Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 16

message: I would like to suggest that what appears to be a total ban on links to MySpace be reconsidered if the link is to a Band or some other "Professional" type page.  In particular this type of page can frequently be an appropriate source for "Independent" musicians, etc. CyntWorkStuff 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly Jimbo had these blacklisted. If you want to change it I suggest you take it up with him directly.  --Spartaz 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know it was completely blacklisted, only that it was listed under "Links normally to be avoided" and then only in context of "Social Netwoking" or "Personal Blog" pages.  CyntWorkStuff 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad - I shouldn't post so early in the morning. Myspace blog links are blacklisted. For the others you are in the right place. So I'll shut up now... --Spartaz 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy, I have a few mixed feelings on myspace. Yes I can see how some information can be gotten from the site, thats great. The problem I am seeing is that if whatever is being cited can only be found in myspace, is whatever is being cited really that big of a deal? If information about a band can't be cited by multiple reliable sources, then the band probably should not even be in wikipedia. We are not here to document the "up and coming" so to say, but rather those who already have had a ton of media coverage. I guess it comes to this... if what is trying to be said can only be cited by myspace, then we should be asking if that material is really notable, and is that material any type of original research. As far as myspace links in the "external links" section, I think they should go, as we are not a linkfarm. Its not our job to point people to every related band site. Nor is it our job to be pointing people to random fan-sites. Generally useful links to go in the "external links" section would be, the band's official page, their producer's page on them, and thats about it. If they are an "independent" band, then we should be relying on multiple reliable sources to document if and when the band is releasing something (after we check to make sure the band is or is not notable, and can info really be verifiable). If there are some interesting related hisotory or what not, that could go there as well. Its Google, Yahoo, Ask.com, and the search engines job to point people to the related fan-sites, and other paraphernalia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main issue is when a band uses myspace for their official webpage.  If that's the case, WP:EL definitely recommends linking to it.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation I have in mind is not just when a Band (or now other entities such as Films; Books; Festivals; 501c3's and/or NGO Organizations; Performers; etc.) use MySpace as their "Official" web-page, it is when they start using a Main web-site and MySpace in tandem.  For instance, since webpage's frequently require the assistance of programmers to update and change, many people use them for more static information and then use more User-modifiable sites, (like MySpace) to put up new info. Additionally because it is easy for an end user to do on their own, it is a place where the most current music, etc. can be found.  While not at all advocating that the "External Links" sections be turned into linkfarms, I would just like to be able to list and cite both a main website and an "official" secondary or tertiary site, without having a "Removing external link: myspace.com -- per external link guidelines" show up.  CyntWorkStuff 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We just have to be careful, of course, that it's the true official page, and not someone masquerading as such. There are ways to tell. We just have to be careful. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)The problem is myspace has no system for 'official' verification. There are several artists out there, and I'm sure many more, of whom have multiple myspace 'official' profiles. Only one of them, sometimes none of them are the 'true' 'official' profile. I don't think WP:EL recommends linking to it on shakey WP:RS (WP:V) grounds. JoeSmack Talk 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We have to be equally careful outside of MySpace. There is nothing unusual about a fan site with its own domain. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say the same way we assess if any webpage/website is an official & trusted source.  By careful research and using common sense and good judgment.  Additionally, we can hope to rely on the knowledge of our fellow editors to tell us if someone is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.  My  thought here is that just as NOT being on MySpace doesn't always automatically make a site and the information contained instantly credible, the fact that it was set up using MySpace as a tool should not in all cases make it instantly suspect.  I just want to be able to make that reasonable assessment without being automatically wiped out in some sort of global "links to MySpace" hunting sweep.  CyntWorkStuff 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about when the band puts the myspace link on their album?  And along the lines of "why do we link both", why do we do it in the case of corporations that have multiple official websites?  I don't see "why do we need both" as a reason not to link to an official site.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they have a series of interlinked sites then I don't think we are serving any informational value up by providing every single one of them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we have an estimate of how many (in percentage, please) reliable sites there are on myspace?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible to estimate.  Technically speaking, anywhere from 0-100%.  They all are possible reliable primary sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just look at some of them! Most are sloppily done using code generators, and I could set one up in mere minutes. Any band with no official site outside of myspace should probably be AfDed under WP:MUSIC, since a website is so easy to set up these days. ST47Talk 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully, having a website does not meet the deletion criteria. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Does it matter? If one band has an official page on MySpace, and the information thereon is reliable information about the band, then that link should be included. Blanket bans should be saved for spam sites. (And if Jimbo has blocked links to MySpace blogs, he's wrong.) Argyriou (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is technically a correct answer.  But of all the myspace sites .. there are <100% maintained by bands, of those <100% do not have an official homepage, and of those <100% are notable enough to be in wikipedia.  But to make it countable first, how many official 'groups' do have a myspace account (as opposed to my neighbours daughter)?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My specialty in this regard is indie music, and I'd say that it's rare for a group not to have a Myspace page, either as their main homepage or in addition to their main homepage.  If you want to reach your audience, you get on MySpace.  I don't know of any bands at this point that do not have a MySpace page, although I'm sure there may be a few here or there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I do believe that, but if that in total are 500 bands, of those have 10% not an official site, we end up with 50 myspace links, right.  On a 50,000 myspace sites, that is a mere 0.1% .. all the others, 49,950, we'd have to revert.  And then, I am not even asking if all these 50 are notable enough to earn a wikipedia site.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Howdy, I just want to note that in this case, a quick read of the links normally to be avoided, would help here. In this case it is a link to a social group, we can't possibly link to every related social group without becoming a link farm. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I forgot to answer to Argyriou.  Argyriou, it is still possible to add myspace.com pages, but most (practically all) will be removed on sight.  If there is such a page, I am sure there will be an exception (just wondering, how do you know it is an official myspace site of a notable band?).  For now, such a site has not been encountered, and wikipedia is not a repository for external links.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Some have cited Wikipedia:External links. But if you look at the subhead "Links normally to be avoided," you'll find that links that constitute "an official page of the article subject" are exempt. Many MySpace pages are run by the actual subjects of the articles or their delegates and provide a rich source of first-hand information about them. They often function as a subject's only official page or as a supporting page with unique content. No, I don't work for MySpace -- I just think it's a mistake to overlook this resource. Jessesamuel 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is part of the above discussion.  While obeying that WP is not a linkfarm, one could consider using a myspace page, if a) that is indeed the official page (how to check?), b) the page where that link is on is on itself notable enough to be in wikipedia, and the information is reliable (again, how to check).  That indeed gives the possibility that there are some myspace links left over (and I am sure an exception for these can be made), but how many will that be?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That issue has already been addressed - identity can be verified by the user confirming their page from an official source.  If nbc.com links to a myspace page for a show, there's no doubt the page is an official one.  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all.  Cross-referencing is key.  The crux of the matter is this - if the page has legitimate claims, it will be reported by the news media.  If it has been reported by the news media, then THAT is what should be linked.  Linking to small indie band websites is nothing more than a promotion tool.  ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Until this day comes it should not be considered verifiable unless a 3rd party reliable source confirms it, and in that case just use the reliable source instead. Come to think of it, it seems like 99.9% of cases would end up in not using myspace. If it was used, it would only be in a ref tag. JoeSmack Talk 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources and external links are two different things.  The fact that a myspace page is official absolutely needs to be verifiable to use it as an external link.  But another source doesn't need to verify everything on that page (same as any other official source), and a source verifying that it is official isn't necessarily going to contain all the info on the myspace page, and thus isn't really a replacement for the page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but as per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided i remove links that are not reliable sources. ELs are often times info that is waiting to be incorporated into the article, and if they ain't RSs someone is going to be mislead. JoeSmack Talk 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it sounds like you're misunderstanding policy.  EL and RS are two different things and have two different standards for inclusion.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 2. JoeSmack Talk 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And please see the intro to that section that says links to official sites are exempt from that list.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and how do we know it is an official site?  Because there are other (3rd party) sources telling it is official, making that source an even better reference than the blog.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline as currently written doesn't support that.  It says to link official sites, not to compare official sites to third party sources and see which is "better".  If you don't like the policy, propose a change.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As has already been pointed out, it can be verified from other official info.  Just because another source is required to verify that it is offical doesn't somehow make it not official.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and as such it can be used as a reference, noting that it must be clear that the myspace site is there a reliable source (hence, a reference giving both the official site and the myspace site, explaining this).  As an external link, it is only reliable if there is an official source stating it is reliable, then it does not need to be in the external links, since the official site can be in the external links, and people can go via the official site to the myspace site.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but the guideline simply doesn't agree with that statement.  "Reliable source" is irrelevant in regard to external links to official websites.  If a myspace page is an official site, the policy says it can go in the external links.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, how do you know the myspace in question is an official website.  Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, hence, although it could go into the external links, one does not have to put a link into the external links section when it is available.  And in these cases there are better external links available, and when it is the official page, it is better as a reference to statements in the text.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking a question that has already been answered.  Per the guideline, we just need to be sure that a website is an official one.  Once we know that, it may be linked, period.  "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."  Per the guideline, "better" or "linkfarm" aren't reasons not to link to official sites.  Again, if you disagree with linking to official sites, propose a change in the policy.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one, and what does that site add to the article when it is in the external links section.  That a link exists does not mean that it should be incorporated (it can be incorporated, when it is clearly an official site).  The majority of the external links contain information that could be used in the text and are then better used as a reference (vide infra).  So yes, they can be official sites, they can be used.  But the guidelines says: keep it to a minimum, and then the site that says that the myspace site is official is a better EL than the myspace site .. the myspace is then superfluous.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one"  This has already been answered multiple times, why do you keep asking?  "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."  Sounds like official sites should be linked.  It doesn't say "can" be linked.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see it.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2cents are this point are this: if i see "Official site" next to a myspace EL on wikipedia, i just don't trust it's claim. i don't see any good reason why i should as it is a social networking site. the burden of proof is on the contributor, and from wikipedia space i just can't see how it could be shown to be officially verified by contributor as the sole official site (the most of the 'exceptions' to linking to myspace). JoeSmack Talk 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sole official site"?  Where in EL does it use that term?  The question keeps coming up about knowing a myspace site is really an official one, but how do we know *any* official site is legit?  The question isn't unique to myspace.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a scenario in which i might use myspace EL. and we use a little common sense to identify official sites. For instance Spiderman 3, you might find the 'official site' being Spiderman 3 official site!!, Spiderman official site, Spiderman official site!!!, Spidermans official siite! and Spiderman 3 site!!!. My point is myspace is a social networking site, and requires sometimes arduous research to show it is official, all of which is unprovable in wikipedia space anyways. Just like flickr extremely rarely if ever an acceptable EL as an official site, myspace should garner the same response - thus both are hardly ever used and often deleted from EL sections. JoeSmack Talk 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we have said 'never' .. hardly ever is closer.  And I don't think it is a 'I don't like it', it is a Jimbo does not like it.  But you can write "Jon Favreau, the director of the upcoming Iron Man film has announced on his weblog[www.ironman.com/pagetellingthisistheofficialblog Ironman official site] that something is going to happen.[www.myspace.com/ironman official ironman blog]" ??  In that case indeed you can indeed use it as a reliable source.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard some pretty vehement arguments against MySpace being used for pretty much anything, so I'm perhaps a bit overzealous in my arguments for the site. I just think that MySpace isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and a policy that ignores that is based on a fallacy, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the arguments raised against it are legitimate. Please give them a read. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think Milo has the correct argument. And, in my experience, non-official or fansites on myspace nearly always declare themselves as they soon discover it's the only way to avoid deluges of fan messages. The social networking aspect is irrelevant when myspace has become the default method of public communication by so many artists - audio samples, tourdates, videoclips, and other provided content are independent of social connections. Solutions could be to create an 'official' tag to be included on pages and/or to request email verification similar to the permissions@WP system. Wwwhatsup 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't always the case so I couldn't possibly trust the idea that everyone who is non official declares it. The social networking aspect isn't irrelevant, it is actually the most salient: myspace is first and foremost a social networking site no matter how you look at it. The solution you propose is sometimes suggested, but until it is made and it works and isn't abused and such, myspace won't be a proper EL in the vast vast majority of the cases it is used. JoeSmack Talk 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace Ban revisited 

