Wikipedia talk:External links

Archives

Sorted by subject /workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite YouTube discussions Sorted by date Archive 1: 2003 - 2005 Archive 2: January 2005 - March 2006 Archive 3: April - July 2006 Archive 4: July - August 2006 Archive 5: August 2006 Archive 6: August - September 2006 Archive 7: September - October 2006 Archive 8: October 2006 Archive 9: October - November 2006 Archive 10: November 2006 Archive 11: November - December 2006 Archive 12: December 2006 Archive 13: December 2006 II Archive 14: January 2007 Archive 15: January-March 2007 Archive 16: March-May 2007 Archive 17: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 18: June 2007 - August 2007 Archive 19: August 2007 - February 2008 Archive 20: February 2008 - April 2008 Archive 21: April 2008 - May 2008

Chat boards

An editor at People's General (a video game?) has objected to the removal of his internet discussion forum from the external links. In addition to wanting his own site listed, he adds that other potentially objectionable sites are also included (downloads, and until recently, another chat board). If any of you have an interest in this, please consider reviewing the remaining links in the article, or putting this article on your watchlist. -- WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, April 1, 2008 (UTC)

Commercial links always bad?

This guideline seems to suggest that commercial links are allways bad, regardless of how much general information they may contain. Is this right? Example: I now have two editors telling me that this commercial link must go from Indoor bonsai. I think not, arguing it is meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article and that I cannot find a comparable, non-commercial site about Schefflera as bonsai. Stays or goes? Emmanuelm (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link, and it took five full screen scrolls to get past the merchandising/advertising and down to links to what are presumably more informative/instructional pages. While it may be appropriate to link to a relevant subpage of that site from an article, I find that the main page of the site to be entirely inappropriate per WP:ELNO, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:SPAM. (Note: I didn't explore the sub-pages so have no immediate opinion on those at this time - just saying they may be more appropriate; I think the community should likely review those on a case-by-case basis.) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there a specific sub-page dedicated to Schefflera that you intended to link to? I agree with Barek; the front page is over-the-top adcopy. There's nothing wrong with content-rich commercial links, but the line between promotional and informative is pretty thin. That one is clearly across the line, in my opinion. If there some deep-linked, topical content, that bypasses the smothering ads, then maybe you could point it out? Kuru ^talk 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to commercial sites can often be appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not. This seems to be a case of the latter. ("*Fukubonsai sale and information about Schefflera arboricola as indoor bonsai"). I gree with Kuru and Barek links to the root domain are promotional additions. Note additions such as this is both inapropriate, and unacceptable as a reference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site or sell products. please remove those links, thanks --Hu12 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion of finding informative, non-commercial subpages. There was in fact a perfect subpage in that site; I edited the articles accordingly.

This being said, I think the "External links" section is sufficiently separate from the articles to allow some commercial content. I disagree with Hu12's accusation that I "promote a site" or "sell a product" when linking to the only reliable source on the web on one very specific subject, which happens to be commercial. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The actions of improving or maintaining Wikipedia should not be confused with adding external links. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic content on subjects, not to provide a repository of external links - other sites such as dmoz exist for that purpose. No policy or guideline guarantees or mandates that an external links section be included.

Also, keep in mind that ignore all rules is not a permit to do whatever you wish - accountability still remains. Be sure to review what "Ignore all rules" means before using IAR to justify any actions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual material when one gets to it seems excellent & noncommercial and possibly unique on the web. . Unfortunately the site creator has foolishly set it all up a single url, and I can not figure out how to link to the specific parts. An explanation in the link would help: .url and click on such and such at the end of the page. DGG (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see some people argue that because a company exists primarily to sell stuff, therefore the "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" clause mandates removing all links to company web sites. Please clarify this style guideline:

• "Any link to any page of any website of a for-profit company are forbidden, except for the article about that company."? Or
• "Linking to the website of a for-profit company is allowed, as long as the particular page linked to is reliable and informative and noncommercial."?

Which of these options is really intended? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording is what is intended. You are mixing two different concepts - a COMPANY that exists to sell products and a WEBSITE that primarily exists to sell products. They coincidentally will sometimes be the same, but the Pepsi website could have a 15 page essay on the history carbonated sugar drinks. They are still trying to sell Pepsi, but that site section would be full of useful information. Websites with nothing but product pages are not good links; websites that have encyclopedically useful information could be good links, even if some parts of the site also sell products. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear 2005,

Now I am even more confused.

When I am confused by the current wording, and when I try to get clarification I am told "The current wording is what is intended", the only conclusion I can reach is that the current wording is deliberately ambiguous and confusing.

Please forgive me for hoping that is not the case.

And the Pepsi example also confuses me.

The Pepsi web site exists primarily to sell stuff, right?

So does the "external links" guideline absolutely forbid links in any Wikipedia article -- except in the Pepsi article -- to any page in the Pepsi website, or not?

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What confuses you? The wording is clear, and not ambiguous at all. The Pepsi website obviously does not exist primarily to sell stuff. It exists to tell people about the company. You seem to be thinking that the guideline prohibits any website that makes money, even if its content is the Magna Carta. The guideline says no such thing. Websites that provide useful information can be linked to (assuming they meet the rest of the guideline). Websites where the page text is 'click here to buy our stuff" should not be linked? For the most part the distinction is crystal clear. Maybe 2% of the websites out there may fall into a grey area but that is nit picking. 2005 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the phrase "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" ambiguous. Say I find a single page full of useful information, a page that says nothing about buying or selling stuff. But the web site as a whole (including all the pages on the web site) primarily exists to sell stuff. Does that phrase refer to "Links ... that primarily exist to sell products or services", so Wikipedia articles can link to that page? Or does that phrase refer to "... sites that primarily exist to sell products or services", so Wikipedia articles are not allowed to link to that page?

Please adjust the Wikipedia:External links to clarify which is intended. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What we intend is for editors to use their best judgement, in consensus with other editors of a page, in these borderline situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites

Under this heading, please (briefly) list the main guidelines that YouTube & Google Video links would breach. I think that would give a clearer presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've just come here now to suggest that section be altered, and I see that another user (78.86.146.148 above) also feels that it's lacking.

Anyway, I want to propose that an additional sentence be added to the "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites" section. I'm not sure whether what I'm proposing is a shift in policy because, well, to some the policy does not seem clear.

This has come about from a small edit war I've been involved in, detailed here. It was my opinion that Enrique Iglesias's official YouTube channel could be added to the Enrique Iglesias article, but the other editor didn't agree, citing "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites".

I've had this sort of battle a few times before over YouTube links. Often I've just let it pass, because there seems to be this general assumption that YouTube links are not allowed. However, it seems absurd to me that links to article subjects' MySpace pages are permissible (there's even a template), but that links to YouTube are deemed not permissible even though they may be much more useful. In the Enrique Iglesias example, his MySpace page is a mish-mash of adverts, a chatroom, personal messages and so on, whereas his YouTube page takes you straight to videos of his songs. As he is after all a singer, to me the YouTube link is much more useful.

So I propose that a sentence be added to the "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites" section as follows:

"However, links to pages that belong to the article's subject are usually acceptable. For example, it is acceptable to link to a singer's official YouTube channel."

What do people think?--92.40.88.133 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the nature of the proposed link. Is this an official site (under Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked #1)? Or is it basically a "search" on YouTube for anything that's been labeled as involving this performer? (How does a video clip get put into a "channel"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First, to be honest, I didn't look at What should be linked #1, and on the basis of that I now reckon that it's already acceptable to link to someone's official YouTube channel. So I'll go ahead now and re-add the Enrique Iglesias. And fifteen seconds later someone else with Huggle will revert me again.

To clarify: On YouTube, a "channel" is essentially someone's account. So in this specific case, "EnriqueIglesiasPlay" is Iglesias's own personal account that he (or more likely his agents/record company) manages. Thus it's not a search query.

In general, if a YouTube channel/account is someone's official channel/account, I think it should acceptable as an external link, and that the policy wording should be adjusted to make it clearer that this is acceptable.--92.40.56.199 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you, but I don't see the need to change this guideline. It's already permitted under #What should be linked #1. If other editors on the specific page in question disagree with you, then post a note here to ask for support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--92.40.28.147 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I need some help determining if a play list for a Let's play of La-Mulana is valid in the links section of that article. I've kept it up partly in defense of the topics notability, but several users over the past months have simply taken it down (with little or no explanation).Subanark (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlinked domain names

(I posted this back in May, but never received any feedback. The issue is still unsettled and it would be helpful to get some resolution of the dispute, so I'm reposting it to try to get feedback.)

• In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.

A notable person with a large following also has organized opposition. As an example of that opposition, the unlinked domain name of an "anti" website is mentioned. The existence and nature of the website is established with reliable, 3rd-party sources. I don't believe that this guideline has anything to say about such a case. Is a domain name a link even if it's not linked? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WillBeback argues that including the name of a website, "ex-premie.org", in the text rather than the "External Links" section means it isn't a link and is not subject to External Links guidelines or BLP policy. Or that not making it a hyperlink means it isn't a link. It is a link because it connects the reader to a website that is subject to WP:EL and WP:BLP. The arbitration committee have recently decided that "administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy" as per [[1]]. This attempt to circumvent WP:EL and WP:BLP goes against the spirit of both. See also [[2]] as members of this group have been found guilty of illegal actions against followers.Momento (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to make this debate between involved users, but I need to point out that the website in question is not a group. Individual opponents of the biography subject may have performed illegal actions, but that is not relevant to the question of mentioning the existence of the opposition website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Google.com is not a link. This is a link. We aren't here to rewrite the language. Whether soemthing is mentioned in an article is an entirely different issue, but hyperlinks are hyperlinks, not unlinked text. The issue you have isn't appropriate here. 2005 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't a group, then it is one individual and has no place in the article. But it is a hate/extremist group of a dozen or so people who supported, colluded and financially contributed to the legal case which found two members of the group guilty of theft and contempt of court.Momento (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a website that has been listed in a reliable, 3rd-party source as an example of opposition to the subject of the article.[3] There's no reliable, 3rd-party source that says the website belongs to a hate group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion. 2005 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is a discussion for article talk. There is a mediation on this case that is ongoing as well as an open RfC on this specific subject. There is no need for WP:Forum shopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't forum shopping. Momento asserts that simply giving the name of the domain is a violation of WP:EL. We need to establish what this guideline actually means. So far, the only uninvolved editor who has responded has said that a domain name is not the same as a hyperlink. If we all agree on that we can end this conversation now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That argument is silly. Links are links. Text that isn't linked is not a link. This page is only about things that are hyperlinked. 2005 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support User 2005's view: If you have a BLP problem, then go off to WP:BLP/N for help. This guideline really only cares about clickable links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

photo-journal type blog - appropriate in this situation?

