Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 18

message: Are links to petitiononline suitable for wikipedia articles?
An editor would like This link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/effexor/petition.html in the Venlafaxine article.  I think the link is unsuitable for wiki, and that the negative aspects of venlafaxine either are already covered or can be covered better using other verifiable attributable sources.  I'm I right, or should I let that link stay?  Thanks. Dan Beale 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Petitiononline links are horribly nonencyclopedic. About the only time they could EVER meet EL rules is if some instance of such a position became covered by news media and somehow necessitated a Wikipedia article on the specific petition. Since that'll never likely happen it can be quickly removed as serving no purpose whatsoever for all articles. DreamGuy 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree.  I don't think that it's useful just for articles about specific petitions. Such links could be used in an article as a supporting source in conjunction with another high-quality source that specifically mentions petitions and gives WP:WEIGHT enough to include links to actual petitions. --Ronz 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a high quality source mentioning a specific online petition, link to the high quality source. The actual petition still doesn't meet WP:EL. DreamGuy 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they're not, per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. >Radiant< 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to petitiononline? 

message: I had an ongoing battle over the EL section over at Satanism, Theistic Satanism, etc. Alot of churches are coming in and plugging their websites and some folks are even putting in their own self-published books are refs and pretty much just writing essays for articles under the guise of being 
experts" (but that's another matter I suppose). I've said my piece in the talk pages but if some of the more familiar editors could review the talk page contents and give some insight I would be most appreciative. NeoFreak 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you didn't want anti-spam insight, judging from your comments in favor of Wikifur above. But, hey, I love stomping spam where ever it comes, so this could be fun. DreamGuy 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this continues to be an ongoing issue you may want to bring it to the attention of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I wanted to get some outside input. I've been trying to clean up these article for some time but I'm outnumbered by the folks that sit the page. I didn't want the slash and burn that needed to happen without some outside consensus. I'm glad for all the help but there's alot more to do (including heavy rewrites at a later date). I'm very anti spam, I just thought that having WIkiFur on related article wasn't a big leap. Still, I don't want to drag that discussion over. I can guarentee there will be reverts so I'd recommend the page be watchlisted for now. Thanks again to DreamGuy for the quick response. NeoFreak 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One possible solution is to whack all the external links and replace them with a single dmoz entry.  Let people add their favorite screeds there. BTW  is useful for this.  Brianhe 04:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanism External Links 

message: Wowio is providing legal full text downloads free of charge for copyrighted works such as Slaughterhouse-five, which are unavailable from comperable sites for free material such as Project Gutenberg.  Gutenberg links are clearly preferrable, but for copyrighted works where there is no current alternative, wowio provides an excellent resource.  Registration is required, and it is solely advertisement supported, but considering the value of a full-text resource I would consider adding these links to appropriate articles.  Thoughts?  ∴ here…♠ 03:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, per the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and also per Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration. --Quiddity 03:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And per that, I removed the link in the comment above. Absolutely not under any circumstances, not on talk pages either. DreamGuy 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no copyright violation, I've re-added the link.  Removal is warrented after discussion has ended.  ∴ here…♠ 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm misunderstanding the comment, I don't think the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works applies as an obstacle in this case. The full text downloads in question are licensed and distributed in accordance with copyright law. Clearly the registration issue remains, but the question is — does the benefit of providing a unique resource to the reader justify overriding the guideline? --Gmanacsa 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, they're not quite the dubious-legality outfit I assumed them to be from Here's description (and my prior experience); So yes, that Copyrights policy is probably irrelevant here. But they are "only available to people living in the United States", and they require authenticated-registration, both of which still makes them thoroughly non-recommended. They're not really providing any additional encyclopedic information either. Plus the idea of reading Slaughter-House Five with embedded advertising is utterly repellent. People should use a library. --Quiddity 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if it is a legal service, it fails the criteria against commercial services, sites requiring registrations, etc. Linking to it would not be an encyclopedic style assistance to our readers, it would be an endorsement to a business. Other sites also sell ebooks and such and we don't link to them either. The answer is still very clearly no. And I not that Quiddity's post above acknowledges all this as well, so I'm not sure why you posted after that asking for more comments unless you are hoping to find a group of people willing to totally overrule our longstanding principles.'DreamGuy 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like a useful site for those who are interested in such things, but it makes for a bad link from Wikipedia. From the "About" page: "Sponsors get a powerful new channel to communicate their message to precisely the people they want to reach. Publishers get a new means of distributing their books, expanding their readership, and monetizing their intellectual property." The point of the site really is to make money for someone - and the content is pretty much already freely available from local libraries. Plus, you have to have a credit card to register: excluding children, poor people, or people smart enough to not have credit cards:) Commercial intent and exclusion of users: bad link. Nposs 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, clear enough.  ∴ here…♠ 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As a note, the service does not require a credit card. A non-anonymous email address or a picture ID are also accepted. While most of the material may well be available from many local libraries, not everyone has ready access to a library or perhaps only to libraries with limited collections (in small towns or rural areas, for example). Gmanacsa 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not available to people outside the US.  I cannot sign up for an account. Dan Beale 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  full book texts at wowio 

