Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First Season

Is there any good reason why the first two AVGN episodes, from '04, are lumped in with the 2006 season? I would've thought they would a) represent a season in of themselves, or b) be considered to precede the "seasonal" formal altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.209.163 (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Length of Table Cells

I want to get everyone's opinion on how information is being displayed in these tables. The content is growing everyday - and it has reached a point where it might be detrimental to the page. I would suggest that each Description Cell adopts a format with two paragraphs. The first will a list of the games/systems reviewed. We should replace the breaks with commas. The second paragraph would contain any special notes. Let me know what you think. Cheers! -DevinCook (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DevinCook. Having a break after every game title is very wasteful (only a few characters per line) and the cell heights vary widely (2 to ~20 lines). Same for the notes: break after each sentence (inconsistent at the moment) not necessary. Rror (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I would employ the KISS principle and have only data (games reviewed, time) separated by comma and no additional fluff (e.g., this is the first time Nerd destroys...). StevePrutz (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Breaks rectified while keeping table rows short. --Addict 2006 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Written by Mike Matei?

Matei is nowhere credited for writing/co-writing, and in this interview states that he is helping with many aspects of the episodes, but does not write his own parts. Rror (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Rolfe writes the majority of show with occasional input by Matei. From the same article "I also play the games a lot with James. Playing games and coming up with ideas I think is often a more fun process for James when there is another person there" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.232.218 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Matei is often credited as "Help" because of various functions on the show including playing the game, acting, drawing and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdartist (talkcontribs) 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to episodes

Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. It is of course convenient to have links to all the episodes but according to the policy, isn't Wikipedia supposed to not be something like that? (Just as a notation, from the Finnish article of The Angry Video Game Nerd, the links to the episodes have already been removed.) Apoyon (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to some extend, but this article is more like a list of WP:EPISODES (with title, date, 'synopsis') which also contains links to the videos. I know, it's not TV :) and there are no secondary sources, but they are not just bare links. Rror (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Links

There has been a movement to change all links on this page to copies on YouTube. However, it is important to keep the links official with the links on the AVGN website. Some videos were published to YouTube before the show was picked up by ScrewAttack and GameTrailers. Once this happened, videos were published on the respective GameTrailers page.-DevinCook (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Related videos section

I feel that there are too many irrelevant videos in the related videos section. Just because a video has Rolfe in it or it was made by him, does not automatically mean that it should go in that section. I think it should be limited to videos starring Rolfe as the AVGN (not in a cameo role) that do not fit into the regular episode list. Andy120290 (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, after all this article is about the AVGN, not Rolfe.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed some stuff. Some of it, like "James Rolfe – Meet the Nerd!," could probably go as well, but I am not sure. I will leave it to the talk. Andy120290 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

check the related videos table

I don't know how to make the change to correct the problem...sorry. but, something is wrong with the way the related videos section is displaying. It shouldn't be in the table above it, but should start it's own table. If anyone can fix it, that would be a great improvement to this already very useful page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brvman (talkcontribs) 05:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can anyone please re-edit the list of the episodes from Season 1? Somebody enlarged the boxes and put descriptions saying that James rip the Irate Gamer's videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.108.9.240 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

The current version of this article contains numerous little factoids included in the list that are fairly obviously Original Research. I'm referring to things like "first episode to not use the word 'fuck'". These do not belong and I think they should be removed. I'm just dropping a comment in case anyone has an issue with this. -Verdatum (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Theme Song

Isn't there an episode where they play the full version of the theme song. I can't seem to remember which one it is... Dustman15 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the Sega CD Rewiev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.196.232.252 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nintoaster... so what?

Well, we can say that the nintoaster was used for the first time, on the Action 52 rewiev, but do we need to say that he keep using it? we can assume he will use it from now on. what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.196.232.252 (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, him using it is very trivial, and not important in any way to the game he is reviewing. CTJF83 chat 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Page needs simplification

We might want to remove the synopsis of each episode. As it stands now, the page might be considered an "episode guide" which is against Wiki policies. I suggest that the description cell only contains games reviewed. Otherwise, this page can become ridiculously complex. -DevinCook (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've cleaned up before, but you know how IPs go... CTJF83 chat 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I would like to remove all the text besides the console/system and games reviewed from the Notes column.-DevinCook (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

References

I feel that each episode needs some sort of external reference to prove it's existance. Anyone else agree? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The basic requirement of verifyibility. and some of the more crufty stuff should be removed unless independent sources are provided (stuff like "The first episode where The Nerd doesn't say "fuck".", where does an independent source even come close to reporting such trivia?). duffbeerforme (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Unholy Crusade

I am far beyond spent with the endless internet-arguments about external links being such a bad thing. It is not as though this page is nothing but external links; it is useful information that is enhanced by the inclusion of links to off-site content. There has been an ongoing crusade by several people, including duffbeerforme, who has also posted on the Nostalgia Critic entry to remove "EL's" there as well. This over-zealous application of the letter of the law is in contrast to the spirit of the law, which is intended to uphold quality in articles. It is sadly being utilized as a tool to REMOVE quality in this instance, and several others. Do not bother quoting/linking WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF EXTERNAL LINKS or EDIT WAR or any other such policy pages. I am aware of the policy, and I am disappointed in its application. I am making a stand here, whatever the outcome. Some mod had better come along and gold-protect this article and/or ban me for life from editing, because I am going to keep bringing the links back as long as I am capable of doing so, and I encourage others to do so as well. When words have failed, actions must speak for themselves. Facta non verba. I do not consider this vandalism, I consider it activism against an extremist application of policy. Shakzor (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you consider trying words before "they failed"? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I did indeed. Seems they invariably fall on deaf ears and ignorant minds here on wikipedia; gathering place for law school drop-outs. I will be back reverting the page on February 1st, when the protection expires. Shakzor (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I look above, I see no attempt by you to engage discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You will most certainly not. Not only is that a threat, but that very statement could result in a lengthy block. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:26 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Good. Bring on the lengthy block, as you call it. Shakzor (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Coming here, following message being posted on my talk page. Shakzor please don't continue edit warring once you're unblocked, if you do that you will only end up getting blocked for longer or even for good. If you're aware of the policy then you will be aware why it's in place and what links should and shouldn't be on pages. Nobody is saying external links are bad, they are OK, providing they don't break Wikipedia's policies. Don't take a stand against Wikipedia and it's policies, it will only get you into worse trouble. Instead, please accept the consensus on the talk page.
If this carries on, I would suggest that someone requests a comment on the article on what should and shouldn't be included.5 albert square (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, we do not have a consensus. Many people are unhappy with the change. I think Shakzor is exactly right - this "an extremist application of policy", and only serves to reduce the quality of the page. 150.101.178.39 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well from what I could read above there seemed to be consensus. I would suggest asking for the comment, like I've suggested above, or going to formal dispute resolution. I'm not an admin, I can only offer you my opinion which is what I've done as an outsider to the topic.--5 albert square (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe all that removing the links is just an inconvenience! I have no clue what deleting the links does for the page. Is it supposed to make Wikipedia seem more professional? Wikipedia is already enough of a joke! Wikipedia is a JOKE. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is complete horseshit. 68.17.137.16 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that someone put the external links back. Aside from being useful the argument against them is flawed. It is true that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. So where a page is put up with that purpose only it (the page) should be deleted. That doesn't mean that external links [formerly, I wrote 'internal links' in error] within a relevant page should be removed. Many other pages do this. I think there is no consensus on this and, if looked at carefully even weighing the unregistered IP's less, the preference is to keep them. If I had the time right now I'd revert it back. I say whoever has the time and knowhow, add it back.Anber (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
When looking at wether consensus exists you need also to look at the wider comunity discussions, not just the fan reaction on this individual article. The long standing policy against external links is the result of earlier debate and any call for change of policy should be discussed elsewhere, eg Wikipedia talk:External links. Your argument for putting the external links back because internal links should not be removed is not consistent. Internal links where not removed, external links were. If other pages have innapropiate external links then please help by removing them them. Something bad elswhere does not justify something bad here. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
In error I wrote 'internal link' when I meant external link. The point is that while Wikipedia is not a collection of links, it is not inappropriate to have external links where they contribute to the value of the page and the page's purpose is not solely to collect links. The links should be restored and I look forward to that being done soon. Anber (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the external links in accordance with the fifth pillar of wikipedia, and to combat the rampant Wikilawyering that pervades these campaigns to remove any external links from articles. Shakzor (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

IAR is not a free pass to ignore consensus, the links are inappropriate and do not belong here, you have yet to give any valid argument for why they should remain other than the fact you are a fan and find them useful--Jac16888Talk 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that there is a consensus here. I believe if you actually trouble yourself to read the discussion, you will find that there is not. There is also no true reason for the initial removal of these links, as they are not the sole purpose of this page. IAR is not meant as an excuse to ignore consensus or declare anarchy; what it IS, is a guideline to uphold the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. I am improving this page by including external links, and it is only the heavy-handed use of the strictest definition of policy that had these links removed in the first place. Again, I submit that there is indeed no consensus on the issue, and until mediation or arbitration occurs, I will uphold the status quo. Shakzor (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken, there is a very clear consensus here, backed up by policy, that the links are inappropriate. The fact that there are more people saying the links should stay holds little weight when most of those people are clearly fans, and the fact that you are promising to keep edit warring does not strengthen your position--Jac16888Talk 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
All I can say is that I disagree. I believe the policy does not back this arbitrary link removal, and your disregard for the opinions of fans simply because they are fans is quite ignorant and akin to fascism. Yes, I will keep editing this page, because every edit I make is an improvement to the page. Call it activism, or civil disobedience; but you will probably call it vandalism, and that is unfortunate. Shakzor (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I HIGHLY agree with Shakzor. Fans are a valued part of many Wikipedia articles. For this article, they provide much of the information. I will continue to add the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistmaniac (talkcontribs) 17:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Then you will be blocked for disruptive editing. CTJF83 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So be it. Shakzor (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how it's disruptive at all. The page should just be deleted if links won't be allowed, there's VERY little purpose to the page in it's current state. 68.17.137.16 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Round 2

They violate WP:EL, this time can we not have IPs and new user fans (I am a big fan of AVGN) use non-policy reasoning to include the links? CTJF83 08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Not done No, the point of protection is to let the consensus form here. Get the consensus one way or the other, then we can go from there. GedUK  12:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, there is something of a consensus here, its just that fans of the site are refusing to accept it. The links are inappropriate and a convincing argument for why they should remain has yet to be made beyond "I like it" and "It's useful" --Jac16888Talk 12:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but we just need to firm up that 'something of a' to a proper consensus. Then we can take it from there (semi-protection or pending changes I suspect). GedUK  12:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Many of the comments above suggest that a proper consensus is never going to happen: "I will continue to add the links", "until mediation or arbitration occurs, I will uphold the status quo", "Good. Bring on the lengthy block, as you call it.", "I will be back reverting the page on February 1st, when the protection expires", these are not comments aiming to achieve consensus--Jac16888Talk 13:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I suspect a proper request for comment will be necessary to resolve this issue once and for all. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a wider community consensus on external links. A small amount of fan reaction on this one article does not override that. Regardless of what the tag at the top of the page says, preserving the current version which violates many wikipedia policies is an endorsement. It also rewards disruptive pointy editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:EL "In a nutshell": "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." It also goes on to say that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." as User:Duffbeerforme pointed out in the original campaign to remove the links. My gripe is this: On this kind of page specifically, a direct link to the the subject media is relevant for each entry in the episode list; and I would call the use of these links "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article" just as stated.

Many episodes have multiple versions released on different dates in varying places, so the links only become more important as their inclusion constitutes further relevant information for each episode. More to the point, the information on this page is incomplete without the inclusion of these links. The "related videos" section specifically becomes completely vestigial when the links are removed, as there is no way of locating all the material without the links. I would also say that it is more useful, but apparently that word holds little weight around here, which I find tragic. Should we keep a page around because it conforms to wikipedia policy, even though the information on it is nearly useless owing to those policies? Well that is what this page is without the links. I thought the point was to have useful encyclopedic information here, not to castrate any page that deviates from strict definitions of guidelines.

And here I will bring up the fifth pillar again. As much as I am certain many long-time contributors, admins included, would like to see it struck from policy, the fact remains that it is there. There is also a policy that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but that is exactly what it becomes when users take it upon themselves to rip apart pages in the name of policy, and that is what it becomes when anyone tries to apply the fifth pillar in practical use. The pillars are described as "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates" and one of those principles states "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles". The spirit of the rule for WP:EL is to avoid pages where a list of external links is the only focus of the page. That is not the sole or primary purpose of this page, there is much more information present than that. The links are a supplement to that information, a very relevant inclusion, and potentially a very unfortunate exclusion. WP:BURO also says "rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." I do not believe that the established consensus on external links takes this type of page in to account, but the policy has been hammer-fisted on to this page in the form of arbitrary link removal. Remember, consensus can change, and I believe it should in relation to instances such as this where the inclusion of external links constitutes valid and relevant information on the page.

I would also like to state that, in the absence of new consensus, the status quo should be upheld. This page has existed with external links since it split from the main article in May of 2008, and the links were in the main article before that. Flash forward over two and a half years later, and someone suddenly sees fit to arbitrarily remove the links, with no regard for their relevance to the article or their importance therein.

