Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Classical guitar

Classical guitar contained a very long list of external links when I came across it. I removed the lists of images and musical scores to start some cleanup. I feel the scores are off topic, and the images should be replaced with images uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Another editor disagrees. Discussion at Talk:Classical_guitar#External_links. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:99.178.100.15

Today the account started spaming health related artilces and was warned. The IP apparently then registered a new account (User:Joeprofes) to try to avoid detection and started spamming the same and similar articles. I left a warning on the new account's talk page. Ward20 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See also related report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#eliteweightlosspackage.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

icmi.com.au

Any opinions about edits like this that add links to a "speaker page" (LinkSearch)? Looks as if it should be reverted to me per WP:ELNO#1. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That particular example definitely seems to fail ELNO #1. Even the long version of the bio is more basic than the article about her already is. --RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross-site scripting? pc-look.com

I'm a little concerned about what the user was attempting to do with this edit. It appears to be an attempt to inject javascript into the page. Perhaps even an attempt at Cross-site scripting? I'm sure Wikipedia is safe, but I wanted others to be aware of this. The user has been blocked for now, but he could easily come back with a different IP. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the proper board for this notice, since it's rather technical. Perhaps you should notify the technical page at the village pump, you might get a more informed response. ThemFromSpace 05:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bay of Quinte

The following was originally posted at WT:VPP by User:RyanRiWilliams. I am not involved with this dispute.

Unresolved issues in Talk Page, however I do feel that it is relevant that a non-business funded 'link' that is an 'official page' for the region should not be ommitted because of what is called : Spam. Spam is completely different, and it is well noted why there are rules for Spam.

Please help. PleaseStand (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The link in question is http://www.bayofquintecountry.com/ It appears to be the website of a government-run multi-city tourism agency; the article in question is specifically about the same multi-city area (but not merely "tourism in...").
The editors seem to have a bit of an edit war going on. One editor believes that this website qualifies as an WP:ELOFFICIAL website, like a city government website would be listed at an article about a single city. Others say that it's promotional spam.
I don't think that the Truth™ is obviously on either side. I think that it would be helpful if multiple editors looked at the site and the article and left their opinions on the talk page. In particular, I think it might be helpful if independent editors considered this question from the common-sense perspective of "What best serves the readers of this encyclopedia?", rather than "What bit of Wikipedia's guidelines can I quote (out of context) to 'win' this dispute?" Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Any other comments on this? 70.24.103.30 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I was original reverter of this link. At least two of us judged that the link was promotional/of an advertising nature since it was primarily a collection of links to, mostly, businesses. Click on any of the links, and they will take you to links to myriads of hotels, motels, restaurants, golf/country clubs, vineyards, shopping venues, and many more. WP:ELNO point 5 was the main justification. Secondarily, the link was placed by someone who had an interest in ensuring the link was in place, although I realize this doesn't necessarily preclude its inclusion. BC  talk to me 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

However, you miss the point that "What best serves the readers of this encyclopedia" in two seperate ways. 1: This is in-fact the Official Site, that does not direct link into any 'myriad' of business, nor is it the sole reason for the site. 2: More to the point, this site and each of it's communities are largely broken into information based summary that much of which cannot be found on the wikipedia page, therefore adding to the content of the page making it better to the reader of this encyclopedia.

The link is simply an Official Link to the subjects area and page which rebuts the removal of said page by Mr. Crawford who lives in a neighbourly area in direct conflict with Bay of Quinte, and therefore is acting towards bias. I find this extremely damaging to [User:Brian Crawford| BC ]]'s credibility as an editor as the area to which he calls 'home' contains a page link http://www.kingstoncanada.com/en/ to which the same 'links' are found, although I understand this is not grounds for argument to rules in Wikipedia.

I have noted in the history of the page, that there have been it seems more than 2 editors who have felt that the link should remain.

I look foward to more editorial in this matter. --RyanRiWilliams (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What does Kingston have to do with the disputed link? Actually, I haven't lived in Kingston for almost thirty years. Also, please realize that the fact that other articles may contain such links is not justification for their inclusion, and I direct you to WP:NPA. -- BC  talk to me 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Crawford, it is then convenient that you have on your profile that 'you consider Kingston your home'. I never made the Inclusion argument but an argument of Bias. I do, however, believe that the Official Page status was ample enough to prove that the site is in fact relevant to the topic of Bay of Quinte. --RyanRiWilliams (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Shortcut

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. The only argument that holds any water is the conflict of interest. However, I do see that another party had reinstated the link to the website, therefore this constitutes an argument to reinstate. --RyanRiWilliams (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

3D Model links

A discussion at Talk:Machu Picchu#3D Model of Machu Picchu has flagged several other 3D model links accross Wikipedia. My personal take is that the coord tag already provides a link via GeoHack to the model (it's built into Google Earth). Also, the person wanting to add the link recently admitted to a WP:COI issue (he's the author), which adds a secondary reason to avoid linking directly from the article. But, it brings up a question of what to do with the 3D model links mentioned by him that exist in other articles. Note: Some of the articles identified are generic articles (such as Keep) which has a 3D model link to a specific castle/keep, while others are to specific locations that have both coord and a 3D model link. Here's a list of the other articles they mentioned:

I would appreciate additional opinions on both the Machu Picchu link, as well as the links identified in these additional articles. Should they all be removed as being redundant to the GeoHack link via the coordinates? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented at Talk:Machu Picchu, saying that adding a fact related to the model with a reference would be the best procedure. I am sympathetic with the aim of adding something (even if only an external link with a few descriptive words) because a high-quality 3D model is probably something that would be useful for many readers. The coordinates link at the top-right corner of the article is not really adequate to alert readers about the existence of the model. Of course the text added by the author was totally inappropriate with far too much detail about how to access the model, and with no information relevant to the subject (other than that the model exists). Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As a general rule, I think these are acceptable links, especially when in-article images are limited. I believe these links typically provide a unique resource and relevant, encyclopedic information.
For those articles that don't contain (relevant) geocoordinate links, then the 'duplicate' link is of course irrelevant, but even in the other articles, I'm not convinced that it is really a significant duplication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Template "WS" and ELNO #20

{{WS}} is used for adding a consistently formatted embedded external link to articles. It is mostly used to add links to list articles (mainly lists of newspapers). This use is incompatible with WP:ELNO #20. I continue to believe that these link directories are not the aim of Wikipedia and should cleaned of the external links, but wanted to run it by editors here before flagging something for cleanup that is this embedded and extensive. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, ELNO #20 is wrong, both in its inappropriate contradiction (or, let us say, oversimplification) of the real rules on lists and its punctuation. Lists should normally include primarily notable subjects, but there are exceptions (e.g., List of minor characters in Dilbert, the whole point of which is that the individual entries aren't notable).
If I were going to strip these links, I'd probably argue from WP:ELPOINTS: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." However... I don't think I would do this in this instance. Linking an official website for organizations (when the page is entirely about these organizations) is not entirely unreasonable, and it makes more sense to format them this way, than to list all the newspapers in a state, and then re-list them all under ==External links==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking to demo games

For StarCraft, I'd like to add two external links to official demos to the "External Links" section:

S@bre has reverted this edit, stating We aren't here to do Blizzard's promo work for them. Is there a policy against linking to official demo links? (There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Linking to demo games.)Smallman12q (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something that I am missing, but my first reaction is to totally agree with the statement "We aren't here to do Blizzard's promo work for them". If the external links are "official", they should be on the official website and are superfluous here (and serve only as promotion). If the links are not official, they should probably not be included. A typical software company could have 100 external links to sites with reviews, fan clubs, forums, demos, downloads, etc. That is not our role. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

external links on Ticketmaster article

I'm not well versed on the external link guidelines, I was hoping I can get an experienced editor or an admin to review this article, and help improve it. I have a feeling most of the links are drive-by edits and do not belong in this section. thanks riffic (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Johnuniq has dealt with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FiveBooks, again

User Anon111 is affiliated with FiveBooks and a frequent requester of said company's website on various talk pages. Last month the site was up for discussion here and the involved editors agreed to something like leaving it up to the editors of the article where the link was requested. This decision was partly reached, I suspect, because it was a non-commercial site (at least temporarily). If it wasn't for profit last month it's definitely now, with a huge buy button every fifth paragraph or so.

Summary: countless promotional links from a single purpose account to an online store she/he is affiliated with. I say remove all and if other editors find the site useful for using as reference that's alright. jonkerz♠ 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate to send this off to WP:WPSPAM for consideration. I'm not sure how editors really could use it as a legitimate reference, and the behavior seems very WP:SPAMMER-like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Qur'an

I am requesting mediation for the ongoing "dispute" at Talk:Qur'an#External links. Fortunately, it is a relatively civil disagreement regarding a number of external links User:Scriber added and I removed (and added and I removed...) to Qur'an. Both of our arguments are laid out on the talk page as linked above. An additional point to possibly explain my perspective on this issue is that over the past months I have seen a good of deal external links added, presumably in goo faith, to various Islam related pages which contribute nothing to the article but lead to various on-line versions of religious works, search engines and so on.--Supertouch (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A few comments to Scriber's comments:
  • Similar links on the King James Version article, the New Testament article and so on is not a reason to put links in the Qur'an article, keep Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF in mind.
  • "The more the merrier" is not a valid. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a place to dump data, if this was the case, articles would become cluttered. I'm not claiming this is what you are advocating, just that it's not a valid argument.
  • "This is not your personal playground to trample on other people's work", neither is it yours, Scriber. I believe all involved parties are interested in making a better encyclopedia, and if the adding of the specific external links is helping is yet to be determined.
Giving a variety of different classical interpretations is, as you say, important; but the external links section is not the right place for that. Textual content, and Wikibooks where possible is a far better place for that (WB actually hosts quite a few translations already). In conclusion I would like to see the link to the Online Quran Project removed as well, and Wikibooks promoted in a more visible way. jonkerz♠ 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a very quick look at the article talk page and the links. While I understand the concern expressed by Scriber (who added the links), it seems obvious that if four links are added now, there will be another editor with four more links next week, and the collection will build up indefinitely, with edit wars over which of the "allowed" links should be retained. It is common in cases like that for drive-by editors to start changing one link to another. Accordingly, I think the approach taken by Supertouch (who removed the links) should be supported. I see no reason to remove the remaining single link. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. I have a few questions. 1) May I put up at least the Quran Explorer page link? (btw i am not affiliated with any of the four links I had added) 2) Where are muslim admins / ops? if they do not exist, could it be that a cultural hostile to muslims has resulted in the odd phenomenon that of dozens or hundreds of wikipedia admins/mods, not a single one is muslim even though the distribution of muslims in the general population is about 1:5 to 1:4 ?? 3) Why is the same level of "administration" (i am tempted to say abuse) not applied to pages on the Bible or the Torah/Tanakh/Talmud? My guess is that their editors with a sizable number of admins/mods would eat you alive if you attempt to curtail the number of external links they use. For instance the Tanakh page has no less than SIX external links. 4) Does your decision reflect your feeling and conviction that the Muslim religion is simplistic and has no need for sizable literature inside or outside Wikipedia? 5) Your idea of a Wikibooks Quran actually goes against the Islamic Rules of Setting Up a Quran or Mus-haf !!! Of course you'll ignore this and Muslims' ~tenets and feelings and shut down every muslim that protests this. But in the end Wikipedia (as it well is already) is no longer "the people's encyclopedia" , it is only the encyclopedia of a select group of american-minded born-again/jewish administrators. How does the founder feel about this? 6) Shall I take this up with my editor friends at Al-Jazeera and the BBC ? Thanks again. --Scriber (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
First off, I didn't mean to write Wikibooks, it should have been Wikisource, sorry for the confusion. Secondly, you are right that the low ratio of Muslim among the administrators may very well be a problem, but that issue does not concern the addition of the external links in question, neither is it a discussion for this noticeboard (unfortunately I'm not sure where to raise such question, it may be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but I don't know for sure. If anyone knows, please leave a comment).
I removed two links on the Bible article (total links now down to one), and the Torah article only had one to begin with. Feel free to provide links to other articles with doubtful use of external links, and I'm willing to give them a look.
By the way, your tone in the end of your last comment is not very friendly, it sounded more like anecdotal accusations and a threat than a helpful comment. jonkerz♠ 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jonkerz. I appreciate your response. It is just frustrating that all this text is toward an issue of adding Quranic resource links to a Quran page. It just strikes me as oddly counterproductive, overly restrictive (a bit penny-wise and pound-foolish). Administrator oversight and moderation is essential to keep content free of vandalizations and spam, and to maintain a standard of quality - but in this case (and i'm sure countless others) it is being misdirected at what is clearly useful and harmless information. Wouldn't our attention & energy be better directed at real abusers of content? It's just too much effort gone over an exceedingly obvious non-issue. What is the harm to Quality or Information if external links are added to Quran or Tanakh (the hebrew torah) pages??? To determine the relevance of such links - if it is indeed a worthy issue - I would simply solicit the help of, respectively, muslim and jewish moderators. best regards. --Scriber (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't know what religion people subscribe to. This is largely because we have no way of verifying that a user who claims to be Muslim actually is Muslim; it could be someone who is telling lies. Similarly, we have no way to identify people who say nothing about their religion, but are still fervent adherents. It is not safe to believe everything you read: You should not assume that a person who says he or she is Muslim definitely tells the truth, or that a person who says nothing about his religion is definitely not Muslim.
Even if we had a perfectly reliable system of identifying editors' religions, we wouldn't care. The goal is not to have Islam-related articles approved by Muslims and Christianity-related articles approved by Christians—or Mac-related articles approved by Apple enthusiasts, or MS Windows-related articles approved by Winduhs adherents, or articles about political groups approved by their members, or anything else. We want articles to represent all of the views, in due proportion to the weight these views are given by experts and scholars of all religions/politics/other groups.
You might like to read about the Spam Event Horizon, particularly the bit that says, "others are simply added because, after all, if everybody else has linked their site, why shouldn't I?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I put my opinion in on the article's talk page. [1] ThemFromSpace 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
(reposted from the talk page) In reply to ThemFromSpace, I would recommend using this link (one of the four i'd added):
  • Tanzeel::Holy Quran Project text and translations (in 34 languages, some with multiple translation editions); two classic arabic interpretations; audio streaming of recitations by multiple classic readers; with synchronized verse auto-highlighting (in arabic and translation); continuous synchronized audio and text streaming; display options; integrated user interface.
By comparing it to the existing Open Quran Project link, the link I suggested is of much higher quality in terms of both content, user functions and presentation. It contains more languages, more editions per language, synchronized text and audio streaming, reciters selections, diacritic control, etc.
Please let me know if and when it would be possible to add it to the page. Thanks to all responders. --Scriber (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This was recently posted at the help desk, but no one answered...

hello. I know that WP:EL says external links with malicious software should not be included in articles, but there is an article with a malicious external link that is central to the article. the article is .ps and the external link is pnina.ps. The Norton report for the malicious site is here. What is done in this situation? Thank you. Efcmagnew (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The link should be removed immediately, by any editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Links at Dude

I'm usually the one removing links so this is a change of pace of me. DustFormsWords is removing all links from Dude citing WP:EL, "these links are capable of being integrated into the article proper and are therefore not appropriate for the external links section". Technically they could be right but I don't think I've ever seen the removal of informative links like [2] and [3] (which leads to [4]) using that particular reason. Usually, the links stay until the article is expanded and they're used as references. Can others weigh in? --NeilN talk to me 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for seeking the clarification, Neil, I'm also interested. My understanding is that all content not in compliance with content polices and guidelines should be deleted on sight (with the potential for objecting parties to undo, and start a discussion, as has happened here). In the case of these links either the content is relevant, and can be integrated into the article proper, or is irrelevant and should not be featured as an external link. The guidelines at WP:EXTERNAL seems to me pretty clear. Specifically, under "links normally to be avoided", "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. While acknowledging WP:OTHERSTUFF my first reaction is that the links in question are very tame compared with many entertainment and other articles (i.e. I wouldn't bother removing them). However, here are my feelings re the links currently in the article:

  • The Compact Oxford English Dictionary's Definition – remove no unique resource WP:ELNO#1
  • Dude - By Kiesling, Scott F. – dubious I don't have the patience to read all of it, but what I did read fails WP:ELNO#1
  • You've Come a Long Way, Dude: A History, By Richard A. Hill, American Speech, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 321–327 – remove is this a broken reference?
  • Dude, Where's My Dude? - Dudelicious Dissection – weak keep not stunningly helpful, but probably useful for those with an interest in the topic; its weakness does present a worrying precedent for further weak entries
  • Words@random: "dude" – keep until certain that useful info is in article; I can see the remove argument, but why bother?

