Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed. Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide. Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Find a Grave and Imbd

What is needed is clarification of whether these websites are appropriate to use. There is a discussion again at the talk page of Mae West. If you would please look at the difs under arbitrary break, you will see that this discussion has happened many times and for years. I thought maybe coming here to get responses about it would help finally find closure to the issue. The problems I have with these sites is the information added to those sites are without any vetting process and has editors that volunteer like we have at this site, to give the information. With that kind of process there is no way of knowing if the information is correct or not. At least at this site we have to provide reliable sources, something these two sites do not require, at least that is my understanding. Personally I think they should be blacklisted for use in articles, including EL, but I will wait for discussions here with the hopes that a consensus can finally be reached about all of this. It's been my understanding for a long time that both of these sites were not acceptable for use. Now it is said that they cannot be used as sources in an article but that they can be used in the external link sections even though I think it fails to meet ELNO #1 and probably other policies. I hope I'm at the right board about this. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Find a Grave is the worst spammed site here on wiki...not only are they unreliable they also generaly have less info the our articles...plus many of there articles are just mirrors of Wikipidia. Dont know how people think its a good site. It seem to break so many of our polocies that its unbelievable its still here.Moxy (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a firm consensus that Find A Grave and IMDB are not reliable sources and that Find-A-Grave also do not meet our requirements for external links. We've had this strong consensus every single last time these questions have come up on any policy related discussion. The only time people question this are on individual article talk pages by people unfamiliar with our policies or when the Find-A-Grave spammers get involved. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree that both sites are bad. Maybe this needs to go to get them blacklisted so they stop being used? DreamGuy, could you give me the dif for the consenses? I'd really appreciate it. I've never asked for anything to be banned for use at this site but I really believe these two need it to be done. I am willing to figure out how to do it if no one else is going to. I have a question, hopefully it's not a stupid question, but what is a spider? I was just looking at the Find a Grave site, I believe I was at the bulletin board when I saw the list of who was on site at the time. It named some of the members, said some guests were there but then also said some spiders were also at the site. What is this and is it dangerous to users? For disclosure, I linked this thread to the Mae West talk page where the discussion was occurring. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a spider. I would also like to see these diffs as I have yet to see a good clear consensus but would like to. Usually, they have ended with no consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of spamming it to articles. Please take note of my edit there to remove about a dozen uses of Find a Grave. To Berean Hunter, thank you for letting me know what a spider is. I guess it's not dangerous but why would they be at this site? Just a generic answer will do because obviously you won't know for sure. I found this article on DreamGuy's talk page under a dif about consensus or not about Find a Grave. There are more difs at the link I provide at the talk page of Mae West but I am still interested is the difs that DreamGuy talks about since I am just starting to look into this issue. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with Moxy above. As I stated on the article talk page, most all FindAGrave links do not meet our external link guidelines, particularly ELNO point 1 because they do not expand on the scope of coverage that our articles already have. I don't see this as being a borderline case either, except in circumstances where the photos are of a better quality than any presented in the article in question. I don't really think the community has ever come up with a broad consensus on the issue (other than the consensus represented in the external links guidelines), but I do agree that everytime I've seen the links discussed the broad opinion seems to discourage their use. on a side note, although not a reliable source, IMDB is generally considered a viable external link in articles about film people and films themselves ThemFromSpace 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The last major discussion that I know about which did not have a clear consensus. (@ Crohnie) - the spider bots are simply indexing the pages for search engines. They're not harmful to you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Berean Hunter. I checked out the link you supplied and other links and the common thing I am seeing is circular discussions. Also, a lot of the editors who are supporting this link is also a member of Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people, at least it looks like it to me from the talk page discussions. That brings me to another comment, at the top of the talk page is a supposed email from the owner of Find a Grave (who if memory services me was banned or blocked from this site). Now obviously I can't prove it's an email sent or not but assuming good faith I say it is. Reading the talk page it looks like they are trying to get find a grave in a certain amount of articles, at least again that is my read of things. I'm sorry but over 10,000 time this site is put into the project is wrong in so many ways. It's not a case of 'I don't like it' or any of the other claims made in the different difs I've read. I think it is wrong because it's a major breach in a bunch of policies and guidelines. When asking those who are for the site to stay in they claim the editor(s) for the most part just don't like it and retort with WP:IAR. Well this time I don't think IAR can cover it. 10K+, now think about that. That is spamming in a big way. Now if editors want this site, even though the site itself said it may not be accurate, read it's disclaimers, than I want policies that support using these sites and IAR will not be acceptable to me. I would appreciate any hints, ideas and so on at my talk page how I would go about getting these two sites, esp. the Find a Grave one blacklisted or even white listed. I'd appreciate help with this if you are interested but take it to my talk page as it doesn't belong here, at least not yet. I'm leaving my computer now so please be patient. Feel free to email me if necessary. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this has come up so often should be a BIG hint to those that like the site that its not reliable nor an asset to Wikipedia and its readers. Using this sites as a references is simply laziness on the part of are editors or there ignorance of its reliability. So much time is wasted having to defend the removal of this links when in reality it should be the other way around. That is the links should have to prove there value and not spammed at will. Great example is at Leslie Nielsen were the FAG template was placed just after his death findagrave.com/Leslie Nielson page- as you can see it does not have more info nor info on what the site is intended for that is grave location. Moxy (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Find-a-Grave nor IMDb should not be used as references for any biographical content because some of the content is user submitted, but I don't believe either should be excluded as an external link. The fact that the Find-a-Grave issue supposedly keeps coming up really proves nothing except for the fact that seemingly the same people don't like the link and claimed it has been spammed throughout the project (which I believe was actually the result of the Find-a-Grave Wikiproject) and want it removed. There have been numerous discussions about the Find-a-Grave link but I've yet to see a clear consensus saying that it should be omitted. What I do see is the same folks saying there's a consensus but failing to provide at least one diff for it. While I agree that in some cases the link serves very little purpose (ie when a subject first dies and has yet to even be buried so no grave information is even available), I find the link more useful in cases where the subjects are lesser known (ie silent film stars, b-movie actors, etc.) and at least include a photo of the subject that we might not have. As for the point that Find-a-Grave doesn't conform to policy because the content isn't vetted, neither are other websites we link to that are still around. Case in point, TV.com, and IMDb of course. I have personally found numerous mistakes on both websites and the content there is supposedly vetted by staff members. If we're going to follow policy by the letter, I think we need to do away with all these websites along with links to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and fansites of all varieties as well. We shouldn't be picking and choosing what crap sites are linked here. Either we do away with all of them or take them on a case by case basis once and for all. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that all of those websites should be grouped together and handled similarly. Their inclusion as an WP:EL in articles appears to me to be sloppy enforcement of the external link guidelines. The bar for inclusion of any external link is accuracy. "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article ...relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." If we aren't confident that the information found at the link is accurate it should be excluded. Eudemis (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, this is my first time questioning the use of these sources. Next, if you see errors in a site that is supposed to be vetted than don't use it for that article. As for Facebook, Twitter and Fansites those should not be used unless they are the official site of the person in the article. Than Facebook and Twitter I believe are allowed but to be honest I'll have to check that out. Fansites should be deleted immediately along with youtube.com. I have found that EL's haven't been cleaned up like they used to be. I don't know why but it is time to start cleaning them up. I have started recently when finding fansites and other links that either don't qualify for EL or they should be used or have been used in the article. We are all good a common sense here which is what is needed now. How would everyone like to procede from here? An RFC, blacklisting, white listing, what? I really do think this needs to finally be addressed and some kind of conclusion is needed. The editors here are for the most part agreeing that these two are not reliable sources. I think we probably need more editors to claim consensus but I have to say reading some of the difs provided at the Mae West talk page, I felt that the discussions there were also at consensus or close to it for keeping these out of the project. If it gets decided to delete them it will be a big project to do with over 10K mentions of just Find a Grave. I don't know how this got ignored so long, never mind a project being set up to put in a constant flow of this site. Please, lets do something, lets please do the right thing for the project. Thanks for listening to me again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing Crohnie, there's a pick and choose with these websites and I think it's high time we ALL get on the same page about them and remove all the crap or just let it all slide. This "case by case" basis is hardly ever enforced which is why I find these discussions a bit moot. Certain people bitch about Find-a-Grave every few months but personally, I find sites like Twitter, MySpace (which are hardly ever verified as being official) and Facebook more harmful than something like IMDb or Find-a-Grave. At least with the latter, you get some kind of decent information from them. I can't say the same for most social networking and fansites. I can guarantee that if we do say "hey, let's start removing everything but official sites!", all kinds of people will pop up and claim X's fansite and X's Twitter should be included for whatever reason, and the community will let it slide. That's why I don't see the big deal about Find-a-Grave. It's not any more harmful or any more of a violation of policy than IMDb, TV.com or any other user-drive site yet it is brought up every few months by selected editors. Until we start enforcing WP:EL by the letter on all links included in articles, I don't see the point in certain editors trying to enforce their opinion on articles when there's clearly no enforcement of the policy throughout the project. Get a clear community consensus such as date de-linking and then I'll be more than happy to enforce WP:EL to the letter. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook, myspace, twitter, and find-a-grave are all not acceptible as external links, unless they represent "official links" in cases where we can't find any better links to replace them. That they are allowed on so many articles is just poor enforcement of our external links guidelines. I nearly always remove these links from articles as they nearly always fail our external links guidelines. I would say that they are equally not appropriate, barring exceptional circumstances (as I laid out for find-a-grave elsewhere in this conversation). ThemFromSpace 15:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem our editors see this links everywhere so they think its acceptable and/or the norm on every page. We have the guidelines that are very clear but there not being implemented by our editors. Other stuff exists is not a very good reason to use substandard links that all sides seem to agree are not all that reliable. We as a community should be trying to enforce our current policies and guidelines not setting them aside because the task seem overwhelming our because others are not aware of them. We are advertising for this sites basically - Would love to see some stats on the percentage of hits to find a grave and the other sites mentioned that are generated via Wikipedia links, bet its very high. Moxy (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the intent really to continue to submit these until the someone says get rid of them. Find a grave has been brought up repeatedly every couple months and every time a weeks ling discussion ensues, at the end of which there is either no concensus or the determination is to keep it. We need to stop beating a dead horse. I recommend this discussion be closed. --Kumioko (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't think the link is acceptable because I see it everywhere. I think it's acceptable in certain cases because I don't believe it fails WP:ELNO and I see no consensus to leave it out. All I see is the same few editors bringing up how they don't like because it is a user-driven site and was spammed throughout the site eons ago. That's really not enough reason for me to agree with its removal. The reason I cited other websites such as IMDb as examples to not include the link is because IMDb was brought also to the table. If you don't want a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument brought to the table, don't have people participate in a discussion entitled "Find a Grave and Imbd". I mean, honestly, what's the difference between one crappy user driven website or the other? Because you think it's morbid or tacky? If you're going to follow policy, follow policy - that's the point you're seemingly missing here. I think Kumioko makes a great point, this discussion is brought up every few months and consensus is never reached and I highly doubt that's going to happen now as it appears only a handful of people actually care about this matter and it's basically the same people who don't like the link. As far as wanting to see stats about the amount of hits the links get, I'm sure there's a tool for that somewhere. I don't see how that's actually valid point in this case but whatever floats your boat. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Intent? ...its someone new every time that first brings it up. So your suggesting we never talk about it again and ignore new post on the matter? How are we ever going to get consensus either way if we dont talk. Better we follow policy like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and not an essay Wikipedia:Dead horse. This talk is civil and well presented by both sides. Moxy (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To Pinkadelica, I think you know me and know I don't pick arguements just for the sake to argue. I really do find this to be a disturbing problem. If it didn't I wouldn't have brought it here to persue it further. I think if you look at elno 1 & 12 you will see what I mean. To Kumioko: Are you active at the wp:project find a grave? I think disclosure of this is important to this discussion. May I suggest that everyone remove the different links that violate elno? Ignoing policy violations shouldn't be an option like some are suggesting. So how does everyone feel about removing the problem sites? To Moxy: If you figure out where to take this problem please ping me on my talk page so I can add to where ever you bring it. It's time ladies and gentlemen to stop putting out heads in the sand and ingoring this. The problems will only go away with actions, thank you again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not active in that project although I have done some work in the past to clean up some of them. Although it shouldn't matter anyway even if I was. I just don't share the belief that its such a bad link. I admit that it isn't great and that we shouldn't use it if there is a better one. As I have brought up the last 5 or 6 times this got submitted there just isn't, in many cases, a better place for the grave/Birth/Death information. So if you go eliminating all these links then you are also going to have to eliminate the birth/death and burial info because now it will either be unsourced or there will be no link on the article from which to get it. I suggest you go back and read some of the previously submitted discussions on the issue. You should be able to find them by searching the archives here and at the village pump. Also, I since most of these links are in External links they really aren't harming anything. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just like last time, you are (intentionally or not) mixing up external links with inline citations. Dates for birth and death dates are usually pretty easy to obtain, and most articles don't contain any burial information (even when a find a grave link is included!). Not to mention that "It's doing no harm" is one of the weakest arguments you can use here on Wikipedia. The most amusing of my removals of a find a grave link has been Atilla, by the way, where neither the exact birth date, death date, nor burial information is known. --Conti|✉ 14:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not mixing them up. I understand clearly what they both are and both using at as a reference as an inline citation and/or using it as an external link are both affected. I am not going to keep arguing about whether or not to keep this because a few users are forum shopping for the result they want. Now the bottom line is that this has been brought up time and time again and the Community has decided every time to keep it either because there was no consensus to eliminate it or because consensus was met that it should be kept. So to continue to bring it up again and again and again is just pushing POV and wasting editors time. With that said, as I said in the last 5 times or so (in the last year) this came up if consensus is that this link isn't wanted then I will go through and delete them all myself so we are rid of this once and for all. Then I will go back through and remove the information it referenced because for about 2000 articles (of about 12000 with the an FAG link) I spent hours going through in the past to either clean up or in prior discussion, this is the only place where the information is available. there is no website, book, magazine, newspaper obit, nothing. So unless someone can come up with a better site or method for getting this information, we loosen the restrictions on original research, the links need to stay. --Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then let's remove the link from the 10.000 articles where it's not needed, and keep it on the 2000 articles where it can be properly used as an inline citation. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, I agree that it looks like you are mixing up references with external links. External links do not reference any material in the article. If a find-a-grave link is being used as a reference it should not be in the external links section, it should be in the references section. This discussion is specifically focused on find-a-grave links in external links sections; ones that are not used as references. If you feel these are appropriate as external links, can you explain how they meet WP:ELNO point 1, especially in response to objections above that it doesn't? ThemFromSpace 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Conti, Even if the link isn't appropriate in many of the articles it is currently in doesn't mean we should remove it en masse. There are times when I feel this link is valid (such as on articles to graveyards, extremely short articles, or articles without photos (where we could link to find-a-grave's photo section). Removing the link without examining its usefulness isn't the way to do it. I think the best consensus we can get is that they should be discouraged and that their prevalence is no reason to retain them if they can be shown on an individual basis to not meet our guidelines. ThemFromSpace 15:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do look at every link when I remove them, it's just that I have not found a single instance of the link being appropriately used as an external link yet. Extremely short articles where their biography is larger than ours might be a reason to temporarily keep the link, but that's about it. Their photo gallery is actually yet another reason why we should remove the links, because the site doesn't seem to care one damn about copyright. --Conti|✉ 15:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Conti, If you are looking for some good examples were the link cannot be easily duplicated take a look at some of the early Medal of Honor recipients. Themfromspace, I could argue it but I have done that time and time again and every couple months someone just resubmits it again. I am at the point were I am getting tired of fighting for it. If knowone is going to say enough is enough and allow it to keep getting resubmitted every month then whats the point of consensus and its just wasting my time when I could be doing other things. Like deleting all the content that this link either references or validates as an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

