# Links to personal blogs in docs **URL:** \ **Category:** Documentation\ **Created:** [June 25, 2026, 12:10am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/links-to-personal-blogs-in-docs/107890 "2026-06-25T00:10:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 9
**Author:** ![Rosuav](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/rosuav/32/3429_2.png) [@Rosuav](https://discuss.python.org/u/Rosuav)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 5:25am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/links-to-personal-blogs-in-docs/107890/9 "2026-06-25T05:25:53Z")
> [@BrenBarn](#): > > I think such links should be considered cautiously, but really in this case the inclusion of the “tip” itself seems questionable to me. Are we prepared to allow a bunch of similar tips to be sprinkled through the docs? Yes, yes we are. Tips like that can be extremely helpful. I’m not sure that the blog link is adding much (and there’s the mentioned risk of link rot), but the tip itself is definitely worth keeping. See discussions like [Renaming datetime.datetime to datetime.DateTime](https://discuss.python.org/t/renaming-datetime-datetime-to-datetime-datetime/26279) where the problem of “did you `import datetime` or `from datetime import datetime`?” is a very real risk; the best solution was to start recommending `import datetime as dt` which received broad support. My personal justification for removing the blog link would be link rot (both as a potential everywhere, and an inevitability when the docs are used offline - does anyone still do that?). Its core message is already in the tip, but if there’s anything that is considered missing without the link, I’d be inclined to add it to the tip directly, rather than keep the link. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/links-to-personal-blogs-in-docs/107890)._