The removal of these links has attracted attention from "IPs" and "new users". I was one of the former, and still am among the latter; despite this, I have written these words in awareness of wikipedia policy, and I believe I have put forth a reasonable and compelling argument in favour of retaining the external links in this article. Shakzor (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This kind of page is still still a Wikipedia article so it is equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies. I fail to see how >100 links is minimal.
When the multiple versions of episodes is written about in independent reliable sources then it becomes of interest here.
The fifth pillar is good in itself but is the most misrepresented policy here. One should also look at the earlier pillars. (such as "Wikipedia is not"..."an experiment in anarchy or democracy". "never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point".) And follow the first link from the five pillars you will see that Wikipedia is not a directory. Your interpretaion of the spirit of WP:EL is far from the policy itself. It is not about an articles primary focus. Another quote from WP:EL you might consider is "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". This type of article is still just another article, it is not something special. Consensus can change. If you want to change consensus on a policy go to that policy, don't try to change it here.
In the absence of new consensus, the current policies should be upheld. They have a longer history and more discussion than what has occured here. This article is not a special case. These links were not arbitrarily removed.
I believe noone has put forth a reasonable and compelling argument in favour of retaining the external links in this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As said above, with users like Shakzor blatantly ignoring consensus, we are going to get no where. We should just do pending changes so the can't be added. Shakzor won't be affected by semi-protect, so that does us no good. We had a consensus earlier, except for new users/IP fans who disagree. CTJF83 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ctjf83, thanks for the comment. Please actually read my words before summarily dismissing me. Shakzor (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This poor attitude points to the contrary. CTJF83 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And you are demonstrating a poor attitude right now. If someone wants to block me for doing what I think is right, then I cannot stop them. Also, if a blocking is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal, then you need to re-think how you toss around threats. Fact is, I am joining the discussion now, I just wrote a lengthy response with some valid points, and I would have thought you admin-types to be mature enough to actually try reading it before rushing off to disregard me and close this argument. Shakzor (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and no where did I claim to be one. But when your response to mention of being blocked is "so be it", what would you have us think about how positive your contributions will be. CTJF83 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You certainly act like one. And as I said before, if someone wants to block me, so be it, I cannot stop them from doing so. However I will continue to do what I believe to be right, no matter what threats are directed my way. Shakzor (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And that is exactly the bad attitude to why I said pending changes instead of semi-protect, but lets get back to the issue at hand. CTJF83 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of getting back to issues, I have yet to hear a response from you on either this topic, or my talk page. You have a very high degree of disregard for "IP users", and you seem unaware that this page has been built largely by "IPs". Also, users are allowed to post without registering for a reason. If you do not like it, complain to Jimbo Wales; but in the meantime, try to tone down your user elitism and actually listen to what some of us lowly boot-scrapings have to say before you tread on us again. You can start by actually reading and responding to my words. Shakzor (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Replying... you weren't on my watchlist. CTJF83 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Seriously WikiLawyers, what difference does it make? What harm does it do to have the links? Is it freeing up a few extra megabytes of bandwidth? Is it making the site look "unprofessional"? Nobody cares! People use Wikipedia as a source of information. They don't care if it looks professional. Now, I want some answers on how exactly ELs are murdering and raping people. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UT

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────See Shakzor, the above post does nothing to address the issue. CTJF83 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And there will always be some of that. There is also a post that you apparently have still not read, that DOES address the issue. Shakzor (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh CTJF, and how does it not address the issue? Because it tells the obvious truth that you're too egotistical and elitist to realize? Capitalistmaniac (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, consider this a warning to you for a personal attack. CTJF83 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Gasp* OH NO! I GOT A WARNING! WHAT EVER WILL I DO? Go ahead ignoring the truth. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode

{{Edit protected}} Due to the recent edit protection of the page, nobody can add the information for the new Star Wars episode. Can someone please add the information? Capitalistmaniac (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I put it in there right after it was posted. For some unexplained reason, that edit was removed before the protection was added. Shakzor (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Add {{Edit protected}} followed by your reason so an admin will become aware an addition is needed. CTJF83 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you CTJF, but for the answer to that, Shakzor: Somebody decided to revert the page back to when there were no links, resulting in the Star Wars section being removed. Shame, shame... Capitalistmaniac (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I am already quite aware what happened. It is an example of ham-fisted editing, collateral damage from an uninformed edit. Shakzor (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

External links

It's not suppodes to have e la lot of external links according to wp:external links. Egon Eagle (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya, we are working on that, but we got several users who insist on them. Read the several post sections above this. CTJF83 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Good luck. I'm not going to continue this endless discussion with editors who can't understand (a) settled policy and (b) the difference between an encyclopedia article and a web directory. I'm removing this article from my watchlist because this isn't worth my time. ElKevbo (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

To all, as a way to find a compromise, I am asking for comments on the following.

  • From those who oppose the EL's, I'd like to know if you consider this an improvement even if only slight. Yes I recognize that some who oppose the EL's will still find this unacceptable but I note that other opponents of the EL's i.e. Melodia pointed out that the "(YT)" is unappealing to the eye and decreases the quality of the page.
  • From those who support the EL's, I'd like to know if this would be acceptable to you.


Currently, the episodes appear as:


Episode Episode name Length Date Games reviewed and episode notes
1 Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest 09:25 April 8, 2006 (YT) Castlevania II: Simon's Quest (NES).

First review of a NES game, as well as his first review of a cartridge-based game, and his first review of a licensed game for NES. Also his first review ever. The only review in Nerd history where we don't see the Nerd's true form. This episode was originally created on May 16, 2004[1] and previously only available as a part of a film compilation tape with other short films created or directed by James Rolfe.[2] The Nerd re-visited this game five years later in Castlevania, Part II, giving an honest opinion.


I am suggesting that we change it to look like this:


Episode Episode name Length Date Games reviewed and episode notes
1 Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest 09:25 April 8, 2006 Castlevania II: Simon's Quest (NES).

First review of a NES game, as well as his first review of a cartridge-based game, and his first review of a licensed game for NES. Also his first review ever. The only review in Nerd history where we don't see the Nerd's true form. This episode was originally created on May 16, 2004[3] and previously only available as a part of a film compilation tape with other short films created or directed by James Rolfe.[2] The Nerd re-visited this game five years later in Castlevania, Part II, giving an honest opinion.

Just a suggestion. If it can bring us closer to consensus, even by a tiny bit, I think this can't be a bad thing. Anber (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's slightly better, I just want an answer of what is wrong with one link at the bottom linking to all the videos. No one has responded to why that is unacceptable. CTJF83 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. As to your question: One, it's less good (and in my opinion a lower quality and less useful article), and two, the status quo doesn't need to be changed (as I previously answered).Anber (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ctjf83, as I have already said before: Arbitrarily removing all external links from the body of the article will remove information, specifically the differing versions and their release dates and where each version is available. Also, the Related Videos section becomes functionally worthless without links to the material. Anber, I like your idea fundamentally, but I do not think many deletionists will consider this to be any sort of compromise, as it still includes the external links. Shakzor (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Shak, I actually think this is one very valid point you've made in response to Ctjf83's question, keeping the links allows to preserve that kind of information. If the EL's were removed but the information kept, it would look fundamentally either like the status quo or like my suggestion...without of course the usefulness and functionality.Anber (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right that this is not acceptable to some of us but please don't label those who oppose this unnecessary material "deletionists." ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm really tired of hearing status quo this and status quo that. None of your reasoning to keep the links is policy based, just your own opinion. CTJF83 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been several references to reasonable and well understood rules and policies that favor keeping the external links. The sole purpose of all news media, including encyclopedias, regardless of formal or written policy is to inform with maximum ease and simplicity as much information as possible. If there were no physical limits in printing or text, written articles would never need to end. This idea is only currently ignored by people and policies needlessly treading on other people's work by argument of misunderstood formal suggestions. For example, if a phone book were able to list every single address and phone number of a person or business without being limited by size or print, it would certainly do so. Including the external links, in this specific case, allows the mentioned material in the article to be found and viewed, either for pleasure, knowledge, or simple curiosity very easily. Regardless of which of these three reasons may cause someone to utilize the external links in this article, the links are connecting data, sharing media, and spreading information that otherwise may have not been easily accessible. The act of putting the videos' addresses in a click-able link is simply utilizing appropriate technology to further simplify the process of discovery (Why type-out a full URL instead of just posting a link? Especially if you are using a computer which can take that address and turn it into video almost immediately.) For these reasons among repeated agreement from the community, as easily seen at the very top of this web page, deleting these links serves no good purpose whatsoever.Exs10s (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It has been clearly pointed out above that the removal does serve a good purpose. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I Strongly Disagree with Ctjf83 (when he says the argument for EL's in *this* case is not policy based) for the very eloquent reasons set out by Exs10s immediately above (as well as the points I and other contributers have raised throughout). Anber (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh.....another user with barely a dozen edits, that hasn't edited in 10 months supports the links...big surprise there. CTJF83 08:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My point was that his argument was a good one and relevant to the issue at hand. Are you alleging some kind of puppetry because I don't see anything improper about this or any other user's contribution. As you have pointed out, who cares how many people come out on one side or another. I was pointing out that your argument is wrong, not only for the reasons I have advanced throughout, but also for the reasons of this user who indicated it in a very articulate way. Anber (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm just pointing out the facts that "your side" has a lot of users with very few edits, and many with no recent edits, excpet to this. CTJF83 08:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And I am pointing out that you keep shifting your emphasis on the facts as it suits you. For instance, when it was raised that there are administrators that support my position, you were quick to point out that their contribution is not entitled to any more weight than others. By that logic, these other contributors, about whom you 'point out facts' would be entitled to no less weight. In fact you even took that position when it suited you (you wrote: "Ya, being an admin gives the user no more weight then any other user or IP, period"). Now it suits you to insinuate otherwise. The fact of the matter is that we are ad idem that the quantity of contributors does not have relevance - rather the quality, depth and texture of the argument is what matters. The point I was raising is that the contribution a couple paragraphs up raised a solid point which added an additional dimension to the argument that I and others have been making. This argument has been all along a policy based one and not an opinion based one. I object to how when we point that out (in response to your criticism) you shift your emphasis to something else. Anber (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not saying the users with very few edits opinions weigh any less than mine or yours, just pointing out facts. How is it any different to throw "status quo" around like it means something? Also, read the first 3 sentences at WP:TROPHY. CTJF83 08:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I tried very hard to avoid this, but I must point out that most of the argument against the external links uses very little examples or context in this case. The arguments to remove them are based mostly on the validity of opinions as well as defense of previous actions. If you read my recent statement you will see an argument based simply on facts and with only this specific case in mind. Rules do exist with good and sincere intentions and purposes but they are supposed to be tested. Also, changing their interpretation is not only common but healthy. I also do not want to sink as low as to say that some people are arguing here with no justifiable grounds, and are just pulling up unclear references and ignoring the actual issue they claim to be discussing, but that does seem to be the way this discussion has headed. As a further response, I fail to see how the validity of a Wikipedia page or discussion should at all be based on the number of "edits" one has accumulated. I have used Wikipedia daily for years and I only edit or create an article as I see fit. I believe that is a prime example of what Wikipedia stands for. I may have a case here suitable to be reported for abuse, but I do not see that as necessary at this point. At this point I would like to insist that I would like to avoid mentions to or of a specific contributor and their connection to a post. This is a place for discussion of the article and the issues at hand, not a discussion of a user's credentials. As I have laid out my opinion regarding the issue, this will be my last post in this discussion. I am not here to argue, I came here to post my opinion in the discussion and I have done so.Exs10s (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ctjf83, why should I read the first 3 sentences of that policy? I never took the position nor did I support the position that admins' opinions were worthy of greater weight. This is exactly what I'm talking about in my previous post. When faced with a solid argument, you rush off on a tangent and throw some policy based claim which may or may not apply to the assertion you are responding to. Anber (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To quote you, "For instance, when it was raised that there are administrators that support my position, you were quick to point out that their contribution is not entitled to any more weight than others."....I'm proving to you that admins carry no more weight. This convo is way out of hand, and I'm tired of it, so I'm done. CTJF83 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I never disputed that point. I just said you were quick to point it out when the general point of 'equality of opinion' suited you, but when it didn't suit you at a later point you dashed off on one of your tangents. Anber (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ctjf83 is clearly a hypocrite who alters what he wishes in order to suit his needs. Before anyone cries WP:NPA at this, let me also state that I am "just pointing out facts," as Ctjf83 puts it. Slander and libel are only valid accusations when they are untrue. In one figurative breath, Ctjf83 will state "Admins don't need to comment, they carry no more weight then you, me, or the IP who made their first edit," and in the next he will say "Oh.....another user with barely a dozen edits, that hasn't edited in 10 months supports the links...big surprise there." Ctjf83, the levels of hypocrisy and disdain I have observed in you are truly unfortunate; textbook hypocrisy for claiming one thing one moment and demonstrating yourself to be wrong the next; and disdain for your fellow wikipedia users, who are only trying to contribute to and improve an article, yet you look on us as though you just caught us standing by a blank wall while trying to hide permanent markers and cans of spray paint. You should check yourself one of these days, pull the plank out of your eye before running around pulling motes from the eyes of everyone around you. Shakzor (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You took my quote out of context, it was a response to you saying "I have yet to see any admins giving us their take on this matter", and my response is they don't have to give us their take, as they are no more important than the rest of us....and I could point out facts about you, but I'll be an adult here, and keep it to myself. CTJF83 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Your condescension impresses no one. Also, no matter the context, you said what you said, and it was not the only time. I believe my assessment to be quite accurate. Shakzor (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion above makes no real change. It still has external links in the body of the page. And it still leaves in the little EL icons that Melodia said made it quite ugly looking. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm good with this solution for what it's worth and certainly don't agree that a small external link icon's uglyness outweighs the usefulness it seems to add. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

