Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 9

message: The user Darkishblade Contributions keeps link spamming over and over again even after people try to contact him/her. Is there any way to report this somehow? MythSearcher 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warn him with , ,  and  everytime he spams in a short period of time. After you reached spam4 and he continued, report him to WP:AIV as spammer. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if he wants to know why his link is removed, mention him that our external links guidelines state that a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless it is being used as a source, the web site itself is the topic of the article, or it has relevant content of substantially higher quality than any available from other websites. which is never true for forums. Also, the forum has only 447 members, which is a pretty low amount considering that FFVII probably sold more than 500,000 copies in US alone. -- ReyBrujo 17:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question, is there a way to block consistent linkspamers? 

message: I saw recent changes of this policy, eps. in the links normally to be avoided. Major structure/contents have gone. Is there already any consensus about this? — Indon (reply) — 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To which changes are you specifically referring? The policy has been reorganized somewhat, but what contents are gone? - Brian Kendig 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is diff of the version at 22 Oct with current one: .  The previous version, I believe, is more easy and clear to read as it has good structure to follow. — Indon (reply) — 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and that's why I edited it. (See Bold edits, above.) In particular, the policy had a lot of redundancy in it and repeated itself in several places; and I think its structure was confusing (like, putting "Links normally to be avoided" under "What to link to".) If you can explain specifics about how you feel the new structure of the policy is more confusing, then let's talk about it and improve it. I'm a bit more concerned about your claim that "major contents have gone"; can you be more specific? - Brian Kendig 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I said that, because bold bulleted items have gone, but actually they were still there without bullets. In the section "Links normally to be avoided", one-sentence paragraphs that start with "Do not link to ...", I think, are better in bulletted items, rather than leaving them as orphaned paragraphs. — Indon (reply) — 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - thanks. "One-sentence paragraphs are better as bulleted items" is a lot more actionable than "Major structure/contents have gone". :) And I see that someone's already turned the short paragraphs back into bullet items. - Brian Kendig 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this new blob is pretty bad. It's harder to read and harder to follow. It's also harder for people that are accustomed to the guideline to go back and check specific points or to figure out the things that have evolved. I would be in favor of reverting to the good'ol guideline. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about what you find harder with the rewrite? - Brian Kendig 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes, is it already a consensus? 

message: If we add "official" MySpace pages, do we have to add official Flickr streams? YouTube pages? Fark discussion threads? Does every official web page have to be listed? Fagstein 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen a band with an official flickr account or fark account or youtube account? That might be interesting. Especially if it was not prominently linked off their main 'official website'. -Quiddity 02:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have seen official YouTube clips from artists accounts (e.g. BT's "This Binary Universe").  The Fark discussion is pretty ridiculous, and I'm not that familiar with Flickr.  However, if they are a primary resource for "official" information on the artist, then I would say yes, they should be allowed to be linked as well.  I would say in more general terms, any website which is contributed to by the person and is considered a resource for information on the person, falls under the "official website" catagory. -MattWatt 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Does every official web page have to be listed?"  Of course, except we don't need to link to 127 "official" things of a subject.  Why would we care where somebody has their official presence?  What we care about is that the article subject meets WP:CORP or WP:WEB or whatever to merit an article.  If Einstein wants his official site to be a My Space page, then he does. 2005 04:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would start with disallowing MySpace links where the person has an "official" website link. If they want to link to their MySpace site from their official site, that's their choice. Conversely, MySpace sites should probably be allowed when no "official" site exists.—Chidom talk  19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the rationale, I anticipate confusion in the future by editors asking why MySpace pages are acceptable for some biographical articles and not others. My personal opinion is that MySpace pages should be included if it is officially used by the individual (regardless of the existence of an official website). I do not support the inclusion of fan-made MySpace pages. Olessi 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does it stop?

message: Several entirely new points of the guideline have been added today with zero discussion here.  This is both inappropriate and rude.  Changes for grammar or structure are one thing, changes for content/value reasons should be discussed first, including the proposed workshop, which has not been discussed here at all.  Present the changes you want to propose, don't just make changes.  Nobody is special.  This is a cooperative effort. 2005 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale, undiscussed changes