{{od} Since theh discussion thus far has been predominantly about the Find a grave site I think we need to separate the 2 out from the orginal submission and deal with one first and then move to the second. Future discussions may become confusing if we start referring to the sites interchangeably. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose deleting them as EL, since I find the convenience of linking out worthwhile. As for reliability, I only wonder if an IMDB cite for the existence of a film will be made a fail if the site is banned. Sometimes there's little more than that available. I suspect the same may be true of Findagrave. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to the Village pump

Rather than wait a week I submitted this to the village pump (policy) so folks don't have to read a weeks worth of discussions and catch up. --Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Final word from me...I agree its the same people that comemnt on both sides all the time. But i see even the "lets keep" side saying it not reliable. The argument that is made to keep the links is it might -perhaps -may - could have - a picture and or for grave info. While the removal side points (links) to policy after policy of what is wrong with these sites and y they should not be linked. Wiki is not a democracy and its not about votes but the best thing we can do for our readers and to follow policies set-forth by the community. That said I dont think 100 percent consensus will ever happen, but the side with the most valid argument should be the side we implement. If 80 percent of people posting to this talk say its should go y are we not doing it? Links of this nature make Wikipedia look unreliable as all know that no academic institution would ever use this links as references or suggest them for further knowledge on topics. We need to set standers and clearly Find a Grave and Imbd would be at top of the list of links that should go.Moxy (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to CrohnieGal's posting a section above. Yes, the e-mail is indeed from the owner of Find-a-grave. He actually was asked by Wikipedia editors to give the database information to Wikipedia, he was reluctant at first. You can read about it in the WikiEN-l archives. I think your memory does indeed fails you. I don't think the owner was ever banned or blocked or even edited on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the discussion be listed at WP:CENT? That would probably bring in some different people to comment. LadyofShalott 15:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is wide-ranging or important enough to be put on WP:CENT, which I feel should be used for key policy changes, etc. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think putting it up at the Village pump, which splits up the conversations going on here, was a bad idea. Anyways I commented there too, basically saying what I said here with one major thing added. The additions of EL's are very inconsistant. A newly set up page now shows this too here. Now apparently even Twitter and Facebook are allowed ocassionally. I think if we follow this page and ocassionally allow these different sites we will bring the value of the articles down. I think Moxy nails it on the head about all of this. I will continue to try to get our articles with information but the information will be of reliable sources even in the EL sections. Some EL sections have over a half a dozen links that say the same thing and they aren't reliable to use as sources in the article. I am aware that EL's do not need to be reliable sources but maybe they should be to better the articles. Think about it... --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding findagrave.com to User:XLinkBot

Anyone opposing the idea of adding findagrave.com to User:XLinkBot's list? If we want to restrict or discourage the usage of the site (as has been suggested above), this would be a good start. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think thats appropriate at this time since the there is NO consensus on not using the site yet. Especially since its arguably not spam...A bad reference perhaps but not spam. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We would have to see how these links get added. XLinkBot is only good for links such as Facebook that primarily get added by new or unregistered users. I have a suspicion that the majority of find-a-grave links are added by more experienced users not familiar with our external links guidelines who add them because theyve seen them on other articles. In such cases I don't think XLinkBot would do much good (although it certainly couldn't hurt). Perhaps we can get a new COIBot log going of how this link is being added. There is currently a COIBot record of this link, but it hasn't been updated lately.

