Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy.
  • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
  • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
  • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:


Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to RS/N
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Koenraad Elst[edit]

Is this book a valid "further reading" entry for the article Bharatiya Janata Party? Also, if consensus is not achieved either way, does WP:BURDEN apply to external links?

  • Elst, Koenraad (1997). Bharatiya Janata Party vis-à-vis Hindu resurgence. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 81-85990-47-6. 

I am of the view that Elst is a fringe source, and therefore WP:ELPOV would require his ommission. I believe Maunus agrees with me. Jyoti disagrees, and says that Elst is sufficiently mainstream to be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree that Elst is a fringe source in the description of Indian history and politics and cannot be included as EL.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic of discussion is a book in Further Reading section. Here is the link to the still running RfC discussion:[1] and link of discussion on user talk page: [2] No point rehashing the discussion here. You may find mine and other editors response at these two places. --Jyoti (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not an external links, so EL does not apply here.
Elst's opinions on the BJP cannot be called fringe when the top senior leader of the BJP (LK Advani) has been repeatedly referring to Elsts views and books in important forums.
Elst is a controversial author, but wikipedia should not be censored and include all viewpoints.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The opinion of LK Advani is rather irrelevant when discussing what is an isnt a fringe view in the literature on the party itself. That is probably the last place one would look for an objective judgment. It arguably shows notability, but has no bearings on Elsts status within his academic field. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN does not apply to external links. However, WP:ELBURDEN does: disputed links are removed, unless and until there is a (rough) consensus to include them.
WP:FURTHER is not a collection of external links. However, approximately the same standards are conventionally applied, and sometimes the two sections are merged (if the resulting section would have only two or three items). This is as good a place to ask about this as any other. There is no dedicated noticeboard for further reading items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for the detailed reply. The users that I am engaged in a dispute with still maintain that ELBURDEN does not apply, on the grounds that the disputed addition is not a link. What course of action would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly? I'd find something more productive to do than argue over a single link. You can remove ten spammy links in the time it takes to discuss one. But if you're more seriously involved in that article, rather than just wandering by to do some link-weeding, then you could ask them what guideline or noticeboard they would consider relevant and binding. If they would not accept, for example, a decision made at WP:RSN, then you can try an WP:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing; unfortunately, I am rather involved there, I'm trying to get it to GA, and hopefully further. One of the editors disputing this with me did start an RfC, soon after adding the content; this behaviour made the RfC a joke in my opinion, so I brought it here. I have asked what guideline applies, and the question has been dodged multiple times. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor linking to all their own Articles (with dubious notability)[edit]

The user [[3]] Is editing multiple articles pertaining to their area of research simply to link to their Arxiv pre-prints. This seems to be a clear violation of the conflict of interest and external links policies. The added content is not terribly clear, represents a viewpoint, and is supported by links of borderline notability.

Here is an example, removed from the abstract of the Spatial_analysis page:

The current spatial analysis is accused of being dominated by Gaussian thinking, so it requires a different way of thinking in terms of modeling spatial heterogeneity.<ref name="Jiang2">Jiang, Bin 2014. "Geospatial analysis requires a different way of thinking: The problem of spatial heterogeneity", GeoJournal, xx(x), xx-xx, DOI: 10.1007/s10708-014-9537-y. Preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5889</ref>

This does not link to a peer-reviewed article, only to a self-published preprint. "Spatial heterogeneity" and "Gaussian Thinking" are not terms of art in Geospatial analysis, let alone concepts that belongs in the header material.

That editor has placed ego links in about [dozen different articles]. I believe all should be removed, but would prefer an editor with more clout and awareness of proper procedures do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.147.205 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The larger problem is that the editor is promoting his work without regard for it's prominence within the subject matter of the articles and without regard for WP:COI.
I've cleaned up quite a bit of what hadn't already been removed by others. There's likely still more. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

findagrave[edit]

I had removed it's link on some pages and a user restored them on two pages. We could've added better website.