For the video game The World Ends with You, which is easily documented to show that much of the game is based on the real-world Shibuya district in Tokyo, a person has found this blog which is pretty much just a game screen-to-real world comparison. Now, the article article already uses one (commons) picture to show this, but I do believe it has a potential benefit to readers; given that it's a photo-blog with minimal WP:OR and other aspects and mainly a means to show the comparisons here, I don't see this being a big problem to include as an EL, barring the general caution against blogs as EL.

Any thoughts on this? Best to avoid it, or can it be included? --MASEM 12:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a solid consensus of editors on the article's talk page, and you can link to the correct posts (instead of just whatever was posted most recently), then the fact that the author uses blogging software can be overlooked under WP:IAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding Jstor links

Dear all, I would like to know if its ok to include links from jstor.org ; the problem is the access to the jstor articles is not available to all, here is a example , even though I can access it and include it in an article, the other users cannot access it. So should I prevent inclusions to the jsor links. Pls let me know, Thanks -- 59.92.157.198 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An external link should generally be available to the general public: see Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration. While it wouldn't be a good external link, a Jstor link would probably be a reasonable reference. - Eureka Lott 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jstor links are (clearly) appropriate as convenience links for references. They are not desirable for external links for exactly the reason you identify. If there is a truly exceptional circumstance -- maybe a link to an original document in an article entirely about that document -- then the occasional Jstor link might be acceptable in external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Link using the digital object identifier, if available. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

Perhaps I'm not explaining it properly or I'm wrong, because I'm not getting through. Are there any reasons why this link I removed should or should not be included? --Squids'n'Chips 14:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. External links should be useful to the general reader, not just players of the game. Players who want to find scripts and tools for playing this web-based game can ask Mr Google about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. You explained it fine.--BelovedFreak 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor arguing WP:EL says forums are allowed on the basis "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article" - rewording needed?

I've got an editor arguing on my talk page that I was wrong to remove a link to a forum[4] about the Great Wall of China because the guideline says "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". I can see why he thinks I've misinterpreted the guideline, maybe that bit needs rewording Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct. This discussion forum does not meet the relevant criteria, which is "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. To cite a contrary example, it would be appropriate for the article on Groupee Forums to have an external link to a forum. I don't think any rewording is needed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a section like this: ==When this guideline appears to contradict itself==

The normal order for evaluating links according to this guideline is:

1. #Restrictions on linking. There are no exceptions to this rule.
2. #What should be linked #1. Unless the link is prohibited under #Restrictions on linking, a link to the official website of any organization, person, or website should always be provided in an article that is directly and primarily about that organization, person, or website.
3. #Links normally to be avoided.
4. The rest of #What should be linked.
5. Links suggested in #Links to be considered.

Alternatively, or additionally, the "confusing" text in ELNO could be removed, since "ELYES" authorizes it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about greatwallforum.com. It's about the Great Wall. Every external link has to be on the topic of the subject. Reading it like the person is, it would render every other word of the guideline obsolete. The line could just be Except for a link to a page that is the official page of the article subject. 2005 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FTR, I support this change as improving clarity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything that discourages support groups and forums has my support, pending approval of exact wording. (In general, if these items are wanted, they should be added via a DMOZ link, see Tourette syndrome for an example.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No change in wording is needed. The user in question (the user that objects to the removal of the forum) is misreading WP:EL as ""Except for a link to a page that is about the subject of the article" instead of ""Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article"". We should not feel compelled to change the wording just because one user did not read the sentence closely enough. Explain to them their error, remove the link if it gets reinserted and move on. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Official site?

I'm sure this has been asked before, although I haven't found it in the archives so far. Is there any easy way of being sure that a website is an official site of a person? I have come across two websites for someone, both of which claim to be official. How can I tell which, if either, really is official? --BelovedFreak 19:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps check news articles about the person; some link to the official website as a "learn more" feature. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Various tools list domain owners, but often the information is obscure. If the person is a celebrity they're unlikely to register a site with their own name and address. Still, it's worth checking. Here's one: http://whois.domaintools.com/. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I will try to do some investigating. The article is Kathy Kirby, and the two sites are http://www.kathykirby.co.uk/ and http://www.kathykirby.me.uk/. One certainly looks more professional, but both claim to be official. Any thoughts? --BelovedFreak 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Website hosting free full text of APA DSM-IV

We shouldn't knowingly link to copyright violations: feedback is needed about this website at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Website hosting free full text of APA DSM-IV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to websites that are not RS

What does this exclude? "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Seems to let almost anything in. Doug Weller (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I support tightening that phrase, although I'm not sure how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The person who introduced the line had some concern about blogs I think, which I never understood, but its in the archives somewhere about six months ago. The way I see it, it redundantly allows expert external links that have a point of view, like a biography of Ronald Reagan on the official Republican party site will have some bias. It could never be used to cite a line like "Reagan was the greatest president ever." But it would be fine to have that POV as an external link. However, in this case the official Republican site would be a reliable source for some things, like Reagan's birthday. I think such links are already allowed by the guideline so I'd get rid of this line as it just seems like an invitation to let everything in. 2005 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This rule still excludes everything in WP:ELNO. The main point is to codify the fact that external links do not have to meet WP:RS standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding duplication of links

The section Wikipedia:EL#References and citation currently states:

Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations.

I have two questions/requests:

1. I'd like verification that this is merely a directive to not use the "External links" section as a repository of citation links that should instead be placed inline with the fact that requires citation, thus appearing in the "References" section in a properly-formatted article.
2. I'd like verification that this does not mean that links to cites in the "References" section cannot also be included within the "External links" section if necessary. For example, a link may be used to cite a specific fact, but may also contain information of use in a wider context. In this case, it would be more useful to the reader in the "External links" section (where it will not be buried with 116 other cites), yet it must also be listed within the "References" section to verify the aforementioned fact.

I guess my question can be reduced down to: does this wording mean that links used as citations cannot also be included in the "External links" section? I'm happy with my interpretation that it does not mean this, but it has been questioned. Thanks in advance for any replies, Steve ^{T • C} 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally you should not duplicate. Normally if a page is a source it should not be an external link also. I'd personally say "never" when it comes to the same URL, but if somesite.com/page.html is a reference I can see how sometimes somesite.com could also be an external link, but that should be rare. 2005 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The example that Steve cites is Rotten Tomatoes. We directly cite a film's web page for the overall reception of a film by film critics, and the web page also has an abundance of links to reviews that the reader can explore. Would that kind of duplication be OK? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see rottentomates.com in the refs on that page, but yes: you can both cite an official website as a reference and list it in the external links in the article that is about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikias

I've noticed that with the recent or not-so-recent mass deletion and merging of fiction-related articles, most, if not all of the articles being downsized are transwiki'd to Wikia. However according to some users, after the information is transwiki'd the Wikias are not allowed to be linked to because they fail guidelines here. But the reason they fail the EL guidelines is because a majority of the dozens/hundreds/thousands of users who contributed to and read the article on Wikipedia don't know the corresponding Wikia exists to improve upon it. So essentially what is happening here is a few deletionist users have almost complete control of information revelant to thousands of people's interests, treating it like common trash and then sealing off the lid to the trash can. There is something severely wrong here and should really be rectified, discuss. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Disciss what? That you brought an inappropriate rant to this talk page? Your issue is not relevant to this guideline. Please take it to Village pump or somewhere appropriate. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was somewhat uncalled for. This is where I've been directed, according to some Wikias aren't allowed in External Links, therefore my "rant" is appropriate to this guideline. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered about myself. Could someone provide a link to the discussion concerning the inappropriateness of adding Wikis to external links sections? I for one agree that they don't serve much of a purpose, but I'd like to take a look at (and/or link to) the discussion, if it ever actually occurred. Thanks! 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above, including that 'rant' was uncalled for. Norse's point was a bit unfocused, I'll admit. I also note the use of 'deletionist' as a pejorative with disapproval. On the topic of links to wikias, the question is how do we decide what's a "good" wiki to link to, so if we could have some examples of ones that we think are acceptable and some which we think are not, would that help? - brenneman 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to wikis are not prohibited. Only links to open wikis without a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors are prohibited. The only reason for this concern is vandalism. An open wiki that isn't heavily patrolled is easily hijacked by spammers and vandals. We want to link to useful and high-quality resources. A vandalized or spam-filled page is not useful to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely see that as a main reason why links to outside Wikis should be regulated, but the difference between a good, stable Wiki and a bad one is pretty vague and should probably be spelled out a little clearer in this guideline. This entire discussion is based on bits and pieces of User:Collectonian's posts on various talk pages being rather claiming that Wikias can't be linked to in a Wikipedia article, usually pertaining to the Naruto and http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Recentchanges One Piece] Wikias which both seem rather large and decently maintained. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to large, decently maintained, stable Wikis are allowed (assuming, of course, that there are no other objections to them). If several editors agree that the relevant wiki is stable and actively maintained, and that the link in general would be good for the article, and you have just one editor declaring that WP:ELNO prohibits it Wikis entirely, then you can post a link to the article's talk page here and ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content [...] reviews and interviews

I've removed the words such as reviews and interviews from this section, as the section below deals with links to professional reviews. Removing the 'such as' makes the "What should be linked" less proscriptive, and allows for an editor who has good material to link to that is neither a review or an interview. - brenneman 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More proscriptive is the point. Reviews and interviews are good examples because they always have a point of view which is not appropriate for sources, but can be good links. A general link without the examples just opens the door any sort of relevant link. 2005 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change that to say "only" than your argument would be more acceptable. In the absence of that restriction, the clause does nothing to add value. - brenneman 04:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It obviously adds value, even if you don't think it is a positive value. What are you talking about, "only"? 2005 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh... You're saying that it obviously adds value even if it's negative? That's a really odd statement, but to ignore the semantics of "delta value" == "add |vaLue|" or somesuch:

1. The current sentance says "such as" and therefore
2. It refers not only to reviews and interviews but to other material as well.

Your sprinkling of "always" and "opens the door" have me a bit confused by your objection, so can we agree on 1 and 2 above to start? - brenneman 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of having "reviews" listed in either ELYES or ELMAYBE, but not both. I prefer ELMAYBE, and I prefer language that excludes consumer reviews (but not, for example, book reviews written by professionals). Actually, perhaps that whole line should move to ELMAYBE, precisely to keep it from seeming like a blanket authorization.

This confusion, BTW, is what I had in mind when I constructed the "order of interpretation" in the above discussion. ELNO trumps otherwise "meaningful, relevant content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it refers to other things, since the phrase "such as" is used. Please state plainly why you are objecting to examples. You're running in circles here. 2005 (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at this again. WP:ELYES #3 already lists transcripts from interviews. Do we need to repeat "interviews" in the very next criterion in the same section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to Wikimapia

I'd appreciate some help or advice with this. Some other editors and myself brought Brown Dog affair up to FA status last year. In brief, it's an article about a 19th-century statue in London that used to be controversial, and which was dismantled because of the controversy, then replaced with a new one 75 years (or so) later.

