See WoWWiki talk:External links/Archivevote for prior discussion.

Wikipedia links Edit

With the new template, {{wplink}}, I've added it to the policy positioned between the official sites and the other elinks so it can be given a consistent position. Why there? It's a wiki, it's one of the biggest sites in the world, having it mixed in with general community links feels "wrong", and having it last also feels "wrong". Given the prominence of {{wikipedia}}, it also seems to make sense. Kirkburn  talk  contr 12:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pay websites Edit

I've added a clause in [1] about linking to websites that make you pay to access the extra content. This essentially falls under attempting to make money off us, which we don't appreciate. Wikis are all about free content, and that same standard should apply to pretty much everything linked off it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Freetards of the world UNITE! TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to sites which blatantly carry gold or hack adverts Edit

While reviewing the external links on Leatherworking and Leatherworking patterns, I noticed that Crafter's Tome carries ads from gold sellers, and an ad for "WoW HackPack". I came to this policy to see if those links should be removed, and I'm not 100% sure after reading it. The ads on the site clearly violate WW:DNP as they are against EULA/TOS, but I'm not sure if that's justification or cause for removing the link. The site clearly has some useful content, and does not appear to have been created for the sole purpose of advertising banned things, so it's hard to say if they know that they are carrying dodgy ads or not (the ads appear to be provided by Google, so it's probably not a deliberate choice by the site, I guess). What do folks think, and should this policy have some additional text to clarify this situation? --Murph (talkcontr) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Generic site links on specific-topic pages Edit

I discovered someone posting links on class ability pages to a generic site about the class. While it's fine for them to put such a link on the class page, I can only interpret spreading this across the abilities as an attempt to gain more traffic. In addition, the sections he added don't conform to WW:EL in the slightest, so I am removing them under the policies that were in place when he created the sections. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications Edit

A while ago, I suggested the following clarifications to this policy on the village pump. They would fit in the allowed/forbidden section:

  • Site created solely or primarily for advertising or affiliate click-through - forbidden.
  • Site actively encouraging EULA/TOS violations (e.g. voicing support for gold sales, hacks/exploits, or any other bannable activity) - forbidden.
  • Site without the above issues, with real content, but carrying incidental adverts against EULA/TOS from a mainstream ad supplier - allowed (but we'd prefer not to have the problematic ads).

I think we should also add the following to the "How many links do I get" section:

Before adding a link to a large number of pages, please take the time to discuss it with an administrator, or with the community on the village pump. It is possible that we can add the link in a more efficient manner than manually editing each page individually. Additionally, the links are less likely to be regarded as spam if an effort has been made to discuss them prior to their addition to articles.

Since these do not change the way we have been using the policy, just clarify it, I don't think they require formal approval, as long as there are no direct objections. Any objections to adding them? --Murph (talkcontr) 22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Video links Edit

See WoWWiki:Policy/Video links. Discuss, vote, please. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:47, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a poll that I can vote on at the link you provided. Did I miss that boat? Having done some major clean-up on the video sections of a number of ICC bosses, I'd also like to propose that we firm up our policy on what Youtube videos we allow in the elink section. I've moved quite a few "standard boss kill" videos down to the link section... but really. Does everyone have to put up a link to their guild's boss kill video, especially when a number of them just crank up the techno music soundtrack? That is, without in-game audio or Vent communication, there's absolutely nothing instructional at all; at least the ones with Vent comm, lets you hear how a guild is communicating with each other during the encounter for various events. What I'd like to do is just move those elinks to the Discussion page for the relevant boss page, to be honest. Any thoughts? Teni (talk) 20:06, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Old page, it was moved. The vote was on the original page's talk page. See WoWWiki talk:Policy/Video links. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:34, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Increase number of external links allowed Edit

Propose increasing the 1 link per site limit for external sites in How many links do I get? section.

Policy to change Edit

Every site is allowed one (1) link per page.

Policy modification Edit

In most cases, an external site is allowed one (1) link per page. Multiple links to an external site are allowed if they cover specific subtopics related to an article. A specific example would be links to spec/talent tree guides for a single class on a class page like a "How to level a <class>" page.

Reasoning Edit

Multiple links are often relevant and the 1 link per site policy really has no solid rationale behind it. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Oct 2012 7:59 PM Pacific

Votes Edit

  1. Yes Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Oct 2012 7:59 PM Pacific 03:59, October 27, 2012 (UTC) - (Originally proposed)
  2. Yes Raylan13@fandom (talk) 14:53, October 27, 2012 (UTC) - (Especially helpful for sites structured like IV and Noxxic)

Comments Edit

Since there was no opposition detected of any sort from the community. This policy was adopted by admin decree. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Dec 2012 7:34 PM Pacific

Don't allow click farming and indirect links Edit

Click farming (a link that records clicks and then forwards to the site that wants to farm clicks) may be obliquely prohibited by current policies, but we should make it explicit.

The Policy Edit

External links that do not go directly to the intended site or appear to be click farming are not allowed on WoWWiki. Indirect links are misleading and click farming is exploitation of the wiki.

Reasoning Edit

Just to make the policy more clear. I've seen a few click farming links get added recently and I don't want any users to second guess removing them. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Dec 2012 3:51 PM Pacific


  1. Yes Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Dec 2012 3:51 PM Pacific 23:51, December 18, 2012 (UTC) - (Originally proposed)
  2. Yes Raylan13@fandom (talk) 02:10, December 19, 2012 (UTC) - (Clarity only helps things.)
  3. Yes PacmanNomNomNom Macrophager (talk) 05:35, December 19, 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)


Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.