Jump to content

Talk:List of Internet exchange points

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to editors of IXP article

[edit]
IXP name
File:An image
Full nameIXP's full name
Abbreviationabbreviation
Foundedyear founded
Locationlocation
Websitewebsite url
Membersmembers
Portsports
Peakpeak traffic
Peak inpeak traffic in
Peak outpeak traffic out
Daily (avg.)daily traffic
Daily in (avg.)daily traffic in
Daily out (avg.)daily traffic out

Hi guys, just noticed that there is a template for IXP articles, please use it at the beginning of your articles:

Template:Infobox Internet exchange point

Thanks! --Never stop exploring (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2015.

That template seems like it is intended for use in articles about individual IXPs and not for use in a list of IXPs article such as this one. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Earlier today User:Stesmo made two edits that deleted all of the links to the official websites of the IXPs listed in the article. The edit summaries said:

  • Removed external links in body of article WP:EL and EL Issues tag.
  • Removed "Website" from header

A bit later I reverted the two edits with an edit summary that said:

revert two previous edits based on WP:IAR; there was useful information there that we don't want to lose, perhaps these could be made into refs or perhaps we should ignore the rules here, but we need to find a better solution than simply deleting info

And shortly after that User:Stesmo restored his changes with an edit summary that said:

REverting addition of spam and other external links. Take it to the EL noticeboard or have WP:EL changed.

He also added the following comment on my talk page:

June 2015: Information icon Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of List of Internet exchange points. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To which I replied:

@Stesmo: Lets take this discussion to the article's talk page. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the links that were deleted should be restored in some fashion. I don't think those external links are SPAM. I think they provide useful information. I don't want to lose that information. I feel we need to find some other solution here than simply deleting the information from the article. I do not see that having those links in the article causes a serious problem. I think we need to ask what we accomplish by keeping or deleting the links rather than simply applying a general rule blindly. Is the article more useful to potential readers with or without the links? I'll note that we are not just talking about a few links, but many dozens. I'll also note that the links have been in the article for quite some time (since at least 2008), so I don't see any rush to remove them now. This is a big change and one that deserves some meaningful discussion here before we delete such a large amount of information. I do think that this is an appropriate time to apply WP:IAR. I hope other editors will comment. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, whatever is your outcome, I converted all the countries to the flag symbols and listed the websites for the ones which where not available, actually I only had to search for a few but it's a PITA because you don't know what's going on with some IXPs in a country or they even don't have a website (there I used the peering-db entry) feel free to delete also the whole list if you're up to. I volunteer for www.peeringdb.com, but actually this list was the only complete IXP list worldwide, based on what's out there from NSRC, but even they have duplicate entries in their database, but after I added the content I realized it became a primary source. But hey, I don't give a stone for that and before I forget, please update the INTRODUCTION, thanks :) --Never stop exploring (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Editors! After seeing the dozens (hundred+?) of External Links in the this List article, I immediately realized this article was not meeting WP:EL. External links should not be in the body of the article and Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Solutions would include moving these links to cites (but they were pointing to the subject of the list entry, not to a reliable source showing notability, etc.), moving them to the EL section at the end of the article (which would satisfy the "not in the body" problem, but would still keep all other problems (link repository, runs afoul of the spirit as well as the letter of WP:EL, I would need to justify the inclusion of each link per WP:EL ("The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."), etc.) or remove the links. And, I obviously went with removal. An often recommended solution for editors who feel external links provide value, but they are too numerous or don't meet WP:EL is to add the links to DMOZ or other external directory and link to that collection in the EL section with the {{DMOZ}} template. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus is that such links do not belong in articles, and that they are especially problematic in lists.
That said, what information common to each and every link is so important? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Jeff Ogden (W163) that these links are useful. I'm willing to compromise with Stesmo and replace all of these links with a link or two to an external directory.
However, I hear that some people (Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 34#Open Directory Project (DMOZ)) seem to think that DMOZ is "obsolete", so I worry that, just as Stesmo made well-meaning edits getting rid of those links, some other well-meaning editor will delete all the links to DMOZ.
At the moment I think reformatting all those links as footnoted citations may be a good idea. The WP:EL guideline specifically mentions that WP:EL does not apply to footnoted citations. The WP:NOTEWORTHY guideline specifically says that, once notability of the list as a whole has been shown, notability guidelines do not apply to items on a list. The WP:SELFSOURCE does allow self-published sources, if certain criteria are met, to be used as references, and it appears to me that these criteria are all met in this particular case.
--DavidCary (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatting as footnotes/refs seems like a good compromise. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and restored the links as refs as suggested by DavidCary. The refs are mostly just bare URLs now since that is all we had from before the References column was removed. It would be good to add expanded ref descriptions, but I'm out of energy to do that right now. Others should feel free to do or start that work, if they have some time and interest. I'll probably get to it myself, eventually. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on removing entries

[edit]

Hello Community,

is there any procedure to remove entries from this list? I am working the industry in SEA and I see many wrong entries, or entries to entities who never did or no longer provide any IX service. Please let me know if it is okay to remove those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaertner.mike (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any special policy about this. If there is inaccurate or obsolete information in an article, it is fine for an editor to correct or update the article. If there are IXPs that existed at one time, but no longer exist today, it might be better to move them to the inactive list or to add a comment to the table that says "(no longer operational)", "(never became operational)", or "(merged with xxx in xxxx)" rather than just deleting the entry. The later could be an addition to the end of the name column or you could add a new status column. And as always a good edit summary that explains the changes is always helpful. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of overlap between List of Internet exchange points and List of Internet exchange points by size. I suggest we merge all that information into one article, using Help:Table#Sortable tables so people who want the list sorted by size can do that. --DavidCary (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The scope of the articles is different, this list is intended to contain all IXes, while List of Internet exchange points by size is intended to contain largest IXes by size (current criterion is more than 10 Gbit/s) and more detailed data for these IXes.--Jklamo (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Jklamo, the scope is entirely different. A lot of exchanges in the general list here have average traffic in the 0.1Gbps range and below; in the By Size list, the lowest one listed is 7Gbps. MureninC (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Jklamo, the scope is entirely different. Can we remove the Merge tag?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You all convinced me there is less overlap than I thought. So I removed the merge tags. --DavidCary (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of Internet exchange points. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate tables by continent

[edit]

If this table was split into separate tables by continent, editing would be faster and easier, and readers would find it easier, too. This table has a substantial number of linkrot URLs, which could be corrected or, in some instances, marked as a dead link. What do other editors advise?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of Internet exchange points. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Internet exchange points. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup reasons

[edit]
  • cleanup|reason=use of tables in the absence of sortable quantifiable data is questionable; consider using sections instead.|date=December 2015
  • cleanup|reason=name of each IXP should be a direct link to an official site only if they lack a wikipedia page (other official site links/refs should be removed as redundant).|date=December 2015

Cleanup reasons on Article page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Internet exchange points. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Internet_exchange_points&oldid=1202962772"