User talk:Pdabha

Additions of http://.nof.org
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk)

also
Please note that the national osteoporosis foundation is already included in the DMOZ link, making a direct link to NOF redundant as well as middling-inappropriate. WLU (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Link Addition Request
Hi, I understand your concern over spam. But, from what I can tell, you have included links to other organizations seperately even though they too are listed in the DMOZ website. example: International Osteoporosis Foundation. NOF is not an inappropriate link. It is a national organziation that is dedicated to helping improve the lives of those affected by osteoporosis and to find a cure through programs of awareness, advocacy, research and public and health professional education. It is not a personal website and does not promote any product. I sincerely request you to allow me to add that link, for the benefit of people looking for relevant information on Osteoporosis. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdabha (talk • contribs)


 * Good catch, I'll remove the links that dupliate the DMOZ. Advocacy sites aren't appropriate per WP:EL.  Links should also be internationally useful - a US site is useless for someone in Botswana.  Promotion can include self-promotion, not just sales.  People looking for information on osteoporosis should be able to find it on the wikipedia page and in the references.  WLU (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the logic is to find all information relevant to the topic on wikipedia alone, why have external references at all? The material on the NOF website is only educative, with information on prevention, treatment, current research etc, which should be useful to people all over the world.
 * You hit the nail on the head, see the nutshell for WP:EL - external links should be kept to a minimum, and should only really include links that add something beyond what a featured article would contain. Basically, in an ideal the EL section would include links to musical tracts, animations, extensive picture galleries and other information that can't be included because wikipedia pages are text-only or the material is copyright and can't be put on the page.  Otherwise, external links containing text-only should really be included as in-line citations rather than in the EL section.  Really useful links that summarize information across many articles are often found in infoboxes (see the infobox at the top of the osteoporosis page - links to encyclopedia-style articles from MedlinePlus and eMedicine).  But there's no real advantage to linking to these sites as external links if the page already contains an accurate depiction of all the extant information about the condition.  Why link to a large number of sources that duplicate page content?  Also, advocacy sites usually aren't included - they're either not informative (i.e. just exist to fundraise and possibly fund research or treatment), or their information is basic (as above) or their pages are linked as footnotes.  Links should help wikipedia as an encyclopedia, wikipedia should not help links get more hits.  If you're still curious about this, have a thorough read of WP:EL and some of the links to other pages it hosts.  It'll probably answer your questions more comprehensively than I.  WLU (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps an external link to NOF alone should suffice instead of the three links you have there. NOF's home page already has a link to Surgeon General's report, it has info on Diet, Nutrition and Prevention... many Risk Assessment Tools, support groups, an online health community, Osteoporosis research info relevant to patients AND health providers... this page doesn't even begin to cover all this (it would be unfair to even expect it to). The informaiton on the NOF website is anything but basic. It is also not an advocacy site. The only thing it advocates is good health. I end with this as I don't see anything else I can say to convince you. But, if the intention is to help people with osteoporosis or those who are at risk then I don't see harm in adding NOF (IOF and all relevant links) to the page. It's up to you now. Thank You.
 * The advantage is having one link taking readers to a single page with lots of extra info. If we have to put in three different links to three different sub-pages, or readers have to search the NOF site for the three documents, then there's no advantage.  The WHO/FAO report is the product of the international agency covering health, making it both international and of the highest standard.  The SG report is also a big-name report, though it's arguable that the WHO eclipses it, and based on this discussion I think there's merit to taking it off (in addition to being another 'encyclopedia' link, it's also specific country-specific).  NOF might have info on diet and nutrition and osteoporosis, but WHO has world-wide scope and quality.  The bone tool kit requires registration, so it's out, unless you were referring to a different tool.  It's not a matter of adding the link being 'harmful', it's a matter of every country with an NOF adding its link based on this one being present.  WLU (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)