Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 3

message: How can i link to a Microsoft Media Services-Windows Media Video file? eg  -- 172.178.207.199 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mms://...wmv 

message: Many people advocate that there should only be one or two links to a website in an article about that site.  But, if we really want to be citing our sources, is that a good idea?  Why should we limit the number of links when we have the oportunity to cite sources?
Does anyone seriously contend that the foundational directive to cite sources doesn't override the external links style guides in such cases? --James S. 09:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about websites: citing primary sources versus only one link to site 

message: I went through and deleted approximately 200 links to petitiononline.com several months ago.  There are once again several hundred articles -- different articles -- linking to this site.  I believe these are being added manually, but that doesn't change the fact that these petitions are inherently unencyclopedic.  Anyone can create a petition at this site, there is no authentication of the creator or the signers, there is no end time, and there is no mechanism in place for the petition to actually get sent to anyone.  Furthermore, nobody pays the least bit of attention to them.  I had blacklisted the site at one point on meta but the blacklisting was removed on the grounds that there are a handful of articles on topics where online petitions became unusually notable for some reason.
In any case, I'd encourage people to remove these on sight, and would like to suggest that we add online petitions to the category of things we don't link to, for clarity.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scanning the database, there are 121 links to this site, you could whiz through these with WP:AWB in a matter of minutes. Martin 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petitiononline.com 

message: Hi. There are currently 5,760 links to amazon.com . Is this acceptable? My second question is - can someone explain how to identify an affiliate link from a normal amazon link? -- Jim182 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These links are not acceptable to me.  For books, we should just give the ISBN which adds a link to Wikipedia:Book sources.  From there, people can choose whichever source they prefer.  For CDs, I'm not sure if we have an equivalent, but don't think an Amazon link is appropriate. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon affiliate links have the person's user ID in the URL. For example, mine (without the initial URL; I'm not posting this for link-spam) is /exec/obidos/redirect-home/evulaslair-20 (emphasis mine). For a link to a particular item (in this case, HHGttG on DVD) is /exec/obidos/ASIN/B000A283AW/evulaslair-20, though it is possible for a string of letters/numbers/both to come after the affiliate bit. Basically, if you see "anything-20" in the URL, it's an associate link; terminate with extreme prejudice. EVula 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes; guideline 6 suggests avoiding "[s]ites that primarily exist to sell products or services." A link to a bookstore should be removed unless the article is about the bookstore. See also Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. --Muchness 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'd replaced an Amazon link with an ISBN, but another editor added the Amazon link back in claiming it offered useful information... I think that's a weak rationale. Шизомби 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon.com 

message: Hello, a question of links to a site which requires payment for viewing of its contents has recently arisen in regards to the Lincoln LS article. A user posted a link to the Lincoln LS Owners Club (LSOC) web-site. This web-site has caused some controversy since most parts of the site are for "members-only" and thereby require payment. Is there any policy stating wheteher or not it is acceptable to have a link to such a site, which requires a certain type of membership for the viewing of most of its contents? FYI: Here is the link to the LSOC web-site. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the guideline; Links to normally avoid; "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" Martin 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this particular case, however, there's considerable "relevant content" available for free to nonmembers.  The FAQ alone meets the criterion of having extensive information that's more detailed than we'd want in our article. The presence of additional information that's not generally available doesn't diminish the value of the parts that anyone can access. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Paid Sites 