There has been discussion about adding findagrave.com before, such as[4],[5]. Link seemed to have been discarded as spam, fansite, etc. The main issue is that if we should add any link of findagrave anywhere on wikipedia? If it has been removed once, it should be re-added? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The information on findagrave is rarely unique (sometimes even taken from Wikipedia), or adding. If s.o. removes a link, the burden of showing its use to a certain page is on the person re-adding it (and preferably that is before re-adding it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thanks for the input. When writing for a GA, it was told that findagrave must be removed. I looked around and found that all GA, FA, etc have avoided this link. In some instances, where a person may have been fascinated by the information provided on this website, after a little bit of research it was acknowledged that the depicted tombstone never existed. Wouldn't be same for all pages but still it was defective. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone, I'm sorry to say that your GA reviewer was just making up that alleged "rule". There's not one word in the WP:Good article criteria about external links. It's one of the many areas that are not supposed to be considered at all in a GA review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I never said that it is a rule. GA not only follow rules but also some common sense. GA policy doesn't say that you cannot use wordpress for source yet you have to remove its link if it has been used as source. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not true. Iff the Wordpress page is a WP:Reliable source for the statement being made, then you do not need to remove it. If it's not reliable, then you need to remove it per GACR #2b, not just common sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Beetstra, OccultZone. The problem is OccultZone is removing *every* occurrence via a bot/script. See talk discussion. Occultzone has been told by multiple people to stop removing every occurrence. Removing links from hundreds of articles via a bot/script is not to be done. This is controversial and controversial things are not to be done this way per WP:BOTASSIST. Bgwhite (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed had it, but not doing at this moment. WP:BOTASSIST is for only for bot account. FYI, this page is about discussion of the link. So your assumption seems to be highly unrelated with the credibility of the link. Just because "multiple people"(so far only 2) is seeking to spam the link, it is not enough argument for keeping a spam link like it has been discussed numerous times. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
BOTASSIST is for scripts and bots, "'Assisted editing' covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. " You are doing upto 17 edits a minute, thus this applies. Six people have commented on the page, only you agree with your stance. It is not a spam link. Nowhere does it say this except back in 2010 when it was a problem. It has been since been removed from the blacklist. You are removing all instances of findagrave at a rapid rate of speed when five people call this controversial and it isn't spam.
This discussion should have stayed at your talk page. Six people with multiple comments are there. Coming here and doing a POV summary is not the way. I suggest anyone look at the discussion here. Bgwhite (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong because coming here for exclusive discussion about this controversial link is the right way, a circular argument with apparent POV on a user talk page decides nothing about the whole link, only a reference to any past discussion on appropriate noticeboard concerning this link can be helpful and pretty much most of the people seemed to have disagreed with the use of this link. Question is that have I removed since the discussion? No. Every single time, on that discussion nothing has been presented by you or Kraxler other than "Link is not blacklisted yet". I don't know if the link was backlisted before, but the quality of this link has not been improved whether it was 2010 or now. None of the people have commented about findagrave except you and Kraxler. Goingbatty only said that this has been used many times in wikipedia.. Just like other flawed (fringe, conspiracy, wordpress, blogspot, etc) links have been. It doesn't make any point. I understand that the pages are very few, but doesn't decide any credibility.
Furthermore, one user has already noted that findagrave lacks quality and they copy from wikipedia a lot. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone - the additions of these links are controversial, they, often, should NOT be there in the first place. Defending the links because they are bot-like removed is not the way forward - the inclusion of the link is controversial in the first place. I can agree that bot-like removal is not the way forward either, if the link is 'spammed' by users, then that is also akin to bot-like inclusion. Please, when the links are removed, discuss re-insertion, and though bot-like removal is controversial as well, that does not mean that the removals need to be reverted if they result in a good removal (as it is, per the guidelines etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beetstra: That was nicely explained. To be more specific, I removed it on 3 pages and haven't removed after a user reinserted on 2 pages. Not that I was specifically targeting the pages having this link. In short, I fully agree with your comment. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
# RE: Dirk Beetstra "sometimes even taken from Wikipedia" - The tombstone photos at Francis B. Spinola and Robert B. Van Valkenburgh were not copied from Wikipedia.
# RE: Dirk Beetstra "akin to bot-like inclusion" - You're quite mistaken, I've written more than a thousand bios during the last 8 years, and have added Find a Grave links manually to many of them after checking the info. I've never used a bot or script in my whole wiki-life.
# RE: OccultZone "We could've added better website" - Which one? Please give me a link.
# Find a Grave is neither spam nor a fansite. I think we can assume good faith. It's a valuable source for burial place info and in some cases the life dates can be transcribed from a tombstone. That's sometimes the only source for not so well known minor notable people. Even if some FaG contributors make mistakes, we can not discard the whole site. Just to compare: There are mistakes on Wikipedia (let's say a few hundred in almost 5 million articles), so, should we shut down Wikipedia because of it? Well, we all know the answer... Kraxler (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please clearly identify the articles and especially the discussions mentioned? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check User talk:OccultZone#Find a Grave. There are some links, FWIW. The articles which had Find a Grave links removed by OccultZone, and re-instated by me, are Francis B. Spinola and Robert B. Van Valkenburgh. FYI, OccultZone's AWB access has been removed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of AWB bit for User:OccultZone. So, the botassist part of the discussion above has become moot. Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
But how we can deny that it is a spam link? Even if good faith has been assumed I would still suggest against adding this link due to its lack of accuracy. It will lead to WP:Burden if you think that some pages are correct but most aren't. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