Someone created an entry for both statue locations at Wikimapia, with rectangles marking the spots, so that readers in London could visit them if they wanted to. These are the links, which we added to the External links section:

• Location of the modern Brown Dog memorial, Old English Garden, Battersea Park and
• Location of the original Brown Dog memorial (now empty), Latchmere Recreation Ground.

Recently, User:Para and a couple of others turned up to remove these links, and to add Geohack coordinates instead — 51°28′50.34″N 0°9′44.17″W and 51°28′18.47″N 0°9′42.55″W — which when you click on them leads to a list of links of map services.

I restored the links we had before, but left the Geohack links too as a compromise. These are the only map links we have in EL, so it seems to me to be fine to have both.

However, User:Para is insisting that there is a consensus to remove Wikimapia links from all articles on Wikipedia, and as his contribs show, this is all that he does at the moment. He is continually reverting at Brown Dog affair, and says he will continue to revert because only the Geohack link is allowed. [5] He is accusing anyone who wants the Wikimapia links of having a COI, though has not explained why.

Does anyone know whether there is consensus that only Geohack may be used, and where that decision was made? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding hardcoded external map-links is one of the goals of the WikiProject Geographical coordinates and it follows the same rationale why we don't allow direct links to amazon.com or barnesandnobles.com, but instead have ISBNs link to a provider list. Another reason is machine evaluation of geocoded articles, using coordinate templates follows the idea of the semantic web. We have a style for coordinates, and we should consistently use it, an that means no direct links to map-providers. --Dschwen 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer SlimVirgin's questions, Dschwen. There seem to be three:

1. Is there a consensus that only Geohack may be used?
2. If so, where was that decision made?
3. What is the harm with having both a coord (GeoHack) link and a direct link (as a compromise)?

-Arb. (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue again :( Can we turn the question around and ask SlimVirgin what the call is to have the Wikimapia link? What does that provide that the Geohack does not? I can guess - the authors specifically wish to illustrate an aspect of the location that they can only do by showing a picture at a certain resolution, whereas Geohack doesn't zero in on the information they wish to illustrate. Ideally Geohack could be improved to allow users to designate their favorite default mapping service so they don't have to click around each time, and it could accept as optional parameters the article editors' specifications for which service to use and at what resolution / format in the exceptional cases where the authors wish to show something specific. We're not there now, so I don't see a problem having a hard link in special cases if there's a specific reason for it. Wikidemo (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence sounds very reasonable. Beyond that, is there some difficulty answering the questions straightforwardly (perhaps there is in fact no consensus). The questions were:

1. Is there a consensus that only Geohack may be used?
2. If so, where was that decision made?
3. What is the harm with having both a coord (GeoHack) link and a direct link (as a compromise)?

-Arb. (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are almost there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates&diff=224637723&oldid=224563809 --Dschwen 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a valiant attempt to change the subject (sigh). But you still haven't answered SlimVirgin's questions. They were:

1. Is there a consensus that only Geohack may be used?
2. If so, where was that decision made?
3. What is the harm with having both a coord (GeoHack) link and a direct link (as a compromise)?

-Arb. (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the authority, but to take a stab at it: 1) yes, there is an overwhelming consensus to use Geohack. There is rarely however a consensus to only do something because of WP:IAR, which is what I was getting at. When there's a reason to use something else I see no harm doing it. For #2, The decision seems to have been made over time in a variety of places and in practice. You can search the archives here for some earlier discussions, and also the project page. Consensus is descriptive, existing as a matter of practice. The vast majority of location links are Geohack, and that practice emerged over the past year or so. For #3, The harm of using alternate systems is several-fold: (A) lack of consistency; (B) arbitrariness; (C) lack of predictability); (D) favoring one often commercial provider over another; and (E) indiscriminate linking. If each location link were doubled or Geohack were omitted it would cause a bigger problem. An occasional link doesn't seem like much of a problem to me but others may have other ideas. I think SlimVirgin knows all these arguments because she has participated before in these discussions. I suspect the issue is to get them out on the table again so this doesn't become an issue with a new FA. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the good points you mentioned, I'd like to add one related to D but partly separate that wasn't discussed a whole lot the last time around: (f) duplication, hence deviation on corrections. Linking to a service that doesn't provide anything significantly more useful or relevant than its alternatives is detrimental to the quality and common Wikipedia style on recording the location of objects. This is especially true when the link is to a well recognised brand name, or a name that has the word "map" in it, or to pretend being a sister project, even "wiki". Many of the map links I have converted (note to SV: that includes multiple services and not just one) have had no placemark in the linked service at all and it has been difficult to find which of the many objects in the view is the one mentioned in the article. This is not to say that services wouldn't have placemarks, most of them do, but the editor who added the map link decided not to take advantage of that feature, or the service is just so full of placemarks that the intended one gets lost. Coordinates however have much higher visibility than single links; people constantly review them on Google Maps, Google Earth, Multimap and GeoNames, among others, and they are therefore much more likely to point to the correct location. However, when an article mentions an established brand name as the primary source of further information, readers accessing Wikipedia directly are more likely to click on that instead of following the neutral educational route. --Para (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This was talked to death here. Search the archives yourself instead of repeating the same questions over and over. The Geohack is the not great equivalent of an ISBN number. In some rare instances a unique map might have some greater detail, or show something in a historical context, but in general having a specific map is as inappropriate as having an Amazon link. This whole circular discussion could be a lot more productive if it was focused on why a certain map should be an exception. Without an argument proposing that, individual links should be removed, just like Amazon links should be. 2005 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Can we turn the question around and ask SlimVirgin what the call is to have the Wikimapia link? What does that provide that the Geohack does not? I can guess - the authors specifically wish to illustrate an aspect of the location that they can only do by showing a picture at a certain resolution ..."

Hi Wikidemo, the reason is that there's a rectangle drawn around the precise locations on Wikimapia (the exact locations are quite hard to find otherwise), and we'd like to use them to help readers who might want to look at the new statue or the old one's location. We've already been told that it has helped one editor. Am I right in understanding from the above that there's no consensus against linking to Wikimapia when there's a reason to do so? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that you've appointed me the consensus-declarer :) -- I would say that although there is consensus to use Geohack as the exclusive locator tool in default situations, there is no consensus that an additional tool offered as a convenience in special cases is categorically wrong. So I would say that anyone who wants to delete the link in this case ought to have a good, specific reason why it is a bad link and not just a preference for Geohack. That is my ruling. Wikidemo (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If the default situation is to point object locations with coordinates only, shouldn't the decision on inclusion then be the other way around, like 2005 said above? That is, when a map link has been added to point the location of an object, there needs to be a good, specific reason for it to be better than all the others and kept? In this case two users argue that the rectangle in the linked service makes it better than any other, but the placemarks provided by other services for coordinates do just the same, so there is no reason for a specific link. SlimVirgin also says that it helps readers who want to go look at the statue, but the service doesn't even have the function to show directions from another location, which actually makes it much worse than many alternatives. --Para (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimapia seems very good for one specific circumstance - when pointing out the precise location of a very small object. MikeHobday (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary you mention "support WikiMapia under strictly limited circumstances". What are they? All WikiMapia images come from Google, and Google Maps allows pointing very small objects just as well as WikiMapia does. The maximum zoom Google gives the viewer is also zoomed beyond the resolution of the image and is therefore false detail. The resolution of the aerial images in some other services seems to be just as detailed, they just haven't decided to scale them up. If an article needs to point an object in a satellite image, this wouldn't then be sufficient reason for inclusion of a specific link when alternative services contain similar information. --Para (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clearer. I meant the circumstance where a very small object's location is being highlighted. Clearly I can see from the article history how this works with Wikimapia. Could you show me how the type of link you prefer does this just as well? Open to be persuaded. MikeHobday (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, having a little box instead of a marker (which you get via geohack) seems like a minute advantage if any at all, especially for very small objects. --Dschwen 21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of relevant services behind the general coordinates link found in the external links section of the article, and on the article's talk page I mentioned some alternative services that many readers are likely to find useful. But if I have to pick some personal favourites from the listed services to see the object, I would choose the Flash Earth service, where you can easily compare imagery from different sources, though they have unfortunately dropped Google from the list, probably not by their own choice. Microsoft Virtual Earth (or Live Search Maps like it's called on the list) and Ask.com/Multimap.com aerials seem to be the clearest and best resolution today, though there's some shift between the two. Google Maps (and so equally WikiMapia) isn't too bad either, especially if looked on Google Earth. What I really like though, is the oblique imagery of the object in Microsoft Virtual Earth, Ask.com and Multimap.com (which use the same NAVTEQ/AND/Intermap/Blom/Getmapping plc data at the moment, for the aerials as well), I think they give the most natural view of the object and the surrounding area. Don't miss that you can turn the view to look from four different directions! They all however have slightly different user interfaces and placemarks, all clearly showing the location, but readers may feel more comfortable using one that the editor who added the link doesn't like or know about. All these services allow zooming fairly close to the object or far from it, with the placemark set the whole time, but the default is in between as we don't know what kind of information the readers are after, or if they really even want a satellite image. For maps the available range of services is even wider, but perhaps people can do that adventure themselves. --Para (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Those look excellent. Unfortunately, the current article link, to [6] leads to some pretty poor links like [7]. I can't help thinking that either your new links, or the wikimapia link, would be better in what I have said is the exceptional case of a small object. MikeHobday (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But those links were from the list behind the coordinates link, they're not new. What are they exceptions to, when there are so many of them, and when there are many Wikipedia articles of objects of similar size? I wouldn't say Yahoo Maps is a poor service, it's quite a popular one I understand, and seems to me like a good and clear street map, definitely useful for people who want to see where the object is. The resolution in their satellite image isn't high enough for locating the object accurately, but it will most certainly be helpful for anyone looking at the view. For that purpose I would argue that prepared maps are even better than satellite images, because the visible features have been chosen according to the viewed scale. I don't see anything exceptional here. --Para (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting in my two cents here (since I had the time to comment at the drama elsewhere, I might as well contribute to something constructive, I hope). It seems like I've seen this debate before. And personally I don't see any reason to restrict EL's to Geohack only. There's just no reason for it at this time. If any party finds an applicable link that is clear and informative, that should be perfectly acceptable with respect to maps and the like. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to Arbus related to some of his recent editing, though partly outside this topic: This guideline says that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". I have seen some map linking editors disagree with this point as well, so as a related guideline it's good to remind people of it now. There was also a discussion not long ago on inline external links for locations or street addresses that don't have an article yet or are not notable and will never have an article. It's somewhere in the archives as well. --Para (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimapia and copyright?

