Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 15

message: Please put interwiki to :id:Wikipedia:Pranala luar. Thanks. --ivanlanin ♫ •• 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Luna Santin 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki to id 

message: Was wondering if I could get a little discussion on this item form the Links to be avoided Section:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
So for this example, by my interpretation of this, it says in pretty concrete terms that a fan site should not appear in WP as an EL.  I have seen countless pages doing this, and many have argued for it. We even have "Official Links" and "Unofficial Links" sections in some articles. This example seems to contradict this policy, implying that only official site should be linked.  This seems very very restrictive to me.  I could understand the idea of saying that a site that reviews many different rock bands should not be ELed on a page for a single band, but do we really want to be this restrictive in general?  
Would appreciate some other views on this text....  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eagle 101, that is how I understood this to be too - so why are we even talking about unofficial sites in this Talk page (and the archived versions)?  Do others feel differently? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that clause is confusing and have never really understood the point.  It seems to imply that only official sites or sites linked from an official site are OK, and that's obviously not the case (if it were, we could just replace the entire EL page with "Official sites only").  What is the intent of it supposed to be?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are reading it strangely.  It just says links should be about the topic of the article.  So an article on Madonna could link to madonnasite.com, but should not link to genericmusicsite.com, though it could link to genericmusicsite.com/madonna/.  It says nothing at all about official versus unofficial. 2005 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were the case why does it say "For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site."  As it reads it makes it sound like not only does it have to be on topic, but the topic has to have a direct connection to the topic (which makes it sound like the topic has to somehow sanction the linked site somehow).  If it is supposed to just mean "links should be about the topic of the article", why not just say that?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, don't read it strangely. It says a site with a "has a direct and symmetric relationship" should be linked, like madonnasite.com, while a generic site like alternative musicsite.com should not be. The point is symetry.  The site needs to be about the topic of the article, thus alternativemusicsite.com/madonna/ could be linked if it meets the criteria.  In other words, every movie article should not just link to imdb.com, but rather either not linked at all or linked to a specific article like imdb.com/blah/15253/bogart/ or whatever. 2005 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to find that fan sites tend to be 70-80% riddled with copyright violations - blatent republishing of unfree images; bootlegs and suchlike. That pretty much tends to push us in the direction of official sites because at least the offical site will generally have title to the material published on it. --Spartaz 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't really address the particular part of the guideline.  If it is supposed to mean "links should be on topic" or "official sites only" it should say that.  I'm not really sure what the current version is trying to say (and I suspect it is generally either ignored or interpreted however people want it to mean).  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What 70% of fan sites do is totally irrelevant.  We have a guideline that lists criteria for linking.  We aren't pushed in any direction, other than linking to sites that meet the criteria for linking. 2005 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I believe I understand the intent of this point, I feel that the example is misleading, and open to misinterpretation - I think the examples given here in this discussion are far superior to the one in the article.  Anyone have any objection if we change it to the example used here? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be OK with that, it makes much more sense and the current one is really misleading.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me. 2005 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing that we treat fan sites differently then the traditional media.  We do not require the media to have a two way interaction with the subject - in fact we value the fact that they are secondary sources.  Why should we insist on a two way interaction?  Also, refer to my comments below, as symmetrical really isn't the right word for describing a two way interaction. Parasite 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Uh, any one agree? disagree? Why are we using the word symmetrical on the project page? Can we change it to mutual or reciprocal? -Parasite 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now that you have changed it, I'll say that I disagree. Reciprocal has too many meanings to be clear in this case. It could mean "opposite". I don't see why another description besides "directly" is needed. That seems to be the clearest and simplest way to get the point across. Nposs 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but the folks discussing this paragraph above us at Symmetry Confusion seem to want something more than directly.  Bet getting back to my change, I do think that reciprocal is closer to what was intended than symmetrical.  Thanks for the feedback.   Parasite 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reciprocal isn't the right word, and there was no support for it, so I returned to the previous wording.  "Direct" is the idea.  Reciprocal is simply wrong.  An article about Henry VIII might link to a BBC article, but Henry sure has no reciprocal relationship to the BBC or that article.  That is not the concept involved here, nor a sensible one.  The point is the link is to a BBC article is about Henry VIII, not just to bbc.co.uk. 2005 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly symmetrical is not the right word either.  Why not just delete the word symmetrical and leave direct? Parasite 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. 2005 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The usage of "symmetrical" is idiosyncratic and creates more confusion that it dispels.  I that the present #13 should be split into two separate items:  one for the idea of "directness" that User 2005 speaks of w/ the Henry VIII example, and the other for the issue of linking to artist' official official sites but not to their fansites.  And to describe the latter, "reciprocal" is much more on target, imo, than "symmetrical".  So, two issues:  direct not generic, and reciprocal not one-sided.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I think symmetrical is perfect. If you take it out things can get disproportional. JoeSmack Talk 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JoeSmack, I'm not trying to be funny, but can you please describe what the meaning of this word in this context should be.  It may help us to find a better replacement for symmetrical, as every definition of symmetry I have seen relates to geometrical arrangement. Thanks Parasite 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symmetry Confusion 