message: I was looking at this page today and the External.png image at the top looks ( in my opinion ) a bit pixaled and ugly. Do you think it would be worth getting a copy of it in SVG or a similar format ? I had a go at creating it in Inkscape but it turned out a bit crooked ( as a PNG ). --2mcmGespräch 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to look like that.  It's an enlargement of the external link symbol used by Wikipedia, and intentionally kept at the same pixel aspect, just as an article about an old Mario game might intentionally have an enlarged Mario sprite at the same pixel aspect.  Coyoty 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mario game I can understand, because that's a gamesprite, and it wouldn't show up looking the same if you made it smooth. The external link symbol is not of this type. So please, do elaborate why. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I like the clean look better as well. Sorry, but to my eye a pixelated enlargement looks like a mistake. Those of us who appreciate the geek background may understand why it's pixelated, but a clean enlargement looks more professional to the average user. Is this a policy, or a tradition? Is there another example of an enlarged wiki graphic intentionally left pixelated? Carboncopy 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you look at the unenlarged version as an external link, what you see is an arrow coming out of a box. You don't normally think of it being pixelated. The brain fills in the missing information between the pixels; the vector graphic is identifiable as the original; the pixelated enlargment is unintelligible and ugly. "It's not supposed to look better?" What kind of argument is that? - Rainwarrior 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong preference for the SVG version here. The pixelated version doesn't look like anything at all. Stevage 08:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only reverted the change to the smooth version because it wasn't clear Havoc was aware of this discussion.  I don't care much one way or the other about the artistic style, especially since this isn't an actual article page. —johndburger 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you do not need to discuss the matter either. Havok (T/C/c) 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The External.png image in the top paragraph 

message: Tim Long (contributions) has been adding ELs to findagrave.com entries for a number of famous dead people. I was initially turned off by the site due to annoying banner ads and popup windows that firefox couldn't block. That said, I was curious if these links are good enough to include here. I noticed his addition to the Jesus page was reverted (they are aiming for FA status, and have a pretty strict EL policy). I would propose that all of these additions be reverted, but I wanted to come here and see if this was covered by policy, and if others agreed or disagreed with me. --Andrew c 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to like, since findagrave.com is so full of ads. Plus, why link? Just mention the burial location in the article. "Joe Smith died at a poker table in Reno, Nevada. He is buired in Plot C of the Riverview branch of The Eternal Resting cemetary in Carson City, Nevada." Cite findagrave.com as a reference, if you want. -- Mikeblas 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  findagrave.com 

message: I have noticed that some people are inserting links to YouTube videos in articles about singers or bands. I am torn at this moment: promotional videos are promotional, but the links are just link and aren't specified as the guidelines state. So far, I am being bold and removing them as I see linking to them a way of increasing the popularity of the owner's videos. What is the community thought about this? I am doing something similar www.videouncovered.com, which  has been inserting into every article (around 90% of his edits are adding links to the site). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube should be linked only if it has some specific relevance to the article, such as the actual video an article is about, or footage of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction in an article where it's a significant point.  Even then, there may be copyright issues if the YouTube clip violates copyright, because once you link to it, it becomes Wikipedia content as well and may not qualify as fair use.  Coyoty 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same questions about clevver.com.   While videos are promotional, they're still intellectual property that's owned by someone who probably wishes to exercise their right over the redistribution of the property. That is, have all the record companies given all their rights for those videos over to YouTube and Clevver? If not, I don't think Wikipedia should be linking to them. -- Mikeblas 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube linking 

message: I'm a little surprised that there isn't an official policy saying that there shouldn't be any links to attack pages, by which I mean pages created specifically to disparage their subjects, with no othere content on them. Would anyone want to consider adding that? --InShaneee 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attack pages can (partially) consist of reputable sources or selective excerpts from reputable sources. Andries 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so they could make for possible references...but what about simply dropping a link to the page as a whole in the 'external links' section of a page? --InShaneee 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair I have to state that I am affiliated with an attack page i.e. exbaba.com. I always felt that, though this may not be supported by policy that the criteria for inclusion in the external link section is much more lenient than everywhere else. However if there is scholarly or scientific consensus about a certain subject and the external link does not represent a significant minority view then I think that deletion may be appropriate. Andries 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you're suggesting that such links may be used to bolster an argument, but not as an example of the argument itself? --InShaneee 23:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is what I mean if I understand your question well. Andries 06:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack pages 

message: There is currently a red hot debate on whether to have any links on the RuneScape article, Wikipedia's most edited Game article (More edits than Michael Jackson!) The debate is about whether to bring back a single fanite link and really you have to see the discussion to understand What is going on. The link is found      here. Please give advice on what is right either there, or here. J.J.Sagnella 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice Needed. 