I haven't looked at the article history, but I can imagine a lot of drive-by edits adding nonsense to the external links in this article. I would be very sympathetic with remove all if the motivation to remove the EL section is to help repel constant unhelpful additions (i.e. any link would need solid justification, and I don't think any of the above fit that). Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

    • Thank you. I'll propose the above as a way forward at the relevant page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing the Kiesling link. It leads to a 24 page academic paper on the subject, complete with its own references. This is exactly the type of link we want in articles. --NeilN talk to me 05:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's exactly the kind of reference we want in articles. The position that you're starting from, that references not yet integrated into articles should appear in external links, is, as far as I know, not supported by any policy. If you genuinely intend to incorporate it into the article, either do so, or add it to your userspace until such time as you are, but it doesn't sit around in the article in the mean time. I'd point out the links are also (now) retained on the Talk Page if you're genuinely worried about interested editors not being aware of it; external links on the talk page is also not policy supported but I'm far too exhausted to argue to that level. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You inspired me to look again. I see that I was misled by the format of the page, and right at the top (in the heading which my brain skipped) is a link to a paper that is useful. I now support keep on the Kiesling link. I am very sympathetic to the view expressed by DustFormsWords, but I don't see any valid reason for wanting to remove the Kiesling link on the basis that the material should at some future ideal time be incorporated into the article – click "Random article" a few times to find many more worthwhile candidates for links that should be removed; this example is very inoffensive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Given an incomplete article and potentially valuable references, I think that moving the links to the talk page would be more helpful than outright deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on my right to post external links, please...

Dear Editors/Administrators,

I hope you can help me resolve an issue.

I am a librarian at Southern Methodist University. In the past, I have placed links to our digital collections, which contain only primary resources that are carefully annotated, scholarly in nature, and contain digitized objects of historical value. In one case (August 2009), I was a bit overzealous and the link was removed, which I understand. However, I seem to be banned from placing any links to our digitized primary resources. I have been told that my account will be frozen if I place any more links to our digital collections.

I have now read "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits

Again, this is precisely what I would like to do. The above paragraph allows libraries to place links to their resources (this is an important distinction). If I am allowed to place links, which is clearly stated in the above paragraph, how can I make sure my account will not be frozen if I place such links?

Please let me know the proper procedure. I really appreciate any help you can provide in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to be "banned" from doing anything, someone just posted a warning on your talk page. A well crafted edit summary explaining what you are doing and referring to that section of WP:COI would be the best way of handling this. I have just created a redirect at WP:CURATOR to point to that section, so please link to that in your edit summaries using the code [[WP:CURATOR]]. You should also think about describing who you are and what you are doing on your talk page, so that other editors can find out a little more about you - see the user page guidelines at WP:UP. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You might also like to read WP:GLAM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. I will take your suggestions to add more detailed edit summaries and point to the sections you mention, as well as create a talk page. Ukexpat, does this mean my account will not automatically be blocked when/if I add more links?

Thanks and best regards!--Digitaldomain (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are never automatic - an admin would review any request to block and in doing so would take a look at your edits and edit summaries. If your links comply with the external links guidelines and WP:CURATOR, you should be OK. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to slowly read WP:GLAM as suggested above, then edit two pages (no more) in a manner typical of what you would like to do. Remember to follow both of ukexpat's above posts while doing this. Then, reply here with a link to each of the two pages: that would allow us to provide better advice. For example, to add a link to an article on this page, you would type [[Battle of the Alamo]] which creates link Battle of the Alamo. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is still reading this section, but I have updated my talk page. I also submitted this to the talk page for the Mt. Pelee section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Pel%C3%A9e#Suggested_External_Link

Please let me know what you think. Digitaldomain (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

abandonedcommunities.co.uk

I'm not in the mood to deal with this, but Safisk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has done little but add links to

over the last four years or so. Can someone have a look please? Thanks. Safisk, please explain why this is the case. MER-C 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia

I have started a discussion on the suitability of the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia as an external link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Allow external links to Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia?, and would appreciate opinions from individuals outside the project. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Turning an authors name - that appears on the page anyway, to a sensible link

Hi!

I'd like a second opinion on the following Link-Removal: here. The link removal, was accompanied by this note on my talk. I added a reply (r1) to the talk; and reinstated the links, but this has lead to a huge ugly "final warning" sign on my page. All I have done was add the proper author's name, to an otherwise unreferenced pdf-article; and then turned the name into a link, to a page on the author's webpage, which gives more articles written by the author. Thus, with just one link...

  1. I provide the author's name
  2. I provide context to the pdfs by linking to the html-page from where the link was actually found
  3. I provide links to other relevant articles which are available on that particular html-page
  4. I provide a link to a particular page of the author's website (allowing readers to quickly asses who the author actually is, and make up their own minds, about quality etc.)

That about the facts. Now to my personal feelings: I feel threatened by Ronz and his big warning sign... I am not promoting anything; I am adding context and wish the best for the reader. Also 2, etc. etc. MySorAccount (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz on the link removals, although he should have explained why the links are improper before giving you a generic final warning message. We try to only link to pages with content directly relevant to subject of the article and the links you added are to more generic homepages which are of a wider scope than the subject of the article. ThemFromSpace 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"I feel threatened by Ronz and his big warning sign" Maybe if MySorAccount would simply follow our behavioral policies and guidelines, then he wouldn't feel so threatened by editors responding to his behavior. After all, that's what the behavioral policies and guidelines are for. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Links in PC power management article

Could some others take a look at the table at PC power management#Software Solutions? Some of those posting at Talk:PC power management#Request for Comment have self-confessed COI issues, and are simply trying to justify inclusion criteria for the article to justify their product being listed while ignoring WP:N, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM.

Sometimes, these lists are off-loaded to stand alone "List of ..." article named entries, and such an option should be discussed on if its appropriate here; but including the listings directly in the article is placing a lot of undu-weight on the highly spammish table, which overwhelms the text information within the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have re-worked the table to remove the external links and more peripheral fields. Overall I think the table is a good thing but clearly it has been abused by editors with COI issues. Hopefully the latest edit fixes this. hnobley (talk - 9:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

A debate has arisen regarding the appropriate size and content of the External Links section at Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Please see: Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill#News media sources. I believe it relates largely to the inclusion of news media coverage pages and blog links to the section. One side viewing the links as a reference to a further collection of articles, the other as making the section too large and being links to news media outlets that are already linked as references, albeit not the exact same page. Any suggestions or direction.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not worry about strictly applying WP:EL to that article for quite a long time. There are lots of useful external links, and an enormous interest in the topc, and no harm in keeping many links for now. In a few months, the issue can be revisited and the links cleaned up. WP:EL is a guideline that should be interpreted with commonsense and this topic is definitely exceptional. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

History of hard disk drives - 1950s through 1990s

The timeline section of the article has a reasonable list of HDD events beginning in the early 1980s. The earlier era is covered by the following external link:

1950s through 1990s

see: Five Decades Of Disk Drive Industry Firsts[-] maintained by Disk/Trend an HDD industry marketing consultancy.
Five Decades Of Disk Drive Industry Firsts maintained by Disk/Trend[1] an HDD industry marketing consultancy lists forty-three events, ranging from the first disk drive in 1956 to the first 15,000 RPM disk drive in 2000.

The link is to a list of 43 HDD industry firsts beginning with the first disk drive in 1956 and ending with the first 15,000 rpm drive in 2000. As such the list is neutral, accurate, encyclopedic and cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia because of detail and copyright. As such it appears to qualify Therefore it is an appropriate link per WP:ELYES. None the less an editor insists it be removed while not providing any replacement at all. I believe it is appropriate and should remain. Suggestions? Tom94022 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

After posting this I decided that the language could be improved as shown above Tom94022 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Disk Trend, Inc., Mountain View CA
History of hard disk drives#Timeline is the article he's talking about. As I explained on my talk page - evidently to little avail - this is a highly nonstandard use of a link. There is nothing in the history of hard drives that is copyrighted by this external consultancy, and I've suggested that Tom94022 create a proper timeline in the article and link to this article instead, if it is a reliable source (I'm sure, however, that links to the likes of IBM, Seagate, the Computing History Museum, etc. would be more useful). Tom94022 seems to know a fair amount about hard drives, so this shouldn't be a problem, so what's with this bizarre plug for a company website? ProhibitOnions (T) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: I've had a further look at the link and the website and it appears to be a completely NN operation, and therefore not a reliable source. I must ask Tom if he is in any way affiliated with this website. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions continues to ignore the plain language of WP:ELYES which gives the many reasons for this link!
I have no affiliation with the Disk/Trend other than I have purchased many of its reports over the past thirty years and I know the owner. Disk/Trend was founded in the middle 70s and operated until 1999 when its owner retired. It in its time it published the most widely used market studies on the worldwide disk drive industry. BTW, the owner of the site, Jim Porter, for many years chaired the Computer History Museum's Storage Special Interest Group. I have no idea what an "NN operation" is and can find no definition; regardless, to say this is not a reliable source just displays ignorance of both WP:RS and the HDD industry. To be a "bizarre plug for a company" there would have to be a company - it has been closed since 1999 (although one can still buy materials published prior to 2000). Tom94022 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue concerns History of hard disk drives#Timeline and these four edits that add a short para that is essentially an embedded external link. The editor who removed the para (ProhibitOnions) is correct: we do not use that style because it sends readers to another site rather than building the encyclopedia, but mainly because it is too open to abuse (article on food: "See [my fabulous site] for great cooking tips!"; article on finance: "See [my fabulous site] for great investment info!"). The guideline is WP:MOS#External links and it is worded very politely ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"). However, in practice I am sure that "should not normally" would be "must not" for an example like the current issue. I am now watching the article and may edit it myself later; it just needs a couple of brief facts with a reference, although it could be argued that there is no assurance that the site is a reliable source. "NN" is non-notable which is probably not quite the correct terminology in this case (notability is concerned with whether a topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article). Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect.
  1. The issue is this edit which removed the long standing embedded link leaving first nothing and then a expand tag, neither of which makes Wikipedia better.
  2. Do you have any evidence about your speculation as to the reliability of Disk/Trend; it is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To my knowledge the list linked to has been presented at numerous industry conferences over the years in addition to being posted on the web.
  3. The guideline WP:MOS#External links is a summary of and links to Wikipedia:External links which at WP:ELYES clearly allows external links in specific situations as follows:

Links to be considered
...
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ...

This is not a matter of misleading politeness, but whether this link meets the above criteria. Since it clearly does and there is no evidence of abuse, deleting it then raises the question of is there any meaning to WP:ELYES?
While you are certain welcome to edit the section, IMO unless you copy the link's material you will have produced a less informative Wikipedia Tom94022 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - As an uninvolved editor: (1) There's no reason to believe the external link in question is a reliable source (in fact its amateurish presentation argues otherwise). A reliable source would typically, for example, have a named author, a named editor, and some indication of how it had obtained its information. (2) There's no reason that, if the site was a reliable source, the information could not be incorporated into the article. The link should go. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've gone and deleted the link now. Yes, it leaves a hole in the article for that section, which is regrettable, but you can't just say "Well, we can't fill this section in a standard way so we'll link to an external site", and you can't say, "Well, there are no reliable sources for this information so we'll use an unreliable one." Further, regardless of all of the above, external links should never, ever appear in the article body; they belong in the "External Links" section. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to be considered
...
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ...

that I am missing?
The ignorance of the HDD industry expressed above is unfortunate since everyone with an historical perspective of the industry knows Jim Porter and Disk/Trend. I am particularly disappointed in the unwillingness to do a modicum of searching to validate the thin arguments about reliable source. A modest effort would lead to "An Historical Perspective of the Disk Drive Industry," James N. Porter, DISK/TREND, Mountain View CA, Presented at the THIC Meeting at the Sony Auditorium, San Jose CA, April 19-20, 2005 which has pretty much the same data as on Disk/Trend website and appears to meet your "reliable" criteria (it is also somewhat more professional, not that it matters).
I believe the above establishes that the Disk/Trend website is neutral, accurate, reliable and relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of HDDs and cannot be integrated into the article because it has too much detail (43 events) and is copyrighted by Disk/Trend. But if you want to leave the so-called HDD timeline beginning in 1980 when in fact it begins in 1956 that is your choice and Wikipedia will suffer for it. I wash my hands of this issue. Tom94022 (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Center for Consumer Freedom official links

I'm in a dispute with User:Wikidemon over the external links section of this article and whether they meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. I believe that only one official link is necessary, that to the center's homepage. Wikidemon argues that links to websites which the organization controls, such as physicianscam.com, obesitymyths.com, and fishscam.com among others, are also valid under WP:ELOFFICIAL.