message: I believe where the guideline uses the word symmetrical the intended meaning is reciprocal or mutual.  Symmetry relates to the physical size, form, or arrangement of an object(or objects), and by my reading of the guideline this is not the intended meaning. Parasite 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, any one agree? disagree? Why are we using the word symmetrical on the project page? Can we change it to mutual or reciprocal? -Parasite 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now that you have changed it, I'll say that I disagree. Reciprocal has too many meanings to be clear in this case. It could mean "opposite". I don't see why another description besides "directly" is needed. That seems to be the clearest and simplest way to get the point across. Nposs 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but the folks discussing this paragraph above us at Symmetry Confusion seem to want something more than directly.  Bet getting back to my change, I do think that reciprocal is closer to what was intended than symmetrical.  Thanks for the feedback.   Parasite 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reciprocal isn't the right word, and there was no support for it, so I returned to the previous wording.  "Direct" is the idea.  Reciprocal is simply wrong.  An article about Henry VIII might link to a BBC article, but Henry sure has no reciprocal relationship to the BBC or that article.  That is not the concept involved here, nor a sensible one.  The point is the link is to a BBC article is about Henry VIII, not just to bbc.co.uk. 2005 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly symmetrical is not the right word either.  Why not just delete the word symmetrical and leave direct? Parasite 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. 2005 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The usage of "symmetrical" is idiosyncratic and creates more confusion that it dispels.  I that the present #13 should be split into two separate items:  one for the idea of "directness" that User 2005 speaks of w/ the Henry VIII example, and the other for the issue of linking to artist' official official sites but not to their fansites.  And to describe the latter, "reciprocal" is much more on target, imo, than "symmetrical".  So, two issues:  direct not generic, and reciprocal not one-sided.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I think symmetrical is perfect. If you take it out things can get disproportional. JoeSmack Talk 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JoeSmack, I'm not trying to be funny, but can you please describe what the meaning of this word in this context should be.  It may help us to find a better replacement for symmetrical, as every definition of symmetry I have seen relates to geometrical arrangement. Thanks Parasite 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is ''symmetrical'' the right word here 

message: Minor typographical error.  Change:
do not link to that copy of the work..
to:
do not link to that copy of the work.''
near the top of the page.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --bainer (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo fix

message: An external link I added to the page on Portsmouth, New Hampshire was deleted, apparently because it was deemed a commercial link. After browsing your guidelines, I see that I should have first proposed adding link here because, while I think the link is relevant and in line with Wikipedia guidelines, I have a conflict of interest.
So ... I propose adding an external link for the Portsmouth NH page to www.portsmouthnh.com. The site is a commercial site, but it has much lots of free, useful information, such as: descriptions and links to area attractions, a complete guide to movies in the region, a custom local weather forecast, local tides, the city's most complete guide to restaurants and accommodations, a calendar of events, and many regional photographs. 
I would argue that PortsmouthNH.com is more relevant -- and less commercial -- to Portsmouth than the three newspaper sites that already have links on the page. How can a link to an Ottaway Newspapers publication, which is owned by Dow Jones Company, be regarded as less commercial than a sole proprietorship operated by a local resident? 
As for relevancy, a reviewer in the above-mentioned Ottaway paper wrote last fall that PortsmouthNH.com "is truly packed with information and is a must for visitors as well as locals."
www.seacoastonline.com/calendar/07202006/entertainment-s-jy20-webreview-jy7.html
Thanks for your consideration.
Zpinhead 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ask on the talk page of the article itself. --Xixtas 06:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding external link for Portsmouth NH  

message: has a large amount of links, some 500+. the site appears to be down, and i don't know how how long it has been, but from the domain im highly suspect of it violating Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided number 10. here is a google cash of the front page and one of an entry. opinions? should it be removed? JoeSmack Talk 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to DNSstuff.com the domain is ok and in working order. Whatever the problem, it's not some technical issue with the domain. The domain resolves to an IP address (70.84.130.5) and gives a reasonably quick ping (47ms +/-). According to network-solutions the domain is registered until 2009.  So far it looks like it's a temporary thing... if you want to check into it further you could call the administrative contact at 636-394-7000. (Pulled from the network solutions record... it's public information so don't yell at me) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *.catholic-forum.com 

message: Shouldn't we have some guideline for the order of links in the "external links" section? For example, I always like to put more relevant and official links at the top. For entertainment-related topics, it usually goes like this:
:official websites > database websites (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, TV Tome, Moby Games etc.) > reviews\press coverage > notable unofficial websites
I think it'd be nice to have this written somewhere, if it isn't already. — Kieff | Talk 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the nature of the article and the agreement of the people working on it. No need to let the rules creep into an area that's best left to the editors. Then again, it might be spelled out in the manual of style. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition we should keep in mind that we are not a link farm and probably should not be adding in too many "notable" unofficial sites. Who defines notable? That I guess would be up to the editors on the talk page of an article. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting order? 

message: Lyrics - "For the Wikipedia guideline regarding linking to lyrics websites, see Wikipedia:External links"
But, what guideline? Can anyone help please? I'm wondering about the status of lyrics links. Thanks. --Dayn 07:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines should apply to lyric links as they do to most other links - Only include if it actually improves the article.  Most of the time I would think it would, but there might be exceptions. For instance in an article about an artist with several other good links you might decide to forgo lyrics in order to keep the section focused, or if the only lyrics available are to the artist's less significant work you might decide not to bother).  Don't link to lots of different sites, pick the best one for the article in conjunction with other editors.  Don't link to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.  And so on.  I believe the biggest problem with lyric sites is that most of them are copyvios, which we should never knowingly link to. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...so unless you can positively prove they ARE NOT copyvios, don't link them. Most every case this means don't link. JoeSmack Talk 13:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going overboard.  Lyrics on official sites or record label sites will be legal, as will songs in the public domain (I believe before 1925 or so?).  We never have to "prove" anything with copyright, just not link if they are suspected violations (at least that's what wikipedia policies say).  Lyrics of recent songs on a general lyrics collection will usually be violations.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always the case with 'official' sites or record labels (notice the quotes, many claim to be official and aren't). Songs before 1925 are extremely rare compared to whats all over wikipedia today. Also, see Intellectual_Reserve_v._Utah_Lighthouse_Ministry for legality surrounding posting copyrighted stuff (much of WMF is founded/ran in the U.S.). JoeSmack Talk 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that there are official sites or record label sites that have lyrics posted illegally?  Obviously by official sites we mean ones that are truly official and not fake official sites.  I'm not sure what the point of the linked case is, it has nothing to do with this.  Nobody is saying we should link to copyright violations.  We need to look at potential violations, not make assumptions about any category of linked content.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay... so basically, only have a lyrics link if it's from an official source, such as the band's official website, or record label? I can do that... there's many pages I believe I can fix. I didn't know lyrics were copyrighted like that... next thing y'know it'll be illegal to sing along, but that's another rant for another day for another website. --Dane ~nya 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics? 