Also, Kumioko, I think there is an emerging consensus above to discourage linking externally to this site, no matter how dedicated you are to spreading the link around. ThemFromSpace 15:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Any way that we can stop this site from being used as a link is fine with me. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

First I am not spreading the link around. All I did was clean it up if you bothered to look before blaming me for it. There is no emerging consensus. Its the same people resubmitting a proposal that's been rejected repeatedly by consensus but if knowone is willing to see that or do anything about that then thats too bad and maybe the term "consensus" is really useless since it will prove if we don't like something just keep resubmitting it until we get the vote we want. I am tired of seeing it constantly getting resubmitted. But since knowone cares here are a couple things that might help.

1. There are 12500+ articles that link to {{Find a Grave}}
2. There are 31,697 linked here.

To me this is more an issue of consensus shopping than of the link itself so here is what I will do in support of this if its passed. If the consensus is that this link should be deleted then I will willingly follow its direction and go and delete it myself. I should be able to do this in less than a week and we can all move on. I will start by eliminating the ones under external links first. Then I will go through and eliminate the ones used as references as well as the information it sources (since it will no longer be sourced). With that said, When they stat disappearing because of this New consensus watch how many people start popping up complaining about it and everyone will see what the consensus really is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop saying it the same editors submitting this request about this? This is the first time I have brought this up so please lets stop saying this "Its the same people resubmitting a proposal that's been rejected repeatedly" (partical quote). Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have it wrong ..its not being resubmitted until we get the vote we want. its being mentioned every few months by new people and should be a big hint that most think its unreliable or not appropriate for wiki. Moxy (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine I am going to stop being the voice fighting for it. IF consensus determines that it isn't to be used then I will volunteer to implement that change. I do think its going to end up causing more problems though. --Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kumioko that Wikipedia's silent majority will become vocal after any consensus is met here. Confusing signals such as having a WP Project for F-A-G, having a template to simplify its addition, and the longstanding establishment (acceptance?) within articles, EL or Refs, is after all de facto. Twenty or Thirty editors here won't be able to form a consensus for the project.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the WikiProject has much to do here, since 1. Wikiprojects are subject to community-wide guidelines and consensus and 2. the project largely appears dead. Whatever we decide with regards to community guidelines should be followed by the WikiProject (which would involve rewriting the project page which encourage improperly linking to this site as an EL). Let's be thankful that the project isn't more active than it is. ThemFromSpace 17:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Having COIBot check for the site again sounds like a really good first step. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continue to debate and drag this out further and in the spirit of getting this moving to what ever conclusion is coming can I suggest 2 things: First I think we need to get a straw poll going and second I think we need to post a notice of this discussion on some of the related projects, such as WPMILHIST and WP biography. --Kumioko (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why WPMILHIST? Generally speaking, though, getting more (and uninvolved) opinions on this is always a good idea. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have a discussion here and a mention at the village pump so its not like this is going on unnoticed. I think this is enough advertising for now, unless a serious change is being debated (such as to mass-remove the links). Having a discussion about whether one website meets the external link guidelines isn't all that big of a to-do in the scheme of things. ThemFromSpace 17:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to WPUS, WPBiography, WPMILHIST and the Findagrave project page even if for no better reason than to keep track of the discussions every other month. --Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) I think this is a good idea to add these two links to User:XLinkBot. With reading all of this, I find that sending this conversation off to so many diferent places is good and my read of things says the most editors agree that these links should not be continued to be added to articles like they have been. Just for the record I would like to again state that this is my first time bringing up this discussion. So please, in my hunble opinion I think that both Find a Grave and Imdb should be added to the bots work. Thanks to all for a good discussion. If someone feels an iVote is needed to see a clear consensus please don't hesitate. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on findagrave first. I don't think there's a consensus that IMDB links are inappropriate, and they are standard practice in film articles. I very rarely remove any IMDB links when cleaning up EL sections, they most often add some material which is beyond the scope of the article. ThemFromSpace 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel much the same way about the Find a grave site. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Imdb isn't a reliable source in an article so why should it be used in an external link section? That just doesn't make sense to me. Either it's a reliable source or it isn't. We know it isn't so it should not be in the EL's either. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Because EL's don't HAVE to be a 'reliable source'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that but the question still stands. Why would we allow an EL that is not considered a reliable source but allow it to be in our EL sections. What I am saying is this, imdb.com isn't a reliables source for our articles because it's like an open wiki and has a lot of errors it it. At leaset this is the reasons I keep seeing for it to be excluded. If that is [part] the case then why would we find it acceptable as an EL if there are errors in it or other problems with it? I've been looking real closely lately since editor Pinkadelia made the comments that we need to be consistant, and she's right. There are multiple articles with imdb.com that also have allmovie.com and so on. We need to get consistant about all of this. I don't care about previous discussions anymore since all consensuses can and do change. So, do like I've been doing, go to multiple artile esp. ones with long EL's and check them out. Then go through the articles references and see what has been added and what source is used. I really was surprised when I did this so maybe you will be too. It doesn't take long to do, that is unless your computer locks up which mine did a lot unfortuntately. I think if you take a close look at some of our articles you will be surprised and maybe even disappointed at the lack of quality. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE permits editors to use their discretion because this sometimes helps the article. There are two major reasons:

1. Logic: Reliability can only be determined in the context of a specific statement. As external links support no specific statements, it is impossible to determine whether they are reliable. No source is reliable for every single purpose, and nearly all sources are reliable for some purpose. For example: a garbage-y fansite put together by a kid is "not a reliable source"—except that it is a perfectly reliable (first-party, primary) source for the fact that the fansite exists. Contrasting example: A popular university maths textbook is an excellent "reliable source"—for information about mathematics. It's a completely unreliable source for information about movies, or current stock prices, or political scandals, or any number of other subjects.
   In the absence of a specific statement, you cannot actually figure out whether the webpage is "reliable". The "reliability" of 100% of external links is "unknown", by the very definition of an external link.
2. Appropriateness: We don't want to unreasonably exclude websites that readers have a legitimate expectation of finding. WP:ELOFFICIAL is defined very strictly, so there are websites that are both "unreliable" (meaning the class of source you would normally avoid because they have no editorial oversight, e.g., a personal website) and "not official" that readers might reasonably expect to find. For example: An article about a dead person might reasonably link to the website of a private charitable foundation created by that person, or the business s/he was famous for starting, or perhaps a snapshot of the person's artwork on someone else's blog (if the image isn't available elsewhere). These aren't generally "reliable" sources, in the tradition of the third-party WP:Independent sources that we rely on, but they may be appropriate. Another example: The link might be "unreliable", and also on WP:ELYES. (IMDb falls into that category, by the way.)

Editors need to use their discretion, and that means both boldly adding links they believe improve the article, and bold removing links that they think are substandard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

IMDB.com IS a reliable source

I've had four (actually seven or eight by now...) edit conflicts trying to get my two bits in here, and now can't find the right section, so since most of the above is about Find-A-Grave, I'm starting this section re IMDB only. I'm speaking in support of IMDB as a valid source. I'm in the film industry (I'm an actor) and actually have my own listing there; and I can attest that their data standards are very high, and that items such as cast listings and crew and locations and such are all thoroughly checked and verified. They're something of an icon in the industry, a "central site", not like other resume-oriented sites or film listings; it is regarded, and used, as an authority. IMDB is an "industry standard" and both highly regarded as a credible source and respected for its fact-checking procedures. It really doesn't belong in the same discussion as Find-A-Grave, and glad to see it's not in the vote, it belongs to stay. I really don't know where you get the idea, stated above in various places, that it's not a reliable source.....the industry it serves certainly thinks of it that way, Unlike Wikipedia, nothing goes public on that site until it has been fact-checked with production company, person in question, agents, union credits etc. I can attest to their process, having to have worked at getting a few episode-credits added to my own page there.Skookum1 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In general, open wikis (e.g., Wikipedia itself) are not considered reliable sources. IMDb has an "edit page" button, and even though they require (free) registration and they've implemented a sort of WP:Pending changes process, that doesn't change the fact that it's still an open wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

" nothing goes public on that site until it has been fact-checked with production company, person in question, agents, union credits etc." This is not true, see for example [1]. Yoenit (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for helping make the point that it is not a reliable source. I'm sorry Skookum1 but we don't go by personal experiences or POV. This site, like the Find a Grave site should have no place in this project. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The fanblog anecdote was an interesting read, thank you for linking it. Alas, even The New York Times can be unreliable, see [2]! Different things of course. These previous discussion comments may allow interested people to see other factors brought up by community members. Kind regards, Whitehorse1 00:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)~

Awright

Guys, I'm tired of this. We're getting this particular set of questions every couple of months. Please go to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and fill in the blanks until we have got something that more or less accurately describes the situation.