Are these links appropriate in this article or should they be removed? ThemFromSpace 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's agree to call it a discussion :) Anyway, the article details the astroturfing exploits of a certain gentleman, Richard Berman, and the various organizations he has created to advocate on behalf of large producers of cigarettes, fatty foods, pesticides, genetically modified crops, alcohol, and other consumer nasties. The best-known umbrella for this is an organization curiously titled "Center for Consumer Freedom", although he has used other name(s) in the past. One of the main activities is character attacks and accusations against consumer advocates, doctors, scientists, teachers, lawyers, and their various advocacy organizations. Online, he has created several websites to do this - ActivistCash.com, PhysicianScam.com, Trans-FatFacts.com, AnimalScam.com, ObesityMyths.com, CSPIScam.com., MercuryFacts.com, FishScam.com, SweetScam.com, HolyVeal.com, and Humanewatch.org. These are all sourced, and discussed in the article, and as such they are distinct "official" sites of his enterprise. He operates a small, distinct, easily maintainable list of sites, but it would not make much sense to create separate articles about each so they are discussed here. It is a service to the reader, and it enhances the article, for the reader to be able to link to these. If we remove them, any interested reader will have to go through google, or some other site(s) to see for themselves the things we are talking about in the article. Thus, there is every reason to include them, and no reason to avoid them. Although this can technically fit within WP:EL, that guideline doesn't really foresee organizations like this, whose main mission includes maintaining several different official websites. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
These external links clearly fail WP:OFFICIAL and I see no reason to use that page to promote the sites created by someone mentioned in the article. The proper course of action would be to decide (1) is a site a reliable source?, and (2) is there a relevant and useful fact that can be added to the article using the site as a source? If yes, add the fact with ref and omit the external link. If no, remove the external link. It is not Wikipedia's role to list every website associated with a particular person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a substantial misunderstanding on all counts. The page is not promoting the sites. They are the official sites of the organization that is the subject of the article. They don't serve as sources. They are associated with the organization that is the subject of the article, no particular individual - it just happens that the organization is the alter ego of a person. This is nowhere close to fitting WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, which talks about trying to make listings of large numbers of loosely connected sites. The point isn't to direct web traffic, but to inform readers about the subject of the article. You can't understand CCF's activities without understanding their web work. We already list all of these in the article, the only question is linking to them as well. There's no reason to make the reader go through the extra step to get there. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The disputed links do not appear meet the second criteria at WP:ELOFFICIAL The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. The activist websites are notable within the context of the article but I do not believe they are what makes the subject notable. The disputed links are also one click away on the main official link [ConsumerFreedom.com] which is not in dispute - seems redundant to clutter the external links section with them. I notice that many of the same links are already included as plain text in the body of the article in the Center for Consumer Freedom#Activism websites section. We're not going to remove those because they are pertinent to the subject and if you're hellbent on keeping these links, you might try to argued that this is an exception to WP:EL because readers would find hyperlinks helpful there. --Kvng (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of anyone's intentions, links from Wikipedia to websites are promotional. It is very common to severely prune long lists of links, particularly for a case like this where the claim that each site is "official" is not supportable, and where the links are clearly offtopic with respect to the article (the article says the organization runs media campaigns and so on; we do not need to be part of those campaigns ourselves). Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IP address

At IP address#Tools we find a list of around 30 external links to websites that will tell you your IP address. On the talk page, there is a brief and unsettled discussion regarding whether the article benefits from having such a list. There is already a DMOZ link (IP at Curlie) in the external links section, and I think that it would be helpful to readers to add two links in that section to external what is my IP? sites (with a "no more links" html comment), and remove the list in the Tools section of the article. Opinions please. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an online link directory (or a directory of IP lookup tools or what have you). Seems straight forward to me. Such an extensive list of external links is not encyclopedia, nor within our guidelines. -Andrew c [talk] 00:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have verified that all of the URLs on that list work for the designated purpose with a minimum of fuss (except nine that did not work, one that is blacklisted here, and five that included popups, excessive ads, a need for an unused language pack, misleading prepended zeros, and a frightening unauthorized access prohibition). I have also addressed the length of the list by splitting it into two columns in a table, and collapsing the table. The URLs are accurate and on-topic, in compliance with WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk · contribs) appears to have taken it upon himself to remove the links without consensus in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The consensus is pretty weak, but it's not zero because apart from you and me, one editor has commented here, and one at IP address#Tools – both supported removal of the list. I did not think that further support was needed because it is extremely unusual to find a list of external links in an article. Even if the list were in "External links" it would be very unusual because WP:EL is based on "external links ... should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article", and WP:NOTDIRECTORY indicates that it is not Wikipedia's role to provide an extensive list of anything. Note that several of the external links in the list were very weak: all they do is show your IP address without adding any value relevant to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to test and review all the links and format them to be unobtrusive but, as mentioned by Juhnuniq on the talk page, WP:EL is not about formatting it is about providing justification for including the links. You have not done so or even made an attempt as far as I can see. This makes your position week. Although not required to Johnuniq has provided justification for removal. The others I've seen chime in on this, while not numerous, are clear in their support for removal. --Kvng (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Glassblowing

User:Tonyspatti (contribs) has made one article edit in 3 years...namely to add his own website http://www.glassblower.info/ to the glassblowing article. The article already had numerous external links, I removed the link as the addition was clearly more about promoting his own website than improving wikipedia. I have removed others too. He is outraged at my actions. Can someone advice please? TeapotgeorgeTalk 07:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TeapotGeorge gives a materially incomplete description of this issue, for the following reasons:
  1. The number of edits per year is not a valid criteria for the removal of material, only the quality of that material.
  2. User:TeapotGeorge states that "I have removed others [other links] too." but fails to mention that the other links were ONLY removed AFTER I complained that TeapotGeorge's removal of the link www.glassblower.info did not meet the spirit nor intent of Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. In other words, that User:TeapotGeorge removed one link but left other links which did not conform to the policies which User:TeapotGeorge asserted.
  3. I assert that the addition of www.glassblower.info fully complies with Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links based on the AMOUNT OF DETAIL that www.glassblower.info provides as an external resource on the subject of Glassblowing -- since www.glassblower.info contains more than 2,200 web pages of information about glassblowing -- far more than a single article in Wikipedia can.
  4. AMOUNT OF DETAIL is a perfectly valid reason, within Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links, for an external link to be included.
  5. Since User:TeapotGeorge states that the Glassblowing article "already had numerous external links", and User:TeapotGeorge has subsequently reduced that number to THREE, there is now room [based on some unknown numeric value/limit that User:TeapotGeorge apparently claims] for the re-addition of www.glassblower.info as an external link to the Glassblowing article.
  6. I assert that TeapotGeorge's removal of the external link www.glassblower.info was "not very well reasoned", did not materially respond to the substantive points I raised on the Discussion page, and further TeapotGeorge has not provided the requested information to "explain the reasoning behind your choosing one external link and not the other" -- in other words, why would he remove the external link for the largest non-profit international organization dedicated to the Glass Arts (www.glassart.org), while leaving two links which are self-described as "Brief" and "Basics" while deploring the addition of an external resource which contains a much greater amount of useful information? Tonyspatti (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
IMO the main page of that website is a lousy link. It's hard to read, hard to find the interesting pages, and mostly irrelevant to anyone that doesn't happen to live in the local area. I think that a link to a different page might be desirable; for example, I'm having fun reading the 'photo glossary' page. (There might be even better pages; then again, there might be even better websites out there.)
Tony, I think you need to read WP:PROMO to understand why TeapotGeorge described the situation this way, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why we don't really care about the order in which undesirable links are removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. You are correct, when I first started www.glassblower.info my initial goals were more modest and focused on the local community (especially including Pennsylvania and New Jersey). I agree with you that the home page is rather rambling at this point, it was originally (many years ago) done somewhat intentionally that way for SEO reasons, and I will take your advice to heart, and take a fresh look at including some portion of the material on the home page within other parts of the menu structure. I have indeed had a lot of fun, and spent a bunch of time, on the photo glossary -- it was literally the second page created for this website -- I wanted to explain the often confusing glassblowing items/terms visually. I have looked again at the promo/spam page you point to, and honestly, the question still remains whether the community feels that any link added by its creator is inherently spam, or whether there exists the possibility that such external link could indeed add to Wikipedia by providing the additional information which is envisioned by Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. I created www.glassblower.info intentionally within the INFO TLD because that was my goal, it's not a company, I'm not selling any products, I have more than 4,700 external links from www.glassblower.info to other glassblowing resources on the Internet -- I'm happy if people visit my website to find something they are looking for via a pointer from my website. I do understand why some might on the surface assume that www.glassblower.info would be spam, but it's really not. Tonyspatti (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have given this some additional thought, while cutting the grass outside (a great way to clear the mind), looked specifically at the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS referenced above, and believe that my raising the issue of consistent application of Wikipedia principles to the grand total of 6 external glassblowing links falls within "the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project" (quoted from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It is consistent application of the concepts that I was looking for. As such, I would like to say thanks to the editors of Wikipedia for the keen eye towards continued improvement, and to keep undesirable content out. It is that attention to detail which makes Wikipedia such a fine Internet resource. I would also like to respectfully ask User:TeapotGeorge to reconsider the deletion of the external link www.glassblower.info -- based on the additional material I subsequently provided, both on the Discussion page, as well as above, to illustrate the depth of additional glassblowing resources that www.glassblower.info provides, that he may not have been fully aware of when the deletion occured yesterday, and I still suggest www.glassblower.info falls fully within the intent of Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. Thank you. Tonyspatti (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Linked to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the even more interesting "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" WP:FAITH -- which starts with "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." -- while certainly people can have different perspectives based on their life experiences, that hopefully I have been able to explain the purpose, scope, and depth of www.glassblower.info [even if the home page is suboptimal, which I do not disagree with] and perhaps there is a way to resolve this problem within the meaning and guidance of WP:FAITH? Tonyspatti (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading WhatamIdoing accurate comment, I am suggesting that the external link be to the specific page (and not the home page) http://www.glassblower.info/glossary.html with the text along the lines of "Photographic Glossary of the Glassblower" -- which highlights perhaps the most useful and concise page of www.glassblower.info while following the spirit of providing more in-depth information beyond the scope of Wikipedia in the context of Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. In this context, we can both compromise that Teapotgeorge reached a correct conclusion to exclude the home page while also agreeing that www.glassblower.info does provide a LOT of additional/supplemental external content and pointers about actual glassblowing. Thank you. Tonyspatti (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I am just not convinced by your comments. The fact remains that your only edit to Wikipedia articles in the past three years has been to add your own website. You're not here to improve Wikipedia or you would be editing the article to add content rather than external links. I can see that you are passionate about your website...but I'm not convinced that the external link is needed in order to improve the article. It would be fairer to remove all external links and link to DMOZ instead where readers can find many hundreds of external links to glassmakers http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Visual_Arts/Sculpture/Sculptors/Glass/ TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the link is inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for their comments. I'd like to add some additional observations, because I don't think all aspects of this discussion has still been fully thought-out...
  1. Prior to Teapotgeorge deleting my external link, there were 6 General + 13 Museum links for a total of 19 external links.
  2. After the discussion was started, and I asked for consistent analysis of all external links, george subsequently deleted other links, as did Jonkerz, so now we find there are only 3 external links for Glassblowing. As such, 84% of all external links were deleted from this article after I asked for consistent analysis of the external links.
  3. Two of the Three remaining external links concern the topic of "Scientific Glassblowing" which I find particularly odd, since of the nearly 3,000 words in the article, only two sentences even mention Scientific Glassblowing -- clearly not the main thrust of the article. I suggest that, since 16 links have already been deleted, that the two links for Scientific Glassblowing may not conform to Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links, particularly the sentence which states "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" -- because I suggest "on-topic" is a topic which is core to the article at hand, not related to perhaps 1% of the content. In other words, should external links cater to the tangential or to the core concepts of the article?
  4. With respect to the third remaining external link, "A Brief History of Glass", I would point out that (a) With respect to something which is self-described as "brief" does this meet the intent of Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links which urges "amount of detail" as a significant criteria for the evaluation of the appropriateness of an external link? And (b) the cited "brief" page seems little more than a "blog" related to the commercial publishing activities described on that website at this page http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/PublicationsNew/index.html
  5. As such, I am not sure if any of the three remaining links meets the standards envisioned in Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. And if they do not, the three remaining external links should therefore be removed also.
  6. Now, in his most recent entry, Teapotgeorge suggests that the link farm "DMOZ" may be the best solution to this problem, but (1) I don't think that the Wikipedia Guidelines for External Links really felt that sending people to a link farm provided the best and most targeted information on a particular topic, and (2) in removing all Museum links, Jonkerz write in the revision history that "Wikipedia is not a link farm" so I don't see how citing a link farm is really the envisioned as the solution.
  7. I want to reiterate the quotation from Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links where it states that "Some external links are welcome" -- but it seems from the dramatic revision/decrease from 19 to 3 that perhaps this is not really what those making the deletions believe? Are those who delete links doing so because (a) they believe the links are not appropriate within the meaning of the Guidelines, or because (b) "there are enough", and if so, what is the numeric value which is enough?
  8. Should there be an ongoing process to evolve and fine-tune to provide the best possible contemporaneous links for each article, as an aid to those who want more (perhaps much more information) about each topic?
  9. I also want to follow-up on the comment above by Teapotgeorge where he wrote "I can see that you are passionate about your website" -- it would be more correct to state that I am passionate about Glassblowing and helping people learn how to do that, and I find that the best way I can contribute to the Glassblowing Community is thru my website, and that's why I believe my website www.glassblower.info (perhaps starting with the photographic glossary page as recommended above) qualifies as a valid External Link per Wikipedia's Guidelines. Especially if there are no better links which contain material core/central to the Glassblowing topic.

Thank you for your consideration of these concepts. Tonyspatti (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Doug, is there a specific reason that you think that the link (to the photo glossary, not the main page) is inappropriate, or is it just a general impression? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Bump.
  2. Folks seem quick to remove or criticize other website, but not very quick at explaining their actions with respect to the Wikipedia Guidelines.
  3. I want to thank WhatamIdoing again for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism -- having gone through twenty semesters of glassblowing critiques, I have come to realize that you can't see in your own glass art what other people see -- and so too I think with websites -- WhatamIdoing was completely accurate in pointing out the rambling nature of the home page of www.glassblower.info -- which comprised 12 pages printed out -- and contained information which had long ago been organized into hierarchical menu structures -- so now, I am very happy to say, there is a new-and-improved home page, only two pages printed out! The home page now, as it should be, is simply an introduction/overview/summary of the material in the site. The home page will also load much faster, since the number of bytes transferred has been dramatically reduced by more than 80% from 444,297 bytes to only 74,531 bytes.
  4. I am hoping that there is some community interest in cleaning up (removing) the two tangential Scientific Glassblowing external links, and the reassessment of the one remaining self-described "brief" external link which is part of a commercial publishing website.
  5. I continue to believe that the removal of www.glassblower.info was not done pursuant to the Wikipedia Guidelines, and I hope that there is some consensus to add the "Photographic Glossary of the Glassblower" web page at http://www.glassblower.info/glossary.html as an external link on Wikipedia's Glassblowing Page.

Thank you again for taking the time to review my comments. Tonyspatti (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

=========================================================================

I reiterate (another two more days later), still seeking further discussion on the points above...

  1. Bump.
  2. Folks seem quick to remove or criticize other websites (84% of external links already removed), but not very quick at explaining their actions with respect to the Wikipedia Guidelines.
  3. Teapot ??
  4. Dougweller ??
  5. Is there ANY objection to my making changes to the Glassblowing External Links, as outlined above?