Just throwing this out--is Wikimapia ok as far as copyright goes? Who owns those maps? rootology (T) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No it is not ok, as far as it is not free content. They use Google Maps. --Dschwen 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean for possibly copyvio reasons its not OK, or because its not free content? ELs don't have to be "free content". rootology (T) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If Wikimapia just uses Google maps, then Wikimapia should never be linked. We should always link to original sources of information, not some second-party one. (Whether in this case a Google maps link is an extra detail that merits linking is another issue.) 2005 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So... since we can't like copyvios, should this be pulled from all locations? Do we know if Wikimapia has permission to use the copyrighted Google images? Do they grant permission for these mashup sites? rootology (T) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

From Google_Maps#Copyright:

For individual users, Google Maps [...] is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. For business users, Google Maps is made available for your internal use only and may not be commercially redistributed [...]

Wikimapia has sourced statements that the site isn't a personal site, but profits from advertising and is pulling in investors. rootology (T) 06:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Official Myspace" Links on Wiki

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to beg you to take an official stance and decision concerning linking Official Myspace in Wikipedia. Various artists like Coldplay, Korn, Gackt etc. have an Official Site link and one or multiple Official Myspace links here. What I personally absolutely agree to. Because it enriches the article by giving people the chance to listen for free to this artist's songs.

But we are having a heavy dispute here on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeyto artist's wikipedia and we don't seem to agree on the Myspace linking.

Please allow me to copy and paste here few of other editors arguments to this linking:

__________
Wikipedia has Template:MySpace for adding links to MySpace, suggesting to me that links to MySpace have their place.

"WP:LINKSTOAVOID" tells us that:

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: [...] # Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace) [...]

WP:EL has been invoked. The page has at least three things to say that seem directly relevant. These are (in my numbering):

1. What should be linked / 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. Links to be considered / 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
3. Links normally to be avoided / Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: / 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

The first says nothing about additional "official" sites. The second seems to me to invite inclusion of a link to this Myspace page. The third seems to me to invite it: the disqualification of Myspace pages has an exception for "an official page of the article subject" (my emphasis).

Have I overlooked something here? -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 is intended to be the sole exception to our general restriction against linking to non-reliable sources, since the subject's own official site is bound to be a nest of POV and COI violations. It permits linking to "the" official site. That to me does not constitute license to link to a raft of additional "official sites". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed the first clause talks of the official site, singular; but it does not go further and explicitly say that the official site should be limited to one. The second one seems to allow a site such as this. The third rules out Myspace except for a site such as this. There's been no suggestion that I recall of linking to any "raft" of additional "official sites"; the question is of whether to link to a single additional page. I'm about equally puzzled by the determination of one user to add this and by that of the other party to remove it. The more I think about it, the more I think it should stay: even if it's short on factual information, its idiosyncratic design esthetic says a lot about its subject. (Still, as it is after all linked from the official official site, its deletion hardly matters.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

_____________

I would like to inform you that I am still a newbie so please don't blame me if this discussion doesn't belong here or if i am not suposed to copy and paste dispute fragments here.

I just want you the ones that have more authority and power of decision to clarify the WP:EL issue, to write a better text that describes what is allowed and what not and if indeed linking Official Myspace is forbidden, then please proceed to take it down from ALL sites of the likes of Coldplay, Korn, Gackt and hundreds more, you can maybe create a BOT that does it automatically.

On the other hand, if you all agree that linking Official Myspace is OK, then I would like to ask you to re-add the link at this artist's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeyto and to prevent such wars in future. Thank you so much,Tsurugaoka (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to treat "official" MySpace sites like we would treat any other "official" website of an article subject. Those links are generally considered appropriate, and I've seen them in common usage all over Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

However, if the "official" site is already an EL then there is no need for the Myspace link. That is, if the EL section contains a link to www.bandIlike.com then we have no need for www.bandIlike/myspace.com External links should be used very sparingly if at all. The guideline tells us "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." if the official site of the subject is already linked then there is no justification for the Myspace link. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh - there are lots of article subjects with more than one official site. I think people are getting worked up over nothing. The links are there for the convenience of our readers who want to further explore and/or research a Wikipedia topic. The article subject's official websites would pretty clearly fall within that purview. See the "what should be linked" section of this policy. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I would counter that reasoning with Wikipedia is not Google, "convenience of our readers who want to further explore and/or research a Wikipedia topic" is not a compelling justification for linking to something specifically mentioned as a link to be avoided. It is my understanding that an article should contain all the information and link externally to reliable sources, if the link is so important then it should be used as a source and the material within edited into the article. In most cases, having more than 1 external link is unnecessary overkill. I would instead ask, what is it about the Myspace link that is so compelling it has to be linked to? The reason given by the questioner above is that it provides a way for fans to listen to the article subject's work product for free. That is not good enough. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If the myspace page is an official site, no reason to exclude it. And I don't see any compelling reason to avoid multiple official sites as long as they're not duplicative (e.g. a nearly identical site on myspace, facebook, hi5, etc). Any real-world company, band, etc., faces a similar constraint that we have with EL. If they have too many official sites they're hard to maintain people get confused. So they probably limit themselves to 2-3 at most, which is no threat to our principle of keeping links to a minimum. So I say, use it! Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add as well, that if there is more than one "official" site and they have links to other "official" sites from the one, then just put the one into the EL section. That is, if www.bandIlike.com has a link to bandIlike/myspace.com then we only need to link to www.bandIlike.com and the reader can follow from there. Also, if the "official" site is linked as a reference or in an infobox (as they often are) then there is no need for an external link to it in the EL section. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like that should be handled on the article talk page of the article in question. No need to seek a change in site policy for a simple content disagreement. If you can't come to a consensus, use dispute resolution. Kelly ^hi! 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is covered by the guideline. If it is an official myspace, link to it. Having more than one official site is common and no problem. If there gets to be several official English-language sites, a discussion on a talk page can take place. Here if there is are just two, link to the Myspace too. Linking to only one official site is not the guideline, and is frankly just obtuse. Many companies have consumer sites and corporate ones, and linking to both is the norm and should be. 2005 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 2005 is correct here. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI but I believe MySpace blog links are blacklisted by default unless specific links are added to the whitelist... Gary King (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, blogs are, for some reason, but not homepages. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I deleted links to twenty-seven (27) "official" corporate websites for a single company the other day, so "minimum" can be a significant issue. In this case, hwoever, I don't think the outcome is important. Link it, if the regular editors of the page agree to link it; don't if they don't. Defaultly, the person who wants to include the link needs to explain why readers need the MySpace link to be provided, and the answer needs to be better than "I think they're all too dumb to click the link to MySpace that's already on the other official website." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those weren't official corporate websites of the subject of the article. No way would L'Oréal confuse people with 27 different official sites. The links you so appropriately deleted from L'Oréal were nearly all links to individual product websites. The mistake of external linking to child categories from the parent article is fortunately not that common but when we find it we can fix it for sure. External links are there for the convenience of the reader. It really depends on the specifics. For example if you look at the Maldroid article I think it illustrates your point. The Myspace link is superfluous because it's so prominent on the main site http://www.maldroid.com/. So is their label's official site on Fuzz.com (under the "music" tab). On the other hand the official site for Sunny Leone (http://www.sunnyleone.com) is much different from and not linked in any usable way to her myspace page (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=7569049 - yes, that is really her). Or, say, Mark Pesce - he has a personal site[8], a professional site[9], and a blog[10] (as a blogger/tech pundit his blog is a legit external link too); he doesn't seem to have a myspace page but if he did it would probably not be useful to link. So I generally agree it's up to the regular editors to decide. Only, in many cases the regular editors are out of touch with the WP:EL guideline...usually in the direction of way too many links. Wikidemo (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that having a Myspace site is kind of a statement in itself (all artists have an official site but not all have Myspace), so providing the link, informs Wiki users that the band or artist belongs to those that are ready for fan interaction and all the positive aspects that come with it including the possibility to immediately sample-listen that artist's works. Yes, almost all of them have a Myspace link/banner on the official site anyway but a user that reaches to the Wiki article could (through the Myspace link) directly join the Myspace interactivity and skip the official site if they choose so, all the "Official Myspace" linking doesn't do anything disruptive to Wikipedia.

A comment for L0b0t, IMDB for example, also provides all official site's links, so then we could argue that we could redirect people exclusively to IMDB and let them find there the official links& all or viceversa.

In order to stop edit-wars, it would be great if the WP:EL rules are clear about this "Official Myspace" issue, who are the persons allowed to re-write the rules in more clear text (so that any non-english native out there can understand if it's ok or not to have the link)?

I don't think it's a thing to be done locally like Kelly mentioned. The Official Myspace site at the article that I started this here with, provides loads of info directly in English and French, even info not available on the Official Site. Yet the number of visitors that come to chop such information away from the Wiki article is larger than the number of those actually able to translate from Japanese and add info. And so it always ends up in wars. An "Official Wikipedia" stance concerning "Official Myspace" linking would at least stop personal subjectivity here and not give any unnecessary reason for wars.

It would be just unfair if for example Alanis Morisette has the Myspace link cherished in Wiki but someone, haters, continuously take it down from the site I mentioned above. Tsurugaoka (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsurugaoka, this problem doesn't come up often enough to justify re-writing the guidelines. We have already told you that the inclusion of an official MySpace page is not prohibited under these guidelines. We have already told you that linking to more than one official website is not prohibited, assuming that external links are still kept to a miniimum. You have all of the information you can get from this guideline: the link is not prohibited.

The difference between "not prohibited" and "the best option for this specific article" is important and is not the subject of this guideline. You and the other regular editors of that page need to build a consensus about whether or not the link is justifiable. You need to agree on whether its inclusion or its omission is the best option for the general readers of the article. (N.B. that general readers are not die-hard fans). Nobody here can do that for you, because it requires knowledge of the specific topic of the page.

If the regular editors of the page can't agree, then I suggest that you follow Kelly's suggestion of using Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then everything shall be OK from now on! Because those editors sole reasoning to erase the link was that the link "IS prohibited" and that "we" are supposed to allow only "one(1) single Official site" per article. Thank you for clearing this up and if the problem will occur over and over I will rather suggest those disruptive editors to be blocked from editing.Tsurugaoka (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AND the reason to keep any additional links listed MUST also be better than "it is an official site." It must be justifiable under the guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RedPen, "under the guidelines", there are really only five remaining questions to ask about this particular link:

• Is it accessible to the reader? (This is about access for disabled people.)
• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
• Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
• Does it have meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article?
• Does it contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources, even though it's not technically a reliable source (for most purposes)?