message: For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
I must always ask, because I over analyse the slightest details. Does the above mean that any old fansite for a band should not be linked? What about fansites that are linked to from the band's official website, should they not be added too? In the latter case, I cannot determine if they're sym- or asymmetrical. Thanks. --Dane ~nya 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 'what should be linked' (should, hence, not must be linked) are the official pages of a band, company, whatever.  Then there are links to be avoided, which encompasses blogs, unofficial sites, fansites, etc.  Everything that is not official, that cannot be checked whether it is official, or which contains (or may/could contain) non-reliable information, should be avoided.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see the topic in this talk page "Symmetry Confusion" where we are trying to find a better example.  Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read EL again, unofficial sites and fansites aren't disallowed.  Based on the guidelines, some are allowed and some not (and wikipedia links to some and not others).  They are judged on a case by case basis and there is absolutely not a blanket ban on them.  It would be incredibly biased to only allow official links.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well bugger me, I didn't see that. If fansites are on a case-by-case basis... who decides which fansite should be listed? There'd undoubtedly tonnes of fansites about any given band, and most as "official" as one another... so what's to stop people putting their fansite as a link, when other links are present? Notability? How would you determine notability for inclusion of a fansite? As the top discussion said, a two-way interaction, which the official band website itself recognises the fansite? But what then, if the "official" site has links to many fansites? This is what's confusing me... it's sort of allowing spamlink1 to be on an article, but spamlink2 isn't because of an abstract judgement. --Dane ~nya 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's decided by the editors of a given article, same as any EL is decided, based on whether it meets the things listed at EL.  Consensus stops people from just adding their favorite fansite, whether it's appropriate or not.  The official site doesn't need to link to a fansite, that's not really a criteria for inclusion.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your confusion on fansite ELs is why I almost always remove them; I don't see how one could/should be held above others for linking, and they often contain original research and trivial info, not uniquely encyclopedic at all. Kind of like asking for someone's birthday and getting handed their yearly schedule. Anyways, from what I see Milo is extremely cautious about what goes, and me personally, i'm extremely cautious of what stays. Two perspectives - I hope they help. JoeSmack Talk 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I think we should be cautious and judge on a case by case basis as opposed to making a blanket declaration that a kind of EL is categorically bad.  The key word is "often" - we need to make a judgement call if a site is one of the ones that meets EL or not (in every case, not just fansites).  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milo, in a situation where there are many potential links to add to the external links section a simple link to a link directory like DMOZ or the like is far better. Remember we are an encyclopedia not a repository of external links. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never said otherwise.  If there are tons of possible links and none stand out, use DMOZ.  If there are a small number of sites that do meet EL, it's appropriate to link to them.  "Not a repository" means we shouldn't have too many links, not that we should have zero links.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole guideline is written in the style of "can be used" and "try to avoid".  It is indeed not forbidden to add them, but in all cases, try to keep them to a minimum (policy: WP:NOT), and even, zero external links might actually be an option on a page.  Or maybe just one, the official link.  So on a case by case evaluation, what does the fansite add to the wikipedia?  Does it somewhere look like it might be in the list of 'links to be avoided' .. if so, maybe just not add it.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's quite a nice concept for a site; like Wikipedia, but it's polar opposite, a good compliment. Thanks to all for clearing this up for me; perhaps something similar on the page itself? Something like, "if you're unsure about an external link guideline, always ask on the article's talk page for discussion about it's inclusion" or something to that effect. Might seem obvious, but it wasn't to me at first, when an issue appears to be addressed, but unsure about it. --Dane ~nya 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, just go with the dmoz link. Remember the key thing is we are an encyclopedia not a directory to every fansite.  Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are no objections, I will change the policy accordingly. Sylvain1972 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have concerns about forums, but "fansites" are perfectly valid as long as they meet EL, specificallly they provide significant info not in the article, they are accurate, etc.  I see no logic behind "We allow one we will have to allow all".  That's not the case at all - fansites are just like any other third party site, they simply need to be judged on a case by case basis.  --Minderbinder 14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the link only benefits the forum is simply not true - the forum often is a benefit to the reader. They are often valuable channels by which one can solicit informed advice about the topic in question. The Fender forum certainly is a terrific resource for users of Fender instruments, in my experience, and I have no stake in promoting it otherwise. Assessment of the reliability of the advice offered on forums should be left to the user, who should be given the option of utilizing it or not. In the case of the hypothetical Exeter NH community forum, for instance, one could solicit information from users about the community and then make arrangements to verify the identify of a willing respondent if one so desired. I don't advocate that all forums on any topic are link-worthy, but this blanket ban seems unreasonable to me.Sylvain1972 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with this.  Another example is the website StopMotionAnimation.com, which until a few months ago consisted exclusively of a forum which was the central place for the community of stop motion animators, and which was frequented by many professionals.  If the rationale for avoiding links to forums is that it "benefits only the forum", then I suggest we avoid links to all websites which are not "official" (no matter how much information they contain, and no matter if an official website even exists or not), because it "benefits only the website".  I've been seeing far too many bots and editors acting like bots going around lately and removing quite respectable forum links indiscriminately. Esn 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't true that the rationale for not linking to forums is that it "benefits the website." That is only one reason among many, including - the requirement of linking to a reliable source with encyclopedic content (which a forum can't pass). Keep in mind, the external links of an article shouldn't replace a Google search for people interested in the subject of an article. In fact, the #1 hit for a Google search: "stop animation forum" is the very website you have mentioned. At the same time, I don't believe there is any ban on linking to forums and in some extreme cases, it could be that the link passed the external link guidelines. To honest, I haven't seen such a case yet, but I don't rule out the possibility. Nposs 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links normally to be avoided 