Thank you again for considering the points I raise above concerning Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. Tonyspatti (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The external link to your website has a large number of commercial links to purchase books on glassblowing, other Amazon links and Google ads. Adverts for http://www.parsmfg.com/ and content copied and pasted from other websites. You are intent on promoting your website here, instead of editing the article content to improve it.TeapotgeorgeTalk 07:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
=========================================================================
  1. Teapot, it is my hope to improve Wikipedia specifically by including the best possible contemporaneous external information, as expected by Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. PLEASE QUOTE me a sentence of any Wikipedia Guideline that says I may not add an external link until after I have added content to an article, please?
  2. Teapot, you criticize me for pointing people to Amazon books, but how then do you justify two of the three remaining external link websites directly requesting credit card numbers for the services they provide?
  3. Take a look at the page requesting CREDIT CARD NUMBER at http://www.glassonline.com/club/index.asp -- which is current external link #1.
  4. Just as with the FIRST external link, the SECOND external link also asks for credit card payment at website at http://www.asgs-glass.org/asgs/Membership/Application_for_Membership_Aug_2009.pdf
  5. THE DIFFERENCE BEING, PEOPLE WHO VISIT MY WEBSITE DO NOT SEND ME MONEY,
  6. Again, while Wikipedia Guidelines espouse consistency, you seem to criticize my website for one thing while ignoring the fact that the other external links you allow clearly manifest those attributes to a much greater degree.
  7. And what about "Scientific Glassblowing" being a tangential aspect of the Glassblowing article? Do you encourage tangential or niche websites about minor topics, and if so, should more tangential external links be added, or would you prefer to see the best information websites which contain vast quantities of information about the core topic of the article?

Thank you again for taking the time to read my comments. Tonyspatti (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

=========================================================================
  1. Although Teapot has chosen not to add anything further to this Noticeboard, I note for the record the following:
  2. At 15:08, 26 May 2010 (in other words later the same day I added the information above) Teapot removed the link Scientific Glassblowing with the following comment "remove poor quality tangential external link the other two look fine to me with no links to books or adverts.)"
  3. Too bad that Teapot did not reference this Noticeboard and my assertion above that the link was tangential and that the ASGS website requested credit card payment.
  4. I was SURPRISED that Teapot stated in removing ASGS that links to on-topic BOOKS would be a reason to forbid a website from being a valid external link, maybe he could reference for us the portion of the Guideline that says that BOOKS (presumably he is referring to Amazon's books) are particularly evil please?
  5. It is PARTICULARLY INTERESTING that when Teapot writes "the other two [external links] look fine to me with no links to books or adverts" but then Teapot seems to have IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE one other (at that time) remaining external link SELLS PUBLICATIONS VIA CREDIT CARD!!!! Please, what material difference is there between a BOOK sold on a website, and a PUBLICATION sold on a website?
  6. See for example http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/PublicationsNew/index.html and http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/PublicationsNew/index.html (which contains pricing) and http://www.glassonline.com/subscribe_1.asp for an even longer list of prices for items they are selling, and with payment via MASTERCARD OR VISA credit cards at http://www.glassonline.com/subscribe_2.asp
  7. As I mention above, www.glassblower.info as a recommended external link provides links to many additional glassblowing resources on the internet, yes including many wonderful books, but www.glassblower.info DOES NOT process orders or request any credit card or payment information from ANYONE WHO VISITS www.glassblower.info
  8. I further note that 17:44, 27 May 2010 Teapot added Glassblowing at Curlie which is certainly allowed within the Wikipedia Guidelines, where it is written "A directory link may be a PERMANENT link or a TEMPORARY measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. It would have been nice if Teapot had commented whether he intended DMOZ to be PERMANENT or TEMPORARY, since both options are anticipated.

Thank you for reading my further comments on this Noticeboard. Tonyspatti (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

=========================================================================
  1. Bump.
  2. Still waiting for a response from TeapotGeorge
  3. Please, TeapotGeorge, my recommending specific on-topic glassblowing books is evil and sufficient reason to ban my website as a valid external link, BUT YOU ALLOW AND SUPPORT a website which REQUESTS CREDIT CARD PAYMENT for its own PUBLICATIONS, PLEASE EXPLAIN?!?!
  4. I note that when TeapotGeorge added DMOZ http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Crafts/Glass/Blowing/ as what he felt was the best possible addition as an external link, there were no Editor-Chosen "stars" in that group, but if TeapotGeorge had researched further, he would have found at http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Crafts/Glass/Education/ that www.glassblower.info has been Editor-Chosen as a "star" website.
  5. This selection by DMOZ supports my earlier and repeated claim as to the INFORMATIONAL NATURE of www.glassblower.info to provide FREE and IN-DEPTH glassblowing information, just as its INFO TLD states.

Thank you again for reading my additional comments on this NoticeBoard, and I hope that TeapotGeorge will eventually respond here to explain how his actions fall within the Wikipedia Guidelines, especially for consistency. Tonyspatti (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

=========================================================================
  1. So, what I realize is that more than twice as many words have been spent trying to understand TeapotGeorge actions in removing www.glassblower.info as an external link AS ARE CONTAINED IN THE ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA GLASSBLOWING ARTICLE! Specifically:
  2. 2,937 words in Wikipedia's Glassblowing Article
  3. 1,407 words were spent on this topic on Wikipedia Talk:Glassblowing
  4. 6,207 words were spent (prior to today's additions) on this Noticeboard.
  5. Since TeapotGeorge won't respond to the enumerated concerns above, I added back www.glassblower.info as a valid informational glassblowing link,
  6. and also added a second appropriate DMOZ link (which should be OK since TeapotGeorge seems to think they make the best links).

I'd like to thank everyone for their time in reading this, especially WhatamIdoing who provided constructive criticism which was actionable. Tonyspatti (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

=========================================================================
  1. TeapotGeorge deleted www.glassblower.info as one of the two external link additions described above. Here is the info:
  2. 09:43, 6 June 2010 Teapotgeorge (talk | contribs) (25,335 bytes) (remove external link added by COI editor there is NO consensus to add this spam)
  3. TeapotGeorge THE REASON THERE IS NO CONSENSUS IS BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ONE-SIDED SINCE YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO RESPOND TO THE SPECIFIC ENUMERATED QUESTIONS ABOVE!
  4. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THERE IS CONCENSUS TO ADD THE PHOTOGRAPHIC GLOSSARY AT WWW.GLASSBLOWER.INFO -- NO ONE ELSE DISPUTED THAT WAS A VALID EXTERNAL LINK AFTER THE SUGGEST WAS MADE by WhatamIdoing
  5. TeapotGeorge Please cite the specific Wikipedia Guidelines that states that recommending on-topic Amazon books are Evil, but a commercial publisher can sell whatever it wants via credit card payments thru its website and that is in your mind completely different and a valid external link???
  6. Due to TeapotGeorge repeated failure to respond to the issues cited above, I am forced by his inactions to revert his deletion.
  7. Don't you think it is interesting that DMOZ has www.glassblower.info as an EDITOR's CHOICE ?

Thank you again for further reading this Noticeboard. Tonyspatti (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't shout. I'm sorry not to have responded sooner but I currently watch 7,411 pages. The fact remains that you are adding your own website and your only edits to Wikipedia to date have been to add your own website or to justify adding it. The fact that other stuff exists is irrelevant. I added the Dmoz link because that included your site as well as others. There is no need to add yours as separate link.TeapotgeorgeTalk 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
=========================================================================
  1. Thank you TeapotGeorge for your additional comment on this NoticeBoard.
  2. None of what you just wrote is reason to remove www.glassblower.info
  3. And you've failed to address the enumerated issues above.
  4. You said there was no consensus to add the photographic glossary at www.glassblower.info which was suggested by WhatamIdoing -- has anyone else objected to that? No. So, that's as close to concensus as we've gotten here, and valid reason for it to be an external link.
  5. Is your statement above that any Wikipedia page which has a DMOZ external link should not have any additional external link which is included on that DMOZ page? There is a Wikipedia guideline on that?
  6. Maybe your comment says it all -- you are worried about 7,411 things, and I am worried about one -- glassblowing -- I am a subject matter expert in glassblowing, and that is what I am passionate about.
  7. I also want to follow up on your objection to Amazon books. I think books are a great resource, and for example, when I was at the Rakow Library at Corning Museum of Glass (CMOG) for the Glas Art Society annual conference last summer, I had the privilege of the research librarians allowing me to read from the rare book room De Re Metallica by Georgius Agricola, published in 1556 (yes I had to wear white gloves to turn the pages).
  8. I was interviewed by those same folks at CMOG as part of the oral/visual history of glassblowing during Glass Fest 2010, two weekends ago.
  9. The fact is, perhaps counterintuitively for those who grew up with computers in the Internet age that Books are still extremely helpful in learning, research, study. I grew up at the start of the Internet age as an ARPAnet host administrator (at Wharton) and a Milnet host administrator (at the Office of Naval Research), but I did not grow up with the Internet as a child, so perhaps I value books more than others (including TeapotGeorge).

Hopefully there will be some additional voices added to this discussion, especially those who can weigh-in on the fundamental Wikipedia principle that "Wikipedia should be consistent.". Many thanks. Tonyspatti (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

=========================================================================
  1. Yet again, TeapotGeorge makes an edit to the Wikipedia Glassblowing article, without updating this NoticeBoard which he created. The details are:
  2. 18:08, 6 June 2010 Teapotgeorge (talk | contribs) (25,335 bytes) (remove external link already included in Dmoz link) (undo)
  3. A compromise to this disputed matter was made based on the suggestion at 20:32 19 May 2010 (UTC) by WhatamIdoing (which I support and no one else has disputed so far). TeapotGeorge has not been willing to address that suggested solution, nor to the other enumerated questions and issues above.
  4. TeapotGeorge has said that he is watching over 7,000 Wikipedia pages, and has not asserted that he is a subject matter expert on the topic of Glassblowing, which is the sole topic under discussion here.
  5. The DMOZ Editors (DMOZ being a site which TeapotGeorge appears to highly value), on the other hand, have named www.glassblower.info as an Editor's Choice website, so clearly www.glassblower.info is one of the very few best and exemplary websites in the world for the topic of glassblowing, and I strongly suggest therefore that the endorsement by DMOZ Editors confirms that, in the context of contemporaneous informational websites, www.glassblower.info is a premier and valid external link. I believe that an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person (the legal standard) would take that into consideration before repeatedly deleting this as a valid external link.
  6. I also ask whether it is reasonable for someone to create a NoticeBoard, and (a) then not respond to questions there, and (b) take actions related to the NoticeBoard but not document them on the NoticeBoard?
  7. I feel like my glassblowing reputation has been disparaged (e.g. I did not spam Wikipedia), on a matter which I am a subject matter expert, and which I post with my name, Tony S. Patti Tonyspatti as contrasted with what appears to be an anoymous poster TeapotGeorge presuming that "Teapot" is not someone's real first name.
  8. I'll be undoing the deletion made by TeapotGeorge) at 18:08, 6 June 2010, ask him again to respond to the enumerated questions above, and explain his actions in the context of the Wikipedia Guidelines, especially for consistency.

I appreciate those who have taken the time to read this NoticeBoard. Tonyspatti (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

================
  1. Ckatz at 23:13, 6 June 2010 you made a change the external links of the Wikipedia Glassblowing page, and stated "last edit was to remove link per trend of discussion at links board; also moved DMOZ entires to top)"
  2. Please, Ckatz, I am curious, can you reference (by user and UTC) the "trend" that you see in the Noticeboard above? It is not obvious to me. For reference, my definiton of "trend" (from a government website) is "change in a series of data".

Tonyspatti (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

================
  1. TeapotGeorge wrote in removing www.glassblower.info that he did so to "(remove external link already included in Dmoz link)"
  2. Why then does he NOT REMOVE "A Brief History of Glass" which is the URL http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/history.html which is also listed in DMOZ at http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Crafts/Glass/History/
  3. Please exlain how this is a consistent approach?

Tonyspatti (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

================

"I appreciate those who have taken the time to read this NoticeBoard." You're not helping your cause by posting the equivalent of 8 A4 pages of prose. Please summarize the above in a short paragraph. MER-C 05:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tonyspatti (contribs) has made one contribution to the article glassblowing namely to add a link to his own website and written copious amounts defending the decision, rather than using his undoubted knowledge of the subject to improve the article itself. Other users agree the link is inappropriate and in any case the link is included in the Dmoz link. TeapotgeorgeTalk 07:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
================
  1. I WROTE SO MUCH BECAUSE I REPEATEDLY TRIED TO GET PEOPLE TO ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ASKED. They did not answer those quesions, but reasonable people will be able to see what was written, and make their own assessments in the future.
  2. To show how ridiculuous this is, TeapotGeorge talks about "the link" but in fact, two links were discussed in this NoticeBoard, and the second link was proposed by another user, not me.
  3. Had I received timely cogent answers, this NoticeBoard could actually have served its purpose, but did not, but not for lack of trying on my part.
  4. Being a DMOZ Editor's Choice website should be enough for any objective person to realize (1) there are some websites which are better than others, (2) subject matter experts [not people trying to improve more than 7,000 different pages] might be able to contribute to a list for those who want to study/research further, but it is clear that being a subject matter expert is not enough -- all 19 of the prior external links were deleted.
  5. You've ended up with something that could be really useful for a Junior High School paper (3,000 years of glassblowing in about 3,000 words), and left people who seek more information to wade through an alphabetical list of links. For that reason, in my opinion, this article is less useful now than when the discussion started when TeapotGeorge deleted the link to www.glassblower.info
  6. The potential of wikipedia has not been optimized here, some of the 19 external links which had been present are among the best in the world.
  7. Those who argue that Wikipedia is not a link farm simply want to link to a site that is, bypassing any quality test for the best possibile contemporaneous glassblowing resources.
  8. I shall not expend any more time on this. It is sad for me to see deletions being made by folks who are not subject matter experts, and then when asked specific questions about their actions refuse to respond.

Tonyspatti (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would implore you to use your undoubted expertise to improve the article by adding content NOT by adding an external link to your own website. The external links are the least important aspect of Wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia not to promote our own websites.TeapotgeorgeTalk 07:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Teapotgeorge if as you say "The external links are the least important aspect of Wikipedia" then why are you so adamant and spend so much time and effort to refuse to allow a DMOZ Editor's Choice website to be listed as a valid external link?

Tonyspatti (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@Tonyspatti: I have ignored this topic until now, when I had a look to see why it was still coming up here. The rights and wrongs of the original disagreement are now a matter of history and are totally irrelevant to the disruption that is being created over a simple external link. Please completely drop the issue for at least six weeks. After that time, perhaps you could post a short suggestion on the talk page of the article. However, adding or deleting links at Glassblowing must stop. Regard it as totally unfair if you like, but this is a collaborative project and this issue has taken too much volunteer effort. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
===================
  1. In response to Johnuniq it is NOT a "simple external link" that is at question here -- ALL 19 OF THE EXTERNAL LINKS THAT HAD EXISTED IN THE GLASSBLOWING ARTICLE WERE DELETED by a variety of people and for a variety of reasons -- most by others NOT me -- and when questions were asked about their deletions, and decision-making consistency, no answers seemed to be forthcoming.
  2. The links which you restored are NOT the world-class links that should be envisioned -- one is self-described as "Brief" and goes to a commercial publishing website -- the other is on the topic of "scientific glassblowing" which (others on this NoticeBoard seem to agree) is tangential to the main article. As such, your adding those two specific was a mistake and contrary to what I read on this NoticeBoard (as to reasons for adding or removing external links).

Tonyspatti (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3. In between 03:09, 7 June 2010 and 08:22, 11 June 2010 (a span of over four days) you Johnuniq were the ONLY person on Wikipedia who felt the need to undo my Glassblowing External Link changes (and I had cited THIS NOTICEBOARD by user and UTC as justification for the specific two changes I made).