So no article talk page discussions? Why not? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ronz: Yes none. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Then the links should be kept out until there had been demonstrated clear consensus for inclusion per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I am waiting on Kraxler, lets see if he can provide some reason. If not, it will can be removed again. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Kraxler - there is a long-standing consensus that findagrave should not be used as a reference, and hardly ever as an external link. If someone removes them, a discussion has to take place about the re-inclusion: they are known to be wrong, they are known to have information that is just from Wikipedia, they are unchecked, and they are often just plainly unnecessary - the data is available from reliable sources (which findagrave is not). Although I agree that the links should not be bot-removed (for which I would like to see evidence, if I understand it correctly it were a couple of edits between other edits ..), I do agree that most of these links simply should be removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If this is so, does that make Template:Find_a_Grave a problem? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
RE Dirk Beetstra - "If someone removes them, a discussion has to take place about the re-inclusion" - You're mistaken again. If something has been in the article for a long time, and there is no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion, then the stable version of the article should be preserved until the discussion is finished.
RE OccultZone - You continue to talk gibberish. While removing your AWB access, your WP:Competence has been questioned, for a good reason. I suggest you consult an English teacher, and learn the language to avoid posting more comments like "~I am waiting on Kraxler, lets see if he can provide some reason. If not, it will can be removed again."
RE Ronz - WP:EL says at Links normally to be avoided #12. "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Find a Grave is such an exception. It also says at "Links to be considered" #4. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Knowledgeable in this case means somebody who visited in person the burial site, and publishes the info, including many times a photo of the tombstone. You see that Find a Grave is far from "disputed". It remains "controversial" because some people seem to have prejudiced opinions and are not willing to debate the issue, instead repeating over and over again the same already refuted arguments. See Dirk Beetstra "they are known to have information that is just from Wikipedia" after I stated clearly that the tombstone photos at the two articles were not copied from Wikipedia, and that I created bios to which I appended a Find a Grave link. How could somebody add something from Wikipedia which was not there yet?
RE Thargor Orlando - No there's no problem with the template. Kraxler (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Bold letters and apparent incivility is not helping you, we can get this straight. You must be bad at copying words or you don't know how to use them, if not, kindly tell if you have 'refuted' anything. Not my fault if you cannot understand simple English. If you are trying hard to get away from the argument concerning a spam link it becomes more clear that you lack WP:COMPETENCE for not only grammar but also for the reviewer right. First you assumed AWB to be a bot and you defended such nonsense by misinterpreting your own words, and after showing multiple archives you failed to acknowledge that the URL is controversial, who is incompetent here? Only you. While you are replying to people, you are writing in upper case or lower case letter without even knowing that how they should be used. It must be questioned again when you have reinserted a spam link, you were unaware of WP:ELBURDEN and here you are pretending that you know about WP:EL, but you are only WP:CHERRYPICKING and disregarding the actual. "because some people seem to have prejudiced opinions" makes no sense at all because you are clearly unaware or you have failed to point even a single opinion that was against the basic guidelines. Like any one else who enjoys making WP:POINT or at worst defend a spam link with no basis I highly doubt if you will ever understand the guidelines of external links. If you still don't want to acknowledge consensus against a fansite or spam link, it is your choice but stop getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed them, as no one has even attempted to explain why the links belong as far as I can tell.
I normally remove them whenever I come across them, and I've been wondering if active cleanup is needed. After seeing this discussion, I think think it should be discussed once we get the current discussion settled. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sign of progress Smiley.svg. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave says "as an External link rarely" - Well, that clinches it. That's a positive statement that allows links to Find a Grave. IMO entries that feature photos of the tombstone, original newspaper clippings and burial plot numbers make an entry interesting, helpful and verifiable, especially in the absence of other sources, and thus a link may be added under this express permission. Kraxler (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." - There is no default here: several discussions have taken place. It would be your burden to show that in these past discussions consensus to include has not been reached. The vast amount of links and the existence of a template for Find a Grave, and the posts of numerous editors in those discussions show widespread community approval, and tend to assume that consensus is that the links may be added/maintained. If you think otherwise, show me a link that supports consensus against Find a Grave. Kraxler (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
RE Ronz "I've gone ahead and removed them, as no one has even attempted to explain why the links belong as far as I can tell" - I urge you to re-add the links, since my explanations here and on the pertinent talk pages pre-empt your rationale for removal. The links have been there for years, and the stable version of an article should be kept until the end of the discussion, per WP:Reverting. Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You're correct in that FindaGrave is not automatically disallowed nor blacklisted.
"There's no default here" The default is to exclude links. Maybe we should reword ELBURDEN to make this clearer? The burden is on those arguing for inclusion, not exclusion.
WP:OSE is of no help in gaining consensus.
Until the article talk page discussions were started, there were no specific claims about the value of the link. The claims now appear to be that it is a reference. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
First: WP:OSE has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody has claimed that one Find a Grave link should be added at X because it has been added at Y. When I see a Find a Grave that doesn't add anything to the article, I don't add it. Second: The two links (Spinola and Valkenburgh) are supportive evidence to the actually used references, one unverifiable, the other of doubtful reliability. Third: I saw that you have been blocked for WP:Battleground behavior. So, I'll wait now until tomorrow, and see how things develop. Then I might take further action. Don't expect me to revert again. I ask you to rethink your position in a wider context of this issue. I suggest you re-read all of this discussion, the talk page discussions, the discussions at the links given by OccultZone, and especially all pertaining policies and guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about bringing up OSE here. Retracted.
Could you WP:FOC please? This has been brought up, yet you continue. While you've repeatedly complained about drama in these discussions, much of it is of your own doing and in violation of WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE. It makes you come across as needing to attack others to distract from the policies/guidelines and actual content.
"especially in the absence of other sources" That's a good argument, and should be brought to Valkenburgh, the only article where it applies. I'll do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Official campaign site links in election articles[edit]

