Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 11

message: There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam about linking to a non-Wikimedia wiki. Looking at the criteria for links to wikis, here's what the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL says:
:"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
Any comments on what constitutes "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? Any other pages on Wikipedia where I might find information on this issue? Thanks, --A. B. 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed not that long ago, in a now-archived talk page, found here.  Generally, folks were concerned about weeding out links to wikis with factual inaccuracy/instability/unverified original research, and keeping links to wikis with WP:WEB-like authority. Schi 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As to the "substantial number of editors" question, the low end is pretty easy to recognise: I see lots of wikis added that appear (from the Recent Changes page) to have one to three contributors, and only a handful of edits in the last 30 days.  My read is that this is too few (and too inactive) editors to ensure reliability.  Of course, there is no easy way to draw a line on larger, but still small, numbers of editors.  Is 12 enough?  25?  You really have to start looking at the articles-- not a determination that can be made quickly or easily. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to look at the subject matter of the article as well.  I think the bar is a bit lower for independent video games then it might be for radical right/left-wing political wikis. ---J.S (t|c) 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur - I've removed several wikia.com links that appeared to be spam - no new content.  I was not aware of the affiliation between WP and wikia.com, but I know that the wikia.com pages are populated with Google Adsense ads.  There are currently over 3000 wikia.com links on WP .  I've seen some linked pages that appear trivial and even empty over at wikia.com (perhaps under construction). In other cases a one or two line article is created in WP with an external link to a larger article over at wikia.  Calltech 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask, is anyone else concerned that there are 3,343 outbound links from Wikipedia space to Wikia.com wikis?  Many of these are linking to wikis that have had less than 4 edits in the past 30 days.  So, that violates the current policy on External Links, but I'm not seeing much outcry or action to delete these links. --JossBuckle Swami 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating links to other wikis 

message: For viewing the film M, this edit replaced this link on tesla.liketelevision.com with this one on video.google.com. I'm wondering: do we favor one of these? Or is this link theft, pure and simple? I'm totally outside of my area here. (Certainly, it is appropriate to provide a link from an article on a film to somewhere you can watch the film for free.) - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja Vu time. If its a link to a blatant copyvio its not appropriate to link to it via WP:C. That's said, perhaps we should let the bickering over YouTube die down before we even begin to think about other videolinks providers. --Spartaz 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is either official?  I don't know anything about liketelevision.com. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video links 