So I expect that you've all heard the following joke: The prisoners have gathered, and someone says "29!" The crowd snickers, and the new guy looks bemused. Another person says "48", and the group laughs out loud. This goes on for a while, and the new guy asks someone what's happening. "Oh, we've been here so long, and we're always telling the same jokes, so we just numbered them. Now you just have to say the number, rather than telling the whole thing."

IMO that's what we need to do: We need to get the standard arguments listed. Whenever this comes up, people say the same things over and over and over again. The goal is to write down what people usually say, so that when someone asks, they can get a simple, concise summary rather than getting stuck in another week-long, five-thousand-word discussion.

Please feel free to add other websites that come up frequently: There's plenty of room on the page for Facebook, MySpace, and whatever else is on your mind (and has been on this noticeboard). Whenever possible, please quote and link the exact line in WP:EL that supports a given argument (both "pro" and "anti").

(If you're not familiar with WP:PEREN, you might like to look over that first.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, although I'm not looking forward to the inevitable edit wars happening on that page. --Conti|✉ 01:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I, but we have several experienced editors in this conversation, so I'm hoping that at least one of us will remember how to work collaboratively without edit warring.  ;) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is going along fine, why not join in. It's time to try to actually resolve the problems rather than just ignore them isn't it? I know I would appreciate you joining and commenting above. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the next step?Moxy (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make sense

Hello all, I would like to throw a penny (maybe several so bear with me) into the well. Please WP:AGF as I am fairly new and have just run into this discussion/problem. I have no agenda so my opinions will be impartial but are also just my opinions. I have specific concerns being reliability of resourses, references, and links. I am somewhat perplexed and a little upset at what I have read.

I am perplexed because I realize some information on the sites might be important (grave location) and see this is listed under EL's only, but seems important concerning source and references, and read things like:

• 1)- the joke about the numbering; Possibly true in this case and might mean there is progress if there is a numbered amount of issues.
• 2)- an editor involved in the discussion (in support) that has edited the questioned site; I am glad the editor admitted this and as I assume good faith see there are good arguments as to involvement. Getting past this I read his comment, "...arguably not spam...A bad reference perhaps...", and all arguments aside this editor is against the site as a reference ("a bad reference perhaps"--did I read this right?), just seems unsure as to a solution considering the number of reported WP links or references that use the site. I am perplexed, considering the statement, why not seek work towards a solution, that seems paramount, instead of seeking closure.
• 3)- editors preferring the concerns not be brought up again;
• 4)- statements that a site does not have or has little regard for WP:Copy; This is serious and needs to be examined very closely.

I am upset because:

• I edit WP for the knowledge gained, to produce good articles, and to be involved in something that is good for others. None of this is possible if I use a reference or source that is questionable, "might" have copyright infringements, or is in any way not reliable. This means that if the subject has to come up once a month until consensus and conclusion, for the betterment of WP and the protection of my using reliable sources, then guess what? I also think this reoccurring issue means it is important and should not just be "closed" because it "will" resurface right?

I looked over "WP:PEREN" and a word jumped out; WP:community issue, that led to; WP:Areas for Reform, and I do not see as issues concerning discussions but issues that "must" be entertained to find a solution.

• A couple of entries; A great question, What is the next step?, is the best question so far. An almost great statement, ...we have several experienced editors in this conversation, so I'm hoping that at least one of us will remember how to work collaboratively without edit warring., would have been great but used the word "one" instead of "we" or "some of us".

"Find a grave" seems to garnered most of the discussion and one editor "rarely" has to remove Imbd links. I am not sure but it seems that "Find a grave" needs serious discussion. I have not (that I know of and will have to see) used this site. I don't know about Imbd, but have viewed the site as recently as today with Claus Schenk Graf von Graffenberg, and the information there (some I considered using) looked credible. I did see information I have not seen so can not confirm, "...von Stauffenberg saw a dead body being carried out of the building and thought it was Hitler...", See here, and doubt this statement, which is to me supposition thus original research, since the man and any witness with him for corroboration was executed. I could be wrong but can't use information on this page without further investigation. The problem is that many editors may new(er), not that familiar with the subject or over look questionable entries about the subject, or may assume the site as credible. However! questions I read about copyright infringement from "Find a Grave" is far more serious and warrants special discussion.

I am fairly new and not that experienced in many aspects of WP but it seems there would be a policy page, some sort of "Not a reliable source" essay page or some place where this could be discussed, or a list of questionable sites could be listed, to help editors ensure resources, links, or references are accurate. Accuracy needs to be paramount to us all.

• I would think there would be a policy concerning using any site that can be edited as a primary source or where the information can not be verified by another source. Imdb requests information of errors to be submitted for review by database managers for possible future updates which would appear to more controlled but since I do not know these managers I can not tell.
• Under "WP:Peren" I noticed that "Define reliable sources" was rejected but saw there was WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also it appears to me that:

WP:Identifying reliable sources does cover the issue with, "articles should be based on reliable, published sources", and this is further described as, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.". To me Find a Grave fails because of the publication process and the fact that it can be freely edited so the authors (editors) authoritativeness can not be ascertained. I have not decided on Imbd yet. User:XLinkBot was suggested and not shot down. I do not yet know what this is but if it helps then more discussion is needed right? I noticed that Kumioko submitted this to Village pump. What is this for or what will it resolve here?

• Conclusion:I think that continued work could result in some policy or guidlines per WP:Policies and guidelines#Proposals and would be good for WP. I think a place can be found where work can be done without fear of "closing" the unresolved issues, I still think that "What is the next step?", short of closing, is a great question. I hope I have helped some and applaud those that endeavor to improve WP. Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for a detailed and well thought out comment. You have several questions so I will try and address each:

1. The village pump is like a noticeboard that a lot of folks in the community watch that deals with a variety of things including policy changes, technical changes or recurring issues like this one. Whenever I am engaged in a discussion that would lead to a policy change affecting thousands (in this case tens of thousands) of articles I try and post a notice there to garner input from a larger audience.
2. You make a good argument for issues regarding reliable sources, and I have admitted all along that much of the information (including images) from the Find a grave site should not be used. we should only use it as an external link or IMO as a reference only for Birth/death/burial info, that's it.
3. a link or site need not be reliable to be an external link
4. The Find a gave site for good or bad, represents the only source of birth/death/burial info for thousands of articles (some that don't have the link yet even or articles that have yet to be created like hundreds of Medal of Honor recipients). If we stop using this as a source when no other source is known, then we have to remove the information from the article as well and then, in the case of at least a couple hundred articles at least, we would probably need to delete the article itself because there would be almost nothing left worth having an article for. I would be a stub about a person who did a thing, with no birth, death or burial info.
5. With regard to Original research! if we stop using the find a grave site then the only way to get some of the Birth/death burial info is by Original research which we cannot use. So we are left with a hard choice. Do we accept a source that is known to be limited in trustworthyness or do we start deleting articles because a critical source of the info was deleted? Since the Find a grave site doesn't have an original research clause and the people are free to gather the information (again I'm only talking birth/death/burial info here) its not original research anymore than its original research getting it from a book written by an author who found the information.
6. Know I cant speak for every article but I can tell you for a fact that in the case of many of the early Medal of Honor recipients we are going to have an extremely hard time duplicating the information in this reference. The data in a number of cases was derived from reviewing death records at the cemetery where the individual was buried or from the headstone. There is no book with the info, there is no New York times obituary, many of them died and were buried in a time when the Medal of Honor wasn't held in as high of regard as it is today so there simply is no documentation.
7. In regards to the Imdb site again thats one that has information that is going to be hard to duplicate in many instances. If we get rid of it as a source or an External link we may as well delete the article its on as well.
8. I also want to clarify that the reason I use reference and External link somewhat interchangeably here is because many many users, for right or wrong, use the external links as a holding pool for references to be used in the future or they put references there because its an "external link" linking to a site external to WP.
9. Although I do not support eliminating these from being used I do think we need to add some wording to the policy to clarify how and for what these 2 links can be used. For example, "the Find a Grave site should only be placed in the external links section or as may be used as a reference for Birth/death and burial info only and only when a better source is not available."...or something to that effect.

