Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 4

message: Refactored and current discussion to come soon. - brenneman {L} 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of fansites seems to have been active, and covers an ongoing problem. I'm not sure why it was archived, but I hope some consensus can be reached on the issue. -Will Beback 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Here are some "in progress" version to play with as seen fit.  It might be good if comments are made right below the section they refer to, as well.  I'll try to summarise the existing arguments soon, but they are all over the place. - brenneman {L} 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working copies 

message: :1.  Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. (moved to point 2)
#Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
#Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.  AND An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.  Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to their the official site if they have one there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media may should link to a site hosting a copy if no "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. (combined two points.)
#On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
#Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
#Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews, professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks, etc.
* Isn't No. 1 an example of what should not be linked to? Shouldn't it be in the next section? Fagstein 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, number 1 covers things which should be linked to; it's just that in this case these are things which should be linked from a  Notes or References section, not an External links section.  So I think that number 1 is in the right place.  -- JimR 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been no changes to the working copy section since I wrote the above, and no contrary comments, so I've now changed WP:EL#What should be linked to to be the same as the above working copy (as it is at present).  -- JimR 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be linked to 

message: # For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, one or two links to professional reviews.
# When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing, with preference to open directories.
# 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.
# Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
# Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.
; linking to copyvio
I'd like to see #5 strengthened to point out specific and common examples, including lyrics sites (not on a band's or record label's page), and videos at sites like YouTube and Clevver that are of obviously copyrighted material but not released to the public domain (such as musical performances, music videos, movie trailers, and so on). -- Mikeblas 15:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to be used occasionally 

message: The following paragraph contradicts (or nearly contradicts) Wikipedia:Citing sources:
:External links to dead URLs are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be removed, or updated with archived versions, which may be found at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.
I believe it should be rewritten as:
:Links to dead URLs in a list of external link are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be removed, or updated with archived versions, which may be found at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Note however, that the matter can be quite different when these links are references: see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead".
I made the edit, then belatedly noticed that the page was protected, so I'm bringing it here to make sure there are no objections. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three days, no objections, I'm making the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, we should really get this page unprotected first, eh?  I've reverted the change, and I'll list this page on requests for unprotection. - brenneman {L} 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The page is no longer protected; I've re-inserted the improvement about dead links.  -- JimR 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Can I suggest adding, where relevent, a strong recomendation to use the Template:Unverifiable-external-links template where needed.
It outputs the following,
--Barberio 09:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would this template ever be used?  External links should either be removed for a reason or used for a reason. In fact, why does this template exist? It should be deleted. ((Added, I see ita already has been put up for deletion.)) 2005 09:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In an ideal wikipedia, this template should not exist. Neither should any of the other POV templates. Unfortunatly, there are disputes over removing external links, as demonstated in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I have given further information on the TFD page. --Barberio 11:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The template should be linked from nowhere. Instead you should follow the policy of this guideline.  2005 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Unverifiable-external-links]] 

message: I've added this section to keep it seperate from the above discussion. - brenneman {L} 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about application of guideline 

message: The account User:Iceberg 76 exists only to place links to interviews on artist or band pages to his own website, icebergradio.com Iceberg Radio. .  Is this linkspam? -- Mikeblas 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user is spamming, that is what you are asking, not whether the links are any good, right? 2005 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides the spamming issue, the interviews themselves appear to require registration on their site. Usually we don't link things that require registration, except insofar as they are actual references. - Jmabel | Talk 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceberg Radio 

message: There is currently an important mediation case over how these guidelines should apply. Please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. At the moment current compromise is to allow unverifiable and potentialy misleading links so long as they are clearly marked as such. --Barberio 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]] 

message: Following on from the above mentioned mediation and template deletion discussions, it appears this guide needs serious review. No one seems able to agree on how these guides should be applied, and there are sections of it that are so subjective to be totaly useless. At the moment, despite the clear warning against using them, Blog sites and forum posts are commonly used as links. And there are ocasional disputes against atempts to remove them. (The template was only intended as a stop gap for pages where these disputes were ongoing.)
At the moment, the page is a bit too muddled, in that it is not clear which items overrule which. The section on Blogs and comunity sites is curently muddled, starting by saying they are almost always to be avoided, then giving a set of exceptions that are vauge enough that they could be interperated to allow anything.  There needs to be a clearer, stronger language on what is expected from an external links section. --Barberio 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guide needs review. 