message: Hello, I'm not sure if this is where I should be bringing up this issue. But I would like to make a written exception under Links Normally To Be Avoided-#10 to allow external links of a musical band's official Myspace. These sites are usually managed by the group themselves or someone close appointed by the group. Of course, the site must be official, and not a fan-made (unless it were maybe a verified official fanclub). I feel a band's Myspace can be just as important as their own official website, as news regarding the band, tourdates, and etc can be updated through them (causing many on the 'net to use a band's Myspace over their official dot-com to get the same, or even different, information). Additionally, bands put their songs up on their Myspace by their own will, so it is a link to quickly allows Wiki readers to gain access to hearing officially released material of the band as well. Again, I don't know if this is where I should be brining up this issue, so if it isn't, could someone lead me to where I should be? Thanks a lot! -- Shadowolf 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already covered: "Links normally to be avoided" starts with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid..." -- Mwanner | Talk 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I thought that was enough to cover it too, but I was confronted with this page by another Wikipedian when I placed an official Myspace link to a band, with my external link removed. So I think it might not be specific enough, and that might partly be due to MySpace  being more of a "service" that anyone can set up a page at, as opposed to an actual site owned by someone. I was thinking maybe add in a ",unless officially handled by the subject of the article" to #10 or something. -- Shadowolf 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, this is happening in a number of places.  Some clarity would be very useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone else have anything else to say? I would really like to see this done (having an "except those officially managed by the subject of the article" or such, under Links to Be Avoided #10). This here is actually a debate on a MySpace template, but a few of those arguments are from those who side-with/oppose the allowance of MySpace links altogether. The consensus does say "...in the understanding that in certain cases, myspace links are inherently useful and permissible under policy", so I think this also backs up the idea to allow MySpace linking (as does "except for a link ...an official page of the subject of the article" in the External Link guidelines). -- Shadowolf 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to MySpace should be avoided, unless there is a very compelling reason, such as a MySpace page of a celebrity (providing, of course, that there is no doubt that it is of that celebrity). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what I'm saying. I think we should allow external links to the official MySpace of a band, celebrity, or whoever is the subject of the Wiki article. However, there are some people who have taken Links to Be Avoided #10 to mean that all MySpace links should be avoided, so I wish to make it more clear by making it something like: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace, except those officially managed by the subject of the article), discussion forums or USENET." -- Shadowolf 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Shadowolf, there used to be a clause at the end of the blogs/MySpace bullet point that said "unless mandated by the article itself".  This was much more confusingly worded than your suggestion, but both exception clauses are confusing because it implies that all the other items in the list under "Links normally to be avoided" don't share the same exception.  That's why we agreed to put the exception at the top of the list - because it applies all the time.  But I agree with you, there's clearly rampant misunderstanding about it, so perhaps we could revise to: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (As is the case for any type of link that may otherwise be normally avoided, official sites managed by the the subject of the article are acceptable.)"  A bit wordy, perhaps... schi talk 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, that does make sense, and I could understand how adding this exception could probably cause some cluttering of "exceptions" in the future as well. But yeah, I think the matter should be worked on, because it is presenting a problem for some people (as it presented one for me). Your suggestion sounds good, and we could work with that (and trim it down as necessary as possible). I think an alternative way to approach this also, is to reword the first sentence at the top. Looking at it now, I feel it does not emphasize directly that there are exceptions to those rules, making it a little confusing. The line "...is an official page of the subject of the article" could simply imply the official dot-com website, but may not apply to networking sites (like Myspace) officially managed by a group. All in all, the first sentence might be a little vague. (Thanks for working with me here) -- Shadowolf 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Myspace 

message: I think we have lost sight of what, I believe, is the real point of "which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article", which is that if the information can be added to the article, it should be (though re-written); it then becomes a source for the article.  In other words, links should not be to pages that are, in themselves, good, encyclopedic treatments of the subject.  
Now, this is all very well for a  Wikipedia article that is well along in it's development, though when an article is stubby, this notion is not especially realistic.  I have been debating whether we should introduce language into the guideline dealing with this new-article/mature-article difference-- it has some potential to open the gates to a lot of links that will become inappropriate as the article matures.  Any thoughts on how or whether to incorporate such an approach? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles vs. mature articles

message: I believe the following incorporates the current consensus text with text some editors want to add to the introduction, so I propse we make the opening:
*Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to accurate, on-topic, in context and functional web pages outside Wikipedia that contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. The criteria for such linking is below. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article. 2005 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this covers both phrasing people have been talking about.  Perhaps the "the criteria..." sentence could be better worded, but I think this includes the different concepts editors have voiced support for. 2005 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. It does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining two strains of thought

message: :Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
This is unneccessary instruction creep. Some people use Wikipedia with screenreaders. Should we avoid linking to any site that is not compatible with screenreaders? This is just ridiculous and doesn't help our mission...Stevage 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest replacing it with something along the lines of "refrain from linking to large documents and web pages where a reasonable alternative exists." Fagstein 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Why should the length of the page come into it? Wikipedia pages themselves are frequently enormous, it seems utterly arbitrary and pointless to discourage linking to such pages. We should link or not link on a case-by-case basis based on the value of the link - not on some arbitrary condition. Stevage 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete... 