message: Could the title of Section 4.1, "Advertising and Conflict of Interest," be amended to something like "Advertising, Self-Linking, and Conflict of Interest"? I'm a math professor who tried to set up links to my course notes. I initially skipped over this section in my reading, because I didn't think I fell into either of the two categories; I was thinking "Coke, Pepsi, and politicians." I think many fellow new users might get confused. Thanks! Ken Kuniyuki 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need for the change. You have aproached linking correctly from what I have seen by discussing it on the talk page. I would however, have a read over at Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought to cover all bases in case its Primary (original) research. cheers --Hu12 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle "Advertising and Conflict of Interest"? 

message: I removed a ton of links to Livejournal.com communities from this article... my thinking is that as we can't know a thing about the editorial standards of some random LJ, it shouldn't be linked to in such a fashion. Is this a good move? - Denny (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ask over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam--Hu12 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. For sourcing/ELs though, what do you think though...? I'd think for a source they're no good. - Denny (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always no on a Livejournal link, allowing for rare exceptions where it can be confirmed the livejournal is written by a recognized authority in his/her field. --SubSeven 10:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *99% of blogs should not be linked to. Indeed, we make exceptions for recogized authorities, which most of Livejournal isn't. >Radiant< 10:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, thanks guys. - Denny (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Livejournal.com 

message: Does the condition concerning sites that demand installation of plugins apply to "official" websites placed in infoboxes?  One has just been added to Upen Patel; according to the site, it "requires the latest flash plugin, 1152x864 screen resolution, and a broadband connection".  I'd normally remove it from an "external links" list, but I'm not sure about this. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It only says "avoid" not "don't". If it's the official site then include it - along with the "explicit indication of the technology needed". And I don't see the reason for normally remove it from an "external links" list just because of the rich media unless it's deemed not appropiate for content (and I guess "avoid" would indicate a removal if there was a text site that was equal or better). - Ctbolt 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, the usual response of other editors is to remove such links (I don't really see much difference between "avoid doing it" and "don't do it", to be honest).  Given the relative unimpotance of external links for anything except giving sources, what's wrong with removing them in such cases? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in infoboxes 

message: Every time i put my fourm up in a day its down again yet i know another fourm that is let stay up why is my site so wrong can someone tell me the website is spencerzone-A Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em Fourm —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaAman (talk • contribs) 
:Our guidelines explicitly state that forums are generally not allowed and that you should refrain from linking directly to sites you are involved with.  The message left on your talk page asked you to discuss the link on the article talk page, but instead of doing this you used the talk page to promote your website and then added the link to the article again.  This is what Wikipedia considers to be spamming.   Other forums may be there because they have gained community consensus, or because they have not yet been spotted by an editor who is concerned about them.  In any case the existence of one link does not mean that other links are acceptable.  If you believe you link can add encyclopedic value to the article you need to make your case on the talk page and gain the consensus of editors there.  -- Siobhan Hansa 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specifically refer to Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided guideline #3 and #10, also your forum doesn't seem to meet any of the Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link guidlines. Monty845 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourm

