Talk:Web directory/Archives/2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Startpagina

Whatever happened to Durk Jan de Bruin's Startpagina mentioned here? Surely we are not just discussing Wikipedia - in which case why is the Netherlands mentioned? The external links shown below (not all checked yet) may be what was intended?

External Links

-- David Martland 15:10 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

When I wrote the article, I linked the word Startpagina, but not with the intention to write an article about it, because I felt the subject was not important enough (yet). To my surprise, the link already led to somewhere, and that somewhere was the Wikipedia homepage. To avoid further confusion, I'll write a stub for Startpagina, if the system will let me. branko

Is it not a bit odd to believe that the FIRST web site was a directory? What did it direct you to, itself? At the very least, if it directed you, say to gopher servers or what ever, it wouldn't be a WEB directory, would it? -- Someone else 05:13, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am removing some of the exteral links that doesn't follow the wikipedia guidelines. --85.166.8.211 11:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replaced removed links as they fall completly within Wikipedia Guidelines .. they are free services that may e useful to users searching for online directories.

Article Directory doesn't sound like a web directory to me

I read the Article Directory article. From what little I understood of that article, an article directory does not sound like a directory of the web but of articles.--Chuck Marean 09:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism by "clean up" (External links)

Vandalism by "clean up" is wrong. I had a good edit. This was my edit: [1]. I worked hard on that edit. It seems EurekaLott ( 07:08, June 5, 2006) didn't even read it. The left-hand tab says project. EurekaLott's so-called "clean up" of 07:08, June 5, 2006 was therefore wrong. It seems to have been automated, without any thought.

Came here from Talk:Village pump, where this comment also appears. Actually, this was your edit. Criticising EurekaLott seems pointless to me. You should remain civil and assume good faith. Discuss the changes here and you'll probably reach a consensus. AndyJones 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then this was . [2] Anyway I thought I'd share some web diredtories I'd found. The Web Directory article seemed like the best place to do so.--Chuck Marean 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

pasting the following comments from: [3] --mtz206 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I suspect the problem is that external links are generaly meant to go at the end of the article.

They were for example and use.--Chuck Marean 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

examples are better surved by links to articles. The use bit runs into some stuff a WP:NOT.Geni 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to include direct links to external sites seems redundant given the List of web directories link already in the article. --mtz206 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I spend a fair bit of time doing this sort of "cleanup"--articles on software-related subjects in particular are magnets for spam or just gratuitous mentions for the purpose of raising pagerank. So some practical guidelines have emerged independently on a number of articles.

External links should go in the external links section.
External links shouldn't multiply beyond necessity (i.e., beyond the point necessary to clarify or minimally exemplify the content of the articles--any more and you get into web directory territory, and then everybody with a site to push says "well, if site X is there, my site has a right to be there as well.")
Sites linked to should preferably pass general Wikipedia notability guidelines--that means wikilinks are preferred so there is at least a quality control process in place (look at, say Comparison of content management systems for a place where that idea has broken down, however).

So a lot of what I do is pruning external links and redlinks from articles, looking for spam, SEO, self-promotion, registration-only sites that turn into sales pitches, disguised google ad sites, etc., sometimes very deviously salted among large lists of legitimate sites. Figuring out which are the quality links and which aren't is a tedious process, and involves some personal judgment and inevitably some mistakes, no doubt. In this particular case, the judgment would have been easy, though--legit or not, those links were in the wrong place, and a couple wikilinks (maybe Google and Yahoo) would have done the trick--but oh, wait, those, and more were already in the article. As an aside, please go easy on accusations of vandalism. Vandalism doesn't mean "an edit that makes me mad." Good faith edits are never vandalism.· rodii · 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) end paste

ego reverting

The ego reverting by EurekaLott or Mtz206 has been interfering with the project.This page should include convenient links to web directories. Seeing a web directory is the best way to learn what a web directory is. Furthermore, it would be help people find web directories. Even if those directories put their urls here themselves, which they did not, such a list would be helpful the users of the encyclopedia. Web directories aren't that easy to find. Here are some I got out of a computer magazine:

