Generally we would prefer to link to on-wiki content rather than to remote sites, but I get the point here about a quick contact list. I was wondering, though, whether it might be a good idea to rename as something like "Contact list..." and put email addresses (if public) directly on the page? --Skud (talk) 04:18, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at some more stuff in RecentChanges, I'm concerned about the layout of this list overall. I've posted on Marinaz's user talk page, here: ... but basically I would like to propose that lists on this wiki (especially ones like "List of ...") should primarily link to on-wiki resources, and use normal wikilinks that show redlinks for missing pages. This would be a good way to help show what pages are needed, in the normal wiki way. We can also use categories where appropriate. If a page is primarily intended as a contact list, that's something else again. I wouldn't mind if we created "Contact list for X" on the wiki that primarily contained a table of eg. org name, email, twitter, etc, but I firmly believe that this should not replace wiki-style "List of X". Another possibility we might consider is an infobox-style template for organisations that lists their website, twitter, facebook, and other online presences in a highly visible form. (Now I'm suddenly wishing for semantic mediawiki, which would then let us query and generate tables from those infoboxes. Oh well.) --Skud (talk) 04:32, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
Skud's thoughts seem about right to me. I'm more ambivalent when it's about individual people — we don't always keep people's bio pages up to date well and that can be harmful/annoying to them — but when it comes to groups, I don't really have that issue. It could, possibly, help to have a link next to any redlinked org name, which would provide a pointer to someone wanting to fill out a page for that org. Thayvian (talk) 04:46, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
*nodnod* Yeah, I agree that offsite links are useful sometimes, especially if it's to something that's unlikely to get its own page here. I think the logic should go something like: 1. Got a page on the wiki? Link to it. 2. Is it a page we might want to have on the wiki? Redlink it (and link the website adjacent if you like, for the convenience of readers and potential future editors). 3. If it's not something we'd want to have a page for on the wiki, just link externally (eg. individual people who aren't especially notable for geek feminism purposes, or a software project that hasn't been especially newsworthy in geek feminist circles). --Skud (talk) 05:03, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.