This actually sets a fairly low theshold for inclusion, especially since we know that several of the answers are yes, so let me add that it's not just "justifiable under the guidelines" that matters: it needs to be justified in terms of common sense and value to the general reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Deprecating the format field in citation templates for rich media recognized by MediaWiki

Can anyone think of a good reason why one would use the format field with a document type recognized by MediaWiki, such as PDF? I consider it junk. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WP:EL? Shouldn't this question be taken to Wikipedia:Citation_templates? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. They told me to come here. Where's customer service?! --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all self service here! You do seem to be being given the run around a little. This guidelines simply say that links to rich media should clearly indicate the type of software required to open them. Whether that is through the MediaWiki's built in recognition, a field in a template, or simply noting in text after the link is not specified in this guideline. So there appears to be no good reason, according to this guideline, why one would use the field with a document type that's recognized by MediaWiki. However not all format types are recognized so deprecating the field doesn't seem like a great idea. The format field isn't required by the template so just ignore it if the display is good without it. I assume the examples using pdf on the citation template page are a holdover from days before MediaWiki automatically displayed the little adobe pdf gif for such a link maybe they should be updated to something more obscure. I suppose theoretically there may be some argument for inclusion to enable easier meta information parsing. I don't know anyone who's arguing for that though I could see it being useful long term, possibly to help with accessibility. -- SiobhanHansa 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adoniscik, I'm sending you back. WP:EL doesn't even mention this field. Furthermore, citation templates are almost never used in the ==EL== section. I've left a note at the citation template page. It might help if you explained what you actually want: "permission" to ignore the field in appropriate circumstances, or a change to the docs that suggests that everyone ignore the field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adoniscik touches a more fundamental question than how to use a field: Should the format of a link be indicated in writing if MediaWiki already displays an icon? (Whether in a template or manually formatted.) IMHO this is the right place to discuss this question because the use in the template is supposed to follow this guideline. --EnOreg (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understood Adoniscik's original post, he's talking about citation templates - and this guidelines does not cover citations. People developing and maintaining the citation templates should be looking at WP:CITE for guidance more than WP:EL. In general I don't see anything in this guideline that should be used to imply that redundant information is necessary. As I read it for this guideline, if the software already makes the format clear to readers then you're covered. -- SiobhanHansa 11:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Unfortunately, this guideline demands that "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given" and gives an example where the PDF format is spelled out in spite of the fact that MediaWiki diplays an icon. If there are no objections I would like to constrain this to non-recognized formats. --EnOreg (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

People are writing bots that add a format field in cases such as this, where I believe it is unnecessary. I was hoping to build a consensus to deprecate this practice. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all with you. No need to indicate the format when MediaWiki does it already. --EnOreg (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In case my comment above went unnoticed: I would like to add an exception to the guideline that recognized formats that MediaWiki marks with an icon need not be annotated, e.g., PDF, MP3, AVI and MPEG. Opinions? --EnOreg (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the responses here, I don't feel like we're being sufficiently clear: You are asking this question in the wrong place.

The Wikipedia:External links guideline is different from the Wikipedia:Citation templates instruction page. To achieve your stated goal, you need to change the instructions at WP:CITET. You cannot change the rules at WP:CITET by posting at message at WT:EL (hereinafter "the wrong talk page"). You could change these instructions by bolding editing the instructions, but if you expect to encounter opposition (which I personally doubt), then you could discuss it first at the the correct talk page.

If you think it will help your case, you can tell them that nobody at the wrong talk page cares one way or the other. You can also assure them that we have no desire to create an entirely new section here about using citation templates for the sole purpose of adding half a sentence to deprecate the unnecessary use of one particular field in one particular template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be more clear than in my post from July 30th:

"Adoniscik touches a more fundamental question than how to use a field: Should the format of a link be indicated in writing if MediaWiki already displays an icon? (Whether in a template or manually formatted.)"

This is about any external link, whether it is in a citation or not. Don't general questions about external links belong here? --EnOreg (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be clearer. An external link that is part of a citation is not covered in any way by this guideline. The fact that it links to an external web page is irrelevant; if it's part of a citation this guideline does not touch it. Obviously taking a lead from a similar guideline is no bad thing for consistency's sake but WhatamIdoing seems to sum things up well by saying that no one here cares one way or the other on the matter. -- SiobhanHansa 12:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the non-template-dependent question: Even when an icon is displayed, the file type should be named in a manually formatted link, just like this guideline says. The reasons are: (1) icons are invisible to those who can't see, whereas "PDF" can be read to them and (2) we cannot expect every single one of Wikipedia's millions of readers to recognize every single file type icon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are links to geocities pages ALWAYS to be avoided?

I am working on the Holland III page, and the one really good online reference (it was later printed as a book and sold) on the submarines of Holland is on a geocities page. Well, I added a cite to that, and a bot reverted me. I replaced the cite because I think its appropriate, but thought I ought to ask if this is a 100% prohibition or not? Thank You. --Betta Splendens (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about a source so the external links guidelines do not apply. You're probably better off asking at WP:RSN. If you're looking for quick opinions I would say from a reference perspective without having looked at this particular case that a geocities page is almost never an acceptable reliable source for most assertions and ideally you would reference the published book and provide a courtesy link to the information on the geocities page. The links XLinkBot reverts are not "banned" they just have an overwhelming tendency to be inappropriate on Wikipedia articles so extra steps are required to make them stick. -- SiobhanHansa 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ma'am! --Betta Splendens (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How to remove external links

The project page tells me how to add external links but not how to remove them if they are objectionable. May I simply strip every link I suspect should be avoided on the assumption that worthwhile links will be clearly justified by those who added them? Must I provide a justification on the talk page for why I removed every external link I remove? Hyacinth (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ELs are not that important; it's references that count. If you suspect something is inappropriate, delete away; we can always bring it back. Always leave an honest edit summary. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

True, 19 times out of 20 the people adding invalid external links don't complain when you remove them. If they do, and want to re-add them, I agree with Adoniscik, they're not that important and one too many links never hurt anyone...as long as it's not blatant spam, an attack site, a BLP violation, a complete organizational mess, etc. Ideally they would explain why the link is valid in the edit summary or talk page - not really necessary when adding it for the first time, but it's only common courtesy to discuss things and try to work it out once it's become a point of contention. Wikidemo (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One key element is time. If a link has been on the page for more than a year, and thirty or more logged in editors have edited the page during that time, just removing a link without an editor note is pretty presumptuous. On the other hand removing a link dropped by an IP address two hours before is usually just fine to do without any comment. There is no one size fits all answer. 2005 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a fair bit of this. If it's a heavily edited page (AIDS, for example), then I would start a discussion about specific links. Otherwise, I just delete them. Usually, if I'm deleting one link, I put a reason in the edit summary. If I'm deleting a lot of them, I sometimes list the reasons (in order, one for each link), and sometimes just say "Weeding the link farm" (especially if the reasons are pretty obvious). I get (very) few complaints, and those are usually from anons who want to include clearly inappropriate links, like internet chat rooms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Readings

Hola,

Is an external link to a reading of a famous speech a good choice for an EL? Here, linked here. The site contains advertising and solicits donations; the only thing it adds is a reading of an e-text and I'm unsure if this is sufficient to balance out the advertising. Librivox provides a similar service but seems to contain less advertising; what about cases where there is no overlap? WLU (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there are a lot of external links at Abraham Lincoln.

Is there any reason why an audio file is better than a plain text file? Does this link to the audio file duplicate material in the other links (i.e., how many times is the same speech linked here)? Why isn't a spot in one of the two DMOZ links good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does the audio file add? The document will normally be linked as text in most cases; blind readers will already be using text-to-sound conversion since wiki is a text-based media. There's no analysis or research in the files. I don't see a lot of value added, perhaps if no text version is available then there may be some benefit but it's still redundant to a text version showing up in my mind. WLU (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU, Thanks for bringing this up on the EL section. In my humble opinion, there is a huge benefit to audio links other than for the blind. I travel a lot (driving, flying) and carry about 20 ejunto books on my iPod. There's no way that I could have made it through the Communist Manifesto 5 times in the written version, I'm just too busy. I'm assuming this is the case for a lot of younger people where they digest media through podcasts etc.

I don't represent ejunto. From what I've seen, ejunto takes a different approach than Librivox. For text it works great for many contributors to edit and splice and come up with a polished product, but for an audio book the results can be less than satisfactory. Ejunto is taking the capital intensive approach of producing free, high quality recordings. As far as I can tell, the project is run by a former historian out of his home. He's personally recorded all of the books himself, and may need the advertising just to cover the cost of running the site. His Longwindedness... Beaster77 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That being said, 'it's convenient for busy people' isn't a criteria of WP:EL. It adds nothing informative or encyclopedic. You may consider adding it to the DMOZ site as WAID suggests above, I believe they would be much more open to a site like ejunto and the DMOZ is often used to link to resources that are not good choices for wikipedia on an individual basis, but in aggregate are useful to readers. WLU (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This presents a double standard in my view. There's no substantial difference between ejunto and LibriVox -- both deliver on their promise of free audio recordings. They're both non-profits, have a mission of promulgating freely accessible information, and I don't see a violation of EL guidelines in posting them. If ejunto is to be excluded, so should all other audio recordings of the same type and I think the EL guidelines should be changed to exclude audio of this nature. The real reason ejunto is being excluded is because of the sloppy manner in which I posted the links, which is unfortunate and insufficient grounds for preferential treatment. Beaster77 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rich media links are officially deprecated. Large pages are officially deprecated. Anything that is inaccessible to people using dial-up modems and microbrowsers is officially deprecated. Beaster77 is right: all of these links should be removed unless they provide content (not format) that is unavailable in plain old text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deep links / Self requested edit review

How do we feel about this edit? --Selket ^Talk 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable, but this page might be preferable since it contains substantially more information as well as the photograph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube and Google Video Section

Some of the language on this section should be removed. In fact, the whole section should be removed.

The words "as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page," should be removed, because it goes without saying.

The words "(which would happen infrequently)," should be removed, as it is POV.

The rest, which says, "See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights... Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis," should be be removed, because it goes without saying.

In fact, the whole section should be removed, because YouTube and Google Video are not sources, they are mediums to host sources. Each source should be taken at face value. Wikipedia should not give up any rights. No US law says that linking to Google Video and YouTube are a violation of copyright, unless the person doing the linking knows for a fact that the site is violating copy right. Under US law, the burden of researching copyright is not on the person or site doing the linking, but once a copyright violation is discover the link must be removed. Under US law, if you are not sure if the copyright is being violated, then the link can stand.

Again, these sites are not sources, but mediums or host for potential sources.