message: This seems like an obvious rule of thumb that's already obeyed by the vast majority of Wikipedia's article, but I'm a little surprised to not find it clearly stated here and only a parenthetical mention in WP:MOS-L.  So I'll suggest adding this to "Important points to remember":
: External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end.
Opinions? Jpatokal 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pleased you brought this up, because I am struggling with the best way to do something.  Say we have an article about a city, and one of the sections is about companies in the area.  Assuming that company doesn't have a WP page, is it appropriate to put an EL in the article right next to the company name?  As an EL I would have an issue, since the link doesn't have that one-to-one relationship with the subject  (item 13 in the "links normally to be avoided" section).  So should we allow ELs in the article in this case?  Mostly I tend to be of the opinion that we should not - if the company is notable enough to be linked to, then it would have its own WP page and we would link to that.  If it isn't, then we don't care about providing the external link, and adding it is just providing publicity for the company through WP, something we do not want to do.  However, I could see value to readers in having the link there.  Would appreciate other opinions. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it's appropriate.  If it's of any significance, the company name (or any other entity/object/concept) should be linked even if its article doesn't exist, as somebody will come along and create it later. And if the company is of no significance, then it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the first place... Jpatokal 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not appropriate at all. Wikipedia is not a web directory. There's no reason to provide links to sites if they don't have Wikipedia articles. DreamGuy 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added it, let's see if it sticks. Jpatokal 04:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in the article body 

message: Is it appropriate to link to a bands "official" fansite?  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it meet the criteria of the guideline?  I have no clue what an "official fansite" could possibly be, but if it is the official site, it should be linked.  If not, if meets the criteria of this guideline, link it, if it doesn't, don't. If for some reason you don't know if it does, don't link it. 2005 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: The site in question is wardchurchill.net. It is a blog containing items in support of the subject. Links to blogs are discouraged unless by a recognized authority. This site has an anonymous author/editor, and so it does not fit that exception. On the other hand, the site's domain name makes it look like an official site, which should be linked. But since the site's ownership and authorship are entirely anonymous, then how do we determine if it meets the "official site" standard or not? My opinion is that if it is not official, then it should not go in, because it violates the anti-blog rule. If it is official, then it should go in. But whether or not it is official is what needs to be figured out, and the guidelines published here don't help much. Thanks for any help in working this issue out.Verklempt 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can go by the domain name - anybody can buy one, if it's not currently in use (I see wardchurchill.com is available, someone could buy that and set up a site today). Also, nowhere on the site does it claim to be official.  Indeed, on the "Contact" page it sounds like it's definitely not official. "The Ward Churchill Solidarity Network (WCSN) sees the attacks on Ward Churchill not only as retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, but as part of a larger movement to suppress critical thinking...".  So my feeling is that it is definitely not official. Hope this helps.  - Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to determine if a site is "official"? 

message: I've made a dead link bot where wikipedians can submit page and categories.  It's still in early stages and I need to make the code multi-thread for any serious use.  I'm also programming various heuristics to detect certain types of link set.  If somebody has a list of web news services that remove their content after a set amount of time please post here.  —Dispenser 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link bot 

message: There really isn't much more to the question, it's all in the headline. Other than, perhaps, shoul I have posted this in a different part? Josef Glennanthony 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of "hard copy"? A published book? Or somebody's term paper? Baseball Bugs 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So reference the manuals. If you're uncertain how to do it, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and ask on the talk page there if you have further questions. (This is not about external links, so you're currently on the wrong page.) --Zundark 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts for what I want to write only exsist in hard copy. So how do I back it up? 

