May 2022
edit
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Infrastructure as code. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Testing IaC is a part of IaC as well as any other. I added the section because I feel it's relevant for understanding IaC. If you look for citations you'll find the links I added. I don't understand how it is promotion and how the nofollow matters. Google "Testing IaC" ot "Testing Infrastructure as Code" and you'll get the results I got. WULRON (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Marketing materials such a company blog posts are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Many things (perhaps even most things) that you find on Google will not be reliable sources. Please read WP:RS for information on what types of sources should be used on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for that, the WP:RS page says "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available." And I would if they were available in this case. Testing IaS methods exist in the wild and it seems like engineers talk about it online, not academia or journalists. It's hard for me to understand why no mention of a real thing is better than having less than perfect citations. That's all WULRON (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- "e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page" - that's not what you were using. MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then please explain how nothing at all is better than something with less than perfect - but still good - citation? WULRON (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a 'less than perfect - but still good' citation. It's using an advertisement as a cite. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which one was the advertisement? I couldn't make out any obvious relation to products. The sources listed products like terraform but terraform is very common and also listed in the table that's in the article. WULRON (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- meshcloud.io's blog. Are you associated with meshcloud in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's literally what comes up when googling "testing infrastructure as code". I took that as a sign of relevance WULRON (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- meshcloud.io's blog. Are you associated with meshcloud in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which one was the advertisement? I couldn't make out any obvious relation to products. The sources listed products like terraform but terraform is very common and also listed in the table that's in the article. WULRON (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a 'less than perfect - but still good' citation. It's using an advertisement as a cite. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then please explain how nothing at all is better than something with less than perfect - but still good - citation? WULRON (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- "e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page" - that's not what you were using. MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for that, the WP:RS page says "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available." And I would if they were available in this case. Testing IaS methods exist in the wild and it seems like engineers talk about it online, not academia or journalists. It's hard for me to understand why no mention of a real thing is better than having less than perfect citations. That's all WULRON (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Marketing materials such a company blog posts are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Many things (perhaps even most things) that you find on Google will not be reliable sources. Please read WP:RS for information on what types of sources should be used on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)