—Slipgrid (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Google is fanatical about removing copyrighted videos from YouTube so any that remain can be assumed to be no different than referencing a television program. Especially since the media have no problems with airing YouTube videos themselves. Another point is that videos are on average far more reliable than print media such as newspapers. Wayne (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On the different points you raise: 1) The words "as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page," were found to help clarify the meaning of this guideline for some readers and were deemed useful. I'm generally in favor of shorter guidelines so I wouldn't be averse to a rewording - but I don't think you can simply remove those words from the guideline without changing the emphasis of the statement. So it needs a more detailed proposal than simply removing that sentence. 2) Our guidelines are allowed to be POV. They aren't articles they're an expression of the way in which the community believes articles should be written. That is in essence a point of view. 3) Wikilinking to other relevant guidelines and policies and putting them in context is generally accepted as a good way to write guidelines. It reminds users that this page does not stand alone, as well as providing for quick and relevant navigation. 4) If you want to argue to change our policy on linking to copyright violations you need to do so at the copyright page. If you do so you might want to consider that our position has historically not been based simply on a desire to avoid being sued but also on a general desire to uphold copyright and a recognition of its role in underpinning many open content licenses (feeding in to an explicit part of Wikipedia's mission - to promote open content). 5) This guideline is about external links not sources. So the point that youtube is a host rather than a source itself (and Wayne's questionable assertion that video is more reliable than print media) is not really relevant. In any case convenience links to hosted copies of documents that do not violate copyright have always been permitted when better than the original. In terms of media there is a general presumption that plain text is preferable to rich media - but this is for accessibility reasons and not specific to the host of the content.

On an historical note - the section was added because there were a lot of inappropriate links to youtube being added at one time. Addressing it specifically was thought to be beneficial. Personally I think a look at xLinkBot's reverts shows that this is still the case, for newer users at least. -- SiobhanHansa 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let not say the words "(which would happen infrequently)" are POV, but that they are meaningless. It depends on the edits made.

The words "as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page" is instruction creep. There is absolutely no need for them. Remove them.

Then the worlds "See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights... Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis," is also instruction creep. It goes without saying. Making pages with instruction creep link to other pages with instruction creep, when the material goes without saying, should be removed.

Furthermore, having a bot to determine the reliability of a source is not good.

You say, "the point that youtube is a host rather than a source itself... is not really relevant," but it is, because the copyright issue is used as a reason to that nonsense like "which would happen infrequently" is added to this.

If this is going to mention YouTube, it only needs to say that sources hosted on YouTube are acceptable. But there is no reason to call out one host.

This policy is complete nonsense that contradicts itself. It seems to be written by people who do not have a basic understanding of the technology they are policing. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking of a basic understanding - the xLinkBot does not "determine the reliability of a source". It reverts - for new users only - against a list of domains decided on by people. It is a dirty and inexact, but ultimately beneficial, way of keeping down inappropriate links of many types. My mention of it was to point out its list of reverts - which when checked by hand show that the vast majority of YouTube links added are still not good links. I did not mean to imply that because the bot reverted they were defacto inappropriate.

You keep using the word "source" and I just want to make sure we understand each other - do you mean a source on which an assertion in an article is based (i.e. a citation or reference). Or are you more generally referring to a source of information?

On instruction creep the article says:

For proposed new instructions, instruction creep can be avoided if all of the following hold:

1. There is a good indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem)

2. The proposed instructions truly solve this problem (as opposed to treating symptoms or making symbolic gestures)

3. The instructions have little or no undesirable side effects (such as false positives, overcomplexity, or unnecessary prohibitions)

I have some sympathy with the CREEP essay but I contend in this case that 1) there was an indication of a problem - many inappropriate links were being added to an extent greater than for most other sites. And that those links were considered to be breaking a policy (copyright).

2) Editors found that changes to this guideline specifically addressing YouTube did make it easier to point users to the community standard without having to discuss ad nauseum how they applied in a particular case. In particular having the link to the copyright policy allowed for users who were sent here to understand the copyright issues without them having to go back and say "I don't get it - I copied this bit of my Starwars DVD especially to link to for this article. It's the real deal why do you think it isn't relevant." (ridiculous example chosen for clarity of meaning only). Pointing to the copyright issue also means that issues about the reliability of a non-official copy did not have to be addressed - an area that can get more heated when editors have provided the copy.

3) There are comparatively few undesirable side effects. I think this is the weakest in respect to the YouTube issue - when the guideline was first added comparatively few official "channels" existed on YouTube and I think for a while some good content was removed before people realized how much non-copyright content was available. But for the most part editors are now aware that copyright holders including mainstream media do host some appropriate content on YouTube and the problems with inappropriate removal on for those have died down.

So I don't agree with your assertion in this case that this is instruction creep. I believe your suggestion of simply removing the section (or the parts of it you've specified) would lead to a greater number of inappropriate links being posted, a harder time for editors trying to clean up those posts, and would not lead to a significant increase in appropriate links being added.

It's also not the case that people don't understand the technology - I don't think anyone who regularly posts to this page is unaware that YouTube simply hosts video uploaded by users. But the focused here isn't on the technology - it's on understanding the community and using wording that works in practice for as large a swathe as possible.

You seem to be focusing on the wording here without attempting to address the intent of the words. And I wonder - especially from the post you linked to in the other conversation - if you are more interested in getting the general meaning and intent behind these guidelines changed. That is, that you would prefer to see external links to YouTube (and presumably blogs) be more generally accepted than they currently are. If this is the case we might have a more productive conversation if you pointed out some examples of links that you think are generally not accepted now that you think should be and tried to summarize what you think Wikipedia has to gain by accepting them. --- SiobhanHansa 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no good reason to remove the existing guideline as currently stated. Particularly with newbie editors and SPAs, most of the wikilawyering that I've encountered has involved a few types of obviously banned external links. It has been helpful in a few cases to have the guidelines be painfully explicit -- because what seems "unnecessary" and "redundant" to an experienced editor has proven to be "just barely sufficient" for a determined agenda-pusher.

I also support a blanket ban on video links as being inappropriate for our worldwide audience. A person who is reading from a microbrowser over a very slow dialup connection cannot view videos. A general ban (which can, of course, be overridden by WP:IAR in truly important cases) respects the parts of our audience that aren't editing from a high-speed connection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To SiobhanHansa, I'm trying to get the intent changed, or just the whole thing removed. It's so simple. I focusing on the wording, because the wording is complete nonsense. And wording that is nonsense leads to policy that is nonsense, and administrators that quote nonsense policy. The wording is the policy. You change or remove the wording, then the policy is changed or removed.

I'm sure the original intent was pure, but good intent does not make good policy.

And then having robots that edit articles based on this policy is even more baffling. Sure, there is stuff that shouldn't be added, and it should be removed. But, having a bot remove every link to a specific source is not acting in good faith. It is the opposite of acting in good faith. It's not bold, and it's not careful. It is reckless, though I'm sure very efficient.

The wording, the policy, and the bot are all wrong. That leads to administrators who are wrong, and articles which are factually wrong.

Sorry if I seem over dramatic, but I can't imagine who someone can look at this policy, and not collapse at the absurdity of it.

As for examples, less say there is a subset of videos on YouTube that is reliable and good quality, and lets take the subset of reliable and appropriate videos on YouTube as an example. Most administrators will not let them on the articles they administer. Some of them won't even allow sources that have comments on their page. Regardless of intent, it is not good for this site. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To WhatamIdoing, a blanket ban of video removes many good sources and for that reason, is a bad idea. There are easy ways to deal with users who have slow connections, or a browsing on a cell phone or other technology. That is, to mark a link as going to a video. You should not only do this for videos, but PDF, and Flash content. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The current section isn't creep as it explains a guideline in plain language that needs explaining, which is exactly what is needed because these links are usually added by inexperienced editors. Google is nowhere near fanatical about removing copyvio videos. they aren't even anywhere near adequate. The current wording is very good. It discourages such links without completely prohibiting them. As for the copyvio part, this guideline follows policy so any discussion of that should go on the copyright policy page, but in general Youtube videos are either made by random individuals and thus are not authoritative and thus not meritable external links, or they are copyvio TV show clips. There are a few exceptions, but this guidelibe should be clear that any Youtube links should be scrutinized and meet the criteria of this guideline and copyright policy. 2005 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm forever reading complaints in forums of Google deleting videos after a copyright complaint is made, mostly that they go overboard and delete related videos even if it is not copyright which is why I said fanatical. I doubt the current wording is adequate as in controversial topics they effectively end up completely banned if they favour the "wrong" side. I fully support allowing YouTube if the video is in context and relevant to the article or claim made and is not stand alone in the article. I only have a 28kbps dialup connection so don't check them however, I have no problem accepting what they say/show if it has consensus for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On controversial topics the issue you're coming up against isn't so much that it's a YouTube video - it's that the provenance can't be rigorously established and hence there is no reputation on which to judge the reliability of the information. One of the problems with YouTube and most user generated content sites is that they have no significant editorial control - they are effectively personal publishing platforms and equivalent to a personal website. And when the identity of a poster cannot be established or where the publisher is not a known expert in the field we cannot consider it a reliable source. When a claim is controversial the reputation of the publisher (i.e. the person/institution posting the information) in the subject area is paramount. This is a problem for non-controversial subjects though it's often overlooked on non-controversial articles when editors agree the content itself is good. But on a controversial subject - video or text - a link to a user generated content site will almost never be acceptable.

Wikipedia is not the place to be trying to include the "wrong" side if that side does not have a respected voice within the accepted experts in the field - that's a well established part of our WP:NPOV policy. If it have a respected voice, use their material. If a respected voice has published a video on YouTube (and you can establish it is that person/institution that has posted the video - some guy from London saying that it's such and such person's video is not sufficient provenance - no one can be sure the video hasn't been doctored) then that might be an acceptable link for a controversial article. -- SiobhanHansa 10:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When speaking about YouTube, you say, "they are effectively personal publishing platforms and equivalent." That's where you are wrong in your beliefs, and this policy is wrong. It is nothing more than a video hosting platform. You say they don't have editorial control. It's not a media outlet! It's a place to host videos; that's it.

Now, many media outlets host their videos there, and they have editorial control. In the US, many local news stations host all their videos from every broadcast on the site. That's a great resource. This contradictory and insanely worded policy says that would happen only very infrequently, but that's not the case. It happens every night at 6PM and 11PM.

This policy has to be changed; it's dribble by people who don't understand the difference between a medium and a content producing media outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipgrid (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are respected sources who publish through places like YouTube which is why I pointed out that "If a respected voice has published a video on YouTube (and you can establish it is that person/institution that has posted the video - some guy from London saying that it's such and such person's video is not sufficient provenance - no one can be sure the video hasn't been doctored) then that might be an acceptable link for a controversial article." This will need to be decided on on a case by case basis - it will be dependent on the actual link being suggested. -- SiobhanHansa 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. So, lets remove the disjointed policy, and decide on a case by case basis, as we do for every other source. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this is for "External Links". If we are using YouTube/Google video as a reference (knowing as stated that the submitter of the video is the person they claim to be, have the right to release that material, and so forth), then we can cite that appropriately. That's an issue at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE.