I hope this helps to clear things up a little. --Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well said Otr500 .... So what do we do next with this site that all believe is not as a whole reliable. Were is the place for us to turn for a conclusion to this and action on the conclusions. Moxy (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well since the conversation has already gone on this long here I say we keep it going here. Either that or the Village pump (policy) page. Any suggestions for what to suggest. Are we recommending to kill the link or refine the policy to clarify when and how it should be used? --Kumioko (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Otr500, I think you're missing a lot of context:

I'm tired of this discussion because it keeps happening, not because there's anything wrong with this particular iteration of the discussion. The Wikipedia community discusses Find A Grave several times a year, including occasional rounds of knock-down, drag-out fights. ChronieGal doubtless had no idea that this website was discussed here, here, here, here, and here, just to name the conversations from 2010 that I'm aware of; if she'd known this was a perennial question, she wouldn't have asked it. She would have read the archives and saved herself a lot of time.

The reason these question keep appearing is (I believe) simply because nobody writes down the results on (as you put it) "some sort of "Not a reliable source" essay page or some place where this could be discussed, or a list of questionable sites could be listed".

Instead of letting this lengthy conversation end up in the archives, let's go write down the results at WP:External links/Perennial websites. You are invited to help finish writing it. Does it say what you think needs to be said? Does it include a brief summary of all the major points? If not, then add them!

In the future, when someone comes around here to ask what's up with the website, we'll just tell them "You could save yourself a lot of time by reading WP:ELPEREN," rather than wasting another week on a long discussion that nobody (except me) will remember a month later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone created an essay with several of the commonly mentioned sites including find a grave here in the last couple days and added it at the top of this noticeboard regarding the use of Find a grave, Facebook, Myspace and a few others. This Essay calls out specificially that find a grave should almost never be used. I think we really need to get concensus on this matter before we start drafting essays and policy that says we shouldn't use it. All we are doing is adding, without concensus, more policy against the use of the site for those that don't like it. It seems very much like a casual way of circumventing concensus by inventing new rules that ensures that it doesn't meet policy. Now we have gone round and round here and obviously we have some differing views. So, here is what I suggest:

1. We need to determine concensus about the use of the site before we start drafting more policy stating that this site shouldn't be used.
2. Lets get a vote going to determine concensus...again.

Here are some pros and cons about the use of the site for consideration. Feel free to add to them:

Pro

1. Contains Birth/Death and burial information not available anywere else
2. Easily accessible website
3. Is geing updated constantly with new information
4. Is in a database format so linking to an entry is easy
5. We already have a template created for it

Con

1. May not have accurate information
2. May contain copyright information
3. Contains some useless and arbitrary information (such as the ability to leave flowers and messages for dead)
4. I supdated by volunteers like Wikipedia
5. Has no requirement to add references to the grave entry or details about how the information was gathered.
6. Deleting the site will leave hundreds or thousands of articles with no links or references. Even more if IMDb is deleted as well
7. This is going to cause a lot of anger among some users who have been actively using it and some may stop editing completely

Comments

1. We know how many articles the site links too so it will be fairly easy to delete them once we determine if the site is to be kept
2. We need to identify the hundreds of articles that have this as the only link or reference and probably mark them for deletion once the link is eliminated. This inludes a number of Actors/Actresses, military personnel and athletes (particularly baseball). Add several hundred more to that if we also eliminate the IMDb site.
3. If the site is eliminated well need to add it to the appropriate bots so as the site is re-added to articles it could be deleted
4. If it is eliminated we will need to delete the Find a Grave project and applicable templates
5. Same goes for IMDb if applicable.
6. Just in the English Wikipedia there are 12500+ articles that link to {{Find a Grave}} and 31,697 linked here. Its hard to tell at this point how many actually use it as a reference but my guess is it will be several hundred. There are thousands more if you include the other Wikis. Since it seems inevitable at this point (because it will undoubtedly continue to get resubmitted until its voted out) once the determination is made to delete them I can do it in a matter of days.
7. Again in English Wikipedia only there are over 200, 000 articles with this link so eliminating it will be a massive undertaking. Here is a breakdown.
   1. {{IMDb title}} links to 72773 articles
   2. {{IMDb company}} links to 700
   3. {{IMDb episode}} links to 2023
   4. {{IMDb name}} links to 68856
   5. {{IMDb character}} links to 647
   6. Thousands more are linked Here. I stopped at 20, 000

I wholeheartedly think that if these 2 sites are eliminated we are making a horrible mistake that will take years to undo. If the determination is made to get rid of them though I can do it in a matter of days for find a grave and a couple weeks for IMDb. I also feel compelled to mention that if we go through with this there will be severe backlash and anger from the community so prepare for that. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your "Pro" points for find-a-grave:

1. Not true in the vast majority of cases, birth and death dates are usually widely available, same for burial information. In the few cases where only find a grave provides such information, we might consider using it as a source, not as an external link.
2. Um... so?
3. ...by volunteers, see Con #4
4. Again: so? How on earth is that a reason to link to the site?
5. "We have a template for it, so we might as well use it" is horrible reasoning. We used to have a template that told you the current century, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea to use it in our articles. :)

All in all, I really don't see any reasons to use the site in the first place, apart from some few cases where it might be used as a reference, and not as an external link. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Only one person seems to like the sites. The main problem here i think is a misunderstanding of what is a good source - the site is or is not reliable (cant have it both ways) - we cant pick out what we think is reliable from nonreliable source. They are either good or bad. Do you realy believe that grave location is so important that we are willing to let this site (we all agree is not reliable) spammed all over the place at will. Moxy (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

For one I am not the only one (I assume you are referring to me) I am just the only one commenting this time because, if I had to make a guess, everyone else is tired of talking about it every month. And there is no misunderstanding, I admit that the site has limited usefulness but in lieu of a better reference should be allowed. If the site is not appropriate as an external link then it cannot be appropriate as a reference. One of the reasons fro having an External links section is to allow for links that are not appropriate as a reference (such as a corporate website or in certain cases a facebook site). I might be inclined to agree with the argument of not using it as a reference but I don't agree with the argument...at all..that its not appropriate as an external link. And either we can use it or we can't. We can't pick and choose when we want to use it and when we don't. As I said before. Lets get another vote going so we can see where concensus is and either we can get to deleting it or we can wait a couple months for the next time its submitted and hash this out again. It shouldnt take longer than march for it to pop back up again. At this point I am done fighting for it and discussing it until someone brings out a vote. You are right that I am, so far this time around, the only one that seems to care about keeping these so lets put the vote out, see what people think and go from there. If I am truly the only one that sees this as a problem (which I am positive is not the case) then so be it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, I think you are seriously misunderstanding the External links section.

For example, you say "If the site is not appropriate as an external link then it cannot be appropriate as a reference." There are many sources that make perfectly fine reliable sources, and make really lousy external links. There's the whole group of reliable sources known as "books printed on paper", for example. There are reliable sources that briefly support some tangential detail, and are thus inappropriate external links. There are reliable sources that provide less information than the Wikipedia article, and thus fail WP:ELNO#EL1. In short, your statement is completely wrong.