I had started a discussion about this subject here but it has been suggested I bring this up here. In short, should external links of official campaign websites of candidates be given in election articles of the relevant election? I started the discussion after external links on that same election article were removed here. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no firm rule against it. (There is a rule against listing dozens of external links, but that's rarely a problem for US elections.) Any such links would not be WP:ELOFFICIAL links for the election, but they could qualify as normal external links. (On the candidate's BLP, the links could be ELOFFICIAL links.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The answer really isn't simple. It's case by case. It comes down to common sense. In your article I would question if adding Erick Bennett campaign page would present Undue weight under WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. I would also question putting them there under qualification of normal links if they can't be put there under WP:ELOFFICIAL.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been told in my original discussion by Ronz that they shouldn't be permitted in election articles under any circumstances, not even case by case, as "off topic" because the article is not about the campaign organization itself, but the election. That user has said it might be slightly more acceptable to have them in the articles about the candidates- though IMO that does not help readers of the election article.
I included Bennett as a matter of fairness as he was a candidate covered in a few legitimate, verifiable sources(attempting to appear on the primary ballot, then as a write in for the same race). 331dot (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I again don't really see it as helpful to the user. wp:soapbox may make room for some. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. But honestly I'm not sold on that in this case. It might infact be better to post this on the BLPs. While Bennet may certainly merit inclusion in the article I do find it questionable if his EL merits inclusion. Fairness really wouldn't apply. wp:GEVAL comes to mind for me. In forgoing due weight we might and including Bennets EL we may unduly legitimize him. As Due wight seems to apply it seems as well that GEVAL should apply. Honestly I'd lean more to posting the link on the candidates article to cover your reader accessibility concern.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Candidate internal links are already on the page in several places. The context of a campaign site, though, is different than that of a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTVOTERGUIDE that does not but should exist at WP:WWIN, I lean as "opposed" to including official campaign websites in the EL section of election articles in the name of "fairness". As much as I dislike the status quo in US politics, fairness to candidates should never be a factor in whether we create a candidate article or chose to include a particular EL in some other article. I agree with the rationale provided above that ELs in election article are to be about the election. Location (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How are the participants of the election not about the election? What ELs are there out there for an election that don't involve the candidates? 331dot (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You cannot have an election without candidates, and you cannot have a basketball team without players. Still, we don't link http://www.lebronjames.com/, http://dwyanewade.com/, or http://www.chrisbosh.com/ in the EL section of Miami Heat. Perhaps you have discussed this elsewhere, but what specific content under WP:ELYES are you arguing should be included? Location (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The candidates for an election are not on a team working together, unlike basketball players who are. User Number 57 explained things here probably better than I could. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres features competitors not working together, but we don't link http://usainbolt.com/, http://ybafraid.com/, http://gatlin100m.com/, http://www.tysongay.net/, http://www.churandy.com/, or http://www.asafapowell.net/ there. The point is that various individuals may have some connection to some other subject, but that does not necessitate that individual websites should be listed. How would you handle candidate ELs in United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2004 where there were 53 seats with as many as six candidates for a few of the seats? Should http://www.susancollins.com/ be placed in the EL section Maine gubernatorial election, 1994? Location (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't have all the answers for every conceivable situation across tens of thousands of articles, so if that's required I guess I'm out of luck. A sports contest is different than an election; spectators at the 100m dash are not selecting the winners. I'm just thinking about what would be beneficial and informative for readers of the article. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, Ronz has pretty much established that those 2 links shouldn't be added. They are indeed promotional. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is being promoted; there is no suggestion to vote for a candidate(or to vote period) or otherwise advocate a position. We aren't saying "vote for X candidate, here's their site". 331dot (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Web page is. That is all the webpage does. Posting it in the article only serves to do that. And since you can't post everyones link with out adding undue weight, the other people's link only actually serve as promotion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's the purpose of the page, not the purpose of the link. If certain links add undue weight, they don't need to be posted(such as those of fringe candidates not actually on the ballot, such as Bennett). 331dot (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The link connects to the page for the promotion. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. This is what it seems to me that you are attempting under a charge of "For the reader". It's possible you can link these to the candidates article. That would be a better place. It doesn't seem to me to serve a encyclopedic purpose on this article. While it does seem helpful to the voter, it doesn't seem helpful to the reader. And I think this conversation has went on long enough for me. If there is nothing else for me to respond to then I bid you all good day. :)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's helpful to the reader, especially one from outside the area the election is taking place in, who might want to learn more and not be familiar with the website addresses. Voters are readers, too. The candidates articles are already linked to in several places in election articles. A Wikipedia article has a different context than a campaign article; both have a role, but are not the same thing. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it as remotely helpful to the reader. It may be elsewhere but that doesn't mean it should be.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly your prerogative. I take the opposite view; I don't see how it is beneficial to readers to exclude this information. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm interested in knowing how a temporary promotional website would be of any interest to a general reader.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