--Chuck Marean 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "ego reverting," but quite simply, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links or Internet directories. The policy is quite clear. --mtz206 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like an explanation of "ego reverting", too. It sounds like a personal attack, as does the allegation that two users are "interfering with the project". Chuck, if you do not want to become marginalised or ignored here you should read WP:CIVIL (I referred you to it, above), and try to frame your arguments with it in mind. AndyJones 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The page seems to have been reverted to keep it the way one editor wanted it, even though it wasn't better that way, perhaps out of a desire to be published. Anyway, the directories on the list above without an article could have one. I'm not going to write one. Also, do the articles know Ask Jevees in not longet called that? I understand someone wrote a lot of articles about the directories, and wants people to go there first. Ego. However, suppose I was looking for a directory? Maybe a line on this page could say something like, a regular search engine can find web directories for you. I think this game is supposed to be writing the best encyclopedia, and that does not mean trying to keep your writing on top, but instead trying to make sure it's a good encyclopedia. --Chuck Marean 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are utterly failing to understand what Wikipedia is and the nature of the attempts to keep this particluar structured set of external links from the various articles you have attempted to place them in. No one is trying to own a page, or get anything published. This is a collectively-edited encyclopedia. I strongly suggest you read all the various articles and policies that have been pointed out to you on all the various Talk pages. --mtz206 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, can you say why you think your version is better, rather than just asserting it? As things stand now, I disagree, and I think your claims about vandalism and ego are uncivil to say the least. But I'm willing to listen. Unless you can make the argument, however, I'll continue to be guided by WP:EL and join the reverters. · rodii · 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of ego reverting, and listing those web directories with links to them in place of the list of links to articles about web directories is not more user friendly and does not improve the article. Mtz206 was correct to revert Chuck's edits, as he improved the article. (And the policy on those external links is indeed very clear.

Also, keep in mind that the list does include an external link to DMOZ's list of web directories, which serves the same purpose as Chuck's addition of the external links, but does so in a more appropriate way.Rray 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Rray, et al. -- Zanimum 13:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge from List of web directories

I propose that List of web directories be merged into this article. --mtz206 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Web directory says "see also List of web directories" so it made sense for Web directory to be merged into List of web directories. When I was looking for directory, I was looking for links to search engine pages that organize the web by categories and subcategories. The textbook I'm reading call them topic directories. I found a list of some in a computer magazine. In some search engines, such as MSN they're next to impossible to find. I think they can be found in Google, using "web directories". --Chuck Marean 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic perspective, it makes much more sense for Web directory to remain as the article describing the phenomenon itself, then having a section which provides wikilinks to articles of sample directories. --mtz206 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus there's that notice on Article Directory --Chuck Marean 15:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. List articles should be kept separate (ideally deleted altogether, but that's another argument). The're a magnet for spam, and tend to generate a level of noise that drowns out the content in a modest article like this one. See alsos aren't a reason to merge; quite the opposite. · rodii · 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rodii here. It makes sense to keep the list and the article separate for the reasons he Rodii stated.Rray 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Rodii's comment. -- Zanimum 13:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree an article discussing the nature of a web directory doesn't need to contain a list of web directories itself. The list adds nothing to the encyclopedic discussion and encourages editors to add non-encyclopedic information to the article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. There is plenty of precendent for this sort of division and the list is long enough to keep separated out. Beyond that, it is easier to track the list for spam than a full article. --StuffOfInterest 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Article directory

Article directory doesn't sound like a directory of the entire WWW. Web directory sounds like it means directory "of the web" and not just "in the web" and Google calls a directory of the web a Web Directory. I think Yahoo does also. And so do several articles in Wikipedia. Maybe Article directory is just a directory. --Chuck Marean 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --mtz206 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) *Oh, sorry, you're commenting on the Article directory merger. (I need more coffee).--mtz206 (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreee with Chuck here. An article directory is not the same thing as a web directory and doesn't fulfill the same purpose. Those articles should not be merged.Rray 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

History of the concept

I have been active on the web since 1993 and I've seen it evolve a lot from the initial "less than 200 university sites" to the current commercial universe. I think it would be interesting to devote a section on this page about the history of web directories. Right now, it is quite static, anchored in the present. Which was the first "open" (upgraded) web directory? Which was the first "commercial" web directory? How did the concept evolve, from the initial view of an organized "collection of links", or a "portal/starting point for browsing"? Just my 2 cents. I still can't find any information about the first directory I was using in 1993-1994, it's a pity I didn't keep notes... to write a bout about the "history of the web"!!! -- Hugo Dufort 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)