Talk:Image hosting service/Archives/2012

External Links

There has been an ongoing problem with linkspam associated with this article. I'm not sure why we suddenly have a formal linkspam section apparently created by a legitimate editor, but I'm about to make it go away. I'm also restoring the template and embedding a second request not to add these links. Could we please build consensus that links to selected image hosting services are not a productive use of WP bandwidth? More to the point, they're not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Those seeking such a service who can find WP can also find Google, if it's not already on their toolbar. If they really need their hand held, the Open Directory link has been there and, imo, should stay. Comments? Rivertorch 04:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just ignore me. I was simply trying to correct the bot's actions and didn't look too in-depth into the links that the editor was trying to insert. Sorry for the problem! Shadow1 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the newbie guy who started this. I see your point that the link to dmoz is in there and should suffice. I agree with removing the links. Thanks for the great explanation. Force316 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for taking the time to look into the matter. Rivertorch 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I have before found it useful when Wikipedia has contained reliable links to the websites or services discussed in the article. I know that Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor am I suggesting we turn it into one. I simply think it is of use to provide example links to websites that provide the service under discussion. I think they're perfectly appropriate for a Wikipedia article (c.f. generic "encyclopedia article"). I personally use: http://www.petaimg.com/ for image hosting, 'cause they allow hosting of SVGs, and would suggest their inclusion in the external links section. Perhaps we can discuss a selection of sites among ourselves, put them in, and then guard against linkspam. ----Seans Potato Business 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would be useless to "guard against" something we'd already placed in the article. And that is precisely what you're suggesting. (Who, btw, are "ourselves"? Registered users? Editors who have done OR as to the merits of image hosting services? Spam is spam, regardless of who inflicts it upon an article.) If you know of a compelling reason why this article should run contrary to WP policy, please tell. Rivertorch (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It would not be useless to "guard against" the addition of new links at all. If the problem was linkspam, we'd be guarding against linkspam. Linkspam does not equal selected useful links. By "ourselves", I meant those of us who are discussing the situation on the talkpage, as oppose to those spamming the article with links. Useful links do not equal spam. I'll be back when I've investigated the relevant Wikipedia policies. --Seans Potato Business 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to contradict WP policy. From Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files

There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example).

The link I provided is useful because bigger image hosting websites don't allow SVG hosting. I have no affiliation with that site and would be perfectly happy to see any other site linked that allows hosting of SVGs and doesn't include an inordinate amount of advertising. --Seans Potato Business 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How about ten such sites? Twenty? Fifty? How about image hosting services that offer other specific features? It's a slippery slope, and it would be impossible to determine where to draw the line fairly, or perhaps even to draw it at all. It would end up getting out of control, with much time spent and arbitrary decisions made and contested. Besides, you still haven't made a compelling case for inclusion. Please consider:

(1) petaIMG doesn't even have a WP article yet. If it's noteworthy, it should have an article, and that article absolutely should contain an external link to petaIMG;

(2) if petaIMG is unique or groundbreaking in some way, it might be worth mentioning in the body of this article. In that case, an internal link to its own WP article would be appropriate.

(3) the link you propose might well be useful to some people, but usefulness in and of itself is not the point of WP. WP isn't a business directory or a how-to guide. Just because a link may be useful to some people doesn't justify its inclusion. petaIMG should be readily findable through search engines and topical directories.

For a parallel topic, take a look at Blog and see how its editors have handled external links. Rivertorch (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing absurd numbers into the discussion doesn't make it so. As I understand it, relevant links are allowed to be included up to an arbitrary limit. See Wikipedia:Spam#See_also; where does one draw the line to say that there are too many links? I don't know, but it's still policy to allow them, up until a reasonable limit (zero (0) is no reasonable).

(1,2) A website does not have to be worthy of its own article in order to be included in the external links section (I don't mean to be rude but I think it's likely that you know this yourself and would prefer not to have my time wasted, refuting arguments with obvious flaws).

(3) petaIMG is a relevant example of an image host. It serves to illustrate such a service and what it does, its capabilities and its limitations. If it can be replaced by better examples then fine, but there should be at least some examples in the article.

Comparison with the blogging article is unfair. That particular issue is likely to be highly contentious due to heightened preferences for particular blogs over others. That situation makes the exclusion of particular blogs a prudent measure to prevent conflicts. I don't think the same applies to image hosts. I can't care less what image host I use as long as it supports my file format and keeps my image hosted for a reasonable period. ----Seans Potato Business 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My comparison of image hosting service to blog is not unfair, since they're analogous. The numbers I used aren't absurd; they're illustrative of the point I attempted to make about the slippery slope. I have no desire to waste your time, my time, or any other editor's time, and I find it regrettable that I should be impelled to declare so here. My suggestion at this point, for whatever it's worth, is to give this some time, let other editors comment, and allow consensus to form. Rivertorch (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Sorry to have impelled you. --Seans Potato Business 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)