General readers of the election may want to learn more about the candidates in the election, regardless of if they are voters or not, for their own personal benefit. Wikipedia articles about the candidates are in a different context, being in a NPOV and more general. I have been told the links would be OK on articles about the campaign apparatus and organization themselves(such as Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008) but such articles are unlikely to exist for all the candidates involved in all election articles. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as prerogative go, wp:elburden you want it's inclusion you have to justify it's conclusion and gain a consensus for its inclusion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is why I've started these discussions; even though I think the onus should be on those who want them removed when this sort of thing(the links) is done across Wikipedia- but I respect the guidelines. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Location: WP:NOTVOTERGUIDE doesn't link to anything. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. That's why I said it "does not but should exist at WP:WWIN". Location (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I'm sorry. Brain fart.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The consensus to include them was achieved years and tears ago. "The onus" doesn't automatically get reset whenever someone wanders into an article and objects. We're not going to start deleting infoboxes for the same reason. Precedent and settled consensus are followed until and unless a Very Large Number if editors agree it's out of date. As I pointed out earlier, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Politicians shows that it remains the consensus to include such links, and others, in election articles. We're here to inform readers and help them find more extensive information easily. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Linking to that discussion (where consensus was achieved years ago) would be helpful. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Or, you could simply observe the obvious precedent, going back to 2006. Example: United States Senate election in California, 2006. as I said it's not my job to "prove" that Infoboxes should continue to be used. You're free to search Wikipedia Talk pages for nine years if you're interested. there used to be a very active Project: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Consensus was reached on many things, including Template:CongLinks which is now being totally ignored by Ronz, ArthurRubin, Binksternet, Thargor Orlando, MrX and Beetstra. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Bioguide#External_link_template:_CongLinks and use View history to see how long that was established precedent: 8 October 2006. Note the original name, and the two original links. Then this small group jumped in, most of whom were never active in any U.S. politics articles (other than some being recently topuc-banned from Tea Party articles), decided to hit RESET and demanded "consensus" among themselves. I myself have never been interested enough in any other nation's politics to fight about deleting information in their politicians' articles, yet for six months that's what this group has been doing. And that is ALL they've been doing on U.S. politics articles: nothing but delete and argue about those deletions. I see no trace of real interest in the topic on their part, which us why I'm reminded of Bell Pottinger. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
"The consensus to include them was achieved" Not that I can see. Did you link the wrong discussion perhaps?
"unless a Very Large Number" That's simply not how consensus works.
"and help them find more extensive information easily." No. That would violate WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Six months of continuing to refuse to admit Further reading exists and has a purpose, just like Beetstra. Why don't you explain why you ignored the project consensus on Template:CongLinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Bioguide#External link template: CongLinks? Projects used to be the place people went to, to find other volunteers interested in the same topic and working to achieve some consistency with the related articles. Now you and your buddies are demanding the clock be turned back and thousands of U.S. politician articles be argued over, one at a time. I've asked that before, and I've yet to get an answer. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed them from United States Senate election in California, 2006. See WP:OSE.
I'm quite familiar with the particulars of the Further reading section and how its scope can overlap with our policies/guidelines related to external links. I see no explanation of how it applies here in a manner that makes any difference. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Aren't you following the related discussion? ":Beetstra: You continue to avoid explaining Wikipedia:Further reading. Perhaps you, an Admin, never read it? I find it perfectly clear. There's also its successor, WP:FURTHER. Note: "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." (For those who weren't at Wikipedia in the early days, in-line citations were NOT used, and the References section looked much like External links does today. Most articles only had a few sources. The intent was to clarify which links had already been used to write the article, and which either had not been used or only a small section had been used.) I think it's time for you to stop tap-dancing around the issue and explain why you, of all people, should be able to strike down a standard Wikipedia section on your personal whim. How can you be so against Wikipedia's basic structure and goals? You've been here long enough to know how everything evolved...I've now found that this Talk page used to have a link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Change to further reading guideline. Since you posted there, I assume you're read the Guideline, even if you now want to ignore it." That applies to you as much as Beetstra. As for your juvenile bragging that you aren't going to let any discussion stop YOU from doing whatever you like...well, that speaks volumes. After six months of your show-boating, nothing would surprise me. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • United States Senate election in Maine, 2014 should include links to the Wikipedia articles on each candidate, and the external links section should not have any kind of link pertinent to a candidate (official/pro/con/whatever). Wikipedia articles are not a place to record all possible external links—an article on the election points to articles on the candidates, and each candidate's official website can be listed (only) at their article. Johnuniq (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ELOFFICIAL is not all official links[edit]