message: Didn't this used to say something about no linking fansites? Can we include this? Any thoughts?
IvoShandor 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this why Google exists? Why even bother linking to fansites/forums/possibly unreliable information? I mean, if you can use Wikipedia, you can use Google. We don't need to provide links to everything. In my experience this lack of consensus has led to nothing but conflict, off wiki canvassing, personal attacks, edit wars etc. etc. etc. IvoShandor 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't provide "links to everything".  That's silly.  We have a guideline for meritable linking, which is this.  If you have constructive comments, feel free to suggest them.  Saying no linking to fasites is weird and thoughtless, and has never been the guideline.  I'd encourage you to start thinking about building a better encyclopedia, not frankly bizarre black and white ideas that have nothing to do with user value and encyclopedic merit. 2005 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Going back into the history, the clearest was: "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included."  At some point this was replaced by a long and overly explanatory comment about "non-reciprocal sites", of which fansites were the example.  Now there's nothing. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add "or reliable" to the "not informative" bit.  But more important, I'd like to see this added back even without that minor and possibly contentious wording change.  --Yamla 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the crieria should be based on the notability of the fansite relative to the availability of other informative sources. -- Monty845 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remember this is an encyclopedia. We have a guideline for external links.  This is it.  The guideline is based on what is best for users and the encyclopedia itself, not random nonsense.  We have had plenty of discussions about this.  The guideline covers what should and should not be linked to based on merit, uselfulness, reliability and so on.  Ownership of a domain has nothing to do with encyclopedic merit. 2005 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do enjoy boldness. Thank Mel. IvoShandor 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not be arrogant.  There is a process for changing this guideline.  It's called consensus.  Making changes to something that was the result of many months of discussion is not just inappropriate, it is downright rude.  Please show respect for other editors in the future, and please at least read the thousands of words of discussion on this or any other topic before changing a guideline in direct contradiction to ongoing consensus. 2005 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A blanket restriction is of course just dumb.  We aren't here to just link to corporate owned sites.  We are here, this guideline anyway, to provide links to material that goes over and above the articles.  Sometimes fansites do that and are excellent resources on topics, especially obscure ones. Very often they are useless.  But we need to judge them on their value to users and the encyclopedia.  Fan sites like filmsite.org are sometimes highly authoritative; sometimes they are thrown together junk.  The guideline currently cares about the information, not whether something is owned by Tim Dirks or Time Warner. 2005 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I swear that this existed once before, I see no real consensus for its removal above either. Was it added without consensus then? This page is seemingly jacked up, if it is that unstable how are we supposed to apply the guideline? IvoShandor 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition there doesn't seem to be a word about them on the page, considering how much trouble I have seen them cause a mention would be merited somewhere so editors could apply the guideline as well as cite it in discussion, if fan sites are to be considered on a case by case basis then shouldn't the page say something about it, at least mention it. As for 2005 people arrogant, good strategy, that oughta be conducive to discussion, please point out the consensus, I saw above a discussion involving three or four editors but nothing closely resembling consensus. If it is in the archives, perhaps you could link it please, as they are quite hefty. Thanks. IvoShandor 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline "says something" about external linking. It says a lot. You seem to want to just ignore it for some reason. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So the vast majority won't be linked to because they fail to meet the criteria of the guideline. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the guideline please.  Spam domains would not merit links. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All in all, it doesn't matter, I don't want to argue. I just came here looking for some guidance on the page about fansites, found no mention and said something. This page was most unhelpful in that arena, as I am working on trying to resolve an edit war as a neutral party. Though, I think a solution may have been reached regardless. IvoShandor 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the guideline.  Your comments really don't make much sense.  The guideline is detailed about we link to.  If you are adding or removing something based on whether it is owned by a fan versus a corporation, that is inappropriate editing and you should stop.  Spend some time reading the guideline, and if you are a masochist, the lengthy rewrite discussions from the last six months of 2006. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tips, I am not removing any links, I want to be able to apply the guideline appropriately and its not very detailed if it doesn't even mention the fact that these sites should be considered on case by case basis, because there are certainly sites that aren't. I have read the guideline, perhaps you should assume good faith. IvoShandor 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance: The average fan site hosted on Geocities generally fails the first What to link to criterion:
There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
* Is it accessible to the reader?
* Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
* Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.
Because Geocities sites are neither accesible (due to constantly being down b/c of bandwith nor are they likely to be functional on a continuing basis, usually. Some domains inherently have problems like this, regardless of content. IvoShandor 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As you can see, the guideline covers that. 2005 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we at least mention fan sites somewhere in this guideline or no? It's hard to cite this guideline in discussion because the come back is easy, well it doesn't say anything about fansites.... IvoShandor 05:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever, nevermind. This is clearly fruitless. I guess this page isn't going to go into specifics, on fansites. IvoShandor 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Stop lecturing me. You are acting as if I added it. I have NEVER edited this page. Jeez, people need to lay off. I asked a question and got berated for this whole thread. What the crap? IvoShandor 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not lecturing you, and I'm not acting as if you did anthing.  A question was asked, and I gave an opinion.  AGF, be civil, chill out already and don't take responses so personally.  --Minderbinder 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In the past it has said "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."  I think it was right to remove it, particularly since wikipedia discourages using quotas like that, and it was contradicted by other guidelines.  --Minderbinder 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The guideline was rewritten five or six months ago, and singling out fansites was abandoned then.  It was a long process with a lot of discussion and compromise by many parties and the consensus at that time was that it was inappropriate to single out fansites.  The reasoning being that a fansite that meets the other requirements of WP:EL shouldn't have to jump through additional hoops to be included.  Especially since for some pop culture areas some of the fan sites are the best source of critical review of the subject matter. Objections were mainly that there was too much fansite cruft on wikipedia, and we needed all the strong wording we could to help keep it down.  While I subscribed to the latter of these arguments the overall consensus favored leaving out specific mention. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, thanks; a number of us obviously missed it.  Perhaps, though, it could now be discussed again, as there seems quite a bit of support for reinserting a specific mention. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start a discussion of any new principle you want, but a very long discussion of a significant rewrite involving dozens of editors giving and taking that led to the current consensus.  Additionally, among the community of editors there is certainly no widespread consensus to prohibit fansites.  To the contrary quite obviously, as literally thousands of editors have added them in good faith.  Of course many that don't qualify under the guideline are added to, just like all kinds of spam is added too.  The guideline covers all this though.  The bottom line is the guideline covers links that merit linking.  It's useful to anyone, even if all of us would perhaps prefer more clarity one way or another on some of the items.  It does not make irrational statements for no valuable reason, and it doesn't seek to end run the general behavior of the mass of editors.  The oversimplified point is to have good links useful to users, and not have links that add nothing or very little to the user experience.  That should be a good guide to any good faith editor. 2005 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like you either need to WP:AGF or find another outlet for your interests.  Insulting the mass of editors and articles is not helpful or sensible either.  2005 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Mel's language may have been somewhat harsh, I understand and fully sympathize with his frustration. And his assessment of the current state of external linking is fairly accurate. As such, I support putting the fansite prohibition language back into this guideline. -- Satori Son 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also fully support the restoration of the original guideline.  I just came here to cut/paste it into a discussion, and was disappointed to see that it had somehow been removed. Neier 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I only just discovered that fansites had been removed. I would also support reinstating the no links to fansites rule, except under extroardinary circumstances (as DESiegel pointed out above) where widely agreed-upon on the article's talk page. 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting discussion. But surely, this is a guideline? In that case, it is wrong to refer to "rules", just as it would be wrong to go to an article and remove things which this guideline discourages, against a local consensus. And it seems to be that the abovementioned teenage(?) boys(?) with time on their hands might well come to a consensus that these twenty or so fan sites are suitable links. A guideline is not a blunt instrument to override consensus. Or is it? Notinasnaid 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fansites

message: What's the precedent if an individual WikiProject proposes adopting a different (more restrictive) version of this policy on the articles that the project maintains?  The proposal, in its infancy stages right now over on WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If I was trying to link to a site and that particular link was allowed under WP:EL, but not allowed under such WikiProject rules, should that link be allowed?   Neil916 (Talk) 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProjects have no more authority than any other random set of editors.  But because they generally take a considered approach to articles and have already built some consensus, normally based on good reason, around an issue they tend to be fairly influential.  If an editor believes the actions of a wiki-project do not lead to good encyclopedia articles s/he should discuss it with the other editors and, if necessary, continue down the dispute resolution path.  The guidelines here are a guide to deciding if a link should be included, but in the end we are trying to build an NPOV, GFDL encyclopedia, sometimes the rules will need to be more or less strictly interpreted to get the best results.  -- Siobhan Hansa 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maintaining an article is not the same as owning an article. Personally, I think its really important to try and maintain a consistent approach across the whole project so my view is that the guideline should always trump the views of an individual wikiproject. Ideally. i'd like to see much less in the way of external links but that won't happen anytime soon, so in the meantime we should all try to work against the same standards - i.e. the guideline. --Spartaz Humbug! 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see that one guideline trumps another; the word guideline seems to be used more and more as if it is a synonym for "policy". The policy is that articles are decided only by article-by-article consensus (as modified by policy), correct? If so, a Wikiproject guideline is more likely to be closer to the spirit of those most likely to be involved than a more "elevated" one. Consistency is a highly desirable aim, but it doesn't seem to be that the policies either produce that, or give strong tools for enforcing it. Notinasnaid 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual WikiProject rules on External Links

message: Just something I would like to confirm with the assembled experts.
I just removed an EL to a site that published copyrighted lyrics from a musical artist. At the bottom of each song it has the following text: "All lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. All lyrics provided for private study, scholarship, or research reasons only."
Now in my mind that doesn't make it suddenly not a CopyVio and we should not be linking to that site.  Does anyone have any different opinion on this?  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the site?  Are you sure that it doesn't have permission to use the lyrics on condition that notice is used?  As long as we don't copy them, what would be wrong with a link to the site? (Where do the weasel words come in, by the way?) --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I can answer the second part easily - take a look at Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking - that is QUITE clear. As for the first part, I have no way of knowing, and that is my question - we have discussed here before that we do not link to lyrics sites unless there is some distinct permission to use on the site (this should be in the archives for this talk page).  My question is whether this is actually a CopyVio page, and the text I quoted were attempts at WeaselWords to get around CopyVio, or if they suffice. The site is www.quasimodobell.com/default.aspx/tabid/130/groupid/1465/gingroup/MEAT+LOAF/lyrics/1 -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be better to contact the copyright owners of some of the songs than the site who may be violating copyright.  Just a thought.  -- Siobhan Hansa 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio Weasel words 