message: I'd like to add "Anonymous sites of unknown origin." to the list of "Links to normally avoid".
What do you think about that? Raphael1 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous sites 

message: The Talk:Spore (video game) page could use some input on it's external links section discussion (specifically on xspore) to decide what should be done here.  All the information necessary is just a short read, we could use comments of other editors to get this sorted out.  If there is a better place to mention this, let me know.  Chris M. 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current state of the article's external links section looks fine to me: it has the official site, a forum that's notable within the Spore community, and a fan wiki included per talk page consensus. Further fansites (e.g., xSpore) should not be added without prior consensus on the talk page to add them. --Muchness 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing comments from people who follow this policy 

message: I noticed the recent change from:
5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
to:
5. Pages with advertising unless the page is the official home page of the organization, person, or other entity that is the subject of the Wikipedia article on which the external link exists (as prescribed in the "What should be linked to" section above).
I'm wondering why this change was made. The exception it now describes is redundant, but what it described before was pages that may be relevant but had too much advertising on them. The reason I'm asking is that there are very many good sites with great information on them that have a little bit of advertising on them. Are we to avoid them now if they have any advertising at all? It seems that this excludes a lot of resources that could be useful. - Rainwarrior 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of advertising and the web is a very large one. While only linking to advertising-free sites is an honorable goal, is it realistic in today's monitized web? If information is what Wikipedia is about, then any site should be evaluated on the quality of the information first, the amount of advertising second. A blanket "don't link to sites with advertising" is probably too simplistic. Carboncopy 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concerns. I've restored the previous wording for now, and invited the user who made the change to this discussion. - EurekaLott 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases, pages with relevant information but too much advertising can be used as references in the article instead of external links. As for the others, maybe a warning about the amount of advertisment could be added? -- ReyBrujo 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made the change and would argue that since Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, it should deprecate links to sites with any product advertising (with the stated exception). The guidelines make it clear that this is not an absolute rule in any case. Also, who is to say what is an "objectionable amount"?  To argue that "the Web is what it is is and therefore ...." is no argument at all. If Wikipedia takes a stand, it will make a difference! Peak 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I am a more pragmatic (well, cynical, really). Wikipedia seeks to be the free repository of information. The web is much more: information, communication--and commerce. Commerce is a latecomer, but it has driven the web to be the cultural force that it is today.  I see little hope in extracting that commerce component at this late stage.  To insist that we link to either the commercial-free parts of the web or link to nothing at all leaves too much behind. OTOH, certainly we can set a policy that favors sites with the least commercialization when choices exist.  And I agree that defining "objectionable amount" is difficult, but that is where the consensus mechanism will have to do its work.  --Carboncopy 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to normally avoid: advertising 

message: I have added "Partisan websites" with only a small number of followers to the links to avoid. While it is useful to link to popular conceptions there is little value to link to a minor activism website. One should use a well-known exponent of opinion. Dr Zak 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's best left to individual editorial judgement.  In some cases, certain articles are inherently about rather fringe views.  So, some links may be essential to give some balance.  Such partisan sites may be invalid as a source for the article, but I don't see how they can't ever be given as links.  Also, there's a pretty common tendancy for people to think the opposing side is always the "fringe" side.  We already tell people to use external links selectively, and not for self-promotion, so I don't see the need for this.  To me, a reasonable example is an article on the political parties of a particular jurisdiction, where don't yet have articles on the individual parties.  It would seem necessary for balance to link to all registered parties, if any are linked to.  --Rob 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that if there is a choice of websites supporting a certain fringe view one should pick a popular one, not one of minor importance that just repeats what everyone else says. Dr Zak 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with the last change, it still needs to make that clear.  The fact a site is partisan, and small in an absolute sense, isn't really the issue in that case.  It's the relative size, given other available links.  That falls under the category of redundant links (already discouraged).  I just have this fear, that somebody in the future, won't see your intent, and will use this page, as an excusive to remove a link based on political dislike of a group (but keep their own groups).  --Rob 07:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the addition is redundant with existing guidelines, and I've edited the page accordingly (diff). Feel free to revert if my edit was in error. --Muchness 09:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan websites 