One of the areas of confusion I'm seeing above is about "official" links. So let's start from the beginning:

  • People and organizations have "official" links. These are links that they have duly authorized somehow.
  • English Wikipedia articles choose to supply (usually just one) "official" link to the subject of the article.
  • There is a big difference between "an official link for something or another" and "an official link for the exact subject of the particular article in question".
  • The subject of the disputed article is a particular election in the State of Maine.
    • The actual official link for the election itself, is, as far as I can tell, http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming.html – the official government webpage about the government's election. This webpage is not just "an official link"; it is "the (notice the singular) ELOFFICIAL link".
  • The subject of the disputed article is not any of the candidates, voters, PACs, or other people or groups associated with said election.
    • Probably dozens of these people and organizations have "official" links. None of those links are ELOFFICIAL links.
    • Because none of them are ELOFFICIAL links, then ELMINOFFICIAL is irrelevant.

Now for the complicated bit:

There is no rule against including a link that is "official" for X, but not "ELOFFICIAL" for Y, in the article about Y, assuming that X is closely related to Y. For example, in an article about an election, you may, at the discretion of editors, include a (short) list of links to candidates' websites. You're not required to include these, because they're not ELOFFICIAL. In many cases, it might be preferable to include a single link to a page that happens to list all of the candidates' websites instead of listing them all yourselves.

But this idea that X is official for X, and so must never be listed at Y, is wrong and dangerous. Almost every website is official for some person or organization. We don't want to tell people that only shady fly-by-night websites are okay, because links to government agencies or statistical databases (for example) can only be placed where they're ELOFFICIAL, and not where they're relevant and justifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful.
I hope no one is making the argument "X is official for X, and so must never be listed at Y". (If anything I've written could be interpreted that way, point it out and I'll address it.)
The confusion I am seeing is that editors feel if X is official for X, it meets WP:EL for Y. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ELMINOFFICIAL is quite relevant actually. It brings forth the logic that that External links can bring Undue weight to an article. The argument above is abit of strawman. It asks that one ignore that policy altogether. It doesn't actually look to much into what has been said other than ELOFICIAL and what ever were the quoted policies. The question is do the suggested links provide undue weight?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We have WP:ELPOV in general. ELMINOFFICIAL just expands on it specifically for official links, because it is an extremely common problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for the general case, it's ELPOV and ELPOINTS #3. There's plenty of advice about minimizing links without resorting to a statement that says "one one official link". ELMINOFFICIAL is there to discourage people who are trying to turn Wikipedia into a complete directory of people's or business's web presence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
True. We had people listing not only the official campaign site, but also Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, and various links within the official campaign site itself. All of those were linked from the official campaign site, almost always in a prominent position on the main page, so it was unnecessary as well as redundant. We had a similar issue with companies. Occasionally it was difficult to find the link for important information, their Board of Directors for example, so that was included as an indented link under the official website. However, that was rarely the case. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilister and external links in Playboy lists[edit]

Previous discussions: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Playboy_Wiki_as_an_external_link_in_Playmate_Lists and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_15#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2014.