Tonyspatti (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War and links to Amazon.com

List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War - we have a concern that this list of books and other sources has many links to Amazon.com, but I can't find anything that says this is bad. It seems to be, intuitively... this edit [5] seems to express the sentiments of both sides of this issue. Can someone help? Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#5 seems pretty clear. Although, it is a guideline and can be ignored if there's a good reason. My view is that links to Amazon.com are never appropriate. -Atmoz (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, links to Amazon are never appropriate. While the Special:BookSources function that ISBN:s are automatically linked to may not yield the exact same result, it's sufficient and should be used in favor of links to book stores. jonkerz♠ 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Resolved

Would somebody please take a look at the external links featured in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and see if they meet WP standards? I have already been labeled a "troll" by the articles owner primary contributor, so I'd like an outsider to take a look. Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think all of the external links except for the official links should be axed. However, I have had a difference of opinion with Dream Focus. I would suggest that only the first two external links, the official site and the official strategy site (there is a problem with Firaxis breaking the link between them and the strategy, etc. section. My only concern is fairness. All fan forums or none of them should be in the external links. I have been hesitant to apply my solution of cutting out all non-official links because of Dream Focus' opposition. However, be my guest (as long as all non-official external links are axed. I think that will have to be done for the article to reach GA status. I thought I had deleted or archived all the "troll" references.) Vyeh (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • External links should be for material relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic that cannot be regularly integrated into the article. I can't see that any of these except for the official site meet that description. And I've deleted the accordingy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The Official Strategies is on the game developer's site. It and other sections of the Official Game Site (including The Story, Factions, Native Life) were part of the "Official Site" until someone at Firaxis deleted the link from the top page of the official site. (It probably was a mistake.) The material referenced, as well as the other sections which can be reached from there, easily meet both of the criteria under WP:EL: (1) it is controlled by the subject of the article (in this case the developer of the game) and the linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable (in this case the game itself). WP:EL provides for more than one official link under the following conditions: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." An examination of the various sections (Story, Game, Factions, Technology, Native Life, Strategy, Downloads and Links) is enough to show the unique content. DustFormsWords formulation is for non-official sites. Even that formulation would be met under WP:EL ("amount of detail"). I have put the orphaned Official Strategies (and through links, the other Official sections) back in. Vyeh (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The game developer's site was already linked to. Beyond that, links are required to "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues." There is no material here that is both relevant to an encyclopedic understanding and unable to be integrated into the Wikipedia article. But it's marginal enough that I'm not going to go edit warring over it; the link certainly does no harm and can't be considered to be overly promotional. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Your statement is the criteria used for non-official sites. In WP:EL, there is a section about official links. WP:EL does say that more than one official link may be appropriate. This is the correct criteria for a second official link: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." There is some history behind the second link. Until a year ago, it was possible to travel from the first link to the second (there was a link labeled "Official Site" between the links for "Buy It Now" and "Downloads" in the same style). For unknown reasons, that link was removed (I think it was an error since nothing else on the first link was changed). The first link is only a short sales document. Everything on that page is easily integrated into the article. So what I have done is axe the first link and relabeled the second link as the official site link (which it was according to Firaxis). It is possible to travel to Firaxis home page from that link, so there is no necessity of a separate Firaxis link. I believe this should satisfy you. Everything you said about the second link applies accurately to the first link. Vyeh (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I have now fixed the official site External Link to everybody's satisfaction. Take a look at Internet Archive Wayback Machine (May 2008) of the original link. Note that Firaxis Games, the developer of SMAC, links to an "Official Site" between the "Buy It Now" and "Downloads" links. I think this is pretty dispositive that Firaxis intended the recipient of the link to be the "Official Site." What I have done is use the Wayback Machine to generate the recipient of the link as of May 2008. And I have used that address as the recipient of the link from our article. Vyeh (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to external citizenship article

Tomwsulcer added an external link to several article related to citizenship a few days ago. The link is to an article hosted on knol.google.com, and appears to be written by Tomwsulcer. A quick search couldn't turn up something that I could point to saying he's a recognized expert in the area, but that was only a quick search. The article seems to be fairly well written and occasionally refers to some sources. I brought it here because of the number of articles involved, and have invited the user to discuss here. It also looks like he's added links to other essays he's written on other topics. Thoughts on this? Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please let me reply. Sorry if my response is somewhat long, but this is somewhat new territory, and I wanted to explain my motivations.
I wrote the articles on Google. My user handle here is Tomwsulcer, and my free articles on Google are signed by me with my full name Thomas Wright Sulcer. I used to contribute heavily here at Wikipedia, but found myself getting into content and writing disputes and found the environment toxic at times, and got quite frustrated with sometimes rather mean people (and perhaps I got grumpy myself at times?). I contributed heavily to pages such as Wikipedia:Areas for Reform. And I'm coming to see that perhaps I did have some POV issues, yet I still wanted to contribute, so how could I do this? I am an independent thinker who reads widely. Some of my thinking is WP:OR. At the same time, I've found that working on Wikipedia has a hidden benefit of getting me to question my hypotheses, and explore my biases, and think; it's a useful exercise which helps me get in touch with different viewpoints. Please consider that it may be possible that some of my ideas really help people. I want the freedom to write what I see as truth, and contribute to the ongoing human debate. But how?
There are two parts to me (and perhaps everybody here at Wikipedia to varying extents?) -- (1) the neutral mainstream fact-checking referencer who enjoys learning new stuff (2) the independent thinker with fresh ideas to solve problems. And I think what I've come to realize is that both are good things, but each has their place. Facts belong in Wikipedia; opinions belong elsewhere. Surely you'll agree? So I write facts in Wikipedia, opinions in Google knols. Perhaps you'll come to see the arrangement as sensible. It's a compromise; I keep my opinions out of Wikipedia and put them in Google knols. And, I can still have my say. It's a win-win solution for me, and I hope you'll see it as a "win" for Wikipedia too -- Wikipedia gets my fact-checking referencing help free of charge but hopefully without the opinions. The external links are a way for me to attract a few readers who may be interested in this stuff, who seek opinions.
And, I think the WP-facts Google-opinions arrangement is an excellent way for Wikipedia to handle some of the more blatant POV pushers here, that is, encourage them to write Google knols or blogs or elsewhere, and let them put links to their writings at the bottom of relevant articles for the occasional few people interested. It's like a safety valve. It might make Wikipedia a nicer place.
Let me demonstrate with a specific article. Consider History of citizenship in the United States. I wrote it initially last autumn I think. I worked about a week on it. I put lots of references in. I found great pictures. I thought it was a great addition to Wikipedia. I still think overall that it's a pretty good article; not perfect, but is anything perfect? But it probably DID have POV issues (and maybe still does?). What are my POV issues? I believe in citizenship, that it's important, that people participating in politics is good. These are my points of view. They're not encyclopedia (arguably). So the article got tagged, chunks got deleted, and I considered battling with other writers, but what if they were right about some of the criticisms? At the same time, I was frustrated because so much of my hard work became undone. And I didn't get any credit or recognition for having worked so hard.
So I wrote a Google knol. It's an opinion piece. It's a smaller world. But I can control what I write. And everybody knows it's an opinion.
Look at the situation now. If the WP article on the history of US citizenship gets trimmed substantially, I won't care provided there's a link at the bottom pointing to my Google knol about history of citizenship. I have much less incentive to battle with the other POV pushers here (who? how about: everybody?). Most people will only read the WP article, but perhaps a few might be interested in the opinions; if so, they can click on the link. What I'm saying is that the external-link system used in this way can work to keep the POV pushers (including me) out of Wikipedia.
And I think the external links to opinion pieces is an efficient way to have the best of both worlds. It's clear what's what -- Wikipedia has facts; Google knols have opinions. This is clear. A few external links won't hurt Wikipedia but may help those few readers who want an additional viewpoint. Please know that I do not make money from either my WP contributions or my Google knols; both are free services and intended to expand human knowledge generally. If the community feels, however, that the external links are inappropriate and deletes them, then I think this is a mistake, because you're depriving people who may benefit from opinions from having a chance to even see them, and my motivation to contribute will be undercut substantially, so WP will lose a person who can wear a mainstream hat and reference adequately, and can tell the difference between facts and opinions. :) .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've removed the links to Tom's personal essay for now. At the very least, inclusion would need to wait until the matter has been resolved at this noticeboard, and as mentioned on Tom's talk page, there is a real concern with respect to precedent. More importantly, though, there were a few instances where Tom used his personal writings as a reference source. Discussion about the merits of the EL aside, WP:RS would prevent its use in that manner. --Ckatzchatspy 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew_Schlafly official external link question

At Talk:Andrew_Schlafly#Official_external_link_question there is a discussion whether Andrew Schlafly's user page on Conservapedia User:Aschlafly should be considered his official external link for the article about him in his article Andrew Schlafly. I believe even if the main thrust of what he wrote there is in an area he is not notable for there is enough there for it to be considered as his official page. Would you consider it a reasonable WP:ELOFFICIAL? Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed the arguments on the talk page and can see that a case can be made that because Schlafly currently has de facto control of that page, it could be regarded as "his" page. However, I oppose such a violation of WP:ELOFFICIAL because it appears Schlafly does not have an official web site (I don't see one mentioned on his CP page), and we should not weaken ELOFFICIAL by starting down the path of claiming that "in practice" X controls some page, therefore it is their official page. Further, WP:IAR should not be invoked to fiddle with external links in such an unnecessary fashion. If the link to Schlafly's user page is warranted, it should be added to the article per WP:EL, without wriggling past the need to satisfy that guideline with a false claim of ELOFFICIAL. Currently our article has an external link described as "Andrew Schlafly's personal web page" which is absurd (I see no claim at conservapedia.com that "This wiki is controlled by Andrew Schlafly", nor "This is my personal web page"). If the link is warranted, describe it as it is: "Andrew Schlafly's user page at Conservapedia". Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You're not confusing it with the Conservapedia wiki page about him at [6] are you? That was discussed first and I agree it is not his page. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant his user page at CP. I would agree that this is not a case worth getting too excited about because there are unlikely to be many public wikis that are in fact controlled by one person, but it just seems unnecessary to invoke ELOFFICIAL for this case because it is such an odd-ball "official" page (Schlafly does not even claim the page as his official website). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
What is all this business about controlling Conservapedia aand de facto about? I'm talking about his user page, not the Conservapedia page about him. He has full control of the user page and writes about himself in his user page, nobody else writes it, and it has stuff relevant to the article about him there and that's what WP:ELOFFICIAL requires, as it says 'Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself' It would be perfectly possible for a Facebook page or a Wikipedia user page to be someone's official page under that, they don't have to own Facebook or Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To distinguish the pages the one I'm talking about starts "Hi, my name is Andy Schlafly and I..." Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
My argument against it boils down to two simple points: nothing on that page addresses any of the issues that give him notability, it doesn't provide his prospective on those issues, or address his critics; and second that there is nothing on that page that is not in the WP article or that couldn't be added but is valuable information. It there for fails all EL standards. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes that was what I was disputing and asking for an opinion about here. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone like to respond without talking about de facto control which indicates the wrong page was being looked at? Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I'm not sure what you think "full control" means. Do you think that you have "full control" of your Wikipedia user page, User:Dmcq? Or do you think that Wikipedia has at least partial control (e.g., that the community could force you to change its contents, that it could be deleted through MfD, that Wikipedia can set rules about how you use it)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have full control for the purposes of the policy. Any service provider has the power to impose conditions, my website provider would warn me if I stuck up pornographic pictures or something like that and take my sites down if I didn't remove them. Does that mean I don't have full control. The same with people who put their profiles up on Facebook or suchlike. It isn't 'de facto' control I have over my user page. I could write 'I am...' on it without undue worry and the admins would protect it if others kept putting in stuff I didn't want. He says "Hi, my name is Andy Schlafly and I..." on the page and I believe he is saying a statement about himself and I believe he is not under any undue pressure about the contents. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I would class as de facto control the page about him on Conservapedia which he avoids editing himself but anything he didn't like would be pretty quickly removed anyway. It isn't like Wikipedia with a lot of bolshy users. However I don't think we can assume he has de facto control of it as there is nothing saying he has and the rules say any user can edit it. Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I don't think that he has full control over that page. For one thing, anyone can edit it, and their changes show up immediately. So for the length of time from whenever changes are made, to whenever he notices them, he actually had zero control. The minimum level of control that I expect is much more like what Facebook offers: Each user has his own password, and nobody can change the password-protected pages without the prior consent of the account owner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with the reasoning but I'll accept it as a third party view for the purpose of resolving the dispute. It certainly don't think 'control' necessarily means total absolute continuous control nor that this interpretation serves the purpose of 'Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself', so I'll raise it on the policy talk page as a general query. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Forward in Faith

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_in_Faith

Forward in Faith, North America has a new website: http://fifna.org/

Therefore, the appropriate links regarding our ministry should be updated to reflect this change.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Howell, Ph.D. Executive Director Forward in Faith, North America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.182.98 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Any editor can make non-controversial changes like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Video aggregator

Can some others within this project review the Video aggregator article? There's a discussion on talk:Video aggregator regarding the external links to some example sites. There are only two of us involved in the discussion - so we need additional outside opinions on the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove per promo links, WP:EXAMPLES and WP:INDISCRIMINATE may also be of interest. As said on talk page, inline external links should be avoided. The text does not really deepen the knowledge on the subject and is more a list-in-a-paragraph. With said text removed the page would look like this:
A video aggregator is a website that collects and organizes various online videos from other sources. Video aggregation is done for different purposes, and websites take different approaches to achieve their purpose.
List of video aggregators
In addition, the second sentence could be removed as well, thus restoring this edit (redirect to News aggregator#Media aggregators) seems reasonable. jonkerz♠ 06:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Link causing redirect problem

School Rumble's website is causing redirect issues for someone at a FAC. It works for me, but checklist does show it redirecting. I'm not sure what is going on nor what to do because it is relevant and does seem to work for myself.陣内Jinnai 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checked it here and it is working fine as well. Do they have Flash and JS enabled? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know. Just that today (a week or so later) they re-affirmed he couldn't access it and that it redirected automatically.陣内Jinnai 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Really weird...I just tried it again from another network, still worked fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Swahili language; links to dictionaries

Hello. I'd like to invite to the discussion in Talk:Swahili language#External links to on-line dictionaries ff., as there is a dispute in interpretation of the guidelines and thus with the amount of external links to online dictionaries. Thank you and best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Procter & Gamble

I removed several inappropriate links at Procter & Gamble but there is disagreement regarding one of the links. Normally I would not worry about one link, but it really does seem unusual in an article on a major company so would appreciate another opinion.