message: The :wikipedia:external links page seems to remain silent about links to sites with racist or antisemitic (r/a) content. I tend to remove such links, but
* What to do if the link is used as a source to support a statement in the article? 
* What to do if a linked page itself is superficially non-r/a, but other pages on the same site are r/a?
* In an article about a "organization, person, web site, or other entity", is it mandatory to put a link to the "official" site of this person, even if r/a material is distributed on that site?
* In an article about a book with r/a content, is it mandatory to include a link to the book's online-version? --Schwalker 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored.  If the link is relevant to the article, then it should (has to) stay, even if they advocate raping babies. Jpatokal 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing a link because you, personally, find it objectionable is censorship.  All the three policies you link to apply to personally targeted behavior on Wikipedia.  Content of pages hosted outside Wikipedia is neither. Jpatokal 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a reliable source, and it supports article content, then there is no reason why is should go. Whatever it is about. Well, certain cases may be eliminated, but I agree with Jpatokal. Lradrama 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider what the link shows and how it is being used. Given that a reader will probably recognise incivil, racist, or libellious links for what they are and draw the appropriate conclusions about the authors, we need not be too concerned. The real issue is where links to bigotry is appropriate. A link to a Neo-Nazi site is perfectly suited to Neo-Nazism, because it is giving an example of a Neo-Nazi group, and reading what they have to say for themselves is a useful exercise in understanding such groups (same goes for any related articles, where the beliefs of that group are relevant and illustrated by the site) - but on Judaism or Socialism or Homosexuality, adding the same link would imply that a Neo-Nazi website is a good resource for understanding any of these.--Nema Fakei 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to racist or antisemitic sites 

message: I am trying to think of the correct term to describe a certain type of URL which is worthless as an external link. There are some databases on the web for which one can input a search and receive an output of results, with a URL for the results screen but not one that can be used as a link to those actual results -- just a generic URL. Obviously these are not desirable as external links, but an inexperienced editor might inadvertently try to insert such a link. The problem is that I don't know what those kinds of URLs are called. --Metropolitan90 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages." -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think what I'm looking for is "cgi-bin" URLs (not sure of the exact name). By contrast, if I provide you with a link to this Google search about Jimbo Wales, you might not get the exact same results I did depending on what Google has indexed since I did the search -- but at least you will get a bunch of search results about Jimbo. --Metropolitan90 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad links to database search results 

message: I'm going to add a sentence to Wikipedia:External links#Redirection sites denoting that one should not link to web proxies instead of linking to the original URL. I wanted to know if there are objections beforehand huji—TALK 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done with this one. huji—TALK 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find any, so I deleted the exception. UnitedStatesian 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be removed. huji—TALK 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool. thanks DreamGuy 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How does that stuff even get in there in the first place? Or stick around so long. It's silly, and I've seen examples of that sort of nonsense in other policies/guidelines. DreamGuy 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxies 

message: I notice that EB is now allowing sites to grant their readers access to an article by providing a link to it. Would this apply to Wikipedia readers, and if so, should we start linking to such articles? Some are very good, and would be especially useful when the article here is only a start class or worse. I know of at least a couple of articles that would benefit from such a link, but I want to be sure that the readers will be able to access the article first. Richard001 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe that we should be linking to the articles.  Instead, I think we should be working on the WP article to improve it. Linking to EB is not a good solution. From a guideline perspective, Section 1 of Links to be avoided "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." applies. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alucard. External links should be reserved for those unique and valuable online resources that cannot be directly incorporated into the article text for various reasons, not simply to link to an alternative encyclopedia article. -- Satori Son 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See, I'm afraid I respectfully disagree with you, AnonEMouse.  Letting such links stay in (or be put in) discourages people from writing more for the article.  I think that this is the precise reason why the "featured article" clause is in WP:EL - to avoid such potential laziness. If we followed the idea that short-term links like this would be fine, then we could enhance every "stub" page with a bunch of links to content that should be in the WP page.  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the way a lot of people write articles; first by gathering links, then by incorporating their content. Before After. We shouldn't demand that every character of content be FA quality immediately or deleted. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do the same myself a bit. Does this policy have strong consensus? I'm unfamiliar with the history, but if not perhaps it should be discussed whether such links are acceptable when articles are in early development. Richard001 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that if we find a resource that could be used by other editors to improve the article, we should be adding it to the Talk page for the article, suggesting that other editors use it to improve the article.  That way the resource is captured and it becomes part of the work to improve the article, but isn't part of the article itself.  I think the EL guidelines are quite clear that we should not be adding these links to the article, and this doesn't matter what stage the article is at. A change to this would involve a change to a much-discussed element of WP:EL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What if the article covers material outside the scope (broader or narrower) of the article in question, and we don't currently have an article on the subject, but could have? For example an in depth article on a subject covered only in one section here, but which is a potential daughter article in future. Richard001 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Britannica articles 