When it comes to External Links, however, I find it very hard pressed to find a situation where a video link needs to be included if not already located in the references for the article. If per all other aspects of what External Links should be about, the video is important to include, it should be included via referencing, being that it is a "single" piece of information where typically ELs are sites with many pages of information. --MASEM 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Slipgrid - All links are decided on a case by case basis. This is a guideline that assists editors by pointing out the common issues the community has already confronted and developed a consensus on. Any link that is in contravention of these guidelines can still be recommended for the page - all you need is to gain a consensus from editors of the page that it makes the article better. That's the case for all our article content. We have found that few YouTube (and similar) links meet the requirements and that is explicitly stated for editors' benefit. The guideline specifically states that they are blanket banned - it just emphasizes the need to apply our standard requirements because we have found that useful. You haven't countered this point or pointed out instances where good links have been rejected because of the guideline. And until you do you're unlikely to gain any traction in an attempt to change it. -- SiobhanHansa 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Slipgrid, the word source is a term of the art. If you're trying to assert that YouTube links should be permitted as references for the purposes of satisfying WP:V, then you are in the wrong place entirely.

I'm with User:2005 on YouTube's failure to enforce copyrights. This whole discussion reminded me of my only use for YouTube: watching Apple Inc.'s advertisements. Dozens of them are posted, and have been for at least two years. This is hardly "fanatical" enforcement of obviously copyrighted material.

Contrary to Slipgrid's assertion, YouTube really is the video equivalent of blogspot.com or blogger.com. Anybody -- not just reliable sources, not just named people or companies -- can upload whatever they want. If we exclude copyright violations, then what's left is largely amateur videos. Amateur, as in "not made by a notable person or reliable source". Those YouTube-hosted videos which are published by professionals are typically linked from official sites maintained by said professionals, and we can link to the official site instead. I do not support removing this blanket statement against YouTube videos in external links.

Slipgrid has not shown a single benefit to Wikipedia by allowing YouTube videos -- just his personal pet peeve that an entire class of media has been found wanting by so many editors for such a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asking for open slather on amateur videos. As I said before...context and relevance. One area that YouTube shines is the "he said, she said" arguements. Someone makes a statement then denies what he said or says it was out of context and this denial gets put in the article as fact because the source said it was. Along comes YouTube with either video proof he was taken out of context or that he is lying his A off. It doesn't matter how professional or legitimate the video is (or even if it's from a RS), atm it wouldn't be allowed. Wayne (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before...context and relevance. Which is what our guideline says: Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis. Do you have any examples of external links that would otherwise be acceptable being excluded simply because they are hosted by YouTube?

As to One area that YouTube shines is the "he said, she said" arguements. Someone makes a statement then denies what he said or says it was out of context and this denial gets put in the article as fact because the source said it was. Along comes YouTube with either video proof he was taken out of context or that he is lying his A off. It doesn't matter how professional or legitimate the video is (or even if it's from a RS), atm [?] it wouldn't be allowed. That is specifically about verifiability and this guideline does not apply to such links. Use of published video as a source is not banned under our verifiability policy so long as it is reliable, though there are additional issues (such as interpretation) that can make their use inappropriate in some contexts. There is a reliable sources noticeboard for help with individual cases. -- SiobhanHansa 11:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognized authority.

It says we're allowed to use a blog as an external link, but only if it's from a recognized authority. Who has to recognize them for them to be "Recognized"? Shadowsdrift (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the first instance an editor who thinks it's appropriate can add it and see what the reaction is, but if there is dispute then there needs to be a consensus on the article's talk page in order to include it. The example that has been used here in the past is that we're really talking about putting Einstein's blog on a relevant physics article and not much else should get through... Personally I think that might be setting the bar a little high, but not by much. -- SiobhanHansa 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for filling me in! Shadowsdrift (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, note, a blog is a medium, and not a source. A blog is solely a tool to publish information. It happens to make it easy for anyone to publish information. But, the tool or medium used to publish information, be it blog or video, should not effect the validity of the source. If this page suggest that the source is determined by medium of communication used, then this page should be edited. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogging is also an activity. The guidelines says under links to be avoided 14: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

In the context we expect users to understand that it is about the material presented - i.e. generally informal, often personal opinion, frequently changing and not normally subject to much in the way of editorial review (any one of which makes a link less suitable for Wikipedia) and is not simply dependent on the fact that it uses a blogging software platform. I don't know of the wording leading to any good links being deleted though it's possible poor links may have been deleted with "blog" as the reason rather than "crummy content." -- SiobhanHansa 16:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogging is the activity of using weblog software. Sure it can be used as personal tool, and that's not a good source, but not because of the software medium. Having guidelines on mediums is instruction creep. Administrators then use those guidelines to remove good sources.

Take for example, The Blotter. It's a blog, but it's also ABC's outlet for investigative journalism. But, these guidelines cause admins to say silly thinks, like "if user comments are allowed, 'they cannot' be referenced in our articles." But, every article on ABC's News site allows comments.

Guidelines for media platforms should be removed, and only the sources reliability should be at issue. —Slipgrid (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogging is more generally understood to be regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video usually maintained by an individual (taken from our article blog). It's this everyday understanding of what a blog is that we mean when we refer to a blog in the guideline.

I don't think your example supports your assertion. First, the discussion appears to be about sources not external links. These guidelines do not apply to citations used to source an article. If you are actually talking about references not external links the emphasis (and the location of this conversation) need to change. Anyway, I read Arthur Rubin's statement if user comments are allowed, 'they cannot' be referenced in our articles. to mean that the user comments cannot be used, not that the webpage content the comments are attached to can't. This is not blog specific. The circumstances under which referring directly to comments posted by the general public would be acceptable are exceptional - regardless of whether the page is a blog or some other platform. Also, despite the wording on this page, Rubin doesn't seem to be confusing the content with the platform in respect to blogs. He explicitly states that if a blog platform itself is being used to host acceptable content then it can be used.

The community has found that blogs (in their everyday definition) are overwhelmingly inappropriate as external links so providing that guidance in some form to editors is exactly what this page is supposed to do. If you believe there is a better way to word the guideline please suggest it. Personally I have some sympathy for the position that our wording should be more about content than platform, but I think the general intent is pretty good. Also using the blog wording makes the guideline shorter than it would otherwise need to be, which I think is no small thing :) -- SiobhanHansa 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I fear that you are reading Arthur Rubin's comments incorrectly. It's discussions with administrators like him that make me want to clear this issue up. It seems like it's such a mess. Examples of when comments should be used as sources seem very unlikely. It seems to me that he's saying that YouTube should not be used, because it allows comments, and copyrighted material could be in the comments, which is just absurd.

Perhaps I'm confusing references or sources with external links, and I should be trying to change a different policy. That being said, there is no reason I can think of that Wikipedia should have an external link policy for any given or specific site. It seems like a policy driven by some admins who want to push a specific agenda. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

SiobhanHansa is correct: there is a strong consensus for banning at least the vast majority of blogs from external links. Additionally, blogs, used in the slightly narrower sense of personal and professional diaries published online (as opposed to "a regular website constructed using blogging software"), are deprecated largely because of their nature: They change frequently. The perspicacious, relevant, and enlightening post that you find at Ideal-External-Link.Blogspot.com today may be buried tomorrow by something utterly unrelated. So you list a blog today at, say, Syphilis because of its excellent historical information, and tomorrow you check the blog and it's talking about cats. Or car problems. Or clothes. The rule may be a bit ham-fisted, but it's widely supported by many editors. Slipgrid has failed to garner consensus for his desired relaxation of the existing rules.

As for the 'recognized expert': The exact bar to set is determined by the regular editors of an article, in discussion on the talk page. Ideally, they will understand that the Wikipedia-wide consensus is that the bar should be "high". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognized expert is basically the notability guideline. If good quality sources say someone is a recognized expert, then we presume that person is. If nobody says a person is an expert, then they are not. The fine lines can be addressed by editors of an article, but in general recognized just means the person has been noted as an expert, either explicitly (the New York Times say "John Smith is an expert on space travel") or implicitly (some reliable sources quote John Smith on the issue of space travel with a context making clear he is reliable rather than a crackpot). 2005 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for stating that user comments are a reason for not allowing a link. Unedited user comments should be disregarded in considering whether a link is relevant. And I did specifically define a blog by content, rather than by software. A blog (software) might be usable if the the blogger is a recognized authority (to the extent that his word is reliable). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if the comments are largely spam or otherwise inappropriate, then that should be considered by the editors making the link, just like we consider advertisements, images, and other content on every link. We're linking to the "page as a whole", not just to a single part of a page, after all. You'd hardly link to a page with a great explanation of a mathematical if "just happened" to have pornographic photos on it, to give an extreme example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Official" blogs by notable people

I'm not sure if this is a natural extension of the discussion above, but I wanted to see exactly what "recognized authority" covered. Specifically, I wanted to know if content created by the article subject is appropriate in EL sections.

For example, a lot of professional athletes have their own content on Yardbarker. And clearly, Baron Davis is a "recognize authority" on all things Baron Davis. However, athlete blogs are often ghostwritten by their publicists, and I don't think Kendrick Perkins even pretends to write the Perk is a Beast blog. Steve Nash's content on http://www.ibeatyou.com is entertaining, but I'm not sure if it has any content that is particularly encyclopedic.

Which gets me to my point - as "official" as these athlete-sanctioned sites might be, they're not helpful in understanding the subject the way a corporate website would be, i.e. About Us or IR information. Plus, athletes already have official profiles with their teams or sanctioning bodies that are generally more informative. So my thinking is, they're basically glorified MySpace profiles and they don't belong in the external links list, and I'd like to hear others' take on this. --Mosmof (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a tendency to give leeway to "official" sites that we wouldn't give to others. Take amazon.com for example. We have a direct link to the home page, which gives pretty much no encyclopedic information about the company. If it were on a different article we'd insist on a direct link to whatever buried page actually contained encyclopedic information. But I don't think it should be removed or altered. I think it's reasonable to expect readers to be interested in exploring the public face of the subject of the article.

I don't edit many articles about entertainment stars (which is how I'd classify the sorts of athletes you've mentioned) but I believe Myspace pages are frequently included. I doubt I'd add many of those links if I did edit those articles but I think inclusion generally reflects community consensus. The times I have argued against these types of links are normally when the whole external links section has become a PR fest and is out of balance with the article content (either because of size or NPOV). -- SiobhanHansa 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, though a couple of things:

I don't think the Amazon example works here, since Amazon.com is itself the subject of the article, which isn't the case with celebrity/athlete sites.

And I haven't edited many non-athlete entertainer pages, but at least with sportspeople, MySpace links are usually removed. The difference could be that with musicians or actors, "official" sites and MySpace profiles are often serve as news sources, whereas athletes have teams and sanctioning bodies doing that for them.

