Proposal:External links
(Redirected from Proposed features/External links)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| External links | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Proposals with undefined or invalid status (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Ojw |
| Tagging: | wikipedia=pagename |
| Applies to: | any |
| Definition: | Defines website, wikipedia and guide tags |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | hyperlink |
| Draft started: | 2006-10-01 |
| RFC start: | * |
| Vote start: | * |
| Vote end: | * |
Official website
website=[URL URL] website=http://www.ch.ch/schweiz/index.html?lang=en
website:title=URL, and website=URL for the first one?
e.g.
- building=yes
- type=house
- website=http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-20forthlinroadallerton/
- railway=station
- name=Euston
- website:official=http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/819.aspx
- website:departures= http://www.livedepartureboards.co.uk/ldb/summary.aspx?T=EUS
- Why not rather more generic url instead of website? Then there could be a url:photo, url:logo, or even url:webcam (in addition to default url, url:official, url:departures). This woulf allow images to be treated differently (eg in a baloon popup, or rendered right into a map at a high enough zoom level) -- Stefanb 15:32, 7 June 2007 (BST)
- Maybe considering website:wikipedia=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran is good too. --Messi 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also prefer url or even uri over website. It's more flexible to be expanded in the future by not breaking it's meaning (think of e.g. uri:contact=mailto:restaurant@example.com. -- MapFlea 07:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm definitely in favor of a url:website / url:wikipedia / url:contact approach. It's more flexible and expandable. we have on main tag (url) that can be used as namespace/prefix. the default value of url=foobar should be handled as main website of an object. additional uri sources can be added using a set of predefined extensions like url:wikipedia, url:contact, url:webcam. a direct link to a page containing opening hours instead should be tagged with opening_hours:url=. that would follow the logic: url per se points to a site with information about the main object. a suffic (url:wikipedia) defines the website and its content. if the website is about a specific attribute (e.g. opening hours) the corresponding tag prefix should be used (e.g. opening_hours:url, source:url (to define the source of information used to map the object)). I don't like the flat tagging approach (a wikipedia tag, a website tag and so), it just gets to crowded. adding structure using prefixes and suffixes keeps everything clean and logical. --Marc 11:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Description of website links
Descriptive text for any website links
website_description=* website_description=National Trust website website_description:official=NetworkRail's website website_description:departures=Live departure boards
- I would rater use - as mentioned above - a namespace/suffix approach: using existing tags instead of creating new ones: website:description, website:title and so on. this approach is more generic and can be used to any attribute/tag, e.g. in this case the website tag. --Marc 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia
See wikipedia=*.
Travel guides
Should it be policy to only link to editable wiki links, or do people also want to include things like lonely planet?
3D models
Map links
Links to maps of the location which are available online with a Free license
- I don't we need this link as we can easily make the link to any online/offline we wish by knowing the langitude and latitude of the location (city, building, ...)
Considerations
Given wikipedia's problems with external links (people adding hundreds of their own for use in advertising) we should have some policy saying what's allowed. e.g. wikimedia projects and official websites only?
- we can choose the allowed title for website:title=URL. (e.g: official, logo, wikipedia, ...) --Messi 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- this would not solve the advertisement spam problem. For example: do we want a "official" link for every supermarket of a big chain ? Or personal websites of people living in a certain house? According to my experience with english and german language wikipedia every possibility to place weblinks will be used for spamming too. This in return will lead to the need of administrative countermeasures to kick those guys and their spam out. So if we would like to have weblinks, there should be very very well defined criteria which links are allowed and which not. In my opinion we should only allow following link types:
- wikipedia pages (in 99% of all cases this should be sufficient to get additional information)
- wikimedia commons category pages directly connected with the object
- one official web links of the object (but not of other entities the object belongs to or which belong to the object). e.g. if a departement store has its own website, it can be linked. If the store is part of a chain, the chains website must not be linked. And if a factory is shown in the map, the official link of this factory is acceptable, links to trade mark websites of the factory are not. -- Andreas König 13:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- this would not solve the advertisement spam problem. For example: do we want a "official" link for every supermarket of a big chain ? Or personal websites of people living in a certain house? According to my experience with english and german language wikipedia every possibility to place weblinks will be used for spamming too. This in return will lead to the need of administrative countermeasures to kick those guys and their spam out. So if we would like to have weblinks, there should be very very well defined criteria which links are allowed and which not. In my opinion we should only allow following link types:
- I'd rather see a link more here, it keeps mappers from adding phone numbers (Phone numbers shall not be mapped, because if there is a mistake persons not connected to OSM are bothered). --Lulu-Ann 08:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding number of links allowed--it should just be policed. If a particular building has a wiki entry on say, some student-run wiki about a university campus, but that content doesn't pass the notability requirement for Wikipedia, it still deserves to be linked to, IMO. Whatever rules are made probably won't be complete. I also think it would be wrong to say businesses deserve official links to their sites but individuals don't merit links to their blogs. With the rel=nofollow tag implemented on openstreetmap.org, at least bad guys won't be at it in order to improve their PageRank. -Cov 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)