message: The line in the preamble; "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that... hasn't yet been added to the article" contradicts #1 of Links normally to be avoided, "A page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." Imo adding external links to short articles as a shortcut to actually improving / extending the article should be discouraged. I think it would fit better with the goals and spirit of WP to see the italicized clause above removed from the preamble. Deizio talk 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really follow what you're saying - if a web page contains information that's not in Wikipedia yet (and there's no reason why its information shouldn't be added at some point), how does this contradict the rule against linking to a page which only provides information that's already in the article? Or are you saying that articles shouldn't link to information that hasn't been brought into them yet? - Brian Kendig 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also note that this line isn't in the workshop version. Schi 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You've got a really good point. Perhaps the policy should say that links to pages with good material to add to the article should be put on the article's Talk page, so that other editors can bring in the material if you can't do so right now? - Brian Kendig 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Sorry to hop in in the middle of this discussion, but I had a quick suggestion. As the policy is currently written, we encourage linking to official sites, and I see above there's discussion of including official MySpace sites, too... Would it be fair to include a statement that explictly bans links to sites that are suspecting of impersonating a celebrity? Ie, sites which claim or insinuate ownership by a famous person but for which reasonable doubts exist as to their validity? This may sound silly, but it was an issue on a page I was editing a while back, and I can imagine it happening again, what with the vast number of fake celebrity MySpace accounts that have popped up these days. Would anyone object strenuously if I added an item to "links to be avoided" to address suspected impersonation? I can't think of any problems this would cause, but let me know if there's something I'm overlooking.  -- Bailey(talk) 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a line in the /workshop that addresses this. "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Editors should always prefer Reliable sources.", which would clearly address a site that impersonates someone. Can I ask you to check this over as part of our rewrite process. --Barberio 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your point. I still wish this were explicitly addressed, though. A claim of identity might be "inverifiable original research", but that's awfully subtle, especially considering we usually let offical sites off the hook for being verifiable and accurate. Perhaps something could just be tagged onto the line allowing official sites to indicate that if reasonable doubt exists as to a site's officialness, we can't use it. I'll look over the workshop this afternoon.  -- Bailey(talk) 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that the policy already covers this, by discouraging a page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If a page incorrectly claims to be an official site or to be written by a celebrity, that falls under "factually inaccurate material". I'm curious - what were the circumstances of the article you were editing? Were people claiming that nothing in WP:EL prohibited them from linking to a fake site? - Brian Kendig 13:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortuately, yes. The problem was that the people making the claim believed the site wasn't fake.  My feeling was that we shouldn't have to engage in lengthy debate about whether such a claim is accurate if there's room for doubt, but when I tried to make that point, I wound up with several anons yelling at me for not wanting to closely scrutinize every last word looking for liguistic similarities and similar subjective "evidence". The issue has been resolved for a while now, but at that time I wished the guideline had been more clear.  -- Bailey(talk) 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to normally be avoided: impersonation? 

message: I see the guideline has been reverted back to the contested move from the workshop; I prefer the current workshop version, personally, and it also incorporates 2005's changes.  I understand that some users take issue with the editing process that has been undertaken here, but what are folks' thoughts on the content of the current /workshop version? Schi 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have lots of small issues with the workshop version. It opens too weakly, in my opinion; rather than giving a concise summary of the external linking policy, it begins by saying what the policy is not and then it introduces the subjective terms "small number" and "relevant". ("Relevance" is a poor concept to bring up in the policy; one of the biggest problems with external links is that people try to link a whole lot of things that are relevant but still shouldn't be linked.) And it doesn't give a clear picture of what it's saying - the first sentence indicates that it's okay to add links as long as they don't dominate the page, but the second paragraph says that links should be kept to a minimum. It's six paragraphs before the workshop version gives specifics about what kind of pages should be linked. (These are all issues I addressed in my recent edits to the live policy.) But, more seriously, I'd like to see a list of what policy changes the workshop version makes, specifically - how does its stated policy differ from the current version of the policy? I see a few differences, but I want to make sure I don't miss any. - Brian Kendig 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I must say I missed the emphasis on relevant in my first read.  Relevance and highly relevant are certainly not the main criteria here.  Absolute garbage can be relevant.  A page devoted to a subject that goes into extraordinary detail is highly relevant, but if every bit of the text is a rant or inaccurate or just stupid, that's no reason to link.  Relevance is a secondary consideration best emphasized in sections about "links devoted to the article subject" not "links broadly about the parent topic of the subject of the article." As for the once again wildly inappropriate addition of workshop which has not been discussed and certainly has no consensus, that speaks for itself. 2005 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the "relevance" criticisms and your changes.  I too would like to see a list of the differences in the proposed version and the current version, perhaps I'll try to put that together later.  Personally, I think the workshop version is a lot clearer and better organized than the current version, although I agree that the guidance on what to link to could be moved up. Would it be appropriate to move the "Wikipedia is not a web directory" section down? Schi 06:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about that.  To me, the most important line of this guideline is 'Keep links to a minimum', it's been the constant primary part of the guideline since it's creation. It should be the first concept we introduce on the page, not what to include or not include, but that you should always keep links to a minimum. Keeping links to a minimum should really be the most important aspect of the guideline. It's been significantly diminished from that in the current guideline. --Barberio 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the workshop version is a lot clearer and better organized than the current version - could you be more specific about this? Exactly what about the current version do you find unclear or disorganized? The workshop version is based on a version of the official policy that I boldly edited a few days ago to address what I saw as problems with its clarity and organization; if you fee that my edits took the policy in the wrong direction, please explain and let's improve it. - Brian Kendig 13:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I generally prefer the organization and structure of the workshop version; the use of concise lists and logical (to me) heading organization - for me, these things make the workshop version quicker to parse and navigate.  I'm not crazy about the long list and sublist in the current version's "Links normally to be avoided" section; similarly, I think the "What to link" section could be made more concise and improved for ease of reading with a bullet point list. I like the workshop version's "What cannot be linked to" section, which is not in the current guideline.  And smaller quibbles: I still object to the "unless mandated by the article itself" clause in #7 of "Links normally to be avoided"; #6 prohibition on bookstore sites should be combined with #5 for sites promoting sale of items. That said, it's not the case that I'm strongly against the current guideline or anything like that. Schi 07:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I also feel that the workshop version is better organized and easier to read, so I'm puzzled to find the current guideline page under protection (I haven't checked it in a few weeks). Can't a compromise be ironed out here? People at WikiProject Spam liked the idea of a "what cannot be linked to" which removes some of the ambiguity of earlier versions of WP:EL. Actually, it would be even better if that came in right after the "what to link to" section. Pascal.Tesson 03:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version was organized into sections in the same way for a long time, but for some reason Brian felt the need to change that recently. This is what it used to look like. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Workshop re-write status