In the interests of compromise I am going to pretend there is no wider community consensus and go with what Shakzor and Abner have been saying, there is no consensus. As such I have removed the questioned external links in accordance with WP:ELBURDEN. This also brings the article back into line with policies such as Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call on ELBURDEN...although I'm sure it will be reverted soon. CTJF83 03:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted it, as there is no consensus developed here on the talk page to remove the links. Go ahead and quote WP:ELBURDEN again, if it makes you feel better. Shakzor (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Scratch that, someone beat me to the revert. Be it known that I am vigilant. Shakzor (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know it "suits my side", but clearly you guys can't read "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." CTJF83 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Ctjf83: "clearly you guys can't read" --> WP:NPA. Apparently it is you who have not bothered to read, or at least respond directly to, the many comments on this page citing reasons why the links belong. All I hear from your camp is the incessant bleating of WP:EL and various other policy pages to which myself and others have responded. Valid reasons have been given for the retention of each link, and it is you and yours who seem determinedly ignorant of this. Shakzor (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Just pointing out a fact...that you can't read what I quoted above, or at least can't/don't think you need to follow it. Plus hardly a PA, as, unlike you, I didn't call you a name. CTJF83 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Always just pointing out facts, eh? Here are some more facts: I will never agree with you, and you will never agree with me. This debate will drag on endlessly because neither side is willing to give in. Each side accuses the other of either not reading, or ignoring, various policy pages that are relevant to this issue. My position on these matters has been made clear several times over. I have read every word on this page, yet I see many examples of others making comments about something to which I have already commented directly, and I cannot help but feel as though my words remain unheeded even now. And what did I call you, other than an elitist, ignorant, disdainful hypocrite? All of which happen to be legitimate observations supported by quotes from yourself. Shakzor (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Grow up!, one more time, and you are going to be reported for attacks. CTJF83 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus, I've already said if we did mediation, I'd drop it no matter the results, but someone on your side refused to do it, and put a stop to that. CTJF83 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, your condescension does not impress me. It seems to me that it is you who has performed a variety of underhanded personal attacks on this page. The simple statement "grow up", in bold no less, is condescending and insulting. Additionally, it is further example of my declaration of you being elitist and intolerant of new users and "IPs" as you call them; the untouchable caste of wikipedia. One day, I hope you realize that you are part of the problem, and not the solution. For now, go ahead and report whatever you want; I will even repeat my previous statement to make it easy on you: You, Ctjf83, are an elitist, ignorant, disdainful hypocrite, as evidenced by your comments on this page and elsewhere. I find your presence here to be counter-productive, and a deterrent to new users and "IPs". You are a poor ambassador for wikpedia, and yet you are also an accurate one, as you are symptomatic of the many problems present here. Shakzor (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Opps, you must've forgot, Shakzor CTJF83 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have forgotten nothing. I do not consider what I have said to be a personal attack, just pointing out facts. Every one of them very true, too. So why treat me as though I just engaged in a chatroom name-calling exchange? Again, further example of your condescending attitude, which is not appreciated. Shakzor (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the powers that be also do not consider my words to be personal attacks. Shakzor (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"the powers that be" did not say your personal attacks where not personal attacks. They just said they were not obvious vandalism. What you wrote is clearly a personal attack. Your misrepresentaion of what happened does not change the fact that you once again made a personal attack on another editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
If I have made a personal attack, then go report me for it. I was under the impression that this had already occurred, and was subsequently dismissed. Shakzor (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Your impression is wrong. duffbeerforme (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Then by all means, go ahead and report me for personal attacks. Shakzor (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RE Onus: The problem with this reasoning is it operates in a vacuum. It ignores the true meaning of status quo and other underlying Wikipedia policies. Take for example commentary on consensus "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process on articles across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The EL's in this case were present for a very long period of time undisturbed by the deletionists. Accordingly consensus, in the true sense of Wikipedia's policies, was arrived at. Simply, although many EL's are not normally acceptable, this page followed the logic I have used and others have argued that this was an appropriate exception to the general rule in the context of this article. After significant time some have sought to change the consensus; it cannot be said that this automatically reverts back to as though this was a fresh page with new EL`s being proposed.Anber (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, sir. Shakzor (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagreed, sir. These ELs have been disputed and reverted so the links had no consensus. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your analysis is incorrect because it completely ignores the significant period of time where the links were not disturbed. This is solid consensus which establishes this as the status quo. Those seeking to change the status quo don't get the same presumptive benefit as they would if they were contesting newly placed EL's. Anber (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you come up with a reason that doesn't include "status quo", that is not a good reason. See WP:CCC CTJF83 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not ignore the time elapsed. It does not change the policies. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have firm rules, this is not meant to be an exercise or competition to see who can adhere most rigidly to the rules. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, just because something is written on a policy page does not mean it is set in stone and woe to any who dare question it. If there is any consensus here, it is to keep the links. If one was to include unregistered users in this matter, then there are far more voices in favour of keeping the links than there are for removing them. Consensus, by definition, does not imply a unanimous vote; so the fact that you two, duffbeerforme and Ctjf83, stick around to form the loudest minority, does not mean that you are forming consensus or preventing the rest of us from forming consensus. Shakzor (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
the fact that you two, Shakzor and someone else, stick around to form the loudest minority, does not mean that you are forming consensus or preventing the rest of us from forming consensus. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
An empty and facepalm-worthy accusation that contributes nothing to this discussion. Shakzor (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Good to see that you agree. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Your feeble attempt to twist my words, and your lack of direct response to the statements in my earlier post, only serve to demonstrate your impotence in this discussion. Shakzor (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not twist, I quoted. duffbeerforme (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Ya, it's just you and Anber sticking around for your side. And as I pointed out, it was Anber who prevented us from going to Meditation, not Duff or me. CTJF83 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe you mean mediation, and not meditation. So stop whining about it and go sign up for arbitration. Shakzor (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we should all go meditate, lol...Arb won't accept a case until all possible avenues have been exhausted, ie mediation. CTJF83 19:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; and as you have so astutely delineated, mediation is not an option for us. Thus I repeat: Stop whining about it and go sign up for arbitration. Shakzor (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I just said, they only accept cases if every other option is exhausted. This isn't exhausted yet. And as I've said many times, if this ends in keeping the links, I don't care anymore, and won't persue it anymore. CTJF83 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How very noble of you. It seems to me that the option of mediation has been exhausted. I am also unwilling to abide by the result of mediation, as I have no faith in the credibility or motives of the mediator. He or she would most likely end up being such a person as yourself, who would take one look at WP:EL and declare the issue closed based on that alone. The contingencies that will result in my leaving this matter alone are as follows: -The deletionist cabal sees reason and ends their one-dimensional campaign to remove the links. -The article is gold-protected in a state lacking the links. -I am banned in perpetuity. -Jimbo Wales himself descends upon this article to give his thumb up or down for the links. Until one of those occurs, or until someone demonstrates to me another possibility that I have overlooked, then I will not leave this matter alone. Also note that my banning will result in me backing down, as I am banned; however, threats of banning will not have an effect. Shakzor (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Blocking, not banning, has the best chance of a result...which is ok with me. CTJF83 21:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Guys, could you all drop the venom a bit? I'm seeing good faith editors who have strong opinions ripping at each other. This is rarely a good idea. In particular, Shakzor, please take it down a couple of notches. Wikipedia is certainly a place where yelling at others _hurts_ your chance of winning the argument. If you perceive others to be bullying, then the best thing to do is disagree politely. I think Ctjf83 is a quite reasonable editor and while you may disagree with him/her, you need to communicate in a civil way. I personally would like to see the ELs stay as I think both policy and common sense indicate that they should. But the louder you yell, the less likely that is to happen. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hobit greatly. As Shakzor once said to me, personal attacks won't resolve anything. After reviewing the past arguments, I've come to realize that yelling over this topic is just plain silly and irrational. In my opinion, I agree with Anber's idea of having the dates work as links. But unfortunately, there will most likely never be a consensus that both the pro-EL and anti-EL people can agree on, due to varied interpretations on rules such as WP:EL. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
While I agree in spirit with your words, Hobit, I disagree with your declaration that it is I who have been lacking in civility, in a comparison between myself and Ctjf83. The only difference is, I do not sugar-coat my words in an effort to slip in past a civility guideline. Take a closer look at the multitude of unnecessary words above, pay closer attention to comments made by Ctjf83 with regard to new and unregistered users. If there is a problem in wikipedia with the elitism of users and disrespect toward "newbies," then Ctjf83 is assuredly a contributor to this problem. While it is not my intention to antagonize, I also will not neglect to call things as I see them or attempt to sweeten my words. In this, Ctjf83 and I are diametrically opposed. Shakzor (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You once again, are twisting my words, how many times do I have to say, admins, me, you, new users, and IPs all carry the same weight in discussions. CTJF83 00:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, trying to be civil, the so called "sugar coating" certainly isn't automatically civil. But I do find putting in the effort to try to be less blunt/confrontational often helps create real civility. And if it fails, no real harm is done. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of External Link Issue

I'll first start by saying that following the resolution of this issue (if it ever gets resolved) this talk should be archived as it is long in both number of topics and length of text.

I have done my best to summarize the various positions. Inevitably, someone will say I mischaracterized their position - look, I did the best I could, taking a not insignificant amount of time, to try and boil the debate down into the major and minor players and the arguments relied on (as well as any meaningful cross debate over various points). This may be useful to someone who rules on this issue and it may be useful to the participants to take stock of where this debate came from, where it is and where it has gone, in order to decide where it should go. So we're clear, I believe that the links should stay although I am in favour of my suggestion to take out the YT's and GT's. Despite my partisan position, I hope this offers some unbiased perspective.

MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS DEBATE (Alphabetically)

YesY Anber (me) is strongly in favour of the links. I have been a major contributor to this debate. First and foremost, I pointed that the links are useful and contribute to the quality of the article. I pointed out that while it is true that a collection of links should be deleted, where the purpose of the page is not to collect links, the individual links within the page should be considered with respect to the usefulness of the page. Applied to this page, this page is not a collection of links so the existence of links should rise or fall on their value to the article. In this case they enhance the value and should remain. Secondly, I pointed out that there was a lack of consensus on the issue although I have indicated that I believe the overall direction, objectively viewed, is that the links should remain. I recognized the validity and reasonableness to the arguments against the links but feel they should not prevail given the facts of *this* article and the arguments surrounding it. I have taken the position that consensus is needed to remove the links as the links were there for a very significant period of time unchallenged and that this is distinguished from newly proposed links where the onus, if challenged, is on the proponents of the links to justify their existence. Thirdly, I have referred to the flexible and purposive interpretation that must be given to Wikipedia policy (and that is inherent in governing policy) in some ways I support the content of (but not necessarily the method of delivery) Shakzor's numerous comments. Finally, I suggested a variation to cut down the "(YT)" and "(GT") notations to make the article appear better. Although this would leave all the links in tact it would (albeit slightly) improve the appearance of the article in terms of its encyclopedic nature. This was directed at Melodia Chaconne's suggestion that the icons are ugly. She did not reply to this concern. CTJF83 agreed with the premise.

YesY Capitalistmaniac is strongly in favour of the links. He has been a major contributor to this debate. He points out that deleting the links does nothing to further the broad or narrow objectives of Wikipedia. As of February 23, he believes we have consensus pointing to the length of time they have been present, the number of people supporting the links and the quality and diversity of the arguments for keeping the links. This premise has been rejected by a number of the anti-link people, as being an invalid inaccurate premise on which his conclusion is predicated.

N CTFJF83 is strongly against the external links. He has been a major contributor to this debate. He argues that this is a simple and clear violation of the policy against external links. He argues that no valid policy argument has been raised to keep the links.He supports many of the arguments of Duffbeerforme because he believes very strongly that this violates the Wikipedia policy of external links. He strongly supports the idea that this debate can be resolved by removing the links and having a single link at the bottom.

N Duffbeerforme is strongly against the external links; he has been a major contributor to this debate. He takes the position that this is a directory and since directories are not permitted the links making it a directory should be removed. He points out various policies within the external link policy which he claims supports his position. He points out sourcing problems as a reason to amplify the problem with the links. He points out that this is an issue of not just adding one or two links but 100+ links which is not proper, he argues. Interestingly, although opposed to the external links, this contributor supports the position that each episode should have an external reference to prove its existence; he cites this as a basic requirement of verifiability.

YesY Exs10s is in favour of the links. He has been a major contributor to this debate although he has come into this debate late in the game and his contributions are mainly recently. He points out that the purpose of media including encyclopedias is to inform with ease and simplicity. This he argues supports the usefulness and quality arguments. He argues that the links is utilizing appropriate technology to further simplify the discovery of information process. He points out that this position he takes, is shared by a very many members of the community.

YesY Hobit is in favour of the external links and is a major contributor to this debate. He has taken the position that it is clear that a single link from each episode to the eposide doesn't violate policy. He quotes Wikipedia Policy that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." He then goes on to point out that the dwarfing issue is not at play here so this argument against the links should fail. He finally adds more recently that An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply." Only the "rich media" section might so apply in my opinion. The WP:NOT comments about "not a directory" show a rather significant misunderstanding of NOTDIR. Adding a link doesn't make something a directory.

N Jac16888 is against the links. He has been a major contributor to this debate. He feels the links are inappropriate. He felt as of February 2 that there was clear consensus supporting his position.

N Melodia Chaconne is against the links. She is a major contributor to this debate. She concedes usefulness but contests necessity. She also, in response to the argument that it doesn't do anything harmful to the page, points out that the multitude of external link icons is unattractive to the eye.

YesY OIEnglish, who appears to be a moderator, is in favour of keeping the links. He is a major contributor to this debate. He highlights the use and enjoyment and value that comes from having this in the page. He points out they are unintrisuve. He argues that removing the links doesn't necessarily mean that it meets any norm or policy any more than the article does with the links

YesY Shakzor is strongly in favour of the EL's. He has been a major contributor to this debate. He takes the position that the page is not a collection of links but a page which stands on its own. He points out the crusade to remove the links is overzealous and an application of policy which might appear to meet the letter of the law but does not respect the spirit of the law which is a valid wikipedia consideration with respect to quality in articles. He later goes on to point to the specific argument that this page refers to several releases of the same episode (which in some cases have differences). The links, to each iteration of the episode, is helpful to the reader in being aware of and getting the primary source of the differently dated releases. The page is incomplete without the links, he posits. He relies more than once on the 5th pillar of Wikipedia as supporting his position. He argues that the existing policy on EL's is likely silent (or quiet) on pages of this kind which is another reason why a broad analysis should be taken of the EL policy before applying it to this page.

YesY 60.226.67.88 is strongly in favour of the external links. He is a major contributor to this debate. He has other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia articles. He stresses that the usefulness and quality of the page are reduced by removing the links. He points to the fact that EL's should not *normally* be used indicating that there can and will be exceptions. He stressed his opinion that he should not be discounted as an IP.

YesY 68.17.137.16 is in favour of the links. He has been a major contributor to this debate. He has no other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia Articles. He takes the position that the page should be deleted if the links aren't allowed. He thinks that the effort to remove the links is "complete horseshit". He stresses the usefulness that these links provide to this article.


MINOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS DEBATE

N Egon Eagle is against the links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He says "It's not supposed to have a lot of external links according to wp:external links"

N ElKevbo is against the links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He relies heavily on the "not a directory of links" argument and that the policy is well established, widespread and long standing.