message: The Road pricing article currently contains a link to an Internet petition hostile to the concept of road pricing. The article is regularly updated (presumably by campaigners) to reflect the (unaudited) number of signatures. This seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We are addressing the specific problem in Talk:Road pricing, but this is clearly a more general problem. Under what circumstances can internet petitions be regarded as suitable sources for Wikipedia? --RichardVeryard 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like they are using it as a source; do you feel it is a reliable source? JoeSmack Talk 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that it provides evidence of some hostility towards road pricing, and an active campaign against it. I do not accept that an internet petition provides reliable evidence of the scale of hostility. Furthermore, I worry that by linking to a one-sided petition that is still ongoing, WP is in danger of further distorting some already unreliable evidence. Is it not reasonable to consider the (potentially distorting) effect of linking to a given source? --RichardVeryard 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Petitions do not belong in an encyclopedia, per WP:SOAP. >Radiant< 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I interpret this to mean WP doesn't link to the petition website, but could link to an independent news site (such as the BBC) reporting the outcome of a (completed) petition. --RichardVeryard 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, assuming the petition is important and relevant enough to warrant mentioning. >Radiant< 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petitions 

message: I thought Jimmy Wales had stated some time back that the DMCA was the proper vehicle for resolving issues including music videos on Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia editorial judgment, and that was Wikipedia Policy until further notice.  I have reviewed what I can find on the subject at the Pump, etc., and am looking for Policy on this issue.  Thank you.  Tvccs 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current state of policy is that any YouTube links will end up being removed by one of about six or so editors in a periodic AWB trawl, based on the mistaken notion that all YouTube links are inherently unreliable or copyvio. If you complain to the editor who removed it, and can justify retention of the link based on the link's relevance, reliability, and copyright status, one of two things will happen. Most of the editors involved will be ok with you putting it back. Two or three of them will tell you, rather rudely, that no YouTube link is ever appropriate in Wikipedia, will revert you when you replace the link, call you a troll and threaten to block you for 3RR violations if you persist. There's no getting around this, as one of those editors is an ArbCom member, and the other, much ruder one, is an admin. Argyriou (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that update and clarification.  Amazing.  If you could post, or e-mail me the list of the editors in question, I'd be most grateful.  Thank you.  Tvccs 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the list as well but I'd like to see it posted not e-mailed. --Spartaz 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, I think a claim like that is going to require some evidence like diffs and contribution history.  Which editors are you speaking of? L0b0t 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry...I need a current YouTube Policy clarification 

message: I question if we have consensus that "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources," and "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." are links to be avoided. I would very much like to hear both sides of this issue, but I have noticed substantial pushback when trying to remove such external links over the past number of days. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the criteria for external links.  While I agree with you 100% that blogs should not be cited as a source, external links are another matter.  When they are used to give more depth to a subject than an encyclopedia article should be expected to provide they are of great use.  Overlinking to blogs is bad and should be avoided.  However, your claim that blogs in the EL section are somehow in violation of the GUIDELINE WP:RS displays a thorough misunderstanding of our existing policies and guidelines.  Please stop arbitrarily removing links just because you don't like them.  Cheers. L0b0t 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, define blog.  What are the criteria that make something a blog?  What if an article about person X has an external link to a blog by person X?  I'm not talking about citeing the blog as a source, just as a link to more information.  Cheers. L0b0t 03:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also suggest that it is very situational.  To say there is a blanket prohibition against blogs appearing anywhere in the encyclopedia is not only factually incorrect but displays an amazing misunderstanding of just what it is we are trying to accomplish here.  Blanket prohibitions should be reserved for spamsites.  Another issue is just what makes something a "blog", when is it a blog, when is it just someones website?  Does it have to have the word blog in the URL?  Cheers. L0b0t 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I suppose a blog is a weblog, thus a site where regular content posts are made. But the distinction is unimportant, as just someone's website isn't a good source either, unless it's written by a recognized authority. >Radiant< 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think living somewhere makes one an expert on a topic, plus with self published info there's no verification or proof reading.  Blogs are only acceptable links in rare circumstances - the bar is very high and I don't think those meet it.  Please don't revert war over them.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm with Milo here.  Personally the only time I use EL's is in the case where I find a site that appears to be reliable, and useful, but I don't quite have the time to apply what it says to the article.  So I use them sort of as an "I'll-get-around-to-it-later" reminder.  If the EL is actually giving more depth to an article, then I don't see why you wouldn't simply add it as a source and cite it.  If it doesn't pass muster as a source, would it pass muster as an EL? Wjhonson 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I'm looking for clarification on.  Is there a blanket prohibition against blogs in the EL section?  If so, how does wikipedia define a blog?  Does the guideline reliable sources apply to sites not being cited as a source?  Cheers. L0b0t 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho, a blanket prohibition wouldn't really make logical sense.  I mean take a case where sometimes I find a link that appears useful and I add it as an EL, because in my mind I feel that I'll come back in a bit and actually use it as a source.  So at first I find it may pass as a source, I may be a bit unsure.  Later after editing here, there and underwear, I come back, review it more in-depth and decide it *doesn't* pass muster and so I delete it as an EL as well.  So in general I'd have to say that EL's are potentially sources, but maybe a bit fuzzy.  So the use of EL's can't be *stricter* than what we're saying on reliable sources since that wouldn't make logical sense.  It must be that EL's have to be, maybe just a tad, looser in restrictions, but never tighter. Wjhonson 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to be avoided no longer accurately reflects consensus 