message: What is the definiiton of this term? I can't find any discussion of it in the archives. Are we referring to Goatse-type websites, prfanity, or simply impolite language? Would a website that refers to an article subject as "kooks" count as "distasteful"? It is perhaps too vague a term to be included undefined in an important guideline. -Will Beback 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember (but can't find now; maybe it was on a different Talk page) a recent comment saying that what's "appropriately tasteful" for a page about a porn actress wouldn't be "appropriately tasteful" for a page about the Pope. So this term is subjective, and I'd welcome an attempt to pin it down better. - Brian Kendig 03:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "appropriately tasteful" 

message: "An article about an album, movie, book, or another creative work may have one or two links to professional reviews of the work." Actually, we rather consistently try to link rather more than that in the Infobox for albums, and the WikiProject that works on albums tries systematically to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it seems your wikiproject is in conflict with some of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links", "Wikipedia is not a directory". It has always been the interoperation of WP:NOT in this guideline that external links not used as citations are to be kept to a minimum. --Barberio 10:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums 

message: Maybe a deep link to the corresponding DMOZ category as a standard for the external links section (where appropriate) could be a solution to some topics discussed concerning external links?
1) as DMOZ is edited by humans it is somehow spam resistant
2) only links to sites that are not listed there have to be considered to be added to the external links section (and it should have to be argued why the site is not listed in the category although it contains valuable content).
3) it would still provide less experienced users with access to valuable external links
What do you think?
--SESchreiber 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already part of /workshop version as part of a re-write process. Including a template , to request a suitable category be found. --Barberio 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a terrible idea in general.  A huge percentage of Dmoz categories are rotten quality. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, it makes no sense to link to Dmoz and not sites in dmoz directly, but then allow links to lower quality sites that aren't in Dmoz.  Dmoz should be an alternative when appropriate, which means if the Dmoz category is hopelessly lame it should never be linked to, and that a Dmoz category should be linked to when there are a large amount of external links that would qualify to be included in an article.  A link to a Dmoz category should never be a preference, it should be a fall back position. 2005 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of deep links into DMOZ categories 

message: I've noticed there's lots of TV IV external links on Wikipedia (example: Kristin Kreuk). Seeing as the Links normally to be avoided section, #1, says external links should provide information not already in the article, is it OK for me to go ahead and remove the TV IV links that DO NOT provide any additional information? —B33R(talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be preferred to turn the links into citation references where appropriate. --Barberio 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TV IV]] 

message: While this page is fully protected User:Mushroom has again added a line to links normally to be avoided: "Links to websites run by anonymous individuals."  So far as I can see there has not been a syllable of discussion on this, so the edit should obviously be reverted. I hate to be a broken record, but especially since there are several suggestions for changes that have been presented here, simply adding a brand new concept is not appropriate.  Please start a discussion if you want to make a concept change to a guideline.  2005 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support the change made by Mushroom. It seems potentially controversial and should be discussed beforehand. --Loqi T. 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. I was just restoring a sentence that was there before, and I explained it in my edit summary. User:Barberio contacted me and asked me to revert my edit, and I suggest that you do the same in case you think one of my edits is inappropriate. I later noticed that the sentence had been added quite recently by User:SlimVirgin without discussion, so re-adding it was a mistake on my part. Mushroom (Talk) 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith works both ways.  You edited a protected page to add something not discussed and never part of the guideline for more than a couple hours.  Most editors don't have the ability to revert such changes, and others aren't going to just go and make changes to a protected guideline page as you did. A revert and apology on your part cover it so lets move on.  2005 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of new concept to protected page

message: Why do the external links not open in new tabs? If this has been discussed already, why is there not at least an option to open them in a new tab? For example:  (in Slovenian, but nonetheless). In this case there are two small boxes after each caption. Wikipedia could have something similar. --Eleassar my talk 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tabbed browsers can already do this without changing website code. I personally don't see the advantage, and I actually find it very annoying when websites include any links at all that force my browser windows to open pages a certain way. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New tabs