message: Hi all. What do people think about linking to lyrics sites? I think it should be discouraged. Lyrics sites are limited on encyclopedic content, and are easily found using a search engine. The sites themselves are usually copyright violations as well. Thoughts? ~MDD4696 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They often fail WP:EL for having "objectional amounts of advertising".  Linking to lyrics posted on a band's own webpage should be fine, however.  Jkelly 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even when they don't have advertising (I've run across a couple), how do the lyrics add to a article? If you're linking from an album page, discussing the songs, or pointing at something in the writing, then it might be useful to use a lyrics page as a reference more than as something that you'd set in the EL section.  I've been trying to clean up a number of band pages lately, and so far it seems that sometimes the lyrics pages matter, but more often they're just included with 30 other EL to fan sites and blogs out of a misguided sense of "fairness" --Xinit 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that lyrics sites redistribute material protected by copyright and should not be allowed. The lyrics are the intellectual property of the author of the song, and most artists (or publishers, or whoever turns out to own the copyright) would defend their rights over the material. Unfortunately, it's easy to find lots of links to lyrics sites from articles in the encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia should add lyrics sites to the spam blacklist, so that such links are rejected. -- Mikeblas 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty well on point here. Unless the lyrics are on the artist's site, it is almost certainly copyright infringement (which is why the sites they're on have tons of questionable advertising), so they shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia. Fagstein 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics Sites 

message: Susanf 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory to the web. If we list every tourism site on the web, in every article in which it is relevant, then we will have our articles overwhelmed by external links. Our editors also will have to regularly check whether the sites are still running and relevent to the articles. It makes much more sense for us to link only to a very small number of external sites (other than those we use directly as references), such as the government websites. On the Italy article at the moment, I see quite a lot of government websites (probably more than we need), and only seven others. Some of those seven others might be better put in subarticles.-gadfium 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-inclusion of the site ultimateitaly.com 

message: The external links section for this article is too big and should be toned down. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Please discuss this on the article talk page.
I created this since many of the articles I work with sometimes overflow with external links. Comments, suggestions etc. is much appreciated. Havok (T/C/c) 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a  tag. -- ReyBrujo 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see that, sorry. Now I know. I would also say they are two different things. Mine says the section is to big, the  one talks about there being "spam" i the section. Havok (T/C/c) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The two templates are approaching different problems. The cleanup-spam template asks editors to remove commercial links, and links added for promotional purposes. It deals with the WP:SPAM policy. The newer External links template is commenting on the style policy. Ideally there should be no need for two templates to achieve the same effect. However, currently this new template offers something that cleanup-spam doesn't - removal of excessive non-spam linkcruft. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the :Template:External links is to stay, I suggest renaming it to :Template:Cleanup-el or similar, to group it as a clean up template. -- ReyBrujo 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, since it is section-oriented, maybe it would be better to make it section specific, or at least dual. In example, instead of for this article,  for this article or section. And add a Please to the last sentence, otherwise it seems an order which may be misunderstood by newbies. Also, it should give the option to act, not only discuss (in example, Please trim the external links section down or discuss about it in the Talk page. -- ReyBrujo 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to help me word it better. I'll look at other ways of showing it in the articles aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links warning 

message: I've spent some time recently removing links to the following online convertor tools:   from over a dozen pages, like inch and area.  I wonder if folks here agree that this is proper.  These links are not classic spam, and are perhaps arguably useful.  However, my reasoning is that these links do not in fact add any additional information to the articles in question, and it bothers me that the same link is many different articles.  (FYI, there are still remaining links to these convertors, and I suspect there might be similar links added to, say, currency, or peso.)  Thanks in advance for your reply.  —johndburger 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to convertors, calculators, etc. 

