Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/External links

• Voting on:

  In the 0th namespace, any line of text whose only purpose is linking to an external website (for example, a link to an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, or 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica), should be placed within an "External links" section, and never within a "See also" section.

• Note A: Standard practice indicates that the status quo is placing these lines of text with external links either within an "External links" or a "See also" section.
• Note B: {{PL:pedia}} (also known as {{pedia}} and {{pedialite}}) is an example of template whose placement in entries would be affected by this vote, should it pass.
• Note C: Floating boxes, such as {{wikipedia}} and {{commons}}, should not be affected by this vote in any way. External hyperlinks within senses, etymologies, pronunciations and references should not be affected by this vote, either.

• Vote starts: 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23.59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel 14:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2011/February#External links are external links

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2011/May#Poll: External linking

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/November#Inter-project links: "See also", or "External links"?

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-07/External links

1. Support --Daniel 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Even if you don't perceive Wikipedia as "external", it shouldn't be lumped together with internal links to other entries. That just creates a big mess. -- Liliana • 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. I actually think we should also allow links to Wikipedia article to be given under appropriate individual senses, but that's already not common practice, so it's not reason to oppose this. (Currently #* autocollapses as "", anyway, so a technical change would be needed as well as a change of practice.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

   It would at least be nice to see several pedia articles linked within Ext Links when appropriate. DAVilla 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

4. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Support Dan Polansky 11:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I support, after hesitation, placing {{pedialite}}, {{pedia}}, {{commonslite}}, and similar to "External links" section rather than "See also" section. I used to place {{pedia}} to "See also", but I no longer think it is the best option. --Dan Polansky 11:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. Kaldari 20:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, uncontroversial and helpful change. Tempodivalse 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose DCDuring TALK 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wilkicommons, or any of the other other sister projects is "external". I think this misleads users by putting those projects on all fours with true external websites. DCDuring TALK 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Abstain TeleComNasSprVen 23:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) As I had indicated in the previous conducted poll concerning the use of external linking, I dislike placing the term in section headers in favor of what I believed to be the more easily understandable "References" or "See also"; however, I would still much more prefer a consistent system over the one we have now. Thus I am divided about this matter. As an aside, what will happen if this proposal comes to pass? Will a change be committed to WT:ELE to reflect the consensus here? TeleComNasSprVen 23:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

7-1-1 Passes --Daniel 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)