I think I agree with your reasoning for the most part, but I'm still comfortable with the official blogs, that I think are more about driving traffic to portals than actually providing substantive information. --Mosmof (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to source summaries

Hi all, we really need an EL noticeboard. I've a question about the EL section of satanic ritual abuse but it has implications for many pages. Should there be links to bibliographies, literature summaries, abstracts and possible sources for pages? I've been removing them when I've found them for the past several months - my reasoning is if the sources are appropriate for the page, having a list of them isn't really helpful. The good ones should be integrated into the page as inline citations and the bad ones should not be linked to at all. In my interpretations I've also beein removing links to single-item news stories (i.e. those that do not cover an entire controversy or take a broad approach, the "man bites dog" stories) for the same reason - if it's got relevant information to be added, in a footnote. Per the policy, here are the points that I'm using to inform my decision:

• WP:ELNO # 9, we don't link to search engine results; a bibliography is essentially the same as a search engine result in my mind, except it is static rather than dynamic
• ELNO # 1 - a featured article should contain the sources that are appropriate and not use the ones that are not.
• ELNO # 15 - all the documents could be linked via wikipedia's sourcing tools if they are available on-line in some fashion.

The couter-argument has been made per WP:ELYES # 3 of "should be linked". I believe this argument is illegitemate as the list itself should not and could not be sourced as a reliable source (making it eligible per this point) but since it's merely a list of individual citations, the content of the list can be linked on a case-by-case/citation-by-citation basis. So overall the bibliography is an excellent source of references and citations for the page itself (and is potentially of great service to the page editors) but less helpful as a link for readers. WLU (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU. This page does get used as a sort of noticeboard. Which I don't think is a problem when an editor's in need of assistance but personally I'm not sure this is normally the best place to come for input on specific links. Subject area knowledge is frequently a better qualification for judging links than intimate familiarity of these guidelines (not policy) and I think we'd be better off channeling people to appropriate WikiProjects for more informed input. Perhaps WikiProject Sociology in this case. Not that outside eyes hurt once in a while - helps keep things more consistent across the project.

Occasionally on articles that seem to have an over abundance of links that are potentially useful for editors but not great for readers I have moved the links to the talk page as an "Editor Resource" section. I haven't had much traction from others in using it but it has let me clear up the page for readers without actually losing the links. Unfortunately I don't think that will help much in this specific case because what I'm guessing you have is a disagreement between editors about what is appropriate and NPOV content for the article.

The problem I have with enforcement of a guideline removing external links that are citable but not "whole stories" (I hope I've understood the thrust of your suggestion here) is that it doesn't seem to allow for organic growth of articles. It seems like a pretty good idea for controversial subjects - to counter the tendency towards promoting fringe ideas through the EL section. And it's always better to encourage good content than links to external websites. But for non-controversial articles the EL section can be a good place for an editor to turn for fodder for improving the article. And encouraging the removal of links that can be useful ends up making it harder for the article to be improved. I think there's a need to balance our need to protect articles from undue weight and agenda pushing with a recognition for how most of the encyclopedia develops. -- SiobhanHansa 21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:GTL, you can put usable links that aren't yet used for footnotes/citations into a "Further reading" section, where they are (as is typical) inappropriate for the EL section. I do this all the time, and haven't gotten any negative feedback so far. (Can't say that I've consistently checked back to see if the "Further reading" section survives as is, but my sense is that it no one objects to this.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A bibliography isn't really a good example of "further reading", but for actual sources, I think this approach is good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific link

The website in question takes an unabashedly survivor position on a very controversial, now fringe issue (though I don't know if the list of abstracts is blatantly polarized or quite even-handed; it doesn't include books, which has been the main source of information for the most recent changes to the page and the skeptical literature in particular). In addition, the source is a senior technical writer and the career history does not mention abuse or rituals. I could see perhaps on an exception basis a link to an NIH compilation or possibly a bibliography by a recognized scholar, but 'some guy's website' seems more dubious. As a domain-specific hair-split, the page also discusses ritual abuse, which is connected to satanic ritual abuse, but in sometimes complex, often confusiong, nearly always undefined ways.

The discussion cites WP:ELYES #3 as a reason to include. As I state, I see no reason why it should be linked - the page adds no analysis or discussion, basically just the abstract. Many appear to be in low-impact journals and some are tenuously related to the subject ("A skeptical reflection on the diagnosis of multiple personality disorder" in the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine; "Child molestation: Assessing impact in multiple victims"; citations to Treating Abuse Today which is a non-peer reviewed news letter discussion). In addition, several don't actually include summaries making them just references with no context except the title. WLU (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In general I don't think a link with a good list of further reading/research is always bad for an article, providing it is balanced and does a good job on selecting the most relevant links. It sounds like the discussion needs to center around whether the content is NPOV and trustworthy, and whether it is actually helpful to readers. But from your message you don't seem to think it's high quality. I think that's something you really need subject area experts for and again suggest WikiProject Sociology as probably the best place to seek people who can give informed input on that subject.

I did do a little looking at the technical side of the site and some of this may help your discussions: the site is Hosted by Nemasys a San Francisco based IT services company. It is also available via its own domain name at http://www.ra-info.org/. They don't seem to be a registered 501(c)(3) charity. The site is registered by the hosting company - but that's not unusual and doesn't mean it's necessarily a project of one of their staff. I didn't see anything that specifically stated that Wolf was anything other than a Nemasys staff person - it does not mean he is the author of the content. They do host at least one other site. But since they don't say who they are and the only contact address is an anonymous email it's hard to tell if this is a legitimate group or effectively a personal website. I searched for links to RA-Info.org and while most were fairly low value directories of links that mean little I noticed a couple that may add some credence to the site being a reasonable source [11] and [12]. Of course how relevant these are depends on a careful look at the context and their own reputations with in the field. Again I really think you need input from subject matter experts. -- SiobhanHansa 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How useful to the general reader do we think this link will be? Note that "general reader" explicitly excludes not only "true believers" and "debunkers", but also the regular editors of this particular page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ELYES and ELMAYBE

I've brought this up several times recently, but it doesn't seem to catch anyone's attention. ELYES4 was essentially a Frankenstein's monster built from ELYES3, ELMAYBE1, and ELMAYBE4. It gave too strong a recommendation to include every good website. (Remember that ELYES is often interpreted as ELALWAYS by less experienced editors.) I have removed it, and added three words from it to clarify ELMAYBE4. If you disagree, please explain here why we need to list links to reviews twice in these sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

They are completely different points, with one group being reliable sources, and the other not. The two things shouldn't be lumped together. If anything should be dealt with the second "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources..." has never made much sense. That line should just be removed. 2005 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So 2005, do you read the ELYES links as only applying to links that would meet our WP:RS criteria? -- SiobhanHansa 15:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. But the other line only refers to sites that fail RS. ELYES includes both. 2005 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's do the easy bit first:

• ELYES4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews
• ELMAYBE1: For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews

User:2005, please explain to me why a link to a critical review needs to be authorized under both of these statements. Don't you think that saying it once is good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

getting rid of ELMAYBE1 would be a good idea. 2005 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it important to you to dump ELMAYBE1 instead of ELYES4? Do you think that every book with a Wikipedia page "should include" links to professional reviews? How about these links just "be considered"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think ELYES3 and 4 are joined at the hip. It's always seemed to me that we 'consider" everything besides official sites, so I'd support moving both ELYES3 and 4 down to ELMAYBE, but not just 4. To oversimplify it, 3 is detail, and 4 is generally reliable material that could have POV, like obviously someone's interview comment about himself. I could see moving ELYES3 and ELYES4 to ELMAYBE... while deleting the current ELMAYBE1 and ELMAYBE4. (I also have no clue what the current ELMAYBE2 is supposed to mean, so I'd support deleting that, but if it means something to other people I have no problem with it.) That would leave two items in ELYES and three items in ELMAYBE (plus the "very long pages" thing if that makes sense to anybody to keep.) 2005 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with merging ELYES3 and ELYES4 to read "Sites that contain relevant, meaningful, neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."? (Note that "reviews" are already mentioned at ELMAYBE1, and "interviews" are already included in ELYES3.)

There are a lot of references to these pages in discussions, so I'd like to minimize the "structural" changes that we make. Dumping ELMAYBE1 means that we introduce the complications of renumbering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

I objected some time ago to the criterion

"[one should avoid] Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

The discussion then was inconclusive. My interpretation of it is that

• those favouring the wording
  • want to encourage people to add citation references rather than external links
  • want to prevent editors dumping extra links willy-nilly
• while those opposing it
  • do not want editors trying to incrementally improve low-quality articles to be held to the standards of featured articles
  • want to make it easy for readers to get access to more information about a topic, even if that means going outside Wikipedia

I propose the following rewording to address these concerns:

"[one should avoid] Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what is already available in the article or in existing links in either the references section or the external links section."

Once the article itself reaches FA standard, the new wording is equivalent to the old one. In an article's earlier stages, it offers more room in what I believe to be a sensible restrained manner. The introduction to this page already states "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Perhaps this advice could be made stronger or more prominent to allay the other concerns raised in the previous discussion. jnestorius^(talk) 10:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if we can emphasize the request to build content this might be a good change. Apart from anything else I don't think it really reflects current practice (and hence consensus) as it reads now. - SiobhanHansa 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have used this link to justify the removal (over objections of website owners) of links that at best contain the same information as the article does, and frequently have substantially less information than the Wikipedia article. I would be sorry to lose this provision.

Editors in substantially incomplete articles have successfully invoked WP:IAR in the service of readers. I'm not really seeing a problem here. I do not support removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is an important provision that must be kept as is, to avoid external link farms and to encourage addition of cited content to our articles, rather than a dump of external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable links for compilation album

For a compilation album, are links to the official sites of the contributing artists generally considered acceptable or are they linkspam? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably best asked at WikiProject Music to see if they've already addressed it but I would tend to say it sounds like a directory listing which is inappropriate. I personally would think even for a single artist's album that an external link to the artist (rather than to a page on the album itself) would be inappropriate. We should wikilink to our articles about the artists (giving readers encyclopedic information first). There will be external links on those pages if readers need more info about them. -- SiobhanHansa 12:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to Site with rich information...

I have been contacted by one of the editors, Mr. Beestra, regarding a few links that I placed. The site that I placed external links to, www.opposingviews.com, features well known experts debating major issues, such as the death penalty, right to die, and other topics that we also cover here in Wikipedia.

I have read all the wikipedia guidelines and policies, including everything to do with spamming, and have no idea why links to this site from relevant articles would not be correct. Specifically, links from: - Articles on the names experts that have links to their written and video debates on important topics (such as the Heritage Foundation or NRA) - Articles on key consumer debates, such as the Death Penalty.

In both the cases, the content on Opposing Views digs deeper than the encyclopedia content that is well written on Wikipedia. It is directly related to the topics, provides a deeper dive, and would not belong in Wikipedia.

In addition, in all the articles that I am looking at, both the organization articles and the issue articles, there are many external links that are in place that have far less relevant information.

Per my reading, all of the links I have placed comply perfectly with the policies, and do not violate ANY of the link spam rules at all. And, most importantly, a reader wanting to learn more about one of these organizations and/or issues, would be well served visiting this site.

How do I go about white-listing these links, and/or can someone please explain to me if they are in violation... what they are violating ?

Thanks....

MisterFine (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Russell

MisterFine (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)