message: Not allowing links to these sites seems reasonable to me — but if they're allowed when there's no other source for the information, I can't see what's going on.  Why weren't they allowed in the first place?  It reminds me slightly of saying that dogs aren't allowed into restaurants on grounds of hygiene, but making an exception for guide dogs (because they've been trained to have a shower before going out to eat, presumably...) --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and will remove the addition for now until it can be discussed a little further and consensus reached. Let's be clear - this isn't about citing sources. Sometimes a reliable source such as a newspaper will require registration or purchase to view an article, but we link it anyway as a citation. However, when it comes to external links, they should all be readily available without registration or payment. Otherwise, they don't add much of any use to the average reader of the article. MastCell Talk 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the draft, I had made an amendment: sites requiring registration could be used as references if they are presented as an inline reference. Anyone can create a reference section and add a link to the site requiring registration, which is just an attempt to bypass the "External links" restriction. Thus, I had asked to rewrite that so that if someone wants to add a link to a site requiring registration, it should be as an inline reference, immediately following the sentence or phrase that is referencing. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline references are governed by a different set of rules... WP:EL applies specifically to external links. MastCell Talk 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the external link guideline should state that such links should not be used as external links but instead as reference, pointing them to WP:RS or WP:CITE. -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ReyBrujo, you seem to want to apply EL guidelines to references that aren't inline.   While I agree that these sections are often abused, and I'd like to see them phased out, I don't think this guideline has the mandate to extend itself into that area.  I also think it may be a tactical mistake to strip out all these links - it makes it harder for editors to go in and find which assertions in an article a particular reference supports.  It might make more sense to try and get a prohibition on adding new non-inline references, but this isn't the place. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that references are outside the scope of this project, but I would think a link such as you give in your example ought to meet the basic requirements of these guidelines, such as not being a registration required site.  It's not so useful to the reader if it's not accessible (and it would, presumably, have to meet the points about being on subject and NPOV in order to be useful as a general reference). -- Siobhan Hansa 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sites that require registration and/or payment are useful to those readers who are willing to register, and possibly pay a fee. Of course it would be better to use an unrestricted site if the editor knows of one, but better a restricted site than an article with inadequate references. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I misunderstand your example.  To me the example you give doesn't sound like a reference supporting an assertion or text in the article but more of a primer for a reader.  Terms that rely on a very particular definition can be inline referenced (or possibly wikilinked), but if you you're looking to provide a resource that can be used by a reader to understand the general concepts and jargon of a subject area - that doesn't sound like an actual refernce for the article to me and I think it better falls into external links rather than references in terms of the guidelines that should be applied to it. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that the important assertions in an article will have inline references, but I wouldn't expect every single assertion to have an inline reference. For an example of a featured article that contains many assertions, but depends mostly on general rather than inline references, see Trigonometric functions. --Gerry Ashton 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great example Gerry.  I think we're on the same page. I was reading too much of my own interpretation into your previous example.  Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sites requiring registration 

message: Can someone chime in on user talk:requestion #The original source for those links? There is a disagreement about whether links to researchchannel.org violate the external links guideline. I'd prefer that the conversation be kept in one place. Graham87 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see the section immediately before that titled "Linkspam ast.cac.washington.edu?" for more background. Graham87 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion requested 

message: Can I get some discussion please about the user Safco and a couple of links that were placed back to the SAFCO company website? One link is at Decontamination and the other is at Urban search and rescue. In both cases the user placed links to the [SAFCO.com] website which, in my judgment, violates WP:EL and WP:COI. I have removed the links. From what I can obeserve, there was no information added to the article beyond the external links. In the case of the search and rescue article the link was placed as a "See Also" link. I would appreciate your thoughts on my action. JBEvans 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dealt with this (the account has been blocked as violating WP:U, and for spam-linking). --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAFCO 

message: The rich media section as it is now is not well-written, as it talks about avoiding direct links to rich media then giving such a link (the PDF file) as an example of proper layout of links to rich media. The definition of a "direct link" is also not given - this has caused problems at user talk:requestion #The original source for those links (as I linked above), but this time my question is more related to the external links guideline so I'm bringing it up on the talk page. My definition of a "direct" link to rich media is based on the original version of the rich media section (which was subsequently [moved then clarified slightly. I define a direct link as one where the rich media is activated as soon as the browser window is opened by default (PDF files and many streaming media files being an example). Direct links to rich media cannot always be avoided (for example in PDF files,  with links to YouTube videos and some audio files, an example being the first one in the article Der Erlkönig as there is no other way to conveniently get the audio). Therefore, the wording should be softened to "try to avoid" or something. That would be easy as long as there is consensus. A big problem for me is trying to figure out how to clarify what a "direct link" is because the wording has obviously caused confusion. Also the guideline to explicitly name the file format of the rich media seems to be rarely enforced. To be honest I think it is much more useful on direct links to rich media than indirect ones. Inadvertently clicking on a link and having the computer crash trying to load a large PDF file   or load a poorly composed Java animation is much worse than going to some HTML page and finding that you haven't yet installed anything to play a .ogg file that you wanted to download. Graham87 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Graham87's interpretation of the rich media section. WP:EL says to "avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software." I interpret this literally to mean no external links to flash, java, pdf, audio, or video. I also extend my interpretation to stub html pages whose sole purpose is to be a launch pad for the rich media. I believe the intent is two fold; one is for Wikipedia to link to pages that have content that is viewable in a web browser, second is for non-discrimination of codecs and operating system operability. For example; I am a Linux user and I cannot legally view Microsoft Media and QuickTime video. I don't have problems with a web page having rich media links on it but those links must be auxiliary to the useful content on the page. (Requestion 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is at least some content on some of those stub html pages - for example with researchchannel.org there is a further information section with links to more information about the program/subject. Rich media often *is* useful content (for example many articles are only available in PDF format so Wikipedia needs to link to them (often in a "References" section these days). Audio that can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons but is available free of charge can make an excellent external link. This radio show is about the most relevant link possible to add to Heart and Soul (song) (note: I didn't add it, I just clarified its content). I believe we disagree because we are both taking different approaches: you are interpreting the guideline literally as the last word on everything where as I am interpreting the guideline as a nutshell in terms of adding useful, accessible and tasteful links. Here is the very first external links guideline I know of which is about as close as you're going to get to the original intentions of anyone. Here is the guideline as it was in May 2004 (the only change after that was to add a navigation template in October 2004 which is meaningless in the context of this discussion). There is nothing there about forbidding rich media - just that it's a good idea to state the format of the rich media. I will ask user:Jmabel for his opinion about this conversation as he wrote the section which you are quoting to justify your position. Graham87 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only content I see on the researchchannel.org pages is a brief description of a video that I can't play. From my perspective the page has zero content and the links are broken. I'm all for rich media but I have a huge problem when Wikipedia links to content that I cannot legally view.  Wikipedia has a policy not to link to known copyright violations. Isn't this in a similar vein? (Requestion 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not similar to the copyright issue.  The copyright issue is about linking to sites that are breaking copyright and the legal and ethical issues involved in encouraging that.  You may not be able to legally view the media with the equipment you run, but there are no laws broken by the media being there and us linking to it and the vast majority of our readers are able to legally view the media.  -- Siobhan Hansa 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I have tried to clarify the section per that message. I have replaced the first link to a page with links to rich media with one where the rich media is imbedded - i.e. a link from Ride of the Valkyries as that is a well-known piece where the audio link is fitting. I have also added reasons for not directly linking to rich media and a link to the category containing rich media icons. To Requestion: linking to files in formats that happen to be patented and therefore cannot be played on all systems is *not* a copyright violation - the whole point of the external links section is to link to files that can never be on a Wikimedia project. The problems playing these files through linux are an issue (they can be played but the legal status of that varies by country, see FFmpeg for details) but that means that there should be other external links in more conventional formats for finding out about the subject. That is why in the article Tito Mukhopadhyay, I also linked to a page with the transcript of the video - the transcript happens to be in PDF format but we can't have everything. I would welcome application of the bold, revert, discuss cycle if anyone feels so inclined - this is a wiki after all. Graham87 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear your edits might be premature. Consensus really hasn't been reached yet and I believe there are some problems created by your edit. #1: The copyright status of the audio you link. It appears to be hosted by a private person on their personal website. There is inadequate information about the recording and as far as I can tell, it's a pretty flagrant abuse. #2: "Only link directly to content that requires special software or an add-on to a browser if ..." Only is the wrong word in this instance since WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Nposs 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the first objection, copyright is an interesting point but the site says "©1997-2007, Charles K. Moss" so I'd assume he has permission from the relevant authorities about the recordings. There are recordings there that clearly come from his piano students, but if needed I could try to find another example. As for the second one, "only" is probably a bad choice of words - I'll think about changing that. I've also replaced the carolinaclassical link with a link to the Fantaisie-Impromptu because having thought about it, it seems ironic to have a link to a piece by Richard Wagner followed by an article about Yiddish. Graham87 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling that Angela Lear (the pianist featured in the recording) is not one of his students. So even if he does have recordings of his students, it would appear that he is also posting the recordings of others without their permission. I would recommend against any links to the site. I think this highlights another problem with rich-media links: copyright status. I realize there are a number of differing opinions about linking to material of dubious use, but rich media does pose a new set of problems for identifying ownership. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the guideline, as well. Nposs 05:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have answered your second objection with my latest edit. Graham87 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow how do you know who the pianist is? Perhaps my screen reader isn't reading the details or I should download the file to find out. I will send an email enquiring about this - if it is a copyright violation then it definitely should not be linked. I highly doubt it is though - this seems to be a well-respected piano teacher. Graham87 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the html source, the file has not been uploaded to his server and is being hosted by what looks like Angela Lear's personal website. I shall dig further ... Graham87 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you have consensus yet for watering down the guideline in this way. I certainly do not agree that we should be more liberal about linking to rich media content. As it is, you are seeking to allow this when the guideline previously said Avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser. This is a major step away from the concept of an open project as we will be encouraging non-free formats. I have reverted back to the previous version subject to further clarification of concensus here. Spartaz Humbug! 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can get that exact recording and more by following the downloads link from her website (sorry can't paste the URL because it uses frames), so it is not a copyright violation. The carolinaclassical.com link uses the recording for streaming. Graham87 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope that is only a 1-minute sample. Graham87 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Graham87 - the sever path for this http://classicalmus.hispeed.com/lear/ doens't resolve to a proper website. Can you clarify exactly what link you are following? I suggest that you find a different example - I'm sure its possible to find one that has no doubts about its status. In this case it seems likely that the rights remain with the performer but unless we know the exact circumstances in which the recording was made we don't actually know that. --Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - on further investigation classicalmus.hispeed.com is the hosting service used by carolinaclassical.com to host its media and is not a website - in fact hispeed.com appears to be blocked by Google. I'll remove that as an example for now. Graham87 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see the guideline point out the reasons that weigh against linking to rich media and outline the alternatives clearly so that editors have knowledge from which to make a decision about whether to link - along the lines of links to rich media can add depth to an article but can cause also problems for readers.  The need for additional software (some of which is not available to all users), greater bandwidth requirements, and accessibility issues can make such links useless for some users.  When adding a link to content that is not a basic webpage editors should look for equivalent content in html format (for instance a transcript) to add instead or as well as the rich media. Editors must also ensure that any benefits from such a link are significant and outweigh the disadvantages of linking to media that may not be accessible to some readers.  In particular, over reliance on rich media links should be avoided.  Where possible links should always go to a launching page rather than directly to the media, and the media format should always be specified. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that wording. It's clear and outlines the reasons against linking to rich media, but also acknowledges that there can be benifits of linking to rich media. It doesn't need examples because the wording is self-evident so that guards against linking to copyright violations and link rot. Would there be any objections to using that paragraph in the rich media section? Graham87 01:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually examples would still be helpful but there would be no need to change the examples currently on the page. Graham87 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I object to removing emphasis on the word "avoid" and I also object to ignoring the "special software" accessibility problem that us Linux users suffer from. (Requestion 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not just Linux users that can have a problem with rich media, and this is why I think the section should be very general - at the moment I read it as implying that all rich media can have accessibility problems to somebody, and that is true. Audio links without transcripts are useless to people who are deaf; images without descriptions are useless to people who are blind. Here's another example to throw in the ring which I just remembered: the official homepage of Tony Attwood that just happens to require Java, and is difficult (sometimes impossible) to use with screen readers. It would be ludicrous for me to remove that link because it's an official website - I have now pointed out that it requires Java. A lot of people use Linux and will have problems with links to proprietary codecs; I'm sure that a similar number of people will be using slow or unstable PC's (probably running Windows) that won't be able to run certain types of rich media. Because of the large variety of circumstances that people are likely to be in in terms of system performance and ability to use non-HTML sites, I think the section should be quite general in case it overflows with people's pet accessibility problems. There must be websites out there that explain the problems with rich media and if I can find a well-written one I'll suggest that it be added as further information. Graham87 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those were all excellent reasons why the "avoid" wording should be strengthened. Why would Wikipedia want to encourage such potentially problematic external linking? (Requestion 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of rich media section 