The issue concerns the company's logo, and the link is (I think) an attempt to demonstrate that the logo involves Satan and 666. This edit is the latest addition of the link. The target of the link is a pdf. It may be faster to click Google Quick View from a search: church-of-ouzo infamous-logo Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is unusual. I think it might actually fall under category 4 in "Links to be considered" in WP:EL: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It actually does not seem to run afoul of any categories under "Links normally to be avoided." The discussion about the logo is a major part of the article and the link does provide readers with more details. I can't see using the link as a source and I think the unusualness comes from the unusualness of a controversy about the (former?) logo. Vyeh (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but you force me to speak more plainly (I guess I was trying to be polite regarding the IP user who is adding the link). The article is for a major company, while the link is to a completely off-the-chart fruitcake website with the most outrageous fringe nonsense. The link is great value for weirdness, but we should aim for a more encyclopedic approach. The issue is clearly spelt out in the article, but the link I'm talking about can't even be used as a reference because it is impossible to work out if it is serious or a parody, and it certainly does not meet WP:IRS. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I take exception to "The article is for a major company, while the link is to a completely off-the-chart fruitcake website with the most outrageous fringe nonsense." This is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy to be polite and avoid personal attacks. Robert Merlin Evenson/bobevenson@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.9.34 (talk • contribs) 15:05, June 27, 2010
The ouzo links have been extensively pushed by an IP. Typically they are placed on talk pages along with an email address. On the talk pages they are off-topic or unhelpful and I periodically go through and remove them because the apparent intent is self-promotion of the site. They should be removed from articles as self-published pages (WP:ELNO #11) and spam. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that WP:EL specifically contemplates a link that does not meet the criteria for reliable source and hence can't be used as a source. Also, note that every official site is self-published. However, I am persuaded by the history of self-promotion and on that basis I agree the link should be removed (and the blacklist may be appropriate in the future). Vyeh (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link but it is likely to return, so it would be good if someone checks the article in day or so. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I agree that the link is unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a coi, pov, sock, and spam problem that goes back to at least 25 Nov 2004 --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding/removing of an EL

If an editor adds an external link, and the link is being removed, followed by a discussion on the link, would there be a need to build consensus for the addition, or for the removal, of the link?  Cs32en Talk to me  17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on those wanting to include it per WP:ELBURDEN --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links on FiveFingers

This concerns FiveFingers. There was an external link on this page to the unofficial fan site for Vibram Five Fingers birthdayshoes. The External Link was taken down after being up for a few months (no reason was given). I believe this link should remain as the fan site is the only content-driven site dedicated to information about FiveFingers on the web, including hundreds of photos, user based reviews, and formal reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinowings (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? It is a fansite and goes against the WP:EL criteria. Wikipedia is not for promoting fansites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Eckhart Tolle

Myself and another editor are having a cordial disagreement about some EL's that appear in these two sections of the article. [7] [8] These are lists of Videos and Public Appearances (all with EL's) that appear in the Publications section of the article. These video EL's link to various pages at the Tolle TV web site which is already listed in the EL section of the article. Neither of us is 100% sure how to interpret the Wiki EL policies in this instance. One editor thinks these links (and maybe even the list of videos itself) are excessive and somewhat promotional, while the other editor feels it is a legitimate list of self published videos that should be linked for the readers convenience. Any feedback would be very helpful. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's awkward because an argument can be made in some cases that "reader convenience" justifies a small list of external links embedded in the article (currently there are 6 "Public appearances" and 10 "Video streaming and downloads"). My opinion is that WP:MOS#External links should be followed pretty rigorously and "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". There is no doubt that link lists are a spamtrap that grow towards a promotional shrine (here is an old revision of an article I recently encountered in which every mention of a politician had an external link), and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY it is not our role to provide a comprehensive list of anything, let alone convenience links. The case in question involves a person with an official website so I would take the easy line that if the links are on that official site, we do not need them, and if the links are not on that site, the author is saying that the links are not worth listing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am happy that the linking be removed. However, I would like to point out that it is a separate argument to say that the list itself should be the removed, rather than just the wikilinking, as the list is still a part of the body of the article. So please go ahead and remove the wikilinking, but not the list. I will leave the discussion for why the list itself should remain for the Eckhart Tolle talk page. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

External links on football player articles

Bringing this here from WP:RSN#Transfermarkt.co.uk.

An editor asked over at the reliable source noticeboard whether transfermarkt.co.uk (note, its .de version has a lot more traffic and coverage) was a reliable source, as he wanted to add it to footballer BLPs. I answered that external links don't have to be reliable sources (per WP:ELMAYBE, point 4), but that he should only add it the site was for football what IMDB is for movies, to avoid it being seen as WP:LINKSPAM. He responded that soccerbase.com was linked from almost all football player articles, which surprised me to say the least. What makes soccerbase (notice the article has been a redirect to the seemingly unrelated Racing Post for three years) worthy of inclusion as an external link? How does it compare to transfermarkt.de (who has a much higher Alexa rank [9][10]) and supposedly has more detail. And what about various other database sites (see the example below)

A look at the Frank Lampard article shows the following links

This seems serious overkill, which of these can stay and which should go? I am also posting a notice about this discussion at WP:FOOTBALL Yoenit (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the link that doesn't work would seem like a good candidate for one to be removed. But, there's no problem with having all these linked to. I can understand when people complain that articles are unsourced, but to say that there are too many sources seems ludicrous. The only problem here is that all those links would be better in the References section, since that's what they are in essence.
With regard to Soccerbase, it is redirected to Racing Post because it is a subsidiary of said company. Soccerbase, which is compiled professionally using match reports and statistics from the Press Association, is much more reliable than Transfermarkt, which is a collection of statistics submitted by volunteers and with very little fact-checking. BigDom 14:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it´s true, that transfermarkt is showing match reports entered by volunteers. These volunteers, known as datascouts are working on a permanently basis for the site and are assigned to their special league they are working on. There is no money involved, but it´s not true, that anyone can enter unchecked data to the database. The data for the match reports is collected from reliable newspapers and media from the country the league is playing in. So the origin of the data is from a professional source. In many cases (often Eastern Europe, Turkey, Greece and German leagues) the personal data of a player is entered directly from the player or his agent. --Klattius (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For players based in England and Scotland, Soccerbase is a reliable source for statistics, and typically more likely to be up date than the statistics in our article. The FA link could be changed into a reference for the international appearance data in the infobox. Transfermarkt is less reliable and ought to be removed. I've never heard of Footbalistic, but the link provides nothing that the Soccerbase one doesn't. UEFA and FIFA, while reliable, are notorious among the Wikiproject Football crowd for frequently changing their URLs without leaving redirects, and thus causing deadlinks. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Concur with BigDom re Soccerbase. Although it tends to be listed in the ext links section, Soccerbase is the reliable source of choice for stats info for players playing in England and Scotland since 1996, and will usually be the source used for stats, dates, etc in footballer infoboxes. See the site's FAQ, which says its data comes from the Racing Post's statistical database, its historical data is verified with assistance from soccerdata.com (credentials here), and its publisher is Centurycomm, a Trinity Mirror subsidiary. Transfermarkt isn't a WP:RS, so isn't an alternative to Soccerbase.
As to Lampard's ELs, Footbalistic is spam, and if it's still there after I've typed this, I'll remove it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know transfermarkt's editing and review procedures, but I frequently find errors in its published information. Additionally, there are almost always better alternatives which are freer from error, such as football association websites (svenskfotboll.se, tff.org, ffu.ua), football league websites (rpfl.org), sports magazine websites (lequipe.fr, kicker.de, vi.nl) or professional statistics sites (soccerbase.com). Jogurney (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The thing that caught my eye at transfermarkt was the list of suspension periods and other absences. Is this data readilly available anywhere else that's more reliable? AFAIK it isn't something expected to be included even in featured articles and therefore would potentially make TM an acceptable [[WP:]]EL, though not a WP:RS.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the TM data for a few players for the Premier League club I have the misfortune to follow. According to that site, Maik Taylor [11] has 68 international caps (he has 83). Keith Fahey [12] is not a current international player and has 3 caps and 1 goal for Ireland: he played in their last two international matches, but AFAIK only in those two, without scoring. Most players' pages don't have an injuries/suspensions table. Of those who do, Liam Ridgewell's page [13] has him out until 28 Sept 09 with a fractured leg: except he played 90 minutes on 22 Sept. Obviously, different standards apply to reliable sources and external links, but personally, I'd still prefer the information appearing in a statistical EL to show signs of likely being accurate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Best Student Council

Wikipedia allows the input of links in the "external links" section. My link, Best Student Council Fan Site , relates to the series. I also am trying to aid the anime by bring more views to it. It is not very well known. Click on the link, see for your self, it is not spam, nor a lie. I spend time and money to get that running. Best Student Council Gokujoseitokai (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Most fansites are not allowed under the external links policies - see WP:EL for more information, especially the sections about fansites. In any event, adding your own site is frowned upon, as it gives the appearance of spamming. That is a lesson I learned myself when I first started out. Happy Editing! SeaphotoTalk 03:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice requested on muslimphilosophy.com and WP:COPYLINK

I would like some help in interpreting the WP:COPYLINK guidelines. The muslimphilosophy.com website (Islamic Philosophy Online) has a massive amount of WP:COPYVIO problems: for example, it hosts large numbers of articles from both the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, along with many scanned books, most of which are still in copyright. I've been slowly going through deleting direct links to copy vio material and replacing each of them with a reference to the relevant material or with a link to a legal copy, especially for the encyclopaedia articles (which are usually paywalled, unfortunately).

My question is: Is it okay (on copyright grounds) to keep other links to this site that are not directly to illegal content? In terms of what we currently link to there, this pretty much boils down to: Is it okay to link to their home page? The discussion of "internet archives" in the WP:COPYLINK policy makes me think that this too would be problematic.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my opinion that, in general, I would avoid linking to a website that has rampant copyvios on it unless there are very special circumstances to justify its inclusion. I discussed this with Syncategoremata and suggested this might be a good forum for feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess, Syncategoremata, that nobody else has an opinion on this. I would go ahead and remove it. If conversation follows, we can see if different consensus emerges. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll take the silence as an endorsement and go ahead as you suggest. If it turns out to have been a tacit blackballing, I'm sure WP:BRD will let me know.
Many thanks and all the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

inventorspot.com

I haven't looked into this in detail yet, but thought I'd get others' opinions until I get the time. It's being used in some 50 articles as an external link or a reference. My first impression is that it fails both WP:ELNO and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's being used in its own article, yes, it shouldn't be used as an EL or a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance: how would I include this link?

Does someone know how I would include the following link in the external links section of an article?:

  • http://www.trial-ch.org/index.php?id=801&L=5&tx_jbtrial_pi2[tab]=facts&tx_jbtrial_pi2[profile]=emmanuel_rukundo_146&cHash=2913a0e0f0

The problem I'm encountering is that the web address contains "[" and "]", which messes up things up when formatted in the normal way. The article is Emmanuel Rukundo. Thanks, — Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Use Percent-encoding: replace [ with %5B and ] with %5D (example). The best place for questions like this is WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for learnding me, on both counts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on personal web pages

In the section on Wikipedia:External links about Links normally to be avoided it says:

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by arecognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)

Personal web pages links to a page that has had tags about its content since 2006 and 2007 there for it is questionable how reliable that page is. What is the intended meaning of the term personal website in this context? I removed an external link because it was clearly a personal website, simply about the subject in question. My removal was undone and the edit summary said personal webpage only " refers to a web page about the author" . The incident in question happened on Humphrey Arundell over this link [14] . Should these sorts of websites be linked to in the external links section or do they not belong there? Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Open Library links to articles

I've started a discussion on WP:Village pump (proposals) about adding Open Library external links to author and book pages. Edward (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are these EL's appropriate?

These External Links currently appear in the EL section [15] of the Eckhart Tolle article:

Any input or feedback from other editors is appreciated, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I noted that there are only two editors working on the article. I think both you and Gregcaletta should be commended for your dialog (it is noteworthy for constructive civility). Please note that there is a bias for editors (in my opinion) at the Noticeboard to be conservative in External Links (the fewer the better). That being said (and I have a similar bias), I think there should be a strong consideration given to retaining the webcast archive. It is pretty voluminous and I doubt the material could be included the article and it covers "The New Earth," which a quick reading of the article suggest is an important book in Eckhart Tolle's career. I found Oprah's Book Club to be too much promotion and felt that if there was any meaningful material, it could be covered in the article. With regard to the Vancouver Peace Summit, I'd like to see some justification for how they would help a reader interested in more information about Eckhart Tolle. As an outsider who has only glanced at the article and the links, my view isn't as important as the views of you and Gregcletta who are much more familiar with the article and the links. Vyeh (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely lose the links that don't even mention his name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks, thanks for your compliments and commments. I would be OK with maintaining the one Oprah link which allows the reader to download Oprah's webcasts with Tolle. However, all of the other links in my opinion, should be removed. I'll put a note on Greg's user page so he can add his comments here also.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
My rationale for including the Vancouver Summit and Oprah book club webcast links is that neither event has its own article on WIkipedia, although both are perhaps notable enough to have one, and both events are mentioned in the article. As they are mentioned in the article, the reader needs to be able to get information on these events, but there is not information available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Another solution to this problem would be to create new Wikipedia articles for Vancouver Peace Summit and New Earth Webcast and then list to the official sites from there, but until then, I think the external links are necessary. The videos linked to on the other hand are free of cost and freely available. The Vancouver Summit videos is particular are non-promotional. The Vancouver website does not mention Tolle directly (although he is pictures) because it is page listing the various events at the summit, and Tolle in mentioned on the two sub-articles for the events he participated in. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the external link to the official Peace Summit page and created a section on the Vancouver Peace Summit on the article for the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education and created a direct. The Tolle article is now wikilinked to the section. I have left the non-promotional videos Tolle's appearance at the summit and the New Earth page for Oprah Book Club and the webcast archive. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

  • Oprah Book Club link (1): GregCalletta = Keep, Keithbob and Vyeh = Remove. So the consensus is to remove it.
  • Oprah Archive of Tolle Webcast link (1): Gregcalletta, Vyeh and Keithbob agree this one can remain.
  • Vancouver Summit links (2): Gregcalleta = Keep, Keithbob, WhatamIdoing = Remove, So again the consensus is to remove these links-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

LRP Publications

Resolved

Could someone take a look and comment on the excessive external links being added without explanation here LRP Publications thank you TeapotgeorgeTalk 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed, removing |external links=July 2010 from article and adding {{resolved}} here. jonkerz♠ 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IMBD as EL

Because the web site IMBD is user based with little or no editorial oversight, it is not considered by Wiki standards to be a reliable source. This begs the question: Is the IMBD web site considered to be a legitimate External Link for BLP's? For other articles? I would say no, but would like the input of others. Any thoughts or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean IMDB? Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually treat IMDB links on a case-by-case basis, with the majority of IMDB links being appropriate. I find that most usually offer some good information that can't be duplicated within the article, unless the IMDB link isn't about the subject of the article. For example, we link to the IMDB page on the movie Jaws from our article on the movie (rightly so) but not on our articles about the Jaws franchise, the novel which inspired the movie, or Steven Spielberg the director (although we link to his own page on IMDB). There are some cases where I found links that supersede the material hosted on IMDB, but this isn't common. Also, we are allowed to link externally to sites which are not reliable sources, but they cannot be used to reference any information within the article. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
External links do not necessarily have to be completely "reliable sources" in the strict Wikipedia sense, they only need to be considered accurate and relevant enough to be useful to the reader. I think for a movie article to link to the corresponding article on IMBD is fairly acceptable, though it could not be used to verify a fact within the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blog postings that are not COI