message: What do you think about :Template:YouTube? I was not sure whether to post this in EL, FU or TM. Is this template regarding video founds in YouTube useful, or may it bring abuse? -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what to make of that template myself, but I'm sure the guys over at WP:TFD will be interested, and will know if it's ok policy-wise. Aquilina 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, I will give their talk page a call. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TFD failed.  YouTube is very successful and has a lot of content. I predict that much of the "entertainment" pages are soon going to be adorned with YouTube links.  We might want to provide some guidelines about what kind of content is preferable: You know: Live performances, rather than MTV-style videos. Videos where information is provided, as provided to entertainment. -- 64.175.42.87 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think that WP:EL should expressly forbid linking to YouTube. The content there is of unknown pedigree, but almost always a copyvio. Because of that, it's very difficult to police for true links to copyvios, and it won't take long for things to get out of hand. How do we form a concensus to put this into place as policy on WP:EL? -- Mikeblas 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:YouTube]] 

message: Why not "External Link(s)"? Wizrdwarts (T|C) 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much rather have an article "know" if it has multiple links or not. "Link(s)" just looks bad (for lack of a better word) to me. EVula 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "link(s)" looks bad. Instead of a compromise, why don't we just establish what the right one is? I think it's pretty clear that "External links" is the proper name for the heading. Since it is the name of an appendix, it should be consistent throughout Wikipedia. Secondly, as a heading, the name should reflect what goes in the section. Normally, there is more than one external link in the section. Why would we establish an entire section for one "external link"? ~MDD4696 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "External link" does indeed suggest that this whole section has been set aside for a single link, which seems silly to me. At least "External links" suggests that more might be coming later, at which point the section would be deserved. Furthermore, any links directly to that section (i.e. "See external links") are going to be messed up by any transition from one to many links. As for "External link(s)", that is just awkward and pedantic. - Rainwarrior 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a long-standing practice to use the plural, and (somewhere) there's a manual of style entry that supports it. brenneman {L}  00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why someone would think that the "External link" section is supposed to be for only one link; obviously if something else is applicable to the topic at hand, it should be included (and the editor should be smart enough to change the heading). And brenneman, I've yet to see anything in the MoS that supports this issue in one way or another (not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it). EVula 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: External Link vs. External Links 

message: I'm having something of a difficult time with Red Hot Chili Peppers with regard to a rather rabid fan community that's been bombarding the article with links to a couple specific fan sites.  After a number of revisions, I opted to head for the Mediation Cabal, in hopes that the mediator would be impartial.
:You see Anthony, if you are patient you can gather evidence to support your position. If you try to find the people responsible for editing the kylie minogue page you might even get them to help your cause. Of course that's not my job. Ideogram 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan site spam 

message: In the Links to normally avoid section, I think the various "unless" clauses should be removed, and a blanket statement should be added before the list saying that "Unless otherwise stated, none of these guidelines supersedes the guidelines in the What should be linked to section above." I say this because really, those "unless" clauses apply to all of them; for example, it's appropriate to link to a site whose primary purpose is sales, if said site is the official site of the article's topic (quite likely if the article is about a product). Putting the "unless" clauses on only some points makes it sound like the other rules are more hard-and-fast. Does anyone object to this? Thanks in advance! Ruakh 13:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unless"-es are redundant/misleading. 

message: Concerning linking to PDF files, the most common standard seems to be (as per this page and actual usage) the use of (PDF) next to the link.  I've stumbled upon a few cases of using  instead, and personally I find this to be much more noticeable, thus a better "warning" and simply looks better. Can I get any feedback on this alternative? I'd love to endeavor to search out pages on which to make this change. (Note, I've added the relevant code, to be copy/pasted, to the image's page, near the bottom)
Gertlex 00:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  (PDF File) as it includes a helpful link -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, nice. The symbol alone is no good: useless to exactly the people who'd most need it (people with disabilities who cannot access the PDF) and mysterious to many of the people who wouldn't want to follow the link (those who never work with PDFs and/or don't have a PDF reader). - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rich Media Links: PDF files; (PDF) vs. [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|16px|PDF]] 

message: Since politics is inherently a POV business, I suggest adding to this style guide a limitation on what kind of sites can be linked in an external links section of a political party article. Foremost examples of how this is properly done are the Democratic Party and Republican Party (US). There, only links to (official) party organizations are given. Since politics is a POV business, I can only assume WP:NPOV when I link to (official) party organizations in the External links section or links deemed not to be biased against the party. Any other link would constitute bias on part of Wikipedia editors, a political opinion in itself. Intangible 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By this logic, the only sites we could link on the IRA, ETA, or Al Qaeda would be their own official sites. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well these are not political parties, they are militias, on for them being militias they will want to attack people or property, and as such, a site describing these attacks can properly be included in the external links section. But this all has nothing to do with the argument I am making here. Intangible 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links for political parties 