message: Can someone clarify for me why blogs are generally banned, but YouTube videos are not? Both sources seem open to the same problems with reliability. Λυδαcιτγ 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we are trying to get rid of YouTube. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Blogs are generally not a valid EL, YouTube is not generally a valid EL. Each has to be considered on their own merits.  IN general though, they fail all sorts of WP standards for inclusion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'd be in favor of more moderate standards in both directions: allowing YouTube videos and blogs, but only good ones (in the case of blogs, not necessarily blogs written by experts, but ones written by credible sources). Λυδαcιτγ 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much the standard right now.  The issues tend to be different, with YT the concern is more often copyright, but as long as the material isn't a violation and meets the rest of EL, it's OK.  --Minderbinder 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of the use of this blog page in Backmasking? Λυδαcιτγ 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as policy Blogs and YouTube are on equal footing... Both sometimes host official and reliable material and sometimes they host utter crap. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy. WP:EL says to avoid "links to blogs" and "direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java)." I should note that YouTube requires Flash. So I agree that Blogs and YouTube are on "equal footing" in that they both should be avoided.  There is a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr#Special:Linksearch.2F.2A.blogspot.com about how well blogspot.com links have been avoided. (Requestion 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia now has 23670 blogspot.com links. That is an increase of about 1000 links in the last 3 weeks. (Requestion 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube vs. blogs 

message: If a professional photographer releases a picture under an appropriate license and someone uploads it, I think it's reasonable for the image description page (i.e. not articles where the image appears, but the image itself) to provide a link to the photographer's website. Does this sound fair? I'm pretty sure we do it all the time already, as it's usually required for copyright reasons. Kla'quot 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely — this guideline applies only to articles. By the same token, it's fine to link to your personal webpage on your userpage. Λυδαcιτγ 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception for photographer credit 

message: Please see discussion on Wikipedia talk:Copyright#Linking to sites that list illegal files. --GunnarRene 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to sites that list illegal files 

message: Editor Biographyfan has added quite a few links to various pages, to a website called ourstory.  I removed these because of the seemingly spammy nature of the mass linking, but he is insisting that they are useful information not contained in the article and has added one back to Melinda Gates.  I'd appreciate outside opinion on links to this site.  Thanks.  --Minderbinder 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These timelines are verifiable, and I have seen people using Wikipedia as a source for the timelines. I do not see why not to allow linking, at the discretion of involved editors, if the timelines of these people are accurate and do not include material that may be objectionable as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The site is effectively an open wiki (i.e. anyone can edit) so we ought to be more careful than we might with a time line published by, say, the History department at Cambridge University or some other site with a well known reputation for rigor.  But that isn't to say the site should never be linked.  However, it also seems to be the case that Biographyfan is involved with creating the content on the time line articles s/he is linking to and as such s/he should suggest the links on the talk page rather than placing the links directly on the article page.  Since Biography fan doesn't appear to have made any edits to Wikipedia that are not connected to promoting these external links this appears to fit more clearly under the SPAM issue than external links.  I support Minderbinder's reversion of the edits.  -- Siobhan Hansa 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are COI issues the simple thing is to post a link to the site on the article talk pages for the article regulars to decide. If you go on a spree of adding links to a site you are associated with then it does look like spamming and you are very likely to be reverted. --Spartaz Humbug! 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like self-promotion to me, they shouldn't be there... we can't link to every wiki that shows up and wants free publicity, and the fact that it's a wiki means it's going to be less valuable/reliable than other sources. They should all be removed as clear spam. DreamGuy 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the entry for Melinda Gates. It seemed to me that the OurStory link added little or nothing to the article, because the OurStory interface was so confusing. In any case it is a conflict of interest to add links to a site you are associated with to an article. I suggest that Template:OurStory should be nominated for deletion.  If the user keeps re-adding this link, without any Talk page consensus, I suggest that OurStory might be added to the m:Spam blacklist. EdJohnston 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to consider this, and provide feedback.  I saw the note on my talk page, and I will make sure that I post my links to the talk page for an entry, and not just add them.  Like I readily admitted, in some cases the content on some of the timelines are comprehensive and useful, and sometimes they are not yet filled out.  I will no longer "SPAM" links on the articles, but, if I feel like a graphical timeline would enhance the entry I will, as you suggested, add it for discussion on the article's talk page.  I do want to make it clear I am not the author of the timelines.  Some of them I monitor, and some of them I am the author of only a few entires on the timeline.  Nevertheless, I understand that this could be considered a COI. Also, not all entries on OurStory are user generated wiki style biographies.  The ones I happen to be involved with are.  But, there are other people on the site writing as primary sources on various historical topics, or personal experiences.  My actions shouldn't prevent their contributions from being considered a viable reference for an article.  Thanks.  Biographyfan 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside opinion wanted on external links 

message: See Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis for this proposal, which is currently in a development phase. LukeSurl t c 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering just how at odds with the current External links rules on wikis, instead of discussing it over there you should probably see if you can get the wording changed over here first... and I don't see that happening anytime soon. DreamGuy 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Guideline for other wiki links 

message: Ok, I saw this over at the spam wikiproject. The primary use of the dmoz links to me is to help curb linkfarming, which we are not. Frankly I don't care whose linkfarm it is, as long as it is reputable, and has high quality (non spam links). (which as far as I know dmoz is) I find it rather scary when articles have longer external link sections to a bunch of fansites then actual text in the article. If there are that many good sites, I highly advise using them as inline citations. In otherwords when we find the external link section getting long, its time to think about using a linkfarm. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section break