(neutral) EvilGohan2, who appears to be an administrator, and took a neutral position; he is a minor contributor to this debate. He pointed out that there are times when it is necessary to ignore all rules per wikipedia policy, and there are times when it is necessary to use common sense. He indicated that this is not a link repository or directory. This leans towards opposing the links but he never explicitly took this position on a normative basis.

(neutral) GedUK, who appears to be an administrator is neutral. He is a minor contributor to this debate. He noted that consensus was still forming as of February 3, 2011.

YesY ManfromDelmonte is in favour of the external links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He points out that each episode should have some sort of external reference to prove its existence (implicitly referring to verifiability). Although duffbeerforme is opposed to the links in general, that latter member actually appears to support this position taken by manfromdelmonte regarding verifiability.

YesY Mickrussom is in favour of the external links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate.He finds that the push against the EL's is part of the 'deletionist moronacy' which has been referred to by other users using various expressions. He cites that the links are useful and that it would be an overly bureaucratic and incorrect interpretation of policy to remove them. He further indicates that this is done in other places which, while not an argument in and of itself, has been implicitly referred to by other users as a basis for treating this as an exception to the rule that "normally" external links should be avoided.

N Shadurak is against the links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He claims that the history of the article would be a suitable page for fans to visit.

N WhatamIdoing is against the links. He is a minor contributor to this debate. He proposes another solution, which has been - to some degree - championed by CTJF83 that there be a single link to a fan page with all the links.

YesY 70.54.91.203 is weakly in favour of the links. He is a minor contributor to this debate. He has no other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia articles. He points out there are reasonable policy based arguments on both sides of the debate. This article has been the subject of deletion attempts twice; this user takes the position that so long as the page remains undeleted, the links are a significant portion to the article and its purpose and that there is no consensus to change it.

YesY 74.103.108.236 is in favour of the external links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He has no other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia Articles. He argues that the value and usefulness of the page is reduced by the removal of the links. He also implicitly argues for a more flexible interpretation to Wikipedia Policy given the subject matter.

YesY 105.101.178.39 is in favour of the external links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He has no other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia Articles. He supports the position that deleting the EL's is an extremist application of the policy and reduces the quality of the page.

YesY 109.61.53.79 is in favour of the external links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He has many other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia articles. He also refers to the 'deletionists' as interpreting wikipedia policy too narrowly in cases like this.

YesY 130.89.101.28 is implicitly in favour of the external links. He has been a minor contributor to this debate. He has one other contribution to unrelated Wikipedia Articles. He argues that the value and usefulness of the page is reduced by the removal of the links.

YesY 174.93.161.90 is in favour of the external links. He [I say he throughout but noted that this user says he is not a he] has been a minor contributor to this debate. He has no other contributions to unrelated Wikipedia Articles. He has contributed more than most other minor contributors. He indicates that firstly, while external links as a general rule should not be used he supports Anber's assertion that this is an exception such as 'meaningful relevant content purposes' which he argues applies here. Secondly he argues to the media exception where the policy appears to allow links in articles about books, musical scores or other media that is a valid use of links. Third there is no blanket ban on these kinds of links, there are no longevity issues and there is no dwarfing issues (which tend to weigh against links). He points out that this type of page is not unique and, while that is not in and of itself an argument in favour of keeping the links it is something to consider when performing an analysis.

YesY 174.95.108.172 is neutral although implies he supports the links by saying the lack of consensus should be resolved in favour of the version that immediately preceded this s***storm. He is a minor contributor to this debate. He has one other contribution to unrelated Wikipedia articles. He thinks we should all get a life and that there are valid policy arguments on both sides of this debate. He thinks that as of February 19 there is no consensus.

YesY 203.45.175.56 is in favour of the links. He is a minor contributor to this debate. He has one other contribution to unrelated Wikipedia articles. He sees no issue with external links as long as they're integrated properly and do not dwarf the article content Anber (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work. I fear both parties still won't be able to come to an agreement, though. I see one solution (and I'm not just saying this since the results are in my favour) - votes. I'm sure I'll be told Wikipedia is not a democracy, but really, is there another solution? Talking has failed. Even if we get to mediation, I doubt everyone will accept the decision, since this debate has been raging for months. Votes are the fairest way to decide.
FOR: 8 Users, 10 IPs
AGAINST: 8 Users, 0 IPs
Expecting a quotation of policy why this is not acceptable in 3...2...1... 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There will be someone along to close the RfC after its been open for 30 days. I think this summary will help quite a bit, thanks for doing it. I saw a few typos and fixed them, hope you don't mind. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And I have adjusted the checkmark and x graphical interface. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries, at 3am when I was working on this, perfect spelling was not going to be attainable. Anber (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Good show on the summary. Also, I do not expect you or anyone to agree with or support my "method of delivery" as you put it. I have long since been jaded with the notion of internet community, or the expectation that others would be willing to engage in rational discourse. Here on the internet, we get mostly the extremes; trolls and bureaucrats. I am tired of both. At any rate, if the opinions of unregistered users are indeed weighted equally with those of registered users or even administrators, then we clearly have a consensus. Like yourself, I am bracing for the inevitable onslaught of wikilawyering. Shakzor (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what your definition of "major contributor" is, because oldenglish has 1 post. Major to me would be Duff and I on the remove side and Anber, Shakzor, and Capitalistmaniac on the keep. These 5 are the top 5 from Dec 24, 2010 (when first post started) - Today You could argue removing capitalistmaniac as s/he is 29 edits less than Duff (the next highest editor), so in terms of numbers for/against, it is 2-2. CTJF83 22:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I may be in error with respect to oldenglish. I drew the line at any person with 2 or more contributions that were of substance. I was going to only refer to the 5 people you mentioned (and thus raise the bar much higher) but I actually thought it would be unfair to characterize Jac16888 or Melodia as minor when they were fairly vocal with 2-4 posts of substance. On your specific issue, a quick review shows that I may be in error on this user and if anyone wants to change it from major to minor (presuming they have no other substantial contribution) I take no issue with them being moved into their proper alphabetic spot. Anber (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ctjf83, you are just drawing the line where you want it to be. What about all those declarations of yours about "IPs" having as much say as anyone else? Shakzor (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
A reasonable person would say 41-64 edits is major compared to 8. Would you not agree? Or is it not reasonable, because it excludes people who want to keep the links? Obviously if we include the top IP at 8, why not include everyone then, cause 8-1 is far closer than 41-8 CTJF83 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, now you are saying that a user's edit count is directly proportional to their merit in a debate? A juvenile argument, and further proof of the elitism that you have the nerve to deny. Shakzor (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You just have to counter everything I say, don't you? I in fact did not start the post about major/minor contributors being an experienced editor, I know that I could have 100 useless edits to this page and an IP can have 1, and their argument carry more weight. I'm just pointing to the fact that no reasonable person would count 1 edit as a major contributor, and that lead me to show who would be major if we went by numbers, which is what Anber did, not me. I'm sure you'll have some comment to this....CTJF83 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And I am certain that you will have something to say to whatever I say, as this is what we have been doing for far too long. And yes, I am going to counter everything you say in relation to this debate over the links, as we are on opposing sides of the debate. If you say "the sky is blue," I am not going to disagree just to be a jerk; but if you say "the sky is blue, therefore the external links should be removed," I am certainly going to point out that your argument is invalid. Shakzor (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Very impressive work Anber. You did a great job on this. I believe I've been a major contributor to the debate, as I've been debating since the early days of this whole controversy, and I always try to make a post when I'm not busy. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
To be fair Ctjf83, you do kind of give the impression that Users opinions are more "worthy". 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well like Shakzor, you must not actually read what I say, cause I've said a half dozen times, that u and my opinion are the same. CTJF83 12:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  • One of my criticisms of how you have approached this debate, Ctjf83, is how you give off mixed messages; as I said earlier, particularly to ssuit the argument you are making at a given time. Yes, it is true you have said it several times that everyone's opinion is the same. Most of the time, however, you make this point in support of your (valid) conclusion that it is incorrect to weigh the admins' opinions higher even though they support links. But, on the other hand you have frequently spoken negatively about IP's implying that their opinions should be discounted. Anber (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside other aspects of bias that exist in your summary I think there are two that really need addressing. ManfromDelmonte expressed no opinion in favour of the external links. To draw the conclusion is a major stretch quessing his position. EvilGohan2 was clearly against the external links and to say he was neutral after the major jump you made with ManfromDelmonte is questionable at best. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
And I normally don't edit other people's comments, but since others have done it, I fixed it to what I actually said. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't accept that there is any inherent bias in what I wrote. I may have made a few errors; this was done late at night, this was a large undertaking, I have other responsibilities beyond Wikipedia, but I think, for the most part, I properly summarized the key issues. Of course, I am in favour of a certain side, but I didn't deliberately ignore or avoid any points helpful to the opposition or harmful to my side. In fact, I went out of my way to make sure I was balanced in my presentation of the issues. I read every single message on this issue before posting my summary. Also, I will ask that going forward that my summary not be edited, but that any critiques be listed under the relevant subsection with a bullet point ":*" so that anyone reviewing can draw their own conclusions. Anber (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was lurking and wasn't going to write in on this, but wow - no good deed goes unpunished. This guy Abner writes an extensive summary which captures 96% of eveyrthing accurately. Most important he captures the main thrust of the argument as articulated by the main players. The opponents of the links have had nothing positive to say - nitpicking at this job. Obviously Abner made some mistakes but, for the most part the work is solid. I think it may be sour grapes from the anti-link people because now that their argument is summarized, it looks kind of simplistic and lacking and certainly not more persuasive than the arguments to keep the links. You guys should thanks Abner for taking the time to put work into this -- I imagine it would have taken a while. For the most part its accurate and for themost part its quite fair to both sides. 173.243.45.162 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PS) YesY put me in favour of the links for the reasons articulated by the major supporters of the links 173.243.45.162 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Sure is awfully quiet these last 24 hours! LOL. Anyway, you should all watch the 100th episode which was just released. Super Mecha Death Nerd, oh yeah. 209.226.25.124 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also thanks to the External Links I was able to get to the 100th episode hahahaha -- but in all seriousness the links should stay -- policy should be looked at wholistically which is what has been argued

YesY If it's free content and relevant to the described portion, I see no reason why this can not be included. Overwhelming support is clearly here. Also, this crap about differentiating between major and minor contributors to the debate is pointless. Consensus relies on votes of equal weight, not on who was available or willing to discuss the matter.--Xession (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just the stupidest thing I've ever seen. I see douchebags on both sides, arguing over something that could have been resolved months ago quite simply with a hate and vitriol I haven't seen since the 60's era South. I literally have no idea how this has happened, and you should all feel ashamed of yourselves. Oh and if this looks weird, it's because I have never edited Wiki before. So to avoid cf's hate towards ips, I won't even post my stance. So to conclude, these are the people who have been the biggest douches: Shakzor, Cfgobbledygook, and duffmansomethingorother. And since I plan on never editing again, go ahead and report me or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.17.240 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for placing me at the top of your list of biggest douches. Considering the company I am in, this is quite an accomplishment. Shakzor (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • FYI, I've asked for a close on WP:AN.

Coverage of Your Debate on Reddit

I bring this to your attention with some amusement. The number of "upvotes" it's received is rather unusual. WCityMike 19:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! I knew there was some shady doings going on. I couldn't find any myself when I last checked. CTJF83 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get the wrong idea that the reddit post somehow has influenced what has happened here up until now. That was posted just last night. You guys have been having this idiotic argument for months now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.4.156 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was not trying to suggest Reddit had influenced your discussions; merely that they had become so convoluted and obsessively intricate that they garnered great amusement from a popular online community. WCityMike 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not really relevant to solving anything here. But it did mislead Ctjf83 who clearly drew an adverse inference from it 70.26.39.59 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe the Reddit coverage can harm this debate. As it can result in several new debaters that have absolutely no clue how Wikipedia works. (e.g. the last poster in the summary section) Capitalistmaniac (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but hopefully the person who decides this discussion realizes that the RfC period has ended, and then ignores new arguments that very well could be swayed by Reddit. CTJF83 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that any new 'votes' should be discounted - but we agree, that Wikipedia is not about votes; it's about ideas and the weight of the arguments behind those ideas. I think that any contributions made at any time on this issue until a decision is made should be taken into consideration. Anber (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's a lovely little microcosm right there! WCityMike 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And that is how this entire pointless debate looks when viewed from outside. Welcome to wikipedia, please turn up your nose and engage in a sneering match with everyone around you. Shakzor (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary and decision

I'm closing this RfC with a result of Delete the external links from the body of the article. Instead, just retain a link or a few links in the "External links" section that devolve to sites hosting the videos.

I've considered the various arguments in some detail, and this "Summary and decision" section only summarizes these. If my exposition of the arguments seems overly simplified here, see the various sections below for more detail.

Three details to be gotten out of the way to start:

  • If the videos are not separate external links in the body of the article, they cannot be anywhere in the article. That would require the "External links" section to be too long and this would violate WP:LINKFARM {"Excessive lists [of external links] can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia") in both letter and spirit, and that is a policy.
  • It's highly problematical to consider the links as references (I expound on this below), but if they are to be references, they should be cited normally: the {{cite video}} template or another template in the body of the text, the actual link to the video to be accessible from the "References" section, or some other similar method.
  • The links to the videos, if present, have to be labeled as video links.

The headcount was, depending on how one counts standing (and counting all commentors in the whole history of the talk page, not just the RfC sections), about 10-7 in favor of including the links. This is close enough that I didn't consider it very important. So we move on to strength of argument.

The argument in favor of keeping the videos as separate external links basically comes down to one big point:

  1. It is incontrovertible that at least some people would find the links useful, even if we restrict "useful" to mean "useful for scholarly research".
  2. And there's very little cost to include them. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER, and no one is forced to clink the links.
  3. And so including the links is a net benefit.
  4. And it is only guidelines, not policies, which militate against the links (and even that is arguable).
  5. So of course they should be included, and to do this the guidelines should be interpreted with some common sense leeway, or apply WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:5P Pillar 5 if it comes to it.

A very compelling argument, as I have said below. Against this, we have some less compelling arguments. Is there a strong policy proscription of these links? No, there isn't:

  • WP:NOTREPOSITORY (also called WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTLINK) which is a policy, was cited. It's a policy so if it applies that would be strong argument. In my view it doesn't apply here, this is not a case of a bare list of links.
  • WP:NOTDIRECTORY, ditto.