message: Sorry if this is not entirely the correct place for posting this. This article on an old abandonware DOS game contains IMHO an inordinate amount of links to download sites for the game. This type of thing is not not what EL's are meant for and IMHO should ALL be removed, but I thought I'd post here first to get a response and maybe pose a question: should the guideline include specific mention prohibiting posting links to download sites (for the sake of the argument assume copyright is NOT the issue i.e. only freeware, open source and shareware is linked)? While it may be useful for the reader to download an old game/program he's interested in, in terms of the encyclopaedia the link does not provide "information that extends the article". Thoughts? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Talk is mostly for discussing the guidelines, not if a page meets the guidelines - that should normally occur on the Talk page of the page in question.  However, you're asking if the guideline should specifically mention download sites.  I'm not sure - certainly that particular page has too many download and other ELs (though a couple of them are ok) - "Wikipedia is not a directory".  But I wouldn't rule out all download links per se.  For example, the Emacs page could reasonably include a link to a download of Emacs (it actually has an EL to a page that maintains a list of implementations, but you get the idea).  I'd say discouraged in general, but not absolute ban.  Whether that should translate into any wording in WP:EL... I'm not sure, IMO.  jesup 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, they shouldn't be there, especially if they're links to copyrighted software. "Abandonware" or not, we don't have the right to unilaterally violate licenses. Our goal here is also not to promote software, merely to describe it. Fagstein 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator]] 

message: What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Wikipedia fraternity or sorority article such as Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi?  Is this appropriate at all?  Metros232 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, no - WP:NOT: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.  Huge lists of chapters and alumni isn't appropriate.  Some notable alumni would be ok, or a category for alumni.  Long lists of chapters and dates (and probably extensive lists of alums) should be on their own pages; that's not encyclopedic content.  IMHO.   jesup 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think a table of chapters with links is a great resource. Squidfryerchef 05:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resource?  Sure, for the frat members.  Encyclopedic?  No.  Just because something is useful as a web resource doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia page.  This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of facts.  It should be on their own page(s). —  jesup 05:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraternities and sororities 

message: I just removed a commercial link added to this talk page (which seems to me to miss the point in really quite spectacular fashion) but I find the editor has on their talk page the same link: listed about five times in succession with different comments, so apparently an attempt to promote something. This policy doesn't seem to apply. Can anyone suggest a different one that does? Notinasnaid 11:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious commercial links on user talk pages/user pages 

message: Am i free to link to commercial site from my home page? exmaple (link removed) or (link removed) --Darrendeng 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the links are not contributing to the encyclopedia and are not linking to something about you, I would personally take the view that they are only there for advertising and are not permissible. --Spartaz 09:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal page is yours to do with whatever you wish that does not disrupt wikipedia.  Links are not disruptive.  You can link to anything you wish. Wjhonson 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, be careful.  see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Conex_India.  Blatant advertising and spamming -- as this site has an established reputation for on wikipedia, is not welcome anywhere.  user pages included.  I've removed the links above.  ∴ here…♠ 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the link constitutes advertising, it should be removed, notwithstanding Wjhonson's opinion. --Improv 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My personal talk page 

message: On the project page is a template "There was recently a change in policy or guideline on this page.", but when I click the link, I'm not directed to an appropriate talk page section... Which recent change was meant? Shinobu 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change? 

message: I have made a proposal on the proposal pump on this issue. It would be good if we could get people to give comments (but make sure all talk is there, or at least in one place). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wikimyspace" 

message: There seem to be some changes going on, and I don't wanna edit the page at all. This is just an FYI that a References section needs to be added (or the cite.php removed from the "Hijacked Websites" section). --Ling.Nut 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: internal cite in "Hijacked Websites" section; no refs section 