message: From what I can tell, there is no concensus leaning toward inclusion ( by numbers ).  I assume that is reason to place this text back into the article.  Similar text has been in this guideline since at least July 2005.  A discussion leaning toward inclusion at this point is certainly no justification for removal, despite lack of consensus.  Back to the status quo.  Here is is back in: 
* Nov 2006, 
* Sep 2006: A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories.
* Jan 2006: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
* July 2005: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
* Jan 2005: The article is only a few lines long (!) ...
∴ here…♠ 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus to re-instate the current text either. The text was added, and now it is challenged based on new arguments that have not been responded to.  We may need to find a way to address the concerns expressed. A version based on previous incarnations of the wording may be better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was added months ago.  If there's no consensus we stick with the stable wording, which is leaving it in.  At AfD, if there's no consensus to delete an article, the article stays - this is the same situation.  Since there doesn't seem to be support for removing it, I'd suggest proposing tweaks to the wording that address your concerns and trying to get consensus for a wording change.  Otherwise, the wording goes back in.  --Minderbinder 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!.  So far there are legitimate counter arguments, but not many examples of where the use of this clause has been abused.  And in reality using DMOZ to fight spam works!  Why take away such a valuable tool?  There are no perfectly managed directories and there are lots of cases where DMOZ is not appropriate, but I only recall one incident where an editor went overboard.  It was then discussed and his edits reverted with his agreement.  Now compare that with the massive amount of SPAM that has been avoided by using it as a deterent.  As mentioned by Minderbinder, this was discussed and agreed upon last year.  There are no new arguments here, but there are fair minded objections.  Without a clear consensus, the original text should be reinstated. Calltech 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a clear consensus for inclusion of a directory link under certain circumstances, and the ongoing consensus remains.  Obstinate disagreement does not invalidate an ongoing consensus, particularly since you have refused to state ANY alternative, and yourself said the point of the text was correct.  The consensus text will be added back, and once again, if you have any objections to anything in this guideline, use this talk page to bring up a proposal and reasons for it.  Removing or adding substantial text from a guideline that states it is a consensus of editors is supremely rude to your fellow editors.  Please don't do it again. 2005 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, it is certainly possible the wording of the section could be improved.  So anyone can feel free to MAKE A PROPOSAL to edit its wording, keeping in mind the goal of a directory link is as a fall back for when there are dozens of possible links. Until such a proposal gains consensus though, the other wording goes back in. 2005 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I take exception on your characterization, and your tone of voice. There is no need to tell others "don't do it again", please WP:AGF. The wording needs to be tweaked as per the concerns raised. Stubbornly claiming consensus when there is a dispute related to the current wording, will not do. yes, the text may go back, but it will need to be tweaked to respond to the numerous  editor's concerns raised in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't pretend you didn't do what you did, or that you have not done it numerous times before.  The guide says the text is there by consensus, so please act in good faith based on that.  This is not an article space article where you can just change wording based on other criteria.  Changes here require consensus to be made.  Now you have been told this many times.  Please do not act otherwise in the future.  Secondarly I am not stubbornly claiming consensus.  That is nonsense talk.  Consensus exists.  Deal with it.  Consensus is not "unanimous consent".  I disagree with an aspect of that text, but that doesn't mean consensus does not exist.  Even if significant disagreement appears, that does not mean that the old consensus does not stay intact.  It does stay intact, until some other consensus replaces it.  That means the text absolutely does not "need" to be tweaked.  It means it is YOUR responsibility to convince a consensus of editors that your concerns have merit and should be addressed.  Your confrontational style does little to lead to that conclusion, so I'd suggest a change in that, but the bottom line is if you propose something the consensus of editors thinks makes sense, then that will be a fine thing.  However, if the consensus of editors does not want to address what you think "needs" to be addressed, then it won't. 2005 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No concensus, put it back 

message: User:EnviroGranny added some news articles (from yahoo, fox news, etc) to several wikipedia articles , without actually adding any text new to the article. I don't think we should be doing this. It just leads to a long list of external links. Instead, they should be added to the talk page or not added at all, if it doesn't tell the reader anything new. If they are used as references, it should be placed inline with the text. I don't know what the guideline says of this. Any comments? Pizzachicken 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got it right: If these are possible sources for an article, add them as sources. I would suggest you move these links to talk, and invite editors to evaluate them and augment the article's content based on these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Pizzachicken 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources often fall under the guideline of what we should be linking to. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That certainly does sound backwards to DreamGuy. Check his edit history. He regularly deletes large, informative, encyclopedic websites in favor of new articles that have little or no information found in the article and are often only a few paragraphs long. He's on a mission to clean out large numbers of external links that aren't news articles or professor home pages. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, I regularly delete large, websites that are UNRELIABLE, UNSOURCED, and often SHEER SPAM. The fact you continue to dispute these changes whereever they happen shows you don't understand the entire concept of the external links policy. If there are large sites that have actual RELIABLE and sources information, they certainly can stay whether they are news articles or sites by professors or whatever. But an encyclopedia simply cannot refer readers off to pages thrown together by people with no credentials or demonstrated knowledge whatsoever. It's completely irresponsible. DreamGuy 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding news articles to external links

message: I would like clarification on whether or not information links like Starting a Business, Small Business Community, Small business Administration, Office of the Secretary of State etc are valid links. for example:
Business   
*Start a Business in Minnesota   
*Small Business Community of Minnesota   
*Small business Administration of Minnesota   
*Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State forms and documents
I would have thought no one would think not. But I was mistaken. Is this valid content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiamori (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked your contribution history, and you appear to have added the same set of links to the articles on about 20 different towns in Minnesota. The above four links seem to have the common theme of 'starting a small business in Minnesota.'  Since they have a how-to aspect, I would argue they don't belong anywhere, per WP:NOT.  If they go anywhere, I argue it should be only in the Economy of Minnesota article.  Links to four articles on how to start a business don't help anyone interested in Rochester, MN learn more about Rochester. So they don't have encyclopedic value. EdJohnston 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your response. I respectfully suggest that you remove these links from the individual towns. And would it be possible for you to put something on your user page, at User:Kiamori?  Since this page is blank, this makes your signature show up as a red link, which sometimes suggests inexperience. EdJohnston 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City/State listings 

message: What is the general consensus on the quality & relevance of Best of the Web Directory ? It has been in existence for a long time, but has relatively few links here. Is it a possible alternative to DMOZ? I ask because over the last few days, it has been added to about a dozen pages by a small number of users ( Linksearch results ). This type of activity normally suggests the link in question is being spammed, but I'm a fan of "intelligent use of quality web directories" and most of the pages it was added to are subjects that(IMHO) could use a directory link. --Versageek 17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in favor of allowing this commercial directory because it requires payment ($200 one time or $70/year ) to get your site listed and displays advertiser sites first.  Calltech 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is one of the main link builders Special:Contributions/MisterCharlie who today alone has added 14 links to BOTW.  Calltech 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that is some serious spamming. Looks like it is all cleaned up now. I've been sitting on the fence post about this DMOZ debate. There definitely has to be some wording about non-commercial directories or we are going to have more of this kind of thing. I can see it now, a spamming link farmer will point to WP:EL as a defense. (Requestion 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful where you throw that "s" word around.  I was merely adding relevant external links in a manner consistent with how other external links were being applied.  Not some irrelevant links. And as I stated earlier (below), if there is a decision that this is no bueno, that would be the last you see of these.  We are most certainly not looking to spam your project, or hinder your efforts in any way. MisterCharlie 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that. Didn't intend to be throwing that "s" word around in front of, uhh, exuberant linkers. This WP:EL page is for talking about the policy of external links. Someone should open up a botw.org thread over at WT:WPSPAM. (Requestion 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With the help of an assistant, I have been trying to add the listings in a manner that we felt added to the quality of the page.  The BOTW directory has a lot of categories, and we are by no means attempting to add category pages that don't contribute as a resource to the wiki page. Additionally, we have been adding them to pages that already contain a relevant DMOZ listings as well, so the external link isn't coming from out of left field.  Each of the BOTW category pages that were added as an external link went to a category that contains pretty comprehensive resources for the subject matter. And yes, we are a commercial directory - just as the Yahoo directory is a commercial directory.  We do not require that you pay to "get your site listed", but we do offer an expedited review fee for those who wish to submit their site.  On the flip side, we employ a team of editors that include tens of thousands of sites on a weekly basis at no cost to the site owner - simply to build a comprehensive resource of quality sites. As fellow netizens, we respect what it is you are trying to do, and certainly do not want to interfere with the project.  We would love to be included in the "intelligent use of quality web directories", but should the consensus decide otherwise, I will of course refrain from adding additional links going forward. MisterCharlie 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are by definition spamming the Wikipedia.  Please read this guideline and stop adding any links to your directory.  Any of the links you added should be reverted. 2005 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at Special:Contributions/MisterCharlie and the BOTW link that was added today to the Final Fantasy article, I agree that all these links should be undone, per WP:EL, 'Links normally to be avoided'. EdJohnston 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  while we're talking about 'web directories'... botw.org 