I have had an external link deleted from a cuisine related page [16] that was marked as a link to a recipe and linked to a blog posting of mine. It was deleted by another editor due to a perception of COI. I do not feel that posting a non-commercial link that merely lists non-copyrighted recipe as having any conflict with any Wikipedia rules, despite ELNO#10, as there is just a stated desire to "avoid" rather than to not allow. The posting in question is HERE The information is relevant and useful to quote others above. Thanks Aktormedic (talk) aktormedic —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

I read a lot of food blogs. There are a huge number of food blogs. There has to be an exceptional reason to link any of them to a page, and I'm afraid that I can't see that for your blog. I note you added it to two of our articles. Please don't do this again. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain the reason that 90% of the cuisine articles are also linked to blog or commercial postings then. Inconsistency in rule application is ridiculous. Aktormedic (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just not possible for every problem to be fixed in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any given time. It's not at all possible for anyone to track every edit ever made. If you see a problem, you should be bold and fix it, not suggest that us not getting to it yet is "inconsistency in rule application" when, in fact, the only person likely to know the problem exists is the person who caused the problem in the first place (and that's under the assumption that they knew they were doing something wrong, which they probably didn't). Many, many edits slip by. That's not an inconsistency in rule application, that's the nature of the project. --132 02:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for EcoliWiki links

First and foremost, I apologize for appearing to be a spammer!! As a new user, I wasn't aware that I would be immediately tagged as such when I tried to add external links, though now I completely understand why!! The editor who removed the link from the insertion sequences page suggested I begin a discussion on this page since I have what was described as a valid reason for an exception (see User talk:Brenleymcintosh). I am a post-doc at Texas A&M Univ and have added content about the mobile genetic elements, including the insertion sequences and transposons, of the bacterium Escherichia coli to EcoliWiki (http://ecoliwiki.net). EcoliWiki is a central resource for scientists working on Escherichia coli, its plasmids, phages and mobile genetic elements. The information I added is all properly referenced and is meant as a detailed summary of information about IS elements & Transposons particularly in E. coli, including information that is currently not available on Wikipedia and (to me) seems overly specific, including the exact coordinates of each IS element in each of the sequenced laboratory E. coli strains. EcoliWiki is working on mapping these onto the genomes that are already on EcoliWiki (http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/Category:E._coli_genomes). Would it be ok to put back the links to the mobile genetic elements, transposons and insertion sequences from EcoliWiki? If not, can I put links to each transposon or insertion sequence (for example, http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/IS1 )? This seems less useful to me since there are 12 IS elements and 5 transposons (with others still to be added) in E. coli. Again, I am so sorry I popped up as a spammer and thanks for your consideration on this!! Brenleymcintosh (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding quickly and politely. I think this needs discussion with a suitable WP:WikiProject. Pick an article and look at the boxes on the top of the talk page. Post a short message on the talk page of the WikiProject explaining what you want to do (how many pages?) and that you have been reverted, and ask whether others think the links are useful.
See LinkSearch ecoliwiki.net and LinkSearch ecoliwiki.org (same wiki). Also Portal:Gene Wiki. Strangely, there is List of biological wikis which shows that it might not be feasible to have each external wiki add links from articles here, even if they were helpful.
I haven't looked in detail at your links, but generally we would not link to a category on Wikipedia, so linking to a category at another wiki might not be suitable. Advice from content experts (WikiProject) is needed. If you do get positive agreement to add links, please make a wikilink to the agreement in your edit summary (ask on my talk page if you want ideas for that). Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You may want to discuss on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics which appears rather more active than the alternative of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Help. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And, if nobody at those projects seems to be paying attention (I'd give them a couple of days), then you could try leaving a note at the doctors' mess, which is perhaps the most active science-related group of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is a site still official if it exists only in an internet archive?

Concerning Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#External links, up until the beginning of the month, the sections of the Official Site could still be accessed by entering the address directly, e.g. "www.firaxis.com/smac/game.cfm" (note that this is the link for footnote 14 in this diff; the root, "www.firaxis.com/smac", was not available). I have been using the internet archive because the root was not available and I have made it clear under the External Links that the official site is no longer currently hosted. Does anyone have an opinion? (Am I being excessively cautious in noting the site is no longer hosted? Is it still an official site?) There is a lot of material there that will contribute to an encyclopedic understanding (we are moving away from "in-universe" material and focusing more on "real-universe" material, e.g. development history and contributions to later games). Please note that at this point there is only one external link, although I have been considering adding an extensive online strategy guide (perhaps as a replacement) for readers interested in more "in-universe" gameplay details. Vyeh (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted EL on "Hinge" Page

The wikipedia hinge page is lacking in information in a large number of areas. The EL http://www.hingedummy.info was recently taken down by an editor. I believe it should be reinstated since the wiki page is sorely lacking in information and the EL covers a lot of the info that should be present. I would be interested to hear other editors opinions on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like spamming against a coi that goes back four years or so, followed by some sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you will look at the screw talk page, the deletion of the hinge page EL, which was deemed sufficient by many wikipedia editors for over a year, was a personal attack. Please look further into this matter as I do not believe Ronz has.

It's nice, but that's not enough. It's selling hardware, and that's another reason it shouldn't be linked anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has an advertisement in the side bar, which leads to a site where hardware can be purchased, but every site on the web has some sort of advertisement or promotion. The ads do not interfere with the encyclopedic reading at all. Please explain what is "not enough?" The website is the most comprehensive coverage of the hinge on the entire internet. What more do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This debate comes down to one question....Are Wiki editors more concerned about possible "spam" than their readers? Because Hingedummy is the most informative site about hinges on the entire internet, a statement of fact, no hyperbole, and the Wiki community as a whole would benefit from this link being included without a doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So, are Wiki editors more concerned about possible "spam" or about providing valuable information to their readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a commercial vessel. As for the statement about providing valuable information to the readers, that's what this entire encyclopedia is for. If there is information there that isn't here, your primary goal should be to add it, not to link to an outside website. This is not a linkfarm. As it stands, this site is both redundant and commercial. You've been told why we shouldn't link to it by multiple editors on multiple pages. All of your edits to the project have been your persistence on keeping the link and your tenaciousness in removing links in other articles to make a point. This behavior does appear to indicate a conflict of interest on this subject and I suggest you take a step back and focus on other efforts for a while. --132 21:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That should be the primary goal, but a great secondary goal is to add the valuable information through an EL until someone provides the information on the Wiki page. I am aware Wiki is not a commercial vessel, no one said it is or is advocating for edits that are of this nature in this discussion. Please explain how the site is redundant? The hinge page on Wiki has practically no information at all, its nearly impossible to be redundant if that is what you're referring to. If your calling hingedummy redundant in general, you are just flat wrong and being insincere. The site has a wide variety of important information, this is a matter of fact, and is hardly up for debate. Yes, it is commercial as is every other site on the web that has at least one advertisement on a page or promotoes a person, brand, name, trademark, etc in any number of words (this includes almost the entire internet). Now to the COI issue, it is funny how every time someone posts multiple times concerning a subject, cries of COI begin to come in from Wiki editors. Yet, the other people that post multiple times discussing the issue, making or changing edits, are in no way, shape, manner or form, COI themselves. Only the person that Wiki disagrees with could possibly have a COI. Instead of debating on the real issues, Wiki all too often cries COI.

As far as my EL link edits, I am just enforcing your own policies. Can I not enforce Wiki policies that were explained to me on the screw talk page? I am only trying to help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a few edits that raise COI flags, it's all of your edits. You've not made a single edit to this encyclopedia that didn't revolve around getting this link in or trying to make a point by deleting other links (quite a few of which were perfectly valid). That behavior is disruptive and yes, it does indicate a conflict of interest. It is also indicative of tendentious editing. Again, I suggest you step back and focus your attention on other efforts for a while. --132 16:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
IP now blocked for 55 hours as sock of Dlawless (talk · contribs), so the COI is clear now. He's removed a few ELs but I concur with the removal, eg a forum, an even more obvious sales site. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a surprise. Removals like this are obviously inappropriate as it wiped the links to Commons and Wictionary. I know it was later fixed, but it's a symptom of the haphazard "must. remove. other. links." reaction. --132 17:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he made one inappropriate edit, but that was fixed and he was informed of the policy (not deleting entire section) quite quickly and followed the rules from then on. The other EL removals seem to be completely by Wiki Guidelines, the burden is on the person wanting to include the link, not the editor. I see no reason why the EL deletions should be undone. Again, the burden is on the editor wanting to include them. You guys need to prove that the links are valid on the pages discussion forum and receive a consensus from other editors to include them. Please follow policy next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.228.28 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

28 links in an article

Please someone take a look at Cheryl Dunn, which I think even without the 28 links looks too much like advertising. I removed most of them but editors say (on my talk page) they are 'relevant' and the article's creator. whose only edits are to this article, has replaced them all. Perhaps some more input would convince this editor that I'm not doing this just to be nasty to the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I pruned it down to four and left a message on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute as to linking to declassified material

There is currently a debate going on at an article talk page as to whether or not leaked U.S. government documents are able to be linked to in its appropriate article. Some editors are implying that linking to it provides a method for further analyzing the subject in question, while others are opposed to it as they believe that the material is on copyright grounds, and thus should not be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. We would all appreciate a third perspective on this matter. Thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what's currently written in the external links policy, practice in these types of cases is that the link will stay in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well "AnmaFinotera" over at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#.22illegal.22 would be an example of an editor who disagrees.Bdell555 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
She doesn't seem to know very much about the context. Wikileaks is a reliable source for the Afghan War Diary, because not only is the website the publisher for the documents, but the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel have all deemed the documents as genuine and accurate. Therefore, the War Diary-dedicated section of the site is a reliable source. I'm not sure what exactly she meant by saying "nor a valid external link per the existing guidelines", however. In my opinion, the link should stay unless Wikipedia is specifically asked by the government to remove the link; otherwise, we are not in the wrong as much as any other website linking to the documents, which we all know is many. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a reliable source issue. We don't link to copyright violations and then just wait for the government or a lawyer to ask us to remove it. We instead have policies. While conceding that in this particular case the link could stay, the issue is underdeveloped policy. If it reflects badly on Wiki to link to websites that don't license their images, we shouldn't be linking to websites that steal their material, unless other news media reckons there is a public interest in the disclosure.Bdell555 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I now beg to differ. Not once, not twice, not thrice, not even four times. I could probably find over ten examples in a few more minutes of torrent sites, illegal download programs and clients linked in Wikipedia articles. Some times you just have to ignore Wikipedia policy. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that documents produced by the United States government or employees of the United States government acting in an official capacity are not usually protected by copyright. The only complaint with possible merit is that the documents were illegally obtained and that hosting or linking to the documents may be a criminal act. But that's a matter for WP:OFFICE and no one seems interested in taking the matter up there. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case why don't we throw out all of that WP:BLP policy and all of that copyvio related policy and just leave it all to WP:OFFICE. The fact is that if something is stamped with a C that has a circle around it, Wikipedia takes that seriously. But if stamped SECRET by a democratically elected government, that means NOTHING? This cannot just be dismissed out of hand. There has to be an argument about why Wikipedia protects copyright holders with reams of policy but has nothing protecting governments with a legitimate interest in security.Bdell555 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright protection persists even in the face of infringement, but state secrecy is generally vitiated by public dissemination. Wikipedia would never be an appropriate venue to release state secrets, but once they are published and widely distributed by other reliable sources, the secrecy claims are largely moot. I don't see how there could be any additional significant harm by Wikipedia linking to these documents after many major newspapers have already done so. Dragons flight (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we are in general agreement here in that "after many major newspapers have already done so" is key. The problem is that there are currently no Wikipedia policies that would preclude "state secrets" being released here, and/or for Wikipedia taking a leading role in "widely distributing".Bdell555 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thing is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't distribute leaks, we don't find leaks, we simply report and document leaks for historical and encyclopaedic purposes. Rest assured, if ever someone were to leak document information directly on Wikipedia, it would be removed as soon as possible. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
By what policy would it be removed if it were a state secret? I happen to agree that Wikipedia is, or ought to be, a tertiary source, and indeed that is why I am opposed to direct link(s) when secondary sources have exercised their editorial discretion to make such links and have decided against direct link(s).Bdell555 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If a state secret were to be directly published on Wikipedia, then it would be removed per WP:OR. If an article was made and linked to a leak before mass media reported on it, the article would be generally sourced by a primary source, and thus could be in violation of WP:PRIMARY, in itself violating WP:OR again. Again, the decisions of other media outlets do not reflect on ours. Unless we have a specific request from the US Government or the state of Florida to remove informational links to leaked material, we are under no obligation to remove them. Anything else? Because this is just going into circles. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:OR would serve to keep a state secret off Wikimedia Commons but I'll grant that I should have specified and distinguished the Commons from Wikipedia. There is a discussion underway on the Commons about "controversial content" and I should have raised the issue over there. re "the decisions of other media outlets do not reflect on ours", I note that you say this in the same paragraph that you say whether "mass media reported on it" or not is relevant to whether a Wikipedia article should be deleted or revised. Fact is that the decisions of other media DO matter in that they create the material that allows Wikipedia to go with preferred secondary sources instead of primary. Consistent with that philosophy is following the lead of the secondary sources with respect to how to treat the primary. When the Wikimedia project is not following, it is pursuing its own agenda. In any case, I will grant the discussion is indeed at an end when one party starts to simply declare "this is how it is and how it is going to be."Bdell555 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's more than merely "one party". Bdell, you have put forward your passionate arguments on multiple pages, and you have absolutely failed to gain any sort of consensus that Wikipedia needs this kind of policy at all, much less that any specific change should be made.
Additionally, based on your comments above, you might want to review the structure of the WMF projects. Decisions on the English Wikipedia do not affect any other Wikipedias, and they certainly do not change policies at Commons, or at Meta -- and, FYI, the discussion you link above is at Meta, not Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would challenge your assessment of Wikipedia's "consensus" on the matter by inviting you to head over here and explain, as a response to my observations about Wikileaks' BNP membership list leak, how you would distinguish a unanimous precedent that was decided by ArbCom. Bdell555 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A 2006 ArbCom case about individual Wikipedians WP:OUTING other Wikipedians offwiki has no bearing on whether an external link to a notable website with zero information about Wikipedians is acceptable in the main namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So it is "unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy" if the info is about a "Wikipedian" and just fine if it is someone else? What is so special about Wikipedians that they have superior rights to privacy?Bdell555 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Providing private information about a Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia can interfere with Wikipedia's normal work. Imagine, for example, a person with a psychotic illness or a sexually transmitted infection: WP:OUTING that editor's private medical information could lead to disruption on Wikipedia (e.g., discussions about whether Wikipedia wants 'that kind of person' as an editor, accusations of rudeness, efforts to topic-ban an editor who has done nothing wrong on the basis of personal medical history, etc). The same type of information, disclosed about a person not editing Wikipedia, has no similar effect. The goal of WP:OUTING, WP:CIVIL, and similar standards for editors' behavior is to avoid disrupting the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

British nationality law and NGOs

Is the link to "CAMPAIGNS" (Children And Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation) appropriate on this page? Gabbe (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It looks basically like a personal website, not like a major organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to my video documentary removed, how could this be?