message: Hi, why is the Protect2 template used instead of the Protect template? Parasite 04:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use it? John Reaves (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion on what should be used, I'm curious thats all.  I've never seen it before and I am wondering why it is used in lieu of Protect.  Is it used because it doesn't display a text box? Parasite 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect2 template

message: Should this rule be used to forbid linking to translated excerpts of the major work of a bio article subject, when it is the only available online source and the book in question is not readily available. The web-site in question is tendentious, but of the same tendency of the author. I've been running the line that there is a good reason why it says "normally to be avoided", ie there is no other link available. (The site itself is NN & cannot be used as a source, this is no longer disputed.) There has also been no dispute as to the accuracy of the translated excerpts. Am I correct in this interpretation? The boring details are here if anyone can be bothered, just after the last outdenting is current, from User MPerel. Thnx in advance.  ⇒ bsnowball  19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio. Not readily available books are fine sources. And, honestly - can't be that hard to get your hands on the book - .  Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm talking about ext. link to excerpts on the site, not quoting it the book. the problem is it's difficult to find translations, also original not easily avail thru libraries. (everytime someone who has the book tries to quote it they get shouted down on rs) but could you explain copyvio? i had assumed it was their own translation, this wld be a more serious problem...  ⇒ bsnowball  11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific q about "Links normally to be avoided" 

message: 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
I honestly feel that in some cases, there is very little wrong with having external links to well written, comprehensive and well respected unofficial fan websites (especially those which have been online for a considerable period of time and have lots of information, and possibly have multiple contributors to an associated forum/community) for a rock band's Wikipedia article. If I truly felt it was beneficial enough to an article, and that the external link's benefits greatly outweighed its negatives, I'd ignore all rules.
As an example, Radiohead, a current good article nominee, has At Ease and Green Plastic in its external links section, well known fan websites. These are, to the best of my knowledge, not directly affiliated with Radiohead, although the members of the band are almost certainly aware of these two major Radiohead information outlets, too. Are we going to have to delete these too? Or should this policy be revised? --HisSpaceResearch 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read a similar note above at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Symmetry_and_Scope. This policy isn't specifically about fan sites, and its mention is almost coincidental. Read the prev. convo. over (by the end there is an 'oooh, thats nice and clear' moment), and let us know if you still feel that same about these Radiohead links. Also keep in mind other criteria usually apply to fansites, like is it authoritative, verifiable, and a recognized authority? (if not see 'Links normally to be avoided' in the policy section #2 and #11). JoeSmack Talk 06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So fansites can be acceptable under some circumstances? The way rule #13 is written, it seems to make them all out to be best avoided unless they have an official association with the subject of the article (i.e. Radiohead, a band, whatever, and/or its members). The two fansites in question in the Radiohead case could each definitely be described as "authoritative, verifiable, and a recognized authority". --h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says nothing at all about "official".  The focus of the link has to be the focus of the article. That's all. 2005 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links normally to be avoided - something I'd contest 

message: On 19 February 2007, Artaxiad deleted external link -   
*Ozan, Mahmut Esat "Remembering "The Turkish Tiger Who Tamed The Russian Bear At ’Plevne’" The Turkish Forum;
from the article Osman Nuri Paşa on the grounds that it was "No good".  There is no question that the article has a definite point of view, which it expressly states.  The article also has images and information that is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article, and not otherwise available on the Internet.  Much of the information in the article is verifiable, including quotations.  I am not sure why Artaxiad considered it no good, other than its obvious POV.  So the question is, should Wikipedia have an external link to a resource which contains solid information beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article (and not otherwise available on the Internet), but which is, in and of itself, not authoritative, and which has an acknowledged POV? This is not a case of external links being heavily weighted toward one POV or another. --Bejnar 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ELs don't need to be NPOV. They do need to be authoritative. They cannot be original research. Sometimes particularly slanted POV links make lots of OR claims. JoeSmack Talk 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV External link for Osman Nuri Paşa

message: * If an informational link is made  (one that satisfies the criteria of "what should be linked"), but it goes to a site that has a commercial as well as an informational purpose (let's say the primary purposefor the site is unclear, but products or services are offered), is it better to have the information at the cost of linking to a commercial site, or is it better to lose the information in order to eliminate the commercial link. --Dystopos 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to find a reliable source for the information, then incorporate the information with the source into the body of the article.  If that's not possible, I suggest using an alternative site with comparable information. --Ronz 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that an editor has created the link without understanding what might have been a better tack. Is it then an improvement to delete the link as a policy violation? --Dystopos 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With questionable external links I think it's best to remove them, but discuss why on the talk page and include a note to the discussion in the edit summary, such as "Removed per guideline - See talk".  This assumes the editor that added the link did not give any reason for it in the edit summary or talk page. --Ronz 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me, as long as both parties are willing to engage in a discussion of where the link falls short of the policy guidelines (i. e. not mistaking "Links normally to be avoided" for "Links absolutely to be forbidden"), eager to create consensus, and willing to contribute toward finding a better way to incorporate the information. Are these qualifications reasonable or hopelessly idealistic? (or something else) --Dystopos 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In this case, it appears that you added a link to a site you're affiliated with.  This isn't allowed per WP:EL and WP:COI.  Whether your site is a personal site or a magazine isn't really an issue since the link you cited didn't seem to support the info in the article.  If you really think your site has useful info, explain on the talk page and let other editors decide if it should be included.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Sorry if this is somewhere obvious and I just didn't see it, but I've got a question.  Is there currently a consensus on what the section title should be if it includes only one link? I guess it's been a bit since I've looked at this page.  This edit in November '06 got rid of the section that clarified that "External links" is the preferred title no matter the quantity.  Was it removed because the consensus no longer exists...or was it just removed as part of the copyedit? --Onorem 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link vs Links 