message: Hi there. I'm hoping someone can help me out with a conflict about an external link that has come up at a page I've been editing -- I really don't know what to do, and am kind of at a loss. 
The problem regards a site which claims to be run by a moderately famous person. Actually it doesn't directly claim -- it just very strongly insinuates. An editor has been adding and readding the link to this site in the external links section of the article on the person in question. Problem is, no one can come up with any hard evidence about the ownership of the site. It's entirely possible it belongs to who it claims it does, but if it doesn't, it fails to be strongly relevant to the topic of the article. Can anyone advise me as to what the correct thing would be to do in this situation?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it from the article and post the link and an explanation of your doubts to the article talk page for review. If indeed it is genuine, as agreed by other members who contribute to the page, let someone not associated with the website post it to the main article. Until a consensus of support forms, keep deleting it. See item #3 in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Carboncopy 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have commented a good bit on this on the article's talk page, but only a smallish number of editors have commented -- 2 established editors also expressed doubts, but there are a number of new accounts with no other edits that have gotten involved to support the link. It's fairly high up on the page by now, so I may try to start a new section on it and hope it gets seen. Under item #3, the link is looking a lot like an attempt to generate traffic to the site.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice needed 

message: I request the little arrow on every external link be restored. While external links are a lighter blue to internal ones, the difference is very slight, and it can be difficult to determine which are external links without scrutiny/hovering over the link. i.e. bunny Microsoft
TransUtopian 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back. Whoever changed it back, thank you! TransUtopian 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone again. Where's the page where this is changed to comment? TransUtopian 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is back for me. I know the arrow is missing on trans-wiki links (ie: Vader), but it appears for regular off-site links. EVula 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Do you know where this stuff is changed, so I can talk directly to the people changing it if it gets changed again? I did a quick search on metawiki but no luck. I guess I'll ask on the Village Pump if it happens again. Did the transwiki links have the arrow on it, or are you saying you'd like to add the arrow to them too? TransUtopian 01:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little arrow graphic gone 

message: I would just like to raise a point or seek clarification on what not to link to. Currently on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article there are several anonymous contributors who keep putting external links to dubious websites which provide cheats to this game. Myself and Falcon9x5 have attempted to remove them yet they keep persisting (claiming that it doesn't violate this policy).
Can we ammend the policy to exclude the listing of websites whose specific purpose is to provide cheats to computer games? If we start to allow this to happen then every man and his dog will list HUNDREDS of these sites and wikipedia will lose its encyclopedic value. Not to mention that the majority of cheat sites contain spyware and other malicious entities which unsuspecting readers may stumble into. Enigmatical 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheats, unless notable (like the Hot Coffee, in example) are not encyclopedic, nor enhance the article about the game itself. If they continue adding it, maybe you should requeste a semi protection? -- ReyBrujo 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While it may not violate the policy explicitly, one could justify the removal as removing a Fansite, or the fact that the site simply doesn't add to the article. I have to say that the one site at www.cheatcc.com/psx2/gtasa.html doesn't appear to have advertising, and does appear to be very complete. If I had to include a cheat site, I'd be tempted to use it. -- Xinit 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then people come along, see the existing cheat site, decide that its a precident so they all add their favourites. Before long wikipedia is inundated with thousands of game cheats and becomes known as the place to go if you want to find cheats for games. Where is the encyclopedic value there? Enigmatical 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the spam event horizon.  Just zis Guy you know? 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I like it. It is basically what I had to do here. -- ReyBrujo 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Section 4., Instruction manuals, cover this? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the recommendation to not include fansites, or consisting of original research... -- Xinit 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is only for content inside Wikipedia, not external links. You can argue Wikipedia is not a repository of links, though. -- ReyBrujo 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Game cheats aren't illegal and shouldn't be treated as such, but they're inappropriate external links to articles about the games. Fagstein 07:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I see little harm in having such a link, I can see you disagree, with the reasoning that generally they're not noteworthy enough to be added as links. Perhaps, since they're not illegal, you could suggest on the article/user talk pages for them to make an article on game cheats (when searching, all I found is cheating in online games, when I'm talking about offline game portions) where a few relevant external links could be added. I think the general phenomenon of game programmers creating cheats for various reasons, properly sourced, would be encyclopedic. TransUtopian 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an article on the phenomena, covering its development and reactions to it, is fine, but it would still be true that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we have articles like Hot Coffee mod and Konami Code, in example. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not the specific link itself, its the "trend" that may start as a result. What would be the purpose behind including such a link? To inform readers about something of interest regarding the topic of the article? Or to help play the game? We allow one to be added and then someone else goes "I have a better cheat site than that" so they link theirs. Then the next person does the same and then people on other computer games articles start doing it. Before you know it we end up with every single computer game artical covered in cheat sites which while not illegal do have a tendancy to carry spyware and other computer nasties on their pages. Enigmatical 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to "Cheats" for computer games