Looks like Wikilister isn't clear on what are and are not appropriate links despite all the discussions, so he's reverting once again in a series of edits [6] through [7].

I thought the consensus was clear from the second discussion linked above that the links are not appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We're not a link farm and having multiple external links sections in an article contravenes WP:LAYOUTEL.- MrX 22:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not about "Wkiklister turning anything into a link farm" nor as accused on my talk page, of "spamming". I undid a few of the many List of Playmate deletions by Ronz and a like-minded editor, who were stripping those pages to a bare minimum while actively seeking to have them deleted entirely. They lost that bid [[8]], but continue to delete as much as they can from those lists. As noted by several editors on the winning side of their attempted deletion, they repeatedly wave rulebooks without citing specific text in support of coherent arguments, and they fail to respond to specific arguments by others. MrX above does the same—WP:LAYOUTEL describes what an external link is, but nothing there supports his desire to delete them from the Lists of Playmates.
The successful argument in favor of retaining the Lists of Playmates included the point that they appropriately summarized a notable category in which not each included example merited a separate article. As such, each section of one of the yearly Lists of Playmates constitutes an appropriate substitute in lieu of a full article. There are appropriate external links that relate to specific entries in the List rather than to the List as a whole. Among these are links to IMDb, for which there is a consensus in favor of its use as an external link here: WP:ELPEREN. I undid just 4 of the many wholesale, indiscriminate deletions of such external links in those Lists. Deletions, as noted, by editors whose avowed preference was the deletion of the Lists themselves. I restored the work of others, not in this case adding any myself—though I do advocate the inclusion of a better official link for Playboy (a single link that consolidates their other possible links). There are in fact external links in the Lists of Playmates that need to be trimmed or changed. What I undid was the wholesale deletion of external links per se. Wikilister (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be best if we keep editor conduct out of the discussion and focus on content. The norm across Wikipedia according to WP:LAYOUT is to have a single external links section per article. If you have knowledge of a consensus to include an external links section for each entry in a list article, please point us to it. WP:ELPEREN is an essay, meaning that it does not necessarily reflect consensus. In my opinion, there is nothing at IMDB that could not simply be included in a dedicated biographical article, if any of these playmates are notable on their own. Also, IMDB is self-edited and frequently contains fan trivia and misinformation.- MrX 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Having to defend ones self for following policy, and being attacked with assumptions and false accusations, is not cool.
There was absolutely no argument--ever-- that surviving an AfD qulifies an article for GA status. There is also no known practice that weighing in on a debate, and being on the "losing side", is an indication that any such editor automatically refrain from further improving such articles without some intervention. The article in question saw major editorial improvements to specifics (references) that were raised in the AfD which gave rise to consensus for keep.
It is not just the practice of a few editors but the Wikipedia community, per policies and guidelines, to have one external links section. There is even a picture provided (WP:FNNR) for visual aid on article layout. There are also no exceptions to external links policies and guidelines for stand-alone lists to provide for trying to individually "reference", which is seen as spam or advertisement, each entry (12 on each article) in a separate section of a list using external links. Unless I made a mistake I am sure I left an external link where it is suppose to be and did not even get into specifics concerning content of links provided. The mass inclusion of external links in the body of the article clearly violated current Wikipedia practice so content was not relevant. Also included in the layout policy is: These hyperlinks should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section. AND last but not least: The external links guideline states "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.". "Not normally" would mean there would need to be some community consensus for exceptions and the length of time a violation remains does not qualify it as consensus.
A list article is still an article and I performed cleanup according to more than one policy (I listed one in the summary) and, like it or not you were in error to revert. It is sort of hard not to assume that you not were meaning me (even as I try to play dumb in good faith and assume not) because I have N-E-V-E-R advocated, certainly not with an avowed preference, to delete Playboy lists. In fact, with MUCH verbiage, please look here if in doubt, that was largely ignored I defended that the articles (that are not actually lists any way) need fixing to comply with policies and guidelines and provided a multitude of examples. If an article has "mass" violations it is not unreasonable to perform cleanup all at one time. In fact I think I have "won" because article improvement (which I sometimes question concerning others) is my actual only agenda.
There are still problems with those lists and I will now go to each and explain them, with appropriate tags, so you can spend some time helping fix them if you like. Would it be too much to ask that you self-revert your good faith mass reversions, since they were valid Wikipedia cleanup efforts? If further assistance is needed for clarification to rebut "without citing specific text in support of coherent arguments, and they fail to respond to specific arguments by others", I will be glad to provide it. Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
How many more times do we need to say this?
Is that clear enough? Not only is it a violation of MOS:APPENDIX (which is sometimes enforced automatically, by script), the Table of Contents doesn't work correctly on any except the first section with the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Silk Road (marketplace)[edit]