message: The formulation that user 2005 keep reverting back to is not a consensus version. This guideline was substantially changed in the last four weeks, as per the disclaimer tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you provide us with what you consider to be the last consensus text?  Or are you reverting back 4 weeks?  The lastest revision to the intro above has received no comments.  Add a reference to WP:CITE if you must.  2005, comments above? ∴ here…♠ 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You know that is not true.  Shame on you.  The consensus text is plainly available, having been there for a long time before Jossi decided to ignore everyone on the planet. (The word "anonymous" is nowhere in the document in June or February.  That is the reality.) Jossi your behavior is unfathomable. Just because YOU decide you don't agree with something doesn't mean there has not been a consensus, and it certainly does not mean YOUR opinion is the one that should be placed in a document just because it is YOUR opinion. 2005 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will obviously not respond to your uncivil comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User:2005, if you want to create your own version, please get consensus for it on Talk. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version 2005 has reverted to isn't "his version", it's much closer to how this page has been for a while.  The version jossi keeps reverting to has new material that to my knowledge has never been in the guideline, and has minimal support (and in the absence of consensus for change, it should be left how it was previously).  Besides jossi and Jayjg, who supports that version?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history, a number of other editors, including MusicalLinguist and SlimVirgin. Aside from you, who else supports 2005's version? Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin supports the mention of anonymous sites, but as far as I can tell, never commented on the opening passage - that makes three, hardly a consensus when at least that many oppose it.  MusicalLinguist didn't mention the opening or anonymous websites so I'm not sure why you even mention him/her, the comment was about blogs, which are generally forbidden in either version.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you missed this edit by Musical Linguist, which puts your various claims in perspective. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it seems yet another administrator opposes 2005's version, as he has just reverted you. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Milo: solid arguments have been presented for the inclusion of a statement about anonymous websites as well as for a small adjustment to the lead. Can these be discussed on their merits? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What fascinates me is that all the longer-term editors and administrators support the current version, whereas a couple of newer, non-administrators support User:2005's version. What do Milo and 2005 make of this? Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see either of those two supporting the edit to the opening.  Is there anyone besides you two in favor?  And I don't see the significance of whether someone is an admin or not making their opinion worth more.  I'm trying to discuss this on its merits, look at the page above.  What policy forbids linking to anonymous material?  It keeps getting argued that the reason for the addition is making it match "policy".  So where is it?  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Numerous arguments have been made showing why the anonymous section makes no sense but you continue to not comment on any of these and instead rudely keep adding text you have refused to discuss.  Until you present any rationale for adding a completely new concept to the guideline, you need to offer some logical reason, and then get consensus on it.  Just to be clear, the addition of this clause had absolutely ZERO discusssion before it was added, repeatedly.  2005 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User Jayjg, what is the point of you making up this nonsense.  The edit history is right there to be seen by anyone who chooses to act in good faith.  the anonymous section was never in this guideline... which is a Wikipedia guideline, not "mine".  At this point you seem to not care about the dozens of editors who have contributed to this guideline over time, or those who worked on achieving a consensus again recently, but no matter how much you hate it, other people's opinions count.  Other people matter, not just you two.  Learn to cooperate, and learn to respect the view of others.  You want to change a longstanding guideline, then make a case, don't just make up nonsense. 2005 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? easy. A Wikipedia article needs to contain verifiable and good quality information, is it not? After all this is an encyclopedia. Can you tell me how can we assure our readers that a website that we are linking to from an article on Judaism, for example, contains solid, verifiable and accurate information, if we cannot assess the website's author knowledge, relevance, authority on the subject? If you disagree with this, could you please explain in which cases an unverifiable anonymous website in the EL is good for an article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And by the way, in case t=you missed it, this guideline does not forbid anything. It simply provides some basic non-binding guidelines about which links to include and which to avoid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wasn't that obvious, I'm not sure why the page was unprotected in the first place.  It's a shame that people have to edit war over it instead of getting consensus for changes.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good thing that you recognize your actions as edit warring. Note: it takes two, not one, to edit war. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you care to weigh in on the guideline itself?  New voices would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why the mischaracterization?  It is not an "edit war" to ask for consensus on the wording of a guideline that says it has consensus!  Let's stay on track here.  If any editors want to fundementally change the wording of a wikipedia guideline, on a page that says it has CONSENSUS, they need to actually get a consensus.  Enough of this silliness.  This page should be reverted to the stable version that had a consensus, permanently protected, and any changes to it should only be made after a consensus is achieved for a change. 2005 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus