Talk:Comparison of software for molecular mechanics modeling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:35, 3 April 2009

Revision as of 21:38, 3 April 2009

Line 40:

* [http://www.chim.unifi.it/orac/ ORAC] (classical)

* [[XMD]] (classical)

== external links in the body of articles ==

See:

:"''External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an 'External links' section at the end and/or in the appropriate ___location within an infobox or navbox.''" [[Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember]]

and

:"''If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article.''" [[Wikipedia:External links#External links section]]

also [[WP:NOTLINK]], articles are not lists of external links.

P.D.: I was going to ask in the talk page of WP:EL, although I see that someone made already a similar question ;[[Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 23#when are external links allowed in the body of the article?]] --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

*These "policies" are only suggestions, not hard rules. The guideline, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable", is clear and this case is "justifiable". There are cases where it is appropriate to use external links inline (e.g., in a table). This article is certainly such a case. Until we write each of the associated articles, the external links should stay, as they ''help'' the user find the packages. This is the '''primary''' goal of Wikipedia: Helping users find the information they require. --[[User:Thorwald|Thorwald]] ([[User talk:Thorwald#top|talk]]) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

::No, helping people to find stuff that is outside of wikipedia is a violation of [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]]. The main goal is writing an encyclopedia ([[WP:ENC]]). Also, if you look at [[WP:REDLINK]], leaving red links compels people to write those articles. Also, people might link at the "What links here" to see if a certain mane is being used often, or to find other articles pointing at the article they are creating so they can check them out, or to check if it's linked from many articles before nominating it for deletion as a measure of its "popularity". By using external links you are breaking all of that.

::Leaving an external link will also not let you see when an article has been finally written. For example, I left a lot of wrong bluelinks like [[Desmond]], which I should have changed to [[Desmond (software)]]. However, I also made visible a few correct bluelinks: [[LAMMPS]], [[Materials Studio]], [[RasMol]], which are now replaced by external links. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:::As I said before, these are guidelines, not rules. I don't care if it is a "violation" or not the goal of ''some'' people on Wikipedia to help people find stuff; it is ''my'' goal (and has been for the ~six years I have been active on Wikipedia). Anyway, my compromise can be seen on my last edit of the article (i.e., I moved the external links to a separate column). --[[User:Thorwald|Thorwald]] ([[User talk:Thorwald#top|talk]]) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Thank you very much. That looks good enough to me, I was mostly interested in that the names were red links; I explained my reasons [[User_talk:P99am#external links in body of articles|here]] to another editor (I reached a similar agreement with him about the links at [[List of nucleic acid simulation software]] but your version looks much better, I'll tell him about it). Again, thanks for understanding and for finding such a good solution. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the original version was better, but a separate column is also acceptable. But in this case column "Website" should not contain a "link", but a source name. And should not be empty cells, even where article on Wikipedia exist. Please look at my latest version of [[List of nucleic acid simulation software]]. ([[User:P99am|P99am]] ([[User talk:P99am|talk]]) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps the idea of a separate column is good enough if the work is done accurately.

Look what happened now:

* We have a column with the same "link" statements.

* Some of the blue links become incorrect.

* Some names of programs black and some red, without any principle.

* Half of the links had become red. This is too much. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia for the first time for users, and only secondarily is invitetion for the editors.

To meet some formal rules are not sufficient reason to do such things. Those who want to improve the article should make a good job, but do not break the page. I therefore propose to revert to the original version - with external links. ([[User:P99am|P99am]] ([[User talk:P99am|talk]]) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

:It is easy to criticize, but better to help fix things. You didn't give any specific examples to the new "problems" you find with my latest edit. What did you mean by "We have a column with the same 'link' statements"? Which of the blue links became "incorrect"? I fixed the names in black (you could have as well). We should rename the "links" to the names of the institutes the packages originated (like you did in [[List of nucleic acid simulation software]]). I actually now think the new version is better, as it retains the external links (for our users) and reminds the editors which articles need to be created (the red links). The new version should stay, but be improved. --[[User:Thorwald|Thorwald]] ([[User talk:Thorwald#top|talk]]) 21:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

::I fixed a few incorrect blue links at [[List of software for molecular mechanics modeling]]. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)