But there are some cogent, if non-policy, arguments:

  • Wikipedia:External links is a guideline, but a cogent and much-cited one. It militates against including external links in the body of an article, granted it says only to "normally" not use them (although "exceptions are rare").
  • The links cannot continue to exist in their present form, they must include the information that they are video links, and this would to some extent add clutter and raise the cost of including the links, somewhat weakening "include links" point #2. (N.B.: This point was not raised by any of the commentors, I raise it here. Whether to do this as closer is considered bad form or not I don't know.)
  • The list is probably not eligible to become a Featured List if it contains these kind of external links. No other Featured List includes this feature. And all lists should aspire to be featured lists. (N.B.: This point was not raised by any of the commentors, I raise it here. Whether to do this as closer is considered bad form or not I don't know.)

Then getting back to the "include links" main argument. What about point #1? I think it's not as strong as it appears at first.

It is true that the number of persons doing scholarly research or other legitimate research who would find these links useful is not zero. But it is probably pretty small, and since there is a link to the videos in the "External links" section this is not a problem, and our imagined scholar would likely find this as useful if not more useful as a way to access the videos. So this is not an important point.

It is true that the number of persons persons not doing scholarly research who find these links useful is probably much higher. However, what about these people? This takes us to point #2.

Point #2 is that there's very little cost to include them. I think that argument that there is little cost to including the links is not proven.

I have one commentor with "Personally, I think the links decrease the quality of the article. All the little EL icons make it quite ugly looking." But that is just one person. But as pointed out above, we would need to make the link text longer. So there's some cost there, in what Edward Tufte would call datacluttter. As encyclopediasts we are information designers and do have to consider this.

And then this: although this was not a major point, one commentor decried the "...fan-dom direction Wiki would take without these rules [against such links]".

Normally I wouldn't care about this, but... well, the behavior of the commentors got me to thinking.

Based on the behavior of the the people who commented, I would think it fair to say that the Wikipedia would be justified in actively discouraging such people coming to the Wikipedia, or at any rate certainly not catering to them. OK, we don't care who reads the Wikipedia, but if these people are going to become actively involved in editing the Wikipedia and participating in these discussions, it's legitimate to ask if we are encouraging an an Eternal September type situation by overlinking to certain types of popular media. To the extent that this is too bad for the (relatively few) people favoring the links who didn't misbehave: life isn't fair. I think this is a legitimate point.

So I don't see the links as very useful for scholars. And I don't see the population to whom the links would be useful as a population that we need to go out of our way to accommodate. If someone finds the links as a gateway to an amusing and merry few minutes on this earth, that is all well and good, but providing easy access to mirth is not what we're here for, and I didn't see any invocation of "useful" that refutes WP:USEFUL.

And so I don't see point #3, that the links are a net benefit, as proven or necessarily true. And if #3 is not true or at any rate not proven, points #4 and #5 don't matter and we are thrown back on WP:ELBURDEN.

A couple of commentors noted "The long standing policy against external links is the result of earlier debate and any call for change of policy should be discussed elsewhere" and "The existing Wikipedia policies are the result of long term discussion so they should hold more weight than the immediate reaction of a few fans on a single article"

I think that this is spot on, and a strong point. The people who write Wikipedia:External links aren't fools, and they had their reasons for writing it as they did.

What I would suggest is this. I suppose we are going to see more and more material like this. How are we going to handle this? Are we generally going to include external links to the material in the body of the lists and articles, or not? The articles Homestar Runner and so forth aren't peppered with external links. Should they be? I don't know, but I do think that if we are going to go in this direction there needs to be a good long centralized discussion of the matter, for which I would recommend Wikipedia talk:External links as a start.

In the meantime, let's follow the guideline. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Guiding policies and principles

The guiding principle of Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia". Wiktionary, the free dictionary, defines "encyclopedia" as "A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of subjects", with "comprehensive" defined as "Broadly or completely covering; including a large proportion of something."

The policy "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" states: ""Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.

The nutshell for guideline Wikipedia:External links is:

"External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."

and other material in this guideline includes:

  • "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article..."
  • "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic"
  • "The burden of providing... justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."
  • "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work"
  • "Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection."
  • Long lists of links are not acceptable"
  • The WP:ELBURDEN section states "The fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article... Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."

Under "Links normally to be avoided", there are twenty cases of links not to use. As near as I can figure, the YouTube videos don't meet any of these twenty cases.

WP:ELPEREN is only an essay, but a well-formed one that has much the weight of a guideline. WP:ELPEREN#YouTube has this to say: YouTube (and this would or could apply to other video-serving entities, depending on their reliability) is "sometimes" acceptable as an external link and as reference. The examples given (videos from government agencies or network news) are rather a far way from these videos, but this situation is different as the article is about an internet video entity. However, it points out that all videos Videos must be labeled with software requirements (note existence of Template:YouTube), and that many people can't view videos.

(Considering this, I concluded that the fact that people using the Wikipedia via printed copy, telephone, dial-up modem, in some countries, etc. can't view a video makes video an extremely poor if not outright disallowable medium for citation as a reference, since reference is a core part of a Wikipedia article. If the link is just a here's-something-extra add-on that's different.)

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) (which is primarily, but not entirely, concerned with internal links to other articles) says:

  • "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand... Care should be taken to avoid both underlinking and overlinking"
  • "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed down an article and be reading the hard copy on paper"
  • "If the link is not to an HTML or PDF file, identify the file type"

Wikipedia:Inline citation (which is only an essay) is relevant to the extent, and only to the extent, that an external link (inline or not) is used to support statements in the article. Nothing in this essay envisions the use of non-text media for inline citations. (My opinion: that doesn't mean it is not allowed. However, it is not standard and there are problems with that (a bare video proves nothing, and anyone can put a video on YouTube (although no one here has claimed these YouTube videos are false); and citations should not be completely unavailable to persons using printed copies etc.).

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is only an essay, and relates to deletion discussions. However, the section WP:USEFUL does have something to say about the argument of "usefulness" in general:

  • "just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful... you need to tell us why the [material] is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies... Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided... Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader"

WP:PRESERVE, a policy, doesn't really have much to offer. It's really only about text, saving it by rewriting rather than deleting it. It would come into play only if the argument was "the links are badly presented (or formatted), delete them" was an issue, which has been mentioned but is pretty peripheral to this discussion. WP:COMPREHENSIVE (only an essay anyway) is only about edgy material and doesn't have any application here. WP:LINKSPAM, a guideline, says "Adding external links... for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed", doesn't really apply here.

WP:COPYLINK would not apply to the YouTube videos if the video were uploaded there with the knowledge and consent of the copyright holders. I am assuming that this must be true or we would not even be having this discussion (and YouTube would have deleted them.)

Wikipedia:Television episodes. Although these are not "television" episodes, they are something close to it, except broadcast via the web rather than TV, so Wikipedia:Television episodes (a guideline) is worth looking at. It doesn't have anything to say in the body of the guideline, but it does give three examples of "List of..." TV episode articles that reached featured list status and are presented as good examples. TV episodes may not be available on the web, though.

  • List of 30 Rock episodes doesn't have any links to video of the episodes. Presumably not available.
  • List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes doesn't have any links to video of the episodes. Presumably not available. (It has one link in the "References" section which, while it is mainly included because it contains text information, does itself contain a link to download (not view) videos of the episodes, but this requires registering as a member of some entity. If this was the main purpose of the link, it would not be allowed.)
  • List of Heroes episodes has a single link, "Watch full episodes at NBC.com" in the reference section. Heroes has had webcast spinoffs (listed at List of Heroes episodes#Web-based spin-offs) and, significantly, there are not links to these, either in the body of the tables or anywhere else, even though they are presumably available on the web.

Discussion

I believe that the first mention of this issue was at Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/Archive 1#Links to episodes on March 16, 2009. However, the issue only began to capture real attention on Christmas Eve of 2010, with the creation of the section Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes#Removal of External Links. The main relevant talk page sections are

Headcount

To start, let's count heads. Granted that headcount is not a decisive or even necessarily important factor, its a place to start.

In the earlier discussions before the main discussions began, we had

  • User:ManfromDelmonte with "I feel that each episode needs some sort of external reference to prove its existence." Possibly this proof could be links to the videos (or not).
  • User:Apoyon, established editor, active, opposed to the links.
  • User:Rror, established editor, inactive, had mixed feelings.
  • User:DevinCook, established editor, active, was just concerned at this time that links should go to offical AVGN site not YouTube. Later he made comments putting him in the "opposed" camp, see below.

In a later sections after the main RfC, we had

  • User:Egon Eagle, established editor, active, opposes the links
  • User:Exs10s, established editor, active, favors the links. (N.B. and FWIW - only five edits after 2007 (last in April 2010) before making nine recent edits, eight to this talk page, so "active" may be arguable.)
"Removal of External Links" talk page section

Opposed to links in the body of the article:

Favoring links in the body of the article:

Other:

  • User:MSGJ established editor, active. Did remove the links, but as a procedural matter, and has expressed neutrality.
  • User:Shadurak, neither established nor active. Position not completely clear, but looks to be against the links.
  • User:Ged UK, established, active, admin. Comment only to say that he had protected the page.
"The Unholy Crusade" talk page section

Only adding editors not referenced in the above section.

Opposed to links in the body of the article:

Favoring links in the body of the article:

Other:

"Request for comments" talk page section

User:MSGJ created this RfC. This was only somewhat successful in bringing in new blood and was mostly dominated by users who had contributed previously.

Only adding editors not referenced in the above section.

Opposed to links in the body of the article:

  • User:Melodia, established editor, active.
  • User:WhatamIdoing, established editor, active. Comment was "Is there a webpage somewhere that already lists all these links? It would be preferable to link to a 'www.fansite.com/WatchAllTheVideos.html' than to link directly to all these videos ourselves." And it was then pointed out that there is exactly such a link, here. So I would categorize WhatamIdoing as thus being opposed to the links.
  • User:ElKevbo, established editor, active.

Favoring links in the body of the article:

Other:

  • User:174.95.108.172, not established or active (although he does claim to have a real account, just not willing to use it here). Gist of comment was "Get a life, people" and just stop arguing about it.
Headcount summary

I discounted editors who I don't consider to have standing: 7 anon IP's, all of the "favor links" persuasion. All of these were basically WP:SPA's or close enough. I didn't count User:ManfromDelmonte either way, as his concern was verifiability, which is probably best met with text references rather than media. I was inclined to not count User:Shakzor on grounds of removing oneself from consideration by poor behavior, but I did count him, since at no time did he compare the deletion of the links to the Holocaust, which may have required some restraint on his part. I did not include User:MSGJ either way. This gives:

  • 7 opposed to links.
  • 10 in favor of links.

However, in my written notes, only one of the 7 "oppose links" commentors are marked up (for unclarity of position), while 6 of the "favor links" commentors are marked up, either for egregious behavior or iffy standing. It could have been 6-7 rather than 7-10 if I'd used stricter criteria. At 7-10 there is 59% in favor from a mid-sized sample. It is edging toward a supermajority but not enough to constitute a supermajority, so I gave little weight to the headcount. I did give some.

Regarding behavior

There was great deal of heat - and uncivil and otherwise bad behavior - at some points. Going through my notes, I have:

"...deletionist moronacy...", "...bureaucratic troll destroying information to lick the boots of hyper-policy driven administrators to try and earn things like Barn-stars. This is exactly what the bureaucrats that worked for the Nazi regime were like. Please STOP DESTROYING TRUTHFUL INFORMATION HERE.", "...drooling psychopath...", "**** everyone who wants to delete those links.", "...ignorant minds here on wikipedia; gathering place for law school drop-outs. I will be back reverting the page on February 1st, when the protection expires.", "Wikipedia is a JOKE!", "This is complete horseshit.", "You Deleters need to get a life." (edit summary), "...deletion gestapo...", "You are an elitist, ignorant, disdainful hypocrite...", in addition which my notes include quite a few cases of use of all caps.

It's remarkable that every single one of the these quotes is from a person in the "support the links" camp, and that was a broad-based effort - these quotes come from at least a half dozen different editors. I wasn't looking to cherry-pick quotes from one camp or another, I just pulled the most egregious ones that came to my attention, and they turned out to be all from one side.

Editors in the "oppose the links" camp were not perfect, but they weren't nearly as bad, and they didn't start this trend of behavior, and they were generally responding to being provoked or baited. I have a couple of quotes - "Clearly you guys can't read [this quote]" and "Grow up!", which are not good, but as I say after some considerable provocation.

Couple of points about this. On the one hand:

  • This sort of thing is annoying to everyone involved. Its annoying to me personally, and it doesn't predispose me to look with favor on the arguments presented. This shouldn't affect my decision, but I'm only human.
  • We don't want to reward this sort of behavior. This is not how we make arguments or "get our way" on the Wikipedia, and we do not want to give the impression that it is ever likely to be successful tactic, and it's legitimate to take this into account, I think.

In the other hand... some editors got heated because they feel it is just slam-dunk obvious that their arguments are clearly prima facie correct. I understand this, and I understand why they feel that way, and it's not an illegitimate response when you consider things at first blush (although its still no excuse for bad behavior), and on some level you have to respect that. I'll address this in more detail below.

About the "Summary of External Link Issue"

Here, User:Anber made a detailed summary of the debate and the players. He is to be commended for this work and for the time and effort he put into it. I especially appreciated that, even though he was heavily involved in the discussions, he produced a fair-minded and even-handed summary, which I have used as a reference.

I didn't agree with all of his methodology, including the division into editors who are and are not major contributors to this debate. I considered overall Wikipedia standing for headcounting purposes and discounted some users which I didn't consider to have standing, for instance. However, when it comes the strength of argument I didn't pay any attention to standing. For instance, User:70.54.91.203 has made only one edit to the Wikipedia, but in that one edit he had something useful and cogent to say, and I considered that neither more nor less strongly than if he had had 20,000 edits.

On reading this section, I find that it is a fair summary. Most of Anber's work duplicates what I have done here, so I am not going to quote from it extensively, but it was useful to read.