message: This is something which I am sure your talk page will have come across before. After watching a recent edit to the Klaxons page, where all YouTube videos of their music videos were removed, i got slightly confused. What exactly is allowed to be kept on wikipedia in terms of external linking? It says on the project page that situations where links should actually be used are rare, so I was wondering if someone could clear it up for me?One project which i am currently involved in is Wikipedia:WikiProject_TUGS, I was also wondering what the policy on youtube links would be for the articles contained within the scope of the TV show? --SteelersFan UK06 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main thing is that we are not permitted to link to copyright violations.  Unless you have evidence that the copyright holder uploaded the image to YouTube (which is almost never the case for music videos), you cannot link.  Even if you do, it would only be appropriate to link in the context of an article about that particular music video only and only if necessary to provide critical commentary.  And even then, you'll probably want a warning that the link requires proprietary browser plugins (flash, I think).  In summary, linking to YouTube videos is almost never appropriate.  --Yamla 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: We would like to get input on the appropriateness of an external link in the article on Straw-bale construction. There is discussion here and a poll. Comments prior to August 7, 2007 would be appreciated. Thanks. see also --Hu12 11:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this be a straw poll? tia --Tom 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I think it infact is ;)--Hu12 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on inclusion and appropriateness of link 

message: I removed  from Interstate 90, since exit lists are a standard part of articles about Interstates and other freeways. Son objected because "the exit guide provides more in depth information than the Wiki article, including rest stops and toll barriers". I don't see this as a reason to include the link; if anything it's a reason to add those features onto Wikipedia. Can I please have a third opinion? Thank you. --NE2 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you - and your opinion would be in line with my understanding of "Links Normally to be Avoided", part 1. "# Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need some advice 

message: Hi, folks.  I'm trying to get Fun Home up to GA standard.  One apparent stumbling block is that the article notes the extensive coverage of the work in the New York Times, including one quotation from the NYT Sunday Book Review and the fact that the book spent two weeks on the NYT bestseller list.  All but one of these links is available with free registration to the Times website, and the one paid archive item is merely being cited to show that they wrote no less than three stories about the book in a fairly short period of time.  Since the New York Times is America's "newspaper of record", and their bestseller list is probably the most significant such list, I think that the citations are fairly important to establish the cultural significance of Fun Home.  But WP:EL says that "a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article."  The registration in this case is free, not paid — I thought that the guideline used to say that paid registration was to be avoided, but free registration was OK as long as the reference indicates that registration is required.  I don't think that any other source can be used to note what the New York Times said about Fun Home.  Furthermore, the citation is still verifiable by someone going to their local library, which will probably have either a subscription to the NYT archives or hard copies of the newspaper itself.
Is the GA reviewer interpreting the WP:EL guideline correctly?  Is it required that such links be avoided?  If so, that seems silly to me: if I had cited the print edition, that would be far less accessible than the free-registration-required archive, but that wouldn't run foul of any guidelines.  Y'all are the EL experts — what do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an EL expert, but I have a comment.... Why not cite the print edition and provide a link to the online version of the article? --orlady 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea — I think all that would require is adding the page numbers to the citations.  I don't have time right now, but I'll see if I can find that info soon. Would that be sufficient to get around the registration hurdle? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out that the page numbers for the print edition aren't available on the website — I'll go to the library in a few days and see if they still have the hard copies.  I'd still like some guidance from someone who knows the guideline and the rationales behind it well to explain whether I really need to remove the links, or if adding page numbers from the print edition would solve the problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What's to be avoided is providing ONLY a URL to a site that requires either a paid subscription, or a site that requires extensive information to register - in other words, a URL that is difficult to follow.  On the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable (in my opinion) to provide a citation (that would be name of publication, date, title, and author - if any) that includes a URL that is (essentially) difficult to follow (example: paid archive).  The later is acceptable because it would be an acceptable citation without the URL - adding a problematical URL certainly doesn't all of sudden make the citation worthless.  And a possibly-useful URL (there are, after all, some editors who subscribe or are registered and can therefore follow the link) is better than none at all (again, provided the rest of the citation can stand on its own).   -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my understanding that links used as citations are not covered by WP:EL guidelines – from the lead section: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." The appropriateness of using registration-only pages as citations has been discussed in the past (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive16#Query and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive12#NYTimes.com as a source). There is currently no policy prohibiting the use of such pages as citations in articles, as long as the source is reliable, though some editors prefer to use equivalent freely accessible sources where available. --Muchness 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Thank you �— that makes much more sense.  I appreciate the replies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about sites requiring registration 

message: I've been having an issue with a good faith anon readding a removed link to a private community/forum link in the Vorarephilia article. To ensure that I'm not totally off base or to reenforce that I am correct in my interpretation of the guidline can someone take a look? I don't want this to devolve in an edit war so could this be discussed and changed by another editor please? The relavent discussion has reached the "well I don't like that" phase. NeoFreak 01:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Left a message on your talk page.  Short version: I understand the other editor, but agree with you. --Mdwyer 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat insertion of questionable external link 

message: Can someone please chip in at Talk:Vince_Young#Statistics as to the removal of college statistics in articles (not links) based on WP:EL ?  Thanks! Corpx 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EL warranting the removal of college statistics? 