Furthermore, you say that "either we can use it or we can't. We can't pick and choose when we want to use it and when we don't." This is wrong. You are absolutely required to "pick and choose". The guideline directly prohibits you from including every single link that isn't banned: see "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" (emphasis added). You are required to use editorial judgment—see the link to WP:COMMONSENSE in the guideline's lead—and if you can't use good judgment when choosing links, then please stop editing altogether. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this is discussion is whether Find a grave is appropriate to be used (for all the reasons above) as an external link. Your right there are cases were something can be suitable for an external link and usually books arent appropriate for external links (should go in the Further reading section IMO) For the same reasons pointed out above if the Find a grave link isn't appropriate as an external link then that same justification some users are using for eliminating it would also force the same result when using it as a reference. With some references that may not be the case but it would with this one. If we are banning the use of this site as an EL because its unreliable, may contain copywritten info, may contain circular references to WP, etc then there is no way it could be used as a reference undeer the same justification. In regards to the picking and choosing comment I was referring to the statements indicating that we can use it for some and not for others. Just to calrify all I am asking for is that this reference be allowed only as an EL or as a reference for the Birth/death and burial info and only if there aren't better sources available. So I guess thats picking and choosing I admit but its a lot clearer than saying use your best judgement and hope for best (because some editors judgement is better than others lets admit) and its better than an all out ban. I also agree that if we have evidence that the entry contains copywritten info then we shouldn't use it. I just don't agree with an all out ban which is what is being proposed. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
The following - inappropriate votepushing/consensus-dodging/ad hominems (WP:DE) is archived. Please do not modify it.
Poll for "find a grave" Remove as per editors consider it a type of fansite that is not written by a recognized expert (ELNO #11). Some pages may contain copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK). If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include. Find-a-Grave does not exercise editorial control. It may silently incorporate material from Wikipedia, which is a circular reference.Moxy (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Keep with comments - But clarify that the Find a grave link should only be used as an external link or if no other reference is available, as a refernce only for the Birth/Death/Burial info only. Regardless of what some users may believe Birth/death and burial info is important enough to include in the article and in some cases, such as the early Medal of Honor recipients, there are NO published sources of the information available. --Kumioko (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Question does this site this site and this site not contain all the info for Medal of Honor recipients - after looking at Find A grave is see that many articles are just a copy and past from this sites.Moxy (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC) No they don't. Yes you are correct that the citations are copied however the 3 sites you identified do not contain the death and or burial details (most of the births are covered but not all). I also use several other sites as well such as the USMC Whos who site, the Navy Historical Society, Congressional Medal of Honor society, and others including the new York times. But in the end the Find a grave site still is the only place were this data can be gathered for most of them. For example. I have gone through most of the existing recipients and used the find a grave site as a reference for the burial location. If this goes through I will now have to not only delete the link but also the location data because it will now be unreferencable (no other source is likely to have it so theres no reason to keep it) eventhough I think it is very useful to the article to have the burial location. This will also include the removal of categories such as Burials at X cemetery or Bruials in X state and possibly birth and death categories needing to be replaced by Birth/death missing because this info isn't "published" anywhere else. We will also likely need to clear out the dates from teh Persondata template, Infobox and the like because it will, in a number of cases, be unreferenceable. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC) As one example look at American Civil War recipient Christian Albert. The links you provided have his birth location as Cinncinati Ohio but doesn't provide anything for the date of Birth or death, place of death, or burial location. All this is derived from the Find a grave site and is loosely verified by the image contained on the find a grave site. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Keep on a per case basis - no blanket removal nor approval of the site - individual inclusions must stand on their merits. Some widescale treatment (tagging?) of existing links to site might be needed to "prepare the field" though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "preparing" the field? --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Keep as an external link only An unreliable source should not be used as last resource source, it should simply not be used at all. If that means we lose a lot birth and death dates, so be it. I don't see a problem which would require mass removal as external links though. I think wp:ELNO 12 might be relevant, as this a wiki-like database "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Yoenit (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Thnak you for your vote -i like to see oppnions backup by policy - this would be the first time i see someone on the pro side actualy use a policy to back up there aggument - good job - though i do dissagree with your view of the policy as i see it as a mirror site.Moxy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Remove - As Moxy says... If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition not worthy of inclusion. Unverifiable and unverified. Using it is close to original research, as in, seeking and searching for a difficult to find fact, - not what we are here to do. We are here to report WP:reliable reports of notable events and personal details of noteworthy people. Not to go down the births and death record office and investigate.Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Remove, as clearly not conforming to WP:RS. From the evidence I've seen, this can't really be denied, so the arguments for using the site seem to come down to 'there often isn't anything better', and 'we've used it so many times we're stuck with it'. These arguments just don't stand up. Verifiability, and the use of reliable sources, are core Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be compromised for the convenience of editors. Actually though, this 'poll' is probably meaningless because (a) Wikipedia doesn't decide such issues by voting, and (b) even if a consensus was reached here to allow the use of the site, it would still have no binding effect: you can't decide to override general policy for a particular issue 'by consensus'. If you want the use of the site to be permitted, you need to get policy changed - something that I for one would strongly oppose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Keep- We are talking about use as a WP:EL not as a WP:RS(another discussion perhaps!), so keep and use with caution. Basically the same as IMDb. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, we are talking about the use of the site as an external link. What's your point here? --Conti|✉ 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC) That the arguments given by Off2riorob and AndyTheGrump are about its use as a source rather than an external link? Yoenit (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Remove Per elno #1, 2, 4 and 12. This site should not be in this project. I think I've commented enough why it should be removed. I think imdb.com has now been proven unreliable too. --CrohnieGalTalk 00:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Encourage removal as an EL. The typical links to findagrave from biography articles are inappropriate: they add no additional material that cannot be written into the text of the article and as such should be discouraged per ELNO point 1 and should be removed unless it can be shown that each link individually adds encyclopedic material to the article that cannot be adequately presented within the article itself. This being said, I would be opposed to a directive to remove all of these (I'm never quite ok with adding or removing ELs en masse). As a reliable source, this site isn't one (except on rare occasions the pictures can qualify as primary sources for birth/death dates). There are a few pages that can benefit from having this link; namely pages about cemeteries, since the findagrave site contains an amount of detail on notable personalities buried in the graveyard that would be inappropriate to list on wiki. Also links directly to find a grave photo albums may be appropriate if none of the photos are copyright violations and the photos exceed the scope of the material presented on wikipedia and commons. ThemFromSpace 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC) NOT ? A note about this was just left at Village pump (policy), that came as a surprise. I'd like to give this refresher link to the community Guideline "Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion", whose shortcut is WP:VOTE or WP:POLL. The Policy and guidelines section seems particularly pertinent. Cheers, Whitehorse1 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the links, but as seen above we have talked long and hard and this poll is to simply to consolidate everyones views on the matter. We are trying to see the merits by boths sides of the argument. At some point in every debate we must tally up the pros and cons given over a long discussion and this method is by far the most common way of doing this. Moxy (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC) The section is not tallying up, the section is asking people to vote/polling. –Whitehorse1 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Lets assume our editors are smart enough to back up there vote with a valid argument (as what has been happening). Do you have a better suggestion on how we should proceed? As you can see by the talks we are at a stand still and are trying to solve this now so we dont have to deal with this ever month or two. This type of polling as you put it also allows new editors to jump-in with a quick to the point argument.Moxy (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Possibly the talks are at a standstill because you are talking about the wrong thing? You seem to be debating whether policy can be overriden (particularly WP:RS) for a particular website. It can't. If you want to argue for a change in policy, you are doing it in the wrong place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I agree 100 percent, but yet here we are having to defend the action of removing the links and/or references. We dont need a policy change - we would just like them implemented for this site. Where or how can we get this done? Do we just start removing them all without a talk on the matter and cause conflict? If someone has an idea of how we can solve this speak up. Moxy (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Let's not insinuate I implied anyone was backward, thanks. We use the Consensus model here. Your description sounds exactly like it's WP:PEREN territory (fails to gain consensus (to ban Find a grave)). The principles at "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" explain: If Consensus in favor of something was not established within a reasonable period of time, the proposal has Failed. If by 'deal with every month or two' you mean repeatedly call for it to be banned, then that wouldn't be suitable because the Consensus model finds that unsuitable as can be seen described at WP:CON. –Whitehorse1 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) The site is violating many of our policies (as metioned every few months and is y we are here again). Are you suggesting that we simply ignor our editors repeated cries about this. As per Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Define reliable sources "Wikipedia should define the reliability of particular types of sources so that no exceptions are possible". Is this not what we are doing now?Moxy (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I've already said what participants are doing now, and with links to Policies and Guidelines. And, again, repeated cries of or calls for something that has repeatedly failed to gain favor violates our policies, norms, and principles. The community Policies and Guidelines I linked weren't things I scribbled together this morning, they're a product of and for the Community including you or me. –Whitehorse1 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Ok then so this type of thing is unexceptible and we can never get them removed at this point - So basicly your saying the policy protects sites of this nature because we could not reach a consensus back in 2007 the first time around. We are stuck with the site reguarless that we all agree its not reliable or a valid link in most casees.Moxy (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Going by what has been said here it has been discussed repeatedly and recently, not simply one time 3–4 years ago. Likewise, given consensus failed to be established to ban it, clearly the statement "we all all agree its not reliable or a valid link in most cases" isn't accurate. –Whitehorse1 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I do think we are all saying that this time around- some think its not at all reliable and some think its reliable for certain things (no one is claiming its reliable as a whole). Basically were are taking about if a source is somewhat and/or parts of it are reliable should we still include it. Again does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can proceed or will all efforts simply be dismantled because of our policy on this type of talk. We need to solve this either way and so far this talk seems to be doing the opposite now. We cant just do this over and over. Moxy (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Really? Browsing through the poll started or for that matter the discussion above it, I don't see 'all saying that this time around'. –Whitehorse1 20:50, 29 December 2010 21:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I see some saying its ok sometimes and for certain things if noting else is out there, but no one is saying its a good all around reliable source (even the the site agrees with this point). I am concern your more interested in following one specific policy rather then trying to solve a long standing problem that applies to many of our polices. Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate or are we to just debate the implementation of 1 specific policy or should we talk about the 5 others raised here in this debate.Moxy (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC) "Wikipedia policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. ... polling is not a substitute for discussion, nor is a poll's outcome tantamount to consensus. ... If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear... likewise failed. ... Raising the same issue repeatedly is confusing and disruptive" --cited policies&guidelines It's not clear which long-established "one specific policy" you're talking about among "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" procedural Policy, "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" behavioral Guideline, or Wikipedia:Consensus Policy that forms and presents the foundation of the entire en-Wikipedia project. We're at crossed purposes. When something has failed to gain consensus, regularly & repeatedly raising it along with strawpolling on the lines of 'sooner or later' it'll slip in is not appropriate. For better or worse, within the site/community consensus is what's used here, it isn't up for debate or something to be dispensed with when not convenient on a whim. This stands regardless of whether any person is unable or unwilling to accept it. –Whitehorse1 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Nice copy and past...ok lets move on ..get the experienced editors talking. Moxy (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Would you drop the rude remarks please? –Whitehorse1 01:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with Whitehorse1 that this is an inappropriate effort to use voting instead of consensus-driven discussion, and I oppose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Let me just clarify that this "vote" is just trying to tally up were people stand so we have a clearer picture of what concensus might be for when the case is presented as a policy change or is brought up again later. Perhaps I was wrong in calling it a "vote" but having something like this will allow both sides a better picture to pleasd their case. --Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Comment If we are discussing findagrave as a source, shouldn't this be on the reliable sources noticeboard?. Yoenit (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Yes I didn't think about that one thats a good idea. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC) (e/c) Focus has largely been on it as a link. Your underlying venue selection point's sensible. It's... probably worth mentioning here that something to be avoided is WP:FORUMSHOP/asking the other parent. –Whitehorse1 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think anyone is trying to forum shop I just think they are trying to get the word out to maximize editor participation. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Oh wasn't accusing, don't worry. It seemed worth mentioning since many noted it'd been raised repeatedly, and raising an issue on another forum in hope of eliciting the preferred outcome or seeking to use successive forums to bolster with or wield in a discussion is something to avoid that's all. It was just a general comment. –Whitehorse1 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Oh no problem I just wanted to clarify. As a note I have seen this come up at the Help desk, the Village pump, here and a couple of other locations I can't think of at the moment. Mostly here and the village pump and in my 4 years hear it comes up at least every 4 months, sometimes less. I might do a little research and see if I can find them all just so we have an up to date record. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to previous discussions

