Forum:CT:Layout Guide: External links amendment

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Layout Guide: External links amendment
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Imperators II(Talk) 07:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's move on with the amendment to the External links section of the Layout Guide! This proposal was previously presented and discussed in the Senate Hall earlier this year, but if you want a TL;DR, the aim of this amendment is to provide a more defined structure for this section rather than relying on the know-how of veterans editors.

Proposition

[Note: I have not been able to find a better example than Michael Kenneth Williams, the current example on the policy, so unless someone come up with something better, let's keep it that way.]

The External links section is a bulleted list of links from websites outside of Wookieepedia. These links are commonly unlicensed and/or unofficial sources of information, such as social media profiles, commercial pages, news articles, fan websites, Wikipedia articles, databases, and more.

  • The section is called "External links," even if the article only has one external link
  • The list must be ordered following a specific hierarchy, with items listed in alphabetic order (primarily following the name of the websites, and secondly the name of individual pages) within each level, and formatted using available citation templates:
1 - Official pages
1.1 - Official website, formatted as [url Official website]
1.2 - Other, such as StarWars.com profile pages
2 - Social media profiles, including the use of Social media citation templates, as well as {{YouTube}}
3 - Commercial pages, including, but not limited to, the use of Commercial and product listing internet citation templates, as well as other, such as {{Disney}} and {{Marvel}}
4 - Databases
4.1 - Wikipedia
4.2 - Other, including, but not limited to: {{IMDb}}, {{MobyGames}}, other wikis
5 - Other relevant pages
5.1 - Star Wars Blogs and StarWars.com Message Boards, using respectively {{SW}}, {{Blog}} and {{SWBoards}}
5.2 - Articles, interviews, discussion topics, including, but not limited to: {{WebCite}}, {{JCFcite}}, {{Reddit}}), etc.
  • For Wikipedia articles and IMDb pages, if the Wookieepedia's article title and Wikipedia's article or IMDb's page title are the same, simply format it with {{WP}} for Wikipedia, and {{Imdb|url=name/xxxxx}} for IMDb. Only specify the article title if they are not the same. For example, on John Glover, because the Wikipedia link is under a different name (John Glover (actor)), it should be formatted like this:
*{{WP|John Glover (actor)|John Glover}}
  • Restrict "other relevant pages" listings only to the most critically relevant pages with respect to an article's coverage. Furthermore, those pages should be listed in chronological order of publication, instead of alphabetic order.
    • Star Wars Blog posts from the Pop Culture; Quizzes and Polls; and Films categories are typically prime examples of pages that are not appropriate for the External links. However, any Blog post (featuring the article's subject) that is cited in the course of the article must be listed in the External links.
    • Other pages (from non-official websites) cited in the course of the article that cover only a fraction of the article's subject should not be included in the External links. For example, an article only covering the announcement of the participation of a creator to a new work should not be included, unlike an article that would cover a large segment of their career. Interviews are considered particularly relevant, and should be systematically listed, as long as they focus on Star Wars.
  • Official websites, social media profiles, and databases are considered a convenience, and as such, do not require the inclusion of an archival link, and should be delisted if no longer available. This does not apply to official websites associated with Lucasfilm and Star Wars products, nor to websites providing insights into an individual's creative process, such as personal blogs of Star Wars creators. If an official website responding to one of those criteria goes offline, then an archival link should be provided in the following format:
*[url Official website] {{C|content now obsolete; [archiveurl backup link]}}

Support

  1. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 17:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Lewisr (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 21:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  8. Rsand 30 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  9. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 10:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  10. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 01:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  11. Fan26 (Talk) 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • This is going to create a fair bit of extra work on top of the archiving system that already exists. There are approximately 180,000 pages on Wookiee right now. If only 10% of them have external links, that's still almost 20,000 pages that will need their links checking on a regular basis to see if they've gone offline, and if so, if they fall into the "important" list described above to add the extra archival link to them. Why not simplify the process here and just note that if they fall into the "important" list, then they use the standardized linking calls or the {{WebCite}} template, and if not, they just have a bare link and move on? I don't believe that considering an external link "a convenience" is fully considering what your audience is here for. They're not always here for the specific Star Wars content, but sometimes looking for something that happens to be related to Star Wars and their searching has led them here and the external link is actually what they are looking for. -- Sulfur (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I think that adding archive links preemptively for all "important" external links using {{WebCite}} sounds like a good idea. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Just a reminder: if a link use WebCite, then is MUST have an archival link associated with it. There is no other alternative offered by that template, with the noted exception of |, but that is for cases completely unrelated to the subject at hand. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 21:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't really get your argument that this put extra work or pressure on editors, as we don't force anybody to check "on a regular basis" if a website as gone offline, or, well... any other task. It's something that will happen naturally, like anything else on Wookieepedia, I might add. I also don't see what you mean by "standardized linking calls". Regarding the use in "External Links" of links supported by WebCite (or any citation templates), standard practice is to never let a link left bare (without a template), with a single exception: "Official website" (it's kind of a tradition, rather than anything else, really). Now, this point as been discussed in the past (Should we put it under WebCite? Should we give it's own template?) on Discord, but its never got anywhere and no consensus was reached in that regard. Most importantly, this item is not really the point of this CT, which means is to prescribe in policy a practice of layout organization that was already unofficially enforced... with some level of variation depending on editors and period of time (hence my intent here: consistency), and it can be attempted to be discussed at a later date. At any rate, it should be reminded that archival links' main purpose is to support the attribution chain, and there is absolutely no point in saving pages of databases like Wikipedia, IMDb or Moby Games when they 1) get constantly updated 2) are considered unreliable to the attribution process itself. Finally, while I won't engage in guessing "what our audience is here for", as I have no factual means to do so, either through the access to statistical data or qualitative studies of our reader base, I am quite confused by where you want to go with that last argument. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 21:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)