message: I've just noticed a raft of links to wowio.com appearing in articles on novels. There are currently 16 links, most but not all from one user. Now, there is nothing new in posting links to the text of out of copyright books (generally good) or links to copyright violations of books (generally bad). The difference here is that, from what I can gather, wowio.com offers without-charge and legal contemporary books for PDF download; their revenue comes from placing adverts into the books customised to the downloader's profile. I wanted to raise this to see what general thoughts were on linking to this site for the books it offers; if it is successful at some point someone is likely to propose adding it for every work otherwise unavailable "free". Notinasnaid 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can gather, you have to register to take advantage of their free "service." That makes it a bad external link my mind. Nposs 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having to register sucks, if an alternate site can be found, please use that one. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm I'm a bit apprehensive about this kind of link.  We do not need an online link to make a book citation valid.  In many cases I'd almost prefer to let people find a copy though the automagical ISDN number link. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wowio.com 

message: Any chance this project page can get back to being a wiki? -Parasite 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, most people here are really childish. Check here, the article guideline was protected at least once per month. Although I would agree with you, people here is stubborn. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know about the Protection Log - thats a cool trick.  Yeh, I know the page needs protecting often,  but like most people I find it frustrating to see pages protected. -Parasite 13:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. The dispute that caused the protection has... well, lets just say it's losts it's fire. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting any time soon? 

message: Are links/refs to books available on Google Books allowed as links? I have this edit in mind. Sorry if this has been answered before, but it might be a good idea to give it a mention on the Project Page. Ekantik talk 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it, though I'd certainly suggest keeping the full reference available as you do in case the links go bad. --Ronz 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a "convenience" link, it's fine...(falls under things we should link to). But I'd be leery if it's being relied on as a citation. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen a lot of debate over convenience links in the past.  However, is there any reason to suspect that Google Books is innacurrate?  It is basically just scanned documents, no untrustworthy human typists.  The Optical Character Recognition, relied on for searching, is a bit buggy, but the images are there for human inspection.  From a copyright perspective, the Amazon Online Reader is probably better since AOR has permission and Google Books is only fair use.  Also, the main criticism of AOR/GB links I remember seeing in the past is that they are commercial.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either one would be fine in my opinion.  If both options exist, judge vers. quality. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just saying that I think they should be allowed as citations (with AOR preferred over GB), but I know some people would object to them even being used as convenience links.  : )  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy, if you want to make a citation, I'd encurage people to use one of the  templates.  A peoperly filled out citation is 10 times more valuable then a sloppy google-book/aor link. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Knowing whether an editor used the paper version of the book or the online version is sort of like knowing what edition of the book the editor used.  Also, ISBNs and other links are not mutually exclusive, and other links can save editors and readers some looking.  To J.smith: Yes, I agree that citation templates are great to use. : )  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with this type of link. I have found them very useful when editing articles, because they have prompted me to look further into the book and make edits based on them. So long as you give the full book details then the reference remains just as valid if the link goes dead. And in my experience these links are extremely volatile: I have found that the page link has reverted to a whole-book link or has given a "no image available" result. I've also  received a message that I've reached the limit of my entitlement to read pages—so there must be variables built into the system. I can't access Amazon look-inside links because I haven't a live account, so I think they are less useful to the random reader. qp10qp 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Books?

message: Web sites that try to install spyware should be amongst web sites to avoid. I know that no legitimate (but some malicious) editors would knowingly link to such sites, but it might be worth reminding well-intentioned editors about such risks, and possible ways to minimize such risks (eg sticking to reputable sites, and checking with resources that evaluate whether a web site has spyware). Andjam 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spyware 

message: If anyone has time to review this, I had reverted all links to www.asianjunkie.com in the past, but  started including them again. I do not really like having external links to galleries, when only a free one should be needed in an article (also considering most of them already have official sites with galleries). It also appears to be inappropriate, not many would link to a site (www.asianjunkie.com) reading "There’s no doubt in my mind as to when my infatuation with her started. It was about 42 seconds into the movie ‘Who Slept With Her’ when my penis made my decision for me.", "Don’t get me wrong, she’s hot, it’s just that she was one of the few who didn’t get butt ass naked. A downer but i’ll get over it. My mind may have forgot but my penis remembered quickly.", "All I need now is for that omnipresent motherfucker to bestow a video of a lesbian tryst between Song Hye Kyo and Jeon Ji Hyun. I don’t think it’s too much to ask, really." etc. Any opinion? -- ReyBrujo 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not counting that the site was started 4 months ago only. -- ReyBrujo 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all gone now. --Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an inappropriate external link? 