The link to the Silk Road .onion hidden service was removed from Silk Road (marketplace), the wikipedia article on that site/service/marketplace, with a note that it violates the guidelines on External Links (diff).

At least one other user appears to agree (diff).

Neither user indicated which policy they thought was violated, but I've taken a quick look through the policy and there appears to be two potential violations. I don't think that there is a violation of either, but I've addressed them both below:

1. I am not sure if accessing the site is illegal but, even if it were, it is the subject of the article

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist."

First, the link was to the official page of the silk road, which is the subject of the article, so even if accessing the link were illegal in the U.S., it seems that it doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy.

Second, I don't know that it is illegal. I hope somebody else can help here, but I haven't seen any order of the Court stating that accessing the site is illegal.

2. The site is registration-only

"...A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see Official links below) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)."

The site does require registration but, again, the website itself is the topic of the article. So the policy specifically provides that linking to the site does not violate the policy.

I don't agree that a link to the subject of this article should not be on the page. The link has been there for three years (diff) so I'd like to know why people are suddenly saying it violates policy.

I will post messages on all three involved users' talk pages to get their position on the issue and would appreciate other users' insight on the matter.

Frazzydee| 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • My initial read of WP:ELNO was that the site is illegal, which was borne out by its seizure, therefore inappropriate under #3. You are correct that the guideline as written does seem vague on the question, since I agree that the mere act of accessing the site is probably not illegal per se, and the seizure itself is not the final judicial answer on the site. As for "why now", that's just when I saw the reverts going on in the Recent Change list, and made a call based on how I read the policy. I'm not above being wrong of course, so would also welcome more opinions on the subject. I've looked for a precedent on other pages, but cannot really think of a close enough analog to SR to establish a meaningful one. Electric Wombat (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it was seized is a good indication that the site itself, and running the site, are illegal. The question is whether access is illegal; I think that's a different act entirely and it may very well not be illegal to do so. Again, I haven't seen the seizure order and I'm not familiar with the law. -Frazzydee| 22:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't the legality of the current market ("SR2") depend on its location, and/or the location of those who are administering it? The advantage of not publishing the URL is that it would no longer be subject to malicious edits, inclucing attempts to replace it with URLs for phishing sites, though presumably it could be "protected". - Oniscoid 12:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the legality of access is what's at issue, not the legality of the market itself. Any URL can be maliciously edited, the only difference is that .onion URLs are not as simple/readable. That has been solved by sourcing the URL, but I like your solution better of protecting the URL. -Frazzydee| 22:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
We have occasionally considered making the common-sense exception to ELOFFICIAL be more explicit, but it's only come up in two non-trivial cases that I can recall: Silk Road, and a malware-infected politician's campaign website. (On the second, there was some question as to whether the site was still infected.) The practical answer to whether we need to explicitly flag this in the guideline is that editors who don't have enough basic sense to stop linking to malware, porn-spewing, or otherwise seriously inappropriate sites, even under the excuse that "it's official!", usually end up blocked before they have time to read the entire guideline, so resolution is quick and simple. Consequently, it hasn't ever seemed truly necessary to say "don't turn off your brains once you encounter the word 'official'".
But in case you're wondering, foundation:Terms of Use also covers the subject of people violating ELNO#3. Search for the keyword "illegal" to find the right section. In the meantime, WP:ELBURDEN applies: once inclusion is challenged, even for an official link, the link is excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, if a site is official that really shouldn't mean it should be included no matter what, although the policy suggests so. But I still don't think we have a clear answer here, or if there is one, assuming that accessing the site is legal. Perhaps we should do a straw poll, but I don't know what the procedures now are and if it needs to be a WP:RFC and if so whether the RFC should be here or on the article talk page. Can you advise?
There is no WP:ELBURDEN issue AFAIK. I don't think anybody wants to put the link back until there is consensus to do so, which there clearly is not. -Frazzydee| 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)