message: After reading this guideline, I still have a question. Consider a biography of a writer or essayist. Is it appropriate to include two or three links to samples of their writing? This comes up because a newbie added some links to an article I'm monitoring, Robert Zubrin. Although I've been aggressive in removing linkspam from that page, the new links seemed to add to the article. I thought they'd be allowed under the "other meaningful, relevant content" clause, but there's some concern they're inappropriate. How do people who've studied this more closely feel? Thanks, William Pietri 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per guidelines 3 and 5, linking to samples (especially if those samples are legal, in example, PDF chapter sample in the editorial or the writer's own website) is fine enough. Just be sure they are sample and not full work, which probably violates copyright. You can also include them as references. In example, in this section, the 25th reference is actually a link to the PDF containing a sample chapter of the book, which incidentally talks about the character. Thus, if you are examining the style of a writer, you could link to a sample chapter if it matches the topic you are discussing. Otherwise, they should be fine enough as external links. Although external links can violate copyright, I suggest not linking to many chapters of the same book, but instead one chapter of several books, if anything as a courtesy. -- ReyBrujo 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. In this case the links were to essays published on web editions of magazines, so I think there are no copyright concerns. But it sounds like these were in the proper spirit: to give an idea of what the author has to say and how they say it. Thanks, William Pietri 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to samples of author's works? 

message: Input welcome on the Andrew Murray (tennis player) article: Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)#External links, and the section immediately above. Thanks/wangi 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a bit of background, things had got to this many external links , with revert wars over the order of fansite links. Thanks/wangi 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Choose the best of those, considering Alexa ranking, amount of forum members, less amount of advertisment, up to date information, etc. Get consensus in all those variables, and then add it in a NPOV (not major fansite but instead plainly Fansite). If there is an "official fan site", consider it the fansite to add, if not, get consensus for one. Wikipedia is not a link directory. How many fan sites are we talking about, by the way? -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: After checking your new link, I suggest removing the ones hosted in LiveJournal and Activeboard on sight (per 9th guideline. mountmurray at freewebs has only 310 hits, Wikipedia won't advertise their site. britainsnewhope has 377, same thought. The one hosted at TennisCrazy states that THIS SITE WILL NOT BE UPDATED INBETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER BECAUSE I WON'T BE IN THE COUNTRY, SORRY. We won't be advertising them for free during three months. Even if that note weren't there, it has less than 1700 hits, not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That leaves one fan site, which seems to be the only one that (apparently) can be considered good enough for inclusion. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Murray (tennis player) 

message: I suggested above that "substantial pertinent interviews" be added to point 6.  This has had one "I agree", and no opposition.  Kim: I wonder if you would consider that sufficient consensus to add it to the protected page.  -- JimR 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "substantial pertinent interviews" is vague to me (maybe because I am not a native english speaker), what does that mean? As far as I am concerned, interviews are permissable when it is on the person itself, not when it is on a topic in which opinion starts to play a role again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd qualify it to avoid ambiguity.  Perhaps: "Substantial interviews in recognised authoritative sources which directly address the subject matter of the articlle".  As Kim hints above, if it's not immediately and unambiguously understood by a non-native English speaker we are probably asking for a series of acrimonious debates otherwise.  Would the interview be considered an appropriate source for content?  If not, it should not be included.  If so, it may be reaosnable to link it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I know what the word mean, but I just do not graps what type of interviews you mean with that, and as JzG is indicating, we should be clear about that. I think JzG's suggestion is much better, as it is very clear when yes and when no. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Authoritative interviews which directly address the subject matter of the article". Putting a secondary focus on the source is not a good idea and makes for trivia arguments.  We care about quality, wherever that may be. If a very well-regarded interviewer does an interview for a major newspaper or for his/her persoanl site, it shouldn't matter.  The quality of the content of the interview is far more important than the URL it is hosted on.  The website the interview is on could make a difference in terms of something marginal being used (because it is on a trusted source) or not used (because the source is overall weak) but that is a minor fine line that is far from the main goal of including links to things valuable. 2005 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 2005 brings up some excellent points. There are lots of non-mainstream people who are never going to get inteviewed by "recognized authoritative sources". Nevertheless, pertinent interviews with these people are going to interest readers of their bios. I think we need to reduce the emphasis on the source and emphasize the quality/content of the interview. --JJay 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If something directly adresses the material in the article, wouldn't it be better to have it as a reference (WP:CITE) rather than as an external link?  Additionally, it's almost always a bad idea to formulate a guideline around cases on the thin tail of a distribution.  If we include the phrasing as suggested, it won't be used to allow the inclusion of an odd valuable interview here or there.  The existing language regarding "unique resource" clearly covers an authorative link that directly addresses the subject matter. - brenneman {L}  12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * It might be better to have it as a reference, except that the vast majority of even experienced editors will never add a proper reference to an article. They will, however, add links. These editors should not be discouraged from participating, although nothing prevents an editor, such as yourself, from converting those links into references at a later date. Regarding your comment on "unique resource", I do not feel that it defines or covers anything. It is ambiguous and redundant with "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article". It needs to be expanded or removed. As shown by the conversation above, there is general agreement that examples are highly useful in the style guide. --JJay 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interviews