message: Hi, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY says:
 and refers to WP:EL for further guidelines, but point #13 on Links to be avoided understandably prefers official websites over fansites. Is there scope for elasticating this proposal?
I have in mind Shah Rukh Khan of which I am an editor of that page. Khan is rather a big film star in Bollywood but doesn't have his own official website. From time to time some editor comes along and inserts a link to this site and it is always deleted (by me, sometimes) because "it is a fansite, not an official site". But according to WP:NOT#REPOSITORY such fansites may be acceptable? I accept that this is that kind of thing that is open to abuse but perhaps editors should be trusted to be judicious in which types of fansite links are allowable? Comments would be appreciated. Ekantik talk 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kneejerk rejection of fansites is bad editing.  The guideline says official sites should be linked.  There is nothing either/or about it.  If a fansite meets the criteria for linking, then link to it.  If it doesn't, don't. This isn't rocket science. 2005 05:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One comprehensive fansite is usually fine, in same cases I'm OK with two at most if they offer different things. Don't be afraid to get rid of as many others as necessary.. any fansites that don't offer a decent amount of content not found on WP fail EL and should be deleted. Deiz talk 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Most fansites that have been linked are stuffed full of copyright violations. Have a view on how this impacts on the linking of a site? Spartaz Humbug! 08:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've come across something like this before. Personally, my view is if the official site has more info than the fansite... bugger the fansite and delete it as spam. If it's got actual info that's relevant and useful to the article that isn't on the official site, go for it. As has been said, many fansites are full of copyright violations, so not linking would be a good option. However, as you have said, I would look at this fansite. Since there is no official website, judge whether the website adds anything, and if it's useful. You might wanna bring it up on the talk page to get others' opinions on the site as well. --Dane ~nya 08:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option would be to simply have one link to a linkfarm like dmoz. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fansite consideration

message: Here is a question about how to balance WP:Undue weight and WP:ATT when dealing with competing minority views in the EL section.  There are numerous smallish (ca. a few thousand followers) new religious movements that are notable enough to be in WP, and some are controversial.  What should the standards be for the EL section in such cases?
Often, with such groups, views of both critics and advocates are minority ones (because the group itself is small, and most people don't know or care about the movement).  Because such views are small, they are frequently self-published.  
Under "Links normally to be avoided", WP:EL mentions:
*Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.
With respect to a small religious movement, what's a recognized authority?  A present or former member of the group with some degree of notability within the group itself (e.g., per the group's own self-published material)?  An advocate or critics who is prominent with respect to the group (e.g., someone who sued the group), but otherwise not especially notable?  Perhaps on both counts, but this is a slippery slope.  See Andrew Cohen and Adi Da for examples of articles where this issue is being debated.
Maybe a solution would be to avoid linking to self-published material except perhaps from people who clearly are notable per WP:BIO, and link to web directory categories covering the pro and anti views?  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note:  I don't think WP should be biased against blogs moreso than any other form of publication, as long as authorship is verifiable.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are many possible pages, one link to a linkfarm like dmoz is far better then a crap load of links here on wikipedia. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; dmoz and such sites have the potential to (not-)suck in ways that are complementary to WP.  Dmoz isn't as truly open-source as WP, though, unlike WP.  Too bad.  Hopefully something better will come along, or Dmoz will reform and go the Wikipedia route.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocacy and criticism of gurus and religious movements with small followings

message: There is an editor who wants to add a link to an on-line petition in NYPD Blue.  This editor first discussed it at Talk:NYPD Blue/Archives/2015#Petition for DVD Release.  I explained that it violates WP:EL.  They seemed unconvinced.  I then made a couple of quotes from WP:EL, but there is really nothing that explicitly prohibits this that I could find, although I think there is strong implicit arguments against it.  I don't think there is a COI issue here because this editor apparently does not profit from it.  I have two requests:
*Can we add something to this policy that specifically prohibits links that promote a "call to action"?
*Can someone look at my reasoning on Talk:NYPD Blue/Archives/2015#Petition for DVD Release and add a stronger argument, if you feel there is more to say that I haven't said?
Thanks --rogerd 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no...  We try not to make rules that specifically target websites or classes of website.  Why would a petition or "call to action" be inappropriate in EVERY case? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you envisage a situation where they would be OK? Inherently NPOV and even with a lower bar we would effectively be endorsing a particular petition by having a link to it. I think Not a soapbox covers it nicely. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can... many subjects get most their press from those who oppose them. Businesses, for example. "Wexample-Mart" is a business selling cheap plastic crap.  "Wexamplemartsucks.com" is an org critical of their hiring practices. If Wexamplemartsucks.com gets a bunch of minor mentions in the press in connection to wallmart...err.. wexample-mart then I can see where an external EL would be appropriate, despite the fact that the page is highly bias. At the very least it's a conversation that should be had at the talkpage of the article and should not be ruled out on the guideline level. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petitions/Calls to action 

message: Another issue with the same user as above: is  a good link for Darien, Connecticut? It seems to be a mix between a blog and a search engine results page. Two different people have already removed it. --NE2 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Topix.Net has specific pages for specific subjects.  There are many precedents for listing a topix.net page (not the top level page) in articles.  This is the difference between this case and the previous one you mentioned, but maybe it's just the way that I am interpreting it. Personally, I question the value of it, but I don't think there is anything in the guidelines that would forbid it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd remove it. If the editor in question wants to link directly to the news articles thats fine (ie the publication and not the website that repeats it), but not this in between stuff. This has been happening lately with pages like citebite.com (ex: ). JoeSmack Talk 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  JoeSmack, that's exactly where I come from too - we probably want to look at the 169 other topix.net listings (although some are on Talk pages) the same logic would apply, I would think. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just promised him that I wouldn't remove it, based on Alucard's comments, the fact that it's pretty widely done, and that we have an article about topix.net (I had thought it was a local blog):  I still don't think it necessarily belongs, but I'm not going to remove it. --NE2 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: re pub-6325511968014372. Most (at least in the top 50) seem to be Links to news search results pages. Wouldent this conflict with #9 Links normally to be avoided? Mabey this should be amended to include all search results.--Hu12 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should. Basically they are posting search queries or reposting others' news. In doing this they are collecting ad revenue by having ads around others' content or their own search results. Not kosher. JoeSmack Talk 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Topix.net?