Arguments

Some more background

Going back to first principles: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia". Well, what is an encyclopedia, and what is it for (in design, and in practice)? Nobody can answer that exactly, but some of the customers for this article might include:

  • A person researching a book or article titled (say) FreeMedia: How The Internet Will Destroy Television or (say) Armagedoom: Online Media And The Dumbing Down Of Popular Entertainment or (say) Born In A Funk: How A Random Slacker Achieved Internet Stardom and so on.
  • A person researching a scholarly paper on any number of subjects - the growth of internet media or whatever.
  • A person wanting to settle a bet over whether AVGN ever reviewed Donkey Kong.
  • A person browsing the encyclopedia at random.
  • A person who wants to start their own series of web videos and is researching the current state of the art.
  • A person compiling a database, say like IMDB but for web videos.
  • A TV network employee tasked with "finding out what the kids are watching on the computer so we can pitch that to the suits".
  • A person who was told the AVGN was worthwhile watching.
  • An AVGN fan.
  • Yadda yadda yadda. Who knows?

The only real operative policy is WP:LINKFARM ("Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"). It doesn't really apply here. No one is claiming that this article is mainly a list of links. It would apply if a separate link to each episode was moved to an "External links" section" - that would make the section too long and unwieldy, and would (in my opinion) pretty much violate this policy. No one has suggested this, probably for this reason.

So we are concerned with guidelines only. Guidelines are just that, they are not policy, but some guidelines (WP:EL included) are well-considered and venerable and are often seen as being close to being policy. But they're not, its good to remember.

Here's what I am seeing: a lot of people on both sides do aver that there are some strong guideline points against including the links. And this is true. Actually, there are guideline points on both sides, but there are some pretty strong points against including the links:

  • "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." (guideline)
  • "External links... should be kept minimal." (guideline)
  • "The burden of providing... justification is on the person who wants to include an external link" (guideline)

But then:

  • ""An article about [a work] should link to a site hosting a copy of the work" (guideline)

While the Wikipedia is not against someone coming, through a Wikipedia link, to see an amusing and enjoyable video, we are not in favor of that either. We are not here to provide amusement or enjoyment in this way, we are here to provide information.

On the other hand, there certainly is information in the videos. Many researchers, scholars, and casual readers would have no need to view the videos. But some would. This, I think, is a core element of the "include links" camp (and perhaps why some feel so vehement about the issue):

  1. The number of people who would find the links useful is certainly not zero.
  2. And there's no cost to include, or little cost. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER.
  3. So of course they should be included, and to do this either the guidelines should be interpreted with some common sense, or apply WP:IAR if it comes to it.

This is an extremely compelling argument, by the way. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is compelling.

Summary of arguments

There was a lot of material, but a lot of repetition. I pulled some quotes, and there are a lot of quotes making similar points which I didn't pull.

Opposed to the links
  • WP:NOTLINK, WP:ELPOINTS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
  • "Information about episodes are encyclopedic. The episodes themselves, are not."
  • "...fan-dom direction Wiki would take without these rules"
  • "...makes the articles "fragile" inasmuch as external links can never be considered 100% stable."
  • "While linking to YouTube can be a valid reference in some instances, this is not one of them."
  • "The long standing policy against external links is the result of earlier debate and any call for change of policy should be discussed elsewhere."
  • WP:SAL. "I fail to see how >100 links is minimal."
  • "From WP:EL, you might consider is 'it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic'."
  • "The existing Wikipedia policies are the result of long term discussion so they should hold more weight than the immediate reaction of a few fans on a single article."
  • "WP:EL states 'External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an External links section at the end of the article...' The article includes an External links section which links to the four main sites that contain the individual episodes."
  • "WP:EL stats 'In the External links section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.' No credible policy based argument has been put forward as to why separate links to multiple pages in the same website is valid here."
  • WP:NOTDIR states 'Wikipedia is not a directory'. Inclusion of these links turns this article into a directory... WP:NOTMIRROR states 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links'. Inclusion of these links makes Wikipedia a repository of links."
  • "This page as it is has serious sourcing problems. All sources are from the subject. No independent reliable sources have been used. These external links compound the sourcing problem."
  • "It has been suggested elsewhere that the external links could be turned into references. This would not be appropriate as they are not independent sources and while Wikipedia:Verifiability does allow for the use of self-published sources as sources, to convert these links would be unduly self-serving and would compound the problem of this article being based primarily on such sources."
  • "At the end of the day this page is not unlike others so there is no reason this page should have an exception to the policies."
  • "The purpose of this page is not to tell people where to find all these individual videos, that would be the purpose of a directory. This is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia, the article should tell people about the videos..."
  • "I fail to see how the quality is substantially reduced [if the links are removed], I personally think it will be increased... Personally, I think the links decrease the quality of the article. All the little EL icons make it quite ugly looking."
  • "A game guide is useful, a telephone directory is useful, etc etc but they are not what Wikipedia is for."
In favor of the links
  • "It is quote common and useful to have links like this." and "There are countless examples of this being done elsewhere.." and "Many other pages do this..."
  • "...there is no reason to artificially limit the size and scope of things as with a traditional media encyclopedia..."
  • "...diminishes the usefulness and general worth of the episodes page to delete these links..."
  • "...a single link from each episode to the episode doesn't violate policy. To quote: 'There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.' I don't see these links in any way dwarfing the article itself or detracting from the purpose."
  • "...over-zealous application of the letter of the law is in contrast to the spirit of the law, which is intended to uphold quality in articles."
  • "On this kind of page specifically, a direct link to the the subject media is relevant for each entry in the episode list; and I would call the use of these links "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article" as the guideline states."
  • "...the information on this page is incomplete without the inclusion of these links. The 'Related videos' section specifically becomes completely vestigial when the links are removed, as there is no way of locating all the material without the links. I would also say that it is more useful... Should we keep a page around because it conforms to Wikipedia policy, even though the information on it is nearly useless owing to those policies? Well that is what this page is without the links."
  • WP:5P, fifth pillar ('Wikipedia does not have firm rules')' WP:BURO.
  • "The spirit of the rule for WP:EL is to avoid pages where a list of external links is the only focus of the page. That is not the sole or primary purpose of this page."
  • "What harm does it do to have the links? Is it freeing up a few extra megabytes of bandwidth? Is it making the site look "unprofessional"? Nobody cares! People use Wikipedia as a source of information. They don't care if it looks professional. Now, I want some answers on how exactly ELs are murdering and raping people."
  • "...provide a reliable source proving the existence of the episodes, and convenience for the reader."
  • "Wikipedia's rules are flexible and are meant to ensure a good quality product."
  • "'External Links should not normally (my emphasis added) be used in the body of an article'. This implies a general rule but not an absolute rule. This page appears to be an exception. It refers to one exception being for 'other meaningful, relevant content' purposes. This would seem to be such a purpose. 'An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work' and this is a valid reason to keep the links. 'There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites'. Further, from WP:NOTLINK: 'excessive lists can dwarf articles'. This is not a concern here. In the present case, the use of links is done tastefully in a way that promotes usefulness of the article without making the article long or unsightly."
  • "...while there are good arguments on both sides, firstly, article quality should be supreme..."
  • "I can see nowhere that says 'Do not use external links in the body of an article, ever. Always put them in a separate section below the body.' All terms used in actual policy are indefinite, and the wording leaves room for flexibility. You... cite policy as though the wording were constructed from hewn granite, but this is not the case. If the links are individually and directly relevant to the subject matter of an article, why should they not be included? Not all content is linked at the bottom of the article. The source sites are, yes, but the individual links represent an organization of information... The organization on YouTube as a whole is atrocious, the links solve that problem quite handily. The other sites linked are more organized, but the episode list on one is not the same as the episode list on another, and the reason for this is the same as the reason for multiple links for some episodes, as episodes have been changed from one version to another. If a link gets changed or goes dead, then it should be noted as such, and a suitable replacement link should be found in its stead. It seems that all the episode links are still functioning nicely. As for the longevity of links, they have been there long enough for my reckoning, and no one has yet to put forth an argument as to why the two-plus year history of these links being around is to be ignored.
  • "It is not as though this page consisted of 'Here's a link to an episode, and here's a link to another', and so on; it is rich in information and much more than a mere 'repository of links' or a 'directory' or just a collection of off-site content or a 'link repository'."
  • "The rules of Wikipedia policy are meant to be applied in a way which contributes to the quality of the final product."
  • "Adding a link doesn't make something a directory. The idea is it shouldn't solely be a directory."

Some final points referenced in summary and decision

About the links as media

Currently, the links are displayed like this:

But this is not allowed. Links to rich media have to labeled as such (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking): "If the link is not to an HTML or PDF file, identify the file type"), I presume this is because otherwise the user may be surprised by an attempt to display rich media, which might hang his machine, which is not friendly.

There is Template:YouTube, which would give:

Even if this template is not used, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) you need to give a warning when you are linking to anything other than HTML or PDF. Something like this at least:

This does have some bearing. Given that this is required, it would clutter the format a bit, and give the argument "All the little EL icons make it quite ugly looking" more weight. It's possible or even likely, though, that this could be overcome to some extent - but only to some extent - with changes to formatting of the tables. (The section Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes#Suggestion addressed formatting, although not this issue exactly.)

(There is also a template, {{External media}}, designed for external video links ("This template is normally placed in the main body of the article, in the same place that you would normally have placed the image, audio, or video clip if it had been available on Wikimedia Commons"). However, where this is used, space is reserved for the video to play directly on the page (the template defaults to 258px wide, although this may be edited). Using this would break the formatting of the list, and no one has envisioned this.)

About the links as reference

YouTube is not a reliable source, as anyone can post anything to YouTube. There is no way of knowing if someone has created their own knockoff of an AGVN episode and posted it under a false name. On the other hand: no one has claimed that this has occurred here; also, other sites, which may have moderators or editors, may be more reliable.

Video in general is not a good source as a reference, as it is not available to many users. On the other hand: If the page hosting the video has ancillary information that is a reliable reference, that's different.

Video in general is not a good source as a reference, as it is difficult to search and impossible to print. On the other hand: if the reference is just to prove "this entity exists" rather to support particular quotes and so forth, then this doesn't much matter.

Generally speaking, though, video is not a good source as a reference to support the veracity of article material. It's OK if the intent is "here is some supplemental material which is not core to this article which you may find of use".

Featured list candidacy

No one brought this up, but I will (I also mentioned it above). An important goal for any article is to be Featured, or at any rate to be of the quality that would allow it to be Featured, or at least Good. As I mentioned above, there is one Featured List (List of Heroes episodes)listed at Wikipedia:Television episodes that includes a internet video, and that list doesn't have internal links to media in the body of the article. I picked a few more lists of media-type material at random from Category:Featured lists. Do they have external links to media in the body of the list? Granting that for many of these it might not be possible for copyright or other technical reasons.

In fact I couldn't find any Featured List that contained any external links in the body of the list. Granted a lot of this is not available. But look at the last one, Madonna videography. These videos are available on YouTube. Granted they are under copyright, but are the AVGN videos not under copyright? They are unless the copyright owner has specifically disowned them. Even if they are under copyright, WP:EL says "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work". Not sure how YouTube works, but I think that YouTube would have taken down the videos if they were violating Madonna's copyright, and that Madonna has the means to press the issue.

But Madonna videography doesn't contain external links to the videos in the body of the article. (In fact, it doesn't contain links to most of the videos anywhere in the article - there's one external link, which has a few videos along with a lot of exposition.) Is the subject of this list - a list of short videos which are available on the internet - really very much different from this AVGN episode list?

All this leads me to very much doubt that this list could advance to Featured List status unless the external links were scrubbed. Granted, the gatekeepers of Featured Lists may have some idiosyncratic preferences and their word is not law. But we have to give their standards a considerable measure of respect, I think. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