message: I moved this from the links to be avoided section, because I can't figure out what it means. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it, as there was no consensus to remove it. If you get people to agree it should be removed, THEN remove it. DreamGuy 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Slimvirgin - that sentence is supposed to stop people adding links in place of writing content (i.e. putting i a link to a brief biography instead of adding the bio details to the article).  Can you think of better wording that would be more easily understood? -- Siobhan Hansa 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Another way of saying this, SM, would be, in the positive rather than the negative would be: "Link only to these sites that are factually accurate and verifiable". Which is already addressed elsewhere in the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence

message: In #2, the "See Reliable sources" points to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online sources, which no longer exists. The text that used to be there now seems to be at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples#Use of electronic or online sources. I'd make the change, but I only lightly follow the action here, so I'll leave it to the regulars. AndroidCat 17:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken wikilink in normally avoided #2

message: >> "When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means."
:Who wrote that? You explain to this guy at User talk:Requestion#Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction that WP:EL#What to link does not mean any website that contains reliable content and is somehow related to the article topic has a right to get a link. And that it doesn't mean everybody who removes a spamlink is a cyber-bullying fundamentalist. Femto 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added a couple weeks ago by Jossi (April 21st). I don't see any discussion on that. AndroidCat 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are objections about the wording, let's discuss. I am under the impression that it is simply explaining policy, as all guidelines should. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that section should be reworded to stress what the focus is. Maybe I'm wrong, but the focus to me seems to be how to get content in an external link to be used in an article. Isn't this what an article's discussion page for? The problem Femto mentioned that I'm having with my workforall.net nemesis is that they are interpreting this section literally as an open license to add any external link spam that they see fit. (Requestion 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, in case I came across a little grumpy, I apologize — but just read the abovelinked complaint by someone whose spam got removed to see what kind of reasoning this little paragraph is causing! In the eyes of those who desperately fight to get their links included it's a blanket permission. Against it, you cannot justify the removal of a link anymore. Even WP:COI and WP:SPAM become irrelevant because "what to link" seems to override the weaker "should avoid" language of later sections. The "What to link" section already refers to the "following guidelines" for further details; these explanations are simply out of place there and should be removed entirely. Femto 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Against it, you cannot justify the removal of a link anymore."  I don't know what you mean by that.  The guideline strongly prevents linking to garbage, and requires sites jump through pretty high hoops to be linked.  I don't have an opinion I guess on out of place-ness and need for the passage, but the most important point is we have an entire guideline, not a bunch of unrelated sentences, and summarizing sentences are not specifics.  If someone is adding inappropriate links, one sentence or passage here doesn't give them the licensce to do that in the face of the rest of the guideline. 2005 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you defend against: "My links are fully compatible with the guideline. They're a useful resource, tasteful, informative, factual, and impossible to summarize in the article. You're a vandal if you remove them. They should be linked, WP:EL#What to link said so right here." - Even if you eventually manage to get through to someone that in spite of the positive language in this section the rest of the guideline still applies, that's an exercise I'd rather do without. Femto 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That new wording would be a good improvement. Even better would be to mention posting the link on the discussion page and talking about it. Isn't "sourcing" the focus of that section of text? (Requestion 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the paragraph isn't getting us into instruction creep - we should ask ourselves how useful it is to keep adding more text to the guideline and and what this bit is really trying to achieve.  But if it's to stay, I like 2005's suggestion, and emphasizing using the talk page can also be good.  Also we could begin the paragraph with "When assessing external links you need to start by asking yourself" instead of "simply ask", which should help emphasize there's not a simple test and as long as your link passes the test it's on the page.  And I think we need to make sure the "reliable sources" description here is the same as elsewhere in the guideline? -- Siobhan Hansa 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, that is an improvement. Why does this section of text encourage the editor twice to add the external link? In my experience nobody needs to be encouraged to add links, they'll do that on their own. Also, isn't this section about "sourcing?" Can't we cut out all that adding cruft and just say post it to the talk page? (Requestion 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's about sourcing I think it needs rewording significantly since I didn't get that when I read it :-)  So  it's supposed to make people stop and think "Is the link I want to add really further reading?  Or is it something that would be a useful source to build the article from?" and then get them to act appropriately? -- Siobhan Hansa 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that section isn't about sourcing then what is it about? For sourcing purposes, why not let all the other WP:EL rules determine if it's a good external link candidate. No need for any special exceptions. (Requestion 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a suggestion below about wording for another sentence that I think overlaps this one. If I'm right about what these two are supposed to mean, I think it makes sense to amalgamate them.  -- Siobhan Hansa 03:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think just get rid of it for the time being. It was added without consensus and most editors in this conversation find major problems with it. Could be proposed later with different wording. Nposs 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's problematic and creepy. No matter how refined the wording, you cannot adequately explain in one paragraph what this is trying to convey. Removed it. Let's keep something like "When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." though. Femto 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree, Siobhan - I don't think it adds anything to the article, and we are seeing instances of editors trying to twist the wording in this EL document to get what they want and otherwise circumvent the WP common understanding of how things are done.  Keep it simple. Femto, I agree to delete it for now. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good solution everybody. It simplifies, it reduces some confusing wording, and it stresses WP:CONSENSUS policy by suggesting discussion. I like it. (Requestion 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Then link, by all means 

message: Can someone weigh in on the external links for Verio?  It's one of those articles where depending on how you look at it, there could be many "official" sites. --Ronz 15:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be an acceptable number of links there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain why you find the links acceptable? --Ronz 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple official sites

message: OK howabout, Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services... (4a) However, if an editor not affiliated with the commercial site wishes to add a link to such a site, they are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page. A consensus of editors should feel free to link to pages where the information is unbiased and useful to readers even if the site itself is not" ?  jbolden1517Talk 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just seems like an unnecessarily fine distinction to make. If it is a great link, it should stand up to the process of consensus building (which could include reversions and discussions on the talk page.) This is just a guideline, after all, and there's always the possibility of "ignoring the rules" for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Nposs 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter version

message: *"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
:*Wrong; it might be very suitable. Changed to "Sites with relevant content that have not been used as a source for the article."
::"wrong"? If the definition of the site we're talking about is one that has "content that is not suitable for inclusion" saying "it might be very suitable" doesn't make any sense to me.  If it were very suitable the section wouldn't apply to it.   Also your proposed change implies that a site which is used as a source cannot then be used as an EL (at least that's how I read it.  From a reader perspective external links serve different function from sources.  If we have an proscription on using links to sites that are sources in our EL section we probably won't direct our regular readers to the best external further reading/viewing content that we could.  -- Siobhan Hansa 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sites with meaningful content 

message: *"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the  template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the  template."
:*Removed because of the Open Directory thing, which often supplies nonsense that we shouldn't be linking to.
:*: I think we need to provide some sort of alternative for very low quality links in large number.  Like dmoz to all fan sights for the rolling stones in the rolling stones article or  Or dmoz of republican blogs in a "republican party" article jbolden1517Talk 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is "a well chosen directory" and dmoz is provided as a possibility, it's not a requirement.  Have you reviewed the discussion which built this consensus from a few days ago?  This wasn't my first choice of wording (nor anyones I don't think) but I thought it was a good compromise that dealt respectfully with the things people wanted from the guideline.  Do you have a new suggestion or some insight that might help define the issues better or address the ones that have been raised?  I'm wondering because you say it's just the dmoz wording.  But you didn't delete just the dmoz wording, so it seems like there may be more to this from your perspective.   -- Siobhan Hansa 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_16#Open_Directory_Project_2. The guideline should stand, even without the DMOZ section for the time being while this is rehashed. Nposs 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long lists of links 

message: *"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article."
:*Can someone give an example of such a site, other than the website of the subject of the article?
:*: An important political speech on a topic.  Say for example a speech by the president.  Political speeches aren't peer reviewed so they aren't RSes and politicians aren't authorities but this could still be a very important link.  Another example might be information from highly biased but knowledgeable sources.  Like co-conspirators in a crime.  jbolden1517Talk 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *::Material doesn't have to be peer-reviewed to be a reliable source. Political speeches are reliable primary-source material. Highly biased sources may also be reliable sources: almost all sources are biased. I can't think of a single example of a non-reliable source that contains information about the subject from knowledgeable sources, other than the subject's website/self-published material, which is dealt with elsewhere. That makes this a redundant and possibly confusing paragraph, which is why I removed it.SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are confused, that's fine, it's not confusing to most people, so it stays. If you'd like to SUGGEST a REWORDING so that people can understand it better, fine. Don't just remove it completely.DreamGuy 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sites which fail to meet criteria 