These are all the past ones I could find with substantial discussion (copied from here)

• Wikipedia_talk:Find-A-Grave_famous_people#Find-a-grave_link_spam December 2005
• Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#findagrave.com April 2006
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Find_a_Grave December 2006
• Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_18#Find_A_Grave June 2007
• Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#Findagrave January 2009
• Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Find_a_Grave April 2010
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_28#Propriety_of_links_to_Findagrave.com October 2010

--Ronz (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Links given earlier

• Great stuff! Thank you Ronz, that should help any discussion a lot. –Whitehorse1 03:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  ^{< Comments Redacted >}

Getting away from personal conflicts, and back to the core issue, can I ask why 'consensus' here is being seen as significant in any case? Wikipedia has policies regarding WP:RS, and 'Find a Grave' doesn't meet them, so it can't be used as a source, unless policy is changed. If it can't be used as a source, there is even less justification to give it as an external link. The only question that really matters here is what to do about the existing links/sourcing, in order to conform with policy. If you want policy changed, argue elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The fairly short Adding findagrave.com to User:XLinkBot section a lil' further up has comments from various perspectives on the RS–EL aspect. Worth a look if you/anyone haven't already seen it. –Whitehorse1 05:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on guys and gals

• Did I mention that I do not particularly care for politicians or lawyers and there are policies against WP:Wikilawyering and those that use pettifogging that do not serve a purpose and are disruptive to include "...serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution." Why do I say this? It only takes someone that is not very experienced with many aspects of Wikipedia, but this is not to say unintelligent, concerning some of the above statements, to see this in action. It is a clear violation of WP:AGF --to me and probably others-- to bring up something like WP:FORUMSHOP for absolutely no good reason, not even as something worth mentioning, again with no good reason, other that what "might" appear as possible disruption. It is especially disruptive when someone has to waste time defending others because this was "worth mentioning". I am fairly new, with slightly more than zero Wikipedia experience compared to others, but I could fill this page with things "worth mentioning", but if there is "absolutely no reason" to do this then what would be the point other than disruption? I feel that a person could have issue with the fact that I am offended by this statement "worth mentioning" and we can look at administrative solutions "or" this can be politely retracted in whatever form chosen. "Oh wasn't accusing, don't worry.", does "not" mean it was not improperly thrown out there. If anyone wishes to break good faith with no grounds, in a discussion I have been a part of, there needs to be a reason. This is why I am politely explaining that I was offended and wish it corrected.

This discussion is here because there "is" an issue that some would like to be resolved. "Many" times the suggestion was made as to where this could take place, as an on-going discussion, without fear of being "closed".

There does seem to me to be an agenda by some to keep the subject closed by referring to the fact that it has been hashed out many times in the past, even though there are still obvious problems, and regardless that WP:CONS gives guidelines that state clearly that there is no problem with seeking solutions be what some may refer to as "rehashing".

Please note

This probably should have been named a survey. "Sometimes it's useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding."

Important

• "If you disagree with the "majority" opinion, simply remember that the straw poll is not binding and continue discussions."

WP:CONLIMITED states that, "Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first, and sufficient time should be allowed for thorough discussion before being implemented.", and it has only gotten as far as a group of editors wishing to explore options. There has not been a move to implement any change at this time.

A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it.

Definition: While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus." Also,

Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed!

I have actually read:

• WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and while there are warnings and suggestions there is "not" (show me if I am wrong) a policy against using "polling" as simply a tool. Not one person here, that I have seen, has attempted to do anything more than discuss things to find a solution. Asking where (as a poll I have not even weighed in on) or how editors stand on an issue. The one that created the page made edits that others have not even gotten around to discussing yet "because" we are trying to discuss this and reach some idea where we stand.

The question was asked repeatedly "where" we can have this discussion.

• IF this is not a good place then I think someone with WP knowledge should provide the proper place. If this can only be done by forming a project, aptly named, where a person interested in exploring solutions can join, then that needs to be done.

Polling is not being used to change policy, that I can see, or being used to exclude anyone (as I will be against it) and is "not" against WP policy as used.

• A group of editors are exploring, "in good faith" options concerning the use of the above mentioned sites and a way to produce any consensus that can be used by Wikipedia and editors. That is it, as for as I can see, in a nut shell. It only takes one editor to bring up an issue to be examined by the community and this right is protected by Wikipedia. There is more than one that seeks to explore options that can be presented to the community in the proper form to try to establish a guideline.

• If this needs to be moved to the page created as a "project" and those interested can join then I suggest this option. If there is a person or more than one person that is trying to hinder a Wikipedia process or stop the rights of other editors I will have to stop editing and devote my energies to finding a solution.

If the reliability of a site is in question then it is not only right for an editor to question this and seek some solution it is protected by Wikipedia. If there is a reason that a part of a site can be trusted or maybe used with caution, editors need to be able to know this and seeking a solution as to how this can be done is perfectly acceptable. If I thought for a second that Wikipedia policy supported unreliable links I would stop editing but it certainly does not. "If" Find a grave uses "one" picture that violates WP:COPY and very specifically if "one" picture from this site is used on Wikipedia then this site "must" not be used by Wikipedia for pictures. If there are errors with Imbd (and I have found what I think to be one) then this should be questioned. "If" the above is true and someone wishes to argue with this then I would have no choice but to begin to question good faith. "If" there are no other sources to gain birth and death dates (and I feel this is important to an article) then maybe a way can be found to show this as possible unreliable by a hidden comment, "The credibility of some information on this site may be contested" or some other note. This can only be figured out by discussion and consensus.

For the record: Per Mr. Kumioko's discussion I do not support a change that will result in an editor having to edit "many" pages to remove already existing cites or that will result in an untold amount of tags. I imagine it took a long time to get this much information and hate the thought that in a short time all would need to be taken out or replaced. With this opinion I would state that any required consensus not be retroactive but serve to initiate guidelines that it has been found as of (fill in the blank = date) certain sites or sections of certain sites have been found to be unreliable. Help from more knowledgeable editors would be a great instead of an enormous amount of discussions attesting to the known fact that the issue has arisen before and some craftily worded use of policy to make it appear this is wrong.

• If it is wrong and violates some policy then tell us where you (any editor that feels this way) are reporting the issue and we can, with your assistance by proxy, find a solution.

If there are those that wish this to go away please understand that I for one support looking at options and the problem has not "gone away". It simply is "not" a valid argument that a discussion has occurred before, or many times before, so let's get over this non-issue and see if there is a way to come to a conclusion and consensus that will help Wikipedia and deal with the issue of using EL's that are not allowed by policy and how to come to a conclusion as to the best way. Otr500 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We were in the middle of consolidating the arguments from both sides - in the normal way - and were stopped in our tracks by a non-admin. Should we simply continue and ignore the fact a portion of are talk has been closed. I guess we should restart that process by calling it a "survey" of what has been presented. We asked for help by posting this in many places and what do we get a closed discussion, not any guidance. I am sure we all agree what has taken place was not constructive in any way. Moxy (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see below. Thank you. --Whitehorse1 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that closing arguments like what was done is against WP policy. The "poll", right, wrong, or indifferent, could have been closed by admin for reasons but an editor that wishes to disrupt the WP process can be reported because of such actions. I was going to suggest if this should be taken to the page WP:External links/Perennial websites that was created to explore this issue. I am not crazy with the name applied nor has there been a consensus as to if it covers concerns but I do not want to go there if there is only going to be more unnecessary drama and wasted time. I am trying to be nice but I feel I have every right to report the above incident as well as the one at village pump. I will just as soon not have to be bothered with all the extra junk that involves if I do not see that happen again. I commented on the page but didn't get a response and the same editor took the liberty to set up the whole page. I am just upset that some people can not discuss things without someone going astral. The effect, sought or not, intentional or not, brought about disruption. I am straining a little at this time to continue to assume good faith so I will address this later. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe its just a lack of experience here at Wiki that led to Whitehorse1 closing the argument. I have recived no less the 7 emails about this. Basically all believe the action was very very disruptive with a few suggesting as you have a report of the incident. Lets give him a chance to respond before doing so.Moxy (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm shocked to see much of what I've just read. In what has been said there's a great deal I feel has been overlooked, and the above is not an accurate picture accordingly. Otr500, I've just come online after a short amount of rest to see this. I will reply and as best I can. I hope you can appreciate that'll take a while to go through, and I do intend to reply here today. Thank you. --Whitehorse1 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are these two sources assoiated?