As this issue has been unresolved for some time, I ask the community: are the external links to third-party websites http://www.gametrailers.com, http://screwattack.com and http://www.youtube.com, currently used (permananent link) in the body of this article, appropriate and in line with the applicable guideline on external links? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • [KEEP EL's] Yes, as they provide a reliable source proving the existence of the episodes, and convenience for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistmaniac (talkcontribs) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for EL's: The policy referred to is, in my opinion a general rule. As pointed out above, Wikipedia's rules are flexible and are meant to ensure a good quality product. While most types of pages will fit neatly into the miniority's interpretation on the EL policy this page (and this kind of page) should strongly consider permitting EL's to keep the page useful, relevant, and informative. There is no good reason to remove the EL's and it degrades the quality of the page. I am not a new user or IP and should be weighted accordingly, but new users and IPs should be given some reasonable weight. Unless the consensus changes, the status quo should be kept. Anber (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have written a few paragraphs on my reasoning for this. Scroll up and look for the largest block of text on the same left-alignment. Shakzor (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The external links in the body of the article are not appropriate.
The existing wikipedia policy are the result of long term discussion so they should hold more weight than the immediate reaction of a few fans on a single article.
Wikipedia:External links states "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
Wikipedia:External links states "2.External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." The article includes an "External links" which links to the four main sites that contain the indivdual episodes. No credible policy based argument has been put forward as to why this policy should be ignored.
Wikipedia:External links states "4.In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." No credible policy based argument has been put forward as to why seperates links to multiple pages in the same website is valid here.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states "Wikipedia is not a directory". Inclusion of these links turns this article into a directory and some of the protests above demonstrate that that is what it has been used as.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". Incusion of these links makes Wikipedia a repository of links.
This page as it is has serious sourcing problems. All sources are from the subject. No independent reliable sources have been used. These external links compund the sourcing problem.
It has been suggested elsewhere that the external links could be turned into references. This would not be appropriate as they are not independent sources and while Wikipedia:Verifiability does allow for the use of Self-published sources as sources on themselves to convert these links would be unduly self-serving and would compound the problem of this article being based primarily on such sources.
Unless the consensus changes, the policies should be respected. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:EL and Duffbeerforme's reasoning. CTJF83 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Links. Although Wikipedia policy gives many arguments in favour of deleting the links those arguments ignore (i) the counter arguments, (2) the effect to the quality of *THIS* article if the links are removed, and (iii) the full context of the policies being considered. On this later point:
(1) "[External Links] should not normally (my emphasis added) be used in the body of an article". This implies (per Anber above) a general rule but not an absolute rule. This page appears to be an exception. (2) It refers to one exception being for "other meaningful, relevant content" purposes. This would seem to be such a purpose. (3) "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work" this is a valid reason to keep the links. (4) "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites". (5) "Longevity of links" and other technical issues (i.e. broken pages, malware, etc.) weigh in favour of these links.
Further from the "not a link repository" policy: (6) excessive lists can dwarf articles. This is not a concern here. In the present case, the use of links is done tastefully in a way that promotes usefulness of the aricle without making the article long or unsightly. (7) "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" is to be avoided but again - in the present case - is not a concern.
At the end of the day this page is not unlike others (and yes - I realize that statement, in and of itself is not a valid argument to keep the links) and the reason it is not unlike others relates to the quality of the article keeping the links. To conclude, while there are good arguments on both sides, firstly, article quality should be supreme and secondly, the arguments against the links do not amount to consensus sufficient to change the statusquo. 174.93.161.90 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree with your assessment, sir; however I fear that your status as an "IP user" will cause your opinion to be dismissed as worthless, in spite of its inherent legitimacy. Shakzor (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a sir, but thanks :) 174.93.161.90 (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.161.90 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
1) Why is this page an exception? 2) That content is already linked to at the bottom of the article. 3) There is links to sites hosting a copy of the work at the bottom of the page. 4) There is a link to youtube at the bottom of the article that noone is trying to remove. 5) "Longevity of links" weighs in favour against these links as wikipedia has no control on how external sites organise themselves.
6) I've seen noone suggesting they dwarf the article apart from those building a strawman. 7) Irrelevent, why bring it up?
At the end of the day this page is not unlike others so there is no reason this page should have an exception to the policies. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Duffbeerforme: 1-Why is anything an exception to anything? People feel that way, that's why. What our esteemed colleague Mr. I.P. User, Esquire, is pointing out is that the policy is not a blanket ban. I can see nowhere that says "Do not use external links in the body of an article, ever. Always put them in a separate section below the body." All terms used in actual policy are indefinite, and the wording leaves room for flexibility. You and other deletionists use policy as though the wording were constructed from hewn granite, but this is not the case. If the links are individually and directly relevant to the subject matter of an article, why should they not be included? 2,3,4-Not all content is linked at the bottom of the article. The source sites are, yes, but the individual links represent an organization of information. There is plenty of other material on Rolfe's youtube account, and not all of it is AVGN episodes, or even AVGN related. The organization on youtube as a whole is atrocious, the links solve that problem quite handily. The other sites linked are more organized, but the episode list on one is not the same as the episode list on another, and the reason for this is the same as the reason for multiple links for some episodes, as episodes have been changed from one version to another. 5-If a link gets changed or goes dead, then it should be noted as such, and a suitable replacement link should be found in its stead. It seems that all the episode links are still functioning nicely. As for the longevity of links, they have been there long enough for my reckoning, and no one has yet to put forth an argument as to why the two-plus year history of these links being around is to be ignored. 6-The links do not dwarf the article, certainly no one has suggested this because it is not so. Mr. I.P. User, Esquire, is delineating this way in which the page conforms to established guidelines. It is not as though this page consisted of "Here's a link to an episode, and here's a link to another," and so on; it is rich in information and much more than a mere "repository of links" or a "directory". 7-Again, it is not just a collection of off-site content or a "link repository."

