Welcome message. External Link advice. Edit


You have just added a number of external links to your website. As you can imagine, external links are always a delicate matter, so it is refreshing to see someone respecting the External Link policy as meticulously as you did today.

If you come across broken links, feel free to remove them. If you come across outdated links, you can move them to an "Old" section in the external links section or remove them, at your discretion (but make sure to add an explanation in the changelog).

Welcome onboard! Icyveins (talk) 21:41, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. We do remember a few sections that had some dead links to non-existent EJ forums and the like. We'll make sure to update those as we see them and try to go back and grab the ones that we can remember. Noxxic (talk) 22:01, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Will be removing generic external links on topic specific pages Edit

Spamming external links to a WoW info site without pointing to a specific page that matches the topic is just this side of vandalism. See Allowed and forbidden links section of the External links policy. I will be removing all the generic links you added. Feel free to add topic specific noxxic links. Re-adding noxxic general links will get you banned, possibly permanently. You have been warned. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Oct 2012 2:14 PM Pacific

With all due respect, how is adding a link to our main class navigation any different than what Icy Veins or other sites are allowed to do? For example, IV is allowed to link to freely, but we're not allowed to link on the same pages? We customized links as much as possible, but we highly doubt you'd like 1 link per spec on generic pages. We used IVs links as our model given that they were first to establish a presence on the wiki and are External Link admins.
Noxxic (talk) 22:34, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
There are some pages I can see where the generic linking shouldn't happen; indeed, IV doesn't have their generic link on some of them, either. IV also has more targeted linking on some of the pages. The sheer volume of linking lends itself to spamming/self-promotion, which we have a bit of a heightened response to, even if that isn't your intention. At the least it makes it a bit hard to go through every page to check links. Give us some time to discuss it and we'll come back with clearer guidance. Raylan13@fandom (talk) 00:38, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Our intent was to offer ourselves as a resource just as much as EJ, IV, WoWinsider, etc. are mentioned. We followed the same basic pattern established by prior sites for our linking. If you do an inventory, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of all external links as they relate to class content point to a generic class-wide navigation and not to pages specific to a class or spec. If we broke guidelines, then we apologize, but given the examples with which we had to work there didn't seem to be any potential for misinterpretation. The frequency of our update was merely a result of excitement and readiness to dive into the wiki. Noxxic (talk) 04:16, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Raylan13, Fandyllic, I (Damien) felt it important to add my opinion on the matter. Over the course of a few hours, Noxxic has been doing very much the same thing that we have been doing over the course of more than a year. The end result is very similar, they have links on pages where we also have links.
The issue with generic landing pages has mostly to do with site structure, so I do not believe there is any ill intent. On both Noxxic and Icy Veins, the site navigation is very horizontal, with the aim of bringing content to the users without requiring many clicks. This bypasses the need for category pages, such as "Mage guides". All in all, it probably makes very little difference whether users land on a generic "Classes" page or on a "Mage" page (for example). In both cases, users need only one click to get the content.
Regarding self-promotion, I think it is important to put things into perspective. Very few people will actually click those links (less than 0.1% of our visits on class pages come from WoWWiki), so the self-promotion is more a marketing thing (i.e., to show on WoWWiki), rather than a disguised way to get more traffic. Also, the links are "nofollow", so we do not get better search engine rankings from them. For us, at Icy Veins, WoWWiki was a great help to bring us traffic when we were nothing. We will forever be grateful for this and this is the main reason why we (will) keep adding/updating links to our website, as well as cleaning up the External Links sections. For Noxxic, there is no such bond to WoWWiki and they are already at a traffic volume where the 100 visits they will get every day from WoWWiki will make no difference. So, I believe that they truly came here with the intent of providing wiki readers with a choice for class guide resources (i.e., Noxxic or Icy Veins, instead of just Icy Veins), and this is probably more healthy if there is indeed such a choice.Icyveins (talk) 06:24, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Damien, thank you for taking the time to enter this discussion. We certainly didn't add links to wowwiki for traffic purposes and we would have happily edited out dead links along the way had we known that was an acceptable action to take, but we didn't want to press our like by making 200-300 total edits on our first day. Regarding bonds, they have to start somewhere. We had no traffic at one time too, but now that we have some traffic that doesn't mean we have no interest in expanding our engagement with the WoW community (not that you implied as such, we're just being clear). In fact, it's quite the opposite, we want to make public engagement with the WoW community a more central part of our mission and wikis are a great place to get involved, especially in their current state with many severely outdated sections as a result of MoP. Noxxic (talk) 13:21, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well, links like are inappropriate also and I will start selectively removing them. Sorry if WoWWiki's external links policy doesn't work well with your site structure, but while you may look at adding your links as a "resource", in some cases they look like "advertising" to me.
Whether or not you say you aren't doing it to drive traffic, marketing or whatever to your site, if that were so, I should expect to see similar activity at Wowpedia, but I do not. We are well aware of outdated info on WoWWiki, but external links does not update that data.
As stated in the policy, if your links are specific and match the topic of the page, they are fine, but generic links to landing pages are not. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Oct 2012 5:10 PM Pacific

We could have just as easily added 3 or more links as appropriate for spec specific pages, but the guiding example in place (in lieu of an explicit rule in the external links policy) were links to class-wide pages or even broader resources like wowpopular, top level EJ forums, etc. Also, you started removing all of our edits pretty quickly so we decided to hit the pause button on wowpedia until we get this issue sorted out on wowwiki. No reason to cause this same discussion to happen twice. Noxxic (talk) 04:25, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Multiple links Edit

Guidelines have been updated. Please review the policy, guidelines, and list of sites approved for multiple links. Raylan13@fandom (talk) 02:52, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.