Also" you have List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States by decade which has nothing to do with bull sharks, much less than my page that only contains Bull shark attacks, but it is still listed under bull sharks "See Also" section.

I thank you for leaving the links you did and taking the time to help me out here explaining things.

I'm not trying to use wiki for linking to my site, if I could generate the code for pulling info from the database and putting it on wiki without a link to the shark attack survivors site I would. It's not the link but rather the info that's important to me and every other shark attack survivor.

--Sharkbaits (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could create a page on shark attack survivors, the question is if it would be deleted? I think that it would be OK, but you need to do some research on how wikipedia works, read WP:FIRST carefully. What you specifically need to think about is WP:Notability, WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:COI. I really suggest that you create the page as a user space sub page while editing it, do not make a one line page visibel to all and think that you can continue editing for the next few hours, there are many people that will find the page and ask for it to be deleted in just a few minutes. You will save yourself a lot of trouble if you have a good page before you actually make it avaliable for all.

As for the difference of the see also and your link, is that it might be questinable to have that see also link you mention, but it is a internal wikipedia link and different rules apply for that and the linking to External sites. See WP:SEEALSO compared to WP:EL, some people wants to take all see also away.

You can make a page where you had a script (WP:BOOT) that automatically updated a page, but if you are planning to repeat the list you have on your site on wikipedia you should also read WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#STATS. If you want help in make your page, please ask, I will alway answer questions as best as I can. Good luck with the page, thinking about it, I think it can be a good page, but you must do your home work. --Stefan ^talk 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]