message: I'm kind of busy right now, but I saw User:Sexperts make an edit to Moral panic to make a claim and cite American Sexuality Magazine as the source, and if you go to the user page he fully admits he/she belongs to the group that makes that mag. So I removed it and gave a pointer to WP:COI on the talk page, but a quick glance at the user's edit history shows lots of articles and edit comments that make me fear the individual has already gone through linking to themselves all over. I'd appreciate if someone with some free time could go check on it. Thanks. DreamGuy 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is a COI, but the site itself looks like reliable source. Corpx 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Which would mean that the user should not add links himself and should make suggestions on talk pages only and let others add them if the other editors so desire, by WP:COI rules, right? DreamGuy 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enforcement is just a matter of someone doing it. It's just as easy to do as it is for the people to put the COI in in the first place. DreamGuy 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please check a user's edits for [[WP:COI]] problems? 

message: I have seen the widespread use of the Find A Grave site as an EL using both  and a traditional link formating.  I find the site to be very inconsistent in that some of the pages are useful, and some are not.  Is there some reason that prevents the information on that site from simply being incorporated to the articles?  I don't know why it is considered an acceptable EL as much of it borders on trivia. //Tecmobowl 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that it is usually a useless external link, though sometime sit might be okay.  Yet another spam link template that should be dealt with. 2005 21:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, yet another spam template that is going to be extremely difficult to remove. Sigh. The  template is used about 250 times and it was created in Dec 2005 by Jim@findagrave.com who was warned and then blocked. Hmmm, COI and SPAM but that's nothing. A linksearch for findagrave.com  reports 44451 hits! Yes that's forty-four thousand external links. Most of them seem to be at Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave_famous_people. What sort of official Wikipedia project is that? I slapped a notability tag on the Find A Grave article too. (Requestion 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord.  An entire project designed to spam.  Afaid I don't know, is there a way to "afd" projects like this? 2005 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can nominate WikiProjects for deletion by listing them at Miscellany for deletion. --Muchness 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: References and ELs are two totally different things.  There are certainly some pages that have valuable information.  I am questioning whether it is considered a unilateral EL (and used as a templated). //Tecmobowl 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the article is titled "Celebrity Graves", I would think its purpose would be strictly as a reference, as you're suggesting. It was useful in pointing the way to the true death date of John Henry Lloyd, for example. Baseball Bugs 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Muchness et al Looks like we need to kill of this site in instances where it does not provide useful information. //Tecmobowl 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing 250 links is easily done. Who is going to nom this project for mfd? It's horrible and doesn't need to exist. pschemp | talk 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a bot(JabbaTheBot) that can remove any number of spam links if needed.--I already forgot 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find A Grave 

message: 1. Is the US government link I used is notable and if not why not?  
:I believe it is because it shows the US government raw statistics for the popularity of a given name over a period of time.  But any other opinions are welcome. Remember 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not horrible anyway, but geographically specific, which is discouraged. Unless you plan on adding similar links to popularity of name in UK, Australia, etc. to the template, which becomes unmanageable. DreamGuy 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do plan on adding them if I can ever find them, and I don't see why it will be unmanageable when there aren't that many to begin with. Remember 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Australia, each state has its own Births, Deaths and Marriages register. NSW has a page where you can search by year of birth and gender. We would need up to eight links (6 states, 2 territories) to cover the whole of Australia - just one country. --Mike 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that this link is useful and that there is no available substitute.  While I agree that we should generally refrain from linking to commercial cites for information, in this case I have found it necessary and have found no alternative.  Once an alternative is present, then that link should be used, but until that time I don't see why we should deny people access to information. Remember 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed above, this site is simply not worth linking to, as it doesn't meet criteria for external links in general and this is clear attempt to promote the site through faux template consensus by fiat. Since these templates affect whole groups of articles all at once, you should have a clear and documented consensus *in favor* of doing it before doing so, otherwise people will just assume it was OK'd elsewhere and then, like always happens, when people try to remove the link as inappropriate we'll get the standard "well, it's on the template so clearly has consensus". Since there's no support shown for it here or elsewhere and it was dicussed above, I'll be removing them again soon. DreamGuy 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add a point of clarity, I did not discuss the addition to the external links to the template with anyone, because I alone set up the template and added them.  So there was no one to talk with about the addition of the external links on this template.Remember 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for discussion