I have tried to add to the Anita DeFrantz page and entered a link to my YouTube documentary on her as a reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsFSxS_H54. This documentary won 1st place in the 2006 California State History Day finals (Junior Documentary Division)and went on to the Nationals. Ms. Ms. DeFrantz' has also been gracious to put it on her website. I wanted others interested in her story to be able to see it and to have access to the information contained in it. Does anyone know why it was removed and what can I do about it? Thanks, Siegen McKellar —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimSeagull (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read the following relevant pages: WP:COI (there is a conflict of interest here as you've admitted that this is your video, even if your intentions are in the right place), WP:OR and WP:RS (it's nice that it won an award, but as you created the documentary and are not a published expert on the topic, it can't be included as it is original research and not a reliable source (even if the sources you used may be)), and WP:YOUTUBE. Again, I realize your intentions are good, but we just can't include this video simply because your intentions are good. There has to be some extraordinary reason to include it and I just can't find one here. Sorry. --132 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've gone to your edits to look them over, anther relevant page would be WP:PROMO as your wording was highly promotional in nature. You didn't simply tack the URL on to a statement as a reference, you actively promoted it by talking about the award it won, who made it (despite not being an expert), adding unsourced statements that may or may not be sourced in the video, and using wording like "is now available on YouTube." --132 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to Amazon.com

An editor has added books to the "further reading" section of History of Greece with links to Amazon.com. I've tried pointing to ##5 and 15 of WP:ELNO on their talk page, but they insist that the links as formed meet Wikipedia guidelines. Little help? RJC TalkContribs 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon and other commercial sites are not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia unless they are the topic of the article (ie: a link to amazon.com would be fine only on Amazon.com). --132 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting excuse the editor is using, free excerpt and text search. Which Amazon offers because it helps them sell their books (and you have to log in to your account to use it). But I wouldn't revert his edits calling them vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's not vandalism. Someone else reverted them that way. I would have done it myself without the vandalism tag, but I had already reverted three times. RJC TalkContribs 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wiki rules say not to link to a page whose primary purpose is to sell things. But that allows links to pages that have an incidental purpose. In the case of "further reading" we are in fact recommending commercial products--books--primarily because they are the the basis of many RS --indeed the foundation for many of our articles-- and are a service to our readers. It's alarmist to see something negative in the possibility that an individual or library might purchase a book Wikipedia uses and recommends.Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The primary purpose of Amazon.com is to sell stuff. Ergo, links to Amazon.com are to be avoided. Your noncommercial intention of linking to Amazon does not alter Amazon's rationale for creating pages on books with "buy me" buttons. RJC TalkContribs 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, I appreciate your good intentions here. Is there a particular reason why you feel that providing an ISBN link for each book would not have sufficed in these cases? The standard Wikipedia ISBN interface would provide the reader with links to both Google Books or Amazon.com for text access; is there some reason you feel that it was appropriate to favor Amazon in this case? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The ISBN links are useful and cover all books. Only a limited number of newer titles are covered by the text search and excerpt provisions in Amazon and Google.com. Simple links to the ISBN will not tell the users that they should go to Amazon or Google because this resource is available to them there. Verifiability using RS is a very high priority for Wikipedia, and in history articles the main source of verification is going to be books. Sometimes one of the editors has a copy of the book; most of the time they do not. Verification of a statement in the article that references a specific book is therefore very difficult, but it's made much more feasible by the use of text search engines in Amazon and Google. In summary, the Amazon and Google links benefit the users, librarians, and especially the Wikipedia editors. Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, and I agree with you to a considerable extent, but my specific question here is whether there was a reason you thought it appropriate to favor Amazon.com here, rather than the less overtly promotional environment of Google Books (where, for example, they usually provide links to multiple sellers rather than just one).--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
in terms of policy, I think links to Amazon and Google have the same status. Personally, I find Amazon slightly easier to use. Amazon links to far more book sellers. For example, one of my "further reading" items that started this controversy was Boardman, John, et al. The Oxford History of Greece & the Hellenistic World (2002) excerpt and text search. click on the link and notice that Amazon sells the book, but also links to 57 other dealers, most of them small independent bookshops. Google does not sell the book, and instead links to only two book dealers, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Both Amazon and Google also have very valuable book reviews on their pages; Amazon has reader contributed book reviews, which Google lacks. All in all, I believe these free features are a very valuable resource for Wikipedia editors and that linking to them is a positive service. Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In short, you are totally wrong. Your are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to use our process for amending guidelines and policies, but you are not welcome to edit war against consensus to include things clearly against the EL policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, ELNO bans links to pages if the page's primary purpose is selling things, regardless of what the editor's primary purpose is for providing the link. All links to books at Amazon.com have a primary purpose of selling books. If this needs to be clarified (i.e., editors of good will are honestly likely to hold different opinions about the rule's intent after a discussion), please leave a note at WT:EL.
IMO in this instance the ISBN magic words are sufficient. Readers who like Amazon (or Google Books, or their local libraries, or...) can certainly scroll down the page and click the links they like best instead of the many other options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Books and works should be linked by ISBN and similar identifier. When you can't find it, (rare works, especially those prior to the 1960s) you could use {{ASIN}}. It's allowable, but really only when non-commercial links aren't available. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to Alex Jones's websites

In the article on Alex Jones, people keep posting links to his websites under the website subsection. While it's no big deal and I can remove them, the complaint I have is that I have removed the links several times in the past. It appears some editors keep adding the links in the article when they know it's a violation of policy. The links belong and are appropriate in the external links and infobox areas, but not in the heart of the article. These editors should know better.  Burningview  ✉ 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the links (they are already in the External Links section). You should consider deleting the sentence "The best known of these sites are www.infowars.com and www.prisonplanet.com," as it is just begging have a link (or maybe it could be rewritten to say InfoWars and PrisonPlanet. In any event, there needs to be a source that says these are the best known sites. You might consider dropping a note about external links not being in the body of the article to any editor that adds such a link. Vyeh (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to political 'anti-blogs'

I deleted the link to CoupeDeval.com in the External links section of Deval Patrick as it's one of the usual 'anti-blogs' which seem to exist for all politicians but which we don't include. I considered it clearly Wikipedia:ELBLP, so I didn't expect the deletion to be controversial. As it's been re-listed (and I received a snarky message on my Talk page about it), I leave it to you. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blogs in general shouldn't be included unless they are written by the person the article is about. Blogs attacking a WP:BLP-protected topic should never be included, even more so when the blog/site isn't even notable in the first place (Alexa). If there is legitimate criticism about him, there will be plenty of reliable sources that can be used to cite information within the article. --132 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it and left an explanatory note at the article's talk page. If it continues to be a problem, we can always send it to WP:WPSPAM for blacklisting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Want to make sure my external links are okay

I'm new to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. I have a blog, www.grandpasipod.com /, on which I am posting audio files of radio programs from the 1940s. Some of this audio is previously unknown and unavailable elsewhere. I had the idea of posting links to relevant programs on Wikipedia pages that relate to them. For example, I have a recording that was conducted by Andre Kostelanetz. I put a link to that program in the external links section of his Wikipedia page. I did the same with the Wikipedia pages for Archie Bleyer, Buddy Childers and Cafe Rouge (Hotel Pennsylvania). Now I'm afraid I'm going to be labeled a spammer.

Are these links appropriate, or should I remove them? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangenuer (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the note. Unfortunately, the external links guideline generally directs that we avoid adding links. This is certainly not a slight against your site, but simply a reflection of the fact that there are literally millions of possible links for all of the different subject we cover. Additionally, any links to old radio programmes would also need to address the issue of copyright. However, there are certainly many, many ways in which you can contribute to the site. I would be happy to explain this in greater detail if you like. --Ckatzchatspy 00:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You might like to read WP:PROMO for some standard advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are not getting any monetary gain, and as long as no copyrights are being violated, I think links to some of these programmes could be quite useful. However, you probably shouldn't go posting external links everywhere that you think qualifies. It might be better to let people in groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz know about the site, and let them work with you to decide which ones to use. Kingturtle (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Refspam

This is not directly an EL question, but I hope people won't mind giving suggestions for how to deal with Provisioning#Server provisioning which includes the spam magnet "There are many software products available to automate the provisioning of servers, services and end-user devices from vendors such as Stratavia, Sigma Systems,[2] BladeLogic, IBM,[3] or HP." These four edits added the Sigma Systems item. Would it be too bold to remove the whole sentence? I was inclined to list the companies in order of my guess at company prominence, while removing the two references, which could be regarded as WP:REFSPAM. However, IBM is so big, that there is no clear mention on Wikipedia of the product identified in the IBM reference, so that is a good reason for keeping it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't think it would be an issue for removal. The sentence itself is pretty promotional in tone. If I were to have stumbled on the page, I would have removed it, whether or not I knew the issues surrounding it. --132 03:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd kill the links as refspam, too. Have you considered leaving the first, rather generic part of the sentence, and just removing the "from vendors such as" parts? Or is "software exists" not WP:DUE or encyclopedic in your opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all. Someone has removed the recent addition, and my inclination is to leave the others (established text) for now, but will watch and perhaps remove list if necessary later. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Google books overview being used as a link

At Mitanni a Google Books overview page is being used as below:

Besides the fact that there is some edit-warring and sanction breaking involving Armenian related issues here, I've reverted it (and it's been replaced) because I can't see how it meets WP:EL and the fact that the page doesn't seem to even mention the Mitanni or Armenians (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

xkcd link on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)

Hi I'm posting here to seek consensus regarding link to xkcd on this page. I've dealt with many external links and to me this clearly doesn't meet WP:EL, not by a long stretch, but there is one user who is pretty adamant about retaining it. His response to me was hardly constructive so I'm bringing it here for review. For the sake of convenience please try to keep the discussion on this page for now since the discussion was uncoordinated the last time this link was discussed. ThemFromSpace 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed ad-nauseum on the relevant talk page. It didn't come to the decision that ThemFromSpace and his friends liked so they created a fake summary, harassed me on my talk page, and then used an anonymous IP to edit war away the text..- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My natural inclination is to remove stuff like this, but there is no need to be over zealous. The article is perfectly encyclopedic (as are, I think, its other links), so this one xkcd link is not just "more junk". I am not going to express a keep/remove opinion, but suggest the matter be left to the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper, as a procedural point, WP:ELBURDEN says that any disputed link is removed unless/until there is a consensus to include it. So your recent comments on the talk page are exactly backwards: If the discussion closed as 'no consensus', then the link should normally be removed.
I'd like to see editors at that page reach a solution that they can all live with, where "live with" means that we don't see complaints about it every couple of months. IMO the link is neither prohibited nor required by the guidelines. It's in that mushy middle space, which means that editors need to get out their Best Editorial Judgment, keeping firmly in mind that whatever the outcome, it's Not the End of the World.
And if consensus really can't be reached, then I'd like to remind you all that there are more than three million articles out there, and a bunch of serious spam that needs attention from experienced editors (i.e., all of you). I'm sure you all could easily find something more productive to do than to argue over one borderline link. (Twenty years from now, will anyone here be glad that we spent several more irreplaceable hours arguing about this link?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that works more your way than mine. I actually helped write the article, and me and others that helped write the article are generally much more likely to know what's best for the article. If you reread the discussion about this, most of the people that helped build the article support the presence of the link, and disagree with your claim that it doesn't meet WP:EL. It's the people that swung over from here, that probably don't entirely understand or necessarily even have read the article that are voting for removal, and they are resorting to what can probably best be described as 'dirty tricks' to try to force its removal. Particularly when there's evidence of vote stuffing the wikipedia is not a place where we simply count votes, and your arguments are simply not as strong. I'm pretty clued up on policy and guidelines and I genuinely don't know of a single policy that permits you to exclude this link.- Wolfkeeper 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:ELBURDEN plainly says, "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them." This is the community's view, even if it's not written on a page that says "policy" at the top of it. (You might need to read WP:PGE.)
I don't happen to feel strongly about this particular link: it's not blatant spam, after all. IMO it contributed less information than the lead of the article -- which means it fails WP:ELNO #1 -- but perhaps someone else would see value that I don't (e.g., a visual learner).
None of this changes the actual facts, which are that the link is disputed, and that standard operating procedure is to remove links unless and until there is a consensus to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just a content guideline; the actual policy is WP:CONSENSUS and it says that: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.
In other words you don't get roll into an article, claim its not consensus, fail to get consensus to remove it, and then remove it anyway because 'it's not consensus' because you say so. Consensus is the arbiter of what goes and what stays, and you don't have it.- Wolfkeeper 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I found out that you were the person that added this incredibly dubious part of the guideline.[17] Give that it is at odds with the Wikipedias major policies, and given that you appear to have added this deliberately as a way of removing external links that you personally disagree with, I award you a WP:TROUT slap.- Wolfkeeper 22:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I added that section -- after a formal proposal, more than a month's notice, and multiple editors strongly supporting the addition. WP:ELBURDEN is the community's consensus on this point, just like WP:BURDEN is the community's consensus about putting information into an article. If you have concerns about it, you are welcome to start a discussion on the guideline's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Given the self-evident way you're abusing the guideline I'm going to have to start a formal process to have it removed. In meantime it's overridden by WP:CONSENSUS anyway. Removal of established material and links without consensus is clearly abusive. I'm even considering starting an RFC on you; this is not how things are done here.- Wolfkeeper 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to propose changes to WP:ELBURDEN, then you need to propose them at WT:EL. If you want to start an RFC/U, I recommend that you read the summary and the more detailed directions, and consider the implications of the long-standing statement, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to propose changes to WP:CONSENSUS that would let you remove things in the absence of consensus, please go right ahead. In the meantime, the RFC failed, and a single sentence cobbled together by a few people and stuffed at the end of a minor guideline doesn't override one of the key policies of the wikipedia and the link is therefore staying in.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So, what, exactly, is the big deal here? It looks like ELMAYBE #4 fits, but the link is certainly neither essential nor harmful to the page. Chill, please? And dispute the links, not the process or personalities, hmm? Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
See the the RFC which was essentially a no consensus. Wolfkeeper here is arguing that the lack of consensus meant that the article should retain the link (due to the fact that this is how the article was prior to the RFC), while I and WhatamIdoing and others find that this means the link should be removed. The most recent actions: It was removed in mid-February by an IP, readded a week later, and subsequently removed. That portion of the article has been stable since. Wolfkeeper here essentially unilaterally readded the link a half week ago, and his talk page contributions[18][19] do not paint the restoring edit in good light, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement over removing the link per the reasons given above. While the link doesn't hurt, it also doesn't help. It's a comic. It's not a news article or an academic paper. While I understand the creator is educated and has a loyal, hard-core following, that doesn't make it magically appropriate. It just looks out of place on an encyclopedia that is supposed to be formal in tone. By the way, as someone not educated on the subject (though I am a fan of the comic series in general), I have no idea wtf is going on in it. There's no explanation given or more material to read through. If I wasn't aware of the comic's popularity, I would assume it was linked to as some sort of prank by a linkspammy vandal. --132 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the wikipedia and it works by changes requiring consensus. The RFC to remove it failed to achieve consensus.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The RfC was months ago, the consensus here is clearly against including this link. ThemFromSpace 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Really? On WP:ELN whose unofficial motto is: we never saw an external linked we liked!. How surprising! Are you going to do all future discussions of all links here in a kangaroo court as well, without notifying anyone on the relevant pages prior to the discussion?- Wolfkeeper 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Really. Attacking other editors doesn't change the fact. --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=1211536128"