message: Elsewhere on this page, we appear to agree that we shouldn't link to MySpace, since there's no way to verify that the MySpace page is truly owned by the person that owns it. Should #8 explicitly point this out? The way it reads now seems to imply that, if the MySpace page is about a person, the article about that person can link to that MySpace. I think the intent actually was the article about MySpace can link to MySpace, and that's it.
Do Yahoo! Groups fall into the collection of social networking sites? Should they be explicitly mentioned?
Further, we seem to have concensus that several copyvio-rich sites shouldn't be linked to. Lyrics pages (unless they're provided by the artist or record company) are copyvio. Video sites (clevver, YouTube, and so on) are apparently almost always copyvio. Should that guideline be included in WP:EL? Or should WP:EL refer to WP:FU for that advice? -- Mikeblas 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other concensus 

message: I'd like to propose an amendment to the "Links normally to be avoided" section as follows:
:Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser).
becomes
:Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that require registration or only work with a specific brand of browser).
My reasoning for this is that sites that require registration just to read the article are worthless to the vast majority of web readers, because web readers aren't going to bother to take the time to fill in a bunch of contact details and give out their email address, opening themselves up to potential spam, just to read a single article.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I won't even register with the N.Y. Times site. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was how it was written before, if I recall correctly. Some articles become available after a determined amount of days anyways. -- ReyBrujo 15:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well until they are freely viewable by anyone with a web browser, they shouldn't be linked.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * While I agree with this change, I'm rolling it back.  It's a bit poor to propose a change and then make that edit to a protected page. - brenneman {L} 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would this preclude the use of registration-only sites as references? Billboard.com requires registration for most of its research info, and it is an invaluable tool. Lexus-Nexus, news sites, industry-specific sites (like digitimes.com), and so on, all require registration for at least some of their content. They're invaluable as references, and I'd hate to not be able to cite them. -- Mikeblas 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The wording as it stands now in the working copy above is that "sites that require registration" are "normally to be avoided".  This would preclude the cases you mention.  Can you describe one or two specific examples?  But the trouble is that many people in this discussion (me, at least) won't want to register, so won't read such pages if you link to them here.  This seems to bear out the point that registration-only sites are nearly useless as references.  -- JimR 07:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links normally to be avoided 