It seems to me that to treat these two sources alike is questionable. IMDB is a very reliable source, constantly checked by people in the industry since they all wnat to ensure that their tiniest walk-on gets credit. I support retention of IMDB. Find-a-grave is far more questionable and I oppose retention of F-a-G. --Red King (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a little bit of experience with IMDB and quite a bit more with Find-a-Grave. Both are dependent on user input, hence both are questionable as sources in general. However, IMDB seems to get it right most of the time on basic info such as cast-and-crew lists. Find-a-Grave is an excellent source for cemeteries and individual interments, and for pictures of same. It's incomplete, but so is wikipedia. Rather than a blanket ban, there should be some rules about what parts of their data are considered sufficiently reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm happy to have separate discussions, IMDB has come up a number of times at WP:RSN and there is no consensus that it is a reliable source, whether or not it is mostly right. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that consensus was that it was considered usable for basic info, as I said above, but not for trivia, which is highly subjective and often questionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

IMBD is wikpedia reliable unless disputed for simple non personal details, not for any personal life details like DOB and suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AVIS-IBIS Links to Wiki Bird Articles

I would like to add links to species page and bibliography pages of AVIS-IBIS Portal (http://avis.indianbiodiversity.org) to the articles on Birds on Wikipedia for species found in Indian Region.

AVIS-IBIS is an interactive web-based database and information system on Indian biodiversity. A fundamental prerequisite in the conservation of biological diversity is the availability of adequate and reliable information, which aids in developing conservation strategies. However, much of this data and literature is archived in books and not easily accessible. FES has built upon IBIS so as to enable more people to access and build such information. To start with, all available data on birds of India have been collated and digitised to develop the first phase of the IBIS Portal titled ‘Avian Information System (AVIS)’. In the coming year, IBIS will expand to build similar portals on mammals, reptiles, amphibians and flora involving interested individuals, organisations, researchers and scholars across India. Besides all archival information available at single place, the IBIS is an “open beta version” enabling it to obtain feedback from users, add features and build upon the existing database. The interactive portal uses open-source software and helps the users to contribute data to the portal that would be periodically reviewed by experts. IBIS follows the creative commons licensing policy enabling appropriate attribution to the data provider and collaborators.

Links:

1. Species Profile Pages
2. Species Bibliography Pages
3. Book Excerpts for Individual Species from different books ( These books are in public domain and digitized and hosted on AVIS-IBIS Portal which are linked to latest taxonomy revisions.)
Arpit Deomurari 06:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deomurari (talk • contribs) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you need to add two external links to each article when the biblography one duplicates one of the tabs on the first link. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography tab on species page is limited to latest 100 citations only....full bibliography is located in other page. This is for considering better user experience and download speed.

Arpit Deomurari (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• One link is probably okay. Wikipedia's guidelines for external links support a general principle of non-duplication, so multiple links to the same website are almost never okay. We assume that our readers are smart enough to click on your link to the full bibliography page if that's what they want to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok...So Should I start putting one link to the article.....

Arpit Deomurari (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'd say these links are okay if the Wikipedia article is merely a stub and the AVIS-IBIS article has more informatino. But if our article has more information than the AVIS-IBIS page, then it's not really useful to include the website as a link. MeegsC | Talk 14:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. 1. It doesn't appear to meet the requirements of a reliable source, however sincere the writer may be. 2. Note the disclaimer on how short the turnover rate is for Scientology members, including that a majority leave 2 years after initiation. Also note that that particular entry has not been updated since 2008. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Open Source Heroes of Might and Magic Engine

Is it appropriate to link to open source implementations of Heroes of Might and Magic engines in the External links section of the article? My addition to Heroes of Might and Magic III was reverted without explanation.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It was probably reverted per WP:ELNO #10: "Links to ... discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)". I suspect that many editors revert links that appear to be chat rooms on sight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking internally to other wikipedia sites

What's the best way to do this. On several tennis charts here on English wikipedia when a player's name is listed of course it is also linked back to the particular player's main article. No problem. However many players, especially Spanish and French players, have no English wikipedia page to link back to. They do however have their own articles in the respective Spanish and French wikipedias. I've been linking those names to their foreign language articles. Some have even been linked through google translation first so we can read it here on this English encyclopedia. Is there a better way to lnik these names? I feel the links are important and certainly if someone ever creates a proper English wikipedia article for that person it would be switched to an internal link. An example would be at the article World Covered Court Championships where someone like Irene Bowder Peacock has a perfectly good french wiki article from which to use information. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Help:Interlanguage links#Inline_interlanguage_links, red links are preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read it and that's not quite what it says. It says "if the subject is a good target for a future article here, then in most cases that topic should be red-linked." I'm not so sure these candidates are good targets for articles here. Sort of borderline. But it does have good suggestions that I might try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

External Links to Source-Code

At Talk:Particle swarm optimization#External Links to Source-Code there is a dispute about inclusion of links to open source code implementations of the algorithm. A minority faction argues that these links technically don't meet WP:EL requirements, the majority faction believes it is common for Wikipedia technical articles and articles on computer algorithms specifically to have a good selection of such links, which indicates there is general Wikipedia consensus in favor. --Kvng (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this edit re-adds the links which are in question (the next edit removed these). I see both sides and understand these reasons to remove the edit: the subsection headings (Implementations, Other Media) are dubious since they draw undue attention to the section, and invite violations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; a general reader does not find helpful information on the topic at the links. On the other hand, a reader who is actually interested in the topic (as opposed to someone who only wants a quick feeling for what the jargon might mean) would need links like these as the next step after reading the article. In programming, only a certain amount of background reading is helpful before one needs to engage with a working program, and a link containing "further research that is accurate and on-topic" (quote from WP:EL) is necessarily going to be precisely like the links in question. I know that if I had time to develop an interest in Particle swarm optimization, as a reader I would want the links. It's likely that Google finds the links (and more) quite readily (so they should be removed), yet it can be very useful to include the most helpful links in the article. My only conclusive feeling is that this article does not warrant a dispute over links (i.e. any WP:EL violation is minor). Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to HiddenWiki at Tor (anonymity network)

At Tor (anonymity network), there has been contention for quite some while over including the link to something called the HiddenWiki in the external links section. This is the link: http://kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (Tor is required).

This is a bad link and my inclination is to ask that it be blacklisted and let's be done with it. Problems with the HiddenWiki link are:

1. Not accessible to the typical user. It appears as a deadlink unless you have some special software (Tor) installed, which most users (including me) aren't willing to do. Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #7, "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser".
2. It is a wiki, at least according to its name (I can't be sure, since I can't access it, but we have to assume that the name accurately reflects its structure). We are not supposed to link to wikis since they have little or no editorial control and can completely change anytime and can contain anything, including material we are not supposed to link to: copyright vio, malware, incorrect info, etc.
3. According to more than one editor, it contains fairly sketchy material, including: child pornography; advice to child predators on the best methods for kidnapping a child and disposing of the body when finished; instructions on making infernal devices of mass destruction; and so forth. (I can't verify if this is true because I can't access it, but it has been claimed, and no one has refuted or even denied this.) For various reason, this is not the kind of material we should be linking to.

In addition to the above, the link is a consistent long-term plaything for trolls. For instance right now I am in a back-and-forth with User:72.85.200.205, whose contributions to the Wikipedia consists of six edits - all of which are re-inserting this link after I deleted it. Other WP:SPA anon accounts have done the same. Obviously these people are here to embarrass the Wikipedia rather than building it, and why should we give them a free toy with which to do this. (This is not to say that all of the people inserting this link or advocating its presence are trolls - some are free-information absolutists or whatever, but again we're supposed to be making an encyclopedia not pushing an extremist POV about the absolute accessibility of all information, and anyway WP:FLEAS.)

Really, any one of the three reasons listed (four, if you include the trolling) are enough to get rid of the link; all piled to together its a slam dunk to get rid of this link for good and all, in my view.

If there was some claim that the link contained material that was centrally important to understanding the content of the article - rather than just being "interesting" or "useful" or "popular" - and that couldn't for some reason just be placed in the article, then there would at least be a case for including the link (not nearly enough to overcome the objections listed above, but at least a case). But no one has advanced this argument, and there's no reason to believe that it's true.

There is discussion here: Talk:Tor (anonymity network)#I am removing the links to the hidden wiki for now, and various other places - here, I guess, and other places, and going back into the archives and going futher back into the archives, and... well, this has been going on for some time now, and the only argument for keeping the link is some variation of "we like it". I understand that some of the people who are inclined to work on the Tor (anonymity network) article would also be inclined to want this link, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything, really. Time to bye-bye this bad link.

If anyone has any thoughts about the blacklisting of this link, here's your chance to speak up.Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist it, your arguments seem more than sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)