message: Number 9 of Links normally to be avoided currently reads "Links to search engine results pages." however there are other search type results worthy of exclusion (such as news feeds, ect). Reason for wording. Both search engines and news feeds, ect. are to collect or gather into a mass or whole . Proposed change would effect a broader scope of search queries by clarifying the statement to include = "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages."--Hu12 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this change. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it, if more discussion is needed, please discuss. thanks--Hu12 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change for broader definition 

message: There are two principles from the final decision in the MONGO RfA that should be incorporated into WP:EL:
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites
Looks like it should go in "Restrictions on linking" as a third item, and should have a general description of attack sites beyond just outing. --Ronz 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:EL & MONGO RfA Principles

message: the current phrasing of Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for number 13 is: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." - Can I remove everything after the colon? I think somewhere in there when the wording moved from symmetrical to direct this happened. JoeSmack Talk 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, you can remove it. This can be removed by you for sure. — Ocolon 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a message from the redundancy department of redundancy: 

message: On the Diaphragm (contraceptive) and Cervical cap pages, I had an external link to the only cervical-barrier forum I am aware of, a Yahoo! group.  This group has a physician adviser, so it's a little more formal that most message boards.  Because cervical barriers are one of the least popular contraceptive options, there is very little interactive content about them on the internet - as I said before, this is the only site I am aware of.  I believe it meets criteria 3 and 4 of What should be linked as it provides both physician-sourced information (accurate) that cannot be used in the article because it is not published (not verifiable), and also has personal reviews from a variety of women of the different cervical barriers available.
However, the site requires registration.  It was removed here in what seems to be a reflex maneuver by the editor (I can't imagine how the site violated any of the cited policies except this one provision of WP:EL).  Is the registration requirement a complete kill on having it as an external link? Lyrl    Talk     C   03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to be avoided: #10 - Links to forums. So it violates two of the guidelines. But, if you really feel like it is a worthy resource, I'd suggest bringing it up on the talk page of the article. It would be good to have some links to support your arguments about why it should be included in spite of the fact that it doesn't pass WP:EL in a couple of ways. (Forums can be problematic since they often don't pass WP:RS and WP:OR, but there might be an exception in this case.) Nposs 03:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sites that require registration 

message: Based on Wikipedia discussion at External_links/YouTube, I  would like to see the following added to this policy. 
:When a transcript of a video is available, the transcript rather than the video should be linked to. Video is not, in general, a preferred method for illustrating a concept or documenting something, as it is less accessible to internet users with older computers or slower connections. Additionally, the content of a video is more easily searched or quoted via the transcript. However, there are cases where video is the best way to illustrate an article or concept. Examples would include illustration of motions in articles about mechanics or machinery, video of dance choreography, and various sorts of journalistic video for historic events or repeated phenomena. That watching the video would be more compelling than reading a transcript is not a valid reason for linking to the video. A link to a video is appropriate when it is a primary source, assuming no copyright violations are involved.
Looking for feedback on this. —WikiLen 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how whether it is a primary source  or some other kind of source is relevant, so long as it is reliable. --Gerry Ashton 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which bit of the discussion does this come from?  I couldn't find any mention of transcripts on the talk page.  -- Siobhan Hansa 14:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add about videos vs. transcripts 

message: I'm seeing more and more external links like this.  Often these portals are obviously promotional in nature and have very poor content.  Also, I prefer links to articles (where the content isn't changing) or to sites where the contributors are known and they have obvious expertise.  Thoughts? --Ronz 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such links do not seem at all appropriate to me, either.  This one in particular contains little quality info and much advertising.  The link's primary purpose appears to be to promote the site itself, which obtains revenue via AdSense. Finally, and most importantly, the website "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." (I have removed this one.) -- Satori Son 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to portals, knowledge centers, etc

message: I'm currently involved in a polite disagreement over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#DermAtlas, and I'd welcome feedback from this community.--Hu12 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest related SPAM additions 

message: I'm a relative newbie, having edited only since Christmas, so would welcome some guidance on this matter.  What is WP policy on mentioning local sports clubs by name in articles on towns or regions?  One editor working on Mendip Hills unlinked a (named) local gliding club, leaving a link to gliding as a sport in the text & relegating the club to the External Links section.  Is this the generally approved method; or is it sometimes acceptable to include an EL to a specific (non-profit members') club in the text of the article?
I should add that in this case there is only one gliding club in the Mendips, so there's no issue of competition between clubs. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to local sports clubs 

message: A question please.  When an EL section contains only one link, is there consensus as to whether the title of that section ought to be the singular "External link" or the plural "External links"?  I've always been under the impression that it was the latter, but I recently interacted with an editor under the opposite impression.  So, which is it?  -- Black Falcon 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also above (#Link vs Links). - I haven't seen too many "External link" in a long time, and then only in diffs where some cleanup bot changed it. I'd say plural has pretty much become the established standard, formalized consensus or not, so I'll (re)include it in the guideline. Femto 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much.  I really should have looked through the previous discussions, but the 16 archives frightened me.  Thanks again, Black Falcon 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I seem to remember that this is mentioned in the Wikipedia Style Guide. Notinasnaid 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: link or links?