message: *"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
:*Removed because incomprehensible. I can't even figure out what it's trying to say.
::Perhaps you could particpate further in the discussion you started about it.  We can work on the concept or wordsmith it there. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As other editors have mentioned already, this is trying to express the important idea that the point of external links should be to amplify the content of articles, not draw away readers to other websites. It is intended to encourage editors to add content to Wikipedia rather than link to every site that is simply relevant to topic. It is worth finding a way to reword this and reincorporate it. Nposs 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a long standing part of the guideline.  Just because somebody can't understand it is no reason to remove it, especially since it is quite clear and no explaination has been given for the lack of understanding. 2005 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any site that does not provide a unique resource 

message: *"Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."
:*Would mean we couldn't link to the New York Times archives.
::News articles are more appropriate as references, and when used as references - adding a link to an article that requires registration is fine. The point of this guideline is to discourage people linking to whole websites that require a subscription (or other form of registration) to view the content. Nposs 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There is a real problem with putting ELs in WP that are not just as accessible as WP is.  So yes, this means we should avoid links to the closed areas of the NYT archives (note that the NYT archives are not entirely closed). There is longstanding consensus around this, and I have not so far seen a case where an alternative open source could not be found. UnitedStatesian 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think we agree: I don't believe that anything that requires registration should be linked in the external link section. References (which belong in the text of the article), however, can link to content that requires subscription to view. Nposs 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure.  An article reference that is Web content requiring registration or subscription is bad - unhelpful, at least to some readers, and unable to be checked.  This type of content is not a good source for WP articles. I am sure alternative sources can be found and referenced (by even - gasp! - using a non-internet reference instead!). UnitedStatesian 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed on this page multiple times, and it seems like the consensus is that references are governed by a different set of guidelines. I would suggest that you move this discussion about links in references to the appropriate page. (The idea seems to be that providing a link to an online version of a reference (if one is available), even if it requires a subscription to view it (e.g. old NYT articles) is acceptable.) Nposs 03:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When we are linking to a few of the best available resources for a general readership, linking to sites that require subscription is rude not a courtesy,  these aren't sources that we're going to mention anyway, they don't have to be in the article at all.  Subscriptions also make it impossible for editors to compare sites to decide on the best selection of links or to see if a site is suitable without paying the fee.  And allowing linking to subscription sites would bring us into a weird conflict with our guideline against linking to sites that primarily exist to sell a service.  -- Siobhan Hansa 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As UnitedStatesian. less clear than subscription.  But still to be avoided.  -- Siobhan Hansa 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Its absurd to not link to something that uses flash but link to registration pages, especially paid ones.  There isn't any reason to link to registration pages unless we lift the prohibition to link to browser-specific sites and stuff like that.  In any case removing the passage is completely inappropriate without a consensus to do so. 2005 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  site registration 

message: There have been several major, undiscussed changes inflicted on this guideline today... very bizarrely after we seem to have settled on a consensus after much discussion.  This is a guideline that states it is a product of consensus.  I admit I have a hard time understanding the pure arrogance it takes to ignore the consensus statement at the top of the article, but no matter how rude you want to be, repeated changes that do not have a consensus are not going to be let in, no matter how many times you make a change.  The registration stuff for example has been in there more than a year.  Just removing it is beyond arrogant, but it is also just a waste of people's time because it isn't going to stay out unless there is a consensus to do so.  Please play nice and make proposals for changes on this page, and don't make changes to the guideline because you don't like it or don't understand it.  Use this page to convince others your position makes sense, and if you can't that's the way it is. 2005 04:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'd add a suggestion.  An incremental approach works much better: pick the one phrase in the GL that bothers you the most, and address it on the talk page, then move on to the next one.  Trying to gain consensus for a wholesale rewrite of the GL in one shot is going to be extraordinarily difficult. UnitedStatesian 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  That's a very good point.  The last major rewrite of this guideline took THREE MONTHS of discussion, including an entire workshop rewriting that people commented on.  Making one change without consensus is one thing, but multiple major changes will never get anywhere as they will just be reverted if only to keep the lineage of the guideline coherent.  If someone doesn't like something in the guideline, either choose one thing to discuss at a time, or do a workshop rewrite.  Slashing and burning is if nothing else just a waste of everybody's time. 2005 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive non-discussed changes

message: In the intro section of this GL there is the sentence "Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references." This is confusing. For example: if the reference link is a reference for some NPOV or OR text in the article, the link will be deleted along with the bad text, as it should be.  This sentence at least needs some modifier.  Alternatively, since this GL has just finished stating that it does not apply to references, I think this sentence can be deleted completely.  But it doesn't work standing alone.  Comments? UnitedStatesian 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the sentence is meant to stand alone, The guideline of this article refers to external links other than citations. Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references. (emphasis mine).  The sentence is question is part of a point, that this guideline applies to ELs and not RSs.  jbolden1517Talk 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel the "Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references." sentence should removed and replaced with a link to the appropriate WP:CITATION? guideline. This EL guideline does not need to be telling people to be careful. BTW, embedding external links in the references is one of the latest pro-spammer tricks since they see it as a safe haven. (Requestion 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Clarification/Deletion 

message: What's up with this? Are Proboards sites actually banned from external links? If so, why?--Amadscientist 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple versions of the url that show up in the wikimedia blacklist (meaning that they cannot be added to page), but there doesn't appear to be any ban. In general, links to forums are strongly discouraged under the external link guidelines for a number of reasons. They tend to fail important tests: encyclopedic content, no original research, verifiable, etc. Is there a specific example you are thinking of? Nposs 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Forums are almost NEVER encyclopedic. In fact I can't really think of any examples that would be acceptable. I delete any and all forums/message boards/discussion lists/etc. on sight. DreamGuy 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proboards external links ban 

message: I'd like to get additional opinions on a potential link to a wiki.  The site has twelve thousand editors, and someone has argued that that number isn't "substantial" and that a hundred thousand would be required.  That seems unrealistic if not borderline ridiculous.  If anyone wants to join in the discussion, it is at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Lostpedia and the site for a potential link is Lostpedia .  Thanks.  --Minderbinder 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 12,000 editors for a single purpose specialized wiki.  You are talking something like 1/1000 viewers and a representative sample.  I'd say that's easily enough assuming that more than a few hundred were active.  Wikipedia has many more topics.  jbolden1517Talk 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting way to look at it.  Feel free to weigh in on the article talk page, on this particular issue there seem to be a few editors who flatly reject any non-official links, regardless of whether they meet EL.  It would be nice to get some outside opinions.  --Minderbinder 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't have to be reliable.  He's not asking to cite just to link.  In other words this is an issue of notability not reliability.  jbolden1517Talk 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's reputation rather than simple notability - we should still have an expectation that the material is reasonably accurate and it's not full of specious claims and coverage of unencyclopedic info. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-official sites that don't stand up to WP:RS fall under WP:EL links to avoid. Not sure if this site is reliable or not, but notability is not the only consideration. Nposs 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a peculiat position; 12,000 fans are a recognised authority? Recognised by whom?  And why should a self-selected group of people with a strong point of view count as a reliable source? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recognized authority issue is very much the point and not one we have a good answer to.  We normally say it needs to be recognized by other experts in the field.  With pop culture subjects we get into muddy water.  Such experts are rarely academics or paid up members of an association.  You get a few writers who concentrate on TV, but most of the time the experts pretty much are fans. In the end I think if this wiki is recognized by the Lost fan community as a significant, reliable place to go for encyclopedic information then it might well be appropriate.  That encyclopedic bit is important though - if it's the best place to find out which cast member is sleeping with whom, or to get the most outrageous suggestions about what will happen next, then I think, well, not so much.  -- Siobhan Hansa 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  To quote WP:RS  their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand  The public is well aware that for television shoes and movies obsessive fans are far and away the experts.  The entire plot of Galaxy Quest is based on the assumption that the audience knows about and agrees with this theory.  jbolden1517Talk 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually like that for a revision to #11.  We change it to Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.  For pop culture subjects a site wide recognized by fans as a source of reliable and encyclopedic information is considered reliable"  everyone agree?  jbolden1517Talk 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole pop culture thing is still being worked out and is too muddy to write this sort of assessment into a guideline at this point.  -- Siobhan Hansa 14:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This skates on thin ice, IMO. Would this then allow blogs and personal webpages for hategroups, which could conceivably be staffed or run by an expert but not necessarily contain the experts blogs? Lsi john 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki's: "substantial number of editors" 

message: Is there any support for the idea of replacing the whole guideline with something like:
For non-citation external links editors should only link to a small selection of sites.  All links should be to pages that are authoritative, have an established reputation for providing reliable, encyclopedic information on the subject of the article, and are generally accessible to our audience.
Just a thought - it seems like we all try to use guidelines to micro-manage things sometimes.  A real overhaul like this might be more what we need. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a moderate improvement to the nutshell, but I find the additional specifics to be useful and appropriate for inclusion.  One can think of the details as a FAQ of sorts, explaining common questions and issues with the general you are expressing.  ∴ here…♠ 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call me crazy be but..