Here's an idea: Let's make every individual episode its own page on wikipedia, like the list of ST:TNG episodes and many other episode lists out there, and then each page can have one to three external links on the bottom of the page in an "External Links" section. Would that not be more congruous with all this external links policy? I think that might be a bit extreme, since this page is fine as it is, but if it is going to have a chunk of its content raped away by policy, then we should work within that policy and keep each group of links in its own section on a separate page. What does everyone think about that? Shakzor (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Our esteemed IP collegue states "This page appears to be an exception." but fails to state why. 2,3,4. What is not in those links at the bottom of the page? Wikipedia is not here to fix Youtube problems. 5. How long something wrong has been here doesn't change it to right. 6. Still an irrelevant strawman. 7. had nothing to do with "link repository." so why bring it up. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is one key point here that many of you seem to have missed. The purpose of this page is not to tell people where to find all these individual videoes, that would be the purpose of a directory. This is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia, the article should tell people about the videos, the links do not belong in mass
I believe you mean en masse and not "in mass". And there have already been a number of arguments put forth as to the inclusion of links alone not defining this page as a directory; so all you are saying is "I disagree." Shakzor (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see what my choice of words has to do with anything. And yes I disagree, but I'm adding the fact that you clearly do not understand the purpose of this list--Jac16888Talk 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And you apparently base your understanding of this list on a very narrow perspective centred around which blanket definitions give you the best excuses to mutilate it. What's the difference between a vandal and a deletionist? A deletionist has to spend half an hour reading policy before destroying an article, a vandal just up and does it. Shakzor (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how this constitutes a personal attack; the fact that you interpret it as such only means that my observation has struck a chord. Go be offended elsewhere. Shakzor (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll actually flip your (Jac16888, Duffbeerforme) reasoning around a bit. Let's say you're right and we take out the links. The page remains effectively exactly the same (from the point of view of an encyclopedia article) as the page is now, only it's usefulness and quality is substantially reduced. The rules of Wikipedia policy are meant to be applied in a way which contributes to the quality of the final product. Where the policy objectives don't actually accomplish anything to improve the quality (and actually lower the quality) I suggest that they are being applied in a rigid and illogical way. If your problem is with this article being a directory, then argue for its deletion -- oh wait, that was done, twice, in recent history and that failed. It seems more like sour-grapes from the people who twice tried to delete this article and didn't get their way so now they are trying to make it less useful. Anber (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It's usefullness as a directory to find individual episodes will be reduced but wikipedia is not a directory. I fail to see how the quality is substantially reduced, I personally think it will be increased. Wanting a page to not be used in the wrong way is different to wanting the page to be deleted so bringing up the previous afds is irrelevant to the question of external links in the article. I didn't twice try to get this article deleted so your strawman personal attack does not apply. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I made my position clear on The Nostalgia Critic's page. Anber makes an excellent point, as do Shakzor and Capitalistmaniac. Shakzor's suggestion about individual episodes is probably the only solution to keep everyone happy, but I don't know if every episode could be deemed notable enough to have its own page (maybe some episodes?). As for this article, removing the links make the articles less useful, no more encylopedic and the guidelines clearly state "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article" - indicating there can - and will - be exceptions. Also, as a fellow "IP user", I would hope that my opinions are no less valid than anyone else's! 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion to give each episode its own page is more tongue-in-cheek, but if the links end up being stripped from this article, then individual pages may be the next step. I must say, thank you for reading my words, too often it feels that people do not do so. Unfortunately for your own stance, which will already be considered dubious based on your lack of a user name, you have also used the "useful" argument, which immediately sets off alarms in the heads of all the bureaucrats and wikilawyers, who will very quickly bleat off a chorus of WP:USEFUL and use that policy as an excuse to adhere to nothing but the letter of the rule. The same people will always complain about WP:FIVE and specifically WP:IAR being overused by editors ignorant of policy, and this means to them that even valid applications of the fifth pillar, such as this one, must be universally disregarded because they can quote more policies than we can. They fail to see that this is exactly why WP:IAR exists, so that the victor need not be the editor with the longest list of policy to quote. But, we shall see where this debate goes. Shakzor (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to potentially ward off any critisms of my (and others) usefullness argument, I find it interesting that WP:USEFUL specifically says Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Hmm... tables... useful for navigating a subject... why does this sound familiar...? 60.226.67.88 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I, for one, see no issue with external links as long as they're intergrated properly and do not dwarf the article content. 203.45.175.56 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
They are not intergrated properly, see WP:EL. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. As I've said before the vote, the links are very important to the usefulness of the article, and I cannot see it beneficial in any real way to take them out. 68.17.137.16 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As expected, most of these keeps are users with no or very few other edits. And most, if any, are not policy based reasons. CTJF83 12:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
What vote? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete I was going to avoid contributing because of so many 'keeps' but seriously people. A lot of things are 'useful'. A gme guide is useful, a telephone directory is useful, etc etc but they are not what Wikipedia is for. Sure the ELs are useful here, but they aren't necessary. As I said elsewhere, why not put them on, say, List of X-Men: Evolution episodes too, as that has official YouTube videos? Look, the article gives exactly on EL in the proper section, and what is it? It's a list of links to the episodes! How in the world is even one, much less three, ELs per episode even necessary at all with this there? (And as a side note, if you came here because someone off Wikipedia posted on a forum asking for help, it really doesn't help the cause. Such canvassing is usually ignored). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep per Capitalistmaniac, Anber, Shakzor and per the various IP's all of whom have the right to post and have their opinions considered (albeit, not necessarily at the same weight as registered users). Of note, we should consider the policy considerations raised by 174.93.161.90.
At the present time, while there are reasonable arguments to delete, there is absolutely no consensus to remove *these* links on *this* particular page
People like CTJF83 need to open their eyes. Firstly, while most supporters of the links are users with no or few other edits, there are several where this is not the case. Their opinions are relevant to the conclusion that there is no consensus to remove the links. Secondly, while many arguments have not been policy based, many argument *have* been. Failure to address these policy concerns is again relevant to the conclusion that there is no consensus to remove the links. Thirdly, there has been a fairly categorical argument, phrased in *many* ways about how the quality of this article will be lowered without any significant change to the page. Put another way, just because we remove the "(GT)" which is placed next to each episode's title, doesn't mean this article is any more encyclopedic. What we do know is that it's quality and usefulness will be lowered substantially. Failing to address this in any meaningful way again is relevant to the conclusion that there simply is no consensus to remove the links.
I recognize it's a weak keep but it must be a keep. So long as this page remains undeleted, these links form a significant part of the value of this page and there is no consensus to change that. 70.54.91.203 (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see a good reason why this one particular article is different to the many other wikipedia articles in such a way as to justify ignoring the many policies that the inclusion of the external links violates. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It is different because so many people care; I believe you wikipedia types call it "consensus". And I do not see any policies that are being ignored. There is a good amount of policy argued in favour of both sides, if you can be bothered to scroll up and actually read a few posts. Shakzor (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"I do not see any policies that are being ignored." ? Perhaps you should scroll up and actually read a few posts. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have read every word on this page. What I see is not ignored policy, but differing interpretation of policy. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean they are wrong. Shakzor (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking on extremly overly broad interpretation some of the policies may come down to opinion but I have yet to see WP:V adressed. The total lack of independent sources. The inclusion of these links compounds the problem of WP:SELFPUB, "so long as" ... "the article is not based primarily on such source" and "so long as" ... "the material is not unduly self-serving;" duffbeerforme (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see proof these IPs didn't see a note on some blog to comment on this, or that it isn't all the same user. CTJF83 13:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You also have yet to comment on the content of many of the IPs' points raised or the fact that several non IP users (i.e. me) have written in with valid points. Weak; very weak. Anber (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: An IP user posting in a discussion thread is under the obligation to prove that they have NOT come in response to a canvassing request on a forum somewhere? I, in turn, have seen absolutely no proof of any kind that there has been canvassing going on in here. Upon whom lies the onus in this instance? Show me a link to wikipedia policy explaining that. Shakzor (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS CTJF83 19:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As usual, you post a response that fails to address the issue; it makes me wonder if you actually read these posts. Seems to me that crying "CANVASS!" is the quickest way to discredit any IP users. Nowhere on that page does it delineate the criteria for determining when canvassing is actually taking place, and I suspect that detail is a deliberate omission, to provide elitist users such as yourself with more stock for disregarding unregistered users. Admittedly, this is a very difficult thing to prove or disprove on either side; but it seems to me that the burden of proof would be yours, to demonstrate that there has been a solicitation somewhere, lest every unregistered user be considered guilty until proven innocent. Even though there is a policy of assuming good faith, I suspect that you and others like you will automatically believe all unregistered users to be operating under some sort of clandestine directive; this would certainly validate your position if it were so, and give you your reasons to despise and mistrust all the lowly "IPs". Shakzor (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth. No where have I said IPs opinions don't count, or they are worthless. There are plenty of good IPs, and usually their first edits are to articles, not a contentious debate, so riddle me that....just what I'm seeing from my 4.5 years of Wikipedia experience. Also, your childish name calling (ie "elitist users") is only going to further discredit you, and hurt your discussion as you can't remain civil and not personally attack me and others in this debate. CTJF83 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I am going to quote you from a post you made on my talk page: "The only users for the links are you, IPs and other new users who don't know policy." This statement is indicative of two main things: First, your opinion that "IPs" and "new users" do not have as much say in these matters as you do. And second, that knowing policy is more important than merely having an opinion. You praise "IPs" only in order to defend yourself from accusations of bias and elitism, and yet you continue to hold no weight to their words when the time comes. Another indicator of your tragically elitist attitude is your reference to the longevity of your tenure as a registered user here, as though that meant anything. I find it interesting that you consider my observation of you being an elitist user to be "childish name calling[sic]". I consider this an instance of double-reverse argumentum-ad-hominem, where you would seek to lower my position by accusing me of performing personal attacks against you or others. I believe I have kept my comments here constructive, and I do not see any personal attacks performed on my part. Yet despite my demonstrated civility, I am still accused of lacking it. This demonstrates ignorance, inflexibility, and prejudice on the part of yourself and some others. These things are far more detrimental to a the process of a civil discussion than anything I have said. Shakzor (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So, how 'bout it? The protection is off, but I do not think we are anywhere close to reaching a consensus here. I have yet to see any admins giving us their take on this matter. Shakzor (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Admins don't need to comment, they carry no more weight then you, me, or the IP who made their first edit. CTJF83 19:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Then riddle me this: When does this horrid circular debate end? If I wanted to have an argument with a concrete wall, there are plenty to be found without having to come to wikipedia. Shakzor (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I mean, this debate has been going on for months now. I'm sure I'll be criticised for suggesting this, but since there seems to be no consensus on the change shouldn't the article just stay as it was (with the ELs)? The only other solution I can think of is a getting a request for mediation filled out. Because, really, this is just going around in circles. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
While there is no broad consensus this page should respect the wider community consensus that led to the creation of WP:EL, amongst others. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Well let's mediate, then someone else can decide. CTJF83 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything unusual about this request for comments which requires mediation. There are a few good reasons to delete the EL's, a few good reasons not to, and several weak but viable reasons not to delete the EL's. I think you need to concede the point that we don't have any consensus here. Anber (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
And if there is no consensus here this page should adhere to existing policy. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the lack of consensus here is regarding the application of policy, despite whatever you would like to believe. Thus, the status quo should be maintained in the absence of clear consensus. Shakzor (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd just add, the issue is partially about the application of policy *as a whole* but also partially about interpretation of policy as it pertains to this page; currently the interpretation that this violates policy is not accepted and is equalled in counter-argument and outnumbered in votes (albeit votes, particularly where they are numerous IPs, are not given equal weight and Wikipedia is not a democracy). Consensus is referred to in the following way: "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article". When the deletion gestapo rolled into town this article was doing fine. Twice attempts were made to delete it and those failed. The latest effort has been to change the status quo. The onus is on the deletion gestapo to explain why the removal of EL's improves the articles. As mentioned ad nauseum, there is a reasonable basis for that argument. Unfortunately, that argument has been effectively contradicted on a number of fronts. There is no agreement that the EL's on this page, in the current format violates Wikipedia policy *WHEN THAT POLICY VIEWED AS A WHOLE IN ITS PROPER PURPOSIVE CONTEXT*. And, the 2nd issue is that the quality of this article would be degraded; this argument has been left unchallenged in any material way. I CALL FOR AN END TO THIS DEBATE; the status quo should be kept Anber (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the process of starting a mediation case. Anber, you're rationale of, oh there's no consensus, so we'll just go with what I voted, isn't logical. CTJF83 18:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you might want to update your understanding of the word "logical" as it appears to be out of touch with reality. You've raised a simple, reasonable argument that has been shared by a few others and which has been rejected by several more. (1) You (and I use the term "you" to refer to both you and the other 2-3 people who share your position) have not addressed this 'policy reubttal' in any meaningful way; (2) you have failed to address the broader concerns about Wikipedia policy including several citations provided above which disagrees with your position and including (what I refer to as) 'the purposive approach' and the fact that all of the Wikpedia policy being read together should govern -- not just the tip of the iceberg to which you refer; and (3) you have failed to address the specific argument that the change you proposed does little (if anything) to change the encyclopedic value of this article (it removes the "(GT)" and "(YT)" discretely placed next to the release dates, but it dramatically harms the article's quality and value. There has also been (4) the criticism (which appears to have some value and which would reduce the weight to be given to your position) that this is a sour grapes response to the 2x (unsuccessful) effort recently to delete this article. The argument is valid in that if the problem is with this article as a directory then it should be deleted. Since this is not the conclusion reached by our community, the article should remain. This 'directory' argument has failed, twice. Accordingly, the EL's which form valuable links at the end of the dates of the episodes must not be viewed through that lens.
From an argument point of view, most reasonable people would conclude that your position is far less tenable than the 4 arguments to the contrary that I have listed above. You of course are entitled to disagree, and clearly you do. But on the subject if consensus has been reached, clearly the only logical conclusion at this point is that it has not been reached and - seeing as though the proposal was to remove the EL's - such proposal should not go forward. Anber (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1)What 'policy reubttal' do you think has not been addressed? 2)What "citations provided above which disagrees with your position" 3) That argument has been addressed, you have just chosen to ignore it. 4) Yes that critisism has been made. By you. Reapeating it does not give it extra weight. It is still a strawman attack on the actions of those involved. As stated above I have not tried twice to get this article deleted. This argument is clearly not valid. The claim "if the problem is with this article as a directory then it should be deleted" is another strawman that has no basis in reality as that can be fixed by editing and that is another thing you have chosen to ignore. "This 'directory' argument has failed, twice." Not true. The two afds were not about the directory argument and to claim they were is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
The four "arguments to the contrary" you present are a mix of vague unsupported claims and deliberate misreprentaion of what has happened so are not tenable. You also claim "the proposal was to remove the EL's". That is also not true. This was a "Request for comments" on wether the external links to third-party websites in the body of this article are appropriate so your conclusion does not hold water. If anything following your logic, what you call the lack of consensus does not show that they are approriate therfore the quoted policy should apply. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to weigh in on the mediation case once I get it going. CTJF83 12:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As one of the main contributors on the side of the status quo position, I would like to point out that, at this time, you have no agreement from me for mediation. Unless there are other contributors from the status quo position, who express interest in this being mediated, it violates Wikipedia policy for mediation to take place since all sides do not agree. Anber (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being admirable and actually trying to improve the project, instead of making sure you "win". On to WP:ARBITRATION we go. CTJF83 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not about 'winning'; I strongly believe that the article is at its most improved level with the EL's and that the argument to remove the EL's unimproves it. You have voiced your concerns, reasonable concerns about Wikipedia policy and they have not gone unheard. But several others have a different interpretation of Wikipedia policy for *this* article and the way *it* happens to be constructed. There is merit to that and, at the end of the day, there is no consensus. We don't need a mediator to tell us that. I have been a vocal supporter of the status quo and do not agree to mediation however if one of the other contributors on this side would like to take part, I cannot prevent them from voicing their interest. If there is 'consensus' among the supporters of the status quo for mediation then all the power to you. Anber (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well since you're not open to input, I'm taking it to Arbitration, which is binding, and may end in a decision you don't like, and then you're stuck with it. On the other hand, if Mediation ends in keeping the links, I would not go any further. I will provide a link once I start the Arb case. CTJF83 13:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't arbitration specifically not for resovling disputes in article content? Don't they only deal with editor conduct? And you have got to be kidding me about needing a consensus from all parties for mediation! Surely the whole point of mediation is to resolve a dispute when both sides are too stubborn to talk?! 60.226.67.88 (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not just editor conduct, but also editing, and yes, it is ridiculous one stubborn editor can screw up the whole process. CTJF83 12:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The repeated addition of inappropriate links is an issue of editor conduct. And I agree on the basic point of mediation. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the links. For our reader's sake. They make this page much more useful and enjoyable, drawing more page views to it, improving traffic to Wikipedia overall. They're also unobtrusive, and if there's a group of editors already willing to maintain this page and update the links for any new episodes then that's a bonus, good for them. Removing the links doesn't necessarily mean it's conforming to any established community norms, nor does keeping the links need to be setting any kind of precedent for doing the same on other pages. WP:IAR can work both ways, we can do without the WP:EL pedantry here for the net benefit of our readers, just like we can ignore any bad reasons given that justify including them in any other page, if need be. -- œ 13:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "more useful and enjoyable", is a "great" reason to keep. CTJF83 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You still choose to ignore the argument that the quality of this article is reduced by removing the links without making the article anymore encyclopedic.Anber (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Except that many people would say killing the links would make the quality go UP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Melodia is right, and there is a link to all the videos at the bottom of the page, that is more than sufficient. CTJF83 07:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Um, where do people say that? All I see is people quoting policy, nothing about improving quality. Speaking of which, CTJF83, you may want to read WP:USEFUL, it specifically says Information found in tables is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." This article sure looks like a list to me. But then again, I am an unwashed heathen who hasn't registered, so my opinion doesn't matter... 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
              • OE said it was useful, not me. There is already a link at the bottom which links to all the videos on an outside page. That is sufficient enough. CTJF83 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
                • That's information, not links, and they are talking about navigating inside wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Outside options? Is there a webpage somewhere that already lists all these links? It would be preferable to link to a 'www.fansite.com/WatchAllTheVideos.html' than to link directly to all these videos ourselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • In fact, [1] is linked on the page. Which lists all of them. Therefore every individual listed one is very unnecessary. CTJF83 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove the links. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. If another webpage exists with all of these links, it may be an excellent candidate for addition to the External links section. But this encyclopedia article should not fill that role. This is pretty well-established policy with widespread and long-standing consensus so those arguing against it should take it up here first instead of this one article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Get a life people. I love AVGN, I use this page and I love participating in Wikipedia. I have no interest in having any contrbutions, WRT *this* subject, associated with my actual account and I have this to say: all this debate over such a trivial point. I've seen much more important policy and content debates over much more important subjects - and I've seen them resolved much more quickly. How many times are you going to go in circles over the effing Angry Video Game Nerd? Aren't there more important topics. Many of you raised an annoying but valid point about why the links should be deleted. I say valid because its rooted in policy and I say annoying because you guys are those wikipedia mafia types who like to just assassinate articles on such nonsense points. Then on the other hand we have several users and numerous IP users who raise equally valid point. The technical vs the overall quality argument. There have been some attempts to address each sides' arguments by proponents and opponents of the links; some of these attempts were successful - both ways - and some were not. Isn't it clear that this isn't going to be resolved and whatever side made the first change to the article that immediately preceded this s***storm should concede there is no consensus. FFS! 174.95.108.172 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Consensus. I believe we have a consensus here. Just look at it. On the side for external links, we have several users such as me, Shakzor, Anber, and several IP addresses. On the side against ELs, we have duffbeerforme, CFG, and a few other users with few contributions to Wikipedia. In addition, I hate to bring this point up, but the ELs have been here for years. Why should they be removed now? Capitalistmaniac (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a very poor summary of this discussion. There is no consensus here.
Typically, a discussion that can not reach consensus is resolved in favor of the status quo. In this instance, the status quo - established by project-wide policies such as WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL that have widespread consensus among many more editors than those who participated in this discussion - is an article without a proliferation of external links. ElKevbo (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You write "Typically, a discussion that can not reach consensus is resolved in favor of the status quo. In this instance, the status quo... is an article without a proliferation of external links" Uh, nice try. The status quo is the version with the EL`s.Anber (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We go on consensus not in number of votes. CTJF83 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think your recent comment above is misdirected. I wasn't addressing the consensus issue. This particular writer ElKevbo agrees there is no consensus, I was addressing his response to what that means. He agrees it means that status quo should remain. I therefore addressed his meaning of status quo which is not an accurate definition of status quo. But since you decided to address the consensus issue, I should go on record as saying that my view that there is no consensus is not based on the number of votes which is balanced; my view is that the arguments are meaningful on both sides and unresolved. I personally feel that the argument against the EL's is lacking in persuasiveness but it is reasonable and not so defunct as to allow the consensus to be resolved in favour of the EL's. Anber (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not the issue. The issue is that the article as it exists under the status quo with the "(YT)" next to the various release dates is not inappropriate; yes there is a valid argument against this position but it is not the consensus position. Aside from the point that it is not inappropriate is the second main point that it enhances the article's quality, usefulness and value. Having not reached consensus to change the status quo, alternative solutions are not ripe for consideration at the moment. Anber (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That is the issue. bleating on about "status quo" does not change that. We already have a link that links for every video. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer my question. And I've said dozens of times, it violates WP:EL. CTJF83 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) I don't need to answer your question; it's your (position's) onus to gain consensus that the status quo ought to be changed. (2) Your position is that it violates WP:EL but I disagree for the reasons stated several times throughout this discussion. Others disagree as well. You can keep repeating that it violates WP:EL, but it won`t make your argument any more valid. Anber (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Personally, I think the ELs /decrease/ the quality of the article. All the little EL icons make it quite ugly looking. Combined with the fact that they aren't overly useful when a link that does the same thing can replace them, it stands to reason that, one doesn't need to apply IAR here and go against the EL guideline. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Point well taken, but it's a point made already and it's a point with which many people don't agree. We're going in circles here which is my point about consensus.Anber (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it on this point that you say "it's a point made already" and not people repeatint it's useful? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Another point that I must make is that an ADMINISTRATOR has come out in favor of the ELs. This administrator is User:OlEnglish. I think that is enough of a point. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is completely irrelevant. I'm an administrator too, doesn't give my arguments any extra strength--Jac16888Talk 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not what I've seen in winning debates... Capitalistmaniac (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ya, being an admin gives the user no more weight then any other user or IP, period! I also agree your analysis of the results of the discussion is very poor. CTJF83 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • keep links (copied from above) I'll throw in my 2 cents (saw this linked from WP:ANI). It's clear to me that a single link from each episode to the episode doesn't violate policy. To quote: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." I don't see these links in any way dwarfing the article itself or detracting from the purpose. If we had legal youtube episodes for "Friends" you can be sure we'd be linking to them from the list also. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And how about the policies of Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability as described above that they do violate? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned above, there ARE some legal YouTube links for TV series, such as X-Men Evolution([2]). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure, WP:EL says "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply." Only the "rich media" section might so apply in my opinion. The WP:NOT comments about "not a directory" show a rather significant misunderstanding of NOTDIR. Adding a link doesn't make something a directory. The idea is it shouldn't solely be a directory. On the whole I find A) very little reason not to include the link (not linking to rich media being one) and B) strong reasons to include the link (in general we should link to a "site hosing a copy of the work"). I personally think it's pretty plain that by policy we should have those links. Beyond that, and more importantly in fact, I think it's plain they help the article. So per WP:IAR I'd support them in any case. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • And the WP:V argument is a pretty big stretch. We commonly use the original as a source and WP:EL specially allows us to link to a site hosting a copy of the work for music, books etc. The WP:V argument would lead us to believe we can never do so. The intent of WP:V is to insure verifiability. Linking to the source accomplishes that, it doesn't harm it. Hobit (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
          • This isn't adding a link, it's adding >100 links. I disagree with you on the understanding of NOTDIR. Adding a link doesn't make something a directory, adding >100 does. "2.External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." Why is this article different that this should not apply? "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" Having these links makes this a repository of links. "Minimize the number of links" Enough said. "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website" ditto. we should link to a "site hosing a copy of the work". There is 4 links in the EL section that does this. How is the WP:V argument a stretch. Every reference in this article is from the AVGN. WP:V says self published sources are ok if "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", this is. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I feel that I've already addressed most of the issues you've raised and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree there. As far as WP:V goes, the links to YT themselves don't violate WP:V, rather you seem worried about the article content. If you feel that the article itself isn't notable then nominate it for deletion or propose solutions. I think the WP:V issue you raise and the links issue are separate. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Even though you have not come close to addressing most of the issues I have raised I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ "Castlevania 2 Simons (sic) Quest". May 7, 2004. 
  2. ^ a b James Rolfe (2007). What Was I Thinking?: The Making of the Angry Video Game Nerd (DVD). ScrewAttack. 
  3. ^ "Castlevania 2 Simons (sic) Quest". May 7, 2004.