message: I have created a number of external links, each of which are to the site Chainki.  The User:Aquilina expressed concern about the links and suggested I bring the situation before you folk here.  So, here is the situation.
I am involved in the linked site, and, not wanting to spam, each one of the changees carries text more or less like:
 Added link to chainki.org. Please verify. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brusselsshrek#chainki.org
The information to which people are led is at: User_talk:Brusselsshrek#chainki.org
Here are a few examples of links:
Examples of links directly added: 
* Madonna_%28entertainer%29#External_links 
* Leeds#External_links
Examples of a suggestion on the related talk page.  I had not any reaction from these (even a "No way Pal!"), hence trying a bolder approach; I admit I perhaps have not yet waited long enough: 
* Talk:Pamela_Anderson#External_link_proposal
* Talk:Pope_John_Paul_II#External_link_proposal
You can of course find all my contributions at Special:Contributions/Brusselsshrek, (there are I think 9 direct links and 2 or 3 appeals for someone else to add a link).  
Some questions I suppose which you will want to discuss:
# Does the link on each of the pages so far add value to the article?
# Is it acceptable for someone involved in the site to do the link?
# Should even a link such as this be done via the talk page when the person is at all involved in the linked to site?
# Is putting the link for discussion on the talk page being overly cautious and creating unnecessary work?
# Is the text included in the "change comment" enough to allow direct addition?
# Does Wikipedia want an external link on most "big" topic articles to an external open content directory?
# What is "big"?
# Under what criteria should Chainki or Dmoz, if any be linked?
# If included, should the link 
##also use the site name separately, e.g. Pamela Anderson at Yahoo movies, (a style used for example on Pamela_Anderson#External_links), or 
##should it be embedded as a single link Pamela Anderson on Yahoo movies (more like Leeds#External_links, though Wikitravel illustrates the separation of "deep" and "main page" linking).
Brusselsshrek 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are adding links to a Dmoz clone, which is something that should never be done under any cicurmstances.  Sometimes linking to dmoz makes sense, but never a clone.  I'd encourage you to remove all these links yourself before someone else has to. 2005 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I know you were hoping for a debate, but to me it's pretty obvious these links don't belong here. I think I would be more sympathetic to your cause if you were one of those "I'm only working for the betterment of the Internet" people, but, alas, the site has advertising. I like the idea of the blog though. Mrtea (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that these links are not suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. There is no sign of reliability. I am not one to encourage blogs in Wikipedia either — except under very exceptional circumstances which are few and far between. -- Alias Flood 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire point of cutting down on external links should not be a reason to greatly expand them by linking to a huge collection of more external links, of which spam could end up on them in great amounts.  This, in my opnion, is tantamount to just keeping the links on wikipedia on separate pages form the main article.  Its no better than link farms, just in this case the ads aren't quite as in-my-face as usual.  What's worse is that its a dmoz clone... with ads.  I'd strongly oppose these links.  Kevin_b_er 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chainki.org links 

message: *please add interwiki to pl:Wikipedia:Zasady wstawiania linków zewnętrznych. Thanks. --Wanted 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add interwiki 

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Narbonic with one user insisting on using external links instead of internal redlinks to point to webcomic websites (insisting the redlinks would never be turned into articles). There appears to be nothing on this policy page (other than the stated preference for internal vs external links) to dissuade people from using external links in article text when no internal links exist. Can I get some opinion on this? Fagstein 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I get some feedback? 

message: In Talk:Emerging_Church, an editor has admitted to adding external links referencing his own works.  The Wikipedia:External_Links page states that content from websites owned by editors should be avoided but does not address content created by editors published on sites they do not own.  This seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Verifiability but none of those pages explicitly mention this scenario.  Is there a policy page that does?  Thanks.  Gold Dragon 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors creating external links to their own works but not from their website 

message: If someone can come, take a look at the dicussion at Talk:Laser tag#External Link Discussion and comment, I would appreciate it. Thanks! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now most of the problem links have been removed, I've added a link to the relevant page on the dmoz web directory - this page contains links to most of the removed sites, and I've found in the past that including the dmoz link discourages people from readding the old data.  Fingers crossed!  Good work on the clean-up Aquilina 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that placement; like you said, it should discourage commerical and such links in the future. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laser tag

message: Press Release Settlement of LDS Church v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry The opinion of linking to a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation was withdrawn as part of the settlement. Personally I think if it's inline linking then that would be a violation but not regular linking.
:Regardless of whether it is legal or not, I do not think that we should make any kind of links to websites that are breaking copyright law. However, if the website is clearly being falsely accused of breaking copyright law, then I would not object to linking to it. -- Kjkolb 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to copyright violations